Obtaining Joint Physical and Legal Custody

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I'm sure you didn't mean to be sweet. I didn't either. I just prefer to not be vulgar at the same time. For instance, there are certain words used for female body parts that I would not write here. Can't imagine using them in any conversation actually. Its a respect for people in general kind of thing. Nice to know that you don't care.

The rest was just free extras :) Important extras though, in my opinion of course.

Quote:

---

Quoting Antigone

---

I didn't mean this to be sweet. He is complaining about having to pay and not getting any rights. I stand by what I said and I make no apology for my comment no matter how many flips your tummy makes.

---

Your transparent and bitter viewpoint warrants no response, but I will give you 30 seconds of my time as I feel a bit cheery today. I make no complaint in regards to paying. He is my responsibility after all. My question and concern regards the legal custody matters and what the proper procedure is. Save your sermons for sunday.

You're not going to get a 50/50 timeshare living out of state.

Quote:

---

Quoting FatherWhoWon

---

Besides being what is, in my opinion at least, disgusting, vulgar, and disrespectful terminology used above (incidentally, Merriam-Webster agrees with me on this point), this kind of statement always makes my stomach turn. It takes two to make a baby. It's just as much dad's responsibility as mom's that a baby was born outside of marriage. It's NOT a reason to give mom all rights to a child initially.

---

While I understand that you don't like vulgarity (and honestly, that wasn't vulgar) I think that you are being unrealistic otherwise. Everybody knows who mom is, nobody knows for certain who dad is until paternity is established. In an unwed situation the baby is going to go home from the hospital with mom. The baby's primary bond is going to be with mom.

Quote:

---

I don't need to hear the biology argument either. I already know it and its largely an excuse in this day of modern technology. There are other ways to work this process than the one we use in most states today.

---

Yes, there are ways to determine paternity in utero, and those ways are dangerous to the child.

Quote:

---

Of course, dad does need to work on what he can control, because he has to live with the results of the decision he makes, and not mom. That doesn't make the system "fair" or "good" for fathers, children, or even mothers at this point. But hey, many don't claim it to be anyway.

---

So, what do you think is in the best interest of the child? Should paternity be decided in all cases in utero even if there is a serious risk to the child? Should custody be decided before the baby goes home from the hospital even if that means massive additional medical costs for keeping the baby there for no reason? Should the baby be placed in automatic foster care so that neither parent bonds with the baby until custody is decided? Tell us what you think should happen?

Quote:

---

Dad, by joint physical custody, surely you don't mean for the child to spend half of his time with you? You dont even live in the same state as mom. This will be a major hurdle for you, both in the courtroom and in the child's life. My first suggestion for you would be to think about moving to where your child is.

---

I agree with that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

You're not going to get a 50/50 timeshare living out of state.

---

Acting under the idea I would like to see my son as much as possible (if not 100% of the time), what would you suggest?

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

While I understand that you don't like vulgarity (and honestly, that wasn't vulgar)

---

Like I said, M-W disagrees with you. I'm going with that. But maybe you weren't raised that way or whatever. We do live in a country where we at least like to pretend we have an extensive bill of rights that we protect. Fair enough.

I don't have all the answers for how the entire system should be changed in every state. If I knew all of that, well... I wouldn't have the job I have now! But part of our problem is that our country does not generally want to recognize that a baby is actually existent until it is born, or at least so many months along. You can probably guess I have some strong opinions about that, too, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms that Im sure no one wants to argue about with me. But I do know some things, like if paternity has been determined, there is no reason to still have mom the only one with control/access to the child until a court gives dad "rights." Some states, like mine, have come around a bit to that concept, and it has been a wonderful thing for the people I know who are aware and have taken advantage of it. Contrast that to, in other areas, not only having to be established as dad, but also having to go through legitimization process... do we want fathers to be parents or visitors with wallets? Visiting parent is an oxymoron. And, contrary to popular belief, if a very young child/baby has to go from living with one parent to living with another, the sky does not fall for that child. The "primary bond" and being "ripped away" is often overly dramatized, and a more long-term view of the custody of that child can be very helpful. So is rethinking the idea that a child that young should not have too much time away from whomever their "primary caregiver" is. In a home with two parents, best case scenario is that baby spends lots of time daily with both mom and dad. Getting as close to that as possible in a split situation can be ideal. Certainly not every dad is a good dad, but I've seen more "deadbeat" moms than I could care to choke on. If we change the way fathers are established as such, and give them more legal ways to be involved with their children from birth, we will have taken a step towards something better for our children.

Quote:

---

Quoting eagerdada

---

Acting under the idea I would like to see my son as much as possible (if not 100% of the time), what would you suggest?

---

Honestly? Move closer to where Mom and he currently live.

Otherwise you're likely going to enjoy a long-distance parenting plan.

Quote:

---

Quoting eagerdada

---

Acting under the idea I would like to see my son as much as possible (if not 100% of the time), what would you suggest?

---

If you had the child 100% of the time, when would mom have him? This seems like an absurd statement. One that a judge will not like, at all, and reasonably so.

You are not going to like a long distance plan for a baby. I'm guessing use of the word enjoy was sarcastic. Listen to Dogmatique on that.

You fill out the forms in the packet from Sacramento County in your first link.

Since a support case is in the works, you use that case number.

The filing fee is $435 unless you qualify for a fee waiver. Look up the fee waiver info (in forma pauperis).

CA law provides a presumption in favor of joint legal custody, rebuttable on a showing that it would be against the child's best interests.

You aren't going to get a 50/50 timeshare for an infant living out of state. Won't happen.

And anyone who is offended by the use of the word "Johnson" needs a stick extraction.

Quote:

---

Quoting EA1070a

---

You fill out the forms in the packet from Sacramento County in your first link.

Since a support case is in the works, you use that case number.

The filing fee is $435 unless you qualify for a fee waiver. Look up the fee waiver info (in forma pauperis).

CA law provides a presumption in favor of joint legal custody, rebuttable on a showing that it would be against the child's best interests.

You aren't going to get a 50/50 timeshare for an infant living out of state. Won't happen.

And anyone who is offended by the use of the word "Johnson" needs a stick extraction.

---

Thanks for this information.

Regarding the 50/50 scenario... what should I be asking for then? It seems pointless whining about/bringing up the fact the mother has 100% custody right now and trying to achieve her situation for myself. Or posing the question I'm sure many others have "Why shouldn't I have the majority of custody?" This is the unfair mother-centric view?

Are there no cases where 50/50 out of state is awarded? What about a 60/40 type?