I have a custody battle tomorrow

[rightwinger]

Sorry...I've decided to move to the other side of the country so it looks like you will lose your visitation
By the way.....I still expect my child support on the first of the month

 

[gtopa1]

So..she is forced to stay where she is. Maybe she wanted away because she knows how much you love your ex son in law and she has no safe place due to that? I don't know..just asking.

So in essence..she must live within a certain vicinity...or lose her kid. That kinda sucks. You lived your life Grampa. She can't live hers somewhere else and start anew...because she would have to do it alone and never see her kid again. Yes, that really sucks.

Seems fair

They had joint custody 50/50
If she chooses to leave, why should she get full custody?
Judge said...you leave, you forfeit your 50 percent

Which means...she has no papers to travel, ala Russia Rules. But she can if she leaves her kid behind.
Again..that sucks.
I feel for grandparents that want to be with their grandkids...but the parent should be able to live their own life with their child wherever they wish to go to start that new life. Choosing a new start over your kid...its a no brainer. But being doomed to stay local near the ex who the Father adores?
*Shuddering*

And I have my reasons for thinking this way. Trust me on this.

I trust that you have no idea what you're talking about. Trust me on this.

Sigh. Yes I do. I was in the same predictament.
I'm sorry if you see this as against you Grampa. I think you are a wonderful guy and love your grandchild. But there are always two sides and all we have to go on is what you told us. I adore you. But I also feel for your daughter because..BTDT. And I am still paying for that decision even though if given the choice again..I would do the same. But the guilt? Thats a ************. Which is probably 95% why I am so moody. (Nice word for "depressed").

Sometimes the sacrifice is just that; a sacrifice. It hurts but there is the responsibility to the child. The Court seems to have ruled the child needs BOTH parents. The child DOES but there is no ideal outcome when parents split. The best outcome is that BOTH parents and all parties put the kid's needs FIRST. (That didn't happen in my case but that's history.)

But as I just said; regardless one does what is best for the child. You cannot be responsible for the other parties; they are responsible for their OWN actions. So if your "guilt" is because the other parties were assholes then your guilt is misplaced.

Greg

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I love all three of them.



****..........

Hmm. Does the other person seeking custody ALSO believe that Liberalism is a mental disorder?


Good luck, man.

Don't need to when all the Conservatives tell him good luck and the liberals take pot shots.
Good luck junior.
Fury

Hey Grampa Murked U - if you thought I was taking a shot at you I apologize. But I'm guessing you're not a big cuck like DarkFury.

I don't pay too much attention to that crap.
The only one in this thread that affected me was Gracie because she applied too much of her personal experience to me but even that I knew was just personal emotion speaking.

 

[Gracie]

I apologized, Grampa. Still do.

Won't happen again.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

For curious minds...

Joint custody was granted with both parents getting equal time and residence. Child support was maintained which kind of shocked me. Leaving the state with the child is forbidden by either party without prior approval. If someone wants to move they relinquish full custody to the parent that remains behind.

That looks straight up the way it should go down.

 

[sakinago]

I love all three of them.



****..........

Sorry to hear that, hope something can be worked out for you. No matter what act out in love. That's the best advice I can give.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no such thing as a fair and equitable custody settlement. If either parent demands that the exact letter of the ruling be followed at all times, the kid will suffer. It really is about what is best for the child, even if sometimes that means your rights go out the window. It's sad, but selfish or vindictive parents can screw up their kids worse post custody battle than they ever could before. I know you will be there for the kid every chance you can, but you and he both gotta know you can't make everything all right or him.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

For curious minds...

Joint custody was granted with both parents getting equal time and residence. Child support was maintained which kind of shocked me. Leaving the state with the child is forbidden by either party without prior approval. If someone wants to move they relinquish full custody to the parent that remains behind.

That looks straight up the way it should go down.

I agree on all but child support. Why is the man made to pay when both have equal responsibilities?

 

[ChrisL]

For curious minds...

Joint custody was granted with both parents getting equal time and residence. Child support was maintained which kind of shocked me. Leaving the state with the child is forbidden by either party without prior approval. If someone wants to move they relinquish full custody to the parent that remains behind.

That looks straight up the way it should go down.

I agree on all but child support. Why is the man made to pay when both have equal responsibilities?

Because child support is about the CHILD, not the parents.

 

[rightwinger]

For curious minds...

Joint custody was granted with both parents getting equal time and residence. Child support was maintained which kind of shocked me. Leaving the state with the child is forbidden by either party without prior approval. If someone wants to move they relinquish full custody to the parent that remains behind.

That looks straight up the way it should go down.

I agree on all but child support. Why is the man made to pay when both have equal responsibilities?

Because child support is about the CHILD, not the parents.

If each parent has the child 50 percent of the time, why should one have to pay child support?

 

[ChrisL]

For curious minds...

Joint custody was granted with both parents getting equal time and residence. Child support was maintained which kind of shocked me. Leaving the state with the child is forbidden by either party without prior approval. If someone wants to move they relinquish full custody to the parent that remains behind.

That looks straight up the way it should go down.

I agree on all but child support. Why is the man made to pay when both have equal responsibilities?

Because child support is about the CHILD, not the parents.

If each parent has the child 50 percent of the time, why should one have to pay child support?

Because child support is about the child, not the parents. Do you not understand that?

 

[ChrisL]

If one parent is poor and the other is a millionaire, the millionaire parent is going to be court ordered to pay extra to that child because he or she owes the CHILD that money and comfort, not the other parent.

 

[rightwinger]

For curious minds...

Joint custody was granted with both parents getting equal time and residence. Child support was maintained which kind of shocked me. Leaving the state with the child is forbidden by either party without prior approval. If someone wants to move they relinquish full custody to the parent that remains behind.

That looks straight up the way it should go down.

I agree on all but child support. Why is the man made to pay when both have equal responsibilities?

Because child support is about the CHILD, not the parents.

If each parent has the child 50 percent of the time, why should one have to pay child support?

Because child support is about the child, not the parents. Do you not understand that?

Well if each is supporting the child half the time, why should one parent pay the other half?

 

[ChrisL]

That looks straight up the way it should go down.

I agree on all but child support. Why is the man made to pay when both have equal responsibilities?

Because child support is about the CHILD, not the parents.

If each parent has the child 50 percent of the time, why should one have to pay child support?

Because child support is about the child, not the parents. Do you not understand that?

Well if each is supporting the child half the time, why should one parent pay the other half?

Yet again because it doesn't have anything to do with the financial status of either parent. It is about the CHILD. The parents are paying child support for the child, not for one another. That would be ALIMONY.

 

[ChrisL]

Let me put it another way, if you are making more money than the other parents, then of course you will be asked to contribute more to the rearing of your child. This isn't about "fairness" to the parents. It is about what is in the best interest of the CHILD.

 

[Synthaholic]

if you are making more money than the other parent

Nobody has stated that to be the case.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

if you are making more money than the other parent

Nobody has stated that to be the case.

Both parents make about 15 per hour.