• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Dead Beat Dad Trying to Get Visitation

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

BL

Senior Member
And if you want to see real destruction, just bring bio dad back in the picture to really mess with that poor kid's head. Oh, yeah, bio dad sure has his 'rights'. And, unfortunately, the daughter may not have any right to say that she has NO desire to 'visit' with a STRANGE MAN. I sure as hell wouldn't want to put my daughter in the hands of a man who hasn't seen her since infancy. Rights? He gave up his rights when he walked out of that child's life. If not legally, he sure as hell did emotionally.
Ever hear of graduating visitation rights , to introduce the child to the father/mother ,or reintroduce ?

Each case is different ,but I know for a fact the court has ordered the other parent to produce a child for visitations without physical visitations for years ,or go to jail .

To say the father lost his rights is not a legal response.

Destruction my butt . To have the child calling the other man Dad ( in this case ) , is wrong .
 
Last edited:


LdiJ

Senior Member
Ever hear of graduating visitation rights , to introduce the child to the father/mother ,or reintroduce ?

Each case is different ,but I know for a fact the court has ordered the other parent to produce a child for visitations without physical visitations for years ,or go to jail .

To say the father lost his rights is not a legal response.

Destruction my butt . To have the child calling the other man Dad ( in this case ) , is wrong .
I don't think that there is anything wrong with calling a stepparent mom or dad in the case where the actual parent of the child has been awol for many years.

What I do think is wrong however, is not making the child aware that they have another mommy or daddy out there that is their birth mommy or daddy...in age appropriate terms. I don't think that a child has to completely give up having someone that they call mommy or daddy who is involved in their actual lives. The important thing is to not hide the truth from them.
 

Isis1

Senior Member
From what I understand, Step-dad and mom haven't lied to the child. They weren't 'dissing' bio dad to daughter. They simply had decided to withhold this information until the child was older. They said nothing. (And 'pretending' that bio dad didn't exist wasn't so difficult since bio dad was NOT an existing factor in daughter's life. AT ALL.) They made a choice to tell her LATER. There's no law against that. Some might feel that it was wrong. They're certainly entitled to their opinions. But to automatically assume this was the wrong choice? Pfffffft. It could very well have been a damn GOOD decision. They made a decision based on what they felt was best for their daughter. And who knows better than Epic and his wife?

Oh, and someone here mentioned how it was wrong to assume the bio dad is a dead beat. 10 years MIA and hasn't paid squat in child support? I'd say 'dead beat' is a pretty fair assumption. And, IMO, calling him a dead beat is far too kind.

Excuse me? Everyone is on the side of the child? I think I can safely assume that step dad and mom ARE ON their child's side. Certainly more so than the lot of us here. Who are we? We're NOBODY in that child's life.
because you know for a FACT dad knows where his child is? you know for a FACT mom has tried to establish a relationship?

oh good grief. what planet are you from? not telling the truth IS LYING!
 
because you know for a FACT dad knows where his child is? you know for a FACT mom has tried to establish a relationship?

oh good grief. what planet are you from? not telling the truth IS LYING!
Isabella, I don't understand your questions. :confused:

Ok. I agree. NOT telling the truth is lying. However, assuming that the child will be traumatized and destroyed is unadulterated BS.

I can give several examples of similar case scenarios if you're interested. :D
 

Isis1

Senior Member
Isabella, I don't understand your questions. :confused:

Ok. I agree. NOT telling the truth is lying. However, assuming that the child will be traumatized and destroyed is unadulterated BS.

I can give several examples of similar case scenarios if you're interested. :D
in the end, it does not benefit the child.

guess who gets the short end of the stick?

met my dad at 17. i talk to him. he's met all 4 of my kids. guess who i DON'T talk to anymore? yep, mom. the one that hid my dad from me for 17 years. took me 15 minutes to write a letter, mail it to the social security administration, and 1 month of waiting. took my mom 17 years to hid my information from me. she has only met the two older grandchildren. i will not allow her near my family.
 
in the end, it does not benefit the child.

guess who gets the short end of the stick?

met my dad at 17. i talk to him. he's met all 4 of my kids. guess who i DON'T talk to anymore? yep, mom. the one that hid my dad from me for 17 years. took me 15 minutes to write a letter, mail it to the social security administration, and 1 month of waiting. took my mom 17 years to hid my information from me. she has only met the two older grandchildren. i will not allow her near my family.
I'm not saying the child shouldn't be told. I wholeheartedly agree that a child SHOULD know and has more right than anyone to know.

I have a friend (L) who developed a brain tumor at the age of 34. After she survived the surgery and recovered almost fully, she came upon a letter in her mother's drawer. It was a letter written to L's father. For 34 years L had believed that her older sister's father was hers as well. He wasn't. It seems that everyone in L's family knew the truth about her DNA except L. Needless to say, this really turned her world upside down. The deception was cruel and the mother's actions unconscionable. The worst part is that her mother had NO intention of ever telling her the truth.

Another instance, my niece, A. My sister married C in 1980. C had had a vasectomy hence sis went via the sperm donor route in order to conceive. A is now 21. A few years ago, sis told A the truth about her DNA. A was raised to believe that C was her father. Upon learning the truth, A was perfectly OK with the news.

I have more examples.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Isabella, I don't understand your questions. :confused:

Ok. I agree. NOT telling the truth is lying. However, assuming that the child will be traumatized and destroyed is unadulterated BS.

I can give several examples of similar case scenarios if you're interested. :D
Really? Back it up. Destroyed? Yes the child's world will be destroyed because everything she thought was true ends up being nothing but deceit. It is not unadulterated BS -- unlike ALL OF YOUR POSTS have been. You want to see BS just read what you have posted on here.Cite caselaw that states how the child has reacted to finding out that their world is NOT how it has been portrayed to them and that when the truth became known their fantasy world still existed afterwards? If it didn't, then guess what -- the child was destroyed because everything they were living ceased to exist. When the person they were told all this time was their dad is not their dad then they are no longer the person who they thought they were. That part of the world is destroyed. That is fact.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
I'm not saying the child shouldn't be told. I wholeheartedly agree that a child SHOULD know and has more right than anyone to know.

I have a friend (L) who developed a brain tumor at the age of 34. After she survived the surgery and recovered almost fully, she came upon a letter in her mother's drawer. It was a letter written to L's father. For 34 years L had believed that her older sister's father was hers as well. He wasn't. It seems that everyone in L's family knew the truth about her DNA except L. Needless to say, this really turned her world upside down. The deception was cruel and the mother's actions unconscionable. The worst part is that her mother had NO intention of ever telling her the truth.

Another instance, my niece, A. My sister married C in 1980. C had had a vasectomy hence sis went via the sperm donor route in order to conceive. A is now 21. A few years ago, sis told A the truth about her DNA. A was raised to believe that C was her father. Upon learning the truth, A was perfectly OK with the news.

I have more examples.
L's world was destroyed. A's world was not because the person who she was told was her father was still legally her father. Her father was still her father legally. A sperm donor done through proper channels does not change legalities. Those are two very different examples and quite frankly PROVE MY POINT. Not yours. You are proving that you are ignorant and idiotic. Keep posting. You will be gone.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
I'm not saying the child shouldn't be told. I wholeheartedly agree that a child SHOULD know and has more right than anyone to know.
Actually you kinda are.

As for your daughter, I don't see anything wrong with you and your wife not telling her about him. IMO, he isn't someone she should have in her life. Certainly not now, and possibly not ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top