Taking the kids... Is my lawyer right?

[sidscully]

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

My previous thread about having a job offer and having to move away was closed which was fine but after talking to my lawyer I am a little bit confused what I should do now because his advice was totally different from the advice I got here.
Here is the previous thread about my situation:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/got-job-offer-can-i-keep-my-kids-485722.html

This is the situation now:
I got a phone call from the school I applied at and accepted the job offer I was given by the school so I'll have to start working next Wednesday.
After that I went to my lawyer to talk to him about what I am supposed to do now and he suggested I should just take the kids out of school next Monday and take them with me since we thought my husband will not have child care for the kids. He said he will file papers today for an emergency hearing for a change of custody.
Now I found out that MY estranged mother would come down hear to stay with HIM to take care of the kids when he is at work until he makes permanent arrangements. She does that because she doesn't believe me that I was totally unhappy with my marriage and I made a stupid decision. He always played the role of a perfect husband when others were around and bullied me around when we were alone. It hurts but I have to accept that she turned against me because I know it was the right decision.

My question is if I should do what my lawyer suggested because somehow I think I would break the agreements since my husband couldn't see his kids as often as it says in the papers until the review of the custody provisions.
The next question if it changes anything that my mother will come here to help him watching the kids until he finds permanent childcare.

I think it helps if I let you know what that agreement says about custody.
___________________________________________________

CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION AND SUPPORT:
The parties hereby agree that custody, support and visitation with the children shall be as follows:

1.CHILD CUSTODY: The parties agree that they will share joint legal custody of their two minor children. The parties further agree that either party moves outside of this county, the same will be considered a substantial change in circumstances warranting a review of the custody provisions of this agreement.

2.REGULAR VISITATION SCHEDULE: The parties agree to maintain the current schedule of visitation they have been employing, as follows: The wife will have the children from Monday night through Wednesday night and the husband will have the children Thursday through Sunday night every other week. On the alternating weeks, the Wife will have the children five nights out of the week and the husband will have the children two nights out of the week, with specific days to be agreed upon by the parties in accordance with the husband's work and travel schedule.
The parties further agree that the children will continue to be with the Wife after school on the days Husband is to have the children, with the husband picking the children op from the Wife's home. When the children are not in school. the children will be with the wife on the days the Husband is to have the children, until the Husband picks them up after work. The parties further agree that portions of this arrangement may need to be modified in the event Wife obtains full-time employment and after school care is needed for the children.
Additional visitation may be scheduled and the visitation schedule may be modified as the parties may agree.

3. HOLIDAY VISITATION: I don't think that is relevant here.
_________________________________________________

So bottom line is:
Should I follow my lawyers advice and does my mom's appearance change anything?
Thank you

 

[nextwife]

After that I went to my lawyer to talk to him about what I am supposed to do now and he suggested I should just take the kids out of school next Monday and take them with me since we thought my husband will not have child care for the kids. He said he will file papers today for an emergency hearing for a change of custody.

So how much advance warning did you give dad so he COULD have child care for the kids? Did you tell him when you found out about the job so he COULD make arrangments?

Or are you using YOUR lack of communication about his need to arrange child care as YOUR need for emergancy custody? In other words, not giving dad a heads up to arrange child care, and THEN claiming his lack of child care as your rationale to snatch them up and remove them from the area may be a circular argument.

 

[sidscully]

So how much advance warning did you give dad so he COULD have child care for the kids? Or are you using YOUR lack of communication about his need to arrange child care as YOUR need for emergancy custody? In other words, not giving dad a heads up to arrange child care, and THEN claiming his lack of child care as your rationale to snatch them up and brisk them away from dad may be a circular argument.

Well, I told him I have a good chance to get the job and that I want to discuss things how things will be when I move but he made it clear that he won't discuss anything that includes moving.
And taking the kids with me was my lawyers advice, which means I am not planing to trick my husband by not telling him things. I am going to meet with the lawyer again today, but I am very uncomfortable with his advice. It doesn't sound right to me either, that's why I'm posting.
I just wanted to know if it's a good idea to follow my lawyers advice.

 

[sometwo]

Well, I told him I have a good chance to get the job and that I want to discuss things how things will be when I move but he made it clear that he won't discuss anything that includes moving.
And taking the kids with me was my lawyers advice, which means I am not planing to trick my husband by not telling him things. I am going to meet with the lawyer again today, but I am very uncomfortable with his advice. It doesn't sound right to me either, that's why I'm posting.
I just wanted to know if it's a good idea to follow my lawyers advice

You can go and there is a chance dad will get custody but you will have the job. Or you can stay and not have the job and share custody like you are.

Being with dad is not such a bad thing and you shouldn't make it being a bad thing. You also shouldn't determine that the kids ultimately need to be with you and move with you.

No one can predict exackly how the judge will rule but you are the one making the changes . Dad is doing what he is supposed to do and what he has rights to do (seek a change if you move, ask that you not be allowed to move children) you on the other hand are taking the children away from him by moving therefore it cuts down on his time. Why should he lose time because of your decisions? Why shouldn't you be the one to lose time because of your decisions?

 

[LdiJ]

I feel just a tad differently about your case now that I have seen your actual timeshare, because it does appear that don't really have a true 50/50 situation, you actually have a little more time than dad has, beside the fact that the children spend alot of dad's time with you too. (after school, holidays, summer etc.)

I think that you should follow your attorney's advice.

 

[proud_parent]

I am loath to advise any poster to disregard the advice of his or her own attorney.

That said, this part of your post leapt out at me.

Now I found out that MY estranged mother would come down hear to stay with HIM to take care of the kids when he is at work until he makes permanent arrangements. She does that because she doesn't believe me that I was totally unhappy with my marriage and I made a stupid decision.

Perhaps she does that because she has the children's best interests in mind. Perhaps she feels that those interests are best served by the children staying put in their current school until the legalities of which parent shall have physical care are worked out in court. Bravo to Grandma for stepping up to offer temporary child care until you and Dad can settle the matter permanently.

He always played the role of a perfect husband when others were around and bullied me around when we were alone. It hurts but I have to accept that she turned against me because I know it was the right decision.

What you need to accept is that your mother's offer to help provide care indicates her desire to do what is best for THE CHILDREN, even if what is best for them is different than what is best for YOU.

It isn't about choosing sides, but if you insist on framing it that way, then someone needs to be on the side of the minor children. It appears that Grandma gets that. You might do well to learn from her example.

 

[LdiJ]

I am loath to advise any poster to disregard the advice of his or her own attorney.

That said, this part of your post leapt out at me.


Perhaps she does that because she has the children's best interests in mind. Perhaps she feels that those interests are best served by the children staying put in their current school until the legalities of which parent shall have physical care are worked out in court. Bravo to Grandma for stepping up to offer temporary child care until you and Dad can settle the matter permanently.

What you need to accept is that your mother's offer to help provide care indicates her desire to do what is best for THE CHILDREN, even if what is best for them is different than what is best for YOU.

It isn't about choosing sides, but if you insist on framing it that way, then someone needs to be on the side of the minor children. It appears that Grandma gets that. You might do well to learn from her example.

Wow...I think that you are really off base here. The children will be going to a school where their mother teaches if they move with mom...which is a very positive thing.

Her mother turned against her when she made the decision to divorce...and has been against her since. Its a huge leap to assume that grandma's motives are altruistic.

 

[sidscully]

I understand that it is hard to understand the situation by reading posts on the internet especially when you only hear one side.
But she doesn't do it for the kids, believe it or not. But that is not the question here anyway. From a financially point it would be insane to turn down a teaching job in South Carolina right now.
Even if she stays until Dad figures something out. It still comes down to what's best for the kids then. And that means they will be with him during the school year which means that they will be in child care a lot of time. Even if Dad gets help in the beginning. Or they will be with me who is working in the same school and has the same schedule as the kids.
The question now is how do we do it. I have to go to the lawyer now so I'll let you know what he says about the new situation.
Thanks

 

[proud_parent]

Wow...I think that you are really off base here. The children will be going to a school where their mother teaches if they move with mom...which is a very positive thing.

The key word being "if". Dad has a right to object to such a move and if he does so, the court will decide where the children shall live. If the court finds that the move is not in the best interest of the children, enrolling them in Mom's district only to re-enroll them in their current disctrict could be a negative thing.

Her mother turned against her when she made the decision to divorce...and has been against her since. Its a huge leap to assume that grandma's motives are altruistic.

I'm not assuming that Grandma is a saint. I am pointing out that Mom's opinion of Grandma's motives is just that -- Mom's opinion. And if Mom voices the opinion that "my mother has turned against me" while appearing in court to argue the best interests of the children, watch the judge give Mom the very same reminder of whose best interests are at issue here.

 

[LdiJ]

The key word being "if". Dad has a right to object to such a move and if he does so, the court will decide where the children shall live. If the court finds that the move is not in the best interest of the children, enrolling them in Mom's district only to re-enroll them in their current disctrict could be a negative thing.

I'm not assuming that Grandma is a saint. I am pointing out that Mom's opinion of Grandma's motives is just that -- Mom's opinion. And if Mom voices the opinion that "my mother has turned against me" while appearing in court to argue the best interests of the children, watch the judge give Mom the very same reminder of whose best interests are at issue here.

Then you might want to go back and re-read and edit what you wrote. Because you were very emphatic that grandma absolutely was acting in the children's best interests...and implying that mom was not.

 

[sidscully]

@ proud parent: I wouldn't even mention that in court because that is probably not relevant.
I haven't been in contact with my mom since she didn't want to support me after my divorce and told me I was wrong and stupid. I knew my ex and my mom were still talking but I didn't know and didn't care how much. I just found out that she'd help because my ex told me two days ago that she'd come down from Connecticut to help him if I moved. You may not believe me which is ok but you are wrong.
But again, that is not the issue.

 

[proud_parent]

Then you might want to go back and re-read and edit what you wrote. Because you were very emphatic that grandma absolutely was acting in the children's best interests...and implying that mom was not.

Hmm. I wrote "...perhaps she...", "...indicates her desire...", and "...it appears that...". Not one "absolutely" in the bunch.

I wrote exactly what I meant, including the part offering kudos to Grandma for stepping up to fill a potential child care void. To heck with her motivations if her actions would help to ensure that the children are in the care of a responsible adult after school.



On further thought... you're right. I do want to go back to edit what I wrote -- but only because I wrote Bravo when the proper word would be Brava.

 

[proud_parent]

@ proud parent: I wouldn't even mention that in court because that is probably not relevant.
I haven't been in contact with my mom since she didn't want to support me after my divorce and told me I was wrong and stupid. I knew my ex and my mom were still talking but I didn't know and didn't care how much. I just found out that she'd help because my ex told me two days ago that she'd come down from Connecticut to help him if I moved. You may not believe me which is ok but you are wrong.

I don't have reason to believe or disbelieve you. I don't know you, I don't know Grandma. If I did, it is entirely possible that I would agree with your assessment of her. But when you come right down to it, it wouldn't matter if I did. SHE does not factor into the issue at hand, which is whether it would be proper for you to change the children's residence prior to receiving permission from Dad or the Court.

But again, that is not the issue.

Entirely my point.

 

[Ronin]

I am inclined to suggest you take the advice of your attorney, since your attorney knows the facts in your case and the judges temperament better than anyone here.

That said, there is always an element of risk. In my own case my ex followed her attorneys advice to just go ahead and leave the state without notice, and was ordered to return the children after a hearing was held. The facts in my case are not similar to yours though, as my ex had no compelling reason to relocate at that time other than she just wanted to.

 

[CJane]

I'm with Ldi... the time share is NOT 50/50 as suggested in your other thread. I already knew that you had the children quite a bit, even on "Dad's Days". And if your attorney is filing for an emergency hearing, things should move quickly enough that you'll know sooner rather than later what the potential consequences are.