Summer with SD...

[socrateaser]

Your post appears to me to continue to have the "PB" designation. Please check it again.

My experience is that boards that permit the denegration of opponents usually degenerate into flame wars.

Also, and more importantly, if you "think" of the other party as a "PB", then your thinking may spread into your actions. Generally, both sides have a story to tell, and somewhere in between lies the truth. I want to find that truth before the judge does and surprises anyone.

The only time that such a nomenclature as "PB" is appropriate, is when you can actually prove with credible evidence that the other party is (1) Psychotic, and (2) a Bitch.

[Miller]

I think I got them all this time.  Don't know how I missed those.  :)

I understand what you are saying that by using a negative term, then that can influence a person's way of looking at the situation.

Sadly, I probably could prove with credible evidence that the negative term is, in fact, appropriate in this case but that's not the issue at hand nor is it a good use of time for anyone.  :)

[socrateaser]

>Any thoughts on what a court would have to say about this?

It's really all about what the exact terms of the court order re custody/parenting say. However, I cannot conceive of a court order that would intentionally grant you 6 weeks, and then let the other parent take back one week on a whim. So, even without reading your orders, I think you're on pretty firm ground.

However, I think you need to try to communicate that you would like to deal with these issues as amicably as possible, but that if she cannot find any middle ground, then she is within her rights to ask a court to resolve any questions (rather than just saying S!@# Off!).

>Does BM have a chance in getting her way on this one?

Highly doubtful.

[Miller]

DH has told her that if there is a situation where a trip must occur during his summer weeks (i.e., a family gathering in another state, etc.) then he is willing to work with her to accommodate this, but that he's not willing to just give her the right to delegate his summer weeks every year.  BM has responded that she does not have any specific plans but just intends to spend the week at home doing nothing.

Would his offer that he will work with her in the event of an unavoidable trip during those weeks be considered as trying to deal with this amicably?

[Miller]

DH shall have 6 consecutive weeks with SD in the summer.  DH shall give BM written notice of his 6 weeks as soon as possible but not later than April 1.  DH shall have one week of uninterrupted time with SD during his 6 weeks.  He will notify BM in writing of that one-week period no later than 14 days before it occurs.  BM shall have one week of uninterrupted time with SD during the remainder of summer break.  BM will notify DH in writing of her one-week period no later than 14 days before it occurs.

********
The court ordered that the weeks must be consecutive.  Is there a reason that the court would do this?  Since BM is trying to split the weeks up (and DH is against it) then we're trying to determine if it's the "norm" to have the weeks ordered consecutively.

[socrateaser]

>Would his offer that he will work with her in the event of an
>unavoidable trip during those weeks be considered as trying to
>deal with this amicably?

Yes, but be sure to make the offer to negotiate in writing, or you'll have no proof that the court will recognize. You always want to appear to be bargaining in good faith, and cooperating in the child's best interests.

[socrateaser]

>DH shall have 6 consecutive weeks with SD in the summer.  DH
>shall give BM written notice of his 6 weeks as soon as
>possible but not later than April 1.  DH shall have one week
>of uninterrupted time with SD during his 6 weeks.  He will
>notify BM in writing of that one-week period no later than 14
>days before it occurs.  BM shall have one week of
>uninterrupted time with SD during the remainder of summer
>break.  BM will notify DH in writing of her one-week period no
>later than 14 days before it occurs.
>
>********
>The court ordered that the weeks must be consecutive.  Is
>there a reason that the court would do this?  

It doesn't really matter why. The court ordered it, so that's what must be followed until someone moves for and obtains a modification.

>Since BM is
>trying to split the weeks up (and DH is against it) then we're
>trying to determine if it's the "norm" to have the weeks
>ordered consecutively.

You're thinking too hard. The other parent has no case, and if she brings a mod on grounds that she wants it "because," she'll get tossed out of the courtroom