A troubling phrase is in your post...."her mecdiator". That really isn't how the mediation thing works. A mediator is neither hers nor yours. They are impartial. If the mediator you are using isn't impartial.....run away.
As far as the CS goes, fair has nothing to do with it. It is a statutory calculation based on percentage of time with each parent and income percentages. If you are doing 50/50 with the kids and your incomes are equal, it is a wash. If you go on line to your state's laws, you should be able to do the exact calculation yourself. I did that so I knewe the figure long before one was proposed.
Me: 44 S: 17 and 7 Final-6-13-08 I once went to a psychic who told me I would soon feel cheated......
Karen, You're absolutely right. I have decided it just gets me nowhere to have these conversations with W, but they sometimes have to be endured as long as the key issues are moved forward (or defended). I just need to do a bit more of what I ended up doing, which is to cut the conversation short when she starts to be disrespectful.
MC, I use the term "her mediator" for precisely the very reason you state. It is intended to be a sort-of oxymoron. The so-called arbitrator was hired by my W to help referee our hammering out a separation agreement. I gave her (the L) a chance but she gave every concession to my W -- I was on the losing end of every point of contention. So she was not "our" mediator or even "the" mediator but "my W's mediator".
And yes, fair is not really a part of the CS. But then it is. What is fair to W and to me would be what is truly in the best interests of our children. Nothing more, nothing less. However, as you well know, there's a wide degree of leeway in intrepreting just what is fair to our two S's. W's mediator thought that anything that promotes W's interests, even if they are heavily punitive of me, are automatically in the interests of our children. Naturally, I object to that.
By contrast, I have no interest in punishing or crippling my W financially, as that too is not in the best interests of our S's. No, I want what is fair and equitable to both W and myself -- on the very grounds that that is in the true interest of the children. Our S's do not need to have either of their parents suffering unduly under an inequitable settlement.
BTW, I knew of this state's online calculator for CS long before we went into the so-called "mediation". The devil, however, is in the details, as the "mediator" and I were at odds on what could be included for income (for example, she concluded that W's sizable monthly mileage reimbursement was not admissible as a component of W's compensation. My L has said otherwise, and even showed me the citation in the state laws itself.)
MC, mediation is not "required", but it happens to be the very first order of business from a judge prior to actual D proceedings.
The "mediation" that W and I entered into earlier this year was voluntary, not court-ordered. W hired the L who acted as mediator and I payed half the $200/hour fees.
Yoyo, I sent W a letter a couple of weeks ago now -- I told her I was done with her so-called mediation given how poorly my interests were treated. I told W in that letter we had but three options (1) hire another mediator (one we both agree we could accept), (2) each hire our own attorney under a Collaborative Law agreement for a four person mediation, or (3) a costly court battle.
W indicated that she'd take option 3 to get a temporary custody order established.
The funny thing is that if we go the litigation route, as I mentioned above, in this state the judge will send you to court-appointed mediation first thing anyway.
I got a weird suggestion from W this morning. She suggested that I take S7 and S3 with me to my Bible study tonight and then bring them back to the house tonight thereafter. She said that since I want more time with them this would afford me an additional evening to spend with them, to break up the long stretch between custody of them.
But then in almost the same breath she said she could take a Tuesday evening to break up the long stretch when she doesn't have them (she said Wednesday but she gets that already right now, so she had to mean another night during the week I have custody.)
Cuckoo. Again she defies logic, even her own twisted logic from days before.
First of all, she has long since rejected my proposal that we go to a 2-2-3 parenting schedule (which would be 50-50, by-the-way) since she says that S7 (as a "special-needs child") has problems with transitions and needs as much continuity as possible. 2-2-3 would be too disruptive. She also rejected the mediator's every other weekend and every other Wednesday plan for the same reason. That's why I suggested a 7-7 schedule.
But now she's willing to essentially abrogate that constraint? Why? I ask myself.
I think many of you can guess, just as I have, that she wouldn't be suggesting this alteration for my benefit whatsoever, nor for Liam and Nathan's benefit either. Not for one second. She would never admit anything, but I suspect she is the one who is "suffering" the long stretch of having two hyper-active boys in her custody for nine days straight. More to the point, I think she is realizing the distinct disadvantage of having nearly twice the custody of our sons over me in that she is not free for nine days straight to "see" her boyfriend. She don't like denying herself is what I'm getting at.
So now she wants to make it seem like she's doing me a favor? But then she turns around and tries to nullify it by taking away one of my evenings with them.
Part of me is inclined to agree just to set a precedent that we can introduce more transitions into the equation with little to no ill repercussions. But the other half of me is not sympathetic to her desire to have more frequent contact with her illicit "friend" -- on that I say tough cookies! (I have been celibate for 392 days now -- and she can't go for a simple 9-day stretch?!?)
Part of me is inclined to agree just to set a precedent that we can introduce more transitions into the equation with little to no ill repercussions. But the other half of me is not sympathetic to her desire to have more frequent contact with her illicit "friend" -- on that I say tough cookies! (I have been celibate for 392 days now -- and she can't go for a simple 9-day stretch?!?)
Why should you agree to help her out and lose your night as well? I think the only way I would agree to that, unless it's something you really want, is if you don't have to give up a night? Then if she really really wants a break you won't have lost anything? Maybe I'm looking at that wrong though, but that's how it looks to me. Plus, I agree it looks to me like your W wants that, but is trying to make it look like she is doing you a favor. She sounds manipulative, and I would want to say no just b/c of that, but if she will agree to do it without taking away your night, then I guess it would be a win-win for both of you? Karen
Karen