A Solution to Custody and Support

I want to offer a viable solution to problems associated with separation and
divorce that address child custody and support. This is NOT theory, but is
based on an actual divorce case. It is NOT joint custody. It should meet
current guidelines in most states as they now exist.

It enables both parents to continue to be involved in children's lives where a
divorce has occurred.

The usual procedure in a divorce action is that one parent obtains primary
custody of children and both parents are to provide for the support of the
children. This so often breaks down to the point that the children fail to
receive access to the love of the non-custodial parent, and also the financial
support to which they are entitled.

A solution then, is for each divorced parent to share the responsibility for
child rearing on an absolute equal basis. This model is based on the
traditional practice of one parent having physical custody of the children, and
the other providing financial support. The only difference is that the
custodial roles change every year and child support becomes more manageable.
The children actually move into the other parents home, probably each July 1.

Child support amounts would be based on the difference of the historical ability
of the parents to pay and would only be paid by the non-custodial parent in the
years that he/she does not have physical custody provided there is a significant
difference.

Both parents tend to be more cooperative with this arrangement, since they know
that the tables are turned each July 1. This model should be the starting point
in all child custody cases. Modifications should be considered only in the
cases where there are unfit parents, substandard living conditions, child abuse,
etc.

My own case is the only case of this type that I know of. My former wife and I
still respect each other. I still have the love and respect of our daughter,
who is now 23. The only problem that occurred, easily remedied, was that we
each agreed to pay full child support in the alternating years. That created
severe hardships for both of us. It would have been better had only the better
equipped parent paid, and then only the difference in ability to pay, and in
alternating years.

The Divorce Decree is Cause Number 87-06-01960. It was heard and decreed in The
County Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas on October 19, 1988. It
might be useful as a precedent that could be cited in future cases.

--
Regards,
Clark, Still Free in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

California law would prohibit this from happening from a practical
standpoint. The "Burgess Decision" allows for the custodial parent
to move away from the NCP. As a result, with your example the
child would have to change schools on an annual basis which wouldn't
be seen as beneficial for the child.

It would only work if both parents considered the child's interest to
be primary, which is not mandated by the courts here.

Good in theory but wouldn't be enforced by the courts here.



b.

California law would prohibit this from happening from a practical
standpoint. The "Burgess Decision" allows for the custodial parent
to move away from the NCP. As a result, with your example the
child would have to change schools on an annual basis which wouldn't
be seen as beneficial for the child.

It would only work if both parents considered the child's interest to
be primary, which is not mandated by the courts here.

Good in theory but wouldn't be enforced by the courts here.



b.

So what if a clild does have to change schools? They go to a new classroom each
year anyway. That excuse is a cop out. My daughter actually looked forward to
it. One should never consider friends of greater importance than the rights of
parents.

There is a precedent to a divorce of this type. Both parents respect each other
and both are active in the life of the child who is now 23. She was seven when
the parents separated.

The Divorce Decree is Cause Number 87-06-01960. It was decreed in The County
Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas on October 19, 1988 under
existing law.

--
Regards,
Clark, Still Free in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!



wrote in message ...

California law would prohibit this from happening from a practical
standpoint. The "Burgess Decision" allows for the custodial parent
to move away from the NCP. As a result, with your example the
child would have to change schools on an annual basis which wouldn't
be seen as beneficial for the child.

It would only work if both parents considered the child's interest to
be primary, which is not mandated by the courts here.

Good in theory but wouldn't be enforced by the courts here.



b.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

So what if a clild does have to change schools? They go to a new classroom each
year anyway. That excuse is a cop out. My daughter actually looked forward to
it. One should never consider friends of greater importance than the rights of
parents.

There is a precedent to a divorce of this type. Both parents respect each other
and both are active in the life of the child who is now 23. She was seven when
the parents separated.

The Divorce Decree is Cause Number 87-06-01960. It was decreed in The County
Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas on October 19, 1988 under
existing law.

--
Regards,
Clark, Still Free in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!



wrote in message ...

California law would prohibit this from happening from a practical
standpoint. The "Burgess Decision" allows for the custodial parent
to move away from the NCP. As a result, with your example the
child would have to change schools on an annual basis which wouldn't
be seen as beneficial for the child.

It would only work if both parents considered the child's interest to
be primary, which is not mandated by the courts here.

Good in theory but wouldn't be enforced by the courts here.



b.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

As someone who switched schools frequently (since my father was in the
military) let me clue you in on something. We don't have a national
curriculum or even statewide curriculum. Actually two classes in the
same school in the same grade may be using different books and learning
different material entirely. so what? children need to learn skills
and information in a fairly predictable order for them to learn what
they need to succeed scholatically and having children switch schools
and even districts or states each year would do damage to the child
(with the exception of the exceptionally gifted ie smartest of children).

Clark Simmons wrote:
So what if a clild does have to change schools? They go to a new classroom each
year anyway. That excuse is a cop out. My daughter actually looked forward to
it. One should never consider friends of greater importance than the rights of
parents.

There is a precedent to a divorce of this type. Both parents respect each other
and both are active in the life of the child who is now 23. She was seven when
the parents separated.

The Divorce Decree is Cause Number 87-06-01960. It was decreed in The County
Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas on October 19, 1988 under
existing law.

As someone who switched schools frequently (since my father was in the
military) let me clue you in on something. We don't have a national
curriculum or even statewide curriculum. Actually two classes in the
same school in the same grade may be using different books and learning
different material entirely. so what? children need to learn skills
and information in a fairly predictable order for them to learn what
they need to succeed scholatically and having children switch schools
and even districts or states each year would do damage to the child
(with the exception of the exceptionally gifted ie smartest of children).

Clark Simmons wrote:
So what if a clild does have to change schools? They go to a new classroom each
year anyway. That excuse is a cop out. My daughter actually looked forward to
it. One should never consider friends of greater importance than the rights of
parents.

There is a precedent to a divorce of this type. Both parents respect each other
and both are active in the life of the child who is now 23. She was seven when
the parents separated.

The Divorce Decree is Cause Number 87-06-01960. It was decreed in The County
Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas on October 19, 1988 under
existing law.

What is so damaging to children is to have lost a parent because of the
vindictiveness of one of the parents to influence the child adversely. I can
vouch for my statements because I've had it both ways.

I haven't seen or talked to my oldest son in 15 years. Youngest son in almost
5, then only because he didn't know I was going to attend a funeral. It's
pretty bad when a father doesn't even recognize his own son. I wouldn't have
recognized him then if one of my cousins had not sail something. That divorce
occurred in 1973.

When my second wife filed for divorce in 1988, I would only agree to the
arrangement I describe. Changing schools was no problem.

What's the problem with changing schools, anyway? Is that any worse than losing
love and respect for a parent? I think not. The traditional arrangement
encourages that.

--
Regards,
Clark, Still Free in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!



"Virginia" wrote in message
et...
As someone who switched schools frequently (since my father was in the
military) let me clue you in on something. We don't have a national
curriculum or even statewide curriculum. Actually two classes in the
same school in the same grade may be using different books and learning
different material entirely. so what? children need to learn skills
and information in a fairly predictable order for them to learn what
they need to succeed scholatically and having children switch schools
and even districts or states each year would do damage to the child
(with the exception of the exceptionally gifted ie smartest of children).

Clark Simmons wrote:
So what if a clild does have to change schools? They go to a new classroom
each
year anyway. That excuse is a cop out. My daughter actually looked forward
to
it. One should never consider friends of greater importance than the rights
of
parents.

There is a precedent to a divorce of this type. Both parents respect each
other
and both are active in the life of the child who is now 23. She was seven
when
the parents separated.

The Divorce Decree is Cause Number 87-06-01960. It was decreed in The County
Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas on October 19, 1988 under
existing law.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

What is so damaging to children is to have lost a parent because of the
vindictiveness of one of the parents to influence the child adversely. I can
vouch for my statements because I've had it both ways.

I haven't seen or talked to my oldest son in 15 years. Youngest son in almost
5, then only because he didn't know I was going to attend a funeral. It's
pretty bad when a father doesn't even recognize his own son. I wouldn't have
recognized him then if one of my cousins had not sail something. That divorce
occurred in 1973.

When my second wife filed for divorce in 1988, I would only agree to the
arrangement I describe. Changing schools was no problem.

What's the problem with changing schools, anyway? Is that any worse than losing
love and respect for a parent? I think not. The traditional arrangement
encourages that.

--
Regards,
Clark, Still Free in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!



"Virginia" wrote in message
et...
As someone who switched schools frequently (since my father was in the
military) let me clue you in on something. We don't have a national
curriculum or even statewide curriculum. Actually two classes in the
same school in the same grade may be using different books and learning
different material entirely. so what? children need to learn skills
and information in a fairly predictable order for them to learn what
they need to succeed scholatically and having children switch schools
and even districts or states each year would do damage to the child
(with the exception of the exceptionally gifted ie smartest of children).

Clark Simmons wrote:
So what if a clild does have to change schools? They go to a new classroom
each
year anyway. That excuse is a cop out. My daughter actually looked forward
to
it. One should never consider friends of greater importance than the rights
of
parents.

There is a precedent to a divorce of this type. Both parents respect each
other
and both are active in the life of the child who is now 23. She was seven
when
the parents separated.

The Divorce Decree is Cause Number 87-06-01960. It was decreed in The County
Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas on October 19, 1988 under
existing law.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003

I don't claim that it'll work in every case. My former wife and I both moved
out of state in opposite directions. We were able to agree on extended
visitation in the summer since weekends wouldn't work.

One other advantage was when her stepfather starting treating the daughter
badly, my former wife asked if I'd take her even though it was her year.

I've been in constant contact with the daughter even during the four years she
spent in Australia.

--
Regards,
Clark, Still Free in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!



"Leslie" wrote in message
om...
This type of custody and support sounds very interesting. However, it
would only work (for school age children) if the parents live close
enough to each other to where the kids would not have to change
schools every year. That would be the only problem I would have with
it, is if the kids had to change schools every year.

I would have actually considered this type of situation when I
divorced, which was also in Montgomery County, TX. However, at the
time of my divorce my EX was not interested in any type of custody
whatsoever. He never used all of the visitation he was given either.

There was also a time some years after our divorce that we both were
looking for homes to buy. Since we both worked at the same company
(he had 8+ years there, I had just started) I proposed to him that we
purchase homes within the same school district, that would be close to
where we work, with the hope that a 50/50 custody situation could be
looked at. He did not feel this was the right thing for him to do at
that time.

So, this type of custody/child support could not work in my case,
because my EX was not interested. I'm glad to hear that you have
found a way to keep the children active in both households!

"Clark Simmons" wrote in message
...
I want to offer a viable solution to problems associated with separation and
divorce that address child custody and support. This is NOT theory, but is
based on an actual divorce case. It is NOT joint custody. It should meet
current guidelines in most states as they now exist.

It enables both parents to continue to be involved in children's lives where
a
divorce has occurred.

The usual procedure in a divorce action is that one parent obtains primary
custody of children and both parents are to provide for the support of the
children. This so often breaks down to the point that the children fail to
receive access to the love of the non-custodial parent, and also the
financial
support to which they are entitled.

A solution then, is for each divorced parent to share the responsibility for
child rearing on an absolute equal basis. This model is based on the
traditional practice of one parent having physical custody of the children,
and
the other providing financial support. The only difference is that the
custodial roles change every year and child support becomes more manageable.
The children actually move into the other parents home, probably each July
1.

Child support amounts would be based on the difference of the historical
ability
of the parents to pay and would only be paid by the non-custodial parent in
the
years that he/she does not have physical custody provided there is a
significant
difference.

Both parents tend to be more cooperative with this arrangement, since they
know
that the tables are turned each July 1. This model should be the starting
point
in all child custody cases. Modifications should be considered only in the
cases where there are unfit parents, substandard living conditions, child
abuse,
etc.

My own case is the only case of this type that I know of. My former wife
and I
still respect each other. I still have the love and respect of our
daughter,
who is now 23. The only problem that occurred, easily remedied, was that we
each agreed to pay full child support in the alternating years. That
created
severe hardships for both of us. It would have been better had only the
better
equipped parent paid, and then only the difference in ability to pay, and in
alternating years.

The Divorce Decree is Cause Number 87-06-01960. It was heard and decreed in
The
County Court at Law No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas on October 19, 1988.
It
might be useful as a precedent that could be cited in future cases.

--
Regards,
Clark, Still Free in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003