Jane's Posts

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

OK, but take it to real life:

A couple whose kid plays on my SS's soccer team. 3 kids under the age of 11. She works part-time outside the home, he is the primary wageearner as a handyman, which gives him flexible hours. To all observance, they share childcare duties.

She ends the marriage by having an affair with the coach of our kids' team. He wants to keep the house and the kids. I was better friends with her until this happened, but I think the Dad should get the kids. After all, why should he have to lose everything because his wife strayed? Also, he wants her back, and wouldn't she be more likely to return if she missed the kids?

If it matters, there are no allegations of abuse, cheating, etc., by the husband. (Both husband and wife have talked to a lot of people in our circle about this, so we are fairly up on the details).

Thoughts? SSM

I think you're falling into the trap of thinking about what's fair to the parents rather than what's best for the children.

I don't know your couple, and I have no opinion on who the kids should live with. I just instinctively recoiled when you said that dad "should get the kids." That sentence makes the children sound like prizes. Even if you feel that mom should not have strayed, you have to admit that her failure does not automatically make dad the better residential parent. That's what you have to consider. We parents don't always get what's fair.

I don't know. There could be great reasons for letting the kids reside with mom. Sleeping with the soccer coach does not make you a bad mother, it makes you a bad wife. (And tacky) If she works part-time, she may be more responsible for day-to-day parenting than he. If she is the primary source of nurturing, discipline, support, etc. in the children's life, then maybe the divorce would be less traumatic for them if they remain in the home with her. I have no doubt that it would be less traumatic for dad if he stayed in his house with his kids. But when he had those kids, he agreed to put their needs before his own.

One thing I do know: you can never really know what goes on in other people's marriages. As you said of your BM, if the marriage had been working for her, she wouldn't have left. No one is ever all right or all wrong in a marriage. You've been married long enough to know that none of us can cast the first stone.

I would cut mom some slack. Abuse and cheating aren't the only reasons people decide they can't take it anymore. Maybe he tells her he won't have sex with her because she's too fat. Maybe, like Vicki R., she just felt she was dying inside. Whatever her reasons were, you have to admit that she has stuck it out for quite a while. She didn't just flip her hair and shimmy off at the first sign of trouble. If she decided that her marriage doesn't have a chance, then I have to assume she knows. It's really hard to break up your family and leave a person you have been with for a dozen years.

I'm rambling. My point is that custody has to be based on what is best for the children, not on who was at fault in the divorce.

jane

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

[I don't know your couple, and I have no opinion on who the kids should live with. I just instinctively recoiled when you said that dad "should get the kids." That sentence makes the children sound like prizes. Even if you feel that mom should not have strayed, you have to admit that her failure does not automatically make dad the better residential parent. That's what you have to consider. We parents don't always get what's fair.]

From what SSM has said, they both shared in child care duties and there were no signs of abuse...which makes both parents equal as good parents. First off, there should be joint custody. However, if this is not possible, being that both parents are equal, then I agree with SSM. "She" messed up. Either dad or mom having the kids will not lessen the best interest of the kids, but dad having the kids will lessen the impact of the one not at fault.

[I don't know. There could be great reasons for letting the kids reside with mom. Sleeping with the soccer coach does not make you a bad mother, it makes you a bad wife. (And tacky) If she works part-time, she may be more responsible for day-to-day parenting than he.]

If she works part-time, then she will undoubtedly expect her ex to finance the remainder of her expenses that the part-time job does not cover. Why punish him further for her mistakes. What "should" happen, is that she will now need to acquire "full"-time work, putting her day-to-day parenting availability on par with his.

[If she is the primary source of nurturing, discipline, support, etc. in the children's life, then maybe the divorce would be less traumatic for them if they remain in the home with her. I have no doubt that it would be less traumatic for dad if he stayed in his house with his kids. But when he had those kids, he agreed to put their needs before his own.]

See above. From what SSM has posted, the best interest of the kids will not diminish with "either" parent. And the guy still wants her to stay....is "she" putting the best interest of the kids first?

[One thing I do know: you can never really know what goes on in other people's marriages. As you said of your BM, if the marriage had been working for her, she wouldn't have left. No one is ever all right or all wrong in a marriage. You've been married long enough to know that none of us can cast the first stone.]

I wouldn't agree so much with this when it comes to an abusive relationship. No matter what an abused person can do, it does not warrant the abuse, and the abuser is "totally" wrong. Though most marriages end due to faults of both, many marriages are simply the fault of one individual who either changed their mind, got bored, became violent, etc. Even should that person getting bored claim that their spouse was inattentive, they should have spoken up. If they did not, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[I would cut mom some slack. Abuse and cheating aren't the only reasons people decide they can't take it anymore. Maybe he tells her he won't have sex with her because she's too fat. Maybe, like Vicki R., she just felt she was dying inside. Whatever her reasons were, you have to admit that she has stuck it out for quite a while. She didn't just flip her hair and shimmy off at the first sign of trouble. If she decided that her marriage doesn't have a chance, then I have to assume she knows. It's really hard to break up your family and leave a person you have been with for a dozen years.]

It is much less traumatic to speak with your spouse beforehand and tell them how you feel before acting out. Your spouse is never a mind reader (unless s/he works for Phsycic Friends) and does not know what you are feeling/thinking. It is up to you to let them know and work on a solution. If all solutions fail, then you at least know you have given it your best. But if you don't even try, you have given it nothing.

[I'm rambling. My point is that custody has to be based on what is best for the children, not on who was at fault in the divorce.]

And when either custody situation is "equal" for the children, we can then base it on fault.

I didn't expect this to be a controversial post. I thought SSM's sympathy for her friend was clouding her judgment a little. That custody should be determined according to what is best for the children is one of those truths I consider to be self-evident.

I don't know where you are coming from, Char. All SSM said was that the couple appeared to share parenting responsibilities. Somehow, you conclude from this that both mom and dad "are good and equal parents." Who died and appointed you Judge Judy? You have no idea what the specifics of this situation are.

I completely disagree with your assertion that "many marriages are simply the fault of one individual...." Human relations don't work that way. We all would like to think that our prior relationships ended through no fault of our own. The truth is that in hindsight every single one of us can think of things (s)he would do differently if we had it to do over again. If you don't, then you are not learning from your mistakes. It is impossible not to make mistakes in marriage - or in any other relationship.

jane

Sep 14 1998 12:00 am

Whenever a couple splits, SOMEbody will NOT get custody.

[Actually, I believe joint legal and physical custody is the norm, at least in the states where I have lived.]

Joint legal, yes, but joint physical is extremely rare from what I've learned in the past year on alt.child-support.

I have an ENTIRELY different experience. Granted, I have very limited knowledge. I have examined custody law in a few states, though. Joint legal and physical is not only a judicial preference, it is the legislated default position. I will look this up later in the week and see how other states deal with it.

And I have still been searching for *anyone* who can show evidence that not having two "real" homes is best for the kids (if the alternative is to have a very involved NCP, but live primarily with one parent).

I agree to the extent that pushing the "two real home" idea deprives the child of the security of having any real home. Some people seem to have a lot less trouble with this than I would, though.

We have joint legal/primary physical, and the decree gives my husband tie-breaker power on legal issues where they disagree. Without this, you'd be relitigating the divorce every week, or at least we would.

And as you undoubtedly know, a joint legal/NCP parent gets a pretty raw deal: they have to transfer income to the other household, they don't get to tuck the kids in most nights, they can be fairly effectively blocked by an uncooperative CP, particularly if the CP decides she needs to move to get on with her life (ducking here).

Hey, I moved here for my daughter's health (partially)!

Basically, if you were prepared to be a CP and find yourself a NCP, it's often a total lose-lose situation.

All of this is done in the name of making sure that the parent with primary responsibility for the kids gets more assets and freedoms to take care of their needs. But even so, it feels like loss.

I'm sorry if I sound like a judgmental bitch, but I get so sick of the whining in alt.c-s that I just want to scream, "GROW UP!" Of course it hurts, feels like a loss, seems unfair, etc. And venting can certainly help you deal with it. But if you weren't mature enough to be the grown up, and put your own feelings aside for the sake of the children, then you never should have had any. (There I feel better.)

That's why I still feel that if both parents are prepared to be the primary caretakers and CPs, the only fair way to determine it may be fault.

Well, I've certainly responded enough to this in other posts. The question is not who is willing to be a primary caregiver, but who is best able. Parents don't get what's fair. Marital fault is left out of the equation because courts have found a) that it is not particularly pertinent to parenting skills and b) that it is impossible to determine from outside the marriage.

Besides, divorcing couples are basket cases. The last thing you want to do is encourage them to point fingers at each other. They have to put all that aside and work together to figure out the best way to move on. BTW, divorce files are public records. If you want to see how ugly things can get, pop down to the court house and read through a few.

The current approach (just give to kids to the Mom unless she is a real basket case) is just so unfair to so many men.

Last time I looked at this, I found that contrary to public perception, in contested custody trials, fathers were far more likely to win than mothers. (Maybe I'll look for stats next week on this one.)

And the kids would often be better off financially, too.

But so many other things are so much more important.

jane

Sep 16 1998 12:00 am

[Okay, I just poked around a little, so don't quote me on this. It seems that half the states order joint legal and physical custody regularly. The other half order it only when the parents agree. I guess the alt.c-s experience comes from the latter half the states.

This info is from: http://www.divorcesource.com/search/custody/nolo.html]

Thanks for the link. Actually, what it says is not inconsistent with my understanding. It says that only two states have preumptive joint legal custody, where it will be ordered unless one parent can provide a compelling case for it not being awarded.

In the other "half" of cases, it is permitted.

My reading of this blurb was that ALL states order joint custody. Half the states only order it when both parents agree.

It does not say in this article that Joint residential custody is the norm. In fact it refers to all of the traditional reasons that the Mom should be granted primary phyisical.

If you don't mind, I'm going to ask the fathers' rights advocates on acs what their data shows.

BTW, do you have joint physical custody? How is it structured, and how does it work out? Perhaps I'm just skeptical becaouse I don't know anyone actually doing it. SSM

I'm so mad at myself. I found a really informative article about this, but I didn't bookmark it. When I tried to email it to you my browser crashed. I should know better.

Anyway, that article was not inconsistent with your experience either. Apparently, joint physical is fairly new and has only been around since the '60's. It is common in the states I have lived in. States do not keep statistics on the specifics of parenting plans. To get statistics, someone has to read through each custody decree and count the results.

Since my ex and I were never married, there is no custody order regarding my BD. We've never had so much trouble resolving our differences that we ever needed to use the courts. DH has joint legal and physical custody of his children, though. In fact, just about everyone I know has joint legal and physical. (Actually, one of my friends has sole legal/physical, but her ex is dangerously psychotic.)

JL&P is no big deal. I really don't get the controversy. Joint physical custody does not mean that the children reside an equal amount of time with both parents. You still hammer out the schedule that works. You each have legal custody all the time and physical custody when you have the kids. It's not very different from custody to one with visitation to the other, except that it recognizes that time spent with both parents is real "parenting" time. I think people get fired up because some places connect child support to the percentage of time that the children spend with each parent. If you leave that out of the equation, joint physical is less troublesome than joint legal.

This is how JL&P with 50/50 coparenting works for my SIL. According to the parenting plan, Husband and Wife agree to live in the same town. H always has the children from Sunday evening to Tuesday evening. W always has children from Tuesday evening to Thursday evening. The Thursday evening through Sunday evening block alternates between H and W. Since JL&P is common there, the school district is comfortable with children alternating between two different bus routes. H and W alternate holidays, and each take the children for two weeks of vacation during the year. H maintains medical and dental insurance, pays half of all activities, and pays W approximately $3K/mo in child support. W pays the other half the children's activities.

This seems to work pretty well for them, even though H and W despise each other. Since they live within 5 miles of each other, the kids don't have a lot of trouble keeping the same friends all the time. There is some friction about activities, consistency of discipline, etc. Recently the teen-age daughter has pushed for additional time at W's, as her best friend lives across the street. The 8 year old, OTOH, sometimes wants to spend extra time with her little sister at H's house.

They work it out. They each take the children when the other is sick. H is usually flexible when my daughter goes to visit them. W took all the kids while SM was in labor watch. They sporadically discuss all of them moving to the southwest once the teen daughter goes to college. They seem to acknowledge that the inconvenience is outweighed by the benefit to the children of having consistent relationships with both parents.

jane

Sep 17 1998 12:00 am

snip details of successful 50/50 co parenting arrangement

So, in a nutshell, it is possible to share physical custody without creating additional insecurities, or so I believe.

Any questions? ;)

Yes. I did not mean to imply that this was not possible. I don't think it is possible for everyone, though. Not all parents are able to put aside their differences as well as you have. Personally, I think I would have killed my ex if we had your arrangement in the beginning.

Now we have thrashed stuff out, and it would probably work much more smoothly. To be perfectly honest, though, none of us want a 50/50 split. My ex, my child, and I all want her to spend the bulk of her time with me and lots of time with him.

jane

Sep 17 1998 12:00 am

....... you did suggest that having two homes would take away from a child's sense of security, their sense of a real home.

Yes, I think it can. I think 50/50 coparenting requires that both parents be mature, selfless, tolerant of their ex's foibles, and respectful of the other coparent's differing point of view. It also helps if the coparents live in the same neighborhood and school district. You need to have one big happy family in two houses.

Kids get so torn apart when their parents are still in the "blaming" stage. If they are alternating between a "your mom is a bitch" house and a "your dad is a bastard" house several times a week, then I think they yearn for neutral ground. Also, I think that the more uniformity the coparents can agree on, the more stability there is for the children. Just as an example, I think it is extremely difficult for children to spend half their school nights in an 8:00 bedtime house and half in a 10:00 bedtime house.

I guess my main objection is to 50/50 coparenting being forced on couples who are not ready. It is so like the story of King Solomon cutting the baby in half: It's fair to the parents, but disastrous for the child. My ex and I both try really hard to do the right thing, and we both love our child to death. But in the beginning every time she went with her dad, he and I had a fight. Even though we kept her out of it directly, she sensed the tension. If we had been switching 3 or 4 times a week, I know that much more of our conflict would have communicated itself to her. And we were really good about not maligning each other to her and not fighting in front of her. So when parents directly involve the kids in their war, I think the less the children see them interact the better.

jane