22
votes
Is ‘birdnesting’ the answer for divorcing parents? The arrangement in which children of separated couples stay in the family home with one parent, before the other swaps in, is taking off.
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Is 'birdnesting' the answer for divorcing parents?
If for whatever circumstances this is beneficial to the parents, go for it. All the power to you.
But I'm about to sound like a boomer at a third the age.
I was a child of divorce. My parents split up when I was five years old. My brother was four. Literally grew up going back and forth every week. For a decade. It's not that big of a deal.
And if your parents really didn't get along, having them spend as little time as possible around each other is for the best. I can only imagine the hell had my parents tried to alternate living in the same home.
Again, if for economic reasons and such this makes more sense, go nuts. But I think trying to make this "about the children" is unnecessarily coddling. I would hate for this to become some kind of expectation for all parents going forward.
I have nothing to go off of except my own experience. Maybe I'm truly horribly wrong, and the fact that my parents didn't "birdnest" is why I spent the ages of 16-23 so screwed up. But my knee jerk reaction is that this is just unnecessary babying.
I'm not saying it's the same, but this does remind me of the people who say they were whooped by their parents and it's fine; look how they turned out! You never really know the effects that something had on you as a child, even (especially) when it didn't feel like a big deal at the time.
You had no way of knowing this, but my dad did beat my brother and I as children. We both have issues as a result of it.
He beat my mom, that's why they divorced.
As I said, my brother and I alternated houses for a decade starting when I was 5. So I was 15 when we stopped doing that, because we both finally grew some stones and left him entirely.
I'm pretty in tune with the effects my childhood had on me. Alternating houses was never an issue.
To second @ACEmat, I don't think I suffered at all from shared custody. I suffered for other reasons, but never really had more than periodic moments of "I forgot this" that a trip to the other parent's place fixes. It would only be a huge issue if the parents weaponized the kids against each other, which mine refused to do despite their extreme dislike for each other.
But my point was there is non-surface level stuff. Maybe you have some sort of insecure attachment to your home or something where you never feel safe or secure or something in a way that people theoretically should.
Hell, we don’t even know how many things considered “best” or “normal” are really the best state for humans. A lot of things are still essentially guesswork.
If you’re going that deep and speculative, then this shared home may be no better. Maybe it’s worse having the family and parenting aspects change in the same physical location rather than a clear delineation between “mom” and “dad” environments, similar to how mixing your leisure space with your work or sleep space can lead to problems compared to designated separate spaces.
Yeah...that's why I didn't say one is better, I just pointed out what it reminds me of...
It would certainly be a big deal if, for example, it interrupted schooling. It sounds like both your parents lived within commuting distance of your school, but that isn't always possible today. Housing was much cheaper in previous decades.
Split custody rulings typically require minimal impact to the child and also may require both larents to live locally to respect the custody agreement. This, of course, could be renegotiated.
For example my dad could not move 50 miles away, or he would have to go to court and modify the legal agreement.
If that is the case, it sounds like the court is effectively forcing some parents to 'birdnest' in high COL areas.
You're right, this concept only works if the parents get along well. Some people get divorced and stay friends or can at least be cordial to one another. My parents divorced when I was young and they absolutely did not get along. They would exchange a few terse words during the handoff between parents but that was it. Something like this would never have worked.
But if somehow they can manage to stay cordial/friendly, then more power to them.
Before I even click, I can 100% say that my wife and I discussed this idea quite frankly as our ideal in the event of our hypothetical divorce.
I would get a 2BR condo in a nearby but much cheaper town. She lives in house with kids, and we each have a semi-permanent room in the other's home.
It solves a lot of problems with respect to kids and schooling, allowing one parent to live in a much lower CoL area without needing to fully disrupt the kids lives.
Like, the CoL difference is high enough that we could afford a 2BR condo and a studio apartment over getting a 2 BR condo in the same school district.
I think that's exactly the point of this arrangement though, so the kids don't take turns feeling like strangers staring at unfamiliar ceilings between two different homes.
If it sounds rough for the adults who had the choice of partners, how does it seem fair to push onto the kids who have no choice
Edit: preferably in the shared home there is a mom room and a dad room, and neither are supposed to bring new partners into the shared home. Is my reading of it. Otherwise it feels gross, to me.
It's not the same though, is it? Kids don't have to feel like strangers in their own home, it's perfectly doable to make them feel at home in two different places. There's no "negative presence" at dad's or anything.
But sharing a home with someone you're on poor terms with? Sounds like a great recipe for making those terms poorer and introducing a lot of negativity, which the kids will notice. You'd have to have the kind of relationship where the parents could just continue cohabiting anyway.
I highly doubt that it was a dream full of anxiety and suffering, or that it would be somehow better if the five year old had to live the reality of being shuttled from home to home suddenly.
This arrangement makes so much sense to me I don't know why divorcing families didn't come up with this sooner.
When I was growing up, a lot of my peers had one parent who worked overseas and hardly came home. It was basically this, and life goes on as normal for the kids. The parents were probably already coworkers and occasionally one would come back for graduation or big days, and sleep in the office or spare room. Many of these parents eventually officially divorced when we got to university and came as no shock at all.
I didn't see anything in the article about second marriages, which I am a product of. If my dad and his ex wife had done this, instead of only seeing my sisters Thursdays and every other weekend, would I have been missing my dad on those days? Or would I have been shuttled back and forth instead of my sisters?
I think this might be a good solution for some families, but it certainly isn't one size fits all.
My wife and I are both divorced, both with 3 kids who had to go through the very difficult job of balancing the kids needs with uncooperative ex's.
Which led me to a novel idea that's been percolating for years. I think the solution is a 'bird nest' house. The main section is in the middle, a normal three or four bedroom home where the children reside 100% of the time. THEY have the stability and never have to leave or move for weekends. But the 'feature' is that both the front and the back of the house have attached one bedroom apartments where the parents reside. So Mom can say goodnight to the kids and retire to her apartment, and then dad can do the same and retire to his without either having to interact with each other. The parents can share duties for providing meals or getting the kids out to school or evening times just by accessing the middle home. The parents come and go out from their own doors, even have different parking areas, one on each side of the house, without even having to see each other. They can carry on separate lives while still being able to both be right next door to the kids.
For acrimonious and even harmonious splits it would provide the kids with stability, as well as the reassurance that both mom and dad are close by, but the parents have the advantage of being able to carry on with individual lives, even start dating again without having to see or interact with each other. When the kids reach adulthood, everyone can move out of the house and onto their own lives, but the 'Divorce House' would be an interim place (probably a long term rental) that provides everyone with the easiest way to transition without the typical fight over pick up times and the kids going through the stress of moving back and forth to mom and dad's house. Plus the parents could share the cost of the rental instead of both having to pay for a place of their own which typically, after a divorce, is another financial burden that sinks many into debt and sometimes ruin when financial matters take years to settle.
I think its a great idea. Thoughts?
It relies on the divorcees being almost completely in unity still. At least for my divorced parents, this would have caused strife, at minimum over different standards of cleanliness for the "main" area of the house.
Interestingly, this situation might force one parent to heavily step up. Both have their own work now and neither "is on duty" to clean up the house. No one has to play one's spouse's mom. For couples that have the money, one could bill professional cleaners to the other for leaving messes. Sometimes folks grow up when there's finally a momentary cost to their irresponsibility. I could see this working great for the spouse who is sick and tired of feeling like a live in maid.
I'm less convinced by this. This arrangement seems to me, if anything, like it would amplify the problems that typically lead to one spouse feeling like a live-in maid.
I'd like to hear a bit more, as I haven't been there and I hadn't asked my friends with divorced parents. I was thinking that I wouldn't argue about chores anymore. Just talk to my lawyer and have the cleaning bill sent to ex's lawyer. I've never been in a fight that bad with my spouse but I'd imagine that shouting wouldn't be a thing any more if I wasn't in the same space at the same time? Or that access to kids could be at risk if there was shouting about the bills? I don't honestly know
I've never fought even close to that bad with my spouse, but I have lived with roommates -- and been the bad roommate who other cleaner roommates feel obligated to clean up after. Not being in a romantic relationship doesn't get rid of those problems, even if you're friends with your roommates. Not communicating with each other would only exacerbate them.
This solution sounds more and more to me like it's for rich people. The couple will no longer get the tax benefits of being married, they have to maintain separate homes, and now add the chaos of who is responsible for what chores when along with the possibility of coming home to an empty fridge every time.
Just like anything else, no one solution is going to work for all families, for a variety of reasons. I could see this ending up heavily parentifying one or more of the kids without anyone even realizing it.
Professional cleaning included would be an excellent idea for those with money. But it could be the right time for the kids to also step up and learn to clean up after themselves. "No one ever died from vacuuming their room" - my mom
Fact is, contentious divorces will be contentious no matter what. Heck, I ended up fighting with my ex over who gets the most Tupperware! Just ridiculous in retrospect. But with a clear understanding that doing what's best for the kids is the goal, even obstinate can learn to put aside their anger for the sake of the kids.
Including professional arbitration services til routines are established might be another included service.
I'm of the personal (uninformed*) notion that whatever works best for kids and divorcing parents is predictability and politeness. When I was a teen, my friends were my entire world: having to spend half the time away from them would have been absolute torture: "do what you must, I don't give a crap, I'm moving in with another family or just give me money to live on my own" would have been my response.
But, we each have our own biases due to our families of origins. My dad was absent "for work" and then when he came to live with us full time, they were fighting a lot. My focus shifted to my friend group and being online perhaps as a reaction to the already terrible and unpredictable atmosphere.
Meanwhile, my sibling would have given her kidney to have the parents stay together in one house. She would have needed the polite pretense that everything would be okay. One time, she woke me up in the dead of night, crying, that mom has packed and was leaving. I couldn't have been more than 13 at the time but my response was a cool, "aight, let me know her new address" and went back to bed.
So ..... From my limited experience, whether your kids are sick of the fighting and checked out, or they need you to stick it out and pretend just a bit longer, the nesting is the best solution.
Caveat: if the fighting and the crying and whatnot had been worse, I would personally have preferred a total split and never having to deal with any of them again. So maybe nesting only works for couples who could stand to be civil, and like the article says, clean up after their own kitchen/relational messes. So, looping back to my point: your kids need predictability and politeness. Be the adult and do what you must to provide those, and choose the housing situation that best facilitate predictability and politeness.
* limited experience: my parents "stayed together" until my mom died at 62. My own marriage is going fine 18 years later.
See, this is my experience as well, down to the friendships issue - I only ever really had friends at my mom's house.
My parents would have never, ever been able to manage the article's proposed arrangement. Way, WAY too many hard feelings, to the point that we would get dropped off at the end of the street from where one parent lives by the other. Later, when my siblings and I were teens, we moved across the country to live with my dad. My dad and stepmom worked hard to alienate us from my mom, and though I was able to eventually snap out of it in my 20's, my sisters still refuse to speak to my mom (who is a wonderful person, mind you) nearly 20 years later. It's caused a lot of trauma.
Contrast that with my wife's situation: divorced, but in an amicable way. The kids are able to set their own schedule, mostly, with who they would like to stay with. We're close enough together that they could even bike over on their own if they chose to. It isn't perfect (I'd really like it if the kid's dad would step up and offer to spend more time with them) but it works well and there's relatively little stress or drama around any of it. In fact, the most difficult aspect of this is that my son misses his sisters terribly when they leave to be with their dad!
In our case, I could see this arrangement working out, but I also feel it could lead to some awkwardness and tension between the adults if goals and ideas about the house don't align.
I guess it seems kind of obvious once I've thought about it, that adults who can manage their own hard feelings and put them aside and communicate through tough times for the kids sake......I guess mostly those adults don't even get divorced in the first place :/ maybe?
Mirror: https://archive.is/SUEEU