Custody Change?

[thebackbone]

New to the forum and just have a question.

A couple I know , according to their separation agreement has 50/50 shared custody and had been doing so for 3 years 1 week on 1 week off. Recently, the father has requested a change as he is working overtime almost daily and requested every 2nd weekend as 1 week on was not feesable as he never saw his children.
Obviously he is paying more in child support expectedly. Mother and Father both agreed to a change (outside of courts) Mother is very vindictive and now hangs it over fathers head that she will take him to court because he is not following the legal seperation agreement (even though hes paying her way more and emails have been saved as proof)

My question to you knowledgeable folks is How would a court see it in a situation such as this where now because it does not suit the mother, she wants to go back to the original 1 week on and 1 week off agreement? It drives me crazy when I talk to him because she is so hurtful and IMO doesnt want her kids fulltime (yet wants the money) so she makes him feel bad that he is not seeing his kids enough. He basically makes enough money right now to pay for all the debts she left him with and child support.

Does a father have the right request to have them every 2nd weekend and pay the table amount of child support based on income yadda yadda? While I dont want him portrayed as a dead beat he is far from that. He left his marriage paying ALL of the X's debts AND paid for her lawyer bills that involved the separation AND divorce. He has taken on ALL bills owing so he has no choice BUT to work overtime as much as he can so he can survive and pay all those debts.

Sorry for ranting but I certainly appreciate any given advice

[blinkandimgone]

He should go back to the original agreement and put the kids into daycare during his time and send her the receipts with a request for her contribution.

If he really wants to move to being an every other weekend parent, knowing what she is like, he should have the agreement adjusted to reflect the new arrangement and then she has nothing TO hold over his head.

[thebackbone]

I forgot to note that he has moved away from kids (about 45 minutes) so 1 week on and 1 week off wouldnt be feesable for children and school...etc

[Rioe]

A couple I know , according to their separation agreement has 50/50 shared custody and had been doing so for 3 years 1 week on 1 week off. Recently, the father has requested a change as he is working overtime almost daily and requested every 2nd weekend as 1 week on was not feesable as he never saw his children.
Obviously he is paying more in child support expectedly. Mother and Father both agreed to a change (outside of courts) Mother is very vindictive and now hangs it over fathers head that she will take him to court because he is not following the legal seperation agreement (even though hes paying her way more and emails have been saved as proof)

My question to you knowledgeable folks is How would a court see it in a situation such as this where now because it does not suit the mother, she wants to go back to the original 1 week on and 1 week off agreement? It drives me crazy when I talk to him because she is so hurtful and IMO doesnt want her kids fulltime (yet wants the money) so she makes him feel bad that he is not seeing his kids enough. He basically makes enough money right now to pay for all the debts she left him with and child support.

Does a father have the right request to have them every 2nd weekend and pay the table amount of child support based on income yadda yadda? While I dont want him portrayed as a dead beat he is far from that. He left his marriage paying ALL of the X's debts AND paid for her lawyer bills that involved the separation AND divorce. He has taken on ALL bills owing so he has no choice BUT to work overtime as much as he can so he can survive and pay all those debts.

Sorry for ranting but I certainly appreciate any given advice

That's a sad situation, and the saddest part is that the dad would rather work overtime than see his kids.

Why on earth did he end up with so many bills? I can see him having to pay her legal fees if he was unreasonable during the trial and was the 'losing' side, but why did he take on all the marriage debt? Equalization should have been done better, from the sounds of it. Too late to reopen that now, I imagine. I bet you aren't getting the full story, either. He's just making her out to be the bad one because he's got your sympathetic ear.

What he should probably do is keep the week on week off, as that's the legal agreement, and hopefully his overtime situation is not permanent. Offer the children to the mother in a right of first refusal, if he's unable to care for them, but don't change the CS payments. If she declines, then he has to put them in daycare or change his work schedule or something. And he should stop working so much overtime. If he has lots of debts, he should budget better to reduce his other expenses, or ask the bank for some consolodation plan, etc. He could work all his overtime on the week his ex has the kids and keep his week freer for spending time with the children. He had lots of solutions available to him that don't involve giving up the equal time with his children that so many fathers fight for and don't get.

He's being a hypocrite here, you know. He found that 50-50 didn't suit him, so he pushed the mother to change to every other weekend. Now, when she wants to change back because it doesn't suit her, he's upset? He didn't want them full time, so how can he be critical of her not wanting them full time either? And the poor kids! Their access changing back and forth and around and around all because neither parent has time for them?

I think he needs a reminder about his priorities! Stick to the 50-50, if he needs to work extra sometimes when he has the kids, offer the mother the chance to have them before he puts them in daycare, stick to offset CS (the more overtime he works the more he has to pay her anyway, so he's not getting as ahead as he thinks). In a few years, when he's paid off the debts he incurred due to the way their separation was legally done, he'll have more time and be happy he kept the 50-50.

There are two kinds of deadbeats. The ones who don't pay their CS, and the ones who don't see their kids. Choosing not to be the first kind doesn't make being the other kind virtuous.

Why would he move away from his kids' school and lives when he has 50-50? That's crazy. First thing he should do is move right back so he doesn't disturb their lives any further. He really needs to examine his priorities.

[thebackbone]

That's a sad situation, and the saddest part is that the dad would rather work overtime than see his kids.

Why on earth did he end up with so many bills? I can see him having to pay her legal fees if he was unreasonable during the trial and was the 'losing' side, but why did he take on all the marriage debt? Equalization should have been done better, from the sounds of it. Too late to reopen that now, I imagine. I bet you aren't getting the full story, either. He's just making her out to be the bad one because he's got your sympathetic ear.

What he should probably do is keep the week on week off, as that's the legal agreement, and hopefully his overtime situation is not permanent. Offer the children to the mother in a right of first refusal, if he's unable to care for them, but don't change the CS payments. If she declines, then he has to put them in daycare or change his work schedule or something. And he should stop working so much overtime. If he has lots of debts, he should budget better to reduce his other expenses, or ask the bank for some consolodation plan, etc. He could work all his overtime on the week his ex has the kids and keep his week freer for spending time with the children. He had lots of solutions available to him that don't involve giving up the equal time with his children that so many fathers fight for and don't get.

He's being a hypocrite here, you know. He found that 50-50 didn't suit him, so he pushed the mother to change to every other weekend. Now, when she wants to change back because it doesn't suit her, he's upset? He didn't want them full time, so how can he be critical of her not wanting them full time either? And the poor kids! Their access changing back and forth and around and around all because neither parent has time for them?

I think he needs a reminder about his priorities! Stick to the 50-50, if he needs to work extra sometimes when he has the kids, offer the mother the chance to have them before he puts them in daycare, stick to offset CS (the more overtime he works the more he has to pay her anyway, so he's not getting as ahead as he thinks). In a few years, when he's paid off the debts he incurred due to the way their separation was legally done, he'll have more time and be happy he kept the 50-50.

There are two kinds of deadbeats. The ones who don't pay their CS, and the ones who don't see their kids. Choosing not to be the first kind doesn't make being the other kind virtuous.

Why would he move away from his kids' school and lives when he has 50-50? That's crazy. First thing he should do is move right back so he doesn't disturb their lives any further. He really needs to examine his priorities.

Previous marriage they purchased things that realistically they could not afford so there were loans on these items loans $15000-$30000. Because the X said these items would better help make the family happier (obviously going through tough times prior to leaving) This guy is a nice guy ALMOST too nice in a situation like this (she left him because she was having an affair with another man) he STAYED in the matrimonial home while his wife was out sleeping with other men because he stayed to watch his children while she was out 'doing her thing')

"Making her out to be the bad person" is as far from the truth that you can get. I personally have met her and know exactly what she is all about. SHE puts herself and her needs first before her children that I know for sure.

He moved away from his children as in that location he was renting and real estate was TRIPLE what it is where he moved to, he had no choice in that matter small town there was nothing available to rent.

The children rarely want to come here because their mother has defamated fathers character so badly even back when it was 50/50 they would come and tell stories to him about what she would say about their own father to them, which makes me so sick. We would confront her on it and she would deny it. Obviously when kids come out with those sorts of things, ya know dam well where its coming from.

In a perfect world everyone would be debt free LOL the reality is ...the X is a bitch and centers the world around herself and her new BF and well then her children come in a close 3rd. The real sad part is....she doesnt want the children either (just wants to collect the money) so thats why she does it.

You mention that he should keep the 50/50 and then pay daycare when hes working. He makes more money than she does so it comes down to 60-40% split between the 2 of them...boy that saves him a pile of money . Living where he does ...the children would have to get up at 4am every morning to be drivin to daycare (thats when he leaves for work) IMO thats not the best interest of any child.

[thebackbone]

That's a sad situation, and the saddest part is that the dad would rather work overtime than see his kids.

Why on earth did he end up with so many bills? I can see him having to pay her legal fees if he was unreasonable during the trial and was the 'losing' side, but why did he take on all the marriage debt? Equalization should have been done better, from the sounds of it. Too late to reopen that now, I imagine. I bet you aren't getting the full story, either. He's just making her out to be the bad one because he's got your sympathetic ear.

What he should probably do is keep the week on week off, as that's the legal agreement, and hopefully his overtime situation is not permanent. Offer the children to the mother in a right of first refusal, if he's unable to care for them, but don't change the CS payments. If she declines, then he has to put them in daycare or change his work schedule or something. And he should stop working so much overtime. If he has lots of debts, he should budget better to reduce his other expenses, or ask the bank for some consolodation plan, etc. He could work all his overtime on the week his ex has the kids and keep his week freer for spending time with the children. He had lots of solutions available to him that don't involve giving up the equal time with his children that so many fathers fight for and don't get.

He's being a hypocrite here, you know. He found that 50-50 didn't suit him, so he pushed the mother to change to every other weekend. Now, when she wants to change back because it doesn't suit her, he's upset? He didn't want them full time, so how can he be critical of her not wanting them full time either? And the poor kids! Their access changing back and forth and around and around all because neither parent has time for them?

I think he needs a reminder about his priorities! Stick to the 50-50, if he needs to work extra sometimes when he has the kids, offer the mother the chance to have them before he puts them in daycare, stick to offset CS (the more overtime he works the more he has to pay her anyway, so he's not getting as ahead as he thinks). In a few years, when he's paid off the debts he incurred due to the way their separation was legally done, he'll have more time and be happy he kept the 50-50.

There are two kinds of deadbeats. The ones who don't pay their CS, and the ones who don't see their kids. Choosing not to be the first kind doesn't make being the other kind virtuous.

Why would he move away from his kids' school and lives when he has 50-50? That's crazy. First thing he should do is move right back so he doesn't disturb their lives any further. He really needs to examine his priorities.

and the sadder part is....is that he has no choice BUT to work overtime because of the situation. NOT a choice he gladly accepted ...so you saying that is completely offensive towards someone who has been screwed over. In a perfect world everyone would get along and actually do whats in the best interest of the children.....rare cases that happens anymore!

[thebackbone]

Now back to my original question:

How would a court decide arrangements in a situation such as this? Obviously if it were to go to court.

[HammerDad]

Sure the courts would as the new schedule would likely be deemed in the best interests of the kids.

Unfortunately dad seems to continuing his trend of bad decision making. He made bad decisions during his divorce and is now making even worse ones.

He made a a bad decision to move further away from the kids. Yeah, rent was higher. But you find as decent a place as you can afford and stay close to the kids.

Stopping the 50/50 effectively relegates himself to a visitor in his kids lives. We have parents on here that are fighting tooth and nail to get 50/50 and this guy is giving it up because of distances and OT? Does he not have any family/friends that can help look after the kids when he has to work OT?

Chances of this going to court are slim. The ex gets to leverage this guys obvious over-abundance of guilt against him and exclaim to the world how bad a dad he is by choosing to give up 50/50 with the kids for work. Yeah, money is tight. But there are ways of consolidating or consumer proposals if he is that far gone. His ex also gets to use this against him with the kids by telling them that dad gave up time with them for money, all the while collecting more in c/s.

But yeah, if it goes to court he is likely to "win". I feel sorry for his children.

[thebackbone]

Sure the courts would as the new schedule would likely be deemed in the best interests of the kids.

Unfortunately dad seems to continuing his trend of bad decision making. He made bad decisions during his divorce and is now making even worse ones.

He made a a bad decision to move further away from the kids. Yeah, rent was higher. But you find as decent a place as you can afford and stay close to the kids.

Stopping the 50/50 effectively relegates himself to a visitor in his kids lives. We have parents on here that are fighting tooth and nail to get 50/50 and this guy is giving it up because of distances and OT? Does he not have any family/friends that can help look after the kids when he has to work OT?

Chances of this going to court are slim. The ex gets to leverage this guys obvious over-abundance of guilt against him and exclaim to the world how bad a dad he is by choosing to give up 50/50 with the kids for work. Yeah, money is tight. But there are ways of consolidating or consumer proposals if he is that far gone. His ex also gets to use this against him with the kids by telling them that dad gave up time with them for money, all the while collecting more in c/s.

But yeah, if it goes to court he is likely to "win". I feel sorry for his children.

yes obviously everyone feels sorry for the children...im not seeking support OR resentment...just advice thanks. Again I could sit here and write pages and pages of what has happend in this situation to give everyone a more 'clear' picture, however I dont have the time to persue that. So i gave a generalized idea and I appreciate the responses even though I do disagree with them because I personally know the WHOLE situation. But again thanks for the input

[thebackbone]

Sure the courts would as the new schedule would likely be deemed in the best interests of the kids.

Unfortunately dad seems to continuing his trend of bad decision making. He made bad decisions during his divorce and is now making even worse ones.

He made a a bad decision to move further away from the kids. Yeah, rent was higher. But you find as decent a place as you can afford and stay close to the kids.

Stopping the 50/50 effectively relegates himself to a visitor in his kids lives. We have parents on here that are fighting tooth and nail to get 50/50 and this guy is giving it up because of distances and OT? Does he not have any family/friends that can help look after the kids when he has to work OT?

Chances of this going to court are slim. The ex gets to leverage this guys obvious over-abundance of guilt against him and exclaim to the world how bad a dad he is by choosing to give up 50/50 with the kids for work. Yeah, money is tight. But there are ways of consolidating or consumer proposals if he is that far gone. His ex also gets to use this against him with the kids by telling them that dad gave up time with them for money, all the while collecting more in c/s.

But yeah, if it goes to court he is likely to "win". I feel sorry for his children.

He did find as decent of place as he could afford and it ended up being 45 minutes away

[arabian]

sounds like another case of Dad moving to set up new house with g/f. His need to be close to kids was second priority. Very sad. I agree with Rioe - move back and try to undo some of the bad mistakes. Sometimes in life we have to sacrifice things for our children. That's part of being a parent.

[thebackbone]

sounds like another case of Dad moving to set up new house with g/f. His need to be close to kids was second priority. Very sad. I agree with Rioe - move back and try to undo some of the bad mistakes. Sometimes in life we have to sacrifice things for our children. That's part of being a parent.

actually he is single living on his own.

[arabian]

I apologize and stand corrected. Hope he does find the best solution for his children.

[Rioe]

You seem so defensive that you aren't listening to what people are telling you. There are solutions out there.

Let me see if I have this timeline figured out.

They get married, they have kids, the marriage is suffering, they try to fix it by going heavily into debt. Then they break up. He takes on the bulk of the debt, they do 50-50 custody with offset CS, and it works fine for over three years. Sounds like there was some iniquity to the money part of the agreement, but we don't know the details. He was either unreasonble and lost in court, to be paying her legal fees, or he voluntarily accepted unfair equalization out of nice-guy syndrome or something. Either way, he dug that hole himself, and why should his children suffer while he digs out again?

Now suddenly he's working lots of overtime and doesn't see his kids much so he figures the best thing to do is foist them back onto their mother. That doesn't work out so well, and the mother wants to go back to the 50-50 arrangement. Somewhere in there, he moved away from the town the kids live in, so returning to 50-50 is no longer feasible.

Now you're asking what would happen in court if he tried to request that EoW be the new custody arrangement when the mother isn't asking for it. She wants 50-50, which is in the best interests of the children, he wants EoW, which is not. The judge is going to see a man who is trying hard to pay down his debts. The judge is going to see a man who doesn't want his kids. A judge may very well order that he return to town and resume 50-50. And you know what happens when neither parent wants the children? CAS gets involved.

Why did he change what worked well for the kids for over three years? Why not keep renting in their town and use the down payment money to pay off the debt instead of moving away to buy a house elsewhere?

On top of this, she's badmouthing him to the kids and alienating them from him? You know what the best way to fight this behaviour is? 50-50 custody! He already has that, and if he gives it up now, what's going to happen is that pretty soon the kids won't want to visit even on his weekend, and then eventually they'll be old enough to choose to never see him again. And no court order can undo that once he's paid off the debts and wants 50-50 again.

The children are suffering because they have a father more interested in money than in spending time with them. The children are suffering because they have a mother who is denigrating their father. The best interests of the children is to have two parents equally involved in their lives. He is responsible for those children, 50-50 by legal agreement, and he can't just escape that responsibility by moving out of town and expecting the mother to pick up the slack.

[FaithandMorals]

^ Well said Rioe!