Vancouver Forum: Do Divorce custody rules need to change?

I can see a few cases where custody ought to be awarded to one person exclusively 100%.

Like if one spouse has severe emotional problems,  is violent, is crazy or has drug problems, or one parent walked out entirely, in which case the custody ought to go to the more stable partner.

but in the case where each person is mentally stable, and can provide for the child with stable livelihoods, shouldn't custody automatically be 50%?

This is a better arrangement, so that one spouse can't use bullying tactics (like having the bigger income so they hire the meaner lawyer to get full custody rights).

Or they can't use custody as a bargaining chip to get what they want.

Instead, it would mandated that each person get the child 4 days of the week, and on an alternate week, 3 days.

I know some divorced couples, and they share their children. And it seems to work fine. 50% of the time with the Mom, 50% with the Dad.

 I dunno, I guess it's not simplistic as a math formula, there's a lot of bitterness in breakups and all, but the days of one parent wanting to 'own' their children while denying access by the other (male or female) ought to come to an end.

Comments? Could such changes in the laws realistically work?

This post has been edited by .or?: 03 July 2009 - 10:12 PM

Match.com - Everyone knows someone who met on Match.com. Now it’s your turn. Search Now!

50% is a lot for the kid in question.. going back and forth not being stable.. could cause long term psychological problems that

Most of the divorced dads I know work all week and pick the kids up every weekend or every second weekend.

That is of course if they have a check for the ex in their hands. Otherwise the kids are held ransom.

For a couple of dads I know the kids come with a list of things they need like school supplies, clothes, haicuts,sports fees and equipment.

The reasons from their divorces vary, from the reasonable to the rediculous.

Their are no winners in divorce only losers and the biggest losers are the kids.

I'd venture, in a perfect world, there would only be one lawyer in a divorce and s/he would mediate. No personal lawyers. The whole thing has just grown too ridiculous.

North Delta, of course their are winners in divorce.......the lawyers.

You can ask for 50% custody now days, and sometime the children adjust very well, I have a cousin who has 50% child custody every other week he gets the kitties, they children have adjusted very well they are 12, 10, 7 they are very smart they keep up with the weeks my cousins totally forgets his turn, his ex-wife live just a couple of mile from his house, during the school days the kitties just take the school bus to his house in the summer they are smart enough to catch the metro to his house, they have their own key to the house, because my cousin is complete clueless, the kitties are totally in control of the situation because both parents are koo koo for coo coo buffs.

the 50/50 arrangement is adhered to by most family court judges these days.
for kids, it's apparently better to remain with each parent for longer periods to prevent the consistant switching back & forth.
One child specialist I knew, advocated for separating couples to retain the family home & for the children to remain there, and the parents get to move in & out weekly or monthly or whatever...... he figured that it was the parents divorcing or separating and therefore they, the parents, should pick up the hassle.

I've known of divorces, where one person got custody, because they had the most power and money. 

And in two of these cases, one was a man, the other a woman.

The man got full custody, because he was rich and his wife wasn't.

In the other case, the woman was a lawyer, her husband a carpenter, and he she effecitvely denied him ANY acces to his kids.

And so I say, that sort of shennanigans, whether it's male or female holding the purse, has gotta stop.

Just start from a 50/50 premise, so one partner can't use the kids as collateral to deny the other biological parent access to their kids.

Glasgogirl, on 04 July 2009 - 05:52 AM, said:

That will only work in a higher middle class family, you know some one making over six figures on their pay check, it will not work for a poor person or a person who is struggling pay check to pay check. Could you imagine a child owing a two bedroom home which the parents take turn living thre? This mean you would have to sleep in the same bed your ex and his wife/husband slept in last week, I don’t think so! Every one does not live in a 3,000 sq. ft and over home which you could conveniently share with an ex-spouse every other week. In that case you would have your own bedroom and bath and would not have to move in or out every other week. It would be best for the child to move every other week because the parents would have there own set of cloths and furniture, toys and what knot’s etc. I know children that do this 50% thing and they do just fine! Children are not dumb, very smart and articulate than know what time it is and they can carry out the plan better than the parents. Just tell them where they got to be and watch them plan it out to the T.

shinta chan, on 04 July 2009 - 07:21 AM, said:

But that's the whole point of bringing in the 50/50 rule, so that money won't be the factor in determining custody anymore.


I know of one case, where a Chinese man basically used that argument - Hey, I got the bigger house and all the money -- so his Chinese wife was denied custody of the kids, and he got sole custody. And that's bullsh it. She may have loved her kids just as much, and the kids may have even wanted to be with her instead of him. But he got custody because he had the most money, the most power and he could hire an expensive lawyer.