It has been 9 months since the temporary CO was handed down, hopefully it will become permanent later this year. The CO is pretty standard I think, including the 31 consecutive days in summer or two "extended" periods of possession totaling 31 days. BM had until April 1 to state how she wanted to spend her summer time and she handed DH a letter saying something like "I wish to extend my period of possession through summer 2013". Neither DH, myself or the attorney knew what that meant exactly, but the attorney told us "she gets 31 days in July by default, just go with that". DH is very leery of leaving skids with BM for that long, but he's basically gotten over it because there isn't much he can do.

Fast fwd to three weeks ago, BM sent DH a text saying "I think it would be in the best interest of kids if we can agree outside the court order to split summer up into every other week instead of every other month because I don't feel like it is right for kids to be away from you for a whole month".

DH initial reaction was "great, now I don't have to worry about kids being gone for entire month". My reaction was skepticism. Here's why:

Prior to CO, DH allowed kids to be with BM every weekend (they spent most of that time with BM parents), BM had no problem driving 20 minutes to drop kids at church on 3rd Sunday mornings so they can sing in the kids choir. Now that CO is in place, BM told DH "CO doesn't say I have to do that, so I'm not" even though she lives 5 minutes away from the church now. So the kids don't get to participate in choir and every month we have to explain to them why they don't get to sing ("because we can't make BM bring you to church").

At Thanksgiving, BM got DH to split his time because "it was in best interest of kids to see both families during this time".

At Christmas, despite my objection, BM talked DH into splitting his Christmas time in half because "kids should see both families on Christmas eve and Christmas day". I told DH that he was dumb for giving BM time because chances are pretty good she won't return the favor this year.

At Spring Break, BM was adamant that DH have skids ready to go at 6:00pm and not a second later, despite DH request to let him take skids out to dinner first since he would not get home until 5:45pm and wouldn't see kids for whole week. BM told DH "the CO says 6:00pm". Granted it does say that, and DH had no legal argument, but what's 45 minutes to an hour if BM didn't have any plans other than taking skids home to watch tv & play video games? If she had travel plans or something I might understand that, but she didn't.

At Mother's Day, DH realized BM was getting three weekends in a row and asked if he might be able to take kids to dinner, again because DH normally wouldn't be home until 5:45pm, but the weather was really bad and he knew he wouldn't even make it home in time to see kids at all and BM says to DH "CO says 6:00pm, I will be there at 6:00pm". Again, BM is right, what can DH really do? He called kids during his drive home, said his goodbyes and then came home upset about it.

Now, several weeks after BM let us know she wanted all of July, BM has decided she wants to "go outside of the court order and basically take half of the summer because it would be in best interest of kids".

Is it just me, or does it appear that BM finds it "in best interest of kids" when she wants to go outside of CO to steal time (days) from DH, but believes CO is 100% binding if DH requests to have even 45-60 minutes of her time.

I told DH all of this and he acted as if I made it up, so he stalled and hasn't given BM an answer. The other day I told him that he has two options, both to be completed by text message so we will at least have some form of record:

1. He can send BM a text and say "I think it is best if we stick to what BM has already requested".

2. He can text BM and let her know he is willing to allow her to change her summer schedule by splitting her time into two segments if she chooses, but still within the CO.

I let him know those are his only options and he can either choose to deal with her, or he can deal with me. DH says that he thinks I am "being mean/harsh" because I don't like BM or the things that she does. He claims he just wants to be sure that he doesn't come across as "unwilling to work with BM". The way I see it, if BM has a problem, she can take it to the judge. In my opinion, BM is showing herself unwilling in her refusal to give DH a bit of wiggle room. BM doesn't request wiggle room, her requests are like earthquakes compared to DH requests.