How much can mom interfere with parenting time?

[mistoffolees]

Oh Misto,

I agree that's its lousy parenting. But if we took away custody from everyone who was just lousy and not dangerous....wouldn't that be a lot of parents not getting to see their kids?

Once again, I specifically said (several times) that CPS should not have been called. I don't think it rises to the level of 'neglect' - and I stated that, as well.

I was just pointing out that it's lousy parenting and I can understand why Mom was upset.

 

[LdiJ]

Oh Misto,

I agree that's its lousy parenting. But if we took away custody from everyone who was just lousy and not dangerous....wouldn't that be a lot of parents not getting to see their kids?

I agree with you, but we have seen plenty of dad's (actually mostly stepmother's) come to these forums complaining about the fact that MOM only feeds the children fast food etc., and wanting to know if that is neglect. We give those dad's/stepmom's the same exact advice. Its not neglect but it IS lousy parenting.

 

[ra04152010]

I have looked through my post four times and I still can't find were I mentioned eating "fast food". I said I don't cook alot of big meals. When we eat at home it's usally steak or chicken on the grill and potatos, pancakes for breakfest ect. When we eat out it's good sit down resturants 90% of the time. The exact calorie and fat grams in the food is a trival part to my post. The main concern is they are being fed and they are safe. Unless my ex wants to give me a weekly report on what and where the kids eat it is not her concern what they eat on my time as long as they eat.

 

[mistoffolees]

I have looked through my post four times and I still can't find were I mentioned eating "fast food".

What you said was that they didn't have a Christmas dinner and snacked all day. Then you bragged about all the fun things you were doing with your kids and how you didn't have time to cook them a regular meal.

Do the math.

 

[CJane]

The main concern is they are being fed and they are safe. Unless my ex wants to give me a weekly report on what and where the kids eat it is not her concern what they eat on my time as long as they eat.

Except apparently you agreed that they should spend their "overnight" time with your father in order to ensure they were eating/there was food available to them.

Now, you may not have realized at the time that agreeing to that stipulation meant that you were also agreeing that you were not providing them with adequate food, but that is, in effect, what you did.

You are now operating under an order that you apparently agreed to (though you haven't answered several of the questions that were asked) and part of that plan is that the children don't spend overnights with you. They spend them with your father.

Whether or not mom "went overboard" is irrelevant at this point. It became irrelevant the minute that order was signed.

 

[acmb05]

I wouldn't bet on that.

It doesn't necessarily have to be in the degree for the court to care.

I agree it doesn't have to be for the court to care, however it does have to be for the court to enforce it.

I would bet on that, I have seen it on many occasions in family court here where one parent said the other was having overnight guests in the home of the opposite sex and it made no difference unless it was in the order that they could not do it.

I know one woman who is going through that at this very moment and she was denied when she went back to court to have it added 2 years after the divorce was finalized.

 

[acmb05]

Except apparently you agreed that they should spend their "overnight" time with your father in order to ensure they were eating/there was food available to them.

No he agreed that they would spend nights at his fathers house.

You are now operating under an order that you apparently agreed to (though you haven't answered several of the questions that were asked) and part of that plan is that the children don't spend overnights with you. They spend them with your father.

Other than the way the OP stated it (which I am sure is the way the OP see's it) I don't see where he had his overnights taken away. It was simply said the kids had to stay at his fathers house at night, it did not (as far as he said) state that dad could not be there with them. It was also said that him living in the apartment above the garage was adequate because it was still at his dad's house.

 

[CJane]

No he agreed that they would spend nights at his fathers house.


Other than the way the OP stated it (which I am sure is the way the OP see's it) I don't see where he had his overnights taken away. It was simply said the kids had to stay at his fathers house at night, it did not (as far as he said) state that dad could not be there with them. It was also said that him living in the apartment above the garage was adequate because it was still at his dad's house.

From his first post:

Lost night visitation in January due to an emergency custody hearing. Ex accused children were not being fed and there was no food in the house. My father agreed the children could stay at their house at night they would make sure children were fed. Judge agreed.

Then...

Turned top of parents garage into mini apartment so I could have uninterrupted visiation. Her lawyer said this was sufficient.

The problem, IMO, is that the JUDGE said that the kids spend overnights with the grandparents to ensure they (the kids, not the grandparents ) are adequately fed.

The ex's ATTORNEY said that the apartment was sufficient.

If the ORDER says the kids are to spend overnights with Grandpa, then they need to be spending the overnights with Grandpa.

And frankly, given the ages of the children, this is CRAZY restrictive -- and leads me to believe, in my cynical little mind, that there is MUCH MUCH more to this story.

 

[acmb05]

Yes, sweets and junk flow freely around here on Christmas and Easter, but it does strike me as odd that there was no sit-down dinner on Christmas day. I think I'd be concerned as the other parent, as well.

Why??

I have not cooked a Christmas dinner in 4 years. I don't see the big deal about not cooking a big meal at Christmas nor do I see where that makes him a lousy parent.

If they would rather make sandwiches and snack all day on those or any other foods makes no difference.

Not that I'd be filing with CPS, but I would certainly have a talk with the other parent about the importance of having real meals instead of "let's eat potato chips and ice cream all day". Not to mention the social aspects. Eating meals together as a family has been shown to be very, very important for kids' emotional development and keeping them out of trouble.

My kids and I do eat together, That does not require me to cook a big meal on the holidays or any other day.

 

[acmb05]

From his first post:



Then...



The problem, IMO, is that the JUDGE said that the kids spend overnights with the grandparents to ensure they (the kids, not the grandparents ) are adequately fed.

The ex's ATTORNEY said that the apartment was sufficient.

If the ORDER says the kids are to spend overnights with Grandpa, then they need to be spending the overnights with Grandpa.

And frankly, given the ages of the children, this is CRAZY restrictive -- and leads me to believe, in my cynical little mind, that there is MUCH MUCH more to this story.

I agree it is crazy. If you look at both of the statements it contradicts itself. OP says he lost his overnight visitation when in reality he did not lose it he just has to spend it at his parents house and he is more than welcome to stay also.

 

[neopandora]

I agree it is crazy. If you look at both of the statements it contradicts itself. OP says he lost his overnight visitation when in reality he did not lose it he just has to spend it at his parents house and he is more than welcome to stay also.

There really does seem to be much, much more to the story. His original posts talks about facing 3 contempts: one for keeping the children in the apartment overnight (not the main house); one for keeping the children out too late (past 1:00 a.m.); and one for having girlfriend and her kids stay overnight split into boys and girls but reads as if it's another contempt for not having both children overnight in his father's main house.

The contempts really seem to indicate (with his admission he lost overnights and built the apartment so his visitation wouldn't be interrupted by taking the children to his father's overnight) something more than just a food issue.

It's all just very suspicious that losing overnights is because of Christmas weekend junk food. Anything is possible I guess but it just seems like a whole lot more going on.