i don't have the right (or the responsibility)
Ok - I'm pretty sure most people here will agree with me on this (stepparents, bio parents and kids alike)
I am pretty sure that I don't have the legal right to take custody of my step-kids without some kind of written or other documented consent when neither bio parent is present.
This is particularly important to me to understand where I stand because the bio mom is still out for blood - she has filed police reports against bio-dad trying to (unsuccessfully) claim he has kid-napped his kids or neglected them or what-have-you (unsuccessful attempts because the kids are old enough to speak up for themselves and say, "um, are you crazy, mom?" right in front of the cops, so...you'd think she'd stop just due to the level of public humiliation and embarrassment but she's "different")
Example:
all of us are attending the same event but separately: me, my husband, our 2 kids. It's not our week with the SS. But he is at same even with his mom, her BF and BF's kids. Let's just say its the country carnival.
Then my husband takes our baby home (she's getting cranky and over-stimulated and needs nap) but I stay there with our son. The bio-mom then decides its time for her family to go -- but SS wants to stay. He tells mom (I'm assuming) somthing like: he'll hang with me and leave with me (go to our house and we'll drop him back off later). The bio-mom, always being okay with anything that is CONVENIENT for her in the moment, says, "ok". and he comes ruinning over to me.
I feel that I'm right (and WAY BETTER OFF) saying, "no, I'm sorry, but you need to go with your mom because you're dad's not here and your mom didn't dicuss this with him and I don't have permission to take custody of you" --- also, I don't really want to take custody of him in these situations.
Am I wrong to feel that - after my husband went and spent 20+K in legal fees to get half-custody (his money - not mine - we our money separate, except for joint expenses), that HE SHOULD BE THE ONE SPENDING TIME WITH HIS SON? He didn't pay all that money for ME to spend time with SS (cause if he did, I would've told him to save it).
So to cover my butt (I'm NOT getting caught in one of bio-moms wicked web-like traps) and to ensure that my husband gets what he paid for, I say "no".
I can tell bio-mom gets all annoyed with this and will try to insinuate that we "don't want SS around" - she's the only one doing anything for him (nevermind the $3000 she spent on MMA lessons ---- MMA? Really? Sounds to me like someone's looking for her next man at the MMA / UFC gym).
Legally - am I correct?
I know responsibility-wise, I am. SS should be there when dad is there too (he has ZERO interest in his half-siblings so that is NOT a reason for him to be around when dad isn't around -- so don't tell me that!!!)
Count me in the latter if it
Count me in the latter if it suits you.
...oh... guess that's just
...oh... guess that's just your tag line?
sorry!
thanks. that's what i put in
thanks.
that's what i put in the post.
i said "no" (to SS).
my issue is that this should not be occurring in teh first place --- its the bio mom creating and awkward situation by not doing what she should and say, "no, its not your dad's week and i cannot tell your stepmom to take responsibility for you. he has to be here".
she should be saying that (he's not 3 years old). he is capable of understanding.
that's more my point.
she's is such a stickler for following the LETTER if the law (the custody agreement) 99.99999999% of the time, but when it's CONVENIENT for her, all bets are off.
I *totally* get what you
I *totally* get what you mean.
BM and I can have pleasant conversations and she doesn't seem like a psycho. BUT during parenting plan re-negotiations with DH she has proposed not allowing any non-bio parents to take care of the skids and had a "for example" a stepmother or stepgrandmother.
I'm not sure if it's happened recently but the skids used to get quizzed about their time here. I don't want them or me to be "in trouble" even tho it sucks to not just do things. I'm very careful too.
If you have to be that careful maybe talk to DH about how they interpret the CO and how you need it protect yourself and SS.
Yes, I agree with you. One
Yes, I agree with you.
One thing I am pretty happy about is that my husband supports me. He has been burned so many times by his ex that he would never argue with me that I'm being too by-the-book and over-thinking.
She has knocked one of his teeth out (this is pre-divorce; his response was to simply leave the house --- but he should've went to the ER and also called the police), she has cut-up and burned his stuff AND her kids stuff, uses profane names for any/everyone, criticizes her kids for things that are medical problems (and this is a lady whose job is to work with disabled kids!!!!!!!), has called me an extremely derogatory word that went out of style like in the 1960's (I won't bother identifying it) and then the very next day she texted to ask me if I needed any old baby stuff that she had saved in case she had another kid one day (don't worry - i have NEVER texted her, called her or responded to her in any way - it all goes through him), need i go on?
"psycho" is an understatement.
#glenn close/fatal attraction... #single white female.... #monster....
My name was previously listed
My name was previously listed specifically on DH's parenting plan that I was not allowed to look after SD until after 8 months of marriage to DH (a clause BM insisted on and I was furious about when I found out as I had not been informed about it prior to that). We had an incident where cops were called over BM antics and I bought this clause up with the cop. He told me that as long as my husband approved it, as a parent of SD, that the parenting plan had no legal basis, unless it could be proved that I was not suitable to look after a child (criminal record etc..). I imagine though that it could have been brought up in a custody hearing as being in contempt of the court order, not sure if a judge would have done anything about it though.
OP, I completely agree with you though and would have done the same thing saying no to the SS, you don't owe anyone any favors especially when you are having a family day out with your own kids.
So true. I don't typically
So true.
I don't typically stick around any place where she is. In this case the event was quite large and we did not spot each other more than the once and went in different directions.
SS came running up to me later to say he had the "ok" to stay and leave with me (but no one asked for my ok...). Again, I did say, "no. you came with your mom so you need to leave with her. sorry". i told him to call his dad later if he wanted to come over and dad and BM could discuss/approve.
Of course, you could take
Of course, you could take cranky baby home (for example) and Dad stays with his son.
It sounds to me that you are
It sounds to me that you are creating this monster. Fine, if you do not want to watch the Skid, then say so without turning it into a big hairy deal. I would suggest that you remember that SS is older sib to your own kids with DH. Why would BM care if the kid wants to stay with his SM and younger sib and be dropped off later whether his dad is there or not? It sounds to me that she doesn't care ... but you do.
A kid can be with a Sparent and a CO has absolutely nothing to to with it. The CO police are not standing there ticking all of the CO boxes around BM's time Vs BioDad's time.
Why create an unneccessary shit storm?