What is your opinion on this?

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

Dear Mr. Dad,
   
This is to advise you that if in the future I should be required to pick up the children from activities during your periods of custody, I must have a personal request from you prior to the occasion. Might I suggest that in the future, should weather be a concern to you, that you keep the children at home As it is the road of your residence that is not maintained, that should be a major concern to you and I should not be subjected to having to deliver the children because you feel you are not able. After all, your 4 Wheel Drive Pickup truck is much more effective in the winter weather than is my car.

Should I not have a request from you, I will deliver the children to my home and contact the proper authorities.

I was quite pleased to learn that you feel I should share in the parenting duties, especially where transportation is concerned. Therefore, I'm sure you will be quite understanding in the following matter:

Effective Sunday, January 23, 2005 I will return to our previous court order in regards to transportation of the children, which states that I will be responsible for picking the children up from your place of residence, and you shall be responsible for picking the children up from mine. As the current order makes no provisions for this, I'm sure you will be quite agreeable, especially since you feel I am responsible for transporting them during your periods of custody.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.


Very truly yours,
'
Mom

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

1. What is your opinion on this letter, and am I within my rights to demand that he pick the children up as was stated in the previous court order, but which is not addressed in the current order?

[socrateaser]

>1. What is your opinion on this letter, and am I within my
>rights to demand that he pick the children up as was stated in
>the previous court order, but which is not addressed in the
>current order?

I'm sorry, I just don't remember what your orders state regarding this issue, and I can't review the letter without that info.

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

Yes, Soc, it's not addressed, period.  ;-)

It says visitation is from "A" to "B" on this day and "B" to C" on that day. It is not addressed anywhere, in any way, shape or form.

The previous court order stated that I was to pick the kids up from his house, and he was to pick the kids up from my house.

He is now having the children call me to deliver them or pick them up from various functions during HIS custody time(such as 10pm after dances, because he's in bed). He didn't think he'd be able to pick her up because of the weather. He lives on a poorly maintained road and has a 4WDrive. I live in town and drive a small car. He told my daughter, "Well she has to share."
(He has primary physical, me partial physical, joint legal.)

He slowly wheedled his way out of doing any transporting after gaining physical custody. He even refused to pick our girl up last night and he had to drive right past my house after boyscouts!

[socrateaser]

If your prior court orders state transportatoin conditions, and the more recent ones do not, then the prior orders remain in force, UNLESS the prior orders were temporary orders, and the current orders are final, in which case only the final orders are in force, UNLESS the current orders state that the prior orders continue in full force and effect.

So, assuming that the prior transportation orders remain in effect, then my critique of your letter is that you need to get rid of ALL of the sarcasm, and come straight to the point without creating fertile ground for a battle.

dear x:

On several recent occasions, you have asked me to transport our children back to your residence after my exercise of parenting time, and I have accomodated your requests. However, the frequency with which you make this request has steadily increased to the point where I am now doing substantially all of the transporting.

Additionally, whenever I make a similar request of you, you generally refuse to accomodate me.

This is not fair to me, and, more to the point, it is not what our court orders state, i.e., ___________ (insert text of order). So, if you continue to take advantage of my good nature, then I will be forced to adhere exactly to the express orders, and refuse your requests to transport our children outside the instructions of our court orders (absent an emergency, of course).

In practice, this means that if you request that I pick up the children from some function other than one where I am transporting them from your home to mine, then I will bring them to my home, and you will need to retrieve them from me.

Hopefully, we can both continue to cooperate with each other regarding this matter in the children's best interests. If not, then perhaps it will be necessary to have the court clarify the issue for both of us.

Sincerely,

ex

[MixedBag]

Soc,

Daughter wanted to go to a dance totally on Dad's time or weekend.

Dad said he would take her to the dance.  

Dad said "BUT mom has to pick you up from the dance and bring you home here.  She must share in this responsiblity of taking you to the dance."

ALL ON DAD's TIME and WEEKEND.

Hope that helps.....it's not a transportation question for getting the kids back and forth over weekends defined by the divorce.

[socrateaser]

I'm not certain that I understand your point, but this is mine (and it's a long one):

Dad is attempting to impute responsibility onto Mom. References to what is right and wrong, morally, or to who is responsible in one parent's opinion, is irrelevant.

When a court rules on custody and support, it is lawfully altering the relationships of the parties. What may have been "right" or "wrong" within an intact marriage is no longer applicable.

The only thing that matters is whether or not the parties are adhering to the court order. If they do not, and one parent believes that the failure to adhere is causing an injury, then that parent has the right to obtain relief and/or clarification from the court.

The purpose of the law is to specify, not what is right or wrong, but only what is permissible under the circumstances.

If Dad says, "Mom has a responsibility to do X." Dad is taking a moral position. It's a value judgment based on Dad's opinion. This creates a field of battle over what's right or wrong in the situation.

There is NO right or wrong in court. There is only the law. If the parents want to deal in rights and wrongs, then they should see their pastor/priest and/or they shouldn't have obtained a divorce, because once the court is involved, right and wrong are off the table.

Parents need to stop feeling guilty for adhering to court orders that appear to be devoid of right and wrong. All this does is breed anger and resentment.

If the laws says, parent A pays $X per month so that parent B can raise a child, then upon parent A's tender of payment, parent A should feel not one wit of guilt for not being available for his/her child, and parent B shouldn't hold parent A's lack of availability over parent A's head as some crown of thorns.

If parent B doesn't like the arrangement, then parent B should offer to change the court orders to accomodate the change per the law. If parent B doesn't, then in my humble opinion, parent A should be guilt free and go on with his/her existence, just as if he/she never had a child or a spouse, during any period that the law permits this behavior.

The law has removed all doubt as to the nature of the parties' relationship to each other -- so if the parties don't like it, then they should change the law.

Interestingly enough, however, divorced and/or never married parents can change their orders anytime they wish, and the court will rubber stamp their wishes. But, of course parents don't. Instead, parents prefer to fight a non-stop battle for supremacy, throughout the children's minority.

Life is too short for this sort of nonsense -- at least, it is too short -- for me.

[MixedBag]

I get what you're saying totally....

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

Sorry Soc, sarcasm has been my mode  since the day I was born. I appreciate your letter for me to use.

My only problem is that I still don't know if the old orders would remain in effect?

The previous orders were "final" orders for 50/50 custody.

The current orders are "final" orders as of him receiving primary physical. No where do they ever refer to the previous orders.

I suppose it's worth a shot regardless.
Thanks for your help.  ;-)

[socrateaser]

If the orders were final, then they remain in effect unless expressly overruled by future final orders.