How does a judge decide custody when all the factors to be considered seem equal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how “right of first refusal works.” So every day dad would have to check in with mom to offer her pickup from preschool until he was off work? And if she passes/“refuses” then he has to scramble to get someone else to do it?

What if he decides to cut out of work early? Then he has to reach out to his ex again to say he doesn’t need childcare?

Child is never allowed to spend an afternoon hanging out with the dad’s fiancée until he gets home, just because mom wants that time? Child has to go back and forth between houses every single day??

Sounds deranged. Anyone who wants that level of involvement and control over their ex’s life and household has major issues. Cant tell you how to prove that to the court tho.

These clauses are designed to prevent a custodial parent from hiring a babysitter when you have a parent who has a minimal amount of visitation and is available to provide childcare and would like to eke out more time with their child. Even then it often doesn’t include childcare needed while working and should have a stipulation that it only kicks in after a period of time—maybe 4 hours, anything longer than a typical work shift, or overnight. That way a parent doesn’t have to offer childcare every time they go see a movie with a friend or pop out to the store and let the child stay home with someone else or risk being held in contempt.

It’s simply not a necessary clause when parents have roughly equal parenting time and is usually used by a high-conflict parent to try to exert control over their coparent, as is happening here.

Coparents who won’t abuse this clause don’t need it in the first place. For coparents who think they need it, it will cause more conflict and stress than good.

It’s also not really necessary for older kids, I think, unless you truly think your ex-spouse will be very absent. I started off thinking I wanted one then dropped it when I realized how complicated it was and how it could work against me. But sure, if I had a toddler, I’d want the chance to take them instead of going to a babysitter for long periods of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how “right of first refusal works.” So every day dad would have to check in with mom to offer her pickup from preschool until he was off work? And if she passes/“refuses” then he has to scramble to get someone else to do it?

What if he decides to cut out of work early? Then he has to reach out to his ex again to say he doesn’t need childcare?

Child is never allowed to spend an afternoon hanging out with the dad’s fiancée until he gets home, just because mom wants that time? Child has to go back and forth between houses every single day??

Sounds deranged. Anyone who wants that level of involvement and control over their ex’s life and household has major issues. Cant tell you how to prove that to the court tho.

These clauses are designed to prevent a custodial parent from hiring a babysitter when you have a parent who has a minimal amount of visitation and is available to provide childcare and would like to eke out more time with their child. Even then it often doesn’t include childcare needed while working and should have a stipulation that it only kicks in after a period of time—maybe 4 hours, anything longer than a typical work shift, or overnight. That way a parent doesn’t have to offer childcare every time they go see a movie with a friend or pop out to the store and let the child stay home with someone else or risk being held in contempt.

It’s simply not a necessary clause when parents have roughly equal parenting time and is usually used by a high-conflict parent to try to exert control over their coparent, as is happening here.

Coparents who won’t abuse this clause don’t need it in the first place. For coparents who think they need it, it will cause more conflict and stress than good.

It’s also not really necessary for older kids, I think, unless you truly think your ex-spouse will be very absent. I started off thinking I wanted one then dropped it when I realized how complicated it was and how it could work against me. But sure, if I had a toddler, I’d want the chance to take them instead of going to a babysitter for long periods of time.

These clauses are also not enforceable. If you have enough evidence (hard to get proof that’s not hearsay) to get the other party held in contempt they’ll get a slap on the wrist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how “right of first refusal works.” So every day dad would have to check in with mom to offer her pickup from preschool until he was off work? And if she passes/“refuses” then he has to scramble to get someone else to do it?

What if he decides to cut out of work early? Then he has to reach out to his ex again to say he doesn’t need childcare?

Child is never allowed to spend an afternoon hanging out with the dad’s fiancée until he gets home, just because mom wants that time? Child has to go back and forth between houses every single day??

Sounds deranged. Anyone who wants that level of involvement and control over their ex’s life and household has major issues. Cant tell you how to prove that to the court tho.

These clauses are designed to prevent a custodial parent from hiring a babysitter when you have a parent who has a minimal amount of visitation and is available to provide childcare and would like to eke out more time with their child. Even then it often doesn’t include childcare needed while working and should have a stipulation that it only kicks in after a period of time—maybe 4 hours, anything longer than a typical work shift, or overnight. That way a parent doesn’t have to offer childcare every time they go see a movie with a friend or pop out to the store and let the child stay home with someone else or risk being held in contempt.

It’s simply not a necessary clause when parents have roughly equal parenting time and is usually used by a high-conflict parent to try to exert control over their coparent, as is happening here.

Coparents who won’t abuse this clause don’t need it in the first place. For coparents who think they need it, it will cause more conflict and stress than good.

I disagree strongly, based on my lived experience. I have ROFR in my parenting plan-ours is 4 or more hours, applies to biological parents only, and does not apply during school hours. We both excersize it at times. For us, having had this for over 2 years, it's easy and no conflict. And our dc would much rather be with one of us than a sitter. OP, note that ROFR goes both ways, meaning you can keep your dd when ex is not available (for whatever time length you agree to).

OP, I am all about a strong, structured parenting plan. Mine is, and our divorce and coparenting is very amicable. It's best to start off with structure and clear plans-you can always get flexible later if you and ex get to a better place. Have every holiday in the plan, birthdays, everything. There is a link online to a sample Florida parenting plan that you can look at and get ideas from. It's very thorough. Don't leave anything vague, your ex will take advantage of that.

I'd suggest a 2-2-5-5 plan for you guys, with exchanges done after school/daycare. This minimizes interaction with ex. I think week on/week off is too long for a little kid. Plus, you can have planned activities with dc on your set days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how “right of first refusal works.” So every day dad would have to check in with mom to offer her pickup from preschool until he was off work? And if she passes/“refuses” then he has to scramble to get someone else to do it?

What if he decides to cut out of work early? Then he has to reach out to his ex again to say he doesn’t need childcare?

Child is never allowed to spend an afternoon hanging out with the dad’s fiancée until he gets home, just because mom wants that time? Child has to go back and forth between houses every single day??

Sounds deranged. Anyone who wants that level of involvement and control over their ex’s life and household has major issues. Cant tell you how to prove that to the court tho.

These clauses are designed to prevent a custodial parent from hiring a babysitter when you have a parent who has a minimal amount of visitation and is available to provide childcare and would like to eke out more time with their child. Even then it often doesn’t include childcare needed while working and should have a stipulation that it only kicks in after a period of time—maybe 4 hours, anything longer than a typical work shift, or overnight. That way a parent doesn’t have to offer childcare every time they go see a movie with a friend or pop out to the store and let the child stay home with someone else or risk being held in contempt.

It’s simply not a necessary clause when parents have roughly equal parenting time and is usually used by a high-conflict parent to try to exert control over their coparent, as is happening here.

Coparents who won’t abuse this clause don’t need it in the first place. For coparents who think they need it, it will cause more conflict and stress than good.

I disagree strongly, based on my lived experience. I have ROFR in my parenting plan-ours is 4 or more hours, applies to biological parents only, and does not apply during school hours. We both excersize it at times. For us, having had this for over 2 years, it's easy and no conflict. And our dc would much rather be with one of us than a sitter. OP, note that ROFR goes both ways, meaning you can keep your dd when ex is not available (for whatever time length you agree to).

OP, I am all about a strong, structured parenting plan. Mine is, and our divorce and coparenting is very amicable. It's best to start off with structure and clear plans-you can always get flexible later if you and ex get to a better place. Have every holiday in the plan, birthdays, everything. There is a link online to a sample Florida parenting plan that you can look at and get ideas from. It's very thorough. Don't leave anything vague, your ex will take advantage of that.

I'd suggest a 2-2-5-5 plan for you guys, with exchanges done after school/daycare. This minimizes interaction with ex. I think week on/week off is too long for a little kid. Plus, you can have planned activities with dc on your set days.

Right, like I said…you probably didn’t need the clause in the first place since you’re both reasonable and sane people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how “right of first refusal works.” So every day dad would have to check in with mom to offer her pickup from preschool until he was off work? And if she passes/“refuses” then he has to scramble to get someone else to do it?

What if he decides to cut out of work early? Then he has to reach out to his ex again to say he doesn’t need childcare?

Child is never allowed to spend an afternoon hanging out with the dad’s fiancée until he gets home, just because mom wants that time? Child has to go back and forth between houses every single day??

Sounds deranged. Anyone who wants that level of involvement and control over their ex’s life and household has major issues. Cant tell you how to prove that to the court tho.

These clauses are designed to prevent a custodial parent from hiring a babysitter when you have a parent who has a minimal amount of visitation and is available to provide childcare and would like to eke out more time with their child. Even then it often doesn’t include childcare needed while working and should have a stipulation that it only kicks in after a period of time—maybe 4 hours, anything longer than a typical work shift, or overnight. That way a parent doesn’t have to offer childcare every time they go see a movie with a friend or pop out to the store and let the child stay home with someone else or risk being held in contempt.

It’s simply not a necessary clause when parents have roughly equal parenting time and is usually used by a high-conflict parent to try to exert control over their coparent, as is happening here.

Coparents who won’t abuse this clause don’t need it in the first place. For coparents who think they need it, it will cause more conflict and stress than good.

I disagree strongly, based on my lived experience. I have ROFR in my parenting plan-ours is 4 or more hours, applies to biological parents only, and does not apply during school hours. We both excersize it at times. For us, having had this for over 2 years, it's easy and no conflict. And our dc would much rather be with one of us than a sitter. OP, note that ROFR goes both ways, meaning you can keep your dd when ex is not available (for whatever time length you agree to).

OP, I am all about a strong, structured parenting plan. Mine is, and our divorce and coparenting is very amicable. It's best to start off with structure and clear plans-you can always get flexible later if you and ex get to a better place. Have every holiday in the plan, birthdays, everything. There is a link online to a sample Florida parenting plan that you can look at and get ideas from. It's very thorough. Don't leave anything vague, your ex will take advantage of that.

I'd suggest a 2-2-5-5 plan for you guys, with exchanges done after school/daycare. This minimizes interaction with ex. I think week on/week off is too long for a little kid. Plus, you can have planned activities with dc on your set days.

Right, like I said…you probably didn’t need the clause in the first place since you’re both reasonable and sane people.

We did and do need it, because I didn't know at first that it would go well, and what if it doesn't in the future? It's good to have the rofr because it puts it in writing and not open to 'interpretation' by the other person. The less vagueness in a parenting plan, the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are splitting costs including daycare 50/50, but one parent is unemployed, that seems very unfair. Why should a parent who is unemployed have to pay for half of daycare that they don't need? Even if they were working, it would be split by income in most states.

I wrote above that I would support the parent who isn't asking for the change, but then reread and realized that that parent seems to be failing to support their child.

Is that true, or are there other financial pieces I'm missing?

I realize I was not very clear.

The petitioner is the mother seeking sole legal custody and to change the 50/50 parenting time schedule. She is unemployed. The mother was willing to continue paying for half of preschool and was able to do so as she was collecting unemployment for 52 weeks. She has continued to utilize preschool during her parenting time as she was attending a certificate program in the hopes of starting a new career. Her unemployment recently ended and she is hoping to start a small business in the next few months to support her household.

The respondent who was willing to agree to joint legal custody and wishes to maintain the status quo 50/50 parenting time is the father and is employed full time and maintains health insurance for the child.

She's looking for child support as her income. Its impossible to say what a judge would do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how “right of first refusal works.” So every day dad would have to check in with mom to offer her pickup from preschool until he was off work? And if she passes/“refuses” then he has to scramble to get someone else to do it?

What if he decides to cut out of work early? Then he has to reach out to his ex again to say he doesn’t need childcare?

Child is never allowed to spend an afternoon hanging out with the dad’s fiancée until he gets home, just because mom wants that time? Child has to go back and forth between houses every single day??

Sounds deranged. Anyone who wants that level of involvement and control over their ex’s life and household has major issues. Cant tell you how to prove that to the court tho.

These clauses are designed to prevent a custodial parent from hiring a babysitter when you have a parent who has a minimal amount of visitation and is available to provide childcare and would like to eke out more time with their child. Even then it often doesn’t include childcare needed while working and should have a stipulation that it only kicks in after a period of time—maybe 4 hours, anything longer than a typical work shift, or overnight. That way a parent doesn’t have to offer childcare every time they go see a movie with a friend or pop out to the store and let the child stay home with someone else or risk being held in contempt.

It’s simply not a necessary clause when parents have roughly equal parenting time and is usually used by a high-conflict parent to try to exert control over their coparent, as is happening here.

Coparents who won’t abuse this clause don’t need it in the first place. For coparents who think they need it, it will cause more conflict and stress than good.

I disagree strongly, based on my lived experience. I have ROFR in my parenting plan-ours is 4 or more hours, applies to biological parents only, and does not apply during school hours. We both excersize it at times. For us, having had this for over 2 years, it's easy and no conflict. And our dc would much rather be with one of us than a sitter. OP, note that ROFR goes both ways, meaning you can keep your dd when ex is not available (for whatever time length you agree to).

OP, I am all about a strong, structured parenting plan. Mine is, and our divorce and coparenting is very amicable. It's best to start off with structure and clear plans-you can always get flexible later if you and ex get to a better place. Have every holiday in the plan, birthdays, everything. There is a link online to a sample Florida parenting plan that you can look at and get ideas from. It's very thorough. Don't leave anything vague, your ex will take advantage of that.

I'd suggest a 2-2-5-5 plan for you guys, with exchanges done after school/daycare. This minimizes interaction with ex. I think week on/week off is too long for a little kid. Plus, you can have planned activities with dc on your set days.

Right, like I said…you probably didn’t need the clause in the first place since you’re both reasonable and sane people.

We did and do need it, because I didn't know at first that it would go well, and what if it doesn't in the future? It's good to have the rofr because it puts it in writing and not open to 'interpretation' by the other person. The less vagueness in a parenting plan, the better.

this is also what I thought but I do think it only works if the other person is somewhat reasonable and reliable. Yes the plan needs to set out the most important things (like the weekly schedule) but my ex is unreliable and selfish and never would have done something like notified me if he was going to leave the kid with a babysitter for the evening. A ROFR clause would have just forced us to coordinate more details and given him more opportunity to fail and be a d*ck and piss me off. And as a PP noted it’s not really enforceable as a practical matter because you’re not going to run to court because of this (unless there’s something else going on). Also an unreliable ex means that YOU are going to be screwed by ROFR when he claims “Oh yeah I’ll take kid” then doesn’t show up.

OTOH if you at all believe your ex has the ability to follow a plan, then maybe it makes sense. If you believe your ex is truly going to foist childcare off for long periods of time regularly on someone else, maybe. I can also see it working where one parent has a non traditional work schedule or has to travel a lot.

[Anonymous]

Divorce judges decide custody based on this #1 factor - how much money the lawyers can extort and the Title IV-D payments which also flow to the courts and county attorney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends. What kind of evidence do you have?

She smokes cannabis (it's legal here). Personally I think it's trashy and shows poor judgment (but I'm the one who was with her and had a kid with her knowing this after all so I'm guessing the court won't care), but my main concern is that she doesn't keep her products and paraphernalia out of reach of the child. Because of the way the court proceedings went she had a three month heads up before she had to take the hair follicle test, so she passed, but I have a photo of our child at her home with a lit joint in the background within the child's reach. That's about the only "smoking gun" I have, if you could call it that.

Other stuff I've sent to my lawyer is just evidence of her general hostility and manipulation. Calling me names, insulting me, talking about me and my fiancee on social media . There is one screenshot where she posted something recently like "I'd rather kill my baby daddy than ever be with him again" which was kind of alarming since she's posted memes about hitting me with her car etc in the past.

I have screenshots where she straight up admits if I'm not going to coparent how she wants she's going to limit my time with our child.

Hoping to see how this housing situation unfolds to try to make a case that she's not able to provide a stable environment for our child.

[Anonymous]

Okay, of course I've only got your side of the story here, but based on what you've said -you are willing to do 50/50, you are not objecting to joint legal custody, you are providing insurance for the child. I think you're going to look good in front of the judge. The ex seems very contrary and judges generally don't like that, and there's also been a status quo of 50/50 so far and I don't think they'd want to change that either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Divorce judges decide custody based on this #1 factor - how much money the lawyers can extort and the Title IV-D payments which also flow to the courts and county attorney.

+1

OP, who has more money? How is she paying for a lawyer if she doesn’t have an income? Does she qualify for legal aid? Family help? Pro bono services?

Absent abuse and DV and all things being equal the deeper pockets usually win.

There has to be more to the story here. It’s hard for me to believe someone would show up to court jobless for an extended amount of time, against an involved and present parent with a stable job that covers the child’s health insurance, when the status quo has been 50/50 and expect things to change or go in their favor. All over a few hours of time she feels she’s missing out on because you have your girlfriend pick up your child?

Even if she does get sole legal custody, that’s not going to give her any control over who you have babysit for a short window unless you also agree to have it in the order and it goes both ways. I don’t believe a judge would ever order that kind of micromanagement of parenting time against party’s wishes.

Even looking at the child support angle, she can’t just not work and have zero income. Her income is likely to be imputed as potential income based on her previous salary, or at minimum wage if nothing else. If she’s hoping to live off child support until she gets her business up and running, that’s not going to happen. If she really was making about the same as you before she lost her job, child support is going to be minimal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50/50 and it sucks

It doesn't suck. It's the only appropriate way, barring unusual circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are splitting costs including daycare 50/50, but one parent is unemployed, that seems very unfair. Why should a parent who is unemployed have to pay for half of daycare that they don't need? Even if they were working, it would be split by income in most states.

I wrote above that I would support the parent who isn't asking for the change, but then reread and realized that that parent seems to be failing to support their child.

Is that true, or are there other financial pieces I'm missing?

I realize I was not very clear.

The petitioner is the mother seeking sole legal custody and to change the 50/50 parenting time schedule. She is unemployed. The mother was willing to continue paying for half of preschool and was able to do so as she was collecting unemployment for 52 weeks. She has continued to utilize preschool during her parenting time as she was attending a certificate program in the hopes of starting a new career. Her unemployment recently ended and she is hoping to start a small business in the next few months to support her household.

The respondent who was willing to agree to joint legal custody and wishes to maintain the status quo 50/50 parenting time is the father and is employed full time and maintains health insurance for the child.

Is he paying child support? Unless her unemployment is equal to his income, or she has some other source of income, then he should be paying substantial child support.

Not if she is willfully unemployed or underemployed. A judge will impute income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends. What kind of evidence do you have?

She smokes cannabis (it's legal here). Personally I think it's trashy and shows poor judgment (but I'm the one who was with her and had a kid with her knowing this after all so I'm guessing the court won't care), but my main concern is that she doesn't keep her products and paraphernalia out of reach of the child. Because of the way the court proceedings went she had a three month heads up before she had to take the hair follicle test, so she passed, but I have a photo of our child at her home with a lit joint in the background within the child's reach. That's about the only "smoking gun" I have, if you could call it that.

Other stuff I've sent to my lawyer is just evidence of her general hostility and manipulation. Calling me names, insulting me, talking about me and my fiancee on social media . There is one screenshot where she posted something recently like "I'd rather kill my baby daddy than ever be with him again" which was kind of alarming since she's posted memes about hitting me with her car etc in the past.

I have screenshots where she straight up admits if I'm not going to coparent how she wants she's going to limit my time with our child.

Hoping to see how this housing situation unfolds to try to make a case that she's not able to provide a stable environment for our child.

You gave this all to your lawyer right?

You’re going to have to use the legal system. I’m sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they are splitting costs including daycare 50/50, but one parent is unemployed, that seems very unfair. Why should a parent who is unemployed have to pay for half of daycare that they don't need? Even if they were working, it would be split by income in most states.

I wrote above that I would support the parent who isn't asking for the change, but then reread and realized that that parent seems to be failing to support their child.

Is that true, or are there other financial pieces I'm missing?

I realize I was not very clear.

The petitioner is the mother seeking sole legal custody and to change the 50/50 parenting time schedule. She is unemployed. The mother was willing to continue paying for half of preschool and was able to do so as she was collecting unemployment for 52 weeks. She has continued to utilize preschool during her parenting time as she was attending a certificate program in the hopes of starting a new career. Her unemployment recently ended and she is hoping to start a small business in the next few months to support her household.

The respondent who was willing to agree to joint legal custody and wishes to maintain the status quo 50/50 parenting time is the father and is employed full time and maintains health insurance for the child.

Is he paying child support? Unless her unemployment is equal to his income, or she has some other source of income, then he should be paying substantial child support.

There was no custody order or child support order prior to this case being filed. Prior to her unemployment, the two parents were making roughly the same salary and neither party felt the need for child support to be ordered. Child support will be calculated and ordered as part of the custody case.

It's pretty clear that she wants increased physical custody in order to get increased child support.

+1

Peopler here are reading right past that whole 1-yr-of-unemployment-but-hopes-to-start-her-own-WFH-business-soon stuff.

Also, in what universe is a doula WFH? People are coming to her house to give birth?