"Blatant Violation" moved from Soc's forum

[Mamacass]

I have to say, I see him explaining a rational request.  He offered the BM makeup time if in exchange she would bring the kids home a few hours earlier to avoid putting them in a potentially situation.  

Although weather reports aren't 100% accurate, they usually are pretty close.  That's not the point.  If you hear a storm is coming you prepare for it.  When I lived at the beach, when they predicted a hurricane, you boarded up the windows.  Sometimes the storm it hard, sometimes it wasn't so bad.  But either way you prepared, b/c it's better safe than sorry.  You don't say, well, the weatherman isn't always right so I'm gonna risk it.

If I had to choose to trade 3 hours today for an extra day later, and know that it kept my kids from being in the car in the ice and dark....  I just don't see what the problem is.  It doesn't make sense to say no to that deal unless you are just being difficult.  

[Mamacass]

Your situation sounds a lot like ours, except the reasons we were awarded custody were different.  It's tough to deal with a parent who wants to be difficult, and that's what it sounds like you are dealing with.  

"all because the mother insisted on the "letter" and not the SPIRIT of the order."
Very well said. To me its sad that we've come to a point in our society that the courts have to be involved with custody.  Yes, I understand that some people have no other choice but to go through the courts to get time with their kids.  for a while, we wouldn't have been able to see my SS at all if the courts hadn't ordered it.  Its just sad, b/c not everything can be scheduled , and court orders don't allow for the unexpected.  

All it takes is for one parent to be difficult and the whole balance is thrown off.

[mistoffolees]

I don't see anyone arguing otherwise.

But it also doesn't make sense to threaten to go running to court and threatening contempt of court filings merely because the OP chooses to exercise their full visitation rights.

[MixedBag]

there is still a great issue of bitterness on both the part of the mom and dad.

Mom hates dad for losing custody of their children in court.

Dad hates mom for doing all the harm that she did to the children.

Been watching this situation unfold for many many years now, and yes, I believe that dad should have custody and is the better parent for the children, HOWEVER, he doesn't handle it right all time.

MY humble opinion....

[dipper]

The original poster stated that they were requesting NCP simply exercise visitation time 3 hours earlier than ordered.  NCP would have had exact same amount of time with child on that weekend.

No time lost.  All time ordered given on the weekend, just not specific hours detailed.

Now, if given the exact same amount of time.....and a storm is brewing.....I would want my child home safely beforehand.  But, if I thought I could get extra time with my children by making them stay until the storm began.......it would be all about me and not the children at all.  

NCP was not losing any time with children.....poster stated that at the get-go.....

[dipper]

Greatdad, I totally agree with you that a father getting sole custody in VA is not easy.  It is a WAR to even get custody at all for a father.  The NCP had to do alot that was harmful to the children for the judge to award sole custody.   To me, this is evident in making them travel in an ice storm by refusing to simply get them 3 hours earlier (still getting every minute of her time).

[mistoffolees]

That's not what it said, IIRC.

The visitation was already underway before the poster suggested that it end 3 hours earlier. There would have been 3 hours lost.

[HelpingHands]

In the grand scheme of things is 3 hours of time visiting with  worth risking the lives of your children? No.

I'd gladly give up 3 hours of time, if it meant my children weren't being put at risk atop an icy mountain in the dark.

I guess other peoples priorities are in a different order. My guess is it's been a power struggle and control issue for mom and her desire for control overrides any sense of responsibility and common sense regarding her children.

Just because CP posted asking if it IS contempt, doesn't mean CP is planning on running to court to contempt NCP. It may just mean he wants to get his ducks in order for when the time comes he finds himself in front of a judge. In that rationale, I can understand because I do the same thing.

[mistoffolees]

We have one poster who said that the weather made it unsafe to drive. The mother obviously disagreed. You've chosen to believe the poster. I've chosen to believe that none of us really know, so the legality is that the court order - and the BM's right to see the kids - takes precedence.

Yes, it if was unsafe, then the mother should have worked out another schedule (sounds like she tried, and the CP also tried, but they couldn't reach a resolution). Similarly, I don't think it's appropriate to be threatening contempt (sorry, but the original post was a clear threat) over this issue.

My stbx has a history of things like that. She wants something, so she claims that it's unsafe to do anything but what she wants. I'm not saying that this is happening in this case, but it happens a lot. That's why there are court orders on how much visiitation the NCP gets.

Why is it that the CP should get his way every time there's a dispute? A dispute means that there's a difference of opinion in the subject. In that case, both parents should have equal say. Given that the NCP doesn't see the kids as much, I'd argue for leaning in that direction - since there's no firm evidence that the roads were unsafe.

[greatdad]

I appreciate the fact that some of you are realizing that the court OBVIOUSLY saw agreat deal wrong with the mother in this case. What you dont know is that she took the kids and went out of state while I was at work one day, wouldnt let me see them unless I drove 600 miles R/T each weekend, and then only with her present and at her relatives house.Wouldnt even let me see them alone ! I had to get a temp order forcing her to let me see them every other weekend ( thats how the precednt started)then to court where she loses.
To point out how correct they were in that decision, she was willing to sacrifice safety for what she "perceives" to be her time, because she can, and not giving weight to the safety issue. The fact that she was offered make up time and declined in spite of the impending weather
( which was factual and did ice, etc as predicted) shows that it is all about her.
I do not hate her,I feel bad that she cannot live in the reality of the situation SHE asked for and created. She does hate me, she is bitter and vindictive, takes 0 responsibility for losing the children OR the divorce SHE asked for.She stopped taking her meds ( ADHD,Anxiety disorder, etc)or seeing counselor as it is more convenient to blame all on me, say I am a manipulator ( says I manipulated the judges, and even her attorney) and play the victim all the time.
I was the one who begged to stay together, not rush to divorce, but after she had an affair 1 week after court when she lost custody, I saw that she was clearly not thinking about her "marriage".nor couls she possibly really care about me.
Long story short, yes there is bitterness on both sides, difference is I always err on the side of whats best for the children, regardless off a few hours and she always errs on whats best for her and how she can show me that she still can control me (thru the kids).
I know that time with the children is precious, but remember this 3 hours was time they are strapped in car seats while she is driving , so not exactly time being spent playing with them.I am sorry, trading 3 hours of drive time  in exchange for insuring their safety is what a responsible parent does, a selfish one says "it is my time no matter what". My point is that if she is unwilling to compromise over safety when it is verifiable and preventable, what happens in an emergency ?
Bad judgement is bad judgement and No , I was not taking her to court for contempt, I was ( as one of you correctly articulated) merely seeing if it could be contempt as I see more of this coming and I need to protect the children from any foreseeable safety issues, that is exactly why I have custody, as the court felt I would make proper decisisions for the children, it is both my moral as well as legal obligation.