Do you think it is best for the child if the parents share equal rights and responsibilities all around, or if one parent has more of a say than the other? Do you think someone uninterested in their children during the aftermath of divorce deserves more time with their children a few years later, after a change of heart?

I believe that what is best is parents who will not use or fight using the child as the weapon, and will not try to separate the child and the other parent.

Parents make mistakes and have anger over a divorce and often do the wrong thing for the child and that mistake should not be held against them if and when they want to correct it.

But sadly divorce is and can be a angry hateful things and normally both parents are not willing to be nice to ex for the benefit of the child.

Parents should share the responsibilities, yes, even after a divorce. But what they should do and what they do do, are often two different things. There will be a joint custody with a primary residence established, and visitation, etc. Or sometimes the child is bounced back and forth on custody - 6 months here and 6 montsh there. Bouncing is the right word - I do not know who really benefits from that. It is also true that some parents, once divorced, act like they never had a family. You cannot help that, nor are you responsible for that. If, after a few years, that absent parent has a change of heart and they want to establish contact? I would think the child has some say in that - what if the child just does not want to ever see the parent who has been absent? I cannot say that the absent parent "deserves" more time with the children after a change of heart. To say someone deserves something, speaks of having earned the right.

I agree with what Fr. Chuck stated, about the bitter aftermath in the divorce. Both parents using the children either as weapons of negotiation, or shields, or a bartering chip, or their therapist - pouring out their anger and dirty laundry for the child to hear and feel like they (the child) have to take sides. In that case, neither parent has shown they deserve the right to be that child's parent.

I think it is easy for parents to use the children against each other whilst divorcing. I am almost divorced (yay!) and I have sole custody of our two children, their upbringing is entirely my business not their fathers. He was a nasty man when we were together and despite my best efforts when we first split, he didn't see much of the kids, he would flit in and out of their lives as he wished, so I stopped his contact with them. This lasted three months. Then I started letting him see them again, on the understanding he would not mess them around again. I didn't do this ot of bitterness, I had tried my best to keep a good relationship between them, despite our failing marriage, but he took them for granted. He now sees them regularly and is becoming a good father. Even though, I still went for sole custody of them, and got it, which he is fine with. I think bad parents can become good, and should be given the chance. We all go out as a 'family' despite me and my ex both having new serious partners. The kids, though young, understand that mummy and daddy are friends now but nothing else. The way I see it is, my ex doesn't deserve to see his kids, but my kids deserve to see him, and that is more important to me than anything else. What is right for them.

No, not if the said parent decides he/she feels quilty and wants more while the mood takes him/her