Messages

I will try to keep this as short as I can. My Ex has decided to move to another town with her Boyfriend. She moved 60 miles away and has decided that she is going to fight to get full custody of the 2 young children so they can go to school where she lives. We now have 50/50 joint custody of them and share them every other week.

A little about her: She works 2 days a week 90 Miles from where she just moved to, the other 3 days she is not sure where she will be because she is in sales. She was evicted from her last home 4 months ago, which is why she is living with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend has 4 other kids living with them in a 4 beedroom house which is a total of 8 people living in the house. I did some digging and found that he has 2 accounts of assault and just got off probation 2 months ago for his last. He does not have a job at this time, and is looking for one now. She has had 4 jobs in the past 4 years and 3 boyfriends that she introduced the kids to.

A little about me: I am remarried. She has 2 children that has the same living arangements as my children do now. I live and work in the same community that the kids went to school last year. I have been working for the same company for the last 5 years and have climbed the ladder here at work. My wife now has had the same job the past 5 years and has also done the same. I have made all my child suppot payments and any other payment as far as that goes. I have a 6 beedroom home with plenty of room for all of them to run and play. I was the parent that picked the kids up from school last year if they got sick at school or got out of school early. Even though she lived here last year she worked 30 miles away.

Im wondering if anyone has ever seen this and how the outcome was? I dont want to be a dad that gets to see his kids ever other week. I love my kids completly and I am worried about the out come. I just dont feel that it is in the best intrest of the children to be living with there mother. How will this be viewed by the Judge?

Is she a difficult person...the mother?

[125.490]

Oneman......I dont see where you think the argument stands is "she wont agree to 50/50, that means I should have sole custody"
Here, lets look at my states laws....which is tailored after so many other states
  NRS 125.490  Joint custody.
     1.  There is a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody would be in the best interest of a minor child if the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage.
OK. presumption.....not guarenteed nor "you may force the other one into joint custody otherwise we will give you sole custody"
Here, I'll even give you personal first hand knowledge.
I handled my divorce ProSe. I wanted sole legal and Primary physical custody. she wanted one week on one week off. She insisted her cause was for best interest of children and the only reason I wanted her to have a EOW schedule was to keep kids out of her life. Kids were 6 and 4. I argued it was NOT in there best interests (and mind you mom lived just one school zone over) based upon a history of instability for children while we were married, the kids were in need of a stable lifestyle, and during the court proceedings I have been responsible for the oldest child getting to school where she was thriving!
So I never once agreed to her 50/50 arangement........oh, and I still was awarded Primary custody based on my argument.

My point isn't clear, I guess. In the original poster's situation, the father wants sole physical custody. I assume this is because he thinks the mother will continue keeping the child and father apart. However, I believe that even with a difficult mother (or father), it is still in the child's best interest to have a shared situation so that he has maximum time with each parent. Therefore, if she will agree to abide by a 50-50 agreement, that is best for the child. Only the father knows whether she is trustworthy. This particular situation doesn't look good, but I think people should be given a chance, especially when we're talking about a parent. But if the father is sure that she cannot be trusted, then a move for sole custody (http://deltabravo.net/cms/search.php?q=custody+types&s=Search&r=0) is the smartest move as I see it. And if she demands sole custody, then even more reason for the father to move for sole custody.

Check the laws in your state before going with any of this advice.  In my state, married parents have equal rights, however an unwed mother immediately has custody of the child as the paternity of the father may be in question.I would not suggest picking up the child and keeping him/her without consulting a lawyer family with your state laws.

I made the same point when I originally commented--check your state laws and check to see if the father is named as the father on the birth certificate.

Of course, if the father does not appear on the birth certificate, I cannot imagine any state presuming equal custody.

But if his name is on there, then, if there is no custody order or legal agreement, many states say that neither has custody.

My main point: do not ASSUME the mother is automatically the custodian without checking first.

If there arent any orders in place and shes not violating any visitation orders......the sad truth she is in her rights. Screwed up as she may be, thats what it is.

True. She is within her "rights." But the father is also in his rights if he picks up child and keeps child away from mom, screwy as that it.

Who is the person seeking an order? The dad? Then the dad must show that while no order was in place, that is, when the mother was left to her own judgment, she refused to act in the child's best interest. Why would she be rewarded for this behavior by receiving a sole custody judgment? It would be unreasonable for a judge to rule that way because the has established a pattern that she would presumably repeat.

Im sorry....but where is this a "good case for sole custody"??

Again, "the father would be smart to move for sole custody (http://deltabravo.net/cms/search.php?q=custody+types&s=Search&r=0) unless she is willing to agree to a 50-50 plan and abide by it."

If the mother has a history of keeping the child away from his father, even going so far as to relocate the child, she is not acting in the child's best interest. Period. (I am presuming that the father is a fit father...no drugs, criminality, abuse, etc.)

Secondly, if the mother will not agree to 50-50 arrangement and the parents live close to each other, the question arises, why? If she is a mother who deliberately spirits the child away from the father, anything except a 50-50 split will probably end with the mother continuing with this behavior.

A sole custody ruling would be the best guarantee that the child would have an ongoing, regular relationship with his father, given THIS MOTHER'S BEHAVIOR.

Is there no custody order?
In non-married situations, in many states, he has just as much custody rights as she does if he's named as the father on the birth certificate. This could even be the case if his name isn't on the certificate.

This means that he can keep his child as long as he wants...which is exactly what she is doing.

Check your state's laws.

BTW, if the mother is acting this way now, there is a high probability that she will always act this way. Assume that she will. If you are lucky, she won't. But prepare for the worst in this kind of situation.

Since she acts this way and demonstrates that she will make extraordinary efforts to keep the child away from his parent, the father would be smart to move for sole custody unless she is willing to agree to a 50-50 plan and abide by it.

If she doesn't agree, the father has a strong case for sole custody because he shows that he will act in the best interest of the child whereas the mother has shown that she will not.

A family member has an out-of-wedlock child with his girlfriend who was recently divorced when they met but had no kids in her marriage. The child is a boy. I doubt the pregnancy was planned--they'd been together less than a year. They seemed to be good for each other but things have fallen apart. My cousin loves his child, but isn't too happy that the mother didn't want to stay together. It's not clear to me why. They are now split. He wanted to marry but she told him she didn't (I think her marriage was abusive). My cousin brought up marriage when she got pregnant and he says she just said "I'll think about it." In any case, a huge problem has developed between them about their son's last name. My cousin supports his son, raises him half the time, did diapers, doctors, everything. But apparently the gf quietly signed a birth certificate document for unwed mothers at birth where she assigned her last name to their son, rather than my cousin's name. But her last name is her married name, not her family-ofHACK name. The marriage lasted 2 or 3 years but she has kept the married name and wants to continue to keep it and told my cousin she probably would have kept it if they had married.

My cousin doesn't understand the point of their son having her ex-husband's last name and has talked to her about it quite a few times. I told him she sounds completely nuts. But apparently her attitude is it isn't her ex's name, it's HER name now and she doesn't want confusion when son starts school with having different last names. He says she hates it when he brings it up and tells him that he's "making way too much" of this and this is more about his wounded male pride than really caring about what's best for his child. The whole situation upsets my cousin a lot. Is this normal in these cases? It sounds wacky to me, especially for their son in the future. If it were the gf's family name, that would be great, but this seems weird. I figured someone here would know. He's a very stand up guy who doesn't want to have a big conflict but it seems to be heading in that direction. He thinks (and I agree) that his child should be raised with his family name and be linked to his family line, not her ex's line, even if it is her name now. The most recent development is she said she might compromise and go along with a hyphenated last name as long as her name comes second. Another idea she has is to make my cousin's last name their son's middle name and keep the last name as is. I think she's trying to keep him separated from son psychologically and that when the boy gets older and figures out what happened he will loathe her for what she did. But he just wants to avoid court. They have no court order. He told me he thought at the beginning that she would eventually understand this wasn't good for their son and change it herself. But as time goes by, I wonder. I told him to take this to court because I can tell it will continue to bother him.

Honestly, I have really tried to allow open communication between our son and his father. As of this past week, I was even going to setup an old laptop in my son's room so he could Skype with my ex-inlaws, in an attempt to move past everything they have done to me (including me having to get a protective order). Every time I try to do something nice for no reason other than I think it would be good for my son, they prove to me over and over again why I shouldn't. It's just so hard to decide at what point those conversations with his father are doing more bad than good. Every Sunday that we switch, I just wait for the nasty email that follows. It's like clockwork now, and I've learned to ignore them, but I genuinely worry about how things are for our son when he is at his dad's. He mentioned to me yesterday that his dad says bad words about mommy. I told him that he could talk to me about it if he wants, and that if it really bothers him, all he has to do is tell his daddy he doesn't want to hear it. I emailed my ex regarding this, in the nicest way possible and not accusing in any way. On a positive note, however, his dad did give me right of first refusal this morning. Maybe we are finally getting somewhere with that.

With my high conflict ex I have learned that there is no such thing as "finally getting somewhere" with her. By definition, I think a person will never "get somewhere" with a high conflict person. That would mean they were not a high conflict person.

Bad mouthing the other parent is totally off limits. In my opinion, it doesn't call for a response in the nicest way possible. It calls for a warning, a warning you are prepared to follow through with with every legal means at your disposal. This doesn't mean an argument or a discussion. It means a simple, clear, unmistakeable warning to never try it again. Hopefully there is something in your order about that and you can show that he is in breach.

It's equally important to allow the child full access to both sides of his/her family--by phone, skype, whatever.

I see no reason why the word "priviledges" should ever be connected to communication with the other parent, even if child and parent end up hanging out on the phone for an hour (if there's nothing else going on). I personally find the whole punitive aspect of custody and time-sharing in this country pretty sick. The laws have been created in such a way that they are license for acts of vindictiveness, pettiness and punishment.   I don't want to add to that in anyway.

I also don't agree with the 2.5 day 50/50 split, OneMan.  Here's why:  a recent article in Psychology Today emphasized that with shared parenting in a high-conflict situation, the fewer times a child has to be exchanged between parents lessens the conflict for the child.  Since the child is exposed fewer times to the conflict between the parents, it lessens the anxiety the child has to suffer.

Here's 2 links regarding the article:

If the parents always argue in front of junior, then I'd have to agree. But if there's little arguing or mild stress, I think the benefits outweigh the separation. God knows that plenty of arguing goes on between parents in front of kids inside intact families also, so you never escape from that dynamic even in the best of circumstances.

Our main reason for one week on, one week off was because he starts school in just a few months. It would be too confusing to follow his school work, etc. once that happens. He has actually adjusted very well to the split and just thinks he has two houses and mommy & daddy share him.

Yes, I understand your point about school. But at age 5, there was very little school work, so it really wasn't that big an issue.  Our kid usually ended up doing the work in one parent's house because the other parent didn't leave work until almost 8 in the evening, so all the homework got done in one place. Everyone has to do what they think is right and every situation is different. This seemed the right path for my child's situation. Today, our kid is well-adjusted and performs at a very high level academically. I think it's largely because of maximum exposure to both parents from a very young age and regular schedules.  I really did not enjoy having to see the super high conflict ex that much, but our child benefited. That's why I'm raising this.

I also recall that the ex wanted to have daily contact on the phone, sometimes more than once a day if she forgot to say something. I believed that was super important and there have never been any limits on phone contact. That goes for how many phone calls and for the length of the calls. It also goes both ways. I can call to her place when I want to. And daily phone contact has ended up being important for both her and me. I occasionally get the feeling that she doesn't like me calling and that she puts subtle pressure on our kid to get off. But I still call and she calls too. I believe that every possible line of communication between parent and child should be as wide open as possible. And if child and parent were apart for a whole week, phone communication would be even more important. Unless there's something very pressing going on, I let the call go on as long as they want to talk and go off and do other things. She generally does the same. That is one of the more positive aspects of the situation.

For me, the cardinal rule has always been and continues to be that there be maximum possible contact between each parent and child, both physically and by phone. I believe that the space between a child and their parent is a no-go zone for the other parent. By the way, the other parent hasn't always shared this view, and I've had to fight to get it this way and to keep it this way. Eventually she came to see the benefits, including to her, and so she mellowed somewhat. Mainly she saw the good outcomes.