Women's Health Interactive Forums

  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Custody battles

Collapse
X
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Custody battles

    Anyone here have any experience with child custody laws, or with reasons why courts would allow little visitation with a father? Obviously, if there are serious issues, but how serious does it have to be?

    Reason I ask is, the guy I'm seeing has 2 kids under 13, and has little visitation. I'm not wanting to pry, but I'm alarmed. He told me he is on his 3rd? lawyer fighting the initial agreement that's been in place 2 yrs now.

    What on Earth would have happened?
    He's tested for drugs regularly, so I don't think that's likely. So far, I've not seen any hint of violent or possessive behavior.

    I know sometimes the woman just gets the upper hand, but... I have no idea. I don't even know if it's anything to be concerned about, but it raised my curiosity. We only discussed it once, on our first date, so, I don't wanna bring it up again yet.

  • From what I have seen from the courts on fathers' rights, if the mother comes along with a good story about how abusive the father is, he loses most if not all of his rights. Whether the story is true or not does not really get considered. Newspaper articles have shown this again and again. You read stories about the mother's new boyfriend hurting or killing the child while the father has no rights to protect his own child. If you want to, go to the court of the jurist who accepted the initial agreement. Sit in on current cases as much as possible and decide if the jurist is biased or not. Even with the jurist not being biased there is a possibility that a clever lawyer for his ex got him to give up more than he was bargaining for. If the mother doesn't want to keep up her part of the agreement, what you described can also happen.

    It is something to look into but it is not an automatic red flag, IMO.
    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
    ...
    Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

    From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

    Comment


    • Thanks jns. I agree, it's not an automatic red flag, but I'm interested in the back story.

      He shared a bit more with me about the relationship last night, so I think I'll just wait until the time is right to know more. From what he told me, I am less alarmed but still really curious. What I appreciated is he's able to share info without adding insults and blame into the story. He seems to have a mature approach to it, and isn't so bitter that he can't discuss it. I could see by his body language that it makes him uneasy, so I didn't ask for much detail.

      He never actually married the kids' mother, so I'm wondering if that worked against him too. He has kids stuff in the car, including pics, so that was a sort of relief. I was as concerned that he just didn't want to be involved, as I was curious there'd been an awful reason he was cut out. To me, that'd be very telling, if he didn't miss his kids... that doesn't seem to be the case tho.

      Comment


      • My only experience is with the Canadian courts. My experiences may/may not be the same as in other countries or areas. Generally though, if the woman files charges of abuse, violence, drunken outlandish behaviour, prior convictions of a sexual nature and/or current allegations of sexual assault or interference with a minor, they will probably at best be given chaperoned visitation. Can you define what "limited visitation" means?
        That which we forget may as well never really happened.

        Comment


        • Claret, he said he's not being allowed to see them as much as he should, and needs to have changes made in the ppwk. That's really the juice of what he's told me. So, it could be that she isn't following orders, or that the orders are inadequate. I'm not sure from the way he worded it, and didn't want to pry.

          I don't think there's any substance abuse. He gets a drug test monthly I think, for work, and a twice yearly psych eval and physical workup, I think he said. From what I've seen so far, he has no issue stopping at a single glass of wine or beer...so I think if there's an issue, it's probably something else. At this point, I'll have to wait to see. My mind is just running away with possible reasons.

          The only thing that has glared at me so far is some cultural differences that aren't alarming, just present. He's European, and has different views on women and the type of relationship he has. I am fairly familiar with customs in his area, so I haven't been alarmed by what he's said. It raises also some questions for me, but he's answered my questions and I don't find him to be domineering or disrespectful, yet. I think that could be a great source for contention tho.
          Last edited by atskitty2; 06-16-2018, 12:33 PM.

          Comment


          • I have no advice, but second jns's post.

            Comment


            • To eliminate custody battles, take the law outta family law. I have heard horrendous stories of mostly fathers getting reamed by CA family law. Especially women from throughout the USA who've married into wealth will move to CA, establish residency here, and file for divorce. The largest legal extortion I've heard of in CA is a woman knocking down 30k a month in spousal support. I know that there has gotta be higher. When a woman is looking at forcing her ex into slavery for her life of leisure, of course she'll lie, cheat, & steal. What's horrible is this screwed up state has created the arena that has encouraged women to lie in order to live large. Family law judges and lawyers have the audacity to call that law, let alone justice.

              Keep this in mind: the least capable judges are assigned to family law. Judges with even marginal aptitude are able to weasel into better assignments. Judges HATE family law.

              With very little variation, lawyers of bottom tier law schools and non-accredited law schools wind up in family law because they can't get hired in traditional legal jobs. Most are half-wits working off of double digit IQ's. Family law unethical lawyers (unethical family law lawyers is redundant) instigate acrimony in order to churn legal fess. But for the injustice of family law, those who weasel in it couldn't find legitimate work to save their lives. With very tiny exception, a lawyer working family law is of very tiny aptitude.

              Some years ago I had read research that indicated that approx 50% of all family law decisions were wrong.

              I've yet to know a legitimate lawyer who has had affinity for family law lawyers and judges.

              Ask yourself a simple question: what mental defect would cause a person to work in an arena that's responsible for the destruction of families?

              Women have nurtured the system that has benefited them, but their selfishness has destroyed other women's prayers for remarriage. In CA, divorce after 10 years' marriage rewards the woman with lifetime spousal support. If she's knocking down 30k a month, she has no motivation to remarry. If she does, she'll lose her spousal support. Men who've been forced into slavery for the benefit of another are not likely to remarry.

              If I had known when I married what I now know, I'd of never have married. I would have striven to deny a cadre of morons to have any control over my life.

              CA family law encourages lying and destruction of parental relationships. It's arguably the most disgusting syndicate run by government. A lawyer friend of mine told me to avoid CA family law at all cost, to divorce w/o an attorney and without entering a courtroom. He said if you want the efficient to become screwed up, get government involved.

              ANY decision that comes from a CA family law court must be viewed with extreme suspicion.

              Comment


              • Watch "Laws of Attraction" with Julianne Moore & Pierce Brosnan. It had to have been written by an enlightened and erstwhile family law lawyer.

                Comment


                • I second WaveRider's post. Very informative. I hope the situation is dealt with and resolved in time, atskitty2. I don't have any legal advice, but agree with WaveRider's post.

                  Comment


                  • I do know that there are some questionable judgements coming out of family courts. I just have very little first hand knowledge. There's his side, her side and the kids side of the story.

                    I cannot imagine why anyone would keep a willing, involved father away from his kids, but I know it happens. It happens both ways I'm sure.

                    He shared more about her and their relationship history, but it didn't shed much light on it. The thing for me is that, he isn't a stupid, or unassertive man. He is savvy, intelligent, and I can't imagine he didn't understand his custody agreement when he signed it. He's no pushover.

                    So, I will wait for more information I guess.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by atskitty2 View Post
                      He shared more about her and their relationship history, but it didn't shed much light on it. The thing for me is that, he isn't a stupid, or unassertive man. He is savvy, intelligent, and I can't imagine he didn't understand his custody agreement when he signed it. He's no pushover.
                      Lawyers can be quite clever at times and occasionally fool even a good lawyer on the other side.
                      I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
                      ...
                      Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

                      From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

                      Comment


                      • I guess that's true jns...he's smart but hasn't studied law.

                        Comment


                        • astkitty2,

                          If you want what could be credible info, go to the court that has jurisdiction of his divorce, pull his divorce file and read it. However, it won't contain court transcripts (oral testimony). For those, you'll have to access the court's stenographer.

                          Comment


                          • He never married the kid's mother. They were together 12+ yrs. So there's no divorce papers to read.
                            I'd not be inclined to do that anyway, unless I thought he had lied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by atskitty2 View Post
                              He never married the kid's mother. They were together 12+ yrs. So there's no divorce papers to read.
                              I'd not be inclined to do that anyway, unless I thought he had lied.
                              Depending on the state, there is still the possibility of common-law marriage. I think that never being in a formal marriage with the mother probably leads to diminished rights on his part.
                              I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
                              ...
                              Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

                              From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

                              Comment

                              or

                              Womens Health orange logoGet The Newsletter

                              Receive our passionately crafted, medically reviewed articles and insights — the stuff nobody else talks about but you want to know — delivered right to your inbox.

                              Latest Activity On Our Forums

                              Collapse

                              Latest Topics On Our Forums

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X