+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44
  1. #16
    LdiJ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    66,087
    Quote Originally Posted by mistoffolees View Post
    I hate to disagree with so many experts, but there appears to be case law in IN which supports OP's statement. In IN (according to Sheldon v Sheldon), there can be a justification that someone living in the same household can be considered a family member:
    [url=http://haslerlaw2.blogspot.com/2008/05/following-up-on-parenting-time-right-of.html]Sam Hasler's Indiana Divorce & Family Law Blog: Following Up on ""Parenting time - Right of First Refusal"[/url]

    Now, that's not a guarantee that OP's situation will meet the requirements. In particular:
    "The practical outgrowth of this, included in the section's language, is that the best interests of the child are also served by extending the parental childcare preference to responsible family members within the custodial parent's household, also the child's household. As a result, the definition most appropriate under the rationale of section I(C)(3) is that "family member" must he limited to a person within the same household as the parent with physical custody."

    If OP's BF only has every other M, T, W, and Th, then he's NCP - and Sheldon doesn't apply, so the advice was correct - BF is going to lose if this comes to trial. (It is interesting to speculate on whether the court would extend this to NCPs if pushed. There are good arguments both ways, but unless OP wants to spend roughly a bazillion dollars taking this to the IN Supreme Court, it doesn't apply today).

    I just wanted to clarify that 'family members' can also include people living in the same house as CP in IN.
    Its Shelton vs Shelton (not Sheldon) and unfortunately I cannot find it to read the case myself.
  2. #17
    Ohiogal is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    52,825
    Quote Originally Posted by alex16chris View Post
    I dont just "sleep" with him. We live together and are a family. I cook for the child and take care of her as much has her father. Im not trying to claim any rights to her. I just dont want him to lose his visitation because he is not home for 2 hours twice a month.
    You are NOT a family member. YOU are nothing legally. marry him and you become a family member though still a legal stranger.
    Parents should remember 3 things: Love your kids more than you hate your ex; when you have children the relationship with the other parent is until death; your children determine what type of nursing home you end up in.
    Nothing stated by me should be taken as giving you legal advice or forming an attorney/client relationship.

    Attorney-GAL in Ohio.

    I've removed the knife from my back, polished it, and will one day return it -- long after you think I have forgotten.
  3. #18
    Ohiogal is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    52,825
    Quote Originally Posted by mistoffolees View Post
    I hate to disagree with so many experts, but there appears to be case law in IN which supports OP's statement. In IN (according to Sheldon v Sheldon), there can be a justification that someone living in the same household can be considered a family member:
    [url=http://haslerlaw2.blogspot.com/2008/05/following-up-on-parenting-time-right-of.html]Sam Hasler's Indiana Divorce & Family Law Blog: Following Up on ""Parenting time - Right of First Refusal"[/url]

    Now, that's not a guarantee that OP's situation will meet the requirements. In particular:
    "The practical outgrowth of this, included in the section's language, is that the best interests of the child are also served by extending the parental childcare preference to responsible family members within the custodial parent's household, also the child's household. As a result, the definition most appropriate under the rationale of section I(C)(3) is that "family member" must he limited to a person within the same household as the parent with physical custody."

    If OP's BF only has every other M, T, W, and Th, then he's NCP - and Sheldon doesn't apply, so the advice was correct - BF is going to lose if this comes to trial. (It is interesting to speculate on whether the court would extend this to NCPs if pushed. There are good arguments both ways, but unless OP wants to spend roughly a bazillion dollars taking this to the IN Supreme Court, it doesn't apply today).

    I just wanted to clarify that 'family members' can also include people living in the same house as CP in IN.
    Misty you are a bit incorrect as the Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the following from the Court of Appeals case Shelton v. Shelton, 835 N.E.2d 513 (Ind.App. 2005) :
    Father raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court properly defined "family," as used in section I(C)(3) of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, to include stepparents and grandparents for the purpose of determining when Father must first be offered the opportunity to provide childcare for D.S.

    OP is NEITHER. She is a bed buddy.

    The case states:
    March 31, 2004, Father filed a petition to modify physical custody of D.S. The trial court heard evidence, and was given the parties' consent to decide issues pertaining to parenting time, including the definition of family. The trial court denied Father's petition, and defined the portion of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines previously adopted:

    The Court defines family to include step-parents and grandparents (not step-grandparents) and the parties may leave the child with these individuals without giving the other parent the right of first refusal. However, the parties may not leave the child with grandparents two (2) consecutive weekends on their back-to-back weekends.

    and:
    In the case at bar, the trial court's definition if taken literally is correct. The phrase "family member" is ordinarily inclusive of relations such as grandparents or stepparents.[4] However, the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines impose a preference for parental childcare, founded "on the premise that it is usually in a child's best interest to have frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with each parent." Parenting Time G., Preamble. This principle pervades the guidelines, and is apparent in the rationale of section I(C)(3): the parent without physical custody is given the opportunity for additional parenting time when the custodial parent is regularly unavailable. The practical outgrowth of this,[5] included in the section's language, is that the best interests of the child are also served by extending the parental childcare preference to responsible family members within the custodial parent's household, also the child's household. As a result, the definition most appropriate under the rationale of section I(C)(3) is that "family member" must be limited to a person within the same household as the parent with physical custody.
    Again, OP is NOT a family member. Just because she lives with boyfriend does NOT make her a family member. She is of the same household but NOT a family member.

    and this:
    To that end, when the parent with physical custody or a responsible member of that parent's household cannot care for the child, the noncustodial parent is to be offered the right of first refusal regardless of whether a non-household family member can care for the child without cost. Moreover, Mother has not shown circumstances such as distance, transportation, or time that make Father's exercise of his option for additional parenting time impractical. Relegating Father's interest in additional parenting time to third-in-line abrogates the goal of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines promoting the best interests of the child through frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact between children and their parents.
    hence since OP is NOT a family member she does NOT get to babysit. She is a household member but not a family member as she has no legal relationship to dad. The case was specific about that. Stepparent or grandparent in the same household but not a stepgrandparent in the same household. She needs to be BOTH household member AND family member. Bed buddy does not a family member make.
    Parents should remember 3 things: Love your kids more than you hate your ex; when you have children the relationship with the other parent is until death; your children determine what type of nursing home you end up in.
    Nothing stated by me should be taken as giving you legal advice or forming an attorney/client relationship.

    Attorney-GAL in Ohio.

    I've removed the knife from my back, polished it, and will one day return it -- long after you think I have forgotten.
  4. #19
    mistoffolees is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    21,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohiogal View Post
    Misty you are a bit incorrect as the Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the following from the Court of Appeals case Shelton v. Shelton, 835 N.E.2d 513 (Ind.App. 2005) :



    OP is NEITHER. She is a bed buddy.
    I'll take your word for it - since I wasn't able to read the entire case, only a synopsis.

    In any event, your interpretation agrees with mine IN THIS CASE. OP has no rights and is not a family member.
  5. #20
    Ohiogal is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    52,825
    Quote Originally Posted by mistoffolees View Post
    I'll take your word for it - since I wasn't able to read the entire case, only a synopsis.

    In any event, your interpretation agrees with mine IN THIS CASE. OP has no rights and is not a family member.
    IN this case yes we agree. I read the whole case and posted the snippets here that pertain to household and family members.
    Parents should remember 3 things: Love your kids more than you hate your ex; when you have children the relationship with the other parent is until death; your children determine what type of nursing home you end up in.
    Nothing stated by me should be taken as giving you legal advice or forming an attorney/client relationship.

    Attorney-GAL in Ohio.

    I've removed the knife from my back, polished it, and will one day return it -- long after you think I have forgotten.
  6. #21
    Ray82 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    74

    What does count as Family Member?

    What does count as Family Member? I don't mean to hijack thread, but I agree with the OP's boyfriend's ex.

    Generally, what is considered a Family Member? I read one comment that mentioned "Child's Family."

    If I had verbage like this in an order could another parent allow the step mother's mom to watch the children without first asking me for more parenting time?

    We ran into a situation last year where it was registration for classes and the father couldn't make the appointment. His mother works for the school and gets along with my wife. She informed her that the step mom did the registering. It was a little upsetting for her. She has joint custody and we have black and white verbage saying certain decisions are joint.

    (Tennessee here, if that matters.)
  7. #22
    stealth2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    44,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray82 View Post
    What does count as Family Member? I don't mean to hijack thread, but I agree with the OP's boyfriend's ex.

    Generally, what is considered a Family Member? I read one comment that mentioned "Child's Family."

    If I had verbage like this in an order could another parent allow the step mother's mom to watch the children without first asking me for more parenting time?

    We ran into a situation last year where it was registration for classes and the father couldn't make the appointment. His mother works for the school and gets along with my wife. She informed her that the step mom did the registering. It was a little upsetting for her. She has joint custody and we have black and white verbage saying certain decisions are joint.

    (Tennessee here, if that matters.)
    Please don't hijack another poster's thread. Start your own, please.
  8. #23
    Ray82 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    74
    Sorry, figured it was along the same line of the topic. Whatever, just passing curiosity.

    EDIT: Read the sticky, AGAIN. You're right. So many different rules for this forum than I am used to. Used to not having multiple threads about the same thing.
    Last edited by Ray82; 09-07-2010 at 06:27 PM.
  9. #24
    ecmst12 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    35,575
    Your situation is NOT the same or even similar. That's why you need your own thread.
  10. #25
    CJane is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,943
    I'm a little confused how this:

    "All parties shall have the right of first refusal when a party needs assistance with the child for more than 4 hours provided that such time does not infringe the overnight schedule."
    would come in to play. Does it mean that the 4 hours doesn't apply if it's overnight hours?

    But I'm also confused why Dad would even want to fight this battle over two nights/month. If he's leaving at 7 pm, he's seeing kiddo for a couple of hours after school and then leaving the house. Why not just return kiddo to Mom before bed time and call it good?

    ETA: Ohhh... I think I remember that Indiana is one of those states that REALLY counts time with the kiddo when crediting child support, isn't it?
  11. #26
    Antigone* is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In honor of JetX ~ Somnambulist University
    Posts
    21,220
    Quote Originally Posted by CJane View Post
    I'm a little confused how this:



    would come in to play. Does it mean that the 4 hours doesn't apply if it's overnight hours?

    But I'm also confused why Dad would even want to fight this battle over two nights/month. If he's leaving at 7 pm, he's seeing kiddo for a couple of hours after school and then leaving the house. Why not just return kiddo to Mom before bed time and call it good?

    ETA: Ohhh... I think I remember that Indiana is one of those states that REALLY counts time with the kiddo when crediting child support, isn't it?
    Cjane, dad isn't fighting this, it is the non-family member, legal stranger, bed-warming GF. Dad did not and has not posted.
  12. #27
    CJane is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    19,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Antigone*of*Greece View Post
    Cjane, dad isn't fighting this, it is the non-family member, legal stranger, bed-warming GF. Dad did not and has not posted.
    I get all of that.

    Doesn't change my confusion at all though. Dad IS clearly the one leaving the child with his girlfriend and continuing to do so even after Mom has threatened litigation. So he IS "fighting this".
  13. #28
    LdiJ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    66,087
    Quote Originally Posted by CJane View Post
    I'm a little confused how this:



    would come in to play. Does it mean that the 4 hours doesn't apply if it's overnight hours?

    But I'm also confused why Dad would even want to fight this battle over two nights/month. If he's leaving at 7 pm, he's seeing kiddo for a couple of hours after school and then leaving the house. Why not just return kiddo to Mom before bed time and call it good?

    ETA: Ohhh... I think I remember that Indiana is one of those states that REALLY counts time with the kiddo when crediting child support, isn't it?
    Yes, Indiana's parenting time credits are extremely generous, and are based on overnights, so those 24 nights a year could make a significant difference in child support.

    Indiana's credits are significant enough that some ncp's actually receive child support from cps when there is a big enough income disparity.
  14. #29
    peppier is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    208
    Just curious, how do you interpret this portion.

    "All parties shall have the right of first refusal when a party needs assistance with the child for more than 4 hours provided that such time does not infringe the overnight schedule"
  15. #30
    LdiJ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    66,087
    Quote Originally Posted by peppier View Post
    Just curious, how do you interpret this portion.

    "All parties shall have the right of first refusal when a party needs assistance with the child for more than 4 hours provided that such time does not infringe the overnight schedule"
    Since the sentence doesn't make any sense to me, its hard to give an interpretation.

    I can guaranteed that its not guideline, standard language.

Similar Threads

  1. Family member of deceased dad versus "unfit mother"
    By kimberfree in forum Child Custody & Visitation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-23-2012, 01:10 PM
  2. Is "Social Security" considered a "governmental benefit" in this case?
    By legalbingo in forum Elder Law, Powers of Attorney, Living Wills (Advance Health Care Directives)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 10:20 PM
  3. Suspect Family Member of "trying" to slip and fall
    By punkindoo in forum Other Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2006, 06:32 AM
  4. former family member suing for $ "owed"
    By kindnesscounts in forum Civil Litigation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-28-2004, 02:14 PM
  5. Military "family member" paying child support
    By m1998 in forum Child Custody & Visitation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-21-2002, 08:28 AM

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.