Joint Custody - dealing with a dominant partner

[Striver]

W had/has an EA and is insistent on D with no counseling. That's water under the bridge.

 

Our locale favors 50/50 and joint legal custody. I will push for that and likely get it.

 

If that happens, what's the best strategy for handling situations where we disagree. Particularly if the W was pushy and bossy in the marriage and will likely attempt to continue to be dominant?

 

Here's a potential problem. We live on the west side of our town. My job is here, my church, my brother lives on this side, the antique mall where W has some booths, most of my activities, our kids' school, our kids' pool, most of the kids' friends. (Kids are 6,4,4.)

 

Now. If we are splitting, W likely doesn't care how close I am to my job anymore. W has left the church. She used to live on the east side. Her sister lives on the east side, and a cousin she admires also does. Today I found out she is scouting out retail real estate, probably to open her own antique shop. All of the locations are on the east side. She needs to get a job, but that could be anywhere.

 

(In our town the difference between east side and west side is probably close enough to be legal from a custody POV, but still a 20-25 minute drive.)

 

From her perspective, all that leaves is the school and the pool, and I wouldn't trust her to care about those anymore. So if she's insistent on moving to the east side, and wants the kids to go to school there, how is the decision made? Do we go to court?

 

I would prefer to leave them in their current school because it's a good school, it's what they know, and less disruptive than moving across town. I would think the courts would tend to agree, since the precedent is for them to go to the current school. I can get another house close enough to the school and have the kids transferred to the school since there is precedent for them going there, if I can't find an appropriate house within our current district.

 

If they went to school across town, it would probably be easiest for me to move over there so I don't have to drive across town four times on the days I have them. But I'd prefer to not follow my xW all over the place, and she is selfish and egotistical enough that she doesn't need to continue to dominate my life.

 

Am I going to constantly have to use my lawyer, or is there any other better way to have my fair say?

[Mr. Lucky]

Unless your budget is unlimited, you won't want to use your lawyer for everything. His time = your money!

 

You'll have to pick and prioritize your battles and accept some difficult and uncomfortable things. Your exW will want - and deserve - to live where she wants and 25 minutes not much of an obstacle. Start by deciding which things regarding custody, visitation, etc. are most important to you and fight for those. There are some things you'll simply have to let go...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Striver]

Unless your budget is unlimited, you won't want to use your lawyer for everything. His time = your money!

 

You'll have to pick and prioritize your battles and accept some difficult and uncomfortable things. Your exW will want - and deserve - to live where she wants and 25 minutes not much of an obstacle. Start by deciding which things regarding custody, visitation, etc. are most important to you and fight for those. There are some things you'll simply have to let go...

 

Mr. Lucky

 

Okay, after a discussion tonight I have more specifics. I'll leave the financial stuff out because I'll have to sort through that.

 

I was right, WW wants to move to the east side and wants to open a store over there. Apparently will get some sort of part time job, presumably for health insurance, and her parents will pay whatever bills she can't pay. She does not want to do 50-50 under various scenarios I proposed. Big surprise. I get every other weekend, Thursday night, some time Monday afternoon, and get to pay child support.

 

WW basically said and implied many other times in this conversation that her new house is more or less going to be the family home. Because it's good for the kids, because the kids will be confused about what house they wake up in (LOL.) What would be good for the kids would be a home that wasn't being sold, an intact marriage, a wife that was willing to go to a single counseling session or work on the marriage in any way, a wife that wasn't leaving me for another man. WW also wants to drop off the kids and pick up the kids from school every single day, like I'm somehow incapable of dropping off the kids at school even though I did that many, many times.

 

WW is a narcissist. For my purposes, if I have to move across town to be nearer my kids I will probably do so. 50-50 is the standard in my locale and I will not be giving that up, nor any legal rights. If I can't stand up for this, I can't stand up for anything.

[nikita77]

Looks like you'll be going to court for 50/50. Is W ok with paying lots of money to a lawyer to litigate her less-likely position? Maybe, maybe not.

 

I doubt that a judge will say that she is a worse parent for deciding to divorce rather than stay together. However, she may look worse for trying to keep you from seeing your kids as much as you are accustomed to, and all just because she wants to keep control-- like it's all about her. It isn't. At this point, it's about the kids. I agree that she is being unreasonable. Now is your time to shine as the reasonable, more flexible one. You should both have the chance to be parents to your kids and that his the philosophy of courts that keep it 50/50 wherever possible.

 

As for the commute, I grew up with several siblings and we all lived 25-35 minutes from school, friends, activities, extracurriculars and (later) jobs. Our parents spent a ton of time in the car and there were often 4 or more trips back and forth in a day. We all made it through, totally doable. Not your favorite I am sure, but if it comes to that, don't feel you have to sweat the commute.

[Mr. Lucky]

For my purposes, if I have to move across town to be nearer my kids I will probably do so. 50-50 is the standard in my locale and I will not be giving that up, nor any legal rights. If I can't stand up for this, I can't stand up for anything.

 

Sounds like the genesis of an action plan. For more than a decade, my son was 3 1/2 days at my place, 3 1/2 days at the ex's, 25 minutes apart. Lots of drive time but worth every minute. Good luck and keep us posted...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Striver]

Looks like you'll be going to court for 50/50. Is W ok with paying lots of money to a lawyer to litigate her less-likely position? Maybe, maybe not.

 

I doubt that a judge will say that she is a worse parent for deciding to divorce rather than stay together. However, she may look worse for trying to keep you from seeing your kids as much as you are accustomed to, and all just because she wants to keep control-- like it's all about her. It isn't. At this point, it's about the kids. I agree that she is being unreasonable. Now is your time to shine as the reasonable, more flexible one. You should both have the chance to be parents to your kids and that his the philosophy of courts that keep it 50/50 wherever possible.

 

As for the commute, I grew up with several siblings and we all lived 25-35 minutes from school, friends, activities, extracurriculars and (later) jobs. Our parents spent a ton of time in the car and there were often 4 or more trips back and forth in a day. We all made it through, totally doable. Not your favorite I am sure, but if it comes to that, don't feel you have to sweat the commute.

 

My state has the double whammy of starting from a presumption of 50-50, and having the highest child support in the country. I could get a babysitter every night I had the kids and come way out ahead financially. So there's a heavy bias to 50-50, and I don't think WW would win. Just waste a bunch of money on lawyers.

 

If I got 50-50 and all of my current rights I would have the hammer in keeping the kids in the current school, near where I live and work. I could let her have the one-time school choice in exchange for something else if she wanted it. Not sure if I would move across town. Might stay over here, since she has several relatives on that side of town, and it would seem too much like her turf. I'd still go over for the school activities.

[nikita77]

Get an attorney whom you think she would listen to. You may benefit from a settlement, wherein your lawyer tells her/her lawyer: "You guys are in for costly litigation and likely to lose if you do not settle." Key is getting a lawyer who will be believable when s/he says that.

 

That probably means an attorney who has a lot of experience and who has a lot of credibility-- not so much with clients, but with other attorneys in the area. Peer-to-peer lawyer ratings. Often, expensive lawyers in small firms have that. But egotistical lawyers who fight tooth and nail for everything, do not always have credibility with other lawyers.

 

As for being on her turf, I hear ya, but I don't think it will feel like that for long. Once you are living apart and divorced, the haze of a domineering partner will lift and you will see that the east side is a whole lot bigger than just Ms. Bossypants. I wouldn't inconvenience myself just to avoid being on her turf-- otherwise, you're essentially inconveniencing yourself for her. But I don't know your city or her family, so it may be that whatever distance you put between them is worth it.

 

Sometimes with a controlling person, it is worth giving up some control in order to have a smoother, cleaner split. Throw 'em a bone and get out of there. Then, you will be independent from the person in the future.