WWYD?

[greatdad]

Well, strap on, strap in and wear your shades, cuz up coming a bright light, of that you can be sure.
I dont buy into this whole cop out "whatever the ex does is none of your business", if what the ex does affects my kids, it sure does become my biz. Her personal life off limits I agree, her time with our kidsI am all about insuring that good parenting occurs

[Zephyr]

oh boy- make sure you tell that to the judge

[greatdad]

Ok, cut me some slack, not meant to tell judge in that particular manner. Take it in the spirit intended, as sincere concern about welfare of small children and venting a bit on a forum geared toward people with similar experiences.
If you have been in my shoes you get it, if not, then I can see where you miss the true push / pull dynamics of it.
Thanks for the opinions though, it's all good.

[mistoffolees]

>Ok, cut me some slack, not meant to tell judge in that
>particular manner. Take it in the spirit intended, as sincere
>concern about welfare of small children and venting a bit on a
>forum geared toward people with similar experiences.
>If you have been in my shoes you get it, if not, then I can
>see where you miss the true push / pull dynamics of it.
>Thanks for the opinions though, it's all good.


Just as you should take the advice you've been given in the spirit intended.

Several people have commented that what you're asking goes well beyond what is necessary for the protection of the children. If you go in with your guns blazing like you've done here and show complete contempt for the other side, you're going to lose.

The fact is that PARENTING TIME is not visitation. The mother has every bit as much right to spend time with the kids as you do. She is choosing to spend it in one particular manner and you have to provide  a very, very strong reason why the way that she is exercising her parenting time is harmful to the kids. The courts are very resistant to tell parents how to spend time with their kids (whether the ex likes it or not). Frankly, I haven't seen anything supporting that - merely your own opinions.

If you really think that it's harming the kids, the only way you're going to prove it is with a detailed psychological evaluation from an expert in the field. Walking into court and saying 'the kids are in the car too much and I don't like it' will get you nowhere - and you may be forced to pay her legal expenses as well as yours.

Focust on facts, not opinions if you want to win this.

[greatdad]

Point(s) taken. I am taking it as intended, just (as you all going through this know) a very sensitive subject .
Unfortunatley ( because it means it isn't all emotion, and is happening for real) I do have the back up as a matter of "fact" . Just won't put those particulars  on a public forum, as I am sure we all are aware that our screen names are only a thin veil of protection from those who are directly knowledgeable of our cases.
So, I can see where a third party  would sense, but not be able to see that there is more to this than meets the eye. Keep in mind, for me to have become the sole CP, the court must have seen an awful lot about the NCP that it didnt like.
Thanks for the sincere feedback, I do appreciate it.

[chipmunk226]

If you are sending you kids to the NCP, then you are not the sole custodial parent.

I have a similar situation in that my son has to travel to see his dad. It's about 3.5 hours one way. Since I moved, I am responsible for all of the transport. He goes to his fathers 2x a month, gets most holidays, and then stays for the majority of the summer.

I hate the driving, and the fact that when my son is with his father for the short time, there are many times that his father is working or has my son being babysat. It sucks, but it's life. It's something that I have to deal with until his dad either A, grows up [highly unlikely] or B, my son gets old enough to express to the judge that he would much rather spend his time doing other things. And even then, there's no guarantee that his dad will be forced to help in transport or have less time with his son.

I used to be just like you, thinking that the judge and the courts will think logically and agree with me all the time. But it's just not the case. There are kids who travel just as much if not more with parents that are together, and they are just fine. I agree with the other posters that you need to pick you battles and this is one better left unsought.

Sure there are other factors in all of our situations, but we can only comment on what you post and not everyone is going to agree with you. And don't take it that if one person agrees with you that must mean you are right and should pursue this. I believe based on what you posted, that it will be a waste of time and you most likely will just frustrate the courts. And when you actually DO have a more serious issue to address, it will be overshadowed by all your unnecessary claims and will be taken less seriously.

I have learned to sit back and let my son's father shoot himself in the foot so I'm not left holding the gun... he's doing a pretty good job at it too :)

[mistoffolees]

>If you are sending you kids to the NCP, then you are not the
>sole custodial parent.

That's not true.

There are two types of custody - legal and physical. Legal custody determines who has the right to make decisions for the child and physical custody determines where the child predominantly lives.

There are several common situations:
1. Joint legal, shared physical.
2. Joint legal, one primary physical with visitation to NCP
3. Sole legal, one primary physical with visitation to NCP

In the case of #3, the she would be the sole custodial parent.

But I agree with most everything else you've written. First, the other parent has the right to drive to Timbuktu and back if the agreement doesn't restrict it and I don't believe CP has the right to tell NCP how to spend their time. Second, I suspect that NCP will get tired of the driving after a while and ask for a change (or simply exercise visitation less frequently).

[greatdad]

>>If you are sending you kids to the NCP, then you are not
>the
>>sole custodial parent.
>
>That's not true.
>
>There are two types of custody - legal and physical. Legal
>custody determines who has the right to make decisions for the
>child and physical custody determines where the child
>predominantly lives.
>
>There are several common situations:
>1. Joint legal, shared physical.
>2. Joint legal, one primary physical with visitation to NCP
>3. Sole legal, one primary physical with visitation to NCP
>
>In the case of #3, the she would be the sole custodial parent.

I have sole legal and physical custody.It is still pendente lie, but does anyone know how often that is changed at final, especially when the children have flourished and stabilized. In essence things have only improved since pendente.
>
>
>But I agree with most everything else you've written. First,
>the other parent has the right to drive to Timbuktu and back
>if the agreement doesn't restrict it and I don't believe CP
>has the right to tell NCP how to spend their time. Second, I
>suspect that NCP will get tired of the driving after a while
>and ask for a change (or simply exercise visitation less
>frequently).
Do any of you know of a situation where the court did recognize that the travel was not in best interest of child and ordered the NCP who shose to move, to be the one to travel?

[mistoffolees]

>I have sole legal and physical custody.It is still pendente
>lie, but does anyone know how often that is changed at final,
>especially when the children have flourished and stabilized.
>In essence things have only improved since pendente.

There are, of course, no guarantees in this situation, but in general, judges hate to change things that appear to be working. The judge must have had significant reasons to give you sole legal and physical in the first place and the fact that it's working will serve to reinforce that.

The OP has the burden to prove that it would be better for the children if they were returned to him/her (I don't remember which). If they had the evidence to prove that NOW, they probably would not have lost custody in the first place (assuming you didn't do anything really stupid since obtaining custody).

>>
>>
>>But I agree with most everything else you've written. First,
>>the other parent has the right to drive to Timbuktu and back
>>if the agreement doesn't restrict it and I don't believe CP
>>has the right to tell NCP how to spend their time. Second, I
>>suspect that NCP will get tired of the driving after a while
>>and ask for a change (or simply exercise visitation less
>>frequently).
>Do any of you know of a situation where the court did
>recognize that the travel was not in best interest of child
>and ordered the NCP who shose to move, to be the one to
>travel?

I don't know of any. In general, the courts believe that time spent with both parents is good and they don't really care if it's spent in a living room, at the zoo, or in a car.