Childs Clothes and possessions

[OntarioMomma]

No, not at all. Sounds like Dad has clothes for their child, and possibly has been gifted clothes from family?

That was my impression too, I'd guess some hand me downs from a friend/family member.

[Rioe]

Okay, phew. I just didn't like the sounds of it. This place tends to make me imagine worst case scenarios more than I would like.

Dad responded "don't bother I have all the clothes he will need until he is 4."

[OntarioMomma]

Okay, phew. I just didn't like the sounds of it. This place tends to make me imagine worst case scenarios more than I would like.

Same here.

[Beachnana]

Thanks for all the sound comment and advice. I knew posting on this forum always gives straight advice.

Yes, 4 days is a big step, but as said, he will be fine spending quality time with,Dad who loves him. Dad will have a good reality check coping on his own for, the first time, but will have some family to give him a hand

Its about the child, not the parents. Someone had to take, the first big step to move past the hurt and build a positive parenting relationship for the sake of the child. Its been a year long learning curve and Mom decided she needed to take the big step and extend the olive branch. Hopefully Dad will has also learnt and will take the move forward as well, as opposed to burning the " olive branch" as he has done in the past. One can only try and hope.

Agreements always seem to have that " interpretation element" in them. This is what usually causes the fights between parents. Lawyers love the ambiguity as its money in their pockets. Mom has learnt that in order to avoid long drawn out fights, and lining the pockets of the lawyers decision need to be taken for their son even though it may hurt Mom for a little while. Hopefully Dad will realize this as well.

Have a great Holiday with all your children whether they are close or far away.

[Berner_Faith]

Beachnana... I just have a question for you...

You stated in your first post...

Dad is to have S23 mths for 22-26th, which includes his 2nd birthday and Christmas. This was Moms idea, to avoid unnecessary stress on son with shuffling back and forth and next year she will have son.

Then stated...

This was her idea, to ensure Dad had the full holiday time with Son, rather than 7 am- 7pm as their custody agreements states. Overnights were not addressed in the agreement except no overnights until child reached 2. This was and " olive branch" to move their parenting relationship forward, past the hurt.

So, my question is, is this really an "olive branch" you are extending, or is this something that is already in your order?

You have said that Dad was allowed overnight access once the child turned two, which will be happening this month, so I cam getting the feeling, this is not an olive branch but rather an existing order.

I can understand why Dad is getting uptight, as if he has not had overnight access and is finally started to get that access and then has you trying to tell him how to do things, he wants to be able to do things on his own.

Just know that the child is not yours to "give", from your own words Dad has an access arrangement, including overnight access, which should be starting this month.

You are right, the child will be just fine, the first night may be tough, but then again, it may not be, as it is only for a few nights and I am sure Dad will make sure the child has a lot of fun. Unfortunately, I think it is harder on the parents than it is on the children.

[Beachnana]

No order states no overnights until child reaches 2 and then "visits shall be longer in duration" . No mention of what that means. Open to interpretation. She has taken it to mean Dad has overnights once the child reaches 2. But her lawyer told her it,actually could mean an extra hour to 8 pm. She thought that was not appropriate and wants to move forward.

[Berner_Faith]

That makes no sense... it states no overnight access until the child reaches 2... which means once the child reaches two, overnight visits can begin. Why would that line even be in there, if there was no intention of overnight visits after 2? I think the Mom in this situation is trying to read it so it benefits here and make it seem like she is doing the father a favour.

[Beachnana]

Well that is what the agreement states and no mom is not reading this as doing him A favour. She is merely trying to move the situation forward. Dad has not visited child once this past year. He has taken a 1/3 of the child support to,cover travel costs. All visits that did happened were because she made the plans and made them happen and travelled to his hometown. How would you propose introducing overnights for a 2 year old who last saw his father in September, which wS his choice? This overnight plan was put to the Dad as a way of moving the relationship between parents and child forward. She did not want to start interpreting "longer in Duration". That is how lawyers get rich.

[Beachnana]

If you read the agreement in the order written

The Father shall have a minimum of 5 visits between the present date and the child's second birthday. Following the child's second birthday theFathers visits shall be longer in Duration.

Until the child' second birthday, when the father is exercising his access rights he shall have the child from 7:00am until 7:00pm unless otherwise agreed or if circumstances should dictate otherwise and the child shall spend the night with the Mother.

As I said the usual lawyer get rich agreement. Which was mostly written by the Fathers lawyer.

[Mark1968]

If you read the agreement in the order written

The Father shall have a minimum of 5 visits between the present date and the child's second birthday. Following the child's second birthday theFathers visits shall be longer in Duration.

Until the child' second birthday, when the father is exercising his access rights he shall have the child from 7:00am until 7:00pm unless otherwise agreed or if circumstances should dictate otherwise and the child shall spend the night with the Mother.

As I said the usual lawyer get rich agreement. Which was mostly written by the Fathers lawyer.

I read in another of your posts that the father hasn't seen the child since September, that's 3 months by the time he's due his 4 day visit.

I can't imagine leaving a 2 year old for 4 days with a complete stranger, this is based on your posts of how much time the father has spent with the child in the last two years. As an adults, we may remember someone we've met 4 times during a span of 2 years, that's not the case for a 2 year old.

Young kid thrive on routine and stability, I think a 4 day visit with the father would be very upsetting unless I'm misunderstanding and the child actually has regular contact with the father and his family.

In all your posts you state it's mommy's time now and daddy needs to deal with the kid...paraphrasing here. But it seems like you're desperate for relief and need some alone time thus this "olive branch" you refer to often.

Personally, if my two year old saw their other parent let's say 20 times over the two year period, I would not suddenly send them to spend Christmas and their birthday, a four day event, with that parent so that I can have some alone time. It's too stressful for a child that age.

[Beachnana]

i think you are twisted words here. There has not been any mention of "Mommy time". Berner-Faith did say " Mom needs to take a deep breath and realize it is normal to worry, but know that the child will be just fine with Dad". And I agreed and said she should focus on having a relaxing time herself and not worry.

Dad does Skype with Son a couple of times a week; they have only be separated a year. And she is not sending son to spend time with a stranger so she can have time off she is bringing son to spend time with his Dad. And a two Year old does not know that its Christmas or that he has a Birthday. He only knows he is loved and cared for. At two Christmas and Birthdays are for the adults in his life.
Again i think you have twisted words and inputed information regarding their contact time. The post is about clothes and possessions when visiting. i think comments have got little off topic.