When Is Possesion Not Possesion?

[Stevesantx]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Texas

During mediation, my ex and I were appointed joint managing conservators with my daughter 4, living with the ex. We mutually agreed on a permanent injunction which includes the usual, no interfering in any way with managing conservators possession, coming within 100 feet of the others workplace etc....As you can tell it wasnt an amicable divorce. One of the other things listed on the divorce decree states and let me put it word for word;

"It is ordered and decreed that xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx is permanantly enjoined from:
Ingesting or consuming alcohol or illegal substances during periods of possession of the child or within 12 hours prior to periods of possession of the child"

My ex and I have a different interpretation of this injunction. She thinks that she can drop off my daughter at grandmas and go out drinking with her sister. Even if she doesnt pick her up until the next day, she is still in possession since I dont have possession of her. The way I interpret it is if I dont have possession of her, than she does and it cant be passed over to grandma. Grandma wasnt granted any possession. Can you give tell me what is the correct definition of possession and can it be handed to someone else not designated as a conservator. Thanks.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Texas

During mediation, my ex and I were appointed joint managing conservators with my daughter 4, living with the ex. We mutually agreed on a permanent injunction which includes the usual, no interfering in any way with managing conservators possession, coming within 100 feet of the others workplace etc....[I]As you can tell it wasnt an amicable divorce.[/I] One of the other things listed on the divorce decree states and let me put it word for word;

"It is ordered and decreed that xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx is permanantly enjoined from:
Ingesting or consuming alcohol or illegal substances during periods of possession of the child or within 12 hours prior to periods of possession of the child"

My ex and I have a different interpretation of this injunction. She thinks that she can drop off my daughter at grandmas and go out drinking with her sister. Even if she doesnt pick her up until the next day, she is still in possession since I dont have possession of her. The way I interpret it is if I dont have possession of her, than she does and it cant be passed over to grandma. Grandma wasnt granted any possession. Can you give tell me what is the correct definition of possession and can it be handed to someone else not designated as a conservator. Thanks.

Your grabbing at straws here. Does it state on the order that if the child IS NOT in her posession, then the child MUST BE in your posession?

Think real hard about what I asked.

 

[snostar]

Possession simply means care and control. As long as Mom doesn't drink and use while being physically present caring for the child (and 12hr prior) she is not violating the order. You cannot dictate who she chooses for babysitting. You'll get no where with this one.

 

[dallas702]

yeah, you'd have a tough time convincing a judge that your daughter shouldn't be left with grandma....even to go out for a drink.

It is a shame your ex puts the booze above your daughter's welfare, though. but, that's what addictions do.

 

[Whyte Noise]

I'm not an attorney, but I interpret it differently than everyone else.

A period of possession is your parenting time. For example: If you have the child on weekends and mom has her during the week... your period of possession would be from Friday to Sunday, and moms period of possession would be from Sunday to the next Friday (when it again becomes your period of possession).

Her dropping the daughter off with grandma is a moot point to me. Sure, she can get anyone to babysit during her "period of possession" just like you can and she may not be drinking around the child... however, she IS drinking during her designated parenting time and the order specifically says that during those times and 12 hours prior to those times there is to be no drinking or drug use.

I mean, think about it. When your child is in school during your parenting time, is it not still your parenting time even though the child isnt physically in your presence? Of course it is. Saying that you have to have the child in your physical presence for it to be considered a "period of possession" is incorrect, I feel. Whether the child is at school, or at a babysitters, or at a friends house sleeping over, it's still your court ordered parenting time (or as Texas calls it "possession").

I agree with your take on the orders.

 

[Ron1347]

Ahhhhh, I see...grabbing for 'any' straw to break the camel's back! 'You' find 'any' and 'every' picky & petty reason, then she does, then you do, then she does.............Umm...leave it alone?

 

[justlilolme]

Well, I must say that on this particular one I do agree with MissouriGal on her interpretation because in the context of the order it would appear that "possession" does refer to parenting time.

If the order had said "in the presence of the child" then it would have been a different story. The exact wording and full context of what is being addressed needs to be considered when interpreting orders.

 

[LdiJ]

Well, I must say that on this particular one I do agree with MissouriGal on her interpretation because in the context of the order it would appear that "possession" does refer to parenting time.

If the order had said "in the presence of the child" then it would have been a different story. The exact wording and full context of what is being addressed needs to be considered when interpreting orders.

While I don't disagree with you and Missouri Gal.....I still think its a bit "grasping at straws". Clearly the "intent" of the order is to ensure that the parent is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs while the child is in her care. If mom is sharing her time with Grandma...which is quite normal...and goes out with friends and drinks, but that drinking never touches the child...then its probably sufficient to meet the spirit of the order.

 

[justlilolme]

While I don't disagree with you and Missouri Gal.....I still think its a bit "grasping at straws". Clearly the "intent" of the order is to ensure that the parent is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs while the child is in her care. If mom is sharing her time with Grandma...which is quite normal...and goes out with friends and drinks, but that drinking never touches the child...then its probably sufficient to meet the spirit of the order.

And I wouldn't disagree with you either. In all honesty, I don't think that the original poster would get far pursuing contempt based on a single incident, however, if there was a patern of behavior over a period of time that could be a different story.

It could also turn out that if the OP got petty and pursued it over mom leaving the child with g'ma to go out then the Judge could clarify the order to specify "in the presence of the child" rather than "during possession."

It really depends on the the individual case how a Judge would deal with it but the actual interpretation of the order deals with times of "possession" which refers to parenting time.