What is the name of your state? CA
After reading the other "teenager visitation" post, it brought to mind another question, as my husband (NCP) is in the same situation. His son is now 15.
Not sure if you recall my other posts complaining how CP is always trying to independently change and be in total control of the visitation orders. The entire purpose of CP's frequent nasty correspondence is trying to make NCP feel as though he is a HORRIBLE parent if he doesn't let teenager forfeit visitations whenever he feels like it, if he has other plans with friends, etc., not only now, but especially after will be "given" a car on a silver platter when he turns 16 (even though he's been failing 2-3 classes every report card). NCP is almost starting to fall for her guilt trips too, as she conveys to him that this is what the court would feel is right. So the court would frown on CP trying to push this issue? It doesn't make NCP the worst parent in the world if he doesn't forfeit visits to accommodate his son's social schedule now that he's a teenager? CP claims this is ALL son's idea, but when NCP asks son, he claims that is not true and makes the "cuckoo" sign when referring to his mother (CP).
Also, once the son has his own car, etc., and chooses not to show up for a visit, will NCP be penalized as far as paying more child support for seeing his son a lesser percentage of time, even though it was the son's choice? We know this is the whole purpose of CP trying to lessen/eliminate visitation. Every single line of her ridiculous visitation "proposals" mailed to our home ends with "pursuant to child's schedule" written after it (which she would be dictating).
Am I correct in understanding now that NCP should stick to his guns and not allow the boy to make these visitation decisions until he's 18?
After reading the other "teenager visitation" post, it brought to mind another question, as my husband (NCP) is in the same situation. His son is now 15.
Not sure if you recall my other posts complaining how CP is always trying to independently change and be in total control of the visitation orders. The entire purpose of CP's frequent nasty correspondence is trying to make NCP feel as though he is a HORRIBLE parent if he doesn't let teenager forfeit visitations whenever he feels like it, if he has other plans with friends, etc., not only now, but especially after will be "given" a car on a silver platter when he turns 16 (even though he's been failing 2-3 classes every report card). NCP is almost starting to fall for her guilt trips too, as she conveys to him that this is what the court would feel is right. So the court would frown on CP trying to push this issue? It doesn't make NCP the worst parent in the world if he doesn't forfeit visits to accommodate his son's social schedule now that he's a teenager? CP claims this is ALL son's idea, but when NCP asks son, he claims that is not true and makes the "cuckoo" sign when referring to his mother (CP).
Also, once the son has his own car, etc., and chooses not to show up for a visit, will NCP be penalized as far as paying more child support for seeing his son a lesser percentage of time, even though it was the son's choice? We know this is the whole purpose of CP trying to lessen/eliminate visitation. Every single line of her ridiculous visitation "proposals" mailed to our home ends with "pursuant to child's schedule" written after it (which she would be dictating).
Am I correct in understanding now that NCP should stick to his guns and not allow the boy to make these visitation decisions until he's 18?
