Messages

The "babysitting" clause in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines is just the type of area where such hay can be made. The clause provides:  
When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time.
Straightforward, no? No. "Family members" in my experience have included step-parents (reasonable), grandmothers, great-grandmothers, siblings, nieces, distant cousins, etc.  You get the picture.  So long as the custodial parent can find someone, anyone related to them to watch the kids, the non-custodial parent gets no extra time.
 
Well, in  Greg Shelton v. Alaina Alice Shelton, dad called foul, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court (very rare in domestic litigation) and ruled that the term "family member" is limited to relatives living in the custodial parent's home.  This is good clarification, because at least now we know (at least until the Supreme Court gets a-hold of it).  

(found on Kempblog.com)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10120502mgr.pdf

The "babysitting" clause in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines is just the type of area where such hay can be made. The clause provides:  
When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time.
Straightforward, no? No. "Family members" in my experience have included step-parents (reasonable), grandmothers, great-grandmothers, siblings, nieces, distant cousins, etc.  You get the picture.  So long as the custodial parent can find someone, anyone related to them to watch the kids, the non-custodial parent gets no extra time.
 
Well, in  Greg Shelton v. Alaina Alice Shelton, dad called foul, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court (very rare in domestic litigation) and ruled that the term "family member" is limited to relatives living in the custodial parent's home.  This is good clarification, because at least now we know (at least until the Supreme Court gets a-hold of it).  

(found on Kempblog.com)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10120502mgr.pdf

In our case the BM got a "kick out order" forcing removal of BF from the marital residence on the "fear of abuse".  Once the hearing got to court after BM continued it for over a year, she admitted to the court the BF never laid a hand on her and under questioning admitted that she was the abusive one, yet she got the order, forced BF our of his home, got custody of the child and ultimately the home, all the while BF had to start over again in an apartment with NOTHING as she would not even give him a pillow or a shower curtain.  When I met him he was using a sneaker for a pillow!

After that we endured stalking that ended up with her running us off the road (all cases documented by the court) and several false police allegations like child neglect and holding the child hostage.  The courts never did a thing about any of this.

For me or the kids?  LOL

For me, Santa is brining all teh kids home for the holidays, errrrrr after the holidays.  Oldest Dau is in the army and could not get leave until tomorrow so she and grandson will be home tomorrow (again since BM did not alllow child to be here he will not get to see his older sister and nephew, they are real bro/sis too not steps).  Oldest son will be home sometime this week as well.  He is mil also but can not nail down a date unless he can get someone to cover his guard duty.  Hopefully with all this- we can get all kids together even for a few minutes to see each other and I can take pictures.

Kids got some Sims games, PS2, clothes youngest dau got girlie things.

Since we did xmas yesterday to give kids tme to play the games and PS2, SS is leaving in a few hours not to return so it will be quiet here today, probably watch a Christmas Story over adn over again!  LOL I love that moive!

Merry Ho Ho!

Lucky,

You are right, but in dealing with BM objectively goes right out the window, BF has to protect himself somehow.  

For the last 2 years BM has insisted upon mediation in order to divide the break right down to the hour, but this time she is not, thus throws a monkey wrench our way.


BF contends that no matter what the guidelines say, all court orders say that if the parents do not agree to the specifics of them, they are to go to mediation, and this obviously is a disagreement on how they are to be applied.  So that is where I believe we have the problem and can use the contempt, not the hours or days, but the agreement that she insisted go to the attorney's when the order specifically states that the reason to use the mediator was that it was too costly than using the attorney's and that this case was heaviliy litigated.  Have email form BM just hours before the vacation began that she adn BM obviously were in disagremeent .............but BK is not the ones with 4 contempts now for parenting time violations.

I am sure we will - but after the outcome of the hearing coming up.

See this is where I believe that anything that one might anticipate as black/white is really gray.  As we pointed out to the attorney that nothing was said about odd years that it only addresses the CP in Even years  Yes we can argue that very point in court but at what cost, only to PO a judge if he bleieves that the intent is to switch off.  The precident is that the last 2 years BM has figured out to the hour what each parent gets including going to mediation to get a schedule, but this year she refused and is now NOT going by the hours.  This is very much like birthdays in the Guidelines that state when the NCP is to have each child, but noting about CP therefore we gave up a day of our weekend for her to celebreate the child's birthday, again, believeing that the intent of the guidelines is to share between the parents.  The Guidelines also state to have all the children on each childs birthday, do we argue that half siblings get to have the conmpansionship of the Cp and NCP child on their birthday's?  

As you can see, there is so many angles to this, and in that BM is always changeing the rules, this is precisely why a case/manager mediator was assigned to this case.  But how you force one into mediation is another story as even with multiple orders for such BM still refuses to participate and That is not in the child's best interest.

Sadly the child will be leaving us tomorrow for his mother to cart him out of state without our knowledge (the child told us) and she will not tell us how to contact him or her (yes the orders specify she has to do this too) so we will probably be sitting at her place at 9 to get the child only to find him not home......................and knowing then that the reaility of him seeing his family who scheduled time off for him to be with him is not gonna happen.

I see and can agree with your reasoning, but the reason I ask is beacsue BM flips on/off like a light switch, in the last odd year she clasimed it was unfair for either parent to have the 24th and the 25th in their half therefore she mediated and deviated from the guidleines (and that was ok becasue we have a court assigned case manager order reading = In the event that there is a dispute, and in the event the parties cannot resolve the dispute according to section I(E) of the guidelines, the parties must employ the Case Manager/Arbitrator to mediate the dispute and to resolve the dispute as authorized by the Court's separate appointment Order."

Situation:  BF asked for the second half of break becasue childs half sister will be on military leave on the 26th, the child's military brother will be that same week and the child's other sister will be off school break in the second half of break.  Child and sister are in 2 diff districts.  BF had to work last week and has time off in second half, SM had to also work, child would be home alone for break.  

BM refused to respond therefore all parties made vacation plans for the second half of break including BF from his job.  BM comes along and says no you have to take the first half, refuses for 6 months to enterinto mediation (even though the court did a seperate order in August ordering her into mediation within 2 weeks and she did not) therefore she contacted her attorney (not mediation) and BF resorted to the first half. Break started with her attorney adn her refusing to discuss a schedule therefore BF lost the first 2 days of break, as BM requested proper quthorization for BF to see child.  Therefor the way I see it the Guilines and the court order stating that when the parties can not agree with the guilines they are to enter into mediation to resolve the issue, but then waht do you do when one party refuses to do that and states that?  So basic bottom line is BM gets 8 days - BF gets 2, and BM refuses to go to mediation to resolve the issue for the child, and she has cost us nearly 800 in legal fees becasue she refused to discuss it with us for 6 months.  

Can you see the frustration?  

You do not understand - there is NO REGULAR time figured here!  

I am looking past this year - this is why I asked, next year it will be the same thing - only we will have the second half which incidently Christmas will fall again in my half.

if there are 10 days between 8 PM the 20 and 7 PM the 30, that would stand to reason that each parent get 5 days, meaning that that time would be over say 8 PM the 25th, follow so far?  But the clinker is that from 12-9 the child is with mom, so stand to reason that dad does not see the child for those 9 hours and the orders say that 12-9 thing, reaasonable says to me that dad gets child back at 9 pm and mom and dad should transfer off for her "half" starting the morng of the 26th.  At this point each parent gets an equivalent 5 days.

All kosher so far?  But mom states that dads "half" is over at 8 PM and he does not get the child past noon dec 25, then goes on to say that he does not get to make that up, which I believe that in all fairness on the holiday it should be that child come back  to dad to finsh out the evening with him.  This means then that dad gets 4 days mom gets 6, add to the pot that mom TOOK the forst 2 days of dads holiday and now mom has 8 dad has 2.