New visitation schedule

[Justplainpaula]

A friend of mine filed for a change of the visitation schedule because the non custodial parent was unable or unwilling to follow the complicated visitation schedule the court had ordered after the divorce. Her ex has a history of mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence. She asked for a schedule of every other weekend and one weekday dinner. It would have decreased his court ordered time, however, he had over the 4 years cancelled so much of his time it would be the same amount of time he had been spending with them. Her goal was to have a simpler schedule to manage. Of course, he thinks she is trying to limit his time with the kids and fought it. The court ended up giving him more time with the children but the schedule is easier to follow. The children are 10 and the summer schedule is the parents alternate weeks. This would be fine if the father did not have a mental illness and was not a substance abuser. This is the first week the kids are at his place and they have called her everyday asking to be picked up. Her lawyer, the child rep and the children's therapist all recognize that the father has mental health problems and none seem willing or able to consider the effect of his behavior on the kids. She calmly explains to them that she can't pick them up because this is the new schedule. It is frustrating to watch a parent tell her children they must remain in a situation that is not good for them because of a misguided court order. I am afraid the children will start refusing to go to their father's and she will blamed for this and sanctioned by the court. I have watched her with the kids (she encourages them to be understand of their fathers bad behavior) and know her to be the type of person who "follows the rules". But if the children refuse to go is she required to encourage them to go to a situation that is clearly not good for them? Or is she only require not to participate in influencing them in not abiding by the court ordered schedule. Which is also a troubling concept in that any parent should encourage their children NOT to put themselves in a dangerous situation. I think the court is poorly equipped to deal with these difficult cases which involve parents with mental illness and make poor decisions just to get the cases out of the court system.

 

[army judge]

But if the children refuse to go is she required to encourage them to go to a situation that is clearly not good for them?

Only the adult is bound by the court order.

The parents are the adults.

The parent must obey the court order.

If she defies the court order, she subjects herself to sanctions.

She could eventually lose custody for being recalcitrant and disobedient towards the court's orders.

If dad is mentally ill, uses drugs, refuses to work; mom picked him 11 years ago.

Then she had children with him.

The court will not second guess mom today.

The court is simply supporting mom's choice a decade ago.

Choices have consequences.

Some choices can be felt for 20 years after making them.

Or is she only require not to participate in influencing them in not abiding by the court ordered schedule.

She is required to obey the court order.

The children, because they are minors, must do as their parents instruct them.

I think the court is poorly equipped to deal with these difficult cases which involve parents with mental illness and make poor decisions just to get the cases out of the court system.

The court is required to be IMPARTIAL and ensure that everyone's rights are protected.

The children are legal incompetents, as such the court takes no notice of them.

Any rights children (minors) enjoy flow through their parents to them.

 

[Proserpina]

Who exactly has diagnosed Dad, and with what?