Your Thoughts, please

[bananas]

I wrote to you several months ago on behalf of my friend.  She is in Ohio, and she has 15-month-old twins.  She and her husband are divorcing.  Today was the final hearing.  I went in to sit with her so she wouldn't be there alone.

I was allowed in the conference room where my friend and her attorney were looking at the proposals/counters from the other side.  Currently, the husband has visitation every Thurs at 9am to Fri at 6pm.  Now, the husband wants Thurs 9am-Sat 12pm.  This is with my friend having sole custody.

The GAL report from April 2004 says that overnight visits would be detrimental for the twins.  My friend did not want to let the husband have any overnights due to the report, but gave in and allowed the husband to have the one overnight every week.  She does not want to keep the twins from him, but in order to meet the recommendations of the GAL, wants him to have more frequent visitation for shorter periods, with as few overnights as possible.  

Today, my friend proposed that the husband have the kids Thur 9am-Fri 6pm, adding Tues and Weds visits for four hours each.  This would allow the husband to see the kids four days a week EACH WEEK.  The husband turned it down, saying he wants that PLUS overnight Friday until Saturday noon every other weekend.  Standard visitation here is every other weekend and three hours on Wednesday evenings.

We did the math, and my friend's proposal would allow the husband to have 164 hours of time with the twins in a four-week period.  Standard visitation would only allow for 108.  My friend felt like she was being generous when she made her offer.  The only reason she doesn't want the extra overnight is because of the GAL report.  She thinks that the twins would have a really hard time adjusting to two overnights.

It seemed clear to me that my friend's attorney was not on her side.  Instead, she seemed to be promoting the opinions of the husband's side.  My friend has been telling me this since she hired this attorney, but I tried to be unbiased as I entered the conference room today.  However, it's apparent to me that she does not care about what my friend wants for the twins.  The attorney seems to want to get the matter settled regardless of what it takes, and almost seems to be representing the husband's interests more than my friend's.

My friend's attorney and the husband's attorney finally went into chambers with the judge.  When they emerged, my friend's attorney told her that the judge would award what the husband wants.  When my friend said that it wasn't acceptable, the attorney said she was going to withdraw as counsel.  We pointed out that what the husband wanted was way beyond the standard order, and my friend's original proposal was generous as well.  Even what they're doing now allows him more time than the standard order.  We could not understand why the judge would not default back to the standard order if no agreement could be reached.  

My own husband followed the standard order for several years, and no one ever indicated to him that he would be given any more visitation than what the standard order provided.  I really can't understand why this judge would automatically award a non-custodial parent that much time, especially against a GAL recommendation.  This is such a flip-flop from what I personally experienced that I am totally frustrated.

It seems that unless my friend is willing to give up everything, she loses.  There are other property issues that need to be settled as well, and the judge indicated to the attorneys that she would side with the husband on those too.  My friend moved out with the twins almost a year ago in order to avoid an escalating situation, and now it seems like that was a fatal mistake because she is really getting HOSED.

So now my friend has to find another attorney, because her counsel thinks she is being "difficult".  She has to start all over, and her case will be continued until January.  My friend thinks that the judge will look on her unfavorably due to her counsel withdrawing.

I know this is long and I really appreciate your taking the time to read it.

1.  Do you have any advice, thoughts, comments?

[socrateaser]

I want you to take the other side for a moment, and tell me why the judge, your friend's attorney, and the GAL, are ALL siding with the husband?

It's a fair question to ask. Your post presents a picture that puts EVERYTHING in favor of your friend, yet no one is on her side, except you.

What's wrong with this picture? You tell me and then we will both know. I'm not saying that you're lying -- but there IS a reason why things are going the way that they are, and I'm not in a position to know what that could possibly be.

Tell me the other side of the story, and I may have a useful suggestion.

[DecentDad]

Hi,

I know you're asking Soc, and this is his board, but perhaps I can put a different perspective to this.

You feel your friend is getting HOSED and "giving up everything" if the twins' father ends up with roughly 200 hours every 4 weeks with the girls.

On the other side, the twins' father is looking at the mother getting nearly 500 hours every 4 weeks.

There was nothing in your post about this man being a bad father, only that the mother wants as close to 100% custodial time that she can muster because you and she believe 108 hours every 4 weeks is plenty of time for kids to be with their fathers.

Perhaps your friend would have better luck negotiating if she took the approach of, "Hey, I'd agree to something close to 50/50 when they're a bit older, so let's talk about a gentle phase-in to reach that."

But if you and she are coming from the perspective of "Mom is always best", then of course she'll butt heads with the father on everything.

When it comes to raising kids, the best parent is both; unless one of the parents is unstable.

DD

[bananas]

It is a very fair question to ask.  That's kind of why I posted her story here.  I need an unbiased point of view.  I really want my friend to get what she wants, and this prevents me from being neutral.

My friend says that her husband is lying about everything.  I would LOVE to get the other side of the story, but I can't.  The husband knows that the wife and I are friends, and therefore won't talk to me.  I don't really know him anyway.  I met the wife after they split up.  The GAL sided with my friend, so I'm not sure why the judge is going against the GAL report.

Both lawyers said that this is the most acrimonious situation they've ever seen.  My friend did tell me that they were able to get some of the property issues off the table in the afternoon yesterday.  Now my friend is looking for a new attorney.  Both the husband and wife are police officers.  I know someone is lying, but I'm not sure who.  I'd love to find out more, but he won't talk to me and it's really none of my business, I guess.

Thanks for reading.

[bananas]

Thanks for your response.  Like I told Soc, I am looking for different points of view.

I ablsolutely DO NOT believe that 108 hours is nearly enough time for kids to be with their fathers.  My husband and I suffered with that arrangement with his kids for years.  It sucked.  Mom is definitely NOT always best!!

In this particular case, however, the GAL report says that the twins are too young for overnights.  My friend is objecting to the additional overnight that the father wants.  She was trying to get him to agree to seeing the twins more often.  She proposed that he have some visitation on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.  He would be seeing them four days a week, every week.  He said no.  The GAL report is the ONLY reason my friend has a problem with the visitation he wants.

I will make your suggestion to her about the gentle phase-in approach.  Maybe if he sees that the restrictions won't last forever, he will be more willing to settle on less time now with more time later.  I myself do not have kids, so I have no idea how hard it is for a very young child to adjust to two different environments.  According to the GAL, it's pretty hard.

I don't feel that my friend is trying to keep the kids 100% of the time.  Instead, she's trying to go by the GAL report and she feels that no one else seems to care about that.

[gas]

Bananas,

Follow up to Decent Dad's remarks.  Do you know who is really losing??  Not Mom.  Not Dad.  Those twins.   It is borderline evil to deny those twins equal opportunity to bond with both parents.

 Let's be honest here-only Mom and Dad know what is best for the twins.  GALs don't  know your kids, attorneys don't know your kids, judges don't know your  kids, nobody will every love those kids like Mom and Dad.  And both Mom and Dad know at a gut, intellectual and emotional level that those kids NEED both parents from day 1.  

In my case, youngest son was 6 mo old when we divorced, other son was 2.  Since Mom precluded overnights for youngest son until he was 2 (per therapist recommendation) guess which son and I have a much stronger bond?  People don't understand that 0-2 yrs is THE most important time in a parent-child relationship and you can handicap that severely if a parent is shut out of overnights.

Given the young age, 1- 2 overnights to start ramping to 50/50 at age 3 makes sense.

I wish your friend well and hope she will do the right thing for the kids, that is all that matters...not what Mom or Dad want