|
|
|
|
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/18/2008 11:21:24 AM | The whole thing here is about the child and growing up with access to both parents. In an ideal world when parents split they would both have consideration for the childs emotional, financial, and spititual needs. It just doesnt happen that way and sometimes it is necessary for court involvement.
The OP is getting all kinds of kudos here for wanting to see his child and that is admirable on his part. The woman has been degraded to the point of being called a slut by someone that doesnt know her. The OP did not do that, another poster did.
We do not have her story. And by the way, although it may not matter to the courts as far as visitation......the OP never did answer the question on child support. His paying some sort of support whether court mandated or not should be something he would know he needs to so. .
Anyway I just think a whole lot of assumptions are being posted and none of us has the story. JMHO | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/18/2008 12:25:08 PM | The idea that a father should have an amount of access based on how much money he forked out is surely the spawn of a lunatic.
It certainly is and I NEVER said that. You can blab about semantics and assume and jump to conclusions all you want and the rest of you can wax and wane about "oh a relationship is so important" "money means nothing." You are only ignoring the facts.
Try raising a child on love alone-it does not work-it is called neglect and they will/can remove your kids if they are not fed or housed properly. Food costs money as does medical care, rent, transportation, clothes and schooling.
I clearly said a child deserves both emotional support and financial. I don't think any one here disagrees with that.
Anyway has this guy even responded to any of this advice? Has he shed more light on the issue? Like someone else brought up do we even know if he is "father material" .
Did you ever think there may be a reason she is denying access?
Lets cool down and not forget there are TWO sides to every story-We do not know the womans side, we do not know the childs side. We do not even know if he is paying support. We know very little.
Until we know the facts from all parties involved we can only help on what little information is provided. Again that is why the family court system was created. They can hear both sides and will try and resolve it in a civil manner.
PS-Sorry did not mean to mirror your thought galonthemt but I agree with them.
 | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/18/2008 3:07:26 PM | This is quite clearly an emotive issue and people are discussiong the broader aspects of the issue not just the OP's situation. Some people are introducing scenarios (yours truly is guilty as charged) to illustrate a point or simply vent off while others are reading things into what people are saying (and calling their statement horse shit).
snowboarder, no one ever did say that you said payments should be bound to access. I was talking about it as a general concept. I never actually disagreed with your statement, I responded to it in order to expand on it. I think you got a bit confused as to where all my frustration and anger was directed. I have had years of practice and training in logic and reasoning in order to exercise self-control when dealing with a manipulator but there are still days when you are just tired and they get to you. Yesterday was one of those days because I went to my daugher's first swimming carnival (she has done swimming training) and waited until most of it was over before leaving only to have my wife (whose car I saw driving off when I exited the complex) turn up after I left. She made a liar out of me because I told my daughter I was going to be there [at the carnival] for her to watch her swim. My daughter missed her events. For what??? - the child's protection??? No matter how tough you are emotionally, this bullshit can still piss you off when you are tired. It's not directed at you.
You know, every now and then, you hear about these guys who don't give a toss and are not interested in being involved. In all my travels, I have never come accross them. However, I have come accross PLENTY of mean who have been throwing everything that they have at being able to relate to their kids, and the law allows her to block that relationship.
This is how it works in Australia. Your wife can take the kids and move out (so when you get home from work one day, your family is gone) and there is nothing you can do about it. You are not allowed to demand access. You first have to go throw a FU.CKING PROCESS. IN THE MEAN TIME she can do whatever the FU.CK she wants. That process is taking six months for me to even get my foot in the court room. This is AFTER 2.5 years of shenanigans because I was like the OP and wanted to work stuff out as a civilized human being. I spoke to Legal Aide (a government organisation) and they said there is nothing else I can do to speed it up.
THE LAW literally BLOCKS you from seeing your kids, until you do a bunch of bullshit. The law SHOULD default to BOTH parents having 50% access until one parent can PROVE that the other shouldn't have it. A default 50% court order should immediately fall into place after a break-up. The court is no savior.
PS. WE ARE NOT STUPID, WE KNOW IT TAKES MONEY TO PAY RENT ETC. IF YOU THINK THAT THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BEING WITH THE CHILD, YOU ARE A FU.CKING IDIOT. I can say this with some authority and I spent two weeks negotiating with my dauther's principle (at the school where she is attending) just so that I could turn up one day and say hello to her because I have not seen her since November last year even though I moved 1000 miles and now I live literally 10mins drive down the road. She did not even know that I had moved. She was being taught that daddy doesn't care about her. After two weeks of negotiation while my wife claimed (I am "uncomfortable" about him seeing her and she is uncomfortable about seeing her dad), I finally got to see her for a lunch break. She spent most of the time hugging me and sqeezing my neck. When I sat down she came and cuddled me and rocked back and forth like I used to the last time we lived together (3 years ago) before putting her to bed. Coming directly from this experience, anyone who is going to say to me that anything else is more important than getting to be with a child of that age (my kids are age 3 and 5) is going to get told to FU.CK right OFF! period.
Missing out on seeing her at the swimming carnival was punishment for spending half an hour with her since November (missed out on xmas, missed out on her 5th birthday). Who is really being punished? And what the FU.CK is the law REALLY doing about it?
I just spent the weekend with a friend who's wife just did the same thing with his two kids (age 3 and 1). I know at least 5 other guys in my circle of friends who have similar experiences from women who are infected with this disease. I actually blame women at large for this problem. When an infected carrier presents in a woman's group, she gets nothing but unconditional support and validation. No one ever asks questions about the details. If all you women out there did the right thing when some stupid b1tch presents with symptoms of "woe is me, everything is my husband's fault - he is a bastard, by the way, I am preventing him from seeing the kids", then this problem would be, much less pronounced and there would be a whole hell of a lot of more people out there who are not deprived of their natural parent. | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/18/2008 4:07:10 PM | "THE LAW literally BLOCKS you from seeing your kids, until you do a bunch of bullshit. The law SHOULD default to BOTH parents having 50% access until one parent can PROVE that the other shouldn't have it. A default 50% court order should immediately fall into place after a break-up. The court is no savior"
It's almost a decade ago now that a report here in Canada was prepared about custody and Access. Among its recommendations were that the judicial system adopt the concept of shared parenting, mean both parents would have equal access to the children. There were protests from women's groups (most of which are funded by the same government) against this stating that since the woman is the primary caregiver before the marriage broke up and has a closer bond to the children than the father that the recommendations should be rejected. The government caved in to not only women's groups but to objection from other ministries within the government. Ordinary women also spoke out against, why because the power and control they can wield as the custodial parent would be diminished which they thought was not fair.
At the time mothers got custody just over 90% of the time, since then we have seen improvements where upon that has dropped to 65% with 20% being joint custody, 10% being father sole custody and remainder being other like grandparents. So, even without the laws being changed we are headed in the right direction, albeit very slowly.
As with most things it comes down to power and money which gets wrapped in the statement "what is in the best interest of the child". If the concept of shared parenting was put in place less money would change hands each month and those that have sole custody would have to relinquish some of the control they have in order for the father to have an equal voice in their children's live. If you say it isn't about the money, all we have to do is look at a number of the posts above that have asked whether the op is paying child support. I guess it is the only legal form of extortion there is, don't pay and you don't get to see your kids, oh and there is nothing you can do about it.
What if the roles were reversed though, how would it make you feel if you couldn't see your kids and there was no history of abuse? You couldn't call when you wanted to speak to them, pick them up at school or even go their games. But so long as that cheque keeps coming in I guess that makes it OK. | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/18/2008 5:24:20 PM |
giveing him a new skate board every month ..and offer a car to borrow at 16 ... and he will come back ..
I just have to comment on this ^ type of thought that was being pushed at the begining of this thread. I think buying affections won't mean squat if you can not back it up with a consistent loving and nurturing relationship. Sure it may seem to work on the short term but it could also backfire big time... your child may just see you as the means to get what they want and then start using you.
You need to get something legally binding on paper; whether it be through mediation or the courts. | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/18/2008 10:21:03 PM | | did i forget to mention....i have reciepts to prove my child support is and always has been paid, and on time. the wonderful thing about bieng able to log into my maintenance qaccount online, print them off, and file them with my lawyer....oh how i love technology | |
|
| |
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/19/2008 10:46:42 AM | Matt:
I know isn't technology great. My ex I share a joint account of which the child support and other expenses goes into. That way there is always a record of the amounts transferred as I keep a copy of it every month. I guess that will silence all those posters above.
It's imparative that you keep these receipts because too many times I have heard about a guy who pays his support in cash or buys things in lieu of child support and when the maintenance enforcement comes along he has to pay it again.
As for getting to see your daughter, there is nothing that you can do but go to court. The one thing that I have been told over and over again is document everything. Every phone call, every time you try to pick her up and every excuse because if you have this level of documentation it will support your arguments in court.
Good luck. | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/19/2008 12:06:03 PM | I am sorry you guys are having such a hard time. Ultimately, the children do suffer in these situations.
My situation was entirely different. My ex took off and moved across the country. Leaving me with the children. The court calls that abandonment. He didnt do anything in the childrearing department, he had health insurance on himself, but not his children. worried more about his pets than his children having food on the table. I didnt have to prove he wasnt a good influence, he did that. crying and begging me one minute, the holding a gun on me the next. He only wanted those kids, because it was a way he could hurt me. He moved back and forth from KY to OK on the spur of the moment. He would come back to KY after being gone a year, demanding his rights. But even then, I followed that court order to the letter. One time, I refused to send the boys with him in all these years. He would bring those boys home, hungry, dirty, clothes so filthy, I couldnt get them clean, reeking of kerosene fumes, new shoes would be ruined from walking in mud and creeks. I compensated everytime, baths when they came in, food ready for them to eat. He wasnt taking care of those boys when he had them. Half of the time, he had an excuse why he couldnt come to get the boys. One time, he said it was raining, why he couldnt come. my boys at ages 4 and 5, ready for daddy to pick them up at noon. coats on. 1 oclock comes and goes, they wont take their coats off, cause "daddy's coming, he said he would". yeah, daddy said alot, but came through with very little. When these episodes where brought up, his attorney told him, if he ever was a no call no show, he would see to it himself that he never saw those boys again. Even when he didnt make his payments, and sometimes he would go months and months without making it, I DID NOT use the kids as leverage. I shielded my boys from most of the pain, when they are crying cause daddy didnt come again, we found the money to go out for ice cream or a movie. when he wanted to see the boys, he did. most of the time he didnt want to. at one point he was behind almost $10,000. He called me one night to tell me about his new truck. Brand spanking new. I asked "what about the child support, it's been a couple of months." He said, "your just jealous cause I got a new truck" See, he didnt give a shit about those kids. He knew I would die, doing my best to take care of them. He would lie and tell everybody he was paying his support, I would have loved to have seen his face when it was posted under court news and he was convicted of a felony, for not paying child support. The funny thing is, the only time I ever took him to court was when I filed for divorce. He took me everytime. sometimes every month. He became a joke in the courtroom, people would actually laugh, him taking me to court, again, and he would forget and not show up. And guess who got the free attorney? not the children he was neglecting, but the dead beat dad. I played by the rules, despite all the beatings i endured while married to this jerk. I could have fixed it so he never got to see those boys, all these years. Documented proof, witnesses to the abuse. Bottom line, I wanted those boys to have a father in their lives. I put up with a lot of crap even after we divorced. The boys are older now. 17 and 18. They know who is there, day in and day out. ballgames, doctors, who foots the bill for everything, and loves them unconditionally.
someone said they only knew of the fathers who paid their support but still didnt get to see the kids. All you have to do, is check into the school systems, welfare offices, public housing, you will see the children of the dead beat dads. Dead beat dads are a dime a dozen here. The kids are all over the place.
I know how the courts work in KY. I could get arrested if I refused him seeing his children, for violating a court order. I know the courts work in the best interest of the children, not the ex wife, as so many have said on here. There has to be a reason why visitation is not granted. Cause even my low life ex got it. | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/20/2008 5:38:25 AM | No there does not have to be a reason. And don't assume everyone on this forum lives in the states. I will EVENTUALLY be able to get a court order, and I look forward to that day, but we have to go through a process BEFORE WE CAN EVEN GO TO COURT. I have to obtain a certificate from one of these places that the government sponsors like "Family Relationships Centre". I booked an appointment in November, and they made me wait unto end of January to get my appointment. Then they "have" to allow 6 weeks to get her to have an appointment, then God knows how long it will be before we BOTH come in to finnally have joint mediation session to attempt to come to some agreement (she does not agree to anything). Only THEN do the hand me a CIRTIFICATE to say that I am allowed to even go to court on the matter. Then God knows how long that will take to eventuation. So maybe the process is 6 months of something? I rang up Legal Aide (government body) to ask if there was anything I could do to speed it up, and they said no, you are doing the right thing.
The thing is, we already had a [terrible] agreement which she renegged on. It was terrible because I had to return to my job 1000 miles away and there was no way I had the financial resources to be flying up and down for court battles for her. I had no legal representation when the agreement was drawn up. After she reneged on it, I went to a lawyer with it and the lawyer says that the agreement implies that I am abusive and irresponsible etc. They said that I should never turn it into a court oder. So now she completely shuts down access just because she can.
People are so basic in their reasoning. "Why would she do something like that? She must have had a good reason". She has slandered the name of myself and also my family with accusations in an effort to justify her greedy power plays with our kids. She knows full well that no one will question her accusations because she is so sweet and charming. People who are stone cold newcomers to the situation assume that anyone who acts with that much anger must have had a reason to do so. Of course she does, she is mentally ill. But that is not the reason everyone assumes. Everyone assumes that you were an abusive **stard. When a murderer rapes and kills someone, people don't all sit around and say "well golleeeeee, that person was pretty angry, they musta had a reason! Let's support what they are doing...".
One only need to observe the way the children interact with their parents to know who is telling the truth. But people who assume that "there must be a reason" are not that astute.
In the mean time, she has six months to brainwash those impressionable young minds. Using "no shows" (like the swimming carnival where she sat outside and waited until I left) to "prove" that daddy is a liar and a "no show". She has already done that to me before (want me to write several more essays?). With all this bullshit going down, people in the community around her all assume that I must be guilty for her to be so mean about things.
No one gives a shit about the kids. They're all so FU.CKING intellectually challenged with their "well he must have done something real bad!" mentality. Just saw the movie "Idiocracy" - painful to watch - but interesting concept. I saw my son one time since November at the child care centre where he attends. And now I always get the run-around when I ring up. It's amazing how all these poeple close ranks when the "poor single mother" cries "boo hoo hoo". Their emotions are so EASILY manipulated and they become so easy to own. Where is the hyper-security consciousness then? By the way, the whole time I was there with my son, no one could wipe the grin off his little 3yo face. His teacher commented on this as did my daughter's teacher when I went to see her at the recent parent-teacher night. I drove home that day after seeing him with mixed feelings. I was relieved to know that the brainwashing wasn't so successfull. On the other hand, knowing how desparately he wanted to see me made me really mad at everyone who would contribute to robbing him and I of that natural freedom. Especially dumb-ass people who's leverage can be bought with two pence. They're not intellectually challenged, they're intellectually FU.CKING LAZY!.... cerebral atrophy! The word THINK is a verb. It's something you can DO. It can be practiced. THINK ABOUT IT!
| |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 3/25/2008 12:03:05 AM | giveing him a new skate board every month ..and offer a car to borrow at 16 ... and he will come back ..
I just have to comment on this ^ type of thought that was being pushed at the beginning of this thread. I think buying affections won't mean squat if you can not back it up with a consistent loving and nurturing relationship. Sure it may seem to work on the short term but it could also backfire big time... your child may just see you as the means to get what they want and then start using you.
You need to get something legally binding on paper; whether it be through mediation or the courts.
you expect justice but going to court in Canada is a waste of money and a bigger injustice then dealing with your ex.. | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 8/1/2009 9:16:39 AM | | I think it is sooo sad that a lot of dads get a raw deal with regards to access to their child/ren. I see so often children being used as a weapon. It doesnt matter what happens between a couple, what is important is that person is the child's dad and I will always actively encourage my daughter seeing her father as much as possible, because he is her dad. It does not matter what has happened with him. Obviously there are special cases like where a parent mistreats a child, but I mean here as a general thing. If one parent mistreats a child then I will do everything possible to protect that child from them but through the right channels. | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 8/1/2009 12:03:21 PM | Child support and visitation have nothing to do with each other.
If you take her to court, she can always tell the judge she doesn't think your son is yours. If you signed the birth certificate it won't matter if she tells the judge she lied to you about you being his father. She could do that just to delay things further, in many cases visits will not be court ordered unless you have a peice of paper stating you are the child's biological father.
Not saying she will do this, I am saying she can and might if she really doesn't want u to see him. | |
|
| children and the right to access
Posted: 8/2/2009 9:38:24 AM | Actually, legally, child support and access are 2 different things. Why should a child be further punished?
A child should ALWAYS get to see their parents. Even if that parent is a complete loser, there are supervised visits and such that can be arranged to protect the child. But ultimately, it is that child FATHER, and only the child has the right to remove their father from their life (barring extreme situations involving abuse of course).
My advice to the original post is to DEFINATELY take it to court. Ask for mediation, and get the childnre's lawyers office involved. Apply for a social worker from the CLO to become involved to assess the situation and make recommendations to the court (your lawyer can help with this application process)
And above all else, parents should always remember, love your child more than you hate your ex. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
