SPARC Forums

We are in Michigan if that matters at all. When we were being threatened with a custody trial by sd's mom, my husband went to an attorney and he said it looks better to be the defendant.

Now more pretty significant problems are comming up between the 2 parents and the inability to come to agreements, that should be dealt with through the court. To make it clear who has final say on certain issues etc. Afterall if the parents cant agree someone has to have final say right?

Anyway since dh was told that it would be better to be the defendant, dh has never brought any issues to court, neither has bm at this point though. Have you heard this theory? Is it really better to be the defendant? Just wait for the other person to get fed up with something and make the first move?

Sorry to bump this up, I thought maybe it got lost amongst the long reply's lately.

I would say overall it is better to be the defendant.  
Numerous reasons:
1)  She's taking you so she can't sue for attorney's fees
2)  It's easier to defend claims and then have a chance to counter with things that you want changed.
3)  If you are the one initating, you need a change of circumstance, and have to have LOTS of proof why the changes are needed.
4)  The one initiating "can" be the one charged with parenting evals, GAL, etc., if it's not split between parties.

In our case, PB went to court for more money (she was already getting over 1000 a month for 2) with outright lies.  DH took that as a chance to counter and to ask for 50/50 (we really wanted it) and bring up 3 specific counts of contempt.  She balked and just turned them over to us.

bump