visitation dispute

In a hearing last month the court ordered my ex to pay child support and half of child care based on him visiting our 2 children 25 percent of the time. he sees the kids at the most 3 weekends out of 4. Now, he says 3 out of 4 weekends is more than 25 percent. (he NEVER has them Mon-Thurs.only fri. night to sun. at 6 p.m.) is that more than 25 percent? if not, is there some legal papers i can show him stating how many days a month 25 percent is? he believes that because his days fall on weekends and when i have the kids they are often at the babysitters or school that he has them more. if he wanted the kids during the week he could have them one or 2 days, but he doesn't want that.

[MySonsMom]

If the hearing was just last month, and visitation hasn't changed since then, then he has to pay what he is ordered to pay and there should be no discussions about it. To determine % of time it has to be a 24 hr visitation to be considered a day. Just let him know that if he doesn't feel that he should be paying that much, then he needs to take you back into court to see if it can be changed. I wouldn't worry too much about it. He is obligated to pay, and he has to. Or else you can take him to court for contempt. Btw, what state are you in? Good luck!

------------------
*There is no love, like the unconditional love of a Mother*

-I am not an Attorney, any advice given is strictly advice-

[This message has been edited by MySonsMom (edited November 08, 2000).]

thank you for your reply. i'm not concerned about the money -- i even waved back payments, but i want him to see the kids for their sake. i am glad he doesn't want to take them from me, and so i should probably be content with that, but my daughter especially honestly misses him, and unfortunately i too need a break sometimes. i just wish there was a way to convince him that legally he's SUPPOSED to take them at least 6 days a month. currently he thinks 2 or 4 days a month is plenty

oh yeah, i'm in california

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mybejo:
[b]thank you for your reply. i'm not concerned about the money -- i even waved back payments, but i want him to see the kids for their sake. i am glad he doesn't want to take them from me, and so i should probably be content with that, but my daughter especially honestly misses him, and unfortunately i too need a break sometimes. i just wish there was a way to convince him that legally he's SUPPOSED to take them at least 6 days a month. currently he thinks 2 or 4 days a month is plenty[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response:

I am writing to you to make sure you understand California law, and your orders concerning visitation by your ex-husband.

Under your current orders, he is allowed a maximum of 25% visitation - - that DOES NOT mean that he must take advantage of that time. In other words, he can take UP TO 25% or less, if he wants . . . all the way down to 0% if he chooses.

"There is neither statutory nor case law to support such a contention . . . The court cannot compel a noncustodial parent on dissolution of a marriage to care for and love and visit with the child." [Louden v. Olpin, 118 Cal.App.3d at 568, 173 Cal.Rptr. at 449]

What is compelled under the law is he shall pay his child support, as ordered, regardless of whether he exercises visitation - - as allowed.

He must take you back into court if he wants more ordered visitation (or an adjustment concerning how his time is figured); but, two things weigh against that:

1. The order is too new.

2. There must be a change in circumstances requiring an increase in visitation percentage.

So, despite the fact he has come up with his own "pretzel logic" and novel way of figuring his "percentage" of time, and despite whether you allow him more time above his 25%, he can't get the orders changed at this point in time.

IAAL


------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."




[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited November 08, 2000).]