Custodial parent not allowing court ordered visitation to non-custodial parent

[carleejo77]

Washington State - there is a court ordered parenting plan with specific visitation times. I am the non-custodial parent and am being denied my visitation which is every other weekend/specified holidays. The custodial parent (her father) is only allowing me to have her on Saturday's for the last two months. His reasoning is because of a clause in the parenting plan that states I am not allowed to reside with a person who has engaged in domestic violence. (I called the cops on my boyfriend last summer however he was not convicted of anything and there have been no problems since.) I also have a child with my boyfriend. It is my understanding that if custodial parent feels i am breaking the parenting plan by living with my boyfriend then we are to go through the mediation process or contempt but it is no ok for him to change the visitation without it being court ordered. Is this true? Could the custodial parent be held in contempt of court for not allowing my visitation with my daughter?

 

[Proserpina]

Washington State - there is a court ordered parenting plan with specific visitation times. I am the non-custodial parent and am being denied my visitation which is every other weekend/specified holidays. The custodial parent (her father) is only allowing me to have her on Saturday's for the last two months. His reasoning is because of a clause in the parenting plan that states I am not allowed to reside with a person who has engaged in domestic violence. (I called the cops on my boyfriend last summer however he was not convicted of anything and there have been no problems since.) I also have a child with my boyfriend. It is my understanding that if custodial parent feels i am breaking the parenting plan by living with my boyfriend then we are to go through the mediation process or contempt but it is no ok for him to change the visitation without it being court ordered. Is this true? Could the custodial parent be held in contempt of court for not allowing my visitation with my daughter?

What exactly (word for word) does that clause say? (minus names)

 

[carleejo77]

Listed in parenting plan under "Safety"

"Neither party shall allow contact between the child and any other persons with whom he/she may be residing who has engaged in any conduct described in RCW 26.50.010 and RCW 26.09.191"

 

[stealth2]

I'm thinking Dad may be in the clear... You have someone residing with you who has engaged in DV, and allowing the kids to stay overnight means they will most likely be in contact with the kids. So... Maybe you need to tell your b/f to beat feet on your weekends with the kiddo.

 

[Proserpina]

Listed in parenting plan under "Safety"

"Neither party shall allow contact between the child and any other persons with whom he/she may be residing who has engaged in any conduct described in RCW 26.50.010 and RCW 26.09.191"

Using that wording, a conviction/arrest are not necessary for the clause to apply.

Now, while you are correct that Dad cannot unilaterally withhold visitation, it's a complete toss-up as to whether or not he'd actually be held in contempt.

I'm also not sure you want to go that route - there's a chance that Dad would get the order changed so that your boyfriend specifically cannot be present during your visitation which would presumably complicate things (for you at least) further.

Then again, you can argue that he has no conviction, therefore is not a danger and further, the clause should be removed.

I'd speak with a local attorney if I were you. Some courts are more picky about this than others and a local attorney would know how your court is likely to rule.

 

[stealth2]

Using that wording, a conviction/arrest are not necessary for the clause to apply.

Now, while you are correct that Dad cannot unilaterally withhold visitation, it's a complete toss-up as to whether or not he'd actually be held in contempt.

I'm also not sure you want to go that route - there's a chance that Dad would get the order changed so that your boyfriend specifically cannot be present during your visitation which would presumably complicate things (for you at least) further.

Then again, you can argue that he has no conviction, therefore is not a danger and further, the clause should be removed.

I'd speak with a local attorney if I were you. Some courts are more picky about this than others and a local attorney would know how your court is likely to rule.

I think you may be wrong. NEITHER parent shall allow that contact. Mom is allowing it during her visitation, Dad is refusing to allow it...

 

[Proserpina]

I think you may be wrong. NEITHER parent shall allow that contact. Mom is allowing it during her visitation, Dad is refusing to allow it...

That's not always how it's applied though.

In these parts, the other parent would usually just request that Person A is specifically prohibited from being around the child (and that's ordered more commonly than people might think).

I'm actually with Dad on this. No child needs to be exposed to DV. If he's got any sense, he'll get the order modified. In my county it would more or less be a slam-dunk for him, although he could still be held in contempt for withholding the visitation despite the actual wording.

Not likely, perhaps, but possible.

(Though nothing would happen - he'd get a slap on the wrist and Mom would likely be told to make a choice....)

 

[stealth2]

I don't disagree.

 

[carleejo77]

I do have child with my boyfriend which makes it a pretty tough call for me. I understand your point but in my arguement is why is Saturday ok? Is my boyfriend not violent on Saturdays? Most people don't work on Saturday so he would be present. Also, my boyfriend and i have never argued in front of our children and I would never expose my children to DV. I am her mother and protect her just as her father does and in my opinion should trust my judgement as I have to do his.

 

[DownTime]

This happened last summer, and he is just now not letting you take her? Did he recently find it out or has he known since the situation happened?

I agree, also, that the father seems to be saying that Saturdays must be non-DV days.

 

[carleejo77]

This happened last summer, and he is just now not letting you take her? Did he recently find it out or has he known since the situation happened?

I agree, also, that the father seems to be saying that Saturdays must be non-DV days.

The custodial parent has followed the parenting plan except the last few months when I have only been able to have her on Saturdays. He also was aware of the DV within a few days of it happening as he is contantly monitoring my every move. For example, calling my insurance company (his wife pretends she is me) to verify I have insurance on my vehicle. Which i do by the way have valid vehicle insurance by the way.

 

[DownTime]

The custodial parent has followed the parenting plan except the last few months when I have only been able to have her on Saturdays. He also was aware of the DV within a few days of it happening as he is contantly monitoring my every move. For example, calling my insurance company (his wife pretends she is me) to verify I have insurance on my vehicle. Which i do by the way have valid vehicle insurance by the way.

Well then, if you have some hard proof of the cp having knowledge shortly after it happened, or perhaps can get him to acknowledge such on his own before a judge with well-placed questioning, then his recent actions would likely be viewed as too little too late, and contemptuous.

However, if the situation fits the statutes named in the above, then you also hold some fault. If your boyfriend was not charged or convicted and that falls outside of that, then the cp has nothing. He would be unable to show just cause.

The overnights "not allowed" do matter, generally, and that would not help your case as much to focus on "just Saturday daytime", but if the cp knew and took this long to respond, his defense fails.

I would certainly contact an attorney even just for a consultation in order to see what to file to restore full visits, and the best thing to do to ensure that.