bf has an 18 month old son, lives with BM in CA. a little background...
she got pg right before they broke up, then moved from MI to CA. BF is high earner. Borderline neglectful, but not enough to lose custody. BM stole well over $50K from BF (case pending). Case is more about money than child, unfortunately. He pays $2K CS now, she's look for 3x that amount. Refuses to work. He is in school full time in MI, but spent majority of summer in CA, and now flies out every other weekend, with extended weekend 1x month. She refuses to allow more than 4 days in a row, no more than 5 hours at a time. She claims to still be nursing, but is not. She will not bring child to MI to see his family, because of check fraud case (afraid she'll be arrested). He's a great father, wants nothing more than to see his son more, she's refusing. Keeps missing co-parenting class, which is pre-requisite for mediation. Can't go to court until mediation done. He's had evaluation by child psych. numerous times, and psych is in his favor.
What are his chances at 50/50 custody with 2 weeks here/there visits? He's trying to avoid having to move to CA, because of school and life here.
Unfortunately, BM wants 100% control and more money - this is all about the money, and not the child.
Any help is appreciated.
Chances are slim that a court would order 2 weeks here/there with an 18 month child.
So long as there is so much distance between the parents, the court is most likely going to find that one parent should be the primary caregiver, and one should be the visiting parent.
I suggest the father may think about exactly what he's stating... "It's too much of a burden for me to live in CA, so instead I want to place that 1500 mile travel twice monthly on a toddler; forcing 24 long flights per year and not allowing him to live in either home consistently."
Think that attitude will fly with a judge who is supposed to rule in the best interest of the child?
If he wants to be seriously involved in raising this child, he should move to CA and fight the custody case there.
Thanks for your response. We're willing to move to CA if we have to. We're trying to avoid that because the tax bracket will kill him financially. His attitide is not a problem, either. He wants time with his son, and is thrown roadblocks by BM every chance she gets. He flies out every other weekend now, and had extra days last week and she wouldn't let him see him more than 4 days in a row. Just because. We're hoping all the crap she's pulled will go against her, but know that courts usually favor the mother.
>Thanks for your response. We're willing to move to CA if we
>have to. We're trying to avoid that because the tax bracket
>will kill him financially. His attitide is not a problem,
>either. He wants time with his son, and is thrown roadblocks
>by BM every chance she gets. He flies out every other weekend
>now, and had extra days last week and she wouldn't let him see
>him more than 4 days in a row. Just because. We're hoping
>all the crap she's pulled will go against her, but know that
>courts usually favor the mother.
I take issue with your last sentence. The courts usually favor the parent who has a better case.
Some judges may be biased one way or another, but a minority of judges does not account for "usually".
The "tax bracket" in CA for high earners is 9% of AGI.
How much is he spending now on airfare, car rental, and hotel lodging, not to mention loss of time for all the travel?
I'm seeing excuses to keep priorities where they are.
I've emphasized the importance of moving to CA if he wants to be significantly involved in raising his child. Period.
I'm reading between the lines that you're the girlfriend, who obviously (and reasonably) doesn't want to disrupt her life. I suggest you let him fight his battles. It'll be better for your relationship for you to just be a voice of empathy, and not a comrade in arms with him. Sorry if I've misread that you're not the girlfriend.