Autism & Lies

[proudfatherof1]

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.

Protecting the Constitution and what it entails is what I feel is right.. So do not try to twist my words. Unfortunetly with that comes bad people as well. Like Westboro Church for example. I did not pull the "military card". I stated a truth. That I fight for people to have those rights. You fight in court to help them keep their rights.

But do not try to twist my words about what I feel is right. Do NOT tell me I don't do my job to protect the Constitution.

You are the one who asked if I have ever been to a warzone. I answered your question. What did you say to me when I said I have seen Soldiers (my buddies die). You said "goody for you". No sorry that is not goody for me.

I also did not at any point give the OP any bad advice. I did not tell OP that she had a chance in front of a Judge. I told her she was a legal stranger. However, I also told her that being called a "bed warmer" in my opinion is rude.

 

[proudfatherof1]

§5.05 De Facto Parent

A de facto parent is a person who assumes the role of parent by fulfilling a child’s physical and psychological needs for a lengthy period on a day-to-day basis. [CRC 5.502(10).] A de facto parent’s relationship with a child may have developed over time through daily care, affection, and concern for the child. [In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 CA4th 258, 261.] [See In re Ashley P. (1998) 62 CA4th 23, 27–30.]

A de facto parent may appear at the disposition hearing or subsequent proceedings. The de facto parent may present evidence and be represented by retained or, at your discretion, appointed counsel. [CRC 5.534(e).]

Now if I am wrong on how this reads please someone let me know. To me though it seems that anyone (does not state the person has to be related by blood or married to the biological parents) can be concidered a de facto parent if they tend to the childs physical and psychological needs for a length of time. I could not find the length of time though that CA considers.

 

[Ohiogal]

§5.05 De Facto Parent

A de facto parent is a person who assumes the role of parent by fulfilling a child’s physical and psychological needs for a lengthy period on a day-to-day basis. [CRC 5.502(10).] A de facto parent’s relationship with a child may have developed over time through daily care, affection, and concern for the child. [In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 CA4th 258, 261.] [See In re Ashley P. (1998) 62 CA4th 23, 27–30.]

A de facto parent may appear at the disposition hearing or subsequent proceedings. The de facto parent may present evidence and be represented by retained or, at your discretion, appointed counsel. [CRC 5.534(e).]

Now if I am wrong on how this reads please someone let me know. To me though it seems that anyone (does not state the person has to be related by blood or married to the biological parents) can be concidered a de facto parent if they tend to the childs physical and psychological needs for a length of time. I could not find the length of time though that CA considers.

Wrong. They are not tending to the child's physical and psychological needs if the parent is there.

 

[proudfatherof1]

Wrong. They are not tending to the child's physical and psychological needs if the parent is there.

I do not see anywhere that states that one parent living with the person keeps a step-parent or girlfriend from being able to be a de facto parent. How else would a Lesbian couple (one being the birth mom) living with eachother and the one who was not the birth mother but helped tend to the childs physical and psychological needs be considered a de facto parent?

 

[Ohiogal]

I do not see anywhere that states that one parent living with the person keeps a step-parent or girlfriend from being able to be a de facto parent. How else would a Lesbian couple (one being the birth mom) living with eachother and the one who was not the birth mother but helped tend to the childs physical and psychological needs be considered a de facto parent?

And are you sure that in a lesbian couple one would be considered a defacto parent? Not seeing that in this situation. This child has a MOTHER and a FATHER. And neither one is the OP. A lesbian couple does NOT become a parent and DE FACTO parent in ANY state strictly by being together.

 

[cappadocia]

Protecting the Constitution and what it entails is what I feel is right.. So do not try to twist my words. Unfortunetly with that comes bad people as well. Like Westboro Church for example. I did not pull the "military card". I stated a truth. That I fight for people to have those rights. You fight in court to help them keep their rights.

But do not try to twist my words about what I feel is right. Do NOT tell me I don't do my job to protect the Constitution.

You are the one who asked if I have ever been to a warzone. I answered your question. What did you say to me when I said I have seen Soldiers (my buddies die). You said "goody for you". No sorry that is not goody for me.

I also did not at any point give the OP any bad advice. I did not tell OP that she had a chance in front of a Judge. I told her she was a legal stranger. However, I also told her that being called a "bed warmer" in my opinion is rude.

I'm gonna call BS here. You pulled the "military card". It was absolutely irrelevant to your debate with OG, and when you began to fail in your retort, you decided to create a big smokescreen with that self-righteous nonsense about how you're crawling through the trenches so she can call someone a bedwarmer on a legal advice site. What a load. You're in the military because it's the career choice you voluntarily selected for yourself. You knew the score when you went in and you receive a paycheck and other subsidized services and resources as a result. No matter your personal agenda, that's the truth of the matter. The hard-working people who made other career choices and are pouring money into the system to keep this country running are also protecting the constitutional rights her citizens.

 

[proudfatherof1]

I'm gonna call BS here. You pulled the "military card". It was absolutely irrelevant to your debate with OG, and when you began to fail in your retort, you decided to create a big smokescreen with that self-righteous nonsense about how you're crawling through the trenches so she can call someone a bedwarmer on a legal advice site. What a load. You're in the military because it's the career choice you voluntarily selected for yourself. You knew the score when you went in and you receive a paycheck and other subsidized services and resources as a result. No matter your personal agenda, that's the truth of the matter. The hard-working people who made other career choices and are pouring money into the system to keep this country running are also protecting the constitutional rights her citizens.

First of all, I never stated that she was not protecting Constitutional Rights. On the contrary, I stated that she did do that in court. Second, I did not pull the Military Card.. I made a statement. No different then the statement that most people make on here.

She is the one who wanted to try to call me out on if I have ever been deployed to a warzone. I answered her. Then she replied with "goody for you" when I also said that I had seen Soldiers die. If you would read the whole entire thread, she started in on me when I answered the OP nicely. So therefore I defended myself against her. There was no debate. She attacked my original post to the OP. I did not begin to fail in my retort. So I suggest you read the thread before you go jumping.

If I was such in the wrong then how come a few of the Seniors saw what OG was saying and doing was wrong? Yet none of them said to me that I did or said anything wrong? She did not like it that I refused to call someone a "bed warmer" just because she thinks she is so high and mighty around here that she can put anyone down, attack anyone's character, and basically harass people on some of their choices.

 

[cappadocia]

So I suggest you read the thread before you go jumping.

I read the entire thread and I called it correctly. Your insertion of the subject of the military was absolutely irrelevant to the content of the thread and it therefore created a straw man to deflect from the fact that you'd run out of things to whine to OG about. Now you're overly defensive because you know it was a load.

You said:

I guess I am just one of those Military Fools fighting for your right to be rude to people on a public forum.. and since this is a public forum for ADVICE, then she has a right to ask. Because I fight for her right to do that as well

Which basically means "you're only saying the things you're saying because I've enabled you to do so in a really roundabout and likely ineffectual fashion by reporting for the duty set forth by my superiors, but you're welcome." It's a load. That you're defending it so vehemently confirms my notion that you don't have a whole lot else to back up your assertions. Are you here for legal advice, or are you here to whine about people not being nice enough?

 

[Proserpina]

Guys really?

Do we still need to be doing this?

I don't care who instigated this but honestly, it didn't help OP and frankly I'd be astonished if either she OR her husband came back because of what this has turned into.

OP, if you do read - well, don't give up on the forum.

 

[proudfatherof1]

I read the entire thread and I called it correctly. Your insertion of the subject of the military was absolutely irrelevant to the content of the thread and it therefore created a straw man to deflect from the fact that you'd run out of things to whine to OG about. Now you're overly defensive because you know it was a load.

You said:



Which basically means "you're only saying the things you're saying because I've enabled you to do so in a really roundabout and likely ineffectual fashion by reporting for the duty set forth by my superiors, but you're welcome." It's a load. That you're defending it so vehemently confirms my notion that you don't have a whole lot else to back up your assertions. Are you here for legal advice, or are you here to whine about people not being nice enough?

Wow I am so glad that you think you can read what I mean.. That is so awesome of you If you read the thread then you would see that I made a post to OP. Nothing I stated to the OP was bad advice. It was pretty much the same thing that others were saying but in a nicer way

Now are you here for legal advice? Or are you here to stick your nose in other peoples arguments? Oh nevermind. Thats right, you are here to be a mind reader. Duh! I almost forgot

 

[proudfatherof1]

Guys really?

Do we still need to be doing this?

I don't care who instigated this but honestly, it didn't help OP and frankly I'd be astonished if either she OR her husband came back because of what this has turned into.

OP, if you do read - well, don't give up on the forum.

You are right. I apologize for my part in the Thread getting off track . OP sent me a nice private message and I hope she does come back but I highly doubt it. She felt really insulted and disappointed.

 

[gr8rn]

§5.05 De Facto Parent

A de facto parent is a person who assumes the role of parent by fulfilling a child’s physical and psychological needs for a lengthy period on a day-to-day basis. [CRC 5.502(10).] A de facto parent’s relationship with a child may have developed over time through daily care, affection, and concern for the child. [In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 CA4th 258, 261.] [See In re Ashley P. (1998) 62 CA4th 23, 27–30.]

A de facto parent may appear at the disposition hearing or subsequent proceedings. The de facto parent may present evidence and be represented by retained or, at your discretion, appointed counsel. [CRC 5.534(e).]

Now if I am wrong on how this reads please someone let me know. To me though it seems that anyone (does not state the person has to be related by blood or married to the biological parents) can be concidered a de facto parent if they tend to the childs physical and psychological needs for a length of time. I could not find the length of time though that CA considers.

I do believe you are misinterpreting what you are reading and OG is correct. Everything I have read regarding de facto parent status in CA appears to refer to a dependent in the Juvenile court system..meaning that the actual parents are not in the picture.
I do not want to sound disrespectful, I do thank you for your service to our country. But this is a legal advise forum not a support forum. We are all trying very hard to make sure the people who come here for advise do not make the mistakes we made.

 

[proudfatherof1]

I do believe you are misinterpreting what you are reading and OG is correct. Everything I have read regarding de facto parent status in CA appears to refer to a dependent in the Juvenile court system..meaning that the actual parents are not in the picture.
I do not want to sound disrespectful, I do thank you for your service to our country. But this is a legal advise forum not a support forum. We are all trying very hard to make sure the people who come here for advise do not make the mistakes we made.

Oh I know.. I completely understand that =). As I stated I did not give the OP any different advice then everyone else did. Also told her she was a legal stranger as well.

That is why I asked about the interpretation of it. I am trying to figure out how it reads like that but then it is stated that both parents have to be out of the childs life? From reading through other older posts on here, I had read before that a de facto parent can be a step-parent even if one of the other parents are still around. The whole de facto thing confuses me. I was not saying OG was wrong on that. I was basically asking how it all fits. I know that de facto came about (or atleast started to come about) because of a Lesbian couple who seperated and it became a court thing with the non biological mom wanting to still have rights.

Was not sure if that would help the OP or not in this situation where she cares for the childs needs daily as well while mom is an absentee parent.

 

[stealth2]

This thread really needs to be closed or deleted. And, IMO, both parties to the argument need to go sit on the naughty chair for a while. Really.

 

[mistoffolees]

§5.05 De Facto Parent

A de facto parent is a person who assumes the role of parent by fulfilling a child’s physical and psychological needs for a lengthy period on a day-to-day basis. [CRC 5.502(10).] A de facto parent’s relationship with a child may have developed over time through daily care, affection, and concern for the child. [In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 CA4th 258, 261.] [See In re Ashley P. (1998) 62 CA4th 23, 27–30.]

A de facto parent may appear at the disposition hearing or subsequent proceedings. The de facto parent may present evidence and be represented by retained or, at your discretion, appointed counsel. [CRC 5.534(e).]

Now if I am wrong on how this reads please someone let me know. To me though it seems that anyone (does not state the person has to be related by blood or married to the biological parents) can be concidered a de facto parent if they tend to the childs physical and psychological needs for a length of time. I could not find the length of time though that CA considers.

As OG says, that doesn't really apply in this circumstance. If it did, a day care facility to claim de facto parent status. After all, they meet the criteria: "A de facto parent is a person who assumes the role of parent by fulfilling a child’s physical and psychological needs for a lengthy period on a day-to-day basis." Heck, I'll bet that their child care provider spends more time with the child than OP.

Clearly, that's not what the law says.

I didnt mean to make people upset here, His father has legal custody, yes... I am not airing his dirty laundry online. 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. So for you to be so rude to me is uncalled for. We are just wanting some guidance so please dont bash me for loving this child and worring about him.

Here's the deal. People here are happy to help, but most of us have an aversion to helping third parties who do not have a legal stake in the matter. There are several reasons for that:
- Information tends to get distorted when passed through multiple people
- Third parties rarely have all the facts
- Third party interference can, in the worst cases, cause a parent to lose what custodial rights he already has
- If the parent can't be bothered to come here himself, then he probably doesn't care enough to follow through on the advice being given.

I'm sure you're really serious about wanting to help and have the best intentions. I'm sure it's very hard to deal with a special needs child, especially when you have no legal authority. So here's what you need to do to be a real help:
1. Get your BF to come here and sign up and ask his own questions.
2. Take at least 3 big steps back. You do not have a role in this situation and your involvement can only make things worse.