I desparately need some advice on what custody arrangements have been experienced or contemplated and good/bad aspects of them. <P>Background: My wife of 8 years has decided that she wants out of our marriage and has filed for divorce. OM (geographically distant) has proposed marriage, her response unknown. Two boys, 4 and 2. Both of us have been very actively involved with parenting to date. She more so than me as she has worked part time for last two years.<P>We are currently separated, have an apartment nearby, and we are alternating weeks living at home with the boys and staying at the apartment. We both want to do what is "best for the children", but of course, working to rebuild our marriage is out of the question to her. My formal response to her filing was a request for denial of claim but, presuming divorce will occur, requested true 50/50 custody as part of settlement. My motives are 1) to continue to spend the maximum time of time with the kids as possible and 2) prevent future move-away if she establishes as "primary parent" and later decides to relocate to be near OM or elsewhere.<P>W has taken a new job, 30 hrs/week through the summer and full time starting in the fall; some travel required (about 4 trips of 2-3 days each in the last three months). Both boys in "school" three days a week during summer and at home other two days. Montessori school for the oldest and probably near full-time day care of some form for the youngest starting in the fall.<P>She says that she would never consider moving the boys away from their father as that would be too disruptive for them (but I guess divorce isn't?). I don't doubt her sincerity in saying that, but seven months ago, she would never consider divorce. Call me suspicious, but that kind of makes me wonder what her position may be next year or the year after regards moving.<P>I am self-employed and have slightly more schedule flexibility than her position will afford. She believes that permanence of residence is important for the kids to help form their sense of identity and is unwilling to consider long-term continuation of our current arrangement. She wants primary custody and for me to have some form of visitation. Thinks it is vindictive of me to want to have the assurance of current and future time with the boys that a true 50/50 custody arrangement would provide.<P>What have you seen or found out about regards "good" custody arrangements that serve to maximize both parents' time and involvement while being consistent with other developmental needs of the kids?<P>Thanks for your help.

From what I've read, 50/50 custody arrangements are not good because they provide LESS stability for the children. Especially in the beginning stages of divorce, it can be particularly difficult for children who are acclimating to a step parent. <P>I believe in keeping things flexible, but informally so. Make the actual agreement to your favor, but allow the children maximum contact with the other parent. This works because kids need both parents, but if the non-custodial parent does things in front of the kids that are not in their best interest, you still have some control. <P>No matter who gets custody, make sure that part of the agreement is that neither parent can remove the children from the state, either for visits or for living, without the other's permission. Both parents should have a say in something so life changing.

Hi,<P>Don't know if you read a recent thread where there was quite a lively discussion about 50/50 custody. <P>Don't know the answer, but you two sound like you really are thinking of the kids (qualified, as you said, except for the obvious horrible disruption of a divorce), and that your gut instincts are good. But "just in case," I agree with Popeye, put in a written provision that the children couldn't be moved out-of-state without your permission.<P>Hope things work smoothly for you, and that your children adjust as well as they can. Mine were 3 and 5 - the little one is just fine now (he is 6), but the older one is still having some trouble.

Texan,<BR>Don't know what your laws are there, here in OH x and I have shared parenting with me being custodial parent(kids live with me). I receive child support and there is no spousal support.<P>Basically all this means is that whoever the kids are with are responsible for the kids. I guess if one of us would have "custody" then that parent would be responsible all the time.<P>I, as custodial parent, am not allowed to take the kids out of state with out x's approval. I guess I could move acrcoss the state though! LOL.<P>It sounds like you are doing a great job keeping the kids disruptions to a minimum considering the divorce.<P>Bob

<BR>popeye,<P>I've seen a few papers arguing against 50/50, although in my view they were politically-motivated to support the "tender years" doctrine in support of the status quo, mother-with-sole-custody decisions we've seen for years.<P>Texan's situation strikes me as a perfect example of why we *should* have 50/50. We have a father who *wants* to be with his children, has a flexible schedule to arrange things, and should be treated in my view *at least* equally in this case.<P>As a practical note, I agree with you. Texan should require any divorce agreement to include an absolute veto over *any* physical move out of the school district. If his W wants the OM so bad, she can cede custody and get nailed to the income shares cross herself. Yikes...I was cynical in the other thread, too!<P>Bystander

Thanks to all for your input. She is unwilling to consider any possibility of my being primary custodial parent. Basically considers standard visitation order sufficient (every other weekend and one weekday evening), notwithstanding history of involvement with children to date.<P>Prevention of moving out of the locality would definately be a part of divorce decree, but my attorney advises that, at least here, once an individual parent is established as the "primary" parent, modification of a move-away order is fairly routine and very hard to contest.<P>This situation really sucks. How can one person be so selfish as to destroy their children's family to pursue a married man while professing to be primarily concerned about doing what is in the best interests of our children?

Texan,<P>I look at my boys, and as young as yours are, I truly believe they need to be with their mother while they are so young. I would guess its not long since the little one was weaned. <P>But your situation is horrible, and illustrates many of the points Bystander makes.<P>Since she is in such crummy moral position, can you and your attorney dictate terms? here are some I would offer:<P>Wherever you are living - that you MUST be within a certain number of miles - of course preferrably in the same neigborhood. I believe kids need the stability of a primary residence - but I'm thinking of it in terms of having a place they can really call home - it shouldn't be the same issue as how often you interact with them. Could you work your schedule to see them every day? Could you and wife work out your schedules that they wouldn't have to be in daycare? You might actually spend more time with them than she.<P>Believe me, the reality of working fulltime and being away from her babies is going to sink in soon. I wouldn't be surprised if things change dramatically. But I digress...<P>Can you put something in there that the OM cannot EVER spend the night if the children are there? (I think that is VERY important)<P>Something that I have noticed with my boys - (6 and 8) they only spend one night a week at their father's home - twice, they have spent two nights in a row - and I thought that was hard on them - I'm not sure why, but it seems less disruptive for them (sleep, moods, schedule) to have shorter stays away from the routine of home - but more often. That is maybe something to consider also. Especially before they get in school, to have however many nights they are going to have at your place broken up during the week. Just a thought.<P>I have never liked the every other weekend schedule - visits are just too far apart - makes it seem like they are visiting.<P>Which seems to me to be just as harmful as true 50/50 where they can't really call anyplace home.<P><BR>

<BR>h.w. writes:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I look at my boys, and as young as yours are, I truly believe they need to be with their mother while they are so young.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is called the "tender years doctrine" and has been used for many years to justify, without evidence, the institutionalized discrimination against men in the family court system today.<P>I understand the concern you have about 50/50 custody appearing to be difficult on children, but there's a lot of evidence that joint custody arrangements have better outcomes than sole custody arrangements.<P>Now, does that mean that 50/50 will work in every instance? No, of course not. However, a couple of points warrant mentioning. Its fairest to both parents, and it would avoid the dubious pattern we see now, where betraying wives win custody by merely being female. Second, I just saw a reference to a recently published paper that showed the reason more women file for divorce is because they can expect to win custody. States that have moved to a presumption of joint custody have seen a drop in divorce rates. Imagine what would happen to divorce rates if 50/50 were the presumptive default in all states...imagine how many marriages would be saved! Thus, we should adopt 50/50 immediately - its "for the children," after all.<P>Bystander

OK. I will probably be the hard-liner here.<P>The next time that you have the house, DO NOT LEAVE. She can come back if she wants to, but do not leave the house.<P>She has made the decision that she does not want to maintain the family anymore. You do. She should be the one to move. In my perfect world, the parent who decides to leave the marriage, all other things being equal, should automatically become the NCP. Period.<P>I think 50/50 is detrimental to the children. Unless the parents can live within a couple of blocks of each other. We have an almost 50/50 for the summer, and it takes the kids a day to readjust after being with their mother.<P>There have been several recent studies that report children whose fathers have custody are less likely to get in trouble (defined as arrested, pregnant, and the like).<P>Unfortunately, even if all you want is 50/50, you will have to ask for much more. We, and many others I have talked to, haggled over time like the kids were chunks of meat. Made me sick. We both asked for primary custody. I got it.<P>I was helped by the Father's Right's to Custody website. They are pretty anti-marriage, but hve great resources for obtaining custody of your kids. They are at <A HREF="http://www.deltabravo.net/custody." TARGET=_blank>www.deltabravo.net/custody.</A> <P>Good Luck to you. Keep thinking of your children. She isn't and won't.

oops, meant to edit the following...<p>[This message has been edited by honey.west (edited July 19, 2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by honey.west:<BR><B>Bystander,<P>No biological evidence that a baby/child/toddler is more attached to his/her mother in the early years?<P>All of nature supports that. Certainly there are a few exceptions out there where the male plays a vital role in the early years. The survival of the species depends on that special bond that develops between the mother and that baby when it comes out of the womb. Its one of those things you won't understand, unless you experience it, but the way a woman falls in love with that baby - it is a protection for the baby that God gave us. The baby feeds from the mother's breasts - not the father's. I know what happened to me when I had babies. I had no desire for a career anymore, I know why I was put on this earth. That was biology, that was a God-given feeling. Certainly there are exceptions, but that is a rule.<P>Ask how many of these women here, deep down blame their devotion to their family as one of the reasons the husband strayed. I absolutely do. I was killing myself, doing the traditional female role as mother - and working full-time, as an equal breadwinner. I didn't have the time to play with my husband - He never got the "big picture" - that this was a normal phase - that there is a time when innocent babies require constant attention. But which parent does the child generally call when they are sick in the middle of the night, or go to for comfort, or when they are crying, or scared - it is the mother. It is the mother that awakens at the slightest stir. You can't take away that special relationship I had, and say their father could have done it. One of the oddest things, was I would awaken before my babies would cry - it almost scared me sometimes, when I realized the connection we had.<P>One of the rationalizations for my ex's "fun" was that I was always tired. I never slept - I never had time to get everything done as a working mother. I am no superwoman. Believe me, I am not the exception, I am a typical mother. <P>If there weren't so many attempts to negate the differences between men and women, to create an androgynous society where men and women are the same, we wouldn't have this problem. These is a difference in the roles and connections. The baby comes out of our womb, and feeds from our breast. That makes it different.<P>The men who are here, having trouble getting more custody, are the exception - not the rule. To carte blanche give men equal custody would lead to abandonment and neglect. There is not a one-size-fits all solution. If all men chose the level of involvement with their babies that Texan wants, we wouldn't have this fatherless society, where all these unwed mothers are supporting their children with no help from the father, or in many cases, multiple fathers. <P>Now, don't get me wrong, BOTH the father and mother play an absolutely critical role in the development of happy, healthy adults, but to claim that either sex can provide either role at any time is just plain wrong.<P><BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>

<BR>h.w.,<P>I appreciate that your H betrayed you, and you went the extra mile in raising your children. But I disagree with your age-old appeal to the tender years doctrine. You don't support it with evidence, but with impassioned appeal. It cannot stand scrutiny, nor should it be used to justify the institutionalized discrimination against men in the family courts.<P>There's a guy in my church whose wife died delivering one of their children. You've essentially argued that this child is going to grow up to be some sort of societal misfit because his "tender years parent" wasn't there. And when he turns out just fine, what do you say then?<P>Is 50/50 going to work in every case? No, of course not, and I've already said so. GP2 is right, 50/50 demands physical proximity, for one thing. But as a presumption it makes a lot of sense. <P>Why? Because the way things stand now, women routinely are awarded custody, and children are hands-down the largest asset in a divorce. As a result, women file for divorce far more often then men. And why wouldn't they, when child support awards are often (IMO, the majority of time) a form of hidden alimony to boot? Its only when women face the prospect of true equity, 50% custody in a divorce, will we see divorce rates fall. And this is exactly what's happened in states that have moved to a presumption of joint custody. Imagine that - you stop rewarding a behavior, such as divorce, and the behavior extinguishes! B.F. Skinner would love this stuff, he really would.<P>So 50/50 as a presumption would drive divorce rates down, which is a great outcome. Its also fair to both spouses, and claims that its hard on the children are unsubstantiated. Children fare better in joint custody arrangements than they do in sole custody arrangements - conclusive work on 50/50 arrangements hasn't been yet conducted, from what I've seen. But that's not really an excuse to avoid these arrangements, in my view.<P>Furthermore, CS payment compliance is predicted primarily by two things: Ability to pay and contact with the children. Both of these make sense, and its not surprising that CS payment compliance is higher in joint custody arrangements than in sole custody arrangements. So your abdication argument is meritless: If anything, we would predict CS payment compliance would be highest under a 50/50 presumption. More contact = more probability of paying.<P>Bystander

We have joint legal and physical custody (on legal divorce papers it actually reads 80/20 with my ex having the majority of custody)but we have kindof made up the rules as we go along so that both of us have the kids at some point of the day each and every day. <P>I still hate the fact that it came to this, but the kids shouldn't be without both their parents each day.<P>

Bystander,<P>You are missing my point - I agree that children need both parents, but you are dismissing the "tender years" special need for the mother. You say I have no evidence, I point to every species in nature, and mankind until the last thirty years or so. If that isn't evidence, what is?<P>The man you point out who raised a baby as a widower is a good father, and an exceptional man. But I can point to many more men who couldn't handle the responsibility of an infant and walked away, or remarried immediately to find a mother for the child. Frankly, I have heard of even more of those cases where the children went to the dead woman's mother, or sister to raise.<P>Modern science tried for a generation to claim that formula was better than a mother's milk. Well, a whole generation suffered from that "experiment."<P>You can't go against nature, and your paper solution sounds great, but in reality doesn't work.<P>Fairness to the parents "feelings" has nothing to do with what is best for the child. The men here who have custody, are the men who deserve it, and have fought for it.<P>Most men wouldn't fight for it, and don't want it. Would you FORCE it on them, because it should be that way? These men who were married to women willing to walk away from their children and their marriages, and have custody - are you going to tell them that they should have only had 50/50?<P>And I can't imagine that you think that anyone here, male or female, who filed because of a spouse's infidelity, and most would have done just about anything to restore their marriage, considered money as a reason to file/not to file. You are drawing the wrong conclusions from your statistics. <P>And I read the #1 reason for divorce is infidelity. So I think there would be a drop in divorce if less people cheated on their spouses.<P>And another thing! (I'm on my soapbox, can you tell?) Bystander, in your first remark, you basically dismissed my "opinion," as the emotions of a woman betrayed... You fall victim to the same discriminating stereotyping of me, as you accuse the courts of doing to men in general. <P>Texan's situation to me is unique - Here is a man who probably should have custody - I agree, there - but the baby is only two...<P>I honestly don't know the answer - but cutting a two-year old baby in half is NOT it. <P><BR>

<BR>h.w.,<P>You're darn right I dismiss your tender years doctrine. Its also dismissed by family court judges outright and would be openly challenged by a lawyer as evidence of gender bias. It carries no weight in court and is expressly illegal in states that have gender-neutral custody language.<P>Your argument that I advocate forcing a 50/50 custody decision down the throat of an unwilling parent is a silly strawman. The presumption of 50/50 guarantees equality <I>if both parents desire as much time as possible with their children</I>. It does not mandate a 50/50 outcome under all circumstances, it puts divorcing men who want their children and an equal plane with divorcing women who want their children. Good fathers shouldn't have to fight for 50% custody of their children while truly awful mothers otherwise win by default.<P>As for the usual refrain that 50/50 isn't in the best interests of the child, that rubber ruler has historically been used to justify just about any custody/CS outcome desired. The problem with that argument is that children fare better in joint custody arrangements than they do in sole custody arrangements. CS payment compliance is better in joint custody arrangements than in sole custody arrangements. And states that have a presumption of joint custody have seen their divorce rates fall. I submit that the status quo, handing mothers sole custody and promising them hidden alimony via high CS awards, is far more harmful to children than what I propose.<P>As for the causes of divorce, infidelity is actually ranked pretty low on the list. For evidence of this, see, for example, John Gottman's latest book, <I>The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work</I>. Infidelity ranks 5th or 6th, if I recall correctly, while growing apart emotionally ranks #1.<P>As for the impact of expected custody outcomes on the decision to divorce, see,<BR>"These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women" (with Margaret Brinig) American Law and Economics Review Vol. 2(1) Spring 2000, pp. 126--169. They reviewed all 46,000 divorces filed in 1995 for the following states: Connecticut, Virginia, Montana and Oregon. Their conclusion, as stated in an interview in the July 11 New York Times: "The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables [in predicting divorce]," Dr. Brinig said. "Children are the most important asset in a marriage, and the partner who expects to get sole custody is by far the most likely to file for divorce." The interview continued, "Custody is now a way -- in some marriages the only way -- for women to achieve a real show of force over men," Dr. Brinig said. "If you remove that distortion, it's apt to change the way men and women relate to each other and to their kids. Fathers are likely to spend more time with kids if they can expect to still see<BR>them if the marriage doesn't work out. Women will be more likely to see men as parenting partners, and less likely to use divorce as a power play."<P>Btw, I don't dismiss/stereotype your views as a "scorned woman." I'm asking you for evidence to support your arguments against a presumption of 50/50, and you aren't giving me any.<P>Bystander<BR>

Bystander,<P>Frank Pittman said that the vast majority of divorces in long term marriages involved infidelity. "Growing apart emotionally" sounds like a euphamism for "found somebody new" to me.<P>Until men can breastfeed, there is no question that babies are better off with their mothers under all but the most extreme circumstances.

<BR>Nellie1,<P>Yeah, I know what Pittman wrote. But his sample is non-random, based only on his observations of couples in his practice. Further, affairs usually occur in marriages where needs went unmet. So do we blame the demise of the marriage on the unmet needs, the resulting emotional distance, or the ensuing affair? Pointing to the last item in the chain and assigning causality seems easy, but is it right? Check the Gottman reference I provided. People going through divorce do not cite infidelity that high on the list of reasons for divorcing, probably because they grow to realize the infidelity was symptomatic of something else. Sure, for some people an affair was "the" reason for a divorce, but I no longer think that's generally the case.<P>As far as breastfeeding goes, not all women choose to breastfeed, so assigning primary custody on the assumption that a woman will breastfeed is quite dubious. In fact, I personally know a CP who refused to breastfeed her children at all (granted, in her case she *should* be CP, but that's a different discussion). Now, I suppose a devious woman who had no intention of breastfeeding could try and use breastfeeding as a reason for her to have primary custody. But on the other hand, the court could simply order the mother to express milk for later feedings by the father. <P>Bystander

Bystander,<P>You are using statistics, and drawing conclusions which support your theory. The study you cited, 46,000 divorce cases - I cannot believe that someone went to each person and asked them "why did you divorce?" Most likely they tallied the grounds.<P>Well one of the states was Virginia - which I know about as its in Washington DC area. As in Maryland, it is much easier, less costly, less painful, and less vindictive to get a divorce on no-fault, irreconcilable differences type grounds, or however each state has to word it. So on paper, most divorces are not because of adultery. In real life, they are. That is what I have read, that is what my attorney said, that is what I see. Certainly there are unmet needs as probably there are in marriages that don't end in divorce. The ebb and flow of the marriage. But an affair ends the marriage. <P>What is the percentage of divorces you know about personally (with children), that don't involved a 3rd party? I would bet its more than one out of six. <P>As far as "evidence" that 50/50 doesn't work - you are right - I don't have studies - it is too soon for that. But I see examples up close. I see the immediate harm it is doing the only three children I know of. I also experience, and talk about with other custodial parents, the transition time it takes "to get back to normal" when the children get back from the non-custodial parent's house. That is universal. Everyone knows that a child needs routine and a schedule. There isn't a study out there to disprove that. 50/50 custody would destroy any chance of that.<P>And again I say, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have daily contact - but they need one home.<P>So, I would ask you - why don't you have two homes. Split it up, spend equal nights at each - divide up your nights, so that you can't call either one "yours". Try alternate nights, or alternate weeks, or alternate months - try to remember to pack enough clothes. Or maybe you could have two sets of everything at both places. See how long you could take that schedule. Then ask yourself, how in the world, could you subject a child to that for 18 years and not do damage? Now think of all the extra things this means for the child - two sets of neighborhood children as friends. Two sets of rules to live by. Two different eating patterns. Two different homework patterns. Two totally different schedules. Maybe two new sets of stepbrothers and stepsisters to deal with. You aren't creating two loving home environments, you are creating two hotels. <BR>I don't need to destroy a generation of children with a study, to know what common sense dictates.<P>And, you are discounting nature, because that doesn't fit into your theory. Nothing I can do to change that. But you do men even more disservice, by claiming there is no difference in care. Frankly, if that is the case, who needs a man? If a mother isn't better dealing with babies and toddlers, why should I bother to have their father around when my boys are teens? By that logic, I can provide the same for them as any man. And a man can provide the same thing for a young teenage girl. I'm sorry, bystander, it just doesn't work that way. There are times in every child's life, when one of the parents is a more important influence than the other. Nothing in this world is 50/50.<BR>

<BR>h.w.,<P>Your arguments against 50/50 boil down to several things:<P>(1) Children need the stability of one home. This is at worst a silly strawman argument (e.g., change to one-month with each parent rotation to accommodate your "adaption" argument). At best, this is based on a false premise, namely, that children need stability above equal time with each parent. Children adapt quite well to change, its predictability that matters. <P>(2) Children cannot adapt to two sets of rules. This is silly, as parents in intact families usually have different parenting styles. Again, dealing with change isn't an issue, its predictability that matters to children. You might allow your childen to cuss in your house and your ex-H does not (or vice versa). Are you trying to say that a child is somehow incapable of knowing that cussing is inappropriate in some places? Etc.<P>(3) 50/50 would require higher fixed costs. Nah, I'm not buying this one. The bulk of the fixed costs are housing, and that is going to be paid upon divorce anyway.<P>(4) Children need their parents in different amounts at different points in their lives. Possibly correct, but who are you to judge when a child suddenly flips from needing you to needing your ex-H, especially when CS provides a financial incentive for you to retain > 50% parenting time? Its safer to make sure the kid sees both parents 50% of the time, and reduce cash transfers accordingly. In any event, CS often involves a degree of veiled alimony, so I've suspected that much opposition to 50/50 stems from vested financial interests in maintaining the status quo.<P>(5) I've already dismissed your tender years/biological supremacy arguments. They are patently sexist and expressly illegal in states with gender-neutral custody language. I've never said that mothers don't matter, what I've said is that fathers matter <I>just as much as</I> mothers. And a presumption of 50/50 would codify this.<P>I think we're reaching a closing point on this one. I have this feeling you're going to again bring up the biology argument, and you're not supporting it with evidence. Its pointless to continue the discussion.<P>Bystander

Bystander is quite right that discussion on this is useless...I lurk here a lot, & see he has proved so over and over.<P>Nevertheless, children deserve the stability that serves THEM best, not the "what is fairest to both parents" routine, or the what the mom/dad "needs". The point should be the KIDS not the parents, guys!<P>daveps wife.