• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Who is considered a "family member"

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

rbw5147

Member
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"

It sounds like the ROFR kicks in if the parent with the child needs child care assistance for more than 4 hours (OP said that she is watching the child for 2 hours).

"provided that such time does not infringe the overnight schedule" Huh? Does this mean that ROFR would not be applied if giving that time to Mom (in this situation) means that Dad would lose his overnight with the child?
 


mistoffolees

Senior Member
"provided that such time does not infringe the overnight schedule" Huh? Does this mean that ROFR would not be applied if giving that time to Mom (in this situation) means that Dad would lose his overnight with the child?
That's what it sounds like.
 

sometwo

Senior Member
IF that's the case, and that's how I read it, then Dad's NOT in contempt for leaving kiddo with girlfriend.

I still think it's silly, but I don't think it's against the order.
I agree

Girlfriend still needs to remember it has nothing to do with her though. She isn't family and it doesn't mean she has rights. It just means dad can leave child with her in this instance.
 
Last edited:

mistoffolees

Senior Member
I agree

Stepmom still needs to remember it has nothing to do with her though. She isn't family and it doesn't mean she has rights. It just means dad can leave child with her in this instance.
It's not stepmom - she's a girlfriend.

As a girlfriend, she has no rights. According to the information provided above, if she WERE a stepmother, she would be considered part of the household.
 

sometwo

Senior Member
It's not stepmom - she's a girlfriend.

As a girlfriend, she has no rights. According to the information provided above, if she WERE a stepmother, she would be considered part of the household.
Sorry I mistyped. Don't know why I put stepmom.

Girlfriend.
 

CJane

Senior Member
It's not stepmom - she's a girlfriend.

As a girlfriend, she has no rights. According to the information provided above, if she WERE a stepmother, she would be considered part of the household.
I just think she's asking the wrong question. The issue isn't (IMO) whether or not she's "part of the household" -- the issue is whether or not it matters since to offer MOM the time would interfere with the overnight.
 

alex16chris

Junior Member
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.
No this is not guideline standard language. It is in the divorce and it states, word for word, "The parties shall have the right of first refusal when a party needs assistance with Child for more than 4 hours provided that such time does not infringe the overnight schedule."

Dad is "fighting" mom and has a court date! Dad would lose more than 2 hours every 2 weeks if the mother had the child because the mother would not return her to dad until 1 pm(because this is convienent for her). Therefore dad would lose all of that time also when she was not in school.

Again I KNOW I have no legal rights to the child and NEVER claimed to.
 

alex16chris

Junior Member
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:
Sam Hasler's Indiana Divorce & Family Law Blog: Following Up on ""Parenting time - Right of First Refusal"

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.

The father has the child every T, W, and Th, and every other M. They also have joint physical and legal custody and again word for word from the divorce, "for interpertations purposes only, Mother shall be called the "custodial" parent when referring to the IPTG."
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
The father has the child every T, W, and Th, and every other M. They also have joint physical and legal custody and again word for word from the divorce, "for interpertations purposes only, Mother shall be called the "custodial" parent when referring to the IPTG."
Despite the wording in the divorce decree, I would be really surprised if an Indiana judge would allow the child to spend the night with you, rather than mom, while dad is working.

I think there is a strong likelihood that the orders regarding ROFR will get modified. Its certainly not guaranteed, but I think its very likely. Think about it? Wouldn't dad prefer to have the child with him if the situation were reversed?
 
No my dear, you are not family. If you think you are, just wait until he's injured critically or he dies and see how much attention anyone of mass importance (hence a government agency or a hospital) is going to pay to you and your wishes. Or, try and collect social security survivors benefits for him. Try and claim each other on your taxes. You are in fact, just his friend to which you sleep with. If he wants to elevate your status, he will. Other than that you're just the chick he's doing and that doesn't make you special, nor important.
DAMN that's raunchy!
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top