I have been pondering this question a lot lately. The courts claim that everything they do is in the child's "best interest", not the mother's or the father's. The courts claim that they are not biased, but I see a different story. Because of the way the contempt and modification hearing went down in May, BM is now convinced that she can do whatever she wants and it's ok. DH emailed her to ask if we can transfer the booster seat that she says she has into his Dad's car if we pick SS up that way. First of all, she didn't even answer the question, she just said "If you're talking about this weekend (the scheduled visit) I told you several times that he's not coming". She also said that she hasn't made copies of the clinical tests that were done on SS back in mid-August, and DH does share legal custody and the arbitrator did tell her to share information, even though he wouldn't find her in contempt for not sharing info. It's like DH has no real idea about SS's life.

Now knowing that she is STILL trying to put her foot down about picking SS up, we are not looking forward to Friday, at all. We've got errands to run, and all I can imagine is this drawn out scene where we have to wait for the local cops to come to her house (if they even do) and this huge fight ensuing. We will be pissed because it's more stress and wastes that we really don't need, as frazzled and exhausted enough as we are. And what if she still digs her heels in and refuses to let SS go with us, what will happen then? I can't imagine the cops physically forcing SS to the car, and we wouldn't want to do that anyway. Will we have wasted a harrowing trip out there just for naught? And if we don't put ourselves through that, by not picking SS up, then not only will another visit in a line of many be missed....she will feel she's won once again, that she CAN dictate and boss DH around.

The reason I mention the courts is that I feel they can be a facilitator of bad mom behavior, even as they're trying to claim that they don't favor either parent. BM is smugly stating (and also has screamed a few times) that it doesn't matter what the court order says, she says "No" and that's "the end of discussion". And even though there was proof of her continually saying these things and acting like this for the past 2 years, the arbitrator turned a blind eye and sent the message "Who cares if BM doesn't want to follow a court order and just wants things her way?" Yet when court ordered support is not paid, that's a whole different story, even though it is also a court order. So what is the message here~ that BM's are above the law, but there's NO consideration for fathers? That a child won't care if their Dad is locked up, but moms "don't deserve" to be held responsible for their disrespect of the court? How is that in the best interests of the child? I mean, if the child doesn't listen and is defiant, they are usually punished, right? Now if they ever know that Mommy was supposed to adhere to a court order yet didn't let the child go, then it seems as if it's ok to defy, that nothing matters but Mommy's opinion that she's right and will do what she feels like instead.

There is more on my mind about this issue, but I have a lot of things to do around the house before seeing off the kindergartner. I will make more blogs when I can.