RandomDood

This I absolutely agree with. This is what I offered, but she is unwilling to move unless I choose to be with her; in a relationship. Which I am not willing to agree to. I do not think I should be forced into being in a relationship I do not want. And I cannot just tell her, 'yeah, we'll be together' and move her out there and then dump her. That isn't right either.

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. Thank you for clarifying. I understand what you are saying now and see where you are coming from. But I take offense to the comment that 'before haggling with my ex girlfriend over 'what's fair' - do some real research into infant development and parenting'. That is assuming that I have not already done extensive research. Who in their right mind would NOT research every avenue of approach to this? That is what I am currently doing; gathering information. I don't think you should just jump to the conclusion that I haven't done so before creating this post.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Thank you very much for your input with this. Much appreciated. And yeah, I wish it was possible for me to stay, but it is not. Otherwise, I would.

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?

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). I feel like if I am keeping the child the same amount as she is, I should only have to pay child support when she has the child. And I also believe I should only pay half of child care costs when she has the child. And vice versa as well. edited to add: I think it is fair for it to be 50/50. Not me having to deal with the brunt of travel and only seeing my child when I can fly there. I do not believe that is fair just because I make more money than she does.

Am I supposed to support her financially if we do everything 50/50?