non custodial parents

[faithnlve]

What is the name of your state? vt..but doesnt matter. Just so I can truly understand all this. When any parent mom or dad win SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY, is this in actual truth make:

1. One of the parents the "owner" of that child and the other parent no longer has any rights to raise their child at all, just visit and help support financially?

2. The judge/courts actually take your RIGHTS to raise your child away from you and give to only the one parent? I thought a parent had to be deemed unfit to lose that right by constitutional law.

3. And, how is it the courts have such power to NOT allow a parent to ask for any part of their child's life UNLESS they can prove there has been a substantial change in circumstance?

4. Why isn't it a change of circumstance if the custodial parent does not include information to the other parent about their child? Wouldn't that be enough of an issue for what is in the best interests of the child?

5. If the courts feel only one parent can rightly raise the child then why not just take complete parental rights away? Seems to me like that is what they did anyways.

When I meet with the attorney tomorrow I will ask these questions, but on the emotional side of it all I am trying to walk in their with a better understanding too. Thanks Faith

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? vt..but doesnt matter. Just so I can truly understand all this. When any parent mom or dad win SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY, is this in actual truth make:

1. One of the parents the "owner" of that child and the other parent no longer has any rights to raise their child at all, just visit and help support financially?

2. The judge/courts actually take your RIGHTS to raise your child away from you and give to only the one parent? I thought a parent had to be deemed unfit to lose that right by constitutional law.

3. And, how is it the courts have such power to NOT allow a parent to ask for any part of their child's life UNLESS they can prove there has been a substantial change in circumstance?

4. Why isn't it a change of circumstance if the custodial parent does not include information to the other parent about their child? Wouldn't that be enough of an issue for what is in the best interests of the child?

5. If the courts feel only one parent can rightly raise the child then why not just take complete parental rights away? Seems to me like that is what they did anyways.

When I meet with the attorney tomorrow I will ask these questions, but on the emotional side of it all I am trying to walk in their with a better understanding too. Thanks Faith

No, an award of sole custody does not take away a parent's right to raise their child. They are still able to raise their child during their time with the child.

No, sole custody does not prohibit the other parent from receiving information regarding educational and medical issues. Federal law allows that parent access to that information. However, its not necessarily the custodial parent's responsibility to provide that information.

However, sole custody does give decision making rights to just one parent. Normally (although I understand that VT is wierd) sole custody is ordered because a court determines that the two parents are not capable of making decisions together....or that the two parents have agreed that one of them is to have sole custody.

 

[CJane]

What is the name of your state? vt..but doesnt matter. Just so I can truly understand all this. When any parent mom or dad win SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY, is this in actual truth make:

1. One of the parents the "owner" of that child and the other parent no longer has any rights to raise their child at all, just visit and help support financially?

2. The judge/courts actually take your RIGHTS to raise your child away from you and give to only the one parent? I thought a parent had to be deemed unfit to lose that right by constitutional law.

3. And, how is it the courts have such power to NOT allow a parent to ask for any part of their child's life UNLESS they can prove there has been a substantial change in circumstance?

4. Why isn't it a change of circumstance if the custodial parent does not include information to the other parent about their child? Wouldn't that be enough of an issue for what is in the best interests of the child?

5. If the courts feel only one parent can rightly raise the child then why not just take complete parental rights away? Seems to me like that is what they did anyways.

When I meet with the attorney tomorrow I will ask these questions, but on the emotional side of it all I am trying to walk in their with a better understanding too. Thanks Faith

Honestly, Faith, this is when it ABSOLUTELY depends on what the order says.

1) "Standard" SOLE LEGAL means that the parent with sole legal has the right/responsibility to make all educational/medical/religious decisions about the child. The other parent, while they do not have decision making powers, DOES have the right to access all records, be at appointments, attend school conferences, etc.

2) That is NOT what happens. In YOUR state, joint custody requires an agreement between the parties. While that doesn't make sense to YOU, it DOES make some sense in the eyes of the court. If people can't agree to joint custody, then they probably can't make joint decisions about other things either. Giving sole custody to one parent does 2 things... 1) reduces conflict between the parents and therefore eases the child's life 2) keeps people out of court because w/only one person making decisions, there's nothing to argue over.

You have not been deemed unfit, you did not lose any parenting rights.

3) A change in circumstances isn't always required when SOLE legal custody is involved. You need to ask your attorney about this. A change in circumstances is required to change PHYSICAL custody. It isn't always needed to change LEGAL custody - I have NO IDEA whether that applies in VT though.

Also, sometimes the things you've mentioned - the exclusion of YOU - CAN be considered a change in circumstances. As can a failure to communicate. Again, only your attorney can answer these questions.

4) Sometimes it can be.

5) I know it feels that way. Believe me, I know. But that's NOT the case. You get visitation with your kids. You get to be as involved as you CHOOSE to be w/the day to day stuff. You 'just' don't get to make decisions for them.

And yes, it sucks. It really really does.

I think that every woman who comes on here and wants to reduce dad's time, or thinks it's no big deal to attempt to make an involved father uninvolved should read your posts.

 

[faithnlve]

It does suck. Hindsight is 20/20, and I plan on requesting Joint Legal with him keeping physical. I do want to do what is best for my son. No moving him back and forth. I am also requesting that my visitation time is not interrupted consistently every weekend due to sporting events that I am not aware of until the day I pick him up, I am requesting that step mom does not refer herself to others as my son's mother which includes documents which has confused his school, I am requesting joint legal due to the father and step eliminating mom from any and all information of my son of his medical, educational, and emotional well being due to what I read in his IEP. Of course his father says to me the last 4 years was unintentional, and I am making a mountain out of a mole hill.

CJane, with your experience if you could HELP me phrase it strong enough in writing so I can get my point across to the attorney of what I want, without the emotion as this attorney wants then may you be blessed in winning the powerball, And thanks for your advice and support. Faith

 

[CJane]

CJane, with your experience if you could HELP me phrase it strong enough in writing so I can get my point across to the attorney of what I want, without the emotion as this attorney wants then may you be blessed in winning the powerball, And thanks for your advice and support. Faith

Check your PMs later tonight.

 

[wileybunch]

If the courts feel only one parent can rightly raise the child then why not just take complete parental rights away? Seems to me like that is what they did anyways.

It does feel that way, doesn't it? I have a friend (an attorney) that went through a nasty custody battle and she is still reeling from the injustice that parents that go through divorce have their rights limited, changed, etc. while other parents do not. In their case, neither of them are allowed to drink at.all while their kids are in their care. Why? Because one person made a stink. But, the lady across the street can drink at any hour of the day and be somewhat neglectful of her kids and within a large spectrum, no one cares or can do anything about it. When we go through divorce/custody, the court becomes involved and people can even lose custody from not treading exactly carefully, depending on how much the other parent takes them to task. In "intact" families, moms or dads can do all manner of deceitful things to the other, freeze the other parent out of decision making, disparage the other parent, etc. and nothing the courts can or will do about it. The irony ticks my attorney friend off to such an extent that she can't/won't see why it's this way (ie. private parties involve the courts themselves in the first place -- but I do see her points/frustration, too).

You just have to keep being there and don't give up.
I know my husband could have given up 100 times by now b/c it's very frustrating and even worse when the CP likes to dub herself the better parent *because* she is the CP. Um, no, in our state when they divorced, it was common for mom to be CP and dad to have visitation. There is no presumption of joint physical custody in our state, something father's rights groups have been trying to change for years w/o success.

 

[faithnlve]

Check your PMs later tonight.

I cannot thank you enough. I am so nervous about all this, but I will do whatever it takes to be involved in my little boy's life as 'his' mom. Oh, and buy a powerball ticket, you never know. Faith

 

[faithnlve]

If the courts feel only one parent can rightly raise the child then why not just take complete parental rights away? Seems to me like that is what they did anyways.

It does feel that way, doesn't it? I have a friend (an attorney) that went through a nasty custody battle and she is still reeling from the injustice that parents that go through divorce have their rights limited, changed, etc. while other parents do not. In their case, neither of them are allowed to drink at.all while their kids are in their care. Why? Because one person made a stink. But, the lady across the street can drink at any hour of the day and be somewhat neglectful of her kids and within a large spectrum, no one cares or can do anything about it. When we go through divorce/custody, the court becomes involved and people can even lose custody from not treading exactly carefully, depending on how much the other parent takes them to task. In "intact" families, moms or dads can do all manner of deceitful things to the other, freeze the other parent out of decision making, disparage the other parent, etc. and nothing the courts can or will do about it. The irony ticks my attorney friend off to such an extent that she can't/won't see why it's this way (ie. private parties involve the courts themselves in the first place -- but I do see her points/frustration, too).

You just have to keep being there and don't give up.
I know my husband could have given up 100 times by now b/c it's very frustrating and even worse when the CP likes to dub herself the better parent *because* she is the CP. Um, no, in our state when they divorced, it was common for mom to be CP and dad to have visitation. There is no presumption of joint physical custody in our state, something father's rights groups have been trying to change for years w/o success.

Have any parents ever tried to sue in federal court or the United States Supreme Court against a state that has taken their rights away? I mean the government cannot say they have no say since child support is mandated on a federal level, right? Just curious.

 

[CJane]

Have any parents ever tried to sue in federal court or the United States Supreme Court against a state that has taken their rights away? I mean the government cannot say they have no say since child support is mandated on a federal level, right? Just curious.

Faith. Please.

Your rights have NOT BEEN TAKEN AWAY.

 

[haiku]

yes but its like banging your head against a brick wall, to enforce those "rights".

 

[CJane]

yes but its like banging your head against a brick wall, to enforce those "rights".

I know. I've BEEN the NCP when the other parent had SOLE legal and physical.

But it being a pain in the ass to enforce is NOT the same as not having the rights AT ALL.

Faith HAS rights. She has, due to various issues, NOT made an attempt to enforce them until it got out of hand. I feel for her - and for anyone in her situation - but she needs to stop saying that her rights have been removed because it's NOT TRUE.

I managed to get it changed. But I am the world's biggest pain in the ass when it comes to stuff like this. I no more would let the school or doctor or anyone else keep me out of my child's life then I would cut off my arm just because. I FOUGHT with everything I had and then some. I put myself and most of my family in debt. I ended several relationships, started new ones, went through hearings and depositions and more hearings and more depositions and CPS investigations and domestic violence allegations and am STILL going through it.

So yeah, I've left MY marks on the brick wall too... but the difference between having your rights taken away and not having joint custody is that if your rights have been taken away, you don't even have the RIGHT TO FIGHT anymore.

 

[LdiJ]

Have any parents ever tried to sue in federal court or the United States Supreme Court against a state that has taken their rights away? I mean the government cannot say they have no say since child support is mandated on a federal level, right? Just curious.

Like CJ said, your rights haven't been taken away. You also invited the court into your life to make decisions, when you got involved with the courts in the first place.

 

[haiku]

I know. I've BEEN the NCP when the other parent had SOLE legal and physical.

But it being a pain in the ass to enforce is NOT the same as not having the rights AT ALL.

Faith HAS rights. She has, due to various issues, NOT made an attempt to enforce them until it got out of hand. I feel for her - and for anyone in her situation - but she needs to stop saying that her rights have been removed because it's NOT TRUE.

I managed to get it changed. But I am the world's biggest pain in the ass when it comes to stuff like this. I no more would let the school or doctor or anyone else keep me out of my child's life then I would cut off my arm just because. I FOUGHT with everything I had and then some. I put myself and most of my family in debt. I ended several relationships, started new ones, went through hearings and depositions and more hearings and more depositions and CPS investigations and domestic violence allegations and am STILL going through it.

So yeah, I've left MY marks on the brick wall too... but the difference between having your rights taken away and not having joint custody is that if your rights have been taken away, you don't even have the RIGHT TO FIGHT anymore.

Yes I see if I spend some time researching, I can see what Faiths situation truly, is, but I tell ya, it does sometimes seem like your rights are onl yon paper and I was letting y personal frustration seep on through....and you just can't do that....(its been a rough time in the Haiku family as of late...)

 

[JacobJoel]

re: CJ's quote: but the difference between having your rights taken away and not having joint custody is that if your rights have been taken away, you don't even have the RIGHT TO FIGHT anymore

THAT is a profound statement.