Karen, You're absolutely right. I have decided it just gets me nowhere to have these conversations with W, but they sometimes have to be endured as long as the key issues are moved forward (or defended). I just need to do a bit more of what I ended up doing, which is to cut the conversation short when she starts to be disrespectful.
MC, I use the term "her mediator" for precisely the very reason you state. It is intended to be a sort-of oxymoron. The so-called arbitrator was hired by my W to help referee our hammering out a separation agreement. I gave her (the L) a chance but she gave every concession to my W -- I was on the losing end of every point of contention. So she was not "our" mediator or even "the" mediator but "my W's mediator".
And yes, fair is not really a part of the CS. But then it is. What is fair to W and to me would be what is truly in the best interests of our children. Nothing more, nothing less. However, as you well know, there's a wide degree of leeway in intrepreting just what is fair to our two S's. W's mediator thought that anything that promotes W's interests, even if they are heavily punitive of me, are automatically in the interests of our children. Naturally, I object to that.
By contrast, I have no interest in punishing or crippling my W financially, as that too is not in the best interests of our S's. No, I want what is fair and equitable to both W and myself -- on the very grounds that that is in the true interest of the children. Our S's do not need to have either of their parents suffering unduly under an inequitable settlement.
BTW, I knew of this state's online calculator for CS long before we went into the so-called "mediation". The devil, however, is in the details, as the "mediator" and I were at odds on what could be included for income (for example, she concluded that W's sizable monthly mileage reimbursement was not admissible as a component of W's compensation. My L has said otherwise, and even showed me the citation in the state laws itself.)
