60
The Wheels on the Bus
The Wheels on the bus went round and round—until Veeby threw down so many obstacles in the road that the bus was brought to a complete halt. This is one of the most ridiculous threads in the book, spanned more than nine (9) months, and was steered by Veeby with navigational assistance from two of her lawyers. Buckle up and hold on for a very long and bumpy ride.
After my time at the condo, I moved into a house which had bedrooms for Noelle and Mark, and space enough to teach my private piano students. As the crow flew, the new house was only a mile away from Mark’s middle school and half that to Noelle’s high school. The problem was the crow could fly over the streets to get into the new gated community. The rest of us had to go all the way out and then back around.
All the children rode a school bus at one time or another. By then, Noelle was grabbing a ride to school with a friend, but Mark still rode the bus to and from school most days. However, he and I were about to enter uncharted territory—filled with transportation woes.
The newly mandated 50/50 time-sharing schedule wrecked havoc on Mark’s school bus transportation. Actually, that’s not entirely true. As long as he continued to catch the bus to and from mom’s place, nothing would change and all would be well. But if he tried to use a bus to my new place—that proved to be a problem. Once Veeby discovered that potential vulnerability, she then made it her mission to gouge and enlarge the problem as much as possible…truly…anything she could do to add fuel to the fire. Let me explain.
The time-sharing schedule meant I regularly had Mark on Mondays and Tuesdays during the week, and every other Friday into the weekend. Getting him to school in the mornings was not an issue… I could drive him. However, Mondays and Tuesdays was when I taught my private piano students…after school. I began my teaching work immediately after school and into the evening hours. A transportation problem arose because I was already teaching when Mark got out of school. There was no easy way to get him from school back over to my place.
Being a resourceful kind of guy, I began to explore options. Mark could always just walk to my place after school—it was a little bit of a distance, but doable. Hey, it would be some good exercise for the kid. [Why, I remember walking uphill to school…both ways…through six feet of snow…yada, yada.] However, there was a school bus stop at the corner of my new place. It would be easiest for him to just catch that bus. Easy…problem solved! Except, there was still that unknown variable in the equation—i.e., Veeby.
I discussed the issues and options with Mark and we decided to see about his simply walking back to my place after school. We researched the distance, printed out a map, drove and traced the path he would walk. We decided to give it a try the very next Monday after school—Mark would walk back to my place while I taught my first student. As fate would have it, my student was late that Monday, and eventually canceled the lesson, so I called Mark and started to drive over and pick him up. He said, “No, no, no”…he wanted to find out how long it took him to get home. So, I let him walk. I texted him several more times before he arrived home. It took him longer than he thought. He was sweaty and tired but he’d done it. A big “accomplishment grin” shone through his sweaty grime. However, we both agreed that wasn’t an ideal solution. The next day, I would explore getting a bus ride for my son.
However, later that Monday evening, I received an email from Veeby:
John,
Mark informed me today that you told him to walk to your new place when he finished with school today. Based on what Mark informed me you live in a house which is more than a mile distance from his school. I suggested to him that he take the school bus home as normal and you could pick him up later at the house. I informed him it is not safe for him to walk more than a mile to your new place and it would be in his best interest if you come pick him up at the house after school. It is imperative at this time that Mark not be asked to do more than his fair share in this separation. It would be easier on him if on Monday’s you let him ride the school bus home and then you pick him up at home given that he will need to come home anyway to pick up clothes that he needs to stay over with you on Monday and Tuesday.
I didn’t appreciate Veeby’s “helpful” suggestion. All I heard were the hidden overtones to “just do things her way”—and that I wasn’t doing things “correctly.” After being with the same partner for so long, it was easy to know what was really being said versus what was written.
Mark and I were simply creating our new routine. We were working out the transportation situation together and we just needed time to figure out what worked and what didn’t work for us. His walking that day was our first attempt at the new house—and we’d already determined it wasn’t the best choice. Besides, even though I was teaching in the afternoons, at least I was working at the house and Mark would be there. We’d see each other during the in-betweens—him getting a snack or my having a break—perhaps a later dinner together. If he were to take the bus and go to “her” place, I wouldn’t see him at all until I went to pick him up…and then come back to my place just in time to go to bed? No thank you.
Then there was the suggestion of Mark’s “home” being at her place…our “marital house”…and he only needed clothing to “stay over” with me? REALLY? The semantics of her word choices were not lost on me. I heard, “…let him ride the school bus home…” then, “pick him up at home…” and “he will need to come home…” There was no more singular “home” as it had been. Going forward, there would simply be “mom’s place” and “dad’s place.” That was our new normal and soon would become just normal.
The next morning—the day after Mark had walked home from school and before I could even call to find out about bus options—Veeby wrote Lawyer #2, and cc’d Carol and me:
Subject: Mark walking to John’s place
Lawyer #2—Mark told me it took him 1.5 hours to walk to his father’s new place on Monday after school. This is unacceptable. The temporary parenting agreement grants me the right to object to situations that are not in the best interest of Noelle and Mark. This is not in Mark’s best interest. I suggested to John through an e-mail that he allow Mark to ride the bus home on Monday afternoons and he can come pick Mark up at home when he has a break from his teaching. He has chosen once again to not act in the best interest of our son but in his own interests. It is 3.79 miles from Mark’s school to John’s new place. It is inconceivable to me why Mark should have to walk to John’s place when it would be easier and safer for him to just take his normal school bus home and then be picked up at home by his father later on. At this point in time I believe we need an emergency hearing with the Judge to address how John’s behavior is detrimentally affecting Mark.
Wow! Here’s my simpler “male perspective.” Mark tried walking to our new house after school on the very first day after we’d moved in. Instead of being gracious and letting Mark and I figure out what would work best for us, Veeby interfered and suggested she needed “an emergency hearing” because “John’s behavior is detrimentally affecting Mark.”
Once again, emails flew through the fiber optics of the internet between the lawyers. Carol pointed out how ridiculous the situation was and Lawyer #2 suggested that I was not concerned with Mark’s “best interest.”
S M O K E & M I R R O R S
So much for his walking back to my place. We’d tried it and we didn’t like it either, but the flurry of emails and expressed opinions that followed—oh, my! For the next couple of weeks, Mark and I continued to work on our after school transportation problem. I spoke with so many people within the school system’s transportation department, trying to get approval for Mark to simply catch the bus that stopped close to my place. All the kids from the neighborhood were picked up and dropped off every school day, so just let Mark get on the bus also. It sounded easy, but there was so much bureaucratic red tape to make that happen. There was great concern regarding the procedures of bus assignments—without consideration of the common sense aspects—OMG!
The school system worked on the following premise:
One child = One address = One bus route assignment.
Even though the divorce laws in our state had changed many years before, the school system had no policy in place to deal with families that had 50/50 time-sharing of their children. Evidently,
One child = TWO addresses = TWO bus route assignments…
DID NOT COMPUTE!
In the meantime, Mark and I tried something different. I temporarily moved students around, which allowed me time to pick him up. However, getting caught in the very long car pick-up line at this school was problematic. Once your car got into the fenced in school pick-up line, you were stuck. He and I figured out that if he’d walk out of the school and down the sidewalk to the “Dog Park,” I could swoop in, pick him up and get back to my place in time to teach. It was a plan…so we tried it.
Of course, then Veeby wrote another email:
John,
Mark told me today that he again walked from school and that you picked him up at the Dog Park. I want to check with you to verify that that is what happened. Mark’s school is aware that he is to ride the bus or be picked up by you or me, he is not to be a walker. I know that you want to do what is best for our son, as do I. I do not believe it is in Mark’s best interest for him to walk on Mondays to your house or anywhere else. I understand that you cannot pick him up when he gets out of school. If you are unable to pick him up I could pick him up or if neither of us can then he should ride the school bus home like normal and you can pick him up from the house when it is convenient for you later on. I know that what is best for him is to have him be safe. I would hope you would agree with this. If not then we should take the opportunity that your lawyer is requesting to go before the court and the Judge to clarify the time-sharing plan and request that it be written into the time-sharing plan that on days when Mark goes to stay with you that he be picked up from school by you or he will ride the school bus home and you can pick him up when it is convenient for you.
Since the Extension of the Restraining Order had finally passed, I was finally able to communicate with her directly—without the threat of jail time or a permanent Restraining Order put in place because I’d “violated” the Extension and talked to her— so, I took the opportunity to write her:
Veeby,
Because I’ve been prevented from direct communication with you for quite some time, I have not been able to let you know what has been happening with Mark’s bus situation. Let me fill you in a little.
Mark did not walk to my house today. Due to a cancellation in my work schedule, I was able to pick him up. I had him walk to the Dog Park and he waited for me there. The very first day he walked to my house...and the only day he’s ever walked all the way...took him a long time, but it was by his choice. I had asked him to walk...shown him the path and sidewalk to use, etc...but had a last minute cancellation, so I got in the car to pick him up. I was driving towards him and called him...he said he wanted to walk it to see how far/how long it was. So, I turned around. He and I texted back and forth three more times during the next 45 minutes. I was in contact with him...he was not in harms way. It’s just a transitional time while we all get into a new “normal” routine...that’s all.
I have been trying to get his bus schedule arranged with the school system for weeks. There is a bus that stops directly in front of my development, but they are throwing up roadblocks and won’t allow him to get on the bus. I am dealing with this issue. I have explained this directly to Mark.
I appreciate the concern for Mark. I am not putting him in harms way. I never have and never will. I am working on the change of transportation during this transitional time. It will hopefully be corrected soon
She replied:
John,
No one prevented you from direct communication with me regarding parenting our children, in fact it was clearly written into the now expired restraining order that we could communicate on matters regarding the mutual parenting of our children. Nonetheless, I wrote you a previous email specifically stating my objections to your instructions to Mark that he should walk to your new home. I suggested that if you could not pick Mark up he could take his normal bus home and you could pick him up at home. You did not communicate back with me and chose instead to make him walk or let him walk. Mark should not be walking alone from school whether you are texting with him or not. It is not safe. Since he already has a bus route that brings him to his home, the situation of keeping him safe can easily be remedied, he can ride the bus home and you can pick him up later....as I have suggested before on my emails. I appreciate you attempting to get another bus to take him to your new home but that is not set and until it is we must act in the best interest of Mark. Again I reiterate, the safest and best thing for Mark is for him to be picked up by you or me or he rides his normal bus route home. I do not understand your resistance to this simple resolution, nonetheless I have contacted my lawyer regarding this situation and await your decision to resolve this amicably.
Let me see…what was my “resistance to this [her] simple resolution?” Why didn’t I just defer to her way of doing things…in order to keep the peace…at all costs? Been there, done that…no thanks. I wasn’t making a choice to oppose her wishes, but was simply making a different choice in how to handle my school transportation with Mark. I believed our old dance steps were still ingrained within Veeby, who could only see my not doing things her way as a threat against her… I guess…who really knows? That was not the case, but just try talking to a tornado as it whirls by. They don’t listen too well—they just leave a path of destruction.
However, Veeby was mistaken regarding any “direct communication.” At the Restraining Order Hearing, the Judge clearly stated, “You can communicate as to any emergencies concerning the children. And other than that, communications need to be through counsel.”
As diplomatically as possible, I replied:
Veeby,
Please be advised that I will take care of Mark’s transportation needs on the days he spends with me...thank you for your concern. If I should need your assistance or want your opinions with future transportation issues, I will be sure to contact you.
As would be expected, Veeby didn’t appreciate my taking care of matters…in any other way than HER way. So, she tattled on me to her lawyer, who wrote my lawyer—making sure to mention all the perverts and predators that might be hanging out in the Dog Park, willing and able to grab up our precious bundle of joy. Jeez!
Things were not as they appeared. Veeby and her counsel were both screaming about walking to Dog Parks and predators and implying how unsafe it was…and Mark was too young. Nonsense! I measured the distance he walked from his school to get to that Dog Park. It was exactly 1/4 mile. One quarter of a mile is exactly the distance from stop sign to stop sign on the street where our “marital house” was located. Mark regularly walked the family dog down that street all by himself…and often all the way around the block…it was one of his chores. Veeby wasn’t too concerned about our 11-year-old Mark being grabbed up by some bad guys when it was time to walk the dog. She did not express those concerns when Mark hung out at the Mall with his friends, either.
The two times Mark actually walked to the Dog Park, he crossed to the other side of the street at his school with two crossing guards…along with other kids from his school. He then walked down a sidewalk…along with other kids…to my waiting car. Any inference that he was waiting for a long time…or standing all alone in some vacant park…was completely false. He walked with other kids to a place where other kids were also being picked up by their parents. Pure silliness, but it created a nice batch of mud to sling.
• • • • •
Since my phone calls weren’t producing any positive results, I wrote the Director of Transportation Services for the school system:
TO: Director of Transportation Services
FROM: John, recently divorced parent of bus riding student
RE: Bus Route Hardship Exception and/or Policy Change needed, per Court ordered 50/50 Timesharing Parenting Plan for Divorced Parents
Director:
I need your help to resolve a school bus routing issue for my 11-year-old 6th grade son, Mark. Having recently gone through a divorce, both my ex-wife and I live within the same school zone for Mark’s middle school and Noelle’s high school. [My 16-year-old 10th grader, Noelle, is not currently impacted by this issue]
I have been informed that the current School Bus policy is to allow each student only one bus route assignment per one student address. However, this policy does not take into account recent divorce law changes in our state, which now recognizes children as having two residences when there is a Family Court Order stating the parents have 50/50 time-sharing of the minor children. This is exactly my situation. I have been trying to resolve this issue by phone for the last month, working my way up the authority chain to you. I have not yet been afforded a return phone call from you or your office regarding this matter.
As you are aware, school districts are state mandated to provide transportation for K-12 students in a public school who live more than a reasonable walking distance [2 miles] from school. Having just moved into this area/development [under whatever circumstances], I’m simply trying to line up bus transportation for my student, but am being denied.
My residence is: [address]. Her residence is: [address].
My new house is over 3.0 miles away from Mark’s school. My ex-wife’s house is approximately 2.8 miles away. Mark is currently assigned the bus route that goes to my ex-wife’s house. Our court ordered time-sharing Parenting Plan schedule dictates that Mark spends Mondays/Tuesdays with me, Wednesdays/Thursdays with her, and we alternate weekends. This means that 2-3 days each week he needs to ride the bus back and forth to my house. He is old enough and mature enough to get on the correct bus on the appropriate days.
My request is to simply allow him to board an existing bus route [route #123 or #456] which comes directly into my development. This request has been denied. I have been told of the existing policy of one student/one address/one bus route, as well as being told there is “no seat availability” on the bus. Mark and I have seen the bus...there are fewer than five students riding the bus. How does the school system deal with families that move into a new school area during the middle of the year? Aren’t there seats left available on each bus route for just such instances?
I am a private piano teacher who is working/teaching during the after school hours and am not able to stop work to get my son from school. He has walked to my house [once] and it took him 1.5 hours. This situation has created a terrible hardship on me. I have moved into a new area, live 3 miles away from my son’s school, am working during the after school hours and am not being allowed bus transportation for my student?
My research indicates that many school systems across the country already have a policy in place for this very situation. Please check out either Moon County or Apple County’s 50/50 time-sharing policy for divorced parents needing two bus routes. Indeed, Moon County’s new policy specifically states:
“Middle and high schools students are capable of determining the appropriate bus depending upon whether they are staying with the enrolling or non-enrolling parent. Therefore, if the non-enrolling parent lives in the same middle school region or high school attendance zone for the assigned school, bus stops will be designated for the enrolling and non-enrolling parents’ addresses.”
The top four largest school districts across the country [New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami] have public transit options for their students to access…in addition to many school bus options. For those students who divide their time between parents, they have more options to get to each parent on the respective days. In our school system, students that are impacted by 50/50 time-sharing Parenting Plans are much more limited in their options.
The current school system policy has placed additional stress on our already separated family. Since our school system is rather large, I believe it is time to readdress the current policy—which is not very family friendly—to reflect the most recent divorce laws regarding 50/50 time-sharing Parenting Plans. This would help alleviate additional stress for divorced parents with children within the school system.
I am requesting an immediate Hardship Exception for my son, Mark. This continues to be a major issue in our lives until we can get this resolved. HELP!
I never heard back from the Director…only from her secretary:
Dear John:
This is in response to your email in which you requested an exception to the current policy guidelines. It’s the State Department of Education which sets these guidelines and not Transportation Services. Under current guidelines, the Department of Education will only recognize one legal address registered to the student. This is the address on which school bus transportation is based on. These guidelines, unfortunately, do not make any provision for divorce situations at this time. I would suggest writing to your state representatives to address this issue for you, as it must be changed at the state level. We wish you luck in your endeavor.
After a month of pursuing a remedy for my transportation problem, I got what seemed like a “passing the buck” response…and I felt slighted. Luckily for me, I found a kind and gentle voice of reason within the Transportation Division at the State Department of Education. She gave validation to my concerns and helped me understand the difference between the DoE’s provided “guidelines” versus an actual “policy” the school systems would have to abide by. My school district probably hoped I’d go away. Instead, I responded:
Director of Transportation Services:
This email is in response to your secretary’s reply on your behalf.
I have spoken directly with the Department of Education as part of my research-ing this issue. While their master student database may only accept one physical address, each school district can choose to transport whoever they want to, to wherever they want to, and at anytime they want to.
Regardless of where the bus is going, or the number of buses that are assigned, the district will be reimbursed for my child, because my child is eligible for transportation. Our school system will be reimbursed the same amount of money regardless whether my child rides one bus or ten buses. That is the districts’ decision. The State does not set district policy on this issue, only guidelines, which are just that—guidelines. While the Department of Education may recognize only one legal address, that has nothing to do with transportation services at the district level.
Obviously, Moon and Apple Counties have identified the situation and responded accordingly by establishing policy and procedure. They were not required to consult or get that policy approved by DoE…it was something they acknowledged and appropriately put into place.
It is entirely feasible to simply allow my son to ride the existing school bus back to my house on the required days. There is no additional liability issue for the district...he would be on one of two buses should there be any issues.
It is entirely possible that the transportation office does not want to open up this “can of worms,” fearing that others might come forward with similar situations. However, it IS an issue that must be revisited and addressed by changing this district policy.
If it needs to boil down to simply giving my son an Exception, then just do that. This is a hardship…I’m not making this up…my child is eligible to receive busing to his school…I cannot pick him up from school and he has to walk THREE MILES to my house.
At this point, I EXPECT A HARDSHIP EXCEPTION be given to my son, beginning this coming Monday.
I will contact my state representative regarding this issue, per your suggestion. However, if this is not remedied by the end of business TODAY, I will also contact the media and my lawyer.
The school district is NOT being forbidden to place my child on a bus to my house. This is entirely the school system’s decision.
Both Carol and I wrote my congressional representative, who put me in touch with a school board member. The congressman later followed-up with the school board member and was told they were “working on the issue” and “investigating” how full the bus was going and coming. Hey, I was just hoping the shotgun approach would get some kind of a hit.
Meanwhile, Veeby was busy contacting Mark’s school regarding his transportation on my days. She simply would not hear that it was my issue to figure out…and that she should just back off. Mark told me the 6th grade counselor came to him the next Monday and asked how he was getting home. Separately, Veeby had already told Mark to NOT walk to the Dog Park, but to get on the bus to her house. I felt badly for Mark—two parents telling him two different things. I didn’t know what I could do as she meddled behind the scenes with arrangements I’d made directly with Mark. I was responsible for him on Mondays and Tuesdays, but because I wasn’t doing things the way she thought I “should”…she was stoking the fire.
• • • • •
I had given the Director of Transportation Services a deadline to remedy my situation, but never heard back. So, I then followed through and submitted the following story to several TV stations and newspapers:
School System is NOT FAMILY FRIENDLY!
I am currently fighting the school district to simply obtain bus transportation for my 6th grade son. I’m recently divorced and have moved into a house that is in the same school zone, but is three (3) miles away from his school. State Statutes requires the school system to provide my son transportation, but they will only recognize my ex-wife’s address and claim they are already providing transportation to THAT address, so they don’t have to provide transportation to MY address. I am only asking for my son to get on an existing bus route that comes directly in front of my house.
Our state divorce laws were changed years ago to 50/50 time-sharing by both parents as the ideal, which is what I have in place. Two to three times each week, my children are with me and two to three days each week, they are with her. The Family Court has degreed that my son has TWO legal residences, yet the school system will not give me a Hardship Exception, nor will they change their procedures to accommodate this situation. They do NOT have a written policy on this...and they have the ability to adjust this for families in my situation, i.e., families of divorce.
I have been trying to remedy this since March and have only gotten denial after denial. This is a hardship on me. I am a dad who is at work after school and cannot get my 6th grader from school.
I have six more years of dealing with this situation until my youngest graduates. It seems inexcusable to me that the school system is playing a game with families of divorce, by not adopting an actual policy that addresses and helps families like this. Both Moon and Apple Counties have adopted appropriate policies...without needing Department of Education clearance...yet, our school system will not even consider it.
A local TV station contacted me:
John—I have contacted the school system regarding your situation. They told me that the district sent you a letter explaining that, although there is a bus route that would work for your home residence, all of the seats on that bus are full. They told me that they are continuing to research other possible solutions at this point.
I replied:
Thanks for getting back to me. Actually, they have not yet sent me any letter. I have only heard from my school board representative’s secretary that “they” would be contacting me, but as of now, no other contact has been made.
Even IF all the seats are taken—which I do not believe to be accurate—there are TWO buses that come into my development, so it would still be closer to have him catch even the “other” existing bus route to my house.
That being said, there is no written policy within the school system. There is only their normal procedure, but this is not State mandated as they claim.
Additionally, I cannot be the only parent in this situation. The point being, just what does the school system do when a new family arrives in the area and needs bus transportation? The school system usually leaves extra seats for just such occurrences—which is what the North Area Transportation Supervisor told me—but they are not affording me one of those seats.
I am absolutely at wits end.
To which they responded, “We will let you know if we decide to do a story.”
• • • • •
Curiously, after the TV station contacted the school board about my situation, I finally received the Hardship Exception from the Director of Transportation Services…YEAH! She and I actually spoke on the phone and she seemed much more sympathetic to my plight. She confirmed what I had already found out—Mark’s current bus transportation [to mom’s place] included two different buses—Bus 1 picked him up in the mornings and Bus 2 dropped him off after school. Two buses, but really just one route…to and from the marital house. The Director would add Mark to an existing bus route over to my place the very next week—once she ran things past the Superintendent of Schools.
I then called the Superintendent of Schools directly, spoke to his Assistant and explained my situation. They were going to coordinate with the Transportation department and get back to me. Except, I later learned that the Assistant immediately called Veeby…to request a letter from her which granted “permission” for Mark to utilize bus service to my place.
Wait…WHAT?
I wrote the Superintendent:
Per my discussion yesterday with your Assistant, please find attached a copy of my Parenting Plan which clearly shows that I am solely responsible for any and all transportation regarding Mark on the days that he is with me. This is exactly what I am trying to do...arrange transportation for my son from the school system.
Your decision to request a “permission” letter from my former wife is completely unnecessary. It is also difficult for me to not take the action as insulting. You do not need a letter from my former wife giving me permission to take care of our child, Mark. My responsibility for Mark is clearly spelled out in the attached Parenting Plan.
There is no additional “liability” issue for the school system. If there were an accident, Mark would be on one of the buses assigned to him on that day. The school system’s liability concern is not to get permission from Veeby—she will be informed through her and my communications—but to take care of MY parental rights by providing bus service to my son—which I have been requesting since the beginning of March.
This additional step only continues the hardship for me.
I am planning on having Mark use the bus TODAY to return to my house for the weekend.
I appreciate and am thankful to both you and the Director of Transportation Services for allowing me the Hardship Exemption for the remainder of the school year, per my conversation with the Director. However, please be aware that I will have the exact same scenario arise for the next six school years, until Mark graduates.
The school system will have from now through the summer months to formalize and update a policy for ALL divorced parents within the school system in this exact same situation…50/50 time-sharing Parenting Plans. This is not a difficult task. Please feel free to use either Moon or Apple County’s existing policies as a template.
The Superintendent’s Assistant forwarded me the email Veeby wrote to her…after their conversation the previous day:
Dear [Superintendent’s Assistant]:
To follow up on our phone call today, I am documenting to you that I do not want Mark’s primary address to be changed to my husband’s new address and do not want Mark taking three different school buses during the week, as you explained would have to happen for Mark to be able to take a school bus to his father’s house. I want Mark’s bus route to remain as existing and his drop off and pick up to remain at his primary residency which is my address. I am not in agreement that Mark should have to take three different buses during the week when, as I explained to you and you also explained to Mark’s father John, the best thing for Mark would be he take his existing bus home and his father pick him up at home when he is able to. This would be less disruptive for Mark and be the safest option and be in Mark’s best interest. I appreciate your call today and attention to this matter.
What a mess! The Superintendent’s office should have NEVER contacted Veeby. That only gave her the opportunity to prevent bus transportation for Mark to my house. Veeby then sent a letter which essentially denied her “permission,” thus allowing her to put Mark’s bus transportation to my place on permanent hold! Of course she denied her permission! She threw down obstacles every chance she could. The Superintendent and school system seemingly didn’t understand the legalities of how 50/50 time-sharing worked. They appeared to be stuck in the older model of “primary” parent and address—which Veeby misleadingly referred to in her correspondence…consistent semantical games.
I had been a responsible parent and worked to receive a Hardship Exception, and Veeby took the opportunity to block it. Because of her actions, the school system said they would not “allow” Mark bus transportation to my place until Veeby gave her permission.
Just to be clear, I never asked the school system to change Mark’s address. They were simply adding my address as an additional “legal” address. The Superintendent’s Assistant later told me that she and Veeby had not spoken in terms of changing Mark’s “primary address” at all, so it’s unclear why Veeby used those older code words. Also, notice her use of all those hot button code words. Veeby wrote “…the best thing for Mark…” and “…less disruptive…” and “…safest option…” and “…in Mark’s best interest.”
Writing about “three different school buses” was also misleading. The inference that it would be confusing for Mark or would not be safe…was just muddying up the waters. There would be two bus routes…one to her place and one to my place. My route would use the same bus on both legs of the trip. Her route would use two different buses to complete the task. Her having two buses was of no concern, provided it was transporting Mark to and from her place. Veeby played up the angle of her son having to take three buses…Oh My Goodness …poor little boy!
The fact remained: I worked hard to secure bus transportation from the school district on the days Mark was with me. Even though Veeby had previously written, “I appreciate you attempting to get another bus to take him to your new home but that is not set and until it is we must act in the best interest of Mark,” the moment she was given the opportunity, she prevented Mark’s access to a school bus to my place.
So…
• his walking to my place wasn’t acceptable to her;
• his being picked up at the Dog Park wasn’t acceptable to her;
• his transportation by bus to my place wasn’t acceptable to her.
The only acceptable solution was to do things HER WAY—i.e., have only one bus route assigned to her place [his true “home” with her]—which took away some of Mark and my time. There would be the added inconvenience of my needing to go pick him up from her place later in the evenings after my work, of course—but that was an acceptable risk she was willing for me to take. Nope, there were no CONTROL ISSUES going on at all.
Once more, Carol wrote a letter to Lawyer #2, knowing its probable impact—i.e., zero impact.
• • • • •
The TV station’s interest helped secure the Hardship Exception. Then, a local newspaper expressed interest in doing a story as well. A reporter came over and spoke with Mark and me. The reporter also wanted to speak with Veeby, so I sent her a “heads up” email:
Veeby,
Someone from the local paper will be contacting you regarding the bus transportation issue. They’ve picked up on this story and will be publishing it this upcoming week.
That newspaper article was published and took on a life of it’s own. It was quoted, linked and summarized across the internet.
Here’s a compilation of those online summarizations:
• A father is frustrated by what he says is a lack of cooperation from the school district in getting his son on two school bus routes during the week. The extra route is necessary because the man has split custody of his son with his estranged wife, he said. District officials say they won’t budge on their busing policy.
• The man and his wife separated earlier this year. They agreed to a shared custody plan for their two children where the man gets the children every Monday and Tuesday, the woman gets them Wednesday and Thursday. The children alternate homes on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. The father said he asked the school district to add his 11-year-old son to an extra bus route from [school] so that he can ride both to his house and his ex-wife’s after school. That way, the father reasoned, he would not have to cut into his work income as a home-based piano teacher to pick up his son or lose custody time by having to pick up his son from his mother’s later in the evenings.
• But the district was reluctant to agree to his request. In keeping with state guidelines, most school districts only recognize one legal residence for a child and arrange busing from that location. Most divorce mediators and attorneys simply advise divorced or separated parents to work out school transportation between themselves.
• The school district did offer a hardship exception to the man, which would have required an available seat on the bus route that leads to the man’s home and a letter from his ex-wife granting permission. But the ex-wife refused, saying it would be better for the son to wait at her home after school until the husband came to pick him up. The man said that would violate his right to custody and criticized the district for not doing more to help him.
• • • • •
Two weeks went by after the article was printed and there was no further movement by the school system. Seemingly, we were at a stand still. I decided to write the members of the School Board:
School Board Members:
There is an issue regarding bus transportation for my 6th grade son, Mark to his school which has yet to be resolved. I have been trying to resolve this since moving into the area on March 1st. I need the School Board to take action on this issue.
Over the last several months, I have clearly explained this issue and the reason it should be a non-issue [previous letters attached]. I have been met with denial after denial of my request from the Transportation Services Department, Director of Transportation Services office and the Superintendent of Schools office. Not until the media got involved did I finally receive a bus assignment for Mark, only to have that offer placed on “permanent hold” by the Superintendent’s office. This is absolutely absurd.
Bullet points:
• Due to a divorce situation, I have moved into the [specific school] zone, where my 6th grade son, Mark, attends.
• I live three (3) miles away from the school.
• Per [State] Statues, Mark is entitled to ride a school bus.
• There are two existing bus routes that already come into my development; Bus #123 comes right in front of my house.
• There is NO WRITTEN POLICY in our district that would prevent Mark from a bus assignment. [I’ve confirmed this with [name] in Public Affairs office].
• State Department of Education provides transportation guidelines, not mandated policies. None of the guidelines prevent my son from having bus transportation to his school.
This issue has been viewed through a “divorce” filter, which is inaccurate.
I have moved into the area and my son’s address is legally my address.
This situation of 50/50 time-sharing of minor children has already been effectively dealt with in other counties. This would be an easy policy to review and adopt by the School Board.
The School System’s Transportation Department has dealt with this situation terribly. During a turbulent time in our family—when I am trying to create consistency within our new family routine—I have had to deal with this bus transportation obstacle.
I am not a dead beat father. I have always been very involved in my children’s lives. They have all been placed in the “highly gifted” programs. As an musician, I work primarily from home and have been a constant in their daily home lives. I do not feel that I am asking for any special consideration.
I am not asking for any type of “additional” transportation. If I lived outside of this school zone, it would be my responsibility to arrange transportation to Mark’s school, of course. But that is not the case here. I live in the same school zone and there is an existing bus that goes in front of my house. There IS seat availability on this route number, per my conversation with the Director of Transportation Services.
The Superintendent’s office made a decision to contact my ex-wife for “permission” to allow our son to ride a bus to my house on the days he is court approved to spend with me. I supplied the Superintendent’s office our existing Parenting Plan which clearly shows my responsibility for Mark on the days I am requesting bus transportation. I was informed that to cover the school system’s liability, they needed to secure “permission.” This is totally inaccurate, per court documents that have already been signed by the Judge. It is not necessary, nor appropriate, to contact Mark’s mom regarding this. Of course, she has denied her “permission,” but not in the best interest of our son, but more so to just complicate things per the divorce situation.
I was then informed that the bus assignment I had received was placed on “hold” until my ex-wife gave her permission. That is absolutely ridiculous. She should have never been contacted. She does not have any authority to “deny her permission” on this matter. As his parent, I am responsible for arranging this transportation on behalf of Mark, which is what I’ve been trying to do since March of this year. I am responsible for keeping my ex-wife informed in our communications, not the school system. The Superintendent’s decision to include her is based on a faulty understanding of an existing court ordered 50/50 time-sharing Parenting Plan previously signed by the Judge.
The existing Parenting Plan does not place the school system in the middle of our divorce situation. In no way is the school system “liable” for making sure both parents are informed about our children. Both his mom and I have full, 100% rights as Mark’s parents.
What needs to happen: The School Board needs to use this situation as an opportunity to examine and adopt an actual policy which more accurately reflects the Family Law changes as it relates to transportation issues for minor children within families that are affected by the new 50/50 time-sharing policy. This can be a very simple examination. Other counties within our state—and other school systems throughout the country—have already done the work. Simply examine and adapt those existing policies into one that works best for our schools.
What I need: I need this situation remedied immediately. I need Mark to simply be allowed to get on the existing bus route that stops in front of my house for the remainder of the school year. I will have the same bus transportation issue for the next six (6) years, until Mark graduates from high school. My situation is not unique. A significant percentage of our population are families that have gone through divorce and still have minor children in the school district. Finding a remedy for this type of situation will help all of these families as well.
Please allow my child to get on the bus.
• • • • •
Carol actively tried to persuade Veeby through counsel to give her consent…again, to no avail. Veeby continued to play the game of “It is not in Mark’s best interest to make him take a 3rd bus.” Carol then clearly assured #3 that we would be addressing her client’s atrocious behavior at upcoming mediation and through the Court.
That was it! Veeby had successfully thwarted my attempt to secure a school bus for Mark for that school year. The School Board did nothing to help solve my dilemma, since by then it was so close to the end of school. While Veeby tried to frame her actions as “in the child’s best interest,” I believed it to be a ruse.
• • • • •
Mere days after school was over, we were headed towards mediation to clarify our Parenting Plan and other issues—and the school bus “permission” topic was near the top of the list. Instead, Veeby let go of Lawyer #2, brought on Lawyer #3, a Guardian ad Litem had been appointed and therefore our mediation was immediately canceled—with no apparent rush to reschedule any mediation during the summer.
By the middle of summer, I figured out that I was about to get jammed up again with the school system, since I still needed to secure a bus for Mark for the upcoming school year. I had to rearrange my teaching schedule last school year to accommodate picking Mark up. I needed Veeby’s illusive “permission” letter as soon as possible so Mark would be assigned a seat on the bus route to my place. The longer Veeby’s camp delayed, the more likely I would once again be denied a bus seat due to lack of space.
A month before school resumed, I wrote all the players within the school system with whom I’d been dealing:
Please reserve a bus seat for Mark this coming school year as you are planning the routes—to ride a school bus to/from my residence to his school on Mondays/Tuesdays [and some Fridays]. Again, my address is: ———
My former wife has been creative in her stall tactics in dealing with this issue, but we have a Motion to Compel her to give the written “permission” that the Superintendent has requested. A late hearing date has already been set.
I still disagree with the Superintendent’s position that some type of “permission” is needed from my former spouse, when we have 50/50 Co-Parenting of our child, who lives half the time at my place...within the same school zone...and there is an existing bus route directly in front of my house.
So, please save Mark a seat. As soon as we have a resolution on this issue, I will contact you folks again.
• • • • •
Carol then filed a MOTION TO COMPEL [Veeby] TO CONSENT TO SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION FOR MINOR CHILD TO JOHN’S RESIDENCE—i.e., the legal paperwork to compel Veeby to give her “permission.” A multitude of additional emails back and forth between the lawyers just added more fuel to the fire…yet, provided no resolution.
Finally, Lawyer #3 responded and added a new wrinkle—by suggesting that Veeby was willing to change her work schedule, pick up Mark after school and drop him off to my house, rather than have him take yet another bus. Their assumption then became that the Judge would allow this choice since “a parent requesting to do that trumps any bus ride.”
That little twist made no sense to me…at first. Then I remembered Veeby’s mantra of CONTROL and understood. During that time, Veeby was supposedly hurting for money, yet she was going to change her work schedule to pick up and drop off Mark? It seemed to me that Veeby would prefer to not work or pay her bills, rather than to appear as if she’d somehow “given in” and allowed Mark the school bus ride over to my place. I believed her decision was extremely short-sighted.
The GAL had been kept in the loop regarding the whole bus issue and finally weighed in with some logic and reason. After he met with Mark—who “desired to go directly to Dad’s from school on Dad’s days”—the GAL agreed and saw absolutely no harm in doing so.
The GAL wrote both attorney’s, sharing his thoughts [above] on the school bus issue. I agreed with paralegal, Kelley who wrote, “Yippee!” The GAL agreed with our position…and seemingly the craziness of the whole mess. With crossed fingers, Carol alerted Veeby’s camp concerning the GAL’s affirming position.
The hearing on my motion to compel her to consent was the very next day, but Veeby’s camp would not communicate. Our position on the bus—and the GAL’s agreement—seemingly meant nothing to Veeby.
Indeed, it was the very next Monday that Veeby then went to Mark’s school to pick him up…on the first day of school after his and my summer vacation. Ridiculous and blatant disregard by Veeby.
• • • • •
The next day—the second day after school began—we all met with the Judge regarding my Motion to Compel Veeby to consent to the school bus. After hearing all sides, the Judge understood and agreed with my position. However, when we received the signed Order from the Judge, the specifics were all jumbled up:
ORDER: for School Bus
THIS CAUSE was considered by the Court on the following Motion(s): Motion to Compel Veeby to consent to school bus transportation for minor child to John’s residence.
THE COURT having considered the grounds for the Motion, taken testimony, heard argument and considered the applicable law, it is FOUND, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Veeby shall immediately consent to the use of the school bus for John’s home for mornings only. She shall contact Superintendent’s office regarding her consent to provide school bus for mornings only. John shall pick up the child from school on his days.
DONE AND ORDERED…the Judge
The Motion to Compel filed with the Court had specifically requested the Judge to “Enter an order compelling Veeby to provide her consent for the parties’ minor child to have bus transportation to and from John’s residence.”—which the Judge agreed to verbally within chambers. However, somehow the Order was written specifically addressing “mornings only.” That was never my problem! I could drive Mark to school in the mornings. I needed the bus for the afternoons…while I was teaching. What happened? Even though “we won” the intent, the jumbled up words in the Judge’s Order did not resolve the bus issue.
WE WON…and WE LOST. What a mess!
The next day, Veeby’s wrote the Superintendent’s Assistant:
This email is written to confirm that I give my consent for Mark to ride a school bus from his father’s house at [address] to Mark’s school on Monday mornings when he is at his father’s house [which only happens every other weekend]. The rest of the time, Mark is to continue to ride his assigned school bus from his home with me at [address] [including the Monday mornings he is with me].
As a reminder, Mark’s address should not be changed in the computer to his father’s address, but should remain at my address.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thank you for your help.
Veeby’s email was absolutely hilarious to read. She was still attempting to maintain CONTROL. She wrote tightly—to specifically limit and allow only one bus ride on Mondays—mornings only. Yet, what about Tuesday and Wednesday mornings on the way to school, per the Order? The Order already did not address my REAL need for the afternoon bus. Carol informed Lawyer #3 that the email did not comport with the Judge’s Order—that permission was also needed for Tuesday and Wednesday mornings—so Veeby wrote the Superintendent’s Assistance once more:
I am writing you another email to clarify that I give permission for Mark to ride a school bus from his father’s house at [address] to Mark’s school on every other Monday and every Tuesday mornings only.
To reiterate, this does not alter Mark’s permanent address which should remain the same: [her address] His regularly assigned school bus routes should continue unchanged as well.
Unbelievably…believable! What about Wednesday mornings? Like a dog with a bone, she seemingly just couldn’t let it go. Guess he’d have to walk to school on Wednesday mornings…sorry, kid.
• • • • •
The whole school bus issue was still a big problem. All the squirming “permission” emails from Veeby did not address my original concerns. Mark was riding the school bus to and from Veeby’s place with my blessing. I was never trying to jam him up from riding the bus. I just wanted the same access to a school bus, but Veeby was standing in the middle of the road with a big DETOUR sign—preventing a bus from getting through to my place. I thought her actions were petty and such an injustice. Carol and I discussed further legal options and then she reached out to the GAL again.
The GAL weighed in with reason and logic. He knew that Veeby was utilizing the bus for Mark but preventing my utilization of the same resource. He wrote that Veeby’s “argument that Mark would have to take three different buses was absolutely ridiculous.” The GAL opined that “it should be a bus for all or no bus at all.” He readily saw the punitive dynamic being played out and wrote an additional, “This is just plain ridiculous.”
Emails back and forth between lawyers trying to reach an Agreed Order—a seemingly reasonable outcome—proved futile. Evidently, the only reasonable outcome I could count on was Veeby’s camp being unreasonable!
• • • • •
Carol filed yet another Motion on my behalf: MOTION TO COMPEL Veeby TO PICK UP MINOR CHILD AFTER SCHOOL OR TO CONSENT TO SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION FOR MINOR CHILD TO JOHN’S RESIDENCE. The very next day, #3 filed their RESPONSE.
• • • • •
The points made within their Response presented a jumbled misrepresentation of events. I’d become uncomfortable at an earlier hearing when Veeby stated she would rather pick up Mark and drive him to my place on Mondays and Tuesdays instead of simply letting him ride the bus. I didn’t want her or myself to have to go pick him up after school when there was a bus option for us both.
At the initial hearing, the Judge had encouraged Carol to file a another motion if Veeby used the school bus on her days while preventing me the same access. So, Carol had another motion all cued up, which would have meant another hearing to clarify the previous hearing. The GAL restated his opinion for a third time: “My position is clear. It makes no sense for Mark not to take a bus to Dad’s, but can take a bus to Mom’s. My opinion is that it should either be a bus for all or a bus for none.”
Opposing counsel referred to our Motion to Compel as frivolous when actually it was Veeby’s withholding her “permission” that forced me to use the court system to illicit a change…it wasn’t frivolous at all. Indeed, it was very inconvenient for all parties. Surprisingly, their Response asked the Judge to dismiss my Motion to Compel and send us to Mediation.
So, we had another hearing regarding my Motion to Compel. All parties attended and we hashed it out some more. Really, that’s all we did. The GAL testified as to his opinion of “a bus for all or a bus for none.” I testified, then Veeby testified. It was comical to hear Veeby explain to the Judge how the whole bus area at Mark’s school was simply a “ZOO”—and there were “all those kids around”—and she was “just trying to take care of her child.” Yet, the Judge quickly asked her why was it a zoo…with all those kids around…only on the days that Mark rode the bus to my place? Yeah, Judge! It seemed the Judge heard the inconsistencies in her argument. Of course, Veeby then brought up how I had Mark walking over three (3) miles to my place—implying he’d walked several times, instead of the one time he walked all the way back. She brought up how I had made Mark walk to a DOG PARK. It was sad to watch my former partner wiggle in front of the Judge. From where I sat, it seemed Veeby’s whole argument was more about her having lost CONTROL of the situation on my days with Mark. I believed the Judge saw through her pathetic ploy.
The Judge finally declared Mark could ride the bus TO AND FROM my place and that he could ride the bus to and from Veeby’s place—YEAH! The Judge said he was running late to a different court room and asked Carol to write up the Order for his signature.
However, there’s always remained that unknown variable. Afterwards, outside of chambers, Carol asked Lawyer #3 to have Veeby contact the School Board to give her consent for the bus. Lawyer #3 replied, “Why? Veeby would be in charge of driving.”
Wait…WHAT? Yep! Carol indicated that was not what the Judge had just said. The lawyers continued with a little “discussion” about the Judge’s verbal ruling. Since we didn’t have a court reporter to simply read back from the transcript, they agreed to quickly step back inside for a “clarification” from the Judge. Alas, he had already left by a side door…he was gone. So it was decided we needed to go back before the Judge for a third time—so the Judge could clarify what he’d already stated—but get it written down the next time for both parties to read.
Even when we “won”…we still lost. The Judge was not going to be happy to see us again. The next hearing was scheduled several weeks later concerning different issues, but the bus topic would definitely be discussed once more. Due to other motions and topics discussed at that hearing, the long awaited court ordered mediation scheduled for the following day was once again canceled. Carol and I simply could not get Veeby’s camp to sit down at a mediation table to clarify the Parenting Plan or a myriad of other issues.
• • • • •
[7th Inning Stretch…take a moment to refill your coffee cup.]
• • • • •
By that time, it was the end of October. Yep, moved into my new place on March 1st and STILL didn’t have a School Bus for Mark.
I offered to let Mark hang at Veeby’s for Halloween:
Veeby,
Today, I spoke with Mark about what we could do for Halloween next Monday. He spoke about a party you were having at your place and that he’d like to trick or treat over in that neighborhood and attend your party. I am open to this happening, fully realizing that it will prevent he and I from spending time together trick or treating together. It will make him happy.
So, I texted you the following this afternoon: “Is it okay if Mark goes to your place after school on Halloween and trick or treats there...and I’ll pick him up later that evening?” You eventually replied, “That would be fine except I can’t pick him up from school since I will be working till 5 pm on that day.”
This is confusing to me. Why would he simply not ride the bus home to your place after school per normal? I asked Mark about this and he informed me that you were now picking him up after school…instead of his riding the bus. He also said that you informed him that my lawyer has said that he can’t ride the bus anymore?
Veeby—this is pure silliness...please stop this crazy making. It is confusing to Mark and keeps him in the middle.
For The Record: I have never had any issue with Mark riding the school bus to and from your place to school. It makes total sense for him to do so. It also helps you be able to work afternoon hours, knowing that he will be safely transported back to your place...one of his two “homes.” However, you have purposefully not afforded me the same right.
Next Monday is Halloween. Mark wants to participate in the party at your place...no problem, let him be there. It makes sense to simply let him ride the bus to your place after school on Monday, then celebrate Halloween festivities. I will try to coordinate with you when to pick him up. It would be nice if you would answer my phone call to you this coming Monday night when I am on my way over to pick him up. Or simply have you call or text me when the party is winding down. I believe it’s in the “best interest” of our son for you and I to coordinate his life. To date, you have a terrible track record of simply being able to Co-Parent our children. In your own words, “It works best if you communicate your intentions.”
You can choose to not partner with me anymore, but you are still responsible to communicate with me as the Co-Parent of our children. All the lawyers in the world cannot replace you and I simply talking and communicating with each other...about our remaining mutual interests...our children.
The BUS issue: Let Mark ride the bus per normal to and from your place to school. I simply want the same thing for him to my place. It’s absolutely silly to take him and pick him up each day for the next six (6) years. Especially since both you and I need to work to pay our bills. Stop taking him and picking him up…let him ride the bus…to both our places.
Veeby actually replied:
John,
I agree with you…Mark wants to participate in the Halloween events here and we want him to do so as well. It is gratifying to know you do not have any issues with Mark riding his school bus to and from his home with me. My intent has always been to do what is in Mark and Noelle’s best interest. Given that we have different perspectives on what is in their best interest, I have not been able to come to a meeting of the minds with you. My response by text to you was done immediately after I finished work and saw your text to me about Mark’s desire to spend Halloween trick or treating with us. My response was simply that I will not be able to pick him up from school on that day. Nonetheless, should you decide to agree to Mark riding his school bus to his home with me next Monday, then we will welcome celebrating Halloween with him. Or you can chose to pick him up from school and drop him off at my home at your convenience. Per your request, I will text you when we are done with the party.
Then I responded:
Veeby,
I appreciate hearing back from you…this is the first real communication we’ve had in months...thanks.
As previously stated, I have no problem letting Mark enjoy the Halloween festivities you are having next Monday. By all means, let him ride the bus back over to your place after school. Since it’s a school night, I will need to pick him up from your place no later than 9:30 pm, I will plan on arriving to your place at 9:30 sharp...please have him ready to walk out the door at that time.
In the future, if you would like to have Mark participate in special events at your place on the days he would normally be over with me, just communicate that to me. I won’t have an issue with that request most of the time...you know this to be true. Just communicate, Veeby.
One more time…again: I have never had an issue with Mark riding the buses to and from your place to get to school. Please let that continue...it is not logical for you to drive him back and forth to school when there are existing bus routes assigned to him. Plus, this allows you to work as you need. Please utilize the school buses for Mark…is this clear? This not only helps you out with transportation and your work schedule, but makes life easier and less confusing for Mark. Let him ride the buses!
However, my request to simply have him ride a bus to and from my place to get to school is a fair and just request. It is not placing Mark “in harms way” at all. There is an existing bus route that comes to my place. The fact that you have not given your permission and “blocked” Mark from riding a bus to my place can only be viewed as illogical and punitive towards both he and I.
It is a fact that Mark has ridden the bus [two buses, actually] both to and from school since 6th grade. He has a good brain, his IQ is more than two deviations above the norm, and he’s in the gifted classes at school. His ability to take two different buses to and from your place and only one bus to and from my place on the appropriate days should not be in question. Agreed?
Since both you and I need to work to pay our bills, we should take advantage of the free bus transportation provided by the school district for Mark. This would be fair and just. He should ride the buses to and from your place and should ride a bus to and from my place. Additionally, since you have recently expressed having financial hardships, you may need to find additional employment that might prevent you from taking off in the middle of the afternoon to go pick up Mark from school. He should simply ride the bus to your place, per normal.
You and I have been married for 33+ years now...and will remain married until we can communicate and resolve these outstanding issues. We have loved each other for more than that amount of time and have grown up together as married partners. It is in the best interest of our children that we continue Co-Parenting them...which specifically means you need to communicate with me with regard to any and all dealings about our children.
I will continue to love you forever, but from afar. You have been my partner, my lover, my friend...we have been yoked for many years. Your actions since your decision to un-yoke us have revealed an “I hate your guts” mentality. This saddens me…I am not operating from the same place of fear…and I do not have the same mentality.
Since we are both in agreement about taking care of Mark as best we can, please do the right thing and write a letter to the School Board giving your “permission” for Mark to simply ride a bus to my place on my days and for him to simply ride a bus to your place on your days. Do what’s best for Mark, Veeby…write the letter.
Let’s knock this one issue off the list of items to resolve. It will save us both time and money. Both of us are hurting financially now, so let’s get rid of this issue, please.
From that time onwards, Veeby returned to allowing Mark to ride the bus, which had been his normal transportation to and from her house. She took me up on my “offer” yet never granted her “permission” for me to have a bus to my place.
• • • • •
After one more hearing, the Judge finally signed an ORDER…in my favor…regarding the whole school bus issue.
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL Veeby TO
PICK UP MINOR CHILD AFTER SCHOOL OR
TO CONSENT TO SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION
FOR MINOR CHILD TO JOHN’S RESIDENCE
THIS matter came before the Court…and the Court…finds as follows:
1. John’s Motion to Compel Veeby to Pick up Minor Child After School or to Consent to School Bus Transportation for Minor Child to John’s Residence is hereby GRANTED.
2. The argument that a twelve (12)-year-old child will get confused riding different buses does not make sense.
3. Veeby cannot have the minor child take the bus from school to her house, but not allow the minor child to take the bus from school to his Father’s house.
4. The minor child will take the bus to John’s house after school.
5. This Court defers on the issue of entitlement of and ability to pay attorney’s fees and costs.
DONE AND ORDERED…the Judge
YEAH! The Judge GRANTED my MOTION TO COMPEL—Mark would be allowed to utilize the bus to my house! The Judge specifically mentioned that “the argument that a twelve (12)-year-old child will get confused riding different buses does not make sense” and “Veeby cannot have the minor child take the bus from school to her house, but not allow the minor child to take the bus from school to his Father’s house.”
I sent a copy of the Judge’s Order over to all the School Board folks—along with a nice little letter expressing my feelings:
School Board Members:
Please find attached a signed Order from the Judge which indicates that my former wife has been compelled to agree to bus transportation and no longer has any say in my son’s bus transportation to my home when he is in my care.
In past correspondence, I have vehemently objected to the Superintendent’s decision to let my former wife have anything to do with MY transportation requests. I fought, pled and finally received permission from the Director of Transportation Services for my son, Mark, to be assigned a bus, only to have the Superintendent allow my former wife to vindictively deny her “permission.” I am terribly disappointed with how the Superintendent and the School Board handled this issue.
I am not the only divorced parent who needs bus transportation for his 50/50 parental time-sharing. There is not a state statute which prevents this. Indeed, several other counties have seen the need and addressed this issue. There is only a state suggested “guideline.” There is no School Board policy which prevents bus transportation for persons in a similar situation to mine. Indeed, the is no public policy within the school system.
There is a “database” which only supports one child, one address, one bus. This is what I was told on multiple occasions. However, we’re talking about a computer database...which can and should be altered...to coincide with the current divorce laws of our state!
At this time, I have no confidence in the Superintendent or the School Board’s ability to remedy this situation. I have chosen to move closer to the school my son attends so that he can simply walk. Currently, Mark no longer needs the help of the school system to get to my home. However, Mark has six more years of education before he graduates, so he actually might need bus transportation in the future. It would be nice if the School Board adopted a bus transportation policy which did not add to the stress divorcing parents are already going through.
Come on, School Board...be more Family Friendly to 60% of families who are going through or have gone through divorce.
John—Father of Mark
The entire process of securing a school bus for Mark took more than nine (9) months, hours of time on the phone and writing letters and thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
I felt that Veeby’s actions were purposefully vindictive, but extremely short-sighted. Unfortunately, Mark would remember.
I believed the Superintendent and the School Board to be inept in their handling of the situation. The whole experience was like trying to travel fast on top of a turtle.
The Judge definitely remembered Veeby’s actions surrounding this thread when he got to our Final Judgment.
