what are opitions in breach of court ordered visitation in Florida
ralph
Hello
I am dealing with a breach of contract (court order) of child
visitation and looking for some advice based on Florida laws
1. There is a Broward county court order schedule of visitation
(Broward county = Ft. Lauderdale, Fl)
2. Mother of daughter has repeat violated the court order visitation
requiring that I call the police (call to police recorded by 911 non
emergency and case numbers)
3. I work out of the country and schedule my trips back to States
for visitation with my daughter and/or medical
4. Mother lives in Orlando and I have arrangements for family friend
to pick up daughter (some costs)
5. Mother emailed with notice that she plans to violate visitation
over the Thanksgiving break i.e. take my daughter on a trip against
the court order and my wishes
"I told you before that I was having JAS for Thanksgiving and that is
what I intend to do" quote from mother's email
.
6. Mother stated in email that daughter would rather be with her
over Thanksgiving contrary to daughter's wishes
"Remember, we are supposed to be doing things which is in
the best interest of JAS. I asked her if she rather be with you for
Thanksgiving or go with me as planned - she choose me." Quote from
mother's email
My questions are the following
1. What are my legal options to prevent the mother to take the action?
2. If mother does take the action, what are my options?
3. Can I sue her in small claims for the cost, aggravation and mental
stress of her action of breaking a contract?
4. Due to some medical expenses, budget is tight. (car vs. bike, I
lost)
Regards and thank you in advance
Ralph
Illiana via FamilyKB.com
When YOU go to get your daughter for the holiday weekend, and if she took her
and nobody is there, call the police, and report a kidnapping. Bring your
court order with you so the police can see it. Kidnap victims are always a
top priorityin the media, and will bring attention to you, your daughter, and
your ex. No court order should be ignored.
When they find your wife, she will have to go through a bunch of bullshit,
such as getting arrested for kidnapping (which will be reduced to custodial
interference) then you can file contempt with the judge.
--
Message posted via http://www.familykb.com
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" <u38194@uwe> wrote in message
news:7b1be45b3b0a2@uwe...
It might have been in your best interest to have a disclaimer in your post
stating that you are not an attorney and you are NOT giving legal advice.
Any fool that follows the crap you suggested gets what they deserve!
Illiana
>> >Hello
>> > I am dealing with a breach of contract (court order) of child
>> such as getting arrested for kidnapping (which will be reduced to custodial
>> interference) then you can file contempt with the judge.
>
>It might have been in your best interest to have a disclaimer in your post
>stating that you are not an attorney and you are NOT giving legal advice.
>Any fool that follows the crap you suggested gets what they deserve!
so you can dictate abortion and adoption for any bitch that lets you mount
her.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Illiana" <u38194@uwe> wrote in message news:7b3fb2780f88b@uwe...
Now that you've spewn that, feel better now?
>
>
auto4...@hushmail.com
Ralph,
This is classic custodial interference. It is a very common tactic
used by vindictive CPs to wear down good NCPs like you until you just
give up and go away. Once she has succeeded in making you "abandon"
your daughter, she can then file for more child support based on her
increase in custodial timeshare. If your ex is like mine, during the
time your daughter is deprived of your influence, she will be
programmed into believing you are a bad person. This is called
Parental Alienation Syndrome. The quotes from your ex about your
daughter "choosing" to be with her are tell-tale PAS flags and are all
too familiar. The single best preventative/antidote to PAS is for
your daughter to spend TIME with you. Nobody can make that happen,
except you. Your daughter is depending you to make it happen, every
time.
You are in a particularly difficult situation because you need to
spend lots of money to come back to the country to exercise your
daughter's right to visitaiton with you. Your ex knows this, and will
try to exploit it. I would suggest taking a leave of absence from
your overseas job, or finding work closer to your daughter. Fighting
a custody battle as a NCP father is difficult and expensive enough
without incurring travel and expenses. You need to be onsite, at the
ready.
Send a certified letter to your ex letting her know that you intend to
exercise your court-ordered visitation at the specific time and date
ordered. Reference the provision in the orders that spell out your
respective duties and obligations regarding visitation transfers and
schedules. Keep a copy of the letter, of course.
Bring a witness with you -- or at least a videocamera -- documenting
date and time, and your calm and cool behavior at the scene of the
transfer when you show up on time for the visitation. If she follows
through on her threat to interfere with your visitation rights and is
not there for the transfer, hire a good attorney (consult with the
local father's rights group for a referral), and immediately file a
motion in Family Court for contempt.
You will need to take time away from your job and you will incur
expenses (legal, travel, etc.) as you pursue this in family court.
Your ex knows this, and will try to exploit it. You will also very
likely lose the first time (judges will bend over backward to find CPs
not guilty of contempt). However, the effort and money will be worth
it, because you will have sent a message with your actions.
If you do not vigorously enforce your visitation rights EVERY TIME,
you send a message to your ex that she can get away with custodial
interference with impunity. It suggests that you tacitly approve of
not seeing your daughter. Even more dangerous -- your missed visit
can be spun in court to work against you, even though you tried to
complete the visit. Especially if your daughter is young, your ex can
claim that "too much time has passed" between visits and now your
daughter would be "traumatized" by seeing you. Many judges eat this
stuff up -- even though the length of the separation was orchestrated
by your ex, they don't care. I've had this done to me, it is not fun
have to pay for humiliating, supervised visitation with your own child
just because you ex successfully interfered with visitation for a
lengthy period of time, with no penalty.
In addition to the civil remedies I mention above, there are criminal
penalties in most states for interfering with visitation. In
California, it is penal code 278.5, and Florida may have a similar
code. You can probably find it on the 'net. The problem is, the
sheriff and police often refuse to investigate visitation disputes,
and therefore custodial interference is almost never prosecuted even
though it is clearly illegal under the code. Asking the police or
sheriff to enforce a visitation order is almost always met with "this
is a civil matter" (not correct) and "you need to go to court and tell
the judge."
I wish you luck -- I went through the same exact crap you describe,
and you MUST nip it in the bud. It will only get worse, and your
daughter's future is riding on what you do next.
Never miss a visit -- keep detailed journals and records -- keep a
copy of your court order with you always -- be organized -- save every
email and voicemail message -- aggressively react to any visitation
interference. I use a Web site (I have no affiliation) called
parentingtime.net that helps you track interfered visits and just
about every other metric that can be used as evidence in family court.
I recommend it.
And of course, I'm not an attorney, none of this should be construed
as legal advice.
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com says...
Yadda yadda . Look again at his situation.
To have time with his daughter, and even move to actually rearing her half the
time himself, he needs to fix his situation item #3.
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com
> In article <5ea8cdda-b7a5-4525-83f3-465fcce2c...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> auto467...@hushmail.com says...
Banty,
Look again at what I posted. I addressed the problems his out-of-
country job would pose to him, and recommended he take a leave or find
another job nearer his daughter.
Isn't it a shame that a cooperative NCP has to quit his job just
because the CP decides be uncooperative and mess with the kid's
visitation rights?
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com says...
OK, I sawt that, but what would be better would be a *permanent* thing. Father.
Close to kids. Good.
Bnaty
auto4...@hushmail.com
> In article <22c7d22a-d031-4949-9d1d-5fea3a9b8...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Agreed Banty -- it's hard to parent remotely, even when two parents
are cooperating. One of the most important decisions I made early on
was to always live near my daughter, no matter where my ex moved her.
She moved her across country twice, and twice I picked up and moved to
live near her.
But with a vindictive/alienating CP, living near his daughter can
never be, as you call it, a "permanent" thing for Ralph, unless he's
willing to make some huge sacrifices. The CP-ex can pick up and move
the child far way at any time (not sure about Florida's move-away laws
-- but usually the CP can move the kid at will).
This is just one more of the inequities faced by NCPs that are seldom
recognized or acknowledged by the courts or the public -- the CP can
just pick up and move the child at will -- and it falls on the NCP to
uproot, sell the house, quit the job, derail the career, etc., all at
the whim of the CP. It's either follow your child around the country,
or "abandon" them. Fair? No. But Ralph needs to know that this is
the way it is and work within the system.
Banty
Wouldn't it be nice IF. But it's not.
Look, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not in Florida.
But IME seeing people go through these things, if there is going to be bullshit,
the wider the physical separation, the more bullshit. For the reasons you point
out. But where I see the NCP or almost-NCP (works better in the *beginning* of
the process) *clearly and demonstrably sets himself up to be a parent* (house,
school district, exploring arrangments for childcare), things go more in his
favor. Part of parenthood, especially after divorce but even in some intact
families, is not going for that plum job somewhere else on the globe. What's
more important to him? He picks.
Clearly this mother is playing games and worse than that. He doens't deserve
it; the kids don't deserve it. But fixing it isnt' a cake-and-eat-it-too thing.
He has a *lot* he can document. He should document ever little thing, and get
those police reports. If he really cares, he goes for joint or full custody.
Which means looking for a job near Orlando. And getting some legal help in
Orlando I.O. W. - getting serious.
Banty
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com says...
Huge kudos to you!
Was there no way to stop that?
>
>But with a vindictive/alienating CP, living near his daughter can
>never be, as you call it, a "permanent" thing for Ralph, unless he's
>willing to make some huge sacrifices. The CP-ex can pick up and move
>the child far way at any time (not sure about Florida's move-away laws
>-- but usually the CP can move the kid at will).
Not so much in NY.
BTW, not that this CP is a peach (more like a turd), but she couldn't be off
globetrotting on a wunnerful job even if she wanted to and was qualified. She's
got kids to take care of. Just to keep that in mind.
>
>This is just one more of the inequities faced by NCPs that are seldom
>recognized or acknowledged by the courts or the public -- the CP can
>just pick up and move the child at will -- and it falls on the NCP to
>uproot, sell the house, quit the job, derail the career, etc., all at
>the whim of the CP. It's either follow your child around the country,
>or "abandon" them. Fair? No. But Ralph needs to know that this is
>the way it is and work within the system.
That depends on the state, I know CPs near me who think they are "stuck", and I
dont' have a lot of sympathy with that attitude, either!
Best thing: don't become the NCP.
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com
> In article <22c7d22a-d031-4949-9d1d-5fea3a9b8...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Well, of course the responsible/cooperative parent gaining full
custody over the vindictive/uncooperative parent is ideal -- but we
all know that Ralph is a father, and it's not like he can just walk
into court and say "I want full custody now please" and expect to get
it. It doesn't work that way.
Maybe someday that can happen is CP continues with the PAS and
custodial interference and Ralph documents it all, but for right now
Ralph is an NCP/visitor. Just because he's not quitting his job and
filing for full custody immediately does not mean he doesn't care.
Ralph very well may have to choose between his job and his kid -- that
sucks, but I would never characterize a father who tries to have both
as "having his cake and eating it too." After all -- he's got those
child support bills to pay (I assume) and quitting the job overseas
might just not be an option.
auto4...@hushmail.com
> In article <e4192752-03c7-40f8-ab37-81acb18ff...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Nope. The Burgess decision had just come down and if I had decided to
fight the move, I would almost certainly have lost under statute, not
to mention baby daughter was still in her "tender years," and that
doctrine was still in force in the mid-90s. Now that LaMusga is
prevailing precedent in CA, I will have a good shot at stopping her if
she tries it again.
>
>
>
> >But with a vindictive/alienating CP, living near his daughter can
> >never be, as you call it, a "permanent" thing for Ralph, unless he's
> >willing to make some huge sacrifices. The CP-ex can pick up and move
> >the child far way at any time (not sure about Florida's move-away laws
> >-- but usually the CP can move the kid at will).
>
> Not so much in NY.
>
> BTW, not that this CP is a peach (more like a turd), but she couldn't be off
> globetrotting on a wunnerful job even if she wanted to and was qualified. She's
> got kids to take care of. Just to keep that in mind.
Huh? Based on the original post, I don't think Ralph is doing
anything to disrupt her ex's career. But that's what her actions are
doing to him.
>
>
>
> >This is just one more of the inequities faced by NCPs that are seldom
> >recognized or acknowledged by the courts or the public -- the CP can
> >just pick up and move the child at will -- and it falls on the NCP to
> >uproot, sell the house, quit the job, derail the career, etc., all at
> >the whim of the CP. It's either follow your child around the country,
> >or "abandon" them. Fair? No. But Ralph needs to know that this is
> >the way it is and work within the system.
>
> That depends on the state, I know CPs near me who think they are "stuck", and I
> dont' have a lot of sympathy with that attitude, either!
>
> Best thing: don't become the NCP
Easier said than done in this day of no-fault divorce and automatic-
mother-custody. But this is actually good advice -- fathers out there
who are just now divorcing or separating need to know to immediately
fire any attorney who suggests they just accept the standard "every
other weekend" visitation package and don't put up a fight for equal
parenting. I wish I had been better informed when I got sucked into
this system, because once you agree to become the "visitor," it's
extremely difficult to get promoted to "parent."
>
> Banty
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com says...
It is?? Where did I say *that*?
In fact, this is another problem attitudes I've seen - "I talked to my lawyer, I
can't get full custody, the CP would have to practically be a terrorist or run a
child porn ring, so *forget it*". WHich is more cake-and-eat-it-too.
I'm talking about *joint physical custody*.
>but we
>all know that Ralph is a father, and it's not like he can just walk
>into court and say "I want full custody now please" and expect to get
>it. It doesn't work that way.
Of course not! So he asks to be a co parent. Which is what is needed.
>
>Maybe someday that can happen is CP continues with the PAS and
>custodial interference and Ralph documents it all, but for right now
>Ralph is an NCP/visitor. Just because he's not quitting his job and
>filing for full custody immediately does not mean he doesn't care.
>
>Ralph very well may have to choose between his job and his kid -- that
>sucks, but I would never characterize a father who tries to have both
>as "having his cake and eating it too." After all -- he's got those
>child support bills to pay (I assume) and quitting the job overseas
>might just not be an option.
*Lots* of people choose between job and kid. Ever day. Happy, ordinary,
people, in happy, ordinary intact marriages, yes they choose between job and
kid. Long haul trucker in my family; kid developed medical problems, he got a
job doing local milk runs; not what he likes to do and couldn't be
owner-operator anymore which had been a source of great pride. I plateaued my
engineering career to have more flexibility for my family. I get to report to
people with less education.
If he gets joint physical custody, he won't be paying child support. Presumably
he hasn't built up any arrears.
Banty
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com says...
Well, absolutely "tender years" sucked, men can raise babies and little kids
too.
Let me look at Burgess and LaMusga - this is just the thing I'm trying to find
out about. Great thanks for mentioning the court cases. I could search court
cases, but I wouldnt' know which the important ones are. Do you happen to have
any links? If CP's can up and move with their kids at will, that most
definately goes into my "real serious valid greivance" column under NCP.
I'm having a heck of time getting info on CS on the web - the Wikipedia article
is poor, and the usual searches gets me too many blogs and advocacy sites. When
I look for state governmnet or US government sites, I get the white papers and
stuff Bob points to. Which don't go to what the current guidelines actually
are.
>>
>>
>>
>> >But with a vindictive/alienating CP, living near his daughter can
>> >never be, as you call it, a "permanent" thing for Ralph, unless he's
>> >willing to make some huge sacrifices. The CP-ex can pick up and move
>> >the child far way at any time (not sure about Florida's move-away laws
>> >-- but usually the CP can move the kid at will).
>>
>> Not so much in NY.
>>
>> BTW, not that this CP is a peach (more like a turd), but she couldn't be off
>>globetrotting on a wunnerful job even if she wanted to and was qualified. She's
>> got kids to take care of. Just to keep that in mind.
>
>Huh? Based on the original post, I don't think Ralph is doing
>anything to disrupt her ex's career. But that's what her actions are
>doing to him.
But her career is much different than one that can happen sans kids, believe me.
I'm a PhD engineer with a kid. It's especially so for people with less
education. He doesnt' have the limitation of needing to care for kids.
But, yeah, her actions are ruining things. Let them ruin it for her!
>>
>>
>>
>> >This is just one more of the inequities faced by NCPs that are seldom
>> >recognized or acknowledged by the courts or the public -- the CP can
>> >just pick up and move the child at will -- and it falls on the NCP to
>> >uproot, sell the house, quit the job, derail the career, etc., all at
>> >the whim of the CP. It's either follow your child around the country,
>> >or "abandon" them. Fair? No. But Ralph needs to know that this is
>> >the way it is and work within the system.
>>
>>That depends on the state, I know CPs near me who think they are "stuck", and I
>> dont' have a lot of sympathy with that attitude, either!
>>
>> Best thing: don't become the NCP
>
>Easier said than done in this day of no-fault divorce and automatic-
>mother-custody. But this is actually good advice -- fathers out there
>who are just now divorcing or separating need to know to immediately
>fire any attorney who suggests they just accept the standard "every
>other weekend" visitation package and don't put up a fight for equal
>parenting. I wish I had been better informed when I got sucked into
>this system, because once you agree to become the "visitor," it's
>extremely difficult to get promoted to "parent."
>
It's not so automatic mother at least around here. Mothers *do* get custody
most often, but that is because father moves on! Usually a reflection of who
was going the child rearing work in the family pre divorce. When the father
stays put and demands it, and more and more simply doens't stand in the way of
it where joint custody is becoming the preferred arrangement, he gets joint
custody. And I know three with *full* custody. Because *mother* moved on. And
Mommy gets to pay CS in those cases.
We had someone posting to misc.kids some time back - a mother in New York state,
asking why she couldnt' get her CS reduced as she remarried and had a new baby.
Guess what she heard from us.
Basically - goose/gander/HELLO :-)
Banty
Bob Whiteside
"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fhiea...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm having a heck of time getting info on CS on the web - the Wikipedia
> article
> is poor, and the usual searches gets me too many blogs and advocacy sites.
> When
> I look for state governmnet or US government sites, I get the white papers
> and
> stuff Bob points to. Which don't go to what the current guidelines
> actually
> are.
The CS guidelines are different for each state. And the calculation
methodology and administrative rules vary by state too. Every state has a
CS web site and they include CS calculators.
Here is a page from my state with links to the administrative rules. The
current guideline review from PSI makes for some interesting reading. It
covers a lot of historic stuff, how the CS guidelines are developed,
comparisons between state programs, assumptions behind the guidelines,
parenting time plans comparisons, adult child attending school issues, etc.
http://dcs.state.or.us/oregon_admin_rules/guidelines_information.htm
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com
> In article <c3ff8e47-15da-4624-ad8c-a5ff5c089...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
A search on "move-away" with either of those two case names should
yield many hits.
>
> I'm having a heck of time getting info on CS on the web - the Wikipedia article
> is poor, and the usual searches gets me too many blogs and advocacy sites. When
> I look for state governmnet or US government sites, I get the white papers and
> stuff Bob points to. Which don't go to what the current guidelines actually
> are.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >But with a vindictive/alienating CP, living near his daughter can
> >> >never be, as you call it, a "permanent" thing for Ralph, unless he's
> >> >willing to make some huge sacrifices. The CP-ex can pick up and move
> >> >the child far way at any time (not sure about Florida's move-away laws
> >> >-- but usually the CP can move the kid at will).
>
> >> Not so much in NY.
>
> >> BTW, not that this CP is a peach (more like a turd), but she couldn't be off
> >>globetrotting on a wunnerful job even if she wanted to and was qualified. She's
> >> got kids to take care of. Just to keep that in mind.
>
> >Huh? Based on the original post, I don't think Ralph is doing
> >anything to disrupt her ex's career. But that's what her actions are
> >doing to him.
>
> But her career is much different than one that can happen sans kids, believe me.
> I'm a PhD engineer with a kid. It's especially so for people with less
> education. He doesnt' have the limitation of needing to care for kids.
>
Yes, he does. He has an duty/right to care for the kid (I think it's
one) during his custody time. He needs to build his work schedule
around that, and he probably already has. And now she's messing with
it. If you are concerned with drumming up sympathy for the CP because
she's a great childcare burden, then I suggest she offer Ralph 50/50
time with the little girl, and let them both get on with their careers
and lives.
> But, yeah, her actions are ruining things. Let them ruin it for her!
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >This is just one more of the inequities faced by NCPs that are seldom
> >> >recognized or acknowledged by the courts or the public -- the CP can
> >> >just pick up and move the child at will -- and it falls on the NCP to
> >> >uproot, sell the house, quit the job, derail the career, etc., all at
> >> >the whim of the CP. It's either follow your child around the country,
> >> >or "abandon" them. Fair? No. But Ralph needs to know that this is
> >> >the way it is and work within the system.
>
> >>That depends on the state, I know CPs near me who think they are "stuck", and I
> >> dont' have a lot of sympathy with that attitude, either!
>
> >> Best thing: don't become the NCP
>
> >Easier said than done in this day of no-fault divorce and automatic-
> >mother-custody. But this is actually good advice -- fathers out there
> >who are just now divorcing or separating need to know to immediately
> >fire any attorney who suggests they just accept the standard "every
> >other weekend" visitation package and don't put up a fight for equal
> >parenting. I wish I had been better informed when I got sucked into
> >this system, because once you agree to become the "visitor," it's
> >extremely difficult to get promoted to "parent."
>
> It's not so automatic mother at least around here. Mothers *do* get custody
> most often, but that is because father moves on!
That is B.S. The Sanford Braver study found that mothers get custody
87% of the time, and I don't think it was because 87 out of 100
fathers just said, "you take the kids, I'm movin' on! How much child
support should I send?" Check out "Taken Into Custody," new book by
Stephen Baskerville for the REAL reasons behind default Mommy custody.
Usually a reflection of who
> was going the child rearing work in the family pre divorce.
Oh my goodness. You've been reading mainstream media, haven't you?
"Dad went to work -- he's not a caregiver -- he can't have custody."
But the reverse is also held against Dad. "Dad stayed at home -- he's
a slacker (and weird) -- he can't have custody." It reminds me of the
flip-flop that NOW did between the '60s and the '90s. Back in the
'60s, NOW was criticizing fathers for not being involved, for going to
work all day, and not helping with child-rearing. Presently, NOW
fights to protect de facto mother custody after divorce, fighting to
prevent Dad from helping with the child-rearing. Dad's wrong no
matter what he does.
When the father
> stays put and demands it, and more and more simply doens't stand in the way of
> it where joint custody is becoming the preferred arrangement, he gets joint
> custody. And I know three with *full* custody. Because *mother* moved on. And
> Mommy gets to pay CS in those cases.
It happens. Everybody's got an anecdote to support the prevalence of
a particular scenario. But the OP finds himself the NCP, and he's
asking for help on how to enforce visitation in the face of an
uncooperative CP. This is, sadly, a very common scenario that most
fathers don't expect to be faced with or understand how to deal with.
And many fathers find themselve in this situation because they expect
the system to treat them fairly. They have no idea how deep the
rabbit hole is they just fell into. They are agreeable to doing what
the ex wants at first, because they expect their ex to put the kids
first and not play dirty. They don't realize that every word they
utter or action they take can be twisted and used against them. They
are naive, and by the time they realize how the system really works,
they are broke, broken NCPs.
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com says...
Sure. But how many days out of the month is that. How many full weeks in the
year? Do you think *she* could get the travelling job and work around her
schedule - no!
>If you are concerned with drumming up sympathy for the CP because
>she's a great childcare burden, then I suggest she offer Ralph 50/50
>time with the little girl, and let them both get on with their careers
>and lives.
I'm all for that! Ralph has get a job close, they have 50-50 physical custody,
and they both make some compromises.
Go into it here; don't send me off to some advocacy book, frankly I don't trust
that sort of source. Tell me your "REAL reasons". Becasue IME, when the father
takes up the task, he has at least part physical custody. I know several who
made moves in the other direction - settling right away for visitation (so he
can move on to a new relationship less encumbered), going off to another job in
another state, even one I described in another thread who I *thought* would be
just the guy to step up, but he settled for joint legal custody only, and rented
a house just *outside* his kids' school district, first complaning that he won't
get full custody, then saying he 'needed time apart'. I mean - what's *with
that?*. Step up!
>
> Usually a reflection of who
>> was going the child rearing work in the family pre divorce.
>
>Oh my goodness. You've been reading mainstream media, haven't you?
No I look around me.
>"Dad went to work -- he's not a caregiver -- he can't have custody."
It's not even that they look at the record then say "she's the caregiver she has
custody" - the preference in my state is for some kind of joint arrangement, at
least legal. I see parents off and do *something else*. They're mad at the ex;
they're not getting their way, they don't want to have to co-parent with that
awful awful awful ex-spouse, they off and *do somethign else*. The guys that
stay put, are sharing custody. Same thing with mothers, BTW, I work daily with
a NCP mom. They are amicable, but it was the ex husband who was keen on
parenting, she is more if an independant type.
>But the reverse is also held against Dad. "Dad stayed at home -- he's
>a slacker (and weird) -- he can't have custody."
Is it because it's a mutually worked out stay at home dad arrangement? Or a
poor employment record? There's a difference.
>It reminds me of the
>flip-flop that NOW did between the '60s and the '90s. Back in the
>'60s, NOW was criticizing fathers for not being involved, for going to
>work all day, and not helping with child-rearing. Presently, NOW
>fights to protect de facto mother custody after divorce, fighting to
>prevent Dad from helping with the child-rearing. Dad's wrong no
>matter what he does.
NOW is an advocacy organization for any and all benefit to women like NRA is to
gun owners and AARP for older persons. I disagree with NOW on a number of
things, including this.
>
> When the father
>>stays put and demands it, and more and more simply doens't stand in the way of
>> it where joint custody is becoming the preferred arrangement, he gets joint
>>custody. And I know three with *full* custody. Because *mother* moved on. And
>> Mommy gets to pay CS in those cases.
>
>It happens. Everybody's got an anecdote to support the prevalence of
>a particular scenario. But the OP finds himself the NCP, and he's
>asking for help on how to enforce visitation in the face of an
>uncooperative CP. This is, sadly, a very common scenario that most
>fathers don't expect to be faced with or understand how to deal with.
>And many fathers find themselve in this situation because they expect
>the system to treat them fairly. They have no idea how deep the
>rabbit hole is they just fell into. They are agreeable to doing what
>the ex wants at first, because they expect their ex to put the kids
>first and not play dirty. They don't realize that every word they
>utter or action they take can be twisted and used against them. They
>are naive, and by the time they realize how the system really works,
>they are broke, broken NCPs.
I know that happens a lot. People hate each other after divorce, and some
people suck to begin with. I hope he gets his due.
I did the Cub Scout newsletter. I had two CP mothers ask me not to send the
newsletter to the father (in the case of one) or father's mother where he was
staying (in case of the other). I smiled, said "do I have your address right -
let's check that", then continued to send a copy to the father and the paternal
grandmother. Petty little jerks, even trying to put the Cub Scout newsletter
lady in the middle if this.
Banty
animal02
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" <u38194@uwe> wrote in message
news:7b1be45b3b0a2@uwe...
Only if he wants to get laughed at
|Bring your
| court order with you so the police can see it.
So it can be ignored along with his claim
|Kidnap victims are always a
| top priorityin the media, and will bring attention to you, your daughter,
and
| your ex. No court order should be ignored.
But they are all the time.
| When they find your wife, she will have to go through a bunch of bullshit,
| such as getting arrested for kidnapping (which will be reduced to
custodial
| interference) then you can file contempt with the judge.
Were you born clueless, or have you always just been that way?
teachrmama
Sure she could. All she would have to do is agree to shared custody. I
know a couple (exes) who both travel for work, and they have worked it
out--with the help of the grandmas occassionally. It CAN be done. But
there has to be cooperation (and joint custody) to make it work.
Ah, Banty, that is one ofthe problems. You have not *experienced* the
system. The stated reasons for the system are not bad, but the
implementation of the system can not be called even remotely fair. And you
don't know it until you or a close loved on experience it personally. It's
like going through the looking glass--standing on the outside, you cannot
begin to imagine what is in there. And when somebody tells you , you think
they must be exaggerating.
I know several who
> made moves in the other direction - settling right away for visitation (so
> he
> can move on to a new relationship less encumbered), going off to another
> job in
> another state, even one I described in another thread who I *thought*
> would be
> just the guy to step up, but he settled for joint legal custody only, and
> rented
> a house just *outside* his kids' school district, first complaning that he
> won't
> get full custody, then saying he 'needed time apart'. I mean - what's
> *with
> that?*. Step up!
How? How do you step up? Get a lawyer to hlpe? On top of CS, that is an
expense that many cannot bear. I have a friend who has spent almost $50,000
to keep shared custody of his daughter. That's $50.000 that will never be
spent on the child. Is that the kind of stepping up you mean?
Banty
No - I'm talking about *before* CS. CS and being an NCP is something to be
avoided. (I'm not saying things shoudl be unfair to the NCP to make them avoid
them, understand.)
I'm talking about around the time of the divorce or breakup or birth of a child.
"Stepping up" is most of all sticking around. The examples I know, who got a
two bedroom apartment in the same school system, went to our local Child Care
Resource and Referral center and could show they knew of openings and had
visited some places (there's paperwork to boot for them to show that!), and
things like making changes at work if necessary - GOT at least joint physical
custody.
That's what I mean by stepping up. Think - if *you* had a new baby coming, or
you were about to break up, which would be the thoughts in your mind: "gosh,
how am I going to provide for these kids, gosh, I need to move somewhere cheaper
but with room for them, OK, I need to talk to my employer, oh no, I'm going to
need childcare to cover three days a week...". Or would you be thinking "gosh
this situation is awful where do I go maybe I can go to my best friend from
college they have a finished basement...".
Therein is the measure of who is going to successfuly truly parent.
Banty
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
<auto4...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ea8cdda-b7a5-4525...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Not to mention, all the mother has to do is tell the father to leave because
he is trespassing. If he refuses to comply, he is subject to arrest. The
trespass violation trumps ANY court order for him to be there!
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fhiah...@drn.newsguy.com...
In other words, don't become a father.
>
>
> Banty
>
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
<auto4...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3ff8e47-15da-4624...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Great advice for someone who has an UNLIMITED supply of money and doesn't
mind fighting a hopeless battle.
auto4...@hushmail.com
> In article <c52b9fa8-8a66-4283-930c-7d1c7579e...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
If they agree to share childcare equally? Why not? Married people do
it all the time. If Ralph's with the kid half time, she can have
nearly any career she wants, just like a married person with a kid.
In fact, she's probalby got more flexibility, because the child
support Ralph's likely paying will certainly help defray HER child
care costs. And other thing, move-away cases often involve one parent
moving to where they have extended family and friends (a support
system) who are often reruited to care for the child -- this service
is likely not available to the NCP. I'll grant you, jobs that have a
lot of travel required are not the best situations for new parents --
I did suggest he try to change that aspect of his situation, only
because if the ex is playing games with custody access, then it will
almost certainly become very difficult to both work that job and
enforce visitation rights effectively, which really does become a full-
time job if you don't have a lawyer.
>
> >If you are concerned with drumming up sympathy for the CP because
> >she's a great childcare burden, then I suggest she offer Ralph 50/50
> >time with the little girl, and let them both get on with their careers
> >and lives.
>
> I'm all for that! Ralph has get a job close, they have 50-50 physical custody,
> and they both make some compromises.
Yup, it can, and should, be done.
I don't have the Braver study stats, and I don have time to look them
up (google should yield many, many hits) -- but I will tell you that
one of the biggest myths shattered by his work was that Mother custody
had very little to do with father's "moving on." The Baskervill Book
is brand new -- just came out a couple weeks ago. It discusess all
this stuff in extremly, scholarly detail. It is NOT an advocacy book
-- throughoughly researched and the entire last third of the book is a
bibliography listing scholarly studies and academic literature
sources. I'll confess I'm only halfway into it, but it discusses this
very subject at great length and in great detail about how we find
ourselves in the current system.
Tell me your "REAL reasons". Becasue IME, when the father
> takes up the task, he has at least part physical custody.
If you mean MY REAL reasons, I assume you mean about my case. Never
married, short fling, she lied about the pill, kept the baby, tried to
hide her from me, excluded me from the birth, gave the baby her name,
moved away twice, constantly frustrated contact, and years and years
of unethical manipulating stunts (including a false accusation of
violenc) designed to frustrate me and keep baby away, just as the OP
is beginning to experience now. I have spent nearly 12 years and over
$70,000 on lawyers trying to enforce my visitation rights and, soon,
it apprears, I will obtain full custody. And if that miracle happens,
you can be sure that I, as a responsible parent, will facilitate and
encourage daughter's relationship with her Mom, even though Mom had
done the opposite regarding me for baby's entire life.
There has to be a better way, because my daughter has suffered
terribly through all of this. If the mother doesn't want you "step
up" but instead just "pay and stay away" the system makes it very easy
for her to make that happen, and that's wrong. Like I said, I
"settled for visitation" because I was naive and believed a lawyer who
said I'd never get anything more, and trying would cost money, time,
be bad for the baby. I had no idea it was a sham. That was a
mistake, but I wansn't "moving on," I wanted to be Dad with my kid and
coparent with the ex-gf. Once she figured out that was I wanted, her
life's mission became dedicated to preventing that, and it shows no
sign of abating after 12 years. It's funny, one guaranteed way for me
to make sure something does not happen for my daughter is by letting
Mom know that I think doing that something would be a good idea.
I do not want Ralph, who seems to be similarly situated, to go through
what I did, so I'm telling him what worked (eventually) for me, after
I mistakenly allowed myself to be made the powerless NCP.
I know several who
> made moves in the other direction - settling right away for visitation (so he
> can move on to a new relationship less encumbered), going off to another job in
> another state, even one I described in another thread who I *thought* would be
> just the guy to step up, but he settled for joint legal custody only, and rented
> a house just *outside* his kids' school district, first complaning that he won't
> get full custody, then saying he 'needed time apart'. I mean - what's *with
> that?*. Step up!
>
>
>
> > Usually a reflection of who
> >> was going the child rearing work in the family pre divorce.
>
> >Oh my goodness. You've been reading mainstream media, haven't you?
>
> No I look around me.
>
Personal observation is great, but not nearly good enough.
Everybody's got an anecdote or "knows somebody" they think represents
universal reality. Read "Divorced Dads, Shattering the Myths" by
Braver, or his University of Arizona study on divorced and subsequent
custody awards -- the largest study of it's kind ever conducted. I
will again recommend "Taken Into Custody," by Baskerville as a
supplement to "looking around."
> >"Dad went to work -- he's not a caregiver -- he can't have custody."
>
> It's not even that they look at the record then say "she's the caregiver she has
> custody" - the preference in my state is for some kind of joint arrangement, at
> least legal.
Yeah, that's the preference here, too. Most states have it on the
books. It's meaningless. Family judges just ignore it and give
custody to the mother in most cases. The "bone" they toss Dad is
"joint legal custody," which is worthless. Like I said in my original
response to the OP, there is no substitute for TIME with your child.
I see parents off and do *something else*. They're mad at the ex;
> they're not getting their way, they don't want to have to co-parent with that
> awful awful awful ex-spouse, they off and *do somethign else*. The guys that
> stay put, are sharing custody.
Yup, like me -- but only after surviving the manipulations and abuses
Ralph is starting to go through, and spending tens of thousand in
lawyers. Not all guys can do that -- they just don't have the
resources, finanical or emotional. Ralph and me shouldn't have to go
through that crap, and I'm trying to give Ralph the info he needs to
nip it in the bud for the sake of his kid, sanity, and bank account.
Same thing with mothers, BTW, I work daily with
> a NCP mom. They are amicable, but it was the ex husband who was keen on
> parenting, she is more if an independant type.
> >But the reverse is also held against Dad. "Dad stayed at home -- he's
> >a slacker (and weird) -- he can't have custody."
>
> Is it because it's a mutually worked out stay at home dad arrangement? Or a
> poor employment record? There's a difference.
> >It reminds me of the
> >flip-flop that NOW did between the '60s and the '90s. Back in the
> >'60s, NOW was criticizing fathers for not being involved, for going to
> >work all day, and not helping with child-rearing. Presently, NOW
> >fights to protect de facto mother custody after divorce, fighting to
> >prevent Dad from helping with the child-rearing. Dad's wrong no
> >matter what he does.
>
> NOW is an advocacy organization for any and all benefit to women like NRA is to
> gun owners and AARP for older persons. I disagree with NOW on a number of
> things, including this.
>
Agreed.
>
>
> > When the father
> >>stays put and demands it, and more and more simply doens't stand in the way of
> >> it where joint custody is becoming the preferred arrangement, he gets joint
> >>custody. And I know three with *full* custody. Because *mother* moved on. And
> >> Mommy gets to pay CS in those cases.
>
> >It happens. Everybody's got an anecdote to support the prevalence of
> >a particular scenario. But the OP finds himself the NCP, and he's
> >asking for help on how to enforce visitation in the face of an
> >uncooperative CP. This is, sadly, a very common scenario that most
> >fathers don't expect to be faced with or understand how to deal with.
> >And many fathers find themselve in this situation because they expect
> >the system to treat them fairly. They have no idea how deep the
> >rabbit hole is they just fell into. They are agreeable to doing what
> >the ex wants at first, because they expect their ex to put the kids
> >first and not play dirty. They don't realize that every word they
> >utter or action they take can be twisted and used against them. They
> >are naive, and by the time they realize how the system really works,
> >they are broke, broken NCPs.
>
> I know that happens a lot. People hate each other after divorce, and some
> people suck to begin with. I hope he gets his due.
>
Me too. It would be nice if Ralph posted again to see if any of this
is helping him or if we're just frightening him, haha.
> I did the Cub Scout newsletter. I had two CP mothers ask me not to send the
> newsletter to the father (in the case of one) or father's mother where he was
> staying (in case of the other). I smiled, said "do I have your address right -
> let's check that", then continued to send a copy to the father and the paternal
> grandmother. Petty little jerks, even trying to put the Cub Scout newsletter
> lady in the middle if this.
>
Classic alienation tactic that I endure every day from daughter's
school. The NCPs job is never done -- you 've got to be down in their
face at the school office just to get information. It's like you're a
monster, or persona non-grata. All this extra crap takes time -- time
that you don't have because you've got to care for the child during
your time (if you're lucky), but you've got to put in those hours at
the job to make the income -- heaeven forbid the child support payment
is late. People like you who keep the NCP informed and involved are
angels -- I've run into a few like that at daughter's school. They
recognize what's going on, and do the right thing even against the CPs
wishes. I cannot tell you how wonderful it is to encounter such a
person.
On an aside -- that is great that you are doing Cub scouts -- in this
day and age of "all men near kids are potential molestors," we need
good men stepping up and being good role models for kids. My
daughter's in 6th grade now, and she never had a single male teacher
in all of elementary school (except for PE -- typical). I'm basically
her only male role model, and of course I get to see her only on
Wednesdays and every other weekend.
Oh wait -- I just noticed that yourer the newsletter *lady.*
Nevertheess, it is great that your doing scouts (I bought some carmel
corn outside of the supermarket last week), but I hope there are a few
male Scout leaders in your troop.
Later Banty,
MR
> Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com
> --
> [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
True, but it's not hopeless. Nearly, but not entirely.
I was lucky I worked in a marketable profession. I don't make a ton,
but at least every time she moved the kids away I was able to find
work in computers in the city to which she absconded with the kid.
Actually, after spending about a year's salary on attorneys, I do it
myself now, and get better results. I would suggest that to Ralph,
but if he's new at this, it might be tough for him to go Pro Se.
Banty
auto4...@hushmail.com says...
>
>On Nov 15, 5:44 pm, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <c52b9fa8-8a66-4283-930c-7d1c7579e...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> auto467...@hushmail.com says...
>>
>>
No I mean *now*.
>Why not? Married people do
>it all the time. If Ralph's with the kid half time, she can have
>nearly any career she wants, just like a married person with a kid.
>In fact, she's probalby got more flexibility, because the child
>support Ralph's likely paying will certainly help defray HER child
>care costs.
Oh sure! Often there are particulars one way or the other, but in the main, and
fundamentally - YES people do that all the time and she would have more
flexibility than now.
Now *both* would probably need to make some compromises career-wise, too,
compared to a non-kid situation, but that's like any intact family with two
parents working.
>And other thing, move-away cases often involve one parent
>moving to where they have extended family and friends (a support
>system) who are often reruited to care for the child -- this service
>is likely not available to the NCP. I'll grant you, jobs that have a
>lot of travel required are not the best situations for new parents --
Well, there's nothing *wrong* with a travelling job if it works in the family
arrangement. My father was in the Air Force and had the ultimate global
travelling job. It's just that there's too high a cost to it for a lot of
situations, including probably Ralph's.
>I did suggest he try to change that aspect of his situation, only
>because if the ex is playing games with custody access, then it will
>almost certainly become very difficult to both work that job and
>enforce visitation rights effectively, which really does become a full-
>time job if you don't have a lawyer.
Yep.
Actually no I didn't; I meant more the academic side w.r.t to the book.
>I assume you mean about my case. Never
>married, short fling, she lied about the pill, kept the baby, tried to
>hide her from me, excluded me from the birth, gave the baby her name,
>moved away twice, constantly frustrated contact, and years and years
>of unethical manipulating stunts (including a false accusation of
>violenc) designed to frustrate me and keep baby away, just as the OP
>is beginning to experience now. I have spent nearly 12 years and over
>$70,000 on lawyers trying to enforce my visitation rights and, soon,
>it apprears, I will obtain full custody.
Wow! Good.
Y'know - could you have been happy with joint custody or even liberal visitation
(and her stay put), if she hadn't pulled all that crap?
>And if that miracle happens,
>you can be sure that I, as a responsible parent, will facilitate and
>encourage daughter's relationship with her Mom, even though Mom had
>done the opposite regarding me for baby's entire life.
Hope it works out.
>
>There has to be a better way, because my daughter has suffered
>terribly through all of this. If the mother doesn't want you "step
>up" but instead just "pay and stay away" the system makes it very easy
>for her to make that happen, and that's wrong. Like I said, I
>"settled for visitation" because I was naive and believed a lawyer who
>said I'd never get anything more, and trying would cost money, time,
>be bad for the baby. I had no idea it was a sham. That was a
>mistake, but I wansn't "moving on," I wanted to be Dad with my kid and
>coparent with the ex-gf. Once she figured out that was I wanted, her
>life's mission became dedicated to preventing that, and it shows no
>sign of abating after 12 years. It's funny, one guaranteed way for me
>to make sure something does not happen for my daughter is by letting
>Mom know that I think doing that something would be a good idea.
>
>I do not want Ralph, who seems to be similarly situated, to go through
>what I did, so I'm telling him what worked (eventually) for me, after
>I mistakenly allowed myself to be made the powerless NCP.
Someone else *did* post the 'fergit it pal yer screwed' message. But you know,
I think this system-is-stacked-against-us message doesn't help!
Is it that it turns out to often have little benefit for the litigators?
>
> I know several who
>> made moves in the other direction - settling right away for visitation (so he
>>can move on to a new relationship less encumbered), going off to another job in
>>another state, even one I described in another thread who I *thought* would be
>>just the guy to step up, but he settled for joint legal custody only, and rented
>>a house just *outside* his kids' school district, first complaning that he won't
>> get full custody, then saying he 'needed time apart'. I mean - what's *with
>> that?*. Step up!
>>
>>
>>
>> > Usually a reflection of who
>> >> was going the child rearing work in the family pre divorce.
>>
>> >Oh my goodness. You've been reading mainstream media, haven't you?
>>
>> No I look around me.
>>
>Personal observation is great, but not nearly good enough.
Well, there are limitations just going from personal experience of course. But
I'm suspicious of cherry-picked references, too - every side seems to have 'em.
And other people here are going from their personal experiences too.
Nobody should have to go through that crap.
Maybe I wasn't quite so noble, just a little wise. See, to me, since I know a
lot of crap happens on either or both sides in a lot of these situations, the
only way to stay *out* of it, was to send the newsletter to both parties. But
the pettiness amazed me. Those mothers must be going after each and ever little
possibiliy for information going to the ex, if they're going over a monthly
little stapled Cub Scout newsletter jees.
>On an aside -- that is great that you are doing Cub scouts -- in this
>day and age of "all men near kids are potential molestors," we need
>good men stepping up and being good role models for kids. My
>daughter's in 6th grade now, and she never had a single male teacher
>in all of elementary school (except for PE -- typical). I'm basically
>her only male role model, and of course I get to see her only on
>Wednesdays and every other weekend.
>
>Oh wait -- I just noticed that yourer the newsletter *lady.*
>Nevertheess, it is great that your doing scouts (I bought some carmel
>corn outside of the supermarket last week), but I hope there are a few
>male Scout leaders in your troop.
The pack had some male Den Leaders, the troop is all male Scout leaders and
co-leaders, which is typical.
Banty
DB
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in
>
> How? How do you step up? Get a lawyer to hlpe? On top of CS, that is an
> expense that many cannot bear. I have a friend who has spent almost
> $50,000 to keep shared custody of his daughter. That's $50.000 that will
> never be spent on the child. Is that the kind of stepping up you mean?
As they say, Justice in America is only for those who can afford it!
teachrmama
Do you really think that NCPs don't do these things to prevent themselves
from becoming NCPs? Do you think if they walk into court with all the
things you suggest, shared custody will be a matter of course? You seem to
feel that NCPs are somehow not able to figure thses things out, and haven't
given these things their best shot. It is, quite frankly, a bit
condescending on your part, although I am certain you do not mean it to be
so.
>
> Therein is the measure of who is going to successfuly truly parent.
Only if the court gives him permission to parent, Banty.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fhk88...@drn.newsguy.com...
What an interesting dream.
>
>
> Banty
>
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"DB" <Dee...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1Cn%i.7520$TR5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Or have the right chromosomes. :)
>
>
Banty
THis is what I see. I'm not going to say it's different because you don't think
it's nicey nice. A lot of divorced parents *don't* give it their best shot -
they kind of drift. While the other is scrambling to figure out how to take
care of the KIDS. Scrambling after childcare, grandma flying in. And he goes
upstate where he has a friend with a finished basement...
!?!?WHY!?!?! did my friend rent his house just outside the school district of
his kids?? It's nothing with housing availability or cost, believe me. Help me
get into his head if he's figured things out and is giving it his best shot!
See, I think they *do* figure something out - they haven't been doing the bulk
of the day to day childrearing, they see the big changes they'd need to do in
order to arrange joint physical custody, so they kind of stop short of that.
>
>>
>> Therein is the measure of who is going to successfuly truly parent.
>
>Only if the court gives him permission to parent, Banty.
>
>
And they get it.
Banty
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Banty" <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fhid5...@drn.newsguy.com...
Dream on. Often times, fathers who get sole physical custody STILL have to
pay "child support" to the mother. Remember, courts NEVER force fathers to
visit children. In fact, it isn't even a requirement. They ONLY force
fathers to stay away from the children!
teachrmama
Really? Wow, that is pretty neat. So in New York if the father takes all
the right steps and has everything set up to parent his children, he is
guaranteed 50/50 shared custody. Is that what you're saying? New York is
certainly different from other states then. Because even if the dicument
says "joint custody," it doesn't necessarily mean equal time, and it doesn't
necessarily meam paying any less child support.
Banty
Joint phsycial custody is equal time or close to it (practicalities come in),
and CS depends on the income earning differetal, not going all from one to the
other.
Banty
Sarah Gray
>Often times, fathers who get sole physical custody STILL have to
>pay "child support" to the mother.
cite, please.
--
Sarah Gray
Leda....@gmail.com
> --
> [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
>
> news:fhid5...@drn.newsguy.com...> In article
>
> <da4fc394-4e39-4b6f-823f-4c6f8a418...@s6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,> auto467...@hushmail.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dream on. Often times, fathers who get sole physical custody STILL
have to
pay "child support" to the mother.
I have never heard of such a thing where the person with sole custody
pays child support. Could you provide something where that was the
case?