Three Questions

[LdiJ]

That was my thought. Rather than 'interfering' with his visitation, I was actually assuring he got more time w/the kids... or rather, his wife did since he wasn't there. In fact, he's spent less than 24 hours with the children in the past 10 days.

I'm about to piss him off again too... and no matter how it sounds, I'm not looking forward to it. Our CO says "The parent obtaining custody of the children in connection with visitation periods shall provide for transportation of the children." I'm drafting a letter to let him know that he'll need to provide transportation at 8am on Wednesday mornings for the summer months since I won't be driving them to school.

I hate all this crap. Not enough to think I should have stayed married... but enough that sometimes I think it would be easier if I tossed the CO and just did things his way.

I wouldn't send him anything about that until you get your signed copy of the CO from the judge.

 

[CJane]

I wouldn't send him anything about that until you get your signed copy of the CO from the judge.

Is it possible that it's already been signed and is in effect and I just don't know it? I know that seems like a stupid question, but the judge handed down his decision almost a month ago and I've heard nothing since.

Also... the language I've quoted re: transportation, summer visitation, etc is from the current order - the one that's been in effect for going on 3 years. It's my understanding that that particular language isn't changing anyway. All that's changing (supposedly) is the languange regarding legal custody, and the removal of the 100 mile restriction.

 

[LdiJ]

Is it possible that it's already been signed and is in effect and I just don't know it? I know that seems like a stupid question, but the judge handed down his decision almost a month ago and I've heard nothing since.

Also... the language I've quoted re: transportation, summer visitation, etc is from the current order - the one that's been in effect for going on 3 years. It's my understanding that that particular language isn't changing anyway. All that's changing (supposedly) is the languange regarding legal custody, and the removal of the 100 mile restriction.

You can never be certain what the order is going to contain until you receive the order. I would check with your attorney on Monday.....or go down to the courthouse and look at the file.

 

[ceara19]

I don't agree. She picked up the kids and transported them to dad's home, EARLIER than they would have normally arrived there. I don't see that it violates the court order in any way.

His comment about her not participating in school things during his days was literally absurd as well.

But the reason it is a technical violation is because SHE was not the one that was supposed to transport the children on that day.

Even though it didn't interfere with dad's possession of the kids, it's still a violation of the order that she has at this time.

It's stupid and petty and I seriously doubt that a judge would see it any other way. I agree with the fact that dad trying to prevent her from participating in school activities isn't likely to go over well with the judge.

Plus, there is always the possibility that the NEW order is already in effect and they just haven't received a copy yet.

No matter what, I seriously doubt if anything will actually happen because she drove the kids to dad's house when she wasn't supposed to . If he brings it to court, he'll end up looking like a bigger a$$ then he already does.

 

[LdiJ]

But the reason it is a technical violation is because SHE was not the one that was supposed to transport the children on that day.

Even though it didn't interfere with dad's possession of the kids, it's still a violation of the order that she has at this time.

It's stupid and petty and I seriously doubt that a judge would see it any other way. I agree with the fact that dad trying to prevent her from participating in school activities isn't likely to go over well with the judge.

Plus, there is always the possibility that the NEW order is already in effect and they just haven't received a copy yet.

No matter what, I seriously doubt if anything will actually happen because she drove the kids to dad's house when she wasn't supposed to . If he brings it to court, he'll end up looking like a bigger a$$ then he already does.

But I still disagree. I honestly doubt that there is anything in the orders that prevents either parent from transporting the children home from school on the other parent's day. Now, if picking them up and transporting them home resulted in their getting home later than the bus would normally drop them off...THEN I would agree that it could be viewed as a violation....particularly since it would scare the bejeezus out of the other parent.

However, orders aren't normally written to prohibit contact between the children and the parent if its not the parent's day. Lots of parents would LIKE the orders to prohibit that....but they generally don't.

However I do agree that it really doesn't matter which of our opinions are correct on that issue, because if dad tried to take it to court it would make him look like an ass either way.