Termination of Parent Rights vs Motion to Modify with no decision making rights?

[mcwjjm]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio. Never married, two children [currently 8/9 YO] entered into Shared Custody Plan in 2009 where I'm the custodial, she has them on weekends and for the Summer. Both parties have legal decision making rights. Mother moves out of state April 2011 leaving children with me. In May I enter a Motion to Termminate our existing Custody Agreement. The children remain with me for the Summer. She re-locates back to Ohio two days before our August hearing. Numerous continaunces follow but we decide to resume our existing visitation schedule.

My wish is to remove any decision making rights from her but keep in place our existing visitation schedule. After her investigation the GAL informs magistrate she agrees with my Motion to Terminate Parental rights at our hearing in December. But because I want to keep the visitation schedule in place the magistrate informed me that my motion was incorrect and that I needed to refile with a Motion to Modify.

Fine, but my question is what really is the difference here? If mother agrees to having all decision making rights deferred to me isn't that the same thing or is maintaining the parenting schedule the sticking point? At this time I believe it is in the best interest of the children to maintain our visiatation schedule.

The magistrate asked us to see if we could come to an agreement prior to our next hearing in March. We got together and basically agreed to the terms with the stipulation that we base any medical decisions after consulting with our pediatrician. We have not discussed the matter since but I'm just curious what the legal differences are between the two motions. TIA.

 

[TheGeekess]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio. Never married, two children [currently 8/9 YO] entered into Shared Custody Plan in 2009 where I'm the custodial, she has them on weekends and for the Summer. Both parties have legal decision making rights. Mother moves out of state April 2011 leaving children with me. In May I enter a Motion to Termminate our existing Custody Agreement. The children remain with me for the Summer. She re-locates back to Ohio two days before our August hearing. Numerous continaunces follow but we decide to resume our existing visitation schedule.

My wish is to remove any decision making rights from her but keep in place our existing visitation schedule. After her investigation the GAL informs magistrate she agrees with my Motion to Terminate Parental rights at our hearing in December. But because I want to keep the visitation schedule in place the magistrate informed me that my motion was incorrect and that I needed to refile with a Motion to Modify.

Fine, but my question is what really is the difference here? If mother agrees to having all decision making rights deferred to me isn't that the same thing or is maintaining the parenting schedule the sticking point? At this time I believe it is in the best interest of the children to maintain our visiatation schedule.

The magistrate asked us to see if we could come to an agreement prior to our next hearing in March. We got together and basically agreed to the terms with the stipulation that we base any medical decisions after consulting with our pediatrician. We have not discussed the matter since but I'm just curious what the legal differences are between the two motions. TIA.

What you are wanting is sole legal custody with joint physical custody. Not sure how that would work out.

 

[Humusluvr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio. Never married, two children [currently 8/9 YO] entered into Shared Custody Plan in 2009 where I'm the custodial, she has them on weekends and for the Summer. Both parties have legal decision making rights. Mother moves out of state April 2011 leaving children with me. In May I enter a Motion to Termminate our existing Custody Agreement. The children remain with me for the Summer. She re-locates back to Ohio two days before our August hearing. Numerous continaunces follow but we decide to resume our existing visitation schedule.

My wish is to remove any decision making rights from her but keep in place our existing visitation schedule. After her investigation the GAL informs magistrate she agrees with my Motion to Terminate Parental rights at our hearing in December. But because I want to keep the visitation schedule in place the magistrate informed me that my motion was incorrect and that I needed to refile with a Motion to Modify.

Fine, but my question is what really is the difference here? If mother agrees to having all decision making rights deferred to me isn't that the same thing or is maintaining the parenting schedule the sticking point? At this time I believe it is in the best interest of the children to maintain our visiatation schedule.

The magistrate asked us to see if we could come to an agreement prior to our next hearing in March. We got together and basically agreed to the terms with the stipulation that we base any medical decisions after consulting with our pediatrician. We have not discussed the matter since but I'm just curious what the legal differences are between the two motions. TIA.

So, you could terminate the joint legal custody, and you and mom work in the best interests of the children by maintaining the visitation on your own. You can do that, if you agree. My ex and I don't have court ordered visitation, we just agree (novel idea! )

Terminating parental rights implies that you want mom completely stripped of her parental rights, which it doesn't sound like you want. Do you have a wife who wants to adopt them? Would mom agree to that? Then it does sound like you want to modify - not terminate.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio. Never married, two children [currently 8/9 YO] entered into Shared Custody Plan in 2009 where I'm the custodial, she has them on weekends and for the Summer. Both parties have legal decision making rights. Mother moves out of state April 2011 leaving children with me. In May I enter a Motion to Termminate our existing Custody Agreement. The children remain with me for the Summer. She re-locates back to Ohio two days before our August hearing. Numerous continaunces follow but we decide to resume our existing visitation schedule.

My wish is to remove any decision making rights from her but keep in place our existing visitation schedule. After her investigation the GAL informs magistrate she agrees with my Motion to Terminate Parental rights at our hearing in December. But because I want to keep the visitation schedule in place the magistrate informed me that my motion was incorrect and that I needed to refile with a Motion to Modify.

Fine, but my question is what really is the difference here? If mother agrees to having all decision making rights deferred to me isn't that the same thing or is maintaining the parenting schedule the sticking point? At this time I believe it is in the best interest of the children to maintain our visiatation schedule.

The magistrate asked us to see if we could come to an agreement prior to our next hearing in March. We got together and basically agreed to the terms with the stipulation that we base any medical decisions after consulting with our pediatrician. We have not discussed the matter since but I'm just curious what the legal differences are between the two motions. TIA.

Just so that you understand clearly, terminating parental rights would mean that she would not be their mother anymore...so that is definitely not what you want.

What I don't understand is how the GAL could have fully done his/her job and interviewed all the parties and not understood that you motioned for something different than what you actually wanted.

 

[mcwjjm]

Just so that you understand clearly, terminating parental rights would mean that she would not be their mother anymore...so that is definitely not what you want.

What I don't understand is how the GAL could have fully done his/her job and interviewed all the parties and not understood that you motioned for something different than what you actually wanted.

Good point. I made it very clear from the get go to the GAL that I thought the mother was uncapable of decision making but I know she loves her children and they love her. The even GAL complimented me on not wanting to seperate them, so there was no mistake what my intentions were from the start.

Thank you everyone, I believe I have a clearer picture of how I want to precede. Hopefully she hasn't changed her tune and agrees to the modification. If not then we'll just incur more lawyer fees from the GAL. Knowing she's siding with me you'd think her chances of the magistrate going against my motion would be reduced.