"Hello, WW Weedhead?! Um... how are you? Meet my Atty. Bulldog Bill!"

What concerns me is that our final court date WAS set for June 24, however about a month ago WH asked to have that date changed and it is now set for August. I'm afraid he has done this to show the judge that a new precident was set...50/50 over the summer and he will try to show the judge how great it's worked out.

We are doing 50/50 over the summer, however it's not REALLY 50/50. During his week my DD stays with him during the nights and he brings her to my house in the morning, and I take her to her childcare provider (my mom) and then I get to see her in the evenings before he gets her at 5:30. I am home all day with her on Thursdays, since that is my day off.

I meet with my lawyer tomorrow to see what his chances are at really getting the 50/50 (plus his chances at getting my house, retirement, etc.).


When you ask what my counselor is saying, do you mean my lawyer or my IC?

Interesting about the courts now starting to think 50/50 stinks...is that in all states?

PSUBIKER...thanks for letting me know more about your 50/50 arrangement. It sounds like a cluster, but I hope it's working out ok for you and your kids!

It sounds like your WW might not have agreed to the 50/50 if she had known it would cut the CS, is that right?

Do you think you could have got the 50/50 if your wife had not consented to it?

From a money standpoint, I would have been better off financially as Every Other Weekend Dad. The reason being that my responsibility to the children would have been fixed cost equal to about 35% of my GROSS income. When I did the figuring, I am spending close to 40% of my gross directly attributable to the kids. Her issue is one of control - she doesn't like that I pay daycare, I buy all the clothes, I pay all the medical expenses, etc.

While she would have more money, her expenses would be much higher too because right now I pick up just about all the kid expenses such as clothes, school fees, etc.

Any documentation on this? Delaware just went to a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 last year. After doing 50/50 for 18 months, the issues you bring up are not what is causing problems in my situation. The issues I am seeing would be the same if we had 50/50 or I was every other weekend dad. I.E., a parent who feels she is the only one who has a right to the kids.

It is based on a few things, I believe.

The 50/50 leads to a lot of gridlock in descision making. Instead of helping, one parent can constantly disrupt the child rearing process- for years.

Secondly, in 50/50 the economic differences stand out greater. The parent with the better income has a better set up, without support for the other spouse, the child has two very different lifestyles. This is not condusive to a stable environment, for the children, sometimes there has ben issues where the children desire to be with the parent who provides the most material things.

There are a few articles about this newer thinking online, that is where I first found out about it. What used to be seen as a "King Soloman" type of problem solving is not everything it is set up to be.

Every situation is different, but in my state uses the Melson formula (which is based on the income shares model) for Child Support, both the exWW and I have a very close standard of living. I make a good wage, she was a SAHM just getting back on her feet. The way our support order is structured, it costs about $2300 dollars per month according to the state to support the kids. This is broken out by $750 to daycare, $1500 to support the kids. Due to the 50/50, the $1500 gets split between her and I, thus, my costs are $750, and her costs are $750. Since she is only making 30K, I pay her $750 in child support. We are ordered to split daycare, so I pay about $360/mo, and she pays $360mo.

Thus, her �true� expenditures for the kids should be $360/mo since she is already getting $750/mo in support. My expenditures are $750 for support to her, $360 for daycare, and $750 that I retain for the kids. But, here�s the issue. Since she is low income, I pay for all the clothes, all the school activities, all out of pocket medical expenses. So, while her 750 pretty much goes to food and shelter, mine goes to food, shelter, and all the other expenses for the kids. In total, she pays out of her own pocket $360 / mo, and I pay $1860 / mo. if you go by the support calculation. My exWW�s beef is she would like to have that entire $1860 that I pay instead of just $750. The part that she doesn�t understand is I need to retain money to support the kids when they are with me.

In my case, the CS formulas have done a pretty good job of balancing the incomes between the two households even though there is a huge disparity. We were ordered to do coparenting counseling and when exWW tried to pull the I�m rich and she�s poor card, the counselor shut her down immediately.
I am very skeptical of your assertions that there is a huge imbalance. That might be the case if there is no support order in place and the parents agree to split everything. But, if it�s an income shares state, the higher wage earner would still be paying a much larger percent of the total child care costs as in my case. And, in states that do just a straight percentage of gross, the imbalance would be on the parent who is paying support as there is usually no mechanism to adjust support based on visitation time in states that go with a straight percentage for support calculations.

Yes, in our shared custody arrangement she is getting a lot less support than she other wise would. But, what is missed are my costs to support the kids.

Well, when I thought I was getting a divorce, my H filed. I got tons of solicitaitons from other DA's - I guess my name is on some kind of record at the courthouse.

This 50/50 issue was brought up in the info/documentation I recieved (unsolicited) from the divorce atty's. Each sent me PAGES of "advice and info and tips" to go through, from that I started reading online.

Most, tho was well thought out and pretty helpful. Most said the same thing, and more that one advised against 50/50- for various reasons. Maybe in MI it is different.

I was not saying that the "poor parent" is the W. In a lot of cases it is DAD who gets a "bachelor pad" until the D's are settled.

From what I've seen, 50/50 is harder on the parents than the kids. The main reason being that both parents are still tightly tied to each other. Both need to remain in the school district (or accomodate otherwise as PSU has done). Both also need to communicate well and frequently.

The real advantage to it is that the children have both parents involved in their lives. It's true involvement - not just someone they have to visit like Grandma. It means both parents are aware of and involved in school progress and activities, extracurricular events, sports, hobbies and everything else about their children's lives.

Disparities in standards of living do exist, but they do so regardless of whether it's a 50/50 arrangement or every second weekend. In any event, both parents are knocked down a notch or several upon divorce - two households cost more than one.

At some point or another, the child is going to want to live at one house full time and they will be old enough that even the courts won't prevent it. That choice is most likely to be made based on their friends in the area rather than any other factor. They may move to one parent's when they are mad at the other and then back again occassionally but any permanent moves will relate more to their social life than anything. They know that the paying parent will keep on buying them stuff regardless of where they live. And of the people I know with more than one kid, only one family has all the kids at the same parents. For the most part, one kid moved in with dad and another with mom. It is not even necessarily the same sex parent - again they choose to live where they have the most/best friends.

If courts hate 50/50, it's probably because these parents fight more than sole/no custody parents do.

Tabby, really good post. My attorney feels the changes to 50/50 will result in LESS legal wrangling when it comes to custody because it reduced the perceived power inbalance in regards to the kids from the outset.

It affected our case preparations when we filed a custody action because of her move. We were going to do a full custody evaluation at the cost of 5K because the risk for me was being an every other weekend dad.

Once we found out 50/50 was the new standard, we axed the custody eval because my risk got much less. Basically, my risk was status quo which was 50/50. So, it didn't make sense to do the custody eval at that point.

I did say this was put forth by an atty.

I imagine it is the rare parent who can not agree about the child rearing.

Hey, ST;

Before you agree to anything, talk to your legal team first. We are not professionals, and every situation in different. You have to look at the long term reality of what co parenting (new term) entails.

You also must assess your willingness and your xh wilingness to cooperate in this.

It has been my expereince on these boards that XS are sometimes NOT working in the best intrest.

That's for sure. Seems almost like a given, especially when dealing with a wayward who has acted selfishly and in their own best interest for a very long time.

Meeting tomorrow a.m. with my lawyer, we'll see what he says...

I left my lawyer's office feeling discouraged.

As far as the 50/50, he says that certain judge's favor it, and others don't. Our judge happens to be one that is random with his opinion of it.

He named some things that we could focus on in our argument, however it was interesting how he stressed that stating anything about the mother-child bond is not a reasonable argument. Really? While I know that my DD loves her dad, it has never been a question in anyone's mind that she and I share a very tight bond. Every picture she draws includes me and her together and she has always wanted to be with me, and it has been like this since her birth.

He also did some calculations and figured that it's possible that I could end up paying my WH hundreds of dollars every month even with the 50/50. Despite the fact that I don't want it and haven't wanted any of this.

He stated that I could end up paying my WH over $30,000 for his half of the equity in the house (which was MY home prior to the marriage, and remains in MY name alone).

Needless to say, I left there feeling completely discouraged.

How can it be that a person can do what my WH did and potentially walk out of it better off, while I'm left essentially screwed???

Is it normal for a lawyer to present all the 'worse case scenarios' like mine did without seeming to offer a way to defend myself or fight?? Shouldn't my lawyer be as outraged as I am about what's happening, or do I watch too many movies?

I'd advise getting a second,or third opinion.

Is this because we should do this anyway (get second opinions) or because it sounds like my lawyer is lacking something?

Thanks for the input.

Sidney,
did you get a second opinion?
My lawyer painted a pretty bleak picture when we first met also. In her case it was like she was trying to get me to not jump into D too easily (painting the yard on the other side of the fence black).
Either way, judges and lawyers have to regard for the atrocities that happen as long as the children are physically safe - they simply can't be bothered. No sympathy. No warm and fuzzies. Don't look for it cause it's not there. All business, all money, all the time.
opt

Different states and circumstances, but my two cents:

I'm against 50/50 and so is the court appointed lawyer representing the best interest of my kids. (A lawyer my WH insisted on because he wants full custody in order to avoid child support payments, but really hoping for a 50/50 arrangement which he could really never handle.) However, I imaging 50/50 could work under the right circumstances. None of those circumstances exist in my case. I would imagine those specific circumstances are a rare occurance.

A 2nd opinion is a good idea, but as long as the lawyer works for you, the bleak opinions don't matter. He may say that losing part of the equity in your home is a possibility to warn you, as well as the 50/50 issue. But as long as he fiercely advocates for your cause, it doesn't matter what his private opinion is. Only how he plans to fight for your best interests.

Finally, none of this is fair. It sucks. I had to stop saying "...this is so unfair, I didn't ask for this, why does he get x and y when HE cheated and left his family for OW?" None of that talk ever helped me. Just tell yourself it will be settled one way or another in a year or so, and you will learn to live with it all somehow. Sad but true, lots of people go through this during D, and even worse. They survive it and so will you.

I agree that lawyers should let you know what the potential snags may be, just as a surgeon should discuss the risks and benefits of surgery. But if he sounds totally negative, I'd have to wonder what his problem is. My lawyer was not a gung ho, rah rah type of person. He just calmly laid out the course of action he was suggesting, and also discussed the ways in which my hubby's lawyer would counter. I don't recall him being negative about anything, really. (of course, we don't have minor children and custody issues).

He did tell me that the courts are not interested in who is morally right or wrong. It just boils down to the marital assets, and how they will be divided. This does not mean an equal distribution, either. He listened to my questions, and then explained point by point why we could or couldn't expect a favorable outcome. It really sounded like someone explaining how to play poker. There are rules to the game, but there is also bluffing. Often the lawyers know each other pretty well, from having met many times over divorces, and they often know the other's M.O. already.

Your lawyer would be dangerous if he just spun bright and pretty pictures for you, but then again, he should not be totally negative. If he is not willing to discuss the pros and cons of negotiating, then I'd wonder if he is just burned out and does not care.

Here are a couple of interesting things I have read: An open letter from your lawyer

open letter from a lawyer

and another open letter from a lawyer