Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Parental rights

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

  • #16
    So what happen that made you want to have an adult present during access?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pitario View Post
      I never said I wanted my cake and eat it too. I am not flabbergasted that he wants access. I have offered it, he refused what I offered. I offered him visits whenever he wanted, as long as an adult was present. That wasn't good enough so he refused. The access has nothing to do with money. My daughter went camping with his family in August, because other adults were present, she spent Thanksgiving with them. He was seeing her and wasn't paying. The rant about no money, no access can stop now.
      Cake and eat it too was that you want to open up the agreement so that you can get CS,but you don't want to open it up on Access. That is the definition of cake and eat it too. Whats good for the goose is another appropriate saying.

      You also said he had only seen her once, now you are changing your story and giving multiple occasions.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pitario View Post
        I have a court order in which all rights to my daughter have been signed off, by her father, and no support has been paid, is that not considered signing off parental rights?

        How can he come back after 13 years requesting access after only meeting his daughter once?

        This could get complicated so bare with me.
        As I understand it, there is no such thing as "parental rights". Children have rights to the care and support of parents; parents do not have "rights" to children. Parents have responsibilities. If you go into this dispute arguing about which parent has a "right" to a child, you will not come off well.

        It sounds like you have sole custody of your daughter with no access by the father and no order for support. If either you or the father want to change this, the parent requesting the change would have to make the case that the change is in the best interest of the child. Leave the parent's "rights" out of it completely.

        In general, it is in the best interests of the child to receive support (financial and other) from both parents and to have an ongoing relationship with both parents. If your ex goes to court, that is probably what will happen.

        In your posts below you say at different times that

        1. Your ex has only seen his daughter once in 13 years.
        2. There was a brief period of time between June 2012 and December 2012 when they were in contact and that was all.
        3. She went camping with him in August and spent Thanksgiving with him.

        You really need to get this straightened out. These may be honest mistakes on your part, but it gives the impression that you are constantly changing your story and will make you look unreliable if this matter does go to court.

        Comment


        • #19
          Father consents to any adoption proceedings
          Access is at my discretion
          No order for child support
          He signed that he would consent to any adoption proceedings? I'm not sure who wrote up your final order and if you both had ILA but that actually isn't even legally enforceable. Bio fathers have the same rights as bio mothers in adoption proceedings. They have to be notified and they have to sign off their parental rights for that specific adoption at that time. A bio father doesn't really blanket sign off his parental rights in the way you've described. He'd have every right to come back and challenge the adoption if he chose. Who wrote up your final order?

          Access at your discretion is subjective to the point that its no wonder that he's challenging it. He clearly has requested access to the child on many occasions. If you thought your child was in danger based on whatever allegations were made...why didn't you contact CAS? It leads one to believe that you purposely have blocked this father having a relationship with his child.

          I offered him visits whenever he wanted, as long as an adult was present. That wasn't good enough so he refused.
          I don't understand why you think this behavior on your part is ok. Would you tolerate the same thing in reverse? Shame on you for engaging in this and shame on the father for taking 13 years to get his head out of his ass and sue you for access to his own child. I'm glad OCL is finally involved. You are going to have a very hard time at this point to stop playing gatekeeper but you need to start changing your mindset. The relationship your child has with her father isn't about you...its about her right to have a father.

          As far as the child support goes...its the child's right and should have been collected from her birth.

          To me, this is foolishness on both sides. A mother so motivated to keep this child away from her father that she was willing to sign away the child's right to financial care from her father. Only now she's done the math and decided she wants both the money and the gatekeeper status. And a father who thought getting away from paying CS was more important than establishing a relationship with his own child and therefore let some control freak establish a long, unholy status quo before he took his head out of his butt and realized what's important.

          Hopefully the OCL involvement will get this sorted out so this kid has a chance to have two parents in her life.
          Last edited by Pursuinghappiness; 02-05-2014, 08:49 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Child support is supposed to be the right of the child.

            I would think it would be more judicially logical to have CS dealt with immediately and have another conference, after the reports from from OCL and other agencies have been compiled, to deal with custody/access.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by pitario View Post
              How can he come back after 13 years requesting access after only meeting his daughter once?
              --- because he wants it.

              I believe it is morally wrong for you to block any possibility for a renewed relationship to develop between your daughter and her father.

              Forgive me but I do not care if her father was a dirty rotten dead-beat scumbag. From your daughter's perspective, none of that matters. What matters is that her father has not rejected her. You are obstructing that.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by good_mom View Post
                So what happen that made you want to have an adult present during access?
                He molested the child. Probably. Child has learning disorder, cant report crime adequately, Ex gets away with it each visit. Sounds like a real creep.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DowntroddenDad View Post
                  So you want your cake and eat it too.

                  You have managed to support your daughter without his help up until now, and now you want to change the original agreement on support. But you are flabbergasted he might want to do the same thing on access.

                  Access should not be dependant on $$. Both of you should take that off the table. Access should be whatever is appropriate for the situation.

                  Your argument for CS might make sense if there was a material change in circumstances, like you losing a major part of your income. Your daughter's disability might qualify, if you can demonstrate in court how this financially impacts your ability to care for your child (and you are using any and all other means to take care of her needs).

                  Just because he was verbally abusive with you, it doesn't mean he would be the same way with his child. If your child objects to the visits, then you are in a difficult position. The courts believe that it is in the best interests of the child to have access to both parents. Your child is close to the age, where a judge will take her opinions into account should it go that far.

                  My GF suffered physical abuse from her ex, and she has full custody, but she gives him fairly free access to the kids. That would change if the kids were abused, but that hasn't happened.
                  So I've been labelled a "dead beat" on this forum for not paying child support even though I have a court order stating I don't have to pay!!!!
                  Yet this poster is being told that she has managed to support her daughter by herself!!!!

                  Double standards at it's finest!!!!!!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    @Gooddadbadbreak I haven't been following your thread as there simply isn't enought time in a day. But I will tell you that I think a deadbeat is someone who legally owes money and doesn't pay.

                    However, I do feel like this whole thread (this one) is a bit bizarre. The poster has continuously provide contradicting information and when called out on that has seemingly disappeared.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      GOODDADBADLUCK.....Your a dead beat because you don't pay. Child Support is for the child. Every parent has that responsibility care for their children and we are calling you out that it is not right even if a court ordered it.

                      Nor is it right for a person that is not your childs father to pay for your child. The BF is a stand up guy he stepped up to being a father when your child did not have one that wanted to get his ass out there and do it.

                      THe OP here. She is using access as a way to get CS. Using this as a way to control the situation. That not the purpose of CS.

                      Contact to the both parents is for the child. One should not be mixed with the other. No parent should have to buy tickets to see the child. That is what is being said.
                      Last edited by good_mom; 02-06-2014, 08:56 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gooddadbadbreak View Post
                        So I've been labelled a "dead beat" on this forum for not paying child support even though I have a court order stating I don't have to pay!!!!
                        Yet this poster is being told that she has managed to support her daughter by herself!!!!

                        Double standards at it's finest!!!!!!!!!
                        THis is why I think that this poster and the OP on this thread are the same.

                        Same situation but posted other side to see what the forum would provide as answers.


                        But that just my take on it...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gooddadbadbreak View Post
                          So I've been labelled a "dead beat" on this forum for not paying child support even though I have a court order stating I don't have to pay!!!!
                          Yet this poster is being told that she has managed to support her daughter by herself!!!!

                          Double standards at it's finest!!!!!!!!!
                          Personally, yes I think you are a dead beat... you are hiding behind a court order and in over two years have not held a job, to avoid paying CS.

                          I also think this poster is starting to be a dead beat for trying to stop access to the child's father. The father in this situation is also a dead beat for doing the exact same thing you are doing, which is not paying CS.

                          A dead beat isn't just someone who fails to pay CS, it is someone who fails to act in the best interest of the child.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            deabeat or gold-digger's target?

                            A deadbeat is a person who has a FREE choice to take care of his/her kids but refuses to do so. No more and no less. Being a deadbeat has very little to do with money --- in fact, when somebody defines "dead beat" in terms of money, alarms go off and I question that speaker's motives and or assumptions.

                            I do not like the term "deadbeat" at all for one reason: everybody plays fancy footloose with the definition and uses it as a rhetorical trick to hide their assumptions

                            Just because a man does not pay what he is "legally" ordered to pay by a court in the arbitrary jurisdiction of your haphazard choice, I will NOT label him as a "dead beat" nor as a bad man. Most "legal" support obligations are just as legal as say, nuclear proliferation is legal. Since when did legality = morality? Anybody??

                            Whenever somebody says "deadbeat" about a person with whom they had leaky sex, I immediately doubt the speaker's word by at least 50% and put the onus on the speaker to prove that he/she is not just one more failed gold-digger who targeted the wrong person.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Whenever somebody says "deadbeat" about a person with whom they had leaky sex, I immediately doubt the speaker's word by at least 50% and put the onus on the speaker to prove that he/she is not just one more failed gold-digger who targeted the wrong person.[/QUOTE]


                              FYI I'm female have shared 50/50 and pay my CS. I don't call my EX a dead beat...I think he is a jerk but not a dead beat.

                              You are entitled to your own opinion and views just like the rest of us.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                If you never called your ex a deadbeat, why would my writing excite you enough to respond under the pretence that I addressed you??????? put aside the fact that my writing did not address anybody.

                                You are entitled to take things personally with no good reason just like the rest of us.

                                Do you want me to give my opinion of you?? Is that what you are getting at here?

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X