Grandparents' rights over dad's

[BeenThereTwice]

Key point for me that if one parent want/can now to have child more with him both parents should work towards it and do not talk that bullshit about 40% or 39%

I agree with this completely.

However, IMHO it's NOT enough that the parent wants, or can now support, having the child with him more. It also matters WHY the parent wants to make this change at this time. If it's primarily to further build a parental relationship.. then great.. I'm all for it.. provided that it's real. But not all parents are so idealistic, and not all are thinking of their kids FIRST. Some want the change PRIMARILY for the change in CS that will flow from it, and intend to make no better use of the increased time with the child than they make of the time they already have. And if that's the case.. what's the real benefit to the child of making the change?

[standing on the sidelines]

I agree with this completely.

However, IMHO it's NOT enough that the parent wants, or can now support, having the child with him more. It also matters WHY the parent wants to make this change at this time. If it's primarily to further build a parental relationship.. then great.. I'm all for it.. provided that it's real. But not all parents are so idealistic, and not all are thinking of their kids FIRST. Some want the change PRIMARILY for the change in CS that will flow from it, and intend to make no better use of the increased time with the child than they make of the time they already have. And if that's the case.. what's the real benefit to the child of making the change?

I agree with you, the one thing that I picked out was everything was okay until the girlfriend asked him to see where the kids spend the most time. I am sure that he already knew that the kids were at the grandparents when she was working and he was fine fine with it or he would have done something sooner. Three years is a long time to act on it.

[billm]

Kids belong with their parents, not their grandparents.

The father wanted 50/50 since 2008 - mother denied it even though she does not take care of the children during a significant portion of her time.

The children spend a significant time at the grandparents, at the expense (time and money) of the father.

The kids now live in 3 homes - how many homes would you like to live in?

The children already live with their dad 1/3 of the time, he is not suddenly wanting to see them, he wants to raise his kids equally with the mother.

If he also wants a reduction in CS, it is more than reasonable that he considers that and looks forward to that. Wanting to pay less CS and raise your own kids is the right thing.

Status quo is BS - raise the children in 2 homes, not 3 - totally crazy that he has to fight for this. The mother should be ashamed of herself for stealing the kids away from their father while she is not taking care of them.

[BeenThereTwice]

Perhaps you know OP better than I do. Until OP demonstrates otherwise, I stick by my opinions.

[neil50]

I agree with you, it would seem what might be best for the kids (who were not responsible for being in this position) is to be ignored for selfish reasons. I certainly hope any judge would see right through this.

[Nationcaps]

Let me provide some further details. When we separated, we sought the opinion of a child psychologist who recommended that primary residence with the mom. He also recommended revisiting the 50-50 custody after the age of seven. So, at the age of seven, I asked mom to revisit custody and she refused. So here we are, at the age of eight, trying to now establish 50-50 custody. Also, primary custody with mom does not mean bouncing the child between grandparents and mom's. In my view, the stability of one week with his dad, and one week with his mom/grandparents is what I am seeking.

[Nationcaps]

As well, I'm the one that has been taking the child for swimming lessons for the last three years. I also pay for them even though they are likely section 7 expenses. But I know it would be a battle to get the money back and I think it's more important for the lessons, so I pay them. Same thing for skiing lessons, March break camps etc.
I've been in my child life every step of the way.. school events, recitals, birthday parties.. you name it, I'm there.
I'm just trying to bring some stability to my child's life. Who says that mom has more of a right to raise my child then I?

[Mess]

BeenThereTwice says that, but no one else agrees with them.

[billm]

BeenThereTwice says that, but no one else agrees with them.

So does your ex, but she's a bad mother so its not important what see thinks.

[WorkingDAD]

Custody or Parenting Time ?

As well, I'm the one that has been taking the child for swimming lessons for the last three years. I also pay for them even though they are likely section 7 expenses. But I know it would be a battle to get the money back and I think it's more important for the lessons, so I pay them. Same thing for skiing lessons, March break camps etc.
I've been in my child life every step of the way.. school events, recitals, birthday parties.. you name it, I'm there.
I'm just trying to bring some stability to my child's life. Who says that mom has more of a right to raise my child then I?

Can you give some more clarity please...
I got impression that you still talking about 50/50 Parenting Time (access) not custody. Am I right?

custody - decision making.
parenting time (access) - with whom child lives and how much

that probably was not the best choice to agree for review when child is 7 but again we do not know all details and it does not really matter now...

so what exactly you try to get mom to agree ?

[Mess]

So does your ex, but she's a bad mother so its not important what see thinks.

My ex is a decent mother, and she believes as strongly as I do that the kids need us both equally. About the only thing we ever agree on is the kids' needs.

[HammerDad]

However, OP posted here for advice on how to reduce the time the kids spend with grandparents, and increase the time spent with him.

Which, as a parent, who should be considered a primary caregiver vs grandparents who would a secondary caregiver.

However, OP is under the VERY mistaken belief that grandparents and/or fathers have RIGHTS to the kids.

Right on the first part, wrong under the second. The Family Law Act and the Divorce Act provide for rights of parents to their children. Parent also have certain obligations to their children. You are mistaken if you don't believe it is a parents right to parent. The child have certain rights as well, but they are limited.

Also, how about I change "father" with "mother" and where do you stand there? If you wanted to be gender neutral, instead of showing your biase, you would have said "grandparents" and "parents" have no rights, vs being gender specific. And even then you'd still be wrong about the parents having no rights........

The very TITLE of the thread shows that. In fact, NEITHER the father NOR the gransparents have these "rights". It's the KIDS that have the rights, not the adults.

Actually, children have very little "rights" in divorce.

For sure, the kids have the RIGHT to see more of their father.

No, the correct way of describing this is, it is in the children's best interests to maximize contact between each parent and that parents should have priority over 3rd party caregivers.

But the kids also have a RIGHT not to see their stable routine pattern of life to be turned upside down by a father who decides now, some YEARS after this child care pattern was established, with his apparent consent. If this was SO UN-important for the last 3 years.. then WHY so important today.

It takes time to show a pattern. If dad were to go into court 2-3 years ago and say that his ex was giving the kids to his parents, without being able to show that this is a pattern, not an anomally, he would have his case thrown out. First, because I am sure mom would change up her schedule to avoid any change. But now Dad is able to show to the courts that, for 3 years, his children have been cared for by 3rd party caregivers instead of him, who has the capacity to do so instead.

Not once here did I see that OP's concern is primarily for his kids. Not once has he made a coherrent arguement suggesting that its best for the kids to change the status quo. I see no commentary on how the kids will be delivered to/from school with this change. I see no commentary that speaks to how close fathers relationship is with kids, compared to mothers or grandparents.

Aside from the limited commentary provided by the OP, and the relatively little need to show more explanation to strangers who have no clue about this man's relationship with the kids, I can't see how you've been able to jump to the conclusion that his relationship is anything but that of a normal parent who cares for their children.

What I DO see is a mother doing her best to earn an income, as HIGH as she can get it, to support her kids. And I see grandparents who stepped into the gap for YEARS now to help take care of their grandchild. Where was father years ago when this was needed in the first place.

I'd roll my eyes here aside from the fact that you MAY be right. But then again, you could be wrong. We don't know the history. Dad has been tracking the time as I explained in the beginning to be able to show a pattern. Because without this pattern, he has no argument to request the change.

So.. now father has a brilliant idea. well.. not NOW. he actually had the brilliant idea some years ago.. but sat on it until now. He wants the kids with him more.

Again, [insert] the need for proof here [/insert]. From what I read, he has pushed for more time from before. But, and I am going to be repetitive here, needed proof to solidify his case. Yeah, 2 years is a lot.....but it is also a lot of evidence.

Do you really think it's so easy?

Does anyone think it's just a matter now for father to say to the judge I want more time? The judge isn't stupid. What would YOU think if YOU were the judge? Do you not think the judghe is smart enough to think "what about school pick up/delivery?", "how much travel time imposed on kids", "how close has father bneen in last three years with the ABUNDANT TIME he already has with the kids", "how close is his relationship to kids". Do you think the judge could reasonably ask mother how she feels about this change? or ask the grandparents how they feel about the change?

IMHO OP is considering this change, at this point in time, SOLELY because he wants to lower his CS payments, and without ANY consoderation for what's best for the kids.

All I have said.. is that if that's how the judge see's it.. and if no coherrent arguement can be made why this change is BETTER for the kids.. then OP WILL LOSE at court.

You are using your, not so unbiased opinion, to make a determination that the OP wants are strictly monetary. Luckily for him and everyone here, you are not a judge, so your opinion is moot.

You think the OP will lose in court because you think the OP is all about the money. But it doesn't matter what you think in the end. All that matters is what is in the best interests of the children. And if the OP can prove that it is in the best interests of the children to make such change a court will order it.

[Nationcaps]

HammerDad and all.. thank you very much for your input. Much appreciated and very helpful. We are heading into mediation very shortly and I will let everyone know what happens.

[billm]

My ex is a decent mother, and she believes as strongly as I do that the kids need us both equally. About the only thing we ever agree on is the kids' needs.

I was referring to the OP's ex, not yours.