Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    
    
    It really depends on where you live and the judge you get.  
    
    Are there any specific reasons why you do not want them to even
    spend 50% of their time with their father?  You said he is a good
    father and would expect at least joint.  
    
    You must look at how your children will react to this situation.
    If they have two full time parents, and then one is suddenly a part
    time parent, how is it going to affect them?  Please think this 
    through as if you were in one of your children's shoes.
    
    By divorcing your husband you can get away from him.  But your children
    will never be able to divorce either of you.  Only they have the right
    to decide whether or not to have a parent remain in their life.  
    That may sound crazy as your kids are far too young to make that
    decision, but it is true.  You and your husband made the choice to
    have them, they did not choose to have you as parents.  Yet now that
    you and husband are the only parent's they know, what makes you think
    they would want to change that?  
    
    Whatever you do, try to think of the affect this is going to have
    on your kids.  Afterall is said and done, they should be the most
    important people in this whole scenario.
    
    Best of luck,
    Michele

    I don't understand, if what you say is true - that your husband is a
    good father - why you would want to cut him off from your children and
    vise versa.  Also, why wouldn't you accept child support?  To ease the
    guilt of taking the children away?
    
    I am sure you have YOUR reasons for the marriage breakup, however, as
    .1 said, remember your children are the most important consideration. 
    It will be very difficult on them to have their parents living separate
    lives but to compound that with eliminating their father from their
    lives sounds very drastic to me, particularly if he is a good father.
    
    Please reconsider and put your personal hurts and confusion aside. 
    It's been done by me and by many parents in this conference.  We are
    here for support and encouragement.  I am in full support of the father
    being 100% involved in the childrens lives, custodial or non-custodial. 
    In the long term, although you may not believe this now, it is the best
    for all concerned.  Believe me, you will want a break and they will
    want to be with their dad.
    
    Susan
    

    Why are you so adamantly opposed to shared custody?  By your own
    account, your husband is a good, loving, and attentive father.  Most
    people cannot get to the point of actively considering divorce until a
    great deal of anger has built up toward their spouse.  It is hard not
    to believe that your current thinking about custody is derived from
    this anger, rather than any real consideration of what is best for the
    people (especially kids) in question.  This is a very natural reaction,
    but you must try to move beyond it.  It is OK to have symbolic wars
    over custody of pots and pans, or a favorite painting, or even the
    family cat.  But your children deserve better.
    
    All research supports the belief that children benefit from major
    ongoing relationships with _both_ parents (assuming no one is 
    abusive).  He wants a major role, and semingly he "deserves" it. 
    Shared physical custody would benefit _you_, as well.  Try to find a
    single parent with sole custody of two youngsters whose life is not
    dominated by stress and exhaustion, and who doesn't often feel
    imprisoned by her(his) kids!  I share custody of two boys, who
    spend half each week at each parent's house.  I adore the time they are
    with me in part because I have the other half week to recover.  I
    resent it when their mom wants to keep them away from me for some extra
    days (perhaps for a vacation trip), but I sometimes also resent it when
    she wants to leave them with me for some extra days (perhaps for a
    business trip).  Before seperation, we each wanted sole physical
    custody;  we have since learned that substantial and regular time _off_
    is vital to mental and physical health.  Other parents I know who share
    custody feel the same way.
    
    These issues are discussed somewhat in 55.7 and 55.8 (and others
    nearby).  I also strongly recommend again the book mentioned in 55.8.
    
    It is hard to get beyond a purely emotional response to custody
    questions, but still important.  You might find the services of a
    professional mediator and/or individual therapist helpful to you in
    working them through.
    
    		- Bruce

    I'm quite sure the reaction to your note isn't what you expected :-).
    
    I will add to the chorus that says PLEASE, PLEASE *PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S
    NEEDS FIRST*!  Kids have only 1/2 of their heritage from either parent,
    they deserve the opportunity to know and love both halves.  If you
    decide to follow through with the divorce, for whatever reason (and
    mine caught lots of folks looking in from the outside by surprise), and
    the children's father is not abusive, consider some form of joint
    physical custody.
    
    Kids come with two parents as the norm for a lot of reasons :-).  One
    of them is the wear and tear on the parents.  Time off for the parent
    is a legitimate need, and one you should not ignore.  It gives you
    needed perspective in dealing with the issues that arise on a regular
    basis as your children grow.
    
    
    To answer the question asked.  As the mother, in the United States, you 
    can probably get physical custody.  It may involve some wrangling in
    court.  The kids may feel that they are the "prizes" in a battle they
    don't really understand.  Your daughter, particularly, may feel that
    she is forced to take sides, or that the divorce is her fault. 
    Generally, custody battles are no-win situations *for the kids*. 
    That's why you see so many of us in here advocating some form of joint
    custody - to avoid that battle.
    
    Alison 

    Wow! It seems I am no good at explaining things. 
    1. I would not dream to deny my husband 100% of involvement in his 
    children's lives provided it is non-custodian (physically), or to
    prevent his spending with kids halves of weekends and vacations.
    2. I strongly believe that kid's living half-time at one place and
    half time at another is bad for them. Children will have to adapt to
    two different opinions, they will try to use the picularity of the
    situation they will grow up conformists /I am not sure there is such
    a word in English although it is of Latin or Greek Origin. 
    I mean the person who will adapt any attitude just because it is 
    exercised by majority/.
    3. It takes really wise people to forget their own experience of
    washing dirty linen in public (I mean divorce). 90% of people are
    very bitter after divorce, that's the fact. To continue relationship 
    on a daily basis does not help to dissolve this bitterness.
    4. For me it is unacceptable. Children are most important part of
    my EVERYDAY life. Period. As I told in .0 I'd rather stay married.
    
    RE ;-2. We (my husband and I) are devoted to each other, just 
    I realised almost as soon as my first baby was born that to be with
    somebody continuously (save my children) is not for me.
    
    By the way, I live in Massachusets.
    
    Thanks for advices, Liza.  

    Liza,
    
    I believe that your husband has a very good cahnce of getting some form
    of shared custody.  I know of a number of shared custody situations
    which have worked very well.  The children have not developed the
    attitudes/behaviors which you fear. However, it takes a lot of agreement
    between the parents as to rules etc.  I also think that it becomes more
    difficult as the children become older and develop social lives.  At
    that point they may choose to live with one aprent or the other rather
    than have two part-time homes.
    
    As a custodial parent who raised her child with virtually no
    involvement from her father, I would have given my right arm to have
    someone share the responsibility.  Stacy would probably have given both
    of her's to have a Dad who was involved in her life.
    
    I guess what I'm saying is that shared custody can have its benefits
    for the parents and the children if it is worked right.
    
    As to child support.  I think you'd have a tough time finding a judge
    who would allow you to waive child support.  Alimony, yes.  Child
    support, no. 

    
    People involved in  divorce often go through periods of confusion,
    anger, and selfishness.  You appear to be in such a state now, judging
    from .5.  If so, I hope it passes soon.  Share your emotions with
    relatives, close friends, or therapists, but perhaps not the general
    public.  You may convince some people that the kids would be better off
    in the sole custody of their father.
    
    		- Bruce
    

    
    
    Liza,
    
    I can understand your belief regarding living at two different homes.
    However, surely you must understand that once you divorce, your children
    will be living out of two different homes even if it is just for 
    weekends and vacations.  
    
    Face it, if you do decide to divorce, your children are going to have
    to adapt to two different situations.  Which means that they "will
    have to adapt to two different opinions".  That is merely a result of
    divorce.  
    
    If both parents are no longer sharing the same residence, the children
    are going to be sharing both parents residences separately.  More than
    likely, your husband will want to have a separate room for his children
    at his home.  In fact, in some divorce stipulations this is a
    requirement.  So your fear of the affects of two different situations
    on your kids is going to happen regardless of whether or not you have
    sole physical custody.  
    
    
    Just as a side note, I mentioned this to my boyfriend who is a
    Noncustodial father last night.  He thought that since you seem to
    think your husband is a good father, and that you don't think your
    reasons for divorce are that strong, and especially since you stated that
    if you lost 100% physical custody that you would not divorce  that
    maybe you are suffering from post partum depression.  Now that may or
    may not be true.  It just struck me funny and I thought I would put
    his thoughts into my note.  
    
    In any case, I would definately recommend seeking some sort of 
    outside counselling.  You don't seem to sure of your self on this
    issue.  If you do decide to divorce, you will need objective help
    on how to deal with the entire thing.  
    
    Michele

    Unless there is a *very* good reason for the divorce (i.e. physical
    abuse for instance) the damage done to the children by the divorce will
    *far* out weigh the benefit gained by *either* parent.  I heard 
    somewhere once that any *two* *reasonable* people can work out their 
    problems and have a successful marriage.  I believe this is true.
    If there is *any* chance of saving the marriage *do it*.  
    
    fred();

    Not to discount the concerns expressed in the base note, but what proof
    do you have that this is true?
    
    > Unless there is a *very* good reason for the divorce (i.e. physical
    > abuse for instance) the damage done to the children by the divorce will
    > *far* out weigh the benefit gained by *either* parent.
    
    Discussion of the validity of such a statement is probably best moved
    to another string, but I certainly wouldn't want the base noter to
    think this is true UNLESS YOU HAVE UNCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF.  I don't.
    
    Karen 
    

    
    Re: .9 and .10
    
    I echo the sentiments expressed in .10.
    
    What is "a *very* good reason for the divorce" depends on your
    perspective.  I also question your statement about "*reasonable*"
    people.  Often being reasonable in trying to save the marriage
    has nothing to do with it.  Sometimes the problem didn't happen
    in the marriage, but before it ever took place.  Where I WAS
    unreasonable was when I  married her in the first place, and no
    amount of counseling was going to change that.
    
    While one couple may have the capacity to work out a significant
    problem, a different couple may be overwhelmed by the same problem
    with no chance of working it out.  Not because it is an unsolvable
    problem taken by itself, but because it is unsolvable taken within
    the context of the particular marriage and the strengths and
    weaknesses of the particular couple who have to deal with it.
    
    I also question the premise.  Your statement seems to say that if
    the reason IS "*very* good" that somehow the damage to the children
    is less because the divorce is then 'justified.'  I don't think
    these things have anything to do with each other.  No matter what
    the reason, good or bad, the damage to the children of having to
    live through the divorce of their parents is significant.  You
    can have the best reason in the world and you'll still have a mess
    on your hands where the children are concerned.
    
    Steve