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]

Well maybe if OP had shown up with a lawyer he would have gotten 50-50.

No a judge doesn’t have to give you strict 50-50. If that’s what you believe and you failed to research it at all, you have a screw loose and probably are not very organized or on top of things, so that ls why the judge decided the mom’s plan was better. OP got very close to 50-50 and it’s clear the judge thought mom is more responsible. [/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