If you divorce when kids are teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got divorced when my D was 12-14ish. It was hellishly contentious and leading up to it my D went through various periods of up to several months where she would not see or speak to me.

However, I was adamant that we would have 50/50 custody and I simply told my ex and her counsel that I would accept nothing less. I said that without this I would fight in court until the very day D turned 18 and we would likely be bankrupt and possibly in deep debt for legal fees. I was willing to absolutely destroy our financial life over this and never wavered from making sure everyone knew that.

The reason I took this position was that I love my D and as far as I was concerned, my heart and door was always open. If she chose to not walk through and be in each other's lives, that was her choice (and frankly due to no small amount of her mother's influence).

I wanted the final judgement to be 50/50 and then I would deal with whatever the reality was after that. If my D refused to come see me then I would be patient and do what I could to heal the relationship because it would be on our terms. If there was a Court order that had skewed custody in it and denied equal time with both parents then I would not have the same chance.

My advice to anyone in a divorce proceeding and sorting out custody is to stand firm on 50/50 because it's in the best interest of the child to have the family (even in it's new divided form) work things out, not the Court System or Judge who looks at things for 20 minutes and makes a decision that will affects lives for years and years.

sounds like you were a cheater / walked out on your family and then tried to force your kid to stay in contact. nice.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

1. I never had an affair.
2. I begged for marriage counseling; my ex said the 6 sessions we did 3 years prior were useless and refused to even put in the slightest effort.
3. I never moved out, she did. She was the one that filed.
4. I always paid at least double what state guidelines were for support during the separation.
5. I respected my child's desire to have space and simply left the door open for her to make her own decision.

So for you to make such brash and bold assumptions with no info is quite a stretch.

All I'm saying is that it's important that parents work TOGETHER in the best interest of the CHILD and leave whatever anger or resentment they have toward each other out of it. And the best interest is always 50/50 (unless there is some sort of actual physical abuse happening).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that it is in the child’s best interests to drag out a divorce and spend endless money on custody. It is also not a way to build a relationship you may not have with your child. Teens spend the vast amount of time at school and with friends. If it were me, I’d consider how much of the parenting and planning (i.e. mental load) each parent has taken on in their lives and try to adjust custody time accordingly to ensure not much disruption in the Teen’s life.

You sound like a typical bitter woman who thinks she should get all the money and all the custody and her ex-husband should just go away and restrict himself to sending a check every month. "Bad ATM, stop thinking you have any right to see your own child!"

Yeah, the "best way to build a relationship with your child" is definitely to roll over and give the other parent full custody, so you're basically reduced to being an occasional visitor in their lives, and meanwhile your ex disses you to them and moans about she carries all the "mental load" (which is a bunch of made-up bullsht).

Would you say the same if you knew I was the Dad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny that you think it is in the child's best interest to have to live in a different house each week --- or live out of a suitcase shifting back and forth every 2-3 days. Who would want to live like a nomad? It would be incredibly disruptive. Your child could have a lot more stability living primarily in one home. The other parent (who has secondary custody/time) can still have a positive relationship with the child. [OK, so you're totally willing for the non-custodial parent to be you, right? No wait, there are a million reasons why you can't be the "secondary" parent. But thanks for your transparently dishonest rationalization for why you should get everything you want.]

From my observations, the dad fights for 50/50 custody to avoid paying child support. It is always about the money....and usually means the child will pay the price in stress....if the kid has to shuffle back and forth constantly. [From my observation, women fight for full custody because they want to milk more child support out of the dad. It is always about the money, and these women couldn't care less that reduction in the father's role has a profoundly negative influence on the children]

The parents are the ones who gave up on the marriage...why should the kid be inconvenienced and stressed and have to live out of a suitcase b/c the parents couldn't get their act together? [Don't pretend this is about anything other than YOUR convenience and what YOU want.]

The real bottom line is that The parents gave up on parenting in one house...and now expect the kids to do the work of shuffling back and forth every week or every few days. Even if both parents are good parents, the kids shouldn't shouldn't have to live out of suitcases. They should be living in one house even if that means less overall time ( much of which is sleeping time) with one parent. It may not be "fair" to each parent, but they had some choice in the divorce. It is surely NOT fair for a child to have to be so disrupted.

[Anonymous]

We did not give them that choice. We just told them how things would be. They accepted that.

[Anonymous]

Parents should switch between houses and let the kids stay in the family home.

[Anonymous]

Parents who divorce when their kids are teens really are wrecking their kids.

Parents who insist they live with a parent they don't want to are screwing themselves in the end. Once my friends kids' turned 18, they told their dad to shove the 50/50 up his a@@.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents should switch between houses and let the kids stay in the family home.

And, how many parents can afford three homes/apartments?

[Anonymous]

Note: The standard is "the best interests of the CHILD."

The standard is NOT "what is fair for the parents."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree that it is in the child’s best interests to drag out a divorce and spend endless money on custody. It is also not a way to build a relationship you may not have with your child. Teens spend the vast amount of time at school and with friends. If it were me, I’d consider how much of the parenting and planning (i.e. mental load) each parent has taken on in their lives and try to adjust custody time accordingly to ensure not much disruption in the Teen’s life.

You sound like a typical bitter woman who thinks she should get all the money and all the custody and her ex-husband should just go away and restrict himself to sending a check every month. "Bad ATM, stop thinking you have any right to see your own child!"

Yeah, the "best way to build a relationship with your child" is definitely to roll over and give the other parent full custody, so you're basically reduced to being an occasional visitor in their lives, and meanwhile your ex disses you to them and moans about she carries all the "mental load" (which is a bunch of made-up bullsht).

Would you say the same if you knew I was the Dad?

Yes. Stop being a pussy. You have a duty to your children to fight for 50/50 just like the PP did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Note: The standard is "the best interests of the CHILD."

The standard is NOT "what is fair for the parents."

50/50 IS best for the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny that you think it is in the child's best interest to have to live in a different house each week --- or live out of a suitcase shifting back and forth every 2-3 days. Who would want to live like a nomad? It would be incredibly disruptive. Your child could have a lot more stability living primarily in one home. The other parent (who has secondary custody/time) can still have a positive relationship with the child. [OK, so you're totally willing for the non-custodial parent to be you, right? No wait, there are a million reasons why you can't be the "secondary" parent. But thanks for your transparently dishonest rationalization for why you should get everything you want.]

From my observations, the dad fights for 50/50 custody to avoid paying child support. It is always about the money....and usually means the child will pay the price in stress....if the kid has to shuffle back and forth constantly. [From my observation, women fight for full custody because they want to milk more child support out of the dad. It is always about the money, and these women couldn't care less that reduction in the father's role has a profoundly negative influence on the children]

The parents are the ones who gave up on the marriage...why should the kid be inconvenienced and stressed and have to live out of a suitcase b/c the parents couldn't get their act together? [Don't pretend this is about anything other than YOUR convenience and what YOU want.]

The real bottom line is that The parents gave up on parenting in one house...and now expect the kids to do the work of shuffling back and forth every week or every few days. Even if both parents are good parents, the kids shouldn't shouldn't have to live out of suitcases. They should be living in one house even if that means less overall time ( much of which is sleeping time) with one parent. It may not be "fair" to each parent, but they had some choice in the divorce. It is surely NOT fair for a child to have to be so disrupted.

Your premise that it is "disruptive" to "shuffle back and forth" is stupid and false. They don't live out of suitcases. Neither house is a hotel room if you do it right - both houses are their homes. And I am sure that you are another one of these hypocrites who would scream bloody murder if the "one house the kids should live in" was not yours. You're just trying to rationalize getting what you want - custody, and thus money - as really being "for the children".

It is NOT fair - and it is highly damaging - to reduce one parent to an occasional presence in their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny that you think it is in the child's best interest to have to live in a different house each week --- or live out of a suitcase shifting back and forth every 2-3 days. Who would want to live like a nomad? It would be incredibly disruptive. Your child could have a lot more stability living primarily in one home. The other parent (who has secondary custody/time) can still have a positive relationship with the child. [OK, so you're totally willing for the non-custodial parent to be you, right? No wait, there are a million reasons why you can't be the "secondary" parent. But thanks for your transparently dishonest rationalization for why you should get everything you want.]

From my observations, the dad fights for 50/50 custody to avoid paying child support. It is always about the money....and usually means the child will pay the price in stress....if the kid has to shuffle back and forth constantly. [From my observation, women fight for full custody because they want to milk more child support out of the dad. It is always about the money, and these women couldn't care less that reduction in the father's role has a profoundly negative influence on the children]

The parents are the ones who gave up on the marriage...why should the kid be inconvenienced and stressed and have to live out of a suitcase b/c the parents couldn't get their act together? [Don't pretend this is about anything other than YOUR convenience and what YOU want.]

The real bottom line is that The parents gave up on parenting in one house...and now expect the kids to do the work of shuffling back and forth every week or every few days. Even if both parents are good parents, the kids shouldn't shouldn't have to live out of suitcases. They should be living in one house even if that means less overall time ( much of which is sleeping time) with one parent. It may not be "fair" to each parent, but they had some choice in the divorce. It is surely NOT fair for a child to have to be so disrupted.

Your premise that it is "disruptive" to "shuffle back and forth" is stupid and false. They don't live out of suitcases. Neither house is a hotel room if you do it right - both houses are their homes. And I am sure that you are another one of these hypocrites who would scream bloody murder if the "one house the kids should live in" was not yours. You're just trying to rationalize getting what you want - custody, and thus money - as really being "for the children".

It is NOT fair - and it is highly damaging - to reduce one parent to an occasional presence in their lives.

Ummm.....no... I'm not getting divorced.... but I can kind of see why you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got divorced when my D was 12-14ish. It was hellishly contentious and leading up to it my D went through various periods of up to several months where she would not see or speak to me.

However, I was adamant that we would have 50/50 custody and I simply told my ex and her counsel that I would accept nothing less. I said that without this I would fight in court until the very day D turned 18 and we would likely be bankrupt and possibly in deep debt for legal fees. I was willing to absolutely destroy our financial life over this and never wavered from making sure everyone knew that.

The reason I took this position was that I love my D and as far as I was concerned, my heart and door was always open. If she chose to not walk through and be in each other's lives, that was her choice (and frankly due to no small amount of her mother's influence).

I wanted the final judgement to be 50/50 and then I would deal with whatever the reality was after that. If my D refused to come see me then I would be patient and do what I could to heal the relationship because it would be on our terms. If there was a Court order that had skewed custody in it and denied equal time with both parents then I would not have the same chance.

My advice to anyone in a divorce proceeding and sorting out custody is to stand firm on 50/50 because it's in the best interest of the child to have the family (even in it's new divided form) work things out, not the Court System or Judge who looks at things for 20 minutes and makes a decision that will affects lives for years and years.

sounds like you were a cheater / walked out on your family and then tried to force your kid to stay in contact. nice.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

1. I never had an affair.
2. I begged for marriage counseling; my ex said the 6 sessions we did 3 years prior were useless and refused to even put in the slightest effort.
3. I never moved out, she did. She was the one that filed.
4. I always paid at least double what state guidelines were for support during the separation.
5. I respected my child's desire to have space and simply left the door open for her to make her own decision.

So for you to make such brash and bold assumptions with no info is quite a stretch.

All I'm saying is that it's important that parents work TOGETHER in the best interest of the CHILD and leave whatever anger or resentment they have toward each other out of it. And the best interest is always 50/50 (unless there is some sort of actual physical abuse happening).

How is your co-parenting relationship with your ex now? Did things improve?

[Anonymous]

OP, where the child sleeps and who has decisionmaking are different cncepts. The dad who went on and on is sharing a specific anecdotal experience that doesn't use the legal terms correctly. Watch out.

As for your situation: teens are selfish creatures wrapped up in their own lives. If you make life harder for them by insisting they sleep far from their friends, they will resent you. Most of us see fairly little of our teens when we aren't driving them around. Between homework and activities they really don't spend time with us. Don't force something unnatural because they will resent it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, where the child sleeps and who has decisionmaking are different cncepts. The dad who went on and on is sharing a specific anecdotal experience that doesn't use the legal terms correctly. Watch out.

As for your situation: teens are selfish creatures wrapped up in their own lives. If you make life harder for them by insisting they sleep far from their friends, they will resent you. Most of us see fairly little of our teens when we aren't driving them around. Between homework and activities they really don't spend time with us. Don't force something unnatural because they will resent it.

Oops. Not unnatural.

Don't force something undesirable to the kid.