The child support thing is sticking with me. It seems to me if the SO wanted the kids, child support wouldn’t be an issue. As a matter of fact, he could use that as an incentive for the teens to stay with him. “They won’t have to change schools, you won’t have to pay support and still see them as much as you like…yada yada”. Not that dad would want to sell his kids but it would seem practical. Wanting child support makes his motives suspect. He doesn’t only want the kids, he wants the thousand bucks that comes with the kids to continue his lifestyle.
I agree that he will lose. I would think he would be a fool to even retain a lawyer in this matter. But I also contend if he really truly wanted to be with these kids, he would figure out a way to support them after Mom passes and not look towards dad to supplement the rent and utility bill.
Dallas Jones is also wrong. Child Support is a duty owed to the child from the parents. That is why in most states, you can’t waive child support in a prenuptial agreement. That’s why you can get child support even if the couple in question were never married.
In Ohio, bio dad would, unless plainly unsuitable, almost certainly get custody. If dying mom and SO married ASAP, SO may petition the court for custody but probably wouldn’t get it if bio dad pushed for custody, even if dying mom strongly supported her new husband’s motion. The key test is the best interest of the child(ren); the court must do what it determines is best for them. Among the factors it can consider are age of the kids, income of the bio dad, education level of the kids, time remaining to graduation in current schools, transportation issues (an hour away isn’t insurmountable), if the kids already have many friends or a good support network where they currently are, etc. - pretty much anything that would have a bearing on what’s best for the kid. And, under Ohio law, a child may not be explicitly asked by the court where he or she wants to live. The courts don’t want to encourage divorced parents to use their kids as pawns, leaning on them to say “Please, Your Honor, I’d really rather live with [whoever]…”
I really don’t see how the biological dad doesn’t get custody. From the limited information, it sounds like he’s a fit father, so even if they BF married the mother, and even if the kids want to live there, I just don’t see it happening. Moreso, as others mentioned, even if he did somehow get custody, continuing child support will be an uphill battle too.
Since the father is reasonably close by, and the eldest is able to drive, I don’t even think the possibility of changing schools is a big issue. Since the oldest can drive, he’s at least 16 at this point in the year, so he’s no younger than a Junior, and can probably drive to school for the rest of the year or two until he graduates. The younger one would have a bit more of an issue since he’d probably be better off just going to the school closest to his dad, since he’s got no less than 3 years of high school left.
I imagine, however, that maybe the father can work something out, like letting them stay at the BFs often on school nights or at least letting him have some sort of visitation or whatever, but unless the father turns out to be running a child porn ring, no way he’d not gain custody in my state.
I do think they are casting about wildly here. Mom hasn’t been able to work since around the time of her initial diagnosis. She may have been getting disability from her employer, but I don’t know for sure. The SO was injured on the job about 3 years ago. (Not long after they started dating.) He works for a power company and a transformer on the pole he was working on exploded. He suffered severe burns and fell from the pole. He was able to return to work about the same time as Mom’s initial diagnosis. They have had unbelievable bad luck, so I’m sure that they are grasping at straws right now.
A parent isn’t unworthy or unfit simply because he/she does not have physical custody of the children. That decision can be made for a multitude of reasons.
To the OP: I cannot imagine a legal scenario in which the mother’s significant other is granted any rights, even of visitation. However, the biological father may agree to any sort of private arrangement. I think the advice for the mom in question to see a lawyer is very good.
I’ve found it fascinating that posters are referring to the children’s father as the “bio-dad.” I lived much of my childhood with my mother, having visitation with my father. He wasn’t my “bio-dad”–he was my dad. My mom’s partners were my step-dad or my mom’s husband or boyfriend. I loved them, but I never started referring to my father as anything but my dad.
I guess I could understand using the term bio-dad if their father was not actively involved in their lives or if they saw him infrequently. But the 3-year close friend of mom’s really isn’t their dad, is he? So do we need the term bio-dad to distinguish who these men are?
I’m curious to know if others find this odd, or if it’s just me being out of touch with current family terms and realities.
I can certainly understand the desire to keep their life on an even keel–who knows their dad may be willing to move to their town and do the commuting himself. I concur with the recommendation that the family talk it through. It’s less about what’s legal and more about what this particular family chooses to do.
I was thinking the same thing. In my posts I refered to the father and the boyfriend (since they aren’t married). I did notice that people were saying bio-dad and stepdad which seemed weird to me. Especially since the boyfriend has only been around for 3 years or so.
Clarity. The kids have two father figures in their life currently - they live with their mother’s boyfriend, so he counts as a stepfather-type figure. Therefore just saying “dad” is less than clear to a bunch of random strangers armchair quarterbacking someone’s life.
Oh, c’mon. It’s short-hand just for clarity especially since the boyfriend/fiance/whatever, has a more ambiguous title. No one is trying to diminish either man’s role in the boys’ lives. There’s the “dad figure” they live with and the “dad figure” they don’t live with.
I didn’t use “boyfriend” because he’s not the boys’ boyfriend. He more their pseudo-step-dad. I’ll continue calling him PSD, if that’s any easier on anyone’s sensibilities.
Even if the kids were closely emotionally attached to their mother’s SO and estranged from BioDad, BioDad would still have a legal responsibility to help support them. They’d be his kids in the eyes of the law whether they wanted to be or not.
This. In fact, as indicated by my response other than the phrase “bio-dad” I’m surprised this is a serious discussion. The kids aren’t Mom’s property to be willed away to whomever, I find the attitude itself disgusting. These kids have a father already.
My ex and I have 50% shared physical custody of the children today. Before this period, for nearly a year and a half, I was a 14% Dad, having other weekend visits.
It burned at me constantly, not having my children around full time, but I made a decision early in the process that I thought would be best for the children, to give up nearly half my take-home pay in order for their mother to have a good start after the separation. (I’ve always regretted my initial decision and should’ve gone for 50% custody from the beginning. I think I permanently damaged my relationship with my daughter doing what I did.)
I won’t do all the links here but most of the split process is here in the depth of the board’s history.
Just because this Dad has every-other-weekend visitation, doesn’t mean that’s what he really wants. Lots of men accept the situation because they think that’s all they can get or they’ve made decisions like my initial one.
If my ex-wife were to die today, I’d be all over the reacquisition of full custody in a heartbeat. (In fact, the topic came up this weekend between my wife and I since my ex just had surgery a week ago.) My ex’s husband would be cut neatly and swiftly out of the picture. Bye-bye, good riddance & get lost. He’s not their father and shouldn’t even begin to think I’d treat him as one.
Well now, we are talking about two different kinds of support obligations. You are refering to the larger moral and legal obligations of a father to support his children. And it does exist, unless a parent has given up his parental rights, which can also be done. But this amount is undefined. It has nothing to do with the divorce settlement, which is a civil matter between two parties, the mother and father.
I was refering to the defined child support payments set out in the civil lawsuit (divorce) between the mother and the father. There is a defined amount that the father must pay to the mother as part of the settlement. This obligation, to the mother, ends when the mom dies. And until another person or agency goes to court and redefines the father’s obligation, he doesn’t owe anybody any payments.
Child support payments can be redefined or waived at any time with the agreement of both parental parties. It is no different than any other civil lawsuit. You can sue your neighbor for $10,000 and win, accept $10 and make friends again and file a satisfaction of judgement, or whatever the legal term is, and declare the terms of the suit met.
I was a non-custodial father with visitation rights and child support payments as described in our divorce. This lasted for two years until a crisis in my ex-wife’s life and I assumed custody of our two kids. With her cooperation I filed some paperwork at the courthouse that declared that the obligations outlined in the divorce lawsuit had been fulfilled entirely and for all future years. She signed and notarized it, filed with courthouse and the support payments and custody issues were then moot. The civil lawsuit had been settled. We did not even need to go back to court, other than filing the satisfaction of judgement or whatever it was called at the courthouse.
I hope I am being clear about the differences in the obligations to fulfill support as outllned in a civil lawsuit and the larger issues of a father’s obligation to provide for his children.
I agree with most other posters that the kids should go with their real father. This other random only started dating the mother 3 or so years ago and he now wants custody AND child support. that’s a joke, especially as the father appears to be a responsible character (or at least there’s no evidence that he’s irresponsible).