Waiting to see what the Mouthpiece has to say. Spent 6 hours going over the document myself, crafting my own reactions (for the Mouthpiece) and adding supporting documentation, etc.
Real challenge is that STBX (and/or STBX's lawyer and/or STBX's 10 dozen lawyer friends) has come up with a pretty nifty divorce hat-trick by requesting 50/50 custody "with flexibility for both":
1) @ 50/50, children have no "primary residence," so child support reduced by half;
2) @ 50/50, alimony reduced by 2/3, since no need to maintain "lifestyle to which accustomed" as children have no primary residence; since SP Himself cannot possibly afford this house, that puts him on the street and STBX back in the house, which has long been a beef ("why didn't I kick your a** to the curb instead of leaving???");
3) There is no obligation to "actually" have 50% custody -- in other words, STBX can use a babysitter for whatever percentage of her time is required "in order to work." A babysitter for which, under the law, I am required to pay half. And her clever "with flexibility for both" language reflects recognition that (a) I would take any amount of time with Themselves I could and (b) my work requires no "flexibility" because it's all in the middle of the day (unless it's in Lebanon [or Iraq, where I found some other very interesting opportunities]).
So win-win-win: Less support/alimony = more money for her; SP out of "her" house; same slammin' lifestyle with SP's patented babysitting offset (and her babysitting cost much, much less than support).
And of course the court will be thrilled that she "wants" more custody.
