Is the Other Parent's Consent Required for International Travel

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

What is important here is that there's an expectation of reasonableness and good faith. Refusing due to wanting to win one, isn't reasonable. Expressing fanciful claims about crime, kidnapping and Zika, or the ludicrous notion that the only place south of the border is Caracas, not much better.

---

Knowitall, just because I like you, nowhere did I use Caracas as an example. That is their actual intended destination.
What you call fanciful in regards to Sika and kidnapping anyone can quess. Perhaps you think Zika is only a threat to pregnant women due to the risk of microcephaly as the other HR guy did, or you believe the thread of kidnappings are exaggerated in Venezuela. You would be wrong on both counts.
You seem to be proficient at rationalizing interpretations and posses a vast knowledge of case law. Stick to that. Your assumptions and speculations on matters of ethics are much less accurate.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I have stated from the start that the issue is that consent may not be unreasonably withheld, so if that was the point you were trying to make then we are talking past each other.

Absent some reason for this clause (e.g., a bona fide concern about parental kidnapping), as part of a motion to get the court to grant permission for travel in the face of an unreasonable refusal by the other parent, I would ask that the provision be eliminated from the custody order.

---

You are implying that the provision was my request. It isn't. Eliminating it would work in my favor as the provision was part of Mom's request during mediation negotiations. You state "absent a reason" -well there is one. And it is not kidnapping risk. It is purely sentimental if you care to know. Mom doesn't want me traveling overseas with our daughter and any potential girlfriends I may have in the future. Yes I have a propensity to associate freely with other women. You can believe that is the purpose of that clause or not. Doesn't really matter. I am still grateful for the time you took in replying to my post. If the post count you have is accurate you must have helped thousands of people.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Oh, we have faith. We have every faith that you're going to be swatted down and silenced once you're in court.

:cool:

As usual, I expect another encounter with the OG Effect quite soon.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

There is not necessarily going to be much, if any, case law on a lot of family law issues. Most of them do not get past the trial court level. On an issue like this one, when the court has already stated that either parent can travel internationally with the child (therefore there are clearly no issues where the trial court might restrict international travel), its very unlikely that anyone is ever going to take the issue beyond the trial court level.

If this dad were to attempt to say no, he would likely get his butt handed to him in court, and the judge would remove the wording that made him think that he had the right to say yes or no to mom traveling internationally, on her parenting time.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Ohiogal

---

Crap. Thanks for pointing this out. For some reason I thought it was Ohio.

And KIA -- I didn't say it makes it a nullity but that consent is a requirement and it can not be withheld unreasonably as it is one of those things that is necessary to travel. Dad can't withhold the consent for reasons like what he is saying. Not that it matters as Stealth has pointed out. I apologize I was wrong about the state. But I stand by what I have said. And I think we are talking past one another. Could be because I am exhausted. I apologize for not being clear. But I agree with LL and Dog.

---

What happened to the band wagon of these supposed legal advisers now that Knowitall obliterated their fallacious and unsound conclusions with solid arguments supported by case law?
Not one admission of being wrong.
May be the schooling lesson was too hard on the ego.
Consider taking a few more law and/or english classes, or may be, actually thinking before posting again. If a nobody like myself can infer the right meaning of a clause, and you can't, you should look at yourselves and question whether you are doing more harm than good here.
Yes go ahead and salivate over how I am gonna get my derriere handed to me in court what a horrible person I am if it makes you feel better. Or better yet. I'll wait for Ohiogal to come in here with her HOW DARE YOU's. Dogmantique not even worth commenting. Generally mediocre. llworking actually often times good advise, just can't handle it being wrong and often put in place by knowitall. Things are pretty predictable around here.

Adequate Man,

Your arrogance will be your undoing and is a cancer that will contaminate your relationship with your child. This is not a game of let's see who can spite who. The child is a child, not a weapon to use against the other parent- who you chose to be a parent, incidentally.

That is all.

However, to be fair:

https://travel.state.gov/content/pas...l-warning.html

ETA: But, OP? You're being a jerk to everyone trying to help you. For free.

Ok hold on a second here.
Being a jerk to people trying to help me? How can it be of any help if someone tells me I am going to get annihilated in court or that I don't have my daughters best interest at heart? This is just the internet. People will say what they want and judge others at free will. Just like people will revert to attacks to one's persona any way they see fit.
Do you really expect for people to come here and say thank you to posters who tell you " you are gonna get your ass handed to you in court because you are a horrible parent"? The arrogance in thinking you can determine whether someone is a good parent or not from the information I posted here is impossible to take serious. It is simply not worthy of consideration.

Quote:

---

Quoting geek

---

Adequate Man,

Your arrogance will be your undoing and is a cancer that will contaminate your relationship with your child. This is not a game of let's see who can spite who. The child is a child, not a weapon to use against the other parent- who you chose to be a parent, incidentally.

That is all.

---

I will put your words on my gravestone to honor the deeply heart wrenching truth you just made me realize.

Quote:

---

Quoting Adequate Man

---

Knowitall, just because I like you, nowhere did I use Caracas as an example. That is their actual intended destination.
What you call fanciful in regards to Sika and kidnapping anyone can quess. Perhaps you think Zika is only a threat to pregnant women due to the risk of microcephaly as the other HR guy did, or you believe the thread of kidnappings are exaggerated in Venezuela. You would be wrong on both counts.
You seem to be proficient at rationalizing interpretations and posses a vast knowledge of case law. Stick to that. Your assumptions and speculations on matters of ethics are much less accurate.



You are implying that the provision was my request. It isn't. Eliminating it would work in my favor as the provision was part of Mom's request during mediation negotiations. You state "absent a reason" -well there is one. And it is not kidnapping risk. It is purely sentimental if you care to know. Mom doesn't want me traveling overseas with our daughter and any potential girlfriends I may have in the future. Yes I have a propensity to associate freely with other women. You can believe that is the purpose of that clause or not. Doesn't really matter. I am still grateful for the time you took in replying to my post. If the post count you have is accurate you must have helped thousands of people.







What happened to the band wagon of these supposed legal advisers now that Knowitall obliterated their fallacious and unsound conclusions with solid arguments supported by case law?
Not one admission of being wrong.
May be the schooling lesson was too hard on the ego.
Consider taking a few more law and/or english classes, or may be, actually thinking before posting again. If a nobody like myself can infer the right meaning of a clause, and you can't, you should look at yourselves and question whether you are doing more harm than good here.
Yes go ahead and salivate over how I am gonna get my derriere handed to me in court what a horrible person I am if it makes you feel better. Or better yet. I'll wait for Ohiogal to come in here with her HOW DARE YOU's. Dogmantique not even worth commenting. Generally mediocre. llworking actually often times good advise, just can't handle it being wrong and often put in place by knowitall. Things are pretty predictable around here.

---

*yawn* somebody called for me?

Dirty foul, you guys ... you woke me from a deep sleep for this idiot?! Oy vey.

Quote:

---

Quoting Adequate Man

---

I will put your words on my gravestone to honor the deeply heart wrenching truth you just made me realize.

---

You bore me.

Ok - if you have wads of cash to go to court - to pay for your lawyer and possibly hers - have at it.

I don't agree. "Must recieve" is an obligation on the subject (the parent travelling). If there was an obligation on the "Other Parent" they would be the subject... for example... The other parent shall give consent to the parent wishing to ...

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

I don't agree. "Must recieve" is an obligation on the subject (the parent travelling). If there was an obligation on the "Other Parent" they would be the subject... for example... The other parent shall give consent to the parent wishing to ...

---

Who was this a response to? It doesn't make sense without context.

I don't agree with the interpretation that the clause in question mandates the "other parent" to do anything.

Quote:

---

Quoting Adequate Man

---

Knowitall, just because I like you, nowhere did I use Caracas as an example. That is their actual intended destination.
What you call fanciful in regards to Sika and kidnapping anyone can quess. Perhaps you think Zika is only a threat to pregnant women due to the risk of microcephaly as the other HR guy did, or you believe the thread of kidnappings are exaggerated in Venezuela. You would be wrong on both counts.
You seem to be proficient at rationalizing interpretations and posses a vast knowledge of case law. Stick to that. Your assumptions and speculations on matters of ethics are much less accurate.



You are implying that the provision was my request. It isn't. Eliminating it would work in my favor as the provision was part of Mom's request during mediation negotiations. You state "absent a reason" -well there is one. And it is not kidnapping risk. It is purely sentimental if you care to know. Mom doesn't want me traveling overseas with our daughter and any potential girlfriends I may have in the future. Yes I have a propensity to associate freely with other women. You can believe that is the purpose of that clause or not. Doesn't really matter. I am still grateful for the time you took in replying to my post. If the post count you have is accurate you must have helped thousands of people.







What happened to the band wagon of these supposed legal advisers now that Knowitall obliterated their fallacious and unsound conclusions with solid arguments supported by case law?
Not one admission of being wrong.
May be the schooling lesson was too hard on the ego.
Consider taking a few more law and/or english classes, or may be, actually thinking before posting again. If a nobody like myself can infer the right meaning of a clause, and you can't, you should look at yourselves and question whether you are doing more harm than good here.
Yes go ahead and salivate over how I am gonna get my derriere handed to me in court what a horrible person I am if it makes you feel better. Or better yet. I'll wait for Ohiogal to come in here with her HOW DARE YOU's. Dogmantique not even worth commenting. Generally mediocre. llworking actually often times good advise, just can't handle it being wrong and often put in place by knowitall. Things are pretty predictable around here.

---

You might want to tone down that ego before you go back to court about any of this or any modification to visitation in the future. Otherwise the judge will rip you a new one. The reason people are telling you that you will get your "ass handed to you" in court is because you will. Judges do not like spiteful parents. At all.

From YOUR own words your only concern APPEARS to be getting back at your ex. Not your daughter. Maybe you should read what you type before you post.

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

You might want to tone down that ego before you go back to court about any of this or any modification to visitation in the future. Otherwise the judge will rip you a new one. The reason people are telling you that you will get your "ass handed to you" in court is because you will. Judges do not like spiteful parents. At all.

From YOUR own words your only concern APPEARS to be getting back at your ex. Not your daughter. Maybe you should read what you type before you post.

---

Like button.