Work records for child placement schedule

[Zigner]

I'm not referring to the times that we might have had them. We (my partner and I) take them during our scheduled time AND her "work" time. What I want to show is that she is not actually working during the times that she says she works, which necessitated the trade. If she was not actually working, then it was not necessary to again disrupt schedules to allow her to make up the time in trade.

Ok, one more time. It doesn't matter how many days you MIGHT have had, it matters how many you ACTUALLY had.

 

[KHillard]

I get it. So...

What can we do about the extra overnights that we DID have this year (and will probably have in the years to come)

and

Does she have to prove that she was actually working?

 

[stealth2]

And your partner is irrelevant. S/he doesn't actually get ANY time with the kids.

 

[Zigner]

I get it. So...

What can we do about the extra overnights that we DID have this year (and will probably have in the years to come)

and

Does she have to prove that she was actually working?

You agreed to the trades...if you had a problem, you should have asked for verification before agreeing to them.

 

[stealth2]

And... SOME biz trips occur in pretty vacation-y places. Even in today's economy. So, OP - how do you KNOW that these trips have been vaca's and not biz?

 

[Isis1]

And... SOME biz trips occur in pretty vacation-y places. Even in today's economy. So, OP - how do you KNOW that these trips have been vaca's and not biz?

well...FACEBOOK of course!! jeez!!!

 

[ecmst12]

OP, I think you're being childish and petty. I think it's likely that a judge would feel the same way were you to drag this into court.

 

[CJane]

I'm not referring to the times that we might have had them. We (my partner and I) take them during our scheduled time AND her "work" time. What I want to show is that she is not actually working during the times that she says she works, which necessitated the trade. If she was not actually working, then it was not necessary to again disrupt schedules to allow her to make up the time in trade.

So what you're REALLY saying is that you don't want to do trades anymore. Because it's not in the children's best interests to have 50/50 parenting time if that requires making adjustments to the schedule?

Seriously. You're not being clear about what you WANT.

How many overnights per two week period are you ordered to have the children? How many overnights per two week period (on average) did you ACTUALLY have the children?

That is what matters. Not where Mom was during times you had the kids, nor what she was doing.

 

[gr8rn]

I get it. So...

What can we do about the extra overnights that we DID have this year (and will probably have in the years to come)

and

Does she have to prove that she was actually working?

So its all about money and nothing to do with spending time with the children. My bet is that OP is NOT mom or dad but the bed buddy. In which case it would be none of their business...

 

[mistoffolees]

I get it. So...

What can we do about the extra overnights that we DID have this year (and will probably have in the years to come)

and

Does she have to prove that she was actually working?

I don't know - because you've never provided the exact wording of the order.

 

[CJane]

I don't know - because you've never provided the exact wording of the order.

There is virtually no way that she'd have to retroactively prove she was working anyway.

And if you went by FB, you'd never guess that my BF's trip to Hawaii, or the one to Seoul, or the upcoming one the Germany were 'business' trips. I know *I was envious when he was spending his evenings on the beach and eating at Morimoto's.

 

[stealth2]

And the question remains - who are "we"?

 

[CJane]

And the question remains - who are "we"?

'My partner and I'

The real question is... Who is OP?

 

[stealth2]

'My partner and I'

The real question is... Who is OP?

Thanks - I missed that.

Sure does sound like it's all about the money.

 

[CJane]

Thanks - I missed that.

Sure does sound like it's all about the money.

Yes.

And while most of the time I don't really care if a third party asks a general question, this one's pretty specific and pretty tailored to ONE aspect of the custody situation. And generally, when something is so specific and so tailored and so obviously about the $ amounts involved.... it's not the parent posting.