In child sharing battles, a court often awards more time to one parent than the other. It can happen for a number of reasons, such as a child being allowed to stay in a familiar school or neighborhood, thus minimizing the impact of the change to living in two homes.
The parents often see it otherwise. If a parent gets more custody, it subtly says the court has determined that he/she is the better parent. It validates the “majority” parent’s view that the other parent is the less suitable parent.
The parent who receives less than 50-50 often gears up for battle. Less than 50% means the other parent has “won.” All the terrible accusations from the other parent have been given weight by the court. The less-than-50% parent sees the amount of custody as an unstated negative judgment against him/her. Adding insult to injury, it is just not fair to the parent to not see the child as much as the other parent.
The goal in custody hearings is to do what’s best for the child. Splitting the time equally between the parents to be perfectly fair to each often is not fair at all to the child. It is never the parents’ time. It’s the child’s LIFE. If a child’s life is accommodated more smoothly by spending more time at one parent’s house than the other, the custody sharing arrangement has chosen the child over any parental arguments for fairness and equal access. It is not a hidden message that one parent is “better” than the other.
Parents who dismiss the idea that having less custody means that they are the less suitable parent get it. They understand that shared custody is not a fairness issue. Shared custody, regardless of the percentages, means facilitating the child’s life. Loving, caring, mature parents put the child’s life and needs above all else.