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

[Proserpina]

I'll agree to disagree, misto.

And much as I respect you and we usually agree on most things - I think you're dead wrong on this one.

Where does it say that the parent - during their vacation time - can't for example send kiddo to camp for a few days? To another relative for the weekend? Where does it say that the parent must be constantly present?

It doesn't. And as we commonly tell parents here - if it's not specifically addressed, agreed upon or prohibited...

 

[stealth2]

MOm is completely within her rights to allow her parents time during her parenting time. Whether it's to sit in her home all day, or travel around the state. It's her parenting time. It's not her vacation time. Dad is being a controlling jerk.

 

[CJane]

It's really not relevant whether or not Mom will be there. Mom is granted 3 weeks' vacation time. She can use it as she sees fit. There's nothing in the order prohibiting the children from traveling with 3rd parties, and there's nothing in the order stating that Mom has to get Dad's PERMISSION for anything. Mom has to GIVE NOTICE.

Mom has to provide an itinerary. Mom does NOT have to provide information regarding who the child is traveling with - or whether the child is traveling at all.

I say Dad should take this to court and see how far he gets. Because he has NO RIGHT at all to prevent the child going.

 

[mistoffolees]

It's really not relevant whether or not Mom will be there. Mom is granted 3 weeks' vacation time. She can use it as she sees fit.

That's not what the order says. It says that Mom can spend 3 weeks WITH THE CHILD.

Granted, that's not standard wording, but I think we should be going on what the order actually says - not on what we think it should say - or what we think it might mean if we ignore the clear phrasing used.

 

[mistoffolees]

I'll agree to disagree, misto.

And much as I respect you and we usually agree on most things - I think you're dead wrong on this one.

Where does it say that the parent - during their vacation time - can't for example send kiddo to camp for a few days? To another relative for the weekend? Where does it say that the parent must be constantly present?

It doesn't. And as we commonly tell parents here - if it's not specifically addressed, agreed upon or prohibited...

Actually, it does. It says that the parent can spend 3 weeks WITH THE CHILD. If the send the child to camp, they're not with the child.

Please stick to what the order says, NOT what you think it SHOULD say.

 

[CJane]

That's not what the order says. It says that Mom can spend 3 weeks WITH THE CHILD.

Granted, that's not standard wording, but I think we should be going on what the order actually says - not on what we think it should say - or what we think it might mean if we ignore the clear phrasing used.

I'm basing my assertion on my experience, per the TOS of the site, Misto.

My order says that each parent shall have 6 weeks with the children in the summer, taken in 3 blocks of 2 weeks.

Each PARENT shall have 6 weeks WITH THE CHILDREN.

Yet, I can and have sent the kids to Mom's house for a week. Sent them to spend a week with my sister, they spend weekends with friends here and there, etc. This WAS addressed in court, and the judge was NOT amused.

Just as during regular parenting time - which likely says something along the lines of "Child shall be in the possession of X", the child doesn't actually need to be in the physical presence of that parent. The parent is free to allow whomever they choose to spend time with kiddo during that parent's time.

Again. OP absolutely should take Mom back to court for contempt on this issue if he feels that strongly about it. But there is no provision in the order for him to refuse to "give permission" or set any sort of restrictions on Mom.

 

[Proserpina]

Actually, it does. It says that the parent can spend 3 weeks WITH THE CHILD. If the send the child to camp, they're not with the child.

Please stick to what the order says, NOT what you think it SHOULD say.

This is word-for-word what the OP said:

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.

It says NOTHING about the parent being required to be present 100% of the time.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that given this wording the parent - EITHER parent - would be penalized by the court by not being present 24/7?

Come on misto - I honestly don't know where you're coming from here.

But yeah, Op can to back to court.

 

[mistoffolees]

It says NOTHING about the parent being required to be present 100% of the time.

Sure it does. It says: "Either parent may vacation with the child each year for up to three (3) weeks".

How are you vacationing WITH the child if you're off somewhere else?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that given this wording the parent - EITHER parent - would be penalized by the court by not being present 24/7?

Did I say that? I believe I specifically said that nothing would be likely to happen. That doesn't change the fact that it's a simple, clear court order.

Come on misto - I honestly don't know where you're coming from here.

Where I'm coming from is expecting people to obey simple, clear court orders without trying to throw their spin onto it. If the order isn't clear and if they're not able to work out details on their own, they should get it clarified.

You've seen plenty of cases here where people want to add their own interpretations of court orders and start playing games with "I'm not going to do what it says because I know that's not what the judge meant". The only way to avoid that is to do EXACTLY WHAT THE ORDER SAYS - with no interpretations or "I think the judge meant this....".

But yeah, Op can to back to court.

Of course.

 

[LdiJ]

Misto, I agree with everybody else. There is nothing in the orders that prohibit the child spending time with grandparents or with mom sharing her parenting time with grandparents.

However, even if the judge somehow agreed with your interpretion, all the judge would do is change the wording of the order. The judge certainly wouldn't hold mom in contempt.

You are encouraging the OP to attempt to micromanage what mom does on her time, and all that is going to do is cause problems for the OP.

 

[mistoffolees]

Misto, I agree with everybody else. There is nothing in the orders that prohibit the child spending time with grandparents or with mom sharing her parenting time with grandparents.

Other than, of course, the very clear wording that says the parent can travel WITH the child.

Is English your second language?

However, even if the judge somehow agreed with your interpretion, all the judge would do is change the wording of the order. The judge certainly wouldn't hold mom in contempt.

I never said otherwise. In fact, I said that Mom probably wouldn't get in trouble for doing what was suggested. That doesn't change the fact that there's a court order in place with very clear wording.

You are encouraging the OP to attempt to micromanage what mom does on her time, and all that is going to do is cause problems for the OP.

No, I'm encouraging OP to follow the court order - and where it's not appropriate to get it changed.

 

[single317dad]

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.

That clause is simply meant to ensure that each parent has available an extended visitation period once a year. It addresses ONLY the parents' extended visitation for the purpose of vacation. It DOES NOT ADDRESS any other party going for a drive with the child during a period that does not constitute a "vacation" (the extended time of up to three weeks.)

If the GPs go beyond the regular visitation schedule with their trip, I believe Dad has a legitimate gripe. As long as the trip is on Mom's (and only Mom's) regular time, this clause doesn't apply.

 

[CJane]

I didn't even think about this week long trip being during Mom's regular parenting time, and not during her designated 3 week period.

If THAT'S the case, then OP really and truly doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Unless, of course, the order says "Child shall reside with Mother" or "Child shall be in the possession of Mother" or "Child shall be in the physical custody of Mother" or something equally clear and unarguable that would imply to any reasonable person that the child should never leave Mom's side.

( )

 

[mistoffolees]

I didn't even think about this week long trip being during Mom's regular parenting time, and not during her designated 3 week period.

If THAT'S the case, then OP really and truly doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Unless, of course, the order says "Child shall reside with Mother" or "Child shall be in the possession of Mother" or "Child shall be in the physical custody of Mother" or something equally clear and unarguable that would imply to any reasonable person that the child should never leave Mom's side.

Parent may travel WITH THE CHILD is the same thing as saying "Child shall be in the physical custody of the parent".

If grandparents have the child, then the parent is not vacationing WITH the child. Period.

That clause is simply meant to ensure that each parent has available an extended visitation period once a year. It addresses ONLY the parents' extended visitation for the purpose of vacation. It DOES NOT ADDRESS any other party going for a drive with the child during a period that does not constitute a "vacation" (the extended time of up to three weeks.)

Maybe it's because you haven't been her long enough, but you should not be interpreting what you think a clause is supposed to mean (unless you discussed it with the judge). LEGALLY, what matters is WHAT THE CLAUSE SAYS, not what you think it is supposed to mean.

Look, I agree that it's stupid wording and I would strongly encourage Dad to allow it, anyway (unless there's some specific reason not to allow the grandparents to visit). As most of you know, I have a very flexible arrangement with my ex and that's what's best for our child.

But when asked a legal question, the only correct legal answer is to do what the order says. And this one is quite clear. WITH the child means WITH the child - not with someone else entirely.

 

[CJane]

Parent may travel WITH THE CHILD is the same thing as saying "Child shall be in the physical custody of the parent".

If grandparents have the child, then the parent is not vacationing WITH the child. Period.

Right. But Misto, my order says the following:

Children shall be in the physical custody of Mother for 6 weeks each summer, to be exercised in 3 periods of 2 weeks each.

***What you're saying is that given the wording, I couldn't ever spend any of that time without my children in my actual physical custody. Which is, of course, unreasonable.

The order also says:

The minor children will spend the following holidays with Mother every year:

Christmas, from December 24th @ 8am until December 25th @ 8pm.
Halloween, from October 31 @ 8am until November 1st @ 8am.

***What you're saying is that if I'm not PHYSICALLY with them, they're not spending the holiday WITH me, and therefore I'm not following the order.

Again, it's not reasonable.

(Interestingly, I've always thought that Halloween only went until 9pm, and have returned the kids to ex at that time. It wasn't until just now that I realized it's supposed to be an overnight.)

 

[mistoffolees]

Right. But Misto, my order says the following:

Children shall be in the physical custody of Mother for 6 weeks each summer, to be exercised in 3 periods of 2 weeks each.

***What you're saying is that given the wording, I couldn't ever spend any of that time without my children in my actual physical custody. Which is, of course, unreasonable.

The order also says:

The minor children will spend the following holidays with Mother every year:

Christmas, from December 24th @ 8am until December 25th @ 8pm.
Halloween, from October 31 @ 8am until November 1st @ 8am.

***What you're saying is that if I'm not PHYSICALLY with them, they're not spending the holiday WITH me, and therefore I'm not following the order.

Again, it's not reasonable.

(Interestingly, I've always thought that Halloween only went until 9pm, and have returned the kids to ex at that time. It wasn't until just now that I realized it's supposed to be an overnight.)

I'm not interested in your badly written order or how you want to interpret it. But if you want to go there, I would argue that if you're no where around, then it would be impossible to force Dad to let the child be at your home from the way your order is written. BTW, Vacation with the child doesn't mean that the mother has to be there every second. It simply means that they're going on vacation together. Similarly, spending Christmas with Mom doesn't mean that you need to be there every second, but that you need to spend at least part of the day with the child.

What you want to do is pretend that the order says "child shall spend Christmas AT THE MOTHER'S HOME". That's not what the order says. If you and your ex want to pretend, that's OK with me, but I'm not going to encourage someone to violate a clear order.

I am simply commenting on a very clearly written order that says something that everyone else wants to interpret in some way which is clearly not indicated by the order.