The father is in the military for 10 years remarried with 1 step child and 1 biological child living in another state on an army base with a monthly income of $3200 and pays $1000 a month in childsupport. The mother has been unemployed for 4 years, on welfare lives in a bad neighborhood in a 1 bedroom apt. The kids are 6 & 8. The mother argues in court that she believes that there was too much conflict in the fathers home between the father,mother and the new wife. The father argues in court that the mother is not setting a good example by staying on welfare and not working at least part time to show the children responisibilty as well as contribute to the children financially as well.
2006-09-01 02:52:05 · 10 answers · asked by ArmyWife 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
Welfare in CA will allow you to stay on assistance for 3 people as long as your income doesnt exceed $1750 this is why she will not get a job because she doesnt have to with the system enabling her. Extra tidbit- the mother refuses to come to an agreement to fly the children to see the father therefore the court rules he has no visitation with the children and the support was raised to $1000
2006-09-01 03:11:01 · update #1
1. The father has one critical issue from the start... the fact that he is in the military. It doesn't matter if he is remarried; the court would consider the fact that he is in the military and subject to deployment... been there, told that.
2. Everyone else hit the nail on the head. The father would have to show proof that the mother is UNFIT; to the extreme of being on illegal drugs, criminal activity, dangerous lifestyle, prostitution... being on welfare would just show the court that the mother is trying to provide some support for the children (as odd as it sounds).
3. The father lives out of state. Do the children have grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins... any other family in the state where they now live? That is another argument for the mother. The fact that the father lives on an Army base and subject to frequent moves, won't allow the children to develop socially (make lasting friendships in school) and could hurt their education.
All of this is based upon a custody case from Louisiana.
2006-09-01 03:33:14 · answer #1 · answered by E. Gads 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For all the answers that you got that states "No court will take a way a child from the mother unless you can prove that she is unfit" Just shows how bias the courts are! So does that also mean that every non-custodial parent is unfit? The courts are broken and they have no clue "What is the Best interest of the Children really means!" I been fighting this fight now for 2 years and my kid is worth it. But despite a great Guardian in Lit-em report the Judge won't read it until it comes to trial which is now going on year three due to the court schedule. Meanwhile my kid has to suffer
2006-09-01 06:13:18 · answer #2 · answered by chancesare45 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, for the father to own custody of the children, he would have to prove that the children have a better, safer, and more cared-after life with the father. if the mother is not working, and has such a poor type of home, with bad parenting skills, the father would easily gain custody. To deserve the kids, the mother must prove that she is responsible and will provide a good quality of life for the children.
2006-09-01 02:57:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was told the only reason why a man would get custody would be that the mother puts children in grave danger and lots of proof would be needed. They can't take your children because you are on welfare..there would be no need for welfare now would there.
2006-09-01 03:20:47 · answer #4 · answered by e_deckwa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only way that the courts would take a child away from the mother is to be able to prove that she is unfit.
If the kids are healthy, clean and show no signs of abuse then he has no case no matter how much money he makes.
2006-09-01 02:55:39 · answer #5 · answered by stuffy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i kind of agree with the father, but im sure he would have to show her as unfit. i dont think being on welfare makes you an unfit parent. it does not imply abuse, neglect etc. but why would she live in those conditions if he pays 1000. a month? public assistance would not pay that much per month.. it does not make good sense
2006-09-01 03:05:00 · answer #6 · answered by insane 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
to remove the kids from there moma would be meen but it might be good in the long run .if i were the judge in this case i would rule that both have custody and live in the same town next door to oneanother so the kids could come and go to moms and dads house as they would like .but that is if i were judge that is why i am not a judge
2006-09-01 02:57:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
he will not win just because she is on welfare.
the father must show the mother is an unfit parent to gain custody.
if the home is clean and the children attend school, the father will need to show that the children are suffering serious emotional trauma to prove his case.
2006-09-01 02:57:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the father should get custody there, if the mother is proven unfit and financialy incapable to provide for the children
2006-09-01 03:05:24 · answer #9 · answered by tiffany a 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dad wins. The criteria has already been stated.
2006-09-01 02:54:49 · answer #10 · answered by Krazykraut 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋