My daughter...... question
Find a Conversation
My daughter...... question
| Mon, 05-23-2005 - 2:59pm |
The kids were with XH this weekend.
I just heard that there is a possibility that OW is taking my 17 month old for swimming lessons. They did NOT ask me......
I would not let anyone take my babygirl for swimming lessons except me. Honestly, that is my biggest fear and she is just too young.
I have sole custody and Im not sure if that makes a difference, I guess I feel like I should have been asked.
What do you guys think?


Generally I'd say when your ex has parenting time, decisions like that are up to him. As long as he pays for it and it happens when he has dd, then there should not be an issue. However, I am not sure what happens if you have sole legal. I know you have the right to make all important decisions on your own, and my gut says this falls under an extra curricular activity. I personally don't feel that age is too young to take swimming lessons, I took my dd at 2 months. You should be able to find out information on the class, such as whether a parent or substitute will be in the pool at all times, whether the instructor is licensed, etc. The question may become whether this is something you really want to make a big deal of, and how much you think it will cost you to go to court to stop it (unless your agreement says that your ex is prohibited from involving the children in such activities on his parenting time).
agreed, I would never take this to court. I guess I want it known that decisions like that should be run by me, atleast.
I don't want to make a huge deal out of it. I do think my ex should ask me about this stuff. Something happened when my DS was little that creates this fear of my children and water. I have to be with them when they are swimming..... sort of an overprotective thing.
Do you really think that? Sole legal should refer to major decisions, like schooling, medical care and things like that. If he wanted to enroll the child in gymnastics and it was to occur solely on his court ordered visitation time, do you think the CP could intervene to stop it? What about teaching her tumbling and how to do cartwheels in their own home? What if he just wants to take the children swimming for the day? How is a swimming class any different than just going swimming every other weekend? Where would you then say the courts draw the line on the CP dictating what the NCP can and can't do?
there's no way i would let that go. my ex and i are "civil" only and he knows that there is no way he could take either of my sons 8 & 10 for any kind of lesson without running it by me first -- i'm reasonable -- i'm not going to say no if it's reasonable.
taking your 17 month old for swimming lessons without telling you is entirely out of line. AND, i wouldn't agree to it if asked. your 17 month old feels safest with you, right? 17 months is too young for you not to be there.
I know cl-butterfly has issues with the OW, but seriously, do you really think this child is in danger, and that no other adult is capable enough to go swimming with the child other than the mother? No other adult is capable enough? These people are the child's father and the father's gf. The father is a PARENT. I can see why emotions would get involved about the OW, but the father is certainly capable of making decisions like this. A child can go swimming without mom there, having a parent or someone who has taken on a parent role swimming with the child is not abuse or neglect or unreasonable IMHO. Mom's can end up as NCP's too, good mom's can. Can you imagine being told that you or your SO could not take your very own child swimming? I took my dd to swimming lessons when she was very young, and it wasn't until age 3 or 4 that they would be in the pool with just an instructor, there has to be an adult with the child. I have never heard any post from cl-butterfly that the OW is incompetant or a danger to the children. I highly doubt she is so incapable that in a pool full of other parents and children, and an instructor, the child would not be perfectly safe. To me, it sounds safer than her just taking the child for a day of swimming. I can't imagine a court in the world saying a NCP and his/her SO can't go swimming with the children. I agree that out of respect it would be nice if they had talked to her first, of course. But even given that they didn't, you can take away a NCP's right to see their children whenever they want, you can take away their decision making abilities when it comes to education and medical treatment, I really don't think you can (or should) take away their right to go swimming or teach the child how to swim. Should we be asking for evidence you are a CP at the gate of every swim park, or a note from the CP giving permission to swim with the child? And then NCP's will not be allowed to use their back yard pools if their children are visiting? Or heaven forbid a neighbor or a friend took the child in the pool, that would be grounds for banning all visitation then, right?
Edited 5/23/2005 10:16 pm ET ET by firstamendment