Last edited by VicPark; 15-12-2012 at 22:44.
What if one parent choosing to stay disadvantages the other and disadvantages the child? A lot of people move a long distance from their friends and family for their spouse's work, should they be expected to stay somewhere forever, even if it means no job opportunities and no family, just because there has been a breakdown in the relationship?
Sorry for the questions but I can't understand how your dh just let his kid move from 10 minutes to 2 hours away.
Sent from my GT-I9100T using BubHub
What if the non-custodial parent is military and is posted every 2 years?
Does mum/dad pack up and move towns every 2 years too? Or should dad/mum discharge so that they can keep being a good parent? Go on VicPark, tell us what this hypothetical split family should do
Why can't you just concede that there is no black and white when it comes to primary custody?
There's definitely no black and white here.
A lot depends upon towns (ie. availability of alternate housing, availability of child care, availability of jobs and more), because with a relationship breakdown, these are probably the three main factors which might mean someone has to move away. When a relationship breaks down, the main care giver may need to get more hours (or a job, or a different job, or study - sorry didn't put that in my opening), whereas the secondary care giver will probably choose to continue in the same job they were in before.
Getting more hours of work, dictate more care required (either day care or friend or family support which wasn't necessarily required before). A second house is needed, rentals are not always available in an area within a 2km (or whatever seems close) to the home that was shared prior to the relationship breakdown).
Nitpicking individuals situations here will probably only show how much grey is here, not actually prove any points that have been raised.
I certainly don't think there is a one size fits all solution. If a relationship has broken down the choice of reasons for that are multiple, and therefore the choice of where the parents go from there are also multiple.
The idea of what's in the best interests of the child is often the hardest thing to determine as emotions are running high.
One thing that I believe (and others may or may not believe) is stability is a key ingredient to helping the child cope and adapt as needed to a new situation. To gain stability, stress needs to be reduced in both the main care giver's life and the child's life. How that is achieved, can be very different in all situations. Stability may be better achieved when the primary care giver has more emotional support around, or it may be where they have better vocational or social support around. But the common denominator seems to be that stability is best achieved when the primary care giver is in a more stable situation.
Sometimes it's not possible to remain in the pre breakup home, so stability has to be established elsewhere.
The sad fact is that regardless of whether both parents were fantastic while they were together, it's likely care was not shared 50/50, and therefore how can stability be achieved by trying to get 50/50 care after a breakup? If one parent was working fulltime, but the other wasn't, then care certainly wasn't 50/50, as one parent was always there (either during the day if the child is pre school age) or for drop offs and pick ups at school, don't forget parent help at school or canteen duty, or watching children at assembly or whatever, so if you enforce the 50/50 rule, you could be actually causing more disruption to the child's known stability.
In saying all of that, 50/50 may work for some people, however, as I've said there are too many variables to really figure where it will work. Some people here have given some great examples of where it can work, and I tip my hat to you
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!