Cowgirl said:
So, what do you think? Do you think BF should have to pay money that he doesn't really have right now, just because ex can't provide care for the kids when she has them?
BF and Ex should both think about the amount of money they'd be paying in Child Support if they didn't have this groovy arrangement.
I don't think that raising kids, and determining expenses is an exact science, nor should it be. I hope they don't break out the sliderules when it comes to time or money, because that puts a layer of stress on everyone - including the kids - that nobody needs.
If they're going to do the 50/50 thing, both parents need to be flexible, and both should be confident that the other will not take advantage... That means that one parent must pick up the slack when the other one has a hard time. No matter what.
Rigidly and uncompromisingly sticking to the 50% guideline is going to do nothing but generate hard-feelings and resentment, and that's going to land them in back in court, fighting a big fat custody battle, followed by a mountain of Child Support that nobody is going to want to pay, and lost time with their kids that nobody wants to lose.
They should both realize that they are in an
extremely beneficial arrangement right now with regards to both time and money. They should appreciate that fact with each breath. They should dispense with this Rigid 50% business, and put the calculators away.
IMO, they should both just do
what needs to be done
when it needs to be done, and smile.
Having said that: if both gammy's are amenable to baby-sitting, why can't the other gammy watch the kids when one cannot - regardless of who has current possession of the children.