Mom is refusing visit because of transportation clause. HELP???????

[eagleeyefam]

Thanks in advance for any and all ideas

I'll try to make this short. It's joint legal joint physical mom having primary. dad gets 1 week a month. child is 2.

Clause in court order states "if parties can not agree on mode of transportation then an airline ticket will be bought. father pays 100% of this"

Ok. Child turned 2 in july. Dad has child 1 week a monoth. Flys from Boise to Sacramento and picks childs up, returns home to Boise with Child. The next weekend flys with child to Sac drops child with mom then flys home to Boise.

It is always fly. BM refuses to allow transport to be done by vehicle. REFUSES.

Now the child is 2. He needs his own round trip ticket. Each 1 week is now a total of 3 round trip tickets to be purchased. Unless you live in a cave, you know the cost of a round trip ticket is outrageous, let alone 3 in one month.

The drive will be 3 hours for BM to meet in SAC, then 7 hours to Boise. 10 hours all together.

Now we just went thru mediation and wanted to change the travel. the medator didn't change anythign in the papers so dad filed an oblection so some changes can me made when we go to a judge. MOM is now mad!!!!

Child is scheduled to be with dad starting saturday. mom sent an email stating the trips are now to consist of the ticket for the child as well as for the father. Thta's going to be almost $1200 for this week visit.

Mom is resuing to allow dad to pick up the child in Sac on saturday unless the travel is done by plane.

What can dad do??

The court is California based.

[MomofTwo]

Who moved....sounds like Dad did??

The agreement is pretty clear, if an agreement isn't reached, air tranportation is to be paid by Dad.   You have to pay since she isn't in agreement.  If Dad moved away, the courts are not going to make her drive 10 hours with a two year old.   You can object to anything, but until an order is changed, the existing order stands and that order says Dad pays for air transportation if they aren't in agreement.

[eagleeyefam]

Mom wouldn't do the driving, dad would do the round trip drive. Dad didn't move by choice, it was a job transfer.
I understand legally dad is responsible for the plane ticket, but morally come on. This is the childs father.

[Davy]

Eagle Eye !! " This is the child's father "  Exactly !! 

Hope this matter can be resolved.

[MixedBag]

IMHO -- if the ORDER says this, then Dad is gonna have to have a "significant change in circumstances" to change what's already been ordered by a judge.

Honestly?  Here's what I would do.

What would happen if dad drove to Sacramento and met mom there at the same time the airline would have arrived?

And then what would happen if dad drove back to Sacramento arriving at the same time the airline would have returned you two?

Count your blessings that Mom BRINGS the child 3 hours to the airport....seriously.

EX#3's ex refused to drive their children from Winnemucca to Reno for 3 years -- and it took dad that long to get to court and ASK the court to find her in contempt.  Judge refused because the order was not clear.  And for 3 LONG years, dad did not get to see or speak to his children.

Back when I first split up with EX#2, my attorney said that I needed to agree to pay EX#2 for his gasoline expenses so that he would agree to take our son to the airport -- 110 miles one way.  Otherwise, yes, I'd have to rent a car on his end, go get our son, and return (3 airline tickets as well).

I can understand the frustration of the cost of travel -- believe me, 6 kids and three long distance divorces over the years -- and my son is presently a 12 hour one way drive away from me.

You two need to count your blessings.....

[eagleeyefam]

BM follows dad to the security point to watch and make sure they go thru to get on a plane. The papers actually state BM is to drive the child to Sac to meet for the exchange. It also states if a mode of transportation can not be agreed upon then a plane ticket is bought. She won't agree to the driving becasue it's her control factor she gets to play.

There really is no reason dad can't drive to sac and back other than mom wanting to deny visitation.

Court is coming up to change the flight issues.

IMHO -- if the ORDER says this, then Dad is gonna have to have a "significant change in circumstances" to change what's already been ordered by a judge.

Honestly?  Here's what I would do.

What would happen if dad drove to Sacramento and met mom there at the same time the airline would have arrived?

And then what would happen if dad drove back to Sacramento arriving at the same time the airline would have returned you two?

Count your blessings that Mom BRINGS the child 3 hours to the airport....seriously.

EX#3's ex refused to drive their children from Winnemucca to Reno for 3 years -- and it took dad that long to get to court and ASK the court to find her in contempt.  Judge refused because the order was not clear.  And for 3 LONG years, dad did not get to see or speak to his children.

Back when I first split up with EX#2, my attorney said that I needed to agree to pay EX#2 for his gasoline expenses so that he would agree to take our son to the airport -- 110 miles one way.  Otherwise, yes, I'd have to rent a car on his end, go get our son, and return (3 airline tickets as well).

I can understand the frustration of the cost of travel -- believe me, 6 kids and three long distance divorces over the years -- and my son is presently a 12 hour one way drive away from me.

You two need to count your blessings.....

[Kitty C.]

Eagle, you have a PM..........

[snowrose]

This is one of those times when you wonder how anyone agreed to such a clause to begin with.  It's obviously next to impossible to keep up this kind of visitation.  I hope you'll be able to change things.  Even a judge should be able to be convinced that flying is a huge drain on finances.

When you go to court you might also do some research.  It seems to me that I've read somewhere that flying is actually not a good thing for young children.  I believe they have trouble with the changes in air pressure, and certainly flying would make them more likely to be exposed to germs due to the recirculated air.

[Kitty C.]

As for the effects of constant flying, it's no different for kids than it is adults.....it's not likely that the courts would look seriously at that.  But the cost.........making the argument that the money could be better spent on the child, especially towards a college education is certainly valid, especially today.

[MixedBag]

Snowrose....sorry, I'm an advocate of flying and don't see a problem with it.

I too think that dad didn't think long term when the divorce went final and only thought short term...