My exhusband threatened to take me to court if I didn't agree with him on the care of our children while I was out of town.

We have joint custody, I have physical custody. His visitation is every other weekend and every Wed. over night. I was going out of town, I asked if he could take the kids while I was away, and he said he would check his calendar and let me know. I asked that he let me know right away since I needed an answer quickly. He said he would get back to me when he saw fit, not in my time frame. (he likes to play games with me, obviously). So, as a back-up, I made other arrangements. When I informed him of the arrangements, he got mad, started to tell me that he could decide while I was gone where the kids stayed and with whom. He called it "right of refusal". I had never heard of this nor was I about to argue with him about something I didn't know anything about.

I called an attorney and they informed me that in order to use this "right of refusal", it needs to be in the divorce agreement, in writing. Is that true? I am tired of my ex always trying to hold these crazy things over my head and constantly threatening me. I am absolutely over it!

Thanks...

I cannot see your divorce or custody agreement or parenting plan, but if it is not written, there is no right of refusal to exercise. If he is mad and takes it to court, you can say that you asked him and he refused to answer in a timely manner, so you made other arrangements to ensure the children were well cared for and they were. He was being an *** and if he persists and wants to push the court, take it to court and show he had the opportunity to help and be a part of the decision-making and chose not to be in a timely manner.

Thank you for your response. So, if it's NOT in writing, and my ex decides that he wants to exercise this right, to say, grab the kids from the care giver that I have provided, he doesn't have the right to do so? I hope it's not confusing. I just want to be absolutely sure. I spoke w/another attorney the other day and he informed me that he, in fact, does have the right to exercise this.

And, yes, he is an ***, always was, always will be.

Thanks again...