Anyone’s exDH try to use family caregiving for custody?

[Anonymous]

Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Married people are flexible with one another. divorces people compensate one another.
Father’s inability to care for child on his parenting time is a fact. It’s not simple to rearrange existing plans and or /work travel for mom. Why are you expecting her to do that to facilitate herr spending less time with the child that she’s used to primary parenting. Nah.

He’s working and said he’d get care on his time and that was not good enough for mom nor will she work with him. She can use family and sitters but he cannot.

If she travels he can switch with her.

No. He is claiming he is entitled to 50% custody yet his work schedule does not permit that.

If his work schedule is occasional travel, like OP says-it permits it. He has a plan of care. He would not be denied desired 50/50 for that.

I know there is a pp in here that claims that, but I think they are posting from 1995 or something-nowadays, 50/50 is commonly presumed and many parents occasionally travel for work. Op should consider ROFR if she wants to care for dc in his absence, otherwise his plan to have family care for dc is acceptable to any court.

Again read the DC code for an example of the presumption. It’s a presumption of joint custody, not totally equal time, and the judge would certainly consider a parents history of univolvement vs a stay at home parent, as well as significant business travel and/or a job that regularly requires staying in the office post bedtime. Of course we don’t know OP’s exact facts but it is simply untrue that there is no way to get more than 50%.

OP didn't say where they lived, and even if it was DC-the other parent desires 50/50 and has made acceptable plans for care for their occasional travel. This is very very unlikely to result in anything less than 50/50. Many parents have jobs that require travel or working 'post bedtime'. It sounds like you have little experience in this area, at least not in this century.

As long as you actually refuse to look at a code or cite to your opinion, you are a useless concern troll to women who have strong legal claims against 50-50 parenting time.

Meanwhile I will let you read just one example from MD: https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/0152s23.pdf

We don’t know the facts of OP’s case. If her ex travels 2-3 times a year for a few days planned in advance and can be home before bedtime reliably on his custody days and was an active hands on parent before, then sure, he can likely get 50% time.

If he travels so frequently he will regularly be gone on his custody days, regularly works so late he cannot get home before bedtime, had a pattern of not providing childcare due to work obligations during the marriage, OP was a SAHM … then these are the kinds of facts a court will consider in deciding on the schedule. Remember that the relevant standard is the “best interests of the child” not the rights of the parents to 50%.

You may also be confusing the legal notion of “joint custody” with 50-50 parenting time. Joint custody does not equate with 50-50 split. It means two things - joint legal custody, meaning the parents have to agree on major decisions; and joint physical custody, which means that each parent has physical custody - but this does not mean exactly 50%.

PP-did you...read...the case link you posted? Because if you did, you'd have read that it doesn't involve travel at all. And, it doesn't so much involve the father's schedule, but cites the fact that the parents had a de facto time split and the father later asked for 50/50-after an incident where he left a dc unattended. So, this wasn't simply a case where Dad didn't get 50/50 because 'schedule and travel'.

Ahem... you're the troll....you didn't even read your own link.

I read the entire case, obviously. No it does not involve travel, but it absolutely shows how a judge took into account the dad’s work schedule as one factor in determining the amount of custody. The incident with leaving the child unattended was one fact out of many and not key to the decision to give the mom more hours. Obviously every case is different, but this one absolutely is an example of how a court handles it when a dad claims he wants 50-50 but his job does not allow for him to actually be physically present for 50% of the time, and the mom was doing most of the childcare prior to the separation.

It says a lot about how family court and law works that the unattended child incident really wasn’t a consideration in the trial and even though it sounded like the mother had done essentially all aspects of parenting, including the mental load, emotional labor, and physical work, the dad still walked away with a relatively significant amount of custody given what seemed like his prior disengagement. The dad’s witnesses basically said they didn’t know him and he seemed nice enough. A mom in the same situation would have been held to a far higher standard to get the same outcome. And I still think the mom got lucky and could have ended up with an even more raw deal.

OP isn't saying this. You are making stuff up or its your situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much a trial like that cost the parents. Probably could have paid for a chunk of college.

They aren't worried about college, they are worried about child support and sticking it to their ex.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

OP wants a child custody schedule that ensures the child is cared for by a parent most of the time, and yeah, she wants the child support due to her.

Again, child custody decisions are in the best interests of the child. No parent has a right to 50% time when they are not even going to be home during that time.

Have you been to court lately? Dads who ask the court for 50/50 get it in the DC area. The standard is “best interest of the child”, but the practice is 50/50 if that is what Dad goes to court for (not settled, not mediated…Dad stands in front of an active judge and says “I want 50/50.”)

The other assumption is that everything changes when parents divorce. Sure you were a SAHM, but the court will expect you to go back to work. Sure Dad travels 25% of the time, but the expectation is his schedule will also change: he will travel during the 15 days of the month Junior is with Mom. The Court doesn’t care about division of labor that was negotiated during the marriage, because the marriage is over. Again, this is not applicable in settled/mediated cases. This is standing in front of a judge, in the DC area, where both parents intend to stay local, neither are crack whores, and Dad wants 50/50 with a childcare plan for while he is working.

Dad’s absolutely do not get 50% just because they asked for it. I posted the DC law and an MD case on this point. A judge will take into account that a parent’s work schedule does not allow them to be physically present to provide care 50% of the time, as well as the fact that mom provided all or most of the care prior to the separation. This is literally in the text of the DC core and discussed in the MD case. Again for those of you in the back - “joint custody”
does not equate legally to 50% timeshare. You can have joint custody and different split.

Also because you are obviously not a lawyer or you are a bad one - you should know that parties bargain in the shadow of the law. So what a judge would do in a case absolutely creates the conditions considered in a mediation or settlement discussion.

So trollio, in the MD case you posted, the Dad initially did not ask for 50/50, they had established a de-facto EOW timeshare, and he proceeded to leave a child unattended on his parenting time. THIS is why he didn't get 50/50-not because he worked full time or on Saturdays sometimes or past 5pm. Your link doesn't back up your claims. This wasn't a Dad who wanted 50/50 from filing and had plans for childcare.

Read it again dummy. he requested 50-50.

You read, dummy. He requested it later, after they had established de facto timesharing.

I don’t know what you even think you are saying.

I am saying - here is a case where the dad asked the court for 50-50 and the court said no, your work schedule doesn’t allow that, and your prior pattern (both during marriage and after separation) is that mom did most of the childcare.

you are saying that the court took into account that dad “de facto” did less than 50%. So basically you are agreeing with me?

And, women complain when dads are trying and do everything to block them seeing their kids so they can get more money.

You don’t do child care for your own kids. You benefitted from dad working long hours but then use it against him later on.

Sure mom benefitted financially from his work: but you leave out that dad benefitted from someone being there to care for his child while he gallivants around. If dad wants to continue gallivanting the mom having primary caregiving- as she has been doing- will provide the best security and continuity for the child.

Dads like to use magical future thinking - the same way they did to us at the altar- not about the realities of 3 week a month travel and 50/50 custody. Child isn’t a sofa who should be shuffled around: they have a right to have a clear and consistent parenting time schedule.

He's working, not gallivanting. This is the family set up they choose. Dad will find a way to make it work. If you feel a child should only live at one home, then have them live with their other parent. Problem solved. Lets be real, you take away custody, complain he never helps when he's not allowed or able and on his visitation you find excuses like school, work, friends, activities, sports to block child from going or seeing their other parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

OP wants a child custody schedule that ensures the child is cared for by a parent most of the time, and yeah, she wants the child support due to her.

Again, child custody decisions are in the best interests of the child. No parent has a right to 50% time when they are not even going to be home during that time.

Have you been to court lately? Dads who ask the court for 50/50 get it in the DC area. The standard is “best interest of the child”, but the practice is 50/50 if that is what Dad goes to court for (not settled, not mediated…Dad stands in front of an active judge and says “I want 50/50.”)

The other assumption is that everything changes when parents divorce. Sure you were a SAHM, but the court will expect you to go back to work. Sure Dad travels 25% of the time, but the expectation is his schedule will also change: he will travel during the 15 days of the month Junior is with Mom. The Court doesn’t care about division of labor that was negotiated during the marriage, because the marriage is over. Again, this is not applicable in settled/mediated cases. This is standing in front of a judge, in the DC area, where both parents intend to stay local, neither are crack whores, and Dad wants 50/50 with a childcare plan for while he is working.

Dad’s absolutely do not get 50% just because they asked for it. I posted the DC law and an MD case on this point. A judge will take into account that a parent’s work schedule does not allow them to be physically present to provide care 50% of the time, as well as the fact that mom provided all or most of the care prior to the separation. This is literally in the text of the DC core and discussed in the MD case. Again for those of you in the back - “joint custody”
does not equate legally to 50% timeshare. You can have joint custody and different split.

Also because you are obviously not a lawyer or you are a bad one - you should know that parties bargain in the shadow of the law. So what a judge would do in a case absolutely creates the conditions considered in a mediation or settlement discussion.

So trollio, in the MD case you posted, the Dad initially did not ask for 50/50, they had established a de-facto EOW timeshare, and he proceeded to leave a child unattended on his parenting time. THIS is why he didn't get 50/50-not because he worked full time or on Saturdays sometimes or past 5pm. Your link doesn't back up your claims. This wasn't a Dad who wanted 50/50 from filing and had plans for childcare.

Read it again dummy. he requested 50-50.

You read, dummy. He requested it later, after they had established de facto timesharing.

I don’t know what you even think you are saying.

I am saying - here is a case where the dad asked the court for 50-50 and the court said no, your work schedule doesn’t allow that, and your prior pattern (both during marriage and after separation) is that mom did most of the childcare.

you are saying that the court took into account that dad “de facto” did less than 50%. So basically you are agreeing with me?

And, women complain when dads are trying and do everything to block them seeing their kids so they can get more money.

You don’t do child care for your own kids. You benefitted from dad working long hours but then use it against him later on.

Sure mom benefitted financially from his work: but you leave out that dad benefitted from someone being there to care for his child while he gallivants around. If dad wants to continue gallivanting the mom having primary caregiving- as she has been doing- will provide the best security and continuity for the child.

Dads like to use magical future thinking - the same way they did to us at the altar- not about the realities of 3 week a month travel and 50/50 custody. Child isn’t a sofa who should be shuffled around: they have a right to have a clear and consistent parenting time schedule.

He's working, not gallivanting. This is the family set up they choose. Dad will find a way to make it work. If you feel a child should only live at one home, then have them live with their other parent. Problem solved. Lets be real, you take away custody, complain he never helps when he's not allowed or able and on his visitation you find excuses like school, work, friends, activities, sports to block child from going or seeing their other parent.

OP here. I never chose this family set up. And I never "took away custody." I wish I could, but no individual parent has the legal power or authority to do so. Your statement is naive and rather hysterical.

DH had multiple internal offers for equivalent salary/roles that did not require travel, particularly for the most recent and current role he's in. The last role he chose over the local role actually has lower compensation but DH argued that accumulating miles and points via travel and getting reimbursed for meals and expenses made the compensation "equal if not greater." At every inflection point, he actively chose the travel-intensive role even when we were participating in couples therapy and I begged him to choose a role that would allow for him to be more involved at home. His argument was that he liked travel and the entire family benefited from the miles and points he gets from work travel. Even our therapist said that it didn't make sense to sacrifice 50 weeks/year of family balance for 2 weeks/year of potential fancy vacations.

I believe that my pushback about his travel is what may have prompted his decision to leave us, unfortunately.

On the bright side we do have extensive documentation from discovery that shows the other roles he was offered and the salary/comp package for those, plus statements with his potential hiring manager at the role he declined and his current hiring manager regarding the lack of travel at the role he said no to and the anticipated frequency of future travel in his current role.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Married people are flexible with one another. divorces people compensate one another.
Father’s inability to care for child on his parenting time is a fact. It’s not simple to rearrange existing plans and or /work travel for mom. Why are you expecting her to do that to facilitate herr spending less time with the child that she’s used to primary parenting. Nah.

He’s working and said he’d get care on his time and that was not good enough for mom nor will she work with him. She can use family and sitters but he cannot.

If she travels he can switch with her.

No. He is claiming he is entitled to 50% custody yet his work schedule does not permit that.

If his work schedule is occasional travel, like OP says-it permits it. He has a plan of care. He would not be denied desired 50/50 for that.

I know there is a pp in here that claims that, but I think they are posting from 1995 or something-nowadays, 50/50 is commonly presumed and many parents occasionally travel for work. Op should consider ROFR if she wants to care for dc in his absence, otherwise his plan to have family care for dc is acceptable to any court.

Again read the DC code for an example of the presumption. It’s a presumption of joint custody, not totally equal time, and the judge would certainly consider a parents history of univolvement vs a stay at home parent, as well as significant business travel and/or a job that regularly requires staying in the office post bedtime. Of course we don’t know OP’s exact facts but it is simply untrue that there is no way to get more than 50%.

OP didn't say where they lived, and even if it was DC-the other parent desires 50/50 and has made acceptable plans for care for their occasional travel. This is very very unlikely to result in anything less than 50/50. Many parents have jobs that require travel or working 'post bedtime'. It sounds like you have little experience in this area, at least not in this century.

As long as you actually refuse to look at a code or cite to your opinion, you are a useless concern troll to women who have strong legal claims against 50-50 parenting time.

Meanwhile I will let you read just one example from MD: https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/0152s23.pdf

We don’t know the facts of OP’s case. If her ex travels 2-3 times a year for a few days planned in advance and can be home before bedtime reliably on his custody days and was an active hands on parent before, then sure, he can likely get 50% time.

If he travels so frequently he will regularly be gone on his custody days, regularly works so late he cannot get home before bedtime, had a pattern of not providing childcare due to work obligations during the marriage, OP was a SAHM … then these are the kinds of facts a court will consider in deciding on the schedule. Remember that the relevant standard is the “best interests of the child” not the rights of the parents to 50%.

You may also be confusing the legal notion of “joint custody” with 50-50 parenting time. Joint custody does not equate with 50-50 split. It means two things - joint legal custody, meaning the parents have to agree on major decisions; and joint physical custody, which means that each parent has physical custody - but this does not mean exactly 50%.

PP-did you...read...the case link you posted? Because if you did, you'd have read that it doesn't involve travel at all. And, it doesn't so much involve the father's schedule, but cites the fact that the parents had a de facto time split and the father later asked for 50/50-after an incident where he left a dc unattended. So, this wasn't simply a case where Dad didn't get 50/50 because 'schedule and travel'.

Ahem... you're the troll....you didn't even read your own link.

I read the entire case, obviously. No it does not involve travel, but it absolutely shows how a judge took into account the dad’s work schedule as one factor in determining the amount of custody. The incident with leaving the child unattended was one fact out of many and not key to the decision to give the mom more hours. Obviously every case is different, but this one absolutely is an example of how a court handles it when a dad claims he wants 50-50 but his job does not allow for him to actually be physically present for 50% of the time, and the mom was doing most of the childcare prior to the separation.

It says a lot about how family court and law works that the unattended child incident really wasn’t a consideration in the trial and even though it sounded like the mother had done essentially all aspects of parenting, including the mental load, emotional labor, and physical work, the dad still walked away with a relatively significant amount of custody given what seemed like his prior disengagement. The dad’s witnesses basically said they didn’t know him and he seemed nice enough. A mom in the same situation would have been held to a far higher standard to get the same outcome. And I still think the mom got lucky and could have ended up with an even more raw deal.

OP isn't saying this. You are making stuff up or its your situation.

I'm speaking to the Maryland court case cited above. Read it. It is very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

I've never heard of a 2nd consecutive overnight ROFR. At least not in my jurisdiction. This seems like it would be even more disruptive and against the best interests of the children.

A night at mom's, a night with dad's caregiver, and then back to mom's? A PP above said that kids aren't objects to be shuffled around, and I agree, and this arrangement would do exactly that.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

OP wants a child custody schedule that ensures the child is cared for by a parent most of the time, and yeah, she wants the child support due to her.

Again, child custody decisions are in the best interests of the child. No parent has a right to 50% time when they are not even going to be home during that time.

Have you been to court lately? Dads who ask the court for 50/50 get it in the DC area. The standard is “best interest of the child”, but the practice is 50/50 if that is what Dad goes to court for (not settled, not mediated…Dad stands in front of an active judge and says “I want 50/50.”)

The other assumption is that everything changes when parents divorce. Sure you were a SAHM, but the court will expect you to go back to work. Sure Dad travels 25% of the time, but the expectation is his schedule will also change: he will travel during the 15 days of the month Junior is with Mom. The Court doesn’t care about division of labor that was negotiated during the marriage, because the marriage is over. Again, this is not applicable in settled/mediated cases. This is standing in front of a judge, in the DC area, where both parents intend to stay local, neither are crack whores, and Dad wants 50/50 with a childcare plan for while he is working.

Dad’s absolutely do not get 50% just because they asked for it. I posted the DC law and an MD case on this point. A judge will take into account that a parent’s work schedule does not allow them to be physically present to provide care 50% of the time, as well as the fact that mom provided all or most of the care prior to the separation. This is literally in the text of the DC core and discussed in the MD case. Again for those of you in the back - “joint custody”
does not equate legally to 50% timeshare. You can have joint custody and different split.

Also because you are obviously not a lawyer or you are a bad one - you should know that parties bargain in the shadow of the law. So what a judge would do in a case absolutely creates the conditions considered in a mediation or settlement discussion.

So trollio, in the MD case you posted, the Dad initially did not ask for 50/50, they had established a de-facto EOW timeshare, and he proceeded to leave a child unattended on his parenting time. THIS is why he didn't get 50/50-not because he worked full time or on Saturdays sometimes or past 5pm. Your link doesn't back up your claims. This wasn't a Dad who wanted 50/50 from filing and had plans for childcare.

Read it again dummy. he requested 50-50.

You read, dummy. He requested it later, after they had established de facto timesharing.

I don’t know what you even think you are saying.

I am saying - here is a case where the dad asked the court for 50-50 and the court said no, your work schedule doesn’t allow that, and your prior pattern (both during marriage and after separation) is that mom did most of the childcare.

you are saying that the court took into account that dad “de facto” did less than 50%. So basically you are agreeing with me?

If you actually read this...there was way more involved than 'work schedule' and mom doing childcare.

Not really for the physical custody part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

I've never heard of a 2nd consecutive overnight ROFR. At least not in my jurisdiction. This seems like it would be even more disruptive and against the best interests of the children.

A night at mom's, a night with dad's caregiver, and then back to mom's? A PP above said that kids aren't objects to be shuffled around, and I agree, and this arrangement would do exactly that.

A ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours is a great thing. It allows the parent to send their kid on sleepovers, or to have Grandma visit and spend a night in a hotel, or to let the kid go with a friend to a soccer tournament, while still preventing the ex from arranging long periods of time where the kid is being cared for by god knows who.

In this case, where OP is specifically worried about grandparent care, it seems unlikely that Dad is going to fly a grandma into town for one night, so it could result in Mom just being allowed to keep the kid. But if Dad does fly someone in, then a one night sleepover with Grandma is a very normal thing. Lots of kids in intact families go to Grandma for a sleepover on a regular basis. That's not "shuffling around" or super disruptive. It's a normal healthy family dynamic.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Married people are flexible with one another. divorces people compensate one another.
Father’s inability to care for child on his parenting time is a fact. It’s not simple to rearrange existing plans and or /work travel for mom. Why are you expecting her to do that to facilitate herr spending less time with the child that she’s used to primary parenting. Nah.

He’s working and said he’d get care on his time and that was not good enough for mom nor will she work with him. She can use family and sitters but he cannot.

If she travels he can switch with her.

No. He is claiming he is entitled to 50% custody yet his work schedule does not permit that.

If his work schedule is occasional travel, like OP says-it permits it. He has a plan of care. He would not be denied desired 50/50 for that.

I know there is a pp in here that claims that, but I think they are posting from 1995 or something-nowadays, 50/50 is commonly presumed and many parents occasionally travel for work. Op should consider ROFR if she wants to care for dc in his absence, otherwise his plan to have family care for dc is acceptable to any court.

Again read the DC code for an example of the presumption. It’s a presumption of joint custody, not totally equal time, and the judge would certainly consider a parents history of univolvement vs a stay at home parent, as well as significant business travel and/or a job that regularly requires staying in the office post bedtime. Of course we don’t know OP’s exact facts but it is simply untrue that there is no way to get more than 50%.

OP didn't say where they lived, and even if it was DC-the other parent desires 50/50 and has made acceptable plans for care for their occasional travel. This is very very unlikely to result in anything less than 50/50. Many parents have jobs that require travel or working 'post bedtime'. It sounds like you have little experience in this area, at least not in this century.

As long as you actually refuse to look at a code or cite to your opinion, you are a useless concern troll to women who have strong legal claims against 50-50 parenting time.

Meanwhile I will let you read just one example from MD: https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/0152s23.pdf

We don’t know the facts of OP’s case. If her ex travels 2-3 times a year for a few days planned in advance and can be home before bedtime reliably on his custody days and was an active hands on parent before, then sure, he can likely get 50% time.

If he travels so frequently he will regularly be gone on his custody days, regularly works so late he cannot get home before bedtime, had a pattern of not providing childcare due to work obligations during the marriage, OP was a SAHM … then these are the kinds of facts a court will consider in deciding on the schedule. Remember that the relevant standard is the “best interests of the child” not the rights of the parents to 50%.

You may also be confusing the legal notion of “joint custody” with 50-50 parenting time. Joint custody does not equate with 50-50 split. It means two things - joint legal custody, meaning the parents have to agree on major decisions; and joint physical custody, which means that each parent has physical custody - but this does not mean exactly 50%.

PP-did you...read...the case link you posted? Because if you did, you'd have read that it doesn't involve travel at all. And, it doesn't so much involve the father's schedule, but cites the fact that the parents had a de facto time split and the father later asked for 50/50-after an incident where he left a dc unattended. So, this wasn't simply a case where Dad didn't get 50/50 because 'schedule and travel'.

Ahem... you're the troll....you didn't even read your own link.

I read the entire case, obviously. No it does not involve travel, but it absolutely shows how a judge took into account the dad’s work schedule as one factor in determining the amount of custody. The incident with leaving the child unattended was one fact out of many and not key to the decision to give the mom more hours. Obviously every case is different, but this one absolutely is an example of how a court handles it when a dad claims he wants 50-50 but his job does not allow for him to actually be physically present for 50% of the time, and the mom was doing most of the childcare prior to the separation.

It says a lot about how family court and law works that the unattended child incident really wasn’t a consideration in the trial and even though it sounded like the mother had done essentially all aspects of parenting, including the mental load, emotional labor, and physical work, the dad still walked away with a relatively significant amount of custody given what seemed like his prior disengagement. The dad’s witnesses basically said they didn’t know him and he seemed nice enough. A mom in the same situation would have been held to a far higher standard to get the same outcome. And I still think the mom got lucky and could have ended up with an even more raw deal.

PP here. Well I think he got about what he was already doing, so seems fair. But agree about the gender aspect.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

I don’t think she wants control of her husband. She wants control of her schedule and the ability to have a reliable schedule so she can earn a living and secure a financial future for herself.

If you go back in the thread, OP was left by her DH. She didn’t make the choice to end the marriage. It sounds like it’s the DH who has the control issues- he wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He wants the support for his career and the flexibility he had within a marriage with the freedom and lack of accountability to a partner that comes with being a single career guy. The kids are just an accessory in his standard Good Guy With Big Career Accessory Pack.

Yes and if this is the same OP, he had her move states for his job then filed divorce papers just before his income drastically increased

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Married people are flexible with one another. divorces people compensate one another.
Father’s inability to care for child on his parenting time is a fact. It’s not simple to rearrange existing plans and or /work travel for mom. Why are you expecting her to do that to facilitate herr spending less time with the child that she’s used to primary parenting. Nah.

He’s working and said he’d get care on his time and that was not good enough for mom nor will she work with him. She can use family and sitters but he cannot.

If she travels he can switch with her.

No. He is claiming he is entitled to 50% custody yet his work schedule does not permit that.

If his work schedule is occasional travel, like OP says-it permits it. He has a plan of care. He would not be denied desired 50/50 for that.

I know there is a pp in here that claims that, but I think they are posting from 1995 or something-nowadays, 50/50 is commonly presumed and many parents occasionally travel for work. Op should consider ROFR if she wants to care for dc in his absence, otherwise his plan to have family care for dc is acceptable to any court.

Again read the DC code for an example of the presumption. It’s a presumption of joint custody, not totally equal time, and the judge would certainly consider a parents history of univolvement vs a stay at home parent, as well as significant business travel and/or a job that regularly requires staying in the office post bedtime. Of course we don’t know OP’s exact facts but it is simply untrue that there is no way to get more than 50%.

OP didn't say where they lived, and even if it was DC-the other parent desires 50/50 and has made acceptable plans for care for their occasional travel. This is very very unlikely to result in anything less than 50/50. Many parents have jobs that require travel or working 'post bedtime'. It sounds like you have little experience in this area, at least not in this century.

As long as you actually refuse to look at a code or cite to your opinion, you are a useless concern troll to women who have strong legal claims against 50-50 parenting time.

Meanwhile I will let you read just one example from MD: https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/0152s23.pdf

We don’t know the facts of OP’s case. If her ex travels 2-3 times a year for a few days planned in advance and can be home before bedtime reliably on his custody days and was an active hands on parent before, then sure, he can likely get 50% time.

If he travels so frequently he will regularly be gone on his custody days, regularly works so late he cannot get home before bedtime, had a pattern of not providing childcare due to work obligations during the marriage, OP was a SAHM … then these are the kinds of facts a court will consider in deciding on the schedule. Remember that the relevant standard is the “best interests of the child” not the rights of the parents to 50%.

You may also be confusing the legal notion of “joint custody” with 50-50 parenting time. Joint custody does not equate with 50-50 split. It means two things - joint legal custody, meaning the parents have to agree on major decisions; and joint physical custody, which means that each parent has physical custody - but this does not mean exactly 50%.

PP-did you...read...the case link you posted? Because if you did, you'd have read that it doesn't involve travel at all. And, it doesn't so much involve the father's schedule, but cites the fact that the parents had a de facto time split and the father later asked for 50/50-after an incident where he left a dc unattended. So, this wasn't simply a case where Dad didn't get 50/50 because 'schedule and travel'.

Ahem... you're the troll....you didn't even read your own link.

I read the entire case, obviously. No it does not involve travel, but it absolutely shows how a judge took into account the dad’s work schedule as one factor in determining the amount of custody. The incident with leaving the child unattended was one fact out of many and not key to the decision to give the mom more hours. Obviously every case is different, but this one absolutely is an example of how a court handles it when a dad claims he wants 50-50 but his job does not allow for him to actually be physically present for 50% of the time, and the mom was doing most of the childcare prior to the separation.

It says a lot about how family court and law works that the unattended child incident really wasn’t a consideration in the trial and even though it sounded like the mother had done essentially all aspects of parenting, including the mental load, emotional labor, and physical work, the dad still walked away with a relatively significant amount of custody given what seemed like his prior disengagement. The dad’s witnesses basically said they didn’t know him and he seemed nice enough. A mom in the same situation would have been held to a far higher standard to get the same outcome. And I still think the mom got lucky and could have ended up with an even more raw deal.

OP isn't saying this. You are making stuff up or its your situation.

I'm speaking to the Maryland court case cited above. Read it. It is very interesting.

PP who posted the case. Messy divorce opinions are my guilty pleasure. And, they definitely remind me to be a sane person and get along with my ex to the extent possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.