Interpretation of summer parenting time

[wileybunch]

What is the name of your state? Nevada

This is the summer provision (bolded):

Father shall be allowed two (2) weeks of uninterrupted vacation time with the children during the year, as well as up to one-half (1/2) the children's summer vacation time according to what he can fit into his schedule.


Do you interpret that to mean Dad must be off work for one-half the summer vacation time to have children for up to one-half the summer?

FYI, remaining minor child is 13yo and stays home alone in the summer (doesn't go to a daycare).

 

[2Mistakes]

What is the name of your state? Nevada

This is the summer provision (bolded):

Father shall be allowed two (2) weeks of uninterrupted vacation time with the children during the year, as well as up to one-half (1/2) the children's summer vacation time according to what he can fit into his schedule.


Do you interpret that to mean Dad must be off work for one-half the summer vacation time to have children for up to one-half the summer?

FYI, remaining minor child is 13yo and stays home alone in the summer (doesn't go to a daycare).

Is that the wording in your order? What he can fit into his schedule?

Anyways, no, I wouldn't interpret it as he has to be off work to have the kids for 1/2 of the summer. I would think that if he was required to be off work to have them for 1/2 the summer, the order would say so.

 

[proud_parent]

I agree with 2M; given the scant information here, I would not presume this to mean that father must be off work to be allowed his summer time.

Of course, if father's job is, say, janitor for the International Space Station, then one might reasonably interpret this to mean that he must not be scheduled to work in order to exercise his parenting time.

What is father's line of work?

 

[wileybunch]

Of course, if father's job is, say, janitor for the International Space Station, then one might reasonably interpret this to mean that he must not be scheduled to work in order to exercise his parenting time.

Father is and has been an MRI/CT Technologist at a free-standing imaging center (M-F 8-5). He hasn't been called to work on the space station yet.

They were in court last summer over complete denial of any parenting time after 1st weekend in May until after court date was set in Aug. I see no reason to think this assumes NCP won't be working during this time, either, it's an interesting interpretation by CP.

CP's planning to deny 5th weekend in May (5/30) DH requested on 4/28 as part of his school year vacation time (she's denied the previous several requests for time, too). Since he gave her notice, she scheduled DD's birthday party and said DH couldn't have her that weekend at all. Her b'day was 4/30 and this is the first free weekend she said she could do it (with her friends, she already had one w/her family). Giving an inch, DH told DD he'd get her Sat morning ~10AM, the time she said the party would be over. That seemed a fair balance even though Mom was pushing her weight around and they could have planned the party this weekend, but they are planning to take their 5th wheel out of town or she could have done in the following week after that b/c school's out. When working it out so DD could have the slumber party Fri night at her mom's house wasn't enough, Mom then went on to schedule end of season soccer party at their house that weekend, too, and informed Dad of that today. She's crafty if nothing else.

NCP (DH) is going to have to return to court. They were just in court last Aug over her contempt and she's still making payments to him for attorney's fees.

 

[LdiJ]

The "according to what he can fit into his schedule" part is a bit odd to be included in a parenting/visitation order.

Although I agree that I wouldn't interpret it the way that mom is interpreting it, I think that is what is causing the problem.

A "motion to clarify" the order is probably something that needs to be done, so that the judge can tell mom that she is interpreting it wrong. Even if dad is filing for contempt, the motion to clarify should be included and the judge should be asked to hear that at the same time.

 

[stealth2]

And, of course, Dad has to actually try to exercise his time.

 

[wileybunch]

Even if dad is filing for contempt, the motion to clarify should be included and the judge should be asked to hear that at the same time.

That's quite a stretch for Mom to say the time allowed is only if Dad is off work. Their right of first refusal is for when a parent will be away overnight so she couldn't begin to think there's some requirement that either parent's parenting time must include 24/7 attachment to child. But, it's a good idea to have whatever resulting court order specifically clarify this and also that Mom does not get to approve/disapprove Dad's other vacation time, that only 30 days' notice is required. Of course she doesn't follow the CO and give Dad 30 days' notice of vacations herself, she only tells Dad there's plans when Dad gives his official notice he plans to take time. This time she can't use that excuse b/c Dad worked around her various summer vacation plans (even though she is technically only allowed *a* vacation in the summer) and so she has been forced to make up a new interpretation b/c she can't schedule over his time for the whole summer.

And, of course, Dad has to actually try to exercise his time.

He absolutely will. He just went through this last summer with many pick ups going home empty handed.

 

[proud_parent]

She's crafty if nothing else.

She's also transparent.

OK, here's my interpretation and advice: Dad ought to send ex a certified letter (if he has not already done so) noting exactly what days he will be exercising his parenting time this summer, including pickup and dropoff times. In the letter, he may note that these are the dates and times that fit into his schedule. As what you posted makes no mention of the visitation periods needing to be agreed by the parties, Mom ought not be permitted an objection.

Good luck to your DH.

 

[OhReally?]

Do you interpret that to mean Dad must be off work for one-half the summer vacation time to have children for up to one-half the summer?

Absolutely NOT. What the order is saying that is that he is entitled to additional time AS he can fit it into his schedule. For starters, there is absolutely nothing in there about work -- just "schedule", so clearly the CP is grasping for what she can (obviously the refrigerator handle wasn't in close proximity! LOL)

What it appears, from the language, is that Dad's schedule is not consistent to the point that specific times would work, so the Court opted for this. Is that in the ballpark? I also disagree with some that have suggested a motion to clarify, as it appears clear. He gets 2 weeks -- uninterrupted -- IN ADDITION TO ("as well as") UP TO HALF of the summer break (not including his two weeks uninterrupted) as he can fit it into HIS schedule.

The only thing that isn't clear from what you've posted is WHEN NCP is to give notice of his intent to exercise his parenting time in the summer and/or his additional parenting time he is given. If there isn't any deadline, perhaps that should be added for everyone's benefit for planning purposes.

ETA: given the problems he has been having with her, I would strongly suggest adding date deadlines for ALL breaks throughout the entire year, if they aren't in the order already. I also agree with "proud_parent"'s most recent response -- that there is no language giving the CP the right to deny you that time for whatever reason. If Dad gives her plenty of notice (a few months), that should be fine (if it's not, then she can explain it to the Judge why letting her know in March for summer parenting time is problematic). In addition, he should not be afraid to be 'firm' in the dates that he "WILL be exercising his parenting time" & that the order does NOT give her any authority to deny his time. Again, if she has a problem, she can explain this issue (as well), to the Judge.

Sounds like dad needs an order where every little thing is spelled out to avoid this crap.

 

[Humusluvr]

Absolutely NOT. What the order is saying that is that he is entitled to additional time AS he can fit it into his schedule. For starters, there is absolutely nothing in there about work -- just "schedule", so clearly the CP is grasping for what she can (obviously the refrigerator handle wasn't in close proximity! LOL)

Sounds like dad needs an order where every little thing is spelled out to avoid this crap.

Absolutely agreed. People have to work, that doesn't mean they don't get their kids. I don't see anywhere saying that he does not get his child if he works. Whatever he can fit in his schedule gives him a lot of leeway, IMO.

 

[CJane]

Umm... isn't Mom technically complying if she grants him ONE DAY outside the 2 weeks? That would, after all, be 'up to' 1/2 the summer. 'Up to' does not mean 'no less than', it means 'not to exceed'.

 

[wileybunch]

Absolutely agreed. People have to work, that doesn't mean they don't get their kids. I don't see anywhere saying that he does not get his child if he works. Whatever he can fit in his schedule gives him a lot of leeway, IMO.

Mom had informed Dad of various vacation times she planned to take this summer and time DD was babysitting for her coworker. DH told her he'd see if all that could be worked out and still do the 1/2 the time this summer and would get back to her with a schedule which he did and he didn't disturb the dates she wanted to have DD and the babysitting job except for the 4th of July week he'd already told her we would have her for vacation along with the 4th of July he has her this year. DH had emailed and mailed the schedules to her because she's started playing hide and seek with emails and not answering them (including asking about updates on counseling and in general WRT to 17.5yo son that's entirely alienated b/c of Mom) and she just won't answer at all. So he mailed schedules also. He gave it some time and then gave a set of schedules to DD on one of her parenting times with him. DD seemed fine with it. Literally minutes after DD returned home, Mom called Dad ranting and raving how he can't have DD that much this summer, she's the custodial parent, not him. It's just always an uphill battle with her.

I agree with those who said a clarification is not needed. Mom is obviously doing the same as her pattern has been. The judge admonished DH to come back to court w/no hesitation if Mom kept up her violations of the court order. They probably should have returned earlier this year after she denied the spring break vacation time he gave her ample notice of, but he agreed to work out an alternating year schedule on that and he'll have DD next year. He's always looking for ways to make the situation work so even given that, he's going to need to go to court b/c Mom is just bound and determined to keep up the constant shell games.

When DH did the OSC for contempt last year, it specified make up time, counseling, sanctions, and any other relief court deems necessary.

This is a question we've had .....
If a change of custody would be relief the court deems necessary, would DH have to specifically motion for that particular relief?

We honestly believe his DD would have more peace in her life if DH was the CP b/c he would freely give information and not play the games her Mom does. But, he thinks if he specifically petitions for a change of custody, Mom will turn DD inside out w/her manipulation. He's wondering if a judge can order that even if DH doesn't specifically ask for that remedy.

 

[wileybunch]

Umm... isn't Mom technically complying if she grants him ONE DAY outside the 2 weeks? That would, after all, be 'up to' 1/2 the summer. 'Up to' does not mean 'no less than', it means 'not to exceed'.

If you were the CP and had just narrowly escaped going to jail last year for contempt, would you really try to use that reasoning? She hasn't yet, I suppose she could. She would have needed to try that first, not flounder around with "you're not the CP, you can't have her that much",and "you can only have her if you are taking the time off work" and the various other "you're so selfish", "you're just doing this to get back to me", etc.

 

[CJane]

If you were the CP and had just narrowly escaped going to jail last year for contempt, would you really try to use that reasoning? She hasn't yet, I suppose she could. She would have needed to try that first, not flounder around with "you're not the CP, you can't have her that much",and "you can only have her if you are taking the time off work" and the various other "you're so selfish", "you're just doing this to get back to me", etc.

I don't think this particular CP is all that concerned that she'll wind up in jail. And yeah, I can see her using a very literal interpretation of the order... which would be exactly what I posted. It's been my experience w/my ex that it's a LOT easier to follow the court order maliciously than anyone ever thinks it will be.

 

[proud_parent]

Umm... isn't Mom technically complying if she grants him ONE DAY outside the 2 weeks? That would, after all, be 'up to' 1/2 the summer. 'Up to' does not mean 'no less than', it means 'not to exceed'.

I completely disagree.

You are of course correct that 'up to' means 'not to exceed'. But I think that the most important part of the verbage wiley posted is "Father shall be allowed" ... meaning that the Court has so ordered, and it is not at Mom's discretion to override the order.

In other words, Mom doesn't get to "grant" squat. A judge has granted the father up to the specified duration of parenting time; it's Dad's choice as to whether he exercises all his time or not.