BBB1975 wrote:
sphere wrote:
Quote:
Sphere may see it as what is best for the kids, the judge may see it as a typical trick a custodial parent does to undermine the other parent.I have to wonder how often that is used as a "trick" as opposed to being construed that way by the noncustodial parent.
In our case, her ex said she shall not sign them up for any activities that fall on "his" weekend, when she mentioned that the kids were interested in playing soccer, volleyball, and basketball. She informed him that she will sign them up, they can make every practice and every game that falls on "her" weekend, and that whether he takes them to their games, or allows them to stay home with us on those weekends so they can attend, will be up to him. She never said that they cannot go with him on those weekends or that he must take them, only that they want to participate and it's his decision. She told the kids it will be up to their father if they go to the games on that weekend and stay at his home in the area, or if he has other plans for them. That has been well documented in the emails.
If a judge is inclined to see that as a trick, so be it.
How would it look if it were not a trick but mom understands that sports and activities are healthy for kids and wants them to participate however possible, but defers to the other parent on his weekends? Pretty much the same, I would imagine.
Her ex is right and most courts will agree with him that your wife shouldn’t be scheduling stuff on his parenting time. The courts tend to view NCP parenting time as sacred.
To answer your question, I would view it as slightly manipulative. I don’t think you wife is malicious, but, it puts her ex in a situation where he is viewed as the bad guy to the kids if he doesn’t go along with what their mother wants.
I understand that perspective. But I do think it's a warped reality when compared with how kids in intact nuclear families live, and for me, that's the standard of how child issues should be viewed. It presupposes that children of divorced parents should not, by default, participate in these events out of consideration for one parent or the other, and that the parent who has physical custody should not be doing for their children what non-divorced parents do for theirs.
If the noncustodial parent chooses to live apart from the kids, and chooses to spend their time with them at a location away from their designated home, then the default should be the understanding that they will participate in sports and activities near their home where they live with the parent who's been awarded physical custody. Again, yes, that is my opinion, but it's based in how children are raised under normal circumstances and a family court should, ideally, act in the interest of the children to maintain that sense of normalcy. As Yeeper reiterated, if the noncustodial parent wants to live a different lifestyle in a different location away from the children, it should come at a his cost, not theirs. If it makes them look or feel bad for saying no to the kids, that's on him. As it is on me if I took that approach with my own sons and their mother who has primary physical custody. I own it in the rare occasion it happens.
And certainly, the mother who's carrying the heavy load should not be default viewed as a manipulator for trying to preserve that normalcy for her children.
How many times and in how many ways should we punish single moms trying to do right by their kids.
The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W