I thought I was pretty prepared to become a divorced mom. Once I had decided that I could no longer stay in my 14-year marriage after months of therapy, soul-searching, self-help book reading -- although admittedly not enough financial savvy -- I then put all my energy into exploring how to create as happy and healthy a life for my two boys, then 9 and 12.
After a few sessions of relatively amicable meetings with a mediator -- mostly because we were too cheap to rack up a $250-an-hour bill -- we decided on 50-50 shared custody.
In the month or so after our divorce was final, it seemed to be working well until a previously benign event threatened to be its undoing. The back-to-school packet arrived one mid-August day, stuffed with colorful forms, fundraising requests and permission slips, including the contact form requiring the address and phone number of my kids' primary residence.
I was stumped. Now, this was not the first time in my life as a mom that I have been stumped; try explaining why the sky is blue to a 4-year-old or quartiles, boxes and whiskers to a middle-schooler and you'll know what I mean. So, like most parents, I'd developed a few tricks to sound reasonably intelligent when, honestly, I had no clue -- fudging, half-truths, diversion and the ever-popular "Because I said so" among them.
But I couldn't rely on my tricks this time because my kids didn't have a primary residence anymore -- they had two residences, aka Mom's house and Dad's house. And this is a constant dilemma that faces any parent sharing custody: Who's the main contact?
It seems like a no-brainer to me: There isn't one. There are two, Mom and Dad.
Why, with around 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce, are we still thinking in these terms? Why do so many still treat divorced people as if they're an intact unit? Why do we continuing using a system that excludes a parent?
It isn't just school forms and notices, of course. It's almost anything the touches our kids' lives, from permission slips for gymnastics competitions to schedules for post-Little League game snacks to postcard reminders from the pediatrician of an upcoming appointment to birthday party invitations.
And you can pretty much guess whose mailbox or voicemail it all ends up in -- Mom's.
Not that I mind -- it's information I want and need to know and am accustomed to handling. But, I'm pretty sure their dad wants to know, too, especially if Billy's birthday party happens to fall on a weekend when he's in charge.
What it does is force moms to be micromanagers and messengers. I happily took on those roles when I was married. Now it just seems exhausting, amicable divorce or not. And if something falls through the cracks -- and things are always falling through the cracks when you're co-parenting -- it creates stress, disappointment and frustration between former spouses, and maybe even some passive-aggressive behaviors. If I wanted to live like that, I would have stayed married!
By continuing to think in terms that diss dads -- and sometimes moms -- what are we really saying about marital and post-marital equality? The subtle message is that dads are second-class, that they don't care -- or care enough. I know lots of divorced dads who would disagree.
Granted, having to mail two sets of paperwork, send two Evites or leave two voicemails is a bit of a burden. It isn't always eco-friendly, either. Maybe that's what's behind the idea of "troubled" divorced families; what people really mean is that we're just plain trouble.
I suppose it would be nice if we divorced types could divvy up the parenting duties according to our interests, availability and strengths, and then share what we need to. Honestly, though -- if we could do that, we probably wouldn't be divorced.
Follow Vicki Larson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OMGchronicles
Lloyd I. Sederer, MD: All in the Family: What 'The Fighter' Reveals About the Power of Blood Ties
http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/the-primary-parent-presumption-primarily-meaningless/
To quote Dr. Warshak,
"Briefly, the argument goes that since women are more involved in primary caregiving, they deserve custody. Fathers’-rights advocates respond that it is unfair to penalize men for reduced involvement with their children, since they are only fulfilling society’s notions of the man’s role as the family’s breadwinner. Neither side’s arguments are compelling. Both are blinded by the pre-19th century premise that children are property to be “awarded” to the rightful owner.
Both sides miss the point that a custody decision should be guided by the needs of the child not the parents’ sense of entitlement."
Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book "Taken into Custody" is one of the best books written on this subject, and details the massive federal government entitlement grants to states and counties to destroy family by making one parent the "primary" parent.
For those parents that are like that, they should not have the right to it all. For those that are involved, they absolutely should. But, despite all of that, he is still on every piece of paperwork that I fill out and always in the address book for the school and is always the emergency contact. After all, he is still the father.
Let each parent have access to information — that is a right.
What is done with that information is up to each parent. If a dad or mom chooses not to participate, well, that's sad but it's that parent's choice.
Just don't have someone decide beforehand what information he or she should receive.
We can't control how an ex behaves, but we can give him/her the chance to be an equal partner.
Your work got written up elsewhere. Hope you saw this.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=11340
Congrats on a great article.
Of course, now all I can focus on is the error — I'm off to change it right now!
My advice, and the advice i try to live by, is to make every moment with our children count. If the time is limited then all the more reason to make it count. Not Disneyland, not fantasy worlds, but real face-to-face time with our children. Letting them know they are loved, having tea parties, sitting at the ocean watching the sun set, going on hikes, spending real time where the child knows and understands that she is cared for, protected, safe and nurtured.
I am a 50-50 father who got the 80-20 "standard plan." I want more time, I continue to ask the Court for more time, I try to stay optimistic for more time. But i never miss a date with my daughter, i never miss a child support payment, and i always make myself emotionally available to my little girl. Always. That means since I have Wednesday afternoons, and every other weekend, I take work off, shut off my cell phone, turn off my computer and BE with her and her alone.
I do want to say that good co-parenting is possible, though it takes work. Just like ALL parenting takes work! My daughter-in-laws parents were really good at this, though they had no role models and had to make it up as they went along. Again, just like ALL parenting. And, guess what -- they aren't perfect and neither is anyone else. I'm not saying everyone can do this; I certainly could not. But it can be done.
In my own case, I was the one and only real parent. My own ex was mentally ill and institutionalized. I think Vicki's point is well-taken, though. The frustration of being treated as something weird because we were not an intact family just takes its toll on you, when you are doing everything possible to keep it all together and to raise a good person, too!
Well, I came out on the other side. To all of you still working this out - and it sounds like there are quite a few of you still in it - good luck. The children will grow up and will learn their own lessons. If they have one good parent and lots of love, they will be fine. It's up to each of us to get over any hard feelings we have and put the focus where it should be.
The concept of the "primary parent" is a holdover from the old days when the home was mom's domain and the paycheck was dad's responsibility. What do we do with two income, shared parenting families? The concept of "primary parenting" has shifted in many families (admittedly more often with educated middle class families) from a 95%-5% split to something much closer to 50%-50% split (even if it's 60%-40%).
Courts should try to think about dad having more time than just "visits" with the children. Short visits are very difficult to manage because the children often don't have all of the comforts of home in their dad's home and limited time to establish rules. With more time (and more available money) dads may do more to make their houses into comfortable homes for their children.
We lived in a part of the country where $100K income supports a lower middle class lifestyle. Her giving up her job cut our family income ~40%. My degrees and job skills and the proximity of our extended families left little flexibility to relocate. So the financial pressure was squarely on my shoulders.
Granted, she was a good Mother. But I worked very hard in a demanding job against a backdrop of a very challenging economy. I survived layoff after layoff. I never missed school or family events. I helped with housework, taxi driving, homework, school events, etc.
After 16 years of marriage SHE decided she wanted more. Like her older siblings - whom had divorced decent and successful spouses - she filed for divorce asking for full physical custody (kids ages 10+)
The court and her narrow-minded greedy lawyer saw the situation like this: You sir are the breadwinner. Your wife has no marketable skills. So she can't earn ANYTHING. Leave the marital home. Find an apartment near your job. See your children every 2nd weekend. Pay-up. Go away!
I told my lawyer if that was the final outcome, just shoot me now. I fought 3 years for minor improvement. It was hell.
Warning to Dads: think twice before agreeing to traditional family.
This statement is a very common, my ex made the exact same.
Empowered by America's Volksgericht (People's Court) it is very common the have your children taken from you, your career destroyed fighting to be a father while losing everything you have.
America's Volksgericht (People's Court) is as sadistic as any in the world destroying famlies in the name of money.
The attached story happened AFTER the case was heard in Family court. What's amazing is that in Family Court, it was determined that it was in "the best interest of the child" to have this woman making decisions on behalf of the child.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Plotting+ex-wife+gets+7-14+years+in+jail&articleId=14addb23-2910-4e11-8279-d6466abd6fe5
There is also a HUGE statement made about the Family Court system.
"She mocked him. She laughed at him. (She said) 'I took all your money, I took your daughter and now I am going to take your career'," Assistant County Attorney Jerome Blanchard said in court yesterday. He said Ruggiero's folly came because claims in criminal court had to be backed up -- unlike in family court where she made repeated claims about ex-husband's behavior. "Unfortunately for her, we're not in family court anymore," Blanchard said.
It seems all we learned about our court system (i.e. "with liberty & justice for all", Lady Justice blindfolded with balanced scales, evidence vs hearsay, innocent until proven guilty, entitled to due process) are really only concepts for criminal court.
Seems like somebody has failed. Either those involved in the family court system... or those in the Education Department who taught us otherwise.
The kids get the truth every time, whatever that is. I don't give opinions or comments. And when he messes up, I tell them that I'm sorry that their feelings are hurt and that they should talk to their Dad about it directly about it. I encourage and empower them to tell him how it makes them feel when he does such things.
It is important for them to feel supported in their feelings, and it helps them develop a relationship with their Dad. The more I do this, the less of a Bad Guy I am to them! Win/win!
http://indie-mom.blogspot.com/
I believe that Vicki's original article was about the need to behave like adults and cooperate as parents.
It appears that the original intent of this thread has been hijacked by a lot of very bitter ex spouses.
If your addressing me why didn't you reply to my post...you do have my name in your mouth?
Sorry, but your response makes no sense. Could you please rephrase it?