Anonymous wrote:Agree to supervised visitation. This gives you a few options - she has to bring the kids, so the allegations of abuse, and your fear of seeing them because of potential allegations, is alleviated. Then if she doesn't show up, you have the visitation center documenting her failure to show, which actually can be more persuasive to a family court judge than police reports, which aren't helpful as you've seen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever seen this scenario play out? What was the outcome.

Mother has primary custody father gets every other weekend because that is the standard custody arrangement in the state where the divorce happened.
Father loses his job and must relocate out of state. This invokes a clause that means the father gets the kids for the summers. The mother; however, interferes with fathers custody. Father documents the interferences with police reports. Mother files a law suite asking for full custody (except giving father dinner with kids one night per month in the original state) + asking to increase child support ABOVE state guidelines because father has not fully exercised his custody for summers and this has "caused mother more expenses " (i.e., because kids are with mom more it costs mom more so father should pay more). Mother alleges fear of abuse but has no evidence. No recordings, no police reports, her lawyers alleges "potential abuse" in court and implies things but when the judge asked point blank "is daughter in danger" the lawyer says "no." Father wants to get to trial but mother keeps asking for continuances for various reasons and the judge keeps granting continuance. Father is fearful to spend time alone with kids for fear of false allegations and this is supported by fathers attorney. Father is out of money and is considering giving in on the custody because he can't continue to fight. The child support issue will still be pressed by mother.

Question: have you seen the mother successfully get child support increased above state guidelines when the mother is in clear violation of the court order by preventing father's custody and then uses the father's not exercising full custody as the grounds for increasing child support.

Yes to most of this. I have.

She is claiming she is violating for good reason, and it might very well be true. You never know what a judge will do - court is a crapshoot, which is why everyone sane tries to avoid it.

What I put in bold above is VERY troubling, on top of everything else. That makes me think the mom is right and he dad is a creep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh hey, fathers new girlfriend! Your BF hasn’t seen his kids in years because he doesn’t want to and his ex isn’t the shrew he says she is. If he was a decent man, he would have worked this out long before meeting you.

Wrong. I'm the father.

Also, and as evidence of her being a shrew. I have an hour of recorded voice messages of her calling me names and threatening me if I attempt to move back or visit the kids.

I'm trying to get some perspective here. I'm not wanting this thread to get side tracked with a bunch of exhusband hating exwives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't your agreement have a provision that the party that substantially prevails in a hearing (i.e. the visitation issues you raise) is awarded attorney fees? If so, you should be able to put a substantial dent in her pocket by challenging the visitation issues.

Her plan is to get more nights and then have the child support order re-calculated based upon full custody. It won't be above the guidelines but will be within the new guidelines of her having more nights.

No there is no "substantially prevails" clause. I have asked for attorney fees to be awards as has she. My attorney says it is likely not to happen because the judge typically just makes each party pay their own unless there is some obvious bad behavior by one party that impacts the court itself. Judge actually said in last hearing that he was disinclined to award fees as a sanction against her because he didn't want to harm her financially.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever seen this scenario play out? What was the outcome.

Mother has primary custody father gets every other weekend because that is the standard custody arrangement in the state where the divorce happened.
Father loses his job and must relocate out of state. This invokes a clause that means the father gets the kids for the summers. The mother; however, interferes with fathers custody. Father documents the interferences with police reports. Mother files a law suite asking for full custody (except giving father dinner with kids one night per month in the original state) + asking to increase child support ABOVE state guidelines because father has not fully exercised his custody for summers and this has "caused mother more expenses " (i.e., because kids are with mom more it costs mom more so father should pay more). Mother alleges fear of abuse but has no evidence. No recordings, no police reports, her lawyers alleges "potential abuse" in court and implies things but when the judge asked point blank "is daughter in danger" the lawyer says "no." Father wants to get to trial but mother keeps asking for continuances for various reasons and the judge keeps granting continuance. Father is fearful to spend time alone with kids for fear of false allegations and this is supported by fathers attorney. Father is out of money and is considering giving in on the custody because he can't continue to fight. The child support issue will still be pressed by mother.

Question: have you seen the mother successfully get child support increased above state guidelines when the mother is in clear violation of the court order by preventing father's custody and then uses the father's not exercising full custody as the grounds for increasing child support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't your agreement have a provision that the party that substantially prevails in a hearing (i.e. the visitation issues you raise) is awarded attorney fees? If so, you should be able to put a substantial dent in her pocket by challenging the visitation issues.

Her plan is to get more nights and then have the child support order re-calculated based upon full custody. It won't be above the guidelines but will be within the new guidelines of her having more nights.

No there is no "substantially prevails" clause. I have asked for attorney fees to be awards as has she. My attorney says it is likely not to happen because the judge typically just makes each party pay their own unless there is some obvious bad behavior by one party that impacts the court itself. Judge actually said in last hearing that he was disinclined to award fees as a sanction against her because he didn't want to harm her financially.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How has she interfered with custody? You kind of glossed over that.

Not open the door when I show up to pick up the kids. When that happen I can't take the kids with me. She doesn't answer the phone when I call.
When I go to the police they say they don't enfroce the custody order but they will write a report.

This is beides the point anyway.

It is the point but you don’t care because all you care about is money. Change the pick up location to a public place. Have someone else obtain the kids and take them to you. What does your attorney say when you give him thesd police reports?

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't your agreement have a provision that the party that substantially prevails in a hearing (i.e. the visitation issues you raise) is awarded attorney fees? If so, you should be able to put a substantial dent in her pocket by challenging the visitation issues.

Her plan is to get more nights and then have the child support order re-calculated based upon full custody. It won't be above the guidelines but will be within the new guidelines of her having more nights.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why you ‘had to move out of state’ for a job. I would work as a waiter before moving long distance from my kids. Your actions don’t match what you are saying.