Transportation Issue

[CJane]

Assumed by who?

I can't find any MS statutes that address transportation when a parent moves away. But I'm going to keep looking.

The only thing I have found was an article written by a Jackson, MS divorce attorney on his website that states:
Transportation for visitation is the responsibility of the non-custodial parent unless the order provides otherwise.

I wish he had cited where he is coming up with this, as I don't know if this is a reliable source of information.

Everything I've read, when it's not specifically addressed by statute, is that the parent receiving the children picks up the children.

It applies no matter how far away from each other the parents live. Since there was no language added when Mom moved away, then it would fall on both of you to get the kids 'back' for your time.

It's like a default setting. Plan a road trip.

 

[Ohiogal]

Got the ex's lovely response this morning to OG's email.

There aren't enough rollie eyes to cover it.

She says: Oh, I will be bringing a police with me to document the fact that I had to drive all the way to MS to get my kids for my summer visitation. We'll see how the judge likes that. Your wife should follow through on her commitment to meet me in Mobile. It's not MY problem that SHE'S had something come up with her kid. Now I have to drive 4 hours roundtrip? That's bulls**t. If you want the kids back, someone better meet me in Mobile on June 26th. On second thought, maybe you'll just have to have someone come to Pensacola to get them. Maybe I won't feel like driving to Mobile that day. So now your little wifey is going to hide behind you and let you do her talking for her? Me and her have always made the kid exchange arrangements directly with each other and theres no reason to change that. I will NOT discuss those arrangements with you. I will email (Wife's Name) and let her know if I feel like meeting her in Mobile that day, and if not, me and her can work out the arrangements for her coming to Pensacola to pick them up. Tell her to quit hiding behind you and to do her own talking for herself.



Does this warrant a reply, or should I just move it to the 'save for possible use in court one day' folder in Outlook?

Save to DEFINITELY USE IN COURT ONE DAY.

 

[2Mistakes]

I agree. It would seem the most logical way when it is not addressed would be if you want the kids and its your time, you go all the way to get them. if she comes all the way up, you get to go to Pensacola.

I do agree that on 1 hand it sounds logical, BUT

If the CP remained in the same community that CP and NCP lived in for the duration of the marriage, and then the NCP chose to move away, why should the CP be penalized for the decisions that the NCP makes for his/her own life. NCP has the choice to stay in the same community as the kids. So if they choose not to, they should have to provide transportation.

Don't get me wrong. I'm ready to go to Pensacola on June 26th if I have to. If she refuses to bring the kids home or meet in Mobile, then yes, I will go to Pensacola and get the kids. I'm not going to not get them just because I FEEL I'm right. What I feel means exactly . . . . nothing.

That's why this issue is included in the modification, so that we can have an order of who is supposed to do what. If the judge says ex needs to provide all transportation, even though at this point I'm not feeling very generous to the ex, I will still offer to meet her 1/2 way when I can.

If the judge says that I have to provide 1/2 of the trasnportation, I will do so. However, I will ask my attorney to ask the judge that a stipulation be put on that, something along the lines that that only applies as long as mom is within X miles of me. She lives in MI an awful lot and has the kids up there sometimes, and I can not afford plane tickets several times a year.

And if the judge orders that I have to provide 100% of the transportation then hopefully he will make an appeal mistake.

 

[Ohiogal]

Print the emails; stop at the sheriffs office on the way home and ask for a standby. Who did you say was stopping by on Friday?

In addition to printing, give a copy to your attorney.

 

[StampGirl]

Is it really this difficult??

If Mom shows up at your house to pick up the kids, then you drive to her house to get them when her visitation is over. Enough said.

I have to do the same thing right now: follow the court order until the modification is done. Don't like it, but going to do it anyways.

 

[2Mistakes]

Is it really this difficult??

If Mom shows up at your house to pick up the kids, then you drive to her house to get them when her visitation is over. Enough said.

I have to do the same thing right now: follow the court order until the modification is done. Don't like it, but going to do it anyways.

How can you follow a court order that doesn't order anything about the issue?

 

[proud_parent]

The only thing I have found was an article written by a Jackson, MS divorce attorney on his website that states:
Transportation for visitation is the responsibility of the non-custodial parent unless the order provides otherwise.

I wish he had cited where he is coming up with this, as I don't know if this is a reliable source of information.

I did some digging and found a case wherein the chancery court cited Love v. Barnett, 611 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 1992) as a basis for requiring the NCP to be responsible for all transportation. To add insult to injury, it was the CP who had created the distance.

The NCP of course appealed. In their opinion, the appelate court wrote, "Any reliance on that case [Love v. Barnett] as being an endorsement of such an across-the-board practice, no matter the facts of the particular case, is not well founded." Even so, the appellate court affirmed the chancellor's decision in this particular case as it did not find that she had abused her discretion.

http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/Conv6118.pdf

 

[wileybunch]

OK, hard to have a dialog on this, but to me it comes down to this ....

NCP moved away, but you have established a pattern of sharing the driving (sending someone on your behalf) when she lives in certain places where driving is feasible when the drive is split. When airplane tickets are involved, I don't know what kind of agreement you two may have between you, but that's not at issue right now.

Designated driver isn't available for previously committed date/time.

I believe you and NCP both have a point. You have a point you're doing her a favor, but you have established that that's the agreement you have. Mom on the other hand needs to be more flexible given this unforeseen event. So my question to you is when CAN you or someone on your behalf meet Mom? If there's no way no how to meet Mom within 24 hours of the original date/time (and give her more time on the back end if the time ends up being LATER than originally agreed), then I think you should apologize to her for this inconvenience to her because it is an inconvenience that you (or your agent/wife) are going back on your word (and yes, your word DOES count -- I know you are saying you are doing her a favor, but you have to get over that because you've already established a pattern and can't hold that over her head now) and say that you will by all means pick the kids up at the end of her time so that you are each splitting the driving that way instead. And apologize some more that you are needing her to pick up the kids this time at the start of her time.

Mom is very out of line for the way she's spoken to both you and your wife, but Mom does have a point and you need to focus on THAT, not get caught up in Mom's 7th grade behavior.

 

[2Mistakes]

OK, hard to have a dialog on this, but to me it comes down to this ....

NCP moved away, but you have established a pattern of sharing the driving (sending someone on your behalf) when she lives in certain places where driving is feasible when the drive is split. When airplane tickets are involved, I don't know what kind of agreement you two may have between you, but that's not at issue right now.

Designated driver isn't available for previously committed date/time.

I believe you and NCP both have a point. You have a point you're doing her a favor, but you have established that that's the agreement you have. Mom on the other hand needs to be more flexible given this unforeseen event. So my question to you is when CAN you or someone on your behalf meet Mom? If there's no way no how to meet Mom within 24 hours of the original date/time (and give her more time on the back end if the time ends up being LATER than originally agreed), then I think you should apologize to her for this inconvenience to her because it is an inconvenience that you (or your agent/wife) are going back on your word (and yes, your word DOES count -- I know you are saying you are doing her a favor, but you have to get over that because you've already established a pattern and can't hold that over her head now) and say that you will by all means pick the kids up at the end of her time so that you are each splitting the driving that way instead. And apologize some more that you are needing her to pick up the kids this time at the start of her time.

Mom is very out of line for the way she's spoken to both you and your wife, but Mom does have a point and you need to focus on THAT, not get caught up in Mom's 7th grade behavior.

I totally get this. And I have no problem with going to Pensacola to get the kids in June if I have to.

My wife apologized to her no less than 3 times, and told her, "I feel really about this. If there were any way that I could meet you, I would."

Yes, mom and wife had an agreement that wife would meet her 1/2 way when she could.

But another part of that agreement was that if wife wasn't able to meet her, ex would have to come get the kids. And ex agreed whole-heartedly with that, stating, "Oh absolutely. No problem." Mom even expressed at that time that she knew this was being done to help her out since she was the one who moved, and acknowledged that she knew she would have to provide transportation since she was the one who moved.

If mom couldn't afford the travel expenses, my outlook on this situation would be different. But mom CAN afford it. She just doesn't want the inconvenience. Well . . . . if you don't want the inconvenience of having to travel to see your kids, maybe you shouldn't move. Just sayin'.

 

[wileybunch]

OK, but you didn't answer my question:

"So my question to you is when CAN you or someone on your behalf meet Mom?"

Also, if no other arrangement can be made, I still think you need to really apologize for the inconvenience like you mean it. YOU because they are YOUR kids and this is all your responsibility, not DW's. DW's the saint in all this. Rubbing ex's nose into an agreement they made with the out clause that if DW can't make it, the deal's off (which she may well have forgotten) isn't going to help the situation. I realize she thinks the world revolves around her, but if you had gone to court over this, there is no guarantee Mom would have been REQUIRED to do all the driving, either. And, we all know you're the better person anyway.

I would really REALLY find a way to make this 1/2-way meeting place thing still work for many reasons including the fact the kids will see the adults cooperating on their behalf which is not a legal reason, but another one of those things we do for our kids (and I know you do a lot of things for your kids like this, not b/c you are required to LEGALLY, but because it's best for them).

 

[haiku]

my point is only IF the current order is silent on transport. The most logical and reasonable way to go about it is to split the drive, and in this case mom is coming all the way to your house, you can go all the way to her house.

That E-mail may go along way though in proving to the judge that your ex wife is delusional and uncooperative though, which may tip the scales in your favor towards an excellent travel arrangment for YOU.

 

[2Mistakes]

my point is only IF the current order is silent on transport. The most logical and reasonable way to go about it is to split the drive, and in this case mom is coming all the way to your house, you can go all the way to her house.

Here's the thing. Mom is the one who initially pointed out that she needed to do all the driving since she was the one who moved. The 1/2 meet thing only came about out of my wife's kindness.

I guess I'm just not loigcal or reasonable, because it seems to me that if a parent moves, not out of need, but out of want, that parent should do the driving. Unless of course a judge says otherwise. My ex-wife agreed with this, and did all the driving for a little over a month, until my wife tried to make nice and offered to help her out.

That E-mail may go along way though in proving to the judge that your ex wife is delusional and uncooperative though, which may tip the scales in your favor towards an excellent travel arrangment for YOU.

That's my hope. I'm hoping that the judge will see the facts as I do:

1. Mom moved by her own choice.
2. When mom moved closer, mom was willing to do all driving, and even stated in email that was how it should be since she's the one who left MS.
3. Wife was just trying to be nice, and offered to drive 1/2 way when she could.
4. The first time wife can't, the ex makes threats, brings the cops, and gets completely out of whack with me and the nice wife.

 

[CJane]

Here's the thing. Mom is the one who initially pointed out that she needed to do all the driving since she was the one who moved. The 1/2 meet thing only came about out of my wife's kindness.

I guess I'm just not loigcal or reasonable, because it seems to me that if a parent moves, not out of need, but out of want, that parent should do the driving. Unless of course a judge says otherwise. My ex-wife agreed with this, and did all the driving for a little over a month, until my wife tried to make nice and offered to help her out.

Ok. Here's the deal. Mom CHOSE to move. AT THAT TIME, you CHOSE to implement an order that did NOTHING to address any potential travel issues. You both suck.

But here's the deal. In ALMOST EVERY CASE where an order is silent (doesn't matter the issue), then the 'default setting' is to inconvenience both parties in roughly the same manner. Which mean in THIS CASE, you share the drive.

YES, the language you WANT is in the potential new order. But you don't HAVE a new order. You have the old one. And I'm 99.9995% sure that a judge would expect you to err on the side of splitting travel w/no further discussion on the issue.

 

[starting over]

That's my hope. I'm hoping that the judge will see the facts as I do:

1. Mom moved by her own choice.
2. When mom moved closer, mom was willing to do all driving, and even stated in email that was how it should be since she's the one who left MS.
3. Wife was just trying to be nice, and offered to drive 1/2 way when she could.
4. The first time wife can't, the ex makes threats, brings the cops, and gets completely out of whack with me and the nice wife.

[/QUOTE]

And CP is trying to work with Mom by allowing flexibility with the CO visitation schedule. If he was making Mom follow the letter of order, he would be able to meet half-way on that date.

 

[wileybunch]

And CP is trying to work with Mom by allowing flexibility with the CO visitation schedule. If he was making Mom follow the letter of order, he would be able to meet half-way on that date.

That quote is not CJane's, that is 2Mistakes. CJane messed up in her post so it looks like she's saying that.