Child custody

[trix5603]

I am in the process of ending a 7 yr common law relationship in which we have a 3yr old. My reasons for dissolving the relationship are due to verbal abuse to me in front of child, excessive alcohol, and excessive gambling. The father has not been a participative parent in the sense of not spending time with son, not involved in daily parenting, decision making, etc. He is also under the treatment of a psychiatrist for bipolar disorder and has been advised that alcohol binging and not taking medication is not advised.
Under normal circumstances, I would not consider making an attempt for sole custody and, that being said, I have no intentions of attempting to limit time spent for the purposes of revenge; however, I am very concerned that his Bility to make rational decisions together in the best interest of our son will be impossible due to the aforementioned issues and the fact that he will be extremely pissed at the outcome.
Do the documented mental issues have any bearing on my ability to attain sole custody or are there other alternatives and would this be a costly endeavor?
thanks for answering.

[blinkandimgone]

I am in the process of ending a 7 yr common law relationship in which we have a 3yr old. My reasons for dissolving the relationship are due to verbal abuse to me in front of child, excessive alcohol, and excessive gambling.

All of that ^^ is irrelevant to your outcomes. The courts don't care why you broke up.

The father has not been a participative parent in the sense of not spending time with son, not involved in daily parenting, decision making, etc. He is also under the treatment of a psychiatrist for bipolar disorder and has been advised that alcohol binging and not taking medication is not advised.

Although he may not be as involved as you'd like him to be, nowhere do you say he's a bad parent or a danger to the child.

Under normal circumstances, I would not consider making an attempt for sole custody and, that being said, I have no intentions of attempting to limit time spent for the purposes of revenge; however, I am very concerned that his Bility to make rational decisions together in the best interest of our son will be impossible due to the aforementioned issues and the fact that he will be extremely pissed at the outcome.

This is your normal circumstances, you still have not given any indication that he is a bad parent or a danger to the child. It is unreasonable for you to expect sole custody because you think he might screw it up. People screw things up all the time, you don't have to be bipolar to do it. And of course he will be pissed off about it, you're attempting to use a medical condition that he didn't ask for and assuredly does not want to make him an irresponsible parent before he's even done something wrong, therefore giving you sole custody.

Do the documented mental issues have any bearing on my ability to attain sole custody or are there other alternatives and would this be a costly endeavor?
thanks for answering.

No, not unless you have proof that his medical condition makes him a danger to the child, which it doesn't seem to as you say you are quite willing to make arrangements for the boy to spend as much time as he wants with dad. Can't have it both ways.

[DunnMom]

Honestly ... my best advice is:

If you know he's going to fight you ... forget about "sole" .. go for "joint" with you as Primary and him having Access.

Offer him 50/50 if he lives close to you and school/travel issues arent an issue BUT ... ask for a clause that BOTH OF YOU undergo bi-weekly random drug testing ... and state the consquences for failing to comply.

He can be a raving lunatic when dealing with YOU and be a total ass but "if" when you take "you" out of the equation he's a good dad than that's really all that matters.

[blinkandimgone]

BUT ... ask for a clause that BOTH OF YOU undergo bi-weekly random drug testing ... and state the consquences for failing to comply.

Why on earth would he agree to that and why on earth would it belong in a seperation agreement?? Being bipolar isn't a crime and neither is refusing medication for it. That's ridiculous.

[Mess]

Many of us here have admitted at one time or another that we've become better parents since our marriages split. There's a lot of reasons for that, including having control over our own homes and lives, no conflict within the home, feeling better about ourselves and therefore having better emotions to give to our children. Not to mention an element of competitiveness between parents, or having something to prove; not the classiest reason but it is still a motivator and it ends up benefiting the children.

You really have no idea what kind of parent he will be on his own. He might be great, he might be a disaster, he might be something in between. IMHO because he is dealing with medical issues you would be better off to take it easy, spend a few months seeing how things go, and then deciding if you have factual grounds, based on his performance and level of co-operation, to justify seeking sole custody. Because in any case, this is going to take months/years to settle and you aren't gaining anything by opening up with an aggressive stance.

He has medical issues that made him a difficult person to live with. Not faulting you for leaving but divorce is a situation where change and rebuilding are inevitable. He will not be the same person and neither will you. He may get better, he may get worse, but you cannot judge his future parenting on what kind of partner he was to you in the past. It's not impossible that living with you brought out a lot of negative things in his personality.

[InterprovincialParents]

Mental illness is just that, an illness, akin to diabetes, or cancer. Would you hold either cancer or diabetes against his ability to parent? Then why bi-polar? You sound like you need to do a lot of research on bi-polar disorder (especially since it has been found to be hereditary) and get off your healthy moral high horse of judgement

[InterprovincialParents]

Flip side is, alcoholism and gambling suggest a compulsive personality, and if you have concerns on the health and well-being of your child, ask for supervised access with a plan of care that gradually allows him to spend time with his child without the supervision. It has been my experience that no parent can be natural in such an unnatural setting, and it makes it tough for both child and parent...work with him to resolve and find a path to allow him parenting without being under the nose of yourself or another person...you'd be amazed what a parent can do

[dadtotheend]

Mental illness is just that, an illness, akin to diabetes, or cancer. Would you hold either cancer or diabetes against his ability to parent? Then why bi-polar? You sound like you need to do a lot of research on bi-polar disorder (especially since it has been found to be hereditary) and get off your healthy moral high horse of judgement

That argument has been floated many times before.

An important distinction between mental illnesses, especially personality disorders, and diabetes or cancer are that the patient's mental capacity is affected, which affects their decision making. Moreover, many patients refuse to acknowledge the illness and therefore don't seek treatment. So yes, it is certainly the case that those conditions can affect one's parenting ability in a way that cancer or diabetes don't!

[Pharah]

It would also depend on whether his bi-polar is type one or type two. Type one is far more serious while type two has both high and low periods. without knowing more, you would not be able to use this as a defense for custody.

From what you are describing, it sounds more like type two, meaning he does not experience psychosis. Anyway, as above.

[blinkandimgone]

I can't stand the whole tone of this thread, the dad is voluntarily seeking treatment - at what point is that recognized by mom? Instead of being supportive and encouraging of him getting help she's trying to use it against him to gain custody of the child which is just so wrong.

That argument has been floated many times before.

An important distinction between mental illnesses, especially personality disorders, and diabetes or cancer are that the patient's mental capacity is affected, which affects their decision making. Moreover, many patients refuse to acknowledge the illness and therefore don't seek treatment. So yes, it is certainly the case that those conditions can affect one's parenting ability in a way that cancer or diabetes don't!

MAY be affected, their decision making MAY be affected. It isn't guaranteed that a person with bi-polar or borderline personality disorder or depression or any other mental illness will have issues with decision making or relationships, keeping a job or many of the other stereotypes associated with mental illness. Many people with a diagnosed mental illness function quite well in the eyes of society and often times surprise people when they tell them they have bipolar or BPD.

Too often I find that people make assumptions about another's capabilities after finding out they have a diagnoses when they never had an issue with the person prior to the disclosure, which is often times the reason people choose not to tell anyone or get help. Society has this nasty way of looking at you differently when they find out you have a diagnosis or are seeing a shrink. Rather than being supportive and encouraging of those who have chosen to seek help, the doubts , whispers and judging begins and people just wait for you to screw up. Of course you will - you have a mental illness! If you have cancer or diabetes and seek treatment people wish you well and say things like 'let me know if you need anything!'. If you have a mental illness and seek treatment people pull away and say things like 'gosh i'd really love to but......'. Even in today's society of enlightenment, people still treat mental illness differently than every other illness out there, it's no wonder so many avoid disclosing or even seeking treatment.

You simply CANNOT judge a person's parenting (or other) abilities based on a diagnosis (especially when they've yet to do anything wrong) , treated or untreated, and in the same breath support unlimited access to the child. You either believe he's a danger or you don't. If you don't, then lay off the whole mental illness justification for you to get sole custody. If he's SHOWN in the past that he is a danger to the child then you would have taken the proper measures at the time and you wouldn't be bringing it up now just because you're seperating.

You trusted him as a parent before, now that you're seperating suddenly the bipolar is an issue?

[dadtotheend]

Holy moly, I wasn't commenting specifically on this case.

I was simply responding to the comparison made by IPP to diseases like cancer or diabetes.

If, as in many cases, the patient does not seek treatment it is a concern and the comparison to those other illnesses is not valid.

[blinkandimgone]

Holy moly, I wasn't commenting specifically on this case.

Aside from the bolded part of your post, my entire post was not devoted solely to you. (it's not all about you mister!)

I just think it's entirely possible to be a good parent - a great parent even, despite having bipolar or other mental illness. In fact, I know it is. There are lots of shitty parents out there that have no excuse for being shitty parents aside from choosing to be shitty parents.

[dadtotheend]

Aside from the bolded part of your post, my entire post was not devoted solely to you. (it's not all about you mister!).

I agree with you that some people strategically attempt to use mental illness as a way to wrestle sole custody away from the other parent. And that is very wrong.

But when parents don't seek treatment for mental illness, very bad things can result. In my case, Mom didn't seek meaningful treatment for a long time, and it was a valid determinant of custody.

There are extreme cases where children have been killed by mentally ill parents who refused to seek treatment. Remember Elaine Campione? Yes, they are extreme and isolated, but how many mentally ill parents are screwing up their kids in less drastic and visible ways? In ways that affect the children's emotional health over long periods of time. In ways that might be minor enough to escape scrutiny by the community but are nevertheless damaging to kids.

Your frustration is understandable because of the underying malice and selfishness that permeates some parents' actions in obtaining custody.

But untreated mental illness is a valid concern.

The key is seeking treatment. If they don't it's a concern.

[blinkandimgone]

I agree with you that some people strategically attempt to use mental illness as a way to wrestle sole custody away from the other parent. And that is very wrong.

But when parents don't seek treatment for mental illness, very bad things can result. In my case, Mom didn't seek meaningful treatment for a long time, and it was a valid determinant of custody.

There are extreme cases where children have been killed by mentally ill parents who refused to seek treatment. Remember Elaine Campione? Yes, they are extreme and isolated, but how many mentally ill parents are screwing up their kids in less drastic and visible ways? In ways that affect the children's emotional health over long periods of time. In ways that might be minor enough to escape scrutiny by the community but are nevertheless damaging to kids.

Your frustration is understandable because of the underying malice and selfishness that permeates some parents' actions in obtaining custody.

But untreated mental illness is a valid concern.

The key is seeking treatment. If they don't it's a concern.

I agree, seeking treatment is important. In this case, the OP did say he is getting treatment so her justification to have sole custody in the event that he may screw up in the future is just bunk. She accepted it up until this point, now that they are seperating it is an issue, I suspect mostly because she thinks it works in her favour to further her own agenda.

I just simply can't stand when people use an illness to define someone. Nobody looks at a cancer patient and only sees cancer, they see a person with a treatable condition and offer sympathy and empathy. Yet people regularly look at others with a mental illness and see only that, they don't offer sympathy or empathy or support, typically the response is hostility and judgement and often fear.

Even just the way people refer to it is indicitive of the way society judges people. You regularly hear people say 'he's bipolar' or 'he's schizophrenic', when was the last time you heard someone say 'he's cancer'?

[dadtotheend]

Even just the way people refer to it is indicitive of the way society judges people. You regularly hear people say 'he's bipolar' or 'he's schizophrenic', when was the last time you heard someone say 'he's cancer'?

I agree that there is a stigma about mental illness. But I also think that society is moving in a better direction as to our regard for those who suffer from it.

Cancer doesn't affect someone's personality so of course it doesn't define them.

Untreated mental illness does affect the personality. Rightly or wrongly, it does define those who suffer from it to some degree because it influences their behaviour.

If an untreated mentally ill person acts irrationally and even scarily a lot of the time, how can you not include that in how you define them? Do you think we should exclude mental illness when defining Jared Loughner?

Again, mental illness and physical illnesses are not comparable.