Anonymous wrote:The nastiness towards OP here and men in general on this thread is really sad to see. It reads like a woman bashing thread on an MRA board. Lots of nasty people of both sexes who treat others badly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

Uh we do NOT know that. OP says his ex has bipolar and refused to get therapy for it. But firstline treatment for bipolar disorder is medication -- most doctors view it as necessary for therapy to even be effective. OP doesn't mention meds which makes me wonder if his ex actually had a bipolar diagnosis or if this is just an armchair diagnosis by OP (extremely common in contentious divorces as exes cast about for reasons why their ex was wrong). OP doesn't actually mention any way in which OP's mental health negative impacted their kids. And it's easy to say "ugh this person is crazy and unreasonably and that's why we aren't married." That's every divorce frankly.

OP's story just doesn't hold up. He claims it's not 50-50 but it pretty nearly is and he knows what the tipping point was for the kids going to school in the other district (the family support). He's making a big thing about how he wasn't abusive and didn't cheat but that's not something to brag about -- my baseline expectation for pretty much all people is that they don't abuse their families or cheat on their spouses. No one gets a cookie for that.

OP wants to spin this as pro-mother bias but he has a ton of time with his kids and didn't even bother to hire a lawyer for the hearing that determined where they went to school and how time was split. Is that pro-mother bias or just pro-parent-who-is-more-invested-in-the-outcome-of-this-hearing bias?

+100. OP’s stance is so detached from the reality of litigation that I can’t help but believe he was also detached from the reality of parenting.

He thought the judge would credit his argument when he showed up without a lawyer to actually make that argument effectively, why? Because he believes he is inherently right so all he had to do is get up there and tell the judge his preferences? Did he think he somehow had some additional rights to preserve the status quo? Did he not realize that is a complicated argument he might be wrong about legally that has zero to do with gender? Did he think the judge would order the kids to have a long commute to school just because OP is entitled to precise 50-50?

Given the often quoted refrain on here that any man who has ever wante 50/50 has automatically been given it and that any man who doesn't have 50/50 didn't want time with their kids - why would he think otherwise? Clearly a lot of people think that 50/50 is automatic. We read it here over and over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

Uh we do NOT know that. OP says his ex has bipolar and refused to get therapy for it. But firstline treatment for bipolar disorder is medication -- most doctors view it as necessary for therapy to even be effective. OP doesn't mention meds which makes me wonder if his ex actually had a bipolar diagnosis or if this is just an armchair diagnosis by OP (extremely common in contentious divorces as exes cast about for reasons why their ex was wrong). OP doesn't actually mention any way in which OP's mental health negative impacted their kids. And it's easy to say "ugh this person is crazy and unreasonably and that's why we aren't married." That's every divorce frankly.

OP's story just doesn't hold up. He claims it's not 50-50 but it pretty nearly is and he knows what the tipping point was for the kids going to school in the other district (the family support). He's making a big thing about how he wasn't abusive and didn't cheat but that's not something to brag about -- my baseline expectation for pretty much all people is that they don't abuse their families or cheat on their spouses. No one gets a cookie for that.

OP wants to spin this as pro-mother bias but he has a ton of time with his kids and didn't even bother to hire a lawyer for the hearing that determined where they went to school and how time was split. Is that pro-mother bias or just pro-parent-who-is-more-invested-in-the-outcome-of-this-hearing bias?

+100. OP’s stance is so detached from the reality of litigation that I can’t help but believe he was also detached from the reality of parenting.

He thought the judge would credit his argument when he showed up without a lawyer to actually make that argument effectively, why? Because he believes he is inherently right so all he had to do is get up there and tell the judge his preferences? Did he think he somehow had some additional rights to preserve the status quo? Did he not realize that is a complicated argument he might be wrong about legally that has zero to do with gender? Did he think the judge would order the kids to have a long commute to school just because OP is entitled to precise 50-50?

Given the often quoted refrain on here that any man who has ever wante 50/50 has automatically been given it and that any man who doesn't have 50/50 didn't want time with their kids - why would he think otherwise? Clearly a lot of people think that 50/50 is automatic. We read it here over and over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all we knew Dad just wanted to keep the cheap house and assume the low mortgage rate. Thats his real motivation.

Which would be perfectly valid and should have zero bearing on custody.

In this instance he only got screwed because he didn't have legal representation of his own.

If Dad kept the house it should have bearing as it keeps the kids in the same schools, friends, etc.

OP said that they rent so there's no mortgage involved on either side. This also makes the argument for keeping the kids in current schools more tenuous -- it depends on them continuing to rent in the district. Whereas if the ex has family ties to the other district and support there then there is more reason to believe that the kids can finish their schooling there with continuity because there are more concrete ties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

Uh we do NOT know that. OP says his ex has bipolar and refused to get therapy for it. But firstline treatment for bipolar disorder is medication -- most doctors view it as necessary for therapy to even be effective. OP doesn't mention meds which makes me wonder if his ex actually had a bipolar diagnosis or if this is just an armchair diagnosis by OP (extremely common in contentious divorces as exes cast about for reasons why their ex was wrong). OP doesn't actually mention any way in which OP's mental health negative impacted their kids. And it's easy to say "ugh this person is crazy and unreasonably and that's why we aren't married." That's every divorce frankly.

OP's story just doesn't hold up. He claims it's not 50-50 but it pretty nearly is and he knows what the tipping point was for the kids going to school in the other district (the family support). He's making a big thing about how he wasn't abusive and didn't cheat but that's not something to brag about -- my baseline expectation for pretty much all people is that they don't abuse their families or cheat on their spouses. No one gets a cookie for that.

OP wants to spin this as pro-mother bias but he has a ton of time with his kids and didn't even bother to hire a lawyer for the hearing that determined where they went to school and how time was split. Is that pro-mother bias or just pro-parent-who-is-more-invested-in-the-outcome-of-this-hearing bias?

+100. OP’s stance is so detached from the reality of litigation that I can’t help but believe he was also detached from the reality of parenting.

He thought the judge would credit his argument when he showed up without a lawyer to actually make that argument effectively, why? Because he believes he is inherently right so all he had to do is get up there and tell the judge his preferences? Did he think he somehow had some additional rights to preserve the status quo? Did he not realize that is a complicated argument he might be wrong about legally that has zero to do with gender? Did he think the judge would order the kids to have a long commute to school just because OP is entitled to precise 50-50?

Given the often quoted refrain on here that any man who has ever wante 50/50 has automatically been given it and that any man who doesn't have 50/50 didn't want time with their kids - why would he think otherwise? Clearly a lot of people think that 50/50 is automatic. We read it here over and over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

Uh we do NOT know that. OP says his ex has bipolar and refused to get therapy for it. But firstline treatment for bipolar disorder is medication -- most doctors view it as necessary for therapy to even be effective. OP doesn't mention meds which makes me wonder if his ex actually had a bipolar diagnosis or if this is just an armchair diagnosis by OP (extremely common in contentious divorces as exes cast about for reasons why their ex was wrong). OP doesn't actually mention any way in which OP's mental health negative impacted their kids. And it's easy to say "ugh this person is crazy and unreasonably and that's why we aren't married." That's every divorce frankly.

OP's story just doesn't hold up. He claims it's not 50-50 but it pretty nearly is and he knows what the tipping point was for the kids going to school in the other district (the family support). He's making a big thing about how he wasn't abusive and didn't cheat but that's not something to brag about -- my baseline expectation for pretty much all people is that they don't abuse their families or cheat on their spouses. No one gets a cookie for that.

OP wants to spin this as pro-mother bias but he has a ton of time with his kids and didn't even bother to hire a lawyer for the hearing that determined where they went to school and how time was split. Is that pro-mother bias or just pro-parent-who-is-more-invested-in-the-outcome-of-this-hearing bias?

+100. OP’s stance is so detached from the reality of litigation that I can’t help but believe he was also detached from the reality of parenting.

He thought the judge would credit his argument when he showed up without a lawyer to actually make that argument effectively, why? Because he believes he is inherently right so all he had to do is get up there and tell the judge his preferences? Did he think he somehow had some additional rights to preserve the status quo? Did he not realize that is a complicated argument he might be wrong about legally that has zero to do with gender? Did he think the judge would order the kids to have a long commute to school just because OP is entitled to precise 50-50?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good luck finding a judge who will side against mom who wants her kids to be in school district X

Kids were in a school district and stable. So, mom moves them away from their home, friends, and school for her own needs. If dad did that, you'd have a fit, but somehow its ok if Mom does it. Kids need both parents.

Mom did it because she (unlike dad) understands the bigger picture of what the kids need, which included extended family support. As OP states, they were renters, so refusing to agree to move where they had access to more family support was selfish on his part. Which the judge saw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good luck finding a judge who will side against mom who wants her kids to be in school district X

Kids were in a school district and stable. So, mom moves them away from their home, friends, and school for her own needs. If dad did that, you'd have a fit, but somehow its ok if Mom does it. Kids need both parents.

Mom did it because she (unlike dad) understands the bigger picture of what the kids need, which included extended family support. As OP states, they were renters, so refusing to agree to move where they had access to more family support was selfish on his part. Which the judge saw.

Anonymous wrote:
What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What jumps out at me is that the children will live with a mentally disturbed individual. Was there are argument put to the judge that this was not good for the children's wellbeing?

I have a mentally disturbed husband. I chose not to divorce, because he looks very good on paper, and just out of spite (not because he's involved in their daily care), he would push for 50% custody, or more. The only way I can guarantee a stable, emotionally-healthy life for my kids is by being there as the primary parent, all the time. My husband lurks in the background, and when he starts on them, I am also here to defend them. And then he focuses his ire on me, and that's fine.

Uh we do NOT know that. OP says his ex has bipolar and refused to get therapy for it. But firstline treatment for bipolar disorder is medication -- most doctors view it as necessary for therapy to even be effective. OP doesn't mention meds which makes me wonder if his ex actually had a bipolar diagnosis or if this is just an armchair diagnosis by OP (extremely common in contentious divorces as exes cast about for reasons why their ex was wrong). OP doesn't actually mention any way in which OP's mental health negative impacted their kids. And it's easy to say "ugh this person is crazy and unreasonably and that's why we aren't married." That's every divorce frankly.

OP's story just doesn't hold up. He claims it's not 50-50 but it pretty nearly is and he knows what the tipping point was for the kids going to school in the other district (the family support). He's making a big thing about how he wasn't abusive and didn't cheat but that's not something to brag about -- my baseline expectation for pretty much all people is that they don't abuse their families or cheat on their spouses. No one gets a cookie for that.

OP wants to spin this as pro-mother bias but he has a ton of time with his kids and didn't even bother to hire a lawyer for the hearing that determined where they went to school and how time was split. Is that pro-mother bias or just pro-parent-who-is-more-invested-in-the-outcome-of-this-hearing bias?