You are here

DENIED!!! Now please let this be over!!

hangingbyathread6's picture

Submitted by hangingbyathread6 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 10:36am

Just left the courthouse for custody modification threshold hearing with my exH.

After testimony, the judge felt exH did meet the threshold but after asking his attorney if there wa any other evidence other than what he presented today and his attorney stating no there was not and the judge asking me if I was willing to have the decision made today and my response being, "No I am not comfortable with deciding a major impact on my children's lives when my understanding was this is a threshold hearing. If we are to decide custody I would like the opportunity to obtain counsel myself and to have my children evaluated by a profession for their feeling on the matter without having to tell "mom or dad" and worry about hurting anyone's feelings and to evaluate if this would have a negative impact on the children." The judge said, "well I'm going to deny your request, but that's not a bad thing for you. (as he turns to exH and his attorney) although I do feel you have made the minimum requirements for threshold without preponderance of evidence stating otherwise, there would be no reason to hold an additional hearing. I am going to deny a change in custody and write up an order that things will stay as they are. There is a special need regarding one of the children and based upon both your clients testimony and hanging's testimony there is one parent who has been the primary responsible party for the care, travel and arrangements regarding that child. And that alone is enough for me to state that there is not a valid reason to change these children's live."

So it is settled...and now please douchebag exH...leave us alone. Just live your life, enjoy the time you have with your children, and let's stop all this bullshit. Please. A girl can hope right?

Comments

wth was I thinking's picture

Submitted by wth was I thinking on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 10:55am

I'm with you. When DH went to mediation, they automatically defaulted to EOWE, even though he wanted 50/50, because BM started crying. There was no reason whatsoever to deny his 50/50, which I think should always be the jumping off point, but he would have needed to 'prove' some extreme reason why he should have equal time with BM. It makes me very sad as well. At the time we/he had no money to drag it through court, so he let her have it. Now going forward, he would have to prove she was selling her ass for crack on the street corner to hope for a chance at 50/50.

hangingbyathread6's picture

Submitted by hangingbyathread6 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 11:51am

I understand what you are saying...and I am not trying to keep my children from their father, however HE ended the marriage for his married girlfriend, and HE initially chose to live 20 miles away (which isn't really far by most standards) and although I was open to having EOW at the time of divorce I was NOT agreeable to being his unpaid daycare. He wanted to drop the kids off at my house at 6:45 every morning for me to get them to school and then he would pick them up at 7:00 or later each evening to bring them home. I said no...you want EOW then when they are with you they are YOUR responsibility...at that time the commitment of homework, school and extra curricular activities was too much of an inconvenience for his life and therefore he got EOWE and one overnight a week. After 3 1/2 years he was fired from his job of 13 years for letting his professional certificate expire, his new gf obtained employment at a hospital in the town where the children and I have always resided and so he sold his home and is renting a home 6 blocks away from me.

NOW he wants the kids EOW even though he is out of the home in the evening 4 nights a week minimum and they would be with the gf and her kids (which my children and they have personality differences) and he wouldn't see them from morning before school until the following morning on those days. GF doesn't necessarily want my children (she didn't even show up for the hearing today) but she doesn't like that he has to pay CS. So NOW it is more convenient...and gf just got an $8000 boob job, he retained an attorney for this hearing but is $12-1500 BEHIND on CS.

He is a father when it behooves him...not for the tough stuff...and therefore disrupting their lives doesn't seem fair...and it is not something my kids WANT either...

But I do understand what you are saying.

hangingbyathread6's picture

Submitted by hangingbyathread6 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:26pm

No it's not due to his job loss...he took this bartending job and the gf got new boobs...which I could give a shit less about...but my point is why should he get extra time if HE isn't the one physically with the kids spending time with them?? He works the extra to support the gf, completely his choice...but that does warrant him getting additional time...

As for why my marriage ended, it was just as a reference that HE filed for divorce...HE agreed to the custody arrangement back then because having the kids more than that was not CONVENIENT for his lifestyle choices....therefore because you now have a new gf doesn't mean you should get additional time. When you file for divorce, there are consequences to that...he's living his. He wouldn't see them from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 am the FOLLOWING day....therefore his gf is the caretaker and would be responsible for homework and therapy...why should she a- have to do that, b- not have MOM do that?

Anon2009's picture

Submitted by Anon2009 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 11:11am

I'd agree if one of the kids didn't have a developmental delay.

I don't know this kid, but I do know that for me and my disability/delay, stability was and is essential. I stayed at mom's on weekdays and dads on weekends. This was good so that my weekly routines for school and other things weren't disrupted. If this boy is doing better the way things are, that's what matters. Bouncing back and forth every week and changes in routine would've been harder for me and many others with disabilities to process. It certainly would've had a negative impact on me school-wise.

IMHO if the kids are doing well and thriving, both bio parents should leave the CO and schedule alone. The op said the child is now getting help and doing better.

Anon2009's picture

Submitted by Anon2009 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 11:26am

I don't believe that either. I just don't think the child's routine should automatically be disrupted because of a dispute between mom and dad. I think it depends on the people involved. In my case, my mother was a lot more...equipped and emotionally understanding about my disability. It's not that my dad didn't care, but I had a hard time understanding his way of trying to help me and teach me things.

I don't think kids with disabilities are second class citizens either. That's why I'm saying that if the child is thriving and doing well, leave the current arrangement alone. Let the stability and his improvement continue.

Also, what if the current arrangement is one that the kid likes? Not saying he knows the particulars of it or what's going on between mom and dad (and nor should he) but he may be pleased as pie with the way things are in his life right now. If that's the case, why change the current schede?

Anon2009's picture

Submitted by Anon2009 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 11:32am

No I don't...and neither does anyone else here. But the judge might. And while a lot of judges aren't worth their salaries, we don't know that this one hasn't ruled in favor of other bio dads.

Anon2009's picture

Submitted by Anon2009 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 11:43am

Sorry, my thought came out all wrong. Still not fully awake yet Smile there was no judge involved in my case growing up...hope I didn't give that impression.

And I do agree about the status quo in many ways...how many times are bms just blatantly neglectful and they still keep their kids? But it doesn't sound like the op is neglectful in any way.

Anon2009's picture

Submitted by Anon2009 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 11:47am

Agreed...I don't get why he postponed putting the kids on insurance. Or why he lied to the kids about his job.

Anon2009's picture

Submitted by Anon2009 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:06pm

Agreed...how many times has a bm wanted to relocate to be with "the love of her life" and it automatically gets shot down here? That shouldn't be the most sufficient reason for moving...for anyone. I also went back and read through the OP's blogs. If what she's saying is true, it sounds like the kids are truly better off with the way things are.

Anon2009's picture

Submitted by Anon2009 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:14pm

I thought that was what someone suggested to her...perhaps she decided not to or the ex refused, like you say.

IMHO a better time for him to have pursued this would've been when he was employed, so he would've had a little more money to assist him in paying for legal costs. I think it's great when parents want time with their kids. I just think that if that was what this guy truly wanted, and barring some circumstance we don't know of, he would've sought it much earlier. Prior to the relocation(s) he's done.

It was hard for me to come away with any other conclusion than his being unable to afford his current cs amount, hence his going for 50/50.

hangingbyathread6's picture

Submitted by hangingbyathread6 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:29pm

I requested to meet with exH to discuss this...he did not respond and would not agree to meet up and come up with an amicable solution. His attorney asked if we could solve this amicably in court prior to starting this morning...my response was I made an attempt, and your client did not bother to respond, so now I am here, missing work, so we'll go through with the hearing.

moeilijk's picture

Submitted by moeilijk on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 11:55am

Based on the OP's recent blogs, the x-H was wanting more custody time to reduce CS. During his custody time, he works (evenings). He lied to the court and the OP saying that he quit that job, but the OP has proof (unsolicited) that he still works evenings. During the evenings, one of the kids with a disability needs therapy. Because x-H hasn't spent the time to learn how to do the therapy, it either doesn't happen or the other kid has to do it. If x-H gets more custody time, the other kid will have to do it because x-H will be working. This made the OP uncomfortable because it's not the older kid's job to be the parent.

So yes, there's no reason why dad's shouldn't get more time with their kids... unless they don't actually intend to be present or to care for their kids while the kids are in their custody.

**Unless I have the OP mixed up with someone else!**

hangingbyathread6's picture

Submitted by hangingbyathread6 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:31pm

Nope, you got me right...thanks for the support.

AllySkoo's picture

Submitted by AllySkoo on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:16pm

Even as a smom I think I'm happy your case ended up this way. Sounds like your exH was planning to use his GF as the "free nanny with benefits" if he got 50/50.

I can see previous posters' point about it being good for dads to get more time, but from looking at your previous blogs I'd say it was probably NOT in their best interests in your case. The ONLY person it would have benefited is exH - I doubt even his GF would have been thrilled if he got 50/50.

hangingbyathread6's picture

Submitted by hangingbyathread6 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:21pm

I understand everybody's concern regarding being biased against dad...I really do. However, I offered to do 50/50 in the beginning, just not at the expense of being his unpaid daycare so he could collect the kids when it was convenient...being a parent is not usually convenienent. He also regularly does not utilize the parenting time he currently has. Lastly, why should they be at dad's house to spend the majority of the time with the newest live in girlfriend and her four kids instead of with their own mother? He wasn't obtaining more "time" just more overnights...to reduce support.

I offered to have a conversation with him two weeks ago, he never responded to my offer. I have been MORE than accommodating, and he even stated that in court.

As for my son's disability...he has weekly therapy 100 miles away from our home, exH has taken him TWICE...because he "can't afford it...has something going on...etc" I do home therapy five days a week...exH has my older daughter do the therapy on the weekends the kids are there...because he is either busy doing something else or not at home because he is working, working out, coaching HS football as a volunteer...

ExH sold the house AFTER he lost his job. He lost his job because he didn't keep up on his requirements to keep it...he was tenured...his job gave him a full year to rectify the issue...he didn't do it and lost his job. It's completely his own fault...he has no one to blame but himself, he tried to hide it and he was the one covering the children with insurance and therefore getting a lower CS payment and I only found out because claims for my son's therapy were denied. Luckily I was able to secure them insurance and have it retroactivated.

My DH is primary custodian of his sons, and the BM got denied two weeks ago...for similar reasons...and although I'm taking no offense to any of the above comments, nobody defended BM and that she should get extra time with her sons....

hangingbyathread6's picture

Submitted by hangingbyathread6 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:34pm

You are out of line...and if you actually read the blogs and read what I write you would see that it was posted in prior blogs that therapy is 200 miles ROUND TRIP...which is 100 miles FROM my home.

Uncalled for calling me a liar. Not bitter about my divorce at all...

The only one who seems to be bitter here...is you...just sayin'

AllySkoo's picture

Submitted by AllySkoo on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:41pm

Yeeeeeah. No details (plural? really?) changed - you just misread one. I think you're reading more into this than there is based on your own biases. If you want to argue that ALL fathers deserve 50/50 I'm up for that discussion, but I don't think it's particularly fair to say that you know that this PARTICULAR father is somehow getting screwed over. Not like you know them, after all.

hangingbyathread6's picture

Submitted by hangingbyathread6 on Fri, 10/17/2014 - 12:48pm

Okay...details...which are FACTS and therefore NOT hard to keep straight LadyFace...

1.- My son has a medically diagnosed developmental delay which requires therapy and special education services at his school

2- the therapy is 100 miles away from my home...which is 200 miles ROUND TRIP

3- I was willing to lower exH CS in exchange to leave things the way the are so that my children (especially my son) would not be disrupted. Because my wanting the custody to stay how it is has NOTHING to do with MONEY from MY stand point...not so much from my exH's stand point...to which he even admitted in the FOC office during mediation a month ago.

4- exH had TWO jobs...one a professional job he lost due to his own actions (or rather lack thereof) and a night job which kept him from his home from about 4:00 pm to 11:00 pm- 12:00 am

5- my exH has not done the therapy with my child, my exH has my daughter do it or it doesn't get done. I have met with the school for the last two years, my exH just wanted to have our son held back

6- he wants gf to do the parenting while he is NOT there, yet she doesn't even show up for the hearing, when the outcome affects her. Also, in the same way that any BF out there should have ROFR if BM isn't going to be with the kids, why should my exH's gf get time with our kids, when I am available and want them with me?

7- He doesn't utilize his time currently. He gets EOW in the summer...and chose to forfeit two weeks and his holiday for the last two years to travel abroad instead of planning things when he doesn't have the kids. Which is just ONE example...the number of weekends he forfeits in the school year for his own pleasure are on top of this...

8- He CHOSE to move 20 miles away and then stated that was too far for him to be traveling each day to bring the kids to school and to their activities without having the ability to drop them off at my home for me to do the free child care...it's 20 miles...it's not unreasonable, and he didn't have to choose to move there. I tried to explain WHY he should NOT move there and the benefits for HIM and the KIDS if he chose to stay closer to them.

And actually I'm done explaining myself to you...you have apparently scanned over or skimmed through without actually seeing the whole picture and then have the gall to call me a liar.