CFIs and parenting time

[jmrslc]

She has said she was willing to go up to two overnights a week plus a dinner visit.  She then pulled it off the table today because the judge rules that I have to pay 100% of the child family investigator retainer.  This has given her a renewed sense of empowerment/entitlement (I "lost" the ruling).

It concerns me about things to come, as there are several other "things" my attorney says he is going to argue that may not go our way... .

[scraps66]

For starters, if your L is skilled enough, she's already demonstrating a reluctance to "cooperate" in good faith.  So, make examples and be consistent and then present the patterns if need be in court.  Not to mention, the kids are not chess pieces to held or withheld until someone gets their way. 

My case lasted four years and one thing my L didn't do a good job of, or even show an interest in, was running the theme that my ex would never cooperate in good faith, consistently.  I would later determine at least to myself, that that L realized it more profitable to follow a BPD than do as I suggest or reveal ex's true issues.  So don't make that mistake.  Don't go trying to highlight every little thing because that can be expensive and not get good results.  But, in this case, cooperation, that is one of the criterai used for determining custody, "can each parent cooperate with the other to support the best interests of the kids."  So she just check-mated you, but is starting her pattern.       

[ForeverDad]

Is there a large discrepancy between your income and hers?  Even if they're close to equal, those of the male gender are often seen as the ones who should dig deep into their pockets.

Two overnights a week plus a dinner visit?  Every week, not alternate weeks?  That's not bad for a temporary order.  Not great, we consider 50% a win around here, but not all that bad either.

However who pays does not mean who loses, though I can understand how ex got that impression.  If she's not working then she may try to get custody on the basis of claiming you work and she has the history of majority parenting time.  Judges are often reluctant to change the status quo so try to get your point across in court that you DID have significant time with the children UNTIL you separated and she started BLOCKING and being UNCOOPERATIVE.

A lot depends on the experience, bias and perceptiveness of the CFI.  In my case, the court's social worker, despite ex's continuing child abuse allegations against me, recommended I get 50% parenting time, up drastically from my temp order of alternate weekends.  Custody recommendation was deferred to a custody evaluator who stated up front he wasn't going to diagnose anyone and that parenting time history meant a lot.  The report was a huge reversal, he stated ex couldn't share 'her' child but father could, ex ought to immediately lose her temporary custody and if we tried Shared Parenting and it failed then I should get custody.  Yeah, the court ignored both reports, did not adjust the temp order and just went on to the next steps, but it documented what my lawyer could use if we did eventually go to trial.

[scraps66]

Oh, I did not get the inferecne re: teh retainer.  This is the old, "I can only win, if someone else loses," so paying 100% of the retainer was not good enough to "win," someone else had to lose to make it a win/lose.

[livednlearned]

She has said she was willing to go up to two overnights a week plus a dinner visit.  She then pulled it off the table today because the judge rules that I have to pay 100% of the child family investigator retainer.  This has given her a renewed sense of empowerment/entitlement (I "lost" the ruling).

It concerns me about things to come, as there are several other "things" my attorney says he is going to argue that may not go our way... .

If she is not working, it is not unusual that the judge would have you pay 100%. And it could even be that your lawyer agreed to that. I would check.

Does your lawyer think you are going to do worse than what she was going to offer you?

[GaGrl]

I would not interpret having to pay 100% of the investigation costs as a "loss" for you, but I can sure see how your STBX interpreting that way.  Yes, this is the beginning of her demonstrating black-and-white thinking that can truly get her backed into a corner.  So don't get too frustrated -- this is not a good move on her part.  Her thinking and planning is not rational.

[marbleloser]

Since you were ordered to pay,you don't really have a choice. It doesn't matter and doesn't mean you "lost". The court ordered the one most able to pay to do so.

Let me ask this. Did you request an investigator? Usually,the one who makes the request is required to pay anyway.

The only problem I see is your attorney seems to have a defeatist attitude before even stepping into the courtroom. He/she's being realistic,but should make you feel at ease that they are going to go all out for you.

[livednlearned]

It concerns me about things to come, as there are several other "things" my attorney says he is going to argue that may not go our way... .

Like what?

[scraps66]

... .and is it 100% of the whole CFI bill, or just 100% of the retainer which should be only a portion of the whole bill.  Meaning, she has to ante ujp and pay the rest.