How do you calculate travel expenses & childsupport?

[TheGeekess]

More importantly, OP should have filed to establish paternity right from the start rather than waiting for Mom to move. At that point, it's pretty much too late. If paternity and custody have not been legally established, Mom can legally move. If Dad immediately files for custody or an order for the child to be returned, it's going to be months before it gets in front of a judge - and by then, a status quo has been established.

Fathers really need to establish custody and paternity right from the start.

The best way to do that is to be married to Mom when she gives birth. Otherwise, yes, an unwed father has to jump through many many hoops from the get-go.

 

[mistoffolees]

The best way to do that is to be married to Mom when she gives birth. Otherwise, yes, an unwed father has to jump through many many hoops from the get-go.

I agree, but if someone IS an unmarried father, they need to be proactive in establishing custody right from the start. If they wait until a problem occurs, it's probably too late for the reasons given above.

 

[stealth2]

You are right, I know it. I take no offense. And I absolutely believe it was her mother's intent to set this up as she did.

Again, right.

I learned quite a bit of this process the hard way. The sad thing is it's hard to find this information out there, I looked. My scum of a lawyer didn't even tell me what I needed to know. It wasn't until I knew the phrases and terms that I was able to start finding the material I needed, and by that point I ( or more accurately, my daughter ) was already screwed.

My main problem is that I trusted her mother. She told me she wasn't going to move, and I trusted her. Then she got married and moved, and promised she wasn't going to force a school change. Again, despite my better judgement, I trusted her. Then the school change, which it's my belief she had been planning from the start.

Regardless. I have (finally) learned my lesson, but it took going through the process to really get it.

Really? Few people go into these situations knowing all they need to know. Yes, a lawyer goes a long way. BUT... It is incumbent on the actual party to take responsibility and educating him/herself. If you didn't do so? The only place to point a finger is at yourself. I had a kick-butt lawyer, but my kids were important enough *to me* that I had no intention of leaving it all in the lawyer's hands. So I spent most waking/non-work hours on the 'Net educating myself.

Maternity is pretty much a no-brainer. Unless Mom gives birth in complete seclusion (which is rare), there are witnesses to the kiddo popping out from between her legs. Paternity is more difficult - it's not intuitive since (a) conception usually only includes the two opposite-gendered people and (b) there is a window of opportunity for conception that could allow for someone else to be the father. So yes - it takes more to actually prove the kid's yours.

And really... it doesn't cast you in a good light that you did nothing until after Mom filed for support. Court orders protect everyone, but especially the child.

Good luck.

 

[olhobbes]

Maternity is pretty much a no-brainer. Unless Mom gives birth in complete seclusion (which is rare), there are witnesses to the kiddo popping out from between her legs. Paternity is more difficult - it's not intuitive since (a) conception usually only includes the two opposite-gendered people and (b) there is a window of opportunity for conception that could allow for someone else to be the father. So yes - it takes more to actually prove the kid's yours.

That's fine, and not the problem. The problem is that, once paternity is established, the court gives preferential treatment to the mother. The courts are more interested in clearing their dockets than the welfare of the child.

I just wish I had known that going in to it, instead of believing what I was told.

And really... it doesn't cast you in a good light that you did nothing until after Mom filed for support. Court orders protect everyone, but especially the child.

Good luck.

Actually, that's not quite the right timeline. I filed a custody motion when she tried to move our daughter to a different school. She then filed a CS motion.

The blame for the negative outcome falls to me, I fully understand that. I was acting in my child's best interests at all times, even though I was extremely ignorant and intimidated by the process.

 

[mistoffolees]

That's fine, and not the problem. The problem is that, once paternity is established, the court gives preferential treatment to the mother. The courts are more interested in clearing their dockets than the welfare of the child.

That is absolutely not true. (At least in most cases. I'm sure there are some 19th century judges out there, but the system as a whole doesn't work that way).

In almost every state, once paternity has been established, custody is determined on the basis of best interests of the child, not gender.

Now, in an unmarried situation, the mother has probably been the primary caretaker and the best interests of the child generally means staying with their primary caretaker, but that's not a bias in the courts - it's simply a matter of you choosing to have a baby without being married and leaving Mom to be the primary caretaker after the baby was born. YOUR choices, not biased courts.

 

[olhobbes]

That is absolutely not true. (At least in most cases. I'm sure there are some 19th century judges out there, but the system as a whole doesn't work that way).

In almost every state, once paternity has been established, custody is determined on the basis of best interests of the child, not gender.

Now, in an unmarried situation, the mother has probably been the primary caretaker and the best interests of the child generally means staying with their primary caretaker, but that's not a bias in the courts - it's simply a matter of you choosing to have a baby without being married and leaving Mom to be the primary caretaker after the baby was born. YOUR choices, not biased courts.

I have actually been the primary care taker since my child was born. Technically it was 50/50, but because of my child's mother's schedule, it was more 60/40-70/30.

I accept that it might be my backwoods area that this mediator behavior is the norm; I was warned by a number of people in this area about how the custody hearing would probably go. But everything legal I could find online always said "The best interest of the child", so I assumed that to be the case. I was wrong. And of course now I'm still doing 60/40-70/30 ( again, due to her mother's flakiness ), but now I get to drive 3 hours a day because of it.

I tried pointing this out in the mediator meeting, about how much time my daughter spent with me. I had evidence; everything from txts of her mother asking me to cover for her ( constantly ) to afterschool pick up records, ect... The mediator didn't care. That's when I was told "Mom holds all the cards here". The mediator obviously had no interest in my child's best interest, only in clearing her court docket.

 

[mistoffolees]

I have actually been the primary care taker since my child was born. Technically it was 50/50, but because of my child's mother's schedule, it was more 60/40-70/30.

I accept that it might be my backwoods area that this mediator behavior is the norm; I was warned by a number of people in this area about how the custody hearing would probably go. But everything legal I could find online always said "The best interest of the child", so I assumed that to be the case. I was wrong. And of course now I'm still doing 60/40-70/30 ( again, due to her mother's flakiness ), but now I get to drive 3 hours a day because of it.

Then it's up to you to convince the judge that it's in the child's best interests. Apparently, you haven't done so.

 

[olhobbes]

Then it's up to you to convince the judge that it's in the child's best interests. Apparently, you haven't done so.

True. But when you show physical, factual, verifiable evidence to back up your case and both the mediator and judge still side with the mother ( who I also showed to be exposing my daughter to inappropriate adult behavior. Again, verifiable ), you tend to get certain impressions as to the bias of the court.

Again, could be regional.

 

[mistoffolees]

True. But when you show physical, factual, verifiable evidence to back up your case and both the mediator and judge still side with the mother ( who I also showed to be exposing my daughter to inappropriate adult behavior. Again, verifiable ), you tend to get certain impressions as to the bias of the court.

Again, could be regional.

Or it could be that your idea of what constitutes physical, factual, verifiable evidence differs from what the court considers to be physical, factual, verifiable evidence.

Given the claims you've made here, that actually seems to be the situation.

 

[olhobbes]

Or it could be that your idea of what constitutes physical, factual, verifiable evidence differs from what the court considers to be physical, factual, verifiable evidence.

Given the claims you've made here, that actually seems to be the situation.

That's very likely it. And I'm sure, given the issues the courts see day in and day out, this case seems minor in comparison. Despite my daughter's mother's misbehavior, my daughter is not in any real danger of long lasting harm from her as long as the current custody schedule remains in place.

But it remains that I demonstrated myself to the more involved, more stable parent with no refutation by the mother. Indeed, she made absolutely no counter arguments to show herself to be anything really. She just showed up.

Anyway, that's irrelevant and in the past. At this point it's a wealth of information that I continue to study and learn from for next time.

Again, mistoffolees, your experience and insight is appreciated and welcome.

 

[mistoffolees]

That's very likely it. And I'm sure, given the issues the courts see day in and day out, this case seems minor in comparison. Despite my daughter's mother's misbehavior, my daughter is not in any real danger of long lasting harm from her as long as the current custody schedule remains in place.

But it remains that I demonstrated myself to the more involved, more stable parent with no refutation by the mother. Indeed, she made absolutely no counter arguments to show herself to be anything really. She just showed up.

And, once again, being the 'more stable, more involved' parent is irrelevant at this stage. First, it is only your opinion unless you can prove it. More importantly, 'best interests of the child' is important for the INITIAL custody determination. Once there's a custody determination, you need to show a change of circumstances to get a change in custody. Doesn't sound like you did that.

 

[olhobbes]

And, once again, being the 'more stable, more involved' parent is irrelevant at this stage. First, it is only your opinion unless you can prove it. More importantly, 'best interests of the child' is important for the INITIAL custody determination. Once there's a custody determination, you need to show a change of circumstances to get a change in custody. Doesn't sound like you did that.

Interesting point. One I'll have to think on for a bit; my initial reaction is to argue the differences here, but I'm full aware that I'm emotionally invested in my position. Further, I think see how your points might have applied to this case.

I just wish my lawyer had been a fraction as helpful as you have been.