Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Married people are flexible with one another. divorces people compensate one another.
Father’s inability to care for child on his parenting time is a fact. It’s not simple to rearrange existing plans and or /work travel for mom. Why are you expecting her to do that to facilitate herr spending less time with the child that she’s used to primary parenting. Nah.

He’s working and said he’d get care on his time and that was not good enough for mom nor will she work with him. She can use family and sitters but he cannot.

If she travels he can switch with her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Married people are flexible with one another. divorces people compensate one another.
Father’s inability to care for child on his parenting time is a fact. It’s not simple to rearrange existing plans and or /work travel for mom. Why are you expecting her to do that to facilitate herr spending less time with the child that she’s used to primary parenting. Nah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Married people are flexible with one another. divorces people compensate one another.
Father’s inability to care for child on his parenting time is a fact. It’s not simple to rearrange existing plans and or /work travel for mom. Why are you expecting her to do that to facilitate herr spending less time with the child that she’s used to primary parenting. Nah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

Married people are flexible with one another. divorces people compensate one another.
Father’s inability to care for child on his parenting time is a fact.
What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

The simple solution is for OP to switch weeks with dad and be a bit flexible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

You’re way over reading what OP wrote about her lawyer’s advice. There are a lot of ways ROFR could be written so that it would cover her ex’s travel now, and not the scenario where OP later leaves her 14 year old home alone with OP’s elderly mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a custody situation that similar to this without the international complication. Basically a family member of mine has joint custody, but almost never takes their time. Instead, they leave the kids with me (aunt) and a grandparent.

I would suggest getting a ROFR with a time limit. Our current agreement says that if the kids are going to be separated from their parent for more than 1 night, then ROFR applies. So, my relative can leave them with me for a "sleepover with cousins" for one night, but if it's more than one night I call my exIL and ask what they want to do. There is an exception for summer camp, and for school trips.

Having said all that, if the actual issue is child support that's a bigger issue. It sounds like Dad in this case has a lot of money. My guess is with 50/50 Mom will get substantial child support, and possibly alimony, unless she also has a generous salary. While the situation might feel unfair, it doesn't sound like mom's ability to provide for the kid during her time is in jeopardy.

I'll also add that I wouldn't do a ROFR for a specific person. While OP may not like her MIL it's quite possible that he could find someone worse.

Finally, I will say as someone who has been a spectator to some nasty divorces including my own, I have found that one thing that really helps kids with inconsistent custody situations is a consistent, high quality nanny who moves back and forth with the kid. So, the child knows who will pick up, and what their afternoon routine will look like, even if there are changes in where they spend the night. Something like this could be written into the agreement. The other thing I'd write is a consistent phone call each night between the child and the parent they aren't staying with.

That sounds like an arrangement that only exists due to the good will of your exIL. If your exIL pressed the issue, your relative would likely lose custody or have it drastically reduced.

Anonymous wrote:We have a custody situation that similar to this without the international complication. Basically a family member of mine has joint custody, but almost never takes their time. Instead, they leave the kids with me (aunt) and a grandparent.

I would suggest getting a ROFR with a time limit. Our current agreement says that if the kids are going to be separated from their parent for more than 1 night, then ROFR applies. So, my relative can leave them with me for a "sleepover with cousins" for one night, but if it's more than one night I call my exIL and ask what they want to do. There is an exception for summer camp, and for school trips.

Having said all that, if the actual issue is child support that's a bigger issue. It sounds like Dad in this case has a lot of money. My guess is with 50/50 Mom will get substantial child support, and possibly alimony, unless she also has a generous salary. While the situation might feel unfair, it doesn't sound like mom's ability to provide for the kid during her time is in jeopardy.

I'll also add that I wouldn't do a ROFR for a specific person. While OP may not like her MIL it's quite possible that he could find someone worse.

Finally, I will say as someone who has been a spectator to some nasty divorces including my own, I have found that one thing that really helps kids with inconsistent custody situations is a consistent, high quality nanny who moves back and forth with the kid. So, the child knows who will pick up, and what their afternoon routine will look like, even if there are changes in where they spend the night. Something like this could be written into the agreement. The other thing I'd write is a consistent phone call each night between the child and the parent they aren't staying with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience judges weigh actual past and present circumstances more than one parents refusal to deny the actuality of his (continuing) work travel. The. Hold is young enough that any judge is going to consider historical precedent.

Apologies as I read the OP days ago so if OP was working too was she both caregiving during sTBX travel and working? Or was she SAH? If SAH alimony and child support should allow her to be primary custodial parent for continuity for the child. Just because dad peaced out doesn’t mean the child’s entire routine needs to change and if OP has a good lawyer they’ll use his travel reimbursement or rewards statements to prove his hotel nights. They’ll show that mom was home. They’ll show that mom is the one who goes to teacher conferences and takes the kids to all sick visits and well visits. Was pretty easy from there to get primary custody amd joint decision making. That was great for me. Our routine continues and every other weekend I had to regroup and relax without some gross beast getting drunk and yelling at all of us.

Thanks for an actual description of how this can work out if women are not scared into being “flexible” ie sabatoging themselves from the get go. Judges are not fooled by men with “big careers” and SAHW who all of a sudden claim that they are going to be 50% time parents.

I don’t know the actual facts of OP’s case so maybe she won’t be able to show the same things you did. But it is absurd to claim that her ex’s plan to travel frequently on his custody days is something she just has to accept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

It is in the OP:

“…and my attorney says unless I put in a right of first refusal specific to her, grandparent care would be considered perfectly acceptable for DH’s custodial times.”

The gist of this whole discussion is that OP’s husband travels for work, and wants 50/50. To preserve that 50/50 he wants to use his mom for babysitting when he travels.

OP doesn’t like the mom, so she doesn’t want the child to stay with the mom when her husband travels.

OP does want her child to be able to stay with HER mom when OP is unavailable.

OP’s lawyer told OP that her desired outcome (ROFR imposed on Dad, but not on mom) is unlikely. OP doesn’t like that answer.

OP also doesn’t want dad to have 50/50, but also doesn’t want to pick up dad’s slack.

OP, you need to get over the circumstances of the divorce. Trying to extract a pound of flesh because your husband left is not going to serve your case well. With very few exceptions, custody rules will be imposed bilaterally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

NP. I’m in Virginia. Pre-divorce, my (then-) husband was gone 3-4 nights/weekends a week. While divorcing, he said he had changed his schedule to accommodate 50/50. As soon as the ink was dry, he went back to the old schedule, but did move things around so he was on overnight travel on my custodial nights.

Which is to say, pre-divorce behavior isn’t nearly as relevant as we might want it to be.

Right - the key is he changed his schedule so he didn’t travel on his custodial nights, right? That is not OP’s situation.

They are not divorced yet. So we have no idea what her situation will be.

Well according to OP, her ex is not planning to change his work schedule but still wants 50-50. So that’s what she has to go on. I’m really unclear on why people are advising her to cave before she needs to.

People are encouraging her to be flexible if all she wants is more time with her kid. Whatever restrictions she puts on her ex can be applied to her. If her whole point is more time with her kid, then be flexible and get what she wants.

He’s not being flexible. She doesn’t need to start out being flexible. She needs to start out asking for what she could feasibly get based on the law in her jurisdiction with the advice of her lawyer. She likely has a good argument for more than 50% custody and right of first refusal that does not end up meaning her kids cannot ever stay home alone with her mom.

OP’s lawyer told her that her desired ROFR outcome is unlikely. OP herself admits she needs to give to get. So no, she should not start mediation by asking for what she could feasibly get. She should make a list of non-negotiables for her, a list of things she is willing to give up, and a list of things her stbx wants, and pair them accordingly.

When this mediation fails, OP can ask the judge for everything she can feasibly get. And she should expect her husband to do the same. Which means 50/50, likely with the promise that his work schedule will change.

You have zero basis to say that and OP has not said that about her lawyers advice, unless I missed it. If he has a documented schedule of last minute and frequent travel then that is going to be very material in the amount of parenting time he gets. And per OP he is not saying his schedule will change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP hasn't said she's in DC. Feel free to google-I'm not doing your legwork.

DC is just one example. You’re the one who made the assertion so you need to support it.

What exact place are you looking for? MD? FL? Alaska? Can you be more specific?

I’m not the one making the claim and OP hasn’t said where she is. So discussing the DC law seems reasonable. The person who claimed that the DH’s work travel is irrelevant should back that statement up.

The PP said that, depending on where the OP lives, the work travel may not matter as far as custody. It really is dependent on where they are, which has not been disclosed. A quick Google search would be helpful to you, PP.

No, there is no “quick google search” that supports that. On the other hand there is specific DC code (and likely in other states) that contradicts it.

There is. Try it.

lol there is not. If anything a “quick google search” turns up reams of support for the fact that a parent’s work travel can be taken into account to reduce custody time. What exactly are you googling?