-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Whyte Noise
Senior Member
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'd feel the the same whether the NCP was male or female. An agreement for visitation is an agreement for visitation, period. If dad pulled the same stunt, I'd have the same exact opinion.
L
Lil Miss Smarty Panties
Guest
Ditto. It wasn't which gender, it was the deception that I based my opinion on. Then to actually drag the court into the mix after taking those extra days. All I can say is .....underhanded.
M
Melanie_Jenkins
Guest
Gender isn't the issue, I agree with LMSP and MG. It's all about deception, whether it was a male or female doing it doesn't make a difference.
Whyte Noise
Senior Member
It's not the fact that mom wanted 2 extra days and took them.
It's the fact that mom had those 2 extra days per their verbal agreement, and now decides to break that agreement. She got what they agreed to, and now doesn't want to give dad what they agreed to.
It's the fact that mom had those 2 extra days per their verbal agreement, and now decides to break that agreement. She got what they agreed to, and now doesn't want to give dad what they agreed to.
tigger22472
Senior Member
It's not that I don't understand the situation it's that I don't see the harm in mom having those extra two days PERIOD. Why does she have to negoiate(I know that's spelled wrong). And Yes I agree, this is not a gender issue at all. It's about the fact that let's throw this CP, NCP crap out the window and let a parent be a parent.
The OP needs to come back and talk. He needs to tell us what is so important going on that the child can't spend those two days with mom...
And just so ya'll know, my NCP agrees what mom did was wrong.
I never said what she did wasn't underhanded. I just don't see the big deal in it.
The OP needs to come back and talk. He needs to tell us what is so important going on that the child can't spend those two days with mom...
And just so ya'll know, my NCP agrees what mom did was wrong.
I never said what she did wasn't underhanded. I just don't see the big deal in it.
Whyte Noise
Senior Member
The big deal that I see is this:
He gave up 2 days at Thanksgiving in exchange for 2 additional days at Christmas. Now, he's not getting his 2 days at Christmas.
If you made plans to get your child the day after Christmas, had everything planned, etc. and then your ex decided, "Whoopsie!! I lied! You're NOT getting those days!", wouldn't it be a big deal to you?
She agreed to this, then took it back. That would be like my ex saying, "Yeah, sure. I'll give you the 2 days after Christmas so you can have that "Christmas" time, if you'll let me have 2 extra for Thanksgiving" and then, after getting those 2 days he wanted telling me, "Well, ya know. I changed my mind. You can't have that Christmas time with the kids. You're gonna have to wait until the 28th. Oh, you were going to your dad's on the 26th for your family Christmas? Too bad. I'm keeping them those 2 days. Forget what you had planned."
You're damn straight I'd be upset and it would be a big deal to me. Whether I was a man or woman, NCP or CP.
We teach our children not to lie and to keep their word when they make a promise to someone. Too bad some of us adults can't practice what we preach.
He gave up 2 days at Thanksgiving in exchange for 2 additional days at Christmas. Now, he's not getting his 2 days at Christmas.
If you made plans to get your child the day after Christmas, had everything planned, etc. and then your ex decided, "Whoopsie!! I lied! You're NOT getting those days!", wouldn't it be a big deal to you?
She agreed to this, then took it back. That would be like my ex saying, "Yeah, sure. I'll give you the 2 days after Christmas so you can have that "Christmas" time, if you'll let me have 2 extra for Thanksgiving" and then, after getting those 2 days he wanted telling me, "Well, ya know. I changed my mind. You can't have that Christmas time with the kids. You're gonna have to wait until the 28th. Oh, you were going to your dad's on the 26th for your family Christmas? Too bad. I'm keeping them those 2 days. Forget what you had planned."
You're damn straight I'd be upset and it would be a big deal to me. Whether I was a man or woman, NCP or CP.
We teach our children not to lie and to keep their word when they make a promise to someone. Too bad some of us adults can't practice what we preach.
tigger22472
Senior Member
And this is why the OP needs to come back and explain what is going on that it's so important that HE have those two days. NO, I dont' think it's right for her to have 'agreed' to it then took it back but I also see no harm in the child spending a few extra days with the other parent. I'd like to know what their visitation schedule is and how much time mom does get with the child as opposed to the dad.
Lesson learned
May this be a lesson.
Next time make sure you have it in writing or correct me if I wrong. Having it in writing with both signatures...is like a contract and can hold up in court.
I had a similar type of situation with my ex and we both agree and both had it in writing and both signed it so neither one of us could come back against the other.
May this be a lesson.
Next time make sure you have it in writing or correct me if I wrong. Having it in writing with both signatures...is like a contract and can hold up in court.
I had a similar type of situation with my ex and we both agree and both had it in writing and both signed it so neither one of us could come back against the other.
tigger22472
Senior Member
Re: Lesson learned
That would be worth nothing more then the paper it's written on. They need to go to a judge SET out visitation and follow it to the letter because obviously mom doesnt' want to keep her end of bargains and dad doesn't want to give up 2 days. I think they are both being childish.
WyattJ said:
That would be worth nothing more then the paper it's written on. They need to go to a judge SET out visitation and follow it to the letter because obviously mom doesnt' want to keep her end of bargains and dad doesn't want to give up 2 days. I think they are both being childish.
Re: Re: Lesson learned
There does come a time in both parents life where they would like a change for a holiday, if they have papers already with visitation and all that then if both agree to a MINOR change what is wrong with having it in writing with both signatures, instead of wasting time in court for one MINOR change.
tigger22472 said:
There does come a time in both parents life where they would like a change for a holiday, if they have papers already with visitation and all that then if both agree to a MINOR change what is wrong with having it in writing with both signatures, instead of wasting time in court for one MINOR change.
stealth2
Under the Radar Member
Well, I've been in exactly that situation, and ended up not getting the time anyway. I've also had plans made for "my time" and then the ex has made his own plans on top of those - and I ended up not getting the time (not to mention the $$$ I was out when I had to cancel my own plans). In other words - I've been in the exact same position as the OP. And right or wrong, he is likely NOT going to prevail in court.
I think it is silly too, but if you read the OP's other posts, you will see he (the CP) asked her to take the extra 2 days at thanksgiving because he wants to take the child to canada the entire christmas holiday, not that he just wants to keep the kid home with him.
now I too cannot see why they have to fight over thier child, over 2 days AFTER christmas, when it is the only time the NCP gets to have the holiday with thier child, BUT the CP wants to remove the child from the country during that time, likely making it difficult unless they live right next to the border.
I get the possibility it may be more of mom suddenly getting upset the child is being taken to Canada, than just the 2 days she originally agreed to, If she originally knew and agreed to the canada trip than yes, I think she needs to calm down, bu tif she did not, I think dad may need to.
now I too cannot see why they have to fight over thier child, over 2 days AFTER christmas, when it is the only time the NCP gets to have the holiday with thier child, BUT the CP wants to remove the child from the country during that time, likely making it difficult unless they live right next to the border.
I get the possibility it may be more of mom suddenly getting upset the child is being taken to Canada, than just the 2 days she originally agreed to, If she originally knew and agreed to the canada trip than yes, I think she needs to calm down, bu tif she did not, I think dad may need to.
tigger22472
Senior Member
Re: Re: Re: Lesson learned
Because nothing overrides a court order but a court order... noterized papers or papers with signatures mean nothing in a court when there is an order in place.
WyattJ said:
Because nothing overrides a court order but a court order... noterized papers or papers with signatures mean nothing in a court when there is an order in place.
Whyte Noise
Senior Member
Why not stealth?
Where is he in contempt?
Because he gave mom an extra 2 days? That makes him in contempt? Uhhhh.... no.
Because mom is "anticipating" that he won't let her have those 2 days after Christmas? Their court date is a week BEFORE mom's visitation is to begin. How can he be in contempt if he hasn't gone against a court order yet?
Where is he in contempt?
Because he gave mom an extra 2 days? That makes him in contempt? Uhhhh.... no.
Because mom is "anticipating" that he won't let her have those 2 days after Christmas? Their court date is a week BEFORE mom's visitation is to begin. How can he be in contempt if he hasn't gone against a court order yet?