My Friends Custody Battle For His 2 Children

[MikeyIdea]

I have now made a write-up of my friends custody case for his 2 children. I have included no speculation. Everything that I write below is what the father has told me himself or a good friend and relative of mine who works as a nanny for the father has told me.

Background

This is a totally Thai Thai case. The father and the mother are well-educated, the father and his family are very rich, the mother and her family are not rich but at least pretty well-off. The father works in his fathers company and earns a very good salary that he never has paid any tax on. The father can thereby not show any income what-so-ever and never has. The mother worked as an assistant manager in a company until she split up with the father. She quit her job to be able to take care of the children when she took them away from the father.

The first lawyer that the father used (not specializing in family cases) said that the fact that the father could not show any income would negatively affect him and he was unsure whether the father would be able to get 50% custody. I found this so strange that I recommended him to contact my lawyer instead and get a second opinion. The second lawyer did not see an issue at all with the "no income" bit, IF the father instead could prove that he had been the one paying all expenses for the children in the past. The father did get evidence of very considerable hospital bills and school fees that he always had been the one paying = end of issue

The father and the mother married traditionally but never registered their marriage. The father never legitimized his children. The children are a 4 year old boy and a 6 year old girl. The 4 year old was very slow in development and under investigation for autism at Samitivej Hospital. Investigation showed that he did not have autism but needed extensive specialist training so he was taken there 5 times per week for training (hence the considerable hospital fees). It must be said that neither father or mother were ideal parents but at least the father loved his children, fetched them after school and always cared for them and took them out on the weekends. The mother on the other hand never cared for them, never went to their school and never paid anything. The 6 year old girl is a Big Daddy's Girl, the 4 year old boy a big nanny's boy.

The relationship was at its end with numerous quarrels and the mother took both children and moved out in August 2009. The mother did not tell the father, she changed school for both children and stopped taking the boy to hospital and did not allow the father to meet his children. The father searched for the children and found the new school but was not allowed to see them there. The school did not accept BC with his name on, the mother had forced the issue and did not allow the children to see anyone without her approval, the school obeyed. The same thing happened at Samitivej hospital where the father had taken his boy so often and paid every time. The father requested the boy's medical journal and was denied as he was not the legal father of his child and did not have custody.

The father's only option was to take the issue to court. The lawyer recommended filing an emergency case to get the boy back first as he had a development problem and needed daily training and the mother did not provide the child with that, the request was thrown out. The lawyer filed a case requesting legitimization (legal recognition that he is the father of the children). The mother, very angry with the thrown out emergency case sued back, requesting the father to be legitimized, requested sole custody on the grounds that the father was dangerous for the children and never took care of them and demanded 60,000 bath per month in alimony for the 2 children

Awaiting the court summoning, the mother started to take the boy to hospital for training after the emergency court case was thrown out but the father paid all the hospital bills and the daughter started to sneak out of school to see her father and nanny several days per week. The mother used the period to win over the children so the daughter went from being a daddy's girl to saying that she couldn't feel safe in daddy's house and didn't dare to go there.

There is always a negotiation session and a legitimization and custody case never goes in front of a judge if the negotiator can get the father and the mother to agree. Court in front of a judge is only for cases where the judge must order an agreement.

Original case was filed in early October 2009, first court appearance (read negotiating session) was scheduled for early December 2009 (making waiting time approx. 2 months), the father with lawyer appeared but the mother did not show up. A new time was set 8 January 2010 and this time the mother did come. Both brought their lawyers with them. The case between the father and the angry mother never went higher than the negotiating session because they did manage to agree. I hesitate how to write this but the best way to put forward what happened is maybe to write the father and the mother managed to agree with what the negotiator brought them. The negotiator is not a judge but what he/she says does carry some weight as we shall see.

The father entered the negotiating session briefed by his lawyer that he had a strong and good case and could easily get 50/50 custody, possibly more, that he could easily get 50% of the time with the children, probably more. How much was of course not sure but the lawyer would request the court to grant the father primary custody, the children stays with the father the majority of the time and in return the father pays all education and hospital costs but no money in alimony to the mother at all. The mother came in to the session wanting money and revenge (that's not speculation, that's the nature of women...).

The first surprise came quickly. It was the negotiator who took the mother down saying that she has no right to 60,000 bath per month, they were never legally married. The only thing she is entitled to is money directly related to taking care of the children. Juvenile court has a formula for calculating how much and for 4 to 6 year olds it's approx 80 bath per day + 20 bath for some sweets coming up to total 100 bath per day and child. The negotiator calculated up 3,100 bath per child and month = 6,200 bath per month for 2 children and the mother was advised that she was entitled to no more. The negotiator also advised the mother that she must share education and hospital costs with the father. This is according to the negotiator and the fathers' lawyer the standard used in custody cases.

This came as a small chock for the mother who had expected to get more money out, much more money. The mother had nothing left to fight with and insisted on getting most of the time with the children. The father went soft and the father and the mother agreed to legitimization of the father, 50/50 parental power (custody), father and mother share school and hospital fees 50/50, children spend Friday to Sunday with father and Monday to Friday with mother and mother gets 3,100 bath per child and month in alimony. End of story

The lawyer recommended the father to continue as he was very confident that he could get a better deal out of it all if the father continued the fight in front of the judges. He also advised: "Better go to the end because you'll be back here again if you stop now". The father decided not to take the lawyers recommendation though. Enough is enough. But he admitted afterwards that he also thought that they would be back there again one day.

It's a bit of an anti-climax, isn't it? Still, I think that it clears some "open ends" we have. Juvenile court uses formulas for calculating alimony and it is very low for unmodified shared custody (and apply for westerners too) and 50% custody and 50% time with the children is very easy to get for a parent who deserves it.

MikeyIdea

[Mario2008]

Thanks for sharing this story. it makes a lot more clear about custody issues and will be of interest to many others.

I have to disagree with the part where you state that

The mother came in to the session wanting money and revenge (that's not speculation, that's the nature of women...).

It is unfortunately true that a lot of conflicts bewteen two (former) lovers are fought over the head of the children. To say that is the nature of woman is insulting and generalising half the world population.

[MikeyIdea]

The mother came in to the session wanting money and revenge (that's not speculation, that's the nature of women...)

That is very true for the mother in question and was written as a joke, it does not apply to all women.

My Apologies Everybody

[nakachalet]

mario2008

personally i considered this third person story leaning toward male chauvinistic side of this sad story.

where is the mother's side of this story?

the story reminded me of a similar story in chicago where i helped to mediate as a referee of the family court around the year 1970....

the wealthy father's counsel was so displeased with me that i would not go along with the father's giving the whole truth and nothing but the truth bit.... he took the matter to the chamber of the juvenile judge who asked him the same question that i asked him--what is mother's story on this take....?

in our society, female's role, more often than not, somehow was always considered as secondary to male's prominent role....

your story is very typical of male's point of view.... telling only one side of the story....

where is the mother's input....?

to require the mother who is economically less affluent to pay even half of other expense, in my opinion, is less than equal justice in this case....

imho, it is justice for the father.... but definitely injustice for this poor mom....

Thanks for sharing this story. it makes a lot more clear about custody issues and will be of interest to many others.

I have to disagree with the part where you state that

The mother came in to the session wanting money and revenge (that's not speculation, that's the nature of women...).

It is unfortunately true that a lot of conflicts bewteen two (former) lovers are fought over the head of the children. To say that is the nature of woman is insulting and generalising half the world population.

[MikeyIdea]

where is the mother's side of this story?

***

to require the mother who is economically less affluent to pay even half of other expense, in my opinion, is less than equal justice in this case....

The mothers story is there, read the story again nakachalet - I was careful to put in the mothers background and story, guess it didn't help

Copy and pastes from the original post

… and the mother are well-educated

… the mother and her family are not rich but at least pretty well-off

… The mother worked as an assistant manager in a company until she split up with the father

… The father and the mother married traditionally but never registered their marriage - This means that the mother is unmarried

… The mother on the other hand never cared for them (the children), never went to their school and never paid anything

… The relationship was at its end with numerous quarrels

… the mother took both children and moved out in August 2009 - The mother decided to end the relationship with the father

… and stopped taking the boy to hospital - The mother stopped taking a boy with severe development problems to hospital for treatment and training

What is the misunderstanding here I think is the responsibility of the father vs the responsibility of a husband in case a relationship ends. Or in more general terms, the responsibility of a parents vs that of a spouse.

A parent has the responsibility for the children only, of course. The mother got exactly what was expected, she got the standard amount calculated to be needed to provide for a child for 50% of the time in Thailand, 3,100 bath per child per month.

I will give you the figures for 2010 from what is considered a welfare state in Northern Europe, Sweden,

http://www.swedbank.se/sst/inf/out/infOutW...,,21783,00.html

Underhållsstöd (support amount) Kronor/månad (SEK per month)

per barn vid växelvisboende (per child when child is sharing time between the 2 parents) 636

per barn (per child) 1 273

Multiply with 5 and you get 3,180 bath per month when child is sharing time between the 2 parents and 6,365 bath if the child is staying with only one parent all the time. Sweden is a high tax country so children do get another 5,000 bath per month out of the tax bill but it shows that the thinking between Sweden and Thailand is exactly the same. Money that a better off parent pays to the less well off parent is ONLY for the child, not for the support of the less well off parent. To get that, you have to be married

I think that thinking is correct

[tonititan]

where is the mother's side of this story?

***

to require the mother who is economically less affluent to pay even half of other expense, in my opinion, is less than equal justice in this case....

The mothers story is there, read the story again nakachalet - I was careful to put in the mothers background and story, guess it didn't help

Copy and pastes from the original post

… and the mother are well-educated

… the mother and her family are not rich but at least pretty well-off

… The mother worked as an assistant manager in a company until she split up with the father

… The father and the mother married traditionally but never registered their marriage - This means that the mother is unmarried

… The mother on the other hand never cared for them (the children), never went to their school and never paid anything

… The relationship was at its end with numerous quarrels

… the mother took both children and moved out in August 2009 - The mother decided to end the relationship with the father

… and stopped taking the boy to hospital - The mother stopped taking a boy with severe development problems to hospital for treatment and training

What is the misunderstanding here I think is the responsibility of the father vs the responsibility of a husband in case a relationship ends. Or in more general terms, the responsibility of a parents vs that of a spouse.

I think you're missing the other poster's point. Yes, as you just pointed out, you provided information about the mother. But that's still information passed on to you from the father. You specifically said:

Everything that I write below is what the father has told me himself or a good friend and relative of mine who works as a nanny for the father has told me.

So the "facts" that you just listed were provided by the father and your friend/relative. That doesn't mean the story reflects the mother's side of the story, or her perception of the facts. Perhaps saying that the mother and father were never married is a black & white fact, but some of your other points may be arguable by the mother, or she may have good explanations for some of her actions. As with almost any break up, there are two sides of the story. You are choosing to trust the father's version of events, which is fine, but that doesn't mean that the mother's version doesn't contain important (or even contradictory) details as well. I'm guessing that your friend pointed out the negative things that his ex did, but not the bad things that he himself might have done during the relationship or after the breakup.

[nakachalet]

tonititan

i salute you from the bottom of my heart for your clear and to the point deliberation which i seem to fail to attain miserably .... i must blame it all on my college and university professors who failed to train me to speak clearly, concisely and to the point....

respond often to help me out.... LOL

where is the mother's side of this story?

***

to require the mother who is economically less affluent to pay even half of other expense, in my opinion, is less than equal justice in this case....

The mothers story is there, read the story again nakachalet - I was careful to put in the mothers background and story, guess it didn't help

Copy and pastes from the original post

… and the mother are well-educated

… the mother and her family are not rich but at least pretty well-off

… The mother worked as an assistant manager in a company until she split up with the father

… The father and the mother married traditionally but never registered their marriage - This means that the mother is unmarried

… The mother on the other hand never cared for them (the children), never went to their school and never paid anything

… The relationship was at its end with numerous quarrels

… the mother took both children and moved out in August 2009 - The mother decided to end the relationship with the father

… and stopped taking the boy to hospital - The mother stopped taking a boy with severe development problems to hospital for treatment and training

What is the misunderstanding here I think is the responsibility of the father vs the responsibility of a husband in case a relationship ends. Or in more general terms, the responsibility of a parents vs that of a spouse.

I think you're missing the other poster's point. Yes, as you just pointed out, you provided information about the mother. But that's still information passed on to you from the father. You specifically said:

Everything that I write below is what the father has told me himself or a good friend and relative of mine who works as a nanny for the father has told me.

So the "facts" that you just listed were provided by the father. That doesn't mean it reflects the mother's side of the story, or her perception of the facts. Perhaps saying that the mother and father were never married is a black & white fact, but some of your other points may be arguable by the mother, or she may have good explanations for some of her actions. As with almost any break up, there are two sides of the story. You are choosing to trust the father's version of events, which is fine, but that doesn't mean that the mother's version doesn't contain important (or even contradictory) details as well. I'm guessing that your friend pointed out the negative things that his ex did, but not the bad things that he himself might have done during the relationship or after the breakup.

[MikeyIdea]

I am not trusting the fathers story of events, I actually more trust my relative the nanny, problem is that both say the same

As to the mother, she has a university degree from the US and is very capable when she wants to.

This is a thread educating readers about how alimony is calculated in case of a separation and custody battle between unmarried parents in Thailand. I don’t pretend it to be a court hearing where both parties can present their evidence to a neutral 3rd party, that part of the story was already cleared before I wrote this

I hope there are people out there who enjoy reading this thread and can benefit from the information in it

[nakachalet]

mikeyldea

thx for sharing your story.

if i were the father, as benevolent as you portrayed him to be, i would surely not burden the woman who spent many years of her own life taking care of my needs in more way than one.... and bearing me a child even though he is born handicapped....

whether the lady is a college graduate or otherwise, it surely is her own right to choose.... even though some others like yourself and your circle might already wrote her off as lazy and selfish.... nevertheless it is her right to choose her own life which might i remind you that in her own perspectives and experiences she could have made the best decision for her.... even though you and others might see it the other way.... we really need to accept her right to choose and leave it at that....

perhaps, if she could present her counterpoints, her argument might weight even more heavily than your narration....

anyway.... it is not easy to raise a handicapped child any where.... it is emotionally and financially demanding and physically, extremely exhaustive to satisfy the child's so many different kinds of need....

the family members have my highest esteem and adulation.

[MikeyIdea]

People who can't follow the topic of the OP or read his posts properly are boring.

Still though, perfect opportunity to get back to what the negotiating session is all about and what it does and does not, maybe that will clarify things further

You bring your own lawyers to the negotiating session and he and you do present the case to the negotiator. It is of course less formal than in a court room in front of a judge. The negotiator is a lawyer attached to the Juvenile court division and it is his/her job responsibility to advice the parents of their rights according to Thai law and to a limited extent tell them what can and cannot be done. He is careful not to take the judges job of course, but if it is obvious, then he will advice that it is possible or perhaps very unlikely. He/she also controls the pre-hearing session. The negotiator has seen judges in action often, he mimics their style a bit and asks direct questions expecting answers. He cares about the childs well being first and parents second. Don’t come with anything that is not based on the childs best.

The case above started with the mother’s lawyer stating that the mother required legitimization, that she required sole custody because she had always taken care of her children and the father had never done it, that the father was dangerous for the children and that she wanted 60,000 bath per month in alimony. The father’s lawyer stated that the father required legitimization, that he required sole custody on the grounds that the mother never showed any interest in her children and had never been there for them, here is the evidence from school showing that father and nanny leave and fetch the child 99% of the time and that the mother has done it 1% of the time last time a year ago by the way, bank statement evidence that the father transferred money to pay school fees every month, some of the (very considerable) hospital bills, and the father also wishes the court to order the hospital to provide the children’s medical journals as evidence of the mothers lack of care for her children

Poor negotiator

Not poor negotiator actually, he knows the law and is an experienced guy; The negotiator explained to the mother that this is not a divorce hearing, it is a custody hearing and she has no right to get more money than the standard formula provide her with, that different amount is possible but is up to negotiations, and then asks if the evidence that the father provide about who leave and fetch the children at school is true, if the money transfers match school fees and where is the evidence of that the father is dangerous for the children and any other evidence please. The mother and her lawyer have nothing to come with. The negotiator then advices the mother that he has seen no evidence supporting her in getting what she wants but she can continue the process anyway if she decides to. The negotiator then advice the father that getting sole custody is not going to be possible without more evidence and that the request to order the hospital to provide the children’s medical journals is reasonable and will be granted if he wants to proceed there, he then addresses both suggesting that they come to an agreement.

I must say that I like the Thai Juvenile court system. The attitude is a bit different than what westerners are used to. The negotiator advice then seek an agreement, it is saving time and tax payers money. The juvenile courts in Thailand go to length trying to negotiate a solution instead of ordering one. And it puts the childs well-being first and parents rights second

What does this teach us?

The negotiator cares about the childs best, not the parents. Parents have rights too but they are second to the childs

It tells us the importance of choosing a lawyer experienced in family law

It tells us the importance of that the lawyer prepares his client for what’s going to happen and what he should say

Unfortunately… It also teaches us the importance of being rich enough to send the children to a school where they scan the card of the person leaving and fetching the pupils every day…

More than anything, it teaches the importance of keeping evidence.

I never give my daughters mother money to pay the school fees, I always transfer them to her, I video filmed when mummy fetched our daughter at school and our daughter screamed Don’t come in go away to her and I filmed our daughters opposite reaction when I fetched her the same week. I keep the letter I wrote to the doctor where I informed her that I think our daughter is admitted because her mother didn’t give her the medicine the doctor prescribed last time and the doctors handwritten response on the other side where she basically writes I know, she wouldn’t be here otherwise…

This is not a story about being benevolent or not, what on earth has that to do with it? It is a story that explains that the Thai Juvenile court system is nothing to be afraid of if you have been a good parent. I hope parents in similar situation to myself and what happened to be a father in the story above can benefit from it. I couldn’t care less if the mother or the father is good, bad or ugly even. The point in the whole story is that Juvenile court in Thailand really does take the childs well-being into consideration. And that if it is not in the best interest of the child to give a parent what he/she wants, then he/she isn’t going to get it

Try seeing this from the childrens perspective and enjoy reading

[aussiebebe]

Thanks for posting this story, I've taken quite useful information from this and am glad you shared it. Avoiding the details of 'who-said-what' - I'm particularly interested in the sum involved in maintainence. I had been lead to believe that, upon divorce, one party could demand whatever they felt they could get away with? could anyone elaborate?

In the story the couple were unmarried; could anyone speculate or give guidance on how separation is different with legally married couples? can legally married couples make financial demands on each depending on income/assets? how is this calculated/how does this work?

If this has been previously covered on TV, I'd appreciate a link to the thread as the search has thrown up nothing so far as I can see

thanks

[MikeyIdea]

I never asked the lawyer about the legally married bit and money so I can't quote him. I asked about custody for children and not surprisingly the lawyer answered No difference if married or not except the legitimization of the father bit. What I can say is what I have from 2 friends at work that divorced. Both are fathers by the way. They both settled outside court, both checked with friends who also had divorced before they did that and both say that the amounts they pay are pretty much in line with what is normal in Thailand. Both pay 10,000 bath per month per child Father 1 has 2 children and thereby pay 20,000 bath per month, father 2 has 1 child and pays 10,000. These 2 happen to pay the same but I am sure it can vary both up and down of course

The fathers and their spouses are well educated, the fathers make more than 100,000 bath per month, the mothers half of that. The mothers were working before the divorce and of course had to continue to work also after. I put it like this: It is not the goal of the law that a spouse who works before a divorce can stop after because of the alimony... If money requested suggests that, then go to court. This is Thailand, not America. I am not sure how far courts will support the less well off spouse, you will have to ask a lawyer specialising in family law that, but clearly, a father that is better off is expected to support the spouse with an alimony regardless of if the mother has education enough to support herself or not. Amphur has a standard form that can be used, the information about custody of the children etc is filled in on the back side

How assets are divided up in case of a divorce is stated in the law, go to http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thai-Family-Law-t313877.html, there is a link to an English translation of Thai family law there (good reading). There is also a link to an article about divorce that contains pretty OK information

[sarahsbloke]

in our society, female's role, more often than not, somehow was always considered as secondary to male's prominent role....

your story is very typical of male's point of view.... telling only one side of the story....

You are talking of 'western society', which is not neccessarily 'our society'

In the west the female role is considered much more important in the area of child care, the man is often considered a drone only good to pay for the children and mother while having no rights of his own.

Thai law, gives the male and female equal rights and equal responsibilities.

Whose side of the story is true doesn't matter, nobody needs to even hear both sides of the story because the judge awards equally (no matter if one of the parents is a bad person or not).

I prefer the Thai way.

In the story the couple were unmarried; could anyone speculate or give guidance on how separation is different with legally married couples? can legally married couples make financial demands on each depending on income/assets? how is this calculated/how does this work?

Any assets gained after the marriage are considered jointly held (although previously held money brought into the country after the marriage may also be considered gains). With divorce at the amphur office, there is a space for you to write in custody arrangements for any children. If you can't agree the courts will almost always split custody 50/50. If you agree something different to that at the amphur office, it is almost impossible to get that arrangement changed at a later date. Anyone can make whatever demands they want, no need to ever agree more than the judge will award.

[Dakhar]

I think the OP stated that the mother filed the divorce on the Husband. I am wondering "based on what.?" I believe the husband would have to be guilty of commiting certain acts that would justify a "court level divorce" before she could file on him.

If that is the case and the husband has done "no wrong," how did she file on him?

[Mario2008]

I think the OP stated that the mother filed the divorce on the Husband. I am wondering "based on what.?" I believe the husband would have to be guilty of commiting certain acts that would justify a "court level divorce" before she could file on him.

If that is the case and the husband has done "no wrong," how did she file on him?

The OP stated they were not officially married.

[Dakhar]

and he also stated that his wife essentially stole the children, so I think he filed on her.... or at least this is my assumption after reading the passage again.

[MikeyIdea]

Whose side of the story is true doesn't matter, nobody needs to even hear both sides of the story because the judge awards equally (no matter if one of the parents is a bad person or not).

It is true that courts are reluctant to remove custody from a parent, clearly. But I don't agree that the judge awards equally regardless. From what I hear, if they have to order because they really go to length to try to avoid it, then they do order based on what is best for the child, not necessarily 50/50.

From what I hear, Yes, custody itself is - generally - ordered 50/50 (except in clear cases of neglect/abuse) but not necessarily possession of the child, which I consider more important.

Dakhar - The mother didn't steal the children, according to Thai law, she just took what was rightfully hers. I this case, I blame the father (and millions of other fathers in Thailand) for the stupidity of not making sure to guarantee his right until it was too late... For Thai fathers I call it stupidity anyway, they have no excuse for not knowing the law in their own country I understand if westerners miss this, it is so different from what they are used to

[MikeyIdea]

If you agree something different to that at the amphur office, it is almost impossible to get that arrangement changed at a later date.

Yes and No. I admit that I never asked the lawyer about the specific case of agreeing at the amphur, but in the case in this thread where agreement was done at the juvenile court, the lawyer said that it can be changed but note - if the child needs it, certainly not because a parent has changed his/her mind

I think there were 4 cases that could be OK to take up the case again but I can only think of 3 now, one has totally slipped my mind...

1) If performance of the child in school is not acceptable, then the father can bring up the case and request court to order a change. The father has a proven track record of caring more for the children than the mother (with evidence too) so that should be possible. This is one possibility that the lawyer mentioned

2) The children themselves can of course request a change. Don't forget that the children have more to say in Thailand than in western countries. Read the law and it is clear, I really like how Thai law always write the child first, then the father and the mother. The child will generally have to be 7 something though. This is a good option according to the lawyer

3) The mother got Monday to Friday, but if the mother dooesn't take care of the children herself, then the father can take the issue to court. This is already happening in the case above... The children stay with the father Saturdays and Sundays and when he asks the older girl, she says that they sleep with a relative of the mother a couple of nights a week. The agreement is clear, it is between the mother and the father only, someone else can take care of the child while the mother works but not during the nights when she doesn't work. No-No. Also a possible option according to the lawyer

I think there was a forth reason but sorry, the brain is blank

[MikeyIdea]

Time for a quick update:

The father originally accepted weekends, mother rest of the time. The father has not been giving the mother any freebees though and that has resulted in the mother losing interest somewhat.

The father has been strict with that the children must be sent to school every day (that they are not sick - holiday) and that they must be there on time. The father checks with the school and requests the mother to explain every incident of the children not being sent to school or coming late. They are now in time every day...

The 6 year old daughter told the father that the mother let the 2 children sleep with someone else sometimes. The father confronted the mother – If the mother cannot take care of the children, then she is to hand them over to the father. The father does not allow the children to sleep with someone else, where the children sleeps, the mother also sleeps, full stop. No, that applies to relatives of the mother too, full stop. The father now has the children from Thursday afternoon instead of the original Saturday morning until Sunday evening. It is slipping…

It will slowly slip more because of the most natural reason of all, the children wants to stay with the father and not the mother