4 ms·

A solution to a lot of these problems that I quite like is "birdnesting," where the child(ren) keep the home they live in, and the divorcing parents take turns

by cowpig 6y ago

A solution to a lot of these problems that I quite like is "birdnesting," where the child(ren) keep the home they live in, and the divorcing parents take turns moving in. That seems to be clearly best for the child (removes the instability of moving back and forth between homes) and while it's inconvenient for the parents, at least it's equally inconvenient.

kemiller2002 6y ago
I tried that for a little while with my ex while we were working things out. You really need your own place that is away from the other person all the time. You are constantly reminded of your ex while you’re there.
- fastball 6y ago
  Presumably your children constantly remind you of your ex as well, so I'm not sure "set things up in a way where I'm not reminded of my ex" is an achievable goal in the first place.
  - newsclues 6y ago
    Agreed. Hopefully it’s used as a way to get over the pain and live with the reality of the relationship and focus on the positives.
ogre_codes 6y ago
Seems like a really good solution for amicable divorces. When there is a lot of conflict in the relationship, it's unlikely to work well. And really the latter describes most divorces I've seen. It seems like there is almost always one spouse who doesn't want to play well at the end.
- giantg2 6y ago
  It also requires the people involved be making a good bit of money, or having previously lived well below their means. Whoever is not staying with the child at that time needs a place to live, which generally costs a significant amount, even for a small apartment.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Indeed, basically you need 3 residences or 2 shared residences and people who are tolerable to live in the same place with you (even if not at the same time). All of this takes money and the ability to tolerate someone you couldn't live with previously.
giantg2 6y ago
The main problem I see with this is finances. It will cost more for two people living separately than together. I strongly believe that most divorces would logically and financially require the existing house to be sold so that two smaller/cheaper residences can be bought or rented. This is espesially important to financial stability in instances where child support is dictated by an arbitrary formula (which tends to produce an unrealilistic amount) rather than the actual needs of the children, or where finances were already somewhat tight (most cases?).
- candiodari 6y ago
  We live in a democracy and clearly, no, this isn't what people want. They want people to not lose any living standard over something "they can't help" like a divorce, and of course all animals are equal but some are more equal (kids and women). This money is not allowed to come from the state or justice system so it must come from the only source it can come from: whoever actually earns money. So if you divorce, you should immediately become a total deadbeat, be broke and unemployed, ideally well on the way to homeless, by the time the trial happens. In contact with social services. Because men ALSO can't lose living standard. You won't get as much, because of course the justice system is sexist, but they're forced to give you something. Obviously the justice system cannot prevent this from happening. They may respond by placing the kid in foster care. The net result of these laws: whoever is willing to most seriously damage the kid will have a decisive advantage.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    My wife's father got divorced and had a high paying job, so he was required to pay a lot of child support. He was in a car accident which resulted in him being in a coma for months. Since he wasn't making money during that time in the hospital, his bank account was emptied and the court issued an arrest warrant since the child support was not being paid. He lost his job and was never able to get a new one. He's now living on food stamps and waiting to reach the social security age. The family court system ruined his life.
    - 6y ago

by cowpig 6y ago

kemiller2002 6y ago

I tried that for a little while with my ex while we were working things out. You really need your own place that is away from the other person all the time. You are constantly reminded of your ex while you’re there.

fastball 6y ago
Presumably your children constantly remind you of your ex as well, so I'm not sure "set things up in a way where I'm not reminded of my ex" is an achievable goal in the first place.
- newsclues 6y ago
  Agreed. Hopefully it’s used as a way to get over the pain and live with the reality of the relationship and focus on the positives.

ogre_codes 6y ago

Seems like a really good solution for amicable divorces. When there is a lot of conflict in the relationship, it's unlikely to work well. And really the latter describes most divorces I've seen. It seems like there is almost always one spouse who doesn't want to play well at the end.

giantg2 6y ago
It also requires the people involved be making a good bit of money, or having previously lived well below their means. Whoever is not staying with the child at that time needs a place to live, which generally costs a significant amount, even for a small apartment.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Indeed, basically you need 3 residences or 2 shared residences and people who are tolerable to live in the same place with you (even if not at the same time). All of this takes money and the ability to tolerate someone you couldn't live with previously.

giantg2 6y ago

The main problem I see with this is finances. It will cost more for two people living separately than together. I strongly believe that most divorces would logically and financially require the existing house to be sold so that two smaller/cheaper residences can be bought or rented. This is espesially important to financial stability in instances where child support is dictated by an arbitrary formula (which tends to produce an unrealilistic amount) rather than the actual needs of the children, or where finances were already somewhat tight (most cases?).

candiodari 6y ago
We live in a democracy and clearly, no, this isn't what people want. They want people to not lose any living standard over something "they can't help" like a divorce, and of course all animals are equal but some are more equal (kids and women). This money is not allowed to come from the state or justice system so it must come from the only source it can come from: whoever actually earns money. So if you divorce, you should immediately become a total deadbeat, be broke and unemployed, ideally well on the way to homeless, by the time the trial happens. In contact with social services. Because men ALSO can't lose living standard. You won't get as much, because of course the justice system is sexist, but they're forced to give you something. Obviously the justice system cannot prevent this from happening. They may respond by placing the kid in foster care. The net result of these laws: whoever is willing to most seriously damage the kid will have a decisive advantage.
- giantg2 6y ago
  My wife's father got divorced and had a high paying job, so he was required to pay a lot of child support. He was in a car accident which resulted in him being in a coma for months. Since he wasn't making money during that time in the hospital, his bank account was emptied and the court issued an arrest warrant since the child support was not being paid. He lost his job and was never able to get a new one. He's now living on food stamps and waiting to reach the social security age. The family court system ruined his life.
  - 6y ago