Summary: M 40, WAW 40. S8, D6, D4. Moved out 6/19 after months of silence (and having written apology letters to my W with no response). W alluded to accusations of abuse and concerns about child safety in MC. Currently running a 30/70 timeshare and finances still merged. W lives in the marital home and does not work, I pay all the bills. Working in mediation to try to agree on D details.
I'm not suggesting you lay down and give up or roll over, here. You of course have to stand up and fight for what you believe. Absolutely 100 percent. I'm also not telling you to provide any soft landing for W. I'm simply suggesting you do not react with anger through your L when the process starts. Take your time, let the emotions settle, think about if there are other options with your L. Knee jerk reactions here can have lifelong consequences.
IW ~ I hear you, man. I absolutely do not want to use my L as a cudgel. I chose representation that prefers a cost-effective, mediated approach. We talk about the various options and try to pick the least costly (in both financial and emotional terms).
I am aware I have some healthy anger (which can drive one towards positive change) and unhealthy anger (rage, seeking revenge, etc.). I have both types going on right now and it helps to post to work it out.
As a conflict avoidant person, I think I have always avoided anger period. But I do think there is a thing as a healthy anger, it is one of the key things I have learned in my DB process.
Anyways, part of why I posted was to acknowledge I have some unhealthy anger and that I *do not* want to be driven by that.
Originally Posted by IronWill
Devils advocate here - you say you want 50/50. Assuming mediation is exactly what it's definition is, and a compromise solution is offered, would 40/60 be acceptable? Or is it worth fighting back and forth in court and potentially alienating your kids in that process for that extra 10 percent?
I may accept something else. But why wouldn't I ask for what I want up front? As it stands, I was offered a few extra hours twice a week IF I can take a half-day off work. That is not acceptable or reasonable.
Originally Posted by IronWill
That's a real world scenario that actually happened in my life. My F fought for full custody, got 25/75, then M fought for more CS, then more custody, then full custody, then F fought for less CS and more tax deductions, then more custody then my M took F to court for failure to pay extra CS, then M put us in and took us out of IC, then F refused...etc etc etc ad nauseum. For almost 10 years this went on, who knows how many tens of thousands of dollars wasted, not to mention damage to all of us kids.
By the time it was all said and done, and the situation had "stabilized", 2 of us had grown up and moved out, the third was in third year of HS. And none of us wanted anything to do with our parents.
That's what anger gets you.
I am really sorry you went through that. It sounds awful.
I worry about this scenario constantly (parents fighting over the kids, money, etc. for years). I'm sure I will have plenty of upcoming decisions about whether to assert what I think is best, or whether to keep the peace. It's complicated. If one parent is unwilling to compromise, is it best for the kids that the other parent go along with it?
I'm not looking to put up a L fight. I want control of my own money, and pay guideline support. From everything I have read about childhood development, going 10 days without seeing one parent is not healthy for them. I could easily take on a 50/50 schedule with my current job - I have already worked it out with my manager. I could do 40/60 today with zero impact to the kids' schedules. Why not start with what I want, instead of starting with what we have been doing, which is a situation I agreed to under duress?