Wanting full custody

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have my kids about 90% of the time. It was written that way in the MSA and stamped into the divorce decree.
Dad agreed so no one else said anything about it. Sharing to say, yes, VA assumes 50/50, but if both parties agree - the court accepts it.

Similar. XH proposed it, so it wasn't an issue. And seconding that the court does agree with whatever the parties agree to in the MSA. However I was mindful of the fact that if he did decide he wanted more time and we couldn't agree, he'd be awarded up to 50%.

There needs to be an exceptionally compelling reason for the court to deviate significantly if one parent is asking for 50/50 and "I did all the parenting before" is not going to do it.

The best way forward is for them to come to agreement on custody that will actually work for the parents and kids so it isn't in the hands of the judge. Even if there are other things that are ultimately decided by the court, they can agree to a custody split on their own for inclusion in the final ruling.

[Anonymous]

I also have full custody in VA, by agreement, so court approved it. Ex too busy with mistress to want them around; kids can be such a nuisance!

Ex technically has two visits per week but often does not use his time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is important for the kids. They need both parents, not one parent trying to freeze the other out.[b]
Most women want full custody to get more[b] child support.

Hi, I fixed your post for you to make it accurate. You're welcome. Please try to avoid being such a misandrist troll in the future.

There we are, then.

NP.

This is also not accurate.

The reality is this

SHARED PARENTING is important for the kids. They need BOTH parents, BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN SPLITTING THEIR LIVES IN HALF. 50 / 50 IS DESTABILIZING FOR KIDS. THEY NEED A PRIMARY HOME BASE.
PARENTS FIGHT OVER custody mostly because of money AND CONTROL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is exceptionally rare.

50/50 custody is less common in this country than one parent having primary (more than 70% of time) physical custody and legal decision making.

Winning primary legal and physical custody in a state like DC, MD or VA which doesn't have a presumption of 50/50 custody but which does prioritize joint legal, isn't going to be easy. Many of those families who have one parent with primary custody either have it because the parents negotiated an agreement, or because of an issue like a parent moving away, or abuse or neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is important for the kids. They need both parents, not one parent trying to freeze the other out.[b]
Most women want full custody to get more[b] child support.

Hi, I fixed your post for you to make it accurate. You're welcome. Please try to avoid being such a misandrist troll in the future.

There we are, then.

NP.

This is also not accurate.

The reality is this

SHARED PARENTING is important for the kids. They need BOTH parents, BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN SPLITTING THEIR LIVES IN HALF. 50 / 50 IS DESTABILIZING FOR KIDS. THEY NEED A PRIMARY HOME BASE.
PARENTS FIGHT OVER custody mostly because of money AND CONTROL.

50/50 isn't what's destabilizing, you silly goose. The breakup of the family unit is the destabilizing part.

Primary home base is one model, sure. Just so long as there isn't some default presumption that it should be with the mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for the kids. They need a stable home, not back and forth once a week or for a week at a time.
Most men want this to avoid paying child support.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have my kids 100%, but only because ex agreed to it. No trial. Without an agreement or major danger to the kids, forget it.

Me too. Frankly, it’s their business, not yours. You may not be aware of all the facts.

[Anonymous]

The father will get 50/50 if he wants it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for the kids. They need a stable home, not back and forth once a week or for a week at a time.
Most men want this to avoid paying child support.

Divorce is bad for kids in that it means they have two homes. The majority of dads want time with their kids, not to avoid child support. It is the reality of splitting up the family, kids now split time.

why do the kids typically have to be the one to change homes? Why can’t the parents be the ones inconvenienced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for the kids. They need a stable home, not back and forth once a week or for a week at a time.
Most men want this to avoid paying child support.

Divorce is bad for kids in that it means they have two homes. The majority of dads want time with their kids, not to avoid child support. It is the reality of splitting up the family, kids now split time.

why do the kids typically have to be the one to change homes? Why can’t the parents be the ones inconvenienced?

Most parents cannot afford two or three homes. What if mom is living with her boyfriend? How does that work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for the kids. They need a stable home, not back and forth once a week or for a week at a time.
Most men want this to avoid paying child support.

Divorce is bad for kids in that it means they have two homes. The majority of dads want time with their kids, not to avoid child support. It is the reality of splitting up the family, kids now split time.

why do the kids typically have to be the one to change homes? Why can’t the parents be the ones inconvenienced?

My child doesn't 'change homes'. They have a home with their mother and their father. They have the things they need in their homes. They have lots of time with both their parents. And the dad wasn't trying to avoid cs, lol-and i'm the mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for the kids. They need a stable home, not back and forth once a week or for a week at a time.
Most men want this to avoid paying child support.

Divorce is bad for kids in that it means they have two homes. The majority of dads want time with their kids, not to avoid child support. It is the reality of splitting up the family, kids now split time.

why do the kids typically have to be the one to change homes? Why can’t the parents be the ones inconvenienced?

My child doesn't 'change homes'. They have a home with their mother and their father. They have the things they need in their homes. They have lots of time with both their parents. And the dad wasn't trying to avoid cs, lol-and i'm the mom.

That’s nice for you, but some of us have spouses using 50/50 in states that allow it to be used for a spousal support residential deviation even if child support is based on income, they live in an Airbnb, and the child has to take everything down to shampoo and pencils back and forth with them every time because their parent says “there isn’t space.” When my child has to show up at their sport with their sports bags and a huge bag containing everything they need for a weekend down to snacks, they certainly don’t feel stable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for the kids. They need a stable home, not back and forth once a week or for a week at a time.
Most men want this to avoid paying child support.

Divorce is bad for kids in that it means they have two homes. The majority of dads want time with their kids, not to avoid child support. It is the reality of splitting up the family, kids now split time.

why do the kids typically have to be the one to change homes? Why can’t the parents be the ones inconvenienced?

My child doesn't 'change homes'. They have a home with their mother and their father. They have the things they need in their homes. They have lots of time with both their parents. And the dad wasn't trying to avoid cs, lol-and i'm the mom.

That’s nice for you, but some of us have spouses using 50/50 in states that allow it to be used for a spousal support residential deviation even if child support is based on income, they live in an Airbnb, and the child has to take everything down to shampoo and pencils back and forth with them every time because their parent says “there isn’t space.” When my child has to show up at their sport with their sports bags and a huge bag containing everything they need for a weekend down to snacks, they certainly don’t feel stable.

PP here. I can see how they would not feel stable. He isn't making a 'home' for them. In this case, I'd speak to my atty about making him responsible for things on his time like toiletries and snacks, because if he cannot provide needed items on his parenting time, perhaps it should be reduced to a level that he can appropriately handle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for the kids. They need a stable home, not back and forth once a week or for a week at a time.
Most men want this to avoid paying child support.

Divorce is bad for kids in that it means they have two homes. The majority of dads want time with their kids, not to avoid child support. It is the reality of splitting up the family, kids now split time.

why do the kids typically have to be the one to change homes? Why can’t the parents be the ones inconvenienced?

My child doesn't 'change homes'. They have a home with their mother and their father. They have the things they need in their homes. They have lots of time with both their parents. And the dad wasn't trying to avoid cs, lol-and i'm the mom.

You are deluding yourself. They are definitely changing homes. It's like if you went from your kitchen to your living room. They're both your rooms but you are changing from one to another.

You need to face up to this. It's harmful to your children that you won't acknowledge the burden you and your ex have placed on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50/50 is terrible for the kids. They need a stable home, not back and forth once a week or for a week at a time.
Most men want this to avoid paying child support.

Divorce is bad for kids in that it means they have two homes. The majority of dads want time with their kids, not to avoid child support. It is the reality of splitting up the family, kids now split time.

why do the kids typically have to be the one to change homes? Why can’t the parents be the ones inconvenienced?

My child doesn't 'change homes'. They have a home with their mother and their father. They have the things they need in their homes. They have lots of time with both their parents. And the dad wasn't trying to avoid cs, lol-and i'm the mom.

That’s nice for you, but some of us have spouses using 50/50 in states that allow it to be used for a spousal support residential deviation even if child support is based on income, they live in an Airbnb, and the child has to take everything down to shampoo and pencils back and forth with them every time because their parent says “there isn’t space.” When my child has to show up at their sport with their sports bags and a huge bag containing everything they need for a weekend down to snacks, they certainly don’t feel stable.

If the other parent is going 50-50 then why is it an issue if they use an airbnb. Don't like it, let the kid and dad stay in your home.