I asked my stbx wife to read these opinions for all you folks. Great - she's now convinced more than ever that making me file a response to her divorce petition and letting the court decide what's in our son's best interest is the route she will take.<P>Her position remains as it did when I first wrote -- that to wake up our son on my mornings at 5:30am is unreasonable and disruptive to his current routine and that I am being selfish. She said I was only thinking of myself and what I wanted not what would be the most stable for our son.<P>As far as any child support -- our salaries are close enough (I make slightly more) that according to that Dissomaster computer I would have to pay her $312.00 per month plus 1/2 the cost of any childcare and 1/2 the cost of medical bills not covered by insurance. She will continue to carry our son on her health plan at work at no additional cost to me. <P>For most of you looking from the outside in, this seems such a no brainer - not rocket science huh? But I still hold the belief that I shouldn't have to pay ANY amount of money in support because the stbx is self sufficient and earns a decent living. STBX wife has never called my any names during all this but I'm convinced she thinks I am an As*hole!<P>

Starting Over..<P>I think you need to step back and re-read your own words. You do sound like you are the one who is thinking soley of what is best for you. I don't want you to think I'm being a nasty person here but it sounds like you are pushing a 50% split for the sole purpose of reducing your son's support.<P>Doesn't that sound horrible to you? You were miserable in your marriage, you had the affair, and now you want, want, want.... Sorry, I'm being mean, but that's how I read this.

Starting Over,<P>I agree with Tired Lady. Your two posts there almost made me gasp.<P>Would you feel the same way if you and your STBX exchanged places?<P>I interpret your posts that you got bored with your wife, you don't want any financial responsibility, and you want to play with your child like a toy at your convenience. <P>Not very nice.<P>

<BR>Related to the CS topic...<P>I was reading a CS reform position paper recently that had an interesting idea. States that currently do not automatically reduce CS for visitation should do so. Further, the NCP should always have the right of first refusal over *any* child care alternative (day care, nannies, whatever). This was suggested as a way of preventing CPs from dumping the children into a day care wasteland just to rack up the CP's "possession time" in order to maximize the CS take. Morally, an NCP who wants the children should trump a day care wasteland, even by the rubber-ruler "best interests of the child" standard.<P>T.L. & h.w., <P>My take on Starting Over's position is twofold: First, he wants his child 50% of the time. Lets be honest here, if he cedes to less than that now, he will NEVER get 50% custody. Ever. What sounds "reasonable" now will be held against him forever, even if his schedule would easily allow 50% custody say a year from now. Is that fair? I don't think so. Second, as far as the $312/mo, I don't think he minds supporting the child, he minds hidden alimony (which, I remind everyone, is illegal). Implicit in his complaint is that $312 exceeds actual costs. So is that $312/mo fair? I don't know, but the burden should be on the CP to prove the cost numbers.<P>As far as him "paying the price for his affair," I sorta agree with you on this, but why is it that betraying wives win custody most of the time and often receive hidden alimony to boot? If we're going to base custody decisions (and hidden alimony) on factors like infidelity, then lets at least hold women to the same standard.<P>Bystander<BR>

Bystander,<P>I think we agree on most issues, but are looking at it from different perspectives. I am in support of the good formulas I see, and you are dimayed with the bad ones you see. We both want fairness. <P>I also agree on the principle of the NC parent getting the kids over placing them in daycare, but there is rarely a case where all time is covered - it would have to be a regular schedule, not a "well today I want them" type of thing. Daycare is a huge headache for the parents, as we all know. I would love if my husband would work with me to rearrange work schedules next year to allow that (we both have that flexibility) but he won't commit to a schedule. I don't dare tell him I turned down a promotion - it meant ALOT more money for me, but also many more hours on the job and traveling, and therefore more daycare. My current boss got wind of the offer, and couldn't match the money, but offered me the chance to work at home sometime - I could have kissed him - it meant more time with my boys and less in daycare. But to my ex, it may appear I didn't want the support reduced. All perspective.<P>But I really do think the 50/50 custody that is becoming so popular may not be so great. It doesn't offer the stability the kids need. But what do you do when you have two good parents? It is a mess. I look at my neigbors, and wonder if they would be better off maybe splitting it up that the school year they stay at one place, and summer vacation at the other, with liberal visitation but not necessarily overnights except for weekends. I think it is up to the parents to live close to each other, for common evening visits, rather than shuttle the kids. <P>And I don't really think my position is that I wish to "punish" the betraying spouse, but that the betraying spouse chose an orgasm over their children's welfare. That should have great bearing on custody battles, and is a very relevant criterion by which to judge the better parent man or woman.<p>[This message has been edited by honey.west (edited July 13, 2000).]

<BR>h.w.,<P>You're right - we're both after fairness.<P>As far as NCPs getting right of first refusal over a day care wasteland, of course I meant within the context of an arranged schedule, not a spur-of-the-moment decision.<P>Your turning down a promotion...it brings to mind one of the reasons I think little or no CS money should change hands. Imputed income laws have some morally sick consequences. And hiding raises/promotions are high on the list. I mean, really, what if you found out your ex turned down a $50,000/yr. promotion? Would you nail him that much higher on the income shares cross? Why should parents have to play games like that? Is lying to your ex in the "best interests of the child?" I mean, yeah, you can squeeze a little more blood outta the ol' ex, but what kind of a moral example are people setting when they are simulataneously hiding their own employment situation? Etc.<P>As far as 50% physical/legal custody, perhaps the biggest reason I support it is because its exactly the status each parent has during the marriage. I think the current "winner take all" system is very unfair to men, and there's an abundance of psychological studies that show children outcomes from joint custody arrangements are much better than children outcomes from sole custody arrangements. So on the basis of either fairness to men *or* the rubber-ruler "best interest of the child" it makes sense to switch to a 50% custody as the default. I agree that it requires parents who are willing to live near each other - and I think many more *would* do so, if they each knew that they'd have 50% custody going into the divorce. Btw, I also believe that a lot of divorce/custody battles would be a lot less hostile if the combatants *knew* that they were going to get 50% custody going in. It changes the dynamics substantially when you know you're genuinely going to be treated equally in outcomes.<P>As far as considering infidelity in deciding child custody, I agree with you in principle. But realistically, it ain't gonna happen, so I think the next best option is to switch to a 50% custody as a default. At a minimum, we should at least avoid rewarding betraying wives with de facto default custody and often hidden alimony.<P>To recap, we both seek fairness. So again look at Starting Over's situation - if he cedes to less than 50% custody now, he will NEVER have 50% custody. Is that fair? I just don't think so.<P>Bystander

TL and HW - I know I sound like an insensitive son of a gun, but this is my position.<P>Bystander - Here in CA, there are two different support calculations - 1. child support and 2. Spousal support. STBX wife has waived any right to spousal support even though she may very well be entitled to it. I'm glad about that.<P>Now, about the 50% custody thing, again here in CA the percentage number can be negotiated by both parties, meaning custody can be whatever me and stbx wife agree to. We can tell the attorney to use as a basis for child support amount that we are 50/50 split in custodial time. This brings me back to my original question - I want my son overnight 2 nights per week, but, in order for me to keep him overnight, I would have to disrupt his sleep cycle, wake him up at 5:30 am., put him in the car and drive him to his mom's so that I could still be on the road to get to work by 7am. The issue we are arguing about has nothing to do with 50/50 or dollars awarded, but rather the fact of this disruption of my son's normal routine in the mornings.<P>STBX wife is willing and desires that we both maintain constant interaction with son. She wants me to do school pickups everyday and keep him with me until she gets off work (about 1 1/2 hours later than I do) She just doesn't agree at all with my position on the weekday overnights because of the early morning wakeup call my son would have to make.<P>Now, with my clarification, are your points of view the same? Because I am unwilling to budge on this one issue, STBX wife wants the judge to decide what is in our son's best interests and that's where I believe she will utimately get the custody arrangement that she has proposed. I doubt any judge will be sympathetic to waking up a child out of a sound sleep just to give me those weekday overnights.

<BR>Starting Over,<P>I'm not sure what you're asking. My point of view is that you should have a default of 50/50 custody. If I'm reading your post right, your STBX seems willing to concede to 50/50 custody, and further, neither of you is arguing about the CS amount.<P>Are saying that your work schedule requires an early wakeup to maintain the 50/50 custody, and that you STBX is opposed to the early wakeup and not the principle of 50/50 custody?<P>Lets assume that's correct. I guess the time difference in custody is pretty small, on the order of a 60/40 split favoring your STBX. Maybe a fair arrangement would be the following proposal: Calculate CS based on a 50/50 split in time, and codify that as your default custody time in your divorce decree. Add a rider that for the time being, however, work requires a deviation from the default of 50/50. What you want to do is get the default of 50/50 codified up front, so that when your work schedule changes and allows you to have your child 50% of the time, you won't be punished later for ceding the early wakeup call now. And find a *very good lawyer* to write this up so that it will actually stick in court. <P>My big issue is I'm afraid if you give up 50% custody now you may never see it again. OTOH, I also dislike waking the child up so early. I think if your wife is willing to codify a 50/50 in the divorce decree (and honor it in good faith later, when your schedule becomes more flexible), you should give ground. Truthfully, your STBX strikes me as being very fair here, and I don't really get the impression that she's going to try and use the kid as a CS cash cow.<P>Bystander

It does seem like the inequities come when one of the parties is unscrupulous. That violates "the spirit of the law."<P>I would certainly never lie about my income, like so many I hear about, nor would my ex for that matter, but he would complain if he knew I could have been making more (not 50,000 by anymeans - but about 7500 a year) he wouldn't have seen the down side of more daycare, and less time with the boys - or God forbid ANOTHER year of an au pair... And he actually has gotten a hefty raise since the amount was figured, and taken on a second job (but it provides him a social life and a new car) which technically, I could go for more, but wouldn't - again, I'm not out to soak him, but nor will I let him walk away from the reality that it is expensive to raise children, and they shouldn't have their standard of living lessened to the degree he and I must endure. One other example of an expense I could collect but don't is 1/2 the out of pocket medical expenses. That seemed excessive for routine bills.<P>Too many examples on each side. <P>I have sole custody - my attorney explained it this way, if you both have the same values and general mores, joint it better. My ex makes all of his decisions with his interests first. A good example is I have pulled my boys out of the open classroom, new "fuzzy math" public school and have enrolled them in a church school - 12 to 1 ratio, traditional curriculum. A good education for them is of paramount importance to me. Even though his day care portion of support is getting reduced, be put up a huge stink over this, until I realized he thought I was going to try to get more money from him. His feigned resistance to the sissy school and support of the public school disappeared when I told him I would cover the cost (OK, grandpa is helping).<P>And I agree, the kids need to see both parents as often as possible. But I see the harm 50/50 is doing to my neighbor's kids. I don't know what the solution is, but Starting Over's schedule is certainly not it.<P>I heard of a court case where the exasperated judge basically awarded the house to the children, and the PARENTS had to take turns living there, and bear the burden of moving in and out. Now that was the first time I have ever heard of the childrens interests really put first. <P>Why I got pulled away from my desk and posted before I saw those responses -<P>Starting Over, nice to see you were just venting before - but I do think you better really think this over. It doesn't sound like your schedule is in the best interest of the child, and your wife sounds pretty darn decent. I think you should come up with something better. <P><p>[This message has been edited by honey.west (edited July 13, 2000).]

<BR>h.w.,<P>I agree that generally speaking, most of the inequities come when one party is unscrupulous.<P>I think we're just gonna disagree on the 50/50 thing. I think it should be the default, because while it probably does occaisionally lead to a suboptimal situation like your neighbor's, on the whole it would be better than what we're doing now, IMO. And its quite obvious that the way we are doing things now treats good fathers who really want 50% custody very poorly. The only equitable thing is to make 50/50 the default and give every parent an equal chance. Certainly rubber stamping sole custody for mothers should come to a screeching halt, in my view.<P>As far as Starting Over, I think if his wife will codify a default of 50/50 up front, with a deviation rider now, he should cede the early wakeup. OTOH, I don't think ceding the early wakeup now should be held against him later, which is the way it will work out if he doesn't write things into the divorce decree up front. Personally, I think he should just change jobs now to keep 50% custody and make the early wakeup call a non-issue. I sure would if I were in his shoes.<P>This is quite an interesting thread.<P>Bystander

Am I the only one who thinks that Starting Over's posts sound like they are written by a betrayed spouse, pretending to be the betrayer? Especially when he basically came out and said the primary reason he wanted joint custody was financial. Who would admit that, and then show it to his wife, who could use it in court as evidence against 50/50 custody?<P>Bystander,<P>I think the daycare/increased visitation issue is largely hypothetical. My H, for instance, has informed me that daycare is the custodial parent's responsibility, and he will not take care of the kids (except of course when he feels like it). He is currently unemployed, and he is not spending one minute more with the kids than he did when he was working. <P>In many, many, cases, the NCP wants to spend only the bare minimum of time with the children. My H didn't even bother specifying any minimum visitation in the temporary orders, because he choses to spend so much less time with the kids that the standard.

My opinion still stands. Your stbx wife is not fighting with you over your ability to see your son. In fact what you have written verifies this very thing. She would maintain the routine your child is used to in the mornings, and you would keep your afternoon routine, plus overnights every week on Fridays and shared alternated weekends.<P>Seems pretty "best interests of the child" to me. Your support payments are just that. Support for your son. GET IT - FOR YOUR SON!<BR>Your stbx wife has already stated she doesn't want any alimony (something I certainly wouldn't have agreed to considering the situation)

<BR>Nellie1,<P>I already made reference to knowing of someone who adamantly refuses her ex-H another microsecond of visitation time because it would reduce her CS take. She is using this excessive CS to pay for a nanny, which effectively means that a good father is being denied access to his children while being forced (under threat of debtor's prison - Jean Val Jean, grab your loaf of bread!) to pay for a nanny! Such cases are sick, but they aren't hypothetical at all.<P>Bystander

Yes it is interesting! <P>I really don't disagree with you on the 50/50, just on the application. Have no idea of a good way to do it. Its quite a dilemma, but hate seeing the kids doing the suffering. That if anyone has to be inconvenienced, it should be the parents. <P>As it stands now, it isn't an issue for me - my husband doesn't want it, (he refused a visitation schedule in the settlement) and my boys are young enough they need their mommy. But I am already thinking about when they are in their early teens and really need their father more (and assuming he is a decent guy and wants them) about how hard it would be for me to let them live there if that would be best. I'll have to take my own advice - be strong and think of the kids.<P>Guess thats one reason I have so much empathy and do so much hand wringing for the really good dads out there.

<BR>h.w.,<P>If there was an easy answer to all this, we'd already know it by now! Your point about application of 50/50 is interesting, I'll have to ponder that for awhile. I don't have an off the cuff good idea, either.<P>Re: your H...I have to confess I get amazed at parents who don't want to see their own kids. I just don't understand it.<P>Bystander<BR>--<BR>Who is happily married with 3 children.

I think it should be harder to get married, harder to get divorced, get rid of no-fault and irreconciliable difference divorces, only have real grounds (adultery, abuse, addiction) and have an adulterous spouses who want a divorce wear scarlet As. <P>Maybe if divorce weren't so casual and accepted, it wouldn't be so common, and we wouldn't have to find a solution.<P>But back in the real world, no, I don't understand parents either who don't want to see their kids as often as possible. But my ex is getting better. He saw them a couple hours a month for about two years, but now is up to one night a week. <P>

<BR>h.w.,<P>This doesn't apply to your H, but I retract that earlier statement. There are fathers who pay so much in CS that they honestly cannot afford to take their children for their shared parenting time. This usually happens in low-income situations.<P>Bystander

I just wanted to weigh in with my situation.<BR>I have joint custody with my x, and I am the custodial parent. We have no set visitation but it is stated that if we disagree on visitation, then the minimum schedule, every other weekend from Fri 6pm to Sun 6pm and once per week(Wed evenings) should be followed.<P>I have the house, which I paid x $39000 for, plus she has access to $34000 of my retirement. I have no access to her retirement, but took the limited amount she had off my total.<P>There is no alimony. She never requested it, plus my lawyer said she probably wouldn't be eligible as she made a liveable wage.<P>I pay for all the kids insurance because I always did. X pays first $100 of non covered expenses and then %30 after that. I pay the remaining %70. <P>This is based on me making 70% of our total income. As a result of this, x pays me child support that comes directly from her pay. This was being handled by the county CPS but is now being handled as of 7-1 by the state of Ohio and it is already a week late.<P>The child support was based upon what my x made in 1998 working part time. Last year after leaving she worked more hours and wound up making $4000 more in 1999. I know this as she had me do the taxes.<P>Now she is taking a full time job plus will work part time at her old job and has the chance to make upwards of $11000 more that the support was based on.<P>Is the child support a form of illegal alimony? How do you break down the expenses. I run the kids everywhere they need to go during the week. X takes them where she wants to go on the weekends. How do you measure what my time is worth vs hers? It sounds bad to measure your time or worth, but when you say alimony is illegal, there must be way to place value on the time.<P>I know I would be paying a majority of my income if I was the one paying child support and as I make the higher wage I would probably would be paying alimony too.<P>I don't think there is an equitable solution. My income went down 30% because x left but I still have the majority of the expenses. I also went in debt another 30 yrs by refinancing the house.<P>X income has dropped too, but since she has om, she does have additional support. I don't know what kind of settlement he had for his x .<P>So i really don't think there can be an equitable solution. The payments can be made to be punishment or they can be too little.

<BR>RWD,<P>I'm not such a fatalist about figuring out a way to calculate fair awards.<P>Here's a URL to ponder:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/index.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/index.html</A> <P>I don't have any connection with PICSLT, nor do I necessarily endorse their views/proposed formulae (truthfully, I only stumbled upon this web site a few days ago). But they do seem to at least want to try and make rational CS calculations, which is light years ahead of the anti-father "deadbeat dad" agitprop being spewed by politicians these days. Oh, I'm cynical today!<P>Bystander

My ex makes 87% more than I do. Just found out yesterday that he got promoted.....seems the company had been putting it off until after the divorce. Fair? Hell no. It is assumed that his income went from 70,000 a year to 120,000. Of course he had a 120,000. a year job until I found out about his affair.....then went to a job at exactly half (60,000.) So, do I feel sorry for him...nope. Feel sorry for our children. This man has so much money....his children are having to live off of a mom who was a housewife and found a job that would let me work school hours so I could be home for them after school. We will get by....but not by his help.<P>Of course the car I got in the divorce.....boloney skin tires....one working window.....no air conditioning.....suits the girls and my life style just fine. Living below poverty.....all so that he could have the woman of his dreams.<P>Nancy