Family trip

[Proserpina]

That's BS. I'd LOVE to see the case law to back up a claim that Mom would get "dinged" for not allowing kiddo to go on a trip with the grandparents who have NO relationship with the child at all. (Kiddo is 16 months and Gparents have seen her ONCE in the past 12 months).

If kiddo was currently in Dad's physical custody and he wanted to send her w/the grandparents, there'd be nothing Mom could do and a judge would not ding HIM for not complying with HER wishes.

That wasn't what you asked...

 

[Proserpina]

(per op)

they have seen my daughter maybe twice or three times last year and twice the year before last.

I realize that's not much more than once - but it IS more than once.

 

[CJane]

That wasn't what you asked...

It is what I asked.

I want to know why OG thinks that Mom would get "dinged" for not allowing the child to go with the grandparents on this trip.

It's utter crap that a judge would "ding" mom for not complying with Dad's wishes when he won't be on the trip.

 

[CJane]

(per op)



I realize that's not much more than once - but it IS more than once.

I stand corrected. They've seen the 16 month old maybe 3 times since she was 4 months old.

 

[Proserpina]

I stand corrected. They've seen the 16 month old maybe 3 times since she was 4 months old.

(and as I said earlier, I'd be extremely concerned that they want to take the child for a week. EXTREMELY concerned - they have NO relationship)

And the question was why Mom would get dinged - I only offered one possible answer. The way I'm reading this isn't about Mom versus GPs, but Mom versus Dad and his wishes.

 

[CJane]

(and as I said earlier, I'd be extremely concerned that they want to take the child for a week. EXTREMELY concerned - they have NO relationship)

And the question was why Mom would get dinged - I only offered one possible answer. The way I'm reading this isn't about Mom versus GPs, but Mom versus Dad and his wishes.

I get what you're saying. Really.

I'm just utterly floored that this OP is being ragged on all over the place in this thread because she doesn't want her child to go out of state for a week with people that the child has no relationship with, and who have NO rights to actually do ANYTHING with the child.

It can't possibly be a Mom vs Dad thing because Dad isn't going.

I'm not angry, I'm confused. Because I don't think ANY other poster would have received this advice, or be so thoroughly raked over the coals for the same thing.

 

[Proserpina]

I get what you're saying. Really.

I'm just utterly floored that this OP is being ragged on all over the place in this thread because she doesn't want her child to go out of state for a week with people that the child has no relationship with, and who have NO rights to actually do ANYTHING with the child.

It can't possibly be a Mom vs Dad thing because Dad isn't going.

I'm not angry, I'm confused. Because I don't think ANY other poster would have received this advice, or be so thoroughly raked over the coals for the same thing.

I think you're right to an extent - part of the reason is because of OP's posting history. S4E has made no secret of the fact (though the past few posts have been encouraging) that she simply doesn't want Dad to be involved - period..or at the very least, only involved if she is able to dictate the terms. I truly think that the majority of posters here (seniors, juniors, sycophants, elephants, whatever) are responding based upon OP's other posts.

It did initially appear that certainly the reason the GP visit was being questioned was because she didn't want to agree with Dad's decision (that it was ok for them to take kiddo) and it was more of a power play, a way to restrict Dad's influence and retain control of the situation...it was only later (and after some persistent questioning ) that we got to learn the actual details - that the GPs have NOT had a consistent relationship with kiddo and that Dad was definitely not going to be present. The fact that Dad wasn't going to be there isn't the point - it appeared (at least to begin with) that it was the simple fact that he approved of the proposition that was really the aggravating factor.

Frankly it's a very, very sad situation. No matter who is at fault.

 

[Ohiogal]

I get what you're saying. Really.

I'm just utterly floored that this OP is being ragged on all over the place in this thread because she doesn't want her child to go out of state for a week with people that the child has no relationship with, and who have NO rights to actually do ANYTHING with the child.

It can't possibly be a Mom vs Dad thing because Dad isn't going.

I'm not angry, I'm confused. Because I don't think ANY other poster would have received this advice, or be so thoroughly raked over the coals for the same thing.

Should I repeat what I said -- I did not say she WOULD get dinged. I said SHE COULD get dinged. Why? Because she has no more rights than dad. Has OP let her parents take the children without her around? How much visitation has she allowed because SHE is the one who made the comment regarding she doesn't want to give ANY visitation until the divorce is final? The only one speaking in absolutes is LD. She said NO JUDGE WOULD EVER... well LD is wrong. It is possible that S4E's judge MIGHT ding her for it depending on a variety of things -- how often she can prove she has NOT interfered with dad's time with child; that she has not stomped all over dad's rights to be with the child; that she has not been unreasonable with working with dad. It also goes to the best interests of the child and the factors outlined for custody.

 

[CJane]

Should I repeat what I said -- I did not say she WOULD get dinged. I said SHE COULD get dinged. Why? Because she has no more rights than dad. Has OP let her parents take the children without her around?

It's irrelevant what she's let her parents do without her around. She's already stated that the child has NEVER been away from her and the father for any extended period of time. So we KNOW that her parents have NEVER taken the child out of state for a week with NEITHER PARENT around.

How much visitation has she allowed because SHE is the one who made the comment regarding she doesn't want to give ANY visitation until the divorce is final?

She said she doesn't WANT to allow it, and frankly, I think that's a pretty common WANT - but she didn't say she ISN'T allowing it. Only that she doesn't WANT to. And she did post that Dad IS seeing kiddo, so she's not denying any time with HIM.

The only one speaking in absolutes is LD. She said NO JUDGE WOULD EVER... well LD is wrong.

Actually, that's not true. I said NO JUDGE ON THE PLANET. Which I'll acknowledge is different because I limited my "absolute" to Eearth.

It is possible that S4E's judge MIGHT ding her for it depending on a variety of things -- how often she can prove she has NOT interfered with dad's time with child; that she has not stomped all over dad's rights to be with the child; that she has not been unreasonable with working with dad.

And again, IMO (as a purchasing professional) this has NOTHING to do with interfering with Dad's time with the child, Dad's rights OR visitation OR working with DAD.

I get you hate OP and think she's a waste of skin and hope that she experiences a little bit of the hell you think she's perpetrated against someone else. I even get that you hate being disagreed with publicly and repeatedly.

But in this thread? I really do think you're flat wrong.

Mom isn't denying time. She posted to that effect.
Dad isn't going on this trip. She posted to that effect multiple times.
The grandparents have no relationship with this child.
The child is only 16 months old.
The child has never spent any significant amount of time away from either parent.
Her desire not to let the child go is completely rational and reasonable.

It also goes to the best interests of the child and the factors outlined for custody.

The best interests of the child doesn't come into play for time with the grandparents when there is a disagreement in an intact family (no divorce proceedings have even begun in this instance) and the grandparents have no relationship with the child.

This isn't even a legal issue at this point (since there is nothing pending).

This is reminding me of the thread where everyone decided the guy in the National Guard was going to get court martialed for adultery.

 

[profmum]

I get what you're saying. Really.

I'm just utterly floored that this OP is being ragged on all over the place in this thread because she doesn't want her child to go out of state for a week with people that the child has no relationship with, and who have NO rights to actually do ANYTHING with the child.

It can't possibly be a Mom vs Dad thing because Dad isn't going.

I'm not angry, I'm confused. Because I don't think ANY other poster would have received this advice, or be so thoroughly raked over the coals for the same thing.

Agreed and cosigned. OP based on your self professed actions on the past, you are going to some unfair responses here BUT if you wade through, you will also get some spot on responses here. BUT your attitude about not wanting to give Dad any visitation will get only beratings!

 

[maryjo]

S4E...Have you actually spoken to the grandparents about this situation?

Have you told them you dont want your child to go?

I am curious because I am thinking that they probably arent exactly looking forward to taking two small children to Disney for a week, especially one under two.

Its possible they were just asking you to be nice so you didnt feel like your child was being left out...but that they really would be relieved if they didnt have to take your child.

Just a thought....

 

[Ohiogal]

It's irrelevant what she's let her parents do without her around. She's already stated that the child has NEVER been away from her and the father for any extended period of time. So we KNOW that her parents have NEVER taken the child out of state for a week with NEITHER PARENT around.

Actually it is NOT irrelevant. Because the bias can come into play if one set is being treated differently.

She said she doesn't WANT to allow it, and frankly, I think that's a pretty common WANT - but she didn't say she ISN'T allowing it. Only that she doesn't WANT to. And she did post that Dad IS seeing kiddo, so she's not denying any time with HIM.

She hasn't said what she is allowing. That time may only be when mom is around.

Actually, that's not true. I said NO JUDGE ON THE PLANET. Which I'll acknowledge is different because I limited my "absolute" to Eearth.

Then okay -- both you and LD are wrong for using absolutes.

And again, IMO (as a purchasing professional) this has NOTHING to do with interfering with Dad's time with the child, Dad's rights OR visitation OR working with DAD.

It can impact things however. And it is possible that she could be dinged due to the overall picture.

I get you hate OP and think she's a waste of skin and hope that she experiences a little bit of the hell you think she's perpetrated against someone else. I even get that you hate being disagreed with publicly and repeatedly.

I don't hate OP. And I don't hate being disagree with publicly. I hate being lied about and gossip spread about me which is false. I hate people making accusations against me which are false and without merit. I hate people who refuse to accept that they are flawed. I also hate when people refuse to back anything up with caselaw or other verifiable sources. I have admitted I am wrong. I have admitted on here that I am fallable and not perfect. I have admitted that I make mistakes. I don't hate people disagreeing with me. Heck, if they are right and I am wrong, by all means, teach me. But many people do not want to do anything but stomp their feet and guarantee that they are right and if I disagree with them they immediately resort to "get an attorney" or wanting to contact off the forum to give them advice. If someone else is right and I am wrong, I will admit. I HAVE. I get that certain other people on here never have. And most likely never will because their ego will get in the way.

But in this thread? I really do think you're flat wrong.

Oh well. I think you are wrong. We disagree. I don't think ANYONE can guarantee the OP that a judge will NEVER ding her for this. Not unless you have a crystal ball.

Mom isn't denying time. She posted to that effect.
Dad isn't going on this trip. She posted to that effect multiple times.
The grandparents have no relationship with this child.
The child is only 16 months old.
The child has never spent any significant amount of time away from either parent.
Her desire not to let the child go is completely rational and reasonable.

Okay/ Will she give dad this time? And if dad lets the child go, then what?

The best interests of the child doesn't come into play for time with the grandparents when there is a disagreement in an intact family (no divorce proceedings have even begun in this instance) and the grandparents have no relationship with the child.

Actually it does when the battle is between parents. Courts consider extended relationships part of a best interest evaluation. Not the PRIMARY factor by any means but a factor.

This isn't even a legal issue at this point (since there is nothing pending).

She asked if it could look bad for her in court. IT COULD.

 

[CJane]

Actually it does when the battle is between parents. Courts consider extended relationships part of a best interest evaluation. Not the PRIMARY factor by any means but a factor.


She asked if it could look bad for her in court. IT COULD.

You're right of course. And Dad will get the same "dinging" for only allowing HIS OWN PARENTS to see the child FIVE TIMES in 16 months and therefore develop NO RELATIONSHIP with the child at all during the child's life when the family was more intact.

And I'm CERTAIN the judge is going to be oh so pissed at Mom for doing what Dad has already CLEARLY done WHILE THEY WERE MARRIED.

 

[Proserpina]

You're right of course. And Dad will get the same "dinging" for only allowing HIS OWN PARENTS to see the child FIVE TIMES in 16 months and therefore develop NO RELATIONSHIP with the child at all during the child's life when the family was more intact.

And I'm CERTAIN the judge is going to be oh so pissed at Mom for doing what Dad has already CLEARLY done WHILE THEY WERE MARRIED.

That's the really, really sad part.

I hope the two parents here can learn from past mistakes and start co-parenting this child.

 

[Ohiogal]

You're right of course. And Dad will get the same "dinging" for only allowing HIS OWN PARENTS to see the child FIVE TIMES in 16 months and therefore develop NO RELATIONSHIP with the child at all during the child's life when the family was more intact.

And I'm CERTAIN the judge is going to be oh so pissed at Mom for doing what Dad has already CLEARLY done WHILE THEY WERE MARRIED.

You know what, forget it. You will refuse to understand the point I am trying to make so forget it. OP already knew what answer she wanted when she asked the question.

She could be dinged for not allowing the trip. SHE COULD. You can't guarantee she won't. No one can. She wanted to hear she could do what she wants. So fine, OP do whatever the heck her desires. No problem. Don't come crying here if it doesn't go well for you.