Grounds for Changing Parenting Time?

[poppabear]

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

I am wondering what the possible grounds for changing parenting time are? My daughter is three and my ex and I have joint custody, with me having sole decision making rights. Currently, my ex has supervised visitation for a few hours a month, and once she completes her court-ordered counseling and parenting classes, she will have our daughter every other weekend and split holidays. However, now that she is close to completing her requirements for non-supervised visitation, she has told me that she is going to take me back to court to have our daughter live primarily with her. Will the court change the parenting agreement simply because she has changed her mind about how much parenting time she wants when she gets non-supervised visitation? Our current order was agreed to by both of us and signed by a judge. Currently, there have been no changes in circumstance for either of us, though our daughter will be starting preschool in September.

I work full-time and my daughter stays with her step-mom while I am at work. My ex has another child that she receives welfare for, and since my daughter is a Native American tribal member (through me) she would receive housing and other extensive benefits should our daughter live with her full-time. She is also partially supported by her live-in boyfriend, who is the reason CPS removed our daughter from her home in the first place (he is also completing court requirements to get custody of his children back). Ex has told me more than once that she is going to quit her job to be a full-time mom to our daughter, which is entirely feasible since she would receive quite a bit in child support should our daughter live with her. So would the court change the parenting time if my ex is unemployed and can spend more time with our daughter? I have provided a stable, loving home, while my ex has stayed in an abusive relationship, had yet another child that she can't support on her own, and moved approx. eight times in a year and a half. She also has no contact with any of her family due to her compulsive lying.

Sorry this is so long but I am not sure which details may make a difference. Thanks in advance for any answers you may have.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[TheGeekess]

Without a significant change in circumstances FOR THE CHILD, Mom is dreaming.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

What has changed in the CHILD's life since the child was removed from mom's care?

How long ago was the change made?

 

[poppabear]

First of all, thank you so much for the responses. They were pretty much what I was thinking, but sometimes it's hard to step out of all the craziness and put things in perspective.

So far, nothing has changed in our daughter's life. In September she will be going to preschool on weekday mornings, but everything else will stay the same. She has been solely in my care since she was almost 16 months old, and prior to that she was with me at least 70% of the time (which has been proven in court and by the IRS). I have always been the main caregiver, and my daughter has never been in daycare; I always worked around when her mom or my parents could be with her. When my daughter was 1 1/2 I got married, and at that point I went to work full time on a day shift and my wife stayed at home with my daughter (and now our son as well). This was the situation when the custody agreement was signed, which has now been a little over a year ago. My ex has had the attitude that she can do whatever she wants for now, and once she completes her court requirements she will be able to just show up with her uterus and be handed full custody. Of course I don't want to lose out on time with our daughter, but I don't think it would be nearly such a big deal if my ex was stable and could put our daughter first. Unfortunately, that just doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

The NCP (mom) would have to show a Change Of Circumstances in the CHILD's life to have it happen. That Change does NOT include HER changes.

So, no. It doesn't work the way mom is thinking. Normally, they go for reunification with CPS, but it appears that is long past. You have had custody of the child for already half the child's life. They don't send children back and forth between parents like a ping pong ball.

In Washington State, the concepts of "custody" and "visitation" have been replaced with a residential schedule known as a "Parenting Plan," which sets out specific times the child will spend with each parent. If the parents can't agree on a parenting plan, the court makes those decisions based on what is in the "best interest" of the child. A parenting plan sets out details such as when the child will be with each parent, which parent will make what decisions regarding the child, how disputes between the parents will be resolved and any limits on parenting functions.

In deciding how much time each parent should spend with the child, the court considers many factors, including:

•The relative strength, nature and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, including whether a parent has taken greater responsibility for performing parenting functions relating to the daily needs of the child
•Any agreements the parents have made
•Each parent's ability to perform parenting functions
•The emotional needs and developmental level of the child
•The child's relationship with siblings and other significant adults
•The child's involvement with his or her school or other activities
•The wishes of the parents
•The wishes of a child who is sufficiently mature to express reasoned and independent preferences

After the Parenting Plan is signed by the judge and filed with the court clerk, both parents are bound by it. If a parent is denied court-ordered access to a child, he or she may start a contempt action by filing a motion with the court. The parent who violated the parenting plan can be held in contempt of court, fined and even jailed. The first time a parent is held in contempt, the court will order the parent to make the child available to make up the amount of time that was missed.

If a parent who is designated as a "primary residential parent" is held in contempt a second time in three years' time, the non-residential parent can ask the court to change the parenting plan to be named the primary residential parent for the child.

A Washington court will not modify a Parenting Plan unless there has been a "substantial change in the circumstances of the child or the non-moving party" and the modification is in the best interest of the child and necessary. To change the primary residential parent unless both parents agree to the modification, unless the child's present environment is detrimental to the child's physical, mental or emotional health and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.

The parent who is asking for a change in the Parenting Plan files a Petition for Modification. The court then holds what is called a "threshold" or "adequate cause" hearing, where the person bringing the Petition to Modify must tell the court the facts which support the request for a modification of the Parenting Plan. There is a presumption against changing the plan, as courts do not like to see a child bounced back and forth between parents. If the court decides at the adequate cause threshold hearing that the parent asking for the modification can establish grounds for making a change, the court will then schedule a hearing date to hear testimony on the merits of the case. If the court finds there isn't "adequate cause," the court will deny the modification of the parenting plan

http://research.lawyers.com/Washington/Divorce-In-Washington-State.html




2.2 Modification Under RCW 26.09.260(1), (2)


[ ] Does not apply.


[ ] The custody decree/parenting plan/residential schedule should not be modified because none of the statutory reasons in RCW 26.09.260(1) and (2) apply.

The portion of Washington state form to file for a change of circumstances:

[ ] The custody decree/parenting plan/residential schedule should be modified because a substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the circumstances of the children or the nonmoving party and the modification is in the best interest of the children and is necessary to serve the best interest of the children. This finding is based on the factors below:

[ ] The parties agree to the modification.

[ ] The children have been integrated into the moving party’s family with the consent of the other party in substantial deviation from the decree or parenting plan/residential schedule.

[ ] The children’s environment under the custody decree/parenting plan/residential schedule is detrimental to the children’s physical, mental or emotional health and the harm likely to be caused by a change in environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the children.

[ ] The other party has been found in contempt of court at least twice within three years because the person failed to comply with the residential time provisions in the court-ordered parenting plan, or the person has been convicted of custodial interference in the first or second degree under RCW 9A.40.060 or 9A.40.070.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:twngTnKh9KcJ:www.courts.wa.gov/forms/documents/drpscu7_0400.doc+washington+state+-DC+change+of+circumstances+custody&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[Silverplum]

The OP is in Oregon, not in Washington.

 

[Ohiogal]

The other "problem" is dad is Native American and the tribe becomes a party as well in custody disputes.

 

[poppabear]

Thank you so much for all the info. And just a note, me being Native American isn't to much of an issue. My tribe almost completely conforms to US laws when it comes to custody issues, and our tribal lawyer and social services will only get involved if CPS is involved. We go through all the regular channels for custody issues, including determining which parent is CP and which is NCP. So pretty much, the tribe will only step in if both parents are deemed unfit by CPS and the child is going to go into foster care.

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you so much for all the info. And just a note, me being Native American isn't to much of an issue. My tribe almost completely conforms to US laws when it comes to custody issues, and our tribal lawyer and social services will only get involved if CPS is involved. We go through all the regular channels for custody issues, including determining which parent is CP and which is NCP. So pretty much, the tribe will only step in if both parents are deemed unfit by CPS and the child is going to go into foster care.

On a "just in case" basis I am going to touch a little more on some things that have only lightly been touched upon here.

If your current custody of the child is "placement" via a CPS case, then its a little different than if you have custody based on a separate custody case.

If its "placement" then its possible that CPS could return the child to mom. They are mandated to reunify parents with children who were removed from their care, if the parents jump through all of the required hoops.

However, if you have full fledged custody through a custody case, then I revert back to the previous advice that a very significant change in circumstance would have to take place (something negative to the child's well being, in YOUR home) before mom would have a reasonable shot at primary placement.

I will also add though, that mom could definitely be taken off supervised visitation and have a more standard parenting schedule than she has now...once she completes jumping through the required hoops.

 

[poppabear]

When CPS became involved, the caseworker advised me to get a lawyer and do as much civilly as I could afford to. I filed a temporary order of protection for mom to only have supervised visits. Since my daughter had been with me the majority of the time already, I proposed a legal parenting plan. Prior to that, there was no legal order for child support or parenting time. I had signed an AOP an was listed on the birth certificate, and the tribe did a DNA test when my daughter was born so that she could register as a tribal member.

Four months after the temporary order went into effect, mom and her atty met with my atty and myself to draw up a parenting plan. We agreed on the terms, and it says in the plan that she has to complete XYZ in order for unsupervised visits. The plan was submitted to the court and signed by a judge. I NEVER intended to keep my daughter from her mom on a permanent basis, only to keep her out of a dangerous situation. I wanted my ex too keep our daughter away from someone who abused her and seek counseling for herself, and those are the requirements stated in the parenting plan. Instead, she chose to stay with the guy and have a baby with him, which is the only reason she is now in counseling and taking parenting classes. About a month before she had her baby CPS told her the child would go into foster care unless she did what they told her to, so she started getting her stuff together. Unfortunately, I don't think her doing what she is required to has anything to do with our daughter, but about her control issues and her opinion that it is practically sacrilegious for her to pay child support since she is mom.

The only other issue that I can think of is that the parenting plan states mom is "not to have a relationship" with BF, and in another place that she is to "have no contact" with BF. This was not an effort to be controlling, but she lied several times to me and CPS about where she was living and about being with BF. Now that they have a child together, and CPS is working with both of them, it's impossible to expect 'no contact' between them, so I don't know if that verbiage can bite me on the butt in the future. I am pretty sure she planned their baby for that very reason, as she spent a lot of time around the system and knows that reunification is the goal of CPS. Also, the BF was arrested but never convicted of several counts of abuse and assault involving our daughter. So I am not sure if the court will even look at that issue since he was not convicted.