How much info must be given?

[haiku]

But you have to actually go through the process to change it. NH parenting plans don't automatically apply just because you moved there.

AND, it's quite possible to have a 'no paramour' clause in the parenting plan anywhere if both parties agree to it. Just because it doesn't exist in the NH sample plan doesn't mean it couldn't be in their plan EVEN IF they had moved it to NH.

I am working on the assumption-because our OP mentions seeing a mediator- that it was domesticated and changed in New Hampshire, she also mentioned the mediator said NO to the paramour clause. And thats not a surprise. Its RARE to find thise in New England states.

Its why I posted the NH parenting plan becase its not a sample, it is the outline you have to use to be accepted by the court, you can add to it, but that is the outline.

 

[CJane]

But you have to actually go through the process to change it. NH parenting plans don't automatically apply just because you moved there.

AND, it's quite possible to have a 'no paramour' clause in the parenting plan anywhere if both parties agree to it. Just because it doesn't exist in the NH sample plan doesn't mean it couldn't be in their plan EVEN IF they had moved it to NH.

OP Did state that her and her ex have been in mediation and court more times than she can count.

And she stated that her order currently says nothing about bf/gf situations.

THEN she said that the plan USED TO have a no paramour clause in it.

Doesn't it just make sense that the order has been modified sometime along the way?

(Though I DO kind of wonder how high Mom can count -- they've only been separated 18 months and she's already lost count of how many times they've been to court/mediation )

 

[mistoffolees]

OP Did state that her and her ex have been in mediation and court more times than she can count.

And she stated that her order currently says nothing about bf/gf situations.

THEN she said that the plan USED TO have a no paramour clause in it.

Doesn't it just make sense that the order has been modified sometime along the way?

(Though I DO kind of wonder how high Mom can count -- they've only been separated 18 months and she's already lost count of how many times they've been to court/mediation )

In a case like this, the story is fragmented and incomplete. That's why I didn't say it couldn't have changed, just that it didn't automatically change. I thought I was pretty clear on one thing - OP needs to read whatever agreement is officially in place today and then follow it to the letter. That advice applies no matter what state the agreement came from. If it's current, follow it.

 

[nana99]

What is there to not understand? IT GOES BOTH WAYS.



Why would your parenting plan become void when you moved to NH? It doesn't matter if NH has a law about overnight guests or not (frankly, I doubt if TN does, either). You have a court ordered parenting plan that applies until the child becomes an adult or a new court-ordered plan takes its place. You are both bound by the parenting plan.

The parenting plan from TN has been replaced by a new one from NH since we both live in NH now. I did not mean that as soon as I moved to NH that I know longer abided by the TN plan, I did until it was replaced. As I stated my TN parenting plan did have stipulations as far as paramours the one from NH does not. I may have stated it wrong.

 

[nana99]

OP Did state that her and her ex have been in mediation and court more times than she can count.

And she stated that her order currently says nothing about bf/gf situations.

THEN she said that the plan USED TO have a no paramour clause in it.

Doesn't it just make sense that the order has been modified sometime along the way?

(Though I DO kind of wonder how high Mom can count -- they've only been separated 18 months and she's already lost count of how many times they've been to court/mediation )

I am sorry about any information that I didn't communicate well. We did both live in TN, went to mediation and court several times while there and got our parenting plan there. The TN parenting plan did have a no overnight paramour clause in it which is very standard in TN. I was allowed to move out of state to NH as that's where my family lives.

After living here for a few months my ex moved up here and we once again went to court, then mediation several times and now are going back to court again. After mediation we were given a parenting plan from here but have to go back to court because he would not agree to the amount of CS the mediator told him he would now have to pay. Other than that everything else in the new plan was not a problem.

I was exagerrating to say the least, I do know how many times we have been to court, it just seems like it's more than what it is since it's every month we are going

 

[nana99]

I am working on the assumption-because our OP mentions seeing a mediator- that it was domesticated and changed in New Hampshire, she also mentioned the mediator said NO to the paramour clause. And thats not a surprise. Its RARE to find thise in New England states.

Its why I posted the NH parenting plan becase its not a sample, it is the outline you have to use to be accepted by the court, you can add to it, but that is the outline.

You are right the parenting plan was changed in NH. I know in TN the paramour clause is pretty normal, and didn't have a problem with it. I just mentioned it when someone had told me to go look at my plan and see what was in it. I was just stating there is nothing in the new one about paramours only in the one from TN that has been replaced

 

[nana99]

In a case like this, the story is fragmented and incomplete. That's why I didn't say it couldn't have changed, just that it didn't automatically change. I thought I was pretty clear on one thing - OP needs to read whatever agreement is officially in place today and then follow it to the letter. That advice applies no matter what state the agreement came from. If it's current, follow it.

I do follow the plan to the letter. I followed the one from TN and then when it was replaced by the one from NH I now follow that one. I didn't mean that once I moved to NH the old plan was void just because I moved out of state. Sorry if I left out important information before

 

[CourtClerk]

Well, you're welcome. I just see so many people who say "NO WAY would I let a man/woman/whatever that I was dating anywhere NEAR my child until I'd run a background check and dated him for at least *insert arbitrary amount of time here*!!!!" I think it's odd. Because I'm 99% sure that those same people would not subject a non-potential-life-partner-friend to the same rigorous trials. Can you imagine making a friend at the office, thinking it'd be nice to have her up for dinner and a glass of wine and a chick flick, and refusing to even suggest it until you'd known her for 5 months because your daughter would be in the house?

Actually, I can. I let VERY FEW people in my house...

but that's just me. I'm weird like that.

 

[stealth2]

Actually, I can. I let VERY FEW people in my house...

but that's just me. I'm weird like that.

No, you're not. Unless I am, too. And I'm not at all weird. Really.

 

[CourtClerk]

No, you're not. Unless I am, too. And I'm not at all weird. Really.

I don't think you're weird, but maybe it's our mutual weirdness that doesn't allow us to think we're weird.

I mean, really. I have some coworkers that I've worked with and hung out with on a regular basis for EVER. They still don't know where I live and most of my coworkers undergo a rigorous background check yearly, because of the positions we hold.

 

[CJane]

Actually, I can. I let VERY FEW people in my house...

but that's just me. I'm weird like that.

I let very few people into my house either. In fact, I have friends that I've known for YEARS that have never been in my house.

But that wasn't really my point. I'm simply surprised by the # of people who make a big huge deal about having a person whom they may be romantically interested in meet their children - but wouldn't give a second thought to having the children spend a casual Saturday afternoon at the waterpark with a co-worker and his/her kids.

It's kind of along the same lines as people who're kinder to strangers than they are to the people they live with. Seems to me that if you're "intimate" with someone (and I mean that in a non-sexual way) you'd trust them MORE than someone you're only peripherally involved with. Right?

Of course, I also know from extreme first hand experience that a background check -- and even a profession that requires extensive background checks -- isn't going to help you determine ahead of time that someone is an abusive and controlling borderline sociopath unless they've been "caught" before. A whole lot of the time, you won't figure THAT out until they're IN your life. Not that you have to believe me. Ask Lacy Peterson.

 

[acmb05]

I let very few people into my house either. In fact, I have friends that I've known for YEARS that have never been in my house.

But that wasn't really my point. I'm simply surprised by the # of people who make a big huge deal about having a person whom they may be romantically interested in meet their children - but wouldn't give a second thought to having the children spend a casual Saturday afternoon at the waterpark with a co-worker and his/her kids.

It's kind of along the same lines as people who're kinder to strangers than they are to the people they live with. Seems to me that if you're "intimate" with someone (and I mean that in a non-sexual way) you'd trust them MORE than someone you're only peripherally involved with. Right?

Of course, I also know from extreme first hand experience that a background check -- and even a profession that requires extensive background checks -- isn't going to help you determine ahead of time that someone is an abusive and controlling borderline sociopath unless they've been "caught" before. A whole lot of the time, you won't figure THAT out until they're IN your life. Not that you have to believe me. Ask Lacy Peterson.

I do a background check on everyone that my kids spend any time with if I am not going to be there. If they want to spend the night at a friends house I get the parents names and run a check, I also insist on meeting the parents before I allow it.

On a side note, my stbex and I do background checks on everyone we go out with. She had me do checks on both guys she dated before she agreed to go out with them and I do the same for anyone I am interested in.

You can't be to safe nowadays

 

[CJane]

I do a background check on everyone that my kids spend any time with if I am not going to be there. If they want to spend the night at a friends house I get the parents names and run a check, I also insist on meeting the parents before I allow it.

Everyone? Scout leaders, teachers, school resource officers, coaches, etc?

I think, generally speaking, people are LESS concerned about who all of those other people in their kids lives are -- and in fact give no second thought at all to MOST of the people who spend time with their children on a daily basis -- but freak the heck right out at the idea that their kid might meet a potential significant other before a predetermined amount of time has passed.

It's weird TO ME. Not saying it's wrong, or crazy, or anything else. Just weird TO ME that people make such a distinction between "romantic interest" and "casual friend" when determining which person meets their kids when.

On a side note, my stbex and I do background checks on everyone we go out with. She had me do checks on both guys she dated before she agreed to go out with them and I do the same for anyone I am interested in.

You do background checks on everyone your not-yet-ex goes out with... FOR her? That's weird.

I have my BFF run background checks on people regularly. Every man I've dated in over 6 years, people my mother has become friends with since my step-father died, people my sisters are involved with or considering becoming involved with... I gather information like crazy -- it's what I do.

You can't be to safe nowadays

I agree. And "information" that is available still isn't going to tell you what kind of person someone is.

 

[mistoffolees]

Actually, I can. I let VERY FEW people in my house...

but that's just me. I'm weird like that.

I don't think that's very weird. I dated my ex for 2-3 months before I ever met the kids or went into her house. I'm not eager to have anyone I date meet my daughter very quickly, either.

You are right the parenting plan was changed in NH. I know in TN the paramour clause is pretty normal, and didn't have a problem with it. I just mentioned it when someone had told me to go look at my plan and see what was in it. I was just stating there is nothing in the new one about paramours only in the one from TN that has been replaced

Then it's not an issue. You have no paramour clause. However, prudence would suggest that your children would not be exposed to relationships until they have some level of significance.

Everyone? Scout leaders, teachers, school resource officers, coaches, etc?

I think, generally speaking, people are LESS concerned about who all of those other people in their kids lives are -- and in fact give no second thought at all to MOST of the people who spend time with their children on a daily basis -- but freak the heck right out at the idea that their kid might meet a potential significant other before a predetermined amount of time has passed.

It's weird TO ME. Not saying it's wrong, or crazy, or anything else. Just weird TO ME that people make such a distinction between "romantic interest" and "casual friend" when determining which person meets their kids when.

I agree, but there are some differences.

The biggest one is that most of the people your kids spend time with (teachers, bus drivers, scoutmasters, etc) have been pre-screened at some level. Even the kids' parents have some level of screening - you don't think that your kids know if something strange is going on at someone else's house?

There's also the matter of being at a public place. Most interactions occur in public-where the risk is lower than bringing someone into your home (or letting your kids go into someone else's home).

I'm pretty careful about letting my daughter go with people I don't know - at any time, although as she gets older, I'm less concerned. I'll let her watch a movie with a friend's family even if I don't know them well because it's in a public place.

Another very large difference is the whole concept that this new romantic interest could "take the place" of mom or dad at some point. That by itself creates huge stresses and argues for being very careful. If your child has a mean teacher, they can deal with that. If you're dating someone that they see as a potential step-mom or step-dad and the person is mean or rude or arrogant, it sends a very negative message.

 

[haiku]

My step children, just knew the difference between a friend and a "paramour". And because thier mother had a lot of them, they had a very hard time when mom would move on. Its not really a "safety issue" Its an emotional one, the kids get emotional attached to people they think are going to become a part of thier family, realistic or not. Granted mom moved them into the house almost immediately everytime, but from watching it over the years and listening to the kids talk about it, I do think people who are cautious about introducing thier kids to thier love interests are smart to err on the side of caution.