Messages

Spend the money on a digital recorder with plenty of memory.  Something that makes it very quick and easy to download to a PC.

I have yet to figure out why ANY CS should be ordered past that age, unless they are still in HS. 

#1 - I can help you figure it out.  It's in the state's best interests to keep as high a CS award as possible going for as long as possible.  They receive kickbacks from the Federal government in matching funds for child support collections and enforcement.

#2 - You are correct, many states no longer have provision which forces the payment for education after high school.  Some still do.  It is unconstitutional and takes legislation to get it changed in each state.  The Federal government has not stepped in on that front.

The lawyer is going to do an end-run on you (the OP), I would stop negotiating with her attorney on your own.  You're way out of your league and will end up the loser on all counts.  Her attorney's job is to get as many things done in her favor as possible.

1. The use of the word Primary in reference to her being the residential parent. - I removed the word primary.

It doesn't matter unless one side has the majority of the physical custody.  You're changing language that has no bearing on the situation, unless you are retaining more than 50% custody.  If 50/50, someone is called the "primary" for the purposes of child support.  That title goes to the CS recipient.

2.Iasked that if my ex is going to be the residential custodian thatthechildren both have their own bed to sleep in.  -My son has his ownroomand my daughter is forced to sleep with her mother in the same bed.Herlawyer objected to that. He stated the court wouldn't decide onthat. Ithen told him that the court might decide on that since she hasa verycontagious STD and she sleeps in the same bed as my daughter, andmychildren have their own bedrooms at my townhouse.

Again, you're out of your league.  This issue is so minor and, as others have said, a $50 air mattress takes care of the problem.  Beyond that, your ability to police it is non-existent.

3. I haveaskedthat wording be added to reflect that she cannot bring herboyfriend inthe prescence of my children at any time, regardless oftheir maritalstatus because of him being a felon.

Good luck policing that, too.  Morals clauses are practically unenforceable.  Fact is, given that he is a repeat felon, combined with her wishy-washy acts of moving, not moving, moving, not moving, and their living arrangements, you should be looking for full custody until her living arrangements change rather significantly.

4. Child supportends at their19th birthday. - Her papers put us both on the hook foreducationalexpenses and misc expenses until their 24th birthday if theyare inschool. They also extend child support until their 24th birthday.Herlawyer tells me that we do have an obligation as parents to payforcollege should I children decide to go to college and that thewordinghas to be in the papers because the judge will order it anyway.

NEVER EVER sign ANYTHING that adds additional burdens that are not required.  They're only enforceable if you willfully agree to them.  Don't.  You make that decision of your own accord later.

CS should end at age 18 or the graduation from high school, whichever is LATER.  I would like to know what state you're in to find out if it's one that doesn't impose their will for divorced parents to pay for college educations.  And even if they do, you should object readily.

Stop talking to her attorney.  It's HER attorney.

...and, once you get the state involved, all bets are off.  If the STATE determines it's not in the alleged "best interests of the child" - they'll do what they want.  Once you're divorced, the state becomes "daddy."

Those police officers did you and your son a great disservice.

CPS would have done very little if anything.  The child isn't being abused and without such evidence (unless they're corrupt), nothing would have happened.  Further, any parent can take any biological child anywhere they want anytime they want and it's absolutely not illegal.

Did you file for an emergency hearing to obtain temporary custody of the child and have an order issued for his return?

Semantics, really.  The difference is in how it sounds - like the difference between "parenting time" and "visitation". 

It sounds like the mediator could tell that BM was having a hard time with the idea, so he changed the language to make it sound a little better for her, but without actually changing anything.

There is a significant difference between sole custody and primary residential parent.  It gives the OP less control over the situation.  It very likely means that mom will get more parenting time up-front, probably unsupervised, and the step-up plan means that there will be provisions to increase her parenting time as time goes on.

Sole custody is just that, one person has all the custody and perhaps there are provisions for very limited "visitation" to the other parent.

As an aside, it has been my experience that in probably more than 50% of the times, mediators, parenting coordinators, and custody evaluators will tell you one thing in sessions, and then blindside you with something different when the final report comes in.  It's not as uncommon as one might think.

While still inadvisable, he absolutely has the right to go to that state, pick-up the children, and return to their home state with them.  It's only inadvisable because of the potential drama involved, but he would be doing nothing illegal by going to retrieve them.

Without a court order that expressly prohibits it, and I doubt that would ever happen, there is nothing you can do about it, well... with exception of not providing her with the SS numbers which she can get on her own.

I wouldn't make a big deal out of it with her.  That's not to minimize your concern, but truly - there is nothing you can do to stop it from happening, and I can think of no authority that has the ability to step in to stop it.

Further, the absence of life insurance on the children will not stop anything about which you're worried from happening.

Best you can do is monitor the situation.

Those lists of criteria often leave off the part where it's graded on a curve in favor of the mother in most cases.  If you're the mother, that sole criteria often trumps everything else that they put in those documents for show.

I wouldn't pay that attorney.  I would file a complaint with the state bar.  As for the rest of your disaster, you're probably SOL because of a lack of funds, the gross misconduct by your attorney, and the resulting order and loss of custody of the child.  That's a hole you may never get out of.

Just when I believe I won't hear another story that will defy explanation and surprise me...

Need more details, chief.  There has to be a lot more to the story than you're providing.  Who "told you" you couldn't have custody and could "only have possession" of the children?

Who are you listening to who gave you such horrible advice that it has now taken you several years and a hot mess to discover?