My husband has been abusive to my children and pets but there is no evidence

My advice to you is to get hidden cameras in your place.
If you can get video evidence of abuse towards the children,
the courts are likely to favor you. Second of all, ask neighbors
you trust to call the police if they hear domestic violence, and
get them to specifically state that the man seems to be the
aggressor. If the police are called, then there is a record of
assault. My fears stopped me from going to the hospital
with my injuries caused by my ex when I was pregnant. In
retrospect, I wish I would have reported him. When there is a
clear police record for him, along with hidden camera footage
of his child abuse, call the CPS (Child Protective Services)
on him with the footage in hand. They will gladly help you
and your children stay safe from him. I hope this advice
is of some help to you. Good luck and my prayers are with you.

On your other issue - 6K for "lifetime" legal advise? um, yeah....reputible attorneys don't do that kind of thing - where the heck did you find him? Contact the state bar and file a complaint - then maybe consider requesting a partial refund and when you need advice on the subject, pay a good attorney an hourly rate.

You didn't offend me, I'm just saying that you have to understand that even attorneys are limited on what they can and can't do for you.

You also can't hire an attorney and not expect to be a very active part of what is going on. He or she is an employee - you have to give direction and insist on what you want. You also have to interview interview interview and not retain one until they are someone you are truly comfortable with - get references - it isn't a matter of opening the phone book and pointing to a name and going "that's the one".
 
If you want out of your marriage, get out. Don't sit here and use the excuse of the "system" as a reason to live your life miserably. It's a, no offense, bullshit excuse. You are afraid to stand up to him - own up to it. You also can't go by your friends' stories - you don't, and won't, ever know the whole story. They aren't you, each situation is unique.

He's going to continue to do what he does if you are married or not. You actually have LESS recourse staying married than you do divorced, you really think you can stop him staying married? You haven't been able to yet...

Being divorced means that more time than they are now, they will be away from him. Being divorced means you can bring your children to therapy, and the older they get they won't feel intimidated to say anything about their dad as they would if they had to go home to him after a session. Being divorced means true legal recourse if anything does happen. being divorced means you finally put it out there that he is an asshole.

The whole "has to leave a mark" thing - is incorrect - a good therapist with court testimony experience works wonders. I've gotten supervised visitation for clients with major stipulations just using the right therapist.

Nanny cams are 100% legal in CA. The only thing you CAN'T do is record voice - you don't need voice - you need visual of him being abusive to the kids and dog. Doesn't matter what he is saying.

Thank you for your feedback moderator.  I don't think squeezing a kid's neck is a good form of corporal punishment (even if it doesn't leave a mark). 

But I agree with what you're saying about a state's intention of rehabilitating parents.  I used to work in a group home for abused kids.  I know that the state prefers to rehabilitate.  Having said that, I think that if I divorce my husband and we have a clause stating no corporal punishment worked into our divorce plan, he'll continue to do things like squeeze my 4 year old's neck.  But he'll do it in private when nobody is watching and won't do it so hard  that he'll leave a mark.

When stuff like that happens to my son, I'd hate that to happen on a day when my husband has custody and I can't do anything to console or hug him. 

So, I guess I'll stay married for the next 16 years.

As for the video, my understanding is that in California, we can't even record a person's telephone conversation without prior consent.  With that in mind, how would a privately made video be allowed (if it's not in a bathroom)?

Sorry if I offended you with my lack of trust with attorneys, on a separate issue, I'm dealing with an attorney who I paid $6,000 to in exchange for a lifetime of estate planning and he won't return my calls.  Almost every time I ever hired a lawyer, they either did their job very poorly or took my money without doing anything at all.  I guess it's made me kinda bitter.

Ok that posted twice - not sure why....

anyway, regarding your situation - I'll be honest - he will get his share of custody - regardless of the fact he slapped the 2 year old.

You two have a difference of opinion on discipline - he thinks corporal punishment is ok, you don't.

Now the court frowns on corporal punishment, and will allow a clause in your detailed parenting plan stating that no corporal punishment by either parent (and/or significant others future spouses, extended family etc) and if evidence is brought to the court POST divorce of such things, custody could be modified, visitation supervised or revoked, anger management classes ordered - there is a whole host of things that the court can rule.

 

You might be able to have visitation supervised for a while until he completes parenting classes and anger management provided you get your children into therapy and the therapist testifies as to what the children say about the punishment they get - but it can't be occasional isolated incidents - it has to be punishment that is consistently abusive - otherwise he is entitled to 50/50 if he wants and you won't be able to change that unless he violates the order stating no corporal punishment and you can prove it.

You won't however, unless there is significant and consistent true abuse to the child(ren) that requires medical attention keep him from the children entirely - that is an unrealistic expectation. The court tries to, for lack of better words "educate & rehabilitate" a parent rather than take their kids away from them.

 

BTW - you have the legal right to video tape in your own home, you just can't in the bathroom. The law regarding consent applies to PUBLIC areas.

Ok, first, let me explain the court system, it doesn't matter what state you are in, it's the same everywhere....

If a spouse is abusive to the other (doesn't matter who it is) the court will not take it into consideration when it comes to custody because the combatants, once divorced, shouldn't be an issue anymore. If the kids were never involved in being abused, the consensus is that the problem was the marital union, and that both people are fit parents as long as they aren't married to each other. The only time that is not true is if the abuse happened habitually in front of the children and there was testimony of their trauma by a professional (therapist) that couldn't be refuted.

I SERIOUSLY suggest you work on your attitude about attorneys and custody. The fact you think they are only in it for the money couldn't be further from the truth. I'm sorry for your friends' situations, but it could very well be that their situations followed the above stated facts.

 

A court is not going to "punish" an ex-spouse for abuse to the other spouse by keeping them from their kids - as much as you think it might be deserved, if the kids were not abused themselves, you can't use them as weapons or tools in retaliation. You also can't assume that just because they were abusive to a spouse, they will be abusive to a child. The court can't rule on unfounded fears. You are expecting them to rule on your emotions, the law has no emotions.

As far as the sexual abuse allegation - you have no idea how many parents will put it in a child's mind to try to gain custody. A court wants MEDICAL evidence when the child is not old enough to truly be a voice in court. That is NOT an unreasonable request. It isn't about "blood" - there would be tearing, swelling, damage - etc if something like that was going on. A court can't go by a child's word - it is not reliable enough. The court has to protect EVERYONE'S interest.

I have to go to a 2nd post to address your issue.

Ok, first, let me explain the court system, it doesn't matter what state you are in, it's the same everywhere....

If a spouse is abusive to the other (doesn't matter who it is) the court will not take it into consideration when it comes to custody because the combatants, once divorced, shouldn't be an issue anymore. If the kids were never involved in being abused, the consensus is that the problem was the marital union, and that both people are fit parents as long as they aren't married to each other. The only time that is not true is if the abuse happened habitually in front of the children and there was testimony of their trauma by a professional (therapist) that couldn't be refuted.

I SERIOUSLY suggest you work on your attitude about attorneys and custody. The fact you think they are only in it for the money couldn't be further from the truth. I'm sorry for your friends' situations, but it could very well be that their situations followed the above stated facts.

 

A court is not going to "punish" an ex-spouse for abuse to the other spouse by keeping them from their kids - as much as you think it might be deserved, if the kids were not abused themselves, you can't use them as weapons or tools in retaliation. You also can't assume that just because they were abusive to a spouse, they will be abusive to a child. The court can't rule on unfounded fears. You are expecting them to rule on your emotions, the law has no emotions.

As far as the sexual abuse allegation - you have no idea how many parents will put it in a child's mind to try to gain custody. A court wants MEDICAL evidence when the child is not old enough to truly be a voice in court. That is NOT an unreasonable request. It isn't about "blood" - there would be tearing, swelling, damage - etc if something like that was going on. A court can't go by a child's word - it is not reliable enough. The court has to protect EVERYONE'S interest.

I have to go to a 2nd post to address your issue.