Sammy the only thing I would say is that while family law is supposed to be non-adversarial, in reality accusations made that aren't at least refuted (if not disproven) do linger. A serious accusation about the safety of the children has to be addressed and considered, otherwise the court would be neglecting the safety and best interests of the children. There are a lot of potential decisions that could be made by a court that don't necessarily ASSUME you're a dangerous alcoholic, but also don't assume you are a safe and reliable parent either. Sometimes orders providing time can be more conservative if there's lingering doubt about your parenting or the safety of the children. But yes I do agree with you that until it's proven, it's not considered fact.
What I would say is this though... If the father GENUINELY believed the mother was a risk to the children due to alcoholism and mental health issues, he wouldn't be asking for 50/50 care, he'd be asking to be primary carer and for her to have supervised access to the children until she proves she's clean and capable. The fact that he's asking for an increase from 40% to 50% care smells fishy, like it's a calculated move rather than one based around concern for the safety of his children.
What I would say is this though... If the father GENUINELY believed the mother was a risk to the children due to alcoholism and mental health issues, he wouldn't be asking for 50/50 care, he'd be asking to be primary carer and for her to have supervised access to the children until she proves she's clean and capable. The fact that he's asking for an increase from 40% to 50% care smells fishy, like it's a calculated move rather than one based around concern for the safety of his children.
