Dad not seeing his children . . . .

[Spinning Head]

My husband and I have been separated for over two months. We live ten miles from each other. I admit that I am extremely disappointed in his lack of interest and involvement with our two children (ages 7 and 3). I acknowledge that part of his lack of involvement with our children is that he feels that I will fail as a parent without him living with me (I operate my own business and have assumed all the marital debt except one credit card so I need to work a great deal). There is the 'revenge' factor on his end. But, setting aside that fact, he never calls to check on the children and did not have the children for a weekend until this past weekend - and, that was only because I told him that he needed to spend time with his children as two months had passed with no weekend visits. He finally set up a room with beds for them on the last day of their weekend visit.

 

My children seem to be adjusting well to the separation. My daughter is doing very well in school and there are no behavioral problems with her or my son. Neither of them ask to see their dad or even call him. In fact, my son is adamant about not wanting to stay with his dad. When my husband leaves them after a visit, he walks away - no "I love you's" or goodbye hugs, or even a goodbye.

 

My husband is not paying child support. He has given me some money but the last was over a month ago and it was only $400. I'm paying all daycare, private school costs and all other expenses related to the kids.

 

I have debated as to whether or not to talk to my husband about his lack of involvement with the kids. I'm not going to ask him for child support as I feel he should do that voluntarily. Part of me believes I should talk to him about his lack of involvement with the children, however, his apathy and distance was a big factor that lead to me wanting to separate so, in essence, his behavior is the norm.

 

We get along better now than when we were living together. He still has a key to the house and can come by the house whenever he chooses to do so.

 

Should I say anything to my husband or just move on and let him determine the relationship he has with his children?

[Geishawhelk]

Sorry to pipe in here....

There is absolutely no way you should be bringing up these kids with no financial support from their father. No way.

He figures, you're not asking? Fine, he's not offering. And he never will.

If he's this slapdash about seeing them, making room for them and they obviously don't seem too enthusiastic about him either, trust me - his doing so voluntarily will mean he'll never volunteer.

 

You really do have to slap a legal demand for child support on him. It's not fair.

[IfWishesWereHorses]

I agree with GW, it is their right to receive support from him.

 

I would offer them EACH day and opportunity to call, I would encourage him to visit, make ball games, parties, ect... Sounds like your son is having some problems with dad. Even if your H is acting childish, don't punish your children by allowing him to make is own bed. I understand your feelings, but be the bigger girl for their sakes.

[Spinning Head]

I just got off the phone with my husband. I was trying to get a schedule together for visits for the next few weeks. Husband became somewhat hostile and I asked him if he even wanted to see his children because, if he did not, then I would not call and bother him. I told him I was disappointed that he was not spending more time with them and that his son did not even want to go to his house. Husband's comment "You got want you wanted." It is exactly as I thought in that it is a way to get back at me, at the price of the kids, which I pointed out to him.

[KismetGirl]

I agree with GW, it is their right to receive support from him.

 

I would offer them EACH day and opportunity to call, I would encourage him to visit, make ball games, parties, ect... Sounds like your son is having some problems with dad. Even if your H is acting childish, don't punish your children by allowing him to make is own bed. I understand your feelings, but be the bigger girl for their sakes.

 

I agree, sounds like your son is obviously not handling this well. One not need to have outburts to indicate behavioural problems....

 

Not even saying good bye to his dad would seem to me that your son is quite upset and angry at him, and probably feels a bit abandoned by his dad. not sure how your daughter is, but perhaps its that father-son relationship that needs a bit of work at the moment. Even if you want to be more passive about it, its in your kids better interests to know they have both parents involved in their lives. Your husband may be acting selfish, but you should say something to him. And whether ot not you NEED the child supprt, he should be paying it anyway because its his responsibility.

 

When my parents divorced my mom emailed my dad and called him regularly to let him know what was going on with us, and she told him he had to make an effort to stay involved and he did. And it was better for us knowing that both our parents loved us even if they were apart.

 

Kids can grow used to divorced parents, but they do not grow used to a feeling that one of those parents has abandoned them....they grow up resentful instead....

 

Your husband needs to grow up and accept his resposibility. You do, as much as you hate it, need to be proactive in getting him to do so. There is only so much you can do, but I think you were right to insist he take them for a weekend visit and so forth, and I think you absolutely should express tp him wht you think he needs to do to be an involved parent. He made those children with you, he should take equal responsibility in raising them. You are obviously a really good mom, and I think you are right for wanting your kids to have a relationship with their father. Short of someone who is abuseful , kids fair better when they know they have two parents that are involved in their lives, whether the parents are married or not.

[Spinning Head]

I've not excluded him from the children's activities. When my daughter started school, I made him a copy of the year's agenda's and rules for him. I bought school supplies for him to keep at his house so if she was at his house during the week, there were supplies with which she could do her homework. I've kept him informed of his son's daycare events. I planned my daughter's birthday party this month and invited him and his family to the party. Whenever I travel out of town with the children, I let him know where I'm taking them and to what event. I used to call him or e-mail each day with an update of their events. But, two weeks ago he went out of town for a week and he never called about the kids the entire week. After that, I stopped giving him a daily progress note and just keep him informed of the major events.

[amaysngrace]

First off if he's not paying half the bills on the house he needs to give the key back.

 

Do you really expect him to pay his child support voluntarily? Lots of parents who are court ordered to pay try to escape this responsibility. You can apply for separate maintainence until you decide if you want to reconcile or divorce. It's really no big deal. It's just a trip to your local family courthouse.

 

I would emphasize how the kids need him to be more involved in their lives. Ask him to please call to see how they're doing. Tell him that they miss him. Even if it isn't true to you because they don't say that it very well may be true to them. Maybe they just don't tell you that they miss him.

 

I don't know...your whole situation sounds like a power struggle you two are having with each other. Try to play along nice for your kids' sakes.

[n9688m]

Do you have primary custody now because you both wanted it that way?

 

Or did this evolve some other way?

[n9688m]

Lots of parents who are court ordered to pay try to escape this responsibility.

 

True - but many of those are cases of dads who were involuntarily designated by the court to be a "visitor" rather than a parent.

 

I think we need more facts here. The circumstances described could indeed be a "deadbeat dad" who does not care about his kids. Or the circumstances could be those of a father who is disappointed or frustrated over losing a custody dispute. I am not saying a father who loses primary or equal custody of his kids is justified in reacting this way, but it would be a lot more understandable as compared with a dad who simply was never interested at all in his kids post-separation.

[Spinning Head]

We decided that I would have primary and legal custody of the children.

 

I don't think there is a power play going on. I am willing for husband to have the children as often as he desires. He merely chooses not to see them or talk to them. I do think it is his way of getting back at me for wanting to separate. And, I'm stupid to think that his lack of involvment would change after we separated.

[n9688m]

We decided that I would have primary and legal custody of the children.

 

Can you elaborate further on that? Was there ever any discussion about an alternative arrangement? Specifically why did he prefer this arrangement?

 

Even more importantly - why do you have sole legal custody of the children? That is extraordinarily rare unless there are some major red flags in his history. Why shouldn't he have as much input as you into major decisions about their health, education, and religious upbringing? Did he relinquish this role voluntarily or involuntarily?

[Spinning Head]

My husband was never involved with the decisions concerning our children. That was his choice - not my choice. He never participated in educational decisions, medical decisions, etc. Believe me, I tried to get him to participate in those decisions - to the point that I would bring up a topic and ask his opinion and, if he did not have an opinion, I'd give him a few days to mull the matter over and ask him again for his opinion. I don't know if it was lack of care or interest? Who knows - again, that was a factor as to why I wanted to separate. I would contend that he relinquished his role voluntarily. And, again, he believes that I will fail with respect to the kids because I have a business to run that does consume a great deal of my time. But, my daughter received her first report card and received all A's and A+'s, no discipline problems, etc. I haven't failed yet.

 

My husband knows what is going on with the children. He could have shown up at the parent/teacher conference but did not. He could have shown up at his daughter's school birthday party but did not. He could have shown up for my daughter's first day of school but did not. He could have attended school PTO and bus meetings - but did not. Really, there are several things he could participate in and do but he has chosen not do to so. And, that is not any different than when we were together.

 

The one thing that I did ask him to do since we separated was to attend my daughter's play because I could not attend due to a work commitment. I asked him to attend it and to videotape it. And, guess what? He took the day off and stayed at his house and forgot to attend it. I was the one who had to deal with my daughter who was upset and crying because he did not show up for her play.

 

Yes, I am venting at this point. Sorry for the rant.

[n9688m]

My husband was never involved with the decisions concerning our children. That was his choice - not my choice.

 

If so then why does he think you will fail raising them by yourself? Surely if he thinks you will fail alone then that means he thinks he was substantially involved with the kids during the marriage. How can these ideas be reconciled?

 

 

I would contend that he relinquished his role voluntarily.

 

What would he say? Did he suggest from the start that you have full legal custody? Or did you somehow convince him of this?

 

 

My husband knows what is going on with the children.

 

That is not the issue. The question is why he has been reduced to a legal zero without any legal custody of his children. I say again - that is extraordinarily unusual. Indeed - did he have legal representation? Absent incredible red flags - such as a criminal history or an extreme mental health history - I cannot imagine for the life of me why a dad would voluntarily give up total custody of his children.

 

I was the one who had to deal with my daughter who was upset and crying because he did not show up for her play.

 

If he was never involved in their life previously then why was she upset that he did not show up now?

[Spinning Head]

Where I live, the concept of 'joint custody' is either defined by the courts or, if the parents resolve the issues, by the parents. Generally, one parent has the final 'say' with respect to decisions concerning children.

 

My husband stated he wanted me to have the children.

 

I don't think its unusual for a seven year old who was told that her dad would be at the play to videotape it for me and her grandparents to watch later to be very upset when her dad did not appear for it.

 

The only 'red flag' is apathy.

[n9688m]

Where I live, the concept of 'joint custody' is either defined by the courts or, if the parents resolve the issues, by the parents. Generally, one parent has the final 'say' with respect to decisions concerning children.

 

Where do you live?

 

I am certainly open to learning here.

 

I know the laws are different in various states (and perhaps you do not live in the US). Still I have not read of the situation where it is routine for one parent to have full legal custody.

 

My husband stated he wanted me to have the children.

 

What visitation schedule did he request?

 

What visitation schedule is in the legal documents?

 

Did he also wish to give up legal custody of the children or would he prefer to have shared that?

[Trimmer]

If so then why does he think you will fail raising them by yourself? Surely if he thinks you will fail alone then that means he thinks he was substantially involved with the kids during the marriage. How can these ideas be reconciled?

By the removal of his financial support.

 

What would he say? Did he suggest from the start that you have full legal custody? Or did you somehow convince him of this?

Can I point out that she said they agreed that she would have "primary" custody of the children, which is different from "sole" custody. She's already stated that she wants him to spend time with them.

 

In my state, one parent has to be designated as the "primary" custodial parent, even when we were doing an absolute, complete, 50/50 split. So I don't assume that her "primary" custody means "sole" custody, as you have inferred.

 

And two months has to be too early to have had a court ruling on this anyway, (unless it's for temporary orders) so it sounds like it's all ad hoc agreements at this point. To the OP: be careful. I agree with the poster who said your children are entitled to financial support from him; you are their defender in that issue, so your being extra nice to him on that issue may not serve your childrens' best interests.

 

That is not the issue. The question is why he has been reduced to a legal zero without any legal custody of his children. I say again - that is extraordinarily unusual.

And I say again - I think you have overdrawn your inference that he is reduced to a "zero" status, or that it is under legal order yet. We need the OP's confirmation, but I believe these are all ad hoc agreements - for example, she said she's "not going to ask him" for child support. It sounds like the legal process is not yet engaged.

 

If he was never involved in their life previously then why was she upset that he did not show up now?

Because he's their father - how and why would a parent ever give up hope that he might actually start to act that way?

 

Regardless of whether he may have hurt feelings as a spouse (and maybe he has good reasons for that) I can't understand how any parent would not take advantage of any opportunities to be a parent to their kids. To use the relationship with the kids as leverage or revenge in a spousal dispute is lame as it gets. And yes, I do know that people are that lame, but it's still as low as you can go.

[n9688m]

Can I point out that she said they agreed that she would have "primary" custody of the children, which is different from "sole" custody.

 

I believe she said "primary and legal custody" - perhaps I misunderstood but those are different concepts in most states. I interpreted this to mean she has primary physical custody and sole legal custody - rather than the much more typical primary physical custody and shared legal custody.

 

 

She's already stated that she wants him to spend time with them.

 

But why does she not want him to legally have an equal role in making major decisions about their lives? That reduces him to an uncle, not a father. No wonder he does not want to get involved.

 

 

And I say again - I think you have overdrawn your inference that he is reduced to a "zero" status, or that it is under legal order yet. We need the OP's confirmation, but I believe these are all ad hoc agreements - for example, she said she's "not going to ask him" for child support. It sounds like the legal process is not yet engaged.

 

Agreed -- indeed in many if not most states, child support is not even an option even if the custodial parent does not want it. The court usually requires it no matter what.

 

 

Regardless of whether he may have hurt feelings as a spouse (and maybe he has good reasons for that) I can't understand how any parent would not take advantage of any opportunities to be a parent to their kids.

 

Agreed - but on the flipside I can certainly understand (if not endorse) the feelings of many fathers who want equal physical custody of their children but are instead reduced by the courts to every-other-weekend visitors. That is essentially reducing the relationship to that of an uncle instead of a parent, and I can certainly understand (if not endorse) why many of those fathers wind up disappearing from their children's lives.

[amaysngrace]

Still I have not read of the situation where it is routine for one parent to have full legal custody.

 

What visitation schedule did he request?

 

What visitation schedule is in the legal documents?

 

Did he also wish to give up legal custody of the children or would he prefer to have shared that?

 

I have full legal custody of my children. Our visitation is stated as "liberal to be agreed upon by both parties".

 

My exH agreed to me having full custody in lieu of paying me alimony. I agreed to that as well.

 

So there is one example for you.

 

If the dad is more interested in not supporting their children than they are interested in seeing their children then they will agree to just about anything the mom wants from them as long as it saves them moolah.

[n9688m]

My exH agreed to me having full custody in lieu of paying me alimony. I agreed to that as well.

 

Whoaaaaaa!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek:

 

In all 50 states that is a huge prohibited action of immense proportions. If a judge ever got the slightest hint that this was the case the response would be swift.

 

Money or property can never, ever, ever be traded for custody or visitation. Sure it may happen subtly or in unspoken ways, but if it were ever acknowledged explicitly it would be a huge red flag legally.

 

Not only that, but with all due respect - flame suit on - I submit that for you to accept full custody in lieu of alimony was a huge injustice to your children. Shame, shame on you.

[amaysngrace]

Whoaaaaaa!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek:

 

In all 50 states that is a huge prohibited action of immense proportions. If a judge ever got the slightest hint that this was the case the response would be swift.

 

Money or property can never, ever, ever be traded for custody or visitation. Sure it may happen subtly or in unspoken ways, but if it were ever acknowledged explicitly it would be a huge red flag legally.

 

Not only that, but with all due respect - flame suit on - I submit that for you to accept full custody in lieu of alimony was a huge injustice to your children. Shame, shame on you.

 

Dude the judge didn't care how we reached our agreements. We saved the court system money by settling. We each had legal representation.

 

The kicker of the story is that I wasn't even ENTITLED to alimony.

 

But he was so greedy he missed that part.

 

Anyway no shame on me. I had plenty of evidence on what an abusive guy this was. Remember you met me before on another thread and tried to shove your morals down my throat for getting divorced???

 

One more thing Dude...alimony is for the PARENT and not the children.

 

I guess they didn't teach you that in law school, huh?

[n9688m]

Dude the judge didn't care how we reached our agreements.

 

He would surely have cared if he knew. And your lawyer would be in a heap of trouble as well.

 

One more thing Dude...alimony is for the PARENT and not the children.

 

Actually one purpose of alimony is to maintain the children in their former lifestyle. But that is a minor point. The major point is that you ought not trade custody for money. If your custody argument were strong then you didn't need to do the custody-for-no-alimony deal anyway.

[Trimmer]

Whoaaaaaa!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek:

 

In all 50 states that is a huge prohibited action of immense proportions. If a judge ever got the slightest hint that this was the case the response would be swift.

 

Money or property can never, ever, ever be traded for custody or visitation. Sure it may happen subtly or in unspoken ways, but if it were ever acknowledged explicitly it would be a huge red flag legally.

 

Not only that, but with all due respect - flame suit on - I submit that for you to accept full custody in lieu of alimony was a huge injustice to your children. Shame, shame on you.

Careful, careful, careful....

 

In my state anyway, "Alimony" (referred to here as "spousal maintenance") is a completely different thing from "Child Support" - they are treated and ordered separately.

 

Spousal maintenance (alimony) is pretty much rubber stamped, if the parties agree to a number - the court doesn't care as long as the parties aren't arguing about it.

 

Child support, on the other hand, is rigidly calculated and almost non-negotiable. In our case, we got an exception from the standard calculation, based on the fact that we care for the kids exactly 50/50 and have equal earning power, but we explained those issues honestly both in our documents and before our judge; without those considerations, we would probably have had to establish some net child support payment in one direction or the other, even if we both agreed we didn't want to do that.

 

So it's important to separate the idea of alimony and child support. Alminony is to support the (former) spouse irrespective of the presence of children; child support is what the court really cares about most, is designed to protect the children in their safety, development, and standard of living, and the court is relatively inflexible in this area.

[n9688m]

Careful, careful, careful....

 

In my state anyway, "Alimony" (referred to here as "spousal maintenance") is a completely different thing from "Child Support" - they are treated and ordered separately.

 

Correct.. but you still cannot trade either one for custody or visitation.

 

Custody and visitation must be established solely in regard to the best interest of the children. Any acknowledgment that there was some financial tradeoff is a huge issue for the court. It would be unethical in most situations for attorneys to even engage in such negotiations.

[amaysngrace]

It would be unethical in most situations for attorneys to even engage in such negotiations.

 

My exH brought up alimony. I brought up custody. Our lawyers never knew how we reached our agreements. We just did.

[Trimmer]

But why does she not want him to legally have an equal role in making major decisions about their lives? That reduces him to an uncle, not a father. No wonder he does not want to get involved.

 

We can take her at her word:

My husband stated he wanted me to have the children.

...including the picture of apathy she paints on his part, or we can question her more about it, but I don't see where you can draw the conclusion that she "does not want him" to have an equal role...

 

indeed in many if not most states, child support is not even an option even if the custodial parent does not want it. The court usually requires it no matter what.

Agreed, see my previous post on this subject.

 

 

Agreed - but on the flipside I can certainly understand (if not endorse) the feelings of many fathers who want equal physical custody of their children but are instead reduced by the courts to every-other-weekend visitors. That is essentially reducing the relationship to that of an uncle instead of a parent, and I can certainly understand (if not endorse) why many of those fathers wind up disappearing from their children's lives.

I guess I can understand those feelings (your first "understand, if not endorse") but I still can't understand pulling or drifting away, in response, as opposed to trying to make the best and most out of those visits.

 

Again, I'm admittedly going on the assumption that the father in this case pretty much gave away his opportunities to be equally involved, and not that the OP took them or prevented him from participating. As a matter of fact, his first weekend visit with the kids in two months happened, according to her, only because she told him he needed to do it.

 

Now, we only have her postings to paint the picture, so questioning her on that subject is certainly fair game, but the picture she paints is of a guy who is intentionally disconnecting, when he could have come on board at any time and taken a much more active role. His pulling back from opportunities to participate doesn't square with someone who wants to be involved.

 

OP: I don't recall if you addressed this, but where do you draw the conclusion that he believes you will fail in raising the kids? Is this an inference you are drawing from other observations, or has he said something directly to this effect?

 

Why did you accept all the marital debt? I can see keeping the mortgage against the house if you are going to stay in the house, but in most places, both assets and debts would be distributed "equitably." Was this just trying to smooth things over on your part? Why take on the extra load with the kids and your business, etc? Is there some guilt underneath all of this or something?