Guest View: Custody Cases Are Always Ugly, Usually Unfair to Someone, and Almost Always a Sad Story

By Erasend

Not sure point of the article LGBT Horror Story for Stay-at-Home Mom in Connecticut Family Court

What is being described is pretty typical of a divorce involving children. If you take the “LGBT” part out of this story and replace the Teri parts with “Dad”, there are a ton of Dads out there that could relate to the exact same story as Teri. It’s not new and it’s not unique.

Neither is moving to another state, which is a tried and true tactic to keep one parent out of the equation.

Usually judges decide primary custody by three primary factors (assuming safety isn’t really an issue) – mom then dad, biology over not (by this say mom vs foster parent), and money. Most of the time they split custody but when they don’t, it’s usually the mom chosen over the dad, biological parent chosen over not, and, if those factors don’t decide it, then who makes the most money.

Money matters because money gives many advantages for the welfare of the child that often mitigates all other factors. If one parent, like here, is broke and the other has a ton of money (I assume because 3 degrees), then money means better education, better opportunity, safer neighborhood, better access to opportunities to do new things like a variety of sports, activities, friends and more.

In this case, it’s mom vs mom, so that factor is out. Technically, Teri is the biological mother but, because of LBQT, it’s kind of irrelevant here but her lawyer could try to hammer it more but they will have to tread carefully because they will also be making an argument on why the biological father also deserves to get custody if he ever chose to fight for it.

That leaves money and in this case, there is a clear winner and so the court decided accordingly. The moving away was just an extra “F@#$ you” that courts rarely prevent.

Custody cases are always ugly, usually unfair to someone, and almost always there will be a sad story where one or both sides think an injustice was done. It’s probably a rare day when the choice is good and just and, even in those cases, likely one parent has essentially checked out entirely so even then the children are effectively losing a parent.

Your thinking “but safety of the child!” in this particular case with the allegation of sexual abuse. This is where get into the realm of what I call “ex-shit” where fact from fiction becomes difficult to distinguish. Could there be abuse? Maybe. Could there also just be a desperate parent exaggerating a story in an effort to get custody? Maybe.

Ex-shit is weird because emotions are hyper-elevated due to hate usually replacing love, and that means everything gets extra meaning. That arm grab from two years ago that was nothing at the time or after, is now suddenly a sign of physical abuse. That loud argument that went on for an hour four years ago? Now, it’s an example of emotional abuse. That spanking a parent gave to a child, well that sounds like BDSM to me, we sure there isn’t sexual abuse going on?

Not saying that abuse has not occurred in this case, just saying that when it’s “ex-shit” tread very carefully as it’s hard to distinguish factual truth from emotional truth. Just be grateful that isn’t your regular job like it is for some people and let the professionals figure it out.

So back to what is the point of this article? Is Frank going to start posting the mountain of Dad stories that are likely nearly identical to this one? If posted as a warning for stay-at-home moms and dads, it’s a good one.

Due to “but I love…” people don’t think to do that, but with a divorce rate going past 50%, the legalese of marriage matters more than ever.

It’s something that sadly people don’t think about, our pop culture and education system don’t teach, and people like to ignore. It’s up there with “I do not want to talk about my death arrangement” but much like that, it really should be part of your life plan. Planning for a scenario you hope will not happen does not make it happen (superstitious nonsense). It just means you are prepared if it does.

Verbal on emotions of the heart and family like this one doesn’t mean a thing legally as “verbally binding” doesn’t really apply. Make sure whatever agreement you come up with is in writing and there is financial protection involved. I would say a pre-nup should practically be a requirement of marriage if at a certain level of financial disparity and if it is going the way of “mom/dad only as a career” (for lack of better phrase) then getting financial safety for the choice should also be a requirement.

Once love becomes “ex-shit”, all the gloves come off and it will reach a unique level of vicious especially if children or enough money is involved.

Guest View