Originally Posted by Jeannine
...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...
Originally Posted by greenemami
...my understanding of ROFR is not that the other parent can just pick the child up from anothe caregiver whenever they want, but that the parent in custody of the child at the time they need alternate care must offer that time to the other parent. So, the CP would have to offer the NCP the time the child would otherwise be at daycare, and the NCP would either accept or decline. Once they decline, I wouldn't think they could just randomly pick up the child without the CPs consent...
You're right, the way ROFR is usually written puts the impetus on the parent the child is with
, to offer
extra time to the other parent before making other childcare arrangements.
The clear spirit
of the rule is that both parents must make the effort to communicate
. Parent A should not hire a sitter without 1st seeing if Parent B would like that extra time with their child. But of course
if Parent B takes Wed. off and wants to pick up their child from daycare and take her out to lunch and to the Zoo, Parent B must tell
Parent A and arrange to get the child to Parent A at the time Parent A would otherwise pick up the child from daycare.
A parent who ignores the rule by hiring sitters without ever offering the time to the other parent
would theoretically face some sanction from the court. But a parent who abuses the rule by saying, "No, I can't watch Johnny Sat. night," and then showing up while the other parent's on a date and taking Johnny from the sitter anyway
the ROFR. So - ideally - there are checks and balances.
What I was explaining is that my husband's ex seemed to test every potential loophole in our state's custodial law and this issue was an interesting one:
When Parent A willfully refuses to comply
with a court order for ROFR, is she permitted to get away with it
, because Parent B can't pick up the child from Parent A's childcare arrangements without Parent A's permission
? Or does the rule take priority
? In other words, should Parent B be permitted to pick up the child from daycare even if Parent A said he can't
, because Parent A isn't legally allowed to demand the child stay in daycare, if the other parent wants to care for the child
? (Parent B would still be obligated to tell Parent A: "I WILL pick up Johnny at 4. Since you usually pick him up from daycare at 6, I will be home by 6 and you may pick him up there."
)In my husband's case
, the court decided the rule does take priority. That makes the most sense to me. But certainly, another court might rule otherwise. I think it's interesting how varied all of your opinions are, on the subject - and it seems like everyone has a solid reason for their position. This is but one of the fascinating things I've noticed about family law, since stumbling into my husband and his Hydra-like divorce!