You are here

Update on anticipated problem

AmIWicked's picture

BM decided that since she wasn't getting her way, she should start harassing DH's lawyer, (that represented him many years ago during the divorce). DH and his lawyer talked and the conversation went something along the lines of:

Lawyer: You have precedent because she followed "your" interpretation every year since the parenting agreement. If it went in front of a judge, she would look foolish and I told her this. She doesn't care and it still pressing the matter. In situations like this where one party is arguing for a point so strongly without regard to precedent, I try to find the motivation behind changing something already in existence and working flawlessly. It seems she just found a loophole and wants to take advantage. Do you realize she is arguing for less time with the kids?
DH: No I didn't.
Lawyer: Her way, (if the school has 3 or less snow days added at the end of the regular calendar year), every summer in the future she loses 8-12 days. In fact, I looked over all her past complaints about parenting time and every time she has a problem with the parenting schedule, she argues for an interpretation that gives her fewer days.
DH: Well if she thinks she is winning by fighting to have the kids LESS time, then she is stupider than I thought. Give it to her and we just won't be able to plan our summer vacations until we know the bad weather has stopped for the winter.

So, this summer she will lose 8 days she could have had them and will be giving DH two weekends in a row at the beginning of the summer and end of the summer. Next summer she will lose 12 days and double weekends again. This is how she wants to interpret the parenting agreement.
I could not wrap my head around her wanting less time with her kids, but in looking back she argued this before the parenting agreement was in place. She is phasing them out now that they are teenagers. They just got cars and are driving themselves now. I think they are going to spend even less time with BM now if she is giving off this vibe of "less time here, more time with your dad"

AmIWicked's picture

DH is primary parent and they live with us. BM gets visitation.
There isn't any child support. DHL told her she didn't have to pay him as long as the kids stayed with him. DH pays for all medical bills, health insurance, school fees, after school activities needs, and sports fees.

FieryEscape's picture

BM should be paying CS to help support her kids. If you guys don't need the money, put it in a college fund or savings account for the kids.

3 kids in Illinois - the NCP pays a flat 32% of their net income and is responsible for paying for at least half of the medical, school, insurance and extra curricular fees as well.

AmIWicked's picture

When they got divorced, that was the arrangement DH gave BM. She moved away. He wanted to keep the kids. So he made that offer.
Illinois state court system did not force child support and they won't change an existing mutually agreed upon divorce decree and joint parenting agreement.

It isn't a matter of needing or not needing the money. DH offered her the deal to get her to say yes to him keeping the kids.

twoviewpoints's picture

Not sure I understood how that cut BM so much, but suppose by giving her what she wanted actually 'hurts' her time, that's her problem.

I see you're Illinois. Any more it's gotten hard pressed for a bad weather off day. I live very rural and majority of the kids are bussed. We went to a pretty standard attempt of just 2hr delays. We've also downsized Spring break (which then use past amount as winter day fill-ins). Next I suspect district will try sending dog sleds out for the kids.

AmIWicked's picture

A basic example is say there are 9 weeks of summer vacation.
DH way: BM would start the summer off and end up with 5 weeks, DH with 4.
BM way: BM wants to DH to start the summer off and have 5 weeks, BM have 4.
Except her way she gives up an normal weekend both at the beginning of the summer and end of the summer ALSO. Because she says that's how the parenting agreement should be interpreted.....

And yes, it's her problem...but we are all thinking now that her goal all along is to "look" like she wants them, while pushing them away.

We are rural to where men get on their tractors to plow the roads. We still have snow days, but most are worked into the year. However when there is a blizzard we have been immobilized for a week or more before.