Did I do the right thing?

[penelope10]

Dad requested to speak on the phone with the kiddos with Mom on XMAS day. If Mom had any fears about Dad speaking about inappropriate things with the kiddos she should have addressed it at that time. (As well as possible attempts to drop gifts off at her home since there is a protective order in regards to Mom and Dad).

Mom did the wrong thing by not allowing Dad to have contact with his children via the telephone on XMAS day. (The court ordered that phone contact was to take place according to the original post).

 

[Bucky41]

I've read all the replies (quite a bunch) and I'll try to respond to them all if possible. No I didn't duck the phone call to keep the children from their dad on Christmas. When he and I spoke this Thanksgiving (just before actually) he wanted to speak to them in the midst of our arguing about selling the house. I explained we were discussing something else and he needed to abide by the court order as far as visiting them so his absence of a year could be explained.

Wiley, when we initially went through the supervised visits, the social worker explained to me what was appropriate to discuss with the children and told me they would explain to dad what was appropriate to discuss with them. They informed me that questions about me and if I was dating anyone, where we were living (as that information was withheld due to the order of protection) and a bunch of other things would not be allowed. A warning would be given and if he continued to disregard the instructions, the visit would be cut short.

No I was not trying to be a beyotch. He didn't say he wanted to see them to give them gifts - that was my concern as I wasn't sure how to handle that as he hadn't continued the supervised visits since last year. I ran the scenario through my head a hundred times trying to figure out how to let them talk to him without it turning into a huge mess. Yes, I avoided the huge mess by not having them call him back. Has he called them since 11/07, No. He hadn't abided by the court order (not going to the supervised visits, calling them) and simply wanted to make the rules HE wanted to follow. I'll take the bashing about denying them the opportunity to talk to him Thursday morning, but what about the missed phone calls on their birthdays which he didn't care about (court order March '08 and birthdays are both May). Yes, they're resilient and maybe I'm trying to shelter them from the truth (that's my job in this case) but I NEVER did it with malice. He lied to me about why he hasn't seen them/spoken to them for this past year - he said I kept them from him even though he never picked up the phone until the house was selling and he knew he had the upper hand.

BTW, sorry I haven't replied sooner - kids are going crazy with the Christmas toys and for all you cynics, NO he hasn't called again and I'd be suprised if he tries to call again until the house is near closing. I want them to see him (I could use a few hours to get shopping, laundry, etc. done) but want to be sure he doesn't do what he's threatened and since his country is not a signatory to the Hague, it is a very real fear. They are considered citizens of his country by descent so even though I've done what I could to prevent them obtaining US passports, that doesn't guarantee anything. The GAL has contacted his consulate and they won't deny them passports or contact the court system if he applies for passports (they won't even tell us if he has already done so).

 

[ErinGoBragh]

No I didn't duck the phone call to keep the children from their dad on Christmas. When he and I spoke this Thanksgiving (just before actually) he wanted to speak to them in the midst of our arguing about selling the house. I explained we were discussing something else and he needed to abide by the court order as far as visiting them so his absence of a year could be explained.

So you ALSO denied the children the chance to speak with their father on Thanksgiving because you felt that arguing with him was more appropriate? And you now say THAT and then deny ducking the Xmas phone call from dad?
That seems very messed up to me, and you are definitely giving conflicting statements here.

 

[Ohiogal]

Bucky quite frankly you are out of line. You could have let the children speak to their dad but you refused because you are in control. You are apparently thinking that you being in control is more important that dad getting thirty seconds on the phone with his children based on your posts. And that is a bad idea. Horrible. If your children ever find out the role you have played, be prepared to deal with their resentment of YOU. It will happen.

 

[Bucky41]

So you ALSO denied the children the chance to speak with their father on Thanksgiving because you felt that arguing with him was more appropriate? And you now say THAT and then deny ducking the Xmas phone call from dad?
That seems very messed up to me, and you are definitely giving conflicting statements here.

I don't think stating that in the midst of him arguing with me about selling the house, he asked for the kids and refused to sell because I kept them from him is conflicting with anything I've said. I didn't want to argue then...just get him to agree t sell the house (check my previous posts about that). I've tried to explain, no whining and have accepted critiques/criticism. I'm here asking advice and welcome it.

 

[Bucky41]

Bucky quite frankly you are out of line. You could have let the children speak to their dad but you refused because you are in control. You are apparently thinking that you being in control is more important that dad getting thirty seconds on the phone with his children based on your posts. And that is a bad idea. Horrible. If your children ever find out the role you have played, be prepared to deal with their resentment of YOU. It will happen.

OG, I'm glad you took the time to post. I genuinely read your posts and try to see where you're coming from and since becoming a member will ask myself what would Ohiogal do/say. It does seem to be about control - I allowed him to walk over me for a long time. I've done my best to explain his absence to them trying to be as gentle as possible. I just wanted a more 'controlled' re-entry. Does what he threatened to do and what he said on the phone about me keeping them away carry any weight? Should I do more 'wait and see'? Hard to know when it's right to stand up to him and when I need to sit back. Thanks again for the input.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

I don't think stating that in the midst of him arguing with me about selling the house, he asked for the kids and refused to sell because I kept them from him is conflicting with anything I've said. I didn't want to argue then...just get him to agree t sell the house (check my previous posts about that). I've tried to explain, no whining and have accepted critiques/criticism. I'm here asking advice and welcome it.

It's great that you're open to the advice you're asking for (not trying to be sarcastic here).
But you need to understand, despite your perceived urgency of the house situation, that makes it no less wrong for you to not put the kids on the phone when dad asked for it. What you wanted could have been achieved AFTER he wanted to talk to the kids, and would have additionally given dad more talk time with kids, which would somewhat deflate the whole "dad never sees the kids argument" (better to talk to them and see them occasionally than never, right?) Dad can and will make things harder for you if you do things like not letting him talk to or see the kids when he asks for it. What you say above is a PERFECT example of that. You denied dad time with the kids, on the phone or otherwise, so dad jabs back where it hurts. It's a petty game and the big losers are the kids, and you're both contributing.

If you want dad to back down a bit, then work with him a little more. Let him talk to his kids on holidays and otherwise when he asks for it. Let them do a gift exchange with dad. Put away YOUR issues with dad so your kids don't have to suffer parental divorce hell. Trust me, it's no fun being a kid in a situation where parents are doing what you are.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

By the way, you can and 99% likely will be held in contempt if dad brings up in court that you are denying court-ordered telephone or physical visitation, which can cause all sorts of problems for you. This is REALLY not a road you want to be continuing down. Dad cannot be forced to exercise visitation, but you certainly can be compelled to follow the terms of the CO and allow dad ordered visitation when he wants it.

Can any other members inform Bucky what some of the things court *may* do if she's denying visitation to dad so she realizes what the consequences are?

 

[LdiJ]

By the way, you can and 99% likely will be held in contempt if dad brings up in court that you are denying court-ordered telephone or physical visitation, which can cause all sorts of problems for you. This is REALLY not a road you want to be continuing down. Dad cannot be forced to exercise visitation, but you certainly can be compelled to follow the terms of the CO and allow dad ordered visitation when he wants it.

Can any other members inform Bucky what some of the things court *may* do if she's denying visitation to dad so she realizes what the consequences are?

So far she has only denied phone contact once. (maybe twice?) so there are no huge consequences to be faced at this time.

However, should she continue to deny contact a first trip to court for contempt could get her fined. A second trip could get her fined even bigger. A third trip to court could result in a serious possibility of a change in custody.

However, I do understand her concerns about the fact that dad has threatened to run off with the children to his home country. His home country is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. The consulate for his country has made it clear that they will issue a passport for the kids without mom's knowledge.

The GAL was obviously concerned about that enough to contact the consulate and get that info directly.

No matter what we feel about what mom has done, we all have to admit that those issues are valid cause for concern.

 

[Ohiogal]

OG, I'm glad you took the time to post. I genuinely read your posts and try to see where you're coming from and since becoming a member will ask myself what would Ohiogal do/say. It does seem to be about control - I allowed him to walk over me for a long time. I've done my best to explain his absence to them trying to be as gentle as possible. I just wanted a more 'controlled' re-entry. Does what he threatened to do and what he said on the phone about me keeping them away carry any weight? Should I do more 'wait and see'? Hard to know when it's right to stand up to him and when I need to sit back. Thanks again for the input.

Here is the thing -- he cannot run with the children if he is only talking to them on the phone. He can do nothing but talk to them. The fact that you refused to abide by that and allow that is NOT smart and it is not facilitating a relationship. It was a PHONE call. You have no right to determine what a "controlled" re-entry should be quite frankly. He is entitled to phone contact. You denied it. That makes you the bad guy. Or in other words -- you are NO BETTER than HE is. Understand? You are using the children as pawns and weapons and trying to put a nice little picture on it. It doesn't work.

 

[profmum]

I've read all the replies (quite a bunch) and I'll try to respond to them all if possible. No I didn't duck the phone call to keep the children from their dad on Christmas. When he and I spoke this Thanksgiving (just before actually) he wanted to speak to them in the midst of our arguing about selling the house. I explained we were discussing something else and he needed to abide by the court order as far as visiting them so his absence of a year could be explained.

Wiley, when we initially went through the supervised visits, the social worker explained to me what was appropriate to discuss with the children and told me they would explain to dad what was appropriate to discuss with them. They informed me that questions about me and if I was dating anyone, where we were living (as that information was withheld due to the order of protection) and a bunch of other things would not be allowed. A warning would be given and if he continued to disregard the instructions, the visit would be cut short.

No I was not trying to be a beyotch. He didn't say he wanted to see them to give them gifts - that was my concern as I wasn't sure how to handle that as he hadn't continued the supervised visits since last year. I ran the scenario through my head a hundred times trying to figure out how to let them talk to him without it turning into a huge mess. Yes, I avoided the huge mess by not having them call him back. Has he called them since 11/07, No. He hadn't abided by the court order (not going to the supervised visits, calling them) and simply wanted to make the rules HE wanted to follow. I'll take the bashing about denying them the opportunity to talk to him Thursday morning, but what about the missed phone calls on their birthdays which he didn't care about (court order March '08 and birthdays are both May). Yes, they're resilient and maybe I'm trying to shelter them from the truth (that's my job in this case) but I NEVER did it with malice. He lied to me about why he hasn't seen them/spoken to them for this past year - he said I kept them from him even though he never picked up the phone until the house was selling and he knew he had the upper hand.

BTW, sorry I haven't replied sooner - kids are going crazy with the Christmas toys and for all you cynics, NO he hasn't called again and I'd be suprised if he tries to call again until the house is near closing. I want them to see him (I could use a few hours to get shopping, laundry, etc. done) but want to be sure he doesn't do what he's threatened and since his country is not a signatory to the Hague, it is a very real fear. They are considered citizens of his country by descent so even though I've done what I could to prevent them obtaining US passports, that doesn't guarantee anything. The GAL has contacted his consulate and they won't deny them passports or contact the court system if he applies for passports (they won't even tell us if he has already done so).

So he is not Father of the year! BUT let the small battles go!! Let him talk to the kids. You absaloutely took advantage of the situation when he called to give yourself leverage about the selling the house, human nature, cat and mouse game etc etc BUT, you are now divorced and the rules are different. Y

es, your job is to protect your kids.. fear of fleeing the country for example, so yes you need to pursue legal options here. But be smart and learn to stop the frustration he seems to set off in you, overcome you,.. then he has won!!

You cannot protect the kids from figuring out who he is, and a phone calls is not going to change that in either direction. You are getting the right advice here, don't defend your actions, but learn from it.

And you will always have to be the bigger parent, which means the feeling of "being walked over" can either be a constant way of living or you can realize that you are smarter and is doing what needs to be done to be the better parent.

 

[wileybunch]

Other replies have well covered the reality of the situation. Except ldij downplaying the missed phone calls as not that big of a deal. You are just plain wrong to deny the phone calls, there's no excuse to deny them, period. But, I did want to respond to a few other things.

Wiley, when we initially went through the supervised visits, the social worker explained to me what was appropriate to discuss with the children and told me they would explain to dad what was appropriate to discuss with them. They informed me that questions about me and if I was dating anyone, where we were living (as that information was withheld due to the order of protection) and a bunch of other things would not be allowed. A warning would be given and if he continued to disregard the instructions, the visit would be cut short.

That's not really here nor there, but since you shared this info about your particular situation, it makes you even more wrong for doing what you could to deny a move to have a visit by blocking phone call from Dad to kids.

He didn't say he wanted to see them to give them gifts - that was my concern as I wasn't sure how to handle that as he hadn't continued the supervised visits since last year.

By your own admission, this was the exact reason you denied the phone call. So even in advance of Dad articulating a desire for a visit, you nipped it in the bud farther back than that by not even allowing a phone call, a deliberate attempt to alienate Dad from kids.

Yes, I avoided the huge mess by not having them call him back. Has he called them since 11/07, No. He hadn't abided by the court order (not going to the supervised visits, calling them) and simply wanted to make the rules HE wanted to follow.

The court order spells out the MAXIMUM rights Dad gets. It also spells out the MINIMUM rights you must allow. So this idea Dad isn't "abiding" by the court order .... that's neither here nor there for the purpose of the discussion of whether Dad is allowed to talk to the kids when he DOES call. You are not the first CP with a NCP that doesn't use all of their allowed time. That gives you NO right to act unilaterally to block ALL time (phone/visits) just because he misses some. Your right is to take him back to court to have the JUDGE limit time if you think it's justified. Your actions are 100% wrong.

I want them to see him (I could use a few hours to get shopping, laundry, etc. done) but want to be sure he doesn't do what he's threatened and since his country is not a signatory to the Hague, it is a very real fear. They are considered citizens of his country by descent so even though I've done what I could to prevent them obtaining US passports, that doesn't guarantee anything. The GAL has contacted his consulate and they won't deny them passports or contact the court system if he applies for passports (they won't even tell us if he has already done so).

I don't know why you injected that you could use a few hours to get things done. It's not about you. As far as his country not being a signatory to the Hague, frankly, I wouldn't have had children under these circumstances, but you did and cannot use that as an excuse to do as you please. Further, you already have an existing CO and if you are so sure that you aren't protected currently, you can go back to court and have your fears see the light of day and be reasoned with there, not holding all the cards yourself. So far you have engaged in actively alienating a father from his children. Maybe he shouldn't give up so easily, but you have denied him even phone access to his children for 2 holidays in a row (Thanksgiving, Christmas) and apparently won't be happy until Dad ceases contact altogether. We didn't even hear about the Thanksgiving denial initially, that came out only after this thread was well underway. It's as though you just don't "get it" and are sitting back blaming Dad for no contact when in reality Dad has TRIED and you are the reason he hasn't gotten the contact he's legally allowed.

 

[Bucky41]

Update...

After reading OG's post last night, I couldn't sleep very well. The last thing in the world I want is for my children to resent me. Tore up the house looking for the court order but gave up around 2am. That being said, very early this morning I e-mailed my lawyer (expensive doing this as I already owe money and am on a payment plan) explaining what had happened and expressed my concern that I had disobeyed a court order and asked what could happen if contempt charges were brought by the ex (I also mentioned information I had gathered here). I didn't really expect to hear anything back until late today, but luckily he was in the office this morning and would be in court for the afternoon session.

He admonished me for posting anything as he did a quick Google search and was able to provide me with my username here (not a name I go by day to day). He also e-mailed me a copy of the order I had been discussing. He was disturbed as I had been misunderstanding the order. I'll post what it says verbatim...

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the respondent, the ex, will have visitation with the subject children, son, and daughter, as follows:

1. Two (2) visits supervised by XXXXX (facility we had been using last year);
2. Thereafter, unsupervised visits on alternate Saturdays, pick-up at 10am and drop-off at 6pm at petitioner, me, local police precinct subject to petitioner's vacation plans upon reasonable notice to respondent;
3. Overnight visitation to be determined by further agreement of the parties and/or order of this Court subject to respondent's securing of accommodations for children.
4. Neither party will take the children out of the country without the written permission of the other.

The bolded sections were written in outside the courtroom after discussion between the two attorneys, myself, ex and GAL. We all initialled the changes, signed the bottom of the document and the judge signed the second page.

He corrected me on the phone call issue as he had made notes at that time and had them in my file. The ex's not paying the mortgage (or helping with payments) was being discussed. Ex's attorney, Ms. XX, stated I would get that back at closing (still hopeful about that) and it was mentioned that once a contract was signed I could contact him and she provided ex's cell number on her business card. She also provided her cell number as she knew I was fearful he would abduct the children during one of the visits (police precinct pick-up/drop-off). She asked if after completing #1 and beginning #2, would he be able to call the children (I don't know if she assumed as I did that he would begin these soon after this court date) and I said yes. Their birthdays were coming up about 2 months later and I thought #1 would be done and #2 started so they could speak to him ON their birthday as they didn't fall on Saturdays. It was not written into the court order (all this time, I thought it was) but verbally agreed on. Still not sure about verbal agreements vs. court orders and will decide if I should contact him again for further clarification.

At this point, I'll be forced to be careful about what I post as I don't want to damage my case in any future court proceedings (never really gave any thought to this as I don't use my name or any name familiar to most people). I realize the concensus (sp?) here is I want to control things and I really #$%^ed things up for the little ones recently. If it helps any future readers to these forums, hope they're careful with their usernames and how much detail they go into - too much can really identify your case.

Thanks for all input that's been provided (haven't read any posts since replying to OG last night so I'll do that now) and I accept the criticism and own up to my part in this. Have a good day All.

 

[Bucky41]

So far she has only denied phone contact once. (maybe twice?) so there are no huge consequences to be faced at this time.

However, should she continue to deny contact a first trip to court for contempt could get her fined. A second trip could get her fined even bigger. A third trip to court could result in a serious possibility of a change in custody.

However, I do understand her concerns about the fact that dad has threatened to run off with the children to his home country. His home country is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. The consulate for his country has made it clear that they will issue a passport for the kids without mom's knowledge.

The GAL was obviously concerned about that enough to contact the consulate and get that info directly.

No matter what we feel about what mom has done, we all have to admit that those issues are valid cause for concern.

Thanks, LdiJ, I thought that information had gotten somewhat lost. I will do whatever I'm to do (even if I am in fear the entire visit) to facilitate the visits and have him remain in their lives.

 

[Bucky41]

Here is the thing -- he cannot run with the children if he is only talking to them on the phone. He can do nothing but talk to them. The fact that you refused to abide by that and allow that is NOT smart and it is not facilitating a relationship. It was a PHONE call. You have no right to determine what a "controlled" re-entry should be quite frankly. He is entitled to phone contact. You denied it. That makes you the bad guy. Or in other words -- you are NO BETTER than HE is. Understand? You are using the children as pawns and weapons and trying to put a nice little picture on it. It doesn't work.

Point taken. I REALLY don't want to be like him. Can you get to work on that parenting forum?? I'd be a VERY frequent visitor