# Article about deadbeat parents



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Apparently, deadbeat parents (mostly fathers) are collectively delinquent in Canada in the amount of almost $4B.

'Deadbeats' across Canada owe more than $3.7B in support - Manitoba - CBC News

Some interesting comments in the comment section there.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Our child support system is horrible (on both sides) and I know the necessary reform but mostly, I think it would be women who would protest.

The answer is simple:

Birdnesting

The idea of birdnesting is gaining some support from courts but has hardly caught on. In essence, it works like this:

A. Parents split/divorce.
B. Domicile for kids is maintained. Payments are made into domicile on a per equity basis. For instance. If equity is split 60/40 man/woman, man makes 60% of household costs, 40% of household costs by woman, then equity matches.
C. Men leaves to go rent a room somewhere. Woman parents. Then man comes in and parents. Woman leaves and rents a room somewhere (dozens of people on craigslist advertising)
D. Children's lives are not disrupted.
E. 2 households don't have to be maintained. 

Man and woman can go rent a room somewhere, heck even share a room until kids are 18.

Split house at age 18 after sale.

This whole idea of shufflling kids back and forth and making the man support 1.2- 1.35 households is just *ASKING FOR FAILURE*.

The problem I have found that usually women protest this. They get territorial about "their nest."

"I don't want HIM in MY house." 

As a judge, I can tell you I would FORCE this on men and women if I had the gavel. No one cares about YOUR drama, just the kids.

But I guess I just see things differently.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Scannerguard said:


> As a judge, I can tell you I would FORCE this on men and women if I had the gavel. No one cares about YOUR drama, just the kids.
> 
> But I guess I just see things differently.


Scanner, yes you do. No way would I vote for you and bet that very few others would if they knew this was your policy.

What about spouses who work in very different places or gets a promotion that requires a move? They can't accept the job? Wouldn't that also hurt the kids because of the lack of additional money that could offer them more opportunity? Or does the other parent have to move and get a new job in the new place? 

They are still supporting more than 1 household. No family has a 1 bedroom apartment on the side they have to maintain or TWO 1 bedroom apartments that are only used half the time. A hotel? That would mean a hotel room EVERY NIGHT for one or the other. That's not affordable for most. There is no way for the nesting situation to not cost more than one household prior to divorce.

What about couples who want to remarry? If they both have kids and both had this situation, it would be very impractical.

What about victims of domestic violence? I personally don't want him having a key to the place I lay my head half of the nights. And if the abuser breaks in is it B&E when it's his house too? Who determines who has the right to be there? First responders don't know whose night it is to nest.

What about those who were cheated on who have the pain resurrected every time they have to cross paths or be forced to continue to deal with the emotions because they can't have closure. They can't be the best parent they can be with that kind of emotional turmoil. 

Plenty of people can't afford a house. Would the same thing apply to apartment sharing? What about military families? Does the other parent have to move just because the member of the military is reassigned? 

Privacy isn't a big deal - after all, each could have a closet with a lock on it for their personal items, paperwork, financial privacy, etc. But with approximately 10% of the population having a personality disorder which means they could wreak havoc for the other parent, that's not plausible or fair to them.

I don't think the man (or woman in female breadwinner situations) should have to completely support another household. Perhaps it would make more sense to have a list of items support is to cover and the parent receiving child support would get a debit card much like an EBT card and both parents could see the transactions that would show what they purchase for the kids. It seems accountability is a better option, however it's done.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

*Scanner, yes you do. No way would I vote for you and bet that very few others would if they knew this was your policy.*

Oh, as far as that, I would say one thing and then do another. That's what politicians do and people would pull the lever for me.

Yeah, sure. . .i'd campaign on "I'll go after deadbeat parents!!!!" Let's keep child support system the way it is!!!!

And you'd pull the lever for me.

As far as the answers to the other questions, you can remarry all you want, remarry 20x - just remember you are parenting at this house (probably at the new spouses relief), you can find a room for rent on Craigslist for $500/month, doesn't matter if the husband was a violent meanie, you won't be there (and very unlikely he woudl assault you on the way out the door). It doesn't matter you have "emotional problems" with the spouse. 

Grow up! says Judge Scanner descending gavel.

Not sure if this covered all your objections but if it didn't. . .let me pull a Judge Judy on you:

See this foot? See it? It's going in your tookus.


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

There was an article here recently about a couple who got divorced, and their solution was to buy and modify a duplex. The parents each had half, and the kids had the basement (or something like that). It all depends on the maturity of the couple involved, and how focused on what's best for the kids. 

Personally, I doubt my STBX would like hearing my SO and I banging the headboard on a regular basis...

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

*Personally, I doubt my STBX would like hearing my SO and I banging the headboard on a regular basis...
*

Her problem.

Not Scannerguard's Family Court's problem.

No, I get what Enjoli is saying. . .she is using the 

"Gee whiz, your honor, I got drama here" argument.

So it becomes the taxpayers job to get in the middle of that drama and sort it out?

I think Lon's stats about child support shows 1 of 2 possible things:

A. 66% of 50% of men who divorce (so that's 1/3rd of guys out there) are simple deadbeats, dregs of society, people we should be jailing. I won't casually throw this out as a possibility because never underestimate humanity and how they fail every day.

I can entertain this idea.

or

B. (and I would be more likely to go with this) Our child support system is designed to fail.

Now, I presented a mainstream, although maybe not popular yet solution and the counterargument to me. . ."Gee whiz I got drama" just is not swaying enough to me to warrant uprooting the kids 2-3 nights/week/every other week.

Just because 2 people decided to not love one another.

Job transfers aren't supposed to be done without court approval anyway. . .you cant even leave the State. So I know I consider myself here in NJ a VERY long time.

I know my solution isn't a perfect solution but then again, I'm a

"All Ideas on the Table" kind of guy.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Hmmm, I think EW's actual situation was more than just "gee whiz, I got drama." I think what she had was actually more along the lines of "gee whiz, I got a clinically diagnosable malignant narcissist with a history of violence, stalking, and parental alienation". 

Are you seriously saying that a person who's ex-spouse is a verifiable danger to them and/or their children ought to be forced to continue sharing a home with that person? Really?


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> Are you seriously saying that a person who's ex-spouse is a verifiable danger to them and/or their children ought to be forced to continue sharing a home with that person? Really?


I am asking you to digest this factoid (and I call it factoid b/c I am not sure if my stats are exactly correct):

90% of temporary restraining orders against a husband are granted. Judges just don't want to take a chance.

10% of permanent restraining orders are granted against a husband. On closer examination, there just usually isn't anything there, other than the husband "yelled loud" during a fight.

It's been a cultural problem to portray males as chest beating apes who can't control their tempers and as big meanies. I doubt the husband is going to beat his chest and attack the ex-wife upon going "Ding! Dong!" at teh doorbell.

If that's the case, then shared custody shouldn't even be on the table as much as it is, should it? And that is the majority of divorces - shared custody.

And there's flaw in a lot of arguments women have with permanent restraining orders:

"Gee your honor, if my client is such an ogre, why has the opposition petitioned the court and agreed to shared custody?


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

But to more directly answer your question, no, if the mother (or father) is going for complete physical and legal custody because of violence, then birdnesting is off the table.

The kids remain in the home anyway.

Visitation is the only option, supervised or otherwise.

Still. . .no 2 households to support. The ogre can rent a room somewhere and pay max child support.


----------



## Morgiana (Oct 18, 2011)

@scanner, I think to look at the problem being one of seperate households being the problem really isn't the issue. Before D, my kids had already dealt with multiple homes because we owned more than one residence. Life and good parenting isn't about keeping kids in one physical location. It's about helping your kids deal with the life they have. Be that military family who move all the time, or fairly stationary families that don't.

It's not about their possessions, or having everything they own accessible to them at all times. It's about teaching them to pick whats important in life and focus on that. Sure they may have prize possessions that they want to carry around, but they don't need everything all the time. Good parenting is less about putting your head on the same pillow every night and more about raising kids who can deal with whatever life throws at them.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Scannerguard said:


> I am asking you to digest this factoid (and I call it factoid b/c I am not sure if my stats are exactly correct):
> 
> 90% of temporary restraining orders against a husband are granted. Judges just don't want to take a chance.
> 
> ...


I did and I won. And years later he tried to alienate her and take her away, filed for custody with crazy allegations - crazy enough I asked for a psych evaluation and participated in one. I also got a guardian ad litem for my child so she had her own non-partial representation. 

After seeing the psych report the GAL told him if he didn't take the deal we offered he'd likely get much worse in court. Ex settled for half the time, limited phone calls and other contact with her, made him agree to never come down my street NOR can he hire/ask someone to check up on me. 

I know you didn't mean it this way because I tend to agree on "drama" but 15 years of physical assault including having a gun pointed at me, and finally a diagnosis of a severe PD goes a bit beyond "drama" as Rowan kindly pointed out. I don't let it affect my daily life. It is what it is. But it's not "drama". That seems to trivialize what could be very real danger.

While there are many false ROs and many women who pull that crap (which I ABHOR), most women who are murdered are murdered by an intimate partner. And with (depending on study) anywhere between 9-15% of the population having a PD, I'd say for at least 10% of the population, nesting is NOT an option.

As to your thought that most of those are men who just "yelled loud" you are misinformed at the serious nature of domestic violence. Since October is DV month, now would be a good time to learn more. MOST of those women have no way to hire a lawyer to fight for custody and many of the men don't have legal representation either. They don't know the paperwork to file, they don't know where to begin. And public family law centers are usually for help with non-contested divorces, etc. 
Domestic Violence: Statistics & Facts

#1 statistic about domestic violence is that most are never reported. I know I never did. I tried to hide it out of shame and I was terrified no one would believe me because I asked for a restraining order without having bruises or other physical injuries at the time and never having gone to the ER for it. But there were many times I had bruises, knots and other pain form abuse. That statistic is ME.

*BUT to your point: *

I do think there should be a more fair way to address custody, visitation and support. I don't think women should receive lifetime alimony except under very unusual circumstances; maybe a few years for SAHMs to get back into the work force. 

Parents who get support should have to be accountable for the spending and it should be more clear what it's supposed to cover. Here daycare is part of the calculation as is medical coverage. Support should not be crippling to the payer. Parents who receive support should have to work unless they were a SAHM or a full time student - in other words work or improve your station, one or the other. 

I wish there was a BC for men that kills sperm, is reversible but implantable like Norplant. Because if you are a deadbeat mother OR father, no more children should be allowed. If you can't support what you have, you don't get to make more.

Parents in prison should be required to perform some sort of labor as well as get some sort of training - up at 6am, work 8 hours, another 4 learning a trade or finishing school. They should get paid for those 8 hours with support taken out of it and sent to parent not in prison; the state gets back the cost of boarding and if there's any left it goes into an account which they get upon release.

Parents with no job who are obligated to pay support should be required to do any government job they are physically capable for and qualified for (aka garbage collecting, road clean up, directing traffic at road construction, public daycare/schools if clean background).


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

A. I will agree that the singular most statistical risk to women is. . .men. It's amazing you still date us. If the case is violence, then the man shouldn't really have custody AT ALL - legal or physical.

The kids stay in one home, *their home* and yes, move around as per the other posters comment as needed (job changes, etc).

B. Alimony is really a separate issue. . .I don't think necessary in the scope of this discussion.

C. Back to birdnesting - when both parents are not ogres, this makes the most sense on many levels. I don't buy the argument "Well gee kids are resilient."

Any father will tell you this is how it evolves:

1. Dad gets domicile. It's boring over there for kids. They want to see Dad, but they want to see friends, be near toys, be in their own bed, esp. when small. Visit time = jail sentence to them.
2. Dad has to work now to support 1.20-1.35 households and not see kids.
3. Relationship deteriorates.
4. Women whine father isn't participating in child raising and now Junior has problems.
5. Everyone is freekin' surprised father can't make support payments, like they just discovered the universe is made of atoms.

Then they're in front of Judge Scannerguard telling him why Birdnesting won't work.

Seriously, answer MY QUESTION:

Why should the kids have to adjust because mom and dad decide not to love each other? Why should they be inconvenienced at all?

Why can't you get YOUR BOTTOM out of the house a couple days/week? Go take a powder somewhere?


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

Scannerguard, this makes no economic sense to me, let alone emotional or mental sense. You state that a father has to support 1.25 or 1.30 households under traditional divorce scenarios. Under your system, there's now a third household. How is taking more economic resources away going to help anyone, particularly the children? Your also assuming the father was the primary breadwinner pre-divorce. Not a valid assumption.

Both parents take an economic hit, that's just the way it works.
You have your opinions of RO, but my experience is different and indicates that a permanent RO is pretty much always warranted. I've seen them be issued against both sexes, not just men. Guess we all have different experiences.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Yes, as I pointed out, paying even $500 for a room (and how unsafe is THAT? a random room in a rooming house? Yikes. Gross.), why would I want have to live in a room, or why would HE want to live in a room half of the time? 

Parents who are happy make better parents. Period. Tons of studies on that. Parents who don't love each other and don't want to be around each other (an amicable divorce is the exception, not the rule) would have to repeatedly subject themselves to the other parent. Even if the swap occurs without actually seeing each other, there's still his cologne in the bathroom, his toothbrush, his clothes, his favorite beer, his handwriting, paperwork, notes, etc. everywhere. Constant reminders. (Freely exchange "his" with "hers" - I only use that because I'm a woman and it's an example.) That is stressful having to navigate life with those things staring at you. If 50% of marriages break up due to cheating, then one of those parents is always being reminded of it. 

If Mom cries a lot because she sees reminders - maybe a present she gave him; maybe reminders of the OW even - how can she be a good mother? Distracted, unhappy and resentful means she can't be the best mother she could be. Same with Dad. Stress does awful things to health and to blood pressure and hearts. Again, exchange the genders.

It's much easier to say "Mom/Dad - suck it up, it's about the kids - live with this arrangement" vs. someone actually LIVING it. 

So between abuse, psychological issues and contentious divorce situations, I see nesting as being healthy for only a small portion - maybe 20% at best - of divorced parents.

Another thing studies show - kids adjust better when parents adjust better. 

Maybe you are projecting a bit. Men don't have to get left behind. Men don't have to get less than half the time. As a woman I have to support 1.5 people as well. I chose that when I had a child. Without her, I don't need a 3br house or a yard or a neighborhood with kids - all considerations when I bought a home. I could have chosen a condo or apartment with lots of amenities within walking distance instead of suburbia. I could further my career by accepting more travel. Both parents pay more and give up more because of divorce. But it's worth it to not have to live together anymore. 

Here's the flip side:

1. Dad gets domicile. It's boring over there for kids. They want to see Dad, but they want to see friends, be near toys, be in their own bed, esp. when small. Visit time = jail sentence to them.
*Mom has kids during the week. She has to tell them no to seeing friends or playing with toys until after dinner and homework and make them go to bed by a certain time, always being the "bad guy". Mom has to do the majority of the shuttling of the kids to events and handle the majority of the medical/dental visits and payments for everything basically becoming a bookkeeper.*
2. Dad has to work now to support 1.20-1.35 households and not see kids.
*Mom has to work still, too, only her lesser income doesn't cover as much. Child support doesn't mean she has exactly the same lifestyle - it's still less. She has to stretch the budget to cover all of the household expenses, clothes, childcare, etc. So she can't afford a vacation because she's paying for summer camp. Dad takes them to the beach for a week. At home they play in a sprinkler with their friends - that's the only vacation they get with Mom.*
3. Relationship deteriorates.
*Relationship does deteriorate with Dad. Dad gets the 'good' time. Kids don't have homework, chores or responsibility at Dad's. They eat out, go to movies and take weekend trips places. Then they go home where Mom just cleaned the house and did laundry and they have to put away their clean clothes and pick up their rooms. Dad's house is more fun.*
4. Women whine father isn't participating in child raising and now Junior has problems.
*Mother has to listen to father whine that Junior is having problems and it must be her fault because Junior is with HER more of the time. Junior never acts that way when he's with Dad. Because Junior doesn't have any responsibilities when Junior is with Dad.*
5. Everyone is freekin' surprised father can't make support payments, like they just discovered the universe is made of atoms. *Mother gives up cable and internet service because she didn't get the support check. Junior can't play softball because it's all she can do to pay the bills, put gas in the old car and serve hotdogs for dinner. She tries to do some sort of side job from home to earn extra but it takes time away from Junior. But even tho she now has almost zero quality time with him Dad still gets to see Junior because support is not linked to visitation. Now Mom gets a weekend job, too, because women's pay still isn't equal. Mom hasn't purchased anything for her self in a year because she wants Junior to have two pairs of sneakers. Meanwhile Dad gives Junior $20 to spend (cheaper than child support) and when Junior asks Mom if they can have McDonald's for dinner as a treat she only has $20 left after bills and needs at least $10 for gas and $4 for another gallon of milk before payday. Now she has to decide if she can get dinner for two for $6. She doesn't say anything to Junior, drives to McDonald's to buy him his combo meal for $5.95, digs for change to pay the tax. He asks why she didn't get anything and she says she isn't hungry. They go home and she makes a PB sandwich but can't finish it because her stomach is in a knot figuring out how she's going to pay for the oil change she needs and is already 2,000 miles over.*

There are two sides to every coin. ^ I've done those things when he was late paying support or missed one completely. Fortunately he doesn't do that often.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

BTW - my ex complained how much time I get with our daughter compared to him. 

Week 1:
Mom gets 14:15 of quality time with kid during the week
Mom gets 8 hours on the weekend
Dad gets zero (except phone calls).

Week 2:
Mom gets 14:15 hours of quality time during the week
Dad gets 28.

Rinse, repeat. 

Every 2 week period Mom gets 29 hours, Dad gets 28.

BUT for that one extra hour of time, Mom has to be the 'bad guy' enforcing rules, making sure chores are done, checking homework, etc.

While both parents have to run their household, mother does more laundry, more cooking. Mother makes the appointments and take kid to appointments. When kiddo was in gymnastics 9 hours a week, you can see what THAT did to weekday quality time. 

It isn't all fun and games just because one parent gets more time with the kid under their roof. I'm sure the fathers with primary custody can affirm that.

The breakdown (at my house, anyway) in case you wonder where I got that:

He gets: Friday after school (3pm)until Sunday at 6pm (actually he's late most of the time by :15 or more). Let's say bedtime is 11 and she wakes at 10 on the weekend. 
Friday = 7 hours
Saturday = 13 hours
Sunday = 8 hours
Total of 28 hours devoted to the two of them.

During the week, there is maybe 15 minutes of "quality" time on the drive to school. = 1:15 a week
I get off at 5, gym by 5:30, leave at 6:30, home by 6:45. She's doing homework, I cook dinner. 7:15 we eat together, watch some TV, talk, etc. She'll do some more homework - maybe we'll chat about it. 10pm I'm cleaning up the kitchen, making her lunch, etc. so 2:45/day =13:45 a week. Subtract the 3x:15 phone calls to Dad (which always last longer). 14:15 hours of quality time during the week for Mom.

Mom's weekend: Up at 8, mows the grass, does a little yard work. Gets a shower, sorts laundry. Kid finally wakes up - we'll use 10 again. Mom still has to clean the house, do grocery shopping (kid doesn't want to come) sort laundry and do laundry while in between cleaning. It's 3pm and no quality time yet. Kid asks if friend can spend the night. Yes. Mom has to tell kid that before friend comes over, her room and bathroom need to be clean (cause Mom is teaching pride of ownership and responsibility). Kid groans and disappears to do above. Takes 3x longer than necessary. Gets shower. 5pm friend gets dropped off and both disappear giggling to her room. They surface to watch a movie on TV with you. 2 hours of shared quality time is all. Sunday friend goes home at noon. Take daughter shopping for a few needed items. Home at 6. Kid has to put away all of the clean clothes and new things. Remembers the project due on Monday. Spends evening working on it. Bedtime. Sunday was 6 hours of one-on-one quality time (of sorts).


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Scannerguard said:


> Our child support system is horrible (on both sides) and I know the necessary reform but mostly, I think it would be women who would protest.
> 
> The answer is simple:
> 
> ...


I think this is a terrible suggestion, no way in hell would I live like this.

We are a two household family, it works extremely well, kids have bedrooms at both houses and have two homes. 

We do this because we DO love our children and have done the best thing for them. What you are talking about is money saving which is for the benefit of the adults and not in the best interests of the children.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

> What you are talking about is money saving which is for the benefit of the adults and not in the best interests of the children.


It's not in the best interest of the children to flipflop between houses. And yes, saving money.

Money for clothes. Money for sports. Money for college. Money for healthcare.

And if you actually believe that, we are pretty far off.

Actually, the way you and Enjoli protest the idea of YOU flipflopping between houses and your intransigence in your position kinda clinches my argument.

Not so fun when it's YOU that has to move around, is it?

Maybe your children, my children, everyone's children need ME as their lawyer in these divorce proceedings?


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

No my children do not need you or your out of touch ideas and thank The Universe you have no power to make such laws. 

Actually we had NO lawyers with our divorce we simply acted as mature adults and parents and did the best by everyone involved.

What makes you think that just because parents divorce that they then need to be told how to live. 

So lets look at the logistics:
ex and share a house for the kids sake and each go to our separate houses while the other is at the kids home.
So then when I am with my partner it has to be when I am at my other house.
When he is at his kids house his ex can go to her other house.
When his ex's partner is with his kids he can go to his other house.
How do you suggest we all organise this to be at our other houses while the kids are in their home?

What happens when my ex is away for work, am I allowed back to the kids house when I take up his slack? 

And how do my partner and I manage to successfully blend our families when we cannot all be in the same house at the same time? 

Are you suggesting that adults that have divorced have no right to go on to have another relationship? 

Sorry but you have no clue about the real world. In my situation ex and I have managed (shock horror) to accommodate our children very well, they are happy, excelling at school and understand that life goes on for us adults. Kids are far more resilient than you seem to think but yes they do need good adults to get them there.

Our children want for nothing material, they have two homes, two bedrooms and all the clothes, healthcare etc that they need. They also have two fully functioning parents that now lead separate lives and are doing just fine. Your ideal world would see us all in turmoil and unable to move on with life.

If people want to live how you suggest then all power to them but no one has the right to impose their version of how life should be post divorce.

And no just because I think your argument and idea is archaic and well, kind of crazy does not clinch your argument. It simply means that you have your idea and I am saying that it would not work in my family and that ex and I have managed to achieve a good life for all AND be a two household family.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

And then lets look at the other end of the spectrum, eg my sister and he ex., he has an AVO that states he is not allowed withing xxx of her house. So should that be waived while he is at the house on his weeks? Should she have to let a crazy man into her house while she has to go elsewhere and rent?

Or what about in my situation where I own my house so have very low weekly outgoings, am I supposed to then go and rent an apartment? So if your argument is that this would leave more money for the kids then you would be wrong. It would mean that I would then have to work full time to pay for an extra house in turn leaving less time and money for my kids.

Not very well thought through idea really.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

Scannerguard said:


> It's not in the best interest of the children to flipflop between houses. And yes, saving money.
> 
> Money for clothes. Money for sports. Money for college. Money for healthcare.
> 
> ...


I protest not because I mind spending the night elsewhere. It's because I have a certifiably mentally unstable ex. And that at least 10% of them are statistically unstable. Being forced by the government to give him a key, a security code to my alarm system puts me at risk. Use a bolt lock that is locked from the inside only? Sure that keeps him from coming in while I'm there, but while HE is there he could unlock a window, he could set up hidden cameras anywhere and invade my privacy. Even if we had our own bedrooms so we didn't have to share beds and bathrooms. And he likely wouldn't pull his weight and would be PA enough to intentionally leave a mess or maybe even sabotage things. This might seem over the top or unlikely but I lived with this man for 15 years. I know what he is capable of and he WOULD do these things just to make my life harder. 

Kids go and spend weeks at grandmas, overnights at friend's houses, etc. Kids of military families might move every year to completely different countries, not just homes. Going to the ex's place is like a vacation to my kiddo. She takes her bag, they do cool stuff and she brings back a bag of dirty clothes. They don't do laundry, she doesn't have to clean her room there - just pack her toiletries and dirty clothes to bring home.

If a couple can be amicable enough to "nest" they should stay married. There are so many areas that require cooperation that even the nicest divorced couples would struggle with - having to mow, make improvements and repairs, redecorating all mean having to rely on the other person to share a vision and work on tasks. And this saves NO money. Having to pay for a rent-a-room, a hotel room or a small studio apartment is still financing that .3 extra lifestyle. The kids do not benefit financially from this situation.

I don't think that they benefit psychologically from it, either. Dad stressed and pissed because last week Mom was supposed to water the new grass he planted, Mom stressed and pissed because she came home to find the milk carton empty AGAIN or the dishwasher not run and the sink full of dirty dishes. The same issues that caused tension while married still exist for the most part. And stress on parents does impact their ability to parent. A stressed or unhappy parent means they are distracted, worried and/or short-tempered and that isn't good for the kids.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

The more I think about the concept of nesting, the more I wonder what that arrangement does to the property settlement from a logistical point of view.

I brought $100K+ in art, furniture and household items to my marriage. Let's say we divorced and were forced by the courts to nest. Am I allowed to remove my property from the marital home? Who pays to replace those items so that the house is livable once my personal property (beds, chairs, sofas, flatware, dishes, linens, etc.) is removed? If I have to leave it in situ, who is legally responsible if, say, my ex-husband and his new girlfriend damage or destroy some or all of that property? Or, would the entire nesting arrangement require that the property settlement be put on hold until the child is no longer living in the marital home? Is it just property that's in the house that I can't access, or does the limbo of nesting also effect other individual or inherited property? Would I be required to use individual assets to support the nesting/marital home if my now-ex-husband decides he no longer wishes to remain employed, decides to stop paying his portion of the mortgage, or simply files for personal bankruptcy?

How, exactly, does the distribution of assets work if the couple is required to maintain a nesting arrangement in the marital home?


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> Our child support system is horrible (on both sides) and I know the necessary reform but mostly, I think it would be women who would protest.
> 
> The answer is simple:
> 
> ...


This notion that "stability" for a child is represented by a single address is nonsense. Stability is provided by consistent parenting. That's not achieved by playing musical parents. A kid can be moved twenty times but still have stability if their parental and sibling relationships move with them.


----------

