samatha
recently joined
Reged: 10/24/11
Posts: 2
|
|
I am a mom of a 2 yr old boy. My divorce is not final yet but there is a temporary custody order which has us having joint physical and joint legal custody with his dad seeing him 30% and he started getting overnights a few months back. For starters I did not want his dad to have joint physical because he was verbally abusive to me and swore in front of our infant son. Before we split up our marriage was bad and we were staying with my parents temporarily and he felt uncomfortable there so I asked him to leave. It happened to be on his first father’s day. I probably subconsciously did that to punish him because he did not seem to me to be much interested in our son and I didn’t want our son in that environment. He does not have a family support system here, so I didn’t think he’d fight for joint custody. After I filed for divorce he ended up moving in with his EX WIFE (before me obviously) who just happens to work in the legal field so is probably advising him! He says that the move was purely platonic and was for economical reasons, she needed help with the rent, and because rent in this area of California is so expensive. I was outraged about this but he still ended up getting joint physical and the courts did not ask him to move out of that situation simply because his ex doesn’t have any history of anything. He is now not settling based on the temporary order and wants more time, and to have him for a week in the summer, plus share ALL vacations! I have a really strong support system as my mother and father help me take care of my son. I would not be able to do this if it wasn’t for them. So there is a hearing coming up where he's probably going to ask for more time. Is there anything I can do to stop that from happening? I think his ex wife is the one behind pushing him to pursue custody because she never had kids and is taking this opportunity to mother my son. I think it’s crazy that the courts seem to think its okay!
|
javajunkiee
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/08
Posts: 3155
Loc: SC
|
|
Verbal abuse in front of an infant doesn't make him Father of the Year, but doesn't make him unfit either.
Sharing vacations, holidays and summers is the norm. You'd have to have heavy duty documentation that he's unfit to limit dad's time with his son.
He could likely make a better case proving you unwilling to coparent though if you go into court with nothing more than your opinion of his xw's motivation and 'verbal abuse'.
Get a couple of consultations with family law attorney's and lay out your case. An attorney will be able to give you a better idea of your chances.
--------------------
Marriage doesn't come with a money-back guarantee.
|
Debi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 7136
|
|
You're not likely to stop him from getting what he's asking for. It's pretty normal in most states for parents to share legal custody and any parenting time at all would qualify as "shared" physical custody. You would have to prove him unfit to take away the time he has in the temp order.
It doesn't matter if someone is "advising" him or who it is. I am unclear as to why you are furious. He doesn't really owe you an explanation as to why he moved in with her and it sounds as if the court doesn't have an issue with her.
I know most people at the stage of divorce you are at don't think this way but children can never have too many people in their lives who care about them and if she is "mothering" him (which to me means to show care and concern), then you're probably lucky his father is staying with her.
You are going to have to realize that this is not only your child and his father will be making decisions you don't always agree with. That would likely happen even if you were staying together.
--------------------
When we were together, you said you'd die for me. Now, I think it's time you kept your promise.
|
Renny
addict
Reged: 09/24/11
Posts: 479
|
|
Adding a thought to debi, divorce has the effect on the mother usually of having to give up some control over he kids. Once they are with your ex, you have little to say. For instance, I know of a father who started taking flying lessons after the divorce and as soon as he got his license he was flying the young kids around much to the distress of the mother. You can expect that you will disapprove of his parenting.
|
samatha
recently joined
Reged: 10/24/11
Posts: 2
|
|
Wow, I never thought of it all that way, it's definitely something to think deeply about. Thanks!
|
c_jane
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/06/07
Posts: 1755
Loc: In the Great State of Texas
|
|
A standard custody plan in Texas is for the non-custodial parent to get 1st, 3rd, & 5th weekends from Friday-Sunday night (or Monday morning), 6 weeks in the summer (can be split in 2 parts) and every other Thanksgiving and Spring Break. Also Winter Break is usually split for a week for each parent.
Even if the child(ren) is not in school yet, they go by the school district calendar where the child resides.
--------------------
John Constantine: God's a kid with an ant farm.... He's not planning anything.
|
SRS
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/05/10
Posts: 2161
|
|
50/50 custody is best for kids in most cases. Good for the parents, too.
|
Anything4Love
journeyman
Reged: 10/09/11
Posts: 60
Loc: Virginia
|
|
[quote]50/50 custody is best for kids in most cases. Good for the parents, too. [/quote]
I agree. Too many people forget that the parenting time is for THE KIDS first, the parents second, and as long as both parents are fit and capable of excersizing their parenting time it should be awarded 50/50. The kids need both of their parents.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Kids can have both their parents without having a 50/50 schedule.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"Kids can have both their parents without having a 50/50 schedule."
That they can. When are you going to voluntarily become less than 50/50 so you can be that part time parent?
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
I will never be a "part-time parent". Neither will my ex, regardless of parenting time. We are ALWAYS parents, no matter who our kids are with.
Regarding becoming the parent with less than 50% of the parenting time, I will do so if and when it becomes in my child(ren)'s best interest to do so.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
There is a big difference between having your kids four nights a month and having them two weeks of the month. You lose dinners, evening chats, family time playing in the yard, TV time, teaching them certain things like riding a bike or learning to swim. Sure in theory parents can choose to share each of these events...but a lot of things work in theory. Having been in both positions I can say the living arrangements do have an effect parenting time. It doesn't effect being parents, but it does affect the time spent with each parent.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
I never said that there wasn't a difference in the time spent with each parent. I said they're still a parent...the kids still have both parents.
And NCP's can still teach their kids to swim, ride a bike, shoot a gun, cook, sew. They can still take the kids camping, enjoy dinners with them, have nighttime talks. They can still attend soccer games, ballet recitals, school concerts.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
I never said you did.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
Having to cram everything into 4 days a month is a lot harder then having 26/27 days a month - way more parenting experience going on for the one who has the majority of the time. Custody should always be 50/50 unless in cases of abuse. If a parent wants to give up their time that is one thing but if both parents want the child(ren) and be involved parents then 50/50 is in the best interest of the child(ren). Support should not change hands either - the only reason for support to change hands is if the stay-at-home parent has to get into the work force there should be a time frame for which that parent to get a job to support a home for his/her 50% of the time. No going to school for 4 years or even 2 years - get a job and if you want to go to school do that too but no money changes hands. If there is a big disparity in income the child(ren) will just have less at one home - children adapt far easier then adults do and the child won't have a lot when they start out as an adult (college, job, whatever) so living 50% of the time with less won't harm the child(ren).
I truly believe if there is no child support changing hands many more parents (those who would have gotten a check) would want/allow 50/50 and it would be the norm - if there is no check attached to ones child it is easier to share the child(ren) as the child(ren) should be shared.
I know of far too many CP's that admit that they want the check and the child(ren) come with the check attached so they fight for the other parent to get eow even though they have admitted it would be better for their child(ren) to spend equal time with both parents. I live in a state where 50/50 is the rarity and not the norm.
I know of one mother who is a waitress and her ex makes $45/hour and in order to have her son week on week off she pays him support - it is not in the CO - in the custody order she gets eow - he had the lawyer, family support here (her family is in Alaska), she is a waitress in a bar, he was able to keep the family home (he owned it before they married), etc... so after it was all said and done (she's a good mom) he told her she could pay him - so she does - she is flat broke all the time (essentials are paid) but she has her children 50% of the time and gets to be a parent - not relegated to eow trying to cram it all in on the weekends - sure she could still go to school functions etc but having the child 50% of the time is a lot more fulfilling then catching this activity here and there with eow to raise your child(ren).
I would like to see every CP live at least a year in the NCP position - see if that amount of time is enough time to really parent your child(ren) - not being able to have nightly dinners several nights a week/month and in a row - help with homework all the time etc etc etc... Many CP's do not want to lose that time with their child(ren) so why should the NCP - many say I could NEVER be the NCP - well the NCP feels that way too but they are given eow to be a parent....
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
No, 50/50 should not happen in all situations, and yes, child support should change hands if warranted.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
You said:
I never said that there wasn't a difference in the time spent with each parent. I said they're still a parent...the kids still have both parents.
My response:
Even when the parents are together, there is a difference in time spent with each parent. Divorce isn't going to change that.
You said:
And NCP's can still teach their kids to swim, ride a bike, shoot a gun, cook, sew. They can still take the kids camping, enjoy dinners with them, have nighttime talks. They can still attend soccer games, ballet recitals, school concerts.
My response:
My ex only has the kids EOW. Guess who taught them how to swim? My ex did a better job than the swim lessons that they went to when he and I were still together.
He has also taken them camping, hiking, biking, pretty much everything that he did with them when we were still together.
While he doesn't attend every sports game anymore, he does take them on his week-ends and when the youngest has her recital in June, he will be there regardless of whose week-end it is.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
"No, 50/50 should not happen in all situations, and yes, child support should change hands if warranted."
I did not say every situation - cases of abuse and where one person does not want it otherwise it is best for the child(ren) to have both parents equally.
CS should change hands in the event of a SHP for a determined period of time (not long enough to get a 4 year degree) maybe a year or two to get on his/her feet.
If it is 50/50 there should be no exchange of monies - doesn't matter if there is a disparity in income - a divorce brings on changes and that would be one of them - one parent may make more and the children will obviously have more opportunity available in that home - but it should not matter unless the children have their parent(s) psychologically held hostage and the parent(s) feel guilty because they cannot keep up with the other parent - things are going to be different in one house than the other whether money or child rearing etc...
What situations do you think warrant cs and what situations do you think should not be 50/50?
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
When my wife and her ex divorced 50/50 was mandated, but no CS exchanged, even though my wife was a higher earner. Then post divorce, she continued to earn more based on new education, while he stagnated at the same job. She shouldn't have to subsidize his laziness to ensure there was some kind of magical "equivalence" between households. My SD had to learn that there is no balancing, and that aside from ensuring that each household can maintain the basics, anything on top of that his household dependent, and you can't force the issue. I thought that if he wanted more for his daughter, then he should have taken a higher % of his disposable income, spent less on himself if he wanted equivalency in each place. Reality is though, you're never going to get true balance monetarily.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]What situations do you think warrant cs and what situations do you think should not be 50/50? [/quote]
I know that you did a quick reply but I'm going to answer anyway.
Child support is warrented when one parent has the majority custody AND in cases where it is 50/50 where there is a big disparity in income (I'm not talking about a $10K difference). And when incomes are similar, child support should be ordered to reimburse the parent providing the health insurance for the other parent's portion of said insurance.
When my ex and I split, there is no way I would have agreed to 50/50 physical. My youngest simply wouldn't have been able to handle it at that time. She's older now and probably could handle closer to 50/50 but my ex's work schedule is such that it just isn't feasible. He doesn't even take all of the time that the child support is based on.
When considering 50/50 physical, the child's personality most definitely should be taken into consideration. I have posted in other forums where the poster lived with a 50/50 physical when her parents split. She doesn't feel like she has a home, even to this day, because of that. She's divorced and she and her ex agreed to her being primary. Why? Because he saw the damage it did to his ex and doesn't want to risk that for his children.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
>>>Even when the parents are together, there is a difference in time spent with each parent.<<<
I think this is a good point. I'm a pretty [censored] believer in consistency before divorce and after.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
>>>I did not say every situation - cases of abuse and where one person does not want it otherwise it is best for the child(ren) to have both parents equally.<<<
No, it's not always best for the kids to have 50/50, even when there's no abuse or desire from one party to not have the kids 50% of the time.
>>>CS should change hands in the event of a SHP for a determined period of time (not long enough to get a 4 year degree) maybe a year or two to get on his/her feet.<<<
That's not Child Support. That's alimony. And thankfully, your idea of how it should be isn't how it is. Child support is supposed to be an equitable split between the parents to support the children.
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
That's just your opinion. And honestly...how can you believe that 50/50 is not always best for kids (of course, not including the extreme cases already stated such as abuse). How can it not be in a childs best interest to spend at least 50% of the time with each parent?
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
The number of kids screwed up from typical NCP/CP scenarios on this board vs 50/50 splits is pretty indicative of the fact that in most cases the typical visitation schedule is not conducive to the children growing up in the best scenario. Relationships become even more fragmented when you are given minimal opportunity to see your children because we all know that while 1/100 NCP/CP relationships might be cordial enough not to place strict limitations of when/how the NCP can see the kids, the majority continue in a contentious fashion that uses the kids as pawns in a pissing match between the ex'es.
That's why when my wife and her ex split, with no CS levied, that area of power was decimated, as well as with 50/50, there was no ability to play games and limit time. You took control out of the hands of one parent (CP) to effectively decide how the relationship would be dictated based on their whims to accomodate the NCP. It evened the playing field and assured the child had full access to both parents equally without one taking an advantage. While this might not be a fit all situation, and will not be perfect, it is light years ahead of the majority (not all) of the NCP/CP situations I've run across both as the child in the situation, and the adult in others.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]That's just your opinion. And honestly...how can you believe that 50/50 is not always best for kids (of course, not including the extreme cases already stated such as abuse). How can it not be in a childs best interest to spend at least 50% of the time with each parent? [/quote]
Because not every child's personality is suited to that type of arrangement. At the time of my divorce, 50/50 physical would have done serious harm to my youngest. And my ex was a parent who did spend time with them when he wasn't at work when we were together. He wasn't one of those who expected a child to be seen and not heard. But that doesn't change the fact that she couldn't have handled 50/50 at that time. I think she could handle closer to a 50/50 now that she is older and more emotionally mature, but his work schedule does not allow for it.
A child's ability to handle 50/50 should be given a strong consideration. They are the ones who are going to have to live with living in two separate households half the time. The parents don't, they get to live in one household 100% of the time.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Because it's not ALWAYS best (and yes, excluding abuse, which I think is obvious). Even when you don't have an abusive parent, it's not always in the best interest of the kids.
It wasn't in the best interests of my kids. They are MUCH better off with a stable home during the school week.
Their dad is still very much a presence in their life...just as much as I am.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
However, overwhelmingly it's not in the best interest of the children to only see one parent 4-6 days a month, but the courts sanction that all the time, and create a position of power for one parent to hamper the ability of the other parent to effectively see their children. There's a reason that a shift towards 50/50 has been occurring over the last decade, and states like Iowa and Missouri have begun mandating towards that as the default. There are always exceptions to the rule, but those are in the minority.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Studies show that children do better long term when physical custody is shared.
So if 10% would do worse, it would be better than the 85% that are getting the short end now.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
I disagree. I'm not a fan of 50/50...not all, not even necessarily most.
In some cases it works. In some cases 0/50 works. In some cases 20/80 works, in some cases 40/60 works.
There's too many differences between situations for there to be a standard one-size-fits all. That's how kids end up in situations that hurt them.
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
And because of gender bias intrinsic in our society - one size fits all IS the norm (mom custody, dad eow) unless one or both parties bankrupt themselves and invest years of their life fighting. So who is served by that?
All 50-50 laws do is create a starting point of 50-50 to deviate from as a child needs. Instead of "one of you is getting every other weekend, hire your lawyers and fight it out to the death." When neither parent is faced with possible automatic removal from their kids life - the brass knuckles can stay in the box and the divorce can be far less acrimonious. Some people are capable of that without a 50-50 law, but they aren't really the norm. And those people? Can agree to whatever they want. Even in states with 50-50 laws, stipulated agreements supercede that every time. Everyone wins.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
"That's not Child Support. That's alimony. And thankfully, your idea of how it should be isn't how it is. Child support is supposed to be an equitable split between the parents to support the children."
Yes it is should be an equitable split - parenting time - should be an equitable split - there should be no cs split and yes what I stated is more along alimony so call it whatever you'd like - once the shp is on his/her feet no more monies change hands. The parents should split activities fees and the insurance etc... but no cs - Thankfully not everyone thinks they should be paid to take care of their own children - unfortunately it is the more prevalent attitude - an entitlement attitude (for doing simply what you are suppose to do) has not done our society any good.
Each parent needs to take care of his/her child on his/her time with his/her income except things like insurance, activities for the child, things that one parent should not be expected to foot the entire bill - those should be shared - but no exchange of monies to do ones job as a parent. The child will not suffer because they have what they need at each house albeit one house may have nicer stuff, vacations, cars etc... which means nothing compared to having ones parents equally. I'm just not into material things and if my hubby wants to (in the event of a divorce) give our son something, he can - so what if I can't afford it - our son knows what things cost and is taught the value of a dollar and that rent and food etc... comes first - but that is just me - I am not raising an entitlement attitude individual so he would not have an issue if one house was "better" financially then the other because it does not matter he gets both parents which is far better for him then a "insert whatever here" - one thing my hubby and I agree on completely is not raising an entitled child into an entitled adult.
I could not take cs in the event of a divorce and my husband makes way more than I do but I do not think he should pay me to take care of our child that we decided to have together (yes we would split our child 50/50 even though he does many thing a lot differently - he has the right to make decisions and raise our son in his home how he sees fit) I do think he should contribute to insurance and activities (as should I) but to hand me money - no - I will earn that myself and we will live in my household with what my income provides.
I may think differently than a lot of cp parents because I don't need to control every move of the other parent I can accept different ideas and different ways of doing things I don't need to tell the other parent how what why where and when - trying to control someone is nothing but a power trip that garners frustration on both sides.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
[quote]I disagree. I'm not a fan of 50/50...not all, not even necessarily most.
In some cases it works. In some cases 0/50 works. In some cases 20/80 works, in some cases 40/60 works.
There's too many differences between situations for there to be a standard one-size-fits all. That's how kids end up in situations that hurt them. [/quote]
A quick survey of this board is a good microcosm to the utter failure of typical CP/NCP visitation. I watched 50/50 firsthand work better than any CP/NCP parenting I've ever come into contact with, or experienced personally as a child. What I have noticed is that almost every person who comes out against 50/50 over the years is female, as they seem to believe that they (not the kids) have something to lose in the process.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
You said:
What I have noticed is that almost every person who comes out against 50/50 over the years is female,
My response:
You really can't go by a small community message board. Because there are plenty of men who don't agree with it, either.
You said:
as they seem to believe that they (not the kids) have something to lose in the process.
My response:
You are jumping to an erroneous conclusion based on your personal bias. All one has to do is read all your posts about your mom.
I am against a presumption of 50/50 physical as it does not take the individual into consideration. Add to that a parent who insists on it because s/he has the right to parent at least half the time, you have a scenario that is going to cause harm to a child because that is a parent who doesn't get that parenting is not about their rights, but about doing what is right for the kids.
This is not to say that I haven't seen cases where one party comes in wanting to limit that parenting time because of the child support, but also admitted that both the kids and the other parent wanted more time with each other. That's just as bad as the parent who insists on 50/50 physical when the child can't handle it. And as bad as the parent who is pushing for 50/50 simply to limit their child support order (which does happen more than you think it does).
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
What I've seen is women tend to make less income, and need both child support and the govt. benefits that come with being a custodial parent to survive. The higher wage earning NCP is often financially ravaged, but can survive, often at a minimal level. If the other parent were the NCP, they would have to move in with parents or live on the street without the financial support that being a CP provides.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"And as bad as the parent who is pushing for 50/50 simply to limit their child support order.
I'm sure that happens, but what I've seen is probably 80% don't want it because they don't want reduced child support.
I suspect if the system were set up so 50/50 physical custody was standard along with paying full child support like there wasn't shared custody, that shared custody would skyrocket.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
Yeah...because the current default of CP/NCP has just worked out so wonderfully in this country....Thankfully the Judge who presided over my wife's divorce saw the inherently superior placement of a 50/50 situation and as well with a stronger push in that direction, in time we'll see an eradication of a dinosaur mentality when it comes to placement. Then again, with this new genearation of children subjected to limited time with one parent, and their inability to understand how to successfully marry and remain married, we'll be sure to have even more divorces to test this theory on.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
[quote]"And as bad as the parent who is pushing for 50/50 simply to limit their child support order.
I'm sure that happens, but what I've seen is probably 80% don't want it because they don't want reduced child support. [/quote]
At work this is what I see from my female coworkers:
- Placing the child in daycare on the days they work, even when their ex's have the days off and are willing to take the child because "it's not their time"
- Not wanting their kids to do "extra" overnights with the ex's because it might "screw up the kids schedule" even though, because we work 12.5 hr shifts, they're dragging the kids out of bed at 4:30 on work days to dump them in daycare at 6am and not pick them up till we shift off at between 7:15 pm and 8 pm.
-
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]Studies show that children do better long term when physical custody is shared.
So if 10% would do worse, it would be better than the 85% that are getting the short end now. [/quote]
Lets look at the above statement.
1. Children do well and thrive when they have an involved parent(s).
The above is hard to accomplish in divorced families. Why? Well, because there is only so much time and money. Working full-time takes time away from the child. Doing it all by yourself (not talking financially here, I'm talking about household chores, etc.....) takes time away from the child. There are only so many hours in a day. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for a child in this situation to get short changed. I have to work hard so that this doesn't happen in my case.
To be clear, even two parent households where both parents work struggle with this, too.
2. Children do not do well and thrive when they are ignored or abused.
This one is a no-brainer. And can happen in either a broken home or an intact home.
There are studies to support any argument that there is out there.
The question is: Which study had your child as a participant? None of them had my kids in there. So I will go with what I know of my kids and their personalities over an anonymous study.
And given that my oldest is in advanced everything, I must be doing something right. My ex and I split about a month after the oldest entered kindergarten. He's in 6th now.
My youngest is struggling with language arts (she also had special ed before kindergarten due to speech issues and an inability to articulate her thoughts, this may stem from that) but she is in advanced math and otherwise doing well. Her issues don't stem from not being with her father half the time as they existed when he and I were together.
Until parents can set aside their egos and actually do what is best for their kids and become more involved in what their kids are doing, regardless of whether that is 50/50, 70/30 or any other arrangement including being an intact family, there are going to be kids from divorced and intact families who don't do well. Studies aren't going to change that.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"Until parents can set aside their egos and actually do what is best for their kids and become more involved in what their kids are doing, regardless of whether that is 50/50, 70/30 or any other arrangement including being an intact family, there are going to be kids from divorced and intact families who don't do well."
I strongly agree with your statement. The problem is most divorced parents are denied the chance.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]"And as bad as the parent who is pushing for 50/50 simply to limit their child support order.
I'm sure that happens, but what I've seen is probably 80% don't want it because they don't want reduced child support.
I suspect if the system were set up so 50/50 physical custody was standard along with paying full child support like there wasn't shared custody, that shared custody would skyrocket.
[/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. But then there are states where it is set up like that. What are the 50/50 rates there?
Because, in my case, there was no way I was agreeing to 50/50 physical. It didn't matter what the child support amount was. He could have offered his entire paycheck and I would have still said no.
Now I would consider it if it wasn't for his work schedule and his distance (which could easily be remedied by him moving closer). And if it were to switch to that, then we would be taking the parenting time into consideration (and, yes, it would greatly reduce the amount of child support I get, but it was never about the money, it was about the kids and making sure they are taken care of). I am a strong believer that parenting time should play a big factor when it comes to calculating child support.
OT: does anyone know why f irm is censored?
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]Yeah...because the current default of CP/NCP has just worked out so wonderfully in this country....Thankfully the Judge who presided over my wife's divorce saw the inherently superior placement of a 50/50 situation and as well with a stronger push in that direction, in time we'll see an eradication of a dinosaur mentality when it comes to placement. Then again, with this new genearation of children subjected to limited time with one parent, and their inability to understand how to successfully marry and remain married, we'll be sure to have even more divorces to test this theory on. [/quote]
My parents are divorced. Not having to go with my father half the time worked out real well for me.
A mother from my kids' Dojo has parents who are divorced. She only saw her father on Sundays. She has a great relationship with her father. So far, her marriage has lasted longer than mine.
My cousin, also from a divorced family, only had EOW with her mother. She has been married to her husband for almost 20 years. And this is one marriage that I can say is going to go the distance.
My other cousin, her older brother, well, he ran away when my aunt and uncle split. He did eventually come back. He got married a month before me. And is still married. Which puts him at being married for 14 years.
Now, lets go to my best friends when I was growing up. Their parents are still married. Will be married to each other until the day they die. They didn't physically abuse their kids. They just had 8 of them. None of them have had a relationship that has really lasted that long. They did okay in school, but as adults, they just can't make a relationship work. Why is this? Probably because the parents in their intact family just weren't that involved in raising them when they were kids. Which isn't surprising given how many kids there are.
And then there was the intact family next door to me when I was a kid. Their teen-age son was a pervert who exposed himself to my younger sister (she was around 10 at the time, he was around 16).
We could go on with all kinds of stories, both from intact and broken homes.
What it boils down to is: What can the kids handle and how can the parents be more involved within that limitation?
Thankfully, I live in a state that wouldn't force a custody arrangement on my kids that they couldn't handle.
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
And who is it that determines whether a child can "handle it" or not? Yours? What if your ex disagreed?
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
Same question to you. Who determines what is best for the kids, especially if the other parent disagrees with you? I think if you had been relegated to the EOW parent, you would be singing a different tune.
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
Yep--I agree.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]And who is it that determines whether a child can "handle it" or not? Yours? What if your ex disagreed? [/quote]
If my ex disagreed, we would have gone to court and he would not have prevailed. One thing about being the primary caregiver for the kids is that you get to know the kids better than anyone else. I found that to be true when I was a nanny, I find it to be true with my kids. This isn't to say that their Dad doesn't know the kids, he does. Just not as well as I do. Fortunately for my kids, I live in a state that does not have a presumption of 50/50.
I think the fact that she became a completely different child, and not for the better, when overnights started speaks for itself. And when we backed off to one overnight instead of the whole week-end, she improved drastically speaks for itself.
I think the fact that he had to call me and let her talk to me when he picked her up from childcare in order to marginally calm her down speaks for itself. She did not have this problem when I was the one picking her up.
I think the fact that she literally cried most of the week-end for me speaks for itself. She did not cry for her dad when she was with me.
I think the fact that I was unable to go to any of my older child's games on my ex's week-end because it made it too hard on her when she had to go with him instead of me speaks for itself. This was not a problem when ex came to the games on my week-end.
She's older now and more emotionally mature than she was when she was 4, when the overnights started, and the above are no longer issues. I can't tell you when it started getting better as it was a gradual process, it didn't happen overnight.
I have been the primary caregiver to both of the kids since the day they were born. Getting a divorce didn't change that.
Had they been older when my ex and I split, my youngest may have handled the whole situation better than she did. But that wasn't the case. And fortunately for her, she wasn't forced into a situation that she couldn't handle. Because if she was, she would be having all of those issues that proponents for 50/50 like to claim happens when it isn't 50/50.
If there is to be a presumption, it should be with what it was when the parents were together. During the divorce process, the parents can determine what is best for the kids. Where the problem begins is when one parent decides that they have the right to have their kids half the time and don't even take the kids into consideration.
An example: On another forum that I only lurk on, there was a father with a 2 year old with 50/50 physical who posted about how his daughter was not handling it at all. Never stopped crying for her mom. He wanted to change the parenting plan as the existing one was hurting her. The other posters, all proponents of 50/50 physical, told him not to do it. That she would adjust. It didn't matter that it had already been 7 months and that it wasn't working. To them, it wasn't about the kid at all, but about the father's rights. To he!! with the child.
And on this same forum, there was another poster who also had 50/50 physical since infancy. He posted about how his 4 year old has never really adjusted to the 50/50 physical and that he had wished he had done it differently then. But he didn't change the parenting plan as it stood now. He knew that his son wasn't handling it well, at all. But he didn't make any changes. Why? Because it wasn't about doing what was best for his kid, it was about his rights to be a father.
Then there is this wonderful example of two parents who actually did what was in their kid's best interest. The mother and father had a 2 year old who was not handling the 50/50 physical at all. The parents sat down and decided to change the parenting plan. Since the father was better able to work from home and handle primary care of the child, he became the primary parent and she got EOW. The child did much better after that.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]Same question to you. Who determines what is best for the kids, especially if the other parent disagrees with you? I think if you had been relegated to the EOW parent, you would be singing a different tune. [/quote]
If my being an EOW parent was in my kids' best interest, then that is what I would be.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"If my being an EOW parent was in my kids' best interest, then that is what I would be."
This isn't personal, but I've heard others say the same as you, but can't state a scenerio where this would occur, or give an example where they know it happened.
You gave one. Did mom by chance not pay child support by dad's choice? That's the usual situation in these cases.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
I disagree that everyone wins. I find a default of 50/50 to be just as bad as a default of one CP and one EOW NCP. Too many contingencies.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Being a CP or having the kids a larger percentage of the time does not necessarily equate to a control issue. Nice stereotype, though.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"I find a default of 50/50 to be just as bad as a default of one CP and one EOW NCP"
You certainly have a right to your opinion, but longitudinal studies of actual cases show otherwise. I don't go by the studies by groups with agendas...they are nearly always tainted.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
And I've watched 50/50 utterly fail. So?
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
You're wrong. But, nice try.
Ex and I decided together what would be best for our kids, and it's worked out quite well for them. He would speak out against 50/50 1000%, though initially, that's what he said he wanted. Point being...what HE wanted.
In the event that parents can't agree, then there should be a full parenting evaluation, complete with a CASA.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
I would say that nearly (if not all) of these types of studies are tainted. Which is why I go with there should be no standard. Every family, every child, is different.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]
You gave one. Did mom by chance not pay child support by dad's choice? That's the usual situation in these cases. [/quote]
The mom paid child support. As I said, it was a wonderful example of two parents who did put their kid first.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]"I find a default of 50/50 to be just as bad as a default of one CP and one EOW NCP"
You certainly have a right to your opinion, but longitudinal studies of actual cases show otherwise. I don't go by the studies by groups with agendas...they are nearly always tainted. [/quote]
There isn't a study anywhere that isn't tainted.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
Meh, my kids love it. My kids felt that THEY were cheated out of time with their dad. Doesn't work for everyone. Works for me. So I encourage it to those willing to give it a shot. If it works better some other way, then do what works. But for my kids, they felt cheated out of time with their dad. They didn't understand why dad only got a few weekends. I love it. The parents love it. The kids love it. So it's a win here!
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
What that means is I wouldn't put much faith in a study done by a men's rights group nor the NOW. Both have strong agendas.
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
You are making presumption that simply isn't the case. Presumption of 50-50 does NOT mean everyone must have it. In the state I dealt with that has the law it simply means absent evidence to the contrary - it is best. Typically what happens is 50-50 is ordered in the temp orders if either party wants it and no evidence is presented that would counter this being safe and good for the kids - so that by the time a judge must make a final decision - he has actual evidence as to how the situation will/will not work.
Without the law? One person - usually possession is 9/10s - is given temp custody and unless they are male or a female who puts the child in grave danger - they will keep it. There is nothing in that standard that really even PRETENDS to try to best serve the kids.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"Ex and I decided together what would be best for our kids, and it's worked out quite well for them. He would speak out against 50/50 1000%, though initially, that's what he said he wanted."
Hmm....sounds he was trampled to death by the system so they could (and you) could tell him what he "wanted."
How could he (or you) know how things would have turned out if you had 50/50 from the get go, like he wanted, and apparently you and the system denied?
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
What if not only your ex, but the judge disagreed with you? How would you have handled that?
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2015
|
|
[quote]What if not only your ex, but the judge disagreed with you? How would you have handled that? [/quote]
Given the fact that my ex has a short temper and had to complete an anger management course before he could even have overnights, that wasn't even a remote possibility.
If it was, it would have been a disaster for my youngest. And he would have ended up abusing her. He had already did some questionable stuff when we were together because he simply can't handle normal toddler behavior. He's much better with older kids who listen better than a 3 year old with a very strong will does. My going to the EOW parent would have been a disaster as well as her attachment to me was (and still is) very strong.
Had the judge forced 50/50 on my youngest, s/he would have done irrepairable damage to her. Some kids just don't do well with a 50/50. As I stated before, I live in a state that doesn't force 50/50. But goes with the best interest of the child. Which usually means keeping the status quo. In other words, if a parents was a SAHP, then that is who becomes primary. And that is a good thing for my kids.
I do think that in some cases, the status quo can work against what is in the children's best interest. But it did not in my case.
|
BeckaLeigh
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/08/05
Posts: 6875
Loc: Texas
|
|
DD, YAH and her X have an awesome arrangement. Both of them are there for their kids 100%. Yes, she is going to get mad at him and him her, but part of why some people come to these boards is to be able to vent without messing up the working relationship with the other parent.
--------------------
I tried being normal once. Worst five minutes of my life.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
The system didn't tell him anything. The only time we went to court was when he and his attorney went to have the judge sign off on the plan we wrote and agreed to.
We are now 6 1/2 years post-divorce, and our kids have done fabulously. Typical parent issues for the kids and typical divorce issues for the adults is about it. 50/50 was totally not necessary for that.
If you're looking for someone who railroaded her poor, defenseless ex, you've come to the wrong place.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Status quo also worked in our situation. I was, by far, the parent with the most parenting time while we were married. No reason for that to change post-divorce.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Thanks, becka...I also think we have an awesome arrangement.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
"I was, by far, the parent with the most parenting time while we were married. No reason for that to change post-divorce."
You also had sex with your ex...did THAT change? In other words, MANY MANY things change after divorce.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Difference is, we stopped being spouses. We didn't stop being co-parents.
There was absolutely no reason for those parenting splits to change.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
"There was absolutely no reason for those parenting splits to change."
So he sees the kids every day when he gets home from work? Yeah, I didn't think so...
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Nope...but that wasn't the situation when we were married either...try again.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
SO which was it, he DIDN'T see the kids when he came home, or he didn;t come home?
Lets be realistic, his time IS reduced, whether YOU want to admit it or not. And you are ONLY okay with that, because you are on the GOOD end of the sh!t stick.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
That's the problem...you think it is a competition. It's not. It's about giving the kids the best opportunity to excel. In most circumstances that's keeping as close to the status quo as you can.
In some situations, that's not the case. In some situations it isn't possible. In dome situations, one or both parties are so immature or angry or hurt that they can't work towards the kid's best interest.
Which is why I say...there should be no default...too many different situations for that.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Shared custody has worked well for my kids, although that wasn't the status quo. I was the primary parent when married. The only problem I've had is with the system, which has treated me like pond scum because I have the NCP title on paper. I had no idea the simple title, even with shared physical custody, would mean the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars of support over the life the order to the higher earning parent (my ex), and also disqualify me from all benefits, since they are all tied to CP status. THIS is what has been hard on the kids.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
"That's the problem...you think it is a competition. It's not. It's about giving the kids the best opportunity to excel. In most circumstances that's keeping as close to the status quo as you can."
I don't think it is a competition. I think you SHOULD keep it as close to the pre divorce situation as possible. But since MOST parents see their kids at LEAST once a day, that is NOT going to happen post separation.
And I have NO doubt that you like the status quo, it gives you the lion's share of the time.
"In dome situations, one or both parties are so immature or angry or hurt that they can't work towards the kid's best interest."
Well, making sure BOTH parties are being treated EQUALLY would go a long way to eliminate that. Kinda tough to NOT be angry when you are relegated to a vistor in your child's life because you DARED to WORK for a living and provide for your family.
"Which is why I say...there should be no default...too many different situations for that."
But there needs to be a STARTING point, from which modifications are made to meet the situation.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
I don't think it is fair to assume simply because a parent doesn't have 50-50 they were screwed. My father - would not have wanted it. His job was such that he needed to be able to be called away on a moments notice and go sans children. It wasn't feasible for him. DH was the same way. Hence 50-50 (in spite of the law) was not ordered. This idea that presumptive 50-50 means everyone has it is completely and totally erroneous. If one parent was uninvolved, can't work it due to work or other obligations, or has issues that negate them being a healthy safe parent - it does NOT happen. All the law does is create a standard where involved, loving parents don't have to bankrupt themselves adding a wing to their attorneys summer home JUST to avoid becoming completely marginalized in their kids lives. I really don't understand people who oppose that. In your situation it wouldn't have worked, fine. You would have had the opportunity to show that and end up exactly where you are.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
I don't care about both patents being "treated equally". I care about the kids having the situation they need to thrive.
My having the lions share of the time has little to do with my beliefs. It's a superior situation for my kids. Ex agrees.
Neither ex nor I are visitors in our kids lives...even when one or the other has only four overnights in a month.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
"I don't care about both patents being "treated equally"."
Well, it is the unequal treatment that CAUSES the anger you are speaking of as the cause of the problems.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Not true. The anger happens on both sides.
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
You don't think a child suffers when a parent that used to see them daily, was the one who read their bedtime stories, and/or fed them breakfast every day is suddenly gone except every other weekend?
And you can present it how you like, but you have said more than once that your ex and D are not as close as you and she. They have some severe differences of opinion. Which, who knows what her opinion would be had she lived full time with him and eow with you. She doesn't have to absorb and live by his opinions - she has to tolerate them 4 days a month. I am not saying that is a bad thing - you pretty much agree with your D and truthfully so do I. But that is what happens when one person is a visitor. Sometimes it is for the best, but most of the time you have two well-meaning involved parents that would immensely benefit their kids with the balance of their influences.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
ETA: I quick replied - this is a response to yah's post
"Being a CP or having the kids a larger percentage of the time does not necessarily equate to a control issue. Nice stereotype, though."
Yet it fits your case perfectly based on prior posts of what you will and won't do for your ex even if it means trying to facilitate a relationship with your children's father.
Bet you like that monthly check that comes like clock work for you - you know the child allotment based on your ex being disabled - curious - does he get to keep any of it to use on the children or do you get the entire allotment?
It may be stereotypical - but is true in so many situations - yours included - remember you were dead set against meeting your disabled ex because he moved even if it did help your children because by God HE moved - even though you were looking at moving too. You also sign your children up for multiple activites which limit their fathers time and according to you if he wants to see them more he can just get himself to the activities and by God they will NOT miss any activities even if it means more time with Dad - we all know 50/50 would never work in your situation - the kids could handle it - YOU can't and yes there is that like clock work check you would lose.........
Stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason - the control the CP tries/does exercise over the NCP happens ALL.THE.TIME.
Would you be the NCP - highly unlikely - Goodmom said if it was in her childrens best interest she would - I doubt the same could be said for you. Who gets to determine what is the best interest - You, your ex, the children? And by what standards - the courts are suppose to do this yet if they really wanted the best interest it would be 50/50 - no it would not work in some cases but the MAJORITY of cases it would work - but we don't want to stereotype - the stereotype is the majority of women get the children along with a check to raise them and the man is relegated to ncp eow - there's a stereotype for ya - but you agree with this one right....
Edited by annieo (11/01/11 05:56 PM)
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"Stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason - the control the CP tries/does exercise over the NCP happens ALL.THE.TIME."
I'm gonna call bull$hit on that one.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
I found the CP to have much more power after divorce...but that does not mean that all abuse it. Probably most don't.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
[quote]I found the CP to have much more power after divorce...but that does not mean that all abuse it. Probably most don't. [/quote]
You need to work on my unit.
I have one tech trying to get her ex to give up his rights, and became incensed when the court granted him EOW ( The child just turned 2)
I have another(nurse in this instance) who is planning on divorcing her husband, and even though he works from home, she wants to file so sole custody believing that she has some birthright to be the parents based on her gender.
Another tech wants to move out of state to Virginia and take her 3yr old with her, and when I mentioned that Missouri has extremely tough move-away laws (father has trad EOW), she stated she'd just take the kid anyways and deal with the court stuff after.
We have 2 other techs pregnant, and I already see the same mentality permeating in both.
The funniest statements coming from all of them is how their kids will be fine and grow up well regardless of lack of interaction with the fathers....then all I need to do is look at them and see how their lives have become a sh!tpile and find out they're just replicating their childhood all over again.
If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Except for in rare circumstances, a parent only becomes a visitor if they make themselves a visitor.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
>>>Yet it fits your case perfectly based on prior posts of what you will and won't do for your ex even if it means trying to facilitate a relationship with your children's father.<<<
LMAO...you have NO idea what you're talking about.
>>>Bet you like that monthly check that comes like clock work for you - you know the child allotment based on your ex being disabled - curious - does he get to keep any of it to use on the children or do you get the entire allotment?<<<
Are you assuming that I am living on the child support my kids receive? You'd be wrong. My income covers 100% of our monthly expenses, plus some. Yes, I get the entire allotment, as it's supposed to be.
>>>It may be stereotypical - but is true in so many situations - yours included - remember you were dead set against meeting your disabled ex because he moved even if it did help your children because by God HE moved - even though you were looking at moving too. You also sign your children up for multiple activites which limit their fathers time and according to you if he wants to see them more he can just get himself to the activities and by God they will NOT miss any activities even if it means more time with Dad - we all know 50/50 would never work in your situation - the kids could handle it - YOU can't and yes there is that like clock work check you would lose.........<<<
Again, you are WRONG. Yes, Ex moved. No, I'm not going to be held responsible for his decisions. Nor should I be. Yes, our kids are in activities, and no, they are not going to miss them, nor should they have to. FTR...Ex 100% agrees with that, and it's a part of our AGREED UPON Court Order. And once again, that "clock work check" is there to support our kids...not me. Nice try, though.
>>>Stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason - the control the CP tries/does exercise over the NCP happens ALL.THE.TIME.<<<
Or so some NCPs want people to believe so they can play the victim.
Would you be the NCP - highly unlikely - Goodmom said if it was in her childrens best interest she would - I doubt the same could be said for you. Who gets to determine what is the best interest - You, your ex, the children? And by what standards - the courts are suppose to do this yet if they really wanted the best interest it would be 50/50 - no it would not work in some cases but the MAJORITY of cases it would work - but we don't want to stereotype - the stereotype is the majority of women get the children along with a check to raise them and the man is relegated to ncp eow - there's a stereotype for ya - but you agree with this one right....
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
I guess I've seen similar...I assumed I just knew a few rotten eggs.
|
BeckaLeigh
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/08/05
Posts: 6875
Loc: Texas
|
|
No problem, girl. I wish I had just a quarter of yall's with my XPOS.
--------------------
I tried being normal once. Worst five minutes of my life.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Careful what you wish for...he stayed at my house all last week while Son was going to all his medical appointments and stuff...I was ready for him to go when he left...
|
BeckaLeigh
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/08/05
Posts: 6875
Loc: Texas
|
|
lmao. I would still rather have that than no help of any kind, and harassment galore. lol
--------------------
I tried being normal once. Worst five minutes of my life.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
Maybe you're just as blinded by your POV as I am by mine. He felt like a visitor in his child's life. His kids certainly felt as though they were visiting.
Here are a few things that changed for my husband after his ex asked for a divorce. You go from eating dinner with your children every night, to not being at dinner except every other Friday and Saturday. You go from bathing your kid every night, to someone else doing that in your place. You go from picking them up every day from daycare to not seeing them until Friday pickup at daycare. Those nights to go outside fishing with your son, reduced to what can fit in a weekend. The trips with extended family to places like the mountains or to Disney now must come with permission from a CP, where before, they could just go because each parent spent the same amount with the kids, so no one felt like they were losing. How about when the CP says, oh they can go on YOUR time...and YOUR time is reduced further so your kids can spend time with your family. To say it doesn't reduce a parent to being a visitor except by choice is not true. My husband would have loved to be able to keep doing all of the things he was used to doing. But how can you do that when your wife doesn't want you there, when she calls the police if you stop by to visit? You can't.
|
Redlegg
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/05/06
Posts: 26700
|
|
That is a reality. The normal parental relatioship is changed. We can all it whatever we want, co parenting, parenting time, but the reality is that it becomes a situation where both parents have to have permission to visit their own child when the other parent has them. You can actually spend more time with your nieces and nephews than you can with your own children. It is a situation where you can be escoted away, by the police, for trying to visit your own child. It is not better than when you had normal parental access.
So the reality exists, and the only thing you can do is make the best of it, which means you can co parent as much as possible, make decisiosn as two parents, allow more time, as much as you want, overnights, that is up to the parents involved. No matter what, a child being forced to spend less time with a parent is not a good thing. That is the default. There are always the instances where a child is better off spending less time with one parent, but that is not the norm, there are bad parents, that is not the norm.
What ends up happening is that hopefully you make the best of a worse situation, it is not as good, but it doesn't mean it has to be the absolute worst, or the kids will be deficient in some manner. But it is never better than the norm. You have to work with it, and you can make it work, but I don't see how a loving, caring parent being restricted is equal or better for a child.....
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
"Except for in rare circumstances, a parent only becomes a visitor if they make themselves a visitor."
And THIS is TYPICAL, "I have never been an NCP, but I know EXACTLY what it is like" mentality.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
I was thinking the exact same thing...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30210
|
|
But the FACT is that there is a LOT more accountability on the NCP side and a LOT less enforcement on the CP side. How many CP's are in jail for failure to facilitate parenting time? How many NCP's are told, like CP's are told when they deny parenting time, "I know you haven't paid child support, but forget about the OWED support, and you better start paying..."?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
"Except for in rare circumstances, a parent only becomes a visitor if they make themselves a visitor."
Sorry - but that is total BS. I would say the opposite. Except in cases where the CP chooses to not make it so - the eow NCP WILL WITHOUT EXCEPTION become a visitor. And the law does not in anyway require them to make the other parent matter - that would solely be their own choice to do so. Teachers, CP's bedmate, spend more time with their kids and have more influence over decisions in their kids life than they do. Unless the CP chooses out of kindness to keep them relevant.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"Except in cases where the CP chooses to not make it so - the eow NCP WILL WITHOUT EXCEPTION become a visitor. "
Some NCPs make the choice to become visitors and it has little to nothing to do with what the CP chooses.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
That's the point...some...and it applies in both equations. The majority of NCP's though see their children when they are told they are allowed to see their children. There are some who are afforded more time, and there are some who choose not to exercise any or little time. But that big bulge in the middle is the NCP who now goes to 4 or so days a month, and that is their total allocation of time now with their kids. How people come up with the notion that overall...as a whole that's better for the kids is beyond me. Exceptions can always be made for the fringe element on both sides, but just look at society as a whole to see what an utter disaster this has created in society.
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
How people come up with the notion that overall...as a whole that's better for the kids is beyond me.
_______________
Yea I agree there. But like YAH said, it doesn't work for everyone. But it would be a good starting point, they don't seem to mind splitting assets and liabilities down the middle...
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"That's the point...some...and it applies in both equations."
I agree with that... the point I disagreed was the "WILL WITHOUT EXCEPTION".
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
Disagreed how?
The point was that unless the CP decides otherwise they WILL be marginalized. Your point was they could also be marginalized by choice. Well, duh. If someone wants to be marginalized of course they will be.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"Your point was they could also be marginalized by choice. Well, duh. If someone wants to be marginalized of course they will be. "
Didn't see that as an option with the way it was worded, that's all. Looks like we agree after all...
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
It goes beyond parenting time. Twice my kids have been denied medical care at their regular provider until they got ahold of their mom on the phone for permission...and that's with shared legal and physical custody. Both of those visits were to regular scheduled visits, but their mom hadn't signed an annual "permission to treat" form yet.
As the NCP, I can't even bring them to the doctor unless it's the ER.
Another time I was at a local restaurant with the kids, and a GAL from the court recognized me in the lobby said it was nice to see me taking the kids out on my mid-week visit.
Mid week visit? I'd had the kids 50% or more of the time for the previous 11 years at the time.
Or, when it's time to have a child support hearing. CP is told to come to the courtroom 30 minutes early. I am to arrive 15 minutes early, but in another part of the building where the employees are behind bullet proof glass. When the hearing time arrives, a deputy arrives to escort and sit by me during the hearing, then I have to wait with them 15 minutes after the hearing so CP can be gone by the time I leave. This is standard with all CS cases in my county.
How many CP's have to go through degrading experiences like the above?
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"Another time I was at a local restaurant with the kids, and a GAL from the court recognized me in the lobby said it was nice to see me taking the kids out on my mid-week visit.
Mid week visit? I'd had the kids 50% or more of the time for the previous 11 years at the time."
You don't like being at the receiving end of assumptions and judgments, but you sure don't have a problem making them yourself.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
And how does that relate to being the NCP?
When's the last time your children were refused medical treatment until your ex husband gave permission?
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"And how does that relate to being the NCP? "
And how does that relate to the OP?
"Do you have anything of value to add? "
Whining isn't value lol.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Typical CP response.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"Typical CP response. "
Again with the judgments and assumptions...
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Why don't you just change your moniker to no clue?
It fits much better.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"Why don't you just change your moniker to no clue?
It fits much better. "
I think self-talk is more effective when it's positive... just my .02.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
If Dad was the one picking them up from daycare, giving them baths, taking them out in the evenings, etc, then how is mom having custody keeping the status quo?
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
[quote]"Except for in rare circumstances, a parent only becomes a visitor if they make themselves a visitor."
And THIS is TYPICAL, "I have never been an NCP, but I know EXACTLY what it is like" mentality. [/quote]
Uh huh...keep your daydream going...
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
If either parent needs their hand held in order to stay "relevant" in their kid's life, it's pretty apparent why they shouldn't be CP.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Actually, I've had my kid's medical records denied to me...illegally. My response wasn't to whine and cry about it. Instead, I printed off the state law that allows BOTH parents all access to their kid's medical records, as well as my divorce decree noting our Joint Legal Custody, and got the damned records from the office.
Unless your state laws are 100% different from mine, you CAN take your kid to the doctor, and I would address that fact with the provider. God knows my Ex has never had a problem taking our kids to the doctor. Hell...they can take themselves even.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Whine and cry? Just stating facts. Has the sheriff escorted you to any hearings?
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
NOpe, nor do they escort the NCP's to any Court hearings...unless there is a restraining order. But that would apply for a CP too.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
I have no record whatsoever, not even a traffic violation. It's standard policy where I live.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
"LMAO...you have NO idea what you're talking about."
I only know what you have posted over the last couple years - please enlighten me as to where I do not know what I am talking about??
You are getting along now but this isn't normally the case - as long as he plays mother may I with you - its all peachy
No you should not get the entire check - he should get some of it for when he sees the children
And no I do not think you live off the cs - at least not by your posts - you work - you provide and if your income covers all your bills then why the heck are you taking all of your disabled exs child allotment - really - so he has to dip into his own pocket to see his children which is common knowledge that disability pockets are not deep and your bill are covered by you just fine then why do you not give him some back - oh that's right - it is as it should be - your children come attached with a check - forget that your bills are covered by you - you are the cp and deserve to be paid to raise your children while the ex is relegated to very little time with his children and he has no real money to even have them longer - because you get the entire allotment - basically he pays for the children to visit him since you get the entire allotment - which btw is no small chump change - I can only hope you are saving the money for the children to go to college since you do not need it to raise the children.
Are you the one buying daughter a car and he is buying son a car? Why are you not buying both cars since you have the money meant for the children and you do not need it to live on? If it isn't you - my mistake;)
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
I wrote this before, but I think it's time to write again.
When my ex and I decided to start our family, I wanted to be as involved as I could through the whole process. I read books and sang to the womb each day to our unborn children. I waited on my ex hand and foot for many months to make the experience more positive as she was clearly very uncomfortable. She didn't have to lift a finger for months. As her birthing coach I was there every step of the way. As I held my crying newborn's hand upon her birth and said: "it's ok, it's your daddy," she immediately stopped crying, probably from being familiar with my voice. I cut their cords, held them for hours, and did 90% of the feedings/changings/parenting/caretaking for my babies for months as my ex wasn't up to it.
I was as involved a father as one can be. Yet, if you ask me what it's like to have a baby....I have no clue. I was there every step of the way, I can read about it in books or talk to moms about the experience, but I didn't deliver them, so I can't possibly ever know.
I tell this story, as it runs parallel to being an NCP. If you haven't actually walked in the shoes, you can't possibly know what it's like.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"you work - you provide and if your income covers all your bills then why the heck are you taking all of your disabled exs child allotment - really - so he has to dip into his own pocket to see his children which is common knowledge that disability pockets are not deep and your bill are covered by you just fine then why do you not give him some back - oh that's right - it is as it should be - your children come attached with a check - forget that your bills are covered by you - you are the cp and deserve to be paid to raise your children while the ex is relegated to very little time with his children and he has no real money to even have them longer - because you get the entire allotment - basically he pays for the children to visit him since you get the entire allotment - which btw is no small chump change - I can only hope you are saving the money for the children to go to college since you do not need it to raise the children."
I pay my bills whether cs comes or not... whether I "need" it or not does not come into play when both parents have a responsibility to support their children. Helping to support the children you created isn't like paying a daycare.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
"Stereotypes become stereotypes for a reason - the control the CP tries/does exercise over the NCP happens ALL.THE.TIME."
"I'm gonna call bull$hit on that one."
Why is it bull$hit - you may know of no one who fits this scenario but it happens All.THE.TIME.
Have you ever worked in the family law, GAL, CASA, DSHS, Child Services, Juvi Jail, or anything along those lines? You see it all the time in several places and a multitude of cases.
I am asking seriously - not being snarky - just asking.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"Why is it bull$hit - you may know of no one who fits this scenario but it happens All.THE.TIME."
If it happens ALL.THE.TIME... there would be no exceptions.
"Have you ever worked in the family law, GAL, CASA, DSHS, Child Services, Juvi Jail, or anything along those lines?"
I have not.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
>>>You are getting along now but this isn't normally the case - as long as he plays mother may I with you - its all peachy<<<
What makes you think he plays mother may I? Oh...your ASSumptions. Yeah, you don't know a thing.
>>>No you should not get the entire check - he should get some of it for when he sees the children<<<
Yeah, I actually should. If one figured child support based upon his income and mine, the amount I get is right at the CS amount.
>>>And no I do not think you live off the cs - at least not by your posts - you work - you provide and if your income covers all your bills then why the heck are you taking all of your disabled exs child allotment - really - so he has to dip into his own pocket to see his children which is common knowledge that disability pockets are not deep and your bill are covered by you just fine then why do you not give him some back - oh that's right - it is as it should be - your children come attached with a check - forget that your bills are covered by you - you are the cp and deserve to be paid to raise your children while the ex is relegated to very little time with his children and he has no real money to even have them longer - because you get the entire allotment - basically he pays for the children to visit him since you get the entire allotment - which btw is no small chump change - I can only hope you are saving the money for the children to go to college since you do not need it to raise the children.<<<
Why would I be saving that money for my kids to go to college? It's for Ex's portion of their care NOW. And really...you do have NO clue of realities because Ex is hardly a pauper. He makes 50,000 a year...tax free. So, try again.
>>>Are you the one buying daughter a car and he is buying son a car? Why are you not buying both cars since you have the money meant for the children and you do not need it to live on? If it isn't you - my mistake;)<<<
Because it's an extra, and we split extras 50/50. And yes...it's me.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
she said she covered her bills and did not need the disability allotment - that is where that came from - she did not want me thinking she lived off cs - which I didn't think she did - but she gets the entire child allotment for both children even though he does spend time with them - there is no percentage of breakdown for the child allotment like there is the percentage breakdown in most cs cases - as in she would get x% and he would keep Y% - this is how it should be and not her getting the entire check - maybe she lives in a state that only takes the ncp income into account and the cp is not expected to contribute (legally) to their children's expenses?
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
"she said she covered her bills and did not need the disability allotment - that is where that came from"
So you don't feel the same way about cs? That the kids come attached with a check, that the CP feels they deserve to be paid to raise the children, that if the CP's income covers all the bills cs should be returned or put away for college?
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Nope...we have an income (and parenting time) share state. Just so happens the amount I get is pretty much exactly what the child support amount should be.
It doesn't matter that I can pay my bills on my income...BOTH parents are to support their kids.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
""LMAO...you have NO idea what you're talking about."
I only know what you have posted over the last couple years - please enlighten me as to where I do not know what I am talking about??"
I am getting my ASSumptions from your prior posts........so were you misrepresenting your self/situation then? I'm not making assumptions - it comes from your posts on the sfb.
Why should you be saving it (at least a good portion of it) because you don't need it to raise them now - and from what you have stated about your children the are smart and athletic and will probably go to college - why not save it - you make it sound like saving it for your children's future is ridiculous?
Do you think the money is owed to you? Not being snarky - just asking - many cps think the money is owed to them - not saying you do - just asking
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
no - I don't think cs should change hands and custody should be 50/50 and each raise the child on their time on their dime.
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1410
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
"It doesn't matter that I can pay my bills on my income...BOTH parents are to support their kids."
And each parent should have their child equally as BOTH parents need to raise their children equally
We will have to agree to disagree - I believe the child needs both parents with equal time and you believe opposite of that ;)
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20058
|
|
'no - I don't think cs should change hands and custody should be 50/50 and each raise the child on their time on their dime. "
And when a parent is not interested in "their time"...?
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
I don't have any problem with CS and 50/50 custody, as long as the formula isn't slanted. If one party isn't taking their time, then CS is adjusted accordingly.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
>>>I only know what you have posted over the last couple years - please enlighten me as to where I do not know what I am talking about??"
I am getting my ASSumptions from your prior posts........so were you misrepresenting your self/situation then? I'm not making assumptions - it comes from your posts on the sfb.<<<
OMG...you mean, we have disagreements?!?!? OHHHH the HORRORS. What parents don't? I don't know a single set of parents, married or divorced, who has never had disagreements. We're no different.
>>>Why should you be saving it (at least a good portion of it) because you don't need it to raise them now - and from what you have stated about your children the are smart and athletic and will probably go to college - why not save it - you make it sound like saving it for your children's future is ridiculous?<<<
No, the amount I receive goes towards their support, as it's intended to do. Just because my income CAN pay for the bills doesn't mean it should. It pays for what my portion should pay, and the amount I receive for the kids pays for the portion that Ex's child support should pay. The rest is for me to do with as I choose...get my nails done, go on a vacation, play a season of indoor soccer...whatever I want. :)
>>>Do you think the money is owed to you? Not being snarky - just asking - many cps think the money is owed to them - not saying you do - just asking<<<
No, the money is Ex's portion of supporting our kid's needs.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Yup...I believe all kids are different, and the time shares should differ accordingly.
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
You mean both mom and dad couldn't BOTH be giving baths? I know my DH SHARED that with me, even when I was home all day with them...because he loved having that experience with them. I know that if DH and I ever divorced, we would split custody of our daughter...no way could I yank her from him....I saw what it did to my skids and to my DH.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
">>>Do you think the money is owed to you? Not being snarky - just asking - many cps think the money is owed to them - not saying you do - just asking<<<
No, the money is Ex's portion of supporting our kid's needs."
My ex had a different view on that early on, and I'm not sure where the line of thinking came from. Maybe someone could elaborate. We split custody, but in my state CS was based on the NCP's income at the time.
So....she made twice as much as me, but I paid 50% of my income in CS and daycare.....and when the CS would be spent, she would call and ask for more.
I knew exactly what it cost to raise the kids as I had them half of the time, yet CS was about double what I spent on them them with me...so it was far more than enough. Her mindset was that the NCP doesn't just pay for their share of raising the kids....they must pay her share too, or in other words, all of it.
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
"The rest is for me to do with as I choose...get my nails done, go on a vacation, play a season of indoor soccer...whatever I want. :)"
That is your choice. I hope you are choosing to save some for college too!
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
nope...
|
DedicatedDad
veteran
Reged: 09/05/04
Posts: 1318
|
|
Any particular reason why not? Just curious....I won't flame regardless of your explanation.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
Their college is pretty much paid for...before any scholarships and/or financial aide. The extra money I have goes to pay for extras they need/want now and my own retirement.
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7956
|
|
What if they want to go to real schools like KU or K state and not Oklahoma Panhandle State U? That could require some extra $$$$$.
|
youngatheart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/03/05
Posts: 9394
|
|
[quote]What if they want to go to real schools like KU or K state and not Oklahoma Panhandle State U? That could require some extra $$$$$. [/quote]
Yeah, uh huh...
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
If Dad was the one picking them up from daycare, giving them baths, taking them out in the evenings, etc, then how is mom having custody keeping the status quo?
___________________________________
In this county, at that time, it was status quo to give custody to the Mother and order the Father EOW visitation. He just wasn't in a position to fight for more, emotionally or financially. ***I don't want it to seem like BM was just a lazy parent who didn't do those things, it's just my hubby happens to like cooking, BM did not. My hubby worked closer to daycare, so he got them. You know? It's what worked for the family. But BM decided she wanted to change the family. And at the time, EOW and Wednesday nights was just what the judge ordered.
But that's why I'd like the relationships between the parents to be considered before the 'starting point' of negotiations. My hubby should have started with 50/50, but 11 years ago that was just not happening in this county.
|
elliesmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 8835
|
|
Who said anything about handholding? What a BS idea.
A person (father, mother, what have you) cannot exert parental influence in 4 days a month (not even really 2 uninterrupted days a month is more like it) unless the person who has the other 26-28 days elevates their opinions and influence during their time. BTDT. Sad but true. My husband loves his daughter just as much as our kids, but he has zero influence over her life. She can wear all the skanky clothes her mother finds acceptable, let her bf treat her like cr@p while her mom is friending him on FB and cooing over how great he is, post as many skanky pictures on FB with her tongue in a guys mouth while in her bed together that her mother sees and approves of. All the while her mother has conditioned her to believe that anyone who really loves her will always approve of her every whim. He is in a corner with zero influence. It happens when you see your kid a couple days a month. And that is not a parent. Doesn't matter that you drive 8 hrs round trip for every sport/music event your kid is in, that you love them more than your own life, are in touch with every teacher and use the online program to always know what is going on with school, that you chat with them on FB so they keep you in the loop on their life at least once a week. Their choices are based on who has the influence. And at 2 days a month it isn't you. It is pretty hard to even set an example when they are only in your life for the 2 days off you have. And that is not a parent. That is a visitor. And that is what happens to good parents who end up with the typical "eow" schedule, UNLESS the other parent is willing to work with them - instead of relishing every opportunity to drive a wedge and be the favorite parent. And lets face it if most couples worked well together - they'd still be married. At least when 50-50 is the standard to deviate from - you see parents who want it get more than eow. I rarely hear of straight up 50-50 even in our state with the law. Usually the parents sit down and iron out what works best and what they can live with - with no one worried they need a shark lawyer to make sure they don't totally lose their kids. You know - mom gets off work at 4 so she whould have every wednesday since she is the only one who can get the kids to soccer. Or mom wants to take college classes tuesday night so the kids will be at dads every tuesday. That is what I see happening in my state with the law. Its not a universal application - it is the starting negotiating point. As it should be.
--------------------
Forgiveness is...letting go of the hope that the past can be changed.
|
M5M5
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/29/05
Posts: 11722
|
|
I agree with everything you have said, completely! Awesome post...and sadly, I saw/seen this alot in the past 6 years with my DH and my skids.
|
SweetLight
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/07/10
Posts: 2003
|
|
Am I reading this correctly? 15 pages later on this thread, the OP has 2 posts total, and I'm hoping she got the help she needed. BAER. We certainly have some career posters that cannot help but talk about themselves.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
