Shared Residence Orders Revisited

I've had a lot of reaction to this post, in which I said:

parents, particularly fathers, are prepared to go to great lengths to obtain such orders, including fully contested applications, when the practical effect of the order will not necessarily make an awful lot of difference to the children concerned. Are such parents more concerned at achieving equality with the other parent than achieving the best for their children?

I think I should clarify what I meant. Here's what I wrote today to a father who was unhappy with the above:

What I am really concerned about is not a 'battle' over the status of each parent (why should they not both have the same status?), but a 'battle' over achieving exact parity in terms of the time the children spend with each parent. I've seen cases (both reported and in my own experience) that have revolved around the odd half day here and there, which really is more to do with principle than what is best for the children.

This is not to say that there should not be exact parity, merely that consideration should be given as to whether it is worth putting the parties and children through the trauma (not to mention expense) of contested court proceedings, merely to achieve exact parity. After all, it is perfectly possible to have an 'unequal' arrangement (say, four days a week with one parent and three with the other), and still call it 'shared residence'.