unmarried couple...visitation

[casa]

Kindly show us WHERE this was stated.

I'm sorry, that's not the words used verbatim. (Just the winding tone of the thread).
The actual wording was that there should be a law "favoring Dad" since he is paying child support. And my response was that the CP is also paying to support the child. The implication here is that since Dad is paying to support the child he should be favored by law. He is not paying ALL support of the child- as that statement *IMO* infers.

Then you <Nextwife> chimed in that you had no additional expenses after having a child, which I then responded to as well...and the rest has evolved.

 

[nextwife]

I'm sorry, that's not the words used verbatim. (Just the winding tone of the thread).
The actual wording was that there should be a law "favoring Dad" since he is paying child support. And my response was that the CP is also paying to support the child. The implication here is that since Dad is paying to support the child he should be favored by law. He is not paying ALL support of the child- as that statement *IMO* infers.

Then you <Nextwife> chimed in that you had no additional expenses after having a child, which I then responded to as well...and the rest has evolved.

Another incorrect quote. I stated that adults are responsible for their own transportantion and housing expenses, and that CS is not intended to house the CP. And no, I planned my family, so my mortgage did NOT go up when I added my daughter, as I had bought sufficient house . Nor did my property taxes, electric bill, phone billl, lawn and snow plowing services and car costs. These are MY costs- they would exist whether my daughter lived here or not. If one adds enough kids, of course there will then be some corresponding increase in the amount of housing one may need. I CAN add one more child here without outgrowing my house, should I wish. And I stated this because the comment about the CS this dad was paying not covering the COST of housing. CS should not need to "cover" the cost of rent/mortgage. Only half of the proportional additional housing size needed, if more house is really needed.

As one who "paid" out fees up the wazoo to have the privilage of being a parent, I feel that GETTING to be the one who spends more time with the child is worth more. This mom gets 100% of the child's time - due to her own deceptions. FRankly, I believe that any CP who hides a child from the other parent (other than DV) SHOULD have the CS suspended during the time that other parent is being denied the right to be a parent. Concealing the child should cause CS to be suspended. She shouldn't get to ONLY want dad to be dad FINANCIALLY but not in the ways that also count.

 

[casa]

Another incorrect quote. I stated that adults are responsible for their own transportantion and housing expenses, and that CS is not intended to house the CP. And no, I planned my family, so my mortgage did NOT go up when I added my daughter, as I had bought sufficient house for the family I planned. Nor did my property taxes, electric bill, phone billl, lawn and snow plowing services and car costs. These are MY costs- they would exist whether my daughter lived here or not. If one adds enough kids, then there will be some corresponsing increase in the amount of housing one may need. I CAN add one more child here without outgrowing my house, should I wish. And I stated this because the comment about the CS this dad was paying not covering the COST of housing. CS should not need to "cover" the cost of rent/mortgage.

As one who "paid" out fees up the wazoo to have the privilage of being a parent, I feel that GETTING to be the one who spends more time with the child is worth more. This mom gets 100% of the child's time - due to her own deceptions. FRankly, I believe that any CP who hides a child from the other parent (other than DV) SHOULD have the CS suspended during the time that other parent is being denied the right to be a parent. Concealing the child should cause CS to be suspended. She shouldn't get to ONLY want dad to be dad FINANCIALLY but not in the ways that also count.

Nextwife,

First of all the child in the OPs case is NOT being 'concealed'. The father has not legally established his rights as a father and is awaiting a court date. The mother is not allowing visitation (not morally ok, but legally ok since he hasn't established himself legally prior to this point)

Your case (as other responder's cases) is NOT the same situation at all. First of all you got married first. Second of all you are an adoptive parent. Many many many biological parents don't 'plan' the exact conception of their child. So it's unreasonable to assume that everyone who has a child buys a house & establishes everything first.

You mentioned the few things that DID NOT change when you had a child- but many people do not own their own home when they are first parents...and you mention utilities which is interesting because mine went up quite a bit. Babies go through a lot of clothing and bedding (& diapers for those who don't use disposables). You did not mention all the things that DID go up, stating there was no 'additional expense' to them...implying no additional expense. (otherwise you would have noted additional expenses, or even addressed them) Sometimes what you do not say is just as loud as what you do say.

I don't want to go round and round with you on this. I see families every single day struggling to add health insurance and going to WIC for formulas etc., and having many added expenses from the addition of a child in their life. My own children each added additional expenses- diapers alone can cost a small fortune.

 

[whitedoveh]

Ohio
To Casa.... I didn't mean that the Dad should be favored. I merely meant that the Dad shouldn't be labelled as a deadbeat and just because he doesn't marry the girl. He is paying the child support and should have equal rights to the child and shouldn't have to hire a lawyer and go through the courts for his right to see the child. The mother doesn't. Not only does he pay child support but now has to fork out hundreds of dollars to get visitation rights.
And on a $6.50 hr job, it isn't going to be easy. She doesn't care...she will probably get a court appointed attorney....it won't cost her a penny.

And when my son called to tell her he wanted to sign the papers out of court in the presence of a lawyer she refused. So see, she doesn't care what he has to go through

Oh, and by the way, we paid the deposit on her apartment, gave her a car....because she told us she was staying in a homeless shelter. We were concerned for the child's wellbeing. So this is the way she rewards our son.
See she used her past to get our sympathy....and worked us for all she could get and then *** bam****

Now she knows we will probably pay for our son's lawyer and court fees....she won't rest. She loves the drama.

 

[casa]

Ohio
To Casa.... I didn't mean that the Dad should be favored. I merely meant that the Dad shouldn't be labelled as a deadbeat and just because he doesn't marry the girl. He is paying the child support and should have equal rights to the child and shouldn't have to hire a lawyer and go through the courts for his right to see the child. The mother doesn't. Not only does he pay child support but now has to fork out hundreds of dollars to get visitation rights.
And on a $6.50 hr job, it isn't going to be easy. She doesn't care...she will probably get a court appointed attorney....it won't cost her a penny.

And when my son called to tell her he wanted to sign the papers out of court in the presence of a lawyer she refused. So see, she doesn't care what he has to go through

Oh, and by the way, we paid the deposit on her apartment, gave her a car....because she told us she was staying in a homeless shelter. We were concerned for the child's wellbeing. So this is the way she rewards our son.
See she used her past to get our sympathy....and worked us for all she could get and then *** bam****

Now she knows we will probably pay for our son's lawyer and court fees....she won't rest. She loves the drama.

It's harder than one would think to get a court appointed attorney in a civil case. It's not like criminal court where if you "can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you".

I don't recommend ANY parent to keep visitation from another parent for ANY reason- but the legalities in an unmarried couple's case, is actually also protecting the father (so not just anyone can say someone's a father and get child support etc.).

If there is no order for child support- your son isn't legally obligated to pay it (just like with no visitation order the mother isn't legally obligated to allow it.) I really want to reinforce that your son should be paying the mother support via money orders or check with "support" notated on the memo area of the check~ to protect himself.

Whether the mother hires or obtains an attorney or not, your son WILL get parental rights. And if the mother plays games with a court order, he can file contempt. If she continues to play games she can risk fines, jail time or losing custody. So just hang in there for now and follow through with the correct legal procedure.

Next time (if there is one) leave the car in your name etc. By choosing to 'gift' her those things, she now owns them. If there is a reason you wanted to do it in the first place- don't regret it now just because they broke up and she is acting immature. The grandchild still has transportation and has you to thank for that.