• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

kids maybe stuck with dad why?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

D

dragonmax18@yah

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Michigan

I am asking for my friend .
She has provide for her family for seven years. her husband has never had a job. He has stayed home with the kids when she was at work. she has been on him to get a job and he goes and gets one and then never shows up for the job. she went to a lawyer today and they told her that she would lose the kids and she wold have to pay child support. I don't understand why she would lose the kids when she has never abused the kids and she has provide for them the whole time and he never supported them once. yes he watches the kids when she is working. but she was the one who potty trained the kids. the one who pays for everything. to me it sounds unfair. why is this? is what the lawyer saying true? just need some answers.
 


T

TinkerBelleLuvr

Senior Member
The “best interests of the child” is a phrase often used by courts when deciding matters concerning children. What does it really mean? In Michigan, the phrase is defined by statute (Michigan Compiled Laws § 722.23) as:
(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.
(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any.
(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.
(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.
(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
(g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.
(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.
(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.
(j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.
(k) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.
(l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute.
Click to expand...
What she needs to go for is a 50/50 split with JOINT legal & physical custody. She will probably still have to pay support, but the X will be expected to get a job.
 
N

nextwife

Senior Member
dragonmax18@yah said:
What is the name of your state? Michigan

I am asking for my friend .
She has provide for her family for seven years. her husband has never had a job. He has stayed home with the kids when she was at work. she has been on him to get a job and he goes and gets one and then never shows up for the job. she went to a lawyer today and they told her that she would lose the kids and she wold have to pay child support. I don't understand why she would lose the kids when she has never abused the kids and she has provide for them the whole time and he never supported them once. yes he watches the kids when she is working. but she was the one who potty trained the kids. the one who pays for everything. to me it sounds unfair. why is this? is what the lawyer saying true? just need some answers.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a very common situation. One parent works, the other stays home most of the marriage.

In a divorce, the judge often maintains status quo and places children with their primary caregiver. When the SAHP is mom, nobody posts "will the kids be stuck with mom?" because she barely/wouldn't work during the marriage? Why is living with one of two parents referred to as "stuck", anyway?

How many husbands are the one who pays for everything yet lose custody in a divorce? They haven't abused their kid, yet they are denied primary placement.

Potty trained? Give me a break. I've potty trained my kid. Big whoop. It's not a big deal unless you make it a big deal.

Your post reeks of sexist attitudes.
 
Last edited:
M

mistoffolees

Senior Member
dragonmax18@yah said:
What is the name of your state? Michigan

I am asking for my friend .
She has provide for her family for seven years. her husband has never had a job. He has stayed home with the kids when she was at work. she has been on him to get a job and he goes and gets one and then never shows up for the job. she went to a lawyer today and they told her that she would lose the kids and she wold have to pay child support. I don't understand why she would lose the kids when she has never abused the kids and she has provide for them the whole time and he never supported them once. yes he watches the kids when she is working. but she was the one who potty trained the kids. the one who pays for everything. to me it sounds unfair. why is this? is what the lawyer saying true? just need some answers.
Click to expand...
This situation is just the opposite of the more common one where the woman stays home and the man works - but the woman gets custody in the divorce because she was the primary care giver. A number of thoughts:
1. The courts are interested in who the primary care giver is, which is not necessarily who stays home. For example, my ex-wife didn't work outside the house, yet I was the one who always took my daughter to the doctor, got up in the middle of the night if she needed something or didn't feel well, read to her, spent more hours with her, and so on. The person who stays home has an edge, but the courts are interested in the best place for the child.
2. 50:50 physical custody is becoming more common and it's not clear why her attorney is not requesting that.
3. Who pays the bills is irrelevant. As long as the kids get their needs met, it doesn't matter if the money comes from him, her, or granny's estate. What DOES matter is what's best for the kids.
4. Your friend may also end up paying spousal support.

In general, this is identical to the situation many fathers face. Fortunately (for me, at least), the courts are more and more favoring both parents having a major role in parenting, including 50:50 physical custody where it makes sense. Your friend needs to change her focus from herself to what is best for the kid(s) and work from there. Every effort to be the best parent she can be without worrying about whether her stbx is a bum or not will pay off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top