Ex- Plans to Have Kids Spend Summer Parent Time with Their Grandparents

[MoralChaos]

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: Utah
Some background. My sister was recently divorced and was awarded full physical custody and joint legal custody with her now ex over their 5 children. Her ex chose to hide after she filed the petition for divorce and refused to be served notice of the filing. Much of the language in the decree favors my sister because of this. Her ex was living in a different state with his parents(or somewhere) at the time of divorce but recently moved to within a couple of hundred miles of my sister and the kids and has just recently started exercising what little parent time he is actually entitled to.

Most of the language in the decree related to parent time and visitation simply references the utah state code governing such matters. By that language her ex is entitled to 4 weeks of extended parent time in the summer with 2 of those weeks being uninterrupted parent time.

When discussing his summer parent time, the kids dad informed my sister that the kids would be going to his parents house (grandparents) for 4 weeks straight in the summer. It should be noted that the grandparents live 1500 miles away from where my sister lives and 1700 miles away from where the kids dad now lives. He does not plan to be there with the kids during this time. He basically wants the kids to have a summer vacation with their grandparents but he doesn't plan on being there at all.

My sister is refusing to allow this to happen basically on the principle that if he isn't going to actually be with the kids then she has the right to be with them per the first right of refusal language in their decree.

Reading over her decree and how parent time works I don't think he can just ship the kids off to their grandparents home for his summer parent time. I also don't think the language allows for his parent time to be 4 weeks straight as he is claiming. Is there something related to this that I don't understand?

[PayrolGuy]

Reading over her decree and how parent time works I don't think he can just ship the kids off to their grandparents home for his summer parent time. I also don't think the language allows for his parent time to be 4 weeks straight as he is claiming. Is there something related to this that I don't understand?

What are you reading, word for word, that makes you think he can't do that?

P.S. You are about to be covered up by people saying that the mother should be posting this not you.

[Dogmatique]

Dad has every right to use his vacation time as he pleases - including sending them to live with one different relative every week, or all four weeks with his parents.

Your sister does not have the right to dictate Dad's time. And your sister, if she cannot understand her decree, should seek assistance from an attorney to guide her further ... or, she could come here herself and actually give us what the order states (word for word, minus identifying info) about vacation time.

[llworking]

Dad has every right to use his vacation time as he pleases - including sending them to live with one different relative every week, or all four weeks with his parents.

Your sister does not have the right to dictate Dad's time. And your sister, if she cannot understand her decree, should seek assistance from an attorney to guide her further ... or, she could come here herself and actually give us what the order states (word for word, minus identifying info) about vacation time.

However, he may not be entitled to 4 straight weeks. The way the OP originally worded things it sounds like its possible that he can only get 2 weeks straight.

[MoralChaos]

Her decree simply references the Utah code governing summer parent time as follows:
(l) Extended parent-time with the noncustodial parent may be:
(i) up to four consecutive weeks when school is not in session at the option of the noncustodial parent, including weekends normally exercised by the noncustodial parent, but not holidays;
(ii) two weeks shall be uninterrupted time for the noncustodial parent; and
(iii) the remaining two weeks shall be subject to parent-time for the custodial parent for weekday parent-time but not weekends, except for a holiday to be exercised by the other parent

The second part of this has to do with the language in the decree of first right of refusal which states that if the parent exercising parent time cannot personally be with a child for a period of longer than 3 hours that the other parent has a right to exercise parent time with the child. Seems ridiculous but that is what is says. Does this apply in circumstances such as this? Please note, dad will not spend a single minute of the extended parent time with the kids except for the transportation portion (1200 miles to grandparents house). I don't think my sister would care as much if he was actually going to be there for part of the time but this guy has no interest in his kids.

I have urged my sister to go to an attorney over this and other related matters. She doesn't understand her decree and she is very much oblivious to what her rights may or may not be. I have read her decree a few times and feel her attorney did a terrible job with what was basically an opportunity to ask for anything she wanted (within reason). As I mentioned before, her ex thought he could circumvent the system by simply not participating in the divorce and disappearing. He quit his job as soon as she filed because he thought it would eliminate child support. He moved out of state and said he was self employed and then refused to be served because he thought he could make her wait forever to be divorced. He has verbally and physically abused his children (required by a judge to attend therapy). He is behind on child support and alimony (I know, I know, it doesn't make a difference for visitation.) His only real interest in his kids is directly related to the access it gives him to my sister.

[llworking]

Ok, are his parents decent people who love the children and really would like to have them for 4 weeks? Or, are his parents really in a position to take them for 4 weeks at all? Do they both work outside the home? Are they willing and able to pay for daycare? If they are good people who really are willing and able to have the children then your sister might want to reconsider her thinking on the matter. If dad really is not interested in his children but his parents love them and are good people, then it might be in the best interests of the children to spend at least some of that time with them.

[MoralChaos]

Ok, are his parents decent people who love the children and really would like to have them for 4 weeks? Or, are his parents really in a position to take them for 4 weeks at all? Do they both work outside the home? Are they willing and able to pay for daycare? If they are good people who really are willing and able to have the children then your sister might want to reconsider her thinking on the matter. If dad really is not interested in his children but his parents love them and are good people, then it might be in the best interests of the children to spend at least some of that time with them.

I don't know the answer to that. I only know what I have been told by my sister and I have to assume her view is biased. I have been told that his parents have justified and denied the problems that their son has. They blame my sister for them getting divorced and they believe she raked him over the coals with the divorce even though he refused to participate. I have been told that his mom is the family doormat that the rest of the family steps on, degrades and belittles. They have always been critical of my sister and have blamed her for many of their sons problems. I don't think they(grandparents) have the resources to really watch the kids for a month (there are 5 kids). I know his dad has serious medical problems. If I were in my sisters situation and all of that is true I wouldn't want my kids to spend a day let alone a month in that environment. If I had to choose between the kids going to their grandparents house and their going to their dads house I think the grandparents would win out.

That being said, I am more interested in what her rights are and what is legally required. They haven't been divorced very long and I believe it is important for my sister to establish now what the rules are and how things need to operate legally. If he has a right to the kids for that time and he doesn't have to be there to take it then that is the way it is and my sister needs to deal with it. If he cannot legally do what he is planning then she needs to exercise her rights and he needs to deal with it. Once each of them understands their rights they can always choose to be generous later. Being divorced myself I know how important it is to understand and adhere to my decree. My ex can count on my following what it says and she knows I expect the same.

Moving on, her ex tells her things all the time that just aren't true and unfortunately my sister is easily convinced that he knows what he's talking about. I'm just trying to help her know what is true and not true. Once again, I have been telling her she needs to hire an attorney. She doesn't have a lot of resources though and it is made even less by the fact that her ex doesn't pay alimony and child support like he should.

Again, thanks for all the thoughts on this.

[llworking]

I don't know the answer to that. I only know what I have been told by my sister and I have to assume her view is biased. I have been told that his parents have justified and denied the problems that their son has. They blame my sister for them getting divorced and they believe she raked him over the coals with the divorce even though he refused to participate. I have been told that his mom is the family doormat that the rest of the family steps on, degrades and belittles. They have always been critical of my sister and have blamed her for many of their sons problems. I don't think they(grandparents) have the resources to really watch the kids for a month (there are 5 kids). I know his dad has serious medical problems. If I were in my sisters situation and all of that is true I wouldn't want my kids to spend a day let alone a month in that environment. If I had to choose between the kids going to their grandparents house and their going to their dads house I think the grandparents would win out.

That being said, I am more interested in what her rights are and what is legally required. They haven't been divorced very long and I believe it is important for my sister to establish now what the rules are and how things need to operate legally. If he has a right to the kids for that time and he doesn't have to be there to take it then that is the way it is and my sister needs to deal with it. If he cannot legally do what he is planning then she needs to exercise her rights and he needs to deal with it. Once each of them understands their rights they can always choose to be generous later. Being divorced myself I know how important it is to understand and adhere to my decree. My ex can count on my following what it says and she knows I expect the same.

Moving on, her ex tells her things all the time that just aren't true and unfortunately my sister is easily convinced that he knows what he's talking about. I'm just trying to help her know what is true and not true. Once again, I have been telling her she needs to hire an attorney. She doesn't have a lot of resources though and it is made even less by the fact that her ex doesn't pay alimony and child support like he should.

Again, thanks for all the thoughts on this.

He definitely has the right to do it for two of the weeks. Since the other two weeks are subject to weekday visitation for the custodial parent he really cannot send them for 4 weeks.

[Mr. Knowitall]

He definitely has the right to do it for two of the weeks. Since the other two weeks are subject to weekday visitation for the custodial parent he really cannot send them for 4 weeks.

It sounds like the order was drafted under the assumption that the parents would be living near each other (or that a form order was used without modification of boilerplate custody provisions), even though it would seem that whomever drafted the order should have known better. A right of first refusal is not going to be exercised if dad is living half-way across the country, nor is it likely to be exercised if dad is "only" 200 miles away.

Even if we presuppose that the custody court would sympathize with mom on the issue of visitation during the third and fourth weeks of extended visitation, it's not a basis to deny all summer parenting time.

Right of first refusal is about child care, not about time the children spend with relatives. It's also not a basis to deny summer visitation, even if mom "knows" that dad won't be at his parents' home.

Really, the parents should be working out a custody arrangement that is consistent with the distance between their homes, and the needs of the children, rather than engaging in a battle over language that doesn't even seem to have been appropriate at the time the order was entered.

[llworking]

It sounds like the order was drafted under the assumption that the parents would be living near each other (or that a form order was used without modification of boilerplate custody provisions), even though it would seem that whomever drafted the order should have known better. A right of first refusal is not going to be exercised if dad is living half-way across the country, nor is it likely to be exercised if dad is "only" 200 miles away.

Even if we presuppose that the custody court would sympathize with mom on the issue of visitation during the third and fourth weeks of extended visitation, it's not a basis to deny all summer parenting time.

Right of first refusal is about child care, not about time the children spend with relatives. It's also not a basis to deny summer visitation, even if mom "knows" that dad won't be at his parents' home.

Really, the parents should be working out a custody arrangement that is consistent with the distance between their homes, and the needs of the children, rather than engaging in a battle over language that doesn't even seem to have been appropriate at the time the order was entered.

The OP said this:

Most of the language in the decree related to parent time and visitation simply references the utah state code governing such matters. By that language her ex is entitled to 4 weeks of extended parent time in the summer with 2 of those weeks being uninterrupted parent time.

It might be helpful to know the exact wording of the decree in relation to parent time and visitation.