Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Apple

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6
I understand both sides, but I still feel that subsequent children should not be penalized because an obligor has more children.  Unfortunately, some parents become underemployed to skirt CS (but they are also making less money, so really I don't see the logic), but if a CP decides to make up the difference that's their choice. 

If an family is not intact, it doesn't give the older children more of a priority financially, at leat not in my opinion.  Each parent gets to make their own decisions about kids.  If a NCP has more kids knowing it may decrease the CS they pay to exsisting kids, then as a parent they have a right to make that choice. Albeit not a popular one for the CP. 


I respectfully disagree on the last point.  How is the CP bearing the brunt if NCP has subsequent children (and the CS is reduced as a result)?  The CS is for the child.  If an intact family decides to have additional children and there is no increase in the parent's income, then logic tells me all the children will have 'less.'  Why should it be different for split families?

I live in a state where CS can be reduced if NCP has subsequent children and courts take into account both parent's income (or potential for income).  I think it's progressive and fair.

General Issues / Re: School attendance issue
« on: Jun 23, 2011, 05:17:40 PM »
All good points, thank you Ocean.  I appreicate it. 

BM currently lives in a large apartment complex, I'm sure they have units open.  BM has moved five times in the last five years (all within the school district until now), she's very versed on finding a new place to live...

General Issues / Re: School attendance issue
« on: Jun 23, 2011, 07:51:39 AM »
We have a meeting with the attorney Monday morning.  The PC told us she's had her decisions reversed in court only twice in the last 20 years, and they were minor decisions.  We didn't see a judge for the decision last year, the PC ruled and BM complied so there was no hearing.

They haven't moved yet.  They are in summer school in the current district now and BM plans on moving 8/1. 

Each party has 14 days to appeal the PC's decision, BM did it in the time allowed so she's not in violation of anything . 

We're not blaiming BM for the kids being behind (even though I feel she is very lacking as a parent and could have done more).  However, it's still in their best interest to stay put schoolwise (the school's opinion, the PC's opinion and mine and DH opinion). 

I'm just concerned this all isn't enough to change custoday.  I think it is, but of course I'm biased... 

General Issues / Re: School attendance issue
« on: Jun 22, 2011, 08:03:16 PM »
We don't live in the district either, but the kids have been approved for open enrollment.  So they can continue in the same district regardless of where they live. 

BM is not being kicked out of where she lives now, she's voluntarily moving (her new husband works near the new place).  All reasoning for moving is based on her wants. 

I was unclear on the school.  The kids didn't miss school, they are behind academically.  Both at least two years.

We do have a court date, 8/10.  DH got the notice today.  BM's offical move date is 8/1 (although her lease started 6/1).  School here starts the Tuesday after Labor Day.

We'll meet with the attorney soon to file the response. 

General Issues / School attendance issue
« on: Jun 22, 2011, 07:40:22 PM »
Over the last 14 months my DH and his ex have used a Parenting Consultant to reslove issues they can't.  The biggie has been school attendance.  Last year BM wanted to move, changing the kids school.  PC researched all aspects and ruled the kids have to stay in the same schools for the 2010-11 school year.  BM complied and they stayed put.

Fast forward to this year.  BM notified DH in mid May she was moving, and has already singed a lease on a place 60 miles away (and told the kids and school before telling DH).  Once again, DH contacts PC and she re-evaluates the kids progress etc. and rules again, they need to stay in the same district.

As expected, BM has filed a motion to have the school decision reversed.  The PC write ups (both years) are pretty clear, there is no benefit to moving the kids to a new school.  PC spoke to teachers and they all agree the kids should stay where they are.  All are concerned the kids may suffer an unrecoverable set back.  Both kids are severly behind (but making progress).  Youngest is ADHD (and LD) and has problems dealing with change.  Also, the 'new' district has a large % of expulsion, 9 times that of the current district.   

DH has contacted his attorney and we hope to meet with her soon.  BM is moving 60 miles away.  I can't see a senario where a judge would uphold the school decision and keep them in BM's custody, the daily travel would be too much for them.   

Is school attendance enough to change custody (if they lived with us we could get them to school)?  Currently BM and DH share legal and BM has physical.   

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6
Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.