Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. Just the threat of naming her was enough to get my ex to sign the papers I presented him with. Now, they were very fair papers. 50/50 on everything except, I wanted more control of custody and visitation. I got it.
That's the sort of effect I'm looking for. I want sole custody, transferring the house to my name only, child support and full waiver of his claims to any of my assets. I'm the breadwinner. In exchange for this, I could offer liberal visitation and preserving his good name, which is important to him.
OP, from a legal perspective, I join the others with the view that your expectations are likely to be unrealistic. It's tough to say without more facts, but I doubt it.
From a relationship perspective, if you were my spouse and tried to do to me what you want to do to your husband, I'd do my very best to destroy you, even if I had to live in a box on a steam grate to do so. Be prepared for an equal and opposite reaction to whatever you choose to do.
The relationship perspective is irrelevant here. It was destroyed four years ago when he decided to have a child outside of marriage, and maintain the relationship with its mother to this day. Had I known this at the time, I wouldn't have had another child with him (born after the lovechild), nor would I have sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into building a house with him.
He can't destroy me because I'm an innocent party, and because my reputation cannot be ruined by this revelation to the extent his can. Remember, I've done nothing wrong. He is the one who went and got himself a sideshow. Plus, he makes little money and can't afford good representation. If he wants to avoid public disgrace, he can do so by separating on my terms.
The relationship perspective IS still relevant. You WILL have a relationship with your ex (just not a marital one). You WILL have to interact with him, a lot, because you have kids. Doesn't make much sense to poison that relationship up front by going nuclear in the divorce.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. Just the threat of naming her was enough to get my ex to sign the papers I presented him with. Now, they were very fair papers. 50/50 on everything except, I wanted more control of custody and visitation. I got it.
That's the sort of effect I'm looking for. I want sole custody, transferring the house to my name only, child support and full waiver of his claims to any of my assets. I'm the breadwinner. In exchange for this, I could offer liberal visitation and preserving his good name, which is important to him.
OP, from a legal perspective, I join the others with the view that your expectations are likely to be unrealistic. It's tough to say without more facts, but I doubt it.
From a relationship perspective, if you were my spouse and tried to do to me what you want to do to your husband, I'd do my very best to destroy you, even if I had to live in a box on a steam grate to do so. Be prepared for an equal and opposite reaction to whatever you choose to do.
The relationship perspective is irrelevant here. It was destroyed four years ago when he decided to have a child outside of marriage, and maintain the relationship with its mother to this day. Had I known this at the time, I wouldn't have had another child with him (born after the lovechild), nor would I have sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into building a house with him.
He can't destroy me because I'm an innocent party, and because my reputation cannot be ruined by this revelation to the extent his can. Remember, I've done nothing wrong. He is the one who went and got himself a sideshow. Plus, he makes little money and can't afford good representation. If he wants to avoid public disgrace, he can do so by separating on my terms.
Anonymous wrote:You won't get sole. I've seen guys abusive to their wife and kids get 50/50 in FxCo. You'll need to prove he is more harm than good to his children. Proof of adultery is not going to meet that burden.
As an aside, it sounds like you're blackmailing him and using your children as pawns. Step back and think about what's best for your children.
Anonymous wrote:Yes, destroy the reputation and career of your children's father in a vindictive manner. That's definitely in their best interest.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So you want to blackmail your husband in order to prevent the court from ordering what's best for your children, which in most cases is joint custody?
Hopefully he has enough balls to fight back.
I will allow liberal visitation in exchange for sole legal custody. He has routinely brought my children into another woman's house so that "siblings could have a relationship", unbeknownst to me. This means he has placed the children into an unhealthy moral environment, allowing them to witness his adulterous behavior, and making them keep a secret from their mother. I don't think this will endear him to the judge...
The judge will not care.
You think a father who makes a six-year old lie to cover for him could possibly be a good parent? A benevolent influence?
Anonymous wrote:I understand that. I prefer the opposite combo: sole legal to me, and joint physical custody. I have no interest in damaging his relationship with the kids; I want him to have ample time with them. But I want to have sole control over their schooling, medical, travel etc.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So you want to blackmail your husband in order to prevent the court from ordering what's best for your children, which in most cases is joint custody?
Hopefully he has enough balls to fight back.
I will allow liberal visitation in exchange for sole legal custody. He has routinely brought my children into another woman's house so that "siblings could have a relationship", unbeknownst to me. This means he has placed the children into an unhealthy moral environment, allowing them to witness his adulterous behavior, and making them keep a secret from their mother. I don't think this will endear him to the judge...
The judge will not care.
You think a father who makes a six-year old lie to cover for him could possibly be a good parent? A benevolent influence?
Getting sole custody is virtually impossible. Unless he is abusing the children and/or shows a pattern of consistent negligence (and even then, that's not a slam dunk), no judge will sign off on giving you sole custody. Making your kid lie about seeing the other woman? Happens all the time, and judges award joint custody. Remember, the judge will have the final say in your divorce.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. Just the threat of naming her was enough to get my ex to sign the papers I presented him with. Now, they were very fair papers. 50/50 on everything except, I wanted more control of custody and visitation. I got it.
That's the sort of effect I'm looking for. I want sole custody, transferring the house to my name only, child support and full waiver of his claims to any of my assets. I'm the breadwinner. In exchange for this, I could offer liberal visitation and preserving his good name, which is important to him.
OP, from a legal perspective, I join the others with the view that your expectations are likely to be unrealistic. It's tough to say without more facts, but I doubt it.
From a relationship perspective, if you were my spouse and tried to do to me what you want to do to your husband, I'd do my very best to destroy you, even if I had to live in a box on a steam grate to do so. Be prepared for an equal and opposite reaction to whatever you choose to do.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. Just the threat of naming her was enough to get my ex to sign the papers I presented him with. Now, they were very fair papers. 50/50 on everything except, I wanted more control of custody and visitation. I got it.
That's the sort of effect I'm looking for. I want sole custody, transferring the house to my name only, child support and full waiver of his claims to any of my assets. I'm the breadwinner. In exchange for this, I could offer liberal visitation and preserving his good name, which is important to him.