50/50 not the norm nationwide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You got a lot of time with your kids. Concentrate on the time you have. Those are big kids. They are able to tell the judge what they want in no time if you two can't figure out what's best for them.
Not convinced at all that the school is lower quality and that being near family is not a good thing. Neither was the judge.
I got 50/50, but haven't seen the kid more than 10 days out of a year. What's on paper versus how it ends up, are two different things.
I got so much crap from family, co-workers and even ex-bf for not having my child more often.
The pressure is real.
Kids don't want to see the fighting. They don't count the days they are with one parent or another. They want stability and me letting them go, was the stability.
Ex was never going to let up while divorcing.
I have great relationship with my kid. Ex chilled out and started to respect the child's wishes when he was 14.

Agree that if one egotistical parent goes high conflict the whole distraction explodes for the worse for the kid and for many years.

They were probably high conflict when married too, just cannot handle being marriage with kids and making team decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he doesn't get the choice and it was horrible to pull them out and move them but that's what happens. You should have stayed married till the youngest was 18.

What a disgusting response here! 😠

No one should have to remain in an unhappy marriage in this day + age!!

Plus if you read OP’s post - he says his ex-wife was bipolar.
Since she wasn’t being effectively treated for it > I can only imagine how hellish living w/someone who has that disease can be.

OP, I am so sorry that you have to experience all of this.

It is wholly unfair.

Who is the arbiter of whether or not she was being effectively treated?

My ex left me on a similar basis, even while I’ve not been diagnosed with anything but anxiety and depression. I have a long history of therapy, meds. But he never took the time to work with me on the external, life stressors and just manipulated me into emotions reactions where I discredited myself. It was stressful and the more stressed I got the more unstable I was.

We’re separated now and with the space came the clarity of how he operates and able to maintain proper distance and boundaries for my sanity. I’m happier, he’s happier. The kida were sad at first but have come around and enjoy the fact that their parents aren’t fighting.

We are able to manage a 50/50 schedule for a 10 and 14, but we moved to a LCOL city (we were moving anyway) and able to live quite close so the kids don’t have to mange two lives and can come and go to each others’ houses as needed.

[Anonymous]

I’m glad it’s not the norm everywhere. The judge should insure that the kids are coming first, not an egotistical parent who wants to play games like tug of war. Kids need stability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad it’s not the norm everywhere. The judge should insure that the kids are coming first, not an egotistical parent who wants to play games like tug of war. Kids need stability.

There’s a lot of opportunities to avoid a judge making this decision. There are folks that specialise in parental mediation.

The reality is that it sometimes requires some short term sacrificing, but it’s a long game of showing up for your kids.

I hate the time my kids are with my spouse. I feel like I am missing out on so much. But the reality is this is their life as what matters to them is what their time with me is like. That is what I have control over in the short term.

There may come a day I’ll need to fight on their behalf, but just like in a successful marriage, you have to let a lot of stuff go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all we knew Dad just wanted to keep the cheap house and assume the low mortgage rate. Thats his real motivation.

Which would be perfectly valid and should have zero bearing on custody.

In this instance he only got screwed because he didn't have legal representation of his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge did the right thing. Kids need stability. Stop being a jerk and making it about you

Kids could have had stability living with him in their original school system and seeing their mother on weekends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all we knew Dad just wanted to keep the cheap house and assume the low mortgage rate. Thats his real motivation.

Which would be perfectly valid and should have zero bearing on custody.

In this instance he only got screwed because he didn't have legal representation of his own.

If Dad kept the house it should have bearing as it keeps the kids in the same schools, friends, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he doesn't get the choice and it was horrible to pull them out and move them but that's what happens. You should have stayed married till the youngest was 18.

What a disgusting response here! 😠

No one should have to remain in an unhappy marriage in this day + age!!

Plus if you read OP’s post - he says his ex-wife was bipolar.
Since she wasn’t being effectively treated for it > I can only imagine how hellish living w/someone who has that disease can be.

OP, I am so sorry that you have to experience all of this.

It is wholly unfair.

Who is the arbiter of whether or not she was being effectively treated?

My ex left me on a similar basis, even while I’ve not been diagnosed with anything but anxiety and depression. I have a long history of therapy, meds. But he never took the time to work with me on the external, life stressors and just manipulated me into emotions reactions where I discredited myself. It was stressful and the more stressed I got the more unstable I was.

We’re separated now and with the space came the clarity of how he operates and able to maintain proper distance and boundaries for my sanity. I’m happier, he’s happier. The kida were sad at first but have come around and enjoy the fact that their parents aren’t fighting.

We are able to manage a 50/50 schedule for a 10 and 14, but we moved to a LCOL city (we were moving anyway) and able to live quite close so the kids don’t have to mange two lives and can come and go to each others’ houses as needed.

Don’t get divorced! Stay married with 2 separate houses and spend time together and with kids as a family. While not ideal, still better than divorce. Make sure to have a weekly booty call or whatever frequency works for you guys!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all we knew Dad just wanted to keep the cheap house and assume the low mortgage rate. Thats his real motivation.

Which would be perfectly valid and should have zero bearing on custody.

In this instance he only got screwed because he didn't have legal representation of his own.

… which he chose.

I seriously doubt the bona fides of someone who choses to go to court in a custody battle with no lawyer. I don’t think OP wanted 50-50 or really has a clue about what’s in the kids’ best interests.

[Anonymous]

What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good luck finding a judge who will side against mom who wants her kids to be in school district X

Kids were in a school district and stable. So, mom moves them away from their home, friends, and school for her own needs. If dad did that, you'd have a fit, but somehow its ok if Mom does it. Kids need both parents.

Mom did it because she (unlike dad) understands the bigger picture of what the kids need, which included extended family support. As OP states, they were renters, so refusing to agree to move where they had access to more family support was selfish on his part. Which the judge saw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the judge let her move the kids to a new school district is because she's moving closer to extended family, who will help her as a newly single mother.

This is a silly reason as she's not exactly a single mother as there is a father involved who can share responsibility. Reality is the court is bias to mom's via child support and giving mom full custody or more than 50-50 is about her income.

But the judge did not award full custody. They have as close to a 50-50 split as you can get when the parents live in different school districts. OP has the kids every single weekend plus the majority of the holidays and 50% of the summer. Sounds like the judge worked really hard to come up with a plan that ensured the kids were doign to spend as much time with OP as with his ex. He has them for full days on weekend and holidays. On school days she won't even be with them most of the day. I don't see how you can argue that the custody award is particularly biased.

OP is upset about the kids being moved to the school district his ex chose and I get that -- I wouldn't be happy about that either. But she also fought harder for it. She got a lawyer and made an argument in court about WHY the kids should be in the other district based on family support. Did OP make an argument? What was it? OP could have at a minimum hired a lawyer to stand up for him in court and articulate the argument. He chose not to. That's going to bias the judge because they can only make a decision based on what arguments are presented.

If OP think this only happens to men in family court he is wrong. I clerked for a family court judge for 2 years. I saw many awards go in the dad's favor because he showed up to court with an attorney or a better attorney who made a better argument. It sucks because yes you need to understand the system and how to make the argument in a way the judge can justify in their decision. I also worked for a free legal clinic for a time and this is something we did with people who came in -- helped them understand how to frame their arguments in a way that gave the judge a *legal* reason to rule in their favor. Laypeople often go into court and think it's about convincing the judge who is the best person or parent or trying to litigate their entire marriage. None of that is useful to the judge and if you do it the judge is likely to get frustrated because it's a waste of their time. Only certain facts and arguments are relevant to their decision and you have to know how to just present those in a dispassionate way that makes it clear you are cooperative and focused on the child's interests. Unfortunately this is much easier for a lawyer to do. So people with lawyers are always better off in an adversarial family court hearing unless the facts are very obviously against them. Usually both sides have facts in their favor though and it's not obvious who is in the right.

great post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

so why would OP fail to get a lawyer then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all we knew Dad just wanted to keep the cheap house and assume the low mortgage rate. Thats his real motivation.

Which would be perfectly valid and should have zero bearing on custody.

In this instance he only got screwed because he didn't have legal representation of his own.

If Dad kept the house it should have bearing as it keeps the kids in the same schools, friends, etc.

OP said that they rent so there's no mortgage involved on either side. This also makes the argument for keeping the kids in current schools more tenuous -- it depends on them continuing to rent in the district. Whereas if the ex has family ties to the other district and support there then there is more reason to believe that the kids can finish their schooling there with continuity because there are more concrete ties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

Uh we do NOT know that. OP says his ex has bipolar and refused to get therapy for it. But firstline treatment for bipolar disorder is medication -- most doctors view it as necessary for therapy to even be effective. OP doesn't mention meds which makes me wonder if his ex actually had a bipolar diagnosis or if this is just an armchair diagnosis by OP (extremely common in contentious divorces as exes cast about for reasons why their ex was wrong). OP doesn't actually mention any way in which OP's mental health negative impacted their kids. And it's easy to say "ugh this person is crazy and unreasonably and that's why we aren't married." That's every divorce frankly.

OP's story just doesn't hold up. He claims it's not 50-50 but it pretty nearly is and he knows what the tipping point was for the kids going to school in the other district (the family support). He's making a big thing about how he wasn't abusive and didn't cheat but that's not something to brag about -- my baseline expectation for pretty much all people is that they don't abuse their families or cheat on their spouses. No one gets a cookie for that.

OP wants to spin this as pro-mother bias but he has a ton of time with his kids and didn't even bother to hire a lawyer for the hearing that determined where they went to school and how time was split. Is that pro-mother bias or just pro-parent-who-is-more-invested-in-the-outcome-of-this-hearing bias?