During a Divorce children should stay with mother?

I don't agree that during divorce the children should stay with the mother, however you have to deal with reality. I would love my ex to share the care of our children. The reality is he moved out, 20 miles away, to a bedsit with a single bed where only our son can stay. Daughter visits, but does not stay over (she is 15). Whether or not this is deliberate is debatable. I have my views and others tell me if a father really wants their children to stay they find a way regardless of money!

The answer is mostly circumstances and the ability of either parent to look after the children and offer them the best care and stability at a difficult time.

Based on my own experiences, I think it should be the parent that can offer the most balanced life.

But who has the right to mke that decision in each case? Often it comes down to practicality, and the parent who has 'main care' of the child/children may not necessarily be the 'best' parent, when viewed from the outside. Who is to say? Every case is different..

We should move towards a system that more enlightened countries such as Denmark, many states of USA and Australia, the nordic countries and france have - a presumption of shared care 50:50 post separation and work from that.

Some of the gender stereotypes on here - that only woman by deem of their sex can look after children are just so out of date it's hilarious.

Hi jitsuka

From a personal and proffesional point of view I would be very interested to see any links for evidence, to prove that children in these 'enlightened' countries thrive better in a 50:50 shared care arrangement than having a 'base' at just one home ?

poppy

The current outcome of court orders I believe is 50-60% mother. 20-25% father and 20-25% sahred residency. Court orders by their very nature deal with the parents who can't agree.

In my case it is 50/50 residency and it works well. My children are 7 and 11.

The idea that men can't care for children or girls is just sexist. I have four friends that I offer as an example.
1. Wife left for a new man, two girls 6 and ten. Mom started off every week, then evry toehr week, then once a month then occasionally seeing children. This guy rasied the two girls both now in their twenties.
2. Wife died. Two kids boy 10 girl 14. He had to get on with it.
3. Wife died. Three kids all young two girls one boy. He had to get on with it.

4. Wife died. Six kids, five are girls all voer age of 8. he had to get on with it.

The 50/50 residency thing takes more planning and cooperation, that is all.

As I've always said, the best parent is BOTH parents.

"During a divorce children should always stay with the mother"

The word ALWAYS in your question actually makes the answer very simple.

The answer is NO.

Why?

Because there are numerous circusmstances one can think of where it would not be in the best interests of the children.

Example 1:

What if the dad has been the main carer of the kids since they were young whilst the mother works on an oil rig?

I think most people would agree that to uproot the kids from school and rehouse them on the oil rig would have a detrimental impact on their education as well as potentially breaking numerous health and safety regulations.

Example 2:

The mother may due to serious alcoholism and/or drug addiction be incapable of providing adequate care in which case in would be wrong for them to live alone with their mother.

What advantages do living with the mother / father have for the children?

That depends on the mother and father. Without knowing one or the other personally then any preference declared in favour of mothers or fathers is by definition sexist.

Surely the best situation for the child is that they continue to have a healthy relationship with both parents in order to minimise any negative impact of the divorce on their wellbeing.

poppy5 wrote:

Hi jitsuka

From a personal and proffesional point of view I would be very interested to see any links for evidence, to prove that children in these 'enlightened' countries thrive better in a 50:50 shared care arrangement than having a 'base' at just one home ?

poppy

Wasn't there a very recent report - can't remember if it was the OECD or someone, which showed that children in UK are at the bottom of most of the 'civilised' western countries for happiness, mental health, stress?

I would be immensely interested to know why you think children need "one base"? Children have 2 parents and post-separation have 2 parents, two homes follow from that. Funnily enough, CAFCASS in it's most recent leaflet for parents separating even recognises that children have two homes (page 27 for those interested).

Do you not think that many other societies have a better balance in their citizens lives, their children are not as damaged as many seem to be in our country???

Your argument seems to be on a "mum knows-best" and the long since abandoned "tender years" doctrine. Such gender stereotypes surely take no account of the real change in relationships and societal change that has happened in this country for many decades?

Could you show me 'evidence' that children are better in one home rather than anecdotes?

... funnily enough I have a shared res order for my daughter and she thrives in it, she has a well defined sense of a mums home and a dads home. She is well developed physically and mentally, is the top of her class intellectually. She is in Year 1 yet in year 2 reading group. she is well balanced, socially outgoing and engaging. I can't say that she would achieve the same if she was restricted in having 'one home' (when the reality of her life is of two homes) and not benefiting from the blend of two parents.... can you honestly say that is not beneficial for children?