Change of Primary Residential Parent/Custody

[Rambler]

I pop in here from time to time but am not a regular, and hope that this is
not too off-topic.

I am in the process of finalizing a divorce, the mother currently has the
children and has returned to the States (we had moved overseas some time
ago), and we are back in the Court system here where I am trying to change
the Care and Control (primary residential parent) status from her to me due
to alienation of the children by her and her family...to make a long story
short. Kids have been in the States for little more than a year.

What I am looking for is experiences or deciding factors when the Court
grants Custody to the father, or changes Custody/Primary Residential Parent
status to the father.

I do come at this with a touch of (perhaps huge) bias, in that I do feel
that attitudes in general discriminate against the father in custody
situations. I have seen that, I believe, in the judge presiding over my
case, who noted that while Victorian attitudes of the better parent have no
place in his court, sometimes young children were better placed with the
mother; to my ex who has recently stated that because she is a woman, she
can deal with the pre-pubescent changes of our eldest (this from a woman who
can't talk about anything); to the attitudes of the Social Welfare workers
in my case (where they felt that my ex's parenting plan was somewhat better
because the maternal grandmother would be part of it (as opposed to mine
where I had a constant live-in domestic helper), even though they failed to
pick up on the fact that the maternal grandmother's marriage was crashing
onto the rocks and, in reality, she has had no hand's one responsibility for
the children as that is left to a coterie of different baby-sitters; to even
some (not all) of the comments made by people here.

So, just for my own clarity, I am trying to understand the experience of
folks as to when the father was awarded primary residential parent. Was it
because the mother had serious issues (i.e., drug dependant, or had caused
the death of the child) or was it something else. I understand that one of
the primary factors is to keep stability for the children, but am
structuring the case around the long-term emotional 'best interests' of the
children, that being that children who are encouraged and supported to have
equal and loving access to both parents do so much better than those that
are denied that same thing, looking at slaying myths along the way.

And yes, I have a solicitor/attorney, but I remain actively involved in
directing my case. What's that maxim? If you want something done well, do
it yourself? Something like that.

Appreciate your folks' time.

Rambler

[Kenneth S.]

Rambler wrote:
>
> I pop in here from time to time but am not a regular, and hope that this is
> not too off-topic.
>
> I am in the process of finalizing a divorce, the mother currently has the
> children and has returned to the States (we had moved overseas some time
> ago), and we are back in the Court system here where I am trying to change
> the Care and Control (primary residential parent) status from her to me due
> to alienation of the children by her and her family...to make a long story
> short. Kids have been in the States for little more than a year.
>
> What I am looking for is experiences or deciding factors when the Court
> grants Custody to the father, or changes Custody/Primary Residential Parent
> status to the father.
>
> I do come at this with a touch of (perhaps huge) bias, in that I do feel
> that attitudes in general discriminate against the father in custody
> situations. I have seen that, I believe, in the judge presiding over my
> case, who noted that while Victorian attitudes of the better parent have no
> place in his court, sometimes young children were better placed with the
> mother; to my ex who has recently stated that because she is a woman, she
> can deal with the pre-pubescent changes of our eldest (this from a woman who
> can't talk about anything); to the attitudes of the Social Welfare workers
> in my case (where they felt that my ex's parenting plan was somewhat better
> because the maternal grandmother would be part of it (as opposed to mine
> where I had a constant live-in domestic helper), even though they failed to
> pick up on the fact that the maternal grandmother's marriage was crashing
> onto the rocks and, in reality, she has had no hand's one responsibility for
> the children as that is left to a coterie of different baby-sitters; to even
> some (not all) of the comments made by people here.
>
> So, just for my own clarity, I am trying to understand the experience of
> folks as to when the father was awarded primary residential parent. Was it
> because the mother had serious issues (i.e., drug dependant, or had caused
> the death of the child) or was it something else. I understand that one of
> the primary factors is to keep stability for the children, but am
> structuring the case around the long-term emotional 'best interests' of the
> children, that being that children who are encouraged and supported to have
> equal and loving access to both parents do so much better than those that
> are denied that same thing, looking at slaying myths along the way.
>
> And yes, I have a solicitor/attorney, but I remain actively involved in
> directing my case. What's that maxim? If you want something done well, do
> it yourself? Something like that.
>
> Appreciate your folks' time.
>
> Rambler


You don't say which country you are in. Since you use the term
"solicitor," I wonder if it is the U.K. If so, I suggest that you make
contact with one of the fathers' organizations there -- I would
recommend Families Need Fathers.

In the U.S. there has been little significant change in the
overwhelming prejudice in favor of the mother, and the glass ceiling on
paternal custody remains firmly in place. My impression is that the
same is true for the U.K.

But WHICH court would be making the decision about custody? Despite
what you say about a court "here," presumably (since the children are in
the U.S.) a court in whatever state they live in would decide. To be
realistic, that too would make it more difficult for you to get
custody, since the children would be leaving the U.S. of A, and going to
a furrin country. Keep in mind that any advice you get from a legal
advisor may be colored by the probability that a custody battle would
generate major amounts of legal fees.

I can only tell you what I have observed in more than 10 years of being
involved in these issues in a state in the eastern part of the U.S.
Custody continues to be decided, not by laws or by courts, but by
mothers. If mothers want custody, they get it. Fathers can easily
spend huge amounts of money and emotional energy on trying to get
custody, and end up with nothing to show for it. The best thing is to
stay in touch with the children, and hope that, when they become of an
age where a court pays attention to what they want, a change will occur.

[Kenneth S.]

Rambler wrote:
>
> I pop in here from time to time but am not a regular, and hope that this is
> not too off-topic.
>
> I am in the process of finalizing a divorce, the mother currently has the
> children and has returned to the States (we had moved overseas some time
> ago), and we are back in the Court system here where I am trying to change
> the Care and Control (primary residential parent) status from her to me due
> to alienation of the children by her and her family...to make a long story
> short. Kids have been in the States for little more than a year.
>
> What I am looking for is experiences or deciding factors when the Court
> grants Custody to the father, or changes Custody/Primary Residential Parent
> status to the father.
>
> I do come at this with a touch of (perhaps huge) bias, in that I do feel
> that attitudes in general discriminate against the father in custody
> situations. I have seen that, I believe, in the judge presiding over my
> case, who noted that while Victorian attitudes of the better parent have no
> place in his court, sometimes young children were better placed with the
> mother; to my ex who has recently stated that because she is a woman, she
> can deal with the pre-pubescent changes of our eldest (this from a woman who
> can't talk about anything); to the attitudes of the Social Welfare workers
> in my case (where they felt that my ex's parenting plan was somewhat better
> because the maternal grandmother would be part of it (as opposed to mine
> where I had a constant live-in domestic helper), even though they failed to
> pick up on the fact that the maternal grandmother's marriage was crashing
> onto the rocks and, in reality, she has had no hand's one responsibility for
> the children as that is left to a coterie of different baby-sitters; to even
> some (not all) of the comments made by people here.
>
> So, just for my own clarity, I am trying to understand the experience of
> folks as to when the father was awarded primary residential parent. Was it
> because the mother had serious issues (i.e., drug dependant, or had caused
> the death of the child) or was it something else. I understand that one of
> the primary factors is to keep stability for the children, but am
> structuring the case around the long-term emotional 'best interests' of the
> children, that being that children who are encouraged and supported to have
> equal and loving access to both parents do so much better than those that
> are denied that same thing, looking at slaying myths along the way.
>
> And yes, I have a solicitor/attorney, but I remain actively involved in
> directing my case. What's that maxim? If you want something done well, do
> it yourself? Something like that.
>
> Appreciate your folks' time.
>
> Rambler


You don't say which country you are in. Since you use the term
"solicitor," I wonder if it is the U.K. If so, I suggest that you make
contact with one of the fathers' organizations there -- I would
recommend Families Need Fathers.

In the U.S. there has been little significant change in the
overwhelming prejudice in favor of the mother, and the glass ceiling on
paternal custody remains firmly in place. My impression is that the
same is true for the U.K.

But WHICH court would be making the decision about custody? Despite
what you say about a court "here," presumably (since the children are in
the U.S.) a court in whatever state they live in would decide. To be
realistic, that too would make it more difficult for you to get
custody, since the children would be leaving the U.S. of A, and going to
a furrin country. Keep in mind that any advice you get from a legal
advisor may be colored by the probability that a custody battle would
generate major amounts of legal fees.

I can only tell you what I have observed in more than 10 years of being
involved in these issues in a state in the eastern part of the U.S.
Custody continues to be decided, not by laws or by courts, but by
mothers. If mothers want custody, they get it. Fathers can easily
spend huge amounts of money and emotional energy on trying to get
custody, and end up with nothing to show for it. The best thing is to
stay in touch with the children, and hope that, when they become of an
age where a court pays attention to what they want, a change will occur.

[Rambler]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message


<snip my stuff>

Thanks Ken . . . I understand your position from your previous posts.

> You don't say which country you are in. Since you use the term
> "solicitor," I wonder if it is the U.K. If so, I suggest that you
> make contact with one of the fathers' organizations there -- I would
> recommend Families Need Fathers.

Yes, there are no Father's Rights groups here, and it is not the UK.
<snip>

> But WHICH court would be making the decision about custody?

The one where I am, the furrin one, because that is where the original Order
was entered, and that is the court that has jurisdiction in the case until
somebody asks for it to be moved to the US where the kids are. However, the
goal is to achieve victory here, and then execute it in the US, though I am
aware of that taking another court effort, which I am prepared for.

> Despite
> what you say about a court "here," presumably (since the children are
> in
> the U.S.) a court in whatever state they live in would decide. To be
> realistic, that too would make it more difficult for you to get
> custody, since the children would be leaving the U.S. of A, and going
> to
> a furrin country.

Yes...which is why I kept the jurisdiction here...local to me, foreign to
her. Life's tough sometimes.

> Keep in mind that any advice you get from a legal
> advisor may be colored by the probability that a custody battle would
> generate major amounts of legal fees.

Yes, I am aware of this. I've already blown about $60~$75K on this.

<snip>

> The best thing is to
> stay in touch with the children, and hope that, when they become of an
> age where a court pays attention to what they want, a change will
> occur.

Yes, I understand this. But I am not willing to adopt a passive approach.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Rambler

[Rambler]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message


<snip my stuff>

Thanks Ken . . . I understand your position from your previous posts.

> You don't say which country you are in. Since you use the term
> "solicitor," I wonder if it is the U.K. If so, I suggest that you
> make contact with one of the fathers' organizations there -- I would
> recommend Families Need Fathers.

Yes, there are no Father's Rights groups here, and it is not the UK.
<snip>

> But WHICH court would be making the decision about custody?

The one where I am, the furrin one, because that is where the original Order
was entered, and that is the court that has jurisdiction in the case until
somebody asks for it to be moved to the US where the kids are. However, the
goal is to achieve victory here, and then execute it in the US, though I am
aware of that taking another court effort, which I am prepared for.

> Despite
> what you say about a court "here," presumably (since the children are
> in
> the U.S.) a court in whatever state they live in would decide. To be
> realistic, that too would make it more difficult for you to get
> custody, since the children would be leaving the U.S. of A, and going
> to
> a furrin country.

Yes...which is why I kept the jurisdiction here...local to me, foreign to
her. Life's tough sometimes.

> Keep in mind that any advice you get from a legal
> advisor may be colored by the probability that a custody battle would
> generate major amounts of legal fees.

Yes, I am aware of this. I've already blown about $60~$75K on this.

<snip>

> The best thing is to
> stay in touch with the children, and hope that, when they become of an
> age where a court pays attention to what they want, a change will
> occur.

Yes, I understand this. But I am not willing to adopt a passive approach.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Rambler

[Edmund Esterbauer]

My suggestion is turn up to court in a dress- that helps. You are dealing
with criminals.

--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek

"Rambler" > wrote in message
...
> I pop in here from time to time but am not a regular, and hope that this
is
> not too off-topic.
>
> I am in the process of finalizing a divorce, the mother currently has the
> children and has returned to the States (we had moved overseas some time
> ago), and we are back in the Court system here where I am trying to change
> the Care and Control (primary residential parent) status from her to me
due
> to alienation of the children by her and her family...to make a long story
> short. Kids have been in the States for little more than a year.
>
> What I am looking for is experiences or deciding factors when the Court
> grants Custody to the father, or changes Custody/Primary Residential
Parent
> status to the father.
>
> I do come at this with a touch of (perhaps huge) bias, in that I do feel
> that attitudes in general discriminate against the father in custody
> situations. I have seen that, I believe, in the judge presiding over my
> case, who noted that while Victorian attitudes of the better parent have
no
> place in his court, sometimes young children were better placed with the
> mother; to my ex who has recently stated that because she is a woman, she
> can deal with the pre-pubescent changes of our eldest (this from a woman
who
> can't talk about anything); to the attitudes of the Social Welfare workers
> in my case (where they felt that my ex's parenting plan was somewhat
better
> because the maternal grandmother would be part of it (as opposed to mine
> where I had a constant live-in domestic helper), even though they failed
to
> pick up on the fact that the maternal grandmother's marriage was crashing
> onto the rocks and, in reality, she has had no hand's one responsibility
for
> the children as that is left to a coterie of different baby-sitters; to
even
> some (not all) of the comments made by people here.
>
> So, just for my own clarity, I am trying to understand the experience of
> folks as to when the father was awarded primary residential parent. Was
it
> because the mother had serious issues (i.e., drug dependant, or had caused
> the death of the child) or was it something else. I understand that one
of
> the primary factors is to keep stability for the children, but am
> structuring the case around the long-term emotional 'best interests' of
the
> children, that being that children who are encouraged and supported to
have
> equal and loving access to both parents do so much better than those that
> are denied that same thing, looking at slaying myths along the way.
>
> And yes, I have a solicitor/attorney, but I remain actively involved in
> directing my case. What's that maxim? If you want something done well,
do
> it yourself? Something like that.
>
> Appreciate your folks' time.
>
> Rambler
>
>

[Edmund Esterbauer]

My suggestion is turn up to court in a dress- that helps. You are dealing
with criminals.

--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek

"Rambler" > wrote in message
...
> I pop in here from time to time but am not a regular, and hope that this
is
> not too off-topic.
>
> I am in the process of finalizing a divorce, the mother currently has the
> children and has returned to the States (we had moved overseas some time
> ago), and we are back in the Court system here where I am trying to change
> the Care and Control (primary residential parent) status from her to me
due
> to alienation of the children by her and her family...to make a long story
> short. Kids have been in the States for little more than a year.
>
> What I am looking for is experiences or deciding factors when the Court
> grants Custody to the father, or changes Custody/Primary Residential
Parent
> status to the father.
>
> I do come at this with a touch of (perhaps huge) bias, in that I do feel
> that attitudes in general discriminate against the father in custody
> situations. I have seen that, I believe, in the judge presiding over my
> case, who noted that while Victorian attitudes of the better parent have
no
> place in his court, sometimes young children were better placed with the
> mother; to my ex who has recently stated that because she is a woman, she
> can deal with the pre-pubescent changes of our eldest (this from a woman
who
> can't talk about anything); to the attitudes of the Social Welfare workers
> in my case (where they felt that my ex's parenting plan was somewhat
better
> because the maternal grandmother would be part of it (as opposed to mine
> where I had a constant live-in domestic helper), even though they failed
to
> pick up on the fact that the maternal grandmother's marriage was crashing
> onto the rocks and, in reality, she has had no hand's one responsibility
for
> the children as that is left to a coterie of different baby-sitters; to
even
> some (not all) of the comments made by people here.
>
> So, just for my own clarity, I am trying to understand the experience of
> folks as to when the father was awarded primary residential parent. Was
it
> because the mother had serious issues (i.e., drug dependant, or had caused
> the death of the child) or was it something else. I understand that one
of
> the primary factors is to keep stability for the children, but am
> structuring the case around the long-term emotional 'best interests' of
the
> children, that being that children who are encouraged and supported to
have
> equal and loving access to both parents do so much better than those that
> are denied that same thing, looking at slaying myths along the way.
>
> And yes, I have a solicitor/attorney, but I remain actively involved in
> directing my case. What's that maxim? If you want something done well,
do
> it yourself? Something like that.
>
> Appreciate your folks' time.
>
> Rambler
>
>

[Edmund Esterbauer]

Well you might as well give it to the parasite solicitors as the US
government indolent bureaucrat.
--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek

"Rambler" > wrote in message
...
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
>
>
> <snip my stuff>
>
> Thanks Ken . . . I understand your position from your previous posts.
>
> > You don't say which country you are in. Since you use the term
> > "solicitor," I wonder if it is the U.K. If so, I suggest that you
> > make contact with one of the fathers' organizations there -- I would
> > recommend Families Need Fathers.
>
> Yes, there are no Father's Rights groups here, and it is not the UK.
> <snip>
>
> > But WHICH court would be making the decision about custody?
>
> The one where I am, the furrin one, because that is where the original
Order
> was entered, and that is the court that has jurisdiction in the case until
> somebody asks for it to be moved to the US where the kids are. However,
the
> goal is to achieve victory here, and then execute it in the US, though I
am
> aware of that taking another court effort, which I am prepared for.
>
> > Despite
> > what you say about a court "here," presumably (since the children are
> > in
> > the U.S.) a court in whatever state they live in would decide. To be
> > realistic, that too would make it more difficult for you to get
> > custody, since the children would be leaving the U.S. of A, and going
> > to
> > a furrin country.
>
> Yes...which is why I kept the jurisdiction here...local to me, foreign to

> her. Life's tough sometimes.
>
> > Keep in mind that any advice you get from a legal
> > advisor may be colored by the probability that a custody battle would
> > generate major amounts of legal fees.
>
> Yes, I am aware of this. I've already blown about $60~$75K on this.
>
> <snip>
>
> > The best thing is to
> > stay in touch with the children, and hope that, when they become of an
> > age where a court pays attention to what they want, a change will
> > occur.
>
> Yes, I understand this. But I am not willing to adopt a passive approach.
>
> Thanks again for your thoughts.
>
> Rambler
>
>

[Edmund Esterbauer]

Well you might as well give it to the parasite solicitors as the US
government indolent bureaucrat.
--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek

"Rambler" > wrote in message
...
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
>
>
> <snip my stuff>
>
> Thanks Ken . . . I understand your position from your previous posts.
>
> > You don't say which country you are in. Since you use the term
> > "solicitor," I wonder if it is the U.K. If so, I suggest that you
> > make contact with one of the fathers' organizations there -- I would
> > recommend Families Need Fathers.
>
> Yes, there are no Father's Rights groups here, and it is not the UK.
> <snip>
>
> > But WHICH court would be making the decision about custody?
>
> The one where I am, the furrin one, because that is where the original
Order
> was entered, and that is the court that has jurisdiction in the case until
> somebody asks for it to be moved to the US where the kids are. However,
the
> goal is to achieve victory here, and then execute it in the US, though I
am
> aware of that taking another court effort, which I am prepared for.
>
> > Despite
> > what you say about a court "here," presumably (since the children are
> > in
> > the U.S.) a court in whatever state they live in would decide. To be
> > realistic, that too would make it more difficult for you to get
> > custody, since the children would be leaving the U.S. of A, and going
> > to
> > a furrin country.
>
> Yes...which is why I kept the jurisdiction here...local to me, foreign to

> her. Life's tough sometimes.
>
> > Keep in mind that any advice you get from a legal
> > advisor may be colored by the probability that a custody battle would
> > generate major amounts of legal fees.
>
> Yes, I am aware of this. I've already blown about $60~$75K on this.
>
> <snip>
>
> > The best thing is to
> > stay in touch with the children, and hope that, when they become of an
> > age where a court pays attention to what they want, a change will
> > occur.
>
> Yes, I understand this. But I am not willing to adopt a passive approach.
>
> Thanks again for your thoughts.
>
> Rambler
>
>