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

[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: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.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

False. Many states presume 50/50. More are considering it. It's not 1995. It's not a 'myth' like the pp claimed and it's not to intimidate mothers-it's in the best interest of the child to have regular time with both parents.

Once again. The presumption can be rebutted and “joint” does not necessarily mean 50-50

Sigh... since your Google must be broken, I quickly googled one example and found that Florida presumes 50/50 time sharing, not just joint. Your turn to Google more- there are more!

lol. and tell us what else the statute says the judge must consider when making the time sharing decision?

It's your turn to Google, remember?

[Anonymous]

Tell me, does anyone know of any dad actually showing up for 50/50?

In my experience they always bail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

How’s the kid supposed to build this equal relationship with dad if he’s frequently away during his custodial time and shunting responsibility for child-minding onto his mother or a paid caregiver?

[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: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.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

False. Many states presume 50/50. More are considering it. It's not 1995. It's not a 'myth' like the pp claimed and it's not to intimidate mothers-it's in the best interest of the child to have regular time with both parents.

Once again. The presumption can be rebutted and “joint” does not necessarily mean 50-50

Sigh... since your Google must be broken, I quickly googled one example and found that Florida presumes 50/50 time sharing, not just joint. Your turn to Google more- there are more!

lol. and tell us what else the statute says the judge must consider when making the time sharing decision?

It's your turn to Google, remember?

I read the Florida statute in its entirety and understand it (unlike you). It actually would give OP a stronger case for more than 50% since it expressly takes into account the need to provide care by a third party.

[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: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.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

False. Many states presume 50/50. More are considering it. It's not 1995. It's not a 'myth' like the pp claimed and it's not to intimidate mothers-it's in the best interest of the child to have regular time with both parents.

Once again. The presumption can be rebutted and “joint” does not necessarily mean 50-50

Sigh... since your Google must be broken, I quickly googled one example and found that Florida presumes 50/50 time sharing, not just joint. Your turn to Google more- there are more!

lol. and tell us what else the statute says the judge must consider when making the time sharing decision?

It's your turn to Google, remember?

I read the Florida statute in its entirety and understand it (unlike you). It actually would give OP a stronger case for more than 50% since it expressly takes into account the need to provide care by a third party.

You know how to Google! Yea! Anyhow, if you understood what you read, you would have read that the part about third party care is not listed in the 'rebuttable' part of equal timesharing, in the regs. So no help to OP.

[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: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.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

False. Many states presume 50/50. More are considering it. It's not 1995. It's not a 'myth' like the pp claimed and it's not to intimidate mothers-it's in the best interest of the child to have regular time with both parents.

Once again. The presumption can be rebutted and “joint” does not necessarily mean 50-50

Sigh... since your Google must be broken, I quickly googled one example and found that Florida presumes 50/50 time sharing, not just joint. Your turn to Google more- there are more!

lol. and tell us what else the statute says the judge must consider when making the time sharing decision?

It's your turn to Google, remember?

I read the Florida statute in its entirety and understand it (unlike you). It actually would give OP a stronger case for more than 50% since it expressly takes into account the need to provide care by a third party.

You know how to Google! Yea! Anyhow, if you understood what you read, you would have read that the part about third party care is not listed in the 'rebuttable' part of equal timesharing, in the regs. So no help to OP.

Yeah you completely misread it.

[Anonymous]

I did not read this entire thread but if I was OP, I would tell my ex husband that when he has a work trip and needs child care during that time, I am open to being an option. Let his mom watch, great bonding time even if you don’t believe in her views and if she can’t make it, great, more time with my kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tell me, does anyone know of any dad actually showing up for 50/50?

In my experience they always bail.

I am a teacher so I have a front row seat to custody arrangements, and I definitely know families where Dad steps
up, takes 50/50 and does a good job, as well as families where one or the other parent flaked out.

[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: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.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

How’s the kid supposed to build this equal relationship with dad if he’s frequently away during his custodial time and shunting responsibility for child-minding onto his mother or a paid caregiver?

Exactly. Dad doesn’t get to retroactively declare himself an equal parent when he has never been one. It would be like OP demanding half of his salary. He hasn’t earned half time
With his kid, and she hasn’t earned half his salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk to him about it and offer to change parenting days when he travels. If its not ok his mom care for the kids, why is it ok yours care when she's not doing well herself and cannot actually care for the kids. You both need a real and realistic back up plan.

Mine doesn’t even live with us and wouldn’t care for DC. DC is 8. I’m just imagining a future when DC is 13 and my mom has moved in and DC can’t stay home “alone” like a normal 13 year old for a few hours because they would be technically in the house with my mom so DH could trigger ROFR.

If DH did this, they would annoy their teen child and it would not go well for dad.

Just wait until you are co-parenting a teen with strong opinions…They will not be young child easily passed back and forth. They will have resentments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a practical standpoint, if she lives in the UK, how often do you think it is even possible that she will be taking care of your kids.

I wouldn't add anything in for those rare occasions.

+1 I wouldn't get into a tit for tat about mother in laws when yours is on another continent and his is likely to be living in the same house as the child soon. Concentrate on keeping things amicable so that it will naturally make more sense in his mind to call you when he's called out of town, before booking a plane ticket.

I’m OP and you have it mixed up. STBexMIL lives permanently in the Uk. DH would fly her the 6 hours or whatever whenever he had a work trip so she could babysit. And then fly her back to the UK. She is the primary caregiver for another grandchild there.

My mom is local. She does not live with us, and probably won’t for 3-4 years. I don’t anticipate her providing childcare ever but am concerned about my child being a teen one day and wanting to stay home alone and not being able to if she does move in with us.

This seems even less realistic to happen since your MIL is a primary caregiver to a child in the UK.

What are the parents of the UK going to do when MIL flies to the US?

Is MIL brown? What happens when border patrol doesn’t like what’s on her phone or how she looks? I’m sorry to bring this up but it should be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a practical standpoint, if she lives in the UK, how often do you think it is even possible that she will be taking care of your kids.

I wouldn't add anything in for those rare occasions.

+1 I wouldn't get into a tit for tat about mother in laws when yours is on another continent and his is likely to be living in the same house as the child soon. Concentrate on keeping things amicable so that it will naturally make more sense in his mind to call you when he's called out of town, before booking a plane ticket.

I’m OP and you have it mixed up. STBexMIL lives permanently in the Uk. DH would fly her the 6 hours or whatever whenever he had a work trip so she could babysit. And then fly her back to the UK. She is the primary caregiver for another grandchild there.

My mom is local. She does not live with us, and probably won’t for 3-4 years. I don’t anticipate her providing childcare ever but am concerned about my child being a teen one day and wanting to stay home alone and not being able to if she does move in with us.

This seems even less realistic to happen since your MIL is a primary caregiver to a child in the UK.

What are the parents of the UK going to do when MIL flies to the US?

Is MIL brown? What happens when border patrol doesn’t like what’s on her phone or how she looks? I’m sorry to bring this up but it should be considered.

If Grandma is the primary caregiver and not a childcare provider she can just bring the child.

[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: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.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

How’s the kid supposed to build this equal relationship with dad if he’s frequently away during his custodial time and shunting responsibility for child-minding onto his mother or a paid caregiver?

Exactly. Dad doesn’t get to retroactively declare himself an equal parent when he has never been one. It would be like OP demanding half of his salary. He hasn’t earned half time
With his kid, and she hasn’t earned half his salary.

Not a good comparison, because when one person sacrifices their career and holds down the fort and does everything to facilitate the other person’s career, I would argue they have earned half of the other’s salary, especially if they set them up for increases in the future. Courts agree with you too especially with situations with one SAHP who did everything to support a very high earner with a demanding/travel intensive job. Not saying this is necessarily the situation here but there would be legal precedent and/or actual laws in place depending on the state to support one spouse’s right to future income.

And also, yeah, dad can’t magically become an equal parent if he did put in the work in the past and isn’t structuring his life to do so in the future

[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: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.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

How’s the kid supposed to build this equal relationship with dad if he’s frequently away during his custodial time and shunting responsibility for child-minding onto his mother or a paid caregiver?

No different than marriage. Op can switch days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk to him about it and offer to change parenting days when he travels. If its not ok his mom care for the kids, why is it ok yours care when she's not doing well herself and cannot actually care for the kids. You both need a real and realistic back up plan.

Mine doesn’t even live with us and wouldn’t care for DC. DC is 8. I’m just imagining a future when DC is 13 and my mom has moved in and DC can’t stay home “alone” like a normal 13 year old for a few hours because they would be technically in the house with my mom so DH could trigger ROFR.

If DH did this, they would annoy their teen child and it would not go well for dad.

Just wait until you are co-parenting a teen with strong opinions…They will not be young child easily passed back and forth. They will have resentments.

Or maybe they will resent you taking dad away.