And if you piss off the judge by continuing to pursue this, you very well may find it being 45/55. Or even 40/60.
And if you piss off the judge by continuing to pursue this, you very well may find it being 45/55. Or even 40/60.
So you do admit this is about you, not the child.....
That has nothing to do with you blowing off a court order and no, it won't save you.
You really don't see how they're apples and oranges? Seriously, you can't see the MASSIVE difference?
Also, this child is not a girl. I am even more of an advocate now of talking about name changes. I think that couples should agree on a name when getting married instead of just assuming the female will take the male's name. I don't think it's bad if a female takes a male's name, I just think it should be discussed between the couple and not automatically assumed. I feel the same way about naming a child.
And yet again, this does not give you permission to ignore that court order.As someone who already felt strongly about the issue of patriarchal naming before I was married, I just find it so ironic that I am being forced to accept a patriarchal ruling for my one and only child.
Or, perhaps, adopt as a single parent. Then you can change the child's name to Flompaluga Hepplethwaite if you so chooe.
What you mean is that you have a 50/50 timeshare .... now.Another thing I wanted to add since someone mentioned about me potentially becoming the "NCP" is that I'm not really the "custodial parent" to begin with. I'm not the "non-custodial parent" either though. We have joint custody. It's fairly close to 50/50--it's like 55/45--I have slightly more time, but he gets all the tax benefits, and obviously the name.
Keep pulling this trick with Dad, and you just might end up with a change of custody with Dad being primary and you enjoying standard NCP visitation.
Think of all the money you both wasted in a pissing match that could have actually been used for the care of your child.
Hyphenated names are nonsensical because they are unsustainable. Imagine that John Wilson-Smith marries Mary Johnson-Brown. Will they name their children Johnson-Brown-Wilson-Smith? And then the next generation after that will be what? Yes, hyphenated names reflect personal arrogance and they are never about the child. They are always about the parent.
Yes, to the extent that all naming is about the parent. It's just that we're talking about it now because no one questioned it before. No one questions it when a male wants to "pass his name on." But when a female faces an uphill, impossible battle just trying to do the exact same thing, she's suddenly selfish, petty, and not thinking of the child. Let me tell you something about who is thinking of the child in this situation:
Here's something for all of you to think about before I go: If the name hadn't been changed, the child would not have to find out about any of this. And now he does. And now, I have to explain to him why his father did what he did. That's going to look bad on him. My child loves both his families. He's not going to understand why his dad did what he did.
I was the only one in this entire case looking out for the best interest of all parties involved. I could have named him just my maiden name in the hospital. I didn't. Because I have had the *consistent* position that this child is a part of two families and he should be equally identified with both of them. Neither parent should be denied that equal identification with the child, especially since both parents feel strongly they want to be in the name.
I still have no idea what I'm going to do in court. I agonize over this every day. It's so cruel and unnecessary what's happened.
The child is two. If the child finds out about your litigation with his father, it will be because somebody had the extremely poor judgment to try to put him in the middle of the dispute between parents. Don't be that person.
A two year old is not even going to notice the dropping of a part of his name, unless someone makes a point of it to him.
More nonsense.
Melodrama.
More melodrama.But when a female faces an uphill, impossible battle just trying to do the exact same thing, she's suddenly selfish, petty, and not thinking of the child.
If you're vindictive and petty enough to use this as a weapon against Dad, you shouldn't have custody of anything more complex than a carrot. Really - it's disgusting, selfish and a perfect example of how NOT to be a decent parent.Let me tell you something about who is thinking of the child in this situation:
Here's something for all of you to think about before I go: If the name hadn't been changed, the child would not have to find out about any of this. And now he does. And now, I have to explain to him why his father did what he did. That's going to look bad on him. My child loves both his families. He's not going to understand why his dad did what he did.
You've been trying to stick it to Dad for years. Perhaps the court saw right through you.
I was the only one in this entire case looking out for the best interest of all parties involved. I could have named him just my maiden name in the hospital. I didn't. Because I have had the *consistent* position that this child is a part of two families and he should be equally identified with both of them. Neither parent should be denied that equal identification with the child, especially since both parents feel strongly they want to be in the name.
You throw yourself at the mercy of the court, then you apologize PROFUSELY to Dad.
I still have no idea what I'm going to do in court. I agonize over this every day. It's so cruel and unnecessary what's happened.
Cruel and unnecessary? I agree - it's cruel and unnecessary to treat your child as a commodity. You should rethink your angle.