Divorce

[Dexter Morgan]

yes this can be done and it has been written into many divorce agreements

 

it can be done IF the custodial parent agrees. Otherwise the courts aren't going to limit someone to where they can go to make a living, etc.

 

A friend of mine just had his kids moved 3 states away and he couldn't do a thing about it. And to add insult to injury, when battling this in court, after she won the decision to take his kids away from him, a good father, she then got child support raised. Talk about pouring salt in the wound.

[bullhunter]

Sounds to me like this friend is going to do everything he can to hold up this divorce - that he doesn't want.

 

He's not likely to get sole custody of his child since his W hasn't worked outside the home since the child was born. Wishful thinking on his part that "not signing the papers" or stating that "she's not home that much to be a stay-at-home mother" is going to help him any. In fact, he sounds rather limited in his thinking to me. Was she supposed to be a slave to their home just because she didn't have a job?

Maybe you didn't understand what was said, or maybe you just think that because he's a man and she's a woman that she's obviously in the right. He spends far more time with their son than she does. He works from home 1/2 time. She is gone from the home most of the time for a variety of reasons, none of which I care to go into here, as it could end up backfiring on him somehow. He doesn't say she is a bad mother, but as far as care-giving goes he has been the primary care giver for their son for a number of years.

 

It's true that he doesn't want the divorce, but he does not seem to much care about losing his wife any longer. He seems to figure now that she's done the deed so she is already lost. It's losing his son and his home that he is most concerned with now.

 

He might get the house, though.

 

But him fighting the divorce really won't have a thing to do with the primary custody of their child. He can still "sign" the papers for the divorce part and continue fighting the custody battle long after he's divorced if he's got that kind of money to waste.

 

Personally, I don't think him fighting for custody of a child between the ages of 11 to 14 is all that beneficial to the child. Plus, in most states, a child that age can simply choose which parent they want to stay with primarily anyway.

Why would you think that him fighting for custody of his child is not beneficial to the child? Do you think the child should just automatically stay with the mom? Do you think it is better for the boy to feel his father doesn't want him? If it is possible for the boy to choose, that would be good.

 

He doesn't want to have to fight an already lost cause, that's why he wants custody in the beginning. He wants at the very least joint custody, but he would prefer to have primary custody.

[bullhunter]

In Calif., as to custody----he can force a psych eval, to be performed, and this will be reviewed by the judging authority, whether it be a mediator or judge----as to prop---Calif. is a Comm. Prop, state---no fault div.---so anything after the mge., gets split 50--50 including his retirement benefits----Hopefully he can avoid to much spousal support, by her getting remarried--If he can prove her unfit---because of the psych eval---he does have the possibility of sole custody----it depends on how she has carried herself while in the A.----Dad's do have some decent rights in Calif.

 

The only way for him to get custody would be if she should fail a psych eval, for being an unfit mother? I doubt that would fly. If she was actually an unfit mother he would have voiced that to me, I'm quite certain. As far as I can see his son's well-being has been his number one priority.

 

Regarding the monetary goods in California, then if he owned the house before they married he could probably keep it, but all goods acquired after the marriage would be 50/50 split? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that all goods became community property as soon as they married, including the house, and so all goods, including the house, must be split 50/50?

[Trimmer]

I'm going to take your questions one by one, and I don't mean to make it sound like I am diametrically opposed to your points - I get where you're coming from - but I want to make a few comments on your assumptions:

Why would you think that him fighting for custody of his child is not beneficial to the child?

Because a "custody fight" is not beneficial to a child, and can be harmful in itself. I would rather seem them work out an agreement that works for everyone - that process and outcome would be more beneficial to the child than "fighting for custody."

 

Do you think the child should just automatically stay with the mom?

Apart from an inability to be a responsible parent on one side or the other, I don't believe the child should "just automatically" be placed exclusively with either parent. I believe a child is going to suffer a loss and a trauma with the splitting of the parents; I think taking either parent mostly out of the child's life just adds to that trauma, and the preferred option is for both parents to maintain an active role in the child's life.

 

Do you think it is better for the boy to feel his father doesn't want him?

You are getting hyperbolic, and that's not the point. I know this is a rhetorical question that is intended to answer itself, but just to be clear: no, I don't think it's better for a child to feel that either parent has either walked away, nor been "lost" to him in a court battle. See how I took your point and twisted it around to make my own?

 

You don't prove your love to a child by engaging in a court battle and pushing the other parent aside. And now for a little hyperbole in the other direction: do you think that metaphorically waving court papers at a child and saying "Look, I was victorious over your mother!" is "better for the boy?"

 

If it is possible for the boy to choose, that would be good.

I disagree. Putting a child in a position to choose loyalties is not necessarily a good thing at all. It's a no-win situation for the child - you can't avoid that a vote "for" one is a vote "against" the other - and it is a cop-out on the part of the parents, who are just pushing the burden of taking care of business (i.e. coming to a responsible agreement that is healthy and supportive for the child) down onto the child.

 

He doesn't want to have to fight an already lost cause, that's why he wants custody in the beginning. He wants at the very least joint custody, but he would prefer to have primary custody.

Look, if he can make a case that primary or sole custody (not the same thing, incidentally...) is responsible and truly the best thing for the child, then I'm all for it and in support. But, if it's primarily about him not wanting to lose something he wants, then that's the wrong reason, and I would suggest that he needs to be darn sure that the child's best interest is being put first.

 

The unfortunate thing here (and you'll hear it from the bitter, angry crowd...) is that it's easy to mask your anger by saying "well, of course it's best to take the child away from someone who has cheated/left me/whatever, because that demonstrates irresponsbile parenting, right?" But I don't agree it's that simple for the child and the child's healthy development, and I back up my words and walk the walk with my own experience with my children.

 

The only way for him to get custody would be if she should fail a psych eval, for being an unfit mother?

If you're making it all about "getting sole custody", then maybe, but why make it a fight - why ASSUME it HAS to be a fight, even if he's angry - and seek an agreement that works for both sides? In my case, my wife left me to be with another man and I basically said: I believe that our children need both of us to be in their lives, so I'm going to insist on having them half of the time, and I fully expect you to step up and be a responsible parent for half of the time, too. There was anger and bitterness around other issues - around SPOUSE issues - but we didn't have to drag the kids through that, and so we didn't. We separated our spousal issues from our parental responsibilities.

 

What you can reasonably do to NOT make it "a fight" benefits the kids. I was, by any measure, the aggrieved party in our divorce, and could very justifiably have "fought" or made things difficult, but I decided to focus on my kids, so I led with a responsible attitude, and she followed. And I have no question - not for an instant - that our kids are better off for it.

 

Regarding the monetary goods in California, then if he owned the house before they married he could probably keep it, but all goods acquired after the marriage would be 50/50 split? Is that what you are saying?

Yes, essentially this is the case. The law of a given state defines what is considered "separate property" - almost always the property you had before, and "brought into" the marriage, and then usually a few other things like gifts addressed to one person, I think inheritances, etc. There are also sometimes guidelines about "comingling", etc...

 

But the basic idea is that what you owned before and brought in to the marriage remains separately yours. Anything earned or acquired by either partner after the date of the marriage (including debt!) is community property, to be divided upon divorce.

 

Or are you saying that all goods became community property as soon as they married, including the house, and so all goods, including the house, must be split 50/50?

Generally no - you keep your separate property before dividing the community property.

 

If you want to educate yourself, Google <California divorce "separate property"> But also, be sure to realize that your friend shouldn't be getting his advice from you, who got your advice from the Intenet. He should be sitting down with a lawyer to educate himself accurately as to what his rights, responsibilities, and options are.

[bullhunter]

Trimmer, I appreciate your point of view and do not basically disagree with what you are saying. I do disagree somewhat on some of the assumptions you have made. But since you do not know the situation as well as I, and I do not know it as well as my friend we've probably both made some inaccurate assumptions.

 

If you want to educate yourself, Google <California divorce "separate property"> But also, be sure to realize that your friend shouldn't be getting his advice from you, who got your advice from the Intenet. He should be sitting down with a lawyer to educate himself accurately as to what his rights, responsibilities, and options are.

 

What you have said here I completely agree with. I told my friend about this site and for all I know he is reading here. I do know that he has a good lawyer. I did want to help him out in any way I could, as I would hope he would attempt to help me if our positions were reversed. If he wants to pursue this thread, he'll need to join LS himself, as I think I'll step out at this point.

[Trimmer]

Trimmer, I appreciate your point of view and do not basically disagree with what you are saying. I do disagree somewhat on some of the assumptions you have made. But since you do not know the situation as well as I, and I do not know it as well as my friend we've probably both made some inaccurate assumptions.

I agree with you. If I made my statements sounding like I was dictating what "he" should do, I absolutely acknowledge that I don't know his situation. My stuff is just a general attitude, and I'm very lucky (and my kids are very lucky) that my ex and I both were able to set the BS aside and base our behavior and our decisions on the right things.

 

I understand his individual situation may well be different. I just wanted to put a philosophy out there for consideration, because I know sometimes folks will advocate for the bulldog approach - fight to get everything - and I just wanted to present an alternative that can - sometimes - work out well, especially if you can keep your eye on the kids' needs.

 

Good luck to you and him, and kudos for being a supportive friend.

[Darth Vader]

no, I have a feeling they have been told not to tell daddy anything. Oh I know her new man is a drug user, but unless I have proof to tell the authorities, they won't do anything about it.

 

 

It's funny, I just noticed your avatar, and thought about your situ. Dexter on that show kills people, I think I understand a little about your thought process, scary huh? Not that you would do anything, unless OM hurt one of- Well you get where I'm going with this.

[carhill]

Credentials: California resident male going through a divorce.

 

Advice: The lawyer who helped me with Plan B advised me that a contested divorce, including forensic accounting and asset research and business appraisal, would run between 20 and 50K, depending on how 'contested' it was. That's legal/professional fees. As a comparison, for some simple court motions and filings regarding the family trust, without opposition, I've spent over 3K in legal fees. Competent legal help is not cheap.

 

Most of what is being discussed in this thread should be dropped on the desk of a competent family law attorney licensed to practice in the state of California.

 

I'll help a little. WW can file for divorce. She (or her attorney) files the petition at the courthouse in the county where they reside. This petition allows for certain motions to be made, both wrt financials and child-related items. Here is the CA state court web site, which provides general help:

 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/family/divorce/step1.htm

 

She will be the petitioner and he the respondent if she files. He will be served the divorce documents (a sheriff deputy served me - nice guy). IIRC, the initial filing fees (not legal fees) for our case, including service, was 395.00. He will then have 30 days to respond in recognized form to the court and pay a similar filing fee for his response. If he does not respond, she can move for a default judgment based upon her original petition or enhancement thereof.

 

If he responds and asserts a contrary position, which is presumed in a response, then let the games begin and the legal fee clock start ticking. If he wants a primer, the web site I linked provides great information. We found the superior court in our county varied somewhat from state court guidelines as to documentary procedures and content, but the site is largely accurate IME.

 

I wish him well. There are no winners in divorce, rather only levels of losing. IME, counseling and mediation helped us settle our affairs with a minimum of legal expense. His situation is uniquely his. I hope it works out for him

Edited September 10, 2010 by carhill

[Dexter Morgan]

It's funny, I just noticed your avatar, and thought about your situ. Dexter on that show kills people, I think I understand a little about your thought process, scary huh? Not that you would do anything, unless OM hurt one of- Well you get where I'm going with this.

 

I often thought Dexter should put a cheater on the slab, wrap them up in cellophane, and have the pictures of their victims in front of them before he does the deed;)

[Darth Vader]

I often thought Dexter should put a cheater on the slab, wrap them up in cellophane, and have the pictures of their victims in front of them before he does the deed;)

 

 

So that's the way he kills them, ouch!

Edited September 11, 2010 by Darth Vader