J
jamesmoog
Guest
I have to agree that "parents" should have a right, (responsibility), to decide with who their children spend their time. I also agree that the needs of the child should be considered. I am in agreement with the decisions of "Troxel" because the parents were trying to maintain visitation, and the GPs decided the were entitled to more. I believe the GP's were wrong and the parents rights needed to be protected. But the problem with this decision is how it has effected the idea of "reasonable" 3rd party visitation. I lost my son when he was nearly 5 years old. I lost him because of this same decision. As my divorce progressed I was informed that my son, who had only known me as his father, was in fact not my son. DNA testing proved this true. The bio father agreed he should be involoved in his sons life, and with that I was excluded. No visitation was granted based on the "Troxel" decision because I am not the bio parent. My discord is, am I not this boys father? I can appreciate both sides. But ambiguous rules create more problems and heartache. How would the Courts decide for the parents who are the best influences? I think that the parents should ONLY be the ones who decide such things. So even with as much as I have lost, I have to maintain that rather than watching parents dragging their children to Boliva, this was a good decision.