Court Order that seems to have not addressed all issues

[awaitingjustice]

I have three questions - I submitted a parenting plan to the court, in my most recent filing and asked them to approve the plan.

Today I received the court order and it does not even address the plan- does not GRANT nor DENY it.  Not mentioned at all.

1-Should I send an appeal back to ask that the court address this issue?

Second question- I thought that State Law in NJ did not allow for the CP to take the minor child out of the state for vacation without notification to the NCP.  My ex has been doing this on a regular basis and even removing our child from school to vacation- I asked the court to grant that the CP not be allowed to remove the child from school for reasons other than illness/death and that the CP discuss with me -prior- to any out of state vacations. (Except in the case of the TRIstate area NJ NY PA- I had asked that this only required a call as travel in that area is pretty common and would be expected).

The order came back like this:
Plaintiff's application to enforce litigants rights with respect to Defendnant traveling with the minor child out of the State of NJ and to prohibit Defendant from removing the child from school for reasons other than illness / death, is hereby DENIED.  Defendant is to provide Plaintiff with written notice of any vacations thirty (30) days prior to said vacation.


2- Did I, in the court's eyes, basically get what I was seeking- That she could not just take our child on a trip - no notice, no discussion, no way to know where he is?  And that she stop taking him out of school for vacations (he misses upwards of 8-12 days a year, many of which are for vacations)

I have an order in place that orders her to allow me daily telephone contact with our son.  She has a longstanding history of taking him out of town, out of state, on vacation without telling me when and where and in turn not allowing me the daily telephone access.

I am not sure if I have, in legal language, what I was seeking- it sounds fine to me, but will it hold up in court- should she go ahead and do one of her disappearing acts again.


Final question-

When the court state
"Plaintiff's application to enforce litigant's rights with respect to the Court Orders of July 2005 and August 2005 which enforced rights to the following: "joint legal custody" of the minor child, that Defendant not do anything to estrange the child from the other parent, that Defendant not do anything to estrange the child from the other parent, that Defendant not do anything to impeded the natural development of the parent-child relationship, and counselor, is hereby denied in part.  Plaintiff's application for the court to appoint a counselor for Defendant is herby DENIED.  Defendnant is ORDERED to provide either written authorization to the son's healthcare providers to communicate with Plaintiff regarding the son's treatment, or else for Defendant to provide to Plaintiff more detailed information regarding the son's treatment beyond names and phone numbers of the doctors.  Defendant is also ORDERED to not interfere with the Plaintiff's relationship with the son, or attempt to estrange the son from the Plaintiff."

3--What are they actually saying???

I think I get it, that she needs to sign off on the psychologist talking to me, which he refuses to do.

3a--But on the issue of estrangement- she does so much to pull him away from me, ranging from refusing to speak to me- by yelling at him that she wont talk to me- to telling him to lie to me- to refusing to acknolwedge his brothers of my current marriage and refusing to allow our son to celebrate father's day or my birthday- to refusing to allow him to acknowledge his grandparents (on my side)- and throwing out gifts they send- etc.  So here forward how do you bring to the court issues of estrangement in a manner that states the issue and proves it- WITHOUT seeming petty-----??  And will it be something she can be found in contempt on, based on the above wording??


Thanks

[socrateaser]

>1-Should I send an appeal back to ask that the court address
>this issue?

I don't know exactly what your parenting plan said, or how you proposed it as part of your motion, for the order, but the court apparently decided it was irrelevant or unlawful, and chose not to address the issue.

>>2- Did I, in the court's eyes, basically get what I was
>seeking- That she could not just take our child on a trip - no
>notice, no discussion, no way to know where he is????  And
>that she stop taking him out of school for vacations (he
>misses upwards of 8-12 days a year, many of which are for
>vacations)

The court cannot permanently restrain a parent from traveling to another state because to do so would violate the parent's fundamental constitutional right to travel within the several States. The court can temporarily restrain the other parent from removing the child from the jurisdiction on a showing that irreparable harm will result if the order is not granted.

Your request to not permit the custodial parent to remove the child from school for any reason other than illness/death is simply too restrictive, and the court will not order it. If you believe that the child is being harmed by being kept from school, then you need to file for a modification of custody on grounds that the other parent is acting affirmatively against the child's best interests, and that this represents a substantial change in circumstances affectin the best interests of the child. If the court agrees, then the court can determine whether the mother's actions rise to the level of requiring some extraordinary order or a change in custody to effect the child's best interests re education.

>I am not sure if I have, in legal language, what I was
>seeking- it sounds fine to me, but will it hold up in court-
>should she go ahead and do one of her disappearing acts
>again.

You have a court order stating that you're entitled to 30 days notice of any vacations. If she doens't give you that, she's in contempt. If she does, then she's not. That's what you've got -- in order to use it, you'll need to prove no notice. As a practical matter, the order is unenforceable, because you'll never be able to prove that you weren't provided advance notice.

In short, the court apparently believes that your case is either so badly formulated that the court can't make sense of it, or, the court believes your an angry parent and is not so subtly suggesting that you hire counsel to represent your interests more rationally, or in the alternative, that you can go "suck eggs."

>3--What are they actually saying???

The court is saying that the mother can either give you direct access to the psychologist or provide you with more detailed info, which is incredibly vague, and as a practical matter unenforceable. My guess is that the court was hoping that the mother would give you access, but as she has not, you will now have to show that you are still receiving nothing meaningful about your child's heath and welfare, and that you would like the court to make a more specific order that you be permitted equal access to the child's healthcare providers and records.