Breaking a stipulated court order ???

[casa]

She said he did and IF he did in fact break it...she isn't overreacting...that's all.....

In CA that is common verbiage which is related to relocation and not vacation. Trust me, CA courts don't have the time to micro-manage every parent's vacation...

 

[fairisfair]

Because my crystal ball is in the shop, i do not know what he thinks....only what she has written.

perhaps you had best wait until it is repaired then, because your own personal legal knowledge is not serving you well.

 

[averad]

Untill the OP comes back and tells us the grave consequences lets just let this thread die.

Dina has left the building, because she cannot control us, either.

Grave consequences, indeed.

 

[dina1998]

What grave consequences??

By grave i mean take him back into court and explain his actions...My ex once stated that if he wanted to he could have me taken out and he and my child would be out of the country before anyone took notice ...Yes the statement is documented and restraining orders were issued...Maybe anger made him make such a statement ?
Who knows...I am not an evil bitter mom out to deny her ex visitation we have a very fair and equal custody agreement ,the problem is that he likes to interpret the law as he see's fit and he need's to know he can't take advantage .

 

[dina1998]

First you need to be certain that this includes vacations. Generally, that kind of clause is intended to prevent relocations, not vacations.

Vacations are covered .

 

[Silverplum]

By grave i mean take him back into court and explain his actions...My ex once stated that if he wanted to he could have me taken out and he and my child would be out of the country before anyone took notice ...Yes the statement is documented and restraining orders were issued...Maybe anger made him make such a statement ?
Who knows...I am not an evil bitter mom out to deny her ex visitation we have a very fair and equal custody agreement ,the problem is that he likes to interpret the law as he see's fit and he need's to know he can't take advantage .

One of our California posters has made it clear already that the "removal from state" clause was about MOVING AWAY, not VACATIONS.

So you are the one who is interpreting the law as she sees fit. You are the one taking advantage. You are the one who cannot be happy that Dad is taking daughter with him on vacation. You are the one who needs an adjustment in her attitude toward coparenting.

 

[dina1998]

One of our California posters has made it clear already that the "removal from state" clause was about MOVING AWAY, not VACATIONS.

So you are the one who is interpreting the law as she sees fit. You are the one taking advantage. You are the one who cannot be happy that Dad is taking daughter with him on vacation. You are the one who needs an adjustment in her attitude toward coparenting.

21. As stated by the court : Neither party shall change the residence of the minor child from the state of California and the County of Los Angeles without the prior written consent of the other party or a prior order of court Further , the parties stipulate that the burden of proof regarding the best interests of the child in the event of a move away is changed from the non custodial to the custodial parent. This order specifically reverses the burden of proof as set forth in In Re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 25.

23. Neither party shall remove the minor child from the State of California without the prior written consent of the other party or prior order of the court first having been obtained.

 

[Silverplum]

21. As stated by the court : Neither party shall change the residence of the minor child from the state of California and the County of Los Angeles without the prior written consent of the other party or a prior order of court Further , the parties stipulate that the burden of proof regarding the best interests of the child in the event of a move away is changed from the non custodial to the custodial parent. This order specifically reverses the burden of proof as set forth in In Re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 25.

23. Neither party shall remove the minor child from the State of California without the prior written consent of the other party or prior order of the court first having been obtained.

You're STILL doing it.

Why not go ahead and call around for some free consultations with attorneys in your area? Look in the yellow pages. Make sure you select a FAMILY LAW attorney. Maybe you'd listen to one of them.

 

[MrsK]

Dina- perhaps you should get your court order a little more specified so you are not having questions about whether or not he is breaking the order.

For example, there is a clause in my court order that he must give advance notice of taking the children out of the state for ANY circumstances. There is also one in my husband's court order that says the CP must call my husband to notify him if she plans on taking the child out of town overnight. See? Specify.

 

[Ohiogal]

21. As stated by the court : Neither party shall change the residence of the minor child from the state of California and the County of Los Angeles without the prior written consent of the other party or a prior order of court Further , the parties stipulate that the burden of proof regarding the best interests of the child in the event of a move away is changed from the non custodial to the custodial parent. This order specifically reverses the burden of proof as set forth in In Re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 25.

23. Neither party shall remove the minor child from the State of California without the prior written consent of the other party or prior order of the court first having been obtained.

Okay 21 is about move aways which has no bearing here. 23 may have to deal with vacations but what does it say at 22 and 24? Is there a vacation section at all? And truthfully you need to choose your battles. The word of your child is NOT going to be enough to prove contempt and you also have to realize that there was no harm done to the child just your pride.

 

[weenor]

21. As stated by the court : Neither party shall change the residence of the minor child from the state of California and the County of Los Angeles without the prior written consent of the other party or a prior order of court Further , the parties stipulate that the burden of proof regarding the best interests of the child in the event of a move away is changed from the non custodial to the custodial parent. This order specifically reverses the burden of proof as set forth in In Re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 25.

23. Neither party shall remove the minor child from the State of California without the prior written consent of the other party or prior order of the court first having been obtained.

You have to understand that this verbage is open to interpretation and as long as it is, no judge will admonish him for taking the child out of state. It does appear that the issue is moving, not vacations. However if court records indicate that the judge has specifically admonished for taking her on vacations then that's another story....

btw- most divorced couples with children go through this- he interprets in one way, she another....this will continue until your child is grown up, so you may as well just document and roll with tide.

 

[dina1998]

You're STILL doing it.

Why not go ahead and call around for some free consultations with attorneys in your area? Look in the yellow pages. Make sure you select a FAMILY LAW attorney. Maybe you'd listen to one of them.

I wore the dress right ?
You know what's so annoying is that all that paper work means nothing just a bunch of expensive typing ...cool !!!

 

[Silverplum]

I wore the dress right ?
You know what's so annoying is that all that paper work means nothing just a bunch of expensive typing ...cool !!!

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[waitinMd]

I wore the dress right ?
You know what's so annoying is that all that paper work means nothing just a bunch of expensive typing ...cool !!!

I understand how you feel about 'why have a court order if it isn't being followed'. I'm sure everyone here knows what that feels like.

If it's that important, file contempt. Otherwise, put it in writing to him as previously suggested.

I am learning what the phrase means, 'pick and choose your battles!'

 

[GrowUp!]

He broke the court order and will do it again if he can get away with it...I don't think you're snippy. If he isn't going to follow the court order what's the point of having it??

Really? He broke the court order? have you actually SEEN the court order to make that decision?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Stifle it, Edith.