|
|
|||||||
|
If you change sole custody to joint and/or work out a more equitable schedule with your son's father the courts aren't going to look at it as if you don't want your son . They will view you as being a responsible parent who sees the worth of her child's other parent in his life. Although I can see why you might think that. People think that if a mother doesn't have her child the majority of the time or isn't the primary caretaker that there is something wrong with her to have had "her child taken away". Thankfully that POV is slowly going away as more people do a 50/50 schedule and most states presume joint legal custody. It sounds as if your son's father has a very standard parenting plan. Is it that he wants something closer to 50/50? or is it that he wants to have part in the decision making? (Or maybe both?) My x and I have had 50/50 for 10 years. Our kids are very well adjusted because we get along and work together for them. I have not agreed with all of the decisions he's made in regards to his life and I'm sure he hasn't agreed with all of mine, but we don't make decisions that will harm our kids and we don't make decisions regarding the kids without discussing it with each other. If you feel as if you can work together for the benefit of your son then i think you should allow him the same legal rights that you have. I'm not saying the fighting isn't an issue but rather than just saying "No, I'm not doing it", discuss the issues with him don't just "speak to him". That implies that you don't see him as an equal parent. No matter what the custody papers say you son does have half his DNA, he is an involved parent and does have a good relationship with the child. That makes him an equal parent. You don't have anythign to lose really by changing it to joint legal. It just means you have to discuss major issues like education, medical and religion. If there were a major emergency you could still make a split second decision without consulting him (such as an emergency appendectomy or treatment if he were in a car accident). It would just mean you'd both need to be involved in non-emergency treatment which it sounds as if you'd discuss it with him anyway. |