Autism & Lies

[LdiJ]

I have. And I can bet I have been in the courtroom more often than you have.



This is a LEGAL forum.



Nor has she actually answered that question. Notice?


Oh well.



Oh by the way, I am defending the constitution just as you are. My battles happen to be in a courtroom. But it is still a defense of what the Constitution stands for. You might consider that before you get a high and mighty attitude.

oooo...are you sure you want to go there? I think that I stand up for law and order and the constitution in what I do too, but I am not sure that I am willing to equate that with what our deployed military sacrifices for our country.

With rare exceptions, neither one of us puts our actual life on the line.

 

[Ohiogal]

oooo...are you sure you want to go there? I think that I stand up for law and order and the constitution in what I do too, but I am not sure that I am willing to equate that with what our deployed military sacrifices for our country.

With rare exceptions, neither one of us puts our actual life on the line.

And? I still defend the Constitution. I will defend it. Who is to say that poster puts his life on the line? Is he deployed? Has he been deployed to a warzone? You cannot guarantee it. So yea, I wanna go there.

 

[proudfatherof1]

I have. And I can bet I have been in the courtroom more often than you have.



This is a LEGAL forum.



Nor has she actually answered that question. Notice?


Oh well.



Oh by the way, I am defending the constitution just as you are. My battles happen to be in a courtroom. But it is still a defense of what the Constitution stands for. You might consider that before you get a high and mighty attitude.

You may defend the constitution in the safety of a courtroom.. I defend it while the the threat lingers of bullets flying past my head. I have seen Soldiers (HEROES) die for the right for people to ask questions. Are you the only one who is allowed to get high and mighty on here? You think just because you have stood in a courtroom that you are better than everyone else?

Let me tell you something. This is a site for Legal Advice. Yet half the people here are not lawyers. They are just normal people who have been through it or seen it. They are here to try to HELP! Not put others down or call them names.

And please do not compare your job of safety to that of mine. You may fight in a courtroom for peoples rights but I put my life on the line for those people to have their rights!

 

[proudfatherof1]

And? I still defend the Constitution. I will defend it. Who is to say that poster puts his life on the line? Is he deployed? Has he been deployed to a warzone? You cannot guarantee it. So yea, I wanna go there.

Yes I have been deployed to a warzone. Hence why I said I have seen Soldiers (my own buddies) die.

 

[Ohiogal]

Yes I have been deployed to a warzone. Hence why I said I have seen Soldiers (my own buddies) die.

Goody for you. But don't think because you are a soldier you have a CLUE about the law. You stay away from trying to explain the law and I will stay away from trying to explain the troop movements in the Middle East. You are NOT impressive quite frankly on these threads. You have NO CLUE about the law.

btw -- when is the last time you were dodging bullets saying I am glad I am here so someone can speak their mind?

 

[proudfatherof1]

Goody for you. But don't think because you are a soldier you have a CLUE about the law. You stay away from trying to explain the law and I will stay away from trying to explain the troop movements in the Middle East. You are NOT impressive quite frankly on these threads. You have NO CLUE about the law.

I have been through a lot of this myself. Have looked up the laws for many states when it comes to child custody. So I guess you are saying that everyone on here who does not have a law agree should not help others? I guess that takes away half of the Seniors then doesn't it? I honestly do not care if I impress you or not. I am not here to impress you.

And goody for me? For what? Having to watch my buddies die in combat so people can have the freedom to ask questions? That is really even more rude of you then name calling others. I will try to help others on here as I see fit to. As this is an open forum. It is not just for lawyers. Or else as I stated there would not be many on here trying to help!

 

[Zigner]

I have been through a lot of this myself. Have looked up the laws for many states when it comes to child custody. So I guess you are saying that everyone on here who does not have a law agree should not help others?

No, what's being said is that you should do your best to avoid providing false and misleading information. Additionally, you should have the decency to admit when you are wrong and to accept correction from an EXPERT. I've done it.

 

[Proserpina]

REALLY?!

Look, I'm sorry OG, but that was WAY out of line. We appreciate what you do on a daily basis (frankly I don't know how you DO do what you do ...I just said doo-doo, didn't I? ), and it's possibly one of the thankless and underappreciated jobs ever. You are truly a hero for doing it.

But it's NOT the same as going into a war-zone and being shot at fighting for this country. It's just NOT. I don't know why you chose to engage the other poster like that, but seriously, it was unnecessary in my opinion.

Now with that aside, and given that OP has been reamed quite adequately, does anyone actually want to answer her questions?

She's OBVIOUSLY been the "de facto" parent for the past however long. That doesn't put in the same category as the overstepping bed-buddy who met the guy 3 months ago and now wants to be SuperMom.

She was even contrite afterwards for pete's sake.

 

[Ohiogal]

REALLY?!

Look, I'm sorry OG, but that was WAY out of line

Love you dearly but NO, that was NOT WAY out of line. he wants to throw up that he is in the military as though that gives him a right to advise people incorrectly. Sorry but no.

We appreciate what you do on a daily basis (frankly I don't know how you DO do what you do ...I just said doo-doo, didn't I? ), and it's possibly one of the thankless and underappreciated jobs ever. You are truly a hero for doing it.

Again, NO. Well yes, you said doo-doo but NO I am not a hero and never said I was. BUT, I am also trying to make sure the poster gets PROPER CORRECT advice. Throwing out the military card is a CHEAP LOW thing to do quite frankly in order to try to get by with inadequate, improper information. I don't fall for such low blows. And yes, I support the military.

But it's NOT the same as going into a war-zone and being shot at fighting for this country. It's just NOT. I don't know why you chose to engage the other poster like that, but seriously, it was unnecessary in my opinion.

Because the other poster, in my opinion, decided to bring out a low blow of being a veteran so that no one would question him. Which makes him a pathetic example.

Now with that aside, and given that OP has been reamed quite adequately, does anyone actually want to answer her questions?

Still waiting.

She's OBVIOUSLY been the "de facto" parent for the past however long. That doesn't put in the same category as the overstepping bed-buddy who met the guy 3 months ago and now wants to be SuperMom.

She was even contrite afterwards for pete's sake.

WRONG. She has NOT been de facto parent -- that requires being the parent without the other/any parent around. SHE has NOT done that. She has been dad's bed buddy. NOT de facto parent. Now, if dad has allowed her to overstep that is something that can come back and bite him HARD. If dad AND mom were not around AND OP were making decisions for child, THAT would be acting as de facto parent. So, wrong.

I am still waiting for her to answer my questions.

 

[tranquility]

I am rather surprised at the tone as well. While we don't have both sides of the story, what facts we do have makes me think the law is an ass--if the black and white as described as the law is what it is. Must be some social worker blood is more important than family person who was very important somewhere.

I have no knowledge or experience here, but what I see is:

My boyfriend and I have had custody of his son since 2004

A longstanding relationship (aka bedwarmer) where the non-parent has lived with the child and:

doesnt remember to brush his teeth on a daily basis

who has seemed to perform parental functions to a significant degree. And:

I love this boy so much and have been there for him. We are scared. We were up all night last night worried. she has no clue about his conditional and special needs.

Who seems to have forged some level of parent-child bond. And who seems like the actual biological parent who has had custody is in favor of the bond continuing. It seems some case could be made the OP is psychology the child's guardian. Especially when dad is there and consents and:

mother gave him to us because she felt she needed to focus on herself.

since 2004.

When that is combined with the fact some case can be made the mom is unfit as she has had:

since 2004 when mother gave him to us because she felt she needed to focus on herself.

Prolonged separation from the child.

She has not been to school meeting since 2002 for him.

with an abandonment of parental duties.

His mother has played no part in his treatment or school, nor did she even know what his disablility was.

Showing a poor relationship with the child.

Again, I know nothing of California law regarding such matters, but is seems to me the OP is not playing some power trip but has a genuine concern for the child. Is there no case to be made here? Does she really deserve the derision? If the OP were a same sex partner of the father, I bet he'd have a case. At the very least, one he would not be hooted out of the room for asking about it.

I also understand both parents are ideally to have frequent and continuing contact. But I also know the Family code at 3041 provides for non-parent custodians without finding either parent unfit. I find it unlikely the law is as black and white as have been expressed so far.

 

[proudfatherof1]

Love you dearly but NO, that was NOT WAY out of line. he wants to throw up that he is in the military as though that gives him a right to advise people incorrectly. Sorry but no.


Again, NO. Well yes, you said doo-doo but NO I am not a hero and never said I was. BUT, I am also trying to make sure the poster gets PROPER CORRECT advice. Throwing out the military card is a CHEAP LOW thing to do quite frankly in order to try to get by with inadequate, improper information. I don't fall for such low blows. And yes, I support the military.


Because the other poster, in my opinion, decided to bring out a low blow of being a veteran so that no one would question him. Which makes him a pathetic example.


Still waiting.



WRONG. She has NOT been de facto parent -- that requires being the parent without the other/any parent around. SHE has NOT done that. She has been dad's bed buddy. NOT de facto parent. Now, if dad has allowed her to overstep that is something that can come back and bite him HARD. If dad AND mom were not around AND OP were making decisions for child, THAT would be acting as de facto parent. So, wrong.

I am still waiting for her to answer my questions.

I gave her the same advice everyone else did pretty much.. I just put it in nicer terms. I did not throw out that I had been to a warzone until YOU felt the need to know that. I am the type of person who will admit if I am wrong on something.

I stated that I fight for the right for people to have their Freedom of Speech. This is a Community. It is open for the public. I will admit that maybe it was not the best place to say that you are rude. However, I have seen you be nothing but rude to many of people. I will apologize for calling you out on that in the PUBLIC Forum.

Also, she stated that mom is only around a couple times a year. Therefore if she is dealing with the childs daily physical and emotional needs then she can be concidered a "de facto" parent in some states. It is apparent she is more than a bed warmer since she has been with the father for more than 10 years. (Does not matter if they are married or not) Either way in a court, yes, she would be considered a legal stranger if "de facto" could not be used. She however is not in a court room. She is asking about a child she seems to care very much for

 

[proudfatherof1]

btw -- when is the last time you were dodging bullets saying I am glad I am here so someone can speak their mind?

Nobody is ever glad to have bullets flying by their head. I do the job I am given to do in order to protect what I feel is right. I may not be "happy" to be in that situation. It is a career worth doing for me

 

[3greatkids]

@ Jasgal...I have come to realize the hard way that this is not the place to come for sympathy or compassion.

I feel for you. Hope things work out.

 

[Ohiogal]

Nobody is ever glad to have bullets flying by their head. I do the job I am given to do in order to protect what I feel is right. I may not be "happy" to be in that situation. It is a career worth doing for me

And being an attorney is a career worth doing for me. However you don't do that job in order to protect the constitution. You do it to protect "what I feel is right" -- which may NOT be what the Constitution stands for. Pulling the military card is a low blow quite frankly.

 

[Ohiogal]

I am rather surprised at the tone as well. While we don't have both sides of the story, what facts we do have makes me think the law is an ass--if the black and white as described as the law is what it is. Must be some social worker blood is more important than family person who was very important somewhere.

I have no knowledge or experience here, but what I see is:
A longstanding relationship (aka bedwarmer) where the non-parent has lived with the child and:

Bedwarmer is NOT a status that matters. Parents matter to the law quite frankly.

who has seemed to perform parental functions to a significant degree. And:
Who seems to have forged some level of parent-child bond. And who seems like the actual biological parent who has had custody is in favor of the bond continuing. It seems some case could be made the OP is psychology the child's guardian. Especially when dad is there and consents and:since 2004.

She slept with dad since 2004. It gives her NO RIGHTS to the child. At. All. Legally. And where has she stated she performed parental functions? She hasn't answered my questions yet as to what the heck she has DONE. All we know is she has been dad's girlfriend for that long.

When that is combined with the fact some case can be made the mom is unfit as she has had:
Prolonged separation from the child. with an abandonment of parental duties. Showing a poor relationship with the child.

WRONG. We don't know that mom hasn't exercised visitation or not had contact for prolonged periods of time. Mom could have called NIGHTLY for that period of time. We also don't know that there is a "poor relationship" with the child. We don't know HOW OFTEN mom has seen child or for what periods of time.

Again, I know nothing of California law regarding such matters, but is seems to me the OP is not playing some power trip but has a genuine concern for the child. Is there no case to be made here? Does she really deserve the derision? If the OP were a same sex partner of the father, I bet he'd have a case. At the very least, one he would not be hooted out of the room for asking about it.

No he wouldn't have a case. OP still hasn't answered the questions. She is NOTHING more than a bedwarmer. Unless she establishes herself as more.

I also understand both parents are ideally to have frequent and continuing contact. But I also know the Family code at 3041 provides for non-parent custodians without finding either parent unfit. I find it unlikely the law is as black and white as have been expressed so far.

Back it up that bedwarmer has ANY legal rights. Please.