pops, you are right...to a point.

Yes, I definately feel that OW is in control and that irks me to no end. I am trying hard to regain the control of my life that I actually have instead of allowing OW to call all the shots.

I did always feel like telling OW off. I still want too some days but I take control and don't. It helps to vent here before I do any real damage and ruin things for OC. That is not my intention. I am getting better @ not allowing OW to control my emotions or my responses, at least the ones towards her, not letting my emotions get the best of me.

Yes, there are some issues that H and I will not give in on and the school is one of those. We are willing to compromise, always have been. We are willing to seek another attorney to help us assert our rights in that area and to help clear up any visitation conflicts also.

I think that is in the best interest for OC, to have everything clear.

I honestly believe we are in this for the long haul. The only thing that will stop C w/ OC will be OW. OR if for some reason we moved out of state or something then it would have to be during summer or something like that.

Everyday is better and better and instead of 2 steps forward and 3 back, it's more forward and only an occasional set back. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> Yep, it just takes time......yes, it feels like a FOREVER amount of time.LOL <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Kt,
I know about being on a low income, we have one provider and 6 mouths to feed plus we pay a CS obligation that is now a tad bit smaller than our mortgage alone!

My question is this....
How do you find an attorney that is willing to work with you for all this court stuff?

One of the factors of our consideration for NC is the fact that we just could not, on our income, keep up with the attorney fees, court costs etc.

Ironically, we have two children before it went to court and the court considered only one of our children saying I can get a job to support my other children. (And this while ex-ow was on welfare...no one told her to get off her fat [censored] and get a job, did they? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" /> )

I'm still amazed that I paid my atty $3,000 to get a $300 increase in my child support from my legitimate ex-husband! (and he's worse than any ex-mm that is trying to avoid paying CS, I can assure ya!)

Hopefully, if and when our child support money comes in from "Wild Bill"...things should even out for us.

I was thinking how lucky you are to get atty's that you can afford. We wiped out our entire retirement fund with legal fees the last three years.

Twiisty

by twiisty:Ironically, we have two children before it went to court and the court considered only one of our children saying I can get a job to support my other children. (And this while ex-ow was on welfare...no one told her to get off her fat [censored] and get a job, did they?)
****************
****************

The judge told me the same thing!!!!! AND OW was working but the DA said that OW was NOT working and had no income!!!!?????

From what I have read from you I think we have comparable "economic status's". We had to borrow the $$$$ to pay for 1st lawyer and she totally sucked.

As soon as first CS order came down I got pro-active and started to watch my ol' grandma to make up the difference. ("home health care provider", gram has alzheimers w/ dementia) this allowed me to still stay home w/ and homeschool our children but get some $$$$. Then I asked for more hours to get extra $$$ to pay back my parents for the lawyer.(they refinanced their house so were able to lend us the cash)

We had planned on begging and borrowing from H aunt for the attorney tomorrow but H did extra well @ work this month so we might be able to swing it ourselves, or @ least part of it. (he's a car salesman)

So I totally understand your top ramen diet! LOL

Also, I researched, researched and researched for myself all the available opportunities to "do it yourself". It's not easy but it helped. The last CS hearing (last month) H represented himself. It's all about being quick witted against the DA and being assertive. The court facilitator helped H fill out the paperwork (free) and file (got a fee waiver) and then H represented himself.

The courts also had a booklet full of attorney that are supposedly "inexpensive", or take payments. That's where we got our first 'stupid' lawyer.

I would try and do as much as you can yourself, like up to filing and then hire an attorney for representation just that day if you cannot afford one to handle everything. This puts more responsibility & stress on yourselves.

If you are assertive and willing then you can try to represent yourself but you have to be brave & VERY assertive. The DA tries to intimidate and take advantage. This is very scary.

It really all depends on how much it's all worth to you.

If we could go back, you know we would have done it different---only hired lawyer for 1st CS hearing, then just paid CS & be done w/it.

If we could afford it, we would never represent ourselves. I want to know how you find a really good, agressive one. The other one we had could really 'talk the talk' but when we actually got to court, didn't want to step inside the courtroom, wanted us to just agree to everything!

<small>[ April 06, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: ktbunch ]</small>

KtB~

I went back to see exactly why I used the word disrupting, because I know I try really hard not to put words in another's mouth.

I found this:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Why? for the same reason a woman can ask for nothing for 4 (or however many) years and then disrupt the man's life and family & come knocking on the door for CS. For the same reason that there is no statue of limitations (in some states) to file for CS.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I see why I used the word, but I apologize for obviously not reading your post very carefully. The above quote is your response to what Mo5 had asked, and her question had nothing to do with CS, so perhaps that's why I didn't catch the significance you placed on CS being a disruption.

Most of the time your posts regarding C have to do with the fact that the C itself is such a disruption and a mistake. Rarely have you mentioned the fact that the CS is a disruption.

I agree with you, the amount the OC was initially awarded compared to what was left to take care of your family was a major disruption. It was grossly unfair.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> We thought since OW originally said she wanted 'nothing' and now was asking for "something" that OW was now inviting us and wanted us in OC life. We naively thought, "how can you be there financially for OC and not there in every other way?" We stupidly thought, "since OW is contacting us, why wouldn't we be involved?"
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You've mentioned this quite a bit.

First, even though she said she wanted nothing, why didn't your H look into his options, his rights, his obligations, etc, at the time? Why did he take her word for it?

Secondly, I've wondered, and I believe I've asked you before--Did you ever ASK the ow what she was after? Ask her if she was expecting C along with the CS? Try to find out what her agenda was? Did your attorney ever ask? I don't get why you assumed she wanted C just because she then needed CS. I just don't understand how you all could've gone through such a long process, fighting for C on assumptions only. Did you truly, really want C, no matter what ow wanted? If so, then hey, more power to ya! To only seek C because you assumed that was what ow wanted when she sought CS, is confusing to me. Did you ever think, hey, this CS is awful and unfair, but ok, so it's something we're obligated to do, but at least we don't have to have C, no one can force us to have C, not the ow, not even the law??

KtB, there are so many posters on this board. So many different stories and situations. The one thing most of us have in common, is that each of us at one point in time has made the decision either for or against C. Whatever decision each of us has made, we have gone on with our decision, and made the best of what we have chosen. Rarely do you hear anyone complain and regret the path they are on, once they've made the decision for or against C. I guess that's why I don't get you. You and your H have made a decision for C but you continually say you wish you hadn't made that decision. You've said it's the 2nd biggest mistake of your lives. The decision you've made doesn't have to be a forever decision, you have the power to change it if it's making your life miserable. Don't you think it's better to do it now rather than later, while your children and oc are relatively young?

Do you get where I'm coming from? It's frustrating to hear you. Imagine if I sat here all the time talking about, "Oh, I should've sought CS from x-om--I wish my OC had C with x-om--NC has been a huge mistake--etc, etc..." I'm almost certain a few posters would come along and say things such as, "AD, what, are you nuts??--AD, your baby doesn't need C w/ x-om, your H is all the dad he will ever need--AD, you and your H made a decision, move on or change it, but stop griping..."


Also, you've used the following terminology many times. I've always wondered if this is how you view your H? If you had NC w/ OC, I would agree with the view, but seeing as you have C, I hope you view him as the father he is. How could ow view him as the father, and respect his rights if even you see him as a sperm donor? Again, don't want to put words in your mouth, that's why I'm asking if you're referring to your H whenever you say it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> It would be nice if sperm donors could CHOOSE to sign away thier rights from the very beginning---then there would be no confusion like that. NO rights means no rights and no obligations either.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">One more thing...didn't your ow request for your H to terminate his rights at one point in the process? Did ow realize that meant no CS? You said it wasn't legally possible anyway? That stinks, because it seems that would've been a good solution for you and H--NC and no CS.

Tell me, if money was NOT an issue, would you terminate C? I ask this, based on the following:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> But things are different now, CS is lower and visitation is more. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The smiley face after "visitation is more" totally threw me for a loop, recalling your constant comments on C being a mistake. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

KtB, when I think of your situation, I'm reminded of the commericial...I believe it's a Visa Card ad. Dad and son at a baseball game, ...The voice over says something like, "Two tickets to the game, $80.00--Two hot dogs, and two cokes, $15.00--Time spent together, PRICELESS"

I wonder if the disruption of CS could be a price you are willing to pay, (even if it has to go back up), in order to have peace and normalcy in your M and in your family? A peaceful life and M, without disruption and drama from ow, seems to me...to be priceless.

Just my thoughts and observations...

~ad

<small>[ April 07, 2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: autumnday ]</small>