Two completely unrelated questions...

[CJane]

Question #1:
First of all, is this contempt? (Mo)


When I dropped the kids off this morning, SMom said "I'll call you if anything happens." I looked at her rather quizzically, and she said "I'm taking the kids to Wisconsin for vacation. W knows about it, but I'll call you if anything were to happen."

Aside from the weirdness, this is the first I've been notified about the kids leaving town with her (and I talked to stupidhead last night). Secondly, it IS in our order that if either parent is going out of town during visitation, they are to inform the other parent and provide contact information.

I don't have contact info, and even if I did, I'm not allowed to speak to SMom, and no WAY am I calling her cell phone and having her call the cops with proof that I called her.

Let it go or include it in the filing?

Question #2 (KS)

A friend's daughter was recently killed in a car accident, leaving 3 children under the age of 4. The oldest child is not the biological child of the mother's fiance, the other 2 children are. The father of the oldest child has not been in the picture. He's ordered to pay support and never has. He lives in the same town as the child, and has never made an effort to visit, never called, nothing.

Within hours of the news of the accident hitting town, the father called the fiance and said he was coming over to get the child (who has never met him). He never showed up.

The grandmother has filed for custody of the child, joint with the fiance of the child's mother.

The father has filed for custody as well.

The court has appointed a GAL, and ordered a psychologist assist in determining best interest.

Is the appointment of the psych and GAL a good sign? If the judge wasn't considering ruling on behalf of the grandmother/stepfatherish figure, wouldn't he just award custody to the biological parent?

 

[Ohiogal]

Question #1:
First of all, is this contempt? (Mo)


When I dropped the kids off this morning, SMom said "I'll call you if anything happens." I looked at her rather quizzically, and she said "I'm taking the kids to Wisconsin for vacation. W knows about it, but I'll call you if anything were to happen."

Aside from the weirdness, this is the first I've been notified about the kids leaving town with her (and I talked to stupidhead last night). Secondly, it IS in our order that if either parent is going out of town during visitation, they are to inform the other parent and provide contact information.

I don't have contact info, and even if I did, I'm not allowed to speak to SMom, and no WAY am I calling her cell phone and having her call the cops with proof that I called her.

Let it go or include it in the filing?

Include it. Is SH going along as well? You are entitled to contact information. Do you have a ROFR? (I cannot recall.)

Question #2 (KS)

A friend's daughter was recently killed in a car accident, leaving 3 children under the age of 4. The oldest child is not the biological child of the mother's fiance, the other 2 children are. The father of the oldest child has not been in the picture. He's ordered to pay support and never has. He lives in the same town as the child, and has never made an effort to visit, never called, nothing.

Within hours of the news of the accident hitting town, the father called the fiance and said he was coming over to get the child (who has never met him). He never showed up.

The grandmother has filed for custody of the child, joint with the fiance of the child's mother.

The father has filed for custody as well.

The court has appointed a GAL, and ordered a psychologist assist in determining best interest.

Is the appointment of the psych and GAL a good sign? If the judge wasn't considering ruling on behalf of the grandmother/stepfatherish figure, wouldn't he just award custody to the biological parent?

Yep. The appointment of the psych and GAL is a good sign as they want to make sure the child's best interest is going to be followed. Psychological parent figures in to this.

 

[stealth2]

Question #1:
First of all, is this contempt? (Mo)


When I dropped the kids off this morning, SMom said "I'll call you if anything happens." I looked at her rather quizzically, and she said "I'm taking the kids to Wisconsin for vacation. W knows about it, but I'll call you if anything were to happen."

Aside from the weirdness, this is the first I've been notified about the kids leaving town with her (and I talked to stupidhead last night). Secondly, it IS in our order that if either parent is going out of town during visitation, they are to inform the other parent and provide contact information.

I don't have contact info, and even if I did, I'm not allowed to speak to SMom, and no WAY am I calling her cell phone and having her call the cops with proof that I called her.

Let it go or include it in the filing?

Aren't the two bolded comments contradictory?

 

[CJane]

Include it. Is SH going along as well? You are entitled to contact information. Do you have a ROFR? (I cannot recall.)

Nope. He's working. It's his 2 week summer vacation period, and she's apparently taking the kids to WI (14 hr drive) for the first week. No ROFR.

Yep. The appointment of the psych and GAL is a good sign as they want to make sure the child's best interest is going to be followed. Psychological parent figures in to this.

That's what I thought too.

Stealth ~ No. If I don't take the kids to the sitter on the mornings that stupidhead (and by extension SMom) is to have them, then I meet her at a nearby gas station. Since the restraining orders were issued in October, I have dropped them off with her probably 5 times, and never exchanged a word with her.

Hence the quizzical look... I didn't even want to say "Huh?"

 

[LdiJ]

Question #1:
First of all, is this contempt? (Mo)


When I dropped the kids off this morning, SMom said "I'll call you if anything happens." I looked at her rather quizzically, and she said "I'm taking the kids to Wisconsin for vacation. W knows about it, but I'll call you if anything were to happen."

Aside from the weirdness, this is the first I've been notified about the kids leaving town with her (and I talked to stupidhead last night). Secondly, it IS in our order that if either parent is going out of town during visitation, they are to inform the other parent and provide contact information.

I don't have contact info, and even if I did, I'm not allowed to speak to SMom, and no WAY am I calling her cell phone and having her call the cops with proof that I called her.

Let it go or include it in the filing?

If it was all by itself I would say to let it go, but with everything else you have, you might as well include it. You aren't allowed to communicate with stepmom, therefore specific arrangements should be made in advance for you to have contact with the kids in this kind of scenario. On top of that, its just plain "wierd" for the kids to be going on vacation with stepmom, without their father.

Question #2 (KS)

A friend's daughter was recently killed in a car accident, leaving 3 children under the age of 4. The oldest child is not the biological child of the mother's fiance, the other 2 children are. The father of the oldest child has not been in the picture. He's ordered to pay support and never has. He lives in the same town as the child, and has never made an effort to visit, never called, nothing.

Within hours of the news of the accident hitting town, the father called the fiance and said he was coming over to get the child (who has never met him). He never showed up.

The grandmother has filed for custody of the child, joint with the fiance of the child's mother.

The father has filed for custody as well.

The court has appointed a GAL, and ordered a psychologist assist in determining best interest.

Is the appointment of the psych and GAL a good sign? If the judge wasn't considering ruling on behalf of the grandmother/stepfatherish figure, wouldn't he just award custody to the biological parent?

The fact that the court has appointed both a psych and a GAL means that the court isn't going to do anything automatically, but I think that your friend needs to be prepared for the father to eventually get custody...assuming that the father really wants a relationship with the child and custody.

What the father may really want is to end child support...and an adoption by either the grandmother or the stepfather would accomplish that.

 

[kimberlywrites]

Someone please educate me. What is an SMom?

 

[LdiJ]

Someone please educate me. What is an SMom?

Stepmother

 

[CJane]

If it was all by itself I would say to let it go, but with everything else you have, you might as well include it. You aren't allowed to communicate with stepmom, therefore specific arrangements should be made in advance for you to have contact with the kids in this kind of scenario. On top of that, its just plain "wierd" for the kids to be going on vacation with stepmom, without their father.

Well, they're with SMom 90% of the time they're with their father. He has them WEd and Thurs and she teaches their church group wed night, and he takes a class thurs night. And, he travels most Wednesdays for work.

The fact that the court has appointed both a psych and a GAL means that the court isn't going to do anything automatically, but I think that your friend needs to be prepared for the father to eventually get custody...assuming that the father really wants a relationship with the child and custody.

What the father may really want is to end child support...and an adoption by either the grandmother or the stepfather would accomplish that.

The family thinks that what he's really after is any potential proceeds from a wrongful death suit (the accident was caused by an 18 wheeler running a stop sign and t-boning Mom's truck). Whether that's due to anything he said or not, is unclear.

 

[LdiJ]

Well, they're with SMom 90% of the time they're with their father. He has them WEd and Thurs and she teaches their church group wed night, and he takes a class thurs night. And, he travels most Wednesdays for work.



The family thinks that what he's really after is any potential proceeds from a wrongful death suit (the accident was caused by an 18 wheeler running a stop sign and t-boning Mom's truck). Whether that's due to anything he said or not, is unclear.

Well...that is possible too...

 

[Ohiogal]

The family thinks that what he's really after is any potential proceeds from a wrongful death suit (the accident was caused by an 18 wheeler running a stop sign and t-boning Mom's truck). Whether that's due to anything he said or not, is unclear.

He would not get ANY proceeds. The child might but it would be kept in trust until said child turns 18.

 

[CJane]

He would not get ANY proceeds. The child might but it would be kept in trust until said child turns 18.

I know. I just wonder if HE knows.

 

[LdiJ]

Well, they're with SMom 90% of the time they're with their father. He has them WEd and Thurs and she teaches their church group wed night, and he takes a class thurs night. And, he travels most Wednesdays for work.

Well...isn't that interesting. You would think that a truly interested and involved father would either want to rearranging parenting time or pick another night for his class so he could actually spend time with his children.