SPARC Forums

The right of refusal states:

"There shall be a right of first refusal with regard to caring for the children.  Each parent should be present with the children during parenting time.  If one parent is unable to care for the children for more than 4 hours during his/her parenting time, that parent shall offer the other parent the option of providing care for the children prior to engaging the services of anyone else.  The children shall specifically not be left with baby-sitters, compensated or not compensated, friend or family unless the other parent first declines the opportunity to provide care for the children. The parent exercising the right of first refusal shall return the children shall return the children at the time specified by the parent unable to care for the children."

My understanding is the intent is so the children are not left with sitters.

NCP did not want to assist with summer camp. Now NCP parent lost/quit their job and is now invoking this clause to get kids while CP is at work during the day.

NCP having kids has caused all sort of issues and contempt charges about 12 counts have been filed.

Is the intent of right of refusal clause so that other parent can become primary just by quutting job?

How would courts be petitioned to stop NCP from abusing right of refusal clause? What arguments should be used?

NCP now under impression they cannot look for job or pay support because they have kids all day?

How would you reword right of refusal paragraph so that kids can enjoy being with CP's family at least three days mon, tues, wed as NCP has them every thursday,friday and every other weekend?

>Is the intent of right of refusal clause so that other parent
>can become primary just by quutting job?

Becoming de facto CP would require overnights. This first refusal order doesn't contemplate overnights except where the CP is unable to be home overight.

>How would courts be petitioned to stop NCP from abusing right
>of refusal clause? What arguments should be used?

It's not abuse as long as CP is unavailable for more than 4 hours, so there is no argument. The argument is that the children are being harmed by the arrangment, but I don't have sufficient facts to know exactly how they're being harmed.

>
>NCP now under impression they cannot look for job or pay
>support because they have kids all day?

NCP should be ordered to seek work. You will need to have the court clarify how much time NCP can spend in the daytime with the kids, because NCP's failure to work will injure the children's best interests. And, that is your argument. LOL.

I should read these questions from the bottom up -- it would make the answers easier to find.

>
>How would you reword right of refusal paragraph so that kids
>can enjoy being with CP's family at least three days mon,
>tues, wed as NCP has them every thursday,friday and every
>other weekend?

Don't bother. You want the NCP to agressively seek work. That should eliminate the ability to continuously exercise first refusal.