uBPDew refusing to cooperate on camp - how can I use this against her?

[calidad]

Background: My uBPDew tried a moveaway and I blocked it. We were on a temporary custody schedule that gave her 70% custodial time. When she told me she was moving in two weeks I immediately restored our court ordered 50/50 custody (a 2-2-5-5). Her father who is very wealthy immediately stepped in when she refused to speak to me directly.

So I have been going back and forth with him. He says if I go to a 7-7 schedule, she would pay for camp each alternating week. I told him no dice since the court order is a 2-2-5-5. They then said they would refuse to split costs of a camp and they would enroll on days when she has them and I am required to enroll on days when I have them. This makes no sense so I countered and asked them to provide a rationale as to why that is in the boys best interest. I proposed an alternative in that we are each responsible for a week of camp in alternating weeks - or we agree on the camp together and pay our proportional amounts. These two options obviously are better for the kids since they start and end each week at the same camp and it's not so chaotic.

They refuse to answer me and I've asked 3 times to give me a reason why a split week camp is in they kids' best interest.

I would love to hear from a lawyer or someone with experience in California divorce. How can I use this to my advantage? It's pretty obviously they are just trying to be difficult because she didn't get what she wants. She knows it costs more to pay for partial weeks on a day rate at camp and she also knows I have limited resources so I suspect she's trying to drain my resources before we go to court.

Thoughts?

[ForeverDad]

Well, I don't live anywhere near but here's a couple things I feel compelled to share.

Don't let others make their problems your problems.  A long time ago when I was younger I worked as a lobby receptionist at a large hotel.  Passersby would come in to take a look around.  Sometimes people would come in and try to guilt me into letting them use a restroom.  Sometimes even with kids hopping around desperate for, um, relief.  I said the bathrooms were in the rooms.  Sometimes they said, "Then where do you go?"  And I replied, ":)ownstairs, in the basement, in a locked area.  Please, there are restaurants across the street and down the block."  Firm boundaries... .and redirection.

You did well to default to the order.  Let it be a support for you, lean on it, well, especially when it works out in your favor.   Don't let them catch you off guard and guilt or pressure your firm (but reasonable) boundaries.

I have a history of confrontations at exchanges, not me of course, my ex.  So when my latest order said summer would remain equal time with the 2-2-5-5 schedule I wanted to object that it would be easier for 7-7.  My lawyer nixed that, he said, "Do you want the court to think that you're okay with ex having longer visits with your son?  After all we did to document her parenting issues and the magistrate actually wrote about her 'disparagement' of you?"

So you did well to stick to the order.  While you don't have to always do it, there will always be exceptions in life, but understand well that the more exceptions you allow - or enable - the more pressure there will be for more and more.

[catnap]

avvo.com  You an ask free legal questions that are answered by attorneys in your state. 

[Thunderstruck]

Unfortunately I don't have good advice for you. We had a bad experience with daycare. We also have the 2-2-5 schedule and were paying for the entire week and wanted SD10 to attend full-time. uBPDbm refused to send SD10 to daycare on her days and instead sent her home alone on the bus. SD10 would be alone for sometimes as much as 6 hours. We tried sending uBPDbm numerous messages to discuss the issue, and she ignored them all.

We went to court and asked the judge to have SD10 attend daycare full time so she isn't home alone. Judge basically said "You can do whatever you want on your time, mom can do whatever she wants on her time" and that was it. Waste of money and the ruling wasn't in SD10s best interest.