First right of refusal. Does it really work?

[WorkingDAD]

Hi All

I have a question about first right of refusal clause.

My understanding about what is it as follow:

if you can not take care of child in that time you have to offer it other parent before considering anyone else.

but here is some questions what I would really appreciated to hear from people who went through this.

1. Does it really work. How you really can enforce it?

2. Does "anyone else" include immediate family members who live with you? Like spouse for example...

3. What amount of time you would consider reasonable that this clause should be in effect? Some people say 4 some 8 hours. Without hours it basically said if you need to step out in store to by groceries you can not leave child with anyone and have to call other parent...

Thank you

[Tayken]

Gary has the best article I have found on the topic of FRoR.

Your Social Worker - Gary Direnfeld, MSW, RSW

[WorkingDAD]

Thank you, Taken
Nice article - short and to the point

my case is clear candidate of

This matter also rears its ugly head when one or other parent has a new partner that the other parent does not accept.

what I understand from article nothing is going to work before

Typically the best solution is for both parents to address their respective issues, whether it is unresolved anger at their former partner or jealousy that a new person may enjoy a relationship with the child. It may well be that one or both parents have to face their own insecurities that have little to do with the other parent specifically. Counselling is thus indicated.

but it's not easy to convince person to go to counseling when she think that she is 100% OK and always can tell I do not have money for that.

But still I think it better to have it than do not have it at all. And that case you posted before in some thread actually touch FRoR topic too.

[Gary M]

I have seen this clause completely ignored by one party (left kids home alone, sent them to boyfriend's place) vice letting Dad look after them and nothing, nothing, nothing, has ever been done about it - despite irrefutable proof that Mom was working 12 hours and leaving kids anywhere but Dads (SA stipulates that other parent gets FRoR in any case requiring 3 hours or more of care).

So much for the law being applied, at least in this case. Of course, I wonder what would happen if DAD left a 5 year old home alone (then with 7 and 10 year old sisters after school) for 12 hours, or dropped them off with Miss Treat of the Week during work hours instead of letting Mom look after them. Methinks the 3 hour clause might just be a tad more rigorously enforced.

Wait, the law WAS applied once in this case: DAD was arrested for and charged with unlawful entry when he broke into Mom's place to retreive 5 year old daughter who was left there ALONE... Dad pleaded no contest, accepted a peace bond, now has a record. As for Mom, she's still doing the same ol' thing.

But, of course, justice is blind and family law isn't skewed in anybody's favour...

Cheers!

Gary

P.S. Not my case, but my best bud's.

[WorkingDAD]

I have seen this clause completely ignored by one party (left kids home alone, sent them to boyfriend's place) vice letting Dad look after them and nothing, nothing, nothing, has ever been done about it - despite irrefutable proof that Mom was working 12 hours and leaving kids anywhere but Dads (SA stipulates that other parent gets FRoR in any case requiring 3 hours or more of care).

So much for the law being applied, at least in this case. Of course, I wonder what would happen if DAD left a 5 year old home alone (then with 7 and 10 year old sisters after school) for 12 hours, or dropped them off with Miss Treat of the Week during work hours instead of letting Mom look after them. Methinks the 3 hour clause might just be a tad more rigorously enforced.

Wait, the law WAS applied once in this case: DAD was arrested for and charged with unlawful entry when he broke into Mom's place to retreive 5 year old daughter who was left there ALONE... Dad pleaded no contest, accepted a peace bond, now has a record. As for Mom, she's still doing the same ol' thing.

But, of course, justice is blind and family law isn't skewed in anybody's favour...

Cheers!

Gary

P.S. Not my case, but my best bud's.

You Gary always so "inspirational" ... At least for me ) I have atrial on one month and I am completely lost... Today had TMC and have a feeling that I have no idea how trial can be in one month but nobody exchanged anything yet...

Sometimes I want just run somewhere so nobody will find me... Ever...

[Tayken]

I have seen this clause completely ignored by one party (left kids home alone, sent them to boyfriend's place) vice letting Dad look after them and nothing, nothing, nothing, has ever been done about it - despite irrefutable proof that Mom was working 12 hours and leaving kids anywhere but Dads (SA stipulates that other parent gets FRoR in any case requiring 3 hours or more of care).

So much for the law being applied, at least in this case. Of course, I wonder what would happen if DAD left a 5 year old home alone (then with 7 and 10 year old sisters after school) for 12 hours, or dropped them off with Miss Treat of the Week during work hours instead of letting Mom look after them. Methinks the 3 hour clause might just be a tad more rigorously enforced.

Wait, the law WAS applied once in this case: DAD was arrested for and charged with unlawful entry when he broke into Mom's place to retreive 5 year old daughter who was left there ALONE... Dad pleaded no contest, accepted a peace bond, now has a record. As for Mom, she's still doing the same ol' thing.

But, of course, justice is blind and family law isn't skewed in anybody's favour...

Cheers!

Gary

P.S. Not my case, but my best bud's.

Hi Gary,

Your buddy can attempt a contempt motion but, the costs are high as they always require questioning and all the other icing on that cake. You are right that FRoR is not worth the paper it is written on. Unless the caregiver chosen is not appropriate. (Say a drug addict, criminal etc...)

A much better clause to seek is a police clearance (Vulnerable Records Search) for any and all proposed caregivers be provided to the other party. This tends to be a much better control point on BOTH parties from pulling these stunts. Also, it is a much easier action to contempt and easier to gather evidence on versus having to get a PI involved.

The order should read:

Vulnerable Records Checks are to be obtained for any and all proposed caregivers.

The keyword is "proposed" here. Not "one I hired and didn't tell you about" or "the kid across the street" etc...

Good luck!

[Gary M]

Hi Gary,

Your buddy can attempt a contempt motion

He did, and Mom got a very stern talking to from the Judge... I think Her Honour may have even wagged her finger - didn't change anything.

It's moot now, as this was years ago and all 3 girls are old enough to be left alone, or to wander over to Dad's place after school, which is what they do.

In the end, nobody died, the girls are safe, and they love him for not being an asshole.

The lesson, as you mention, is that FRoR (and many other clauses) aren't worth the paper and ink, it seems - nobody wants to get involved, so blowing off an SA or Order or whatever is easy-breezy.

Cheers!

Gary

[Tayken]

He did, and Mom got a very stern talking to from the Judge... I think Her Honour may have even wagged her finger - didn't change anything.

It's moot now, as this was years ago and all 3 girls are old enough to be left alone, or to wander over to Dad's place after school, which is what they do.

In the end, nobody died, the girls are safe, and they love him for not being an asshole.

The lesson, as you mention, is that FRoR (and many other clauses) aren't worth the paper and ink, it seems - nobody wants to get involved, so blowing off an SA or Order or whatever is easy-breezy.

Cheers!

Gary

That is a shame to hear really. Although the behaviour pattern stopped which is good. Often judges are too reluctant to move on contempt when they should. It is a shame that people disrespect court orders.

[wretchedotis]

It only works if you two can play nice.

I suggest you throw it in there, and take advantage of it yourself by using mom as babysitter when needed. To hell with what MOM does. You do it because you believe is best. Maybe in 5-10 years MOM will calm down and use it too. Until then, its in there and is one less thing to try and add later.

[WorkingDAD]

It only works if you two can play nice.

I suggest you throw it in there, and take advantage of it yourself by using mom as babysitter when needed. To hell with what MOM does. You do it because you believe is best. Maybe in 5-10 years MOM will calm down and use it too. Until then, its in there and is one less thing to try and add later.

well it not there yet...
they did not sign offer to settle...
that why I am asking actually ... how specific that should be and especially about immediate family...

anyway that you for input. I think I will add at least 4 hours

[winterwolf7]

My friend has FRoR for overnights, which seems reasonable and unlikely to be invoked often, but in theory has the same shortcoming as any FRoR... impossible to enforce among other things.

[Rioe]

Well, if your ex doesn't make the offer and finds alternate care, and you find out about it, it might fall under denial of access. So after a few recorded instances, you could take it to court. I suppose it's the finding out part that's hard, although the children might mention something.

[Tayken]

Well, if your ex doesn't make the offer and finds alternate care, and you find out about it, it might fall under denial of access. So after a few recorded instances, you could take it to court. I suppose it's the finding out part that's hard, although the children might mention something.

The only time I have ever seen this done is when someone had the money to have a PI on the other parent and had solid 3rd party expert witness to provide the evidence. It was repeated and tracked to 30% of the time with the other parent and it caught the judge's attention and was addressed.

I only caught a part of the motion so I didn't grab the case file number to look it up later to see what really was going on fully.