(This is an off-shoot of another post, which hit on this topic, but was primarily focused on something else...)
Right of First Refusal (basically, the right of either parent to care for the child outside their normal parenting time, rather than the current parent arranging other childcare) is part of our state Parenting Time Guidelines. Thereby, it's presumed to apply to all divorces with children, unless the couple's custodial orders make an exception. In fact, even if a couple doesn't have orders (say they're separated, but not legally): If a dispute over access to the kids gets taken to court, the judge is supposed to say that in the absence of agreement between the parties, they should have followed the PTG.
I understand CPs who like the peace of mind that comes with knowing your time with the kids is yours and you can make whatever arrangements for them that you want. But based on my family's experience, I find it frightening when ROFR isn't automatic. (Another member lightheartedly suggested it was frightening that ROFR is standard, where I live.)
A large part of the reason my husband now has sole custody of his son (from a previous marriage) was that his ex - after using every excuse in the book to deny his visitation while she lived here, but getting little or no support from the courts - moved across the country and essentially said, "Think you can tell me what to do? Try enforcing regular visitation from 2,500 miles away!" My husband spent a fortune traveling to see his son. He'd be out there one week a month, every month. And he sent her a schedule of his visits at the beginning of each school year, so she always had plenty of notice. Some months, she gave him no parenting time while he was out there. At most, she'd give him 7 hours total for the week; never more than 4 hours in one day, never more than 2 total days of his visit, never 2 days in a row. Meanwhile, the kid was in after-school childcare an average of 14 hours/week and frequently babysat by her parents. Once, the ex went out of town on business for 4 days while my husband was visiting. She left the kid with her parents the whole time. So my husband could have tripled his time with their son - or more! - simply by parenting him during the hours the Mom wasn't with him, anyway!
Beyond that, it sent an atrocious message to their son, who was at an impressionable age: It's not just your Mom who doesn't like your Dad. The court decided she is your only real parent and he is just some guy you should check in with every now and then. But even when he flies across the country to visit, you shouldn't spend much time with him. He doesn't even rank as high as your daycare providers, in terms of who should take care of you.
Our state guidelines do instruct the CP to contact the NCP and offer extra time with the child, before other childcare arrangements are made. But which principle is the critical one?:
> The NCP can't have the child outside his regular parenting time, unless the CP invites it? (In which case, she can sidestep his ROFR, simply by failing to offer it to him.)
OR
> The child's chance to be parented - by either one of his parents - always takes priority over other forms of childcare? (In which case, the NCP can walk into daycare and pick up the child even if the CP is hostile toward this.)
In my husband's case the court ruled emphatically for the latter.
I wholeheartedly agree with that legal principle. Custodial laws throughout the first world generally trend toward trying to approximate the life the child would have led if his/her parents hadn't split up.
* Child support tries to quantify how much of the parents' incomes would've been spent on the child, if they had remained combined.
*In determining things like whether the parents have to share the cost of private school, courts often explore the likelihood that the child would've attended that school, if the parents had stayed together.
*Visitation is trending away from EOW and toward incorporating the other parent into the child's weekday life, as would be the case if the parents still lived together.
*More clear and stringent guidelines on the NCP's access to school, extra-curricular activities and the child's records are also predicated on the idea that both parents would be aware of/involved in these things, if they were still together.
Well, in an intact family, if Dad got off work early, none would question his right to pick up the kid from daycare early. And he'd be trusted to communicate with his wife about it, so she wouldn't worry. So, I like the idea of making divorced Moms prove why their exes should lose that right... instead of making every divorced Dad prove he deserves to keep it!
As with a lot of things in divorce, ROFR does work better in the absence of conflict... but it's arguably more important, when there is conflict.
Right of First Refusal (basically, the right of either parent to care for the child outside their normal parenting time, rather than the current parent arranging other childcare) is part of our state Parenting Time Guidelines. Thereby, it's presumed to apply to all divorces with children, unless the couple's custodial orders make an exception. In fact, even if a couple doesn't have orders (say they're separated, but not legally): If a dispute over access to the kids gets taken to court, the judge is supposed to say that in the absence of agreement between the parties, they should have followed the PTG.
I understand CPs who like the peace of mind that comes with knowing your time with the kids is yours and you can make whatever arrangements for them that you want. But based on my family's experience, I find it frightening when ROFR isn't automatic. (Another member lightheartedly suggested it was frightening that ROFR is standard, where I live.)
A large part of the reason my husband now has sole custody of his son (from a previous marriage) was that his ex - after using every excuse in the book to deny his visitation while she lived here, but getting little or no support from the courts - moved across the country and essentially said, "Think you can tell me what to do? Try enforcing regular visitation from 2,500 miles away!" My husband spent a fortune traveling to see his son. He'd be out there one week a month, every month. And he sent her a schedule of his visits at the beginning of each school year, so she always had plenty of notice. Some months, she gave him no parenting time while he was out there. At most, she'd give him 7 hours total for the week; never more than 4 hours in one day, never more than 2 total days of his visit, never 2 days in a row. Meanwhile, the kid was in after-school childcare an average of 14 hours/week and frequently babysat by her parents. Once, the ex went out of town on business for 4 days while my husband was visiting. She left the kid with her parents the whole time. So my husband could have tripled his time with their son - or more! - simply by parenting him during the hours the Mom wasn't with him, anyway!
Beyond that, it sent an atrocious message to their son, who was at an impressionable age: It's not just your Mom who doesn't like your Dad. The court decided she is your only real parent and he is just some guy you should check in with every now and then. But even when he flies across the country to visit, you shouldn't spend much time with him. He doesn't even rank as high as your daycare providers, in terms of who should take care of you.
Our state guidelines do instruct the CP to contact the NCP and offer extra time with the child, before other childcare arrangements are made. But which principle is the critical one?:
> The NCP can't have the child outside his regular parenting time, unless the CP invites it? (In which case, she can sidestep his ROFR, simply by failing to offer it to him.)
OR
> The child's chance to be parented - by either one of his parents - always takes priority over other forms of childcare? (In which case, the NCP can walk into daycare and pick up the child even if the CP is hostile toward this.)
In my husband's case the court ruled emphatically for the latter.
I wholeheartedly agree with that legal principle. Custodial laws throughout the first world generally trend toward trying to approximate the life the child would have led if his/her parents hadn't split up.
* Child support tries to quantify how much of the parents' incomes would've been spent on the child, if they had remained combined.
*In determining things like whether the parents have to share the cost of private school, courts often explore the likelihood that the child would've attended that school, if the parents had stayed together.
*Visitation is trending away from EOW and toward incorporating the other parent into the child's weekday life, as would be the case if the parents still lived together.
*More clear and stringent guidelines on the NCP's access to school, extra-curricular activities and the child's records are also predicated on the idea that both parents would be aware of/involved in these things, if they were still together.
Well, in an intact family, if Dad got off work early, none would question his right to pick up the kid from daycare early. And he'd be trusted to communicate with his wife about it, so she wouldn't worry. So, I like the idea of making divorced Moms prove why their exes should lose that right... instead of making every divorced Dad prove he deserves to keep it!
As with a lot of things in divorce, ROFR does work better in the absence of conflict... but it's arguably more important, when there is conflict.
I guess it's a small price to pay if they can't do an exchange without stress.
Follow Mothering