Madonna and Guy: can you really 'share' children?

So Madonna and Guy Ritchie have reportedly done what so many divorcing couples struggle to do - reached an out-of-court agreement about money and the children. The two will share the children, it's reported, with Rocco, 8, and David, 3, splitting their time between homes in the UK and America. It sounds amicable enough and it's good that the boys will still see their father, but the case illustrates a problem so often in divorce: that arrangements are made for the benefit of the adults, not the kids.

Jetting from New York to London sounds like an exciting and glamorous life for an adult, when you can settle into first class with a magazine and a glass of champagne, but hopping between homes across the Atlantic is less beneficial to the routine and predictability that children in general thrive on. Madonna's and Guy's arrangements may suit themselves and their kids, but so many children of divorce say that dividing their time evenly between parents - so that each partner gets his or her equal share - means that they never know where their "real" home is and who they're seeing each week or month.

They can't settle into a group of friends since they're hopping between houses. They spend a lot of their time commuting between the two. And, let's face it, with the constantly shifting routine children are much more likely to end up as a go-between for the grown-ups.

I've seen it happen with friends of mine, who both wanted equal access. As a result their child shuttles weekly between rooms in their houses, juggles an unpredictable routine for holidays, long weekends, and out-of-school activities. And despite all the kerfuffle - mainly for their benefit - neither parent feels the can settle into a routine because it seems as soon as the child arrives, it's time to go back.

As illustrated with Madonna and Guy as well, with the ever-blended family, divorce and residence becomes more and more tricky. Loudres reportedly won't be visiting Guy with her brothers (her father Carlos Leon lives in New York). Imagine how that affects the dynamics of a family that spent the seven and a half years living together. Suddenly Loudres's stepfather disappears from her life. The brothers and the sister will likely spend holidays apart. A new net of alliances and loyalties develops.

Divorce happens - there's not putting the genie back in that bottle. But in an effort to achieve "fairness" for the parents, agreements often look at a child's time like a big piece of cake, that can be carved up so everybody gets their fair share. It's better to think about giving a child the stability and the routine to help him or her thrive, and make sure the parental access is about quality, not quantity.

Comments

[supermother]

I agree. If you can be unselfish the question to ask yourself is would I be happy to have my children every other weekend only. Would I be happy if he moved them to New Zealand or Scotland? Trouble is some think I hate his guts and would prefer he were dying a terrible slow death for going off with that dreadful other woman so what can I do to hurt him and never mind how the children feel about it, he brought it all on himself by not being able to keep his trousers up etc etc..

[Jenny Q]

When we mothers argue against shared care arrangements, we tend to do so with an assumption in mind that, in the absence of such an arrangement, our children will be living with us, with their father relegated to something much less. The test of our honesty is whether we can contemplate handing over the main care of our children to our husbands, on the basis that shared care is not the best thing for the children. How many of us can take that view?

[Sho]

I work full time, and have 2 children close together and my husband is largely noticeable by his absence. In the face of some extremely harsh criticism - to my face, literally, in some cases - I pushed on with the Minority Language At Home approach and am now reaping the benefit. #2 is now in a bilingual programme (not our language) at school and picking it up very fast (#1 is just learning it at home and also doing well)

It is hard. I researched this extensively during my pregnancy and that helped a lot. Also the fact that I am so completely bloody-minded and never EVER wrong about anything helps.

During my maternity leave I taught EFL - sometimes as a coach for school children. The worst was a 12 year old whose father was English and he hadn't picked up one word in 12 years because, in the Dad's words, he "couldn't be arsed" to teach the boy.

Having said that I know that in my situation it is easier because for my girls both parents share a mother tongue, and English is very popular so we are surrounded by it. So I can't really be all that smug that I managed it.

[beabyrne]

just a quick note for the hobby horse lady and bilingualism... while I do agree that grandparents and extended family will benefit, it is far easier said than done and requires a great deal of time and dedication.As a working mum with 2 kids, 2 jobs, a home and a husband,(yes, he adds to the workload)I found it impossible to teach my kids my mother tongue. However they are now learning it in secondary school, and seem to be picking it up very well.Albeit later than many critics would like,(and there have been many), they are now well on their way to speaking not only two but three languages fluently.No worries.

[Supermother]

I'm quite into them courting some danger actually. Perhaps some alpha mummies are like that, the more male view on risk but I agree some mothers are too protective. This though is why children need two parents in their lives ideally, not a reason for divorced mothers to deny contact.

[Whimsey]

One source of conflict between mums and dads is their usually very different take on 'danger'. It's well attested that men think danger is not dangerous, and that a child will not suffer appalling injuries if they bounce on a bed, ride a bike, etc etc etc. Mums are hardwired to be neurotic about danger to children.

[supermother]

That last one is an incredibly sexist comment, though surely. There are just as many responsible fathers as mothers and plenty of feckless mothers who couldn't support themselves never mind a child and can't organise children to save their lives.

We need an assumption of 50% time each and huge moral pressure put on men to do their bit so those who think they can leave dull bits of childcare and the dross to women aren;t allowed to do so and so that women who deny fathers the chance ot be involved day to day not just with the fun but with the dealing with tantrums and teenage problems and collecting children from parties at 2am etc.

[jane]

Sometimes us mums are scared stiff that the fathers are going to damage the children somehow by their selfish, immature attitude to life, their 'it'll be all right on the night' approach to major life issues etc. WE fell for it, we trusted them (sometimes literally with everything) and look where it got us. Maybe we still love them even... Some men are just too destructive to be trusted.

[Whimsey]

Actually, I pity any child with Madonna for a mother. At least Ritchie seems a tad normal in comparison. (though daft to marry M, obviously!). Ghastly woman.

[Whimsey]

Quite. I don't envy them one bit. Poor kids.

[Jarrad]

As if any of Madonna's children were ever in danger of having a "normal" life.

[Tara]

isn't it Lourdes, not Loudres?

[phoebe]

madonna's life SO incradibal

[Lee]

Another point - shared custody is the norm in many places, and has been found to be best for the kids. Having a room at mom's and one at dad's is no different from having a room at gran's for when you visit. That's a very common thing. If the children move back and forth between parents regularly then it will become their routine. They can understand that when they are at Mom's they go to bed at 8 and at Dad's they stay up till 9 to see him after work. I had good friends at my childhood summer home although I only saw them then. Kids can remain friends even if they don't see each other every day.

[Lee]

Another point - shared custody is the norm in many places, and has been found to be best for the kids. Having a room at mom's and one at dad's is no different from having a room at gran's for when you visit. That's a very common thing. If the children move back and forth between parents regularly then it will become their routine. They can understand that when they are at Mom's they go to bed at 8 and at Dad's they stay up till 9 to see him after work. I had good friends at my childhood summer home although I only saw them then. Kids can remain friends even if they don't see each other every day.

[Lee]

Fathers can care for children as well as mothers can. The fact is that Madonna wants to control her children's diet and won't be able to when they are with Guy. Is that bad? Not in my opinion. I always put pants on my daughter under her skirts if it was cold. She won no fashion awards, but was comfy and warm. Her friends' moms dressed them in thin tights and dropped broad hints which I ignored. Yet she grew into a wonderful woman in spite of my fashion disability.

[supermother]

I think unmarried fathers get parental responsibility now too and I know if a mother plans to take children abroad and tells the father and he acts in time he can try to obtain a prohibited steps order to prevent them being removed from the country but I would guess about 80% of mothers' application for those are granted almost automatically even if it's taking children to New Zealand which for some fathers means they will never see them again and it's very wrong. Same rules if you're moving from Scotland to England too.

As for the 1 and 3 year old if they were like ours and used to being with their nanny not such a wrench if they see either parent in turn but if they have been 24/7 with a mother only most of their lives with a very uninvolved father who only "helps" when the mother is around then obviously that's a different psychological issue although ic an do some of these stay at home mothers the world of good to have the free time to return to full time work and has the added bonus of them being then able to out earn their chidlren's father and fewer fights over money too.

[been there done that]

dear "supermother" you make alot of sense on quite a few issues. i do think though you are forgeting that all people including mothers are different and all situations are different. "supergrans" daughter has only recently found herself in this situation and my guess is that she is still in the natural frame of mind where a "mother knows best". i am sure she will adapt and i hope well. One thing i do think is beneficial to any parent and child is learning to let go of control over the kids lives and like you say its good to have different influences on the kids. (providing they are positive and productive influences)

[Gipsy]

"I also think we need a legal rule that you cannot move children and if you choose to move to New Z for example then yes by all means go but the children stay in London with their father. That would soon stop all these mothers who deliberately move away to thwart contact - a default that you can't move unless very special cirumstances and a court agrees."

SM that is the default if the father has parental responsibility. If he doesn't then the mother can do what she likes. Married fathers get PN by default; unmarried dads have to apply for it. Once given, the mother has to go through a court process to be allowed to leave the country with a child or children, if the father opposes the move. The court can grant this move, and can also grant child maintenance payable to the mother while overseas as well. It is not an easy or short court process, and much of the judge's desicion rests on the outcome of a CAFCASS assessment.

[supermother]

And remember children are better when they have several influences over them, not just some God like mother 24/7 who thinks she's the bee's knees. Even if my chidlren's nanny or father did thingsin a way I didn't agree with it was still good for them, to see different ways. Some mothers need more humility. They aren't the best person on the planet with chidlren and their nanny, parents or spouse or ex spouse likely to be better than they are at all kinds of things with the children.

I agree about the handover. I am in probably a unique position of not having had a single contact discussion about children. Before their father left he didn't and wouldn't talk about it once, just turned up on a Sunday afternoon after the divorce and took the youngest out for 2 hours and has continued that for five years but still without any discussion over when, where how, how many hours. Very bizarre but it can be achieved without any discussion or contact as it's regular. In fact now they are tall enough to open the front door and get into the car alone they go out when the bell rings, he returns to his car and they get into it. I don't see him (which is his choice) and he doesn't see me.

[been there done that]

dear "sadgranny", i was in a very similar situation my kids were 12 months and almost 3 years. in the begining it is difficult, and there is no way around that fact. my advice to you is to make firm and formal arrangents as soon as possible. yes i know the baby is only a year but you do not say the dad is incompetant so please don't worry he will cope. making firm arrangements you stick to week in week out takes away any need for discussing and then arguing about arrangements. i think your daughter needs to be aware that even if she is the most reasonable ex wife in the whole world her soon to be ex husband will not appreciate that fact, he will be too busy projecting his guilty feelings on his ex and making it all her fault. the only answer is to not get involved in any discussion that isn't relevant to the kids needs, when he comes to pick the kids up make sure everything is ready, always say goodbye to the kids in an absolutely positive way. when the kids are with their dad, make the most of the time to ideally have some adult time with friends or if you cannot face that sometimes just be productive and catch up with jobs. please be disciplined and do not allow yourself to be wondering if his girlfriend is caring for the baby or reading the 3 year old a story. a very hard lesson is that it is not your business what the kids do when they are with their dad, you have to hand over the responsibility to their dad and then pick the responsibility back up again when they are with you.I am sorry, it is hard, but it will get better i promise. ps any consideration or decision your daughter has to make becomes easier if she can try to just consider what is best for the kids overall and not think too much about what is or is not fair.

[supermother]

There are various ways fathers can help themselves as well. During the marriage however convenient it may be to leave dull stuff like nappies and night waking to mothers or enjoying having a housewife, don't. Ensure you do at least 50% of the child care, 50% of the dross as well as the fun jobs, know who their teachers are, get their school bags ready, supervise their homework etc etc all the stuff some silly sexist men leave to women and then later after divorce regret.

Secondly, don't leave the family home. Courts maintain the status quo. If you leave and the child hasn't seen you because the mother denies that contact then that non seeing pattern is likely to be continued. If instead you won't leave the home until everything is sorted out you've more chance of either getting the house and chidlren if you're a house husband or the part time worker in the relationship or having more contact after.

Thirdly marry someone decent in the first place. Many women wouldn't deny their children contact. I never would.

Fourthly breed clever children who aren't influenced by their mothers. Mine are very independent thinkers and if I say something they are likely to disagree which is great. Also the clever ones can communicate with a father. Try to ensure they have mobiles and internet access. Chat to them on MSN. Chat to them on web cams. Text them.

If denied all contact do the obvious things - move near them if the mother moved away; call the school or look on its web site and attend all the parents' evenings, sports days, concerts. Go to their sports matches. Get access to their medical records legally if you have to.

Be nice. Compromise. Allow to an extent the difficult other parent to mess you around a bit because you're long term more likely to be able to keep relationships going than if you make everything a battle and have to have a winner.

Bide your time. As children get older even the worst mothers can't control them. Teenagers can bea law unto themselves.

Recognise older children do get a b it materialistic. I don't pretend the reason I get 3 university stage children on holiday with the younger children and me because they adore me. It's because who would turn their nose up at a luxury skiing holiday. So earning reasonably large sums to offer nice incentives can help within reason. Most children can see through obvious bribery of course.

Be nice. Most of us want to be with people who treat us pleasantly.

And of course most of all avoid the stupid mess my children's father has made of it all in choosing not to have contact. There's little advantage in that other than I suppose all your free time is your own.

[Firemouse]

"Loudres"?

If you can't even spell a child's name correctly, should you be pontificating on her needs?

[DavidS]

Is LOVE not worth a little inconvenience?

Mothers who deny their children a close bond with their fathers for the sake of convenience may kid themselves it's helpful to the children. It may be in the short term, but that convenience may be bought at the cost of something far more important. Namely LOVE. The kind of love that grows out of familiarity and closeness.

If access is restricted, the easy familiarity that breeds a close loving relationship can easily be lost. It's very hard to maintain an easy, familiar, close, loving relationship with the pitiful amount of time so many UK fathers get with their children.

My father was an alcoholic with a range of problems that made him difficult to live with. Yet he was and IS important to me not because he provides me with money, or advice, or "fun" as one poster patronisingly put it. He's important to me because we have the perfectly ordinary bond of love that exists between parents and children. If a father as difficult as mine can still be that important to me, then there's no question that the average father will be as important to their children - IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE.

[supermother]

We've no reason to suppose they aren't good parents, surely?

As for assessing parents any parent whic has to involve social works, CAFCASS a court or any outside agency takes huge risks i the UK on both sides and if they've got any sense they won't have anyone assessed for anything otherwise they can get caught up in Kafkaesque assumptions made by rather stupid court official type people. Most parents resolve money and children without court hearings in the UK just like in this case and indeed in mine and they are very wise to do so. As soon as you're in court with a contested child matter in a sense you've lost. It's the arrangements parents make between themselves which seem to work best. Sometimes you have no choice of course. Also how do you assess any of us as parents? Surely we could all find a psychological able to assess our other parent as not suitable to see the children. It's not very hard.

As for differing values couples tend to converse in terms of views of childrearing although even then often disagree when married and afterwards diverge. It's good for children to see different views. It's why I'm glad our youngest have 3 adult siblings around, other role models etc. Even in year 24 of parenthood I often get things wrong and it's great to have the checks and balances of other people in their lives even if those other people have different views from mine. Thus I disagree that it matters if parents do have some divergence of view although it would be pretty hard if the couple when married had agreed academic private schools, books, etc type of childhood and then come the divorce father has gone off to find himself on a commune in India or the mother decides to live on benefits and rarely send the children to school etc etc. Then it's harder. I suppose then my view would be you go with the ethos you originally agreed as the default just as you syould stay in the place you chose. So if you'd agreed they would be brought up muslim or jewish then that must endure post break up (there are lots of older family law cases n disputes between parents about which religion after divorce from the days when it seemed to matter more).

And the other advantage of 50/50 is both parents get to do the dross, clearing the sick off the bed when the child is ill, getting the school bags ready for yet another school day, combing out the head lice, waiting at the GP surgery when you should be in an important meeting. ringing round to find the emergency nanny. Much fairer normal parenting where yo both work full time than when one just gets a kind of faux play time and no real chance to be a day to day parent.