"Shared" transportation

[Momfortwo]

The advice given was based on this person's situation.

I agree too that if a parent moves away, that they should bear that additional responsiblity.

But that's not the case here -- because the parent who didn't move, didn't make it an issue in a timely manner.

Therefore, they have an order that says "transportation is shared"

So -- how are you disagreeing with the statement that you highlighed or quoted in your response?

You stated that the transportation should be SHARED if the travel time was only 4 hours. 

While the original poster is going to have to share in the transportation costs because status quo (and the court order) is that she has been, as I mentioned in my post. 

I didn't get that you thought the move away parent should be the only one paying for the increased transportation costs from any part of your post.  At all.  Just that it should be shared. 

[MixedBag]

Then I advise you to take a look at all my posts in this thread and all my opinions and put them all together.

In THIS case, dad moved 4 hours away.

Mom did not contest.

Transportation was ordered to be shared.

They've been sharing.

Mom missed a window of opportunity to complain that dad moved, so HE should bear the cost.

The comment "If it takes 4 hours to get from one home to the other, that travel time should be SHARED." was directly related to her question about the exchange time of 6 pm.

Does that mean that dad leaves 4 hours earlier to have the child back at Mom's by  6 pm?

In this case, to me, transportation is 4 hours on the road and even that time should be shared by both mom and dad.

The mom came back and asked about this issue later on in the subsequent postings.

[ocean]

She said the parenting time ended at 6pm and it says shared so dad should be leaving at 4 to get her to the half way point at 6. OR the train got her home at 6:10...that is close enough.

[MixedBag]

Ocean, I so agree with you for this situation.

Just noticed too -- we have a "MomOFtwo" and a "MomFORtwo" in this thread....

[MomofTwo]

There are no statutes to stop a NCP from moving away from their child.  The laws for relocation are CP based.  Poster could not have fought the move and won, but she could have asked for all costs/transportation  to be handled by him since he caused the distance.  It does sound like to some extent this was discussed with the "sharing", but unless it says equal sharing, it is a very generic order and he most likely would not win on a contempt issue as long as she offers to share in part the costs and or travel.  It's basically a "feel good" order. Very generic and very hard to enforce.  Same as a judge ordering "liberal visitation as agreed..." Crap orders.

You can either work something out or not. Let him file for contempt and show you have offered to share or file for clarification of the order.    That being said, (and I moved as well), the CP who doesn't move shouldn't be saddled with the transportation or costs for a NCP who chooses to move away. Would you feel the same if he moved 1000 miles away and it costs a few hundred for a plane ticket each time for visitation ??   NCP should have considered his child when he chose to move.

[justme]

I am so glad that I found this forum!  I thank you all for your real life facts and your considered opinions.  There is no negotiating with this man - I've been always been the flexible one and multiple suggestions for alternatives are usually rejected with no reason given.  I am going to sit tight and do what I've been doing and share the driving, and I'm going to offer him alternatives to that train he's so stuck on that gets in during my EMS shift.  I'm not going to get involved in paying for the train tickets - that way I can maintain "status quo".  If he decides to take me to court I can bring all of my e-mails and documentation of how flexible I have been and how I have been sharing in the transportation (no percentage is mentioned in the agreement.)  So I think it's possible that any request for a change will be dismissed anyway since nothing has changed significantly and I'm not in violation. 

If I had it to do over I would have been a stickler and not let that kind of vaguery be in the agreement.  But it is what it is and I hope I won't be getting divorced again!

[MixedBag]

MomofTwo -- are you from or do you deal with NY?  In AL, both the CP and the NCP must notify each other of a move.  It goes both ways.   Their past practices have defined shared.  They met half way -- which translates to 50/50.

Justme -- it saddens me to read your response.

You missed your opportunity to lay the responsiblity on dad.

Your EMS responsiblity is VOLUNTEER work.

I don't understand -- I mean I REALLY don't understand how you couldn't be totally excited that you don't have to spend 4 hours on the road twice in one weekend and that the opportunity it pick up your child at a closer location isn't a good thing.

I don't understand -- how not seeing your EX which just gives him the opportunity to be well, mean, again in front of your child isn't worth agreeing to this train arrangement.

Good luck -- and by all means come back down the road and let us know how this turns out.

I think you're gonna loose this round.

[4honor]

Order says 6 to 6. That means Dad's time goes from 6 PM to 6 PM. He would technically not have to put child on train until 6 PM. All he has to do is have child available at 6 PM. If he were to drive and get child by 6 PM Friday you could be on the road from 6 PM Sunday to after 10.

Justme, I suggest you do the train and pay half. you say Dad doesn't exercise visitation EOW, so you are talking less cost than the price of gas AND less overall than the cost of a lawyer. The ex may not ever give you an explanation, but if you think about it, the 6:10 train is the best scenario for everyone. Your DD will get home at a reasonable time. costs are contained. The ONLY problem with the train is that you have a VOLUNTEER oportunity that you could arrange an occassional change in your schedule. ON those days when Dad has DD and she is coming home on the train, you send a friend to pick her up, a relative, or you ask the previous volunteer to stay on duty for the hour you need to get DD and get home.

Out of "principle" you are fighting a battle that is a no win situation.  You could get stuck driving all the way there and back on Sundays if a court gets invovled. I have seen it happen time after time that a court decides he/she who wants, goes and gets.

Also, since your order is so vague, but it is an order, you cannot bring up what happened BEFORE the order in court now. His moving means nothing since it did not happen since the last order. Share means share. Generally it goes without saying to share evenly/equally, but the judge may not have said that in order to get you and the ex to have some leeway to negotitate what is best for your situation. OK, so he does not want to negotiate. Does the order state you have to meet? Make him come all the way a couple times and see how you both like the entire drive. (We did 13 years of 3.5 hours each way, 26 times a year because BM was "difficult".) You want child? she will be availale here at home at 6 PM. Cuts down on any one parent changing the plans too quickly or too late.

[ocean]

Justme...
If he brings this to court it will not be dismissed because he will ask for a clarification to an existing order. NY tends to to meet at a half way point OR One who wants ..gets...so He would drive full way on Fri and you retrieve on Sunday.

Why are you so against the 6:10 train??? If you meet at a half way point at 6 then you had to drive home so how are you making it to the ambulance company on time now?

[MomofTwo]

MB -
Yes I do (have experience with NY). The NY statutes regarding relocation are geared for the CP wanting to relocate and for preservation of the NCP/child relationship.  There is nothing prohibiting or making a NCP petition the courts to move away from the child.  The mindset is visitation is a right, not an obligation and if they (NCP) choose to move, that is their choice, along with the visitation.

If you read my original post, I do agree with poster offering to pay a portion of the train tickets and also did not agree with scheduling volunteer activies that conflict with what would be the pick up time from the train station.