Comments on: To work or not to work? To have money or time with your children?

By: Marie

Marie — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:13:24 +0000

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.

By: Yvonne Stewart-taylor

Yvonne Stewart-taylor — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:24:33 +0000

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.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:00:32 +0000

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.

By: » To work or not to work? To have money or time with your children?

» To work or not to work? To have money or time with your children? — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:24:35 +0000

[...] 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 houseTo work or not to work? To have money or time with your children? [...]