Single Fathers

[jp1]

I guess I was luckier than most. I tend to think things don't have to get so ugly.

[Key-Glyph]

Wow. Exhuminator's post is worth its weight in gold. That is some serious wisdom.

[MrPopo]

I guess I was luckier than most. I tend to think things don't have to get so ugly.

They don't have to get ugly, but they can, so it's worth going for the protected route. If you two can divorce amicably and not have problems then getting the legal language in play is just a little bit of your time. But if you can't then it's vitally important.

[jp1]

I guess I was luckier than most. I tend to think things don't have to get so ugly.

They don't have to get ugly, but they can, so it's worth going for the protected route. If you two can divorce amicably and not have problems then getting the legal language in play is just a little bit of your time. But if you can't then it's vitally important.

Perhaps. I know nothing about divorce, I readily admit that. I understand at times it is a necessary evil, but I've always looked at relationships as something to nurture. I'm not just talking about marriage either, friends, family, even estranged. It has usually worked well for me to try and make the best of whatever. I feel like if you go in with the outlook of things getting ugly or staying ugly then that is what you will live with. Sometimes it is hard to work things out in a nice way, rarely is it impossible. Again, that is just my experience and breaking off a marriage and/or a long relationship is not something I can really weigh in on with experience.

Perhaps things are already nasty, but it seems presumptuous to assume that there is no way to keep things civil between two adults who have a child to think about. Bringing in lawyers could in my opinion add a layer of animosity that might have been avoided with some tough conversations and willingness to work with each other. Hopefully at the very least we are talking mediation before you go further.

[MrPopo]

I get where you're coming from. But once the plan is divorce then the best thing for the child is to set things up so there won't be the opportunity for some kind of nasty battle down the road. With luck it'll just be a formality, but the most important thing is to minimize the amount of chaos the child is going to be dealing with over the course of the child's life.

[CFFJR]

Its also important not to underestimate people's willingness to use their children as weapons against each other.

I'm not saying that's the case here, just saying in general.

[Erik_Twice]

Bringing in lawyers could in my opinion add a layer of animosity that might have been avoided with some tough conversations and willingness to work with each other.

I've said this before but if contacting a lawyer adds a layer of animosity, then you truly need a lawyer.

It's naïve, if not downright dangerous, to leave serious matters like child custody without the neccessary legal protection a lawyer can provide.

Even if he's in good terms with his ex-wife now, will he able to say the same thing after five years of non-legally-binding custody? What about ten? Twelve? Will things still be in good terms even if one of them moves to the other side of the country or their family situation changes? What if someone falls into financial turmoil of some kind? What will happen then?

He can't rely on good-will forever. Statistically, you are safer jumping in front of a car than deciding lawyers aren't needed after a divorce.

[jp1]

Where did you find that statistic? Also, in no uncertain terms let me state that hiring a lawyer against someone you are on good terms with is sure to be looked at as action against them, it's silly to assume they would have absolutely no problem with it.

Like I said, no divorce experience. However, I'm not an idiot and I have plenty of experience dealing with people both nasty and nice.

I did manage to make it seventeen years raising a daughter with no legal arrangements whatsoever, so it isn't too far fetched to think someone else might accomplish the same.

That said, if Dave feels that his situation warrants some assurances legally then I'm not really advocating he forgo that right. Just stating an opposing view.

[Erik_Twice]

I think you are a very nice person jp1, I just think your position is a bit naïve, that's all.

[jp1]

I think you are a very nice person jp1, I just think your position is a bit naïve, that's all.

It may be. It's served me pretty well though. I'm not saying it's for everyone, just that perhaps there isn't only one way to do things. Only Dave can gauge his situation accurately.



I can say unequivocally that getting lawyers involved would have made my situation worse. I've got no way to gauge how much of that is luck and how much is effort.

Reading my last post it sounds a little angry, that was unintentional. I'm not trying to make any of this personal either.