Anonymous wrote:I think it sucks, but not because of the sex. Let me explain.

Financial resources are stolen from kids to fund affairs. My dad funded his infidelities and an eventual second family with funds that should have gone to the three kids he already had. My best friend's dad had an affair with a grad student that not only was no-tell hotel money and gifts but in the end got him fired and resulted in the kids living in a crappy neighborhood on FARMs. My own ex-H ran up thousands on our CC and hundreds on our cell phone bill alone to fuel his EA. Look how many men had paid Ashley Madison accounts. That's money misappropriated from the family.

Time and energy diverted from the family. All three men I mentioned made up meetings, work trips, and other excuses to be with the OW. That's time they should have been with the kids.

Anonymous wrote:OP, did your lawyer say you "could" lose custody? They have to be honest with you about possibilities and can't promise certain results.

If his parents are living with him to "help raise the children" that may not bode well for him (it didn't for my ex who tried that argument - motherhood is NOT a popularity contest test and mom doesn't get replaced by grandma because dad can't be bothered to actually parent), so use that to your advantage.

Unless you left the marital home and didn't take the children with you (or without a temporary custody plan firmly in place), you probably have nothing to worry about and will likely get at least 50% time with your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Child custody isn't about what's fair for the adults. It's about what's fair for the kids, or at least it should be. Treating your kids like a reward or punishment for "behavior" isn't fair to them.

New poster from an intact family.

It is not fair or what is best for the kids to have their dad break up the family with affairs then to rip custody away from mom to avoid paying child suppprt.

True. But as far as I can tell, him not having an affair isn't an option. That ship has sailed. So, the question needs to be "What's best for the kids of the options that actually exist". Maybe that's going with mom. Maybe it's joint custody. I can't say. But the judge needs to be looking at that question, and not the question of "who deserves the kids?" Because kids aren't prizes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He cheated for a reason, its never black and white

It is black and white.

He is a coward who should have asked for a divorce before chesting.

Anonymous wrote:OP I think cheaters usually get their just desserts. The courts need to stay out of that stuff, divide the assets, and put the kids needs first. However, if one spouse is having every Tom, Jane or whatever around your kids or there drugs the court will get involved. Look at it this way, you are rid of a total scum bag and have your entire life to do what you want. I wouldn't get involved with anyone and find out why you chose this type of person, and why you missed all the red flags. You don't want to repeat that mistake again. Give it a good year, and play hardball with him in court. After that I would stop all communication with him, and text only for agreed upon pick-ups and drop-offs. I also wouldn't let him inside your home, and completely cut him off. In these cases it's best to forge ahead and find a better life. He will probably end up regretting he threw his family under the bus for trash. And who knows you may end up with a good partner down the road and will be thankful he ended your marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in effect, you're saying adulterers should be punished by wielding their children like pawns, and while you're at it, their innocent children should be punished, too.

The dad in this case already punished his kids and changed their lives forever.

As accurate as you'd like that to be, dad did nothing to his kids. Dad stepped out on his marriage, which I know is hard for DCUM to believe, but that's separate from his kids. He failed in keeping vows to the mother of his children, yes, but has not directly failed his children.

So he indirectly failed his children, by failing to keep his vows to their mom.

The result is the same: their lives are torn up.

This is a distinction without a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in effect, you're saying adulterers should be punished by wielding their children like pawns, and while you're at it, their innocent children should be punished, too.

The dad in this case already punished his kids and changed their lives forever.

As accurate as you'd like that to be, dad did nothing to his kids. Dad stepped out on his marriage, which I know is hard for DCUM to believe, but that's separate from his kids. He failed in keeping vows to the mother of his children, yes, but has not directly failed his children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So in effect, you're saying adulterers should be punished by wielding their children like pawns, and while you're at it, their innocent children should be punished, too.

The dad in this case already punished his kids and changed their lives forever.