Can You Stop a Vacation by the Other Custodian That You Think Will Be Unsafe

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

My ex has third party visitation (no legal custody) with my 4 and 6 year old sons. We have a court order and I have followed it. This order includes vacation time. Her family lives in Pennsylvania and she has taken the children out there via airplane once since we split. I know that she is planning to take them again in July for 8 days - but I just found out that this time she is apparently planning to drive. The trip from Minneapolis to outside Philly is about 20 hours. She is planning to drive by herself.

I am NOT comfortable with this situation. If there was someone else going to help drive and deal with the kids, I would feel much better. But there is not. She wants to get there in 2 days - meaning about 10 hours of driving per day, plus stops, with 4 and 6 year old boys in the back. It seems SO unsafe. (Not to mention awful, but my issue is not with her feelings by the time she gets there.) She works night shifts, so I am especially concerned that she will continue to drive into the night - which would be fine with another driver, but not alone, since the kids will be up during the day and she won't be able to sleep then.

The third party visitation law in Minnesota says that her visitation cannot interfere with my "parental relationship". Do you think I can use this part of the law to refuse her taking them on this trip? As a parent, I am REALLY not comfortable with her taking them in this way. I have serious concerns about their safety. Again, I have let her take them before and was planning to let her again with no complaints - but that was on a plane.

Just trying to get other opinions. Thanks!

In all honesty, the court likely won't care that she's driving. Many parents drive long distance with the kids - it can be a great bonding experience.

What difference does it make to your parental relationship?

There is nothing inherently unsafe in making that drive. People do it solo, with more kids than you have, on a regular basis. She just might be made of tougher stuff than you think.

I don't see any grounds for you to block the vacation.

Truck drivers can drive 11 hours, take a 10 hour break, then drive 11 more. 48 hours is not that much. When I used to drive out to the west coast, I would not sleep until Kansas. When going to Mexico, I would not sleep until Laredo. That is not that far comparatively.

The trip isn't what affects my parental relationship - it has to do with my right to feel comfortable about what someone does with my kids.

There is a little more of a back story, of course. She has a diagnosed personality disorder and a history of poor impulse control, a short fuse, and selfish behavior. For example, the kids tell me that she falls asleep on the couch when they're over but they're afraid to wake her up because she yells at them, goes to bed, and slams the door. They put themselves to bed when this happens (at 4 and 6). So it is more specifically that I am very uncomfortable having this particular person drive my kids alone for 20 hours. (40 hours in one week.)

Her behavior has gotten worse since the order, but nothing has happened that I can prove and that would be enough to approach the court. (A typical personality disordered ex story.) I am collecting the ranting emails and always try to stay positive to both her and the kids in the hopes that in a few years I will have enough to at least change things if they are still bad or worse. I have been ok with the trips in the past because the travel time is relatively short and she is surrounded by family once there.

I am very legitimately scared of this situation. I have followed everything as agreed, but this is too much.

None of this matters.

(Sorry to be so blunt)

If that's the case, then what is the difference between a third party visitor and a non-custodial parent? Other than that she can't be ordered to pay a dime of child support. (Yet gets quite a bit of visitation.) Third party visitation is a messed up section of family law, because no one really seems to know what it means. I have been told that one meaning of the "parental relationship" clause is that she cannot overrule my parental decisions. A decision about allowing children to go on a cross-country trip seems like a parental one.

It sure seems to me that if she can't be ordered to pay to support the kids, her ability to influence decisions about them should be pretty minimal.

Quote:

---

Quoting peacha

---

If that's the case, then what is the difference between a third party visitor and a non-custodial parent? Other than that she can't be ordered to pay a dime of child support. (Yet gets quite a bit of visitation.) Third party visitation is a messed up section of family law, because no one really seems to know what it means. I have been told that one meaning of the "parental relationship" clause is that she cannot overrule my parental decisions. A decision about allowing children to go on a cross-country trip seems like a parental one.

It sure seems to me that if she can't be ordered to pay to support the kids, her ability to influence decisions about them should be pretty minimal.

---

Okay. Let's back up. Exactly WHAT does Mom have? What happened in court?

(And don't go there - child support is not a ticket to see the kids. They're two different things).

Why don't you offer to pay the difference between an airplane or train and her driving expenses.

I don't believe that child support is a ticket to see the kids - but the two should go hand in hand. However, in this instance, she is seemingly being granted the benefits of being a "parent" with none of the responsibility.

Backing up....we were a same-sex couple. I am bio mom, she never made any move to legally adopt the kids. Minnesota has a third party visitation statute. After we split up, she sued me for visitation. In court, I basically stipulated to her fitting the third party law and worked with our lawyers to draw up a visitation agreement. It lays out when she has the kids and includes vacation time. We did this through an awful "early intervention" process in which I now realized that my rights were somewhat trampled because it was intended for 2 biological parents....but that's a different story.

We have since been back to court once and it was not good. I wanted to alter the schedule based on the kids starting school. The judge gave the strong impression that he wanted nothing to do with this case (like I said, it is a tricky part of the law - he is the one who pushed us into early intervention to begin with) and denied me everything. He also granted her a holiday schedule including every Christmas and Thanksgiving, which she asked for in a document sent after the hearing. And he gave no reason for his opinion, so we couldn't appeal. When we asked for a reason, he gave a very short one just stating that I should have known about future changes when I signed the agreement. Again, nothing we could really appeal on.

So anyway, she has NO rights, other than this visitation, and cannot be ordered to pay any support, because she is not a legal "parent". But she gets time with the kids, including important holidays, and the judge won't let me change it. It's just a messed up situation. Can you see why I am confused about my rights?

So in this instance, I am referring to a part of the law that states "visitation rights [cannot] interfere with the relationship between the custodial parent and the child". This is where my right to make certain decisions comes in, or at least it would seem to me. If I do not want my kids travelling in a car across the country, why does she get to overrule me? Again, it is not like I have been contesting everything she does. With the exception of petitioning the court to change 2 afternoons a week during the school year, I have gone along with everything to this point.