Can NCP take children out of state?

[greatdad]

NCP has no custody, only visitation.Temp order does not contain language about taking children out of state, only days,times and place to pick up and drop off. NCP is taking child out of state and say where. As sole custodian, does NCP not need my permission or at least to keep me informed as to address, length of stay etc?

[Sherry1]

out of state, but if NCP refuses to give you an itinerary with phone numbers, then I probably wouldn't allow the child to go.  

[wysiwyg]

I would be careful with this, if there is a court order for parenting time or vistiation and it is denied because you want an itinerary, then I would say that is grounds for contempt based upon a court order for vistation that was denied becasue of informaiton wanted that is not a part of a court order.  Of course in the best interest of the kids it is obvious that both parents should alert the other to the childs whereabouts - but I think I speak for all of us here in that the exs we deal with do not always think clearly when it comes to things like this.  PLease do not construe this as any sort of leagal advice, I simply say tread carefully on what is and is not ordered.  

[greatdad]

>I would be careful with this, if there is a court order for
>parenting time or vistiation and it is denied because you want
>an itinerary, then I would say that is grounds for contempt
>based upon a court order for vistation that was denied becasue
>of informaiton wanted that is not a part of a court order.  Of
>course in the best interest of the kids it is obvious that
>both parents should alert the other to the childs whereabouts
>- but I think I speak for all of us here in that the exs we
>deal with do not always think clearly when it comes to things
>like this.  PLease do not construe this as any sort of leagal
>advice, I simply say tread carefully on what is and is not
>ordered.  
 Allow me to correct  a possible miscommunication. I am not denying visitation. NCP has child now and tells me  is taking to another state but refuses to give me address . I think it will not look good for NCP in court as it shows a totally unreasonable lack of communication and ccoperation for no reason.

[Crockpot]

I believe that if the NCP does not share legal then they do need the OK of CP to take child out of state.

[mistoffolees]

> Allow me to correct  a possible miscommunication. I am not
>denying visitation. NCP has child now and tells me  is taking
>to another state but refuses to give me address . I think it
>will not look good for NCP in court as it shows a totally
>unreasonable lack of communication and ccoperation for no
>reason.


Actually, if you do what is proposed (not allowing the ncp to take the child out of state without providing an itinerary), then yoU ARE denying visitation unless the court order specifically says that you're entitled to an itinerary.

And, yes, it does look bad for the NCP, but if your state doesn't have any restrictions on travel out of state, you could still be in contempt for restricting her.

However, the question of whether that's an allowable interference remains open. Someone has suggested that (at least in some states), you would be within your rights to interfere with visitation under those circumstances. I suspect it depends not only on the law in your state, but also the practice of specific judges.

It is probably worth asking someone (an attorney for example) who knows how it works in your state.

[MixedBag]

sometimes more guidance can be found in your state's code.

Until mom doesn't bring them back, do you really have a reason to be concerned?

Do you as the CP have anything in your order to support this?

[mistoffolees]

>Until mom doesn't bring them back, do you really have a reason
>to be concerned?

That's an important element of this that is missing. If the relationship is otherwise OK and the CP doesn't feel that the risk of flight is very high, it's probably not worth messing with.

When I was dating my ex, she had two young daughters. There was a great ice cream place by a lake 20 miles away - but it happened to be in the next county. Her temporary order stated that she couldn't leave the county with the kids - which deprived them of going to this ice cream place that they loved. It would have been better in this case if her ex hadn't requested that clause or at least had it read 'can't leave the county without notifying the other party ' or something like that.

if there's no risk, don't worry about it.

[greatdad]

>>Until mom doesn't bring them back, do you really have a
>reason
>>to be concerned?
>
>That's an important element of this that is missing. If the
>relationship is otherwise OK and the CP doesn't feel that the
>risk of flight is very high, it's probably not worth messing
>with.
>
>When I was dating my ex, she had two young daughters. There
>was a great ice cream place by a lake 20 miles away - but it
>happened to be in the next county. Her temporary order stated
>that she couldn't leave the county with the kids - which
>deprived them of going to this ice cream place that they
>loved. It would have been better in this case if her ex hadn't
>requested that clause or at least had it read 'can't leave the
>county without notifying the other party ' or something like
>that.
>
>if there's no risk, don't worry about it.

We are still pendente lite, so precedent needs to be established , as we all seem to recognize that temporary has a way of becoming permanent ! While "flight" is not  a concern at present, the greater issue is that stbx must recognize that there simply are certain legal rules and level of cooperation that needs to exist if she in turn wants flexibility on my part. Remember the children are very young and she is going to want me to be flexible over the next 15 years !!! As sole custodian, asking for the address, phone # where children will be when not having visitation at her residence is not only reasonable ( conversely to not provide it is "unreasonable") but also I have a legal obligation to know their whereabouts in case of emergency as I am the sole person with decision making authority.
Lastly, I believe STBX will not stay with children at the out of state location, and will leave them in the care of others for several days. THAT is not acceptable, especially not knowing exactly who it will be, etc.
Any thoughts on whether NCP with no custody can unilateraly delegate care of the children to another without CP's approval ?

[HelpingHands]

Good question, because I am also in the same situation. NCM left our daughter in the care of her elderly great grandparents in another state for 4 days. I found only out during a phone contact- oh she's not here she's in XX state with her great grandparents till x day (4 days later).

I wrote her this letter (along with other info):

 "I ask that you please advise me PRIOR to dropping XXX off for an extended period of time(such as when you dropped XX off with your grandparents in X town, X state for 4 days). I need to have a contact phone number and address where XXX can be reached at all times. I appreciate your cooperation".

Surprisingly she DID inform me that she was planning to drop our daughter off with her parents for a few days, prior to doing so. I am sure she called her attorney who pointed out that in our court order it states that each parent must provide the other parent with emergency contact information for the child.

[greatdad]

>Good question, because I am also in the same situation. NCM
>left our daughter in the care of her elderly great
>grandparents in another state for 4 days. I found only out
>during a phone contact- oh she's not here she's in XX state
>with her great grandparents till x day (4 days later).
>
>I wrote her this letter (along with other info):
>
> "I ask that you please advise me PRIOR to dropping XXX off
>for an extended period of time(such as when you dropped XX off
>with your grandparents in X town, X state for 4 days). I need
>to have a contact phone number and address where XXX can be
>reached at all times. I appreciate your cooperation".
>
>Surprisingly she DID inform me that she was planning to drop
>our daughter off with her parents for a few days, prior to
>doing so. I am sure she called her attorney who pointed out
>that in our court order it states that each parent must
>provide the other parent with emergency contact information
>for the child.

Following up, would that not be just cause to deny next long term portion of summer visitation ( not regular EOW), as s2bx has now demonstrated willful disregard of obligation to keep CP informed , as well as leaving children in a seperate state in care of others??Seems it goes to the core of why and what visitation is for.....parenting time cannot be accomplished if the parent isn't with the children.

[mistoffolees]

> As sole
>custodian, asking for the address, phone # where children will

You need to start by distinguishing between legal and physical custody. If you have primary physical custody, but joint legal custody, then she most certainly has the right to do many things without telling you.

>be when not having visitation at her residence is not only
>reasonable ( conversely to not provide it is "unreasonable")
>but also I have a legal obligation to know their whereabouts
>in case of emergency as I am the sole person with decision
>making authority.

Actually, you don't have such a legal obligation unless your divorce decree gives it to you. What is 'reasonable' is irrelevant. What IS relevant is what the decree says. If the decree says that she has to let you know where she is, then you have that right. If the decree is silent on the matter, you don't have that right.

>Lastly, I believe STBX will not stay with children at the out
>of state location, and will leave them in the care of others
>for several days. THAT is not acceptable, especially not
>knowing exactly who it will be, etc.
>Any thoughts on whether NCP with no custody can unilateraly
>delegate care of the children to another without CP's approval
>?
>


If that was your concern, you should have asked it at the beginning rather than asking about out of state visits - which now appears to be a red herring.

The answer will depend on exactly what your current agreement states. If she has joint legal, then she has the right to leave the children with someone else during her parenting time (unless your agreement also gives you the right of first refusal).

If she does not have joint legal, it becomes trickier, but I don't think you can make a case based on what you think might happen. The courts only deal in reality, not in things that might or might not occur.

[greatdad]

>> As sole
>>custodian, asking for the address, phone # where children
>will
>
>You need to start by distinguishing between legal and physical
>custody. If you have primary physical custody, but joint legal
>custody, then she most certainly has the right to do many
>things without telling you.


This is why I specified "SOLE", as in none other. I have physical and legal, X2b has only rights to visitation.


>
>>be when not having visitation at her residence is not only
>>reasonable ( conversely to not provide it is "unreasonable")
>>but also I have a legal obligation to know their whereabouts
>>in case of emergency as I am the sole person with decision
>>making authority.
>
>Actually, you don't have such a legal obligation unless your
>divorce decree gives it to you. What is 'reasonable' is
>irrelevant. What IS relevant is what the decree says. If the
>decree says that she has to let you know where she is, then
>you have that right. If the decree is silent on the matter,
>you don't have that right.
>
>>Lastly, I believe STBX will not stay with children at the
>out
>>of state location, and will leave them in the care of others
>>for several days. THAT is not acceptable, especially not
>>knowing exactly who it will be, etc.
>>Any thoughts on whether NCP with no custody can unilateraly
>>delegate care of the children to another without CP's
>approval
>>?
>>
>
>
>If that was your concern, you should have asked it at the
>beginning rather than asking about out of state visits - which
>now appears to be a red herring.
>
>The answer will depend on exactly what your current agreement
>states. If she has joint legal, then she has the right to
>leave the children with someone else during her parenting time
>(unless your agreement also gives you the right of first
>refusal).
>
>If she does not have joint legal, it becomes trickier, but I
>don't think you can make a case based on what you think might
>happen. The courts only deal in reality, not in things that
>might or might not occur.

[MixedBag]

Sole still doesn't give you the right to call all the shots.

That depends on your state's statutes and your county courthouse judge's interpretation of sole.

I see both of you wanting to have control of each other still...

That's what EX#2 and I got accused of when he said "I refused" to tell him where I was going with our son blah blah blah....when I feel like I did tell him.

Unless your child is truly in danger and the EX hasn't returned the child on a past occasion -- is this REALLY a battle you want to start?

Pick and choose....

[greatdad]

>Sole still doesn't give you the right to call all the shots.
>
>That depends on your state's statutes and your county
>courthouse judge's interpretation of sole.
>
>I see both of you wanting to have control of each other
>still...

After taking a very deep breath on this, your observation may be right. It is very difficult to seperate so many deep issues when none of it makes a lot of sense sometimes.I will pray for miracles still.............maybe someone will open her mind too !
Thanks !!!

>
>That's what EX#2 and I got accused of when he said "I refused"
>to tell him where I was going with our son blah blah
>blah....when I feel like I did tell him.
>
>Unless your child is truly in danger and the EX hasn't
>returned the child on a past occasion -- is this REALLY a
>battle you want to start?
>
>Pick and choose....

[mistoffolees]

>>> As sole
>>>custodian, asking for the address, phone # where children
>>will
>>
>>You need to start by distinguishing between legal and
>physical
>>custody. If you have primary physical custody, but joint
>legal
>>custody, then she most certainly has the right to do many
>>things without telling you.
>
>
>This is why I specified "SOLE", as in none other. I have
>physical and legal, X2b has only rights to visitation.
>

Thank you for clarification. Unfortunately 'sole custody' is used to mean either physical or legal custody by some people. That's why it's important to distinguish which one(s) you're talking about.

[Jade]

>NCP has no custody, only visitation.Temp order does not
>contain language about taking children out of state, only
>days,times and place to pick up and drop off. NCP is taking
>child out of state and say where. As sole custodian, does NCP
>not need my permission or at least to keep me informed as to
>address, length of stay etc?


Well, technically, you could probably stop it.  But if ncp goes to court, ncp will probably be allowed to.

The way my ex and I have it worked out is that he needs to let me know where he is taking them with contact info.  I am to provide the same to him.  

[MixedBag]

My EX thinks he has sole -- or at least the very equivalent of sole because we have a sentence that says he gets to make the final decisions on day to day stuff.

I get that.

But I believe that EX and Camilla (mainly Camilla) overstepped boundaries when they called a friend of mine's house and said our son wasn't allowed to jump on the trampoline they had their during a weekend our son was with me.

I chose to pick and choose my battles -- because friend thought Camilla just made a fool of herself, but she wouldn't allow our son to get on the trampoline because she was afraid that if Camilla would call and say this, what other nutty thing would she do?

[mistoffolees]

>My EX thinks he has sole -- or at least the very equivalent
>of sole because we have a sentence that says he gets to make
>the final decisions on day to day stuff.
>
>I get that.

That argues for a very careful reading of 'custody' sections of a decree - which is why I asked whether he had sole legal or physical custody.

It seems to me that the clause you just cited basically describes primary physical custody - and doesn't say much about legal custody. Normally, if there is joint legal and one primary physical, the one with primary physical makes most of the day to day decisions by default. The two parents should jointly make the big decisions. Unfortunately, many people don't get the distinction.

That's why it's one of my pet peeves when someone simply says that they have 'sole custody'. Until they spell out exactly what the decree says wrt legal AND physical custody, it's hard to give advice. It's very common here for someone to claim that they have 'sole custody' but on exploration it turns out that they have primary physical with joint legal - or many permutations of that.

The starting point is always a careful reading of the decree.

[greatdad]

>>NCP has no custody, only visitation.Temp order does not
>>contain language about taking children out of state, only
>>days,times and place to pick up and drop off. NCP is taking
>>child out of state and say where. As sole custodian, does
>NCP
>>not need my permission or at least to keep me informed as to
>>address, length of stay etc?
>
>
>Well, technically, you could probably stop it.  But if ncp
>goes to court, ncp will probably be allowed to.
>
>The way my ex and I have it worked out is that he needs to let
>me know where he is taking them with contact info.  I am to
>provide the same to him.  
>
>
One of the issues with my S2BX is that I do everything according to the letter of the law and then try to be flexible beyond  that as long as it makes sense.
I think that the lack of cooperation IS about control, on her part,trying to punish me because the court saw fit to grant me sole physical and legal custody after she was the one requesting it. After a  year S2BX still has no place of her own.I think deep down she knows it was the right decision and children are in best place....just think she is bitter cause was counting on not working,getting  alimony, custody and child support and instead got none and has to pay support

[Sunshine1]

I have not read through all of these post so I do not know if I am repeating what someone already said. But I had this problem a while back.

Soc had told me that a person with Sole Physical and Sole Legal Custody does call all the shots.  The person with only visitation, has no authority to delegate their pick ups and or drop offs and or their visitation to anyone else.

The  CP can refuse to let them go with anyone else at any time and in the middle of a "visit", they may pick up at any time and do as they wish.  the NCP only has visit rights...that's it.

Now I am quoting Soc (and it was quite some time ago so I believe it was the real one.  ) I think I even copied the post and I will copy it here if I can find it.

As a side note, my niece lives with her Grandparents and retain SOLE Physical and SOLE legal and the parents have "visitation rights" only.  They are not allowed to delegate their visits to anyone else and they are the only ones that can pick her up.  One time they disagreed with the pick up time..grandparents said earlier and parents said later. Cops came and took her because they wanted her back and they had no right to keep her.

They have parental rights, but that doesn't mean squat. They do not get to have any say in the visitation schedule... believe me we have been to court over this MANY MANY times and I payed attention.

Now I don't think she is a flight risk, and neither do you but you can always stop the visit and say you think she is.  She might cough up the address.

[FLMom]

>My EX thinks he has sole -- or at least the very equivalent
>of sole because we have a sentence that says he gets to make
>the final decisions on day to day stuff.
>
>I get that.
>
>But I believe that EX and Camilla (mainly Camilla) overstepped
>boundaries when they called a friend of mine's house and said
>our son wasn't allowed to jump on the trampoline they had
>their during a weekend our son was with me.
>
>I chose to pick and choose my battles -- because friend
>thought Camilla just made a fool of herself, but she wouldn't
>allow our son to get on the trampoline because she was afraid
>that if Camilla would call and say this, what other nutty
>thing would she do?
>
>

Timber!!!!----Control-P, Control-P, Control P. . . . .
MB, I had you pegged for an environment friendly person.

(Sorry, this board has been so tense lately, I feel we need some levity here and there. . . .)
FLMom