Questions, Oregon divorce: kids, taxes, student loans...

[Fatheroffour]

If I have the option to handle it all without them, I'm taking it.

Then why did you get married?

Why bother with divorce?

Don't be naive. The state is three knuckled deep in your rear end and you declaring now that you don't want to utilize The State to access the only means of definitive single source payment confirmation you will know through the next two decades is just foolish and short sighted.

And to now explain that your attorney explained all that to you previously is not consistent with the thread narrative. Not to say that you're not perfectly within your rights to avoid it. You are. As long as your ex agrees, meaning, don't be late and don't be short.



With that said, I talked my ex out of going through the state as it puts me firmly in the drivers seat concerning custody for the next decade plus.

[PHRoG]

If I have the option to handle it all without them, I'm taking it.

Then why did you get married?

Why bother with divorce?

Don't be naive. The state is three knuckled deep in your rear end and you declaring now that you don't want to utilize The State to access the only means of definitive single source payment confirmation you will know through the next two decades is just foolish and short sighted.

And to now explain that your attorney explained all that to you previously is not consistent with the thread narrative. Not to say that you're not perfectly within your rights to avoid it. You are. As long as your ex agrees, meaning, don't be late and don't be short.

With that said, I talked my ex out of going through the state as it puts me firmly in the drivers seat concerning custody for the next decade plus.

Hmmm, I hope we can just agree to disagree on it then. I've explained my reasons behind not wanting to deal with the state, and I'm sorry if you don't approve of them; but, they're my reasons, not yours.

We got married for insurance purposes, otherwise it probably would have never happened. A change in employers caused a change in insurance carrier whom did not offer domestic partner coverage. This was a time in our lives when our son was having some medical issues, including my wife, and we desperately needed the insurance. Thus, we got married in front of a judge.

To be honest...I'm feeling a bit attacked here. I was looking for folks in similar situations to discuss my own with, and hopefully find support. Instead, I'm defending my reasons for not being involved with the state any more than I have to be. Really, does it matter THAT much? You've given me the downside to my request, now I know the pitfalls, and to be especially careful regarding records. Thank you, but berating my choice to be the least involved with government than I can be, certainly isn't helping much.

I mean, look, I've only had a 30 minute phone conversation with an attorney, and the ball is just rolling...how about cutting me a little slack here? I can't regurgitate every-single-detail of the conversation. I'm sorry I don't have all the perfect answers for you; again, that's why I'm here, to find them.

Thanks,
PHRoG

[Fatheroffour]

It makes no different to me. My post was an irritated response tothis.

First you ask why, then you say you already know it and it's your preference. Which is fine. It was just a waste of my time to explain it and look up old post for best practices on paying child support only to be told your not interested in best practices.

Best practices tend to lead to best results and that's what this board is all about. Protecting your parenting time and financial future so you can be the best dad you can be.

[BartSimpson]

OK, a little slack, but I hope you understand that we're pushing back because you are going against the current. There is something odd about your approach to the circumstances, your priorities, and your heavy reliance on lady luck.


You plan to bail with the clothes on your back, expect only a couple of days a month with your kids, provide minimal financial support to your kids' primary home, and have an expectation that your crazy wife will carry the load with all this added burden.

Doesn't seem like a good plan. It doesn't seem to meet the Best Interest of the Children test.

[Trevor]

What happens if the court puts the kabosh on your plans (school and business) by imputing your income in order to support the child instead of the state doing it for you? You may have to find a FT job that pays (not "prospective" earnings), go to school part-time, and do your website work after midnight. Then you'd have little time left for the kiddos. Have you got any backup plans?

[PHRoG]

OK, a little slack, but I hope you understand that we're pushing back because you are going against the current. There is something odd about your approach to the circumstances, your priorities, and your heavy reliance on lady luck.


You plan to bail with the clothes on your back, expect only a couple of days a month with your kids, provide minimal financial support to your kids' primary home, and have an expectation that your crazy wife will carry the load with all this added burden.

Doesn't seem like a good plan. It doesn't seem to meet the Best Interest of the Children test.

Mr. Simpson, hehe, thanks for providing some insight as to your, and I assume Fartheroffour has a similar perspective.

I can see where you are coming from. Kinda makes me sound like a horrible person. I'm definitely not trying to put her in a horrible situation with my kiddos, and I definitely plan to see them far more than a few days a month!

That's not my goal at all...my goal is to simply protect myself in case she flips, and tries to get nasty. Isn't it in my best interest to get the lowest specified amount assigned from the court as possible, and just pay additional as I see fit?

This is in line with, keep the government out as much as possible. The lower the amount that's required; the less of a chance I have of running into trouble paying it because of a hard time. Ergo, less opportunity for her to claim non-compliance, and challenge shared custody in court.

I'm far from greedy, and they won't go without. I can live on very little, and plan to do so. One way or another I'll ensure the extracurricular activities are paid for; such as karate for my son, and riding lessons for my daughter. They'll continue to goto summer camp and whatnot as well. The lawyer pointed out that she'll likely qualify for increased benefits through the state, making it cheaper for her to live as well. I don't believe she has any plans to quit school...nor do I.

Basically I'm trying to protect myself as much as possible, should she decide to get nasty after everything is said and done, and to help ensure I don't make mistakes she can use against me later on. I really thought this was in my best interest based on what I had read around here.

Thanks,
PHRoG

[Fatheroffour]

Basically I'm trying to protect myself as much as possible, should she decide to get nasty after everything is said and done.

i·ro·ny

[PHRoG]

What happens if the court puts the kabosh on your plans (school and business) by imputing your income in order to support the child instead of the state doing it for you? You may have to find a FT job that pays (not "prospective" earnings), go to school part-time, and do your website work after midnight. Then you'd have little time left for the kiddos. Have you got any backup plans?

Hey there Trevor,

Thanks for the perspective on that. Although that is possible, wouldn't I only have to consider that if she decided to fight for her own terms? I'm fairly positive she will agree to this.

We both said we want to be peaceful. If she doesn't, then we fight I guess.

Thanks,
PHRoG

[PHRoG]

Basically I'm trying to protect myself as much as possible, should she decide to get nasty after everything is said and done.

i·ro·ny

You're really confusing the hell out of me.

[defaultuser]

I hear everything you're saying and I think you need a little perspective.

Looking at things from a purely logical standpoint, would you rather have:

A. Go for shared parenting, where she is the primary residential parent. You pay something like 25% of your take home pay plus 10% for each additional child to her until your kids are 18. When you want some extra time with your kids, you have to ask permission. I know she's a good mother and all that but from a purely logical standpoint, someone that is a bad wife, or at least bad enough to be angry enough to commit felony assault on you, then you might logically assume that if she's in a bad mood, she might not be ok with you getting your extra time. Especially if she figures out that it could affect the amount of money she gets from you.

or

B. You are the primary parent and also the more reasonable one. You have the kids 70% of the time and she either is obligated to pay you a small amount of child support, or none at all. When she wants extra time with the kids you make a decision based on their best interest, not your personal feelings on the subject. You keep the money you earn. You choose whether or not she does as well.

BTW, EVERYTHING you've said about her, the assault, the controlling nature, and now the CPS report all point directly to ====> BAD MOTHER, NJ

Its really, really hard sometimes to find reality when you've been with someone like that for a long time. I know I didn't realize what a horrible influence my X was on my kids until months after we split up. To this day I don't understand why I didn't see a problem with things like the kids staying in their pajama's until 5pm every day, or a million other little things that just never happened when I was taking care of the kids.

If you want A. move out. if you want B stay in the house and file.

I know, I know, you're about to jump both feet into your next big thing business, but your kids need you now. Figure out a way to do both. If you can't, you must. If you must you will.