Messages

I guess I'm not clear on what you consider step-parents "overstepping their boundaries".  What exactly do you feel a step-parents boundaries are?  Do you think that forming a close relationship with their step-child is overstepping boundaries?  Or, maybe, maintaining that relationship while her husband is deployed is overstepping boundaries?

I'm also not clear on what you think the difference is between "visitation" and "parenting time".  Because, legally, there is no difference.  The only difference is in the terminology used.

Anyone who has a familial relationship with the child has a legal standing to request time with that child - be it grandparents, aunts and uncles, or step-parents.

And, the children have a right to have a relationship with their step-parent.  What a weird situation it would be for a child to spend time every week, or every other week, with an adult and never form any kind of bond or relationship with them.

Overstepping their boundaries would be thinking that they are entitled to the deployed parent's parenting time. 

Yes, children have a right to have a relationship with the stepparent.  But that does not take precedence over the child's right to be with an actual parent  when one parent is not able to care for the child for long periods of time.  Such as when a parent is deployed to a war zone. 

The difference between parenting time and visitation is that the parent gets parenting time.  Anybody else, it's just visiting. 

And, typically, judges leave it to the parents to allow visits to grandparents/aunts/uncles.  And typically side with a child being with the parent over the stepparent when the other parent is deployed. 

First of all, what she is doing is wrong.  But she doesn't have to take the kids to the games on her week-end anymore than you have to take them on your week-end in the abscence of a court order.

BTW, you aren't exactly innocent here, either.  You did something that you KNEW would result in the kids not being able to play in their game.  And you did it to make a point to your ex.  Like your ex, you didn't put the kids first. 

That was wrong of both of you to do.  So now the question is:  Are you going to stop this game you are playing and start putting the kids first? 

Obviously, with a school play, you would have to just go and ignore your ex as that has a limited run and you may end up not seeing the play at all.  That is not the case with sports. 

I wish that people would stop being so territorial with children's affections.  Having a parent leave for deployment can be extremely hard on a child.  Not only do they not get to see their parent, but they also worry about them and whether or not they will ever come back.  Why would anyone want to add to that stress by making it so they can't see the rest of that part of their family either - and also worry that they may not only lose their parent but a whole section of their family?  What a horrible thing to put a child through!

And I wish stepparents would stop overstepping their boundaries.  It is hard on a child being away from a parent for extended periods of time.  It's even harder when they are away from both parents.  Which is why it is better for the child to be with the mother over the stepmother. 

Judges have also been known (and this is more likely than what happened in your case) not to give the stepparent the deployed parent's parenting time.  Why?  Because the stepparent has no legal standing and no right to parenting time.  A judge may order visits (but they wouldn't be equal to what the parenting time is) depending on the circumstances and how close they live to each other. 

BTW, it is common for ROFR to apply to stepparents.  The whole purpose of ROFR is to give the other parent more time with the child when the other isn't available. 

He's in the military.  That's a job known for moving soldiers around constantly.   

I would fight him.  He's not going to win and he's not going to be able to get his parenting time assigned to a non-parent (the stepmother is a legal stranger in the eyes of the law).   

The child should be with you while the father is deployed.  If the stepmom lives close by, you can let her visit your child.  But she's not going to get his parenting time.  Nor should she.  She's not the mother, you are.   

BTW, that law that your ex is referring to doesn't state what he is claiming.  All that law does is revert the parenting arrangements back to what they were before deployment. 

What this means is that if the arrangement was 50/50 physical at the time of deployment, it would go back to 50/50 physical when the deployed parent gets back.  The parent who was not deployed could not try to get the parenting time permanently changed based on a deployment. 

It says nothing about a stepparent having the right to the deployed parent's time. 

There are thousands of fathers out there who have lost jobs and income in this economy.  What they are finding is that, when you file for a modification, you could wait months before you get into court.  Meanwhile the arrearages are piling up, and the fathers stand the chance of facing jail time if they can't pay.  Then when you get to court many judges will deem the situation "temporary" and not change the order. 

But this NCP has never (according the OP) been unemployed or not keeping a job.  His arrears are such that he is going to go to jail because of his refusal to follow a court order.   

I doubt that he will get a modification downwards given that his track record can be read as being voluntary (and when it is a voluntary reduction or unemployment, it shouldn't have an impact on the amount of child support). 

But the courts being backlogged isn't a good excuse to put off filing a modification.  Because one thing for sure is that you won't get it if you don't ask for it.  And I really don't think that is why this particular NCP is refusing to file for a modification.  Sorry, that excuse just doesn't cut it. 

You're entitled to your opinion.  My opinion differs.  I don't think that anyone should be jailed for non-payment of a debt.  You don't go to jail if you don't pay your credit cards, or your mortgage, or your car payment.  There is no due process when you are jailed for non-payment of CS, which violates the 14th amendment.  We did away with debtors prisons back in the 1800's.  Two states constitutions prohibit incarceration for non-payment of a civil debt.

It is not a 14th amendment violation to jail a person for CONTEMPT OF COURT, and the NCP typically goes to court SEVERAL times before this happens.  Which is why the NCP is being jailed. 

Not following a court order can lead to a contempt charge.  And that is a jailable offense. 


"I don't think much thought is being given to what being thrown in jail does to a persons life.  While you're sitting in jail you can't work, and therefore are unable to pay any of your debts. "

So we should just not put people who don't follow the law into jail because of what it will do to their lives? 

What about how their refusal to follow the law does to other people's lives?  Doesn't that count?

BTW, the reason why jail is an option (and is for all contempt of court cases) is because of NCP's refusing to pay their child support.  At all.  Granted, this was probably not the majority.   The ones who are paying their child support typically don't have to worry about facing the consequences of contempt of court.

It's BS? Why? I personally (and maybe I'm flawed for this) I would rather my children spend time with their father than receive a letter from jail. I'd rather forgive the past dept on CS than know dad will forever be paying what he can just to make up that back CS amount. I'd rather my kids know that mom is a good hearted woman and DIDN'T try to throw dad in jail, or financially bankrupt him.

And that is your right to do.  Just because you make a choice doesn't mean that it is the only choice that puts the child first. 

I have forgiven past due CS. I did it becasue I knew dad was working 2 jobs and trying to survive. The CS was hindering him being able to meet halfway for our son, and he wasn't able to meet his household obligations. I'd rather let go of a few thousand dollars. But hey, that's just me. I'm flawed. I'm one of the moms fostering a positive relationship with my son and his father. Wait I think it's called co-parenting, or adulthood, or decent human being. Something along those lines.

Again, that is your choice.  Doesn't make the choice to go after and not forgive past due CS wrong or not in the best interest of the child.

On a side note I just asked my son what he would think if I had his father arrested for failure to pay child support. His answer "that would be messd up mom. I don't think I could forgive something like that" out of the mouth of a 16 year old.

And I wish that they had thrown my father in jail for not paying his child support.  His refusal to pay made it hard on all of us.  My brothers and sisters feel the same way, btw. 

It's called dealing with the consequences of not following a court order.  Just like I am teaching my kids that they have to live with the consequences of their actions (such as grounding them from their bike for a week because they rode it without their helmet, as required by the law and me).   The NCP in this case should face the consequences of his actions. 

This isn't a two parent family (substitute HOUSEHOLD, btw, you really are being deliberately obtuse) so your statement above is full of holes.  This is a divorced family with a child support order.  One that the NCP is REFUSING to follow.

Actually, it is a two parent family.  There are still two parents, and still a child who they are BOTH responsible for.   

BOTH being the operative word here.  BTW, they aren't a family anymore.  My kids have 2 families.  One with me, one with their dad.  I am not a part of my ex's family anymore nor is he a part of mine.  That's what divorce is. 

The parent receiving CS can forgive past amounts. It takes picking up the phone and calling the CS office to find out what to do. Most times they send you a packet to fill out and have notorized. YOu mail it back or drop it off in person. No court hearings. It's very easy.

If the situation truly is about the child then the OP wouold have looked into this option.

But the CP is under no obligation at all to let the other parent off the hook for financially supporting a child that both parents created. 

BTW, that last sentence of yours is complete BS. 

By that logic any person who is in a two parent family and suddenly loses their income (either to lay-off's or for medical reasons, etc.), and has to rely on the other person's income to support the family, is a bad parent.   

This isn't a two parent family so your statement above is full of holes.  This is a divorced family with a child support order.  One that the NCP is REFUSING to follow. 

From what the original poster wrote, the NCP is refusing to get/keep a job.  That's voluntary.  If I had a  husband that did that without my agreement, I would file for divorce.  A lay off and for medical reasons is different.  It's not willful. 

And if the NCP is not working for these reasons (which I doubt given what the OP wrote), then the NCP needs to file for a modification.  The NCP in this case is REFUSING to do that.  And that is not the CP's fault.  The NCP is totally in the wrong here and should be arrested.  And the arrest should be done at a time when it can be gauranteed that the child won't be with him.  Which means making arrangements for the child to be elsewhere and informing LE where he will be so that they can do their job. 

And before someone points out that they can arrest the NCP at anytime, he lives in a different state than where the order is.  Until ALL states cooperate with each other, it's not easy to arrest a person in a different state.