Reply to 50/50 not the norm nationwide

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "50/50 not the norm nationwide"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.

[/quote]

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?
[/quote]

+100. OP’s stance is so detached from the reality of litigation that I can’t help but believe he was also detached from the reality of parenting.

He thought the judge would credit his argument when he showed up without a lawyer to actually make that argument effectively, why? Because he believes he is inherently right so all he had to do is get up there and tell the judge his preferences? Did he think he somehow had some additional rights to preserve the status quo? Did he not realize that is a complicated argument he might be wrong about legally that has zero to do with gender? Did he think the judge would order the kids to have a long commute to school just because OP is entitled to precise 50-50?[/quote]

Given the often quoted refrain on here that any man who has ever wante 50/50 has automatically been given it and that any man who doesn't have 50/50 didn't want time with their kids - why would he think otherwise? Clearly a lot of people think that 50/50 is automatic. We read it here over and over. [/quote]

OP basically DID get 50/50 even though he didn't even have a lawyer to represent his interests. As many people have explained, the custody plan OP describes is pretty equal. He gets the kids EVERY weekend and most holidays. Plus half the summer. His ex gets the kids on school days. With this plan it's possible OP will see his kids more than his ex. In fact the way I read this is that his ex is essentially giving up some custody to him in order to win the argument on where the kids go to school. If she stayed in the same school district as OP the custody arrangement would probably split both school days and weekends. Instead she's taking on the burden of busy school days (when there is less quality time but more parental responsibility) and giving up weekends and some holidays.

OP's situation is an example of the lengths judges will go to in order to keep custody as equal as possible and ensure kids are spending plenty of time with their kids. Even without an attorney to advocate for him, OP is getting around 50% of the time with his kids.

Where OP lost is in deciding where his kids go to school. Well someone had to lose on this since they disagreed. The ex hired a lawyer and has family support in her preferred district, so she won on this. That's not surprising. It did rs not mean OP lost on custody. He didn't.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics