• 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.

Sex offender visitation/custody?

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.

Artemis_ofthe_Hunt

Senior Member
But... you did stay with him. Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Bottom line is: you stayed with him so now it could be difficult to prove to the court that you believe he is a threat to the child.
The bit about him being 18 and her being a couple of weeks from 17, changes things for me. I don't think that there is ANY worry that this Dad is going to hurt his child. A cheater, yes. A pedophile? Not so much.
 


john39

Member
But... you did stay with him. Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Bottom line is: you stayed with him so now it could be difficult to prove to the court that you believe he is a threat to the child.
She doesn't need to prove to the Court what she believes.What she believes or believed doesn't matter,it is immaterial.
She needs to prove,using the standard of what would reasonable person believe,that he is posing danger to child.

How do you prove that?

Using evidence.What mom believed or failed to believe,should have seen but didn't,did see but didn't care at the time is immaterial.Those things are not evidence that he is not posing danger,nor that he is posing danger.

I might believe that pink piggies orbit the planet,but that is not evidence that they do.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
She doesn't need to prove to the Court what she believes.What she believes or believed doesn't matter,it is immaterial.
She needs to prove,using the standard of what would reasonable person believe,that he is posing danger to child.

How do you prove that?

Using evidence.What mom believed or failed to believe,should have seen but didn't,did see but didn't care at the time is immaterial.Those things are not evidence that he is not posing danger,nor that he is posing danger.

I might believe that pink piggies orbit the planet,but that is not evidence that they do.


Care to put that into English? (Or better yet - common sense?)

OP - the chances of you getting supervised visitation for anything other than the short term are pretty slim.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
An 18 year old who had sex (presumably consensual) with a 16 year old is NOT going to be considered likely to molest a 2 year old. I don't think it's likely that he'll sleep with any more teenagers, either. But it is very unlikely that a court will find him to be a danger to his child. I'm not entirely sure why YOU think he's a danger to her.
 

john39

Member
Care to put that into English? (Or better yet - common sense?)

OP - the chances of you getting supervised visitation for anything other than the short term are pretty slim.
I did,for all the folks that have it.

For the professed egoist that don't I let them delude them selves to think that all other visitors here are stupid
 

john39

Member
She knew he was rapist but had sex with him.She knew he was rapist but she had baby with him.She knew he was rapist but she married him**********************************************************************..all that ,did not prove (your bottom line) that because she knew,but did it anyway,he is not danger to the kids.Also,that did not prove that (her belief) he is danger to the kid.

Her belief that he is or he isn't danger is not evidence at all

You can not grasp that?
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
However, her belief that he is a danger doesn't appear to have much basis in reality. He has NEVER been known to molest a child, or to force anyone to have sex with him.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
She knew he was rapist but had sex with him.She knew he was rapist but she had baby with him.She knew he was rapist but she married him**********************************************************************..all that ,did not prove (your bottom line) that because she knew,but did it anyway,he is not danger to the kids.Also,that did not prove that (her belief) he is danger to the kid.

Her belief that he is or he isn't danger is not evidence at all

You can not grasp that?

The hubby had sex with a girlfriend. Per OP's posting this girl was just under 17 while the father was 18. That does NOT make him a danger to the child. It is very unlikely that a Judge will consider his conviction.

OP either A: Knows he is a danger to young children and yet disregarded that knowledge for her own gain.

Or


B; Did not consider this man to be a danger and now wants to pull the SO card for her own gain.

Either "A" or "B" does not paint OP in a flattering light.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ecmst12

Senior Member
Who are you and why are you posting? Her belief that he is a danger IS material to the case - but if she doesn't have evidence to back it up, it won't be taken very seriously in court. His conviction does not prove that he is a danger to a young child, and I don't think it would prove him to be a danger to his child when she gets older, either.
 

john39

Member
The hubby had sex with a girlfriend. Per OP's posting this girl was just under 17 while the father was 18. That does NOT make him a danger to the child. It is very unlikely that a Judge will consider his conviction.

OP either A: Knows he is a danger to young children and yet disregarded that knowledge for her own gain.

Or


B; Did not consider this man to be a danger and now wants to pull the SO card for her own gain.

Either "A" or "B" does not paint OP in a flattering light.:rolleyes:
Did I say that he was posing danger to the child?

Where did I say that?

I said,it doesn't matter what OP thought,or thinks now.The Court will not make decision based upon OP prior or current beliefs.The Court will make decision based upon Courts beliefs after examined all relevant evidence.

OP beliefs are not part of that evidence.

She stayed with him regardless of what she knew and therefore that Paints OP in flattering light? Ok.So what is your point ? You are just making my point when I said that if she decided to make baby with him and stay with him regardless of what she knew about him is relevant only to her.

It is not relevant whatsoever,to the question - is he or not posing danger to the child.

You can use your roll-eves all you want,call me dumb etc.but you are wrong to think that people reading this are stupid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

john39

Member
How OP presents herself to the court can absolutely affect the decisions made.
It was asserted by some here,that because she knew of his history but went ahead regardless and had his baby and married him somehow affected her present assertion that he is posing danger to the child,in a way that would negate such claim (kinda...o yeah ...you knew all this before...and you were ok with it....all of the sudden you try to claim otherwise....and because you were ok with it all this time....you can not claim now that he is danger to the child)

BUT!!

There is a gap.

You did not ,and you can't,explain,how her knowing all that,and going along with it all this time,negated the possibility that he can be danger to the child,and has been ,potentially,all this time.

Why,because she knew all this before,means that she can't bring claim that the child is in danger,seniors?
 
Last edited:

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
You are correct. It was statutory rape. It does not make it any better, I know. He was 18 and she was 2 weeks from turning 17.
So it was a boyfriend/girlfriend situation> He is NOT a child molestor.

The affairs came later, after he was off probation, no longer being polygraphed and had completed his sex offender classes. I know he had not had contact with any minors during the time he was on probation, unless it was stuff like eye contact at a store while I was present. (Part of the sex offender treatment rules were he had to ask his probation officer's permission 2 weeks in advance before going to any store that a minor might congregate, and he had to be supervised at that time. One of our local grocery stores has an attached McDonalds, the other had a popular pizza place in the same parking lot. Because it was a 45 min drive into town, he never went alone.)
Okay. And? How old are you? How old is he?

To answer earlier questions, I kept my daughter in the bathroom with me when I used the bathroom, and she either took showers with me, or was in a bouncer in the bathroom while I showered. She went with me any time I left the house. Even if it was just to walk to the mail box.
So you exposed your child to your naked body ... that could be spun a LOT of waysif dad gets an attorney.


You will also note that I said part of me NEVER trusted him.
Then why did you marry him? Sleep with him? Allow him to impregnate you? Make him a father?
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
She doesn't need to prove to the Court what she believes.What she believes or believed doesn't matter,it is immaterial.
She needs to prove,using the standard of what would reasonable person believe,that he is posing danger to child.

How do you prove that?

Using evidence.What mom believed or failed to believe,should have seen but didn't,did see but didn't care at the time is immaterial.Those things are not evidence that he is not posing danger,nor that he is posing danger.

I might believe that pink piggies orbit the planet,but that is not evidence that they do.
I am a lawyer. YOU are an idiot. There is no proof that dad is a danger to HIS child.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Did I say that he was posing danger to the child?

Where did I say that?

I said,it doesn't matter what OP thought,or thinks now.The Court will not make decision based upon OP prior or current beliefs.The Court will make decision based upon Courts beliefs after examined all relevant evidence.

OP beliefs are not part of that evidence.

She stayed with him regardless of what she knew and therefore that Paints OP in flattering light? Ok.So what is your point ? You are just making my point when I said that if she decided to make baby with him and stay with him regardless of what she knew about him is relevant only to her.

It is not relevant whatsoever,to the question - is he or not posing danger to the child.

You can use your roll-eves all you want,call me dumb etc.but you are wrong to think that people reading this are stupid.
Actually her actions matter. The fact that she KNEW he was convicted of rape and still decided to have sex with him and still chose to make him a father MATTER. You are wrong. You are dumb. You are stupid. Trust me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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