Absent Biological Father and Custody Battle

[charcharteska]

Yeah, I understand. You must have been a really mature 8 year old to be able to understand the implications of what having two fathers meant.

I see why some people may think it's a big deal - particularly if the biological parent makes a huge effort to be involved in the child's life, and always did. I see how alienation could be extremely damaging to that relationship but, again, only if the biological parent is actually trying. If not, then I don't see why it's wrong to allow the child to have that bond elsewhere. It seems as if, in your situation, your biological father was not extremely prevalent and made similar half efforts to what my daughter's biological father has always done. In that case, I don't think it's wrong at all that your parents made that distinction of you having two fathers - the one that made you and the one that took care of you. I mean, being a father IS two-fold, isn't it? So, if you have two people doing only one thing, then it only makes logical sense that both of them would be your father.

I would honestly die if I lost custody of my daughter. In fact, I can't fathom only having 50% custody, either. That means I would only have her for half of her life. I would, essentially, miss half of her entire life. I also don't think it's healthy for a child to have two homes like that. I really think, especially when the children are young, that they benefit from having a routine, one stable home, and all that. I think there has been many studies that agree with me, yet 50/50 custody still gets awarded a lot.

Again, I think those situations tend to differ from my own, too. It tends to be when the parents are married, and the children are used to being around both. Not so in my case at all.

I can't believe that otherwise good parents lose custody just because of alienation. How is that? I guess, in that case, both parents are good and a decision has to be made?

I really never meant for any of this. The only reason I let her call my husband "Dada" is because her BIO-dad was never around, or very scarcely around. I honestly thought he just did not care about her at all, and simply did the small things he did because of some sort of obligation and the fact that he didn't want to personally feel guilty. Now that it has come to this, I'm really terrified that my thoughts based on his actions could cause a judge to really frown upon me.

Then again, maybe it won't be like that at all. Maybe the judge will disregard everything that happened before paternity was established since, legally, neither of us were obligated to allow visitations OR pay child support and be consistent.

 

[stealth2]

I know the standard for visitation is to award 20% parenting time, I think. I really want to push 15% after a period of 2 or 3 months with supervised visits to allow them to build a relationship, and 15% would be roughly 4-5 days a months or 1 day overnight a week and an evening. I really hate alternating holidays, of course, because it means that half of holidays will be miserable for one of us, so I'd also like to push SHARED holidays. Like, he gets her half the day, and I get her the other half, or something like that.

I would be more comfortable with 15% parenting time - at least until she is older. Like, around 5 or 6 and then we could consider 20% or even 30% if he proved consistent and my daughter wanted to spend more time with him.

Well, your thoughts on holidays have more to do with *you* than with the child. It really stinks for kids to have to spend holidays like that - no matter where they are, they have to watch the clock and be ready to up and go. We did it once. Alternating was better for the kids. The adults could deal with it.

And know thst your daughter wanting or not wanting to spend more time with her dad will be moot. Kids don't make those decisions, and good parents don't put them in a position to have to do so.

I would honestly die if I lost custody of my daughter. In fact, I can't fathom only having 50% custody, either. That means I would only have her for half of her life. I would, essentially, miss half of her entire life. I also don't think it's healthy for a child to have two homes like that. I really think, especially when the children are young, that they benefit from having a routine, one stable home, and all that. I think there has been many studies that agree with me, yet 50/50 custody still gets awarded a lot.

No, you really will not die. That's hyperbole, and will not sit well with a judge.

 

[Proserpina]

Yeah, I understand. You must have been a really mature 8 year old to be able to understand the implications of what having two fathers meant.

Not particularly.

I see why some people may think it's a big deal - particularly if the biological parent makes a huge effort to be involved in the child's life, and always did. I see how alienation could be extremely damaging to that relationship but, again, only if the biological parent is actually trying. If not, then I don't see why it's wrong to allow the child to have that bond elsewhere. It seems as if, in your situation, your biological father was not extremely prevalent and made similar half efforts to what my daughter's biological father has always done. In that case, I don't think it's wrong at all that your parents made that distinction of you having two fathers - the one that made you and the one that took care of you. I mean, being a father IS two-fold, isn't it? So, if you have two people doing only one thing, then it only makes logical sense that both of them would be your father.

Legally, the child has one and only one father. That's all the court cares about. Take it outside of the legal box though and it can be completely different; a village raising the child can be a wonderful thing as long as everyone knows their place and isn't trying to usurp anybody else's role.

Morally, practically, having two father figures
I would honestly die if I lost custody of my daughter. In fact, I can't fathom only having 50% custody, either. That means I would only have her for half of her life. I would, essentially, miss half of her entire life. I also don't think it's healthy for a child to have two homes like that. I really think, especially when the children are young, that they benefit from having a routine, one stable home, and all that. I think there has been many studies that agree with me, yet 50/50 custody still gets awarded a lot.

Please, leave the drama llama at home because is NOT healthy.

Out of sheer curiosity, would you think the same if Dad had custody? If Dad was the providing a stable home, a set routine? It's okay for Dad to have her for half of her life...but not you?

Again, I think those situations tend to differ from my own, too. It tends to be when the parents are married, and the children are used to being around both. Not so in my case at all.

I can't believe that otherwise good parents lose custody just because of alienation. How is that? I guess, in that case, both parents are good and a decision has to be made?

A parent who is doing whatever she can to hinder Dad's access without having a very good reason for doing so is not exactly going to win "Parent of Year".

I really never meant for any of this. The only reason I let her call my husband "Dada" is because her BIO-dad was never around, or very scarcely around. I honestly thought he just did not care about her at all, and simply did the small things he did because of some sort of obligation and the fact that he didn't want to personally feel guilty. Now that it has come to this, I'm really terrified that my thoughts based on his actions could cause a judge to really frown upon me.

Then again, maybe it won't be like that at all. Maybe the judge will disregard everything that happened before paternity was established since, legally, neither of us were obligated to allow visitations OR pay child support and be consistent.

A true 50/50 timeshare is not as common as you might think - and it requires two parents who can work together for the child's benefit. In your situation, I doubt he's going to walk away with 50/50.

But you really, really have to start being practical here.

 

[CJane]

I realize that my situation ain't yours. But honestly? I don't think it results in losing custody nearly as often as we might believe. It can, sure. Specially if the NCP is trying to prove alienation.

I think, when it's used as a way to exclude/erase the biological parent, it can reflect very poorly upon the parent who encourages/forces it. But I also think that it's just a name, and getting all territorial and weird about it is just silly.

 

[charcharteska]

Well, your thoughts on holidays have more to do with *you* than with the child. It really stinks for kids to have to spend holidays like that - no matter where they are, they have to watch the clock and be ready to up and go. We did it once. Alternating was better for the kids. The adults could deal with it.

And know thst your daughter wanting or not wanting to spend more time with her dad will be moot. Kids don't make those decisions, and good parents don't put them in a position to have to do so.



No, you really will not die. That's hyperbole, and will not sit well with a judge.

Hmmm, yeah. That actually makes sense about children feeling like they have to watch the clock to switch off with the parents. It's certainly something that I hadn't considered. I see now why split holidays may be a better idea for my daughter's sake, if that is how most children feel or that's how she felt. I thought it would be better for her to always see both parents on the holiday but, yeah, it makes sense how that could cause some stress.

Well, I don't think that's entirely moot. Say, for instance that she really does not enjoy spending time with him - that he ignores her and makes her watch TV when she is there (not saying he will), or that he yells at her and treats her badly (not saying he will do that, either), that would be cause for concern and make me doubt going to a full 30% timeshare or whatever. On the other hand, she could really enjoy her time.

I won't say anything remotely like that to the judge, then. I just meant if I lost custody and was never allowed to see my child. That would never happen, though.

 

[charcharteska]

Proserpina,

That's a very interesting question that you posed to me. If the situation were reversed and her biological father was the one who had a stable home and was responsible and I was the one who
did everything that he did or didn't do everything he didn't do, I would definitely still not want that status quo changed. In the same way I would want a woman to step up and let her have a mother if I was absent, I would also want her to be able to have that stable home that she was used to IF I had been the practically absent one for 2.5 years.

On the other hand, if both I and her biological father had stable homes, incomes, and provided for her well - well, at THIS point, I would think that I should still get primary custody because it's what has been all along. She is 2 years old, and changing her whole routine and life up on her isn't going to be good. Also, there is extensive research on the importance of a primary caretaker and the emotional bonds that are formed there, so yeah. It would still be the same.

On the OTHER other hand, if we had ALWAYS both provided for her and been there for her, I do understand how 50/50 custody could be the most beneficial. I still wouldn't want it to be emotionally, though, because I would want to have my child. Is that selfish towards the man? Yeah, of course. Absolutely. But it's honestly how I would feel - given that I'm not in that situation, I suppose I won't have to make that decision (thank goodness.) In this situation, I also don't MORALLY believe in the aspect of 50/50 physical custody. I truly believe that children need a "primary" residence and that they should not be forced to live in a suitcase.

I'll not bring the drama llama in court, by the way.


Yeah, perhaps 50/50 custody isn't awarded as much as I seem to think it is. I agree that I need to be practical in this situation. I did ask a couple of questions a couple of posts back about specific timeshares - 15%, 20%. Is 15%, at this point, practical, you think? Or would it appear practical to a judge?

I agree also that it can be a wonderful thing to have that village raising a child. More people loving you is NEVER a bad thing. In your situation, it clearly worked out. That gives me some hope for that future in my own situation, I think.

 

[charcharteska]

I think, when it's used as a way to exclude/erase the biological parent, it can reflect very poorly upon the parent who encourages/forces it. But I also think that it's just a name, and getting all territorial and weird about it is just silly.

It is just a name. My biological mother left when I was 12, and I had a stepmother starting from when I was 13. I hate to admit it, but that woman was more a mother to me than my own mother who abandoned me. But I never, ever called her "mom" - even though she inherently was my mother.

But I just think some parents deserve to be erased.

For instance, there is this woman where I live - I have no idea how she retains custody of her children. She has been arrested 3 or 4 times for drug possession and drug use, an old boyfriend of hers beat her son very badly, she frequently locked her son in his room while she was taking drugs, and her newest baby clearly had some health problems due to drugs taken when she was pregnant. She even admitted to taking drugs and alcohol when she was pregnant with her son. I even actually witnessed her ex-husband blowing marijuana smoke into a 5 month old baby's ear to get him to stop crying when she was right there, and she encouraged it. The time before last when she was arrested, she was so drugged up that she did not even know what day it was and her children were locked in their rooms for who knows how long. And this last time, she left her children in the car on a hot Summer day - including her baby- to go shoplift and had drugs on her. Oh, and her son has some serious issues because of all of this. Like, killing small animals issues.

Anyway, she still has custody of her kids to this day. The system keeps on giving them back to her, over and over. Even though she screws up every time eventually, and her kids end up abused and neglected.

This is a mother I would gladly see erased in favor of a better person.

I'm not saying it's warranted all the time, but certainly sometimes it is. Wish our legal system could see it that way.

 

[Proserpina]

Dad's not going to get a 50/50 timeshare unless either you agree, or the judge truly believes that you're doing all you can to try and get rid of Dad.

He's not going to get full custody - but that's actually more about the status quo than anything else.

If he wants to make a huge deal about the Dad vs StepDad issue, he can do that. He can try to raise just about anything to help his case. How it impacts things when all is said and done, I have no idea.

The bottom line is that he will get visitation, and even if it's supervised at first the supervision will end in a relatively short period of time (think 6 months, not 6 years). He could get visitation and never exercise it. Or, he can exercise every last minute. Or anything in between.

Step back a little. Think. The unfortunate truth is that many parents use custody as a way of keeping control, of staying under their skin. Now that I think about it... read this thread. While it does appear to be trolling, if the poster is real (and I'm not convinced she wasn't) then it's a prime example of how "best interests" don't exist.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/question-forum-301196.html