Child Visitation - Father Moved for Gainful Employment

[NotSunkYet]

I've tried to include enough detail without being long winded. Thanks in advance for your time.

This is in Illinois.

My boyfriend has found gainful employment in the city in which I live and has moved in with me. Being financially plundered by the divorce system has left him with few choices. Where he now lives the round-trip commute has increased by 56 miles. My boyfriend, anticipating his ex-wife's objection to the increase in mileage (who wouldn't with gas prices) submitted an exchange proposal to her attorney. In the proposal, he suggested that they meet "half way" on Friday evening pick-ups and Sunday evening drop-offs. In actuality he would absorb 71% of the mileage increase if his ex-wife would agree. It has always been that he drove the entire commute on Friday evenings to pick up his sons and she drove the entire commute on Sundays to pick them back up, as it is in the court order. She not only refused the proposal but is also refusing to drive to his new residence to pick up their sons on Sunday. Instead, she has sent message with the oldest son that she will be at his old residence on Sunday evening to pick up their sons. What is he supposed to do?

 

[irish223]

Generally, since he created the distance, he's supposed to drive the distance.

What was the distance before he moved? How do you figure he's absorbing 71% of the mileage increase if they're meeting half-way?

 

[NotSunkYet]

Yes, he created the distance, not on a whim but driven by financial circumstance. He could have stayed where he was and continued in a low wage job or move here and take a job with a living wage and room for advancement. And thereby allowing him to continue to pay his ordered Child Support. It was only by good fortune, which he hasn't had much of lately, that this position came open and he heard of by happenstance. He applied, went through a series of interviews and was the chosen candidate.

Trying to be brief I used the term "halfway" in quotes but expressed in actually that he was willing to drive to a point where she would only have to drive 29% of the additional 56 mile increase. IE: 16.3 miles. He chose an exit off of the toll way closer to her residence and that was more populated with convenient places to meet.

Even if the onus is on him to cover the extra mileage because he 'created' it, her action of going to a place where he no longer lives is, to put it mildly, an odd way of protesting. She said she would be at the old residence even when he told her he would return the boys all the way home on this Sunday, thereby giving her a completely drive free weekend and to deal with the issue in court if see couldn't agree to something more reasonable.

By the way, the court order specifically states that "unless otherwise agreed to by both parties, he would provide the transportation for Friday pickups and she would provide transportation for Sunday pickups." It has been more than four years since his divorce. This is his first move. Is this really something the courts would rather be bothered with to have to decide than to see the parties come to an agreement on their own, and have them have attorney(s) file the paperwork?

I can only imagine that she planning to show up at the old residence only to call the police and cry foul of some sort. Her and her attorney and the courts have known of the residence change for over two months, since it had happened. The first three weekend visitations after his move were taken place at his mother's home near where he used to live, and I went along, to make the change smoother for the boys as they have only been around me sporadically because his ex-wife acts very menacing when I have been around and the boys are witness to her behavior.

She once screamed at the boys to get in the *** car and when they did she squealed off at a high rate of speed. And the road is hilly and curved with a blind spot. Trying to avoid such unsafe and horrifying experiences for their sons my boyfriend decided that my involvement would be minimal. I agreed of course for their safety. We allowed her control. When he lost his good paying job to the economy he did what he had to do to be able to continue to pay his child support and was adamant about not going to court to ask for a modification.

I can continue with his story but I'm thinking I have given enough information and do not want to be burdensome. I will gladly answer any other questions. Thanks again for your time.

 

[irish223]

I'm not unsympathetic to the situation. However, it's still possible, perhaps likely, that he will have to do the driving. The court order with regard to driving was based on the original distance. There is a change of circumstance that would require the mother to drive 45 minutes to an hour extra on both Friday and Sunday. The court may decide that's not her responsibility. Or they may decide it's a fair compromise. Hard to say, but I would be prepared for your boyfriend to do all the driving. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

With regard to the mother going to his old residence, there's nothing to worry about if he notified the court of his move.

One thing that may not look good for him in court, is that he moved 56 miles away and is living with his girlfriend. Even though he did it for a better paying job, it may be suggested that he moved IN ORDER TO move in with his girlfriend. I would also be prepared for that to be brought up in court. Again, hopefully it will not be brought up.

Finally, it might be better for you to stay at home when your boyfriend goes to court about this, or at least wait outside of the courtroom. This is between the mother and father, and it's best to remove any appearance of being meddlesome on your part.

 

[NotSunkYet]

Thank you again for your response. So, should he stay put with the boys here on Sunday? Or drive to their home? Or drive to his old residence?

 

[irish223]

Well, I think he should drive them home since he already offered to do it. I also think he should call her to let her know. It sounds like they don't speak to each other, but in this case I think he should try. Also, it helps to keep the kids out of it, rather than relaying messages through the kids as she did. If it's brought up in court that he had already been doing the driving, he can argue that he did it so that the kids wouldn't be involved and to keep the peace.