Rights of first refusal.
So one of the things that BM recently put in the paperwork going between the lawyers was Rights of First Refusal. Except it doesn't appear to be the "standard" agreement.
Let me go back just a bit. SO's family isn't really involved. His mother pretty much abandoned him right after birth. He lived with grandma till she did the same. As teen he was adopted by another family. Since I've been in the picture his birth mother and him have started to reconnect and have come a long way BUT not far enough that he wants her to watch the kids. On top of that she also does not live close to him so it's a general inconvenience.
On the other hand some of BM's family is more involved which is great. BM works extended shifts on the weekends. Because of this the kids spend the full weekend with their grandmother if they aren't with SO. Even on SO's weekends he has to return the kids to grandma because BM doesn't get off till really late. BM has refused him having them on those other weekends. Last summer was really bad. If the kids were with grandma and she wanted SO to take them of course BM would find out and by the time he made to the house the kids were gone.
So first rights sounds great except the wording is if the children's parents or the grandparents can't watch the children then the offer must be made.
This doesn't help him at all and still restricts him from getting the extra weekends he's tried to get. Now he could be sly and let it go through then point out that the women watching the kids is not their grandmother but their great grandmother but that's just sinking to her level. So he's trying to think of how he want's to proceed with it. Also we need to ask if when he and I get married does grandparents apply to my parents.
BM has screamed at him over my parents watching the kids in the past. The two times this happened it was literally spur of the moment. Once was for less than 2 hours while SO took me to the ER and the second time was less than an hour while SO and I moved a bed into storage. Both times we could have brought the kids if we needed but there was a better option. So even if he had offered to let her have the kids it would have been useless since she was at work and the time needed was less that it would have taken for her to come get the kids.
So yeah having to figure that out now.
- Dontfeedthetrolls's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I wouldn't even consider
I wouldn't even consider anything like that. There is also usually a time frame as well like "if parent needs a baby sitter for more then 4 hours, they need to call the other parent first".
BM wanted a ROFR, but only for DH to have to follow one. It was one of the many things she ran out of the room crying about when the mediator told her "that's not how it works" and it was never brought up again and nothing like that was in the final paperwork. Guess she didn't want him to find out about how she dumps the kid off at her parents house on her weekends, but wanted to be nosy about what we might be doing.
I don't like ROFR in court orders anyway. Gives way to much power and information to each party to the other. I could see mayyybeeee one if the child will be in someone else's care overnight, but for a few hours here and there, no.
Great grandparents are
Great grandparents are grandparents.
Your parents are not grandparents.
Thank you for the input so
Thank you for the input so far. I know when SO brought it up the initial thought was just try to remove it since it was clearly put in for her sole benefit.
That's what the initial plan was but it got me wondering do I wanted to know what others thought. When I looked up information I didn't see any that applied to anyone other than the parents alone.
I agree that it just gives her more information then she needs. When it's SO's time to have the kids that's what happens anyways. Like I said when they weren't with us it's because the better option was for them to stay with my parents. Getting to play with my niece and nephew was a much better option then having them going to the ER with us.
That's another worry of his
That's another worry of his with grandmother. Like I said it's actually the kids great-grandmother. She been medically compromised for a while but seems to be on the rebound which is great. Honestly he's glad the kids do have family they are close to since his is limited but mom seems to depend too much on grandma. We've had to rush to pick up before because grandma was being taken to the ER. Stuff like that.
BM has it in the agreement that pickups and drop offs are to happen at grandma's. A large part of this is of course she works so that's where the kids go but rarely is pickup done there. During school he was just picking them up at school with BM's 'written' approval. He will currently text BM as soon as he is leaving to return them just so she knows. She has at times used it to ask him to bring them to her home instead which is not an issue for him. Except when she then gets mad over it all. Last drop off he messaged and then went to grandmas who then called BM. Within 5 minutes of the drop off BM was calling demanding to know why he didn't bring them to her house. He calmly told her he was following the (future) order and she had been given an hours warning without replying. She's repeatedly showing that she's looking for something to argue with. Thankfully he's gotten good at replying with simple facts then leaving it be.
" if the children's parents
" if the children's parents or the grandparents can't watch the children then the offer must be made. "
That pretty much means each and every time Dad isn't home and/or with the kids in person himself. Leaving you, the (at this point) Dad's GF with nothing to stop BM from demanding he bring the children home each night before he goes to work. Example, this last summer extended parenting time when you had the kids while Dad went to work just before 9pm and didn't return to early morning.
They way she worded it, she can leave the kids while she works (or just goes away and dumps the kids) because she is leaving them with the great-grandmother (aka a grandparent to the children), but Dad can't. BM knows damn well there is no "grandparent" biologically in the vicinity of Dad to care for the children in event he is not home.
BM is thinking long term on the ROFR and you missed it. About the only time , except for an couple hours here and there during the year this would even kick in is during extreme emergencies (another ER trip which is unpredictable in length) or when Dad has them extended time in the summer...something the kids just got back home from and she didn't handle well.
With BM and Dad living an hour away from each other, a four hour ROFR would be ridiculous. She would no more get there to get them , take them home and then turn around and take them right back if Dad would be gone a whole whopping four-five hours. How silly to make the kids spend four hours in a car because Dad perhaps had a dentist appointment and wanted to stop and buy groceries ...and if she is working herself during that time, who would she send to pick them up? Her half dead grandmother (who she cleverly tried to insert in the agreement)?
Eh, just take the language out. It's impractical under the current situations. There is one in my ODS's order, but that is because ex DIL travels. Travels a lot. Travels for no reason other than she wants to. Spur of the moment 3day to 21day zips out of the country. ODS and ex DIL have one older lady who they both selected and know well who comes and stays at BM's house or GS comes to our area and stays with his Dad, or me, my mother and/or my sister (when ODS is working).
Agreed that it will be left
Agreed that it will be left out. He quickly saw the one-sidedness of it. It's her way of keeping control. Sure if he was gonna be gone for an extended time they should be with her but the way she worded it he doesn't benefit at all. She still gets to withhold them from him because hey they are with grandma. But if he and I decided to go hang out with some friends some evening she gets informed that they will be with x person, most likely my mother. She also then can demand she get them instead and knowing her there'd be some excuse why she keeps them longer. "Oh the car broke or I thought you said Saturday not Friday." She's already shown how good she is at misreading things that go against what she wants.
In the long run it is what's best for the kids. I agree clean cut this is when your in mom's care and this is when your in dad's care is the best. Sure it would be nice if mom put them first and realized maybe it would be better for them to spend some extra time with dad instead of grandma but I don't see that happening any time soon.
I never had ROFR. So, do the
I never had ROFR.
So, do the kids get to go spend the night at grandma & grandpa's house or a cousins house, etc? Say they're with Dad for an extended summer visitation and they want to stay at gma&gpaDH. Does Mom get to veto that?
Sounds like it could get messy.
Of course she wants it, it
Of course she wants it, it benefits HER to word it in those terms.
Its all about overnights Don't ya knoooooowwww keep that money flowing her way.
Gotta remember just because it is IN an order doesn't mean she will follow it. That alone is always a nightmare.
Maybe go back to court and modify for more time with DAD????? That is what I would do.
JMO
Here the amount of over
Here the amount of over nights does not impact child support. It's a set amount depending on how many kids and his average pay. About a 3rd of his check. The only reason she's doing this is to keep the kids from him. She's done this from the very start. She doesn't care and it's all about control. Last summer she was constantly leaving them with grandma. She went as far as leaving them when grandma was sick and contiguous. When grandma let her know that she had contacted their dad to come get them all the sudden she showed back up and got them.
Even if you have one, there's
Even if you have one, there's no guarantee that it would be followed. Dh and bm have one that covers grandparents or new spouse. Dh hasn't had to offer her it since we've been married. She refuses to give it to dh and leaves the kids alone for an extended period of time (well beyond the 4 hours). She denies that there is any need to give fror.
DH has ROFR in his CO, but
DH has ROFR in his CO, but only for overnight periods. Enforcement is the challenge, and there's just not a good way, as far as I can tell.
If this is about maintaining control, this seems like a bad idea to me.
My SO has requested to remove
My SO has requested to remove the ROFR completely. My curiosity was when he and I get married what does that make my parents to the kids. They are the only ones who have watched the kids for the short periods of time we've needed it.
This is about control on her end. She blew up on him when the kids told her about staying with my parents while he took me to the ER. Tried to say that only she had the right to decide who got to watch the kids.
She's controlled and denied his access from day one. Since she's not technically harming the children and they are married he couldnt legally do anything at that time. Now that they are working through the divorce though she has followed the future agreement. She's scream, complained, and attempted to manipulate but when faced with the facts she's followed through. She knows she's stuck. If she doesn't he can use it to help build the case more.
Our state is suppose to consider which parent would help maintain a relationship with the other parent. Now that it's all being 'documented' she can't just refuse him without fear of consequenses. She has no excuse to restrict him from the children when they have a working agreement that will go through the judge soon enough.
If this was about her maximizing time for him (and her) to see the kids then she wouldn't be including 'grandparents'. She refuses to give him the extra weekends while she works and leaves them there. She doesn't see them at all from the time she drops them off Friday night till Monday morning because she works 32 hours in those two days. Grandma and the kids have confirmed this.
BM can't invoke anything if
BM can't invoke anything if the language isn't in the PP/CO.
Whether OP's parents, sister/brothers/aunts/uncles or BFF is biologically related or not , these people will be the children's new extended family regardless of what BM thinks about it.
If the language (which I do believe even if left could have been enlarged to reflect reality prior to signing off the parties signing off on)is taken out BM can't stop Dad from hiring the neighbor teenager from babysitting for six hours on a Friday evening. If SGranny wants to keep the kids overnight to play with stepcousins , nothing BM can do...as it should be.
When Parents divorce they give up the right to solely declaring who is part of their children's families and who is not. What's BM gonna do? Tell the children Dad can't invite OP's parents to a birthday party because they aren't really blood? Or 'nope, stepgranny can't pick-up the kids and go swimming because she's not biologically related'?
I would certainly hope, after this nutty BM's fires burn down a bit, she goes on to assisting in helping build extended family relations and a sense of multi family ties between these children. Not just with OP's family but also if BM ever settles down and finds one Mr. Right, that Dad will also encourage instead of fight additional ties into the children's lives.
These kids have one father and one mother. Nothing is ever going to change that. But why poison and attempt to destroy any extended (even by just marriage) ties and relationships that may be open and willing to these children?
Anyway...I honestly believe BM's true goal in the ROFR and the language she tried to run with had little to do with anything other than control. BM could demand Dad return the children every evening during extended summer parenting time (hey, Dad is gone to work for 10-12 hrs and OP isn't the parent or grandparent). Yet, BM herself goes from Friday evening until Monday morning EOWE not seeing or being available to the very same children. Those aren't the actions of a woman trying to do right and build family in her children's life. No, that pure out control and trying to be in control even during Dad's time.
ROFR is meant to give the opposite parent a chance to spend additional time with their children on a parent/child level. Not to control who gets to babysit them. Not to block other extended relationships.
Unfortunately for BM, once she cheated and tossed her soon to be ex out on his ear, she gave up the right to control every action of every day of her children. They have a father. They have an involved (and attempted to become even more involved) father. She is just going to have to live with the consequences of the choices she made.
Small correction. SO only
Small correction. SO only works 8 hour shifts. Sometimes he'll do a little over time but that's only if I don't work the next day. It's about a 15 minute drive to and from work if traffic is normal.
SO has also done his best to show no ill will towards her partners. Sure in privet we talk but he doesn't say anything negative to the kids.
Her last guy he only had one interaction with. Grandma was in the hospital so boyfriend watched the kids while BM was gone. I was there at that drop off (we had plans after) and helped carry something to the house. He talked with her guy for a bit just letting him know about the kids. I think this was when daughter was on medicine for something so he said about the med being in her bag or something. We left. No hastily on either side.
I'd like to agree with you about family and stuff. My family has done their best to make the kids feel welcome since they know our intent to get married. They treat them the same as they treat my sister's kids.
We are navigating what everyone is called since right now there is no real connection. So just like me all adults are Mr. Or Miss so and so. Kids are who they are.
Now SO, I, and his daughter have had other conversations. She leads them with questions and we do our best. She's old enough to understand it's hazy or atleast will be. I mean she does now know grandma is really great grandma. I don't know how she found it out or if she was told.
I do understand biologically and most likely legal there is no connection. I've also seen that family is what you make of it. My future brother in law has no contact with his "real" grandparents. His dad remarried then divorced so the ones he calls grandparents are his used to be step mom's parents. So there's no connection at all except love. My niece and nephew are being raised as these people are family. Honestly we've always felt family is what you make it. I know the law doesn't see it that way.
That's why he plans to leave out the ROFR period. His time is his time and hers is hers. If she can't or doesn't want to keep the kids then it's up to her to figure that out.