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:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

False. Many states presume 50/50. More are considering it. It's not 1995. It's not a 'myth' like the pp claimed and it's not to intimidate mothers-it's in the best interest of the child to have regular time with both parents.

Once again. The presumption can be rebutted and “joint” does not necessarily mean 50-50

Sigh... since your Google must be broken, I quickly googled one example and found that Florida presumes 50/50 time sharing, not just joint. Your turn to Google more- there are more!

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:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

False. Many states presume 50/50. More are considering it. It's not 1995. It's not a 'myth' like the pp claimed and it's not to intimidate mothers-it's in the best interest of the child to have regular time with both parents.

Once again. The presumption can be rebutted and “joint” does not necessarily mean 50-50

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:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

False. Many states presume 50/50. More are considering it. It's not 1995. It's not a 'myth' like the pp claimed and it's not to intimidate mothers-it's in the best interest of the child to have regular time with both parents.

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:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

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:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

This is a a completely inaccurate comment on the definition of primary custody, how visitation works, and a parents' ability to stop legal visitation. A mom "blocking" visitation with activities or friends would be held in contempt. Anyone reading this comment should ignore it as random thoughts from a men's rights troll and a not even vaguely accurate representation of how custody works.

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:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Moms usually get primary custody except a rare occasion. At best dads get a few days a month which then moms use school, friends, activities to block it and then complain dads are not involved or want to pay past 18. Relationships are important. They may stop being your husband for a good or bad reason but they will always be your child’s dad good or bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

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:

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.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

OP wants a child custody schedule that ensures the child is cared for by a parent most of the time, and yeah, she wants the child support due to her.

Again, child custody decisions are in the best interests of the child. No parent has a right to 50% time when they are not even going to be home during that time.

Have you been to court lately? Dads who ask the court for 50/50 get it in the DC area. The standard is “best interest of the child”, but the practice is 50/50 if that is what Dad goes to court for (not settled, not mediated…Dad stands in front of an active judge and says “I want 50/50.”)

The other assumption is that everything changes when parents divorce. Sure you were a SAHM, but the court will expect you to go back to work. Sure Dad travels 25% of the time, but the expectation is his schedule will also change: he will travel during the 15 days of the month Junior is with Mom. The Court doesn’t care about division of labor that was negotiated during the marriage, because the marriage is over. Again, this is not applicable in settled/mediated cases. This is standing in front of a judge, in the DC area, where both parents intend to stay local, neither are crack whores, and Dad wants 50/50 with a childcare plan for while he is working.

Dad’s absolutely do not get 50% just because they asked for it. I posted the DC law and an MD case on this point. A judge will take into account that a parent’s work schedule does not allow them to be physically present to provide care 50% of the time, as well as the fact that mom provided all or most of the care prior to the separation. This is literally in the text of the DC core and discussed in the MD case. Again for those of you in the back - “joint custody”
does not equate legally to 50% timeshare. You can have joint custody and different split.

Also because you are obviously not a lawyer or you are a bad one - you should know that parties bargain in the shadow of the law. So what a judge would do in a case absolutely creates the conditions considered in a mediation or settlement discussion.

So trollio, in the MD case you posted, the Dad initially did not ask for 50/50, they had established a de-facto EOW timeshare, and he proceeded to leave a child unattended on his parenting time. THIS is why he didn't get 50/50-not because he worked full time or on Saturdays sometimes or past 5pm. Your link doesn't back up your claims. This wasn't a Dad who wanted 50/50 from filing and had plans for childcare.

Read it again dummy. he requested 50-50.

You read, dummy. He requested it later, after they had established de facto timesharing.

I don’t know what you even think you are saying.

I am saying - here is a case where the dad asked the court for 50-50 and the court said no, your work schedule doesn’t allow that, and your prior pattern (both during marriage and after separation) is that mom did most of the childcare.

you are saying that the court took into account that dad “de facto” did less than 50%. So basically you are agreeing with me?

And, women complain when dads are trying and do everything to block them seeing their kids so they can get more money.

You don’t do child care for your own kids. You benefitted from dad working long hours but then use it against him later on.

Sure mom benefitted financially from his work: but you leave out that dad benefitted from someone being there to care for his child while he gallivants around. If dad wants to continue gallivanting the mom having primary caregiving- as she has been doing- will provide the best security and continuity for the child.

Dads like to use magical future thinking - the same way they did to us at the altar- not about the realities of 3 week a month travel and 50/50 custody. Child isn’t a sofa who should be shuffled around: they have a right to have a clear and consistent parenting time schedule.

He's working, not gallivanting. This is the family set up they choose. Dad will find a way to make it work. If you feel a child should only live at one home, then have them live with their other parent. Problem solved. Lets be real, you take away custody, complain he never helps when he's not allowed or able and on his visitation you find excuses like school, work, friends, activities, sports to block child from going or seeing their other parent.

Hi- I’m the one you’re responding to and really- you’re projecting g here. My kids are welcome to live with their other parent - but CPS involvement for minors left unattended won’t serve the kids. So what do you recommend I do?

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:

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.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

OP wants a child custody schedule that ensures the child is cared for by a parent most of the time, and yeah, she wants the child support due to her.

Again, child custody decisions are in the best interests of the child. No parent has a right to 50% time when they are not even going to be home during that time.

Have you been to court lately? Dads who ask the court for 50/50 get it in the DC area. The standard is “best interest of the child”, but the practice is 50/50 if that is what Dad goes to court for (not settled, not mediated…Dad stands in front of an active judge and says “I want 50/50.”)

The other assumption is that everything changes when parents divorce. Sure you were a SAHM, but the court will expect you to go back to work. Sure Dad travels 25% of the time, but the expectation is his schedule will also change: he will travel during the 15 days of the month Junior is with Mom. The Court doesn’t care about division of labor that was negotiated during the marriage, because the marriage is over. Again, this is not applicable in settled/mediated cases. This is standing in front of a judge, in the DC area, where both parents intend to stay local, neither are crack whores, and Dad wants 50/50 with a childcare plan for while he is working.

Dad’s absolutely do not get 50% just because they asked for it. I posted the DC law and an MD case on this point. A judge will take into account that a parent’s work schedule does not allow them to be physically present to provide care 50% of the time, as well as the fact that mom provided all or most of the care prior to the separation. This is literally in the text of the DC core and discussed in the MD case. Again for those of you in the back - “joint custody”
does not equate legally to 50% timeshare. You can have joint custody and different split.

Also because you are obviously not a lawyer or you are a bad one - you should know that parties bargain in the shadow of the law. So what a judge would do in a case absolutely creates the conditions considered in a mediation or settlement discussion.

This has been my experience as well. My exH is an alcoholic rage head. I filed and he sought 100% custody. I was the primary parent and he traveled. 200k later ( and during the 3 years the divorce took) I had primary physical custody. He couldn’t even get 5050 in a pro dad pro 50/50 state.

I was quickly out earning him and he filed to collect child support from me despite me having primary custody. You just don’t know as much as you think you know, wannabe family law expert.

Start your own thread.

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:

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.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

OP wants a child custody schedule that ensures the child is cared for by a parent most of the time, and yeah, she wants the child support due to her.

Again, child custody decisions are in the best interests of the child. No parent has a right to 50% time when they are not even going to be home during that time.

Have you been to court lately? Dads who ask the court for 50/50 get it in the DC area. The standard is “best interest of the child”, but the practice is 50/50 if that is what Dad goes to court for (not settled, not mediated…Dad stands in front of an active judge and says “I want 50/50.”)

The other assumption is that everything changes when parents divorce. Sure you were a SAHM, but the court will expect you to go back to work. Sure Dad travels 25% of the time, but the expectation is his schedule will also change: he will travel during the 15 days of the month Junior is with Mom. The Court doesn’t care about division of labor that was negotiated during the marriage, because the marriage is over. Again, this is not applicable in settled/mediated cases. This is standing in front of a judge, in the DC area, where both parents intend to stay local, neither are crack whores, and Dad wants 50/50 with a childcare plan for while he is working.

Dad’s absolutely do not get 50% just because they asked for it. I posted the DC law and an MD case on this point. A judge will take into account that a parent’s work schedule does not allow them to be physically present to provide care 50% of the time, as well as the fact that mom provided all or most of the care prior to the separation. This is literally in the text of the DC core and discussed in the MD case. Again for those of you in the back - “joint custody”
does not equate legally to 50% timeshare. You can have joint custody and different split.

Also because you are obviously not a lawyer or you are a bad one - you should know that parties bargain in the shadow of the law. So what a judge would do in a case absolutely creates the conditions considered in a mediation or settlement discussion.

This has been my experience as well. My exH is an alcoholic rage head. I filed and he sought 100% custody. I was the primary parent and he traveled. 200k later ( and during the 3 years the divorce took) I had primary physical custody. He couldn’t even get 5050 in a pro dad pro 50/50 state.

I was quickly out earning him and he filed to collect child support from me despite me having primary custody. You just don’t know as much as you think you know, wannabe family law expert.

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:

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.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

OP wants a child custody schedule that ensures the child is cared for by a parent most of the time, and yeah, she wants the child support due to her.

Again, child custody decisions are in the best interests of the child. No parent has a right to 50% time when they are not even going to be home during that time.

Have you been to court lately? Dads who ask the court for 50/50 get it in the DC area. The standard is “best interest of the child”, but the practice is 50/50 if that is what Dad goes to court for (not settled, not mediated…Dad stands in front of an active judge and says “I want 50/50.”)

The other assumption is that everything changes when parents divorce. Sure you were a SAHM, but the court will expect you to go back to work. Sure Dad travels 25% of the time, but the expectation is his schedule will also change: he will travel during the 15 days of the month Junior is with Mom. The Court doesn’t care about division of labor that was negotiated during the marriage, because the marriage is over. Again, this is not applicable in settled/mediated cases. This is standing in front of a judge, in the DC area, where both parents intend to stay local, neither are crack whores, and Dad wants 50/50 with a childcare plan for while he is working.

Dad’s absolutely do not get 50% just because they asked for it. I posted the DC law and an MD case on this point. A judge will take into account that a parent’s work schedule does not allow them to be physically present to provide care 50% of the time, as well as the fact that mom provided all or most of the care prior to the separation. This is literally in the text of the DC core and discussed in the MD case. Again for those of you in the back - “joint custody”
does not equate legally to 50% timeshare. You can have joint custody and different split.

Also because you are obviously not a lawyer or you are a bad one - you should know that parties bargain in the shadow of the law. So what a judge would do in a case absolutely creates the conditions considered in a mediation or settlement discussion.

So trollio, in the MD case you posted, the Dad initially did not ask for 50/50, they had established a de-facto EOW timeshare, and he proceeded to leave a child unattended on his parenting time. THIS is why he didn't get 50/50-not because he worked full time or on Saturdays sometimes or past 5pm. Your link doesn't back up your claims. This wasn't a Dad who wanted 50/50 from filing and had plans for childcare.

Read it again dummy. he requested 50-50.

You read, dummy. He requested it later, after they had established de facto timesharing.

I don’t know what you even think you are saying.

I am saying - here is a case where the dad asked the court for 50-50 and the court said no, your work schedule doesn’t allow that, and your prior pattern (both during marriage and after separation) is that mom did most of the childcare.

you are saying that the court took into account that dad “de facto” did less than 50%. So basically you are agreeing with me?

And, women complain when dads are trying and do everything to block them seeing their kids so they can get more money.

You don’t do child care for your own kids. You benefitted from dad working long hours but then use it against him later on.

Sure mom benefitted financially from his work: but you leave out that dad benefitted from someone being there to care for his child while he gallivants around. If dad wants to continue gallivanting the mom having primary caregiving- as she has been doing- will provide the best security and continuity for the child.

Dads like to use magical future thinking - the same way they did to us at the altar- not about the realities of 3 week a month travel and 50/50 custody. Child isn’t a sofa who should be shuffled around: they have a right to have a clear and consistent parenting time schedule.

He's working, not gallivanting. This is the family set up they choose. Dad will find a way to make it work. If you feel a child should only live at one home, then have them live with their other parent. Problem solved. Lets be real, you take away custody, complain he never helps when he's not allowed or able and on his visitation you find excuses like school, work, friends, activities, sports to block child from going or seeing their other parent.

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:

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.

Yes. But OP does not want to do that. She wants control (and possibly child support).

OP, if you want to control your husband and spend his money, you need to stay married.

OP wants a child custody schedule that ensures the child is cared for by a parent most of the time, and yeah, she wants the child support due to her.

Again, child custody decisions are in the best interests of the child. No parent has a right to 50% time when they are not even going to be home during that time.

Have you been to court lately? Dads who ask the court for 50/50 get it in the DC area. The standard is “best interest of the child”, but the practice is 50/50 if that is what Dad goes to court for (not settled, not mediated…Dad stands in front of an active judge and says “I want 50/50.”)

The other assumption is that everything changes when parents divorce. Sure you were a SAHM, but the court will expect you to go back to work. Sure Dad travels 25% of the time, but the expectation is his schedule will also change: he will travel during the 15 days of the month Junior is with Mom. The Court doesn’t care about division of labor that was negotiated during the marriage, because the marriage is over. Again, this is not applicable in settled/mediated cases. This is standing in front of a judge, in the DC area, where both parents intend to stay local, neither are crack whores, and Dad wants 50/50 with a childcare plan for while he is working.

Dad’s absolutely do not get 50% just because they asked for it. I posted the DC law and an MD case on this point. A judge will take into account that a parent’s work schedule does not allow them to be physically present to provide care 50% of the time, as well as the fact that mom provided all or most of the care prior to the separation. This is literally in the text of the DC core and discussed in the MD case. Again for those of you in the back - “joint custody”
does not equate legally to 50% timeshare. You can have joint custody and different split.

Also because you are obviously not a lawyer or you are a bad one - you should know that parties bargain in the shadow of the law. So what a judge would do in a case absolutely creates the conditions considered in a mediation or settlement discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

That’s not the legal definition of best interests of a child, at least not in my state. My state does not presume that 50/50 is in the best interest of the child, and has multiple other factors it considers, and when it comes to determining the relationships with each parent, it says “the relationship between the child and each parent should be fostered unless inconsistent with the child's best interests”, and the law discusses allocation of time based on the child’s best interests. Nothing about equal.

People falsely spread the myth of 50/50 to intimidate mothers and build up a false narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traveling for work isn't 'gallivanting'. It's called providing for your family. My late father traveled for work at some points and trust me, he was our dad 100% of the time.

This doesn't sound like a dad who is doing 100% here, with all due respect to your dad and other parents who do only the travel necessary to maintain an income and a career.

True, but OP isn’t doing 100% either. Providing financially for your kid is a huge part of parenting. OP is clear that she has, in the past, relied on his income. Which is fine, but it means that she has also never done 100% of the parenting, and while she is asking for grace as she transitions to a career that can provide more $, she is very angry about him needing similar grace as he sorts out how to provide more time.

The solution here seems to be a ROFR that kicks in on the 2nd consecutive overnight.

DP. I think you are confused about the issue. Nobody disputes he is providing financially and the court will require he continues to do so. The question is physical custody. If he chose work over parenting time in the past, that is the structure a court will likely continue.

Nope, I'm not confused.

OP chose parenting time over the financial piece of parenting. Her STBX chose the opposite. Both of them did so because they trusted the other person to provide the part of parenting that they couldn't. Both of them made choices that were solid choices in the context of a marriage, and have now stopped working.

Now, that's changed. OP has changed her work schedule and prioritized her career, but also points out, rightly, that that's something that takes time and so she needs grace. She can't be expected to suddenly provide at the same level that he did and so needs child support. Ex is likely making similar shifts, and similarly needs some grace while he figures it out.

If she's worried about this particular childcare plan, a ROFR that kicks in at 24 hours prevents it, while not impacting her ability to leave her kid home for a few hours with Grandma, or send her on a sleepover with a friend.

Way to completely make sh*t up. OP said that her ex does not plan to change his work schedule. Nor has he actually even come up with a reasonable childcare plan.

OP has not yet implemented a plan to get her income to his level either.

Adjusting to divorce and coparenting takes time. She needs time, and grace during that time, to be able to figure out how to support herself and her child. He needs time, and grace during that time to figure out how to adjust his career and set up the best childcare. She likely doesn't know if he's job hunting. She likely doesn't know how he's communicating in his organization about arranging his travel to be primarily on days when he doesn't have the kid. She doesn't know if he's interviewing high quality nannies. What she knows is that he hasn't communicated those things to her. If she doesn't trust him to come up with a childcare plan that she approves of, then she can include provisions in the divorce that allow her ROFR. But she doesn't want ROFR because she wants to punish him.

Yeah you keep on not getting it. The custody of the kids is not contingent on OP increasing her salary.

Nor is it contingent on him having already figured out his childcare plan 100%. Both need time and grace to figure out their parts.

You are so confused. A judge doesn’t care about “time and grace.” The judge looks to past conduct and current job responsibilities. OP’s ex let her do most of the childcare in the past, and he apparently has no plans to reduce his considerable work schedule.To top it all off he has no reasonable child care plan.

A good judge will understand that family child care and set ups change during divorce. They both agreed to this and now she'd using it against him. She doesn't want her child to have a relationship with their father.

The best interests of a child mean a relationship with both parents equally.