"Blatant Violation" moved from Soc's forum

[Mamacass]

Ok, I understand both points of view (because we've been on both sides).  Here's my problem though.  If this weren't a custody issue, we would all say, leave 3 hours early to keep your kids from being in a car driving during icy and dangerous conditions.  It is not worth spending 3 hours with the child if you are going to put them in danger to do so.
 
Yes, the mom could keep the kids overnight, but then the child misses school the next day.  I'm sorry, but I don't think a child should miss school "just because".  If it was something unforseeable, then I could understand, but I live in VA and the weatherman had been talking about the coming storm a week before it got here.  This was something that could be planned for.  

Now because the mother is missing a  few hours of her visitation, maybe the dad lets her get a few makeup hours another time when it won't affect school.  Maybe he even gives her an extra day the next time the kids have a day off from school.  

I understand wanting to spend time with your child, but at the same time, we can't let our wants come before the child's needs.  The child needs to be safe. The child needs to attend school on a regular basis and understand that school is not to be missed unless there is a really good reason.  

I may be a little grouchy this morning, but I deal with a BM that constantly worries about her wants and doesn't care how it effects anyone else (including SS).  

Sharing custody is making compromises.  Nobody gets everything they want (including as much time as they would like with the child).  However at the end of the day, we should all be able to say that we have tried to do what is best for the child, not what is best for ourselves.    

[Dez]

I was pretty sure someone would play that card re my comment.

I agree that if the weather was forecast a week in advance, other plans could have been made.

That said, the CP should have attempted to do so if it was that much of a concern. Instead, the CP waited until the visitation had commenced which indicates possible ill will on the CP's part. (Read other posts by the CP)

The CP never did post the outcome to the board, even though he posted Tuesday. It just smacks of vindictivness to me.

If inclimate weather were a deciding factor where I live, the CP could use that to keep me from visitation a good six months out of the year! (Very unpredictable)

I have to ask: Would the CP be guilty of custodial interferrence if he insisted that the visit be cut short for weather reasons, and then the sun came out and the roads were clear? (The other side of the coin, if you will.) Pretty petty don't you think?

Given the circumstances, I think trying to validate a contempt charge was totally out of line in this instance. FWIW, I'm a NCP dad.

[mistoffolees]

I don't think there's any problem with your proposal - the way it's stated now. This time, you said that the father would allow the mother to have makeup time. IOW, if the mother brings the kids home 3 hours early this week to avoid driving in the dark in bad weather, she'd get those 3 hours back (plus maybe more) at some other convenient time. I personally wouldn't have any problem with that, nor would most reasonable people.

However, the way it was originally stated in Soc's forum was that the father just wanted the mother to bring the kids back early - with no mention of getting that time back later. I WOULD have a problem with that. I would not want to lose time with my daughter for any reason. If someone has to sacrifice a few hours to avoid having the kids out after dark in bad weather (depending on conditions, this might or might not be a real issue, anyway), it should be the parent who has 95% of the time, not the one who only gets a couple of days a month. THAT is why there was so much objection to the way the situation was originally phrased.

[Dez]

Well said.

[Mamacass]

"If someone has to sacrifice a few hours to avoid having the kids out after dark in bad weather (depending on conditions, this might or might not be a real issue, anyway), it should be the parent who has 95% of the time, not the one who only gets a couple of days a month. "

I would agree with this, except for that the child is missing school to spend 3 additional hours of visitation with the NCP.  so by spending those 3 hours, the child is either at risk b/c they are now in the car at night in icy conditions.  Or the alternative is the child returns the next day after missing a day of school (which is the mother's suggestion).  

And I may be going overboard, but I'm sure the Kim family didn't think much of driving through the snow, and we all saw how tragically that turned out.  

I agree that this isn't something that needs to go to court (unless this is a pattern).  However, I don't think asking the mom to bring the children home a little early is that big of a deal as long as there is a good reason for it.  

BTW my DH just recently became the CP and although BM was only given less than 6 wks a year of visitation, we have allowed her to have eow and one mid week 3 hour visit in addition to the visitation allotted by the courts.  We are not the type to keep the NCP from seeing her child over something petty, so I always assume that when someone has reason to cut the other parents visit short that it is not with ill intent.  

I assumed the original poster was just concerned about getting the children back safely before the school week started.  I assumed he didn't mention make up time on Soc's board b/c it didn't have anything to do with going to court over the BM not returning the kids at the court ordered time.  

[Dez]

First of all, you're talking about missing a day of first grade. It's not final exams for crying out loud! Geez. My sons mom keeps him out of school 6-8 days a year just to do stuff on a school day. (6th grade now)

I think if the CP had offered alternate/makeup time, he most certainly would have mentioned it to make the NCP appear that much more self serving.

The whole thread was laced with him seeking out ways to get at the NCP. (CPS action and contempt of court)

He even mentioned that the NCP knew the day before his request for early return about the weather, and was still refusing. So why didn't he talk about the risks before the visit commenced? You said yourself that the forecast was in place several days before.

Maybe the NCP is a real jerk, we don't know her side. The CP however seems much more focused on getting the NCP in trouble than looking out for the kids IMHO.

And didn't he post Tues. without mention of what the outcome was re the prior weekends visit?

[mistoffolees]

>"If someone has to sacrifice a few hours to avoid having the
>kids out after dark in bad weather (depending on conditions,
>this might or might not be a real issue, anyway), it should be
>the parent who has 95% of the time, not the one who only gets
>a couple of days a month. "
>
>I would agree with this, except for that the child is missing
>school to spend 3 additional hours of visitation with the NCP.
> so by spending those 3 hours, the child is either at risk b/c
>they are now in the car at night in icy conditions.  Or the
>alternative is the child returns the next day after missing a
>day of school (which is the mother's suggestion).  
>
>And I may be going overboard, but I'm sure the Kim family
>didn't think much of driving through the snow, and we all saw
>how tragically that turned out.  
>
>I agree that this isn't something that needs to go to court
>(unless this is a pattern).  However, I don't think asking the
>mom to bring the children home a little early is that big of a
>deal as long as there is a good reason for it.  
>

While I agree that is shouldn't go to court, the NCP has limited time with the child. I'm sorry, but taking 3 hours way without making it up IS a big deal -- especially since we're hearing only one side of the story.

The Kim family is a non-sequitor. No one has any reason to think it was 90 miles through a one lane road at 15,000 feet.

If 3 hours isn't a big deal, then the CP should be willing to give up 3 hours elsewhere - especially since he has 95+% of the time.

Sorry, but the whole thing sounds like the CP trying to pick on the NCP to limit their time even more.

[greatdad]

OK, let me first say that their seem to be some very preconceived notions and jusgements formed merely because i haven't posted since Tuesday!
I am  a single dad, full time job, paying ALL the bills, get no child support ( soon to change) and have 2 kids sick at home, so please don't mistake being to busy to be on the "net" as anything more than just that.

Next, I DID offer her makeup time to include an extra day and she flatly refused.

Also, as the other Va person correctly pointed out, this storm was predictable, BUT the timetable for exactly when the ice storm would hit and where were not accurate until the day before.
I called FOUR times the day before and they screen the calls and refuse to answer, so I left FOUR messages requesting the 3 hour adjustment for safety reasons.
I was also the NCP for a time before being granted sole custody and appreciate the value of every precious moment , the one thing I always kept grasp of was sacrificing my wishes and selfish emotions ( yes, emotions can be selfish without being malicious,but can have malicious results if not kept in check) for the best interest of my children.
In this instance, my part of the drive with the children was the treacherous part,not hers and I went to great lengths to try and get her to understand i was not trying to take 3 hours from her,I was trying to get her to recognize that the 3 hours ( which consisted of the kids sitting in car seats in back of her car) would greatly enhance the chance of the kids and I NOT being on ioced roads in the mountainous part of Va EXACTLT where the worst ice buildup was to be ( and was).
The net result was that I ended up driving for 9 hours for what normally is a 5 1/2 hour drive, the kids were not home until midnight and the conditions were treacherous, all because the mother insisted on the "letter" and not the SPIRIT of the order.
Flexability is when both sides give, when one refuses even though they see that it will even POSSIBLY put the kids in danger, that is the sign of exactly why the Judge saw fit to give me sole custody. Trust me , for a father in Virginia to get sole custody of 2 small children , clearly they saw a whole lot wrong.
Please understand that I did not request sole custody in court, the Judge made that decision without request......she was the one asking for it and I think that after her comment about using a metal spatula to administer spankings, followed by laughing about how it was one of her favorite cooking utensils also....their was not much more to say.

[greatdad]

I need to address this very dangerous line of thought. To YOU , an adult, a day of 1st grade is a throw away, but to a 6 yr old it is a day of friends, learning, reading, art, computer, peer interaction , etc. It also sets a very bad precedent, as if one day of missing school is OK, is 2? is 3? Is it then OK to keep them out of school for any reason? What signal does this send to the child about responsibility?
What if the NCP then turned it around and tells CPS you keep the child out of school for no reason?


See, one of the most important things to the children who have to endure our adult misfortunes need most is STABILITY,DEPENDABILITY,LOVE AND A RELIABLE ROUTINE, because evrything they thought was stable proved not to be!!!

[mistoffolees]

Once again, your tone sounds very much like rationalization of your need to attack the NCP.

First, weather reports aren't always accurate. We were getting forecasts last week of 10" of snow - right up until the time that the snow was supposed to start - and we didn't get anything.

If the NCP exercised her full visitation and the weather turned too bad to drive, then going back the next morning isn't going to hurt a first grader. I'm sorry, but your thoughts on this come across as very self-righteous. Is visiting with their NCP as important as a dentist appointment for which taking time off school is considered OK?Arguably so.

If you offered makeup time and the NCP didn't take it, she was foolish IMHO. But that doesn't change the fact that her time with the kids is precious and she's entitled to use it how she wishes. Since you immediately launched into threats of contempt of court and various other sanctions, it seems that both of you are using the kids in a power struggle.

That's just how it appears to me.