a man's point of view
I'm an attorney, used to practice family law, now I handle business only because I got absolutley sick of all the bickering and moral judgment that went on over and above what the LAW IS.
At the risk of being clawed by some of you more catty women on this post, here is the way it is, froma LEGAL standpoint for fedup23.
You have every right to withhold visitation until such time a court order is put in place to PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR CHILD from the controlling threats this idiot of an ex-boyfriend of yours is making. Yes, he established paternity, but he then must take the NEXT step and that is establish his visitation rights. You have done your job. It is incredibly obvious he is using the child and your fear of him, in a very negative manner to continue dominating your life even after he, technically, has no part in it.
There is a HUGE difference between temporary denial of visitation to ensure fairness, and just withholding out of spite. Which some of the women on this string fail to grasp or understand in concept and theory.
Temporary suspension of visitation, or limited supervised visitation, is VERY common in the world of divorce/child custody/visitation determination to ensure when one parent is making threats, that they are not acted upon, so the child goes, temporarily, the the parent that is deemed, in the courts eyes, to be more apt to conform to state statute and facilitate the child/parent relationship. In your case, being unmarried, you can take that legal act upon yourself. Denying, supervising,dictating visitation until such time as a court takes over and establishes a guideline.
Please, ignore the moral judgement most of these women are placing on you. As it is severely misplaced.
Only after you have a court document in your hands, that clearly states the when's and where's of custody and visitation, that can legally protect you from his threats, idle or not, do you HAVE to let him see the child.
Look at it this way, with all of the school shootings and the like that have gone on the past few years, law enforcement and school personnel have taken it upon themselves to act on ANY threat, by suspending or expelling a student, for voiced, written or other form of threat to harm or damage, to ensure the safety of the masses. When the threat is deemed to be negatable, the child is brought back into the system, if it is found to be a clear and real danger, there are even more controls put in place.
It is all you would be doing, protecting your child, temporarily, until such time as the threat can be nullified. And there is NOTHING legally wrong with that option.
