Do I have to send my child?

[BigCat50]

Well, looks plain enough to me. Of course we must go by what you've told us, and with that in mind I'd say unless dad picks up the child, the child stays with you.
I would like to hear what the previous posters have to say, though, as discussion is always a good thing.

 

[stealth2]

It depends. If the order doesn't specify that Dad cannot send an agent to pick the child up, he very likely has every right to do so. With the wording as stated, Mom can likely refuse - this time. She should then expect that Dad will haul her into court on contempt charges and the judge will likely tell her that she's to allow stepmom to pick the child up. Unless the woman is a provable danger, Mom's buying herself a time or two of being able to do this. The question she needs to ask herself is whether putting off the inevitable is worth the time, hassle and expense of defending herself against contempt charges.

 

[Badhead]

Do I understand where you are coming from!!!

I asked this very same question myself back a few months ago!!! And, it wasn't a stepmom, it was a girlfriend at the time. Even now, she is a fiancee.

I got the same advice you got.

What I don't understand is why is everybody so sarcastic?? Why can't people just respond politely? Why be rude?? I just don't get it!!

Best luck to you. I think you will eventually HAVE to allow it; just like the last person said. Do you want to create all this drama?

That's what you need to ask yourself.



Badhead

 

[Reyna7]

I agree

I have been reading the board for a couple days and I cannot believe how rude people are. Not sure why, maybe they get some thrill out of it.

 

[oneamber2]

I agree. But you know, I do think it's a load of crap. I don't consider it drama, I consider it caring for your child. If father's want visitation and want mother's to respect that and be happy to send our children, THEN BE THE BEST DAMN DAD YOU CAN BE ON THE TIME YOU DO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN. I am so freakin sick of seeing ******* father's get visitation "because he has the RIGHT to" and then treat the child like a piece of ****!!!!!!!
There is my 2 cents. And I don't know what the deal is w/ people being so crappy on this website either. Thanks for everyone's posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WyattJ]

For the last nine years my son has been getting picked up by everyone besides his dad well I can count on one hand how many time he has pulled up in a car.

But my son has bonded with the other people regardless of the rude remarks they have made to me or how they like to over step thier boundies on being a mother to my son. My son knows I am his mom and his mom only. He also knows that he has other people in the family that love him, he also knows and tells me all the time how dad gives money to others to do things with him.

The dad doesn't care about bonding but at least when my son is gone for his visitation he knows there are others who care for him.

 

[oneamber2]

That is great WyattJ, consider yourself very lucky. I wish my son would bond w/ his father and or whoever picks him up, but he screams. It is quite sad. Thank u for posting.

 

[speedcam]

ok wait a minute. i'm not trying to start anything but we just went to court for the vacation thing and he told us his parents were taking the boys on his days. but since he is not there, his lawyer informed us that they have no right to the kids on his days. they have no legal right, visitation or guardianship to them, so they do not go anywhere but our house . they aren't even supposed to pick them up from school or anything else because of this. none of this is recorded in the papers but coming from "his" lawyer i would assume he correct .isn't he? or is this just a catch --22?

 

[BigCat50]

Well, I didn't realize I was being rude. Thought maybe a little discussion would be fun.

If the order states the NCP will make the pick up, and no mention of anyone else, then that is how it will be. No interpretation from us needed. If Dad "hauls her into court" for contempt, he will lose. Period. Oh, sure he can attempt to modify, but the order doesn't have to state who cannot pick up the child, only who can.

Interesting view Stealth2, I like seeing opinions without all the extra things we see on here so often.

OneAmber, I do enjoy your thoughts, but you seem a bit hostile. We didn't have the child with this fellow, you did. So actually, YOU gave him the right to visitation ultimately. If you women that are sick of seeing fathers get visitation would choose better, well... there you go. No offense meant.

 

[stealth2]

Well, that's the thing Cat. He may lose on the contempt, but I would nearly guarantee that the judge will modify the order to allow stepmom to pickup. And very likely order amber to pay court costs for bringing it to court. Because, quite frankly, this is the sort of petty thing that clogs up our courts and the judges hate. Like it or not, this woman IS a part of Dad's - and therefore the child's - life. Mom's going to have to learn to deal with that as well as the fact that her child is going to be spending time with the woman, sometimes without Dad's presence.

And back to the kid crying only when going with Dad or stepmom... Kids are very perceptive - even if Mom puts on a happy face, the kid KNOWS that she's not happy about this, tense, stressed, etc. And feeds off it. Hence why he doesn't do the same at other times, with other people. The likelihood that it's due to mistreatment of some sort is on the order of 1-2%, IMO.

 

[haiku]

i have 2 situations to share.....

first one, the papers stated cp and ncp throughout. ANd to me that is standard and basic, and well why else would they list every tom dick and harry anyway....I digress.....

NCP begins to get pissed off that CP has been sending other members of her household for pickup because after the papers were files she got a job that overlapped the pickup times. he wanted to refuse to hand over the baby to anyone but the CP.

not only was the mediator pixxed and told him to get over it, and hand the kid over when his time was through, it was stated that interpreting the order literally like that was nitpicking.andthe cp than requested to have added 'anyone in her household" to the order. And it was granted.

second situation-different people-different state, but same basic wording.

CP begins having hissy that NCP works in beginning of visitation time and is sending the wife to pickup. it also ends up in court, CP is ALSO told to 'grow up" by own lawyer! and wives name ends up being put in paperwork.

in my experience all that happens when you nitpick like this, is put off the inevitable, and that person/situation you object to ends up being set in stone anyway. you waste a lot of time and just end hurting YOURSELF by showing the court you are overbearing...

Just because you don't like that daddy or mommy works or thier "parade of 'friends" doesn't automatically give you the right to deny visits, if the child is in danger there is something you can do, its called 'emergency modification of visitation" but you have to have GROUNDS, and 'I don't like him/her', doesn't cut it.

it would be one thing if you were expecting the parent, but some stranger you never met turned up, but a known 'friend" the parent gave permission to, is another story.

You CANNOT change or control who the other parent wants around them or your children together. As was said in both occasions I know, when your custodial time is up, HAND OVER THE KID.

 

[haiku]

ok wait a minute. i'm not trying to start anything but we just went to court for the vacation thing and he told us his parents were taking the boys on his days. but since he is not there, his lawyer informed us that they have no right to the kids on his days. they have no legal right, visitation or guardianship to them, so they do not go anywhere but our house . they aren't even supposed to pick them up from school or anything else because of this. none of this is recorded in the papers but coming from "his" lawyer i would assume he correct .isn't he? or is this just a catch --22?

so NO grandparents ar ever allowed to take thier grandkids on vacation?

the only way I got to go to disneyworld when I was a kid was cuz my grandparents took me, and they didn't take my parents. How sad if one of my divorced parents had objected.....

 

[haiku]

kids instinctively don't want to hurt the hands that feed them. Of course they are going to want to especially please the parent they have to live with. ANd divorced children sometimes have to quickly switch thier switches when they can feel the parents animosity, even if it is never spoken aloud

 

[speedcam]

so NO grandparents ar ever allowed to take thier grandkids on vacation?

the only way I got to go to disneyworld when I was a kid was cuz my grandparents took me, and they didn't take my parents. How sad if one of my divorced parents had objected.....

i never said NO grandparents can, i simply stated what was just told to my wife this past tuesday by his attorney. simply put he is not going to be in this state and therefore ,according to HIS LAWYER, his parents can not and do not have any rights to get the kids or have them at their house for his rightful visitation days.( while he is gone)

 

[stealth2]

This should probably go in a thread of it's own, but for starters - was his lawyer talking to you outside the presence of his client? And as far as I know, there is nothing restricting an NCP from giving all or part of his/her visitation time to other people - especially relatives. It happens all the time, and I think eitehr y'all misunderstood what he said or he's wrong.