Court order ideas please

[Anonymous 1]

So your the second parent and he's the first parent.
Ok. You can always have it written into the order that neither parent can "spirit" the kids away. Meaning they can't remove the kids from school/daycare and disappear with them.

I think she’s actually the second parents girlfriend or new wife.

I'm not.

[Deleted User 1393]

I'm confused but that's not entirely unusual, depending on the day and the topic.

Second parent should be responsible for all transportation cost. Sounds like that alone will keep visitation to a minimum.

In the child's best interest.

[Anonymous 1]

I'm confused but that's not entirely unusual, depending on the day and the topic.

Second parent should be responsible for all transportation cost. Sounds like that alone will keep visitation to a minimum.

In the child's best interest.

I'm confused why the second parent should pay for transportation. I feel like the second parent has basically been raped financially by the courts to this point as it is, and none of that has helped the children but has actually hurt them.

Second parent wants first parent to have time with the children as long as they are safe and it doesn't create more chaos.

[Deleted User 1393]

I'm confused but that's not entirely unusual, depending on the day and the topic.

Second parent should be responsible for all transportation cost. Sounds like that alone will keep visitation to a minimum.

In the child's best interest.

I'm confused why the second parent should pay for transportation. I feel like the second parent has basically been raped financially by the courts to this point as it is, and none of that has helped the children but has actually hurt them.

Second parent wants first parent to have time with the children as long as they are safe and it doesn't create more chaos.

I think I was very clear about my confusion. I read the post once, will go back and reread it again, and found it confusing. You asked for ideas. Generally forcing financial responsibility changes desires. Just my experience and opinion. Nothing changes your situation with my comments.
In the child's best interest.

[Anonymous 1]

I'm confused but that's not entirely unusual, depending on the day and the topic.

Second parent should be responsible for all transportation cost. Sounds like that alone will keep visitation to a minimum.

In the child's best interest.

I'm confused why the second parent should pay for transportation. I feel like the second parent has basically been raped financially by the courts to this point as it is, and none of that has helped the children but has actually hurt them.

Second parent wants first parent to have time with the children as long as they are safe and it doesn't create more chaos.

I think I was very clear about my confusion. I read the post once, will go back and reread it again, and found it confusing. You asked for ideas. Generally forcing financial responsibility changes desires. Just my experience and opinion. Nothing changes your situation with my comments.
In the child's best interest.

I tried to keep gender out of this to get objectivity, but maybe that's made things more confusing.

Second parent has provided almost all of the children's support for the past few years on top of paying support to the first parent. Even though the first parent has had court ordered custody for the last two of those three years, the children have been mostly with the second parent. Second parent is drained financially. First parent is the one who is moving. How long that will last I don't even know. I feel first parent should pay for transportation costs - as the person who is moving, the person who has created all of this chaos, the person who has done little to support the children and has used them as income from the parent who actually had them most of the time. And also because then the first parent will have some investment in taking visits with the children. First parent is also fighting paying support when custody changes.

[Anonymous 7]

I don't even need to read 4 pages of responses to know that this is the best response in the thread!

2nd parent needs a lawyer because this sounds like a shit show.

[Deleted User 1393]

I'm confused why the second parent should pay for transportation. I feel like the second parent has basically been raped financially by the courts to this point as it is, and none of that has helped the children but has actually hurt them.

Second parent wants first parent to have time with the children as long as they are safe and it doesn't create more chaos.

I think I was very clear about my confusion. I read the post once, will go back and reread it again, and found it confusing. You asked for ideas. Generally forcing financial responsibility changes desires. Just my experience and opinion. Nothing changes your situation with my comments.
In the child's best interest.

I tried to keep gender out of this to get objectivity, but maybe that's made things more confusing.

Second parent has provided almost all of the children's support for the past few years on top of paying support to the first parent. Even though the first parent has had court ordered custody for the last two of those three years, the children have been mostly with the second parent. Second parent is drained financially. First parent is the one who is moving. How long that will last I don't even know. I feel first parent should pay for transportation costs - as the person who is moving, the person who has created all of this chaos, the person who has done little to support the children and has used them as income from the parent who actually had them most of the time. And also because then the first parent will have some investment in taking visits with the children. First parent is also fighting paying support when custody changes.

I don't think anyone cares or has even mentioned gender ( I have not read every single comment). I'm now even more confused about this...why is gender even important? Anyway your response to mine makes it clear you are looking for specific suggestion, looking for someone to agree with whatever it is you have already determined. Good luck

[Anonymous 7]

Given that the the "first parent disappears with the children," "dumps the children," "drops out of the picture," and is "volatile," the 2nd parent being "happy if the kids had all of that time with the first parent" doesn't say much for the 2nd parent!

I would not be OK leaving my kids with my DH if I knew he often "dropped out of the picture or is volatile." I would want my kids with me and I would consider asking for supervised visitation with him. I definitely would not be comfortable leaving my kids with him for extended stays (re: summer break).

Given that the first parent currently has primary custody I suspect the judge will give a standard long distance custody order....most of the summer, Spring Break, every other Christmas Break, opposite Thanksgiving breaks and possibly some random three day weekends as well as "liberal visitation" when Parent 1 is in town. Costs will likely be split for transportation.
There is really nothing that can be put into an order to prevent craziness outside if insisting the court order be followed.

Split costs for transportation? Good grief, the second parent has already been driven into the ground financially by all of this. That seems incredibly unfair, especially since the first parent is moving to chase dick.

I think the second parent would be happy if the kids had all of that time with the first parent as long as they were safe. And the first parent didn't try to disappear with them.

[Anonymous 7]

You alluded to first parent not being very dependable. If 2nd parent doesn't pay at least half the transportation costs, these kids will most definitely not even see the 1st parent.

I'm confused but that's not entirely unusual, depending on the day and the topic.

Second parent should be responsible for all transportation cost. Sounds like that alone will keep visitation to a minimum.

In the child's best interest.

I'm confused why the second parent should pay for transportation. I feel like the second parent has basically been raped financially by the courts to this point as it is, and none of that has helped the children but has actually hurt them.

Second parent wants first parent to have time with the children as long as they are safe and it doesn't create more chaos.

[Anonymous 7]

I LIKE the fact that you did not divulge the sexes of the parents! It keeps this about what is best for the child and NOT about keeping with traditional "ways" of doing things!

You haven't divulged much but my gut is telling me that these kids should not even be with parent #1. They should be with parent #2. Parent #1, based on what little you did divulge, seems unstable.

I'm confused why the second parent should pay for transportation. I feel like the second parent has basically been raped financially by the courts to this point as it is, and none of that has helped the children but has actually hurt them.

Second parent wants first parent to have time with the children as long as they are safe and it doesn't create more chaos.

I think I was very clear about my confusion. I read the post once, will go back and reread it again, and found it confusing. You asked for ideas. Generally forcing financial responsibility changes desires. Just my experience and opinion. Nothing changes your situation with my comments.
In the child's best interest.

I tried to keep gender out of this to get objectivity, but maybe that's made things more confusing.

Second parent has provided almost all of the children's support for the past few years on top of paying support to the first parent. Even though the first parent has had court ordered custody for the last two of those three years, the children have been mostly with the second parent. Second parent is drained financially. First parent is the one who is moving. How long that will last I don't even know. I feel first parent should pay for transportation costs - as the person who is moving, the person who has created all of this chaos, the person who has done little to support the children and has used them as income from the parent who actually had them most of the time. And also because then the first parent will have some investment in taking visits with the children. First parent is also fighting paying support when custody changes.