+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    amandadc8 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11

    Indiana Parenting Time

    My husband and his ex-wife (as I am sure most divorced parents) tend to see the IPG in whatever way benefits them individually. There are several sections of the guidleines that are either unclear or do not address specific situations.

    One section we are all confused about is the following: "Similarly, during the summer period when the children are with the custodial parent for more than two (2) consecutive weeks, the non-custodial parent's regular parenting time continues, unless impracticable because of distance created by out of town vacations."

    Each summer the children's mother says she is "out of town camping" for two weeks so he cannot get the kids. She camps 20 miles from our town. My husband offers to pick them up but she insists he can not have them.

    Second, the guidelines state: "In odd numbered years the non-custodial parent shall have all of the children on each child's birthday on the day before the child's birthday from 9:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M., however, if such day falls on a school day, then from 5:00 P.M. until 8:00 P.M."

    The issue here is that one of the children's birthdays tends to land the day before or the day school starts. Is the the day before a "school day"? Also, it says the non-custodial parent "shall have all children on each child's birthday on the day before" does this mean AND the day before?

    Thanks in advance for any clarity on these issues. Hiring a lawyer for each disagreement sure gets expensive!
  2. #2
    LdiJ is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    65,508
    Quote Originally Posted by amandadc8 View Post
    My husband and his ex-wife (as I am sure most divorced parents) tend to see the IPG in whatever way benefits them individually. There are several sections of the guidleines that are either unclear or do not address specific situations.

    One section we are all confused about is the following: "Similarly, during the summer period when the children are with the custodial parent for more than two (2) consecutive weeks, the non-custodial parent's regular parenting time continues, unless impracticable because of distance created by out of town vacations."
    The "more than" is what is critical there...and it goes both ways as you would have noted from the guidelines. What this means is that the child should not go MORE THAN two weeks without seeing the other parent during the summer unless distance makes that impractical. So, what that basically means is that each parent gets the "every other weekend" during the other parent's extended time. A way to avoid any confusion over that is for the two parents to agree to either every other week during the summer or every other two weeks during the summer.

    Each summer the children's mother says she is "out of town camping" for two weeks so he cannot get the kids. She camps 20 miles from our town. My husband offers to pick them up but she insists he can not have them.
    See above

    Second, the guidelines state: "In odd numbered years the non-custodial parent shall have all of the children on each child's birthday on the day before the child's birthday from 9:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M., however, if such day falls on a school day, then from 5:00 P.M. until 8:00 P.M."

    The issue here is that one of the children's birthdays tends to land the day before or the day school starts. Is the the day before a "school day"? Also, it says the non-custodial parent "shall have all children on each child's birthday on the day before" does this mean AND the day before?

    Thanks in advance for any clarity on these issues. Hiring a lawyer for each disagreement sure gets expensive!
    Again, if you put this in the context of the rest of the section, its clear. In even numbered years the ncp gets the child's actual birthday from either 9-9 or 5-8 depending on whether or not its a school day, and on odd numbered years the ncp gets the day before the child's birthday...not both.

    I would not consider the day before school starts to be a school day. However, at the same time, keeping the child until 9PM on the day before school starts is NOT in the best interest of the child. Therefore I would be returning the child about 7PM on the day before school starts.

    Again, you have to look at these things in the context of the entire section of the guidelines. Some things stand alone in the guidelines but some things depend on the context of the entire section. I think that both of the things you have questions about are quite clear.
  3. #3
    amandadc8 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11
    Thank you for the quick response! I should have been more clear on the vacation part. Mom has the children for three consecutive weeks but is spending two weeks camping. The guidelines specify "unless impracticable because of distance created by out of town vacations." I do not believe 20 miles is impracticable but I am no judge.
  4. #4
    LdiJ is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    65,508
    Quote Originally Posted by amandadc8 View Post
    Thank you for the quick response! I should have been more clear on the vacation part. Mom has the children for three consecutive weeks but is spending two weeks camping. The guidelines specify "unless impracticable because of distance created by out of town vacations." I do not believe 20 miles is impracticable but I am no judge.
    Again...context matters...and whether or not its a hill to die on matters in terms of the rest of the summer as well.

    If dad isn't seeing the children at all during those three weeks, then mom may be in contempt...or may not be. However, is dad ensuring also that mom doesn't go without seeing the children for more than two weeks at a time during his summer parenting time?
  5. #5
    amandadc8 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11
    Their mom does not go more than two weeks without seeing them. She is angry because their father takes them (the kids) to Florida every summer. When the kids are more than 12 hours away it is obviously impracticable to have them for parenting time. Their mom says that just because she cannot afford to go to FL she should not have to give up her uninterupted time.
  6. #6
    LdiJ is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    65,508
    Quote Originally Posted by amandadc8 View Post
    Their mom does not go more than two weeks without seeing them. She is angry because their father takes them (the kids) to Florida every summer. When the kids are more than 12 hours away it is obviously impracticable to have them for parenting time. Their mom says that just because she cannot afford to go to FL she should not have to give up her uninterupted time.
    She should get the same amount of uninterrupted time that dad gets for her vacation with the children. Since you don't want to be clearer on the details of their summer parenting time, I cannot give you any better info than that.

    If the only vacation she can afford with the children is two weeks of camping, then dad shouldn't interrupt that.
  7. #7
    amandadc8 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by LdiJ View Post
    She should get the same amount of uninterrupted time that dad gets for her vacation with the children. Since you don't want to be clearer on the details of their summer parenting time, I cannot give you any better info than that.

    If the only vacation she can afford with the children is two weeks of camping, then dad shouldn't interrupt that.
    I thought I was being clear? My apologies. However, like most situations, it comes down what the law says, not what she "should" get. And after doing some research I have found that the definition of impracticable is impossible. In this particular situation, it is not "impossible" for him to get the kids. Therefore, she will be in contempt if she does not allow their father visitation. Once again, thank you for your input.
  8. #8
    LdiJ is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    65,508
    Quote Originally Posted by amandadc8 View Post
    I thought I was being clear? My apologies. However, like most situations, it comes down what the law says, not what she "should" get. And after doing some research I have found that the definition of impracticable is impossible. In this particular situation, it is not "impossible" for him to get the kids. Therefore, she will be in contempt if she does not allow their father visitation. Once again, thank you for your input.
    I wouldn't count on that. I would not count on an Indiana judge finding mom in contempt because dad wanted to interrupt her camping vacation with the children...even if her vacation location was close enough for dad to do so. In fact, I could even see an Indiana judge being PO'd with dad for even bringing it to court...depending on the details that you have not shared.
  9. #9
    amandadc8 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11
    I'm not sure how I can be more clear. Mother has children 2/3 of the year (as most custodial parents do). Dad has the privelage of picking out half of the summer. During his time, as long as we are not more than a days drive away, mom gets the kids regulary if dad has them for more than 3 weeks at a time. Last time they went to court she cried, literally, because she "can't spend two weeks without seeing them." The judge told her that their dad spends 2/3 of the year without them and she should not complain about 2 weeks. Their dad NEVER gets to see them while they are with her during the summer. She is always "out of town", which to her is never more than 30 minutes from our house. She lives 15 minutes away. Is that what you are looking for? I guess I am bad at assuming situations are usually the same...and we all know what assming does.
  10. #10
    LdiJ is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    65,508
    Quote Originally Posted by amandadc8 View Post
    I'm not sure how I can be more clear. Mother has children 2/3 of the year (as most custodial parents do). Dad has the privelage of picking out half of the summer. During his time, as long as we are not more than a days drive away, mom gets the kids regulary if dad has them for more than 3 weeks at a time. Last time they went to court she cried, literally, because she "can't spend two weeks without seeing them." The judge told her that their dad spends 2/3 of the year without them and she should not complain about 2 weeks. Their dad NEVER gets to see them while they are with her during the summer. She is always "out of town", which to her is never more than 30 minutes from our house. She lives 15 minutes away. Is that what you are looking for? I guess I am bad at assuming situations are usually the same...and we all know what assming does.
    That actually is a bit clearer as that gives me more of a picture of the entire summer.

    I have some personal opinions on the subject and some legal opinions on the subject.

    Personally, I think that each parent should have equal uninterrupted time with the children. I think that the best way to accomplish that is for summer to be every other week or every other two weeks, with no visitation for the other parent unless the children are really little.

    Legally, the "more than two consecutive weeks" is what applies. That means that dad gets visitation any time AFTER mom has had the children for two weeks, and mom gets visitation AFTER dad has had the children for two weeks.

    So, if mom has the children three consecutive weeks without dad getting to see them after two weeks, then mom can be taken to court for contempt...same applies to dad.

    However, again, a judge is not going to be happy if either one of them insists on interrupting the specific vacation of the other, even if they are technically close enough for a visit to occur. Some people cannot afford to travel long distances for vacation.
  11. #11
    mistoffolees is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    21,315
    However, this is a case where I'm not sure I'd fight the battle. Mom could argue that the distance DOES make visitation impractical - even if it's only 20 miles - since it can be very difficult to get in and out of campgrounds.

    In any event, NCP has the child 1/3 of the time according to the above. In 18 years, there are 6574 days, so NCP has 2170 days. Is it really worth fighting over whether it's 2168 or 2170 days?
  12. #12
    LdiJ is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    65,508
    Quote Originally Posted by mistoffolees View Post
    However, this is a case where I'm not sure I'd fight the battle. Mom could argue that the distance DOES make visitation impractical - even if it's only 20 miles - since it can be very difficult to get in and out of campgrounds.

    In any event, NCP has the child 1/3 of the time according to the above. In 18 years, there are 6574 days, so NCP has 2170 days. Is it really worth fighting over whether it's 2168 or 2170 days?
    I will take it one step further...dad could chose his parenting time so that this almost wouldn't be an issue at all, since he gets to select (as long as he does it by April 1).

    One of the main thrusts of the ITPG is to force parents to be reasonable and fair with each other. In my humble opinion, interrupting mom's specific vacation(s) is not reasonable...and the reverse would not be reasonable either.

    What I again would do, is encourage dad to take it back to court to have summer changed to every other week or every other two weeks. That eliminates the entire problem...and is a solution favored by Indiana judges when there are summer conflicts.
  13. #13
    stealth2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    44,373
    In all honesty, OP - your opinion doesn't count for anything.
  14. #14
    amandadc8 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11
    A bit more to add to this: the children's father has contacted an attorney. Mom has been in town with children every day since monday for softball practice and other activities. The guidlines state that "The time may be either consecutive or split into two (2) segments," so every other weekend is not an option. Mom will have had them for 18 days before she will let Dad have them again. First she was at "Holiday World", then "camping" then "camping" at a different location, all while she comes to town daily. I will also add that Dad let Mom come get them a day early because she "needed time to have them get ready for vacation." Mom didn't tell Dad he could not get them for his visitation until she already had them.

    Oh, and the IPG state "During any extended summer period of more than two (2) consecutive weeks with the non-custodial parent, the custodial parent shall have the benefit of the regular parenting time schedule set forth above, unless impracticable because of distance created by out of town vacations." It does not say AFTER two weeks, it says during. Am I wrong about this?
    Last edited by amandadc8; 07-21-2011 at 10:27 AM. Reason: added to post
  15. #15
    single317dad is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hoosier Hysterics
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by amandadc8 View Post
    A bit more to add to this: the children's father has contacted an attorney. Mom has been in town with children every day since monday for softball practice and other activities. The guidlines state that "The time may be either consecutive or split into two (2) segments," so every other weekend is not an option. Mom will have had them for 18 days before she will let Dad have them again. First she was at "Holiday World", then "camping" then "camping" at a different location, all while she comes to town daily. I will also add that Dad let Mom come get them a day early because she "needed time to have them get ready for vacation." Mom didn't tell Dad he could not get them for his visitation until she already had them.

    Oh, and the IPG state "During any extended summer period of more than two (2) consecutive weeks with the non-custodial parent, the custodial parent shall have the benefit of the regular parenting time schedule set forth above, unless impracticable because of distance created by out of town vacations." It does not say AFTER two weeks, it says during. Am I wrong about this?
    Bottom line, if this is a problem for Mom and Dad, then they need to agree on and file a clearer schedule, with exact dates and times laid out in advance. Then there's nothing to dispute. If this is just a problem for YOU, then you need to butt out.

Similar Threads

  1. Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines
    By LdiJ in forum Child Custody & Visitation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2012, 03:39 PM
  2. Indiana confusing Parenting Time Guidelines
    By maglypi in forum Child Custody & Visitation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-2011, 10:45 AM
  3. Indiana Parenting Time
    By niteowl46060 in forum Child Custody & Visitation
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-01-2010, 12:04 PM
  4. Confused by Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines
    By corpmomof2 in forum Child Custody & Visitation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-11-2009, 06:17 AM
  5. Indiana Parenting Guidelines - school activities and make up time
    By stefanocassara in forum Child Custody & Visitation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-03-2004, 06:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.