ALWAYS THE VICTIM...

Please refer to Section 2, Subsection E of the Child Visitation Agreement created by me and my counsel prior to my child custody court date: During the odd years, Thanksgiving beginning no later than one day after the Thanksgiving school break until the following Sunday at 4:00pm In easy to understand terms this means that Aspen's mother may have Aspen visit her for Thanksgiving in this year 2007 from Thursday November 22nd to Sunday November 25th 4pm. When the judge awarded me full custody on December 11th 2006 he refused to accept this Child Visitation Agreement which I presented him. Instead he left the definition of 'reasonable visitation' up to me seeing that Aspen's mother was not present in court on that day to state what she felt was 'reasonable visitation'. Having been given the ability to define 'reasonable visitation' as I saw fit (i.e. anytime the mother wants to travel to the child's area of residence whereupon it does not conflict with the child's schooling, for example) I restated that I was comfortable with all the provisions layed out in the agreement and saw no need to make the provisions any less liberal. Well, the Thanksgiving break of the odd year 2007 is soon to be upon us. And although Aspen's mother is months overdue in child support she has inquired if it is okay that Aspen's return flight be, rather than 'the following Sunday at 4:00pm' (Sunday Nov 25th, 2007), she return at 8pm the following day (Monday Nov 26th, 2007) which would have her miss a day of school and be somewhat unrested for school on Tuesday Nov 27th, 2007. Seeing that I had already volunteered to take Aspen to the airport on Tuesday Nov 20th (two days earlier than I defined in the Child Visitation Agreement 'beginning no later than one day after the Thanksgiving school break') I respectfully expressed my discontent with the idea of such a late return date and time. I found myself with little sympathy for the thousand or so dollars such a return date might save Aspen's mother's new husband. After all, it was they who decided she should move 3000 miles away from her children... not me. Furthermore, I was already conceding that Aspen would not have to fly with an adult blood relative before the age of 12 (as stated in Section 4). I had agreed that I would be okay with Aspen flying alone as long as it was a direct flight, hence, saving them the cost of yet another round trip ticket. Her response to my unwillingness to accept this 3rd concession was to try to convince me that A- I myself had kept Aspen out of school a day for travel to Colorado at some point over 2.5 years ago (that would be kindergarten. I do not think this is accurate but will look into that) B- That a time in Spring 2006 when she took Aspen out of school - and out of state - without consulting nor notifying me was only for 1/2 a day (in fact it was for 1 and 1/2 days - I have it documented as does the school) and... C- That I was denying her visitation based on the current status of her support payments (which is not legally permissible). In fact a thinking person would realize that I am not denying her visitation at all. I am merely wanting to keep it within the allotted school break periods. I believe a judge shouldn't have a problem with that, particularly when such guidelines are clearly stipulated in the aforementioned Child Visitation Agreement. I wonder if the sun will ever rise on a day when Aspen's mother sees the undesired predicaments in which she finds herself as a result of her selfish ill advised actions and irrational hysterical rants rather than unfair hurdles that life has thrown at her. May I remind you that she still makes every effort to blame her son for his lack of interest in having a relationship with her. Yeah... that wouldn't be the result of anything she did would it? like... having an affair on his beloved stepdad then moving 3000 miles away without him and promptly starting a new family and making no effort to support him financially in her absence? No... her son is way out of line.