What meets threshhold of "conferring" ?

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

Happy new year.

Recall that in July 2006, new judge added his own boilerplate language in orders after hearing on a number of substantive issues that were never addressed in the hearing.

To correct a few of the matters, I filed a motion to correct.  Biomom eventually stipulated to everything to avoid court.  GAL signed, and it's filed.

There's one other matter from those July 2006 orders that may need addressing.

Our 2004 judgment made no mention of interstate or international travel.  However, when it was entered, it dissolved the standard restraining order (containined in the original summons/filing in 2001, which is in effect until "entry of judgment") that prohibited removing child from state without the other parent's agreement or court order.

I got Ex Parte relief in 2003 to take child out of state for Thanksgiving holiday (i.e., biomom refused to agree).

So, the July 2006 boilerplate language now says that parents must confer before taking child out of state or out of country.  It doesn't specify that agreement is necessary, nor what happens if there's disagreement.

My family is all out of state.  Biomom's family is in-state, so it's not an issue for her.

I haven't traveled out of state with child since July 2006 orders, but I'm now planning a family trip.

1.  Is advising biomom that I'll be taking child to XXX location for XXX duration enough to constitute "conferring" with her?

2.  If biomom raises a stink about travel again, do I just wait for her to file something, or do I need to seek relief before I take child out of state?

If relevant, child has joined me on approx 8 interstate trips in past 5 years.

Thanks,
DD

[socrateaser]

>1.  Is advising biomom that I'll be taking child to XXX
>location for XXX duration enough to constitute "conferring"
>with her?

Yes.

>
>2.  If biomom raises a stink about travel again, do I just
>wait for her to file something, or do I need to seek relief
>before I take child out of state?

You are free to take the child where you wish, within the USA, unless the other parent obtains a restraining order preventing you from doing so. You're free to leave the USA, but, of course, you would need the other parent to sign the U.S. Passport application for minor children.

[mistoffolees]

I'm sure I'll have something like this in my agreement before I'm done, so I'd like to be sure I understand.

If I'm understanding this correctly, one could simply say that the parties need to provide notice of their plans instead of saying that they have to confer. In this context, are the two things essentially interchangeable?

It seems to me that if they are, 'give notice' would be preferable because there's less chance of mis-interpretation and someone trying to go back to court for a clarification. Is that correct?

[socrateaser]

>I'm sure I'll have something like this in my agreement before
>I'm done, so I'd like to be sure I understand.
>
>If I'm understanding this correctly, one could simply say that
>the parties need to provide notice of their plans instead of
>saying that they have to confer. In this context, are the two
>things essentially interchangeable?

"Confer" means to make a good faith (i.e., honest and fair) attempt to negotiate the matter, whereas "Notice" means to reasonably inform. However, the practical reality is that if the other parent doesn't want to confer, then requesting a conference is identical to giving notice.

So, if decentdad calls the other parent and says, "I'm planning on taking our daughter to Texas this weekend to see the grandparents," and the other parent says, "I forbid you to do that," and decentdad says, "Why," and the other parent, "Because," and decentdad, says, "Well, I don't see any particular issue and this is in the child's interests," and takes the kid anyway, then they've "conferred." They just didn't reach any agreement, and, in decentdad's case, there's no requirement in the court order that they do reach any agreement.

>It seems to me that if they are, 'give notice' would be
>preferable because there's less chance of mis-interpretation
>and someone trying to go back to court for a clarification. Is
>that correct?

I wouldn't have used the word "confer" in a court order, because it requires that the two parents have a recognized ability to cooperate -- something which is rare. Orders like this are better if they state express rules. But, travel really only becomes a serious issue if the child is headed outside the USA, which for all practical purposes is impossible for a U.S. citizen without getting a passport for the child, which requires both parents sign the consent form.

Frankly, I see no reason to give notice or to confer for a trip inside the USA, assuming that both parties have joint legal custody, and they're traveling during a period when they are legally authorized to do so under the court orders. It's the parent's time, so the parent can do as he/she wishes with it.

This all presumes, of course,  that both parents have a "brain," and that they are not the "Kim" family, who will suddenly decide to take a 78 mile "shortcut" over a one lane mostly gravel road through a wilderness mountain area during the middle of winter, without a snow cat.

If there is the possibility of stupidity among one or both parents, then I would probably require mediation before any trip outside the county was allowed. But, ordinarily, this would be a huge expense and not worth the cost.

[mistoffolees]

Thanks.

One exception to your rule about International travel - my daughter already has a passport (which is in my possession). So for the next 4 years (when the current passport expires), I wouldn't need my ex's signature - if we have joint legal custody and the divorce agreement doesn't specifically forbid me from taking her out of the country. Right?

[socrateaser]

>Thanks.
>
>One exception to your rule about International travel - my
>daughter already has a passport (which is in my possession).
>So for the next 4 years (when the current passport expires), I
>wouldn't need my ex's signature - if we have joint legal
>custody and the divorce agreement doesn't specifically forbid
>me from taking her out of the country. Right?

On your facts, there's nothing preventing you from taking the child outside the USA. Regardless, if I were negotiating this issue as your opponent, and a passport were already issued, I would want it placed in a trust account, or maybe a safety deposit box, with a court order that prevents the passport's release except by written consent of both parents, and an instruction that the passport must be returned to the account/box within 5 business days of reentering the USA.

Traveling to another nation creates much different issues than does travel within the sovereign borders of the USA.

[mistoffolees]

Thanks