Question about "precedence" being considered in court
On another note, FDH and BM had a court date two weeks ago and BM didn't show (some BS about new phone and appointments not carrying over). Because the court had not sent the notice of hearing to her new address, there was a procedural issue and they rescheduled to later this month.
While FDH was there, the magistrate said that she recommended they try to work it out by themselves and cancel the next date if they could. So, FDH sent BM an email letting her know that and basically saying, "if you agree to the following, we can cancel the hearing".
He was asking her to stop withholding visitation, stop talking smack about him to the kids and to share 50% of transportation for visitation. (She thinks she doesn't have to help with that). The contempt papers she received before the hearing spelled out that she would drive them TO visitation and drop them at our house and leave them in my care if FDH hand't yet returned from work and he will take the home or to school as appropriate.
She responded to FDH's email yesterday saying "I agree to everything but transportation. You are always late so I think I can't count on you to be there. Also, you have been doing the driving since our divorce therefore there is a precedence and the magistrate probably won't change that"
I told him to just go to the hearing with that email and tell the magistrate that it's only fair that she drives 100% for the next six years since he's done it for the previous six and she admits that.
Did BM pull this "precedence" thing out of her ass? Would the court really say "well, that's how you've done it for six years so you should have to keep doing 100% of the driving"?
Please let me know your thoughts.
- Anne Boleyn's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
There is nothing in the CO
There is nothing in the CO about transportation. And they are doing this without lawyers.
To clear up a few points: -
To clear up a few points:
- When they divorced over 6 years ago, he did live closer to her.
- He then got a new job 4 years ago 1.25+ hours south of there so he moved 30 minutes south (and over some). So basically, his commute to work is an hour. He has to pass our house to get to hers.
- He is often "late". The CO says he picks them up after work. BM has decided that means 630. He doesn't do shift work and has a very demanding job and can't just walk out the door (she expects him to make most of the money). So he often arrives at 7, 715ish.
- The contempt filing was in response to her stupid contempt filing. He spelled out that he has a very long commute, she has none and since she's concerned about a 630 time, she should drop them off at our house instead. The issue would be solved. Also, he stated that he needs reprieve from the time and money spent on 100% of transportation.
- The only reason this is a precedent is because she refuses to help and has for years.
- Also, she just moved in with her BF a couple months ago. She states that it's the same amount of miles as her old house was from ours. (I need to fact check that). Regardless, it takes 30 minutes to get to her old house (one hour round trip) and about 45 to get to her new house (1.5 hours round trip). Not sure how we prove that.
- Keep in mind, again, he doing all that extra driving in addition to a long commute. Example, when he has the kids, the next morning he drives one to school 30 minutes away, then another 20 minutes to take the other home (school is later for her), THEN drives over an hour to work in the opposite direction.
Most CO's that I have seen
Most CO's that I have seen stipulate that the responsibility of transportation between the homes is shared 50/50 by both parents and all at no cost to the other. Meaning that one parent can't make the other compensate them for gas money and time. Given that your husband has a very good reason to be late in picking up his kids, her file for contempt will be squashed since your husband is abiding by the CO.
Before the judge in my DW's
Before the judge in my DW's case made a rulling about the time of the drop offs, he made sure that both DW and her ex could abide by it. I would hope that the judge in the OP's case will do the same thing.
Again, the CO doesn't state a
Again, the CO doesn't state a time. It says "after work". BM has decided that 630 is the time SHE deems "after work" which is total BS.
Look at it this way. He has the kids Thursday nights. Friday morning, he drives them all over east jesus and gets to work around 10AM because of this. Is he supposed to leave the office at 5PM because BM deems it time for him to leave? He'd lose his job.
I was a single parent for 18 years. If I couldn't be home due to work, I had childcare. These kids are left alone by BM all the time. The youngest are 12 and 15. But he's not leaving them home alone, he's got childcare in case he cannot be here by 630PM (ME!).
She hadn't driven in 6 years. He's simply trying to balance it and make it not a problem for HER if he gets off work later than she deems OK.
and they come home every day
and they come home every day to her house while she is at work.
Actually, I wasn't very clear
Actually, I wasn't very clear on point 1. He lived 20 minutes away initially. Then he was laid off from his job and then got a job pretty quickly in another city and moved 30 minutes (total) away. Then he lost that job (all during recession). He got a job fours years ago an hour in the other direction and moved closer to it but no change-- still lived 30 minutes from her. So basically, In order to support his kids AND HER, he has had to move. It's not like he's moving around for fun. He's moving to be closer to the rare jobs that are in his field that pay enough for him to support his kids in a good manner. And he STILL drives an hour each way to work. If you look at it from a "precedent" perspective, for most of the time they've been divorced, he's lived 30 minutes away from his kids. She recently moved further away to live with her boyfriend and no other reason.
He pays a ton in child
He pays a ton in child support for three minor kids (one who now doesn't even live with BM), plus puts money in SS19's college fund montly, plus 70% of medical costs, a life insurance policy that is $300 per month plus her alimony. Oh and she lives with another man now.
I am not sure if the courts would go for it but it is another idea.
I looked up the maps. She's
I looked up the maps. She's sort of right. Per the Google map, it's only 5 more miles to her new house from our house. But it is at least 10 more minutes. Not sure how to prove that. Thoughts?
Yes. I did it on Google maps.
Yes. I did it on Google maps. That shows a 5 minute difference. In reality, the new house is 10-15 minutes further away. Lots of small roads there. Google doesn't have it right. I've timed it many times.
Huh? Precendence? What
Huh?
Precendence? What precedence? If your husband was already under a CO that he would do 100% of the driving, then there would be a precedence. Just because, "that's the way it has always been done" doesn't make it right.
I really don't understand why judges and lawyers try to convince parents to try and "settle amongst yourselves". It's like asking two football teams to just arbitrarily decide who will win the match without ever having to take the field. It's BS. Your FDH and BM need their day in court to get closure on this issue.
I agree. The idiot called
I agree.
The idiot called her when she didn't show up. So the magistrate heard them talking and said "Most people who come in here can't even talk directly to one another. There is no reason you can't settle this before the next hearing". But what he heard was BM feeling stupid that she missed it so she was sweet as pie on the phone. The magistrate didn't hear a conversation where BM was being self-righteous and refusing to do anything she deems not her responsibility.
The only difference here is
The only difference here is that he's asked her repeatedly to help and she's refused. In the best interest of the kids, he continued to drive otherwise they would never visit.
The very reason I suggested
The very reason I suggested he send the email to her (to ask to handle this out of court) was so that she would respond EXACTLY as she did. I knew what she'd say. Now he can walk in there with an email with stating "I don't think I should have to drive. And the magistrate will likely side with me". I am sure the magistrate will like that.
"this can be rectified by MOM
"this can be rectified by MOM dropping the kids off at your house at 7pm and Dad returning the kids back to her at xyz time during all visitations. That is what I would fight for." This is exactly what he's asking for and what his court papers describe. That still leaves him with more driving than her because of the school situation in the morning.
It's like an extra 15
It's like an extra 15 minutes, I think. He doesn't mind that. I guess I am just saying that even if she is told she has to do drop-offs now, she's still getting a better deal. That's fine.
Check this out! On days he
Check this out!
On days he takes the kids to school / her house then goes to work and has to pick them up that evening, he spends three and a half hours of his day in the car and drives 180 miles. Now, this doesn't even include the time he spends at the school in the drop-off line OR the time he sites in BM's driveway in the evening waiting for the kids (usually 20-30 minutes). Sounds fair, huh?
Actually, when the family was
Actually, when the family was intact, it was the same. At one point he was making a TON of money and had a 1.5 hour commute to the city (different state). In order to make that money and give the family the lifestyle BM pretty much demanded (SAHM, with a part time nanny, private schools, etc, etc...), he worked his ass off. She would still expect him home at 6:30 because that's what her daddy did.
OK, BM, put his ass in a time machine and send him back to 1968 when the working world was different. There are no good corporate jobs now that allow you to work 8 hours a day.
Anyway, he was also expected to cook dinner half the time too. I'm all for men doing their fair share of work with the kids when they get home, even if the mom stays home. Baths, bedtime, all that. But if you want him to make big bucks, he has to work late. And you and your nanny/cook can take care of chores and dinner before he gets home and have him deal with bath and bedtime. You can't have it all. (unless you're BM)
You never know what a judge
You never know what a judge will do. Our bm used to do all the transport for my ss when he lived with us-because she paid no cs. It was a verbal agreement that they made. At one point, she get pissed off and filed a bunch of things in court and one thing she asked for was a 4:30 pick up time and shared transportation. Dh asked for a 6:00 pick up time. The judge thought he was being super fair and picked 5:15. Well, it was pointless because we are not home at 515-hence the reason we asked for 600. We are en route to the home at that point. If she had tried to pick him up at the sitter-she would have had to drive an additional 15 minutes out of the way-pushing her closer to the 6:00 pick up time.
So even though it was ordered at 515-dh simply told bm-that it wasn't going to happen. It was going to have to be 6pm because that's simply when we are home. If she wanted to file contempt on that she could, but we weren't quitting our jobs to make a pick up time 45 minutes earlier. I have no idea why the judge would not even listen to the reason we needed a 6pm time.
Back when I was stupid, I
Back when I was stupid, I tried to help this by picking up the kids for him. BM was all for it. I was on time every single time. But I quit after sitting there for 30 minutes each time waiting for PITA YSD to fart around and BM would just stand there smiling like "Oh, that silly SD". I quit.