Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Ugh... got a copy of a subpeona in the mail today regarding my divorce...

jh1

jh1

New member
Everytime I get some correspondence on this bullshit I get all anxious and pissed off.

I swear my wif went to her attorney and yapped her bitch mouth about how it didn't matter how much it cost that her daddy would pay for it and now her attorney is riding the money train all over her.

Everything they attempt is just rediculous and unecessary - simply her attorney using the situation to line his pockets.

But I can't tell her that because she won't beleive me, and on top of it she'll take it as me being fearfull of their actions and jsut keep on keeping on.

Stupid.

Bitch.


(Shut it Ksharp... just shut it right now)
 
Pretty perfunctory stuff if you are going to go to trial. Try to relax a little about it if you can.

I thought you two settled your divorce already?
 
heatherrae said:
Pretty perfunctory stuff if you are going to go to trial. Try to relax a little about it if you can.

I thought you two settled your divorce already?
Click to expand...


I thought most states require arbitration before they would even allow a court hearing, except in the case where there is danger to the children??
 
heatherrae said:
Pretty perfunctory stuff if you are going to go to trial. Try to relax a little about it if you can.

I thought you two settled your divorce already?
Click to expand...


Hell no.

Not even close.

The only issue we have is really child suport & custody.

As long as she stays off drugs, as far as I am concerned - custody is settled. But everything is pending the drug tests again in 90 days.

In the mean time she wants CS to get settleed, which is fine - but she wants more than the amount I beleive to be appropriate. Way more. So, I agreed to start paying volutarily at the amount I beleive is correct, she won't accept that and is moving forward with a PDL to try to force me to pay what she wants me to pay.

For one she is hiding income, and undervaluing non monetary compensation for her self. Second she is trying to inflate how much I make - part of my job is commisioned -but I have only been there 8 months - so there are no guarantees or set amounts.

The worst part is - the courts here simply don't recognize a true 'Share Parenting Plan' the way they calculate assumes one parent has primary custody - even if they don't. Since I make more - they assume her to be primary as far as CS calculations - which the judge has discretion to revise but they really aren't accustomed to doing - therefore they don't.

Part of the jockying now includes subpeoas for records at my employer, I am going to be doing the same for her - and I am also going to have to depose her about her hidden income that she didn't disclose in her income and expense statements. But the judge already pretty much doesn't give a fuck that she is hiding income... unreal.
 
SpyWizard said:
I thought most states require arbitration before they would even allow a court hearing, except in the case where there is danger to the children??
Click to expand...
Some have court ordered mediation and others don't. I don't know of any that have arbitration.
 
jh1 said:
Hell no.

Not even close.

The only issue we have is really child suport & custody.

As long as she stays off drugs, as far as I am concerned - custody is settled. But everything is pending the drug tests again in 90 days.

In the mean time she wants CS to get settleed, which is fine - but she wants more than the amount I beleive to be appropriate. Way more. So, I agreed to start paying volutarily at the amount I beleive is correct, she won't accept that and is moving forward with a PDL to try to force me to pay what she wants me to pay.

For one she is hiding income, and undervaluing non monetary compensation for her self. Second she is trying to inflate how much I make - part of my job is commisioned -but I have only been there 8 months - so there are no guarantees or set amounts.

The worst part is - the courts here simply don't recognize a true 'Share Parenting Plan' the way they calculate assumes one parent has primary custody - even if they don't. Since I make more - they assume her to be primary as far as CS calculations - which the judge has discretion to revise but they really aren't accustomed to doing - therefore they don't.

Part of the jockying now includes subpeoas for records at my employer, I am going to be doing the same for her - and I am also going to have to depose her about her hidden income that she didn't disclose in her income and expense statements. But the judge already pretty much doesn't give a fuck that she is hiding income... unreal.
Click to expand...
you may find this interesting. Or maybe not...lol.

Several states changed their laws and new law went in effect this year which take into account the % of time with each parent. Also, those states only considered the income of the non-custodial parent in setting child support. Minnesota and Georgia immediately come to mind. Those two courts are going to be FLOODED with men reducing child support obligation amounts now. The judges are going to be absolutely swamped. Seems like a national trend is emerging to consider how much time the child spends with each parent.

I see both sides of the issue, but I think that the new law will cause additional fighting between parents at the time of divorce. Some parents my fight for time with the kids just because of the break on child support. If I were pursuing child support, I could entirely see my ex trying to get the child just so he wouldn't have to pay, even though he has no love for or interest in the child.

That isn't the case with you. I'm just talking about the law changes and what results they may or may not have.
 
heatherrae said:
you may find this interesting. Or maybe not...lol.

Several states changed their laws and new law went in effect this year which take into account the % of time with each parent. Also, those states only considered the income of the non-custodial parent in setting child support. Minnesota and Georgia immediately come to mind. Those two courts are going to be FLOODED with men reducing child support obligation amounts now. The judges are going to be absolutely swamped. Seems like a national trend is emerging to consider how much time the child spends with each parent.

I see both sides of the issue, but I think that the new law will cause additional fighting between parents at the time of divorce. Some parents my fight for time with the kids just because of the break on child support. If I were pursuing child support, I could entirely see my ex trying to get the child just so he wouldn't have to pay, even though he has no love for or interest in the child.

That isn't the case with you. I'm just talking about the law changes and what results they may or may not have.
Click to expand...


Something has to change. I completely agree with the changes you are describing as I understand them.

THe way it is here is unfair, unjust - it's just flat out wrong. Worst -it's not int he best interests of the 'CHILD' as alll these assplants run around saying 'WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN' OMG!!!

Anyway. As to your concern about the additional fueding over the the money based on time and the potential of some parents looking for more time simply to reduce their amounts. Well there is a flip side that as well. Many mothers seek and fight for custody today simply becaue the child becomes a meal ticket - so that's even WORSE.

Further - when a child is 50/50 between parents and it has been legislated that based on the two incomes - as an example - the amount for the child per month is $1500, but since the counts don't recognize 50/50 they assign 66% to the mother and 34% to the father - not only does the child loose out when he is with his father, the father looses as well.

THe child could see the father as less able to provide- which hurts their relationship - which in turn may motivate the father to take less physicall custody because he cannot afford to take on 50% custody without 50% of the funds.

This crap has to change.. it's not right. The laws need to be mandatory that strict calculations are made and followed with regards to child support. Having a vagina does not entitle you to 66% of the money when you agree to a 50/50 legal and phsyical arrangement.
 
Hey, let's not get into a fight over gender on this thread. The vagina thing is uneccessary. Let's stick to the custodial, non-custodial thing as that is the real issue. Traditionally, lots of women have been left holding the bag when deadbeat dads had babies and then just split. I think the law is just starting to turn the tide to not treat all child support situations as if that is the case.
 
heatherrae said:
Hey, let's not get into a fight over gender on this thread. The vagina thing is uneccessary. Let's stick to the custodial, non-custodial thing as that is the real issue. Traditionally, lots of women have been left holding the bag when deadbeat dads had babies and then just split. I think the law is just starting to turn the tide to not treat all child support situations as if that is the case.
Click to expand...


Oh. Sorry. YEah. I didn't mean it about you. Seriously.

This bold part is key... we're all paying hte price for the times when women always got the children and always got hte support. And from when there were looser deadbeats.

I suspect that *SOME* of the deadbeat stuff is due to the way courts have been handlign support though. It's really rediculous. I can very easily see getting the point with this stuff where non-compliance is better than that complying based on principle alone.

I am entirely for child support, but it has to be fair.

Extreme examples are the dads that are ordered to pay even after they prove they aren't the parent. That's more than a slap in face - I'd go to jail over that. And to the not so exteme - but simply unjust and insulting - like having to give 66% of the legislated funds to the mother in a shared 50/50 parenting plan.

BTW - Custodial / Non-Custodial terminology - doesn't have to and shouldn't EXIST in shared parenting plans. The parents should be 100% equals. Period. I had it removed from my parenting plan, I won't stand for it - simply because I am the one that makes more money - I am assumed to be non-custodial? Please.
 
I will never get married and I'll never have kids. The way the system works is a big part of that. I watched my father get screwed in my parents divorce 20 years ago. Our company's owner is in the middle of a divorce and they've already spent more than 500k on lawyers between the two of them.
 
jh1 said:
Oh. Sorry. YEah. I didn't mean it about you. Seriously.

This bold part is key... we're all paying hte price for the times when women always got the children and always got hte support. And from when there were looser deadbeats.

I suspect that *SOME* of the deadbeat stuff is due to the way courts have been handlign support though. It's really rediculous. I can very easily see getting the point with this stuff where non-compliance is better than that complying based on principle alone.

I am entirely for child support, but it has to be fair.

Extreme examples are the dads that are ordered to pay even after they prove they aren't the parent. That's more than a slap in face - I'd go to jail over that. And to the not so exteme - but simply unjust and insulting - like having to give 66% of the legislated funds to the mother in a shared 50/50 parenting plan.

BTW - Custodial / Non-Custodial terminology - doesn't have to and shouldn't EXIST in shared parenting plans. The parents should be 100% equals. Period. I had it removed from my parenting plan, I won't stand for it - simply because I am the one that makes more money - I am assumed to be non-custodial? Please.
Click to expand...
I didn't take it like you were talking about me. I just wanted to keep it where it didn't get ugly about gender.

I see your point. I guess any way someone divides it up, someone is going to bitch and be unhappy about it...lol. I'm not sure if I know the best formula.

I'm glad I'm not even going to bother with it.
 
when you say 66% of legislated funds what exactly do you mean?

Man this sucks. I dont know how anyone can remarry after going through a divorse
 
this shit makes me anxious, brings back memories of a personal injury case I had to settle...after 3 years, interogetories, depositions...all that is one big stressor.
 
seaking420 said:
when you say 66% of legislated funds what exactly do you mean?

Man this sucks. I dont know how anyone can remarry after going through a divorse
Click to expand...


There is a chart they go by - which is legislated.

So for the combined income of couple X, the amount for total child support is $1000.

In missouri that $1000 dollars would be divided 66% to the woman and 34% to the man even in a 100% shared 50/50 custody plan.


The $1000 comes from the incomes based purely on income %'s, but when it's devided under and differnent standard. Horseshit.
 
jh1 said:
There is a chart they go by - which is legislated.

So for the combined income of couple X, the amount for total child support is $1000.

In missouri that $1000 dollars would be divided 66% to the woman and 34% to the man even in a 100% shared 50/50 custody plan.


The $1000 comes from the incomes based purely on income %'s, but when it's devided under and differnent standard. Horseshit.
Click to expand...
it isn't specifically to the woman or man by statute, JH1.

I think it is that you make 66% of the combined income and she makes 34% so that the combined child support amount is divided pro rata based upon income.

It isn't related to gender in the child support guidelines.
 
heatherrae said:
it isn't specifically to the woman or man by statute, JH1.

I think it is that you make 66% of the combined income and she makes 34% so that the combined child support amount is divided pro rata based upon income.

It isn't related to gender in the child support guidelines.
Click to expand...


Nah.. that's wrong.

Here's a more clear example:

Man makes: $ 60,000 (60%)

Woman makes: $40,000 (40%)

Combined income: $100,000

Assume the amount for the child per month by statue for 100k is $1000.00

Man contributes: 600
Woman contributes: 400

50/50 legal and physical. Woman is the presumed recipient in this case since she makes less money.

Woman gets $660 or 66%, man gets $340 or 34%.

Net result man pays woman $260 per month.

See the math is fine - contributions to the amount of CS are based on income %'s. It all falls apart when the court 'Devides' the pool. They see the income percentages are relevant - which they are - but they fail to see the % of custody as releveant. 66% of the money for 50% of the custody.

In the above example - with the Honorable, Logical, and RIGHT Jay-H-One presiding. The man would pay the woman a net of $100 per month. Which devides the pool of $1000 equally based on % of custody.

That's what the is logical conclusion is.
 
J, i'm sorry you have to deal with this. i know you're trying to be the best dad you can be, and this is all just getting in the way of your goals.

i hope it all gets resolved soon and that you're happy with the outcome.
 
rnch said:
Laud i'm glad i stayed single!
Click to expand...


I am gonna press for the gaye's right to get married and press for straights to not be able to get married.

That'd be one sure way to cure america of these FAYGE's running around. marriage sucks.
 
velvett said:
When I read stuff like this I wonder why people are even open to marry and have children.
Click to expand...

agreed, it's extremely distressing...and its become so common, I dont' have the stomach for both.
 
jh1 said:
Nah.. that's wrong.

Here's a more clear example:

Man makes: $ 60,000 (60%)

Woman makes: $40,000 (40%)

Combined income: $100,000

Assume the amount for the child per month by statue for 100k is $1000.00

Man contributes: 600
Woman contributes: 400

50/50 legal and physical. Woman is the presumed recipient in this case since she makes less money.

Woman gets $660 or 66%, man gets $340 or 34%.

Net result man pays woman $260 per month.

See the math is fine - contributions to the amount of CS are based on income %'s. It all falls apart when the court 'Devides' the pool. They see the income percentages are relevant - which they are - but they fail to see the % of custody as releveant. 66% of the money for 50% of the custody.

In the above example - with the Honorable, Logical, and RIGHT Jay-H-One presiding. The man would pay the woman a net of $100 per month. Which devides the pool of $1000 equally based on % of custody.

That's what the is logical conclusion is.
Click to expand...
Must be nice to actually receive even $.01 of child support
 
Smurfy said:
Must be nice to actually receive even $.01 of child support
Click to expand...


that friggin' sucks if you're not.
did you give that up to get full custody? i'm sorry, but you deserve SOMETHING to help out. did he relinquish all responsibility to lumberg? can you take him to court?

(this is personal stuff, i know. don't answer if you don't want to publicly)
 
velvett said:
When I read stuff like this I wonder why people are even open to marry and have children.
Click to expand...

Ditto.....the only ppl that I know that are still married are my parents. All my friends are divorced and going through what JH1 is
 
Smurfy said:
Must be nice to actually receive even $.01 of child support
Click to expand...


That's just as wrong. I presume that assplant doesn't have income. Or is impossible to collect from.

I think that's bullshit as well.
 
jh1 said:
Nah.. that's wrong.

Here's a more clear example:

Man makes: $ 60,000 (60%)

Woman makes: $40,000 (40%)

Combined income: $100,000

Assume the amount for the child per month by statue for 100k is $1000.00

Man contributes: 600
Woman contributes: 400

50/50 legal and physical. Woman is the presumed recipient in this case since she makes less money.

Woman gets $660 or 66%, man gets $340 or 34%.

Net result man pays woman $260 per month.

See the math is fine - contributions to the amount of CS are based on income %'s. It all falls apart when the court 'Devides' the pool. They see the income percentages are relevant - which they are - but they fail to see the % of custody as releveant. 66% of the money for 50% of the custody.

In the above example - with the Honorable, Logical, and RIGHT Jay-H-One presiding. The man would pay the woman a net of $100 per month. Which devides the pool of $1000 equally based on % of custody.

That's what the is logical conclusion is.
Click to expand...


BTW - HR.. and others.

My wif is asking for 80% not the standard 66%.

And she is hiding income.
 
jh1 said:
Everytime I get some correspondence on this bullshit I get all anxious and pissed off.

I swear my wif went to her attorney and yapped her bitch mouth about how it didn't matter how much it cost that her daddy would pay for it and now her attorney is riding the money train all over her.

Everything they attempt is just rediculous and unecessary - simply her attorney using the situation to line his pockets.

But I can't tell her that because she won't beleive me, and on top of it she'll take it as me being fearfull of their actions and jsut keep on keeping on.

Stupid.

Bitch.


(Shut it Ksharp... just shut it right now)
Click to expand...

ownn.jpg
 
jh1 said:
Nah.. that's wrong.

Here's a more clear example:

Man makes: $ 60,000 (60%)

Woman makes: $40,000 (40%)

Combined income: $100,000

Assume the amount for the child per month by statue for 100k is $1000.00

Man contributes: 600
Woman contributes: 400

50/50 legal and physical. Woman is the presumed recipient in this case since she makes less money.

Woman gets $660 or 66%, man gets $340 or 34%.

Net result man pays woman $260 per month.

See the math is fine - contributions to the amount of CS are based on income %'s. It all falls apart when the court 'Devides' the pool. They see the income percentages are relevant - which they are - but they fail to see the % of custody as releveant. 66% of the money for 50% of the custody.

In the above example - with the Honorable, Logical, and RIGHT Jay-H-One presiding. The man would pay the woman a net of $100 per month. Which devides the pool of $1000 equally based on % of custody.

That's what the is logical conclusion is.
Click to expand...

that is precisely what I said. It is divided PRO RATA based on incomes of both.

My point was that the statute doesn't say that the WOMAN gets the money. It depends on who is making more, who has custody, etc. Capeche? There isn't a state in the US that says the man pays the woman. It isn't based on gender anywhere.
 
heatherrae said:
that is precisely what I said. It is divided PRO RATA based on incomes of both.

My point was that the statute doesn't say that the WOMAN gets the money. It depends on who is making more, who has custody, etc. Capeche? There isn't a state in the US that says the man pays the woman. It isn't based on gender anywhere.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah.. no it doesn't say gender. I am saying if you make more money you pay.. but it is not an equitable distribution. See my pasted example.

Your statement in bold is where it all falls apart. 50%-50% custody does not equal 50/50 support - even after the prorated income support amounts. I completely agree that support should be based on the income percentages - which it is. But they fail to make the support percetage distribution amounts tied directed to the custody % amounts.

Completely broken system.
 
JH1, have you had a DNA test done yet?

Over 1/3 of all dna test done for divorce child support are found to be negative.

Estimated as high as 18% of all children are being raised or supported by a man who is not the father. (But, thinks he is)
 
all the whey said:
JH1, have you had a DNA test done yet?

Over 1/3 of all dna test done for divorce child support are found to be negative.

Estimated as high as 18% of all children are being raised or supported by a man who is not the father. (But, thinks he is)
Click to expand...


She looks just like me. I never had a doubt.

Then somone posted some shit on here about a guy that was being forced to pay even after accidently finding out they weren't his kids due to some medical shit and I ordered a home DNA test.

She's mine.

I am sure people will make nasty comments about that. Shut it, before you say it - assplants. :rolleyes:
 
jh1 said:
Oh yeah.. no it doesn't say gender. I am saying if you make more money you pay.. but it is not an equitable distribution. See my pasted example.

Your statement in bold is where it all falls apart. 50%-50% custody does not equal 50/50 support - even after the prorated income support amounts. I completely agree that support should be based on the income percentages - which it is. But they fail to make the support percetage distribution amounts tied directed to the custody % amounts.

Completely broken system.
Click to expand...
no, we have agreed all along. You just aren't thinking we are...lol. You are always ready to fight with me when this topic comes up even when I am agreeing with you...lol.
 
jh1 said:
She looks just like me. I never had a doubt.

Then somone posted some shit on here about a guy that was being forced to pay even after accidently finding out they weren't his kids due to some medical shit and I ordered a home DNA test.

She's mine.

I am sure people will make nasty comments about that. Shut it, before you say it - assplants. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Props to you for checking. It is important for medical reasons also.

And, yes each state is different. But, some states you only have 1yr after birth to prove that you are not the baby. But, after that the state will still hold you responcible for support. (even if you are proved to not be the father)

Another unfair issue with divorce/kids.
 
all the whey said:
Props to you for checking. It is important for medical reasons also.

And, yes each state is different. But, some states you only have 1yr after birth to prove that you are not the baby. But, after that the state will still hold you responcible for support. (even if you are proved to not be the father)

Another unfair issue with divorce/kids.
Click to expand...
If you are married at the time of birth you are presumed to be the father unless it is proven otherwise.

If you are not married, then paternity has to be established in a paternity case or paternity can be established if the man signs an acknowledgment of paternity.
 
heatherrae said:
If you are married at the time of birth you are presumed to be the father unless it is proven otherwise.

If you are not married, then paternity has to be established in a paternity case or paternity can be established if the man signs an acknowledgment of paternity.
Click to expand...

Yes, but most states you have 1 to 5 yrs to prove that you are not the father. After that it doesn't matter. You have to pay.

This another reason I only...
ninja-kitty.jpg
 
stilleto said:
that friggin' sucks if you're not.
did you give that up to get full custody? i'm sorry, but you deserve SOMETHING to help out. did he relinquish all responsibility to lumberg? can you take him to court?

(this is personal stuff, i know. don't answer if you don't want to publicly)
Click to expand...
nah he didnt relinquish anything. I do have sole custody and he is ordered to pay $200 a week but he's a Union Laborer and when he doesnt work, there's no money going to the State Child Support Unit, therefore no money to me. Lucky for my son, I dont need the money to continue living a life to which I am accustomed to. In other w0rds, my son is provided for regardless.
 
all the whey said:
Yes, but most states you have 1 to 5 yrs to prove that you are not the father. After that it doesn't matter. You have to pay.

This another reason I only...
ninja-kitty.jpg
Click to expand...
none of your kitteh pics are working for me tonight. It says I'm not authorized to view the page. did you set it to private?
 
Smurfy said:
nah he didnt relinquish anything. I do have sole custody and he is ordered to pay $200 a week but he's a Union Laborer and when he doesnt work, there's no money going to the State Child Support Unit, therefore no money to me. Lucky for my son, I dont need the money to continue living a life to which I am accustomed to. In other w0rds, my son is provided for regardless.
Click to expand...


100% custody deserves 100% of the CS for your combined income levels.


When one of those people is a complete lame ass, the combined income should be based on their income potential - so that means lame ass should have to pay up to 100% of his actual incoime to fulfill his portion of the responsibility.

I'm sorry your ex is a fhuggin looser.
 
jh1 said:
100% custody deserves 100% of the CS for your combined income levels.


When one of those people is a complete lame ass, the combined income should be based on their income potential - so that means lame ass should have to pay up to 100% of his actual incoime to fulfill his portion of the responsibility.

I'm sorry your ex is a fhuggin looser.
Click to expand...
They will do what is called "imputed income" in that situation. If a person is "volantarily unemplyed or underemployed" they will figure the child support based upon what the court thinks they could be making based on their education, experience, and past income.
 
I dont understand why you couldn't just cut out the lawyers and go into the court house and fill out appropriate forms for irreconcilable differences..I know here in Mass a lawyer is not required unless it is either being fought or you are fighting over goods, possessions and children.
 
just think, she wants more money to support HER lifestyle, not your daughters.

lol, greedy bitch she is

I see that all the time in divorces.
 
I got a better strategy:

Marry and divorce like 10 women, there won't be enough for any of them to be happy to chase you around for money.
 
jh1 said:
She failed it.

She had to take another in 90 days.
Click to expand...



lol she gets a do-over for failing a drug test lol.





!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jh1
Why can't all ex wives be like me? I just wanted a divorce. I could have gotten child support in the amount of $600 a month for my kids but I waived my right to it. My attorney and all of my family thought I was crazy. I feel that when I have my kids, I can support them and when he has them he can do the same. If either of us needs something for the kids we help each other. We get along so good now. Before the divorce, it was HELL!!
 
feisty11975 said:
Why can't all ex wives be like me? I just wanted a divorce. I could have gotten child support in the amount of $600 a month for my kids but I waived my right to it. My attorney and all of my family thought I was crazy. I feel that when I have my kids, I can support them and when he has them he can do the same. If either of us needs something for the kids we help each other. We get along so good now. Before the divorce, it was HELL!!
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with accepting child support, as long as it is fair. Unfortunatley I'd venture to say that a lot of people going thru a divorce ask for an outrageous amount as a weapon against the other person.

(and greed, everybody wants more money no matter how much it may hurt someone else)
 
mightymouse69 said:
I got a better strategy:

Marry and divorce like 10 women, there won't be enough for any of them to be happy to chase you around for money.
Click to expand...

Sure

Or, you could not get married at all. And, have hot young sluty girls over all the time like teh Kitteh man does.

teee33.jpg
 
alien amp pharm said:
There's nothing wrong with accepting child support, as long as it is fair. Unfortunatley I'd venture to say that a lot of people going thru a divorce ask for an outrageous amount as a weapon against the other person.

(and greed, everybody wants more money no matter how much it may hurt someone else)
Click to expand...

I agree. The point that I was making was that, for 11 years, he always said that I could never make it without him. He thought for sure that I needed him. He tried to make me dependent upon him. Well, I guess I showed him wrong. HA Seriously though, if I am unable to get something that my kids need while they are with me, he helps and vice versa. We split school costs and anything else that is necessary. I pay daycare for my youngest. He doesn't cause his mom and new mother in law babysits for him. He covers the kids insurance and all medications. We work together. The kids suffer the most in divorces and I am trying to make it the easiest for them.
 
Big Rick Rock said:
lol she gets a do-over for failing a drug test lol.





!!!
Click to expand...


I admited to our past lifestyle upfront. She denied it.

I want her to get clean and be a mother, so I won't push for full custody unless she refuses to get clean or cannot stay clean.

It's not so much a do over as a chance to get / stay clean.
 
jh1 said:
Everytime I get some correspondence on this bullshit I get all anxious and pissed off.

I swear my wif went to her attorney and yapped her bitch mouth about how it didn't matter how much it cost that her daddy would pay for it and now her attorney is riding the money train all over her.

Everything they attempt is just rediculous and unecessary - simply her attorney using the situation to line his pockets.

But I can't tell her that because she won't beleive me, and on top of it she'll take it as me being fearfull of their actions and jsut keep on keeping on.

Stupid.

Bitch.


(Shut it Ksharp... just shut it right now)
Click to expand...
Yeah - the lawyer bullshit isn't any fun. I remember when my parents first got divorced they both had attorney's and then they realized how silly it was and got rid of them.

Adds more stress and takes away more $. :( I'd try to get custody of your kid. From what you tell us, your wife already scares me. LOL.
 
coldblue1955 said:
maybe you two could work things out, a little love goes a long way buddy.
Click to expand...
lmao! yeah listen up jh1, these are pearls of wisdom here!! hahahah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
E-mail
Replies
0
Views
700
Mojo
M
D
Confessions of a Car Salesman (good read)
Replies
32
Views
5K
Dozing21
D
Top Bottom