One Court Order VS. Another

[Imom]

Looking over this new order I think my fear may have came true.

My original order states word for word about transportation.

4. Transportation: The parties acknowledge that this arrangement may lead to considerable expense for transporting the child between residences. After careful consideration and discussion, the parties agree that transportation shall be the responsibility of the non-custodial parent.

This was our agreement signed, dated and ordered in 1998. What we have been following (as this is what we wanted and were told the clause above obligated us to do):

I have physical custody from one week before the school year until one week following the school year----which I am the Custodial Parent and the mother is the Non-Custodial Parent; the mother has physical custody anytime the child is out longer then a three day weekend---which she is the Custodial Parent and I am then the Non-Custodial Parent.
Visitation is I get even year Christmas Vacation she gets odd. And we both get reasonable visitation upon advanced notice.

EX: This springbreak is mom's she picks up on Friday since she is the NCP until she takes physical custody...Then after the visit I pick up since I am the NCP until I take physical custody.

It was to our understanding that if mom wanted to visit the child lets say this weekend she could but would be 100% responsible for transportation and cost per order since she is the non-custodial parent.
Then that is the same if I wanted visitation during the times she has physical custody.


This past August I went to court because I wanted to fly my son home after the summer period. The Mother refused to take him to the airport.
Here is that order:




                                          COURT ORDER
                                        November 8, 2005


           The parties appear for a hearing on the Respondent/Father's Emergency Affidavit for Order Clarifying Transportation and to Enforce Transportation Provisions filed July 5, 2005. The Petitioner/Mother, xxxxxxx xxxx, appears in person and without counsel. The Respondent/Father, xxxx xxxxx, appears in person and without counsel. The Court hears the evidence and testimony at a hearing on August 11, 2005. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court takes the matters under advisement.

         The Court having considered these matters and being duly advised in the premises, now finds as follows:

         1. That travel by air can be safe, if not safer, than travel by automobile.

         2. That special precautions must be taken with air travel involving a minor child unaccompanied by an adult.

        3. That pursuant to the present Order, when the child is transferred from one parent to the other, the parent receiving the child is responsible for transportation and expenses.

       4. That the Petitioner/Mother should not be obligated to transport the child by air when the child is being transported from Indiana to Mississippi. In that event, the Petitioner/Mother may certainly transport the child by automobile.  

      5. That when the child is being transported from Mississippi to Indiana, the Respondent/Father may arrange and pay for transportation by air for a direct flight for the child, and the Petitioner/Mother should see to it that the child is transported accordingly.

      6. That if no direct flight can be found from Jackson, Mississippi, to Evansville or to Indianapolis, Indiana, the Respondent/Father may arrange for a direct flight from Memphis to Evansville or Indianapolis and then be responsible for reimbursing the Petitioner/Mother for her reasonable driving expenses to and from the Memphis airport.

The court having considered these matters and being duly advised in the premises, now ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES as follows:

1. CLARIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION OBLIGATION:   The Respondent/Father's motion of July 5, 2005 is herby GRANTED. The Court Orders that the Respondent/Father , xxxx xxxxx, may arrange for and book a direct flight for the child, xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx, from Jackson, Mississippi to Evansville or to Indianapolis, Indiana, if such a direct flight is available. The Respondent/Father shall not book the child for a flight that involves a connecting flight or a layover.

           In the event a direct flight from Jackson, Mississippi to Evansville or to Indianapolis, Indiana is not available, the Respondent/Father may book a direct flight for the child from Memphis, Tennessee, to Evansville or to Indianapolis and then reimburse the Petitioner/Mother, for her reasonable travel expense to and from the Memphis airport. The Petitioner/Mother, xxxxxxx xxxx, shall cooperate with the Respondent/Father concerning air travel to return the child from Mississippi to Indiana and shall see to it that the child is transported accordingly.

          This Order shall be effective this 8th day of November, 2005


Now with this new order I am worried the judge may have changed the orginal order with the line: 3. That pursuant to the present Order, when the child is transferred from one parent to the other, the parent receiving the child is responsible for transportation and expenses.

This line is only true when we tranfer "physical custody" its not true when there is a "visitation".

1. What is you view on this does that line change the original order?

[socrateaser]

Please break out the exact lines that you believe are in conflict.

[Imom]

Ordered in 1998
4. Transportation: The parties acknowledge that this arrangement may lead to considerable expense for transporting the child between residences. After careful consideration and discussion, the parties agree that transportation shall be the responsibility of the non-custodial parent.

2005
3. That pursuant to the present Order, when the child is transferred from one parent to the other, the parent receiving the child is responsible for transportation and expenses.

[socrateaser]

>Ordered in 1998
>4. Transportation: The parties acknowledge that this
>arrangement may lead to considerable expense for transporting
>the child between residences. After careful consideration and
>discussion, the parties agree that transportation shall be the
>responsibility of the non-custodial parent.
>
>2005
>3. That pursuant to the present Order, when the child is
>transferred from one parent to the other, the parent receiving
>the child is responsible for transportation and expenses.

My take is that the Nov. 2005 order does away with the custodial/noncustodial parent distinction regarding transportation, and simply states that, going forward, whomever is receiving the child is responsible to arrange and pay for transportation -- period.

This raises a difficulty with round trip tickets, because both parents receive on different legs of the trip. And, that means that either you must always buy one way tickets or that the other parent needs to agree in advance and pay his/her half, either by using two credit cards to pay for a round trip (and I don't know if this is even permitted by the airlines), or the paying parent getting reimbursed, either in advance or afterwards (always a problem).

It may be that the court really is saying that it's tired of dealing with the issue so now you're ordered to buy only one way tickets and that way there won't be a reimbursement problem.

The more that I think if it, I think this is what the judge wants. So, if you can't get agreement and payment in advance, then you're paying to get your child, and if the other parent wants the child back, then it's up to that parent to make arrangements and pay for those arrangements.

[Imom]

The original order does NOT refer to anyone being the CP or NCP...the only place is that in the Transportation part.

I don't think he was tired of hearing it because he told us he ordered a hearing because we had only been to court one other time and normally family cases are in his court several times.

We were simply told by my attorney then later in a custody battle by the judge that I was cp when I had physical custody and she was ncp then that reversed when she had physical custody. We have followed that from day one. This hearing produced a denail order but a court modification regarding phone calls refering to when the  parent not having primary physical custody could have at least one call a week with the child.

The problem was after mom's summer physical custody I wanted to fly my son home bm refused to allow it (both parties have always drove).....the order was to open so I filed with the courts to allow me to fly my child...the order does say that the mom is not obligated to fly the child at the beginning.

What is the problem now is the mom lives 10 hours away and should she want the child this weekend with this new order I would have to pick him up on Sunday.

The order in 1998 does NOT say what the order in 2005 says it does.
 

Is there anything I can file to get this fixed?

[socrateaser]

>Is there anything I can file to get this fixed?

You're entitled to your own interpretation of the orders. Mine is that the court is trying to eliminate the possibility of further argument about who pays by making the person who's receiving the child completely responsible for the costs incident to transportation.

If you want to try to get a clear statement, then you'll need to file a another motion to clarify.