• 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.

Family1st: closed thread

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? oblivion

The point that you and the others did not speak about is the controlling issue in this debate.

If there is a current parenting plan in place9as you said) and it does not specifically mention private schooling, then the child MUST be enrolled in public school as per statute until such time as a new parenting plan is adopted either by negotiation or court order.

And if the ex does file, the case will NOT be heard until the beginning of the school year. Therefore, if you insist on enrolling your child in a private school, regardless of the religion issue, you will be in direct violation of the parenting plan.
 


Family1st

Member
BelizeBreeze said:
What is the name of your state? oblivion

The point that you and the others did not speak about is the controlling issue in this debate.

If there is a current parenting plan in place9as you said) and it does not specifically mention private schooling, then the child MUST be enrolled in public school as per statute until such time as a new parenting plan is adopted either by negotiation or court order.

And if the ex does file, the case will NOT be heard until the beginning of the school year. Therefore, if you insist on enrolling your child in a private school, regardless of the religion issue, you will be in direct violation of the parenting plan.
What do you mean "per statute"? Our parenting plan only addresses school by saying:

"It is therefore by the court ordered that the term "joint custody" means that both parties have equal rights concerning the responsibilities to their minor children and that neither party's rights are superior. In accordance with their joint responsibilities, the parties shall consult with and cosider each other's wishes in respect to their children's education, religious training, health, illness and operations (except in emergencies), welfare, selection of caretakers....etc."

It does not say that they will be enrolled in public school unless otherwise stated. When you say per statute do you mean a state law???

It also says that in the best interest of the children that I have the primary responsibility for the care, custody and control of the minor children and I am designated the primary residential parent and ex has reasonable rights of visitation.

Does that change anything in this discussion???
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
State law requires that your kids are in school. Your court order requires that the two of you agree on educational matters. You don't get to unilaterally enroll your (joint) kids anywhere you please w/o Dad's consent. So your choice is public school until the court rules otherwise. It's not that difficult a concept to comprehend. You don't get to make this decision all on your own, darlin'.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
Family1st said:
What do you mean "per statute"? Our parenting plan only addresses school by saying:

"It is therefore by the court ordered that the term "joint custody" means that both parties have equal rights concerning the responsibilities to their minor children and that neither party's rights are superior. In accordance with their joint responsibilities, the parties shall consult with and cosider each other's wishes in respect to their children's education, religious training, health, illness and operations (except in emergencies), welfare, selection of caretakers....etc."


It does not say that they will be enrolled in public school unless otherwise stated. When you say per statute do you mean a state law???
No it does not. And it does NOT also say that you can unilaterally decide to enroll the children in parocial school.

What the order DOES NOT say is controlling here, and since there is no specific right of choice in schooling, then your state's statute regarding school enrollment for underage children prevails.
It also says that in the best interest of the children that I have the primary responsibility for the care, custody and control of the minor children and I am designated the primary residential parent and ex has reasonable rights of visitation.

Does that change anything in this discussion???
Read above. You do NOT have the authority to make the educational decision, only primary responsibility for.....

I suggest (in the nicest way possible) that you NOT attempt reading a court order until you've learned to read it with objective eyes.

If a court order does NOT specifically grant you a right, it does not exist.
 

Family1st

Member
stealth2 said:
State law requires that your kids are in school. Your court order requires that the two of you agree on educational matters. You don't get to unilaterally enroll your (joint) kids anywhere you please w/o Dad's consent. So your choice is public school until the court rules otherwise. It's not that difficult a concept to comprehend. You don't get to make this decision all on your own, darlin'.
You are right that the court order does not say that I get to make the decision alone. But it also doesn't say that if we don't agree that Dad just gets his way. He wants public school, I do not so if neither of us gets to call the shots why does it end in them going to public school.

I think that my ex may have been advised that he will win this by his wife and his wifes employer but I am still not convinced that with everything I have given in on. All I want is this one thing, he can have all the additional time and summer vacation etc. I just want this.

BTW he told me last night that if this goes to court he is also going to seek a reduction in CS. Is that automatically given when it goes from him having EOW to 50/50??
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Family1st said:
I think that my ex may have been advised that he will win this by his wife and his wifes employer but I am still not convinced that with everything I have given in on. All I want is this one thing, he can have all the additional time and summer vacation etc.
With an unaccredited school? Don't hold your breath. Being accredited by some Christian group isn't going to fly - the state doesn't accredit it? Not likely to happen in the face of a parent's opposition.

Family1st said:
I just want this.
Waaah. Quit whining.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
BB, am I correct that the legal PRESUMPTION of PUBLIC schooling exists unless the CO specifically allows for parochial school? Because that is the "universal" schooling that is sectarian and that the state cannot impose religious education upon a parent against their wishes if the parent has not already consented to it???

And preschool is really glorified daycare- so preschool is not a "presumption" of continued school career in parochial school? (WE used a religious preschool and never intended for our child to not attend our public school)
 
Last edited:

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
nextwife said:
BB, am I correct that the legal PRESUMPTION of PUBLIC schooling exists unless the CO specifically allows for parochial school? Because that is the "universal" schooling that is sectarian and that the state cannot impose religious education upon a parent against their wishes if the parent has not already consented to it???
Yes, but not for the reason you state. School attendence is required by all 50 states per specific educational code and/or statute. Therefore, if the divorce decree, parenting plan, visitation plan or other derivitative of a divorce proceeding is silent as to schooling and the right thereof to choose, and because the state has a controlling interest in the educational needs of a child, state statute controls.

And preschool is really glorified daycare- so preschool is not a "presumption" of continued school career in parochial school? (WE used a religious preschool and never intended for our child to not attend our public school)
there is no requirement in the statutes (as far as I know) that mandates conpulsory attendence at pre-school and/or kindergarten. Therefore, unless the court has designated a procedure for deciding such, the issue is open for negotiation.
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Family1st said:
You are right that the court order does not say that I get to make the decision alone. But it also doesn't say that if we don't agree that Dad just gets his way. He wants public school, I do not so if neither of us gets to call the shots why does it end in them going to public school.

I think that my ex may have been advised that he will win this by his wife and his wifes employer but I am still not convinced that with everything I have given in on. All I want is this one thing, he can have all the additional time and summer vacation etc. I just want this.

BTW he told me last night that if this goes to court he is also going to seek a reduction in CS. Is that automatically given when it goes from him having EOW to 50/50??
Your children will attend public school unless or until there is a court order contrary to that once they are of an age where school attendance is mandatory between 7-18 e.g. preschool is considered child care.

Having joint custody means that you co parent your children and decide together, when you can't decide, then a judge decides. Based on your previous threads, you don't want a judge looking at any of your past demands because they will look at all issues, not just the school issue. You have a large burden of proof since the school is not accredited with the state, even though private schools are NOT required to be accredited, they are required to follow certain criteria, State Regulation of Private Schools - Kansas
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/RegPrivSchl/kansas.html not only from the context of the courts, but also when it comes to college. Many parents who have sent their children to Charter schools which are associated with the public schools have found their children unable to attend many colleges if the accreditation is lacking. When your ex has 50/50 it is reasonable to also modify child support, remember you only hooked up with him to sire your children and promptly divorced him so your could marry your current husband who feels entitled to beat children not his own which is NOT what was meant for a Christ centered home.

You really need to seriously contemplate your personal relationship with Jesus, today being Good Friday is an opportune time to do that.
 
Last edited:

Family1st

Member
Zephyr said:
why would you think his cs should not go down?
I am not saying it should not go down. Regardless of what school my children end up attending I plan to be very involved. My 2 youngest children will still be home full time and I need to be able to stay home with them.

From the beginning of all of this he has been dangling the cs as a way to try and get me to do what HE wants. He knows I want to be a SAHM and that was a problem when we were together. He wanted me to get a job as soon as my oldest was born. He was mad when I wouldn't leave the baby with his mom, who smoked, and go get a job. He knows that if he does not pay any cs that I will not be able to do that.

But hey according to all of you I am the bad guy here.
 

mommyto4

Member
He isn't responsible for you to be a SAHM. He is responsible for the care of his children and not your younger two. Dont count your child support as income and depend on it.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
Family1st said:
I am not saying it should not go down. Regardless of what school my children end up attending I plan to be very involved. My 2 youngest children will still be home full time and I need to be able to stay home with them.

From the beginning of all of this he has been dangling the cs as a way to try and get me to do what HE wants. He knows I want to be a SAHM and that was a problem when we were together. He wanted me to get a job as soon as my oldest was born. He was mad when I wouldn't leave the baby with his mom, who smoked, and go get a job. He knows that if he does not pay any cs that I will not be able to do that.

But hey according to all of you I am the bad guy here.
Many states have a financial presumption that BOTH parents are responsible for the financial support of their children. You don't have to work, but many states have CS calculations that allow an income to be imputed when one is voluntarilly unemployed.
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Family1st said:
I am not saying it should not go down. Regardless of what school my children end up attending I plan to be very involved. My 2 youngest children will still be home full time and I need to be able to stay home with them.

From the beginning of all of this he has been dangling the cs as a way to try and get me to do what HE wants. He knows I want to be a SAHM and that was a problem when we were together. He wanted me to get a job as soon as my oldest was born. He was mad when I wouldn't leave the baby with his mom, who smoked, and go get a job. He knows that if he does not pay any cs that I will not be able to do that.

But hey according to all of you I am the bad guy here.
You are not married to him anymore. You were not married long enough to entitle you to spousal support. It was not even your agreement when you were married that you be a SAHM, so why should he support you in your desires now? You had another child with him, knowing he did not agree with you being a SAHM, perhaps that was you being manipulative but it didn't work, now your new husband can support you and your child with him if he wants you to be a SAHM, not your ex. It is time to think about becomming self supporting in case this marriage doesn't work out either because your ex is not going to support you just because you were married a short itme and conceived two children together. You don't HAVE to stay at home with the children and expect to be supported, many women work outside the home and manage to raise their children into adults successfully.
 

Zephyr

Senior Member
Family1st said:
I am not saying it should not go down. Regardless of what school my children end up attending I plan to be very involved. My 2 youngest children will still be home full time and I need to be able to stay home with them.

From the beginning of all of this he has been dangling the cs as a way to try and get me to do what HE wants. He knows I want to be a SAHM and that was a problem when we were together. He wanted me to get a job as soon as my oldest was born. He was mad when I wouldn't leave the baby with his mom, who smoked, and go get a job. He knows that if he does not pay any cs that I will not be able to do that.

But hey according to all of you I am the bad guy here.

yeah...that arguement will not get you far in court at all, both parent are responsible to support their child financially**************and with as much as you want that cs check, if I were him I would use it as a bargaining tool too**************:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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