Is joint physical custody best for the children or only the parents?

I agree, joint custody is hell for the kids. I grew up under joint/varying custody of two parents who hated each other and were in constant battle. As a result they both projected their hatred onto me due to my association with the other one. At all times I was forced to maintain a long list of secrets and lies in my head which I was required to keep for each parent or tell the other. Rather than being treated with love like a human being, I spent my childhood as a pawn in some silly feud between my parents, switching homes dozens of times. It literally destroyed the first 18 years of my life. I don't think any kid should have to go through that. If a person isn't responsible enough to make a relationship work they shouldn't have kids. Period.

Just the parents usually. I didn't mind going back and forth with my parents as much once I stopped having separation anxiety with my mom(which got really bad at one point, and which is why I think child custody should be the CHILD'S choice) but I know many kids would rather not have that arrangement. I'm not having kids, but if I did have them I'd let them choose who they wanted to live with and if they wanted joint custody. A parent would obviously be sad if the kid didn't want to live with them, but the needs of the kid are more important.

I think people with children should try and make their relationships work.. even if it means compromising or even being miserable - at least until the kids are like 18.

its very damaging to a child to have come from a broken home.

you know, I was thinking of getting a dog. But I thought - you know what - I dont have space, dont have time - it wouldnt be fair on the dog because Im just not in a place where I could look after one right now.

I honestly think I put more thought into getting a dog than most people do about having children. sick world.

DEFINITELY the parents. There are many longitudinal studies and reports coming out to show just how catastrophic growing up like this is for children. (e.g. Elizabeth Marquardt, Judith Wallerstein, Brad Wilcox, Sir Paul Coleridge, etc etc)

Adults would never accept having two homes and being kicked back and forth each week like a football, even though adults don't have such powerful needs for stability and consistency as children do. Yet we expect children to not just cope with but thrive in this maelstrom of confusion, all for the convenience of their parents who couldn't be bothered to provide them with one secure family home.

Joint custody is an absolute travesty which is only about the selfish desires of adults, who have already exercised their selfish immaturity once by breaking up the family in the first place. Children need stability - one home, one family, one set of parents in the same house together. This may not be very convenient to ideological liberals, but the figures are in. Divorce may spell the end of problems for adults, but it is just the beginning of them for children.

I don't know if it is "best" but there aren't a lot of "good options" when talking divorce.

Both of your parents want to see you ALL THE TIME!!!! No matter how inconvince that may be the fact that your parents love you so much they fight over who gets to spend more time loving you is a great thing you should never take for granted.

Having said that, stability is important in child development, it would be in a child's best interest to have a single home rather than a different home every week. But it is in the child's best interest to be with loving parents more than being in a single disfuctional home.

Is it in the best interest of the child? Not really. But the parents coming to an arrangement that works for them is in the best interest of everyone, a fight over sole custody get's messy fast.

Joint physical custody is better for both. There are ways you can do it that would be less inconvenient for the child and parents both. The child can spend more time at both locations, instead of weekly, etc... I think it becomes more inconvenient to interrupt a child's week, than it is to go like monthy with liberal talks on the phone, Skype, etc...

I think sometimes parents tend to MAKE it more convenient for themselves than they do the children, but it can be done to where both are satisfied with the company of their children without making the children feel like a hot potato.

BQ: I would want what I stated above. Liberal time with each parent, more on a consistent level, rather than broken up through the week.

BB: I would want the same thing. It would be hard going that length of time without my child, but I want what's best for my child, not what's in my comfort zone.

Nice question!

I believe theres no one correct answer. Its circumstantial. However I think that your points are valid and most situations have cons that it might slightly be a case of seeing what lacked while missing maybe what was pros.

As a kid I would have wanted to be at both. My parents did divorce. At first he came every weekend to get me. Then every other. Then would call and cancel last sec. Then he stopped even bothering to call or cancel and went weeks. Til eventually we didn't talk for a year because I wanted to see how long it would take for him to call or care. He didn't call. My older sis did. I did very much initially want to live with both my parents. By the time I was 17 it didn't matter at all to me. I think in a way tho he was trying to keep me at a distance because of his lifestyle.

I would want whats best for my kids based on circumstances. My eldests best place is with me. You know the movie Riding In Cars With Boys well thats been on/off story/issue. Obviously not exact but if my life were a movie that was my late teens early 20's. Her best place is with me. My youngest with my hubby would be shared unless circumstance either her opinion or situation changed that.

My mother had primary custody and it sucked, because I never got to see my dad. I think it's much better to feel like you don't have a home, than to feel like you don't have a father. Parents are more important than places.

BQ: Joint custody

BBQ: Joint custody

I don't agree with the concept of joint custody for the reasons you pointed out: the arrangement sucks for the kid.

And I believe in putting the children FIRST. Not misandry first. Not Title IV-D money first. Not the judge's electorate first... CHILDREN FIRST.

This is why I would NEVER sire children in a misandric matriarchy like america, canada, or UK.

BQ: I would want to be in ONE PLACE, not shuffled around like a deck of cards.

BBQ: The child goes to the parent best equipped... WITHOUT looking at the genitals of the parent. In other words: GENDER EQUALITY when it comes to parenting. F*ck america!!!!!

When parents have separated or divorced, joint custody makes no sens; it really just amounts to liberal visitation.