A Devistating Loss

[bluesman]

The court is supposed to craft an order that is in 'the children's best interest', arguably the most common phrase thrown around in family courts today. Believe it or not, the court feels that under the circumstances that what is in my children's best interest is for them to live in the midwest with their mother so they can be closer to her less than stable family and 2,000 miles away from their father. In fact, according to the judges calculation, they will spend just 9% of their time with me. That's right, 9%. This is the court that is looking out for the best interest of my children.

The most unexplainable thing about the decision was how completely opposite the judges decision was from what any reasonable person would expect. The entire trial she seemed to clearly favor the children having both of us in their lives. She even questioned why we were going to call the custody evaluator to the stand when the evaluation was in my favor. She implored my ex to consider that what she was doing was making our kids fatherless.

The biggest question was always would the judge make my ex move back to California. The question was never 'are the kids better off with both parents?' The agreement for her to move was made 'without prejudice' (meaning it does not affect the final decision) but would the judge actually do that? We thought there was a very good chance that she would make her move back because all of the evidence suggested that they should not have moved in the first place. And worst case we thought she would allow her to stay but give me time with the kids every minute they are not in school. She did neither.

She gave the decision verbally in the courtroom and made a few statements that directly contradicted the evidence we put on in our case. It made us wonder what case she listened to. During the trial the judges actions, questions, and statements made us think that she was clearly on our side. What happened between then and the announcement of her decision is anybody's guess.

I am still numb and stunned by this horrible decision.

[JT]

That sucks, I hope you're okay. I'' say a prayer for you today. Do you have a lawyer? Can you appeal it? How are you and your X getting along? If you asked her to agree to more visitation, would she agree? Can you move to where the children are?  This is what always scares me, is that the systems says best interests of the child, but falls far short of that all the time. Good Luck, JT

[bluesman]

Thanks, JT. I'm okay. I'm just in a state of shock because it makes no sense at all. I'm a great dad. That was never an issue. I don't see how a judge could do what she did.

I do have a lawyer and he's very, very good. Unfortunately, my previous lawyer advised me to do some things that may have set the stage for this a long time ago. Its hard to fix her mistakes.

I can probably appeal. In fact, that's what my lawyer really excels at. The only problem is I ran out of money a long time ago. This has cost me everything I have and more.

As for moving to where they are - there are no jobs for me and trying to get one from 2000 miles away would be very difficult even if there were jobs.

With all of that said, I am not giving up under any circumstances. I just read what I wrote and it would be easy to think that I might feel I have to give up. But I never will. I will continue to fight for my kids by doing whatever I can.

I appreciate your thoughts and prayers. I'll let you know what happens.

[wendl]

I would try to come up with some money to and file an appeal, maybe your current atty would be willing to take payments, never hurts to ask.

Our family will say a prayer as well, it's sad when the courts deprive a child of both of their parents.

Its funny cs is based on what the kids would have if both parents were still together HOWEVER visitation is completely opposite, god it takes 2 people to create a life yet the courts feel its ok for only one parent to raise them. Just sucks.

I am glad to hear you are not giving up, should your children loose at trial make sure to keep everything so you can show them when they are older you did everything you could legally to be with them.

((((hugs))))

[mango]

How old are your kids?

Unfortunately, courts always rule in favor of the mother. The mother can unstable, out of the picture, jobless, unmarried, live in apartment to apartment etc.

The father can be stable, always raised the children since birth, employed, own his own home, and have a traditional family (half-siblings) for the child. The most the father will get is a 50/50 plan, no school district, because the mother has "more time to devote" because she has no job, and no other children to distract from her time with the child.

Now....

Reverse it, give the father the title of unemployed, single, unstable, and the mother the family (half-siblings), job, stability and she gets "Full custody" because the father is unstable, and mother has a traditional family life to offer the child.

Double standard city.

[bluesman]

Absolutely right. The 'tender years' mentality is still out there in full force.

My kids are 6, 4, and 2.

My wife was a stay at home mom. She's a decent mother in many ways (excluding the fact that she's made them fatherless, of course). But if mom was a stay at home mom like my ex - case closed. She calls all the shots. Dad is reduced to a visitor as long as its convenient for mom.