Served yet ONCE AGAIN...

[bononos again]

OP, what do you feel his motivations for filing are?

 

[LdiJ]

OP, what do you feel his motivations for filing are?

If you look at her posting history its clear that she is dealing with one of those parents who is so determined not to pay support, medical or daycare expenses that they will do anything to get out of it, and his filings for increased parenting time seem to coincide with the times when the courts are going after him hard for contempt.

That's probably why the judge told him that he would entertain no further motions regarding visitation.

 

[bononos again]

If you look at her posting history its clear that she is dealing with one of those parents who is so determined not to pay support, medical or daycare expenses that they will do anything to get out of it, and his filings for increased parenting time seem to coincide with the times when the courts are going after him hard for contempt.

That's probably why the judge told him that he would entertain no further motions regarding visitation.

I thought that at first, but OP is contradicting herself as to WHEN Dad initiated this:



I have 6 orders (within the last two years) of his utilizing the court system to harass us. I've not ran to court everytime with lack of child support I've done it once... once when the order was issued and 3 years later with contempt for failure to pay (which was a big error, understood... should have filed motion to compel... that's water under the bridge at this point)

OP stated that child is 4 right? So, the child would have been 3 when OP filed about support, but....


Absolutely he has the right to increase visitation IF it is beneficial for our daughter... at the time he started this she was two and mediator after mediator and judge after judge explained to him that that sort of schedule was innappropriate for a baby. He's been told EVERY TIME that substantial amounts of time away from home can be discussed when she has school vacations and when it is age appropriate.

So, dad filed for the custody change BEFORE the support contempt.

 

[LdiJ]

I thought that at first, but OP is contradicting herself as to WHEN Dad initiated this:



I have 6 orders (within the last two years) of his utilizing the court system to harass us. I've not ran to court everytime with lack of child support I've done it once... once when the order was issued and 3 years later with contempt for failure to pay (which was a big error, understood... should have filed motion to compel... that's water under the bridge at this point)

OP stated that child is 4 right? So, the child would have been 3 when OP filed about support, but....


Absolutely he has the right to increase visitation IF it is beneficial for our daughter... at the time he started this she was two and mediator after mediator and judge after judge explained to him that that sort of schedule was innappropriate for a baby. He's been told EVERY TIME that substantial amounts of time away from home can be discussed when she has school vacations and when it is age appropriate.

So, dad filed for the custody change BEFORE the support contempt.

Not this latest round, that was filed after the contempt.

I went back and looked at her history again, the rest of the things he was getting hit with were restraining order violations, not so much child support. I misspoke on that.

 

[bononos again]

Not this latest round, that was filed after the contempt.

I went back and looked at her history again, the rest of the things he was getting hit with were restraining order violations, not so much child support. I misspoke on that.

No way to know his real motivation, but, maybe he just actually really wants more time with his kid.
He's really going through alot of aggrevation that he is putting on himself, and of course OP. He's been going strong for 2 years trying to get more time. That's some real good persistance. Either he's just plain nuts, or he is he11 bent on getting that time with his kid.

PS
I also didn't like the "baby" comment. A 2yr old is a toddler, not an infant. That seems wrong for a court to say that and to justify basing the Father's time on it.

 

[yolandanewell]

Too messy to try and iron out details

We seperated in 04 - divorce perpetuated by violence at which time support ordered/daycare/healthcare in 05 - and divorce finalized in 06 - it's all convoluded and muddled however it's all about over... in 07 it all hit the fan when he became abusive again violating a DVRO. I wrapped the contempts all under one blanket - fatal error - water under bridge

Bottom line is that he's continually ignored his obligations and has, since support issues, escalated all court hearings, forms of harrassment, false allegations, and has now hit the penacle of disdain for ME by with holding our child by failure to return after visit... he's had his fair day in mediation and acted like a knuckle dragging neandrathal that had no reasoning skills what so ever all at the expense of the baby's stability and mine... however, it is california afterall and there is that right to request increased visitation time without assuming that it's attached to child support... he's proven otherwise on his own.

As for MY right to cease being drug in and out of hearings for the SAME issue recently denied.... there were laws put into place for this exact reason... stopping out of control litigants... only way to stop this guy is when the court says stop it (as for the filings).

 

[casa]

She just turned 4 - and yes the magic age of 6 has been brought to his attention EVERY TIME he has requested mediating the week by week schedule... that age usually entails a child having a set length of time when they have vacations and what not. She begins pre-school in August, in my town and he is requesting that he keep her week on week off in his town one hour away

"We" was from the mediator...

The 'magic' age of 6? I seriously call B.S. if you are trying to convince us a CA Mediator told you there was a 'magical age of 6'. I think you are trying to address the 'tender years' doctrine, of which it never did end at 6, and it's also archaic & not used in CA anymore. And, since your child is only 4, it's hard to believe you were ever told that...it's more likely you were reading old legal articles online.

And just WHEN do you propose it's OK for this child you are practically emotionally dwarfing, to EVER have an overnight with her other parent?

And, IMO, you need to get HONEST. The REAL reason a parent cannot motion for further Custody modifications in CA is if there is DV in the last 5 years. THAT IS WHY he was told that.

 

[yolandanewell]

Either he's just plain nuts, or he is he11 bent on getting that time with his kid.

PS
I also didn't like the "baby" comment. A 2yr old is a toddler, not an infant. That seems wrong for a court to say that and to justify basing the Father's time on it.

Ok... I won't agree with you but I'm not going to haggle back and forth over this... as for your P.S..... baby, toddler, child, tween, teen..... call children whatever you want...

I'm just happy that mine is being removed from this insanity by way of stopping the upset to our lives.

and I have a PS of my own as well.... a person can be as bent as they wanna be about what they want... however when it involves a child and that childs parents has been unable to reach and agreement the matter goes to the mediator and then the court for consideration... he's been listened too along with all of his rants and raves and he's been told NO. WAIT. COME BACK WHEN ITS BENEFICIAL. In fact, come back when there is a substantial change of circumstance - which he's not done.

 

[yolandanewell]

"MAGIC" my word

six induces school age which offers vacation time which THEN is when most parents agree to extended time away from home... bottom line... mediator, judge said NO - again and again and again...

Never heard of the 'tender years'

Also didn't realize that the reason for his continued denial was based off of DV... I know now though...

Thank you

 

[casa]

Ok... I won't agree with you but I'm not going to haggle back and forth over this... as for your P.S..... baby, toddler, child, tween, teen..... call children whatever you want...

I'm just happy that mine is being removed from this insanity by way of stopping the upset to our lives.

and I have a PS of my own as well.... a person can be as bent as they wanna be about what they want... however when it involves a child and that childs parents has been unable to reach and agreement the matter goes to the mediator and then the court for consideration... he's been listened too along with all of his rants and raves and he's been told NO. WAIT. COME BACK WHEN ITS BENEFICIAL. In fact, come back when there is a substantial change of circumstance - which he's not done.

The bolded, underlined is true. And I believe the Judge had cause to make his ruling.
I'm not taking issue with that...I'm taking issue with the Hows & Whys you are presenting.

NO parent can motion to increase custody if there is any DV in the last 5 years. That's the real reason.

I also take exception to your statement of: COME BACK WHEN IT'S BENEFICIAL. Um...everytime he tries, you fight him. Then you say it requires a Change in Circumstance...yes bc you refused to allow any type of more shared parenting time from the beginning. And then you kept refusing, no matter that the child weaned, walked, talked, potty trained, now going to preschool....WHEN is the child old enough to have a father?

 

[casa]

six induces school age which offers vacation time which THEN is when most parents agree to extended time away from home... bottom line... mediator, judge said NO - again and again and again...

It's age 5 for Kindergarten. Not 6. And MOST parents do not wait for their child to be in Kindergarten to have time with their other parent.
Never heard of the 'tender years'

Also didn't realize that the reason for his continued denial was based off of DV... I know now though...

Thank you

You don't know a lot of things, and you are misrepresenting them in this thread. And that is leading people to believe things which are untrue. Like being in arrears on CS having anything to do with Custody

I feel genuinely sorry for your child.

 

[profmum]

six induces school age which offers vacation time which THEN is when most parents agree to extended time away from home... bottom line... mediator, judge said NO - again and again and again...

In CO, school age is 5, my dd is 4.5 and we now have a week on, weelk off schedule, she is doing just fine, I am going nuts!.. but she is fine and appreciates the stability rather than the back and forth schedule (2,2,3) we had before.

 

[casa]

six induces school age which offers vacation time which THEN is when most parents agree to extended time away from home... bottom line... mediator, judge said NO - again and again and again...

In CO, school age is 5, my dd is 4.5 and we now have a week on, weelk off schedule, she is doing just fine, I am going nuts!.. but she is fine and appreciates the stability rather than the back and forth schedule (2,2,3) we had before.

I'm not justifying domestic violence, but if someone kept me from my child for years...and believed they had to be in school to have extended time with me...I may go postal myself!

This woman is cracked, I tell you. She's done a nice job of snowing the forum...but I'm just NOT that gullible.

 

[yolandanewell]

My ex has always exercised his visitation - in fact was VERY predictable with showing on his 1,3,5th weekend and midweek visits... he's never NOT had visitation with our daughter.. problem is he was more than happy with this schedule - VERY happy with this schedule and then I went and stirred the pot and started to push for the child support that was 7 grand (at that time) in arrears and the daycare that was, at that time, over 5 thousand in arrears.

That's when the trouble started...

And I like being cracked!!! Thank you very much...

 

[wileybunch]

My ex has always exercised his visitation - in fact was VERY predictable with showing on his 1,3,5th weekend and midweek visits... he's never NOT had visitation with our daughter..

And, has been pushing for MORE time persistently .... but you want to keep fighting him on it. THAT'S why you will keep going to court -- because he has a right to have more time with his child except for DV issues that casa mentioned. Is that why you called it a "fatal error" b/c you no longer can block his attempts to modify visitation b/c he wasn't found guilty of being in contempt of a RO or didn't have another DV conviction?