Other thread was closed... Joint Decision Making

[LdiJ]

That is really bad advice.

If there's a court order saying you can't take the child out of state, then you can't do it. It's a court order, not a recommendation.

If you do it without permission, you could be found in contempt. Even if you aren't, telling the judge that you don't have any respect for his orders is a really bad idea.

And you're not going to be able to get an emergency order on the basis of "my court order says I can't take the child out of state and I want to do it".

I have actually seen people get emergency orders when vacations are planned and paid for and the other parent suddenly decides to try to revoke permission. It usually annoys the heck out of the judge (at the parent trying to revoke permission) unless the area being traveled to has suddenly become unsafe.

However, most of the time when people think that they have an order that states that they need the other parent's permission to vacation out of state, its a mis-interpretation. It really means that they need the other parents permission to relocate the child out of state, not for vacations.

 

[rbw5147]

That is really bad advice.

If there's a court order saying you can't take the child out of state, then you can't do it. It's a court order, not a recommendation.

If you do it without permission, you could be found in contempt. Even if you aren't, telling the judge that you don't have any respect for his orders is a really bad idea.

And you're not going to be able to get an emergency order on the basis of "my court order says I can't take the child out of state and I want to do it".

I wasn't giving advice. I was stating that I live in Colorado and my court order states the same. I would not take my child out of state without Dad's permission or the judge's consent, if necessary.

Parents have the right, during their vacation time with child, to go on vacations. Dad saying "I just don't want her to go on vacation with you." Isn't gonna cut it. I wasn't suggesting she do it without Dad's consent or the judge's permsion, if Dad objects. But what is the likelihood of the Judge NOT consenting to Mom taking a vacation with her daughter on HER allotted time with daughter because Dad doesn't want her to? Who do YOU think the judge is going to blame for this absolutely unnecessary emergent court hearing? If Dad says no, Mom should ABSOLUTELY stand her ground and request a hearing. And from Pearl's history, it'll just be another example of how much of a controlling A$$ her ex is.

 

[arosenth]

Pearl- I am new to this but I did specifically ask my lawyer about the out of state thing. What I was told is that as long as it is not written into your documents, you can take the child(ren) out of state temporarily without the consent from the other parent. However, permanent relocation is a whole other issue.

 

[mistoffolees]

Parents have the right, during their vacation time with child, to go on vacations. Dad saying "I just don't want her to go on vacation with you." Isn't gonna cut it. I wasn't suggesting she do it without Dad's consent or the judge's permsion, if Dad objects. But what is the likelihood of the Judge NOT consenting to Mom taking a vacation with her daughter on HER allotted time with daughter because Dad doesn't want her to

She'll probably get it, but your post sounded like a suggestion that she just take the vacation without permission. That would earn her a contempt charge.

She can probably get the court to agree, but there are no grounds for an emergency hearing. If there is a court order prohibiting one parent from taking the child out of state (which hasn't been verified yet), then OP messed up by planning an out-of-state vacation without having permission. The court isn't going to consider her lack of planning to be an emergency. That's very different than the case you cite where the vacation is planned and the other side revokes permission.

 

[rbw5147]

She'll probably get it, but your post sounded like a suggestion that she just take the vacation without permission. That would earn her a contempt charge.

She can probably get the court to agree, but there are no grounds for an emergency hearing. If there is a court order prohibiting one parent from taking the child out of state (which hasn't been verified yet), then OP messed up by planning an out-of-state vacation without having permission. The court isn't going to consider her lack of planning to be an emergency. That's very different than the case you cite where the vacation is planned and the other side revokes permission.

Sorry, but I don't see how I suggested in anyway that Mom just take her daugher on vacation without permission from Dad or the courts.

From Pearl's posting hx, it pretty safe to assume that Dad is going to refuse any and all attempts for Mom to take her daughter on vacation, for no other reason than because he won't like it.

Mom has the right to try and plan a vacation and if Dad's only reason is "no, just for the joy of saying no." It's highly unlikely that Mom will get dinged for it. Dad isn't agreeing with ANYTHING that the GAL is suggesting. He's a blatant, controlling butt. If she doesn't put her foot down and stand up for herself, her and her daughter's life with Dad will continue to be hell... that is until the judge steps in and sees Dad for what he really is.

 

[mistoffolees]

From Pearl's posting hx, it pretty safe to assume that Dad is going to refuse any and all attempts for Mom to take her daughter on vacation, for no other reason than because he won't like it.

Mom has the right to try and plan a vacation and if Dad's only reason is "no, just for the joy of saying no." It's highly unlikely that Mom will get dinged for it.

That's true UNLESS there is a court order which prohibits the child from being taken out of state. If there IS such an order, Dad doesn't have to give a reason - Mom would be in contempt for doing it (no matter how unreasonable it might be). If she knowingly violates a court order, then she could get dinged big time.

If there is an order prohibiting out of state travel, Mom must go to court to try to have the order changed - and she won't get an emergency hearing on the matter, it will go through the normal glacial court hearing schedule.

Bottom line is that I'm still waiting for Mom to say if their decree says anything about out of state travel. If it is silent on the matter, than all of your advice is accurate. If, OTOH, the court order prohibits out of state travel with the child, she'd better write off her plans unless she can get Dad to agree.

 

[CJane]

Pearl -- with the current pending motions, what are YOU requesting?

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

If someone THINKS about putting in words to stop a VACATION without having permission, I would ask for it to say that if a parent is traveling on vacation, they must give the other parent a contact phone number and basic itinerary. No permission needed, but basic courtesy covered.

 

[rbw5147]

That's true UNLESS there is a court order which prohibits the child from being taken out of state. If there IS such an order, Dad doesn't have to give a reason - Mom would be in contempt for doing it (no matter how unreasonable it might be). If she knowingly violates a court order, then she could get dinged big time.

If there is an order prohibiting out of state travel, Mom must go to court to try to have the order changed - and she won't get an emergency hearing on the matter, it will go through the normal glacial court hearing schedule.

Bottom line is that I'm still waiting for Mom to say if their decree says anything about out of state travel. If it is silent on the matter, than all of your advice is accurate. If, OTOH, the court order prohibits out of state travel with the child, she'd better write off her plans unless she can get Dad to agree.

But if you read Pearl's history, it will show that in all liklihood, Dad will NEVER agree to Mom taking daughter on vacation. So because Dad says no, just to say no. Dad will NEVER agree! Mom get's no vacation time out of state with her child because he's an idiot?

So say she plans a trip way well in advance. Notifies Dad, gives itinerary, contact details, etc... then Dad says no. Are you saying that any judge will give Dad's "no" any bearing?

Pearl, if you are reading this, please bring this fact to the GAL's attention. From what you've said, GAL is fully aware of Dad's blatant assanine requests and demands. I would request that if you are planning on taking your daughter out of state on vacation, that by simply giving Dad considerate notice and all the other details that he could possibly need, that that be ALL you are required to do. You know if it's up to him, he'll say no. Frankly.. and I'm really hoping for your sake, that when it comes time for court and the GAL shows that Dad is not up to cooperating with ANYTHING, that his rights are diminished. He totally disregards you as your daughter's mother. Remember, "Step mom and daughter night" was more important in his eyes than her relationship with you.

This is not a sexist opinion. I'm probably way too non judgmental and impartial to a fault at times. But right is right... and this if were a Dad in the same circumstance, I would have the same opinions.

 

[mistoffolees]

But if you read Pearl's history, it will show that in all liklihood, Dad will NEVER agree to Mom taking daughter on vacation. So because Dad says no, just to say no. Dad will NEVER agree! Mom get's no vacation time out of state with her child because he's an idiot?

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF DAD WOULD AGREE. And it doesn't matter if Dad has legitimate concerns about her fleeing with the kids or if Dad's just being a PIA. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

If there is a court order, Mom can't take the kids of out state until the order is changed. Whether Dad is reasonable or not couldn't be more irrelevant.

If there's no court order, Mom can take the kids out of state.

This is simple. Why are you trying to make this complicated?

 

[CJane]

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF DAD WOULD AGREE. And it doesn't matter if Dad has legitimate concerns about her fleeing with the kids or if Dad's just being a PIA. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

If there is a court order, Mom can't take the kids of out state until the order is changed. Whether Dad is reasonable or not couldn't be more irrelevant.

Actually, it is relevant.

The courts expect parents to be reasonable in the application of the order. For example, my original decree had a clause in it that I was not to take the children more than 100 miles away from Ex's home w/out his permission unless it was for the purposes of visiting my family 120 miles away.

He tried to show contempt because I took the kids camping 105 miles away w/out his permission. AND tried to use this as a reason that I should have supervised visits.

Even though it was in the order, he was told by the GAL and the judge that he was behaving unreasonably, and using the "permission" as a way to control my time with the children.

It was subsequently removed from the order and because my "failure to follow the order" was not deemed willful or malicious, he was unable to prove contempt.

Parents behaving unreasonably in the application of the clauses in the order is always relevant.

 

[mistoffolees]

Actually, it is relevant.

The courts expect parents to be reasonable in the application of the order. For example, my original decree had a clause in it that I was not to take the children more than 100 miles away from Ex's home w/out his permission unless it was for the purposes of visiting my family 120 miles away.

He tried to show contempt because I took the kids camping 105 miles away w/out his permission. AND tried to use this as a reason that I should have supervised visits.

Even though it was in the order, he was told by the GAL and the judge that he was behaving unreasonably, and using the "permission" as a way to control my time with the children.

It was subsequently removed from the order and because my "failure to follow the order" was not deemed willful or malicious, he was unable to prove contempt.

Parents behaving unreasonably in the application of the clauses in the order is always relevant.

105 miles vs 100 miles is not a big deal. It's easy to think that you're within the 100 mile limit and then go slightly over.

If there is an order that says specifically that the children can not be removed from the state, it's not going to be so easy to get around it. "Sorry, your honor. I thought that Salt Lake City was in Colorado" isn't going to cut it. It's not a trivial oversight.

 

[CJane]

105 miles vs 100 miles is not a big deal. It's easy to think that you're within the 100 mile limit and then go slightly over.

The entire clause was removed from the order. All travel restrictions were lifted -- because Dad was "unreasonably exercising his ability to control Mother and Children's movements".

If there is an order that says specifically that the children can not be removed from the state, it's not going to be so easy to get around it. "Sorry, your honor. I thought that Salt Lake City was in Colorado" isn't going to cut it. It's not a trivial oversight.

Depends. It's just as easy to "accidentally" leave the state as it is to "accidentally" go 105 miles instead of 100.

However, this is all an exercise in "what if". Pearl is concerned that clause MIGHT be added to the order. It is not currently IN the order.

And, in this case, I'm betting the GAL will not allow Dad to have even more unreasonable control over Mom's time.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

My X thinks because I have a domicile clause that he needs to give me permission to go on vacation. he still thinks it after the JUDGE told him that it was untrue. Some people will think what they think.

I would fight anyone putting a clause in like that. I could live with one that says "notify the other parent".

 

[CJane]

My X thinks because I have a domicile clause that he needs to give me permission to go on vacation. he still thinks it after the JUDGE told him that it was untrue. Some people will think what they think.

I would fight anyone putting a clause in like that. I could live with one that says "notify the other parent".

And how has your ex's completely unreasonable behavior worked out for him?