50/50 parenting

[Scarlett]

57 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

For one. Preschool via head start is free but limited to the district that a parent lives in. For another, cost is a major factor.  Who’s going to pay for it should be discussed. 

Okay. Your son needs help to figure out a legal matter with life-long consequences for his future relationship with his son. Seems to me the best way to do that is to at least consult one or a few attorneys. If he were my kid, I’d help him start there.  Hope it all works out in the end for him and grand baby. 

My friend who has 40 years experience as a paralegal working with family and estate law in OK might know a thing or two.  My step son will do as he wants but we will advise him to start with the paralegal. 
 

I really really have a bad taste in my mouth over attorneys.  In case you can’t tell.  

[Murphy101]

18 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

My friend who has 40 years experience as a paralegal working with family and estate law in OK might know a thing or two.  My step son will do as he wants but we will advise him to start with the paralegal. 
 

I really really have a bad taste in my mouth over attorneys.  In case you can’t tell.  

And your friend the paralegal can’t suggest a single attorney?  Idk. Of course he and you are going to do whatever you want. But to me this is like someone saying they hate doctors so they are going to talk to a nurse about a surgery they need. It’s all medicine and sure a nurse can tell you a lot. But at the end of the day, they aren’t doing the surgery. Paralegals can share a lot of info but at the end of the day, they won’t actually stand for you in court.

I have plenty of personal reasons to be leery of doctors and lawyers but I also have plenty MORE statistical reasons that outweigh my antidotal situations to be extremely leery of facing a medical crisis without a proper doctor or a court of any kind without a lawyer.

I’m not discounting your bad experiences. I’m just suggesting to not let that be the only factor in this situation. 

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

And your friend the paralegal can’t suggest a single attorney?  Idk. Of course he and you are going to do whatever you want. But to me this is like someone saying they hate doctors so they are going to talk to a nurse about a surgery they need. It’s all medicine and sure a nurse can tell you a lot. But at the end of the day, they aren’t doing the surgery. Paralegals can share a lot of info but at the end of the day, they won’t actually stand for you in court.

I have plenty of personal reasons to be leery of doctors and lawyers but I also have plenty MORE statistical reasons that outweigh my antidotal situations to be extremely leery of facing a medical crisis without a proper doctor or a court of any kind without a lawyer.

I’m not discounting your bad experiences. I’m just suggesting to not let that be the only factor in this situation. 

Your sound reasoning skills are really annoying me tonight. 😉

[Murphy101]

14 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Your sound reasoning skills are really annoying me tonight. 😉

It’s okay. My reasoning skills annoy me all the time. That or cause a panic attack. 🥴

[TechWife]

12 hours ago, Scarlett said:

This made me laugh.  I have lived through one parent doing many many things against the custody order and NOTHING was done.  
It is very easy for one of the parents to just ignore whatever they want.  One’s best best is to have some general guidelines and work for a cooperative relationship but not even be surprised when it goes wrong.  

Well, these days a parent moving a child away from the other parent is likely to get them in deep legal water when a complaint is filed with the court. It isn’t  easy for the other parent to work to hold them to account when they do, but it is their responsibility. There are quite a few things that have improved in recent years. One of them is recognizing the value of joint custody arrangements. Nothing about divorce is easy when it comes to children, but in all honesty, parenting isn’t easy in the best of times, either. One’s best bet is to work to do what is right for the children at every stage of their lives. 

[Faith-manor]

My brother had 50/50 for years. He and his ex had a very nasty relationship so it didn't work out well for the kids because they spent all their time fighting over what the other parents did or did not do on their week. 50/50 only works if BOTH parents commit to being decent about it. And it only works if both parents live nearby so kids have the same community, same doctor, friendships, etc. It is difficult for them to make friends, play a sports take piano lessons, and all that jazz if they are constantly going back and forth between communities.

Your grandson is young enough that he will adjust to his new normal pretty quickly so long as these two can be mature ex spouses, and co-parent. If not, it is generally better for one parent to have full custody, and the other to be the unfortunate every other weekend and school holiday parent so they can have some kind of consistency.

My nephews, one by one, moved out at 13 which is pretty much when courts will not force them to continue to do the back and forth. They went to their mother's and though she was not a spectacular parent by any stretch of the imagination, she was an improvement over my brother, and they did much better then. However, my parents were a big part of that. Grandpa and grandma were very careful to keep a good relationship with their ex dil so that they could be around their grandkids a lot. I urge you to not alienate her.

[Scarlett]

3 hours ago, TechWife said:

Well, these days a parent moving a child away from the other parent is likely to get them in deep legal water when a complaint is filed with the court. It isn’t  easy for the other parent to work to hold them to account when they do, but it is their responsibility. There are quite a few things that have improved in recent years. One of them is recognizing the value of joint custody arrangements. Nothing about divorce is easy when it comes to children, but in all honesty, parenting isn’t easy in the best of times, either. One’s best bet is to work to do what is right for the children at every stage of their lives. 

Not sure where you live, but it really hasn't changed that much.  People break court orders all. of. the. time and most of the time nothing is done. It takes filing contempt charge after contempt charge before maybe something is done.  By then a kid could have been moved away from their other parent for a year or more.  

Of course your last sentence is correct.  Unfortunately one parent can't force the other parent to do much whether it is in best interest of child or not.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

My brother had 50/50 for years. He and his ex had a very nasty relationship so it didn't work out well for the kids because they spent all their time fighting over what the other parents did or did not do on their week. 50/50 only works if BOTH parents commit to being decent about it. And it only works if both parents live nearby so kids have the same community, same doctor, friendships, etc. It is difficult for them to make friends, play a sports take piano lessons, and all that jazz if they are constantly going back and forth between communities.

Your grandson is young enough that he will adjust to his new normal pretty quickly so long as these two can be mature ex spouses, and co-parent. If not, it is generally better for one parent to have full custody, and the other to be the unfortunate every other weekend and school holiday parent so they can have some kind of consistency.

My nephews, one by one, moved out at 13 which is pretty much when courts will not force them to continue to do the back and forth. They went to their mother's and though she was not a spectacular parent by any stretch of the imagination, she was an improvement over my brother, and they did much better then. However, my parents were a big part of that. Grandpa and grandma were very careful to keep a good relationship with their ex dil so that they could be around their grandkids a lot. I urge you to not alienate her.

Two people who are not mature enough to co-parent are highly unlikely to agree  on one parent getting 80% of parenting time.  

13 year old kids don't get to decide to stop visitation with one parent.  Many times, parents GIVE UP fighting about this time, but it isn't the courts saying, 'oh you are 13 so you get to cut ties with one of your parents.'

Edited November 2, 2021 by Scarlett

[Faith-manor]

Just now, Scarlett said:

Two people who are not mature enough to co-parent are highly unlikely to agree that on one parent getting 80% of parenting time.  

13 year old kids don't get to decide to stop visitation with one parent.  Many times, parents GIVE UP fighting about this time, but it isn't the courts saying, 'oh you are 13 so you get to cut ties with one of your parents.'

That is different from state to state and court to court. In my county, the family court lets them choose at 13. Unless someone is declared unfit or the chosen parent refuses to take the child fool time, this is the way it goes. My brother fought to keep his 13 year olds, mostly because of paying more child support, and lost. The judges here do not want to risk runways and let the kids choose once they reach the teen years. It may be different in OK. At any rate, alienating the ex is not wise if you can possibly help it.

And the courts ultimately decide. Mediation in your area may work, but judges override it here all.the.time. So parents can actually amicably agree to one thing or another, and be entirely overruled by family court judges. This is why an attorney is needed because they can help navigate the mess. Going it alone often means that one parent gets entirely shafted. That said, sometimes what is best for the child is very much against what the parent wants. In my brother's case, it was much better for his kids to be full time with her due to his own immaturity. These things are very hard. For my parents, the single hardest thing for them to deal with was admitting just how effing lousy my brother was as a parent. To this day he is wretched at it which is why he has a relationship with only one out of his five kids. Very sad.. Very very sad.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

That is different from state to state and court to court. In my county, the family court lets them choose at 13. Unless someone is declared unfit or the chosen parent refuses to take the child fool time, this is the way it goes. My brother fought to keep his 13 year olds, mostly because of paying more child support, and lost. The judges here do not want to risk runways and let the kids choose once they reach the teen years. It may be different in OK. At any rate, alienating the ex is not wise if you can possibly help it.

And the courts ultimately decide. Mediation in your area may work, but judges override it here all.the.time. So parents can actually amicably agree to one thing or another, and be entirely overruled by family court judges. This is why an attorney is needed because they can help navigate the mess. Going it alone often means that one parent gets entirely shafted. That said, sometimes what is best for the child is very much against what the parent wants. In my brother's case, it was much better for his kids to be full time with her due to his own immaturity. These things are very hard. For my parents, the single hardest thing for them to deal with was admitting just how effing lousy my brother was as a parent. To this day he is wretched at it which is why he has a relationship with only one out of his five kids. Very sad.. Very very sad.

Courts will listen to kids around age 12 about where they want to live the majority of the time I don't think there is a state one that allows a 13 year old to sever ties to one parent.  Not without abuse proof.  Many times people GIVE  UP trying to force a teen to come for visitation, but that is a different thing than the courts allowing a 13 year old to cut ties.  And in most cases people will SAY 'I couldn't force them', when the reality is they gave up.  And I am not judging people who give up trying to force a teen to come to visitation.  I am just pointing out that courts don't basically terminate parental rights because a teen wants to stop visitation. 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

My brother had 50/50 for years. He and his ex had a very nasty relationship so it didn't work out well for the kids because they spent all their time fighting over what the other parents did or did not do on their week. 50/50 only works if BOTH parents commit to being decent about it. And it only works if both parents live nearby so kids have the same community, same doctor, friendships, etc. It is difficult for them to make friends, play a sports take piano lessons, and all that jazz if they are constantly going back and forth between communities.

Your grandson is young enough that he will adjust to his new normal pretty quickly so long as these two can be mature ex spouses, and co-parent. If not, it is generally better for one parent to have full custody, and the other to be the unfortunate every other weekend and school holiday parent so they can have some kind of consistency.

My nephews, one by one, moved out at 13 which is pretty much when courts will not force them to continue to do the back and forth. They went to their mother's and though she was not a spectacular parent by any stretch of the imagination, she was an improvement over my brother, and they did much better then. However, my parents were a big part of that. Grandpa and grandma were very careful to keep a good relationship with their ex dil so that they could be around their grandkids a lot. I urge you to not alienate her.

We have no intention of alienating her, but we also do not plan on being able to see the baby on her time.  This is the DIL who would not let us or dss's bio mom see the baby until he was 4 months old.  So we do not expect she will be rushing to include us in his life.  

[Spryte]

I keep thinking about the attorney vs no attorney issue. I know you are thinking he’s not going to use one, but maybe there’s a way to have someone look over the agreements? Especially if there’s a “no CS” agreement. I would worry that at some point she will get antsy about that, get married and have a DH who wants her to file for CS, and possibly sue for back CS. I would want to be sure that every single t is crossed and i is dotted. 

Someone I know and love waived his right to an attorney in a case like this, thought it would be so simple, and was royally screwed later. 

Of course, it varies state to state, but in mine, 50/50 custody only means that no one pays CS if both parents make exactly the same income. The parent who makes more money still pays CS, and if that changes and flip flops at some point, it’s on the parent who then makes less to initiate court proceedings to have the other start paying. 

[fairfarmhand]

14 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

We have no intention of alienating her, but we also do not plan on being able to see the baby on her time.  This is the DIL who would not let us or dss's bio mom see the baby until he was 4 months old.  So we do not expect she will be rushing to include us in his life.  

True. But be as warm and helpful as possible. Because she'll be single parenting. And if she needs help with childcare or something (say babe is slightly ill and can't go to day care but she still has to go to work) she may be open to your assistance.

[Scarlett]

8 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

True. But be as warm and helpful as possible. Because she'll be single parenting. And if she needs help with childcare or something (say babe is slightly ill and can't go to day care but she still has to go to work) she may be open to your assistance.

We will do whatever we can but we have no contact with her. 

[Scarlett]

16 minutes ago, Spryte said:

I keep thinking about the attorney vs no attorney issue. I know you are thinking he’s not going to use one, but maybe there’s a way to have someone look over the agreements? Especially if there’s a “no CS” agreement. I would worry that at some point she will get antsy about that, get married and have a DH who wants her to file for CS, and possibly sue for back CS. I would want to be sure that every single t is crossed and i is dotted. 

Someone I know and love waived his right to an attorney in a case like this, thought it would be so simple, and was royally screwed later. 

Of course, it varies state to state, but in mine, 50/50 custody only means that no one pays CS if both parents make exactly the same income. The parent who makes more money still pays CS, and if that changes and flip flops at some point, it’s on the parent who then makes less to initiate court proceedings to have the other start paying. 

I don’t know what he will do. It wouldn’t hurt to have an attorney look over their agreement. But to be clear whatever they agree to will be filed with the court. 

[Scarlett]

27 minutes ago, Spryte said:

I keep thinking about the attorney vs no attorney issue. I know you are thinking he’s not going to use one, but maybe there’s a way to have someone look over the agreements? Especially if there’s a “no CS” agreement. I would worry that at some point she will get antsy about that, get married and have a DH who wants her to file for CS, and possibly sue for back CS. I would want to be sure that every single t is crossed and i is dotted. 

Someone I know and love waived his right to an attorney in a case like this, thought it would be so simple, and was royally screwed later. 

Of course, it varies state to state, but in mine, 50/50 custody only means that no one pays CS if both parents make exactly the same income. The parent who makes more money still pays CS, and if that changes and flip flops at some point, it’s on the parent who then makes less to initiate court proceedings to have the other start paying. 

Yes that is how it works here as well. I ran the calculator and he would owe $136. 

[bolt.]

25 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Yes that is how it works here as well. I ran the calculator and he would owe $136. 

He should probably begin making that payment, and expect to continue to do so (making adjustments as their incomes change).

(If she insists that she doesn't want it, he should open a new bank account to save it every month -- either to pay it to her as a lump sum when/if back-payments are called for, or to give to the child directly at some point in their future.)

Edited November 2, 2021 by bolt.

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, bolt. said:

He should probably begin making that payment, and expect to continue to do so (making adjustments as their incomes change).

(If she insists that she doesn't want it, he should open a new bank account to save it every month -- either to pay it to her as a lump sum when/if back-payments are called for, or to give to the child directly at some point in their future.)

Well, I mean, they are getting a divorce so his orders will come from a judge.....a judge will either sign off on their agreement of no cs and 50/50 time or he will order ds to pay cs.  It is very hard for cs to be counted as cs before an order is filed.  He has been paying all of the bills since she asked him to move out.....but now that she is getting her own place and they are letting their apartment go something will need to be done one way or the other.  

[bolt.]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

Well, I mean, they are getting a divorce so his orders will come from a judge.....a judge will either sign off on their agreement of no cs and 50/50 time or he will order ds to pay cs.  It is very hard for cs to be counted as cs before an order is filed.  He has been paying all of the bills since she asked him to move out.....but now that she is getting her own place and they are letting their apartment go something will need to be done one way or the other.  

Here, child support is generally calculated from the date of separation. At the point when the divorce is finalized, if no CS has been paid to that point, a lump sum is assessed going back to the date of separation. If he has been paying bills, he should keep good records and get her to sign off that she "received" that money (in the sense that he paid a bill on her behalf) and the amounts she "received" month-by-month. Those will be considered as CS payments. (Or they would be here.) If there are no records and no calculations available, his contributions may not be considered properly when the lump sum is assessed.

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Here, child support is generally calculated from the date of separation. At the point when the divorce is finalized, if no CS has been paid to that point, a lump sum is assessed going back to the date of separation. If he has been paying bills, he should keep good records and get her to sign off that she "received" that money (in the sense that he paid a bill on her behalf) and the amounts she "received" month-by-month. Those will be considered as CS payments. (Or they would be here.) If there are no records and no calculations available, his contributions may not be considered properly when the lump sum is assessed.

Assuming he is ordered to pay cs, yes he might have to worry about that.  We tried to tell him to not move out of the apartment just because she asked him to, but he wouldn't listen.  Anyway, he says she has agreed to no cs so we will see.  

[Murphy101]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Well, I mean, they are getting a divorce so his orders will come from a judge.....a judge will either sign off on their agreement of no cs and 50/50 time or he will order ds to pay cs.  It is very hard for cs to be counted as cs before an order is filed.  He has been paying all of the bills since she asked him to move out.....but now that she is getting her own place and they are letting their apartment go something will need to be done one way or the other.  

Has he been paying them directly and has a paper trail to prove it? Bc if not - it’s his word vs hers. My brother was separated from one of his wives for over 12 years before he divorced her and he paid for everything and kept proof so she couldn’t claim abandonment. All of it counted not only to child support but alimony when they finally divorced.

[bolt.]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

Assuming he is ordered to pay cs, yes he might have to worry about that.  We tried to tell him to not move out of the apartment just because she asked him to, but he wouldn't listen.  Anyway, he says she has agreed to no cs so we will see.  

Her agreement is irrelevant. It is the child who is entitled to the money. It will be best if he has his ducks in a row (regarding what he has already paid) and/or enough saved up to account for not (yet) paying for these months -- before he approaches a judge.

Even if there's a chance that a judge will okay this nonstandard arrangement to deprive a child of money without the child's consent (and I can't see why they would do so) the child would most likely have some rights after the fact. He's better off just embracing his responsibilities from the start. Is there a reason he doesn't want to pay the calculated normal amount for his child in this situation?

[Scarlett]

8 minutes ago, bolt. said:

Her agreement is irrelevant. It is the child who is entitled to the money. It will be best if he has his ducks in a row (regarding what he has already paid) and/or enough saved up to account for not (yet) paying for these months -- before he approaches a judge.

Even if there's a chance that a judge will okay this nonstandard arrangement to deprive a child of money without the child's consent (and I can't see why they would do so) the child would most likely have some rights after the fact. He's better off just embracing his responsibilities from the start. Is there a reason he doesn't want to pay the calculated normal amount for his child in this situation?

Two parents agreement is not irrelevant.  Not sure where you get that idea.  I don't think there is 'a reason' other than they are both trying to simply things.  People agree on things outside of court all the time.  Judges like it when you do that.  And it is not like he is making 100K and she is making 12K.  They make similar amounts.  They will be able to provide similar living situations for him.  Both of them can barely pay rent on a one bedroom.  

[Scarlett]

40 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Has he been paying them directly and has a paper trail to prove it? Bc if not - it’s his word vs hers. My brother was separated from one of his wives for over 12 years before he divorced her and he paid for everything and kept proof so she couldn’t claim abandonment. All of it counted not only to child support but alimony when they finally divorced.

Wow 12 years.  I am impressed at his bookkeeping skills. 

I think dss has been paying the rent directly.  Hopefully now that they have let the apartment go they can both move toward the legal side....she hasn't filed because she doesn't have the money.  

[bolt.]

45 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Two parents agreement is not irrelevant.  Not sure where you get that idea.  I don't think there is 'a reason' other than they are both trying to simply things.  People agree on things outside of court all the time.  Judges like it when you do that.  And it is not like he is making 100K and she is making 12K.  They make similar amounts.  They will be able to provide similar living situations for him.  Both of them can barely pay rent on a one bedroom.  

We must live in very different jurisdictions. I think here, it is it may not be possible for a parent to "agree" that their child is not entitled to support from the other parent. Such "agreements" would allow the two adults to deprive the child of something they the have a legal right to receive.

$30,000 is a lot of money to hold back from someone simply because their mother was allowed to surrender it on one's behalf during one's infancy!

Edited November 2, 2021 by bolt.

[Spryte]

Another thought that may not apply to your son, Scarlett, but sort of goes hand in hand with bolt.’s posts … more on an emotional level than a legal one, but possibly relevant.

We did 50/50. DH waived his right to an attorney when DSS was an infant — they were never married, so it was right at the start — and they just came to an agreement which they filed. She had an attorney friend look it over, but he did not. He paid more than 3x the amount on the state’s CS calculator for years, worked three jobs to do it — but he wanted to make sure she finished her degrees. About 6 years later, once she had her graduate work finished, they began using the calculator, and he still paid CS, just according to the guidelines. He had to fight hard for that. After that, she took DH to court every. single. year. to revisit the amount (just in case he’d had a raise, which he would have reported anyway?!) until a judge finally told her these were frivolous suits and if she did it again there would be ramifications for her. At some point after that, the CS calculation flipped, and her income exceeded DH’s. At that point, he could have stopped paying or had her pay CS to him. 

But — and this is what your son needs to think about — it was incredibly important to my DH that he not only support his child at our home 50% of the time, but that he was also providing for his child at her home. He needed to provide for his child, period. So we supported DSS at our house and at hers, even when she was making considerably more than DH. I don’t know that DSS even now knows, but it was important for DH, and I respect him for it.

The above may not be important to your son, in the same way. Or — maybe it will be. I would probably encourage my own son to consider it, despite financial hardships. 

One more thing — they need to iron out who claims child on taxes. DH never did, because it didn’t occur to him to write that into their “agreement” at the start, and later — things were too contentious to add another layer to an already difficult situation.

Take or leave those thoughts, just wanted to toss out another perspective for you to consider.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Spryte

[hippymamato3]

39 minutes ago, bolt. said:

We must live in very different jurisdictions. I think here, it is it may not be possible for a parent to "agree" that their child is not entitled to support from the other parent. Such "agreements" would allow the two adults to deprive the child of something they the have a legal right to receive.

$30,000 is a lot of money to hold back from someone simply because their mother was allowed to surrender it on one's behalf during one's infancy!

If both parents make equal amounts of money and have equal time with the child, it's pretty common for there to be no child support.  It's not like the money would be given directly to the child either, so this is silly.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

Two parents agreement is not irrelevant.  Not sure where you get that idea.  I don't think there is 'a reason' other than they are both trying to simply things.  People agree on things outside of court all the time.  Judges like it when you do that.  And it is not like he is making 100K and she is making 12K.  They make similar amounts.  They will be able to provide similar living situations for him.  Both of them can barely pay rent on a one bedroom.  

In many areas, there is a set formula and that is what happens. You can't agree to something different. 

Also, the formula takes into account who pays the child's insurance premiums, who pays medical expenses not covered by insurance, and who claims the child on taxes. I'd think he could put in writing everything they are considering, then have a one time meeting with a lawyer to look it over. 

[bolt.]

36 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

If both parents make equal amounts of money and have equal time with the child, it's pretty common for there to be no child support.  It's not like the money would be given directly to the child either, so this is silly.

Fair enough, but how common is it that any two people would make equal amounts of money, in lockstep, for 18 years? The differences in income are why there is a formula, which, in this case, worked out to a small monthly payment due to a small difference in incomes. Here I would be very surprised to see a judge disregarding those formulas (which are for the good of the child) based on the preferences of the adults.

[kiwik]

On 11/2/2021 at 7:51 AM, Scarlett said:

I just called about a day care here in our town.....$160 a week.  And of course they have to be paid even when he isn't there.  So using two different day cares is not going to work at all.  

They must attend the same day care of school when at each parents.  There has to be some stabilty.  It only works if both parents basically live in the same suburb.  Is it possible for then to rent a small flat and take turns living with the child rather than move the child? 

[kiwik]

On 11/2/2021 at 9:55 AM, ktgrok said:

Have in writing that either parent cannot move more than X amount of distance away without either prior consent of the other person OR agreement of the court. 

This.  And make it a legal document through court if need be.

[Guest]

On 11/1/2021 at 10:28 AM, Scarlett said:

Our oldest son is getting a divorce.  They have a year old  baby.  Supposedly, his STBXW has agreed to 50/50 custody and no child support.  I have been poking around the web looking at various options.  My sister has always done the week on/week off.  I think it is the most simple to pull off, but not sure if she will agree to that.  

Do any of you have any insight to these type of 50/50 shared parenting plans? Or any of the apps that are out there?

What I see at the firm is that the parenting agreement is very, VERY specific and leaves pretty much nothing ambiguous. One client was holding out signing because dividing the week a certain way meant she would get four overnights a week and he would only get three. 🙄 The solution was switching each week so she gets four one week and then he gets four the next. 
 

The parenting agreement usually spells out how holidays, birthdays and summer vacations will balance out. It spells out what happens when the child reaches 18 and how college expenses will be handled. 
 

My recommendation is to think of everything and cover it right from the start because changing it later is hella expensive, especially if someone wants to be difficult and has money to burn. (They can just insist the attorney files a bunch of Motions that the ex has to defend against, which drives up the bill.)  The *biggest* mistake I see repeatedly is coming to a verbal agreement so as to not get lawyers involved in the beginning, but within a year, someone is not holding up their end of the agreement, especially if new lovers enter the picture. 
 

I’m sorry, Scarlett. I know you were concerned there might be problems and I’m sure it’s painful to see this play out. 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

Fair enough, but how common is it that any two people would make equal amounts of money, in lockstep, for 18 years? The differences in income are why there is a formula, which, in this case, worked out to a small monthly payment due to a small difference in incomes. Here I would be very surprised to see a judge disregarding those formulas (which are for the good of the child) based on the preferences of the adults.

It isn’t like the money is going to disappear. Ds will have it and the baby will be cared for between his two parents.

Judges here are very happy when parents agree ahead of time.  Parents don’t lose their parenting ability and rights just because they divorce.  It is better for them to agree on the situation that makes the most  sense for their situation.  
 

I know a couple who never married and never filed anything with the courts.  The child is 9 now and it has worked fine for them. 
 

Also there was nothing in dh’s divorce that said he had to report a raise.  Talk about clogging up the courts for small yearly increases.  The custodial parent has the right to request proof of income once a year and then if she chooses she can go back to court and request more.   My xh just gave me more based upon his raises but I had to ask for the proof ( which I did not do every year) and he did not have to agree to pay me more without me taking him back to court.  
 

I can definitely see the appeal of 50/50 and no cs when incomes are similar.  
 

There are all kinds of ways to be divorced or separated and to co parent or Parallel parent or to not even be ever married.  I am surprised some of you think it is required to be so rigid. 

[Scarlett]

13 hours ago, Quill said:

What I see at the firm is that the parenting agreement is very, VERY specific and leaves pretty much nothing ambiguous. One client was holding out signing because dividing the week a certain way meant she would get four overnights a week and he would only get three. 🙄 The solution was switching each week so she gets four one week and then he gets four the next. 
 

The parenting agreement usually spells out how holidays, birthdays and summer vacations will balance out. It spells out what happens when the child reaches 18 and how college expenses will be handled. 
 

My recommendation is to think of everything and cover it right from the start because changing it later is hella expensive, especially if someone wants to be difficult and has money to burn. (They can just insist the attorney files a bunch of Motions that the ex has to defend against, which drives up the bill.)  The *biggest* mistake I see repeatedly is coming to a verbal agreement so as to not get lawyers involved in the beginning, but within a year, someone is not holding up their end of the agreement, especially if new lovers enter the picture. 
 

I’m sorry, Scarlett. I know you were concerned there might be problems and I’m sure it’s painful to see this play out. 

The thing is everything cannot be thought of.  There are all kinds of templates out there for them to start with and do what is important to them.  They both come from very horrible divorces from their own childhood.  So maybe they are hoping for the low stress approach.  I really don’t know what they are thinking.  Ds has been here with the baby since 2:30 or so.  I got home at 5 and took over because ds had no sleep…..he crashed on the sofa for an hour and a half or so while I feed and changed and played with the baby.  He is up and eating some supper.  I haven’t had time to get much out of him but he did tell me the day care is not subsidized.  
 

When you say you see people coming to a verbal agreement do you mean and they don’t get it filed with the courts?

Edited November 3, 2021 by Scarlett
Day care is NOT subsidized

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, kiwik said:

This.  And make it a legal document through court if need be.

Yes this is one of the things they need to address IMO.  

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, kiwik said:

They must attend the same day care of school when at each parents.  There has to be some stabilty.  It only works if both parents basically live in the same suburb.  Is it possible for then to rent a small flat and take turns living with the child rather than move the child? 

And where would they stay when they weren’t with the baby?  I just can’t see that working.  

[Scarlett]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

In many areas, there is a set formula and that is what happens. You can't agree to something different. 

Also, the formula takes into account who pays the child's insurance premiums, who pays medical expenses not covered by insurance, and who claims the child on taxes. I'd think he could put in writing everything they are considering, then have a one time meeting with a lawyer to look it over. 

Yes, all things that will have to be addressed.  

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

When you say you see people coming to a verbal agreement do you mean and they don’t get it filed with the courts?

Yes, that’s what I mean. 

[City Mouse]

Verbal agreements work until they don’t work, then things can get very, very messy. In my DH’s job in law enforcement, he has seen many of these situations turn bad. When there is no court documents, then either parent can do what ever they want-including moving far away and cutting off any contact with grandparents. It is great that they seem to want to handle things the same way now, but what happens when one of them, or both, gets a new significant other and/or has more children. 
it may not seem like it now, but it is much better in the long run to sort it all out now while they are in agreement and make it all legal.

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, City Mouse said:

Verbal agreements work until they don’t work, then things can get very, very messy. In my DH’s job in law enforcement, he has seen many of these situations turn bad. When there is no court documents, then either parent can do what ever they want-including moving far away and cutting off any contact with grandparents. It is great that they seem to want to handle things the same way now, but what happens when one of them, or both, gets a new significant other and/or has more children. 
it may not seem like it now, but it is much better in the long run to sort it all out now while they are in agreement and make it all legal.

I think it might have gotten lost in the thread but at no time has ds considered a verbal agreement nor would we suggest that.  

[Spryte]

56 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

It isn’t like the money is going to disappear. Ds will have it and the baby will be cared for between his two parents.

Judges here are very happy when parents agree ahead of time.  Parents don’t lose their parenting ability and rights just because they divorce.  It is better for them to agree on the situation that makes the most  sense for their situation.  
 

I know a couple who never married and never filed anything with the courts.  The child is 9 now and it has worked fine for them. 
 

Also there was nothing in dh’s divorce that said he had to report a raise.  Talk about clogging up the courts for small yearly increases.  The custodial parent has the right to request proof of income once a year and then if she chooses she can go back to court and request more.   My xh just gave me more based upon his raises but I had to ask for the proof ( which I did not do every year) and he did not have to agree to pay me more without me taking him back to court.  
 

I can definitely see the appeal of 50/50 and no cs when incomes are similar.  
 

There are all kinds of ways to be divorced or separated and to co parent or Parallel parent or to not even be ever married.  I am surprised some of you think it is required to be so rigid. 

Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that regular divorce papers require reporting raises. It’s a requirement in our state, though, that raises be reported to the CS office. But DSS’s bio mom didn’t trust that DH a would report and so she would file court papers every single year. The judge put a stop to it, finally. She was, like I said, genuinely mentally ill. Poor thing.

The funny part is that anyone who meets my DH knows he’s the most honest, open guy. Of course he’d report a raise! Hello, he paid more CS than required for most of DSS’s life, voluntarily! Duh. 
 

Anyway, if sharing that part of my story was confusing, just ignore it.

[Scarlett]

9 minutes ago, Spryte said:

Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that regular divorce papers require reporting raises. It’s a requirement in our state, though, that raises be reported to the CS office. But DSS’s bio mom didn’t trust that DH a would report and so she would file court papers every single year. The judge put a stop to it, finally. She was, like I said, genuinely mentally ill. Poor thing.

The funny part is that anyone who meets my DH knows he’s the most honest, open guy. Of course he’d report a raise! Hello, he paid more CS than required for most of DSS’s life, voluntarily! Duh. 
 

Anyway, if sharing that part of my story was confusing, just ignore it.

So just out of curiosity……if you are required to report raises to the cs office does that office have have authority to raise cs without a court order?

[Spryte]

Just now, Scarlett said:

So just out of curiosity……if you are required to report raises to the cs office does that office have have authority to raise cs without a court order?

Yes, I believe so, unless perhaps someone contests it? That was the purpose, I think, of reporting. Or perhaps so both parents stayed informed and could decide about going to court? Whatever the purpose, we were in court every year, so never went directly through the CS office. It was very expensive, those court costs!

[ktgrok]

In some places it is very rigid, which is why pepole are responding as they are. 

That said, yes, have them find a boilerplate form and fill it out, listing who gets the kid what holidays, who pays insurance, who pays for medical stuff not covered by insurance, who claims on taxes, how far they can move away, etc. Then take that to mediation, then file it with the court. 

They can always do something different later, if both agree. We had in writing who had my son for which holidays, but in reality we worked it out as to how it was best for all of us each year. Same with custody schedule - we filed it so we had a minimum we could count on, but often changed it just to be more realistic. 

[JennyD]

6 hours ago, bolt. said:

We must live in very different jurisdictions. I think here, it is it may not be possible for a parent to "agree" that their child is not entitled to support from the other parent. Such "agreements" would allow the two adults to deprive the child of something they the have a legal right to receive.

$30,000 is a lot of money to hold back from someone simply because their mother was allowed to surrender it on one's behalf during one's I infancy!

I don't recall where you are, but this is also the general rule in most US jurisdictions.  The right of support belongs to the child and parents cannot waive it.

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, JennyD said:

I don't recall where you are, but this is also the general rule in most US jurisdictions.  The right of support belongs to the child and parents cannot waive it.

I think custody and child support is changing as we speak.  There is a huge movement to go 50/50 and no cs.  
 

And again, judges are happy if parents work out the details.  Maybe that is only an OK thing? 🤷🏻‍♀️

[JennyD]

15 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I think custody and child support is changing as we speak.  There is a huge movement to go 50/50 and no cs.  
 

And again, judges are happy if parents work out the details.  Maybe that is only an OK thing? 🤷🏻‍♀️

Yes, 50/50 custody and no child support is absolutely the preferred arrangement these days.   But if one party makes a lot more money than the other, the child is often entitled to support from the wealthier parent, and the two parents cannot just decide to waive that.  Judges everywhere are ecstatic when parties work out the details, but child support -- unlike property division and spousal support-- is the one thing that, theoretically at least, isn't just up to the two parents to decide.  

If you can find a good lawyer, I agree with those who have said that money spent on legal advice now could well avert much more serious and expensive problems down the line.  Also, sometimes visiting a lawyer to discuss divorce can prompt people to decide that maybe they'd prefer to stay married after all.  Is there any chance that they might reconcile?  They haven't been married that long, right?

Edited November 3, 2021 by JennyD

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, JennyD said:

Yes, 50/50 and no child support is absolutely the preferred arrangement these days.   But if one party makes a lot more money than the other, the child is often entitled to support from the wealthier parent, and the two parents cannot just decide to waive that.  It doesn't sound like this is the situation in your dss's family, though.

That said, if you can find a good lawyer, I agree with those who have said that money spent on legal advice now could well avert much more serious and expensive problems down the line.  Also, sometimes visiting a lawyer to discuss divorce can prompt people to decide that maybe they'd prefer to stay married after all.  Is there any chance that they might reconcile?  They haven't been married that long, right?

They have been married a year and 8 months. I see nothing to indicate they will attempt reconciliation.  She is moving into a house with a workmate and workmates boyfriend. She is the type of mom who needs/wants 50/50 custody.  In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if ds ends up with 100% custody at some point. This is a big mess.  We offered our advice and suggested a few solutions. The main thing being he needs to find a day job pronto,   I Think we finally got that through his head.  After he gets a job he needs to establish a residence so he can file for divorce. 
 

He has some pie in the sky ideas and I just told him he needs to focus on the now and get 50/50 filed with the court before she changes her mind.  

[Scarlett]

Well, that was an interesting evening and morning.  

He has been keeping really good records and receipts of what he has been paying since she kicked him out.  So that is good.  He is basically spinning his wheels though.  Hopefully our talk with him has helped him focus enough to see what is most important.  He will have a lot more options if he just gets a day job.  There are jobs even here in our small town.....it would mean a decrease in pay, but by the time you factor in all the driving he is doing probably not so much.  I flat out told him money is not the most important thing and especially at this moment in his life.  

Until he picked up his son from day care at 11:00 yesterday he had not seen him in 8 days.  And he won't have another day off until next Wed and he has to clean out the apartment of his belongings and find a place to put them.  His buddy's house he is staying at is an hour and 15 minutes from the day care.  He just cannot keep this up.  It is sheer madness.  

He did seem to actually listen to us.  Which is huge for him.  The thing is it is pointless to even file right now when he doesn't even have a parenting plan worked out or his own place.  First things first.  He has to get a plan and get some stability.  This driving an hour or more between daycare/work/buddy's house/our house....it just is not going to work.  And then he says the craziest things like, 'oh I don't want to live in town.'  Well, dude, beggars cannot be choosers and you need to do what you need to do right now.  

And neither of them can even navigate the system.  She tried to file for child care subsidy and for SNAP benefits and got frustrated and gave up.  At least the baby has good state insurance for free.  

[fairfarmhand]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

Well, that was an interesting evening and morning.  

He has been keeping really good records and receipts of what he has been paying since she kicked him out.  So that is good.  He is basically spinning his wheels though.  Hopefully our talk with him has helped him focus enough to see what is most important.  He will have a lot more options if he just gets a day job.  There are jobs even here in our small town.....it would mean a decrease in pay, but by the time you factor in all the driving he is doing probably not so much.  I flat out told him money is not the most important thing and especially at this moment in his life.  

Until he picked up his son from day care at 11:00 yesterday he had not seen him in 8 days.  And he won't have another day off until next Wed and he has to clean out the apartment of his belongings and find a place to put them.  His buddy's house he is staying at is an hour and 15 minutes from the day care.  He just cannot keep this up.  It is sheer madness.  

He did seem to actually listen to us.  Which is huge for him.  The thing is it is pointless to even file right now when he doesn't even have a parenting plan worked out or his own place.  First things first.  He has to get a plan and get some stability.  This driving an hour or more between daycare/work/buddy's house/our house....it just is not going to work.  And then he says the craziest things like, 'oh I don't want to live in town.'  Well, dude, beggars cannot be choosers and you need to do what you need to do right now.  

And neither of them can even navigate the system.  She tried to file for child care subsidy and for SNAP benefits and got frustrated and gave up.  At least the baby has good state insurance for free.  

When the people in my life have been in very low spots, I come to things in this vein. "Of course you don't want to live in town long term. But right now, lets just get you started and in the future, you can re-evaluate and tweak things as needed." This phrasing honors their wishes, but helps them kick the can down the road a bit as far as planning too long term. That kind of thinking leads to just freezing up and not being able to do anything in the moment.