Dating someone whose ex has full custody of their kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone has full custody, I assume it’s because they are vindictive & froze their ex out.

They can't do that. Only a judge can do that. It's extremely unusual for one parent to be given sole physical and legal custody. It means there's something very wrong with the other parent.

Its not extremely unusual.

Yes. It is extremely unusual.

Also to all the PPs claiming the exDW -- it's always the woman, isn't it -- withholds court mandated visitation so the father has to 'drain his bank account' to see his kids -- that's BS. The courts will judge the parent who withholds kids harshly and they could likely lose custody for doing that.

Nice try men, but no.

Child support and visitation are two different things. Dad still has to pay child support even if mom refuses contact. However, often mom's want full custody as child support is based off visitation/custody so there is a big difference from every other weekend and 50-50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, huuuuge red flag. Someone gave up their kids? They are a pos. End of story.

Usually it’s not that they “gave them up,” but that their ex-partner basically stole custody.

Not possible. If they don’t have them they didn’t do the barest minimum to fight for them.

After a divorce, with child support, alimony, divorce costs, often men get stuck with the bulk of the expenses and they simply cannot afford the court battle.

Every family court is more than equipped to do this with pro se litigants. The default rules heavily favor fair splits so it’s very hard for a mom to successfully avoid giving a willing dad his time.

You really think a Dad will win pro se against an attorney and mom who makes up stories about how bad the dad is? And, what if mom moved the kids cross country - that is still filing fees, plane tickets, hotel. And, what about people who cannot travel freely like active duty?

A parent who is active duty will get consideration when they’re no longer active duty. This is excuse is so dumb.

You were talking to a second wife his husband lied to her about why he doesn’t have custody. She has bought into his lies so deep.

None of her posts are factual because they were all based on the lie that he told her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, huuuuge red flag. Someone gave up their kids? They are a pos. End of story.

Usually it’s not that they “gave them up,” but that their ex-partner basically stole custody.

Not possible. If they don’t have them they didn’t do the barest minimum to fight for them.

After a divorce, with child support, alimony, divorce costs, often men get stuck with the bulk of the expenses and they simply cannot afford the court battle.

Every family court is more than equipped to do this with pro se litigants. The default rules heavily favor fair splits so it’s very hard for a mom to successfully avoid giving a willing dad his time.

You really think a Dad will win pro se against an attorney and mom who makes up stories about how bad the dad is? And, what if mom moved the kids cross country - that is still filing fees, plane tickets, hotel. And, what about people who cannot travel freely like active duty?

A parent who is active duty will get consideration when they’re no longer active duty. This is excuse is so dumb.

Absolutely not true. Been there, done that. And, even with a court order, if mom refuses visits very few courts/judges will enforce it. Been there/done that too. There are always excuses of why from mom. Kids have activities, friends, separation anxiety, or pull the abuse card even though there is no evidence or the only true documented allegations are against mom.

So you think that a mother who has experienced abuse, and has concerns about her children being alone with her abuser, who may have also abused the kids but wasn't caught, is "pulling the abuse card"?

And in the context of this question of whether someone is a good potential partner, you think a man who has abused a previous partner is a good choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone has full custody, I assume it’s because they are vindictive & froze their ex out.

They can't do that. Only a judge can do that. It's extremely unusual for one parent to be given sole physical and legal custody. It means there's something very wrong with the other parent.

Its not extremely unusual.

Yes. It is extremely unusual.

Also to all the PPs claiming the exDW -- it's always the woman, isn't it -- withholds court mandated visitation so the father has to 'drain his bank account' to see his kids -- that's BS. The courts will judge the parent who withholds kids harshly and they could likely lose custody for doing that.

Nice try men, but no.

No one is arguing this Strawman except you. The courts will not look favorably on a parent that withholds visitation. No sh#t.

But in cases where there is a disparity of financial means in an adversarial contest to joint custody, the wealthier individual will attempt to bury the other spouse in BS complaints, exaggerated stories, procedural delays & motions, etc. This is not all that uncommon in family court. The attorney is hired to nitpick apart the non-wealthy parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, huuuuge red flag. Someone gave up their kids? They are a pos. End of story.

Usually it’s not that they “gave them up,” but that their ex-partner basically stole custody.

Not possible. If they don’t have them they didn’t do the barest minimum to fight for them.

After a divorce, with child support, alimony, divorce costs, often men get stuck with the bulk of the expenses and they simply cannot afford the court battle.

Every family court is more than equipped to do this with pro se litigants. The default rules heavily favor fair splits so it’s very hard for a mom to successfully avoid giving a willing dad his time.

You really think a Dad will win pro se against an attorney and mom who makes up stories about how bad the dad is? And, what if mom moved the kids cross country - that is still filing fees, plane tickets, hotel. And, what about people who cannot travel freely like active duty?

A parent who is active duty will get consideration when they’re no longer active duty. This is excuse is so dumb.

Absolutely not true. Been there, done that. And, even with a court order, if mom refuses visits very few courts/judges will enforce it. Been there/done that too. There are always excuses of why from mom. Kids have activities, friends, separation anxiety, or pull the abuse card even though there is no evidence or the only true documented allegations are against mom.

So you think that a mother who has experienced abuse, and has concerns about her children being alone with her abuser, who may have also abused the kids but wasn't caught, is "pulling the abuse card"?

And in the context of this question of whether someone is a good potential partner, you think a man who has abused a previous partner is a good choice?

Not all men are abusers and sometimes women are. In our situation, it was the ex who was the abuser to her AP kids and those kids were removed but not hers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, huuuuge red flag. Someone gave up their kids? They are a pos. End of story.

Usually it’s not that they “gave them up,” but that their ex-partner basically stole custody.

Not possible. If they don’t have them they didn’t do the barest minimum to fight for them.

After a divorce, with child support, alimony, divorce costs, often men get stuck with the bulk of the expenses and they simply cannot afford the court battle.

Every family court is more than equipped to do this with pro se litigants. The default rules heavily favor fair splits so it’s very hard for a mom to successfully avoid giving a willing dad his time.

You really think a Dad will win pro se against an attorney and mom who makes up stories about how bad the dad is? And, what if mom moved the kids cross country - that is still filing fees, plane tickets, hotel. And, what about people who cannot travel freely like active duty?

A parent who is active duty will get consideration when they’re no longer active duty. This is excuse is so dumb.

You were talking to a second wife his husband lied to her about why he doesn’t have custody. She has bought into his lies so deep.

None of her posts are factual because they were all based on the lie that he told her.

No, he didn't lie.

[Anonymous]

Have you asked why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you like this because more time with your SO, or would it be a red flag?

Red flags look like Six Flags when you're having fun.

Do not date this guy.

[Anonymous]

In the two cases I know, there's pretty extreme mental illness and behavior that shows the non-custodial parent does not prioritize kids' well being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know a case where the ex-wife remarried a very wealthy man and basically used legal firepower to start draining the ex-husband’s monetary resources. The ex-husband was basically left with two options: (1) spend down everything on lawyers and still eventually lose your kids or (2) keep what you got and see kids on holidays, but otherwise ex-wife gets full custody.

I know another case where the ex-wife’s father was crazy rich (9-figure net worth) and it was basically the same situation - we will outspend you until you have nothing and you’ll still lose the kids.

This happens way more often then you realize, particularly in UMC and wealthier circles.

Unfortunately this also happened to a friend of mine. The legal system is the best we have but is by no means perfect. He really misses his kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, huuuuge red flag. Someone gave up their kids? They are a pos. End of story.

How dare you! I gave up custody or the kid would be dead. So happened that few year later ex is dead. Can imagine having to live with a knowledge that this could happen to my child if I dare to fight.
OP, not enough info. Ignore the 'red flag' comments. I had to live without my child and it fear. You don't fight with an idiot. He turned into an idiot. Maybe sick in the head and nobody knew it was coming.

So you let your now dead ex have custody of your child? Why would you give custody of a child to a person who
would kill them if they didn’t get custody?

Where is your child now? The ex is dead? Who has custody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a case where the ex-wife remarried a very wealthy man and basically used legal firepower to start draining the ex-husband’s monetary resources. The ex-husband was basically left with two options: (1) spend down everything on lawyers and still eventually lose your kids or (2) keep what you got and see kids on holidays, but otherwise ex-wife gets full custody.

I know another case where the ex-wife’s father was crazy rich (9-figure net worth) and it was basically the same situation - we will outspend you until you have nothing and you’ll still lose the kids.

This happens way more often then you realize, particularly in UMC and wealthier circles.

Unfortunately this also happened to a friend of mine. The legal system is the best we have but is by no means perfect. He really misses his kid.

Explain how this happened? The attorney for the rich guy did what in court to keep dad from having any percentage of custody of the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is their explanation for the fill custody situation?

Barring they decided to relocate to a major career bump and then they have the kids in the summer or major breaks, there aren’t very flattering reasons for giving up ALL custody.
I know very busy career men who have 20% but it’s clear they were far from the default or half parent before or currently. I don’t want kids so I don’t care. If I did want kids and a present partner I’d really avoid work addicts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the two cases I know, there's pretty extreme mental illness and behavior that shows the non-custodial parent does not prioritize kids' well being.

+1

Ask about mental disorders and family history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, huuuuge red flag. Someone gave up their kids? They are a pos. End of story.

Usually it’s not that they “gave them up,” but that their ex-partner basically stole custody.

Not possible. If they don’t have them they didn’t do the barest minimum to fight for them.

After a divorce, with child support, alimony, divorce costs, often men get stuck with the bulk of the expenses and they simply cannot afford the court battle.

Every family court is more than equipped to do this with pro se litigants. The default rules heavily favor fair splits so it’s very hard for a mom to successfully avoid giving a willing dad his time.

You really think a Dad will win pro se against an attorney and mom who makes up stories about how bad the dad is? And, what if mom moved the kids cross country - that is still filing fees, plane tickets, hotel. And, what about people who cannot travel freely like active duty?

Not only do I think a dad will win pro se, up against a lawyer—I know he will. It happens absolutely every day.

Now if dad won’t give up a job that will prevent him from taking 50/50 custody you’re right. He won’t be granted 50/50 custody. Parenting is full of hard choices. Your husband made his choice.