Did I do the right thing?

[Bucky41]

New York - Well, I wish the mods would get to work on that Parenting Forum 'cause I really could have used it yesterday. I know this is long, but I didn't want you to have to pull teeth. Some background - there was an Order of Protection (threats to kill me and take children back to his home country) from May 2007 initially for myself and children - modified late August to only cover me and supervised visitation with the children. He was having the visits with the children once a week (he was unavailable for additional visits although GAL and supervisor pushed for them) and the last visit was the Wednesday before Thanksgiving LAST year. That was the last time he saw/spoke to them.

We went to court just after that visit (early December) and it was to be carried over until after the new year as we were trying to find a family member to supervise. I mentioned to his attorney that I was willing to continue the visits until the next court date to provide continuity for the children (the order was we split the cost of the facility/supervisor). She discussed it with him but said No as he didn't want to continue paying for the visits ($37.50 each per visit). I reminded her that Christmas was coming up and they'd really like to see him, but he wouldn't budge.

Final court date was March and the order stated ex was (1) to attend 2 additional supervised visits with the children, (2) Saturday visits to follow with pick-up/drop-off at local police precinct due to the threat of abduction and (3) phone contact was also to take place. Immediately after court in March, I called the facility to inform them we would require the 2 final visits, to tell them that our availability would be the same (the children were still in school) and to ask them to contact me to schedule the visits as soon as he called them. They never contacted me although I left a message on the supervisors cell phone voicemail subsequently to find out if he had ever called. He didn't follow the court order at all.

I recently found a buyer for the marital home and had to deal with him (first time since March) and after realizing I needed him to sign the contract, he refused to sign and gave a really hard time. He called yelling at me the Wednesday before Thanksgiving (what is it with him and holidays) and threatened to take me to court again about the children, find a better lawyer (he doesn't realize his lawyer was pretty damn good considering the circumstances), never sell the house, etc. I tried explaining they hadn't spoken to him in a year and he needed to be consistent - not just jumping in and out of their lives. He hung up. Fast forward to Christmas morning and he called and left a message on my voicemail saying Merry Christmas and have the 'pickney' call him (it's a slang word for children in his country). I didn't comply with his request.

Bash if you will, but I worried the conversation with them would include him asking them when he could see them since he had presents. I felt I was doing the right thing and that legally I wouldn't be in trouble but wanted to check with you all. Did I do the absolutely WRONG thing?

 

[wileybunch]

Fast forward to Christmas morning and he called and left a message on my voicemail saying Merry Christmas and have the 'pickney' call him (it's a slang word for children in his country). I didn't comply with his request.

Bash if you will, but I worried the conversation with them would include him asking them when he could see them since he had presents. I felt I was doing the right thing and that legally I wouldn't be in trouble but wanted to check with you all. Did I do the absolutely WRONG thing?

Yes, you did. You should have let the children speak to their dad when he asked. If you expected he'd ask to see them, you could have easily been prepared to answer that. At least you would have had a hint that was coming vs. the kids prompting the question at any random time. You could have also spoken with him FIRST about the whole "seeing the children" thing and worked that out prior to him talking to the kids, could have made arrangements for him to drop the presents off somewhere and then you pick them up and then the kids could call him after they received the presents.

 

[Bucky41]

Yes, you did. You should have let the children speak to their dad when he asked. If you expected he'd ask to see them, you could have easily been prepared to answer that. At least you would have had a hint that was coming vs. the kids prompting the question at any random time. You could have also spoken with him FIRST about the whole "seeing the children" thing and worked that out prior to him talking to the kids, could have made arrangements for him to drop the presents off somewhere and then you pick them up and then the kids could call him after they received the presents.

Thanks for your input, wileybunch. How, then, do I explain his absence to them? Do I even try or do I let him explain it and leave it at that with them? That was my reason for not letting them speak. I thought it would be better handled if it happened during a supervised visit where if they asked him, he couldn't just say "it's your mother's fault" (that's what he said to me during the previous call). I don't want to battle him - I want what's best for them. I try my best not to hate him (I do get angry at him) since if not for him, they would not exist. I try to be a good mom and make the right decisions. I accept that you think I blew it...

 

[wileybunch]

Thanks for your input, wileybunch. How, then, do I explain his absence to them? Do I even try or do I let him explain it and leave it at that with them? That was my reason for not letting them speak. I thought it would be better handled if it happened during a supervised visit where if they asked him, he couldn't just say "it's your mother's fault" (that's what he said to me during the previous call). I don't want to battle him - I want what's best for them. I try my best not to hate him (I do get angry at him) since if not for him, they would not exist. I try to be a good mom and make the right decisions. I accept that you think I blew it...

Kids don't need all the questions answered that we as parents dream up they need. They are FAR more forgiving and accepting than we adults are. They go with the flow and roll with the punches much better than we do.

That said, he hasn't been absent that long, it's not like there's a lot to explain. I don't see where supervised visits or not add to or subtract from the situation. A visitation supervisor would really have no business censoring what Dad says to the kids, much less something like this (ie. his reason for not seeing them for a while).

At this point, if someone is to "blame" for lack of contact with the kids, you actually are the one holding the hot potato at this point, denying dad both phone calls and a gift exchange.

 

[LdiJ]

Kids don't need all the questions answered that we as parents dream up they need. They are FAR more forgiving and accepting than we adults are. They go with the flow and roll with the punches much better than we do.

That said, he hasn't been absent that long, it's not like there's a lot to explain. I don't see where supervised visits or not add to or subtract from the situation. A visitation supervisor would really have no business censoring what Dad says to the kids, much less something like this (ie. his reason for not seeing them for a while).

At this point, if someone is to "blame" for lack of contact with the kids, you actually are the one holding the hot potato at this point, denying dad both phone calls and a gift exchange.

I have to seriously disagree with the bolded statement Wiley. A visitation supervisor is absolutely responsible for making sure that inappropriate things are not said to the children. That is part of the point of supervised visitation. I would hate to have some grandparent or other relative who is charged with supervising visitation read that statement and believe that they had no obligation to ensure that inappropriate things were not said to the children.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

I have to seriously disagree with the bolded statement Wiley. A visitation supervisor is absolutely responsible for making sure that inappropriate things are not said to the children. That is part of the point of supervised visitation. I would hate to have some grandparent or other relative who is charged with supervising visitation read that statement and believe that they had no obligation to ensure that inappropriate things were not said to the children.

Is saying "Your Mom wouldn't let me see/talk to/visit you" inappropriate when it's the truth? Would it be inappropriate if Dad said "I just didn't want to see you"?

Who decides exactly where that inappropriate line is? Although I think it would be wrong to say that "Mom wouldn't let me", I don't think that I would end/interrupt a supervised visit over it.

 

[summerdawn]

Did I miss something? Is there actually going to be a parenting forum, or was that a joke?

It would totally rock if the mods made a parenting forum.

 

[LdiJ]

Is saying "Your Mom wouldn't let me see/talk to/visit you" inappropriate when it's the truth? Would it be inappropriate if Dad said "I just didn't want to see you"?

Who decides exactly where that inappropriate line is? Although I think it would be wrong to say that "Mom wouldn't let me", I don't think that I would end/interrupt a supervised visit over it.

A supervisor at a visitation center wouldn't immediately end visitation over an inappropriate statement, but they would interrupt the conversion and steer it in another direction. Also supervision centers make reports to judges and they would likely include inappropriate statements made in their report.

In my opinion the only appropriate statement to make to a child in that situation is that "there were some problems, but they have been worked out now and I love you very much" and then a quick change of subject.

Yes, it can be difficult to decide what is an appropriate line to draw. However, anything denigrating the other parent is pretty clear as being over the line.

 

[wileybunch]

I have to seriously disagree with the bolded statement Wiley. A visitation supervisor is absolutely responsible for making sure that inappropriate things are not said to the children. That is part of the point of supervised visitation. I would hate to have some grandparent or other relative who is charged with supervising visitation read that statement and believe that they had no obligation to ensure that inappropriate things were not said to the children.

The point of supervised visitation is not to censor what the parent says with something like this. It's not abusive and it's not even UNTRUE if Dad were to say I tried to get ahold of you and Mom wouldn't return the calls if child asks why Dad hasn't called or tried to see them. And, I don't think you can presume to know what grandparents or relatives across the country say, but I think it's quite pollyannish to think a paternal grandparent would *TYPICALLY* step in and say something over this sort of Q&A (or report it later).

Nevertheless, the point was that the OP should not be withholding the visitation and if you're convinced the visitation supervisor would never ever allow Dad to give any indication Mom was preventing contact, then you can just agree with me even more that the OP should not have prevented the supervised visitation (which is the question she was asking).

 

[stealth2]

Given that it's the truth (Mom DID refuse him phone contact, and she DID refuse a gift exchange), it's hardly out of the realm of appropriate to say "I tried to call you, but Mom said no." Yes, saying "I called, but your Mom the beyotch wouldn't let me talk to you" is a different story. But that is up to the supervisor - not OP.

But the fact remains - OP was out of line with her actions.

 

[LdiJ]

The point of supervised visitation is not to censor what the parent says with something like this. It's not abusive and it's not even UNTRUE if Dad were to say I tried to get ahold of you and Mom wouldn't return the calls if child asks why Dad hasn't called or tried to see them. And, I don't think you can presume to know what grandparents or relatives across the country say, but I think it's quite pollyannish to think a paternal grandparent would *TYPICALLY* step in and say something over this sort of Q&A (or report it later).

Nevertheless, the point was that the OP should not be withholding the visitation and if you're convinced the visitation supervisor would never ever allow Dad to give any indication Mom was preventing contact, then you can just agree with me even more that the OP should not have prevented the supervised visitation (which is the question she was asking).[/QUOTE]

Where was there any indication that OP was withholding supervised visits? I agree completely that it would be a VERY bad idea to do that. You weren't suggesting that she should supervise were you? There is a protection order in place so obviously she cannot do that.

It appears that he hasn't seen them for over a year, by his own choice.

I did see that she avoided some phone contact, which probably wasn't wise, but whether or not that will be a real problem depends on what dad does at this point.

In any case, the only reason why I responded on this thread at all was to address the issue of supervisors having some responsibility to ensure that inappropriate things were not said to the children.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

In any case, the only reason why I responded on this thread at all was to address the issue of supervisors having some responsibility to ensure that inappropriate things were not said to the children.

Again, I have to ask this.

Who decides where the line is for "inappropriate things" being said? Unless there's a list of some kind that says "these are inappropriate statements", there's an awful lot of gray/grey area there.

 

[wileybunch]

Where was there any indication that OP was withholding supervised visits? I agree completely that it would be a VERY bad idea to do that.

Her own words. She knew Dad wanted to see the kids to give them the presents he had for them and that is why she won't even return his call.

Bash if you will, but I worried the conversation with them would include him asking them when he could see them since he had presents. I felt I was doing the right thing and that legally I wouldn't be in trouble but wanted to check with you all.

This is the whole crux of her question to us i e. Did I do the right thing? I say no. At least she didn't totally sugar coat it -- she straight up told us she's dodging his calls to the kids to prevent him from SEEING the kids, too.

In any case, the only reason why I responded on this thread at all was to address the issue of supervisors having some responsibility to ensure that inappropriate things were not said to the children.

This is simply not the case at all. There aren't some universal standards. In fact, there isn't a class, list of instructions, or agreement all supervisors must sign.

 

[LdiJ]

Her own words. She knew Dad wanted to see the kids to give them the presents he had for them and that is why she won't even return his call. This is the whole crux of her question to us i e. Did I do the right thing? I say no. At least she didn't totally sugar coat it -- she straight up told us she's dodging his calls to the kids to prevent him from SEEING the kids, too.

This is simply not the case at all. There aren't some universal standards. In fact, there isn't a class, list of instructions, or agreement all supervisors must sign.

Ok...this is an honest question. The is a protective order against dad for mom, therefore mom cannot supervise.

Dad was supposed to have some more visits at the supervision center and then to work his way into other visits. He stopped visiting altogether.

Exactly what did you expect mom to do to facilitate a visit between dad and the kids? Please be specific.

I agree that she was wrong not to allow telephone contact, because she did not honor the court order in that respect.

 

[wileybunch]

Ok...this is an honest question. The is a protective order against dad for mom, therefore mom cannot supervise.

Dad was supposed to have some more visits at the supervision center and then to work his way into other visits. He stopped visiting altogether.

Exactly what did you expect mom to do to facilitate a visit between dad and the kids? Please be specific.

I agree that she was wrong not to allow telephone contact, because she did not honor the court order in that respect.

Nowhere did I say Mom should supervise the visit or take responsibility to "facilitate" (ie. make the arrangements for the supervised visit). Mom's own words are the reason she ignored the phone message to have kids call Dad is because she knew a visit was on the horizon so she shut Dad out altogether. Period. No need to get into all the logistics of how a visit would happen. Mom's intent on making Dad feel like he has no right or place in his kids' lives, totally shutting him out of their Christmas.

Also, I know sometimes people miss the details in a thread (hehe), but post #2 (mine) answers your questions and OP's, too.