Mom left state

[blackshadow]

On second thought, don't file an ex parte. You could just go get your child. Exercise your four week summer vacation time beginning now. You are granted that in the Parenting time Schedule under local rule 25 and I do not believe your judge will slam you for exercising your time though you may get a wrist slap for not giving 60 days notice (the part that you have not followed of it). Inform mom that you will be exercising your month of summer at this juncture. Granted that could mess with plans if you have any at the end of the summer but it is one way to legitimately have the child in your custody. You have filed for custody correct?

Keep all posts in this thread.

Yes I did file for custody

 

[blackshadow]

How about the fact that I know the court where this person's case is. How about I know the situation and the facts regarding how this OP's PARTICULAR judge rules. How about the fact that mom tried to move against Ohio law and that PARENTS' rights are superior to those of grandparents as grandparents in Ohio have no rights. They have standing to sue for visitation in limited situations but this is NOT one of them and hence they have NO RIGHTS to keep this father from getting his child. How about the fact that dad is entitled per his court order (which he stated is the STANDARD VISITATION PLAN for his county) to FOUR WEEKS OF SUMMER VISITATION and that That is NOT the case here. Neither party did that. So they are both equally in the wrong for that. Mom's transgressions are greater than dad's. OP was told he would be in contempt for the lack of notice HOWEVER he is also entitled to the time of four weeks this summer.

So do you think that this is gonna tick off the courts about me not given 60 day notice. I totally mis understood the wording on the parenting plan but I also know that it is probably not excusable in court. The magistrate is very nice and she has given me the chance to explain the situation as with some they don't even want to hear you.

 

[Ohiogal]

So do you think that this is gonna tick off the courts about me not given 60 day notice. I totally mis understood the wording on the parenting plan but I also know that it is probably not excusable in court. The magistrate is very nice and she has given me the chance to explain the situation as with some they don't even want to hear you.

I gave my opinion. Based on what you have stated, you may get a slap on the wrist. That is normal for first findings of contempt. You have not mentioned being in contempt in the past. I told you what is possible for you to do. Tell mom you are taking your four week vacation now. (this is based on the child being older than 18 months).

 

[blackshadow]

I gave my opinion. Based on what you have stated, you may get a slap on the wrist. That is normal for first findings of contempt. You have not mentioned being in contempt in the past. I told you what is possible for you to do. Tell mom you are taking your four week vacation now. (this is based on the child being older than 18 months).

Thanks OG! No I have not been in contempt before. Mother was slapped on the wrist for first time contempt so hopefully I will.

 

[Ohiogal]

Thanks OG! No I have not been in contempt before. Mother was slapped on the wrist for first time contempt so hopefully I will.

So long as you realize that technically you would be in contempt for not giving 60 days notice. That is contempt. But you are entitled to exercise your four weeks of time.

 

[CJane]

I gave my opinion. Based on what you have stated, you may get a slap on the wrist. That is normal for first findings of contempt. You have not mentioned being in contempt in the past. I told you what is possible for you to do. Tell mom you are taking your four week vacation now. (this is based on the child being older than 18 months).

How about that? An attorney giving someone advice to violate the court order (not giving notice) because Mom FOLLOWED THE COURT ORDER and didn't take the child with her when she left town.

I bow out.

 

[Ohiogal]

How about that? An attorney giving someone advice to violate the court order (not giving notice) because Mom FOLLOWED THE COURT ORDER and didn't take the child with her when she left town.

I bow out.

Whatever. He is entitled to the time of four weeks. He has not given 60 days notice and neither has mom. Because mom was to give sixty days notice. I have acknowledged that he was supposed to do that. I have told him it is contempt for not doing so. However he is entitled to the time.

 

[CJane]

Whatever. He is entitled to the time of four weeks. He has not given 60 days notice and neither has mom. Because mom was to give sixty days notice. I have acknowledged that he was supposed to do that. I have told him it is contempt for not doing so. However he is entitled to the time.

And you've covered very nicely how it's in Dad's best interests to go get the kid. And how the grandparents have no right to the kid. And how mom is a horrible person.

And completely failed to mention what's best for the kid.

It's your state. Your judge. So yeah. Whatever.

 

[Ohiogal]

And you've covered very nicely how it's in Dad's best interests to go get the kid. And how the grandparents have no right to the kid. And how mom is a horrible person.

And completely failed to mention what's best for the kid.

It's your state. Your judge. So yeah. Whatever.

No I did not say that mom is a horrible person. I stated that mom failed to report her move and get permission before relocating. I stated that per the local rule mom does NOT have four weeks of time this summer. That only -- in this case -- dad has four weeks of summer (mom is entitled to the rest of summer that dad's four weeks does not encompass which quite frankly is more than four weeks). NO WHERE did I state that mom is a horrible person.

If mom had the child in her possession it would be a different story. Mom per OP is NOT in the state. What the heck is your issue? Seriously, no where did I state that mom is a horrible person. I stated that she did not give proper notice to relocate. She also didn't give 60 days notice of her vacation time. Dad's time trumps mom's in this case.

And let me just add that mom is entitled dad's schedule during dad's four week period. She can exercise the every other weekend and midweek visits that dad gets the rest of the year:

During vacation periods extending more than two weeks, the residential parent shall have the same mid-week parenting as the non-residential parent, if the child(ren) is/are in the vicinity.

Seriously, CJane what is your issue? He has been told the possible ramifications of his actions and he has been told his options. He is entitled to the time though he should have given 60 days notice.

 

[blackshadow]

I would have given notice if I hadn't mis understood the wording. I also understand the possible contempt. Thanks OG for all your AWESOME responses.

 

[blackshadow]

And you've covered very nicely how it's in Dad's best interests to go get the kid. And how the grandparents have no right to the kid. And how mom is a horrible person.

And completely failed to mention what's best for the kid.

It's your state. Your judge. So yeah. Whatever.

Nobody has said mom was a horrible person. But now I will she is a disgrace to this community but that is beside the point by way far.

 

[Ohiogal]

The order states:

Non-residential parent's schedule shall have priority over residential parent's unless residential parent's vacation time is mandated by provisions of his/her employment (such as annual plant shut down). The parties shall give written notice of the vacation schedule at least 60 days in advance.

That requirement is for both parents. This OP states that he is following the local rules for his county in Ohio which he mentioned on another thread. NEITHER parent gave 60 days notice. Both are in the wrong for that. Yet, are you saying, Cjane, that mom still gets her time and dad doesn't?

Dad's time (since he is the non-residential parent) takes priority over mom's. Why is spending time with dad NOT in the child's best interest?

 

[CJane]

Seriously, CJane what is your issue? He has been told the possible ramifications of his actions and he has been told his options. He is entitled to the time though he should have given 60 days notice.

I thought it was clear what my issue is.

Not. Once. Has the best interests of the child been mentioned except by me.

We're all now well educated in what Dad can (not legally) do. Great.

Poor kid.

 

[blackshadow]

I thought it was clear what my issue is.

Not. Once. Has the best interests of the child been mentioned except by me.

We're all now well educated in what Dad can (not legally) do. Great.

Poor kid.

The best interest here is that the child loves both parents equally and to have a frequent and continueing contact with parents. This child is being tugged on by mom and it is not right but I'm not gonna sit here and say all the bad things she tells the child. Hopefully oneday she'll grow up and realize that she is hurting our child. hopefully it's not too late

 

[Ohiogal]

I thought it was clear what my issue is.

Not. Once. Has the best interests of the child been mentioned except by me.

We're all now well educated in what Dad can (not legally) do. Great.

Poor kid.

Poor kid could then just be stated ON EVERY THREAD posted here. Seriously. Anytime two people get divorced or split up when they have child(ren), there is a "poor kid".

So let me make sure I have the rules correct -- not only do I have to post case law and statutes, be nice to all posters, listen to everything LD has to say, but I also have to do a best interest analysis of the child when it comes to grandparents and all extended family and make sure that the child should not remain with legal strangers because mom put the child there regardless of the law? That argument doesn't work. They tried it with Elian Gonzales. He was sent back to Cuba because a PARENT'S rights are superior to extended family REGARDLESS of what the mother's wishes are in the face of the law. He (this OP) was told the law. There is a presumption of parents working for their children's best interests (i.e. the Supreme Court case of Troxel).

Best interests were considered in regards to the law. And no where did he say he was going to deny grandma and grandpa all time and mom still gets time during his four weeks.