"Okay so we litigate every little thing... every parent goes broke, the courts are have a backlog a mile long."
Parents that go to court for every little thing are selfish dipsticks. I loathe the family court system because of the way it sets parents up to fight and bicker, to the detriment of their children. I have not advocated that disagreeable parents litigate everything. I have advocated getting the courts out of parent's lives and letting them raise their children in their own homes as they each see fit.
"Keds who "pack" clothesbaskets to go back and forth... you misunderstand... I think they have a dresser at the other house, but to move all their things that they "can't" live without for a week (thig gets worse with teenage years) they have to pack it up and move it out every week. Not just clothes, books, grooming items, laptops, toys, cd's games, lol, even guitars."
Neither this issue, nor any like it, are sufficient cause to justify stripping one parent of his/her God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to the care, control and companionship of his/her child. I have a Nintendo Wii at my house. My children love it. But it is an item that remains at dad's house, like it or not. Likewise, my ex-wife has items at her home that stay there. When it is time to exchange the children they can bring one bag of "stuff" each. They have clothes, toys, games and other items at each house. It's really not a big deal.
"And with your every other year plan, the child can have a big ole ringworm patch on her forhead.... she size of mini pancake"
With my every other year plan you won't be able to foment discord with your ex because you won't have legal control to tell him what to do. That is the point of joint legal custody. If you think that it's no big deal for one parent to try to raise the children without having any legal say in matters of child rearing, I recommend that you forfeit your parenting rights for a year. In that year I expect you to obey every last dictum of your ex-husband without question or complaint. At the end of the year if you still think that full legal custody is fair, then you may have the order filed in court so that your ex may retain full legal control and you may remain his loyal subject. It doesn't seem so fair when you put yourself in the other parent's shoes, does it?
Again, if your ex is conducting himself in a way that is a serious detriment to the health of your child, then sue him in court or report him to Child Protective Services.
"The commute was the choice of one of the parents when that parent remarried."
Exactly. One parent should not be able to deny their child the right to the companionship of the other parent as long as that parent is fit and proper. If the other parent consents to the relocation, then no big deal. That's just life. If there are clear and compelling reasons for the relocation and the other parent objects, then the matter can be taken up by a judge. But the principle remains valid: no parent should be deprived against his/her will of the right to the care, control and companionship of his/her child.
"The children have moved about 30 miles away from the them family home when the other parent remarried. They attend a great school system, one they do not have to worry about reassignemt every year. The 3hour commute was initiated after the 30 mile move. Where the children reside with one parent, go to school (about 3 miles away) have their extracurricular activities (about 5 miles) and go to church (about 2 miles). Parent A, who moved out of state wanted Parent B to pay for a hotel on nights that were Parent A's so that Parent A could get them to school. Parent A even suggested taking the kids "camping" on nights before school. Needles to say this was NOT an option b/c other than the obvoius reasons of stability, Parent A suggested a campground in our capitol (nowhere near that parent's new home not the children's school, which is in Orange County) that is known for sexual activity... (known by numerous police raids)."
It seems to me that Parents A & B just like to spite each other, nitpick and fight over stupid things. It is sad that neither parent in the scenario you present seems to have the maturity to set aside differences for the emotional welfare and stability of the children.
"Giving legal custody to one parent: Allows the child to be punished consistantly for falure to do an assignment. You're on estriction.... you go nowhere except school."
You are terribly mistaken if you think that having sole legal custody means that you get to dictate to your ex whether he can take his children out while they are in his care. You don't have that power. He has the right to do whatever he wants with your children, including establishing his own house rules and consequences - when they are in his care. Your legal status doesn't make a lick of difference in what he does in his own home, at least not with regard to these simple, day-to-day issues.
Full legal custody is related to matters such as the children's school of choice and major health care decisions. But you do not get to tell your ex that he has to impose your preferred punishments in his home or that he isn't allowed to give his child a glass of milk.
"Custody, I understand you got a raw deal, and 50/50 might be your best option, but I want to point out it is not always the best option for everyone else."
I appreciate your empathy, but I still disagree with your interpretation of 50/50 custody. It isn't a matter of whether or not it is the "best" option. My point is that it is the ONLY option. Naturally, if the parents do not live close to each other then 50/50 time sharing isn't possible. Nor is it appropriate if one parent is judged, through due process in a court of law, to be unfit. Also, if a parent chooses to give up 50/50 time sharing because of conflicting work schedules (or any other reason) then so be it. But the only constitutionally-sound way of handling this issue is to begin with a presumption of equal rights between parents.
"I have no anger toward my ex, I feel strangely apethetic. I do not hate him. I do not do the petty things that some women AND men do to spite each other. I do have full legal and physical custody. I have full discresion as to visitation. This was agreed to in the divorce."
If your ex consented to you having full custody then so be it. However, most men "agree" to full custody because they know that they don't have a snowball's chance of getting anything better from today's gender-biased court system. I'm glad that you do not do petty things to spite your ex.
"Where I see the problem is with my husband's kids... shuttling back and forth, nomads with no roots. Parent A bouncing around form state to state, Children making the trek to and from the VA house, the Cary condo (both for parent A) and home in Orange County. Bounce bounce bounce.... sometimes when they are away from us they do not know where they are going to lay their head that night."
Children bounce, bounce, bounce all the time, all throughout America and the rest of the world. It's not that big of a deal. However, if in the process of "bouncing" they are systematically denied access to their other parent then I agree that such a situation is detrimental because it deprives them of their right to the companionship of both their parents.