My ex-wife's parents want to travel with my child without my permission

[boshuda2004]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I have been divorced for a little bit over a year.
My ex-wife and I have shared and equal custody (50/50) of our 4-year old daughter.
My ex-wife mother and her new husband travel 500 miles to see their granddaughter every other weekend.
Now my ex told me that her parents want to take our daughter for a week to travel all over the state (all within CA).

Our divorce / child custody agreement states that each PARENT can travel WITH the child up to 3 weeks per year.
However, in this case, my ex-wife will not travel with our daughter. It will just be the grandparents and our daughter.

I told them I was not giving my permission. Period.
I told my ex-wife I don't want my daughter to travel without at least one of her parents. So I gave her the option of being part of the trip too. She said she doesn't have any time-off left to which I reply she can take a week of non-paid time-off to be part of the trip with our daughter and her parents.

She wants to hear nothing and replied that her parents are going to proceed with their vacation plan and take my daughter with them for a week whether I like it or not.

My reasons for not letting them travel with our daughter are the following:
- I believe they are a bad influence on my daughter. Whenever they come to visit, they take her to their hotel and sleep the three of them in the same bed. I have evidence since my ex acknowledges this bad sleeping habit.
- In the past, they have traveled with my daughter and during this time, I can't contact my daughter over the phone (they filter the calls and don't answer when they see I am calling). If there's an emergency, I can't get in touch with my daughter.
- The main reason is that I don't think it is appropriate or responsible to let my daughter travel alone with her grandparents 500-miles away from home.
- I give the grandparents full visitation rights as long as my ex-wife is present or I let them take my daughter for a day or so if they come to visit her. But I am simply opposed to the idea of them travelling with her so far away.

What are my rights? What should I do? Do the grandparents have a right to travel with my daughter without my consent? Again, I am a legal guardian and have share custody with my ex-wife alone. Nowhere in the custody agreement is a mention of grandparents or other relatives.

 

[Proserpina]

Personally, I think you're being absolutely unreasonable.

But, please type out word for word EXACTLY what your court order says. Minus names.

Because I have a feeling that there's nothing specifically prohibiting the grandparents (or anyone else) taking kiddo during Mom's parenting time anyway. I doubt it says ONLY the parents can take the child on vacation.

However, I could be wrong..so please help us out here.

 

[boshuda2004]

But, please type out word for word EXACTLY what your court order says. Minus names.

The Court order says:

10. Either parent may vacation with the child each year for up to three (3) weeks. They shall notify the other parent, in writing, of their vacation plans a minimum of 30 days prior to departure and provide the other parent with a basic itinerary to include dates of departure and return, destinations, flight information, and telephone numbers for emergency purposes. The vacationing parent shall not schedule the vacation during the other parent’s scheduled holiday time with the child, unless agreed upon in advance by both parents. The vacation shall not interrupt school attendance unless mutually agreed upon by the parents and school personnel.

 

[Proserpina]

The Court order says:

10. Either parent may vacation with the child each year for up to three (3) weeks. They shall notify the other parent, in writing, of their vacation plans a minimum of 30 days prior to departure and provide the other parent with a basic itinerary to include dates of departure and return, destinations, flight information, and telephone numbers for emergency purposes. The vacationing parent shall not schedule the vacation during the other parent’s scheduled holiday time with the child, unless agreed upon in advance by both parents. The vacation shall not interrupt school attendance unless mutually agreed upon by the parents and school personnel.

As I suspected, there is nothing at all preventing the grandparents from taking kiddo on vacation for a week during Mom's parenting time.

Mom doesn't need your permission.

 

[gr8rn]

As I suspected, there is nothing at all preventing the grandparents from taking kiddo on vacation for a week during Mom's parenting time.

Mom doesn't need your permission.

Pretty cheeky interpretation of ROUTINE vacation orders! Sheesh, I thought MY ex was controlling...

 

[Proserpina]

Pretty cheeky interpretation of ROUTINE vacation orders! Sheesh, I thought my ex was controlling...

I know

(I actually had to re-word my initial response about 50 times because I was being too...reactive. )

 

[mistoffolees]

As I suspected, there is nothing at all preventing the grandparents from taking kiddo on vacation for a week during Mom's parenting time.

Mom doesn't need your permission.

I don't think I agree. The order says "Either parent may vacation with the child each year for up to three (3) weeks"

If Mom is not there, then she is not vacationing with the child and the court order doesn't require Dad to let the child go.

 

[Proserpina]

I don't think I agree. The order says "Either parent may vacation with the child each year for up to three (3) weeks"

If Mom is not there, then she is not vacationing with the child and the court order doesn't require Dad to let the child go.

I completely disagree, misto. I understand how you're reading it, but I think you're wrong.

The wording, to me, is intended to identify up to 3 weeks of continuous parenting time for each parent which would be completely separate from the current schedule. What Mom does during that time is none of Dad's business - and vice versa. She can leave the child with a sitter for a week. Send kiddo off to camp for two weeks. Or, as she wants to do here, let the grandparents take kiddo for a week.

What Dad is suggesting wouldn't wash here at all.

 

[TheGeekess]

I don't think I agree. The order says "Either parent may vacation with the child each year for up to three (3) weeks"

If Mom is not there, then she is not vacationing with the child and the court order doesn't require Dad to let the child go.

I don't see what the problem is.... My parents carried The Teen about 600 miles (one way) to a family reunion every year without me for about 11 years (3-14YO).

And many grandparents will pile up in the bed with the grandchildren and sleep.

Mom wants her parents to see the child during her time, why shouldn't Mom be able to make that decision?

What kind of emergency would require contact with a 3YO?

 

[Isis1]

i'm actually curious as to what emergency is dad having that warrants a 24/7 contact with a 4 year old? what is the child going to do? change a flat tire for him? call 911? save him from a burning building?

dad, you misunderstood something at the time of the divorce. see, when you divorce, you no longer have control over mom and mom's time with the child. she doesn't need your permission for anything. all she is responsible is to inform you. you don't get to veto anything mom decides to do with her life and her time.

 

[Isis1]

I don't think I agree. The order says "Either parent may vacation with the child each year for up to three (3) weeks"

If Mom is not there, then she is not vacationing with the child and the court order doesn't require Dad to let the child go.

and to throw more alcohol onto that, it says MAY. not shall.

 

[Proserpina]

I don't see what the problem is.... My parents carried The Teen about 600 miles (one way) to a family reunion every year without me for about 11 years (3-14YO).

And many grandparents will pile up in the bed with the grandchildren and sleep.

Mom wants her parents to see the child during her time, why shouldn't Mom be able to make that decision?

What kind of emergency would require contact with a 3YO?

That's the thing that sticks out - it's MOM'S parenting time.

Sure, she could say "oh, alright. I'll tell them "no". Thanks for your input. Well, I'm still taking my three weeks from X day to Y day as per our court order. Bye!".

And then send kiddo to be with the grandparents anyway. What's Dad going to do? Is he really going to take her to court? For what?

There's nothing in the order saying either that ONLY the parents can take the child OR that the grandparents are prohibited from taking the child.

 

[mistoffolees]

I completely disagree, misto. I understand how you're reading it, but I think you're wrong.

The wording, to me, is intended to identify up to 3 weeks of continuous parenting time for each parent which would be completely separate from the current schedule. .

You're misquoting the order. It doesn't say FOR each parent, it says WITH each parent. If the parent isn't there, how is the child supposed to be WITH the parent?

And it's really dangers to start adding what you think the judge intended - when the order is quite clearly worded. The clear English meaning of the words is what matters.

No, Mom could file for a clarification and might even get it. But that doesn't change what the order says today.

 

[mistoffolees]

That's the thing that sticks out - it's MOM'S parenting time.

Sort of. It is time for Mom to spend with the child - per the clear wording of the court order. It says parent may travel WITH the child. If parent isn't there, it doesn't apply.

Sure, she could say "oh, alright. I'll tell them "no". Thanks for your input. Well, I'm still taking my three weeks from X day to Y day as per our court order. Bye!".

She could do that - but she'd be in violation of a very clear court order.

And then send kiddo to be with the grandparents anyway. What's Dad going to do? Is he really going to take her to court? For what?

Probably not - and I don't doubt that a lot of judges might let her get away with it.

But the order is very clear in what it says.

There's nothing in the order saying either that ONLY the parents can take the child OR that the grandparents are prohibited from taking the child.

Actually, it does. It says the parent may travel with the child. That requires the parent to be there.

 

[Isis1]

You're misquoting the order. It doesn't say FOR each parent, it says WITH each parent. If the parent isn't there, how is the child supposed to be WITH the parent?

er, misto. this isn't on the OP's time. it's ONE week. not on dad's time. if mom was to take a 3 day vacation with the child and NOT use those three weeks, she's perfectly within her right.

as long as this does not infringe on dad's time, dad can do nothing to stop it.