Messages

Regardless of any other other factors, we always recommend that both parents retain legal counsel. Unless you both agree on everything and are willing to put it on paper, get an attorney (http://deltabravo.net/cms/search.php?q=hire+attorney&s=Search&r=0).


You'll need a parenting plan to submit to the court, and there are several available on this site: http://deltabravo.net/cms/search.php?q=parenting+plan&s=Search&r=0

Use your right to remain silent and don't say anything until you a) speak with a family law attorney and b) get the paternity test results back.

Some of these pages may help, so read all you can:

http://deltabravo.net/cms/search.php?q=paternity&s=Search&r=0

Hello,

Living in Maryland.

I am a male, and I was recently sued by my ex female girlfriend "Amended complaint for custody, child support, and other relief".
I have filed the first part, declaring that I was not sure about the child father. I could be the father, I maybe not. I have requested the court to provide a DNA test to determine paternity.

Now I am looking at 30 discovery questions, however I don't want to provide any information until the DNS tests confirms the paternity.

I have 30 days to turn in the discovery questions. Can I reply to those questions, that I am not providing requested information until the DNA tests confirms paternity?

Otherwise, what would you suggest?

It seems unreasonable for me to provide private and financial information without knowing for sure if I am the biological father. (I haven't sign any papers about the paternity of the child).

The jekyll and hyde personalities are predominantly men, especially the personality disorders - and they are predominantly comorbid with other issues.    99% of the abusers are men.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. If you really believe that "99% of abusers are men", then there's obviously nothing any of us can say that would matter to you. After more than 20 years of operating this site and seeing thousands of incidents of divorce, we've seen plenty of abuse committed by both mother and fathers.

I wish you the best in your situation. If you need to vent or are seeking advice we'd be glad to help. With that said, though, we're not here to validate your bias against half of the parents in the world.

We realize that both mothers and fathers are victimized by court system, but it's always the children that lose the most. We do our best to help all parents in every way that we can.

[1. You're not a short-order cook.]

You and the father are in control of the child's diet. If you provide him with a range of different but healthy foods, he'll have little choice but to eat a variety of things.

From http://www.parenting.com/article/7-ways-to-end-picky-eating (http://www.parenting.com/article/7-ways-to-end-picky-eating)


1. You're not a short-order cook.
At mealtime, we tell our three kids, "This is what's for dinner. If you don't like it, that's fine; you don't have to eat it. But there isn't anything else." They can decide for themselves whether to eat the food in front of them or wait until the next opportunity. Of course, it helps to consider their tastes when planning a meal, making sure that—in addition to the new recipe you're trying—at least one or two of the other offerings are tried-and-true favorites.

It was the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that actually gave me the courage to follow through with this idea. Around the time my firstborn, George, was learning to say "No!" I came across this passage in its book Guide to Your Child's Nutrition: "Children will not become ill or suffer permanently if they refuse a meal or two, but parents sometimes act as though youngsters might shrivel up and die." If you've been giving your child alternative entrees up until now and she threatens to go on a hunger strike rather than eat the family meal (as some certainly will), I suggest you try strategies 5 and 6.

2. You can spice things up.
True, kids have delicate taste buds, but that doesn't mean they need to be served a steady diet of pasta with butter (even if that's all they ask for). In fact, it's all the more reason to give them flavorful food; children really notice when something tastes good because of their naturally sensitive palates. I expected my kids to shun garlic when they were babies, for instance. And surely, I thought, they'd hate olives. But a little garlic makes so many things taste better that even a 1-year-old can enjoy the difference (there's a good chance he's already sampled it in your breast milk anyway). Olives can be wonderful, too, if they're the mild, fragrant kind marinated in oil and herbs. I do go out of my way to avoid very spicy foods and funky, stinky things like blue cheese. But other than that, I cook the same kinds of meals for my family that I used to cook for friends.

3. Give vegetables the hard sell.
This food group is traditionally a mom's biggest hurdle, and it's easy to understand why. Boiled and salted, vegetables are typically nothing more than a good-for-you side dish, dumped by the ladleful alongside things that actually taste yummy. No wonder getting kids to eat them requires begging and threats, tactics that quickly backfire. Because once your kids realize that you really, really want them to eat vegetables, refusing to do so becomes a power struggle that they will always win.

I've had success using recipes that integrate vegetables into delicious main dishes, such as eggplant layered with spiced ground lamb, smashed peas and rice and sautéed zucchini with tomato and basil. And I've made lots of vegetable-based sauces for pasta.

Another trick: On the nights that I do serve vegetables as a side dish, I'll often place them on the table first, when my kids are the hungriest. Usually they've wolfed them down by the time the rest of the meal arrives.

4. Try to eat dinner together.
You've heard all the research: Kids who eat dinner with their parents have healthier diets, better vocabularies, get better grades, blahblahblah. I'm not going to guilt-trip you about needing to do it every night. But do try to pull it off when you can. And be realistic with your expectations. Little guys simply can't sit at a dinner table for very long. A toddler may last only five minutes, and 15 minutes from a 4-year-old is a very good thing.

So that our children appreciate family dinnertime without feeling coerced into it, here's what we decided: If one of our two bigger (out of the high chair, that is) kids is finished eating his dinner, he can leave the table, but he can't hang around nearby, playing and talking and distracting the rest of us. He has to go into the living room or upstairs to his room and entertain himself. Usually, it turns out that what he really wants is our company and attention, so he'll stay in his seat. My husband and I have our own rules to obey, too. We don't answer the phone or watch TV during dinner.

5. You have to try one bite.
And no more, if what your child tastes makes him or her gag. Like most parents, I have childhood memories of being forced to eat foods that turned my stomach, and I don't want to subject my kids to that. Some moms I know are so worried they won't be able to tell the difference between genuine revulsion and mere stubborness that they let their kids off the hook too quickly. But it has actually turned out to be easy to tell when a dish is truly nauseating to one of my kids. I'll quickly let him know he doesn't have to finish, and praise him for giving it the old try.

A new article by Ira Daniel Turkat:

Harmful Effects of Child-Custody Evaluations on Children, by Ira Daniel Turkat (http://deltabravo.net/cms/download.php?view.9)

"Child-custody evaluations have been performed for decades under the assumption that it is in the best interest of children - an assumption seriously challenged by the results of the present investigation and the factors reviewed herein. It is hoped that future research will help create evaluations that serve children well and outweigh any negative effects, including the crippling cost some families have experienced. Given the design of the present study, one should look to the results of future, more sophisticated scientific investigations to better identify the types of negative effects that child-custody evaluations may produce, their prevalence, and how they can be prevented."


Dr. Turkat advises family-law attorneys on child-custody disputes. A licensed psychologist, he has served on the faculty at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and University of Florida College of Medicine. In 2011, the 50,000-member British Psychological Society named him alongside three of the world's most outstanding clinical  psychologists in history for their influential work on case formulation; Dr. Turkat is the only American named among the four.

I'm not sure there's a lot of difference as long as the therapist is qualified to do reunification therapy.

Perhaps other people here will have some input.

A few boring vids from my most recent trip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPufoQxqF7U


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APD1MSXbpU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q82mNzGDqM

I may be wrong, but I don't think the courts will go along with this for several reasons.

1) You're the one deciding to move and change the current custody arrangement, and this will end up imposing a significant burden on the non-custodial parent. The courts are often reluctant to do that. If you were moving closer to the other parent then it would be a different matter.

2) Changing the current ECE (established custodial environment) is something the courts are also reluctant to do without a very compelling reason.
It's up to the court but in my experience what you mention probably won't be seen as a compelling enough reason to change the children's school and home environments. I could be wrong, but approvals for moves like this are a long shot.

Also, keep in mind that this could trigger a change-of-custody request by the other parent. The argument in favor of keeping them in an established custodial environment is significant, and the other parent might prevail. Judges are generally more interested in what's best for the children and not so much for the parents.

In short, you'll need to make a very good case for changing things. I'm not a judge but if things are going smoothly or this current arrangement has been in place for some time, you may not find the court sympathetic.

Yeah, I know- it's probably not what you want to hear, but based on experience this is my best guess on what's most likely to happen, i.e. the court will deny the move if the other parent objects.

There's almost certainly a way to show that the ex is making more than is being reported, i.e. "money in versus money out". In other words, ex reports $15K/year but somehow magically spends $50K/year...any decent attorney should know how to expose this.

Good luck!

**I posted this in the PA forum, but it doesn't look like anyone has been there since 2015, so I am trying again** 
My ex is self employed in a cash business and lies about income.  Ex is now filing for support of my 18 year old child (who is still in HS). How to I protect myself from being raked over the coals when the assets are hidden, making it seem like yearly income is only $15,000 (in actuality its $150,000) compared to my $40,000?