Determining Primary Custodial Parent

[Ohiogal]

When we first got divorced, she advertised on a swingers site for casual "no strings" sex partners. She was specifically looking for married men so they wouldn't become too attached. She also wanted older financially well off men who would give her gifts. She termed it an arangement.

She is allowed to do that. It is legal.

When I found out, I took away her cell phone which I paid for. I told her I was not going to pay for a phone for her to arrange her tricks.

While you don't have to pay for her cell phone without a court order, quite frankly what she was doing was/is LEGAL and not tricks.

She began to use my 11 year olds phone. I found that out too, because his minutes used went way up and there were a lot of long distance calls. I had to take that away too.

Okay.

After that rather then get her own cell phone, she resorted to using the home phone. The problem I had with that, other then the fact that I paid for it also, is that it we had our address listed. Now any of these weirdo's or their angry wives could show up at the house. I then changed it to a non published number and restricted the account so she didn't have access.

Wait a second -- you prohibited her from using the house phone in HER home? That is illegal.

Then there was the time she asked me for help with her computer. I discovered my son was using it to browse for porn. Thank goodness his spelling was almost as bad as mine because he miss spelled many of the slang wards fo body parts, otherwise I just would have thought it was her.

So what did you do to your son?

My son came home from school one day and found her mom in the shower with a guy she met that day at the gym. He has also been caught looking at porn in her room. Now I have no problem with porn, but keep it out of the hands of children.

And yet what did you do when you found out YOUR SON was BROWSING the internet for it?

I also don't care how many men she has sex with, but keep them away from my kids. The last time my son who is now 16 forgot something at her apartment, I drove him over. She was half naked on the couch with a guy. When he came out slightly blushing, he said his mom was in there with a date. I had to explain to him that you usually went out on dates.

You were out of line quite frankly. Did you call mom and let her know you were bringing the child over during your time with him? Mom is allowed to have sex on the couch, living room floor, kitchen table, if the children are not there.

 

[JustAPal00]

She is allowed to do that. It is legal.



While you don't have to pay for her cell phone without a court order, quite frankly what she was doing was/is LEGAL and not tricks.



Okay.


Wait a second -- you prohibited her from using the house phone in HER home? That is illegal.


So what did you do to your son?


And yet what did you do when you found out YOUR SON was BROWSING the internet for it?



You were out of line quite frankly. Did you call mom and let her know you were bringing the child over during your time with him? Mom is allowed to have sex on the couch, living room floor, kitchen table, if the children are not there.

I'm sorry, that might all be legal, though I would question the sex for gifts it might also be called prostitution, but wouldn't these be examples of poor judgement when raising children? I think the OP has a point. I read nowhere where the OP was trying to do anything legal about these behaviors. He stated that they have joint custody with him taking a mojority of the responsabilities. He asked if he would be considered the primary custodian.

 

[Ohiogal]

I'm sorry, that might all be legal, though I would question the sex for gifts it might also be called prostitution, but wouldn't these be examples of poor judgement when raising children? I think the OP has a point. I read nowhere where the OP was trying to do anything legal about these behaviors. He stated that they have joint custody with him taking a mojority of the responsabilities. He asked if he would be considered the primary custodian.

No where was prostitution mentioned -- she wanted people to give her gifts. While OP may assume it was in exchange for sex, unless that the agreement, it was not illegal. Parents are allowed to have poor judgment. They are allowed to make poor decisions. They have the constitutional right to be "bad parents". Nothing he stated shows that mom is dangerous to the children however. AND he was out of line. Again, did he call mom and say he was bringing the child back? He also had no right to limit her access to her home phone.

 

[JustAPal00]

No where was prostitution mentioned -- she wanted people to give her gifts. While OP may assume it was in exchange for sex, unless that the agreement, it was not illegal.

I just said it could be construed as prostitution. Of course no one knows except the rather sleazy woman and her senior friend.

Parents are allowed to have poor judgment. They are allowed to make poor decisions. They have the constitutional right to be "bad parents". Nothing he stated shows that mom is dangerous to the children however.

Agreed, but when a court has to decide which parent is more fitting to be the primary custodian, aren't some things that are legal considered not to be in the best interest of the child?

AND he was out of line. Again, did he call mom and say he was bringing the child back?

Wow, I didn't know a 16 year old had to call home to make sure it was clear to open the door!

He also had no right to limit her access to her home phone.

I read the whole post, he never said he limited her access to the phone!

"After that rather then get her own cell phone, she resorted to using the home phone. The problem I had with that, other then the fact that I paid for it also, is that it we had our address listed. Now any of these weirdo's or their angry wives could show up at the house. I then changed it to a non published number and restricted the account so she didn't have access."

He restricted her access to the "account"! He might have shut off the long distance since he apparantly has a problem with paying for her communications, or maybe after he changed it to a non listed number he restricted her access to the "account" so she couldn't change it back! After all if he were cutting off her phone, he would have said he shut it off not changed it!

 

[Ohiogal]

I just said it could be construed as prostitution. Of course no one knows except the rather sleazy woman and her senior friend.

Your opinion and morals do not enter into this. We are getting a biased account from dad who hasn't mentioned what he has done since then.

Agreed, but when a court has to decide which parent is more fitting to be the primary custodian, aren't some things that are legal considered not to be in the best interest of the child?

Yes.

Wow, I didn't know a 16 year old had to call home to make sure it was clear to open the door!

Since dad says he has the child more than mom and the child was with dad, DAD should not have just thought it appropriate to stop by his ex's house whenever.

I read the whole post, he never said he limited her access to the phone!

"After that rather then get her own cell phone, she resorted to using the home phone. The problem I had with that, other then the fact that I paid for it also, is that it we had our address listed. Now any of these weirdo's or their angry wives could show up at the house. I then changed it to a non published number and restricted the account so she didn't have access."

He restricted her access to the "account"! He might have shut off the long distance since he apparantly has a problem with paying for her communications, or maybe after he changed it to a non listed number he restricted her access to the "account" so she couldn't change it back! After all if he were cutting off her phone, he would have said he shut it off not changed it!

Actually he did limit her access. He wants to control who she calls and what she does. He can quit paying for it -- and why he is paying for it is beyond me -- but the fact that he determined he has the right to restrict the account of HER home is ridiculous. If he is court ordered to pay it then quite frankly he has no right to limit phone unless the court order allows him to limit it.
And if the child is 16, maybe dad should look at blaming the 16 year old for searching out porn. Not try to correlate it with mom.

 

[JustAPal00]

Your opinion and morals do not enter into this. We are getting a biased account from dad who hasn't mentioned what he has done since then.




Yes.



Since dad says he has the child more than mom and the child was with dad, DAD should not have just thought it appropriate to stop by his ex's house whenever.




Actually he did limit her access. He wants to control who she calls and what she does. He can quit paying for it -- and why he is paying for it is beyond me -- but the fact that he determined he has the right to restrict the account of HER home is ridiculous. If he is court ordered to pay it then quite frankly he has no right to limit phone unless the court order allows him to limit it.
And if the child is 16, maybe dad should look at blaming the 16 year old for searching out porn. Not try to correlate it with mom.

Let me guess, you're a female divorce lawyer who takes on mostly if not all female clients? Your more worried about dad restricting access to a phone he pays for, then mom advertising her home phone number and address to cheating husbands. She always could get her own phone! Maybe you should start thinking more about the kids welfare then the mothers ability to get away with what ever she wants, just because it's legal!

The OP just asked a few simple questions, but you chose to go after things he considered to be poor judgement. Try reading the post again! He's not asking about any of the things your talking about. He was just asked to elaborate on things that he considered to be poor in judgement. That's all he did! He asked simple questions that I would think a first year law student could probably answer. But you still haven't answered any of them.

 

[penelope10]

I think the original legal question was could you restrict Mom from taking the children to your brother the dentist. And the answer has been not without a court order. You may not approve of your brother and his wife, but that has nothing to do with his abilities as a dentist. You can take your children to whatever dentist you see fit as can the other parent. You would have to show that your concern for the children is based on his professional shortcomings and not with whatever is personally going on between you and he.

 

[JustAPal00]

I think the original legal question was could you restrict Mom from taking the children to your brother the dentist. And the answer has been not without a court order. You may not approve of your brother and his wife, but that has nothing to do with his abilities as a dentist. You can take your children to whatever dentist you see fit as can the other parent. You would have to show that your concern for the children is based on his professional shortcomings and not with whatever is personally going on between you and he.

The other main question as I read it is if the parent who has court ordered primary custody would be able to determine which dentist the children see.

 

[ecmst12]

Dad needs to stop trying to control his ex. This isn't about the kids but his need to control her. She doesn't belong to him anymore and if she wants to slut it up, that's her right and he shouldn't be getting in the way. In fact, why does he even KNOW about her personal ads unless he's spying on her? Newly divorced women don't usually feel the need to slut it up so much unless they were being seriously oppressed in the relationship before it broke up.

 

[penelope10]

The other main question as I read it is if the parent who has court ordered primary custody would be able to determine which dentist the children see.

I think what you are thinking about is Sole Custody. For instance, my residence is the primary residence of my child. However, I share joint legal custody with my ex. There appears to be no custody agreement here. Just because kiddos are living primarily at one residence does not automatically give that parent sole legal custody.

This seems to be a battle brought about by some sort of family squabble. And after years of being divorced Mom's, lifestyle is being thrown into the mix in an attempt to show that she uses bad judgment because she wishes the children to continue having a relationship with the uncle.

 

[Ohiogal]

Let me guess, you're a female divorce lawyer who takes on mostly if not all female clients?

Wrong. I am a female lawyer whose clients are mostly children. The majority of my DIVORCE clients are actually men who have gotten slammed for such things as what this person is stating they are doing.

Your more worried about dad restricting access to a phone he pays for, then mom advertising her home phone number and address to cheating husbands. She always could get her own phone! Maybe you should start thinking more about the kids welfare then the mothers ability to get away with what ever she wants, just because it's legal!

You have issues. I never said she should NOT get her own food however we don't know why he is paying for the phone (is there a court order) or anything else.

The OP just asked a few simple questions, but you chose to go after things he considered to be poor judgement.

And those are things that in the large scheme of things don't matter.

Try reading the post again! He's not asking about any of the things your talking about. He was just asked to elaborate on things that he considered to be poor in judgement. That's all he did! He asked simple questions that I would think a first year law student could probably answer. But you still haven't answered any of them.

His questions were answered. I noticed you didn't answer him though.

 

[Ohiogal]

The other main question as I read it is if the parent who has court ordered primary custody would be able to determine which dentist the children see.

Try phrasing it as a question. And no, a parent with primary custody would NOT be able to determine which dentist the children see unless the court order states that.

 

[CJane]

I would just like to point out that unless Mom's "poor judgment" is having a detrimental affect on the children - and Dad has not shown that it HAS had one, it's irrelevant.

Much to my ex's various attorney's dismay, having an active sex life, meeting people online, etc do not indicate that someone is unfit.

 

[Isis1]

I would just like to point out that unless Mom's "poor judgment" is having a detrimental affect on the children - and Dad has not shown that it HAS had one, it's irrelevant.

Much to my ex's various attorney's dismay, having an active sex life, meeting people online, etc do not indicate that someone is unfit.

wohooo! that's always good to know!!

 

[CJane]

wohooo! that's always good to know!!

Ha! I should perhaps define "active". I had to testify to the number of men I'd dated in the 5 years since our divorce. It was a dismally low number. He dropped the whole "whore of babylon" line of questioning after that.