change of custody?

[wldcherry1]

NCP has the ability to stay home and take care of kids.  NCP is married.
NCP lives in Europe
NCP has sent up SPARC card for kids to call.
NCP maintains relationship by calling at least once a month, sends e-mails and packages for all holidays, birthdays etc.
NCP provides health insurance and would continue to do so

CP works full time and lives with SO
CP lives in states
CP does nothing to foster relationship with NCP.
CP does not allow kids to use SPARC card
CP does not encourage kids to call, send e-mail, or recognize holidays, birthdays etc.
CP takes children on trips and does not tell the NCP where they are so NCP can call.
CP does not give any information pertaining to the children even when asked

Are the above fact sufficient to render a change of custody?

[socrateaser]

To get a new custody hearing you must show that something substantial has CHANGED and that change has affected the child's best interests. Your facts show no change in circumstances, therefore no hearing.

[socrateaser]

To get a new custody hearing you must show that something substantial has CHANGED and that change has affected the child's best interests. Your facts show no change in circumstances, therefore no hearing.

[JenG99]

I am in no way trying to be negative or judgemental but something about this posts concerns me.

You stated that you only call once a month, this in no way is sufficient enough to maintain a stable, consistent figure in your children's lives. I would be embarassed to go before a Judge stating that I only call my children once a month.

You stated that you live in Europe , so if a Judge granted you custody there is no way legally, to ensure an on-going relationship with the other parent.

Providing gifts for the children is a given as every parent should be expected to do so. CP's "provide gifts" and extra's every day no only on holidays.

Providing insurance is also an obligation, not a "favor" nor does it show you as being the better parent. You are providing basic care.

You stated that the CP doesn't allow the children to use the SPARC card yet you give the impression that you ARE infact allowed to speak with the children when you call.

 Call your children, problem solved.

 No Judge will uproot these children and allow them to leave the country unless SEVERE abuse and neglect were involved. Even then the chances are very, very slim due to you living in a country that will not protect the other parents visitation rights.

 I am sorry that this sopunds harsh but it is reality.

[wldcherry1]

I understand your point.  However.  I notice that you have a lot of points on what a NCP should do.  How about the support a CP should give.

  "You stated that you only call once a month, this in no way is sufficient enough to maintain a stable, consistent figure in your children's lives. I would be embarassed to go before a Judge stating that I only call my children once a month."

Yes the NCP calls a minimum of once a month.  Sometimes more.  Many times when the NCP calls no one is home or the CP has taken the children somewhere and not given the NCP a phone number to call.  That is why the NCP furnishes a SPARC card so that the CP can have the children call at no expense to the CP when it is convenient to the children and CP.  If I was the CP in this case I would be embarrassed to not be more active in encouraging a relationship between the children and the NCP.

"You stated that you live in Europe , so if a Judge granted you custody there is no way legally, to ensure an on-going relationship with the other parent."

This is exactly my point.  The CP is doing NOTHING to encourage a relationship with the NCP.

"Providing gifts for the children is a given as every parent should be expected to do so. CP's "provide gifts" and extra's every day no only on holidays."

The NCP provides for the children through child support.  The NCP provides everything when they are exercising parenting time while continuing to pay CS to the CP while receiving NOTING from the CP to include enough clothes to last a week.

"Providing insurance is also an obligation, not a "favor" nor does it show you as being the better parent. You are providing basic care."

I never claimed it was a favor.  I was stating that if the NCP was able to receive custody they would continue to provide insurance.  Why is it that the CP is never required to provide insurance or help with the payments?

"You stated that the CP doesn't allow the children to use the SPARC card yet you give the impression that you ARE infact allowed to speak with the children when you call."

Are you saying that the CP is fulfilling their responsibility as a parent by allowing the NCP to speak with the children when they call?  How big of the CP.  What about teaching the children that they one half of a relationship and that communication goes both ways.

"Call your children, problem solved".

Just calling the children does not solve any problems.  The CP still does NOTHING to encourage the relationship between the NCP and the children.  I believe that both parents are responsible for encouraging healthy relationships.

"No Judge will uproot these children and allow them to leave the country unless SEVERE abuse and neglect were involved."

I never claimed that the CP was a abusive parent in the typical sense.  What I was stating is that the CP does nothing to encourage the parent child relationship with the NCP...To include calling the NCP at no expense to the CP, sending a letter at no expense to the CP (as the NCP has provided SASE) a thank you card for gifts (which are not entitlements that is why they are gifts) or a simple birthday card for the NCP.

"Even then the chances are very, very slim due to you living in a country that will not protect the other parents visitation rights."

Yes I understand the chances are slim.  I was trying to point out that the NCP puts forth an effort.  Where is the effort by the CP?  Because of the ages of the children they just can't pick up a phone or drop a letter in a mailbox.  It would take the support of the CP to encourage the relationship with the NCP.  I notice here that you are worried that the CP's "rights would not be protected.  This is exactly my point.  Who is protecting the NCP's rights in this case?  Whithout the CP's support how will the children learn to have a healthy realtionship with the NCP?