Who else will raise the newborns…sounds to me as though you are the only responsible level headed party here….Besides…kinda hard for the ex to fight custody when her ass is in jail…
I would also petition the court for guardianship of the other child as well….Then after you receive all this…because who is going to oppose, I would move…..this is my advice…strong but sure….
It is the mother who is now in jail and to make matters worse, she is in her 8th month of pregnancy with our twin boys. So just to make this clear…1st she did not bother to tell me that she was involved in a legal matter until after she told me she was pregnant with my daughter and I had moved 3000 miles to support her. 2nd while I busted my butt to support her, my daughter, and her daughter from another relationship…the mother laid on her butt and complained of how the stress of her situation was keeping her down. 3rd when the bills got to be too much for me to bear and I told her that she had to get a job…she got pregnant, and now I have twins on the way.
I love my kids(including the one that is not mine)and I owe them the best possible life that I can offer.To do that, I must find somewhere more affordable than California.. But it is a very hard thought of taking them from their mom… taking them from their older sister…and how can I handle 2 newborns, a 2year old, and still have to work??? Do I fight for sole custody and move when I’m scared that I may be asking for more than what I can handle???
When my daughter’s mom told me that she was pregnant, I quit my job..sold my share of a townhouse that I co-owned, left my family and friends and moved 3000 to the SF Bay Area to be there for her. For the past 2 years, I have solely supported not only my daughter..but also her mom..and another child her mom had through a previous relationship. Now the mother is in prison serving 15 month on a felony conviction. Her lack of financial support has put the load on my shoulders in one of the most expensive areas in the country and has left me in debt.
My employer has offered to relocate me to a position in a more affordable area close to the support of my family…but to block this, my daughter’s mom filed a petition for child support against me and have a restraining order stating that I can not take my child out of the state. I have to respond to this petition soon and do not have the cash for a lawyer.
I have records to prove that I provide housing,food,clothing, dental,vision,and medical…but this process is new to me and I need to know what more should I have ready to present the court. Please share any imfo you may have in this area. Thanks…
Why is it ludicrous to suggest 18 YOs get vasectomies? It’s never ludicrous until it’s been tried and failed. As for you giving up something because she decided she did not love you any more, remember, this is a woman you picked to have children with. Why did she fall out of love with you? Was it something you were doing, or that she was doing? Did you take the time to really know her before you married her? Were you mature enough to be married? Remember, Christ was not consider mature enough to leave home, and go out on his own, until age 30! Men reach their emotional maturity six years later that women.
Should we be allowed to get married, or even have sex, by age 18. It is an outmoded idea that we reach adulthood at age 18. It stems from a time when people only lived an average of 48 years. But, in the last 50 years, the average life span has nearly doubled, and is still increasing. Our aging process is slowing. Along with that is the development of our thinking processes and decision making abilities. We need to be pushing these young men to wait much later before making a commitment to a woman, let alone participating in behavior that can create another life from two people who are not themselves mature enough to be parents. We need to start pushing the idea that women under 24 are just not worth the trouble and stress. And a woman, or man, that does not have the self resolve and control to wait, is not worth having as a mate.
I have looked at your life and experiences, as well as thousands of others. The difference is I look at them from the outside, without the emotional tie in. Yes, something needs to be done about the women, but that something should not include going out, finding another dingbat, and getting her knocked up. You fight the fight, to the living end, for the children you have already. Find new wys to get under her skin. Yesterday I went to court with a father who buys tickets to various functions when he knows she is planning to deny him access to the children.
Then, when we does get them, he sue her in small claims court for the cost of the tickets, court costs, travel expenses, and lost time at work to go to court. This is the third time he’s done it, and won. She was ordered to pay $550. All a result of violating the court order. Then on top of that, he can use the decision in the up comign hearing for denial of visitation, at which he is representing himself. I will be there beside him in front of the court, to help him, as is my right to do so, without being charged for illegal practice of law:
Respondent is a member of the group National Congress for Fathers and Children. Members of groups who are competent non-lawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with “Unauthorized practice of law.” N.A.A.C.P. vs Button (371 US 415), United Mine Workers of America v Gibbs (383 US 715) and Johnson vs Avery 89 S Ct 747 (1969). Also found in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 US 1), Gideon vs Wainwright 372 U S 335, Argersinger vs Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U S 425, litigants may be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings; see, Turner v. American Bar Association 407 F Supp 451, 478 (1975). In appropriate circumstances, a Federal Judge may, of course, allow a defendant to proceed with a lay assistant or to orally assist his licensed counsel in the presentation of his case, as was done by the undersigned in United States v. Gaar.
Your right…its pretty unpopular…to me anyway….Why should I give up the right to a family who is with me everyday…because some woman decided she didn’t want to be married to me anymore….Get a grip on reality here….My family being broken up was not my idea…I have a seven year old daughter who loves me very much and tells me so every day….and I do not have to fight her mother to see her or spend time with her.
And it is ludicrous to ask or expect or even think about every 18 year old getting a vasectomy…Your job has burn’t you out….try a new line of work….I am tired of being told by the state what I have to give up in my life because a woman didn’t feel “in love” with me any more. Yes I love my children…all of them…when asked who is my favorite…my answer is the one who needs me most at the time….
I pay my child support… I am even ready to opt for loans and I battle the state and its unrealistic demands upon my salary…my visitation gets screwed with…..and thank god my children ( first three are grown and can drive and make their own decisions. I guess every mother should have her tongue cut out when she has children…that way she can’t lie and manipulate the system….try to turn my children against me…which she did for 10 years but then it backfired on her when my children got to know me….sounds fair…they cut my tubes while she is lying next to me getting her tongue cut out…BTW…they should also do lobotomies too…
Quit promoting the states rhetoric…trying to convince a man he is second class and his only existence is to pay money “for the children’s sake”…That’s bullshit….besides…my daughter loves her sissy and bubbys very much and they are now a part of her life…but it took them reaching the age to get out of the “system” that people like you created…..so think about it…look at my life and experiences..and tell me I should have gotten a vasectomy….jesus….
#1. A court order is required to modify your support…not a suggestion by your ex or her attorney…They will need to schedule a modification hearing to address this issue. Any time support is modified it requires either an agreed entry signed by both parties..or.. a modification hearing.
I am in the same battle in Indiana…My divorce decree states I am to pay until the children reach 18. No mention of further education. I have been told by the child support prosecutor that the state law says I must pay until they are 21… We go to court next month to battle this…They want to make it retroactive…and they are going to lose…Because if they win..I will sue the ex, court, prosecutor, and the state for breach of contract. They all signed the agreement…and it was an agreement and approved..not ordered by the court.
#2. Another good argument is the cost of room and board and tuition..like you said…you had no say or input in this decision…tell them to try a state college or community college…where it is more affordable…
I’m going to express an unpopular view point here, but I want everyone to remember that I’ve been a full time volunteer for 12 years, working with divorced and single fathers, so I’ve seen these cases where men have children by different women.
Personally, I think it is highly selfish of this man, and any man, to be having children by multiple women when they cannot, or will not, support the children they already have. “Children need both parents” is more than just a saying, it has to be a life. When you have children by a woman, those are the children you need to dedicate your life to, not subdivide you life between those children, and children by another woman. If a man has to have sex, he can do so without producing children. Vasectomies are cheap, easy, and reversible when the first children are grown and he is available to have more. There are plenty of women willing to have children with older men, and even plenty of older women willing to have children despite their age. Our average life spans have been increasing steadily for over 50 years, having nearly doubled since when our grandparents were young. There is plenty of time to have more kids, if we want them.
What would be nice is if young men would get a vasectomy right out of high school. That way they can go around and have sex as much as they want, without having children until they have matured and are ready for that responsibility. Or, have married someone and spent enough time with them to know they are the one they want to have children with and spend a life time with.
What the court should have done was ordered the man to get a vasectomy. That way he can shack up all he wants and not worry about producing more dependents. It would certainly my work easier. And it would make it a lot easier on children to know they have a father that is theirs, and theirs alone. I’m 45, my children are grown, so now I’m out looking again. I would love to have more children, but only now that I no longer of the responsibility of support my daughters. I would even be willing to raise the children of another man, who has run out on his responsibilities. But, not until I have tracked him down to learn why, and to make sure that what I’m being told by her is the truth.
how the former lawyers and judges who comprise Wisconsin’s Supreme Court will explain to the citizens their reasons for incarcerating Mr. Oakley for 8 long years? That cost, I mean, to incarcerate Mr. Oakley would far and away exceed $25,000–TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!!–and so I wonder how they will explain their purpose? How will the taxpayer benefit by locking away Mr. Oakley?
These princes of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court must be masters of Machiavellian principles, and politics, and so I imagine they are saying to themselves, something like: “Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?” (Twain) Perhaps the Wisconsin high court justices are even more sinister and cunning, and, like Hitler, they are saying: “How fortunate for government that the people do not Think.” Human rights, indeed. Since when do Princes (and interested majorities!) think of human rights?
I can see both sides of this issue….The man in question really can’t afford to have more children….But with the court’s ruling…this could put responsible fathers who do pay child support and who could ( by some means) afford to have another child with another spouse. In other words this gives the court the latitude to become involved in something they have no usiness in.
Something courts,lawyers,and society seem prone to do and allow to happen. Also is the issue of the man involved. What happens if it is an accidental pregnancy. It would seem as if the court has almost ordered his involuntary sterilization or castration. This is a practice the nazi’s used on the jews and was considered to be a horrible war crime by society. But yet it is effectively what has transpired here. Just doesn’t make much sense to me on any account here…Stupidity abounds on all sides of this issue.