My ex-wife's parents want to travel with my child without my permission

[CJane]

I'm not interested in your badly written order or how you want to interpret it. But if you want to go there, I would argue that if you're no where around, then it would be impossible to force Dad to let the child be at your home.

Except that's not true. This has been tested in court, in my case and other cases I've witnessed in various states.

Ex's wife takes the kids on vacations without him present. Court has ok'd that without changing the order.

I've sent the kids to summer camp. Court has ok'd that without changing the order.

Kids will spend a week with my Mom here soon. Courts would ok that without changing the order.

Court has repeatedly ruled that "In Mother's possession" (or father's possession) does NOT mean that the children must be in the same physical area as the parent, but rather that the parent has "care, custody and control" of the child AND THE RIGHT to exercise that care custody and control by "proxy" and allow the child to spend time with others during that time.

Repeatedly, the court has asked that the parents behave reasonably, and if a conflict arises, to err on the side of liberal interpretation of the order, and to NOT bring issues before the court unless the children are actually in danger of being harmed.

Clearly, that's not the case here. And clearly there is no provision in the order for Dad to deny Mom's vacation time, regardless of his feelings about it.

 

[single317dad]

Maybe it's because you haven't been her long enough, but you should not be interpreting what you think a clause is supposed to mean (unless you discussed it with the judge). LEGALLY, what matters is WHAT THE CLAUSE SAYS, not what you think it is supposed to mean.

...

But when asked a legal question, the only correct legal answer is to do what the order says. And this one is quite clear. WITH the child means WITH the child - not with someone else entirely.

"Either parent may vacation with the child"

It's not just what it says, it's what it doesn't say. It DOES say the parents are allowed to vacation with the child. It DOES NOT say that the child cannot go anywhere with the grandparents. Parents retain the freedom to make decisions for their minor children unless and until that freedom is taken away by court order. This particular clause of this particular order does not take that freedom away.

And I may be new here, but I've won 12 of 13 hearings in my legal battle, and I've helped friends and family successfully with their struggles. That's not a brag; I'm sure there are many here who have longer and more successful tenures as pro se litigants. I'm simply stating that I'm not a complete beginner, and I do have some idea how things work in a courtroom and how to read.

 

[MichaCA]

Thats the way I see it. Mom is using her vacation time for child to go vacation with grandparents. I really cannot imagine a judge...should dad take it to court, dinging mom for this. Because...as already said, it could easily be argued that it was during mom's vacation time, and the judge may want to clarify the wording.

If grandparents did something out of the ordinary - like not return child in time for visitation with dad, or child got sick and they didn't handle properly...whatever, then maybe dad would have a leg to stand on.

I understand the reasoning behind the WITH...however I just can't see a judge holding a parent in contempt for this.

Hey dad, I have two divorced friends...the mom's parents are active, with a RV, every summer they take the kids somewhere and I am really jealous...Grand Canyon last year, I don't know whats up this year. BOTH parents take a back seat - they made that choice - so kids would have these opportunities. My personal opinion, its good for her to have this relationship. I think kids need as many positive relationships with extended family, adults as possible.

 

[CJane]

But when asked a legal question, the only correct legal answer is to do what the order says. And this one is quite clear. WITH the child means WITH the child - not with someone else entirely.

So, out of curiosity, where does it say in OP's order that Mom needs permission from Dad for kiddo to travel with the grandparents EVER?

Or that Dad can deny said travel if he does NOT consent to it?

Or that Mom cannot EVER spend time out of the presence of the child during her periods of possession, whether regular parenting time, vacation, or holiday?

 

[Country Living]

I suspect if the OP wouldn't mind if his parents wanted to spend a week with the little girl. What is it OG used to say... you should love your children more than you hate your ex (paraphrased). That little girl should grow up having healthy relationships with both sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

This is more about control than anything else. She's going to resent her father as she gets older if he doesn't change his behavior.