The  EX tried it Balllll, she got up and moved to Liberty,in January This year no formal notice. Twice this year Ive been to court due to her denying me to have my child. for several weeks at a time First in march.I filed a motion to Enforce parenting time and a motion for contempt. The motion to enforce was enforced the contempt was denied.Now in september she denied me for several weeks again violating the order of enforced parenting time. Filed contempt again and Filed a motion for enforcement again.Again the Contempt denied. Next time I want her behind Bars.But any who. This time she counter claimed Modification of custody. So I had to get an attorney. cuz she she was making false allegations,and shit.She said she had put our duaghter in Preschool. when I had her enrolled in a preschool on my time.the Judge dismissed the contempt and said she is the primary she gets to have her in preschool. I then in,oder not to lose 2 complete days of parenting time.agreed to take my duaghter to preschool 26 miles each way. 3 days of the week. Can I modify support and have her pay me child suport for my extraordinary expense in gas now.Thank God The gas prices have dropped.And by the way her motion to modify custody was denied.

What was your parenting time before she moved?  Did you request shared residency?

To answer your question, yes I think you should ask for an adjustment for travel expenses.  The reason is that she is the one who volunteered to move.  Depending on the judge this may simply be swept under the rug as many are.  Kind of like the contempt orders getting swept under the rug.  Those are both a product of your being pro se, and mother still being labeled as the "primary residential" parent.  I've never once seen a judge hold either parent in contempt who was the primary residential parent (or shared residential for that matter).

I think what KTM says is somewhat valid but, the judge will probably have you paying for a full time preschool on her end as well as your own costs.  Preschools for full time are going to charge you the same regardless of how many days they are there.  Unless you can work an agreement with the preschool (which I doubt), you'll end up paying twice here.  But, this is where you have to be very tactful and reasonable in front of the judge and make him/her see that you and your child are the victims in this case and that mom was acting to suit herself.

I say all of that not knowing a thing about your case, so please be mindful that what you are requesting really is in the child's best interest.

So, on the days that you did have her, did you have her overnight?

What is it you really want?

I do not believe so. Unless there is no Child Support recipient in your case.

Even if granted 50% parenting time the person receiving Child Support (lower income parent) will be legally designated as the primary residential custodian.

Primary Residential Custodian is , I believe , a legal designation originating from Federal Tax Laws relating to Child Support payments.

Guru you are right about me having a tough time, my parenting time was calculated using the bradley calculator by the Child support DCF
ATTORNEY of the state of kansas, and just happen to state that the mother will soley claim the child for taxes.,the mom will never let me claim the child I bet,So the only way is to fight for that friday over night to get get 50/50 and then maybe just, maybe we can alternate.I sure hope they consider one day that 47% IS not much of a difference  from 50%

ktm Wow! "Even if granted 50% parenting time the person receiving Child Support (lower income parent) will be legally designated as the primary residential custodian." This should not be even legal, becuase then one parent is gonna always be seen in the eyes of the court as  the parent with more rights.That parent can then violate orders like parenting time. and just get slapped on the wrist.
But thanks you guys are cool

I think for any custody arrangement other than shared custody, "primary custodian" does mean that parent will be responsible for bills, but this is not always the case.  For shared custody, though, that term has kind of been replaced with the "shared formula" which actually says which parent is responsible for direct expenses.  In this case there's no reason to label one parent as "primary."  I think while it was maybe intended to only to help with certain orders, it does put a label on one parent as "secondary" which isn't fair.