To work or not to work? To have money or time with your children?
If I don’t work full time, the children get to see me and I’m there for them for their matches, concerts and, well, just “there” for them. The only way they and I can see more of each other than under the strict terms of the court order is for me to turn up to all their school events; I cannot be stopped from doing this as it is my parental right regardless of any court order. I therefore come to all their school events, their school masses and assemblies, their sports matches, their music concerts and so on. I even go to their children’s parties sometimes if it is at a friend’s house; the parents of the birthday children know that the children and I don’t get to see each other much, so they are happy for me to come along…
If I work, they will miss out on those times with me. They already have a mother that they cannot access due to the Court order. I do not have a full time job; I have chosen to be self-employed to give me maximum flexibility to spend time with the children and be there to support them. Consequently, I don’t have much money. I cannot afford a nice car, or expensive holidays or to take them out to restaurants or give them a big house. We have to share a bed and go camping instead of staying in hotels.
I have repeatedly asked them whether they would prefer me to earn enough to buy them nice things and to have a smart car and live in a bigger house or whether they would rather that I have the time to come to all their matches etc. There is a resounding and unanimous vote from them that they would prefer my time than my money. There is not even the slightest question in their minds about that….
The irony is that, because I can’t provide these material things for them, the court is less likely to agree to the children being looked after mainly by me! The idea that one parent (by working full time and therefore not spending time with the children) is more able to “look after” the children because they can provide for them materially is nonsensical given what a child wants. A child wants time with their parents, not a smart car or a big house. Provided the parent can provide food, clothes and a home, who is to judge whether the standard of that material provision is “high enough” to be acceptable and therefore sufficient?
Here is a link to a blog written on this subject from a child’s perspective:
http://laura1318.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-working-mum-from-the-daughters-perspective/
Hi Trevor,
You are absolutely right in what you say here. I think the default position should be shared residency, with a court only awarding sole residency after proving that one parent is not capable of looking after their children on a shared residency basis. At the moment, the emphasis is on sole residency with the other parent being given “contact” rights. You are right that children usually prefer their parents to stay together and that, if parents cant/wont, that they would like shared residency, being given the option to see each parent as much as they can. All the research I have read bears this out. My own children tell me that they want 50:50 and say they want one week with me followed by one week with their father. To give my husband credit, this is what he originally suggested in our “without prejudice” negotiations but there were many reasons why, at the time, I did not want to go down that route. Now that we have put some time and distance since our initial breakup and the children are older, I think that would work very well. It would allow the children the time they want with both of us and allow me and him to still work and earn money to support them and ourselves. It’s a “win win” situation for all of us.
I do totally sympathise with so many fathers who are not given the same parenting rights as the mothers. I think many very good fathers have been pushed out of their children’s lives. Of course, their are those who don’t take part even when they are still married, whereas most mothers do. Their are those fathers who the children would rather live with than their mothers and vice versa. What it all says however is that the Courts need to be more flexible in their thinking towards finding a solution that fits with each individual family situation and not a presumption that only one parent should be the main carer.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I agree, Mothers who want to be home and nurture their children, should not be forced by the state or financial necessity to work. In other European countries Mothers are paid to raise there children and stay at home to do so. U.K Mothers and Mothers worldwide, should be valued and supported by he state, in any decent society. We all need to stand up and be counted on this one. No body can replace Mummy, nobody.
I find this post rather sad. You find yourself in a position many men find themselves in through no fault of their own. Children hate divorce (in general) and the evidence seems to show that they do better if parents remain together - though this isn’t always possible. As you point out, the court is unlikely to agree to you being the custodial parent due to lack of employment/money. This is unfair, but if the roles were reversed, do you think it would be any fairer that your ex is assessed by the CSA and has to work full time but left near poverty? There are strong arguments for shared custody, it would allow both parties to maximize their earnings while providing good parenting from both parties. Also, with joint custody, child and working tax credits are available thus also boosting income. It’s so sad that warring parents do not give this option more consideration.