Are they ever easy...

[cantdog]

Verily, I say.

Virtual hugs are ever so nice. Thanks, Cant.

I do wonder though...is kid just a term you use or what cuz I really don't think I'm very mucg younger than you are...if at all. Not that I mind. Just curious is all.

Sorry. I call 'em all 'kid.' Bad habit. I'm 52, for another few days, if that helps.

 

[cantdog]

Absolutely no disrespect involved. It's a mark of affection, actually.

 

[S-Des]

Divorces that is

i would love to be able to remain friends with my future ex, but he is making it damn near impossible. He acts like a child and tries to bait me into arguments on a daily basis. Not to mention we have kids and 10+ years invested in each other...i just thought he'd be more grown up about it is all. I am writing this because i tried my R/L friends on the phone and all are busy...Lit is the next best place for support. Any advice on how to keep my sanity in check is most appreciated. Thanks for listening to my vent...there will prolly be more before this whole nasty mess is said and done.

I think most of the positive things that can be said, have been said here already. In my case, love had nothing to do with it. We never loved each other, she just got pregnant while we were dating. We did our best (saw a marriage councilor, I moved in with her so I could help pay her bills and take care of her, and we did everything we could to care for each other and the life inside her). Unfortunately, there just was never any love. 5 Months after my daughter was born, I moved out (at her request).

We didn't even have to go through a divorce and I asked for nothing, even though I had paid 1/2 of everything (sometimes more) for over a year. Then the custody shit happened and a rift opened up that is unfixable. I won't bore you with details, but I honestly didn't believe I had it in me to hate someone the way I hate her.

Something no one has mentioned that might be bothering your husband is what you'll do once he's gone. Not because he's jealous, but because you will have friends (and maybe boyfriends) come around your kids and he knows he'll have no say. Although this is a problem for both parents, I think it's especially hard on men. Within a year of my moving out, she was remarried. I didn't like him when I met him, so did a criminal background check and found out things none of you want to know. She married him despite me begging her to wait, and was divorced within 4 months. I had nightmares daily about that man being around my child.

Some of his anger may be from fear and helplessness. Assuming you get custody (which happens most of the time), you get to make all the important decisions: Where you live, what school they attend, their extracurricular activities, what friends they spend most of their time with, their household rules, etc... Even if you are the responsible one in the relationship, it's a lot to ask that someone trust you will make the decisions they would agree with. There's no other way in the situation, but it is terrifying for the non-custodial parent.

No major advice because I don't know you, him, or your situation. One thing to keep in the back of your mind is trying to find ways to assure him that you won't exclude him from the kid's lives. Even if you would never do such a thing, it might help to keep things calm between you two.

Good luck to you and your family.

 

[Tom Collins]

Sorry. I call 'em all 'kid.' Bad habit. I'm 52, for another few days, if that helps.

Wow...ok...either you're aging with extreme grace, or the older I get the younger everyone else looks. I was honestly thinking that you were between my age (that being 34 on the 11th) and 40.

Absolutely no disrespect involved. It's a mark of affection, actually.

I totally did not take it in a derogatory fashion. Not when I saw you address Sir Rob, and many others, in a similar manner. I suspected that it was simply a mannerism of yours.

 

[cantdog]

I love Sir Rob. Can you imagine a queen who would knight the man? One righteous queen she would be. Hell, he should be at least a baronet, really.

You do it with grace by associating with the young. Thanks for the insights, TC. Please carry on as you were, though. I am hardly worth your time, honestly.

 

[Tom Collins]

I love Sir Rob. Can you imagine a queen who would knight the man? One righteous queen she would be. Hell, he should be at least a baronet, really.

You do it with grace by associating with the young. Thanks for the insights, TC. Please carry on as you were, though. I am hardly worth your time, honestly.

Don't make me get medieval on your ass, m'kay? Anyone who thinks that they aren't worth someone else's time is either trolling for compliments or has a serious self-esteem problem. I've never seen you having issues with your self-esteem so you must be fishing. *gropes and kisses before heading for bed*

 

[cantdog]

Just so long as we stop.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Point of information: It varies by state, but there's a distinction between physical custody and legal custody, which means decision making on health care, education, etc. Mothers usually get physical, and legal is usually joint.

 

[S-Des]

Point of information: It varies by state, but there's a distinction between physical custody and legal custody, which means decision making on health care, education, etc. Mothers usually get physical, and legal is usually joint.

No, it's not. Parents who have physical custody get to make all the decisions. If the parents disagree, the non-custodial parent has no say-so. There are legal maneuverings that can be done if the custodial parent is perceived to doing something that is excessive (i.e. time or cost-wise), but there isn't a non-custodial parent in the country who gets to say, "No, my child won't go to that school, or won't see that doctor." What would they do if they don't agree, not enroll the child in school? Not give them medical care? The CP has the final say.

Also, if the CP decides to move away (whether it's an extra hour away or in another state), the NCP has no say so at all (and custody can be reduced to accomodate the move, which will negatively impact him/her). If the CP decides not to let the NCP have their visitation for any reason, there is no enforcement of that agreement (which can take weeks, or even months). You have to take them back to court and fight about it. The judge will warn them to not interfere (at the most), but there's no way to get back the time you lost. It's a great way for them to "punish" the NCP for any slights (real or imagined). The CP has all the cards, except for the financial support (or if the NCP is neglectful or dangerous when they have the children).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

No, it's not. Parents who have physical custody get to make all the decisions. If the parents disagree, the non-custodial parent has no say-so. There are legal maneuverings that can be done if the custodial parent is perceived to doing something that is excessive (i.e. time or cost-wise), but there isn't a non-custodial parent in the country who gets to say, "No, my child won't go to that school, or won't see that doctor." What would they do if they don't agree, not enroll the child in school? Not give them medical care? The CP has the final say.

Also, if the CP decides to move away (whether it's an extra hour away or in another state), the NCP has no say so at all (and custody can be reduced to accomodate the move, which will negatively impact him/her). If the CP decides not to let the NCP have their visitation for any reason, there is no enforcement of that agreement (which can take weeks, or even months). You have to take them back to court and fight about it. The judge will warn them to not interfere (at the most), but there's no way to get back the time you lost. It's a great way for them to "punish" the NCP for any slights (real or imagined). The CP has all the cards, except for the financial support (or if the NCP is neglectful or dangerous when they have the children).

As I said, it probably varies by state (definitely does, given this post.) In my state, the situation is as I described.

 

[S-Des]

As I said, it probably varies by state (definitely does, given this post.) In my state, the situation is as I described.

So if the NCP doesn't like the grammar school the CP enrolls the child in, he does what...exactly? Is there any case law you can site that would explain the procedure in place to force two adults to come to an agreement in order to care for their child? What if she wants to move away? Does he say, "No you can't?" What power does he have to enforce her not moving?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it's been my experience (I've done a fair amount of research because of my situation) that what you're saying isn't accurate. More than that, it doesn't seem possible for a court to "make" people agree. The child can't very well sit in limbo while they argue. I'm sure many NCP's take the CP to court regularly to complain, but the CP has the responsibility to make sure the child is being cared for. If they didn't send them to school or give them medical care because the other parent wouldn't agree, they'd be guilty of negligence.

 

[privyjo]

Also, if the CP decides to move away (whether it's an extra hour away or in another state), the NCP has no say so at all (and custody can be reduced to accomodate the move, which will negatively impact him/her). If the CP decides not to let the NCP have their visitation for any reason, there is no enforcement of that agreement (which can take weeks, or even months). You have to take them back to court and fight about it. The judge will warn them to not interfere (at the most), but there's no way to get back the time you lost. It's a great way for them to "punish" the NCP for any slights (real or imagined). The CP has all the cards, except for the financial support (or if the NCP is neglectful or dangerous when they have the children).

I would like to interject and say that custodial agreements can and are being written to include geographic limitations on where CP can move with child in relation to location of NCP. But it must be included in the original agreement - very difficult - virtually impossible - to come back and add it later. It is also very difficult for CP to try change the limitation if it is in the original agreement. Met many couples who have done this.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So if the NCP doesn't like the grammar school the CP enrolls the child in, he does what...exactly? Is there any case law you can site that would explain the procedure in place to force two adults to come to an agreement in order to care for their child? What if she wants to move away? Does he say, "No you can't?" What power does he have to enforce her not moving?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it's been my experience (I've done a fair amount of research because of my situation) that what you're saying isn't accurate. More than that, it doesn't seem possible for a court to "make" people agree. The child can't very well sit in limbo while they argue. I'm sure many NCP's take the CP to court regularly to complain, but the CP has the responsibility to make sure the child is being cared for. If they didn't send them to school or give them medical care because the other parent wouldn't agree, they'd be guilty of negligence.

Repsonse sent via PM.