Do I Have to Bring My Daughter to See Her Dad if the Judge Has Not Mentioned It

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: Florida

I have temporary custody of our youngest daughter in one state, and their father has temporary custody on our other daughter and son in Florida. Our court hearing is coming up at the end of the month in Florida and the judge did not say or put anything in writing that I am to bring our youngest daughter to Florida with me when I come for the trial. Now the father is demanding that I bring her and when I am flying in so he can have a welcome home party for her, there is no final arrangements made through the courts yet. At the end of this month is when the courts will decide who will have majority custody. Do I have to respond to their father that our youngest daughter is not coming with me and tell him my itinerary.

Thank You.

if there is an order in place, you have to follow the directives within that order. If there is no order, you don't have to do squat.

Agreed.

But by the same token - would it really hurt for kiddo to see her other parent?

no it wouldn't, its just that I have to fly in for this court hearing and its not like he will be able to visit as we will all be in court. I won't be able to see my other two children that he has either.

Considering OP would have to buy a plane ticket last-minute, I'm betting the cost would play a significant part in it as well...

suggest dad pay for the ticket and obtain childcare services while the hearing is being held.

yes cost is playing a part in this as well. and response to JK if their dad was a reasonable father then yes that might be possible. but with this custody case he is wanting the kids full time, child support, for me to pay ALL 100% travel arrangements at all times, to pay for ALL 100% medical, dental and vision for all kids, to claim all kids for filing income taxes from here on out until they are 18, wants me to pay ALL 100% of summer school and summer programs, wants me to get Life insurance and put him (the father) as the beneficiary, and last but not least wants me to pay ALL 100% of his lawyer's costs.

did you cause the distance between the two of you? If so, it is not unreasonable to expect you to pay travel costs, or at least the major portion of them.


my point is; since there is no order in place and dad wants to see the child, you have no obligation to oblige him. If he really wants to see the child, I do not see requiring him to pay the added, and unnecessary for that actual reason for the travel, costs of the added burden to be born by him as being an improper demand.

It has nothing to do with being reasonable. It is simply a matter of: I have no intention (and no requirement) of bringing the child but I will if you bear the costs of doing so. His choice. Doesn't make you a bad guy if you do not bring the child unless you would refuse if he pays the added costs.

btw: him demanding all those 100% contributions from you doesn't mean that is what will be awarded. One method of negotiation is to demand everything and work down from there. It's a lot easier to do that than ask for nothing and work up. Courts don't like such tactics but unless the judge actually gets PO'd due to them, it usually results in a benefit.

and if you read what he is seeking, realize that if you pay 100% of all that is asked, he really has no justification to make the tax deduction claim. He is apparently simply asking for not only the world but the Sun and stars as well. He will get something more like a continent or hemisphere.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

did you cause the distance between the two of you? If so, it is not unreasonable to expect you to pay travel costs, or at least the major portion of them.


my point is; since there is no order in place and dad wants to see the child, you have no obligation to oblige him. If he really wants to see the child, I do not see requiring him to pay the added, and unnecessary for that actual reason for the travel, costs of the added burden to be born by him as being an improper demand.

It has nothing to do with being reasonable. It is simply a matter of: I have no intention (and no requirement) of bringing the child but I will if you bear the costs of doing so. His choice. Doesn't make you a bad guy if you do not bring the child unless you would refuse if he pays the added costs.

btw: him demanding all those 100% contributions from you doesn't mean that is what will be awarded. One method of negotiation is to demand everything and work down from there. It's a lot easier to do that than ask for nothing and work up. Courts don't like such tactics but unless the judge actually gets PO'd due to them, it usually results in a benefit.

and if you read what he is seeking, realize that if you pay 100% of all that is asked, he really has no justification to make the tax deduction claim. He is apparently simply asking for not only the world but the Sun and stars as well. He will get something more like a continent or hemisphere.

---

I would have to agree. If you are paying for all of that, The judge would more than likely award you with income tax excemtions or an every other year plan. Not that it would be fair. but hey it's something. Also - Depending on who moved and why, it would be up to that parent to pay. If it was to benefit you and the child, it may be split. If it was just because, you will more than likely be responsible to pay. As far as bringing the child - It may look better in the Judge's eyes that you are attempting to promote a healthy relationship between parent and child.

Post hx.

:)