Need input on this proposal please

[joni]

My DH and I are desperate to have his daughter live with us.  We filed a change in custody motion last year that fell on deaf ears.  Lesson learned, no matter what the evidence, it doesn't matter to challenge custody.

His Ex is emotionally checked out on the child.  The child is desperately lonely at her mom's house (they live with her parents).  At the end of each visitation, the child, who's 6, is so upset to leave.  It tears your heart out.  We live in Chicago, the Ex in upper state NY.

His Ex is all about the money.  We owe her a substantial amount of money on the property settlement.  I had a thought that if we gave his Ex all of the money we owe her now, instead of over the next 3 years, in exchange for alternating school years with the child living with us.  My DH thinks the Ex might bite on that however her mother might but up a stink because the grandma is obsessed with the child.

It wouldn't be a change in custody, rather a change in parenting time.  Do you think that concept would fly in a change of parenting time motion?

I know it would be hard for the child to switch schools every year but that is pale in comparison to the emotional damage she's suffering living in mom.  The lesser of two evils so to speak.  The child has absolutely no "community" at her mom's house (mom is anti-social, no friends).  The child's community here is extensive and loving.

I have a psychologist who would write a report in our favor to that affect.  What  are you thoughts on this strategy?

[skye]

a judge will not approve unless the child does considerably well in school. and even with both agreeing you have to prove that it will not affect grades... go to the schools websites .. find the "school report card " ... are they on the same educational level?

What is the parenting time now?

[joni]

Every 2nd & 4th weekend, split holidays and summer 50/50.  Child does well in school (thanks to us).  Schools are on paar.

[Kitty C.]

Be VERY wary of making a negotiation of money for child, because that's basically what you're thinking of offering here, no matter how you look at it.  It can also be viewed as a bribe.  I suggest talking to your atty. first.

[antonin]

It is my understanding that you can stipulate to anything, as long as both parties agree.
If your husband can afford (I know he really can't) to buy the alternating year stuff and mommy would agree, f*** the grandmother.
You know my story, Joni.....I bought 50/50 of my daughter by wrecking myself financially...giving the ex 5 times what she should of got and I'd do it again.
I have to go and pick my daughter up after school in a few minutes...and then take her to piano lessons. There is no price I can put on the opportunity to do that. Bribe the b****.

[antonin]

I was not suggesting that you do this "under the table" or without legal counsel.
Property settlements and child custody are not supposed to be viewed as interrelated by the court. They are independent entities.

The difference between my situation and yours is that I hammered all this out as part of the original stipulated settlement in the original decree. Here was the situation: my lawyer and her lawyer knew exactly what the judge would do as far as bills and property settlement if she (judge) had to call the shots: the judge would have divided the assets and bills down the middle. The judge had mentioned this several times. Even though the ex was getting 200.00 week alimony in  addition to 246.00 a week CS, the judge's plan would've wiped her out. I agreed to take all the bills and this left ex fine and dandy. We made this offer to ex and demanded 50/50. We got it. There was no way she could refuse. If she refused, we would go to trial. She was already aware how the judge would rule on the property. Ex knew we would not make the generous property offer if she refused 50/50. The judge signed the stip without a blink. And I really don't give a damn about what anyone thinks of me..wether I "bought" my daughter or not....all I know is that I see her 26 full weeks out of the year...many men would give all they have for that. The whole child support system is based on a "negotiation of money"  for a child and women rape men financially every day in family court and these guys end up with a lot less visitation than I have.

You have less leverage than I had as this is post divorce. I think your biggest problem would be on how the court views the alimony (rehabilitative, I assume). Generally this type of alimony is non-modifiable, as per decree. You are not paying her additional money (hence I do not see how this can be construed as a "bribe").  Your husband owes her this money as per decree. You are simply accelerating the payment. Is this a modification? I do not know. If you accelerated payment, this would all have to be re-written in a new stip. I have provided for accelerated payment of my rehabilitative alimony in my stip.

I think you should explore any legal option that would give your husband more time with his children. Remember that Michigan has the following policy contained in FOC manual. I think that your proposal is well within the parameters of these guidelines:

"INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: The parents shall cooperate with respect to a child so as, in a maximum degree, to advance a child's health, emotional, and physical well-being and to give and afford a child the affection of both parents and a sense of security. Neither parent will, directly or indirectly, influence a child so as to prejudice a child against the other parent. The parents will endeavor to guide a child so as to promote the affectionate relationship between a child and the mother and a child and the father. The parties will cooperate with each other in carrying out the provisions of this order for a child's best interests. Whenever it seems necessary to adjust, vary or increase the time allotted to either party, or otherwise take action regarding a child, each of the parties shall act in the best interests of the child. Neither party shall do anything which may estrange the other from the child, injure the child's opinion of the other party, or which will hamper the free and natural development of the child for the other party."