Support NeoGAF

[LiveFromKyoto]

Why want to see your kids now and not before?

You're seriously grilling this guy over why he "suddenly" wants to see his children when he can't live with them any more?

 

[EchoChamber]

That's why I'll be single till the end lol...

Sorry for that op, but omg, was your wife like that when you were married?

In another post he mentioned a lot of red flags but he ignored it, because he was afraid or something like that.

 

[Omegasquash]

1. Limit your interactions with her to essentials - arranging pick up/drop off, etc. You don't need her poisoning your life with her presence any more than is absolutely necessary.

2. Document every interaction with her - as a minimum, write it down, but ideally record it on phone or whatever. Build up evidence of the kind of person she is outside the courtroom. Heed the advice from the guy who posted earlier about this who's going to be representing himself in court.

3. See a doctor and whatever medical professionals your doctor recommends you need to see to evaluate your physical and mental health. You only seek an independent assessment at this point. If they indicate you are burning out, talk to your lawyers again, as that is surely grounds for you to give up the lower paying job. Alternatively talk to your employer and see what they can do with the information.

4. Worst case, 3 years is shit, but it isn't forever. Hang in there, and be the better person. In a comparatively short length of time, your payments to her will be done, and you can turn your full attention to your kids (assuming that's what you want - I know I couldn't stand the idea of my kids being raised in an abusive environment and wouldn't stop until they were out of it. But one step at a time).

5. Don't react to her provocations. That will be tough, but the more she knows she can wind you up, the longer she stays in control. You're her puppet right now and she can play with you whenever she pleases. You need to be mentally strong enough to take control of your life so you aren't succumbing to her whims. This will have the added bonus of driving her crazy when she sees you having a happy successful life.

6. Don't be unpleasant to her current partner. He is liable to be an ally when he discovers that she is a nutcase. Which will happen, at some point. He could be a useful person to have on your side in a future custody battle.

7. Rest assured that while it won't be a quick payoff, sticking around and fighting for your kids will reap huge rewards in your relationship with them once they are old enough to comprehend the kind of person their mother is, and the fact that you never bailed despite how she behaved.

8. Don't get cynical. Hashtag notallwomen and all that. That said, be sensible. You've gone through enough to be able to read the warning signs in future. And remember there's no such thing as one soulmate. That's Disney bullshit. There are loads of women out there you could have a perfectly happy life with, as long as you're both compatible.

9. She sounds like a very damaged person. You've also mentioned she's stupid. Remember that rational, intelligent discussion only works with rational, intelligent people. Since she's proven herself to be neither of those things, you needn't waste your breath trying to discuss anything important with her. You're on a hiding to nothing doing that.

10. Exercise. Pound out your anger and frustration in the gym or running the street, whatever works for you. It's free, and it's the best mood enhancer in the world. Force yourself initially, and eventually you won't want to stop.

I only added spaces to this to make it easier to read. It's all good advice. All of it.

I'd add to #10 a bit too...take care of yourself. Eat as proper as you can, and try to get a good night's sleep as much as possible. Both will help you.

 

[ElfArmy177]

I honestly don't see how the person who provided the most for the family doesn't get custody especially if you didn't do anything to make you unfit to raise them.

Because I'm seen as the provider not the parent in the eyes of the lawyers

 

[99hertz]

Would you really want to experience something like this:

Are you asking me? I'm on your side. I don't want to go to casino that charges for water.

 

[thekad]

Because I'm seen as the provider not the parent in the eyes of the lawyers

Yeah, the legal system is absurdly sexist.

 

[Milksheikhs]

That seems impossible. Are you Cook County?

As far as I know he lives in Fayette County.
I just know that when my mom has called in the past to make complaints that they need to enforce child support they've responded "well we can't punish someone for a bad economy".

 

[Marty Chinn]

I honestly don't see how the person who provided the most for the family doesn't get custody especially if you didn't do anything to make you unfit to raise them.

Because he worked while she stayed at home to take care of the kids. He wasn't doing the role that she was and that's why they view the mother to get custody.

Yeah, the legal system is absurdly sexist.

But it's not in this case. He worked constantly while his wife took care of the kids. She is most certainly the primary care taker in the relationship here.

 

[Milksheikhs]

I wouldn't care. I raised those kids and bottle fed all of them in the middle of the night and changed diapers while my "stay home wife" slept. Those are my kids regardless of DNA.

Wow, I love to hear sentiments like this. I've always thought that. That it's not DNA (of course it would be heartbreaking to find out they aren't biologically yours) but if you've raised a child since birth that's your child.

But OP if you did get a DNA test and they weren't yours maybe that would help prove she was unfaithful and therefore doesn't deserve alimony?

 

[Boke1879]

I honestly don't see how the person who provided the most for the family doesn't get custody especially if you didn't do anything to make you unfit to raise them.

It's honestly because the courts view him as a provider and not the parent. The law is fucked and biased. The law has precautions in place in case a father just randomly wants to leave the kids and mother.

But the law rarely takes into consideration that in some cases the mother can be spiteful and vengeful of the father. I'm with you. I don't see how a father who WANTS to see his kids and I'm sure would be fine with joint custody. Would only be legally allowed to see them only on weekends and has to pay child support.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Do the lawyers / judge know that the reason for the divorce is that your wife was physically abusive? Does that mean nothing in the eyes of the court?

 

[99hertz]

I'm literally sitting in court right now going through pretty much the same thing. States takes the most they can from me, 55% from BOTH of my jobs. And I don't make that much, so after cs I make about $150 a week. And that is with both of us being at minimum wage on the support medication worksheet.

On too of that, she filed a CPO against Mr when we split 2years ago. After we finally got the divorce, someone, who was me, was reported as going to my sons school to try to talk to him. It was me. I was arrested, at work, after even calling the local police to find out if there was a warrant and being told no.

She hasn't let me see the kids since November. I've missed the holidays and both their birthdays. My lawyer went to the school and one person that originally said this happened can't verify it was me, and the other says she is pretty sure it was me. The schools video footage was erased so there is no concrete proof, and I'm still sitting here with the possibility of getting ga felony charge for something I didn't do.

I already have a hard enough time finding work. If they charge me with a felony I may as well go ahead and kill myself

Jesus Christ , I missed this post somehow. I'm so sorry. I would rather die alone than take a 5% chance of this happening to me.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Do the lawyers / judge know that the reason for the divorce is that your wife was physically abusive? Does that mean nothing in the eyes of the court?

In the eyes of the court, it never happened because he never documented it, he never called the police to file a report, there's no physical evidence, etc. By the time he got to the court, he's saying it happened with no proof. The court sees if this was a serious and real issue, he would have taken action such as calling the police. The fact that he didn't comes off as it either never happened and he's making it up, or he's way exaggerating the issue since it wasn't worthy of reporting it.

 

[99hertz]

In the eyes of the court, it never happened because he never documented it, he never called the police to file a report, there's no physical evidence, etc. By the time he got to the court, he's saying it happened with no proof. The court sees if this was a serious and real issue, he would have taken action such as calling the police. The fact that he didn't comes off as it either never happened and he's making it up, or he's way exaggerating the issue since it wasn't worthy of reporting it.

I wonder how would it go if she was the one making the same claim in the exact same way. We'll never know though.

 

[eddie4]

In the eyes of the court, it never happened because he never documented it, he never called the police to file a report, there's no physical evidence, etc. By the time he got to the court, he's saying it happened with no proof. The court sees if this was a serious and real issue, he would have taken action such as calling the police. The fact that he didn't comes off as it either never happened and he's making it up, or he's way exaggerating the issue since it wasn't worthy of reporting it.

What about witnesses, if he has any? Wouldn't that count?

 

[Takuan]

Oh trust me.. My family thinks this girl is a saint for going through all of this with me. She's been by my side for a while during this. She's been amazing and her daughter is super attached to me. She's a rock for me and though she's questioned just bailing on it all(I told her I wouldn't blame her)... She's stuck through it. I explained to her how financially fucked I may be and all she said was "then we work through it and figure it out". I dunno what I'd do without her...

To out perspective on this, this divorce has been going on since july of 2014

She ride or die. This mom really is tough.

Consider yourself BLESSED to have someone to support you in times like this.

 

[chronic_archaic]

Good luck man. Sounds like hell, I knew if I were in that position I'd already be dead or possibly out of the country. I couldn't handle it.

 

[Rest]

This is complete nonsense.

Site some sources. Oh wait, oops, you're wrong.
My mother's ex husband was a deadbeat for years, not paying child support for his kids. Once he finally decided to start paying, he thought it was too much and tried to get the amount he had to pay reduced, and it took him years to get it done. Once he started paying (after his kids were out of the house) my mom got a letter saying that she wouldn't get any of the child support, and that the state was taking all the money.
More to read, if you care.

 

[thekad]

But it's not in this case. He worked constantly while his wife took care of the kids. She is most certainly the primary care taker in the relationship here.

Why are you deciding that putting food on the table is less important than whatever his ex-wife did for the kids?

 

[Marty Chinn]

Why are you deciding that putting food on the table is less important than whatever his ex-wife did for the kids?

Where did I ever say that? I'm saying in the role at each person had in the family, the mother in this instance has more experience and knowledge of the day to day, minute by minute care of the kids since she's the one who is hands on and doing those tasks.

 

[besada]

Why are you deciding that putting food on the table is less important than whatever his ex-wife did for the kids?

He's not. He's explaining what the courts look at. If the mother stays home, takes the kids to school, picks them up, and covers their ouchies, she's the primary care giver. Primary care givers almost always get custody of the children. The court's argument is generally that staying with the primary care giver creates less of a disruption for the children, which are what family courts care about.

He didn't make that up, it's part of family law and what family law courts look at.

 

[ElfArmy177]

What about witnesses, if he has any? Wouldn't that count?

I have no witnesses unfortunately. Her dad told me not to divorce her initially because he said she needs help. Then he denies it of course to the court...

 

[shoreu]

Because I'm seen as the provider not the parent in the eyes of the lawyers

Because he worked while she stayed at home to take care of the kids. He wasn't doing the role that she was and that's why they view the mother to get custody.



But it's not in this case. He worked constantly while his wife took care of the kids. She is most certainly the primary care taker in the relationship here.

It's honestly because the courts view him as a provider and not the parent. The law is fucked and biased. The law has precautions in place in case a father just randomly wants to leave the kids and mother.

But the law rarely takes into consideration that in some cases the mother can be spiteful and vengeful of the father. I'm with you. I don't see how a father who WANTS to see his kids and I'm sure would be fine with joint custody. Would only be legally allowed to see them only on weekends and has to pay child support.

That is absolute bullshit how the fuck can they say You're just a provider for breaking you damn back going to work to make sure they have everything they need at home.

That all of a sudden makes you less of a parent because she decided to stay at home and care-take while you do it from another point? That's completely unfair to Men and Women in your situation and you don't get credit for being fathers. What trash.

 

[Matt]

Site some sources. Oh wait, oops, you're wrong.
My mother's ex husband was a deadbeat for years, not paying child support for his kids. Once he finally decided to start paying, he thought it was too much and tried to get the amount he had to pay reduced, and it took him years to get it done. Once he started paying (after his kids were out of the house) my mom got a letter saying that she wouldn't get any of the child support, and that the state was taking all the money.
More to read, if you care.

Those articles don't say what you think they do. They are about repaying the state for welfare given to their family when they were NOT paying child support, not taking a cut of child support that was paid.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Because he worked while she stayed at home to take care of the kids. He wasn't doing the role that she was and that's why they view the mother to get custody.



But it's not in this case. He worked constantly while his wife took care of the kids. She is most certainly the primary care taker in the relationship here.

Though I see your point, I intially asked for shared custody 50/50 and was still gonna give her 1100 a month until she got through nursing school. She wanted more money and me to have less time with kids.

 

[Marty Chinn]

That is absolute bullshit how the fuck can they say You're just a provider for breaking you damn back going to work to make sure they have everything they need at home.

That all of a sudden makes you less of a parent because she decided to stay at home and care-take while you do it from another point? That's completely unfair to Men in your situation and you don't get credit for being fathers. What trash.

It's not though. You really need to sit down and understand why things are in place as they are. I fully admit that the courts tend to side with the wife over the husband so things are slanted when it comes to the ruling, but the laws which are set are designed for a good reason.

The primary focus the courts has is what's in the best interest of the kids and not the parents. If the mother worked full time while the dad stayed at home, things could likely be in the reverse. Each played their role and the court takes those roles and uses them as a basis of moving forward. The dad worked all the time, so now he's designated as the provider. The mother took care of the kids all the time, so she's the one who is experienced and has used the role as the primary care taker. As besada said, the goal is to have the least amount of disruption as possible. So the mother got primary custody in this situation. It has nothing to do with taking away credit as a father.

 

[shoreu]

It's not though. You really need to sit down and understand why things are in place as they are. I fully admit that the courts tend to side with the wife over the husband so things are slanted when it comes to the ruling, but the laws which are set are designed for a good reason.

The primary focus the courts has is what's in the best interest of the kids and not the parents. If the mother worked full time while the dad stayed at home, things could likely be in the reverse. Each played their role and the court takes those roles and uses them as a basis of moving forward. The dad worked all the time, so now he's designated as the provider. The mother took care of the kids all the time, so she's the one who is experienced and has used the role as the primary care taker. As besada said, the goal is to have the least amount of disruption as possible. So the mother got primary custody in this situation. It has nothing to do with taking away credit as a father.

I fixed that part because women can end up in this situation. I still don' t think the ruling is "fair" to Op and he's literally suffering for it. I don't know what kind of dad he is but hell my dad worked really really hard throughout my childhood to make sure we had things while my mom was in school. He has just a much a right to me as she did.

Also i don't disagree with doing the least harm to the children but this just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[spazchicken]

...child support being roughly 1500 a month and maintience being 700 a month

My heart goes out to you. Someone needs to rework these laws.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I fixed that part because women can end up in this situation. I still don' t think the ruling is "fair" to Op and he's literally suffering for it. I don't know what kind of dad he is but hell my dad worked really really hard throughout my childhood to make sure we had things while my mom was in school. He has just a much a right to me as she did.

Also i don't disagree with doing the least harm to the children but this just rubs me the wrong way.

When you divorce with kids, it really sucks, especially for the kids. You keep looking what's fair for the parents, and the courts are looking out for the kids. Once you realize the parents take a back seat, then it becomes more understandable why things turn out the way they do. Plus, you have to understand, the OP's situation is more of an edge case than the norm. He got stuck in a shitty situation and you're right it sucks for him, but we can't assume that his situation represents what usually happens. This is not meant to punish either parent or to put them down. What really sucks is when parents play games through their kids in the court system though. I've witnessed that and that can be a mess. There's no perfect solution or law that covers every case out there. While the OP looks like he's doing what's right, there's plenty of other people in the same situation where the person is trying to abuse the system to get out of paying. So given how many different scenarios that can play out, it's probably best that the court system focuses purely on what's best for the kids.

 

[riotous]

Site some sources. Oh wait, oops, you're wrong.
My mother's ex husband was a deadbeat for years, not paying child support for his kids. Once he finally decided to start paying, he thought it was too much and tried to get the amount he had to pay reduced, and it took him years to get it done. Once he started paying (after his kids were out of the house) my mom got a letter saying that she wouldn't get any of the child support, and that the state was taking all the money.
More to read, if you care.

All it would take isone example of someone being able to lower their payments to prove your entire statement wrong. You don't prove your blanket statement with one example.

People get their payments lowered; not always..but it's certainly posible and it happens.

Here you go:

LMGTFY

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lowering child support payments

 

[Marty Chinn]

All it would take is me knowing one person whose been able to lower their payments to prove your entire statement wrong. You don't prove your blanket statement with one example.

You don't need to look far. His own post points out an example of his personal experience of someone lowering their payments.

 

[riotous]

You don't need to look far. His own post points out an example of his personal experience of someone lowering their payments.

lol, that's true.

Original statement:

Once an income is stated, that's it, they never let it go down.

Then he says:

tried to get the amount he had to pay reduced, and it took him years to get it done.

lol.. so there's your example rest. Your own.

 

[Moff]

I honestly don't see how the person who provided the most for the family doesn't get custody especially if you didn't do anything to make you unfit to raise them.

obviously so the person can continue to provide the most, you are talking about money, right?
I feel bad for the OP, I believe him and even if he would exaggerate, there certainly are many cases like him and probably even worse
but at the same time I can often see how these harsh decisions are always made to provide the best outcome for the kids, and it usually hurts the person the most who provided most of the money.

and although I understand that, I do admit that this has kept me of marriage and getting children so far. even if you trust someone with your life and love them, or probably especially if you love them it's impossible to tell what will happen in 10 years. the divorce rate is far too high to take that risk.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Why don't you just (on the sly) tell your second job to fire you? Judge can't force them to keep you employed. It would cut your pay but at least you'd be able to spend time with your kids.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Why don't you just (on the sly) tell your second job to fire you? Judge can't force them to keep you employed. It would cut your pay but at least you'd be able to spend time with your kids.

I don't think he can afford to have his pay cut though.

 

[thekad]

The primary focus the courts has is what's in the best interest of the kids and not the parents.

How is putting the children with someone who is literally unable to care of them in their best interest?

 

[Marty Chinn]

How is putting the children with someone who is literally unable to care of them in their best interest?

Where was it mentioned she is unable to care for them?

 

[thekad]

Where was it mentioned she is unable to care for them?

Stay at home mom with no income.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Stay at home mom with no income.

Child support is what she is asking for here because its for the kids.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Stay at home mom with no income.

"Literally being unable to care for," and "staying at home with" seem at odds.

And yes, her having no income would mean that she would be unfit to support them. Which is why the courts are imposing "child support" on the OP.

 

[Keri]

Stay at home mom with no income.

If the OP had primary physical custody of the children, he'd have to send them to daycare or have another person watch the children, the majority of the time, because of his work schedule. In that scenario, the children aren't seeing either their mother or father very often, which would be fairly traumatic for them. Not to mention the exorbitant expense of daycare (assuming Grandma couldn't watch the kids).

 

[Rest]

Those articles don't say what you think they do. They are about repaying the state for welfare given to their family when they were NOT paying child support, not taking a cut of child support that was paid.

The state takes a cut either way.
In my mom's case, counties that she recieved no welfare from while raising her kids in them took money out of what he was paying because she and her kids had lived there while he was supposed to be paying child support. If it even sort of looks like tax money the government wants part of it.

 

[thekad]

And yes, her having no income would mean that she would be unfit to support them. Which is why the courts are imposing "child support" on the OP.

Yes, child support is necessary for the children to stay with the mother instead of the father. The question is why is it necessary for them to stay with the mother. In many cases, like the OP's, exorbitant and ridiculous child support is a bad solution to a problem that is itself created by the legal system.

If the OP had primary physical custody of the children, he'd have to send them to daycare or have another person watch the children, the majority of the time, because of his work schedule.

Wow I don't even know where to start. I'll just ask for you to imagine how the presumably single mother (and all single parents) is currently dealing with the very same situation.

 

[shanshan310]

Yes, child support is necessary for the children to stay with the mother instead of the father. The question is why is it necessary for them to stay with the mother. In many cases, like the OP's, exorbitant and ridiculous child support is a bad solution to a problem that is itself created by the legal system.



Wow I don't even know where to start. I'll just ask for you to imagine how the presumably single mother (and all single parents) is currently dealing with the very same situation.

As other people have mentioned, the court has made the mother primary caregiver because when the parents were together she was also primary caregiver. The children spent more time with her, and she spent more time learning how to look after them as a stay at home parent than the parent who had to go to work everyday.

 

[ElfArmy177]

If the OP had primary physical custody of the children, he'd have to send them to daycare or have another person watch the children, the majority of the time, because of his work schedule. In that scenario, the children aren't seeing either their mother or father very often, which would be fairly traumatic for them. Not to mention the exorbitant expense of daycare (assuming Grandma couldn't watch the kids).

Not necessarily. If I won custody I would have dropped to one job because unfortunately I'm only allowed the freedom to choose my life if I was a custodial parent, not the other way around.

 

[RPG]

Since it's been 2 years status quo is likely established, but as others have said before, have you sought consult from another attorney? Your primary goal is to increment your custody, because right now it sounds like the kids spend every night with mom. Change won't be immediate and may not be easier until your kids are school age, but it is possible.

Also, are you still paying for the marital residence? Why was that not resolved during the splitting of assets or is it detailed as part of your spousal support?

 

[Doug Heffernan]

Y'all need to watch Dr. Drew's documentary, Divorce Corps. It highlights everything that is wrong with the US family court system.

 

[koji kabuto]

Stay strong OP.

here is a question..what if he escapes outside the country for now...and come back when the laws change..

Is he still have to go to the jail ?

 

[Marty Chinn]

Stay strong OP.

here is a question..what if he escapes outside the country for now...and come back when the laws change..

Is he still have to go to the jail ?

The laws aren't going to change and it's unlikely they would be retroactive so he'd still be liable.

Y'all need to watch Dr. Drew's documentary, Divorce Corps. It highlights everything that is wrong with the US family court system.

The laws are more or less fine to my understanding. It's the judge's discretion which is where things get weighted in favor towards the mother. My view on this is, some of it is simply gender bias, but I think a lot of it is also based on experience from handling so many different cases that you see what usually happens so they rule based off the odds from their experience. So I don't feel the bias isn't without any merit either. It's also highly judge dependent as I know someone who goes and depending on the judge will greatly determine which way things swing. So it's a bit of a crap shoot.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Since it's been 2 years status quo is likely established, but as others have said before, have you sought consult from another attorney? Your primary goal is to increment your custody, because right now it sounds like the kids spend every night with mom. Change won't be immediate and may not be easier until your kids are school age, but it is possible.

Also, are you still paying for the marital residence? Why was that not resolved during the splitting of assets or is it detailed as part of your spousal support?

I'm still paying 100% of all marital debt including her vehicle, the house, the bills. All of it. She moved out, driving a car in my name... And I'm paying for it