How does a judge decide custody when all the factors to be considered seem equal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are some examples of the conflicting coparenting philosophies between the parents.

Mom thinks she should be able to take the child to birthdays, family events, etc during Dad’s parenting time if Dad is working and child would otherwise be spending time with other family, Dad’s girlfriend, at preschool, or other play dates etc arranged by Dad. Dad thinks that Mom should provide the information about the event and Dad can choose to facilitate the child’s attendance or decline the child attending.

Mom thinks she should have right of first refusal so that any time that the child is not with Dad she should be offered the time. This would mean the child transitioning between households several times a week due to Dad’s slightly unconventional work schedule making him unavailable for preschool pickup. Mom thinks it’s unfair that the girlfriend (who is now living with Dad and child) or the Dad’s parent does pickup when Mom is available and would love the extra time. Dad thinks the back and forth would be too disruptive to everyone.

Mom thinks that Mom, Dad, and girlfriend should all spend time together occasionally with the child to show that everyone is amicable and respectful. The child has requested this to Mom. Dad is not interested and insists that he only has a duty to be civil and polite during any brief face to face interactions. He continues to say no to these requests.

Is dad's girlfriend doing childcare when mom is available? If so that is weird.

Mom should have right of first refusal but dad has no obligation to spend time with mom socially.

OP said the girlfriend lives with them. Not weird at all for a live-in partner to spend time with the child when Dad is unavailable instead of making the kid go back and forth between households.

No, a girlfriend doesn't get parenting time when an actual parent is available (within the time frame specified by the plan). This also applies to the mom, so Dad would get parenting time before a boyfriend.

I really don't get the reasoning as to why it is less damaging for the kid to hang out with dad's girlfriend over mom for a few hours after school. Dad's gf is basically a stranger.

Did you not see that they live together? She is not a stranger in any sense of the word.

Transitions between households can be HARD for little kids. Saying goodbye can be very upsetting. Different rules, expectations, food, routines...it takes time to adjust and going back and forth is stressful for them. There's no reason to make a little kid go through that more than necessary just because Mom hates that her ex's girlfriend gets to spend a couple hours of time with her child, even if it's every day. It's normal and healthy for the two to develop a relationship and bond if the woman will be the child's stepmother.

Yep. And if the ex wanted a more fluid arrangement where she could drop in on her daughter during her ex’s time, she kind of destroyed all possibility of that by turning all bunny-boiler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the child is 5, she's probably starting K. If you agree to ROFR, for say 4 hours, the gf can watch her after school, because dad said he gets home at 6 and school usually gets out at 3.

If Dad is working on a non school day, and Mom is available, she would have her. This applies both ways btw, if Mom was not available Dad could have her.

Why would OP agree to this when the mom is erratic and vindictive? I these circumstances it’s better for the parents to have fewer points of friction and more boundaries.

It's in the best interest of the child to have time with both parents. It's not all about the adults.

I think you’re confused. The custody order would provide for each parent to have time with the child. “Best interests” does not mean that the non-custodial parent gets to take the child during the custodial parent’s time. In fact this could be needlessly disruptive and bad for the child.

Why do people keep saying this? The girl can be with mom from 3-8 or with GF 3-6, then dad 6-8. What am I missing here??? I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is this happening basically every day and if mom got the kid on the days dad was working dad would basically never get the daughter M-F? Is dad doing this because mom has a stronger argument for custody because she has more availability?

You’re missing the fact that OP’s ex appears to be a nutcase, and in those cases, it’s better to have clearer boundaries.

You also misunderstand the pitfalls of ROFR. OP needs childcare to cover the few hours before he gets home from work. What happens when his erratic ex agrees to take the kid then backs out at the last minute?

The point of a child custody agreement is in part to reduce conflict by making everything very clear. ROFR introduces a huge amount of variability that can cause conflict. Moreover, it’s not clear that it’s bad for the child to spend a few hours a day with a grandparent or step-parent figure. That should be the decision of a custodial parent. Also ROFR can lead to ridiculous results, like a kid not being allowed to go to a sleepover or stay overnight with beloved cousins.

There are some good scenarios for ROFR. I’d probably want some version of it if I had shared custody of a baby. But overall it introduces a lot of complexity. There’s plenty written on it: https://www.bryanfagan.com/blog/2024/may/ask-yourself-is-including-a-right-of-first-refus/

If the mom flakes out for a pickup she agreed to, that is not a ROFR issue, that is an unfit parent issue.

And then they have to go back to court. Which is exactly why ROFR is a bad idea except in a few cases. Especially in high-conflict coparenting, it creates a dynamic ripe for conflict, control, and tying up the court with BS. It's a bad idea.

The OP hasn't said that the mom has ever flaked out on rofr. The mom is requesting rofr, for any time ( which is not likely to be seen as reasonable by a court).

I wonder what the court will think about the kid being in preschool all day, followed by GF for three hours, then dad for two hours apparently M-F when child is in dad's custody. Guess that doesn't matter because she will be entering formal schooling soon. I feel like dad doesn't want ROFR because he doesn't want to pay childsupport, while mom wants it because she wants to use her kid to be a professional bum.

I think the court will think its fine. Many people work, and use childcare/after care. I haven't gotten the impression that op is resisting child support.

He says he's ok with her parenting choices, I guess including possibly leaving their child with a future boyfriend/s and other people.

agreed. I suppose the mom could try to make a big deal about those few hours but it doesn’t seem that persuasive. More persuasive might be where the child is very young, and one parent can SAH with them but the other parent would put them in daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the child is 5, she's probably starting K. If you agree to ROFR, for say 4 hours, the gf can watch her after school, because dad said he gets home at 6 and school usually gets out at 3.

If Dad is working on a non school day, and Mom is available, she would have her. This applies both ways btw, if Mom was not available Dad could have her.

Why would OP agree to this when the mom is erratic and vindictive? I these circumstances it’s better for the parents to have fewer points of friction and more boundaries.

It's in the best interest of the child to have time with both parents. It's not all about the adults.

I think you’re confused. The custody order would provide for each parent to have time with the child. “Best interests” does not mean that the non-custodial parent gets to take the child during the custodial parent’s time. In fact this could be needlessly disruptive and bad for the child.

I think you're confused. The OP already has 50/50. The mom isn't going to get to reduce his time, especially considering that this status quo has been established for years already according to OP. But he also doesn't have an argument for there not to be reasonable rofr in their parenting plan. He should consult with his attorney as to what is reasonable, most likely that would be 4 or more hours, not any time like mom wants.

Did you not read the thread? Currently there is no custody order. The OP’s ex is going to court to get full legal custody and reduce his time from the current informal arrangement. There’s zero reason for OP to agree to ROFR but yes, there will be some custody sharing.

I've read the thread, thanks. 50/50 has been the status quo for years in this case, so the ex isn't going to get more. There are reasons for OP to agree to ROFR, but also some reasons not to, and it's good that he got his attorneys advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the child is 5, she's probably starting K. If you agree to ROFR, for say 4 hours, the gf can watch her after school, because dad said he gets home at 6 and school usually gets out at 3.

If Dad is working on a non school day, and Mom is available, she would have her. This applies both ways btw, if Mom was not available Dad could have her.

Why would OP agree to this when the mom is erratic and vindictive? I these circumstances it’s better for the parents to have fewer points of friction and more boundaries.

It's in the best interest of the child to have time with both parents. It's not all about the adults.

I think you’re confused. The custody order would provide for each parent to have time with the child. “Best interests” does not mean that the non-custodial parent gets to take the child during the custodial parent’s time. In fact this could be needlessly disruptive and bad for the child.

Why do people keep saying this? The girl can be with mom from 3-8 or with GF 3-6, then dad 6-8. What am I missing here??? I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is this happening basically every day and if mom got the kid on the days dad was working dad would basically never get the daughter M-F? Is dad doing this because mom has a stronger argument for custody because she has more availability?

You’re missing the fact that OP’s ex appears to be a nutcase, and in those cases, it’s better to have clearer boundaries.

You also misunderstand the pitfalls of ROFR. OP needs childcare to cover the few hours before he gets home from work. What happens when his erratic ex agrees to take the kid then backs out at the last minute?

The point of a child custody agreement is in part to reduce conflict by making everything very clear. ROFR introduces a huge amount of variability that can cause conflict. Moreover, it’s not clear that it’s bad for the child to spend a few hours a day with a grandparent or step-parent figure. That should be the decision of a custodial parent. Also ROFR can lead to ridiculous results, like a kid not being allowed to go to a sleepover or stay overnight with beloved cousins.

There are some good scenarios for ROFR. I’d probably want some version of it if I had shared custody of a baby. But overall it introduces a lot of complexity. There’s plenty written on it: https://www.bryanfagan.com/blog/2024/may/ask-yourself-is-including-a-right-of-first-refus/

If the mom flakes out for a pickup she agreed to, that is not a ROFR issue, that is an unfit parent issue.

And then they have to go back to court. Which is exactly why ROFR is a bad idea except in a few cases. Especially in high-conflict coparenting, it creates a dynamic ripe for conflict, control, and tying up the court with BS. It's a bad idea.

The OP hasn't said that the mom has ever flaked out on rofr. The mom is requesting rofr, for any time ( which is not likely to be seen as reasonable by a court).

I wonder what the court will think about the kid being in preschool all day, followed by GF for three hours, then dad for two hours apparently M-F when child is in dad's custody. Guess that doesn't matter because she will be entering formal schooling soon. I feel like dad doesn't want ROFR because he doesn't want to pay childsupport, while mom wants it because she wants to use her kid to be a professional bum.

OP here--Why would the court think anything in particular? The child goes to preschool three days a week no matter whose parenting time it is, and I drop off later due to my work schedule so we can hang out in the morning. So during my ex's week, the child is in preschool for about the same amount of hours as the child is in preschool and my girlfriend's care combined during mine.

What does ROFR have to do with child support? Not following, sorry. Whether there is ROFR or not, the child support calculation will be the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the child is 5, she's probably starting K. If you agree to ROFR, for say 4 hours, the gf can watch her after school, because dad said he gets home at 6 and school usually gets out at 3.

If Dad is working on a non school day, and Mom is available, she would have her. This applies both ways btw, if Mom was not available Dad could have her.

Why would OP agree to this when the mom is erratic and vindictive? I these circumstances it’s better for the parents to have fewer points of friction and more boundaries.

It's in the best interest of the child to have time with both parents. It's not all about the adults.

I think you’re confused. The custody order would provide for each parent to have time with the child. “Best interests” does not mean that the non-custodial parent gets to take the child during the custodial parent’s time. In fact this could be needlessly disruptive and bad for the child.

Why do people keep saying this? The girl can be with mom from 3-8 or with GF 3-6, then dad 6-8. What am I missing here??? I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is this happening basically every day and if mom got the kid on the days dad was working dad would basically never get the daughter M-F? Is dad doing this because mom has a stronger argument for custody because she has more availability?

You’re missing the fact that OP’s ex appears to be a nutcase, and in those cases, it’s better to have clearer boundaries.

You also misunderstand the pitfalls of ROFR. OP needs childcare to cover the few hours before he gets home from work. What happens when his erratic ex agrees to take the kid then backs out at the last minute?

The point of a child custody agreement is in part to reduce conflict by making everything very clear. ROFR introduces a huge amount of variability that can cause conflict. Moreover, it’s not clear that it’s bad for the child to spend a few hours a day with a grandparent or step-parent figure. That should be the decision of a custodial parent. Also ROFR can lead to ridiculous results, like a kid not being allowed to go to a sleepover or stay overnight with beloved cousins.

There are some good scenarios for ROFR. I’d probably want some version of it if I had shared custody of a baby. But overall it introduces a lot of complexity. There’s plenty written on it: https://www.bryanfagan.com/blog/2024/may/ask-yourself-is-including-a-right-of-first-refus/

If the mom flakes out for a pickup she agreed to, that is not a ROFR issue, that is an unfit parent issue.

And then they have to go back to court. Which is exactly why ROFR is a bad idea except in a few cases. Especially in high-conflict coparenting, it creates a dynamic ripe for conflict, control, and tying up the court with BS. It's a bad idea.

The OP hasn't said that the mom has ever flaked out on rofr. The mom is requesting rofr, for any time ( which is not likely to be seen as reasonable by a court).

I wonder what the court will think about the kid being in preschool all day, followed by GF for three hours, then dad for two hours apparently M-F when child is in dad's custody. Guess that doesn't matter because she will be entering formal schooling soon. I feel like dad doesn't want ROFR because he doesn't want to pay childsupport, while mom wants it because she wants to use her kid to be a professional bum.

you’re confused. ROFR is unrelated to child support.

It seems very clear to me that Mom wants ROFR because she can't accept that her ex has moved on and can't handle that the girlfriend gets to spend time with her daughter. She might not be jealous in a romantic way, but she feels threatened by the nuclear family, double income household her ex has created and knows she is not providing the same stability and positive lifestyle as an unemployed, single mother. In response to this wound and threat to her identity as a good mother she's doing whatever she can to disrupt their home life and exert control instead of focusing on creating a similar environment in her home. She needs therapy.

Dad doesn't want ROFR because Mom is...probably unpleasant to deal with and he doesn't want to communicate with her more than necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the child is 5, she's probably starting K. If you agree to ROFR, for say 4 hours, the gf can watch her after school, because dad said he gets home at 6 and school usually gets out at 3.

If Dad is working on a non school day, and Mom is available, she would have her. This applies both ways btw, if Mom was not available Dad could have her.

Why would OP agree to this when the mom is erratic and vindictive? I these circumstances it’s better for the parents to have fewer points of friction and more boundaries.

It's in the best interest of the child to have time with both parents. It's not all about the adults.

I think you’re confused. The custody order would provide for each parent to have time with the child. “Best interests” does not mean that the non-custodial parent gets to take the child during the custodial parent’s time. In fact this could be needlessly disruptive and bad for the child.

Why do people keep saying this? The girl can be with mom from 3-8 or with GF 3-6, then dad 6-8. What am I missing here??? I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is this happening basically every day and if mom got the kid on the days dad was working dad would basically never get the daughter M-F? Is dad doing this because mom has a stronger argument for custody because she has more availability?

You’re missing the fact that OP’s ex appears to be a nutcase, and in those cases, it’s better to have clearer boundaries.

You also misunderstand the pitfalls of ROFR. OP needs childcare to cover the few hours before he gets home from work. What happens when his erratic ex agrees to take the kid then backs out at the last minute?

The point of a child custody agreement is in part to reduce conflict by making everything very clear. ROFR introduces a huge amount of variability that can cause conflict. Moreover, it’s not clear that it’s bad for the child to spend a few hours a day with a grandparent or step-parent figure. That should be the decision of a custodial parent. Also ROFR can lead to ridiculous results, like a kid not being allowed to go to a sleepover or stay overnight with beloved cousins.

There are some good scenarios for ROFR. I’d probably want some version of it if I had shared custody of a baby. But overall it introduces a lot of complexity. There’s plenty written on it: https://www.bryanfagan.com/blog/2024/may/ask-yourself-is-including-a-right-of-first-refus/

If the mom flakes out for a pickup she agreed to, that is not a ROFR issue, that is an unfit parent issue.

And then they have to go back to court. Which is exactly why ROFR is a bad idea except in a few cases. Especially in high-conflict coparenting, it creates a dynamic ripe for conflict, control, and tying up the court with BS. It's a bad idea.

The OP hasn't said that the mom has ever flaked out on rofr. The mom is requesting rofr, for any time ( which is not likely to be seen as reasonable by a court).

I wonder what the court will think about the kid being in preschool all day, followed by GF for three hours, then dad for two hours apparently M-F when child is in dad's custody. Guess that doesn't matter because she will be entering formal schooling soon. I feel like dad doesn't want ROFR because he doesn't want to pay childsupport, while mom wants it because she wants to use her kid to be a professional bum.

you’re confused. ROFR is unrelated to child support.

It seems very clear to me that Mom wants ROFR because she can't accept that her ex has moved on and can't handle that the girlfriend gets to spend time with her daughter. She might not be jealous in a romantic way, but she feels threatened by the nuclear family, double income household her ex has created and knows she is not providing the same stability and positive lifestyle as an unemployed, single mother. In response to this wound and threat to her identity as a good mother she's doing whatever she can to disrupt their home life and exert control instead of focusing on creating a similar environment in her home. She needs therapy.

Dad doesn't want ROFR because Mom is...probably unpleasant to deal with and he doesn't want to communicate with her more than necessary.

very astute. maybe OP could have played along to be less threatening but I’m not sure it would have turned out any better.

[Anonymous]

She’ll go after the girlfriend in court. Why exactly is the gf available to babysit for three hours a day? Is she doing an early shift at her own job? Does she not work? I’m not so sure op is in the clear the court won’t necessarily agree kid should be spending majority of waking time with live in girlfriend. Maybe if it was his wife/stepmom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’ll go after the girlfriend in court. Why exactly is the gf available to babysit for three hours a day? Is she doing an early shift at her own job? Does she not work? I’m not so sure op is in the clear the court won’t necessarily agree kid should be spending majority of waking time with live in girlfriend. Maybe if it was his wife/stepmom.

Lol I think OP's ex has entered the chat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’ll go after the girlfriend in court. Why exactly is the gf available to babysit for three hours a day? Is she doing an early shift at her own job? Does she not work? I’m not so sure op is in the clear the court won’t necessarily agree kid should be spending majority of waking time with live in girlfriend. Maybe if it was his wife/stepmom.

Do you know how many hours are in a day? In what world is three of them “majority of waking hours.”

Presumably, the gf picks up in the afternoon when she gets off work.

Better questions are why isn’t the Mom working, and if she cares so much about getting as much time with her child as possible, why wouldn’t she volunteer to provide childcare during the day since she’s not working so they don’t have to pay for preschool? Why is it only a problem when Dad is utilizing his girlfriend for childcare when Mom is available, and not when he’s utilizing childcare in general?

It’s because all she is worried about is stopping the kid and the girlfriend from spending time together, nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the child is 5, she's probably starting K. If you agree to ROFR, for say 4 hours, the gf can watch her after school, because dad said he gets home at 6 and school usually gets out at 3.

If Dad is working on a non school day, and Mom is available, she would have her. This applies both ways btw, if Mom was not available Dad could have her.

Why would OP agree to this when the mom is erratic and vindictive? I these circumstances it’s better for the parents to have fewer points of friction and more boundaries.

It's in the best interest of the child to have time with both parents. It's not all about the adults.

I think you’re confused. The custody order would provide for each parent to have time with the child. “Best interests” does not mean that the non-custodial parent gets to take the child during the custodial parent’s time. In fact this could be needlessly disruptive and bad for the child.

Why do people keep saying this? The girl can be with mom from 3-8 or with GF 3-6, then dad 6-8. What am I missing here??? I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is this happening basically every day and if mom got the kid on the days dad was working dad would basically never get the daughter M-F? Is dad doing this because mom has a stronger argument for custody because she has more availability?

You’re missing the fact that OP’s ex appears to be a nutcase, and in those cases, it’s better to have clearer boundaries.

You also misunderstand the pitfalls of ROFR. OP needs childcare to cover the few hours before he gets home from work. What happens when his erratic ex agrees to take the kid then backs out at the last minute?

The point of a child custody agreement is in part to reduce conflict by making everything very clear. ROFR introduces a huge amount of variability that can cause conflict. Moreover, it’s not clear that it’s bad for the child to spend a few hours a day with a grandparent or step-parent figure. That should be the decision of a custodial parent. Also ROFR can lead to ridiculous results, like a kid not being allowed to go to a sleepover or stay overnight with beloved cousins.

There are some good scenarios for ROFR. I’d probably want some version of it if I had shared custody of a baby. But overall it introduces a lot of complexity. There’s plenty written on it: https://www.bryanfagan.com/blog/2024/may/ask-yourself-is-including-a-right-of-first-refus/

If the mom flakes out for a pickup she agreed to, that is not a ROFR issue, that is an unfit parent issue.

And then they have to go back to court. Which is exactly why ROFR is a bad idea except in a few cases. Especially in high-conflict coparenting, it creates a dynamic ripe for conflict, control, and tying up the court with BS. It's a bad idea.

The OP hasn't said that the mom has ever flaked out on rofr. The mom is requesting rofr, for any time ( which is not likely to be seen as reasonable by a court).

I wonder what the court will think about the kid being in preschool all day, followed by GF for three hours, then dad for two hours apparently M-F when child is in dad's custody. Guess that doesn't matter because she will be entering formal schooling soon. I feel like dad doesn't want ROFR because he doesn't want to pay childsupport, while mom wants it because she wants to use her kid to be a professional bum.

OP here--Why would the court think anything in particular? The child goes to preschool three days a week no matter whose parenting time it is, and I drop off later due to my work schedule so we can hang out in the morning. So during my ex's week, the child is in preschool for about the same amount of hours as the child is in preschool and my girlfriend's care combined during mine.

What does ROFR have to do with child support? Not following, sorry. Whether there is ROFR or not, the child support calculation will be the same.

I was thinking she would argue you only see her 2 hours on the days you work to argue she should get full custody and you would get visitation. If she has full custody she would get child support. Not saying that is how things would transpire, but maybe that is her thought process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the child is 5, she's probably starting K. If you agree to ROFR, for say 4 hours, the gf can watch her after school, because dad said he gets home at 6 and school usually gets out at 3.

If Dad is working on a non school day, and Mom is available, she would have her. This applies both ways btw, if Mom was not available Dad could have her.

Why would OP agree to this when the mom is erratic and vindictive? I these circumstances it’s better for the parents to have fewer points of friction and more boundaries.

It's in the best interest of the child to have time with both parents. It's not all about the adults.

I think you’re confused. The custody order would provide for each parent to have time with the child. “Best interests” does not mean that the non-custodial parent gets to take the child during the custodial parent’s time. In fact this could be needlessly disruptive and bad for the child.

Why do people keep saying this? The girl can be with mom from 3-8 or with GF 3-6, then dad 6-8. What am I missing here??? I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is this happening basically every day and if mom got the kid on the days dad was working dad would basically never get the daughter M-F? Is dad doing this because mom has a stronger argument for custody because she has more availability?

You’re missing the fact that OP’s ex appears to be a nutcase, and in those cases, it’s better to have clearer boundaries.

You also misunderstand the pitfalls of ROFR. OP needs childcare to cover the few hours before he gets home from work. What happens when his erratic ex agrees to take the kid then backs out at the last minute?

The point of a child custody agreement is in part to reduce conflict by making everything very clear. ROFR introduces a huge amount of variability that can cause conflict. Moreover, it’s not clear that it’s bad for the child to spend a few hours a day with a grandparent or step-parent figure. That should be the decision of a custodial parent. Also ROFR can lead to ridiculous results, like a kid not being allowed to go to a sleepover or stay overnight with beloved cousins.

There are some good scenarios for ROFR. I’d probably want some version of it if I had shared custody of a baby. But overall it introduces a lot of complexity. There’s plenty written on it: https://www.bryanfagan.com/blog/2024/may/ask-yourself-is-including-a-right-of-first-refus/

If the mom flakes out for a pickup she agreed to, that is not a ROFR issue, that is an unfit parent issue.

And then they have to go back to court. Which is exactly why ROFR is a bad idea except in a few cases. Especially in high-conflict coparenting, it creates a dynamic ripe for conflict, control, and tying up the court with BS. It's a bad idea.

The OP hasn't said that the mom has ever flaked out on rofr. The mom is requesting rofr, for any time ( which is not likely to be seen as reasonable by a court).

I wonder what the court will think about the kid being in preschool all day, followed by GF for three hours, then dad for two hours apparently M-F when child is in dad's custody. Guess that doesn't matter because she will be entering formal schooling soon. I feel like dad doesn't want ROFR because he doesn't want to pay childsupport, while mom wants it because she wants to use her kid to be a professional bum.

OP here--Why would the court think anything in particular? The child goes to preschool three days a week no matter whose parenting time it is, and I drop off later due to my work schedule so we can hang out in the morning. So during my ex's week, the child is in preschool for about the same amount of hours as the child is in preschool and my girlfriend's care combined during mine.

What does ROFR have to do with child support? Not following, sorry. Whether there is ROFR or not, the child support calculation will be the same.

Let me guess, you had an affair as you are having one now if you aren't divorced and have a girlfriend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She’ll go after the girlfriend in court. Why exactly is the gf available to babysit for three hours a day? Is she doing an early shift at her own job? Does she not work? I’m not so sure op is in the clear the court won’t necessarily agree kid should be spending majority of waking time with live in girlfriend. Maybe if it was his wife/stepmom.

IMO it is weird for the GF to babysit for 3 hours 3 days a week but it sounds like the mom's living situation is about to get very uncomfortable and weird. Kind of no win here. Maybe mom thinks a child support top up will help her keep her apartment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’ll go after the girlfriend in court. Why exactly is the gf available to babysit for three hours a day? Is she doing an early shift at her own job? Does she not work? I’m not so sure op is in the clear the court won’t necessarily agree kid should be spending majority of waking time with live in girlfriend. Maybe if it was his wife/stepmom.

IMO it is weird for the GF to babysit for 3 hours 3 days a week but it sounds like the mom's living situation is about to get very uncomfortable and weird. Kind of no win here. Maybe mom thinks a child support top up will help her keep her apartment?

The gf isn’t babysitting so much as just being at her home and the kid is there too because the kid also lives there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’ll go after the girlfriend in court. Why exactly is the gf available to babysit for three hours a day? Is she doing an early shift at her own job? Does she not work? I’m not so sure op is in the clear the court won’t necessarily agree kid should be spending majority of waking time with live in girlfriend. Maybe if it was his wife/stepmom.

IMO it is weird for the GF to babysit for 3 hours 3 days a week but it sounds like the mom's living situation is about to get very uncomfortable and weird. Kind of no win here. Maybe mom thinks a child support top up will help her keep her apartment?

The gf isn’t babysitting so much as just being at her home and the kid is there too because the kid also lives there.

GF is picking her up from school and babysitting her regularly. The child should be with her mother if her mother is available. There is a good chance GF is gonna be gone in a year or two because that's how things go. The girl should not be bonding with a random when mom is available. I would not be happy with this situation if I were the mom. Seems like dad is trying to keep the 50/50 arrangement so he doesn't have to pay. On the other hand, mom needs to get a job so she can provide appropriate housing. Of course the kid is the one losing out, which is how it always goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’ll go after the girlfriend in court. Why exactly is the gf available to babysit for three hours a day? Is she doing an early shift at her own job? Does she not work? I’m not so sure op is in the clear the court won’t necessarily agree kid should be spending majority of waking time with live in girlfriend. Maybe if it was his wife/stepmom.

IMO it is weird for the GF to babysit for 3 hours 3 days a week but it sounds like the mom's living situation is about to get very uncomfortable and weird. Kind of no win here. Maybe mom thinks a child support top up will help her keep her apartment?

The gf isn’t babysitting so much as just being at her home and the kid is there too because the kid also lives there.

GF is picking her up from school and babysitting her regularly. The child should be with her mother if her mother is available. There is a good chance GF is gonna be gone in a year or two because that's how things go. The girl should not be bonding with a random when mom is available. I would not be happy with this situation if I were the mom. Seems like dad is trying to keep the 50/50 arrangement so he doesn't have to pay. On the other hand, mom needs to get a job so she can provide appropriate housing. Of course the kid is the one losing out, which is how it always goes.

That’s absurd and a judge would see right through it. Child custody proceedings are not the forum to take out your jealousy against your ex’s girlfriend or spouse. And it’s totally reasonable for a custodial parent to use after-school childcare on a regular basis. Otherwise you’re claiming that having a job is incompatible with child custody.

Like it or not, right of first refusal is discretionary, not mandatory. No judge is going to order ROFR for *3 hrs* of normal after-school childcare in this context. If OP’s ex wanted that, she should have not gone crazy.