Temporary Custody Order Options

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: Tennessee. Hello, I desperately need help with a current temporary order that is straining me financially, emotionally and about to ruin my career. I am a nurse in the Air Force that was transferred to California. The father lives in Tennessee still and although I was allowed to relocate I am required to fly the baby (6 months) back to Tennessee once a month (every 30 days) for a 10 day visitation period. I was also told that I could not continue to breast feed to allow dad overnight visitation. This is a 6 hour flight crossing time zones, lay overs etc. and requires me to take off two days a month from work. My poor son cannot with stand the flight very well and he has had repeat fluid leaking from his ears and ear infections. He is also regressing developmentally because he never gets used to an environment since he is shifted and flown every 10-20 days. Please anyone is there anything I can do for this temporary order? My unit is getting very frustrated with me taking this time off and frankly I cannot afford to continue these plane trips every month.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

There's a viable alternative but you're not going to like it.

Allow Dad to be the primary parent.

That schedule incidentally is HORRIBLE. Who ordered that?!

I'm sorry I could never give my infant son away. I was in the Air Force before he met me and I cannot help where the Government sends me. Magistrate Calloway in Davidson County Juvenile Court.

Why would you be "giving" your son away?

I'm sure that Dad feels the same, surely?

When was the order made, and when is the next hearing?

Dad has only seen him 3 X since birth. Does not really know his routine or mannerisms. Trial is late June.

Dad is going to be seeing the baby for 10 day periods. That's exceptional bonding time.

Mom, I know you feel wronged here and frankly that schedule for a 6 month old is horrible. But you're going to need more than "It's too expensive" if you get the same magistrate who apparently feels - reading between the lines a little - that you've somehow attempted to thwart the parent/child relationship.

(Now I need to a post hx to see if I'm missing anything)

Yes it is but given the distance and effect it's going to have on the baby I am concerned. I am not sure if you have ever flown 6+ hours with a 6 month old but it's not fun. Further, I have always allowed him to see him the 3 X was on his own accord. Bonding time with dad is important. What is most important though the health, safety and well being of the baby or dads time? Maybe I'm wrong but putting a 6 month old in flight every 10-20 days does not seem like its in his best interest. The baby will never have a stable, structured, predictable environment because he will be ping ponged every 10-20 days.

I'm not disagreeing with the impact on the child.

But given the circumstance and given that the magistrate has already ruled (WHEN was this, incidentally? the initial ruling?) that Dad is entitled to such long periods with the baby, I can't help but be concerned that if you raise the issue custody will be awarded to Dad (if he's willing).

At this point, I truly think you need an attorney.

Did you agree to this arrangement so that you could relocate, or was a judge's idea?

I can't believe that this was ordered. But you did say it was temporary, so when is your final hearing? It is obvious this is a terrible arrangement, so be looking at long-distance parenting plans for your final hearing. And yes, get an attorney. Make sure your attorney brings up all the issues associated with this arrangement and its effects on the baby in the final hearing.

If this was a final order, I would worry. But because it is temporary, I would just keep doing it and focus on getting an attorney and getting a final hearing date soon and presenting your case then.

There's already a trial date - but it's not until late June.

And THAT means that the child is going to be almost a year old - and the arrangement may well be considered to be "status quo".

Dang. This situation is just awful. I guess she just really needs to talk to an attorney about her options. I would not want to put my child through that kind of instability.

- - - Updated - - -

Dang. This situation is just awful. I guess she just really needs to talk to an attorney about her options. I would not want to put my child through that kind of instability.

I'm still not quite understanding why Dad can't be primary.

*shrug*

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, if Mom is going to be moving around with the military, it might make MORE sense for the child to be with Dad.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

I'm still not quite understanding why Dad can't be primary.

*shrug*

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, if Mom is going to be moving around with the military, it might make MORE sense for the child to be with Dad.

---

Then why didn't the court order for Dad to be primary? And what difference would that have made, because then dad would have the child 20 days a month, and mom would have the child 10 days a month?

Why should mom have to give up primary, if the role was reversed you think dad would give up primary? This is just an all around bad deal by the court.

If mom can't get the court to see that, then mom is either going to have to go with this, or give up to make this better for baby. I personally would choose several other options I can think of, instead of hanging onto what the court says here. Even if that meant I gave dad primary, and I cut way down on the parenting time schedule or I would leave the Military, move back to TN and do a normal 50/50.

But that is just my opinion, on what I believe would damage the child.

Quote:

---

Quoting gam

---

Then why didn't the court order for Dad to be primary? And what difference would that have made, because then dad would have the child 20 days a month, and mom would have the child 10 days a month?

---

Because Mom was still the primary caregiver. While it's not everything, it does carry a lot of weight. Had Dad been awarded custody though, in TN, there's a better-than-good chance she would have been ordered to visit in Dad's community. She created the distance, remember.

Quote:

---

Why should mom have to give up primary, if the role was reversed you think dad would give up primary?

---

I'd say the exact same thing to Dad.

Quote:

---

This is just an all around bad deal by the court.

---

Not disagreeing there.

Quote:

---

If mom can't get the court to see that, then mom is either going to have to go with this, or give up to make this better for baby. I personally would choose several other options I can think of, instead of hanging onto what the court says here. Even if that meant I gave dad primary, and I cut way down on the parenting time schedule or I would leave the Military, move back to TN and do a normal 50/50.

But that is just my opinion, on what I believe would damage the child.

---

I'm not sure what Mom's military commitment would be but given the actions of THIS court - the court Mom's dealing with - I don't disagree with the idea if that she can get out, she should seriously consider it. And I'm not disagreeing with the idea that Dad might be the better option for primary if Mom can't get out and move back to TN.

Once again this is a HORRIBLE schedule for an infant. But the court ordered it, and yes, I do think that for some reason that "they" saw a reason for Dad to get such a huge swatch of time given the age of the infant and the dynamics involved.

As ever, we're only getting one half of the story.

Mom does have options. But I know that she's not going to like at least one of the suggestions.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Mom, I know you feel wronged here and frankly that schedule for a 6 month old is horrible. But you're going to need more than "It's too expensive" if you get the same magistrate who apparently feels - reading between the lines a little - that you've somehow attempted to thwart the parent/child relationship.

---

Is this a magistrate or referee's ruling? If so, it may be reviewable by the court as a matter of right.

I have a similar suspicion about the magistrate's decision - that, rightly or wrongly, he has concluded that you were / are hoping to give the father as little access to the child as possible. But this schedule with a child that is entering the worst stages of separation anxiety seems pretty close to... insane. If you don't have a lawyer, I suggest getting one. If you do have a lawyer, I suggest discussing with your lawyer the possibility of having the temporary order reviewed by the court, perhaps in association with some expert testimony about an appropriate parenting time schedule for a child of this age under the described circumstances.

As has been intimated, you run into the King Solomon allegory (although that's best understood as a political allegory couched in parenting terms) - you can't literally split the baby, so if your concern is that the exchange schedule is harmful the court may suggest that (if he's willing) dad have primary custody and you visit as often as possible.

Quote:

---

Quoting NurseA

---

I am not sure if you have ever flown 6+ hours with a 6 month old but it's not fun.

---

It really depends on the baby - some infants do terribly on planes (it's a pain thing, due to pressure changes on their not-fully-developed ears); others will sleep the whole time.

Quote:

---

Quoting NurseA

---

Further, I have always allowed him to see him the 3 X was on his own accord.

---

What does "I have always allowed him to see him" mean? "Any time you buy a ticket, fly to California, get a hotel, and can see the child when I'm available to supervise, come on by"?

Quote:

---

Quoting NurseA

---

What is most important though the health, safety and well being of the baby or dads time?

---

And we're back to King Solomon. The "real mother" was willing to give up her child rather than have it cut in half. Viewed as a political allegory, King Solomon was the false mother sending the message to a competitor for the throne, "I'll let the nation be divided by war before I'll concede your claim," and thus, by extension, it's not always the most deserving parent who prevails when a sacrifice is made for the child's best interest.

Most parents are told that they can have their military career or primary custody of their children, but not both. I think the judge was actually trying to be generous to mom and attempt at letting her have both, AND letting her move away. Despite such a horrid schedule, mom should honestly be grateful for that much.

But alas, there is usually a reason why military parents do not have physical custody, as everyone else pointed out. But it does not seem like this judge wants to make dad pay for mom's career choices at the expense of time with his child. And why should he? Mom, as everyone else has told you, it is really your issue that is creating this problem, and it very likely will mean that YOU will have some tough choices to make. Honestly? Nursing is a very portable career. You could find a job almost anywhere (as a civilian). If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want to be a visitor in my child's life either, and I'd probably move back and find a job there.

You've really got a lot to think about. Good luck to you.

In the meantime, has baby's pedi offered any advice about the ear issues? My neice had chronic ear infections when she was very small, and her doctor gave her some kind of drops to use regularly to keep them away. I don't know if there is a preventative measure you can try such as that, but it would be worth asking the doc.

Mom, could you at least come back and let us know your current military commitment?

That's a great question! If mom's in for four years only and is on year three, then well....