Other thread was closed... Joint Decision Making

[mistoffolees]

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

You may be comfortable telling someone they can violate a crystal clear court order just because you got away with it. I'm not - and would strongly advise everyone to NEVER knowingly violate a court order.

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.

Then it's not a problem. My position has been very clear. If there's a court order that she can't take the kids out of state, she should not violate the court order but should rather attempt to have it changed. If there's no court order, she is free to take the kids out of state.

Note that it is important to check the default orders that are issued at the time of filing for divorce. I don't know if her state would have anything covering out of state travel, but I'd make sure before taking off.

 

[CJane]

You may be comfortable telling someone they can violate a crystal clear court order just because you got away with it. I'm not - and would strongly advise everyone to NEVER knowingly violate a court order.

Sigh. You can continue to attribute things to me that I did not say, and assume that my motives are all kinds of evil if you wish.

I'm not the one you're making look bad. Just FYI.

I NEVER said that Pearl SHOULD violate the order. What I SAID was that sometimes, the order is violated unintentionally and it's NOT a contempt issue at all.

It's WRONG advice to tell someone that an UNINTENTIONAL violation of the order will result in contempt findings.

And my POINT in my post was that whether or not the parents are behaving REASONABLY is ALWAYS relevant -- when you had stated that it is not.

 

[mistoffolees]

Sigh. You can continue to attribute things to me that I did not say, and assume that my motives are all kinds of evil if you wish.

I'm not the one you're making look bad. Just FYI.

I NEVER said that Pearl SHOULD violate the order. What I SAID was that sometimes, the order is violated unintentionally and it's NOT a contempt issue at all.

No, you simply gave the impression that since you got away with it, that she might get away with it.

It's WRONG advice to tell someone that an UNINTENTIONAL violation of the order will result in contempt findings.

Just how in the world do you think that's the least bit relevant to this case? She has stated that she planned an out of state vacation in advance. It would not be an unintentional violation of the order - it would clearly be intentional (if there WERE an order prohibiting her from leaving the state, of course - which has not been determined).

 

[rbw5147]

Nobody is suggesting that Pearl break a court order.


However, do think that any judge would find it reasonable behavior for Dad to say no, just for the sake of saying no? Pearl has over and over been backed into a corner by putting her daughter's needs first and by taking the high road.


Reasonable behavior is EXPECTED of both parents. Refusing a vacation for his daughter with her Mom, when planned well in advance and all necessary information being given to Dad, IS NOT REASONABLE! Dad has proved over and over that he does not have the ability to be reasonable... not even in front of the GAL whos oppinion weighs VERY heavily on any decisions made in the final ruling. I live in Colorado and had Dad refused my vacation after orginally agreeing to it, I was ASSURED by the Judge's clerk of court that an emergent hearing WOULD have been heard, had that been necessary.


I understand that you are simply stating legalities. Which while that is the main purpose of this site, but along with those legalities, many people attempt to help people, suggesting ways to improve their situation. Have you actually read any of Pearl's posting hx? I believe if you had, while stating legalities, you might also be making some suggestions for Pearl to help facilitate her relationship with her daughter, while her daughter's father is doing the exact OPPOSITE of that.

 

[mistoffolees]

Nobody is suggesting that Pearl break a court order.

Actually, that's exactly what people are suggesting - just not in so many words. See post #14. Then there's post #17 which suggests that she can get a judge to agree in time for this vacation. Then there are a whole string of posts from you and cjane suggesting that the court isn't going to care if she takes the kids out of state even if her order says otherwise.

However, do think that any judge would find it reasonable behavior for Dad to say no, just for the sake of saying no? Pearl has over and over been backed into a corner by putting her daughter's needs first and by taking the high road.

The court very likely WILL say that it's unreasonable and will drop that requirement WHEN ASKED. But until the order is changed, the requirement is in place. And it's not likely to justify an emergency hearing. So, Pearl was wrong to schedule a vacation that would not be permitted by court order (again, assuming that the order actually say no out of state visits - which hasn't been determined). IF there is an order in place forbidding removal of the kids from the state, then she is wrong to schedule such a vacation - NO MATTER HOW UNREASONABLE THE ORDER IS.

Reasonable behavior is EXPECTED of both parents. Refusing a vacation for his daughter with her Mom, when planned well in advance and all necessary information being given to Dad, IS NOT REASONABLE! Dad has proved over and over that he does not have the ability to be reasonable... not even in front of the GAL whos oppinion weighs VERY heavily on any decisions made in the final ruling. I live in Colorado and had Dad refused my vacation after orginally agreeing to it, I was ASSURED by the Judge's clerk of court that an emergent hearing WOULD have been heard, had that been necessary.

Your situation is different. You had approval at the time you scheduled the vacation, so you had already incurred expense and time in planning the vacation based on that approval. It is understandable that if Dad changed his mind, you could request an emergency hearing.

Pearl's situation is different. If there's a court order which says no out of state travel and she schedules it (knowing full well that Dad would never agree), then she would CLEARLY be in contempt of court. There is absolutely no way to blame Dad for her having scheduled a vacation that the court order prohibits.

I understand that you are simply stating legalities. Which while that is the main purpose of this site, but along with those legalities, many people attempt to help people, suggesting ways to improve their situation. Have you actually read any of Pearl's posting hx? I believe if you had, while stating legalities, you might also be making some suggestions for Pearl to help facilitate her relationship with her daughter, while her daughter's father is doing the exact OPPOSITE of that.

Not only is the entire purpose of this site about the legalities of the issues (which is why I am so emphatic that court orders are ORDERS and not recommendations), but I'm quite familiar with Pearls' posting hx. It is precisely because of her drama and unending saga (you'd think that by now she'd learn to continue a thread rather than starting a new thread every few days) that it is essential to stick to the legal niceties.

She and Dad are not going to be able to agree on things. They will probably never be cooperative parents. In that case, the ONLY thing she can rely on is the law. It is therefore absolutely crucial to get very clear court orders AND FOLLOW THEM TO THE LETTER.

If she's going to pretend that the court orders don't apply to her (by scheduling an out of state vacation knowing full well that she's not allowed to), it escalates the problems rather than mitigates them. To a large extent, trying to go around the legal restrictions causes a self-inflicted wound.

The law is there to protect her, but it only does so if she is willing to obey it. If she knowingly schedules an out of state vacation that is forbidden by court order, she is waiving any rights to protection by the divorce decree (again, assuming the order actually says that).

 

[CJane]

Just how in the world do you think that's the least bit relevant to this case? She has stated that she planned an out of state vacation in advance. It would not be an unintentional violation of the order - it would clearly be intentional (if there WERE an order prohibiting her from leaving the state, of course - which has not been determined).

Actually, Pearl hasn't mentioned planning a vacation at all.

She simply asked if it was normal for a clause to exist requiring permission.

Then, someone who has a CO order stated that it IS in THEIR order, but that the parents are still expected to be reasonable, and gave an example.

Then YOU went off about the parents' reasonability being irrelevant.

Then, I posted that of COURSE reasonability isn't irrelevant, and gave an example of how unreasonable behavior on the part of one of the parents can backfire on them.

Then YOU insisted that I was saying that breaking a court order is perfectly ok. Which, of course, I NEVER said.

But yeah, total hijack. Pearl hasn't even been back since YOU complained about the length of the thread... and then just kept right on following your agenda and posting away.

 

[mistoffolees]

Actually, Pearl hasn't mentioned planning a vacation at all.

She simply asked if it was normal for a clause to exist requiring permission.

Then, someone who has a CO order stated that it IS in THEIR order, but that the parents are still expected to be reasonable, and gave an example.

Then YOU went off about the parents' reasonability being irrelevant.

Then, I posted that of COURSE reasonability isn't irrelevant, and gave an example of how unreasonable behavior on the part of one of the parents can backfire on them.

Then YOU insisted that I was saying that breaking a court order is perfectly ok. Which, of course, I NEVER said.

But yeah, total hijack. Pearl hasn't even been back since YOU complained about the length of the thread... and then just kept right on following your agenda and posting away.

What I said was that if there is a court order saying no out of state trips with the kids that it must be obeyed. If the order is unfair for some reason, then go back to court to get it changed. Meanwhile, court orders are ORDERS, not recommendations.

You and someone else have been arguing all around that and coming up with all sorts of reasons why one might not have to obey the court order and coming up with examples of how someone might get around it.

Which is more reasonable advice to give someone - to abide by the court order and try to get it changed if you disagree or that the court order is really only a guideline and there are lots of reasons why it might not be valid (which is what you and the other person are suggesting)?

 

[CJane]

(which is what you and the other person are suggesting)?

Please do find and quote exactly where I said any such thing.

For that matter, find and quote where the "other person" said any such thing either.

So where EITHER of us said to violate the order and it wouldn't matter.

Not where the "other person" said that she was willing to attempt to get a hearing on the matter (and then her ex ended up agreeing anyway).

Not where I posted that when one parent is being unreasonable, that it's likely a court will remove a restriction (and used a real life example of an "unintentional violation").

But please, where EITHER of us suggested that breaking the order was the way to go.

I'll go make dinner for Twain, and come back after you've had time to read the thread thoroughly.

 

[mistoffolees]

Please do find and quote exactly where I said any such thing.

For that matter, find and quote where the "other person" said any such thing either.

So where EITHER of us said to violate the order and it wouldn't matter.

Not where the "other person" said that she was willing to attempt to get a hearing on the matter (and then her ex ended up agreeing anyway).

Not where I posted that when one parent is being unreasonable, that it's likely a court will remove a restriction (and used a real life example of an "unintentional violation").

But please, where EITHER of us suggested that breaking the order was the way to go.

I'll go make dinner for Twain, and come back after you've had time to read the thread thoroughly.

You both repeatedly gave the impression that it would be OK to break the order - and gave examples of when you got away with breaking a court order. While that is not a direct recommendation to break the order, it clearly suggests that breaking the court order is an OK thing to do.

 

[rbw5147]

You both repeatedly gave the impression that it would be OK to break the order - and gave examples of when you got away with breaking a court order. While that is not a direct recommendation to break the order, it clearly suggests that breaking the court order is an OK thing to do.

It's fairly safe to assume that I'm the "other person." In no shape, matter or form did I break a court order. Nor did I suggest that anybody else break a court order. I stated that in my circumstance, in the same state, that had Dad chose to remain unreasonable, an emergent court date would have been set. I would not have gone on vacation without either Dad's or the court's permission. Dad himself told me that his lawyer told him quote unquote, "you're being a jackass... and if you do this, it will hurt you in the end."


Frankly, I'm thinking Pearl won't even have to concern herself much with these matters much. Dad is an A$$, who won't agree to anything. Which is exactly what CJane and I are both saying. Dad is expected to be reasonable and if he can't do that, it's very likely the choice for him to be or not to be, will be removed from him... as it should be.


Speaking of, haven't seen any of those quotes that CJane requested...