Big question....
Mom and Dad live in the same town. Dad is currently only getting the boys, ages 10 and 12, every other weekend and wants them more. Dad has a house with a room for the boys.
What is the best approach for this? Just ask for a 50/50 split or ask for a change in custody and settle for 50/50? There isn't any reason (safety and well being of the kids) why 50/50 wouldn't work...the boys have all of their own things at both homes.
Dad feels sure Mom will raise cane, as she will lose the child support and hence, either have to sell the house or buy Dad out. Will the court view her loss of income and consider that in the decision when Dad requests more time?
Any and all thoughts are appreciated.
You didn't say where they are in the process. Is the divorce final with a court-approved custody order?
If there's already an order in place, you generally need to show a significant change in circumstances in order to get a change.
If there's no order in place and they're just trying to work it out for the first time, there's a chance, but the bias will be for the status quo (current situation - every other weekend).
Mom's loss of 'income' is completely irrelevant - because it's not income. It's child support. From the court's perspective, it doesn't matter who has the kids, as long as they're supported.
For simplicity's sake I'm going to make up some numbers. Your numbers will differ, let's say the cost of raising the kids is $10 per day and Mom has no income. Currently, kids are with Mom 300 days per year. Father pays Mom $3,000 per year and keeps the kids 65 days per year (which costs him $650 that he pays himself).
Now, let's say Dad gets an even split - 182 days. Dad pays Mom $1,830 for the 183 days kids are with her and pays the cost of supporting the kids ($10 per day) for the 182 days they're with him. The total amount available to support the kids is unchanged in this scenario - it's just that the father pays more of it directly rather than using Mom as a middleman.
Of course, that's the theory. Practice is very much dependent on your court - and the situation that I mentioned in my first paragraph.
This is an over simplified view of child support, and is not really what applied here in CA. Both parents have a responsibility for contributing to the support of the child(ren). As stated by the judge at my custody/support hearing, as she imputed income to the non working mother.
In your example you make it sound like only the one person is paying for the support of the child(ren). Here in the Socialist State of California, the income shares model is used. Add up all the income from both parties, and then determine the support based on the time the child(ren) are with each parent. The court does a very good job of redistributing wealth... all in the best interest of the child(ren) of course .
But you are right, the support issue should have nothing to do with the custody issue. OP, go back and have the custody issue re-visited. You did not mention the age of the children...if they are older, and you live close to each other, there is no reason why you should not have a 50/50 split (unless there are other things in the story that were not included in the original post).
As I said, I chose a very simplified version to explain the principle.
nope...no weirdness. Just a Dad wanting his boys more. The boys are 10 and 12. Dad coached them in little league until the divorce, when she demanded they stop playing because it cut into homework time. Truth was, she didn't want him to get that time, as she would get less support.
The divorce is not final and Dad wants this parenting plan incorporated before it becomes final. They don't even have a parenting plan in the paperwork yet.
I see it that Dad will pay something, even with a 50/50 split. She won't be able to make the house payment, as she has been doing, as she won't have the big CS check she was getting. The house will be sold and that's one less thing Dad will have to worry about - whether or not she is making the payment on time. She spends a lot of time in casinos..so that is always a worry to Dad.
What county are you in? Shoot me a private email if you are in San Diego, I might have some useful info for you.
Custody of your boys...Dude, as a father, it is your responsibility to make sure they have "your" presence in their lives. And I mean more than just every other weekend. A boy "needs" his father to guide him into what it means to be a man. Boys learn from example!!!
Do you live close enough that when they are with you, that they can still go to the same school, and have access to their friends (the ones they have developed over the past few years)? If so, you should be asking for nothing less than 50/50. Heck, I would ask for more. The key is being able to provide them with a stable environment to grow up in.
Dont give up, it can be done. I am an example of that fact.
Good luck.
Actually in Northern CA. She is arguing that if she doesn't have the boys in the current arrangement, she can't pay for the house. And she is saying that the judge wont' let that happen.
I can't imagine the judge basing a decision like that for her benefit. But hey, you just never know.
Dad just wants to see his sons and be involved in their lives...and yep, same city, same school and they have more friends that live near me than at their Mom's house.
nope...no weirdness. Just a Dad wanting his boys more. The boys are 10 and 12. Dad coached them in little league until the divorce, when she demanded they stop playing because it cut into homework time. Truth was, she didn't want him to get that time, as she would get less support.
The divorce is not final and Dad wants this parenting plan incorporated before it becomes final. They don't even have a parenting plan in the paperwork yet.
I see it that Dad will pay something, even with a 50/50 split. She won't be able to make the house payment, as she has been doing, as she won't have the big CS check she was getting. The house will be sold and that's one less thing Dad will have to worry about - whether or not she is making the payment on time. She spends a lot of time in casinos..so that is always a worry to Dad.
What county are you in? Shoot me a private email if you are in San Diego, I might have some useful info for you.
Custody of your boys...Dude, as a father, it is your responsibility to make sure they have "your" presence in their lives. And I mean more than just every other weekend. A boy "needs" his father to guide him into what it means to be a man. Boys learn from example!!!
Do you live close enough that when they are with you, that they can still go to the same school, and have access to their friends (the ones they have developed over the past few years)? If so, you should be asking for nothing less than 50/50. Heck, I would ask for more. The key is being able to provide them with a stable environment to grow up in.
Dont give up, it can be done. I am an example of that fact.
Good luck.
Actually in Northern CA. She is arguing that if she doesn't have the boys in the current arrangement, she can't pay for the house. And she is saying that the judge wont' let that happen.
I can't imagine the judge basing a decision like that for her benefit. But hey, you just never know.
Dad just wants to see his sons and be involved in their lives...and yep, same city, same school and they have more friends that live near me than at their Mom's house.
In principle, it shouldn't matter whether she can keep the house. As long as she has the resources for SOME living arrangement, then it's not up to her ex to ensure that she gets to stay in the current place. Of course, judges can do whatever they want.
The more important issue is that you're asking for a change in custody. What is the change in circumstances to justify that? I didn't see anything in your post to indicate that you have any rationale to present to the judge justifying a change. What is different from the time the original decree was signed?
Unless there's a signficant, unforeseen change in circumstances, it's unlikely that a judge will change the custody arrangement.
I didn't mention it because there has never been a custody arrangement in any decree, as this isn't final. It just said let the parents have the kids as they see fit, basically.
so, with that info, there ins't a change...but there isnt anything to change, as no agreement ever existed anyway.
In that case, you're going to have to show why the current arrangment isn't working and ask for clarification and specific custody instructions.
So Dad wanting equal parenting time simply isn't enough? Why? If there is nothing in place, why would Dad need to justify anything??
>So Dad wanting equal parenting time simply isn't enough?
>Why? If there is nothing in place, why would Dad need to
>justify anything??
>
>
Because the court is always going to favor the status quo. Even if the orders aren't final, the current situation is still the status quo. You need to provide a legitimate reason WITH EVIDENCE to justify a change. Simply wanting more time won't cut it.
For anyone reading this for whom it's not too late, do NOT allow your ex to get a stronger position right after the divorce. Whatever you want in the final agreement should be what you do from day one. If you accept inferior terms in the short term in the hopes that you can improve them later, it's not likely to happen.
Well, I am going to say that from what I have seen and experienced here in CA, that your philosophy may not be quite on the mark. Generally, parents here are required to provide a parenting plan, and they are assigned a mediator to help them effectively develop that plan.
If they aren't in agreement, the mediator will make a plan and about 99% of the time, the judge will enter that plan into the order. The mediator I had said the best situation for any child is to live with bike riding distance from each parent and spend equal amounts of time with both.
Now I hope Dad gets that and I have seen it go quite well in court the last few times I was in court. I will keep you posted.
I can't argue with your situation, but I would not believe that it's standard.
First, not every mediator will favor equal parenting.
Then, not every judge will accept the mediator's view without question.
And, finally, if the status quo has been established for a long period of time, it's harder for the mediator to go with 50:50 than if the situation has been 50:50 from the start. Not impossible, but there is ALWAYS a bias toward the status quo and needs to be some reason to change from it - even in CA.