Custody Modification

[haiku]

e.Childcare. The parties agree to allow one another the first opportunity to have the children if he or she is unable to care for the children during their scheduled time.

This is exactly how it is stated.

That is really vague. Are YOU calling him to babysit when you run to the grocery store and leave the kiddo with grandma for an hour? Because thats how it could be interpreted.

 

[kia1987]

It was copy and pasted. Nothing was changed.

 

[kia1987]

That is really vague. Are YOU calling him to babysit when you run to the grocery store and leave the kiddo with grandma for an hour? Because thats how it could be interpreted.

Hmmm. I didn't say I had a problem with him running to the store or leaving my child with grandma for a hour. My issue is grandma is the one caring for the child not him. I do think that its with in my right to have my child if he's going to be gone from 6 pm to 3 or 4am. My child sleeps in her grandparents bed everytime she stays with them. She baths her and feeds her not him.

 

[haiku]

With an order so vague, it does read as if neither one of you can leave the child alone for any amount of time, if thats how one or the other of you want to interpret it. And you know he is gone all night, How? It is reasonable to allow parents nights out, when they have children in thier care, That is why it is reasonable to give an ROFR specific time limits so there is no room for misunderstanding, and expensive trips to court to enforce them.

 

[kia1987]

My thinking is this. He has half the week to go out and have fun.. yes there may be times he has special things he wants to do. That is when my rofr should come to play. What is the sense of having a rofr when there's an exception for him to leave for a whole night?

 

[LdiJ]

My thinking is this. He has half the week to go out and have fun.. yes there may be times he has special things he wants to do. That is when my rofr should come to play. What is the sense of having a rofr when there's an exception for him to leave for a whole night?

I happen to agree with you. I think that the whole point of ROFR is to allow the other parent time when the parent whose time it is cannot be with the child or has something else that they need/want to do.

You can take him back to court for contempt and a clarification of the ROFR.

 

[haiku]

Life doesn't work that way. And you don't get to decide when another parent gets to go out and "have fun".

Though I am not suggesting you don't have one, if both of you are agreeable to it, what I am saying is if you do, it needs to be more concrete to be enforceable.

BUT, what he wants may not be what YOU want. He may want one that allows your household members to babysit, or have it be if your absence is over 24 hours, etc.....

You need to think about what type of ROFR limits will be acceptable to you, and what you would be willing to settle for.

 

[kia1987]

Like I said I don't care when he goes out. I just believe that if he's going to be gone for more than a couple hours I should have my child.

 

[haiku]

Like I said I don't care when he goes out. I just believe that if he's going to be gone for more than a couple hours I should have my child.

Awesome, no one has said you can't take him to court for contempt, my point is, you need to tighten that ROFR up better.

 

[Ohiogal]

Like I said I don't care when he goes out. I just believe that if he's going to be gone for more than a couple hours I should have my child.

So the child should not extended time with either of your families without you there? The child should not be able to have sleep overs at friends' homes when the child gets older?
Don't think about the rule per se but think about what exceptions to the rule are appropriate to you and to him. ROFR needs to be reasonable.

 

[kia1987]

So the child should not extended time with either of your families without you there? The child should not be able to have sleep overs at friends' homes when the child gets older?
Don't think about the rule per se but think about what exceptions to the rule are appropriate to you and to him. ROFR needs to be reasonable.

I did say above that he does live with his parents. So when she stays with him she sees them. This is not a one time thing this is ongoing.

 

[Just Blue]

I did say above that he does live with his parents. So when she stays with him she sees them. This is not a one time thing this is ongoing.

For goodness sake! If NCP is going out at 6-3...Child is mostly asleep. Grow up.

 

[stealth2]

How old is the child in question, and what time does s/he go to bed?

 

[haiku]

I did say above that he does live with his parents. So when she stays with him she sees them. This is not a one time thing this is ongoing.

Big Deal.

When I was a kid, my parents lived in an apartment above my grand-parents apartment, I think I spent more time at thier house, than mine.

As a Isaid I think you need to be prepared for the fact that, if HE is smart, he will argue for a more reasonable ROFR.

 

[LdiJ]

You know, I think its kind of hypocritical that we tell parents that they should get court orders, because court orders protect everyone. I also think its hypocritical that we tell custodial parents that they are required to follow the court orders to a "T", and then turn around and bash them all over the place when they actually WANT to follow the court orders.

If this were OP not wanting to give dad the ROFR he was entitled to receive we would also be bashing the heck out of the OP.