WWYD?

[greatdad]

Still pending final "D". Pendente  visitation was set for EOW for NCP . NCP moved to another state prior to Pendente thinking sole  custody would be granted , just not to me  ( NCP was wrong!). Due to  NCP's move, it causes a 3 and 6 yr old to travel 1200 miles and 22 hours a month.Info now is NCP goes to work 1 of the 2 days of visitation on the EOW weekends ( instead of working during the week on the weekends children are there), and spends almost no time with children .  Children are travelling all those miles and 11 hrs R/T  EOW, to only get NCP to spend 1 day with them. Anyone think this is not in best interest of child, to be subjected to that amount of travel at these ages to only have NCP spend that little time. Would it not be better for the children to not travel and for NCP to do the travelling, maybe do it once every 3rd weekend and actually spend the whole weekend with them.....especially since NCP is the one who chose to move and has no reason to not move back to the state we live in,  near children.Job NCP has is very very replaceable in this area. Anyone have some long distance schedules that were ruled to make more sense for the children?
Anyone have a feeling on how a Judge would view this?

[Zephyr]

http://www.deltabravo.net/cgi-bin/search.cgi?Terms=parenting+plan&Realm=All


there are sample plans...keep in mind that what often times seems like common sense to us....well let's just say that common sense isn't a requirement for a court order

[mistoffolees]

>Still pending final "D". Pendente  visitation was set for EOW
>for NCP . NCP moved to another state prior to Pendente
>thinking sole  custody would be granted , just not to me  (
>NCP was wrong!). Due to  NCP's move, it causes a 3 and 6 yr
>old to travel 1200 miles and 22 hours a month.Info now is NCP
>goes to work 1 of the 2 days of visitation on the EOW weekends
>( instead of working during the week on the weekends children
>are there), and spends almost no time with children .
>Children are travelling all those miles and 11 hrs R/T  EOW,
>to only get NCP to spend 1 day with them. Anyone think this is
>not in best interest of child, to be subjected to that amount
>of travel at these ages to only have NCP spend that little
>time. Would it not be better for the children to not travel
>and for NCP to do the travelling, maybe do it once every 3rd
>weekend and actually spend the whole weekend with
>them.....especially since NCP is the one who chose to move and
>has no reason to not move back to the state we live in,  near
>children.Job NCP has is very very replaceable in this area.
>Anyone have some long distance schedules that were ruled to
>make more sense for the children?
>Anyone have a feeling on how a Judge would view this?


I think you're asking for trouble. The judge could decide to change custody if you bring up the issue (sure, there are no grounds, but that has never stopped some judges from doing irrational things).

The fact of the matter is that the NCP is entitled to a certain amount of time as outlined in the agreement. Whether he/she chooses to spend that in a car or playing with the kids isn't your problem. While I'm sure that you are thinking of the kids, you don't have any right to dictate how they spend their time.

Of course, it's unlikely that NCP is going to be happy with 22 hours in the car every other week, so they're likely to either start missing weekends or will want a change.

I would suggest that you wait until you have your final decree and then talk with the NCP to say that you realize that the current schedule is inconvenient for them and would love to help. You don't want to change the total days / hours mandated by the court, but you are flexible in how those are spent. For example, you could offer to help find an inexpensive hotel where they could stay in your town when they visit (the hotel would probably cost less than all the transportation). If they balk, I'd drop it. They'll get tired of the travel after a while.

But I would not raise the issue of whether you think the NCP is spending enough time with the kids. Frankly, that's not an issue you have any control over.

[greatdad]

>>Still pending final "D". Pendente  visitation was set for
>EOW
>>for NCP . NCP moved to another state prior to Pendente
>>thinking sole  custody would be granted , just not to me  (
>>NCP was wrong!). Due to  NCP's move, it causes a 3 and 6 yr
>>old to travel 1200 miles and 22 hours a month.Info now is
>NCP
>>goes to work 1 of the 2 days of visitation on the EOW
>weekends
>>( instead of working during the week on the weekends
>children
>>are there), and spends almost no time with children .
>>Children are travelling all those miles and 11 hrs R/T  EOW,
>>to only get NCP to spend 1 day with them. Anyone think this
>is
>>not in best interest of child, to be subjected to that
>amount
>>of travel at these ages to only have NCP spend that little
>>time. Would it not be better for the children to not travel
>>and for NCP to do the travelling, maybe do it once every 3rd
>>weekend and actually spend the whole weekend with
>>them.....especially since NCP is the one who chose to move
>and
>>has no reason to not move back to the state we live in,
>near
>>children.Job NCP has is very very replaceable in this area.
>>Anyone have some long distance schedules that were ruled to
>>make more sense for the children?
>>Anyone have a feeling on how a Judge would view this?
>
>
>I think you're asking for trouble. The judge could decide to
>change custody if you bring up the issue (sure, there are no
>grounds, but that has never stopped some judges from doing
>irrational things).
>
>The fact of the matter is that the NCP is entitled to a
>certain amount of time as outlined in the agreement. Whether
>he/she chooses to spend that in a car or playing with the kids
>isn't your problem.
I disagree, the agreement was made when NCP represented that all weekend would be spent with children, not working and not spending time with them. Is not the purpose of Visitation to actually "visit". The court gave me custody  as it must have determined that I would make sound judgements and it is not in the best interest of the children to have to travel that distance and time to not receive time or attention.
NCP should be the one travelling . I will say this, IF NCP actually was spending the time with them, I would not be so adamant, but to make them travel that much , just because you can, is only being selfish and not thinking of the children

While I'm sure that you are thinking of
>the kids, you don't have any right to dictate how they spend
>their time.

Not a matter of dictating time alone, you have to take in context, if lived nearby OK, so not spending proper time but children also not suffering travel and hours in a car. Think how miserable that is starpped in a car seat. The court should be glad the person they entrusted with custody truly is trying to insure a quality visit that serves the children, not  just the "rights"  or the convenience of CP or NCP.
>
>Of course, it's unlikely that NCP is going to be happy with 22
>hours in the car every other week, so they're likely to either
>start missing weekends or will want a change.

I am sorry, the children should not have to go through this with the  subsequent dissapointment that at some point in time NCP no longer wants to see them because the travel NCP put the kids through is no longer convenient.. NCP needs to recognize that the current schedule is not working for the children and amend it until NCP gets things in better order.
>
>I would suggest that you wait until you have your final decree
>and then talk with the NCP

If we could talk, I would be ecstatic, but NCP will only talk thru lawyer.

 to say that you realize that the
>current schedule is inconvenient for them and would love to
>help. You don't want to change the total days / hours mandated
>by the court, but you are flexible in how those are spent. For
>example, you could offer to help find an inexpensive hotel
>where they could stay in your town when they visit (the hotel
>would probably cost less than all the transportation).

Offered already and laughed at me

If they
>balk, I'd drop it. They'll get tired of the travel after a
>while.
>
>But I would not raise the issue of whether you think the NCP
>is spending enough time with the kids. Frankly, that's not an
>issue you have any control over.

I agree and disagree, it is my issue if quality time is not being spent at the expense of the children and while I do not want to control it, I do expect it to exist for them. This should be something the Judge can control and if the best interest of the children is what it is about, than it should be a major factor in how visitation is decided.
Dont get me wrong, not argueing with you, just presenting it as I see it and hope a Judge will.

[mistoffolees]

>>
>>I think you're asking for trouble. The judge could decide to
>>change custody if you bring up the issue (sure, there are no
>>grounds, but that has never stopped some judges from doing
>>irrational things).
>>
>>The fact of the matter is that the NCP is entitled to a
>>certain amount of time as outlined in the agreement. Whether
>>he/she chooses to spend that in a car or playing with the
>kids
>>isn't your problem.
>I disagree, the agreement was made when NCP represented that
>all weekend would be spent with children, not working and not
>spending time with them. Is not the purpose of Visitation to
>actually "visit". The court gave me custody  as it must have
>determined that I would make sound judgements and it is not in
>the best interest of the children to have to travel that
>distance and time to not receive time or attention.
>NCP should be the one travelling . I will say this, IF NCP
>actually was spending the time with them, I would not be so
>adamant, but to make them travel that much , just because you
>can, is only being selfish and not thinking of the children

You asked my opinion and I gave it. No one will know until the court rules, but my experience is that you're playing with fire. One of the principles of parenting time for both the CP and NCP is that both parents should be able to spend the time with the kids without interference from the other parent. The courts need a good reason to violate that principle.

>
>While I'm sure that you are thinking of
>>the kids, you don't have any right to dictate how they spend
>>their time.
>
>Not a matter of dictating time alone, you have to take in
>context, if lived nearby OK, so not spending proper time but
>children also not suffering travel and hours in a car. Think
>how miserable that is starpped in a car seat. The court should
>be glad the person they entrusted with custody truly is trying
>to insure a quality visit that serves the children, not  just
>the "rights"  or the convenience of CP or NCP.

It comes down to the basic principle that you're divorced now and each of you is entitled to spend your time with the children without interference.

IMHO, what you're proposing amounts to unreasonable interference into the NCP's parenting time.

You are, of course, free to take it to court, but you run the risk of coming out worse than you are now, and IMHO you're almost certainly not going to be better off. Meanwhile, you'll spend a lot of money and create a lot of stress for everyone.

>>
>>Of course, it's unlikely that NCP is going to be happy with
>22
>>hours in the car every other week, so they're likely to
>either
>>start missing weekends or will want a change.
>
>I am sorry, the children should not have to go through this
>with the  subsequent dissapointment that at some point in time
>NCP no longer wants to see them because the travel NCP put the
>kids through is no longer convenient.. NCP needs to recognize
>that the current schedule is not working for the children and
>amend it until NCP gets things in better order.

While you may be correct, it's irrelevant. Go back to the basic principle - the purpose of visitation is for the NCP to spend time with the kids without interference. What you're proposing seems like unreasonable interference to me.

>>
>>I would suggest that you wait until you have your final
>decree
>>and then talk with the NCP
>
>If we could talk, I would be ecstatic, but NCP will only talk
>thru lawyer.

Then wait until you have your final decree and then talk through the lawyers. The point I'm making is that you're on track for a very favorable decree. Don't mess it up now over an issue that, IMHO, you're extremely unlikely to win, anyway.

>
> to say that you realize that the
>>current schedule is inconvenient for them and would love to
>>help. You don't want to change the total days / hours
>mandated
>>by the court, but you are flexible in how those are spent.
>For
>>example, you could offer to help find an inexpensive hotel
>>where they could stay in your town when they visit (the
>hotel
>>would probably cost less than all the transportation).
>
>Offered already and laughed at me

Then it's not going to happen. The court is unlikely to order what you're requesting, so if you can't reach an amicable agreement, let it go.

>
>If they
>>balk, I'd drop it. They'll get tired of the travel after a
>>while.
>>
>>But I would not raise the issue of whether you think the NCP
>>is spending enough time with the kids. Frankly, that's not
>an
>>issue you have any control over.
>
>I agree and disagree, it is my issue if quality time is not
>being spent at the expense of the children and while I do not
>want to control it, I do expect it to exist for them. This
>should be something the Judge can control and if the best
>interest of the children is what it is about, than it should
>be a major factor in how visitation is decided.
>Dont get me wrong, not argueing with you, just presenting it
>as I see it and hope a Judge will.

While there's a chance that a judge will see it as you do, there's also a chance that a billion dollars will fall out of the sky onto your head.

The courts are very hesitant to tell parents how they should spend time with their kids. You need to show some very, very strong reason why the kids are being harmed (really harmed, not just - 'they're bored sitting in the car with ncp') by the current situation. In my opinion, there's nothing there to support that.

[ocean]

You are going to have to compromise for the change... Work schedules change throughout the years...and changes need to be made. Ask Ex if there is a better solution now that he is working. If he says no, then leave it alone. Visitation does not mean "visit". This is why many courts have changed the working to parenting plans. Yes you have custody but during his time he decides what goes on. When school lets out, could he do a longer period of days?
I would try and work this out with NCP and leave it out of the courts. The kids are young and need to see the other parent. When you go back to court, you can lightly bring this up and have an alternate plan ready. Judge could go either way....but you got custody so choose your battles at this point.
Good luck!

[backwardsbike]

Not a lawyer here, but I am a certifed parent educator and a psych nurse of 25 years.  That's a lot fo travelf or such young kids.  Yipes!  I can't imagine a judge letting that go on once he finds out about it.

Would it work out better for the kids to perhaps have extended time with NCP during school breaks and summer?  11 hours travel seems to be across time zones- don't the kids get jetlagged?  I would be concerned about the effect on thier school or future school performance, not to mention thier stabiltiy.

[backwardsbike]

Iwish you guys had been my judge.  My X has dictsted how late I can go tot he grocery store on a summer evenign withthe kids during my parenting time.  he deemed 10PM too late to go to Walmart with a 14 and a 12 year old during the summer.  Who was present during the children's mid week vissits was also dictated by the CP.  I had to work during the mid week two hour vissit.  CP refused to switch itt o a day wheni could be off.  I wanted my Dh to be able to take it and at least allow the NC kids to paly withthier younger sibs here for the two hours. I los that round being told the purpose was for the cildren to spend time with ME- but X wasn'tt old he would have to change- I was expected to change my work schedule.  I am a nurse and covereage for my shift couldn't always be arranged.

I know how its supposed to work- but it doesn't always.  And Ithink its a logical arguement that the frequent trips are too long for suc young kids.  But I too would shy away from insinuating that the NCP isn't spending quality time witht he kids because he's working while they are there.  COurts seem to like parents who work.

[greatdad]

Thank You !!! Finally someone else who "gets it" ! It is 5.5 hrs each way on Friday, then again on Sunday. I can't get it before the Judge for several more weeks due to Lawyer scheduling.I have proposed diff schedule and NCP won't even consider it.

[mistoffolees]

>Thank You !!! Finally someone else who "gets it" ! It is 5.5
>hrs each way on Friday, then again on Sunday. I can't get it
>before the Judge for several more weeks due to Lawyer
>scheduling.I have proposed diff schedule and NCP won't even
>consider it.

Good luck, but don't be surprised if the court enlightens you as to the difference between parenting time and visitation.

[greatdad]

Well, strap on, strap in and wear your shades, cuz up coming a bright light, of that you can be sure.
I dont buy into this whole cop out "whatever the ex does is none of your business", if what the ex does affects my kids, it sure does become my biz. Her personal life off limits I agree, her time with our kidsI am all about insuring that good parenting occurs

[Zephyr]

oh boy- make sure you tell that to the judge

[greatdad]

Ok, cut me some slack, not meant to tell judge in that particular manner. Take it in the spirit intended, as sincere concern about welfare of small children and venting a bit on a forum geared toward people with similar experiences.
If you have been in my shoes you get it, if not, then I can see where you miss the true push / pull dynamics of it.
Thanks for the opinions though, it's all good.

[mistoffolees]

>Ok, cut me some slack, not meant to tell judge in that
>particular manner. Take it in the spirit intended, as sincere
>concern about welfare of small children and venting a bit on a
>forum geared toward people with similar experiences.
>If you have been in my shoes you get it, if not, then I can
>see where you miss the true push / pull dynamics of it.
>Thanks for the opinions though, it's all good.


Just as you should take the advice you've been given in the spirit intended.

Several people have commented that what you're asking goes well beyond what is necessary for the protection of the children. If you go in with your guns blazing like you've done here and show complete contempt for the other side, you're going to lose.

The fact is that PARENTING TIME is not visitation. The mother has every bit as much right to spend time with the kids as you do. She is choosing to spend it in one particular manner and you have to provide  a very, very strong reason why the way that she is exercising her parenting time is harmful to the kids. The courts are very resistant to tell parents how to spend time with their kids (whether the ex likes it or not). Frankly, I haven't seen anything supporting that - merely your own opinions.

If you really think that it's harming the kids, the only way you're going to prove it is with a detailed psychological evaluation from an expert in the field. Walking into court and saying 'the kids are in the car too much and I don't like it' will get you nowhere - and you may be forced to pay her legal expenses as well as yours.

Focust on facts, not opinions if you want to win this.

[greatdad]

Point(s) taken. I am taking it as intended, just (as you all going through this know) a very sensitive subject .
Unfortunatley ( because it means it isn't all emotion, and is happening for real) I do have the back up as a matter of "fact" . Just won't put those particulars  on a public forum, as I am sure we all are aware that our screen names are only a thin veil of protection from those who are directly knowledgeable of our cases.
So, I can see where a third party  would sense, but not be able to see that there is more to this than meets the eye. Keep in mind, for me to have become the sole CP, the court must have seen an awful lot about the NCP that it didnt like.
Thanks for the sincere feedback, I do appreciate it.

[chipmunk226]

If you are sending you kids to the NCP, then you are not the sole custodial parent.

I have a similar situation in that my son has to travel to see his dad. It's about 3.5 hours one way. Since I moved, I am responsible for all of the transport. He goes to his fathers 2x a month, gets most holidays, and then stays for the majority of the summer.

I hate the driving, and the fact that when my son is with his father for the short time, there are many times that his father is working or has my son being babysat. It sucks, but it's life. It's something that I have to deal with until his dad either A, grows up [highly unlikely] or B, my son gets old enough to express to the judge that he would much rather spend his time doing other things. And even then, there's no guarantee that his dad will be forced to help in transport or have less time with his son.

I used to be just like you, thinking that the judge and the courts will think logically and agree with me all the time. But it's just not the case. There are kids who travel just as much if not more with parents that are together, and they are just fine. I agree with the other posters that you need to pick you battles and this is one better left unsought.

Sure there are other factors in all of our situations, but we can only comment on what you post and not everyone is going to agree with you. And don't take it that if one person agrees with you that must mean you are right and should pursue this. I believe based on what you posted, that it will be a waste of time and you most likely will just frustrate the courts. And when you actually DO have a more serious issue to address, it will be overshadowed by all your unnecessary claims and will be taken less seriously.

I have learned to sit back and let my son's father shoot himself in the foot so I'm not left holding the gun... he's doing a pretty good job at it too :)

[mistoffolees]

>If you are sending you kids to the NCP, then you are not the
>sole custodial parent.

That's not true.

There are two types of custody - legal and physical. Legal custody determines who has the right to make decisions for the child and physical custody determines where the child predominantly lives.

There are several common situations:
1. Joint legal, shared physical.
2. Joint legal, one primary physical with visitation to NCP
3. Sole legal, one primary physical with visitation to NCP

In the case of #3, the she would be the sole custodial parent.

But I agree with most everything else you've written. First, the other parent has the right to drive to Timbuktu and back if the agreement doesn't restrict it and I don't believe CP has the right to tell NCP how to spend their time. Second, I suspect that NCP will get tired of the driving after a while and ask for a change (or simply exercise visitation less frequently).

[greatdad]

>>If you are sending you kids to the NCP, then you are not
>the
>>sole custodial parent.
>
>That's not true.
>
>There are two types of custody - legal and physical. Legal
>custody determines who has the right to make decisions for the
>child and physical custody determines where the child
>predominantly lives.
>
>There are several common situations:
>1. Joint legal, shared physical.
>2. Joint legal, one primary physical with visitation to NCP
>3. Sole legal, one primary physical with visitation to NCP
>
>In the case of #3, the she would be the sole custodial parent.

I have sole legal and physical custody.It is still pendente lie, but does anyone know how often that is changed at final, especially when the children have flourished and stabilized. In essence things have only improved since pendente.
>
>
>But I agree with most everything else you've written. First,
>the other parent has the right to drive to Timbuktu and back
>if the agreement doesn't restrict it and I don't believe CP
>has the right to tell NCP how to spend their time. Second, I
>suspect that NCP will get tired of the driving after a while
>and ask for a change (or simply exercise visitation less
>frequently).
Do any of you know of a situation where the court did recognize that the travel was not in best interest of child and ordered the NCP who shose to move, to be the one to travel?

[mistoffolees]

>I have sole legal and physical custody.It is still pendente
>lie, but does anyone know how often that is changed at final,
>especially when the children have flourished and stabilized.
>In essence things have only improved since pendente.

There are, of course, no guarantees in this situation, but in general, judges hate to change things that appear to be working. The judge must have had significant reasons to give you sole legal and physical in the first place and the fact that it's working will serve to reinforce that.

The OP has the burden to prove that it would be better for the children if they were returned to him/her (I don't remember which). If they had the evidence to prove that NOW, they probably would not have lost custody in the first place (assuming you didn't do anything really stupid since obtaining custody).

>>
>>
>>But I agree with most everything else you've written. First,
>>the other parent has the right to drive to Timbuktu and back
>>if the agreement doesn't restrict it and I don't believe CP
>>has the right to tell NCP how to spend their time. Second, I
>>suspect that NCP will get tired of the driving after a while
>>and ask for a change (or simply exercise visitation less
>>frequently).
>Do any of you know of a situation where the court did
>recognize that the travel was not in best interest of child
>and ordered the NCP who shose to move, to be the one to
>travel?

I don't know of any. In general, the courts believe that time spent with both parents is good and they don't really care if it's spent in a living room, at the zoo, or in a car.