Pregnant: What is right?

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

And yeah, I wish it was possible for me to stay, but it is not. Otherwise, I would.

Anything is possible. It is all about the choices you make.

You ask about doing the "right" thing? The right thing in my opinion is to be there for your child even if it means being able to provide less in monetary support.

I hope it all works out for you. I know you have very long and tough road ahead. Hopefully in the end you will find it rewarding as I have.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

I finally have a straight forward question:

I have proposed to her that when the child is born, she take the child for the first six months, then I fly back, pick up the child, take the child to my state, and keep the child for six months, then fly the child back to her and let her keep it for six months. (i.e. 50/50)

Is this right?

Is this fair to her?

ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY out of the question. Babies should not be separated from their mothers - especially overnight - for the first 2-3 years.

If you move out of the state, it is your responsibility to travel back and forth.

OR you can stay put, pay a fair amount of $$, visit often to establish a bond with your baby and help raise him for the rest of his life.

The idea that you would come in AS A TOTAL STRANGER and take a baby from it's mother is ludicrous.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[Nightingale 0]

Speaking as a former educator, if you do not live in the same school district, 50/50 will be a BIG problem for your child. You can't have the kid at two different schools during the year. If you're going to help raise the kid, you need to be in the same town.

I'd suggest you and the girl go to counseling together to learn how to jointly parent your child without being together romantically. It's a very tough juggling act, and you both need to learn to communicate with each other in a new way.

[RandomDood 0]

Quote

It's no longer about what is fair to you or her; it's about what is best for the child.

But I'm guessing that none of us on here know you or the situation well enough to be giving you much advice. Perhaps this would be a good time for the two of you to seek advice from a family counselor?

Sounds like a difficult situation. Good luck to you.

I definitely understand it not being about the mother or myself; but about the child. This, I definitely get. But maybe it was a naive assumption, but I feel like what I was proposing WAS best for the child. I am not basing it off of what the courts say or feel should happen, but what I feel would be best for our child in my heart. And I have always been brought up to think that it is right to be fair.

Maybe I should be asking 'what the results of this would be on the child'?

Thank you for the wishes of luck. I appreciate it.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

I am a little naive in the stability factors.

Your 6 months/6 Months would not work past the first 5 years once your child starts School. Unless you want you child to change schools in the middle of every school year (Definitely not stable)

Quote

I feel like being with one of your parents all the time IS stable

Not when it changes every 6 months.

Quote

I guess you are trying to say that it is better for the child to be with one parent all the time?

I am saying the Courts are VERY unlikely to award Shared custody especially across state lines.

It is one thing when a child has a stable home and goes to see the other parent on weekends but entirely different if the child is uprooted ever 6 months and sent to live elsewhere. I am not saying it will not work, just saying that the courts do not generally like Shared custody.

[RandomDood 0]

Quote

Anything is possible. It is all about the choices you make.

You ask about doing the "right" thing? The right thing in my opinion is to be there for your child even if it means being able to provide less in monetary support.

I hope it all works out for you. I know you have very long and tough road ahead. Hopefully in the end you will find it rewarding as I have.

I know I will. Thank you so much for your input and help with all this. Much appreciated.

[AWL71 0]

Have you condisered adoption? There are many good families that are looking to adopt. A couple I know just adopted from someone in a situation similar to yours.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Doesnt matter. It is not fair to the Child. The Child will need Stability. Shared Custody like you are proposing is very rare and something the courts try to avoid.

I am a little naive in the stability factors. I feel like being with one of your parents all the time IS stable. I hope I am not coming off in a sarcastic manner because that is not my intention. I guess you are trying to say that it is better for the child to be with one parent all the time? I am not sure.

That actually *IS* better for the child in most cases - a 50/50 custody split is *very* rare and I've only ever heard of it in cases where both parents are living very close to each other. The courts see it as a complete upheaval of the child's life (which it is) and will normally grant primary custody to one parent (usually the mother, unless she is unfit) and visitation to the other parent (alternate weekends, summer vacation, etc).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Nightingale 0]

If they can work things out, the court may never even get involved.

[RandomDood 0]

Quote

ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY out of the question. Babies should not be separated from their mothers - especially overnight - for the first 2-3 years.

If you move out of the state, it is your responsibility to travel back and forth.

OR you can stay put, pay a fair amount of $$, visit often to establish a bond with your baby and help raise him for the rest of his life.

The idea that you would come in AS A TOTAL STRANGER and take a baby from it's mother is ludicrous.

Thank you for your opinion. Can you explain the '2-3 years, no motherly separation' to me please. I am not familiar with this as she is not planning to breast feed.

Also, I am not voluntarily being moved out of state. This is not my decision, so I am not able to 'stay put'. I could definitely see if I was choosing to move away; especially if I was choosing to move away to get away from the mother or my responsibilities, but that is not the case here. I am not running away, nor trying to.

And I believe I can establish a bond with our child without being in a particular state. And I can help raise him the rest of his life by physically being there.

And I do not think that I am a total stranger. I am the father of the child. If that is my chance to build a relationship with our child, then I will take that chance. And I am not 'taking the child' at all. Why do you think that I am taking the child from the mother. I am not trying to never come back or anything. I just would like to spend the same amount of time raising him as she does. I think the child will benefit from both our experiences and what we both have to offer him.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

If they can work things out, the court may never even get involved.

Wow.. That from a Lawyer type??

It is in his interest to get an agreement in place. he has no rights at all and will be solely at the mothers whim in some states until he Legitimizes the child and establishes some form of legal custody (even if it is Full Legal Custody for the mother and he just gets visitation) at least he will legally recognized as the father and have set visitation.

They can have all the verbal agreement they want, But that will mean nothing when one day the mother decides she doesn’t want him seeing the child anymore. If they wait till then to do this it will take longer and be much more stressful for everyone involved.

[RandomDood 0]

In response to the whole school situation, I have thought about that. I am not proposing that the child be taken out of school half way through the school year. I was thinking more along the lines of crossing that bridge when we got to it.

So, its time for our child to start school. I think to go to a good school would be the best for the child; number one. Where is the best school (I would ask myself)? If it is near the mother, then I will take summers and holidays. If it is near myself, she can take summers and holidays. Am I thinking a little to simple here?

[RandomDood 0]

Quote

Have you condisered adoption? There are many good families that are looking to adopt. A couple I know just adopted from someone in a situation similar to yours.

No, we actually have not considered that. My thing is that if it is my child, then I will raise him. And I am sure that she feels the same way. I am sure that this is a good option for some though.

[RandomDood 0]

Quote

That actually *IS* better for the child in most cases - a 50/50 custody split is *very* rare and I've only ever heard of it in cases where both parents are living very close to each other. The courts see it as a complete upheaval of the child's life (which it is) and will normally grant primary custody to one parent (usually the mother, unless she is unfit) and visitation to the other parent (alternate weekends, summer vacation, etc).

Please help me to understand why that it is better for only one parent to have custody, as oppose to both having equal custody. This is something I have not been able to really grasp yet. (not being sarcastic)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

She wants me to leave and send her child support and money for child care and money for prenatal visits and maternity clothes and food (because she eats extra now). And she wants me to fly back state-to-state when I want to see our child.

It sounds like that is what you should do, if money is a major issue for her but not for you, and if you do not want to get married. This sounds like the best way to take care of the child, considering the situation that you are in (and assuming that she is capable of taking care of the child aside from the money issue).

If they both want the child and are equally fit to be parents, and she wants there to be a custodial parent and a visiting parent, shouldn't the parent who's more capable of providing a good home be the custodial parent?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY out of the question. Babies should not be separated from their mothers - especially overnight - for the first 2-3 years.

If you move out of the state, it is your responsibility to travel back and forth.

OR you can stay put, pay a fair amount of $$, visit often to establish a bond with your baby and help raise him for the rest of his life.

The idea that you would come in AS A TOTAL STRANGER and take a baby from it's mother is ludicrous.

Thank you for your opinion. Can you explain the '2-3 years, no motherly separation' to me please. I am not familiar with this as she is not planning to breast feed.

Also, I am not voluntarily being moved out of state. This is not my decision, so I am not able to 'stay put'. I could definitely see if I was choosing to move away; especially if I was choosing to move away to get away from the mother or my responsibilities, but that is not the case here. I am not running away, nor trying to.

And I believe I can establish a bond with our child without being in a particular state. And I can help raise him the rest of his life by physically being there.

And I do not think that I am a total stranger. I am the father of the child. If that is my chance to build a relationship with our child, then I will take that chance. And I am not 'taking the child' at all. Why do you think that I am taking the child from the mother. I am not trying to never come back or anything. I just would like to spend the same amount of time raising him as she does. I think the child will benefit from both our experiences and what we both have to offer him.

The first 2-3 years of a child's life are the most important years in developing attachments, developing trust, developing personality, etc.

At 6 months old - a child has NO idea what relationship any person has to him other than what is consistently present. If you move out of state - and then come take the baby from the one consistent person in it's life - you are esssentially ARE a stranger to him - and you would then be breaking that bond between him and his mother.

Of course, he would then form an attachment to you but your plan of switching out primary attachment figures every 6 months presents a pattern of breaking and reforming bonds that could impact his ability to form lasting relationships, build trust, build self-esteem for the rest of his life.

Trust me, no court will allow your scenario to occur. If you move out of state, you will have very limited visitation until the child is older.

Before haggling with your ex girlfriend over 'what's fair' - do some real research into infant development and parenting. Your baby deserves the best outcome in this unfortunate situation. Fight for that.

Also, urge her to breastfeed.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

She wants me to leave and send her child support and money for child care and money for prenatal visits and maternity clothes and food (because she eats extra now). And she wants me to fly back state-to-state when I want to see our child.

It sounds like that is what you should do, if money is a major issue for her but not for you, and if you do not want to get married. This sounds like the best way to take care of the child, considering the situation that you are in (and assuming that she is capable of taking care of the child aside from the money issue).

If they both want the child and are equally fit to be parents, and she wants there to be a custodial parent and a visiting parent, shouldn't the parent who's more capable of providing a good home be the custodial parent?

Blues,
Dave

All things being equal - the child should be with it's mother.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[MrWong 0]

Abortion

get on with your lives and chalk it up to experience

[RandomDood 0]

Quote

If they can work things out, the court may never even get involved.

I do not believe courts are needed. I believe we can work things out as long as she stays rational about things. She has stated before that 50/50 is the fair thing to do; that it is fair for her to have the child just as much as me.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I finally have a straight forward question:

I have proposed to her that when the child is born, she take the child for the first six months, then I fly back, pick up the child, take the child to my state, and keep the child for six months, then fly the child back to her and let her keep it for six months. (i.e. 50/50)

Is this right?

Is this fair to her?

ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY out of the question. Babies should not be separated from their mothers - especially overnight - for the first 2-3 years.

If you move out of the state, it is your responsibility to travel back and forth.

OR you can stay put, pay a fair amount of $$, visit often to establish a bond with your baby and help raise him for the rest of his life.

The idea that you would come in AS A TOTAL STRANGER and take a baby from it's mother is ludicrous.

A baby that isn't nursing can just as easily spend a night with its father as with its mother. The problem is in the length of time being proposed. A daily exchange of the baby can work but a semi-annual exchange will absolutely not. I got a place a block and a half from my ex-wife, and each day one of us took our daughter for a walk, either I took her to her mom's or her mom brought her to mine. We still did "family" outings to the park, etc, and we worked through behavioral problems together. If the mother doesn't have a decent job there and the father does have a decent job lined up elsewhere, I'd suggest that the best solution might be for him to pay to move the mother to where his work is so that they can raise the child as a team, rather than as "combatants".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

All things being equal - the child should be with it's mother.

Why?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sounds like you need to move to Plan B concerning the right thing to do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

I don't understand what you mean? Can you elaborate a little more please. It would be much appreciated.

Plan A would have been to realize that you just wanted to get it wet, and either worn protection or not to have screwed her at all.
Now that you're past that point, the right thing to do is to put your desired dreams and future on hold and be sure that the child has one.

[RandomDood 0]

Quote

It is in his interest to get an agreement in place. he has no rights at all and will be solely at the mothers whim in some states until he Legitimizes the child and establishes some form of legal custody (even if it is Full Legal Custody for the mother and he just gets visitation) at least he will legally recognized as the father and have set visitation.

They can have all the verbal agreement they want, But that will mean nothing when one day the mother decides she doesn’t want him seeing the child anymore. If they wait till then to do this it will take longer and be much more stressful for everyone involved.

I actually intended to come to an agreement that we can get notarized. Therefore, the courts don't have anything to really do with it. As long as we both agree on how WE want to do it; not how the court wants us to.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That actually *IS* better for the child in most cases - a 50/50 custody split is *very* rare and I've only ever heard of it in cases where both parents are living very close to each other. The courts see it as a complete upheaval of the child's life (which it is) and will normally grant primary custody to one parent (usually the mother, unless she is unfit) and visitation to the other parent (alternate weekends, summer vacation, etc).

Please help me to understand why that it is better for only one parent to have custody, as oppose to both having equal custody. This is something I have not been able to really grasp yet. (not being sarcastic)

Because it creates the most stable home environment for the child.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If they both want the child and are equally fit to be parents, and she wants there to be a custodial parent and a visiting parent, shouldn't the parent who's more capable of providing a good home be the custodial parent?

Yes, but who is more capable of providing a "good home" does not necessarily mean the person who makes the most money. I didn't mean to suggest that the mother should automatically get custody, but it sounded as if the choice was either her having custody or them splitting it 50/50, in which case the former sounds like a better choice.

One thing I would personally consider is that I would want my child to be breastfed (for the health benefits), and the father is not capable of providing that on his own. So that is one good reason for the mother to have custody at least in the beginning. And again, that is assuming that she can provide a good home in other ways, even if that requires having financial assistance from him.

But I really think that counseling would be a good idea in this situation. I would find it hard enough to give good advice to a close friend in this situation, let alone someone I know nothing about.