At what age can a child decide they don't want to visit

[LdiJ]

I know of two of those three if not all three. Someone got the bright idea that initials should be used That is hopefully going to go the way of the wind eventually. And it would have helped if I had not made a typo:


The synopsis is "okay" but not perfect and it deals with a current juvenile court case (that used to be a domestic relations case) and the case history in the briefs is what is very interesting. The child didn't want to go on visits and fought to not go on visits. And thus due to a ruling of the judge came to the issue as described above. If the child is able to be considered a party as per juvenile rules -- the briefs go into a great deal of detail on the juvenile rules -- then how far does the participation continue? I will say I was hired by a child in a visitation/custody issue which drove the court and other attorneys crazy trying to figure out why my client was allowed to hire me. I argued juvenile rules and won my argument and my client got to participate in everything (for better or worst). So let's see what the Ohio Supreme Court states about this.

If she was 5 years old in 2001. Then she has to be either 18 or almost 18 now. I wonder why its even being pursued at this point, because she will be definitely be 18 before its decided. Do you know any scuttlebutt about the case? Mom isn't pursing this herself. I wonder who is paying for AG's attorneys. Is this possibly a case where the attorneys are pursuing it with the intent to establish case law?

It sounds like both parents have not played nicely over the years.

Justalayman, I do think that older teenagers should have greater participation rights in determining their futures. My biggest reason for feeling that way is because when they are shut out, it usually causes them to shut out the parent who fought against their participation once they become legal adults. Of course I think that judges need to make decisions based on the totality of the situation...but if you have a 16 year old who is mature, is a good student and good citizen, I think that not letting them participate in the process is a recipe for disaster down the road.

 

[justalayman]

Justalayman, I do think that older teenagers should have greater participation rights in determining their futures. My biggest reason for feeling that way is because when they are shut out, it usually causes them to shut out the parent who fought against their participation once they become legal adults. Of course I think that judges need to make decisions based on the totality of the situation...but if you have a 16 year old who is mature, is a good student and good citizen, I think that not letting them participate in the process is a recipe for disaster down the road.

I wholly agree with participation, to the point of the child even making a decision at some point if the state believes it appropriate. What I have an issue with is allowing the child to be an actual party to the actions. As such, they are going to be able to unilaterally initiate court proceedings to alter the status quo. Arguing that wouldn't happen is not seeing what is happening in the AG case O presented.

A.G. countered with a motion to end all visitations with her father. She also asked the court to allow her to attend and participate in the proceedings.

she sought to have standing equal to her parents.

 

[dannyt]

Gosh, dannyt! it's been awhile.

We've missed you lots.

(But I'm sure our aim will improve with some practice)

been busy trying not to freeze my ass off( god i hate winter)

 

[Just Blue]

been busy trying not to freeze my ass off( god i hate winter)

lol...YOu really are that dumb Kelly. Are you a product of mum and uncle?

 

[Proserpina]

lol...YOu really are that dumb Kelly. Are you a product of mum and uncle?

No no no.

Y'see, with the aid of Marmite I've figured it out.

Lilmansmom and spinny got together. Lilmansmom bails. spinny moves on to Tajuana. Hey presto, a child is born

 

[Just Blue]

No no no.

Y'see, with the aid of Marmite I've figured it out.

Lilmansmom and spinny got together. Lilmansmom bails. spinny moves on to Tajuana. Hey presto, a child is born

Ahh! i GET IT! Had I not 'dissed Marmite I would have known sooner...Shame on me...

 

[Silverplum]

This is such a stupid question, I propose we allow danny to answer it every dumb time it's asked.

 

[Just Blue]

This is such a stupid question, I propose we allow danny to answer it every dumb time it's asked.

 

[LdiJ]

I wholly agree with participation, to the point of the child even making a decision at some point if the state believes it appropriate. What I have an issue with is allowing the child to be an actual party to the actions. As such, they are going to be able to unilaterally initiate court proceedings to alter the status quo. Arguing that wouldn't happen is not seeing what is happening in the AG case O presented.



she sought to have standing equal to her parents.

Ok..then I understand exactly where you are coming from and agree. I did not read it as saying she wanted actual standing, but wanted to participate.

 

[gam]

This is such a stupid question, I propose we allow danny to answer it every dumb time it's asked.

Your so funny, perfect solution!

Has to be one of the top 5 questions asked. I would put it at number 1 for the dumb question category, but that is just my take on it, others might rate some other questions dumber.