| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 415.1 | | QUOKKA::3131::CURRAN | | Tue Mar 18 1997 13:27 | 13 |
| Brian,
What effect does your ex not having a job have on you? THis is a
serious question because I'm wondering if the girls are getting
adequate care from the ex. Is she making you pay for the
internet thing? Is she asking for more money because the kids are
hungry and not clothed?
about this internet guy, why not asked her first if she would like to
go see this guy, without the girls then come back and she if she still
feels the same.
just my two cents.
|
| 415.2 | | QUOKKA::39702::SPICER | | Tue Mar 18 1997 15:53 | 27 |
| Brian,
Jurisdiction is in the state where you divorced unless one of you
goes to court to request a change. You can do this after a period (6
months in most states) of living in the new state. Normally jurisdiction
is where the kids are.
My opinion - I am not clear why you don't go for custody of the girls,
at least on a temporary basis. Your ex and netman need to get themselves
sorted before they can give proper attention to providing a suitable
environment for 2 children.
You have no idea where the girls are going to, what kind of man he is,
his background etc. or even whether or not the kids are going to be safe.
Me - I'd go in front of the judge, show that there is no evidence
the children will benefit from this move (the normal test) and lots of
reasons to be concerned about their well being. My experience has been
that judges err on the safe side when it comes to kids, so you may have
a fair chance.
If you lose - remember to ask for her to pay travel costs on a regular
basis.
Martin
|
| 415.3 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Pas Fini! | Wed Mar 19 1997 06:32 | 18 |
|
re .0
One thing that you did not mention is the possibility of reducing
the child support because of the expense of dealing with your son.
Your best chance is probably to get some sort of stipulation from
her on custody/move vs support, but there isn't any guarantee
that after she gets situated that she go back in to court to have
the "child support" jacked right back up.
If you go for custody, document very very carefully that you _are_
dealing with your son's problems and that he is not a threat/danger
to the other kids if you should get custody. Your son is a known
situation--netguy isn't. Also how much care are the kids going to
get if she is surfing the net all day. No matter how much the
difficulty I would not let the kids go without a fight.
fred();
|
| 415.4 | | QUOKKA::11567::BGLEASON | | Wed Mar 19 1997 07:35 | 54 |
|
.1
> What effect does your ex not having a job have on you?
It makes me mad that she will waste her time and not
try to add any financial support. There is a fine line
about reducing the child support. People could look
at it as I was just trying to get out of my
obligation to the support the girls. I really feel that
she should also have some financial obligation and it
doesn't look like that will happen if she goes to Virginia.
The internet guy has two kids also.
> THis is a
> serious question because I'm wondering if the girls are getting
> adequate care from the ex.
I also have this concern. The ex's sister is on my side
in this whole issue and I speak to her often about this
concern.
> Is she making you pay for the internet thing?
I am sure she uses child support money to pay for this.
> Is she asking for more money because the kids are
> hungry and not clothed?
No.
> about this internet guy, why not asked her first if she would like to
> go see this guy, without the girls then come back and she if she still
> feels the same.
That is an interesting idea , but read on for more info.
.3
> If you go for custody, document very very carefully that you _are_
> dealing with your son's problems and that he is not a threat/danger
> to the other kids if you should get custody.
Actually , I am not 100% sure this is true. I will unfold a
little more of the story. My son came to us as a foster child
and then adopted. The biological mother abused drugs and alcohol
during pregnancy. The boy has ADHD , lots of anger , no sense
of consequences. Oppositional Defiant is another term that gets used.
|
| 415.5 | Losing battle... | QUOKKA::19584::DIPIRRO | | Wed Mar 19 1997 08:46 | 59 |
| Re: .4
> It makes me mad that she will waste her time and not
> try to add any financial support. There is a fine line
> about reducing the child support. People could look
> at it as I was just trying to get out of my
> obligation to the support the girls. I really feel that
> she should also have some financial obligation and it
> doesn't look like that will happen if she goes to Virginia.
> The internet guy has two kids also.
I don't doubt that this makes you mad, but it's really irrelevant and
the judge will think so too. Based on considerations which haven't changed,
you are obliged to pay a certain amount of child support. This isn't
going to change because your ex squanders the money. She also has the
right to spend her time doing whatever the hell she wants. It's not
your concern. If you're concerned about your daughters that are in her
care, then you should be thinking of it strictly on those terms. What
would be best for them? Are they getting proper care from their mother?
Would they be better off in your custody.
My situation, at one point, was kind of similar. My soon-to-be-ex at the
time didn't want to work and wanted to move across the country, taking
my kids, and move in with her sister, across the street from a guy she
slept with whenever she went out there...and continue seeing him (who
was engaged and had his fiancee living with him, no less!). I got a
court order to stop the move because it was not a good thing for the kids.
Even the GAL, who hated me, had to agree with this when all the facts
were exposed.
The ex and kids stayed in this area. I had to pay a little more in alimony
in order to keep them here. The judge also ordered that my ex work at
least part-time. The combined funds were enough for her to afford to live
in the area. In fact, she's doing quite well financially, and money still
burns a hole in her pocket like it always did. She has virtually no savings
and always expects other people to come to her rescue. Nothing I can do to
change that, but I make sure the kids have what they need, one way or
another. My ex met a decent guy too, and they've been seeing each other
for quite a while now. He's great with the kids, and they really like him.
As far as what she does with the rest of her time, it's her business and
not mine.
In a nutshell, a judge is not going to be sympathetic about your source of
anger and will certainly not reduce child support payments based on this.
If there were real financial considerations, that would be different. You
could potentially argue that she should be required to work at least part-time
to assist with the overall support, showing how difficult it is for you
under the current circumstances. Even then, I wouldn't hold out much hope.
> I also have this concern. The ex's sister is on my side
> in this whole issue and I speak to her often about this
> concern.
Doesn't matter at all.
> I am sure she uses child support money to pay for this.
Doesn't matter at all. My ex has something new at her house every time
I go over there...new TV, stereo, fitness equipment, you name it.
|
| 415.6 | | QUOKKA::24661::DEWITT | put on your rainbow shades... | Wed Mar 19 1997 09:19 | 15 |
| Brian - Steve made a valid point, while you may be angry over her
not working and surfing the net - the Judge won't look at it.
MA. has guidelines for child support, its a % of your income. There
should be an adjustment made for the fact you have 1 of the three
children and if you're paying for medical coverage, there should be an
adjustment made for that.
The bottom line is the Court doesn't care if you have to work 2
jobs to have a life, you have to pay "x" amount of child support based
on your income...
Hang in there.
joyce
|
| 415.7 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Pas Fini! | Wed Mar 19 1997 13:14 | 18 |
|
The court _should_ look at any request for a move out of state with
an eye on "will it improve the living situation/future of the kids".
Ie. does she have a job there, or is she going to be going to school
to improve the future ability to support/care for the kids, or getting
married, or will be closer to established family. If you protest the
move, and her only reason for the move is to shack up with this guy
she's only met once, my opinion, backed by some experience, is that
the court will (should) not allow the move. That she is breaking
up the family to go shack up with this guy she has only met once
will probably not win her any sympathy, either (but don't be the
farm on it).
One area the courts have seemed to improve in is the _child's right_
to remain as close as possible to _both_ parents. It's so hard to
say because so much depends on the feelings of the particular judge.
fred();
|