He filed, asked for sole custody

[jakrbbt]

Here's what's new:

 

I talked to my husband for an hour tonight. It was weird.

 

He told me he's renting our old landlords' downstairs/mother-in-law area of their own house. He's kind of made friends with them, and they seem like good people. A couple with three young kids and a huge house. He said it was probably just for a month or so. I told him that was great, and that I'd like to still see the place. He became weird and defensive but said I could.

 

He told me that he hopes to get along one day. That was very nice to hear. I said I hoped so too, and the sooner the better. I chatted with him about our son's future school-- I worked it into the conversation we were already having about my family news, but what I was doing was trying to set a tone of talking about things we actually agree on regarding our son. Then I told him it would be good to at least discuss all the things regarding our son that we agree on-- religion, school, nutrition (I didn't put it this way, but what I meant was: legal custodial decisions.) He said maybe so, and made some comment about religious/non-religious upbringing that I agree with.

 

But then, he said that he will not mediate. He said we'd probably never agree about custody. I said but why?-- Courts think it's best for parents to mediate and to work out joint custody. He said that he would not change his mind (he's requested sole custody.)

 

I cautiously commented that maybe we were not at a place yet where we could discuss possible agreement. That maybe it was wise to table these discussions, and that we might get there. He repeated that basically he's not going to budge on custody-- he wants sole custody and he seems to think he's going to get it.

 

I asked him whether he had any problem at all with my parenting. He said no, that I am an excellent mother. He said he lucked out there. I asked whether he took any issue with my judgment or my ability to make good decisions for our son. He said no, he thinks I'm a solid and responsible person.

 

I think he just feels that he personally deserves sole custody, as some kind of payment for what he sees as his hard work watching our son during the couple days per week I went into the office. Or that he has to have it because our son is male (he blew off his daughter), and he sees him as a possession. I guess it's not that constructive to guess at it.

 

If he won't stipulate to joint, then the court legally can't grant it. It has to grant sole custody to one or the other. I can't be reassured enough that in that case, I'd have sole custody. If my husband has it, I'm convinced (because of how our marriage played out) that he'd use it to keep our son from me as much as possible, keep me in the dark about decisions and what's going on, and try to continue to exercise inappropriate amounts of control over me and our son.

 

 

One day, I will truly not be under this man's thumb. Maybe that's what this is about, more then I'd realized.

 

I've reached out pretty blatantly to some old friends and friendly exes, basically saying I wanted to be active friends or pen pals again. Mostly very intellectual men, some women, and a couple mothers of old high school friends. Intelligent people who, like me, love learning. People I am comfortable with-- people with whom I'm in my own skin. I sent four emails and was amazed that every one of them emailed me back within the hour, even if it was very late in their corner of the world. One is coming to visit. Then I ran into some wonderful old friends not one mile from where I live. Coincidence? Is this how the universe works? I am hoping to set up a piece of my new life, with friends I actually want to have around, and literature and art.

 

But I'm still so nervous about a custody battle even though I'm the stronger candidate.

 

The thing is, if he were a responsible, functioning father who just had an affair or was a crappy husband or something, I'd be a lot less nervous about him going for custody. But then, he'd be more likely to stipulate to joint custody, anyway. I know I'm overwhelmingly more likely to be determined the more fit parent, more able to make decisions for the child, more willing to work to keep the other parent in the child's life. I'm far more likely to get sole custody. But I hate even the small risk, and I don't want an expensive and painful custody battle.

Edited November 26, 2014 by jakrbbt

[beach]

He's got nothing to lose by telling you no.

 

Actually everything to gain - because he really doesn't intend to work.

 

If you want to see your child you better get asking for sole custody yourself and get in front of the judge.

 

You keep thinking your ex is going to be a decent person to you - he's not going to be that person.

 

He may eventually be a decent father - but for now he looks like a non working pRent that drops the child off to his Mom when he feels like disappearing. Since you haven't found out exactly what he does when he disappears it's difficult to prove he's an unfit father. He may hold the child's legs down - but that doesn't show hard evidence of abuse - yet.

 

File papers asking for exactly what you want.

 

Stop communicating with him about any of it - he isn't going to be reasonable. Only deal with him. As little as possible on drop off/ pick up days. If he mentions anything tell him to contact your attorney.

 

Your showing your weakness by continuing to talk to him about the agreement. I commend him for being honest and telling you he's never going to give you what you want.

 

Now you know = act accordingly by using the channels the court provides - that's what they are there for.

[jakrbbt]

He's got nothing to lose by telling you no.

 

Actually everything to gain - because he really doesn't intend to work.

 

If you want to see your child you better get asking for sole custody yourself and get in front of the judge.

 

You keep thinking your ex is going to be a decent person to you - he's not going to be that person.

 

He may eventually be a decent father - but for now he looks like a non working pRent that drops the child off to his Mom when he feels like disappearing. Since you haven't found out exactly what he does when he disappears it's difficult to prove he's an unfit father. He may hold the child's legs down - but that doesn't show hard evidence of abuse - yet.

 

File papers asking for exactly what you want.

 

Stop communicating with him about any of it - he isn't going to be reasonable. Only deal with him. As little as possible on drop off/ pick up days. If he mentions anything tell him to contact your attorney.

 

Your showing your weakness by continuing to talk to him about the agreement. I commend him for being honest and telling you he's never going to give you what you want.

 

Now you know = act accordingly by using the channels the court provides - that's what they are there for.

 

I see your point as a psychological health matter, or boundaries matter, but the court looks very hard at one major (statutory) factor when it awards custody: Which parent is most likely to facilitate a relationship between the child and the other parent? So that means that my husband, in telling me that he won't mediate even a temporary parenting plan and that we have to go through our lawyers for everything, is showing himself to be NOT that parent. He's less likely to communicate, work things out, and facilitate a relationship between baby and me.

 

But if I continue offering to mediate and pointing out that joint custody in best for the child as long as it's do-able, (and I believe that's true), then I'm showing how likely I am to facilitate that relationship. And I am. A kid needs both parents around if they're functioning and non-abusive-- even if they don't like each other much.

 

I filed and asked for the court to make the custody determination that it determined would be in our son's best interest.

 

But it's not easy to keep from feeling bullied, while taking this stance of "let's work toward mediation and having both parents in his life."

 

The one aggressive, strong stance I've taken, was the stance on temporary spousal support. In our petition, my lawyer suggested zero, and told the court that I should not be required to subsidize my husband's refusal to work. He was clear about the fact that I, and not my husband, was the primary parent even though I also worked, and he described why. He pointed out the false statements in my husband's petition and attached documentation that I'd given him. He quoted my husband saying something to a mutual friend, something I'm sure my husband din't expect me to remember or repeat, that showed that his claim for money is derived from anger toward me rather than any inability to get his own money. My response also points out that I never agreed to any arrangement whereby my husband wouldn't work. In support of that, my lawyer attached an email I'd sent to my husband a year ago, telling him that I did not agree to his expressed insistence (even back then) that he simply watch our child while I went into the office and not have any other responsibilities and not work.

 

My husband is going to be very angry when he sees the response to his petition. But it's all true. I'm mostly afraid of how he responds, but perhaps it's good to have taken the hard and principled response to his unreasonable request.

[beach]

Ok - it's good you've submitted your side and what you want from the court.

 

Now sit back and wait for the ruling.

 

No need to communicate with him further about it. No need to try to control it.

 

Just trust it will work out now that you've filed your papers.

 

When he calls mad - don't answer and don't respond at all.

[BetrayedH]

I see your point as a psychological health matter, or boundaries matter, but the court looks very hard at one major (statutory) factor when it awards custody: Which parent is most likely to facilitate a relationship between the child and the other parent? So that means that my husband, in telling me that he won't mediate even a temporary parenting plan and that we have to go through our lawyers for everything, is showing himself to be NOT that parent. He's less likely to communicate, work things out, and facilitate a relationship between baby and me.

 

But if I continue offering to mediate and pointing out that joint custody in best for the child as long as it's do-able, (and I believe that's true), then I'm showing how likely I am to facilitate that relationship. And I am. A kid needs both parents around if they're functioning and non-abusive-- even if they don't like each other much.

 

I filed and asked for the court to make the custody determination that it determined would be in our son's best interest.

 

But it's not easy to keep from feeling bullied, while taking this stance of "let's work toward mediation and having both parents in his life."

 

The one aggressive, strong stance I've taken, was the stance on temporary spousal support. In our petition, my lawyer suggested zero, and told the court that I should not be required to subsidize my husband's refusal to work. He was clear about the fact that I, and not my husband, was the primary parent even though I also worked, and he described why. He pointed out the false statements in my husband's petition and attached documentation that I'd given him. He quoted my husband saying something to a mutual friend, something I'm sure my husband din't expect me to remember or repeat, that showed that his claim for money is derived from anger toward me rather than any inability to get his own money. My response also points out that I never agreed to any arrangement whereby my husband wouldn't work. In support of that, my lawyer attached an email I'd sent to my husband a year ago, telling him that I did not agree to his expressed insistence (even back then) that he simply watch our child while I went into the office and not have any other responsibilities and not work.

 

My husband is going to be very angry when he sees the response to his petition. But it's all true. I'm mostly afraid of how he responds, but perhaps it's good to have taken the hard and principled response to his unreasonable request.

 

You're playing your cards very well. I think it was wise not to do battle over custody (which gives you the best shot at custody) and to go ahead and fight tooth and nail over spousal support. In the end, I believe your H will find himself in a position where he MUST mediate in order to land at joint custody. Right now, he's believing his lawyer when he's told that he can win sole custody. They probably also think it's a good position from which to be negotiating.

[Molly01]

Really feel bad for you, you do not deserve to be in such a situation. I want to tell you to not lose hope and fight till you can. You are not going to let go of your child and livelihood just like that. I don’t think your husband is really interested in keeping the kid he just wants the money to come by. I hope the court understands that and give a verdict in your favour.

I know how it feels to fight for our kids, 2 years back I was in Vancouver with my family lawyer fighting for the the custody of my kids from their father and his new wife. We won, the kids are mostly with me now and visits ex during holidays.

[Yasuandio]

I see your point as a psychological health matter, or boundaries matter, but the court looks very hard at one major (statutory) factor when it awards custody: Which parent is most likely to facilitate a relationship between the child and the other parent? So that means that my husband, in telling me that he won't mediate even a temporary parenting plan and that we have to go through our lawyers for everything, is showing himself to be NOT that parent. He's less likely to communicate, work things out, and facilitate a relationship between baby and me.

 

A man's lack of desire to MEDIATE with his wife (whom unceremoniously informed him she had arranged to move out of the marital home into an apartment with their child) does not necessarily equate with an unwillingness to communicate, work things out, and facilitate a relationship between you and the baby.

 

But if I continue offering to mediate and pointing out that joint custody in best for the child as long as it's do-able, (and I believe that's true), then I'm showing how likely I am to facilitate that relationship. And I am.

 

 

Apparently, if one parent does not feel joint custody is "do-able," it doesn't matter if the other parent believes joint parenting is "do-able." Therefore, your state may have applied some wisdom in forcing parents to make the choice between joint custody OR "roll the dice."

 

 

A kid needs both parents around if they're functioning and non-abusive-- even if they don't like each other much.

 

 

Neither husband's refusal to negotiate your agenda of joint custody via mediation, nor his Petition for sole custody of the child, DO NOT indicate that the child won't have both parents in his life. That argument doesn't fly, especially when....

 

 

But, it's not easy to keep from feeling bullied, while taking this stance of "let's work toward mediation and having both parents in his life."

 

You have been scared, and in fear of this man. That is a fact. How will this change? It won't.

 

 

The one aggressive, strong stance I've taken, was the stance on temporary spousal support. In our petition, my lawyer suggested zero, and told the court that I should not be required to subsidize my husband's refusal to work. He was clear about the fact that I, and not my husband, was the primary parent even though I also worked, and he described why.

 

 

Turn this around. You are the bread-winner husband that took leave to a new dwelling, now you are getting in touch with your "old flames." He is the stay at home wife, with the baby, suddenly, no income. Has to beg you for gas money, and had to move into the Landlord's basement dump.

 

 

He pointed out the false statements in my husband's petition and attached documentation that I'd given him. He quoted my husband saying something to a mutual friend, something I'm sure my husband din't expect me to remember or repeat, that showed that his claim for money is derived from anger toward me rather than any inability to get his own money. My response also points out that I never agreed to any arrangement whereby my husband wouldn't work. In support of that, my lawyer attached an email I'd sent to my husband a year ago, telling him that I did not agree to his expressed insistence (even back then) that he simply watch our child while I went into the office and not have any other responsibilities and not work.

 

 

SO WHAT. [i actually mean that constructively. Above is a laundry list of minutia]. It doesn't matter what you emailed him a year ago - you still had a baby with him, and accepted the status quo, period.

 

My husband is going to be very angry when he sees the response to his petition. But it's all true. I'm mostly afraid of how he responds, but perhaps it's good to have taken the hard and principled response to his unreasonable request.

 

 

Maybe he believes your request is unreasonable.

 

 

 

I'm sorry to say so bluntly to you, honey. But you know Yas gives you the real deal. You quack like an attorney, walk like an attorney, probably look like an attorney, and certainly predict what the Judge will do like an attorney. IT IS TIME TO THINK LIKE AN ATTORNEY.

 

 

You know how to do that.

 

 

First of all, in my opinion, I do not think it helps your case by insisting/demanding to see the domicile husband is moving into. I believe you are in a much stronger legal position if he refuses to allow you entry. Hopefully, he will resists showing you the new domicile when the time comes, and be angry and defensive. I'm not sure you even have a right to see his home. But, it appears there is nothing to worry about in the near future. If he refuses to allow the Mother entry - leave it at that, let him cut his own throat. You are not the Court Custody Patrol.

 

 

Second. He said this, he said that. Refuses to mediate, you have your hat hung on this point. Maybe he said things you could use to support your case? How will you prove it? Did you tape record the conversation?*

 

 

Maybe he tape-recorded the conversation - to demonstrate how nice and reasonable he is (for some reason). Did that occur to you? Is this possible? Hmmmm. Just do not talk to him, AGAIN. That is what you would tell your own Client. HE IS THE ENEMY, JKRRIT! That is the nature of divorce.

 

 

I know this is a difficult post to read. I hope you realize I would not take the time to write a detailed and thoughtful response like this, especially on a Holiday, if I did not care. Count your blessings at all times. Everything is going to be OK. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

 

Yas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Most states in the US allow for a covert tape recording between two individuals or husband and wife (12 states requires the consent of both parties). In many states, such recordings are admissible in Court (I did it, and it saved my behind, thank you very much). For a handy State-by-State Guideline Chart and Details regarding each State's Laws governing covert data collection see the rcfp organization's on-line site, and then double check you own State Laws via the links provided therein.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Yasuandio

[jakrbbt]

I don't want to get too into my legal advice from my attorney, who is excellent and has over 30 years' experience and rarely, rarely loses trials. (Peers in the area can't remember him losing even one in the last fifteen years.) But: If it comes down to a custody battle, I am far more likely to get sole custody than my husband is.

 

It's just that even the small risk is horrible. Even my husband asking for sole custody, is horrible, because he's a bully and he always surprises me with little attacks that feel like blows to the back of the head out of nowhere.

 

I can imagine what his attorney advised him: That he'll never get spousal support from such a short marriage. That his best bet was to make me desperate to settle.

 

He really wants a lot of money, because he believes that he should not have to do anything except watch our child. He can't handle both parenthood and a job, or at least, he seems to think that he can't. Even with only 40% time with the child, he hasn't been able to work more, and he's still having his mom watch our son while he does hobbies and errands sometimes.

 

So what's his supposed only chance at getting money from me? To make me so scared, so desperate to settle, that I buckle and offer a large amount of spousal support along with whatever other things I'd settle for. That way, I avoid the tiny but unconscionable risk of him getting sole custody and using it to freeze me out of my child's life and control me.

 

The problem is, so far it's working. I'd pay him gobs of money to avoid that result. I have to work on that. He can sure bully me-- I think he knows it.

 

He's going to file a reply to my response to his petition for temporary spousal support. I am very stressed out at the thought that it will contain a lot of lies.

 

And the hearing (in two weeks) is for temporary parenting-time plan. The support issue will be decided on paper only.

[jakrbbt]

You're playing your cards very well. I think it was wise not to do battle over custody (which gives you the best shot at custody) and to go ahead and fight tooth and nail over spousal support. In the end, I believe your H will find himself in a position where he MUST mediate in order to land at joint custody. Right now, he's believing his lawyer when he's told that he can win sole custody. They probably also think it's a good position from which to be negotiating.

 

This helps a lot. And I am thinking that the conclusion to draw from it is: I must stop being so nervous about my husband asking for sole custody. I should make it apparent that I can accurately evaluate the case and my lawyer can accurately evaluate the case. If he realizes that not only is he unlikely to get sole custody at trial, but that I know that, then he'll settle sooner and we'll all save money on attorney fees and be able to FINALLY live our lives.

 

The problem is, he's not a very good critical thinker at all. He may never realize that he should settle. How do you get through to someone like that?

Edited November 30, 2014 by jakrbbt

[BetrayedH]

This helps a lot. And I am thinking that the conclusion to draw from it is: I must stop being so nervous about my husband asking for sole custody. I should make it apparent that I can accurately evaluate the case and my lawyer can accurately evaluate the case. If he realizes that not only is he unlikely to get sole custody at trial, but that I know that, then he'll settle sooner and we'll all save money on attorney fees and be able to FINALLY live our lives.

 

The problem is, he's not a very good critical thinker at all. He may never realize that he should settle. How do you get through to someone like that?

 

You don't get thru to them. Eventually their attorney stops selling them the moon and delivers the bad news that they're not getting everything they want. Sadly, his attorney is more apt to promise more than he can deliver and prolong a fight because he'll get more billable hours that way. But you can't do much of anything to convince your STBX of that.

 

My wife fought me for 10 months on custody. I made it clear that I would NEVER accept less than 50/50 custody. My message never waivered from the minute we separated. Even in mediation, her attorney kept sending the mediatoe back with offers like 70/30, 60/40 and eventually even 51/49. I literally told the mediator to go ask her which of the two letters in "no" she failed to understand. This went on for six hours. Her attorney finally told her that she's not getting more than 50/50 without going to court (where she would likely lose AND be forced to pay alimony).

 

Your H sounds very similar. I don't think he's going to relent until he has to. In the meantime, they will hope that you get sick of this and just fold. And if you have a history of relenting, so much more the reason for them to make you feel nervous.

 

Stick to your guns. Show no signs of relenting. Get your hearing done and get to mediation.

[SoleMate]

Hang in there jkrbbt. Stay the course. Don't let the H's intimidation tactics work.

 

(And "Yas"....your advice is questionable - see below - but your condescension in calling the op "honey" is undeniable.

 

A man's lack of desire to MEDIATE with his wife.....does not necessarily equate with an unwillingness to communicate, work things out....

Erm....Yas. You didn't get that straight. In fact, you got it completely crooked! Mediation == communicating and working things out. )

[Yasuandio]

Hang in there jkrbbt. Stay the course. Don't let the H's intimidation tactics work.

 

(And "Yas"....your advice is questionable - see below - but your condescension in calling the op "honey" is undeniable.

 

 

Erm....Yas. You didn't get that straight. In fact, you got it completely crooked! Mediation == communicating and working things out. )

 

Sometimes people dont want to mediate with a person that has hurt them by leaving the marital home with the marital child in arms - that is a flipside of the argument. A simple fact. Crooked or not. People are not linier, mediation is not linier, the law is not linier, period.

 

My apologies for using what you find to be the condedescending term "honey," I meant this expression in the most endearing way, as usual. Yas

Edited December 2, 2014 by Yasuandio

[jakrbbt]

Sometimes people dont want to mediate with a person that has hurt them by leaving the marital home with the marital child in arms - that is a flipside of the argument. A simple fact. Crooked or not. People are not linier, mediation is not linier, the law is not linier, period.

 

My apologies for using what you find to be the condedescending term "honey," I meant this expression in the most endearing way, as usual. Yas

 

Yas-- I don't take the term as demeaning from you-- it's just your dialect, and you've certainly been very respectful and supportive.

 

I see the point that the simple request for sole custody, and lack of mediation, by itself, might not amount to an inability to work things out in future. There is more context to it, though, especially because he's said that he won't mediate anything, has (in the past) refused to even look at my proposals, only to offer a proposal himself and then try to retract it after we'd already had it in place. And when one party is angry with the other for leaving, that's something that the court actually is unimpressed with. He won't argue and hasn't argued that I left with child in arms, because I was clear that I wouldn't leave until we had some kind of parenting-time agreement in place. And there's all the stuff about him refusing to let me know what's up with the child et c...

 

All that might be changing. There's new hope. It may be that the animosity is cooling off a bit and we're both wanting to get along and be constructive for the sake of our child. I'll post about it soon when I have a minute.

Edited December 2, 2014 by jakrbbt

[Yasuandio]

Yas-- I don't take the term as demeaning from you-- it's just your dialect, and you've certainly been very respectful and supportive.

 

I see the point that the simple request for sole custody, and lack of mediation, by itself, might not amount to an inability to work things out in future. There is more context to it, though, especially because he's said that he won't mediate anything, has (in the past) refused to even look at my proposals, only to offer a proposal himself and then try to retract it after we'd already had it in place. And when one party is angry with the other for leaving, that's something that the court actually is unimpressed with. He won't argue and hasn't argued that I left with child in arms, because I was clear that I wouldn't leave until we had some kind of parenting-time agreement in place. And there's all the stuff about him refusing to let me know what's up with the child et c...

 

All that might be changing. There's new hope. It may be that the animosity is cooling off a bit and we're both wanting to get along and be constructive for the sake of our child. I'll post about it soon when I have a minute.

 

Nice to hear something good may be on the horizon. Looking forward to hear about it, uh, uh, eh, Ms. Jkrbbit, Esq.

 

Yes, in heres' down home Georgia, this Southern "Honey," "Hon," "Ya'all," etctrera, Ma'am, is as catch'in as flies in buttermilk fur us uptown Northern gals, to be sure. Kisses, Yas

Edited December 3, 2014 by Yasuandio

[jakrbbt]

OK, some new stuff.

 

H needed me to watch our son a couple extra days while he moved. That meant that he went several days without seeing him, and he asked to come visit us both and also asked for an extra overnight, a trade. I said fine.

 

He came to visit yesterday evening, stayed for over two hours. He was visiting me as much as our son. We had pleasant conversation about non-intense topics. It was something that never, ever happened during our marriage, or even the year leading up to it.

 

Our son toddled back in forth like he was in a dream-world, snuggling up to both of us, clapping and shrieking, showing off. He LOVED it. And something else. I observed H with our son, and it was a little different than during marriage. He was far more patient, nurturing, and enamored with him. I don't think he's faking; baby had a very natural reaction to it. It helped me to see that I might as well not worry about every little thing. Especially since baby's evaluation turned up with no signs of any abuse and very good adjustment, emotional health, development. Sure, I think my husband might "fail" at being able to get organized and truly make parenting decisions, keep a job, et c. But that's not as big a concern for me in the short run when it comes to a temporary parenting-time agreement. And maybe he's learning. We'll see. He was very clear with me that he wants to continue to get along. He said we should try to spend more time together with our child.

 

In the meantime, his lawyer was drafting an affidavit she filed for the parenting-time hearing. The affidavit says that I have "refused" to discuss a temporary parenting-plan. That's the opposite of the truth. It says that he mistakenly submitted that 60-40 plan because a friend made it for him and he has learning disabilities and didn't understand it. That's not strictly true either: I explained the plan to him twice after he submitted it to me, and then, when we had already been doing it for some weeks, he told me that it was working well for him. So this is him or his lawyer, trying to take it back so that he can get more overnights so that he can get more child support/ avoid paying child support. And/or, he's fearful of "losing" his son and wants to make sure it's all "fair," even-steven, 50-50 time so baby doesn't bond any less with him.

 

But who cares really. I like the 60/40 plan because it works. But the only thing I disliked about his lawyer's stupid 50/50 plan (and H has flat-out refused to discuss it with me) is that the way it's arranged, it has our child away from each parent almost a week at a time. That's terrible for an 18-month-old. In the first place I suggested a 50/50 plan that didn't do that, and that still worked with both our schedules, and is still simple. Judges are very dismayed at parties who can't work this stuff out on their own (by "this stuff" I specifically mean temporary parenting-time plans). So I'll explain in my affidavit how I'd offered a 50/50 plan that worked for me, also the 60/40 has been working for everyone, and my husband even said the 60/40 worked for him before he started preparing his paperwork for the temporary spousal and child support. The biggest reason to lean toward 60/40 is that H still hasn't been able to get a job on his off-time, and I have reason to think he's not been honoring our 5-hour right of first refusal. But he can decide to sink or swim with those same issues with the benefit-of-the-doubt of 50/50, while the divorce is pending.

 

Maybe the judge will see my affidavit with its 50/50 offer that I was ok with all along, and will ask the lawyers to just mediate the issue right before the hearing. Maybe we could do the 50/50 that has frequent time with each parent.

 

My family therapist has been very helpful in giving me perspective, and keeping my attitude constructive. Yes, my H has issues. He was abused as a child. His mom didn't leave his dad even though dad was beating the kids. You know what that means? The kids see that and think, well, the mom just can't leave. She's not allowed to. Because if she could, and didn't, then that means that she didn't love us, she wouldn't protect us. So a woman cannot ever leave her husband. AND, his upbringing (as he's described it) was extremely patriarchal, in an unhealthy way. Women simply were not as valuable as men. That explains why some of the women in his family, who "know their place," were highly offended when I mentioned in my diary that my husband was mistreating me and I wanted to leave. How dare I, as the wife. Again, if the wife gets to do that, then their own mother didn't love them, because she didn't do that even while her husband was beating them.

 

I can't change any of that. I don't even want to, now. No sense even being angry over it. I'd like to focus on a constructive co-parenting future with my husband, and we had such a nice time last night, I actually think it's possible. It'll be a lot more possible if he finds another relationship before I do. (He told me last night that he's convinced I am the love of his life, but he didn't make any attempt to get back together.)

 

Another reassuring thing I've learned. Legal custody is not as big a deal as I thought it was, in our jurisdiction. It pertains only to school, religion, and major medical treatments. H and I agree on all those. Legal custody has nothing to do with parenting-time, or where the child lives, or whether one parent can move away. The custodial parent can't use that to interfere at all with what the other parent does on their time. It won't really help one parent use the child to control the other. So even though I still would prefer joint custody, and my second choice is me having custody, I'm not as fearful of a custody trial or the outcome of one. I'm likely to prevail at trial if we don't settle-- and if I don't prevail, then I'll still be very likely able to help raise our son without any more interference than if we'd done joint custody.

 

So it makes sense to get along with H, especially now that he seems willing to, and also, not fear a custody trial if he won't settle for joint.

Edited December 3, 2014 by jakrbbt

[Yasuandio]

That sounds good, jkrbbibit ,uhhhhh, I mean, Ms,. Jkrbbit, Esq. But his play, "you're the love of my life," suggesting hopes of getting back together is a song I actially heard before, and fell for it. It gave me....., eh, yuck, I hate to say this word, "hope," eh, gag. Girl, that seed stayed planted subcounciously in my mind for years in my mind, may still be, still is, really, has to be.

 

I say it for all it's worth, play nice, sweet gettothers, whatever it takes, even give him hope. Although I suspect the reverse is the actual play, that is just my opinion from, obviously, my own experience. Here's a tip. I was using this tip a while during a tough period. I made a list on my iPhone - a simple list, of the clear reasons I wasn't with this person anymore. That list helped get get my lens focused when I would get those ooie-gooie moments. I kept it really simple - as we refer to as an "advanced organizer" in research. Yours might look like this:

 

Troops

Diary

Bathtub

Photography

Feet

Sexless

Ipod

MasterBR

 

After a "Brady Bunch" moment such as you'all had that day, - those "List" words can pretty much kick you back into reality very fast, and dash all hope (which needs to happen - cause that fantasy just ain't ever gomnna happen in real life. Leopards dont change their spots). You might even post List items on the fridge. The little scenerio you described, and his desire (he expressed at least), to have shared parenting time, justvaint gonna happen when you move on with your life.

 

Again, switching this around, it would be odd for your significant other to spend time with his wife bringing up their child in such a "togetherness way." As the girlfriendfriend, I'd be concerned about the bonding there - not with the child, either. Such is the reason for divorce. He wanted none of this together-time when he was living with you as husband and wife when he had it on a silver platter. That is why is may be suspitious. You are vulnerable. Be careful.

 

It is also an indication he is worried about the legal situation. And I really like the excuses about the error due to his "learning disability." True or not, sounds like complete hogwash, point to Jkrbbit, Esq., on that one, big time. One thing you got going for yourself, as an Officer of the Court (and as an individual citizen thus far in this case), is your CREDIBILIITY. His went out the window with that filing, and other inconsistencies your attorney will point out.

 

Nice. Yas

 

PS. I didn't mean to dash your dreams hon, just some hard truth based on experience, and the underlying premise of divorve.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Yasuandio

[BetrayedH]

Like your post, Jackrbt. I also agree with Yas on detaching from your H, rather than engaging in more of this "togetherness" business. You may get away with these confusing messages for your child while he's young but it'll eventually become a problem (and as Yas suggested, it'll be inappropriate when either of you has a new significant other).

 

I also think your H might be like me in that I would accept nothing less than 50/50. I think you probably got how insistent I was from my other post. His lawyer is probably also discouraging him from accepting less for monetary reasons. I might recommend continuing to focus on a 50/50 plan that is logistically the best for all three of you. If he truly won't mediate at all and fights for sole custody, it'll be his downfall.

 

And yes, in my experience, judges get irritable (with the lawyers) when the parties are close to an agreement (such as fighting over 60/40 vs 50/50). Some judges will even order the lawyers to mediate. If two parties are diametrically opposed, each one wanting sole custody, for example, they understand it's their job to resolve that dispute. But they don't want to get into the minutae of what conflicts each of you have on Tuesdays and Thursdays on alternating weeks, blah, blah, blah. They just look at the two attorneys and say, "What the hell is the matter with you two? Do your jobs and go hammer this out. Come back to me when you have an agreement for me to sign." In my state, mediation is even mandated before going to court.

 

Glad to hear that in your state, physical custody is different from custodial custody. Nice to know that while your H may have a shot at being the custodial parent, you can still have physical 50/50 custody (and yes, your time is your time). I agreed to something similar, although my state no longer recognizes any custodial parent language. I just agreed to my exwife's residence being used to establish the children's residence (only to establish their school district). Then we both agreed not to move more than 30 miles from the marital home. Although it's not the end of the world, I wish I hadn't made that concession so easily but that's another subject.

[jakrbbt]

God, I am confused. I was progressing so well.

 

He came over again. He was downright romantic, not wanting sex but definitely wanting to show me how much he cares, and how attracted he is. I basically asked him what he was doing and he told me he loved me and that he was confused. He is a very attractive man, and I care about him deeply, but the betrayed trust has killed all remnants of sexual attraction for me. Plus, I don't think he'll ever have stable employment, and that kills attraction too because chronic unemployment just seems to smack of a psychological problem.

 

Still, it was very, very good to hang out together with our son. For one thing, H shared a lot about what he and our son do, what the bedtime routine is et c. He's a lot more forthcoming. And he's been fantastic with our son as far as I can tell. I would like things to stay amicable. At least while our son is little, it's very valuable to me to be able to visit him while he's with daddy, and daddy visit him while he's with me. Frequent contact with parents is more important, at this age, than how much actual time is spent with them. And while he's young and can't talk, it's especially valuable to have open lines of communication about him. But obviously, it's not worth it if it'll be messy for me and H to see each other that often. I don't know what he's doing. Maybe he is just confused.

 

My lawyer filed an affidavit re parenting time. In it, I ask for the same parenting plan we have now (60/40). But I also request that in the alternative, if the court thinks a 50/50 is appropriate, that it impose the 50/50 plan that I came up with, that has more frequent time with each parent than H's proposed plan has. But there is also plenty of stuff in my affidavit that is bound to upset my husband. All of it is true, but he'll want to refute it.

 

I called him tonight and just told him about my 50-50 plan. I said that I hadn't realized his lawyer was requesting 50-50 (her vague plans all seemed to be much more than 50% time for my husband).

 

By the way, his lawyer has a reputation as the worst family law attorney in town. She pulls stunts that judges and other attorneys don't appreciate, and she doesn't do her clients any favors with them. And in my opinion, she must not be giving good advice. Great.

 

Anyway, I told H that now that I see from his affidavit that he wants 50-50, let's do that. Only, not with the configuration he suggested, because baby will be apart from both of us for too long every other week with that plan. I told him my plan, which he can't possibly have a scheduling conflict with because it's almost the exact same as what we're doing now, very close to what he proposed, and he has no job anyway. And it's squarely 50-50. And, it's convenient.

 

He said he'd "consider [my] proposal." I told him that I was just accepting his proposal, but altering the days so that our son sees both of us more frequently. No, he's going to think about it. OK, I said in a warmly friendly voice. But inwardly I groaned. Normally I'm all for going and thinking about something before you agree. But I get this feeling that he's going to run to his stupid sister and his lawyer, and he'll be wary, saying "What's the catch?" And both will unwisely advise him not to accept anything I want. Which is stupid, because I want what he presumably would want too: A plan that's best for our child. I truly think he can trust me more than he can trust his lawyer at this point-- he needs a better lawyer. But he doesn't know that.

 

By the way, one reason I might conceivably want 51% long-term: Where I work, I can get a certain amount of childcare costs set aside pre-tax so that essentially I'm recouping about $1K at the end of each year. But I'm only eligible for that if I have my child more than 50% of the time. So even 50.1% would probably be perfectly legal. I was thinking of offering to put that $1K into a separate bank account for our child where it could be spent by either of us on Christmas, birthday, trips for him. But all that is for future final mediation.

 

So I am still overly concerned with pleasing my husband, appeasing him so he will not do something terrible to me and my ability to be a mother. I want him to trust me--well, really I want him to get a competent attorney and trust that person, but since he doesn't have one of those, I want him to let me work it out with him.

 

I still feel so relieved when we get along. But now, he's sort of coming onto me. I don't want messy heartache and rejection-- didn't we already do that dance?

 

A friend told me: Don't worry about why he's doing any of this. Just win.

 

And winning just means getting the result I want, for my son: amicable, joint custody, lots of visitation if not equal parenting time. If I look at it that way, then I guess, who cares if he reads my affidavit and gets all mad and goes to his sister and rejects my parenting-plan proposal. The court is the next gate, and the court will at least be more reasonable than an unreasonable ex.

 

Another thing. I'm going out to dinner with someone in a couple weeks-- he already made reservations. He's just an old boyfriend who's become a good long-distance friend. But he's the only man I've dated who is arguably as good-looking and sexy as H, (that is saying a lot), and he is also wildly, fascinatingly successful. I don't just mean money; I mean that he has a very elite and exciting job on the world stage. We'll likely be out too late for my mother to babysit, so I was going to ask H to trade nights, but do I tell him? It isn't a real date of course, we're just getting together because he's in town. But if my husband really is missing me like he says, then I don't want to tell him I'm even doing that, because he'll feel insecure. But I'd feel silly lying about it on the other hand.

 

And Yas, I got that list and put it under my pillow for real!!

Edited December 7, 2014 by jakrbbt

[BetrayedH]

You're doing fine. Keep trying to find that precarious balance between "winning" and being amiable. Both are important. Be firm when it's necessary but foster a positive co-parenting relationship when it's not. Speaking from experience, building trust even after a divorce is still important. There's a complete lack of it with my ex and it causes problems. I'm not saying to roll over and play dead but don't seek out the problems where you don't need to.

 

One exception...I'd cancel the dinner. Dinner with an ex-boyfriend while you're going thru a divorce is a date. Keep your integrity about this and absolutely don't ask your husband to accommodate being your babysitter (whether he knows it or not). If it's found out (which you should assume), it'll be hung over your head forever and you'll probably be accused of cheating throughout the marriage. Wait.

[Yasuandio]

Hon, Yas had the a top mean bull dog shark Atlanta attorney. Not that I have any respect for her, at this time, for her desire for money over anything (even selling her ethics down the tubes). But there was one there was one piece of advice, or an "order," she made VERY CRYSTAL CLEAR to me. No date, no dinner, with no man. (This could be because I needed alimony, however, it is not good for "appearances," either). To even think of discussing "outing" with your husband and asking for a baby-sitting favor so you can attend the dinner arrangement with this dude is INSANE. Just disappear that idea.

 

If you wanna date, or have dinner with attractive men, for whatever reason, do it discreetly.

 

Next, you have to stop helping him. Do you want yo help him get a better attorney that YOU will pay more money for? You will, most likely be paying for his attorney. And alimony. A better attorney will get him more alimony. Do you want to actually fund him to assist is pulling more money out of your paycheck for his hobbies, and expensive toy cars?

 

Next, why is he is your new home? If he wasn't in your me Bacholorette pad, this "come-on" stuff wouldn't be happening. He shouldn't be inside your dwelling, that is your santuary. Did you already forget that? One sex with him, and it is REFILE-TIME. Also, the sex is like a forgiveness of his BS, in a round about way. The worst possible outcome of having sex with your STBXH is that you will get your oxitocin on him, and then you are dead duck in the water. That love chemical is bad news for women, it is already swimming around in your system, and you're going backwards, into "fantasy husbandland" again real fast. It is normal. I not gonna give ya lecture. No one can compete with oxitocin. You will just turn into a tasty convienent, cheesecake for him, girlie-girl. Perfect set-up, come and go as he pleases, you remain in guilt - ridden mode, and dishing out the boom-boom, and he doesn't have to live with your mess. Just like dating, no responsibilty. Lovely!

 

If he can can get the sex going on now, I'm convinced he was getting it on while you together, especially if he is an attractive man, as you say. He was not going without sex, no way. I fell for that hook, line, and sinker. Never again. Even my physician tried to tell me, it was "highly unlikely" a man in my husband's physical condition was without sexual gratification, when we are talking years. I don't care what anyone says about that on LS either. Every single person I knew warned me, and I didn't listen. I thought the same old, same old, story (he works hard, he's tired, low testostorene, poor guy, bs). I saw him with his squeeze in his convertable in no less than one month once we separated. And I recognized her from her approaching us at Starbucks once or twice over the years. What a dummy I was. LS is full of these stories. The story right now is MQ, and related story of Day mention in her thread. I hope you have a look at those threads, jkrbbit. Very interesting reading. I think you might consider employing the "hyper-vigilence" or "hyper-focus" technique and watch/study his facial expressions as did Dday when your husband makes these attempts and overtures. Could be very informative.

 

Great news about the list, sweetheart. Maybe the fridge is better than under the pillow. Or make an extra one for the fridge.

 

Don't be afraid to let the original filing get filed. It solidified his non-credibility. This is war, hon. WAR IS HELL. [Not kissy-kissy!]. You don't invite the Enemy into your house. He is an enemy until the divorce I'd over, period. (Divorce is an advisarial process. You can work on being amicable when the divorce is over). Do nothing to assist him. Remember, he filed the divorce on you, after carefully plotting it. Then title of this thread? Title of OTHER threads? Honnn, get reaaaal. People only do stuff for a reason. He has a master plan for turning on the charm. He wants something. It is not genuine. Please don't fall for it.

 

At least I said something. Ok. You gotta do what ya gotta do. I understand. Always here for you. Yas

Edited December 7, 2014 by Yasuandio

[beach]

I think you are STILL too worried about pleasing him!

 

So much so that now he's capable of manipulating you even more - because you are believing him/his ability to be a good enough actor = in order to manipulated you.

 

Stop being nice to him! He's going to steamroll you and you know it!

 

He wants more money from you so he doesn't have to get a job!

 

Request the court to calculate any support money based on the FACT that he IS CAPABLE of working!

 

Stop being washy washy! You are his bank - he's gonna be as nice as he needs to be n order to get what he wants from the bank= money from you!

 

He can work! He should work! He will work when he HAS to in order to support himself and his child.

 

Did he get moved? Who paid for his move?

[jakrbbt]

I think you are STILL too worried about pleasing him!

 

So much so that now he's capable of manipulating you even more - because you are believing him/his ability to be a good enough actor = in order to manipulated you.

 

Stop being nice to him! He's going to steamroll you and you know it!

 

He wants more money from you so he doesn't have to get a job!

 

Request the court to calculate any support money based on the FACT that he IS CAPABLE of working!

 

Stop being washy washy! You are his bank - he's gonna be as nice as he needs to be n order to get what he wants from the bank= money from you!

 

He can work! He should work! He will work when he HAS to in order to support himself and his child.

 

Did he get moved? Who paid for his move?

 

Well, I think you're right, but it's not easy. I dearly want to get along, but I have to make sure I know exactly how much that means to me. I can't sacrifice my son's future stability for it.

 

He moved into the spare room of some very nice people. I have no idea who paid for it, where he's storing his stuff (which includes a bunch of my furniture I offered him if he needed it, and he accepted it, but stored it somewhere), whether he pays rent and how much et c.

 

He claims he only makes around $600/month and needs child support. He asserts in his affidavit that he's able to work. He makes $19/hr a long commute away, and has turned down local job leads. The court will impute minimum wage to him, I don't know why his lawyer hasn't told him that. There are statutes regarding that. He'd have to prove disability, and of course he asserted already that he's not disabled, because he isn't.

 

The hardest thing for me to swallow is that he won't work unless and until he has to. How can I work with him, work toward 50/50 like I think is best, if I'd be exposing our son to that instability? I guess I just provide a stable situation for my son with me, and trust that at least H won't expose him to danger or neglect.

 

In my mind, if you help someone out a little, they can flourish, and then with a little help can become relatively successful and constructive. I guess that's not true for some people, probably including my husband. That is very difficult for me to grasp. So what happens if I give him nothing besides what the court says I owe? What does he do? How do I in good conscience buy myself a $30 shirt when H is eating a bag of doritos for dinner and could use that money for three good meals?

 

Now I want a court order no matter what it's for-- zero, three hundred, five hundred dollars. Whatever it is, the rest of my money has to go toward providing a stable situation and future for my son.

 

But I have this huge, huge fear that he will file a response to my affidavit and that that response will be full of lies. I'm talking about the affidavit regarding spousal support.

 

What am I afraid of? I'm inclined to foolishly give him more than he's possibly entitled to anyway, why is it that bad if he lies and then becomes legally entitled to it in the short term? No, it's not the money.

 

My fear is that I won't be able to handle reading the false and hurtful allegations. (He's going to say I'm not the primary parent, that I forced him to move far from a viable job, the stuff he lied about counseling.) I fear that now, after seven years of holding it together under emotional duress from abusive job, then violent kidnapping, then abusive marriage and stressful divorce-- that one affidavit will be filed with hurtful lies regarding my parenting, and I'll somehow finally crumble.

[Yasuandio]

You can hold it together, Jkrbbit, esq. YOU CAN DO THIS.

 

These bad things that happened to you made YOU who you are now - strong, capable, independent, and successful. No one can take that away from you. Only you can give it up, and fold. Therefore, pull yourself together, there is absolutely no time for a pity party. Not the way you played your cards, young lady. Now you have to work with the hand you dealt yourself. Wakie, wakie. If you need help, you know how to find me. I am here for you 100%. We are all here to support you.

 

Now, for some Yas comic relief, Order in the Court, we will hear.....

 

Case Styled: ____Shirt vs Doritos____.

 

ALL RISE.

 

Answer:

 

A top notch, sharp looking women's shirt cost at least $30 smackeroos, Fact. You are a top notch attorney, and you have to look dang sharp for your profession, another Fact. Plus you deserve the best, another Fact. To spend $3.99 on a bag of Doritos for dinner is idiotic, when you're low on cash, another Fact. With $4.00, you can buy a couple bags of dried beans, a pack of cheap hotdogs, and a quart of generic OJ at Walmart. That is how to eat for at least two (2) or three (3) days - bag of black eyed peas goes a long way (yet, another bunch of Facts).

 

The Defense Rests.

 

Yas

Edited December 9, 2014 by Yasuandio

[jakrbbt]

Ha! Thanks for the vote of confidence, Yas. And the offer to be there when I need.

 

All around the world are people starving, and other people making big bucks. My husband can at least take care of himself if he wants to-- heck, he could even do charitable things if he wanted to. His bachelor's degree and fairly privileged upbringing set him ahead of so much of the world.

 

Some world-renowned economic theorist once said that the concept of money is "so simple it boggles the mind." Pitting my shirt against his Doritos was an invention of my own weird brain. And when's the last time I actually gave money to a starving person? I used to do that.

 

I'm looking out for 1.5 people with my paycheck: Number one, my son. Number point-five, me. The only money I really should give my husband is money that will directly help my son, or money that is extra and that I can throw at whomever I want. (Or, of course, money that I owe him.)

 

I won a case last week in one of our high courts. Working on another one, brief due tomorrow. H's answer to my response re spousal support is also due tomorrow. Ugh, tomorrow. Horrible day coming. Must work. This job of mine is probably one of the best things I have going for my son, but I'm distracted from it, dreading tomorrow. LS support group standing by??? I am very glad for this site right now. Time to get cracking on my brief.

Edited December 9, 2014 by jakrbbt

[Yasuandio]

I already knew you were gonna win the High Court case. Congratulations. Ok. That praise lasted all of 1 point five seconds.

 

Now, snap the elastic on those briefs, sister. You gotta win the the next one coming up. Do you see, I'm watching over your shoulder all the time. To you left, yeah, that's her, alright. Look closely, you don't be that girl hiding under the bed, do you? I know you wont let us down, Ms. JKRBBIT, Esq. We are your cheerleaders!

 

Everything is gonna be ok, everything is gonna be fine, everything is gonna turn out great. Don't worry about it. Kisses, Yas

Edited December 10, 2014 by Yasuandio