BM interfering with weekends...
DH has "periods of physical placement." He has been consistently keeping SS every other weekend for 2 years. The weekend time has varied, one night to three nights, depending on his work schedule. The EOW isn't in the CO, just states he can have SS at all reasonable times upon prior notice to BM. He always gives notice about 4-7 days in advance (when he gets his schedule).
Now BM is saying she refuses to let DH keep SS overnight this weekend unless he can take him for two nights (he can only take him one night due to work). She's saying he has to settle for a short day visit or not see him at all.
Is this going against the CO? From my understanding it is but I don't know the ins and outs of all this custody stuff. If it is against the CO, what should he do?
I'm not certain, but I don't
I'm not certain, but I don't think it is against the court order, since it doesn't actually spell out that it is every other weekend. I could be wrong though.
Yeah that's what confuses me.
Yeah that's what confuses me. It's such a vague clause in the court order. I just don't get how one overnight is unreasonable to her but two and she's okay with it.
Technically it's not a
Technically it's not a violation no; because it just says reasonable time. Unless it is worded that DH gets him at his requested times as long as he gives x amount of notice, she is not violating the court order. It's certainly bitchy, and difficult.
Think about things like this when you guys wrote up your new CO (you and DH are moving right?), try to make it as specific as possible to prevent these kind of things I recommend the phrase "any mutually agreed upon time, and if the parties cannot come to an agreement DH will h e possession of ss4 on x dates- x dates".
Trust me, get it specific or otherwise you will be screwed if bm starts withholding after the move. Personal experience there
Sounds like BM has plans and
Sounds like BM has plans and needs someone to have him for 2 days because she won't be home? With a vague order like that, I wouldn't think it's going against it.