[ScottGem]

I find it difficult to believe that a child would be given to an jobless, indigent parent over a financially stable parent, other things equal.

Finally, I suspect that having ties to a local school, which will not start until next year, would be a factor (again, thus the rationale for waiting to take action).

Actually no. If the mother is such a bad mother or such a problem, then the court is going to wonder how bad she can be if you waited so long. The excuse of waiting to establish ties to a school won't fly very far.

As to her being a "jobless, indigent parent", that won't be an issue until you kick her out. The courts are going to give her time to show she can provide for the child.

[JudyKayTee]

I think the Court would see that one parent is/was "jobless and indigent" because the other parent kept her that way by not requiring/requesting that she work, supporting her in every way, and holding property in his individual name.

This all sounded so familiar to me so I read it from the beginning.

The mother is on psych meds, the question has been being asked since February, it's 10 months later and nothing has changed? That's the same question the Court is going to ask.

Still no application for legal custody? I think this whole custody issue is a big stick that the OP is holding over the head of the mother.

[cdad]

I wonder how much she could get in palimony for someone trying to skew the courts into their favor??

Maybe she won't need a job or anything.


On another note. Overnights are what counts in California. So being with a nanny and not with a bio parent are points against you. You can't co-parent with a nanny. That's not what the laws are made for.

And this waiting game is just that.. it's a game. Your really not gaining anything if you have already made the decision and now your just planing a set up. Video taping someone out of context works against you every time. Most couples that have been together for awhile know the " hot buttons " of the other person. So you press the button and then start recording.. it's a sure fire way for you to lose any ties with your children.

[ekims]

Wow... seems like there are some personal hot buttons being pressed here. No reference to specific court cases / precedents / legislation? The advice is free, and I appreciate it, but...

Despite the assumption to the contrary, the mother has indeed been encouraged to work, or return to school (on my dime), but has repeatedly declined. :-)

I've not discussed any of this with the mother -- so there has been no holding anything over any else's head. There is no clock ticking. :-)

Re avoiding marriage in the first place, best decision I've made to keep the State out of my bedroom and relationship. Did it once before, and learned my lesson then. Never sign a contract you haven't read, and I've yet to hear of anyone reading a marriage contract before they sign it.

Despite the tabloid headlines, palimony cases have repeatedly failed in CA -- that from a CA family law attorney. There is no common law marriage in CA, either.

Anyway, back to the attorney and his high fees.

Got to love the legal system.

[this8384]

Wow... seems like there are some personal hot buttons being pressed here. No reference to specific court cases / precedents / legislation? The advice is free, and I appreciate it, but...

Despite the assumption to the contrary, the mother has indeed been encouraged to work, or return to school (on my dime), but has repeatedly declined. :-)

I've not discussed any of this with the mother -- so there has been no holding anything over any else's head. There is no clock ticking. :-)

Re avoiding marriage in the first place, best decision I've made to keep the State out of my bedroom and relationship. Did it once before, and learned my lesson then. Never sign a contract you haven't read, and I've yet to hear of anyone reading a marriage contract before they sign it.

Despite the tabloid headlines, palimony cases have repeatedly failed in CA -- that from a CA family law attorney. There is no common law marriage in CA, either.

Anyway, back to the attorney and his high fees.

Gotta love the legal system.

... are you insane? What truly worries me is that you think you're fit to raise a child.

What "reference to specific court cases / precedents / legislation" are you looking for exactly? Nobody in the world can tell you what's going to happen because we're not the judge. Judges hear BOTH sides of the story and base their judgment upon what they feel is in the child's best interest.

Yes, you HAVE discussed this with the mother. If she has been threatening to take your child out of the state, you expect us to believe that you just sat there and nodded your head?

And avoiding marriage means nothing. You think the State won't come after you for child support and spousal support just because you didn't sign a piece of paper? Try again. People can and will sue for anything.

[this8384]

Altenweg disagrees: We are not your lawyers. You asked for advice, you got it. Did you expect someone to take your case for free?

I don't think he wanted us to take his case, he just wants us to agree with him and tell him that videotaping his partner isn't creepy or illegal, and that he'll get primary physical custody even though he is self-admittedly going to be gone at least 2 nights a week for a portion of the time.

Or ah, maybe I didn't read closely...

[ekims]

Ok, folks, everybody take a deep breath... calm down.

This is presumably a legal advice site, not a pulpit or TMZ.

The folks who post questions here are looking for responses that reflect a sound knowledge of the law -- not moralizing or ad hominems.

There are lots of websites where one can get up on their soapbox and duke it out. It is a disservice to the reputation of this website when the "expert" responses degenerate down to that level.

[this8384]

Ok, folks, everybody take a deep breath... calm down.

This is presumably a legal advice site, not a pulpit or TMZ.

The folks who post questions here are looking for responses that reflect a sound knowledge of the law -- not moralizing or ad hominems.

There are lots of websites where one can get up on their soapbox and duke it out. It is a disservice to the reputation of this website when the "expert" responses degenerate down to that level.

And you would understand what this site is about. After all, you've posted a whole 8 times.

From what I can see, your questions have all been answered effectively, quickly and accurately. Instead of taking them for what they are, you begin accusing long-standing members of not reading your posts, make statements about "hot buttons" being pressed - which still makes no sense to me, say you appreciate our advice and follow that statement with "but..." and then begin to tell us how we should act on this website.

What are you looking for at this point?

[ScottGem]

Ok, folks, everybody take a deep breath... calm down.

This is presumably a legal advice site, not a pulpit or TMZ.

The folks who post questions here are looking for responses that reflect a sound knowledge of the law -- not moralizing or ad hominems.

There are lots of websites where one can get up on their soapbox and duke it out. It is a disservice to the reputation of this website when the "expert" responses degenerate down to that level.

The problem is that you HAVE gotten plenty of responses reflecting "a sound knowledge of the law". But you have ignored them. We like to help people, but when they repeatedly ignore sound advice, we have to assume they really don't want sound advice, but want to hear that what they are doing is the right thing. It would appear you are one of the latter.

[Alty]

Ok, folks, everybody take a deep breath... calm down.

This is presumably a legal advice site, not a pulpit or TMZ.

The folks who post questions here are looking for responses that reflect a sound knowledge of the law -- not moralizing or ad hominems.

There are lots of websites where one can get up on their soapbox and duke it out. It is a disservice to the reputation of this website when the "expert" responses degenerate down to that level.

You asked for advice, you got it.

Instead of following it, you just kept coming back asking the same thing over and over again, hoping that the advice would change.

No one can predict what the judge will do. As you said, this is the legal forum, we're not psychics.

The fact is, you haven't taken any of the advice already given, so why are you still asking? Obviously you think you already have all the answers, so, again, why are you asking?

You should also keep in mind that everyone on this site volunteers. We don't get paid to do this, which is why we don't charge you for advice.

You might want to keep that in mind before you get on your high horse.

[JudyKayTee]

re avoiding marriage in the first place, best decision i've made to keep the state out of my bedroom and relationship. Did it once before, and learned my lesson then. Never sign a contract you haven't read, and i've yet to hear of anyone reading a marriage contract before they sign it..

Surprise! You're consulting an Attorney regarding your legal rights. This involves working your way through the Courts.

The State is now in your bedroom!

[cdad]

Wow... seems like there are some personal hot buttons being pressed here. No reference to specific court cases / precedents / legislation? The advice is free, and I appreciate it, but...

Despite the assumption to the contrary, the mother has indeed been encouraged to work, or return to school (on my dime), but has repeatedly declined. :-)

I've not discussed any of this with the mother -- so there has been no holding anything over any else's head. There is no clock ticking. :-)

Re avoiding marriage in the first place, best decision I've made to keep the State out of my bedroom and relationship. Did it once before, and learned my lesson then. Never sign a contract you haven't read, and I've yet to hear of anyone reading a marriage contract before they sign it.

Despite the tabloid headlines, palimony cases have repeatedly failed in CA -- that from a CA family law attorney. There is no common law marriage in CA, either.

Anyway, back to the attorney and his high fees.

Gotta love the legal system.

Seeing as how this IS the first time you have asked for specifics. The only way that could be answered would be to have intimate knowlage of the filings you have made. Since you haven't made any and you were looking how to best set up the mother there is nothing to quote. Palimony cases do go through the Calif court system but they are based upon grounds other then " pal ". But that's how many refer to them. You already had a Calif Barr certified lawyer answer your original question. So what exactly are you hoping to get from asking the same thing again and again ?

[JudyKayTee]

Seeing as how this IS the first time you have asked for specifics. The only way that could be answered would be to have intimate knowlage of the filings you have made. Since you havent made any and you were looking how to best set up the mother there is nothing to quote. Palimony cases do go through the Calif court system but they are based upon grounds other then " pal ". But thats how many refer to them. You already had a Calif Barr certified lawyer answer your original question. So what exactly are you hoping to get from asking the same thing again and agin ?

Apparently he's looking for someone to ratify his plan to set up the mother of his child.

And I don't think he's going to get that.

Maybe the last time he fell off his high horse he hit his head.

Time to close and brace for the inflammatory PM.