What makes "A hill to die on?"

[CJane]

As you know, I'm NOT a fan of ROFR. I think it encourages micromanaging of the other parent's time and creates more conflicts than it solves.

That said, I would let this one go. And I would, in the future, communicate regarding parenting time with the supervisor. After all, if Dad has to be supervised, it's in the child's best interests for you to ensure that supervision is happening - and that the order as currently written is being followed. That sort of communication CAN'T happen with Dad and SHOULD happen with the appointed supervisor.

 

[mistoffolees]

As you know, I'm NOT a fan of ROFR. I think it encourages micromanaging of the other parent's time and creates more conflicts than it solves.

I agree that I'm not a fan of COURT ORDERED ROFR.

However, if the two parents were to act like adults instead of 2 year olds, they might offer the other parent the time rather than dumping the child with a sitter if it's convenient to both parents.

 

[CJane]

I agree that I'm not a fan of COURT ORDERED ROFR.

However, if the two parents were to act like adults instead of 2 year olds, they might offer the other parent the time rather than dumping the child with a sitter if it's convenient to both parents.

Maybe. If parents think of the child spending time with people outside their immediate family as "dumping off". Not everyone does though.

I'm FAR more likely to ask my sister or Mom to hang out with my kiddos rather than "offering" that time to my ex/his wife. In fact, I'm more likely to encourage the kids to spend the night at a friend's house rather than offering that time to my ex.

He's far more likely to do the same.

And not because we're acting like 2 year olds, but because we don't hold the belief that it's ALWAYS in the kids' best interests to be in the care of a parent at the exclusion of all other parties.

 

[InfantCustody]

I have to say I think the ROFR is and has been causing more headaches than it has ever helped. Dad is ALWAYS asking what hours I will be away from the baby, because he and his father may want to pick the baby up if it is more than 4 hours. And when it has been on 2 or 3 occasions - I have always let him know although he has never used the time. And that's the other part, he wants it for HIM, and he DEMANDS that right per court order, but won't follow the court order for ME.

The thing of it is this: I don't mind the baby spending the time with Grandpa and Great Grandma if she really IS there. I would never dream of saying the baby can't spend time with a Grandmother who is 93 years old, even if she was only in town on my time. She has very limited years left, and any time she can spend is precious. BUT, it really crawls under my skin that dad simply has complete and total disrespect for the court order and tells me that he will not allow me to follow the order, even if I said I wanted to.

While the ROFR may be a PITA - the judge put it in there and it SHOULD be followed if the parent desires. That is where I do kinda feel like I am being juvenile and a little petty, but it isn't up to him to decide what parts of the court order he would like to follow today...and this sums up his attitude in one small package. You give him an inch and he takes a hundred miles, so that is where I am very conflicted. If he gets away with this one thing...he WILL move on to the next thing...it is a constant push against the limits.

Anyway, I doubt it is a hill I will be willing to die on. The custody trial (permanent) has been set for mid July, so maybe that would be the time to address all the outstanding issues without filing contempt, etc. Dad wanted the trial continued based on his supervised visitation status, but the judge denied the request and said she can move forward on a permanent decision at this time.

Thank you, as always.

 

[LdiJ]

And people who make an issue of every single thing also tend to have their situations spiral out of control. Look at all the sagas from people where neither party will budge an inch and the poor child gets dragged through the mud because both sides want to make EVERY issue a hill to die on.

To me (and it sounds like at least one other person here is taking the same position), it seems that you need to set limits in advance. Decide what is important and what is not. It is helpful for the other party to know what the limits are.

I would choose that there are two non-negotiables: the child's safety, and my time with the child (within reasonable limits). If ex isn't endangering the child and isn't restricting my time significantly (we are fairly flexible when there's a party or sleepover or something involved, so I don't worry about a few hours or a day here or there, but if she was interfering with my time AGAINST MY WILL, I would object), then it is unimportant and not worth fighting over. Express your opinion if you wish, but it didn't hurt me or the child when my ex was telling her friends I was gay (I'm not). It didn't hurt me or the child when she tells people she thinks I'm a millionaire and the thousands I pay every month for child support and alimony is not enough. It doesn't hurt me or the child when she says that I'm unreasonable.

Obviously, my non-negotiables may not be the same as yours. It doesn't really matter what you choose as important, but it must be reasonable, it must be important, and the other side must know what it is. And it should also be a small number of things. If you get like some of the parents here and have 2,000 non-negotiable life-or-death matters, it's not going to work.

It's just like raising a child. If you try to decide moment by moment how you're going to react to a situation, you're in trouble. If you have a knee-jerk reaction to an incident, you're in trouble. The best way to raise a child (and an ex-spouse) is to set clear, non-negotiable limits that everyone understands - and then relax about all the little stuff.

IMHO.

Misto, my ex and I were incredibly flexible with each other as well. In fact, we were those rare parents who made an "as agreed" schedule actually work.

However, basically, when you are dealing with a parent that doesn't respect the court orders, then those court orders have to be the "clear and non-negotiable limits".

 

[CJane]

She has very limited years left, and any time she can spend is precious.

I would just like to say that this is true of all of us, regardless of our ages.

 

[mistoffolees]

Misto, my ex and I were incredibly flexible with each other as well. In fact, we were those rare parents who made an "as agreed" schedule actually work.

However, basically, when you are dealing with a parent that doesn't respect the court orders, then those court orders have to be the "clear and non-negotiable limits".

I never said otherwise.

Maybe. If parents think of the child spending time with people outside their immediate family as "dumping off". Not everyone does though.

I'm FAR more likely to ask my sister or Mom to hang out with my kiddos rather than "offering" that time to my ex/his wife. In fact, I'm more likely to encourage the kids to spend the night at a friend's house rather than offering that time to my ex.

He's far more likely to do the same.

And not because we're acting like 2 year olds, but because we don't hold the belief that it's ALWAYS in the kids' best interests to be in the care of a parent at the exclusion of all other parties.

Maybe I didn't come across properly. I'm not suggesting that every time Dad can't watch the kids that he should call Mom or vice versa. There are clearly times when the child will be spending time with friends or family or when it's only a few hours with a sitter.

What I'm suggesting is that if you need someone to watch the kids for a while and there's no friend or family member involved, that you should CONSIDER seeing if the other parent wants the extra time rather than a sitter (and it will be less expensive, too).

It comes down to being a little flexible. You're certainly entitled to do whatever you want on your time - which is why I agree that court-ordered ROFR is usually a bad idea. But if you have nothing planned and ex wants to do something with the kid, why not? Or if you need someone to watch the kid and have to hire a stranger, why not let the ex do it? Or, in our case, my ex sometimes has to go to work early (6 am) on Saturdays when the child would be coming to my house at noon, anyway. Instead of hiring a sitter to come watch the child when she leaves at 5:30, she lets daughter spend Friday night here.

No one is suggesting that the kids should never spend time with family or friends. Or, at least, that wasn't what I was intending.

 

[single317dad]

Indiana has ROFR built in to the PTG, and I'm glad they do. I can see how it might be a pain for some couples, but I firmly believe it has helped to save my son from mental and emotional damage his mother could be doing to him.

Sam Hasler's Indiana Divorce & Family Law Blog: Following Up on ""Parenting time - Right of First Refusal"

Basically, between the guideline as written, the commentary, and the Appeals and IN Supreme Court opinions, it amounts to "If you're going to leave your child with anyone besides a family member that lives in your house, you have to offer the other parent that time." No mention of "4 hours" or other time amounts is made. No discrepancy is made between a licensed day care or dropping a child at the library or park pool unsupervised.

So, how did this work in my favor? My ex was taking our son to another man (and his family) during her weeks, and telling this other man that he was our son's father. She claimed that my weeks were when she had custody, and her weeks were for the other man. She even collected (non-court-ordered) child support from this man. He even bought my ex diapers, clothes, etc. and still believes he is the father despite a DNA test.

When I found out about this I immediately filed a petition to prevent it, and ex was ordered to discontinue the practice. It also played heavily into my getting primary custody shortly thereafter. However, we had no ROFR in our original agreement, and if it wasn't in the PTG I wouldn't have had the option to stop it.

 

[PQN]

So, how did this work in my favor? My ex was taking our son to another man (and his family) during her weeks, and telling this other man that he was our son's father. She claimed that my weeks were when she had custody, and her weeks were for the other man. She even collected (non-court-ordered) child support from this man. He even bought my ex diapers, clothes, etc. and still believes he is the father despite a DNA test.

When I found out about this I immediately filed a petition to prevent it, and ex was ordered to discontinue the practice. It also played heavily into my getting primary custody shortly thereafter. However, we had no ROFR in our original agreement, and if it wasn't in the PTG I wouldn't have had the option to stop it.

Holy Smokes! I can't believe she didn't get in a lot more trouble than just being ordered to stop. I hope your child was too young to understand what was happening.

 

[LdiJ]

Indiana has ROFR built in to the PTG, and I'm glad they do. I can see how it might be a pain for some couples, but I firmly believe it has helped to save my son from mental and emotional damage his mother could be doing to him.

Sam Hasler's Indiana Divorce & Family Law Blog: Following Up on ""Parenting time - Right of First Refusal"

Basically, between the guideline as written, the commentary, and the Appeals and IN Supreme Court opinions, it amounts to "If you're going to leave your child with anyone besides a family member that lives in your house, you have to offer the other parent that time." No mention of "4 hours" or other time amounts is made. No discrepancy is made between a licensed day care or dropping a child at the library or park pool unsupervised.

So, how did this work in my favor? My ex was taking our son to another man (and his family) during her weeks, and telling this other man that he was our son's father. She claimed that my weeks were when she had custody, and her weeks were for the other man. She even collected (non-court-ordered) child support from this man. He even bought my ex diapers, clothes, etc. and still believes he is the father despite a DNA test.

When I found out about this I immediately filed a petition to prevent it, and ex was ordered to discontinue the practice. It also played heavily into my getting primary custody shortly thereafter. However, we had no ROFR in our original agreement, and if it wasn't in the PTG I wouldn't have had the option to stop it.

I see the validity of ROFR, but the problem is that it gets abused. Some parents use it as a way to exclude the child's extended family on the other side, or go overboard in considering a sleepover with friends as a period when ROFR should kick in...as CJane said, "micromanaging".

However, ROFR does prevent parents from basically abdicating their time with the child to other family members, which I also think is a good thing, or insisting on parenting schedules which make no sense, which I also think is a good thing. I don't think its healthy when extended family members/significant others (particularly grandparents) develope a false sense of entitlement and that often happens when parents abdicate their parenting time to other family members.

I also happen to be of the opinion that if a parent isn't going to be present at all for a visitation period, that the child should be with the other parent. I particularly think that way when it comes to 50/50 or near 50/50 situations.

I always asked our daughter's father first if I had to be away from the child for an entire evening or overnight. However he never objected to sleepovers with friends or other family members either, so it balanced. He also would never have even dreamed of leaving our daughter with his long time girlfriend overnight either.

My personal opinion on how things "should" be depends on each individual case.

For example, you would never be able to convince me that a child should spend every other week with grandparents or a stepparent while their parent was deployed. To me that's absurd. However, if there are siblings in the home of the deployed parent I do believe that some consistant and regular contact between the siblings is important...and that some consistant and regular time with grandparents or other extended family can be valuable as well if they already have a consistant relationship.

However, at the same time, if dad has to work for 8 hours on Saturday during his weekend, and there are no issues between the children and stepmom, then I am not so sure that ROFR should kick in. In that instance I think that it depends on the child and the overall dynamics of the situation.

However, ROFR isn't going to go away, and if its ordered and not honored, then it should be enforced as far as I am concerned...perhaps clarified if its too restrictive or micromanaged, but enforced nonetheless.

 

[single317dad]

I always asked our daughter's father first if I had to be away from the child for an entire evening or overnight. However he never objected to sleepovers with friends or other family members either, so it balanced. He also would never have even dreamed of leaving our daughter with his long time girlfriend overnight either.

Things go so much better when you're dealing with reasonable people, don't they?

My personal opinion on how things "should" be depends on each individual case.

Absolutely. In no way does my situation apply to everyone (or maybe anyone.) But I'm grateful for ROFR in my case.

For example, you would never be able to convince me that a child should spend every other week with grandparents or a stepparent while their parent was deployed. To me that's absurd.

Agreed. Grandparents, especially those whom a parent has used extensively as babysitters, seem to think they're the parents sometimes.

However, at the same time, if dad has to work for 8 hours on Saturday during his weekend, and there are no issues between the children and stepmom, then I am not so sure that ROFR should kick in. In that instance I think that it depends on the child and the overall dynamics of the situation.

Agreed. Again, it comes down to reasonable people making compromises. If mom and dad are both reasonable, either should be able to work and handle common parenting issues without interference. The challenge comes when one or both are unreasonable, which is unfortunately too often.

 

[Proserpina]

If said stepparent has been a constant part of the child's life prior to deployment I see NO reason why the stepparent can't see the child EOW DURING deployment.

I realize the law doesn't necessarily agree with me but really, I just can't see how it harms anyone. The child would be with the parent AND the stepparent ordinarily - so why disrupt the CHILD'S schedule and expectations?

What if the child is closely bonded to the stepparent? Is it really best for the child to be removed completely during the deployment?

 

[single317dad]

Holy Smokes! I can't believe she didn't get in a lot more trouble than just being ordered to stop. I hope your child was too young to understand what was happening.

Well, to be fair, 2 months later I won a change from 50/50 P/L to me having primary physical with her down to 3 days every other week. That's what was important to me. I do feel like some law may have been broken, but as the thread is titled, that wasn't "a hill to die on" for me.

He was about 14 months old when all this started, as near as I can guess. I found out at about it at about 28 months, and had it stopped by 30 months. Two months later I got custody and he turns 3 next month.

So, it's been a rocky road but hopefully I can minimize the craziness from here on out.

 

[Nevergrowup]

I have mixed feelings about this, IC. Typically I am never on that hill...ex owes thousands, but I choose not to rock the boat because I'm afraid he'd try to enforce visitation his wife (oops I mean him) doesn't really want, and punish our child. Although she'll be 17 in the fall and I'm less concerned now. Anyhoo...I'm never one to jump to court, contempt, pushing issues...however, in your case, I think I would.

Isn't Dad a cop? And the abuse situation that created the need for supervised visitation is still fresh. If I were you, I would attempt to pick up the baby at 4 hours. If Dad is home, fine. If not, then file contempt, and subpeana his work record from that day...should be easy to show his shift was more than 4 hours. You are due for a permanent custody trial, and this may not help him. He has a history of poor choices and not protecting the baby...I wouldn't let this guy get away with anything. Until you have a permanent custody order, in my opinion every hill (court ordered) is a hill to die on...otherwise, it could come back to bite you in the permanent order (if you are too permissive).

Of course, I have strong feelings against a dad that would allow the severe scalding of a baby, whether he did it himself or not, and I'm not inclined to offer him any kind of leeway. I agree with one of the other posters, if you can, talk to Grandad and see if Great Gma is really coming. But if you let this guy get away with anything, he'll push and push forever...he has supervised visitation for a reason, and you have ROFR for a reason.

 

[single317dad]

If said stepparent has been a constant part of the child's life prior to deployment I see NO reason why the stepparent can't see the child EOW DURING deployment.

I realize the law doesn't necessarily agree with me but really, I just can't see how it harms anyone. The child would be with the parent AND the stepparent ordinarily - so why disrupt the CHILD'S schedule and expectations?

What if the child is closely bonded to the stepparent? Is it really best for the child to be removed completely during the deployment?

It's not something I want to see ordered by a court, but as long as both parents agree and the child wishes to see their siblings and friends, then I have no problem with it.