hypothetical situation.. :)
kitty
transportation cost each time kids fly to visit NCP? IE x-mas, Spring Break
and Summer?
papers are very ambiguous regarding transportation, they just say it is to
be split.. doesn't say for which visitation time..
I know each divorce / break up is different, but what is your view on it?
thanks!
Geri and sometimes Brian
>thanks!
IMO, the person who moves should pay the travel expenses.
~~Geri~~
[Deep behind enemy lines in Pac-10 Country]
The Watsons
"kitty" <pu...@meeooo.com> wrote in message
news:m_Zcc.208360$1p.2356600@attbi_s54...
as even a split as it practical, considering things like plane tickets and
child support...
Jess
Vicki Robinson
>"kitty" <pu...@meeooo.com> wrote in message
>news:m_Zcc.208360$1p.2356600@attbi_s54...
>> If NCP moves out of state, is the CP supposed to pay half of the
>> transportation cost each time kids fly to visit NCP? IE x-mas, Spring
>Break
>> and Summer?
>> papers are very ambiguous regarding transportation, they just say it is to
>> be split.. doesn't say for which visitation time..
>
>as even a split as it practical, considering things like plane tickets and
>child support...
Why should it be split? Especially evenly? If my kids' dad had moved
away from us, then of course he'd be paying *all* of the travel
expenses. Why should I be shelling out big bucks because he decided
to move?
Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton
_calinda_
>> Why should it be split? Especially evenly? If my kids' dad had
moved
> away from us, then of course he'd be paying *all* of the travel
> expenses. Why should I be shelling out big bucks because he
decided
> to move?
>
> Vicki
I agree. My ex moved approx one hour away. It is a hassle for him
to drive up here to get the kids, but it was totally his choice to
move and so he must deal with the transportation issues himself. I
have on two occasions met him half way, and on two other occasions
I have brought the kids close to the highway from my house, to save
him from driving into town. But overall, it's been his choice to
move, so it's his hassle to deal with, not mine.
Whichever parent moves is the one that should be responsible for the
expense and hassles of arranging the transportation.
Cal~
Amy Lou
I think a lot depends on whether or not the NCP offers to pay all costs.
Some CPs would be willing to pay half the costs to ensure that the kids
still get to their NCP.
Amy
kitty
support. Since the divorce 5 years ago, the amount has not changed.
Whatever, that is his problem, but she has tried to tack him with splitting
the plane ticket costs to fly out there for x-mas. His share would be close
to 800.00!!! He said no. She keeps pushing it. She chose to move. He has
been in the same city for over 4 years.
Thanks for the opinions! :)
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:c51ti2$5p5$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
Vicki Robinson
>I agree. My ex moved approx one hour away. It is a hassle for him
>to drive up here to get the kids, but it was totally his choice to
>move and so he must deal with the transportation issues himself. I
>have on two occasions met him half way, and on two other occasions
>I have brought the kids close to the highway from my house, to save
>him from driving into town. But overall, it's been his choice to
>move, so it's his hassle to deal with, not mine.
>
>Whichever parent moves is the one that should be responsible for the
>expense and hassles of arranging the transportation.
My husband drives 5 - 6 hours every other weekend to see his kids, and
has done so for about 9 years. His ex drove them here once, because
she and her SO were passing through town on their way to a vacation.
But otherwise, we've done all the transporting, and it didn't even
occur to us to ask her to share it. DH moved, DH pays that price.
kitty
move. When she lived closer, he would take them to her or meet her half
way... she used to live 2 hours away. Even before she moved, we had picked
them up several times from her house.
"Amy Lou" <amyl...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Qj0dc.2822$8P2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Kathy Cole
> If NCP moves out of state, is the CP supposed to pay half of the
> transportation cost each time kids fly to visit NCP? IE x-mas, Spring
> Break and Summer?
Whoever moved pays is how it's worked here, and that's what I think is
most appropriate.
Melissa
Most of the time I think it should fall to the NCP, but after doing the out of
state thing for years I can make some exceptions such as last minute changes
that the CP wants, missed visitation, etc.
Love,
Melissa
badgirl
and because of that we are looking at dealing with some pretty serious
financial issues. If we move we can solve both problems at once and
the kids won't have to *suffer* for it. We can buy a house for cash
instead of having a mortgage...where we are right now that's not
possible unless we want to live 2 doors down from the nearest crack
dealer. Yes, I know we've been planning this move for awhile now, but
it's no longer a matter of *want* as it is *need* now.
Leaving Tootsie behind is simply NOT an option.
Our proposed arrangement would be that BM (NCP) could pay the travel
expences in leu of CS. Our reasoning behind this is because she is
EXTREMELY unreliable with CS and then at least we could ensure that we
wouldn't get stuck with not only plane tickets but no CS (like usual)
but that during the months that there was no visitation she would
still be responsible for CS. We are moving to an area where travel
from here to there and back is pretty cheap ($79 each way pretty much
year round) and it works out that plane tickets would be a little bit
less than her CS obligation.
We have 2 different schedules we were thinking about proposing,
I'm not sure which one we'll use, it depends on what the lawyer says..
First Visitation Schedule:
Once a month from Friday first plane after school until Sunday closest
flight to 9 p.m. during the school year, extended from Thursday (noon)
to Monday (9 p.m.) during the summer months
2 weeks during the summer (all taken at once and skipping the weekend
visit for that month) Then Spring break and one of the X-mas weeks, or
Thanksgiving break and one of the X-mas weeks. With no CS to be paid
at all, plane tickets purchased instead and 14 days in advance of
visit
Second VIsitation Schedule:
No once a month visitation. 4 weeks during the summer (with the
ability to take 2 weeks at a time or all 4 together), spring break,
Thanksgiving break during the even years and TG break during the odd
and one of the X-mas weeks. Either last day of school till Xmas day or
Xmas night (NOT Xmas eve night) to the last day before school starts
back. And let her be responsible for CS during the months she has no
visitation and then during the ones she does have it she can purchase
tickets 14 days in advance.
What do you all think? Neither DH nor I feel she should be responsible
for both CS and travel expences in the same month, that wouldn't be
fair. But since she is so unreliable with the CS in the first place we
also don't think it's fair if we get stuck with travel expences and no
CS at all. We're aware that usually the one doing the moving is
supposed to be the one paying the expences and if we were able to
count on CS each and every month we wouldn't have ANY issue with that
at all.
anyway, at this point I'm ram`````bling LOL ;)
Jen
Geri and sometimes Brian
Why not try to hammer it out with a mediator (cheaper than an attorney, I
think).
badgirl
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
news:20040407213715...@mb-m22.aol.com...
I think we're headed in that direction anyway over the visitation
issue in the first place. Problem is, BM is a PITA and will fight
this. Not because she gives a flying shit, but because my FIL will get
on her backside about us taking his GD away.
We can try it through mediation, I hope it flies, but my question was
pretty much what do you all think of the 2 schedules I proposed and do
you think a judge will go for one or the other?
Jen
The Watsons
> away from us, then of course he'd be paying *all* of the travel
> expenses. Why should I be shelling out big bucks because he decided
> to move?
what difference does it make if he moved? visitation still has to happen,
and it's still both of ya'lls responsibility to make sure it happens...
Jess
jane
>away from us, then of course he'd be paying *all* of the travel
>expenses. Why should I be shelling out big bucks because he decided
>to move?
>
>Vicki
Well, it depends why he moved.
jane
rebecca
"badgirl" <chgobadgi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aT1dc.212534$_w.2022328@attbi_s53...
> We have 2 different schedules we were thinking about proposing,
> I'm not sure which one we'll use, it depends on what the lawyer says..
Jen,
I thought the first would be better - your SD is young, isn't that right?
The first one gives her more consistent contact over the year, instead of a
big batch all at once once a year. Does that make sense?
I would also include in your proposal letter and phone contact provisions,
including who pays for the phone calls. Oh, and something about extra
visits if BM comes to you, I've seen people allow a second weekend during
the month if the NCP travels to where the child is and gives 3-5 days
notice. That's nice, I think, encouraging the NCP to get involved in the
child's local life. But make it clear that BM pays her own travel expenses,
I guess, if she's likely to be a PITA about it.
What state are you in? Move aways are a bitch to litigate if she really
pulls the stops to fight.
rebecca
Kathy Cole
<chgobadgi...@comcast.net> wrote:
> We have 2 different schedules we were thinking about proposing,
> I'm not sure which one we'll use, it depends on what the lawyer says..
Is there a reason you're keeping the summer break so short? With our
out of state kid, mom gets Dec 26th to the day before school comes back,
both week-long school breaks and all but two weeks of summer. When my
husband first came here and mom had my SD for the school year, we had
those same times, plus Thanksgiving weekend and a weekend a month, since
we lived closer and the flight was more achievable. (This is a joint
physical custody situation, which I know isn't what you've got.)
I think you guys should pay the flights and she should pay CS.
Vicki Robinson
It's my responsibility to facilitate visitation, not to financially
support his decision to move. As Jane said, I would consider his
reason for moving, but it would have to be pretty good for me to say
"Oh, sure, I'll pay an extra $1000 a year in air fares! No problem!
Have fun! Hope you get a nice house!"
When my husband moved, he automatically figured in the cost and effort
of seeing his kids (not expecting his ex to pick up any of that). His
ex was expected to have the kids ready to go when he got there, that
was her contribution, just as it was when he lived in town.
Anne Robotti
Well, but it really doesn't. What it depends on more than anything is
the ability and willingness of the person who *didn't* move to shell
out the money. If they're able and willing, great. If they're not
willing or not able, then it's on the person who moved.
As long as the person who moved is the NCP of course. If the person
who moved is the CP, then as usual they're in the driver's seat and if
you want to ever see your kid you'll suck it up and pay "your half" of
somebody else's expense that you had no say in incurring. If not all
of it, I've seen that too. It's just part of the NCP "well, I'm
fucked, let me run to the bank" shuffle.
Anne
badgirl
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%m4dc.887$k05...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "badgirl" <chgobadgi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:aT1dc.212534$_w.2022328@attbi_s53...
> > We have 2 different schedules we were thinking about
proposing,
> > I'm not sure which one we'll use, it depends on what the lawyer
says..
>
> Jen,
> I thought the first would be better - your SD is young, isn't that
right?
> The first one gives her more consistent contact over the year,
instead of a
> big batch all at once once a year. Does that make sense?
She's not *that* young, she'll be 13 in a month.
>
> I would also include in your proposal letter and phone contact
provisions,
> including who pays for the phone calls.
I meant to include that ;) We were thinking 2 nights a week for an
hour each and she could pay for one day and we could pay for the
other.
Oh, and something about extra
> visits if BM comes to you, I've seen people allow a second weekend
during
> the month if the NCP travels to where the child is and gives 3-5
days
> notice.
I was gonna include that too, 48 hours notice for a 24 hour visit.
Forgot about both of them.
In either case she'll be getting WAY more visitation than she's
getting now because Tootsie had an order of protection from her and
refused one visit and BM hasn't bothered to show up since October. But
according to her and her atty it's all DH's fault. Whatever yano?
That's nice, I think, encouraging the NCP to get involved in the
> child's local life. But make it clear that BM pays her own travel
expenses,
> I guess, if she's likely to be a PITA about it.
>
> What state are you in? Move aways are a bitch to litigate if she
really
> pulls the stops to fight.
>
> rebecca
>
>
That's my main worry. She won't be a pain for her own interests. My
FIL has been on her case about visitation so she's drug us back into
court and it looks like it's going to get ugly.
Jen
badgirl
"Kathy Cole" <ka...@scconsult.com> wrote in message
news:geaa7050iumcp6smi...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:26:31 GMT, "badgirl"
> <chgobadgi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > We have 2 different schedules we were thinking about
proposing,
> > I'm not sure which one we'll use, it depends on what the lawyer
says..
>
> Is there a reason you're keeping the summer break so short?
Yep, Tootsie doesn't want to go *at all* so we're figuring something
is better than nothing.
With our
> out of state kid, mom gets Dec 26th to the day before school comes
back,
> both week-long school breaks and all but two weeks of summer. When
my
> husband first came here and mom had my SD for the school year, we
had
> those same times, plus Thanksgiving weekend and a weekend a month,
since
> we lived closer and the flight was more achievable. (This is a
joint
> physical custody situation, which I know isn't what you've got.)
>
Ours is a joint custody situation with DH having physical custody and
BM having a visitation schedule. In the agreement she doesn't really
have anything more than fancy wording though. DH doesn't have many
rights in it either. The attys when it was worked out were both
incompetent and neither DH nor BM got much more than a piece of paper
they could fight about for years to come. We're working on changing it
though.
> I think you guys should pay the flights and she should pay CS.
Well, we would but she hasn't been consistent with CS and there is no
way to force her to do it especially long distance, so we're more
comfortable letting her pay the flights...if she's *really* interested
in visitation she'll have those tickets in the mail KWIM? We're pretty
much banking on it falling off after a few months. She really hates to
spend money. When she made the comment "I'm gonna pick her up if I
have to pay CS" in a really nasty tone we knew that the money was more
important than Steph.
Jen
_calinda_
> She's not *that* young, she'll be 13 in a month.
>> I would also include in your proposal letter and phone contact
>> provisions, including who pays for the phone calls.
>
> I meant to include that ;) We were thinking 2 nights a week for an
> hour each and she could pay for one day and we could pay for the
> other.
Jen, I was tempted to just say to say "good luck with that one,
honey" in getting a 13 y/o willing to talk to their other parent for
two hours a week on the phone. But rather than be sarcastic, I
thought I'd try to be more helpful than that. The truth is though,
that most teens are busy with their own lives and if they are tied
down to having to call a parent on certain days, at a prescribed
time, they will balk almost certainly.
At 13, she's nearly at an age, where a cell phone could be extremely
useful for you as well as for this problem. I completely resented
being forced to purchase cells for my kids, but boy are they
wonderful and I'm glad they have them. Most cell plans now have
free nights/weekend with free long distance.
Some even have free calls to anyone that has the same company
regardless of the time of day. For instance, whenever my SO talk to
each other, there are no fees, no minutes used up, because we're
both on verizon. Or she could call any time that falls within the
free time frame. This usually includes free long distance.
It might be worth it to consider anyway. Recently my son was riding
in a car that had a blow out, and thankfully he had his cell and
they were able to get help. I'd hate to think of them not being
able to do so. At 13 she's going to be starting to branch out a bit
in the world and having a cell is something of a safety measure
nowadays.
> Oh, and something about extra
>> visits if BM comes to you, I've seen people allow a second
weekend
>> during the month if the NCP travels to where the child is and
gives
>> 3-5 days notice.
>
> I was gonna include that too, 48 hours notice for a 24 hour visit.
Ack.. 48 hours? What if you have made plans in advance of that 48
hours and she calls up to schedule a visit? And then she can
insist you change your plans because that is in the agreement.
Personally, 48 hours notice is no notice at all, as far as I'm
concerned. I'd want at *least* a week.
> Forgot about both of them.
> In either case she'll be getting WAY more visitation than she's
> getting now because Tootsie had an order of protection from her
and
> refused one visit and BM hasn't bothered to show up since October.
But
> according to her and her atty it's all DH's fault. Whatever yano?
I'm sorry, you have an order of protection against this person and
now she'll be going on visits? What's changed? I guess I'm just a
bit confused, sorry.
Cal~
badgirl
"_calinda_" <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53lhm$2fboan$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Forgot about both of them.
> > In either case she'll be getting WAY more visitation than she's
> > getting now because Tootsie had an order of protection from her
> and
> > refused one visit and BM hasn't bothered to show up since October.
> But
> > according to her and her atty it's all DH's fault. Whatever yano?
>
> I'm sorry, you have an order of protection against this person and
> now she'll be going on visits? What's changed? I guess I'm just a
> bit confused, sorry.
> Cal~
>
>
I'll address this one thing now and the rest later...
Yes, in October we got an order of protection against Steph's BM for
some pretty extreme behavior. However the judge in his *cough*
infinite wisdom made it PERFECTLY clear that the OOP only covered the
behaviors and did NOT bar visitation. The VERY FIRST time BM came to
pick Steph up after that she refused to get in the car and BM engaged
in the same kind of behavior that got the OOP granted in the first
place. The police were called, they threatened BM with jail time and
suggested she go away until the next time, she never came back. The
next thing we heard was from the police calling to say BM wanted a
police report and could he talk to DH and Steph so he could give it to
her and let her be on her merry way (apparently she went in with an
attitude LOL) After speaking to Stephanie he told us and BM that he
would not enforce the visitation order with physical force and Steph
said she wouldn't go unless she was *put* in the car. I guess the
judge doesn't like that because Monday he granted BM the rule to show
cause order and it's set for hearing in June. Nevermind the RTSC order
we filed for CS.
Anyway, I gotta run out the door but I'll answer the rest of the post
later.
Jen
Deborah M Riel
_calinda_ <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jen, I was tempted to just say to say "good luck with that one,
>honey" in getting a 13 y/o willing to talk to their other parent for
>two hours a week on the phone. But rather than be sarcastic, I
>thought I'd try to be more helpful than that. The truth is though,
>that most teens are busy with their own lives and if they are tied
>down to having to call a parent on certain days, at a prescribed
>time, they will balk almost certainly.
>
>At 13, she's nearly at an age, where a cell phone could be extremely
>useful for you as well as for this problem. I completely resented
>being forced to purchase cells for my kids, but boy are they
>wonderful and I'm glad they have them. Most cell plans now have
>free nights/weekend with free long distance.
>
>Some even have free calls to anyone that has the same company
>regardless of the time of day. For instance, whenever my SO talk to
>each other, there are no fees, no minutes used up, because we're
>both on verizon. Or she could call any time that falls within the
>free time frame. This usually includes free long distance.
>
>It might be worth it to consider anyway. Recently my son was riding
>in a car that had a blow out, and thankfully he had his cell and
>they were able to get help. I'd hate to think of them not being
>able to do so. At 13 she's going to be starting to branch out a bit
>in the world and having a cell is something of a safety measure
>nowadays.
>
I second this, and I thought I'd mention that there are other kinds of
phone plans out there that make it so cheap to call long distance that
cost wouldn't even matter. USA Datanet is one of them. You can make
a long distance call for $1.99 and talk for as long as you want. You
could leave the call open for a week and it still would only cost
$1.99. Look into this, and see if it covers your area. It's free to
set it up on your phone.
AT&T has a phone plan (this is what I just got) that covers all local
(unlimited), long distance peak hours at 7 cents/minute, and long distance
nights and weekends are unlimited from your home phone. The plan also
includes a cell phone with 200 anytime minutes per month and unlimited
nights and weekend minutes. Included are 2 features on your home
phone (I took caller ID and call waiting). This costs $59.95/month
plus tax. It's called the AT&T One Plan.
I took this because I wanted my son to have a cell phone with him all
the time. I tried a pay as you go plan with him, but it wasn't
working well. With this plan, he pays $20/month towards the total
phone bill, and he gets to keep the cell phone with those minutes. It
worked out a lot better for him than paying for cards on his other
cell phone.
Phone calls don't even have to be a point of (financial)
consideration. Why even bring up the cost when these kinds of options
are available?
Deb R.
The Watsons
"_calinda_" <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53lhm$2fboan$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> hours and she calls up to schedule a visit? And then she can
> insist you change your plans because that is in the agreement.
> Personally, 48 hours notice is no notice at all, as far as I'm
> concerned. I'd want at *least* a week.
>
especially for a long distance visit; i'd ask for at least two, because any
shorter than that and getting a flight is a major PITA...
Jess
_calinda_
Well, in this particular case, it would be the BM having to make the
flight plans, since she was talking about if the BM was in town or
coming to town. So, travel plans aren't a consideration here. I
can easily see a PITA parent (such as my ex) making plans plenty in
advance but only calling 48 hours ahead of time to warn us, and then
insist on visitation as it's the legal agreement that he only had to
give 48 hours notice. *Easily* see that happening in some cases.
I can tell you that if my two had to drop their plans with only 48
hours notice, they'd be *pissed*. In any case, as she gets older,
and more involved in other activities, there will be times when she
*can't* change plans with that little time. My son's work requires
a two week notice minimum to guarantee a day off.
Cal~
jane
>
>Well, but it really doesn't. What it depends on more than anything is
>the ability and willingness of the person who *didn't* move to shell
>out the money. If they're able and willing, great. If they're not
>willing or not able, then it's on the person who moved.
Oh, good. Things have been slow here, and I don't think we've had a good fight
about this subject in years.
We all know I moved. 3000 miles. What I'm not sure we've discussed is that my
ex pays all transportation for Lee.
We didn't decide that as a policy matter. But their visitation was their
business. I didn't want to be fighting with my ex about it. He has a life;
the dates and arrival times should suit him. I can't read his mind, and I
don't maintain his calendar. So he had to make the arrangements. I don't care
if he makes plans 6 months in advance and pays $200 or the day before and pays
$1200. I don't even know.
jane
>Anne
badgirl
"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040408122046...@mb-m28.aol.com...
I don't see it as needing to be a fight though <g>
Everyone's circumstances are different right? In our situation we are
considering letting BM off CS obligation so she can pay for plane
tickets instead. We are the CP's and she is the NCP, technically since
there are no moving stipulations in our parenting agreement anywhere,
we can just pick up and move and tell her TFB deal. But we aren't.
we're trying to work it out as fairly as possible. Problem is, neither
DH nor myself think the judge is going to go for it (based on his
ruling in favor of her rule to show cause Monday, maybe we're just
over worried I dunno)
Ideal situation for us would be for BM to relinquish her parental
rights and we can let her off CS and everyone is happy including my
daughter who is sick and tired of being treated like shit by BM. My
FIL of course thinks it's his business and has something to say and
it's my gut feeling that he is the one footing the bill for the
slimeball atty (and he even looks like a slimeball) she has. We know
she didn't pay for it based on where his offices are...there is NO way
she could afford him.
Jen
Vicki Robinson
>FIL of course thinks it's his business and has something to say and
>it's my gut feeling that he is the one footing the bill for the
>slimeball atty (and he even looks like a slimeball) she has. We know
>she didn't pay for it based on where his offices are...there is NO way
>she could afford him.
I'm curious as to why your FIL decided to back biomom's dog in this
fight.
badgirl
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:c540f6$4e2$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, "badgirl" <chgobadgi...@comcast.net>
said:
>
> >FIL of course thinks it's his business and has something to say and
> >it's my gut feeling that he is the one footing the bill for the
> >slimeball atty (and he even looks like a slimeball) she has. We
know
> >she didn't pay for it based on where his offices are...there is NO
way
> >she could afford him.
>
> I'm curious as to why your FIL decided to back biomom's dog in this
> fight.
>
> Vicki
> --
Because he's a jackass and knows that neither DH nor I are going to
give in to his bullshit so he gives BM money (to pay her atty) to get
his way. He can have his cake and eat it too, he doesn't have to be
nice to BM directly, just pay for her atty and he can have Steph
anytime he wants when she is in BM's custody. Matter of fact, it works
out better for BM because then she isn't saddled with the
responsibility of a kid (she doesn't give a shit about) on her time
and she can go out and drink and party all she wants too on *her
weekends*. It wouldn't suprise me one tiny bit if he was giving her
extra for her time as well.
Because he hates me with every core of his being and will do anything
to not have to ask me for jack, including time with his grand
daughter. Not that it would take much, we aren't asking him to suck up
and be sociable, just mildly pleasant and well behaved.
Because the day I married his son he showed up to my wedding only long
enough to ask for Steph, and when we told him no, we had plans he left
in a huffy pissfit.
Because he wants to do anything he can to make *my* life hell and this
is one of the ways he can do it. We aren't friends in any sense of the
word, my heart wouldn't break if he dropped off the face of the
planet. Last week when his wife called child protective services on me
and my 14YO son for *abusing Stephanie and the baby* my opinion of him
and anyone related to him in any way (including friendship) became the
equivalent of dogshit. They used to pull that crap frequently when
Steph was little and now they're back at it again. It was bullshit
then and it's bullshit this time too. The DCFS worker recommended the
record be retained as a maliciously false report in case they call
again. I've had many of them apologize to me for wasting my time and
sorry for having to come out, it was their job afterall.
He knows I hate him to the core and he will do anything he can to take
Stephanie away from me...not DH, me. He knows she is my light and
that's the way to break my heart. He doesn't even consider the
consequences of his actions...that Steph will hate him too if he is
successful. It's *that* important to him to make me upset that he
doesn't care how she will feel in the process. It's sickening and it's
sad and I wish I could wrap a shield around her and protect her from
all of it. I stay in this marriage because of her, I put up with all
this bullshit in my life because of her...I will not walk away. I love
her and would give her the world if it were mine to give.
Jen
*tired of it all today*
badgirl
"_calinda_" <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53lhm$2fboan$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> badgirl wrote:
> > She's not *that* young, she'll be 13 in a month.
>
> >> I would also include in your proposal letter and phone contact
> >> provisions, including who pays for the phone calls.
> >
> > I meant to include that ;) We were thinking 2 nights a week for an
> > hour each and she could pay for one day and we could pay for the
> > other.
>
> Jen, I was tempted to just say to say "good luck with that one,
> honey" in getting a 13 y/o willing to talk to their other parent for
> two hours a week on the phone.
Oh, I know it. We're having problems getting her to agree to go on
visits with BM right now. Not because she has too much of a social
life but because it's a bad scene over there.
We did tell her she HAS to go to my MIL's house (who is no longer
married to my FIL btw) for at least supervised visitation starting
this saturday though. One of two things will happen...either BM will
be her usual ignorant self and we'll just have one more witness on our
side (MIL is pretty neutral at this point) or BM will behave and work
it out with Steph and all will be right again. Whichever happens I
hope that Steph is happy.
But rather than be sarcastic, I
> thought I'd try to be more helpful than that. The truth is though,
> that most teens are busy with their own lives and if they are tied
> down to having to call a parent on certain days, at a prescribed
> time, they will balk almost certainly.
She is (still) pretty compliant. If we told her *be here for your
phone call* she would be. I don't know how long that's gonna last
though <g>
>
> At 13, she's nearly at an age, where a cell phone could be extremely
> useful for you as well as for this problem. I completely resented
> being forced to purchase cells for my kids, but boy are they
> wonderful and I'm glad they have them. Most cell plans now have
> free nights/weekend with free long distance.
I considered this for her anyway. I'd like both my big kids to have
one for emergencies anyway. I just can't afford it right now. DH was
on disability pay after his knee injury and we're still playing catch
up from that. But it is something to consider offering to the court
anyway.
>
<snip>
> > Oh, and something about extra
> >> visits if BM comes to you, I've seen people allow a second
> weekend
> >> during the month if the NCP travels to where the child is and
> gives
> >> 3-5 days notice.
> >
> > I was gonna include that too, 48 hours notice for a 24 hour visit.
>
> Ack.. 48 hours? What if you have made plans in advance of that 48
> hours and she calls up to schedule a visit? And then she can
> insist you change your plans because that is in the agreement.
> Personally, 48 hours notice is no notice at all, as far as I'm
> concerned. I'd want at *least* a week.
Good idea. Thanks for mentioning it. I didn't want to extend it too
far out because like I said before, we want to try to be as fair as
possible...even if BM can't. Just because she wants to be wrong
doesn't mean we have to as well.
> Cal~
>
>
Jen
Lee Adams
_calinda_ wrote:
>
> I can tell you that if my two had to drop their plans with only 48
> hours notice, they'd be *pissed*.
Yup. My (NC) SD15 is often royally pissed at her mother for just this
reason. Her mother is the keeper of the family calendar, keeps the
calendar in her bedroom so the kids can't check it (kids aren't allowed
in her/husband's room). SD has asked her mother on many occasions to let
her know further in advance what family plans are so that she can plan
around them, but BM still doesn't do so, and SD often is put in the
position of having to give up plans she'd made with friends. I don't
know if BM does this on purpose, or if she's just busy and forgetful,
but I do know that it really bugs my SD. And I also know that if it were
me and DH, we'd be making some effort to find a way to work it so SD
knows what's upcoming. Like maybe keep the calendar in the kitchen? ;->
Lee
>
> Cal~
>
>
>
Melissa
Count me in as a third. The best present we ever bought SD was a cell phone.
It gave both of her parents (and me) peace of mind about her driving, and
allows her to call SO whenever she wants for no charge.
Love,
Melissa
Melissa
>We all know I moved. 3000 miles. What I'm not sure we've discussed is that
>my
>ex pays all transportation for Lee.
>
>We didn't decide that as a policy matter. But their visitation was their
>business. I didn't want to be fighting with my ex about it. He has a life;
>the dates and arrival times should suit him. I can't read his mind, and I
>don't maintain his calendar. So he had to make the arrangements. I don't
>care
>if he makes plans 6 months in advance and pays $200 or the day before and
>pays
>$1200. I don't even know.
>
>jane
Actually I was thinking of you in regards to this.
Love,
Melissa
The Watsons
"Deborah M Riel" <dr...@wpi.edu> wrote in message
news:c53o3m$2va$1...@bigboote.WPI.EDU...
> AT&T has a phone plan (this is what I just got) that covers all local
> (unlimited), long distance peak hours at 7 cents/minute, and long distance
> nights and weekends are unlimited from your home phone. The plan also
> includes a cell phone with 200 anytime minutes per month and unlimited
> nights and weekend minutes. Included are 2 features on your home
> phone (I took caller ID and call waiting). This costs $59.95/month
> plus tax. It's called the AT&T One Plan.
i'm on mci's neighborhood plan, and i also know they have a very similar
plan where they offer 200 minutes for 29.95, and you still get all the
features (voicemail, caller id, three way, anony call reject, etc)....
> I took this because I wanted my son to have a cell phone with him all
> the time. I tried a pay as you go plan with him, but it wasn't
> working well. With this plan, he pays $20/month towards the total
> phone bill, and he gets to keep the cell phone with those minutes. It
> worked out a lot better for him than paying for cards on his other
> cell phone.
tmobile out here is pretty good....
> Phone calls don't even have to be a point of (financial)
> consideration. Why even bring up the cost when these kinds of options
> are available?
that, i'll go for...
Jess
The Watsons
> Well, in this particular case, it would be the BM having to make the
> flight plans, since she was talking about if the BM was in town or
> coming to town. So, travel plans aren't a consideration here. I
> can easily see a PITA parent (such as my ex) making plans plenty in
> advance but only calling 48 hours ahead of time to warn us, and then
> insist on visitation as it's the legal agreement that he only had to
> give 48 hours notice. *Easily* see that happening in some cases.
my parents were each ordered to buy a one way plane ticket for my sis (and
that plane ticket was a discount on child support), and i could've seen one
of my parents being a PITA and buying the plane ticket 48hours in advance...
> I can tell you that if my two had to drop their plans with only 48
> hours notice, they'd be *pissed*. In any case, as she gets older,
> and more involved in other activities, there will be times when she
> *can't* change plans with that little time. My son's work requires
> a two week notice minimum to guarantee a day off.
*nods*
Jess
The Watsons
> I agree. My ex moved approx one hour away. It is a hassle for him
> to drive up here to get the kids, but it was totally his choice to
> move and so he must deal with the transportation issues himself. I
> have on two occasions met him half way, and on two other occasions
> I have brought the kids close to the highway from my house, to save
> him from driving into town. But overall, it's been his choice to
> move, so it's his hassle to deal with, not mine.
>
> Whichever parent moves is the one that should be responsible for the
> expense and hassles of arranging the transportation.
i disagree, and so does arizona case law...:)
Jess
The Watsons
> My husband drives 5 - 6 hours every other weekend to see his kids, and
> has done so for about 9 years. His ex drove them here once, because
> she and her SO were passing through town on their way to a vacation.
> But otherwise, we've done all the transporting, and it didn't even
> occur to us to ask her to share it. DH moved, DH pays that price.
it's great that that works for ya'll, but i don't see that as being fair...
Jess
The Watsons
"Anne Robotti" <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote in message
news:bnfa70tm30hmctla6...@4ax.com...
> As long as the person who moved is the NCP of course. If the person
> who moved is the CP, then as usual they're in the driver's seat and if
> you want to ever see your kid you'll suck it up and pay "your half" of
> somebody else's expense that you had no say in incurring. If not all
> of it, I've seen that too. It's just part of the NCP "well, I'm
> fucked, let me run to the bank" shuffle.
and having been on the part of the NCP doing that shuffle, that's
fucked...it doesn't matter who moved, visitation still has to happen, and i
still believe it's up to both sets of parents to encourage that
happening...if that means that the CP gets to take a hit on a CS check once
a month and during significant breaks, then tough titty-deal...
Jess
Geri and sometimes Brian
Sometimes "fair" never enters into the picture.
~~Geri~~
[Deep behind enemy lines in Pac-10 Country]
Geri and sometimes Brian
>> expense and hassles of arranging the transportation.
>
>i disagree, and so does arizona case law...:)
Each state is different, by just out of curiosity, why do you feel that the
person who moves and disrupts the visitation should not have to be the one who
pays for the kid's transportation?
The Watsons
> It's my responsibility to facilitate visitation, not to financially
> support his decision to move. As Jane said, I would consider his
> reason for moving, but it would have to be pretty good for me to say
> "Oh, sure, I'll pay an extra $1000 a year in air fares! No problem!
> Have fun! Hope you get a nice house!"
i said an equal split...if it means you get to pay a grand in air fares, and
he gets to pay a grand in air fares, then yes, that's exactly what that
means...you're not supporting his decision to move, you're supporting the
kids' seeing their father...
> When my husband moved, he automatically figured in the cost and effort
> of seeing his kids (not expecting his ex to pick up any of that). His
> ex was expected to have the kids ready to go when he got there, that
> was her contribution, just as it was when he lived in town.
your husband is a nicer person than i am...i am of the opinion that
visitation gets to happen regardless, and yes, both parents get to split the
burden of making sure it Does happen....after all, while you may pay an
extra grand in airfare over the course of a year, that only comes out to 83
a month-BFD, when you consider that you're probably saving that money while
the kids aren't there and he's incurring that much extra while he has
them...(god, that was a horrible person switch but i'm in a hurry)
and i don't know about there, but here, travel expenses are figured into
child support, especially "extraordinary" expenses-like the cost of plane
tickets...
Jess
Geri and sometimes Brian
Perhaps if it was such a priority to the person doing the moving, that person
might *not* move. Obviously we have made custody a priority or we would have
been long gone from here. If we ever are able to move, I fully expect that we
will pay for SD to come back here for visitation. That *is* fair. Maybe in a
perfect dream world it would be up to both sets of parents to facilitate
visitation, but in the real world, often it doesn't work that way.
heather m.
>
<snipped>
>
> Stephanie away from me...not DH, me. He knows she is my light and
> that's the way to break my heart. He doesn't even consider the
> consequences of his actions...that Steph will hate him too if he is
> successful. It's *that* important to him to make me upset that he
> doesn't care how she will feel in the process. It's sickening and it's
> sad and I wish I could wrap a shield around her and protect her from
> all of it. I stay in this marriage because of her, I put up with all
> this bullshit in my life because of her...I will not walk away. I love
> her and would give her the world if it were mine to give.
>
> Jen
> *tired of it all today*
>
>
Jen, sorry you are going through so much turmoil. Doesn't sound like fun.
But I wanted to ask you something. I could be totally off here, but the way
you center on your step-daughter and talk about her seems weird to me. I've
just never heard someone list so many incredibly important decisions based
on one child solely (in a family with more than one kid). I'm used to
reading things like "the kids are my light" or "I stay in this marriage for
the kids" or "I wish I could sheild them all from everything bad in the
world" etc. What about your boys who are yours biologically? Do they ever
rate as high as your step-daughter seems to? I mean it seems like you're
obsessed with her or something.
Heather
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
news:20040408201113...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> Perhaps if it was such a priority to the person doing the moving, that
person
> might *not* move. Obviously we have made custody a priority or we would
have
> been long gone from here. If we ever are able to move, I fully expect
that we
> will pay for SD to come back here for visitation. That *is* fair. Maybe
in a
> perfect dream world it would be up to both sets of parents to facilitate
> visitation, but in the real world, often it doesn't work that way.
well, i guess i'll be naive and insist on as close to that "perfect dream
world" as i can get...i think to slap one blanket "well, obviously, your
children aren't important to you because you moved" is shortsighed and
unrealistic...
Jess
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
> Each state is different, by just out of curiosity, why do you feel that
the
> person who moves and disrupts the visitation should not have to be the one
who
> pays for the kid's transportation?
i didn't say that the person who moved doesn't have to pay, i said both
sides get to split it equally...i could very easily turn the argument around
and say that if the custodial parent moves at all for any reason, the
custodial parent gets to pay the costs of visitation-and i'll bet that
everyone would very promptly point out that the custodial parent is
custodial...well, in the long term, BFD-the kids don't Care who's custodial,
the kids want to see their parents...if that means their parents have to
fork out a little bit extra, then that's what that means...the kids didn't
ask for their parents to get divorced, so forcing all the financial burden
on one parent because they're NC or long distance is shortchanging the kids
and the NCP....
Jess
badgirl
"heather m." <heather...@ipa.net> wrote in message
news:4hndc.2328$A_4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "badgirl" <chgobadgi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:bQfdc.220661$Cb.1925174@attbi_s51...
> >
>
>
>
> Jen, sorry you are going through so much turmoil. Doesn't sound
like fun.
> But I wanted to ask you something. I could be totally off here, but
the way
> you center on your step-daughter and talk about her seems weird to
me. I've
> just never heard someone list so many incredibly important decisions
based
> on one child solely (in a family with more than one kid). I'm used
to
> reading things like "the kids are my light" or "I stay in this
marriage for
> the kids" or "I wish I could sheild them all from everything bad in
the
> world" etc. What about your boys who are yours biologically? Do
they ever
> rate as high as your step-daughter seems to? I mean it seems like
you're
> obsessed with her or something.
>
> Heather
>
>
I mainly center on her because I don't have issues with them like I do
her. They of course are just as important as she is, but none of their
grandparents give me any grief over them (except my MIL and we butt
heads all the time over Nicolas but it's different)
I am obsessed, with all 3 of my kids. They are my world and I wouldn't
change a thing really. But like I said, Steph is where alot of the
conflict in my life turns up. It's not her fault at ALL, but she is
the center of it so she is where my focus winds up when I'm venting or
upset or whatever about the situation I deal with on a daily basis and
have been for the last 11 years. They boys are mine free and clear, I
don't have to worry about anyone trying to take them away from me so
they don't get talked about as much.
If I were to leave the boys would go with me, but if I were to leave,
Stephanie wouldn't be able to be a part of my life anymore.
Make sense?
Anne Robotti
But you're talking about theory. I'm talking about actuality.
Anne
Vicki Robinson
>i didn't say that the person who moved doesn't have to pay, i said both
>sides get to split it equally...i could very easily turn the argument around
>and say that if the custodial parent moves at all for any reason, the
>custodial parent gets to pay the costs of visitation-and i'll bet that
>everyone would very promptly point out that the custodial parent is
>custodial...
Huh? I think most who think that "the one who moves, pays" would
include the custodial parent in that metric. I would.
The person who moves picks up any increased costs of transportation
for visitation. That seems eminently fair.
Wendy
> The person who moves picks up any increased costs of transportation
> for visitation. That seems eminently fair.
It's one way of looking at it, but what if you look at it as just another
expense related to supporting your child? ? Both parents should support
their child and the amount of child support both pay needs to take total
cost of support into consideration. The cost of supporting a child will
change as a function of age, or location of parents, or what their
particular interests and requirements are. It isn't a constant determined
when you first divorce with a factor for inflation. It's variable depending
upon requirements and needs.
This reminds me of Geri and Rupa's discussion about whether their tax
dollars should go to pay for only those things that they wanted to
contribute to, or whether they had to accept that some of their tax would be
spent on things they didn't support. Sure, it might seem fairer if Rupa
paid for social costs and Geri paid for war mongering, but it's not
necessarily unfair to expect both to contribute to whatever costs are
required.
Wendy T
Kathy Cole
<warped...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> i didn't say that the person who moved doesn't have to pay, i said both
> sides get to split it equally...
That's not reasonable as a default position. The parent who considers a
move needs to include the increased cost of travel for the child as a
part of their budget.
> i could very easily turn the argument around
> and say that if the custodial parent moves at all for any reason, the
> custodial parent gets to pay the costs of visitation-and i'll bet that
> everyone would very promptly point out that the custodial parent is
> custodial...
The custodial parent should pay to send the child for visitation if the
custodial parent moves.
Vicki Robinson
>It's one way of looking at it, but what if you look at it as just another
>expense related to supporting your child? ? Both parents should support
>their child and the amount of child support both pay needs to take total
>cost of support into consideration.
When my ex and I divorced, he was responsible for maintaining health
insurance for the kids because his employer picked up more of the cost
for a family plan than mine did. His policy provided for new glasses
for kids under 12 every time the prescription changed by half a
diopter. At the time, our younger child was getting a new pair of
glasses every six months, but the insurance covered it mostly. He
then switched to a new policy that would be cheaper for him, but only
paid $65 every two years for new glasses. OK, he was saving money, I
was suddenly shelling out $300 more per year for glasses. She still
needed the new glasses, they had to be provided, and *I* was put on
the hook because *he* wanted to save some money on health insurance.
I see this as the same thing. If one parent wants to go somewhere
else, custodial or non, that's his/her choice, but he or she should
bear those costs. It wasn't fair that it cost me more for him to save
money, and it's not fair for one parent to pay more to accommodate the
other parent's desire to live elsewhere.
The Watsons
> But you're talking about theory. I'm talking about actuality.
no, i'm not talking about theory, i'm talking about actuality...
i'm talking about times where we've blown half the rent money on summer
visitation because BM insisted that because tim moved, He had to pay (no
matter that he moved from no job and a five foot travel trailer to working
at intel) and pay and pay because "if your daughter were important enough to
you, you wouldn'tve have left her"...and when we had our truck accident, he
didn't get visitation because he couldn't drive...and when he came down with
cancer and was looking at dying, it took a damn court hearing to get
visitation, and she Still caused problems handing sunshine over to me....all
because "he moved, so Obviously she isn't important to him"...
i'm talking about watching mike get soaked for CS in excess of a grand a
MONTH for a seven year old boy because of the same line, and he'll still
likely be the one to take two weeks off over the summer to go fly back
there...
i'm talking about my mother almost getting soaked for CS in about the same
amount for my sister, and my mother was freaking Blind at the damn time and
living off of unemployment while the VA dickered over her service
connection....
i'm talking about other people from here that have to save up a whole year
to be able to afford a few weeks over the summer, and that's all they get
because "they moved, so obviously they don't care about their kids"...
if the parents are divorced, they're divorced-build a bridge and get over
it...slapping someone with a "well, Obviously your kids aren't important" is
normally a pretty low blow...what the hell does moving away have to do with
your relationship with your kids? it doesn't, but i see it made into that
too many times and it drives me Batty..the NCP is regarded as a blank check
that can just suck it up and pay, but the CP doesn't have to do anything?
screw that and the horse it rode it on....the parents have a responsibility
to make sure visitation happens, that an *appropriate* amount of CS flows
back and forth, and otherwise, they get on with their lives....not to sit
around and dicker "well, john cares so little about his kids that he moved,
so i'm just gonna sit back until he pays for a plane ticket"...dammit, buy
half the plane ticket and shoot john an email or send his attorney the
ticket...it's Not a BFD, in the long run....
Jess
The Watsons
"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c564qm$7p6$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> It's one way of looking at it, but what if you look at it as just another
> expense related to supporting your child? ? Both parents should support
> their child and the amount of child support both pay needs to take total
> cost of support into consideration. The cost of supporting a child will
> change as a function of age, or location of parents, or what their
> particular interests and requirements are. It isn't a constant determined
> when you first divorce with a factor for inflation. It's variable
depending
> upon requirements and needs.
*nods* thank you-that's what i was trying to say...
Jess
The Watsons
> When my ex and I divorced, he was responsible for maintaining health
> insurance for the kids because his employer picked up more of the cost
> for a family plan than mine did. His policy provided for new glasses
> for kids under 12 every time the prescription changed by half a
> diopter. At the time, our younger child was getting a new pair of
> glasses every six months, but the insurance covered it mostly. He
> then switched to a new policy that would be cheaper for him, but only
> paid $65 every two years for new glasses. OK, he was saving money, I
> was suddenly shelling out $300 more per year for glasses. She still
> needed the new glasses, they had to be provided, and *I* was put on
> the hook because *he* wanted to save some money on health insurance.
see, i would've insisted that the money he saved on health insurance go
towards the new glasses....that would've saved both of you money...
> I see this as the same thing. If one parent wants to go somewhere
> else, custodial or non, that's his/her choice, but he or she should
> bear those costs. It wasn't fair that it cost me more for him to save
> money, and it's not fair for one parent to pay more to accommodate the
> other parent's desire to live elsewhere.
i don't...
Jess
The Watsons
"Kathy Cole" <ka...@scconsult.com> wrote in message
news:em5d70hqc9c3dfnsu...@4ax.com...
> That's not reasonable as a default position. The parent who considers a
> move needs to include the increased cost of travel for the child as a
> part of their budget.
>
sure, and it gets figured into child support just like any other expense...
> The custodial parent should pay to send the child for visitation if the
> custodial parent moves.
both parents should pay to send the child for visitation if either parent
moves...visitation is a parental responsibility, and one parent doesn't get
to duck out of that simply because someone moves...
Jess
Geri and sometimes Brian
>children aren't important to you because you moved" is shortsighed and
>unrealistic...
There is no blanket answer - that is unrealistic. But a parent can choose to
be near his/her children or not. If he/she chooses not to be, then the "fair"
thing would be for that person to to pay the extra transportation costs of
visitation. Why should the person who didn't do anything but stay put (and
possibly be the more stable home, though not necessarily) have to be forced to
pay extra for the other parent's need to move? I don't get that line of
thinking at all.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>and say that if the custodial parent moves at all for any reason, the
>custodial parent gets to pay the costs of visitation-
No, whoever moves pays. He/she is the one who changed the status quo, made the
visitation more difficult, etc.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>to duck out of that simply because someone moves...
Please. If our BM moved to Timbuktu and expected us to pay for SD's
transportation for visitation, my reaction to that would be FU - either she
pays for the transportation costs or SD doesn't go.
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
> Please. If our BM moved to Timbuktu and expected us to pay for SD's
> transportation for visitation, my reaction to that would be FU - either
she
> pays for the transportation costs or SD doesn't go.
and my response to that would be that brian's responsibility is to buy half
the plane ticket and to be sure SD got on that plane...
Jess
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
> >.i think to slap one blanket "well, obviously, your
> >children aren't important to you because you moved" is shortsighed and
> >unrealistic...
>
> There is no blanket answer - that is unrealistic. But a parent can choose
to
> be near his/her children or not.
i'm sorry, you're contradicting yourself-you're saying that there is no
blanket, but you're making a blanket statement...
> If he/she chooses not to be, then the "fair"
> thing would be for that person to to pay the extra transportation costs of
> visitation. Why should the person who didn't do anything but stay put
(and
> possibly be the more stable home, though not necessarily) have to be
forced to
> pay extra for the other parent's need to move? I don't get that line of
> thinking at all.
for the same reason that the NCP gets to pick up half of sports or band or
whatever else the CP chooses to enroll the child in...or is visitation
suddenly less important than that stuff?
Jess
rebecca
"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Erzdc.431$Va4.425@fed1read01...
>
> for the same reason that the NCP gets to pick up half of sports or band or
> whatever else the CP chooses to enroll the child in...or is visitation
> suddenly less important than that stuff?
Not to jump in on the bigger question or anything, but we pay for no
extracurriculars we don't agree to.
rebecca
_calinda_
>
> no, i'm not talking about theory, i'm talking about actuality...
>
> i'm talking about times where we've blown half the rent money on
> summer visitation because BM insisted that because tim moved, He
had
> to pay (no matter that he moved from no job and a five foot travel
> trailer to working at intel) and pay and pay because "if your
> daughter were important enough to you, you wouldn'tve have left
> her"...and when we had our truck accident, he didn't get
visitation
> because he couldn't drive...and when he came down with cancer and
was
> looking at dying, it took a damn court hearing to get visitation,
and
> she Still caused problems handing sunshine over to me....all
because
> "he moved, so Obviously she isn't important to him"...
I'm very sorry Jess. That all sounds quite horrible to have dealt
with. But, not every parent moves for those types of reasons. My
ex is still working where he was while we were married. It's 14
minutes from his office to the house here with the kids. He didn't
move, because he needed employment, he moved because he wanted to
get laid on a regular basis with the woman he'd been having his
affair with. I have no reason to feel bad that he has to make the
effort to see his children.
> i'm talking about watching mike get soaked for CS in excess of a
> grand a MONTH for a seven year old boy because of the same line,
and
> he'll still likely be the one to take two weeks off over the
summer
> to go fly back there...
1000. a month may be a lot, maybe not. Would depend on what the
percentage of his total income is, and the cost of living is. My
ex would love to 'only' pay 1000/a month, but it's completely within
bounds of 'guidelines' based on earnings. And it's still not
enough to keep these kids in this school. Oh. and he doesn't pay CS
at all, so what he does pay is tax deductible to him.
> i'm talking about my mother almost getting soaked for CS in about
the
> same amount for my sister, and my mother was freaking Blind at the
> damn time and living off of unemployment while the VA dickered
over
> her service connection....
Definitely sounds like an injustice, but did that have to do with
someone moving?
> i'm talking about other people from here that have to save up a
whole
> year to be able to afford a few weeks over the summer, and that's
all
> they get because "they moved, so obviously they don't care about
> their kids"...
Depends on the reason for the move, really. Was it a selfish move,
such as what I consider my ex's move? It doesn't sound like Mikes
was selfish, since it was for employment reasons, but did he truly
have to move so far away, such that airfare was necessary? Perhaps
he did, I'm not saying he didn't. But it is a consideration, you
know? Look at Geri & Brian for example. He was unemployed and
temping for quite some time and they can't stand where they're
living, but they're making sacrafices for the child.
I've long thought that too many people give up too easily and don't
think things through when they divorce, and I also think they don't
think through the consequences of moving either. *Note this is in
general and not at all aimed at anyone specific*
<snip>
> but i see it made into that too many times and it drives me
> Batty..the NCP is regarded as a blank check that can just suck it
up
> and pay, but the CP doesn't have to do anything?
ROFL. Yep, Jess. CP's don't do *anything*. We sit on our asses
all day and watch soapies..
Hehe.. Ooops.. forget about all the day to day things that I do,
such as feeding them and cleaning the home, working (okay- so I'm
currently not employed, but looking for work is a damn near full
time job on it's own).
Just the driving I do for these kids. The driving that he got out
of by moving so far away. To school, to lessons and back,
rehearsals that start at five thirty and end at nine- so dinner has
to be ready early, and then the nine o'clock pick up. And when son
works till midnight- guess who has to stay up late to pick him up?
Ex wouldn't allow him to drive, but he wasn't the one that had to
bring him to work at six am, when he had the morning shift either.
Daughter has to be at the school 8 am Saturday morning, so guess who
does the driving there? When she comes home from world
championships in two weeks, guess who it is, that has to be at the
school at 8 Sunday morning? It sure wouldn't ever be him.
If and when I offer or agree to drive those kids to see that man, he
should be GD grateful to me, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think I'm that different from many other CP's either. At
least not the ones in my circle.
>screw that and the
> horse it rode it on....the parents have a responsibility to make
sure
> visitation happens, that an *appropriate* amount of CS flows back
and
> forth, and otherwise, they get on with their lives....not to sit
> around and dicker "well, john cares so little about his kids that
he
> moved, so i'm just gonna sit back until he pays for a plane
> ticket"...dammit, buy half the plane ticket and shoot john an
email
> or send his attorney the ticket...it's Not a BFD, in the long
run....
>
> Jess
And if I alone had to pay for a plane ticket for my child right now,
I would have to go further into debt to do so. I am sure that there
are plenty of CP's that are in the same situation. This is why it's
usually best for the parents to stay geographically close together,
if at all possible.
I understand why you feel the way you do, I really do. But I still
believe that *if* the plane fare is a problem for the parent that
moved, that it is that parents problem. Whether that is what is
legal in one state or another I don't know. I don't follow all the
legalities in the various states. Are there exceptions, sure. Have
other parents been able to work out other options, sure. To say
the a CP should just suck it up and pay the plane fare is *in
general*, off the mark, IMO.
Cal~
heather m.
Heather
"badgirl" <chgobadgi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Tdodc.103335$JO3.69548@attbi_s04...
Geri and sometimes Brian
>blanket, but you're making a blanket statement...
Go back and read what I have been saying.
I disagree.
>for the same reason that the NCP gets to pick up half of sports or band or
>whatever else the CP chooses to enroll the child in...or is visitation
>suddenly less important than that stuff?
In our orders, one or the other parent can opt out of contributing to sports or
band or any such activity AND the other parent is not allowed to badmouth that
parent for doing so. Not only that, one parent cannot commit the other
parent's custody time without that parent's permission and if she/he does, that
other parent is not obligated to comply with the commitment. All you have to
do is put that stuff in your orders if you don't want to do it. A couple of
times in the beginning, BM tried to commit our custody time for some activity
and we told her to forget it.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>the plane ticket and to be sure SD got on that plane...
I disagree. I can see this is going nowhere.
badgirl
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:c56659$4p1$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
I don't see it as not fair to you at all. Considering that he had
picked up the premium for how many years for those glasses in the
first place, then you ended up having to pick up the tab for the
glasses later on. It's still a cost split, just instead of going to an
insurance company it went straight to the optometrist.
As far as the living elsewhere subject goes I can totally understand
the *he who moves, pays* theory IF the CS obligation is being kept
current. In our (hell) situation, she is over 12k behind (at 54.00 per
week, with a 7 year old order, do the math, she has barely paid 2 1/3
years of her CS and is 42/3 behind) and we feel that she should foot
the cost of the travel expenses even if we decided to move to Timbuktu
because we have picked up the extra costs of raising Steph (without
complaint) for years, including insurance premiums, school fees etc.
Jen
Anne Robotti
<chgobadgi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I don't see it as not fair to you at all. Considering that he had
>picked up the premium for how many years for those glasses in the
>first place, then you ended up having to pick up the tab for the
>glasses later on. It's still a cost split, just instead of going to an
>insurance company it went straight to the optometrist.
In my experience there's a HUGE difference between the cost of health
care premiums for a working person (employer pays most of it) and the
cost of health care. At the most, the difference between single
coverage and single-plus-child or family coverage adds up to $10 a
month. That's a far cry from paying $600 for glasses that the other
person won't pay for half of.
Anne
The Watsons
"_calinda_" <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c56ldq$2oh34k$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I'm very sorry Jess. That all sounds quite horrible to have dealt
> with. But, not every parent moves for those types of reasons. My
> ex is still working where he was while we were married. It's 14
> minutes from his office to the house here with the kids. He didn't
> move, because he needed employment, he moved because he wanted to
> get laid on a regular basis with the woman he'd been having his
> affair with. I have no reason to feel bad that he has to make the
> effort to see his children.
i'm not saying feel bad, but i'm also saying that i feel that dumping the
entire burden on him is unfair...
> 1000. a month may be a lot, maybe not. Would depend on what the
> percentage of his total income is, and the cost of living is.
less than half, although cost of living there is higher...
> Definitely sounds like an injustice, but did that have to do with
> someone moving?
when my parents finally split up, my mother moved closer to family...and my
father tried the same line in court of "she moved, so obviously seeing her
daughter isn't that important to her"...
> Depends on the reason for the move, really. Was it a selfish move,
> such as what I consider my ex's move? It doesn't sound like Mikes
> was selfish, since it was for employment reasons, but did he truly
> have to move so far away, such that airfare was necessary? Perhaps
> he did, I'm not saying he didn't.
there were some practical reasons for him moving that i can't go into
here...but honestly, i don't think it really matters..visitation still has
to happen regardless...
>But it is a consideration, you
> know? Look at Geri & Brian for example. He was unemployed and
> temping for quite some time and they can't stand where they're
> living, but they're making sacrafices for the child.
and i think that's on them-i would have no issue with them moving and
splitting the travel expenses with BM...
> I've long thought that too many people give up too easily and don't
> think things through when they divorce, and I also think they don't
> think through the consequences of moving either. *Note this is in
> general and not at all aimed at anyone specific*
in some cases, i'll agree...but not in a lot of cases...
> Hehe.. Ooops.. forget about all the day to day things that I do,
> such as feeding them and cleaning the home, working (okay- so I'm
> currently not employed, but looking for work is a damn near full
> time job on it's own).
(*hehe, you lazy BM you ;) i'm talking about "doing nothing" in terms of not
doing anything to actively support visitation happening...
> Just the driving I do for these kids. The driving that he got out
> of by moving so far away. To school, to lessons and back,
> rehearsals that start at five thirty and end at nine- so dinner has
> to be ready early, and then the nine o'clock pick up. And when son
> works till midnight- guess who has to stay up late to pick him up?
> Ex wouldn't allow him to drive, but he wasn't the one that had to
> bring him to work at six am, when he had the morning shift either.
i could say that in a perfect world, 'twould be great if ex got a clue and
taught son how to drive for ya... but even i'm not gonna be that naive...but
that's stuff you have to worry about when you have the kids, and when you
don't have the kids, he gets to worry about it...
> If and when I offer or agree to drive those kids to see that man, he
> should be GD grateful to me, as far as I'm concerned.
if you volunteered to pick up all the gas, he'd damn well better say
thanks....but should you *have* to pick up *all* the gas costs? no...
> And if I alone had to pay for a plane ticket for my child right now,
> I would have to go further into debt to do so. I am sure that there
> are plenty of CP's that are in the same situation. This is why it's
> usually best for the parents to stay geographically close together,
> if at all possible.
if possible, sure...but when the parents end up living in different states,
i don't think it at all unreasonable that each parent buys a one way plane
ticket or one parent buys the whole plane ticket and gets a discount on
child support for that month...
>
> I understand why you feel the way you do, I really do. But I still
> believe that *if* the plane fare is a problem for the parent that
> moved, that it is that parents problem.
if that parent's *share* is a problem, then yeah, i'm with you...but the
*entire* cost? i think that's unreasonable...
> Whether that is what is
> legal in one state or another I don't know. I don't follow all the
> legalities in the various states. Are there exceptions, sure. Have
> other parents been able to work out other options, sure. To say
> the a CP should just suck it up and pay the plane fare is *in
> general*, off the mark, IMO.
*shrugs* then i'll be off the mark IYO...:)
Jess
badgirl
"Anne Robotti" <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote in message
news:sb2e709i89qhniqog...@4ax.com...
We've gotten extremely unlucky with health care premiums though too so
I'll admit that needs to be factored in as well. At DH's previous
employer we were paying almost $800 a month to cover the 4 of us
(before Nicolas was born) That did not include optical or dental which
would have added almost $200 a month to the bill. I was SO happy when
he got fired and then went to work for the new company because the
insurance almost halved for now five of us.
Jen
Geri and sometimes Brian
>splitting the travel expenses with BM...
1) We would lose a lot of custody time.
2) It would be bad for SD.
3) The judge in our case would definitely not order BM to pay anything and BM
would definitely refuse and not feel obligated to pay.
If you want to talk about what isn't "fair", I don't feel that it is fair to
expect the parent who did nothing to change the status quo to have to be
penalized for the other parent's lifestyle choice.
Anne Robotti
<chgobadgi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>We've gotten extremely unlucky with health care premiums though too so
>I'll admit that needs to be factored in as well. At DH's previous
>employer we were paying almost $800 a month to cover the 4 of us
>(before Nicolas was born) That did not include optical or dental which
>would have added almost $200 a month to the bill. I was SO happy when
>he got fired and then went to work for the new company because the
>insurance almost halved for now five of us.
Oh my God, you are getting JACKED! For me, Chuck, and four kids my
insurance premium at my old company was $22 every two weeks, plus $11
for dental/vision.
Now it's about $40 a week for everything, and I've been bitching since
I took the job. Maybe I should shut up!
Anne
badgirl
"Anne Robotti" <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote in message
news:81be70dgk6gtrsg55...@4ax.com...
We *were* getting jacked BIG time. Now it's a bit more reasonable,
$378 a month for medical plus $25 for optical and $40 for dental for
everyone. But there are BIG limitations on what we can use for the
optical and the dental. They will only cover up to a certain amount
for ONE pair of glasses per person per year (I forget what the *up to*
is though) and there is a $2500 limit on any dental work beyond check
ups and cleaning. Funny thing is, our psych coverage (this time
around) turns out to be awesome, if we go see someone in network it's
covered for 20 visits per year 100% and after the 20 they'll cover it
80%. after a $15 copay (so for instance, if the bill was $115 per
visit before insurance coverage then I would pay $15 at the visit and
be billed for another $20 later Before at his previous job it was a
$15 copay and then they would only cover 50% regardless if it was the
first or the fiftieth visit which sucked because we needed decent
coverage for my 14YO and I ended up having to apply for Medicaid for
him and go through our local health department to get him the
treatment he needed because I couldn't afford psych visits PLUS meds
(which were $30 per script on the damned insurance card and he had 3
scripts at a time) He's off meds now entirely though so that's pretty
much a moot point ATM. Our regular medical coverage for well visits
was a $15 copay though which isn't bad but it was awful after paying
that premium.
Jen
The Watsons
> Oh my God, you are getting JACKED! For me, Chuck, and four kids my
> insurance premium at my old company was $22 every two weeks, plus $11
> for dental/vision.
>
> Now it's about $40 a week for everything, and I've been bitching since
> I took the job. Maybe I should shut up!
yeah, because when i worked for earthlink, my paycheck deduction for all
three of us was 158.....and that was just to cover tim and sunshine-my
coverage was free...
Jess
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
> If you want to talk about what isn't "fair", I don't feel that it is fair
to
> expect the parent who did nothing to change the status quo to have to be
> penalized for the other parent's lifestyle choice.
kids deserve both parents, regardless of what the parent "did" to each other
(with usual disclaimers about verifiable abuse), and you know, sometimes
things Change, it happens after a divorce...the only "status quo" should be
that the kids' relationship with both parents is encouraged...if that means
one parent has to move and child support flexes to reflect that, well,
that's what that means....deal...
Jess
Geri and sometimes Brian
Again, maybe in a perfect world.
>it happens after a divorce...the only "status quo" should be
>that the kids' relationship with both parents is encouraged...if that means
>one parent has to move and child support flexes to reflect that, well,
>that's what that means....deal...
I would say that the actuality of this happening would be the exception rather
than the rule.
Joy
they could move from, say, NY to the Bahamas or something and hang out on
the beach all day? I.e. no work related or family related reason, no
considering whether or not it is in the best interest of the kids for one
parent to move so far away, just decided he/she would like that lifestyle?
Should the CP just have to suck it up and fork over big bucks for plane fare
just so the NCP can be a beach bunny? That really doesn't seem fair to me.
Joy
The Watsons
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
> >kids deserve both parents,
>
> Again, maybe in a perfect world.
*blinks* i'm sorry, i guess i missed something here...
Jess
The Watsons
"Joy" <joydoesn...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:02Idc.4402$Yw5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> What if the NCP decides that he or she would really feel more fulfilled if
> they could move from, say, NY to the Bahamas or something and hang out on
> the beach all day? I.e. no work related or family related reason, no
> considering whether or not it is in the best interest of the kids for one
> parent to move so far away, just decided he/she would like that lifestyle?
> Should the CP just have to suck it up and fork over big bucks for plane
fare
> just so the NCP can be a beach bunny? That really doesn't seem fair to
me.
you think the kids are going to care?
Jess
Amy Lou
Geri asked:
Why should the person who didn't do anything but stay put (and
> possibly be the more stable home, though not necessarily) have to be
forced to
> pay extra for the other parent's need to move? I don't get that line of
> thinking at all.
Because they want their kid to be able to spend time with the other parent?
Amy
Amy Lou
I'm with you Jess. If my kids dad refused to pay for my kids to visit him I
would (out of love for my kids) pay for the visit.
Amy
Joy
Care that one of their parents packed up and moved that far away from them?
Yeah, I'd say they might well care a lot. OTOH, they might also care if the
CP can't pay the rent or the light bill because the CP had to cough up big
bucks for airfare. Paying significant transportation expenses can also have
a negative affect on the kids, because there are only X number of dollars to
go around, and if it is being spent on transportation it isn't available for
things like groceries or medical expenses or other things that are also
important. I'm not in any way minimizing the importance of time with both
parents - but one thing that struck me in this thread was that there seemed
to be an underlying assumption among the "both parents should split the
transportation costs" crowd that both parents COULD split the cost, without
having to do without essentials. Unfortunately, this just isn't true for
everybody.
Geri and sometimes Brian
But in the real world, most of those parents don't give a rats ass.
Wendy
> When my ex and I divorced, he was responsible for maintaining health
> insurance for the kids because his employer picked up more of the cost
> for a family plan than mine did. His policy provided for new glasses
> for kids under 12 every time the prescription changed by half a
> diopter.
But what you're describing doesn't in any way resemble what I'm suggesting.
Working with my system, when he changes policy, you both pay changes
accordingly. If he'd considered all the costs when choosing what policy to
go with, then the option he did in fact choose wouldn't have looked nearly
so attractive because he'd have borne his share of the cost of the glasses.
Wendy T
Wendy
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0gIdc.3123$k05....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Oh, please, Jess. The laws in place attempt to set in stone the lifestyle
> before the divorce. Primary parent stays primary parent. Paying parent
> (who am I kidding? DAD) has to maintain kid on whatever health insurance,
> keep life insurance the same, pay the same amount of money irrespective of
> his real/desired life changes. The flexibility in the system is for
moms -
> to move, to go back to school, to have more kids and adjust the child's
> lifestyle, to do whatever - but dad's choices are truncated at the point
of
> divorce, no matter what or why or how the split happened.
>
> Let's not be naive.
It's not naive to state a scenario which would be fairer. Just because your
legal system is short sighted, doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
Wendy T
Wendy
> I'm not in any way minimizing the importance of time with both
> parents - but one thing that struck me in this thread was that there
seemed
> to be an underlying assumption among the "both parents should split the
> transportation costs" crowd that both parents COULD split the cost,
without
> having to do without essentials. Unfortunately, this just isn't true for
> everybody.
Isn't the amount of child support that both parents pay a function of their
equity and income? If one parent were that short of funds, wouldn't the
amount of support they paid be significantly less anyway?
Wendy T
Amy Lou
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
> >Because they want their kid to be able to spend time with the other
parent?
>
> But in the real world, most of those parents don't give a rats ass.
Which one? The one who moved away or the one who is left behind with the
kid?
Amy
Geri and sometimes Brian
>parent?
>>
>> But in the real world, most of those parents don't give a rats ass.
>
>Which one? The one who moved away or the one who is left behind with the
>kid?
Actually, sometimes both. But, think about it. Except maybe Jane and Vicki,
how many of the people even in this group have partners whose exes give a rap
about your custody/visitation time enough for fork over the dough for a plane
ticket a couple of times a year if you picked up and moved? How many of us are
married to people who give a rap about the ex's custody/visitation time enough
to do the same if they picked up and moved? (Maybe a few more of those.)
I can tell you that if we wanted to move the only thing BM would do is try to
get full custody so that we never saw SD (heck, she tried that without us
moving) - she would never in a million years willingly contribute to any
transportation money for us to see SD - and truthfully, we don't believe
spending time with BM does SD any good at all and does quite a bit of harm, so
undoubtedly we would feel the same way.
In fantasyland, parents are supposed to facilitate the visitation of the other
parent, but in real life there are a million reasons why that doesn't happen.
Melissa
>how many of the people even in this group have partners whose exes give a rap
>about your custody/visitation time enough for fork over the dough for a plane
>ticket a couple of times a year if you picked up and moved?
SD's mom helped out quite a bit, but then she moved out of their home state
before SO did. They've always worked together on this stuff though.
Love,
Melissa
Nell
> How many of us are
> married to people who give a rap about the ex's custody/visitation time enough
> to do the same if they picked up and moved? (Maybe a few more of those.)
I fall into this group. BM moved to B.C. nearly three years ago now.
She has a job at Toys R Us, is in debt to the government for about 10
years back taxes so they garnishee her wages so she has just about zip
money to live on. She doesn't pay child support (DH has never offically
asked for it), doesn't send the kids birthday or Christmas cards (much
less presents) and, need I say, does not pay for their travel to see her.
DH has paid for plane tickets for the 3 SK's to visit their mother once
per year - a min. of $800 a pop. return fare. The alternative is that
they would not see their mother. Yes, she'd deliberately underemployed.
Yes, she refused all offers DH made to let her upgrade her skillset. And
yes, she got herself into the mess with the tax people. But the fact
remains she is the SK's mother. They felt abandoned when she up and
drove across the country to live near her deadbeat sister instead of
staying here with them until they were grown. (They were 14, 16 and 18
and she said, "My job is done.") My SS(now19) went through some terrible
times as a result of this abandonment (I posted about that before).
So we pay. The fact is, it costs a lot less than DH was previously
paying in child support, although this year, with all three of them in
University in September, that won't be true anymore. We'll see. Perhaps
Mom will ante up her share next year. Yeah, right.
> - and truthfully, we don't believe
> spending time with BM does SD any good at all and does quite a bit of harm,
I hear ya. But the fact remains, they love her. In the final analysis,
it's not my job to judge her. There but for the grace of God, and all that.
Norma (who's come a very long way from the days when BM drove me crazier
than a bag of hammers)
Geri and sometimes Brian
>before SO did. They've always worked together on this stuff though.
>
back and forth? Who paid for the plane tickets?
Melissa
>back and forth? Who paid for the plane tickets?
>
>
>~~Geri~~
Both BM and SO have moved around alot. When they were in driving distance they
split the drive pretty evenly. When planes were involved they usually split
the cost of the ticket. The only exceptions to this have been when SS was
involved and SO had to do the whole drive anyway.
SO and BM have split most every expense related to SD though, including
college.
Love,
Melissa
jane
>coverage and single-plus-child or family coverage adds up to $10 a
>month.
Just so you know, the difference for DH is about $50 per week.
jane
>Anne
The Watsons
"rebecca" <justre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0gIdc.3123$k05....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Oh, please, Jess. The laws in place attempt to set in stone the lifestyle
> before the divorce. Primary parent stays primary parent. Paying parent
> (who am I kidding? DAD) has to maintain kid on whatever health insurance,
> keep life insurance the same, pay the same amount of money irrespective of
> his real/desired life changes. The flexibility in the system is for
moms -
> to move, to go back to school, to have more kids and adjust the child's
> lifestyle, to do whatever - but dad's choices are truncated at the point
of
> divorce, no matter what or why or how the split happened.
>
> Let's not be naive.
gee, you're acting like i don't know all this, and that there's something
wrong with insisting as much fairness as i can get on both sides...
Jess
The Watsons
> Care that one of their parents packed up and moved that far away from
them?
> Yeah, I'd say they might well care a lot. OTOH, they might also care if
the
> CP can't pay the rent or the light bill because the CP had to cough up big
> bucks for airfare. Paying significant transportation expenses can also
have
> a negative affect on the kids, because there are only X number of dollars
to
> go around, and if it is being spent on transportation it isn't available
for
> things like groceries or medical expenses or other things that are also
> important. I'm not in any way minimizing the importance of time with both
> parents - but one thing that struck me in this thread was that there
seemed
> to be an underlying assumption among the "both parents should split the
> transportation costs" crowd that both parents COULD split the cost,
without
> having to do without essentials. Unfortunately, this just isn't true for
> everybody.
there seems to be an underlying assumption that the parent that moves gives
up his or her right to the kids and that same parent gets to pay the entire
burden for the "privilege" of seeing the kids...
and it is possible to work it so that travel expenses aren't so horrendous
and that make it feasible for both sides to split expenses....one just have
to be willing to look for them...
Jess
Geri and sometimes Brian
>>coverage and single-plus-child or family coverage adds up to $10 a
>>month.
It is about $90 more per month on my insurance.
Anne Robotti
I've heard this from other people too, and all I can say is holy cow.
I clearly wasn't appreciative enough of these benefits when I was
receiving them! :-D
Anne