Transportation clarification

[LizaLou1]

Soc,

Back again..... It never ends.

Last July BM was brought before the judge for blocking visitation.  True to his word, the judge had a Deputy in the courtroom to take her into custody for contempt.  When the BM saw this, she settled quickly ouside the court room agreeing to provide transportation for 12 months among other things - all of which were read into the record in front of the Judge.   In August the Judge issued an order stating:

"For the next twelve (12) months, all visitation between the minor children and the father shall be done by the mother providing all transportation or paying for all transportation of the minor children from the residence in Florida to the father's residence in Alabama."

The kids are scheduled to go home in Aug.

It is DH's position that she is required to provide their transportation home in August because that's when the order was signed.

BM's position is that they are back to sharing 50/50 because the verbal agreement was made in July.


1.  What say ye, which is correct?

Thanks

LizaLou

[bananas]

My thought on this is, if she wants them back, she needs to make the arrangements and pay for the arrangements to get them back.  Otherwise the kids stay with you.  It's a very easy way to solve the problem.

Also, I would go by the date of the actual court order, which takes priority over any verbal agreement on the issue.  I think she is SOL.

[socrateaser]

>1.  What say ye, which is correct?

The obvious intent of the order is that the BM be obligated for 12 months from the date that the order was issued. So, if it was issued on Aug 15, for example, then the order would be lifted as of Aug. 15 of the following year.

[LizaLou1]

.