• 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.

john39

Member
I am a lawyer. YOU are an idiot. There is no proof that dad is a danger to HIS child.
I know many lawyers that are idiots

I did not say that he is.

I said just because she knew of his history,does not preclude her to assert that he is.What relevance,to the question is he or not,a danger to the child,is her knowing of his history and making the child with him?
 


Ohiogal

Queen Bee
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?
The FACT that she knew about his rape conviction, the FACT that she knew it was a conviction regarding a minor, the FACT that she allowed herself to make him a father, negate the fact that the RAPE CONVICTION matters in whether the father is a danger to the child. Because if it matters then she should have the child removed from her as well AND the child should not be returned to her due to the fact that she has such poor judgment that she cannot possibly responsibly parent this child.
 

john39

Member
The FACT that she knew about his rape conviction, the FACT that she knew it was a conviction regarding a minor, the FACT that she allowed herself to make him a father, negate the fact that the RAPE CONVICTION matters in whether the father is a danger to the child. Because if it matters then she should have the child removed from her as well AND the child should not be returned to her due to the fact that she has such poor judgment that she cannot possibly responsibly parent this child.
matters to whom?Be clear in you reply.Matters to whom?

To her?

But you should know that the child best interest is what matters,not hers.
 

Perky

Senior Member
It matters not to the court. The reply was clear, and I'm pretty sure a family law attorney is aware that the child's best interests are what matters. No, actually, I know she does. John, perhaps you should visit some forums in your native language.
 

john39

Member
It matters not to the court. The reply was clear, and I'm pretty sure a family law attorney is aware that the child's best interests are what matters. No, actually, I know she does. John, perhaps you should visit some forums in your native language.
I am an American.

I like this forum.

Perky,perhaps you should visit some other forums.
 

Perky

Senior Member
Now don't go putting words in my mouth, John! I didn't say you are not an American. I referred only to your native language.

ETA: Perhaps I should have said 'first' language.
 

CJane

Senior Member
But you should know that the child best interest is what matters,not hers.
And YOU should know that a parent is presumed to be acting in the best interests of their child. So Mom was (legally speaking) acting in the best interests of her child when she stayed married to this man after she found out she was pregnant, after she gave birth to their child, and after she stayed married to him.

The court will also presume that the father will act in the best interests of this child when he has the child with him unless presented with strong evidence to the contrary.

Mom has presented nothing at all to show that he is a danger to this child, or that the child will be harmed when in his presence. There is no conviction of violence towards a child, no evidence that Dad has ever been threatening towards the child, no evidence at all that Mom ever intended to leave Dad prior to his affairs (presumably with adults) and his desire for her to have sex with others as well.

Dad's conviction for what is, essentially, statutory rape is NOT going to be considered by the courts as evidence that he is a danger to this or any other child. Dad is apparently compliant with his registration requirements, is no longer under any sort of court supervision, is not restricted from having contact with minors now, and therefore has been deemed "safe" to live his life free from legal intervention as long as he registers.
 

john39

Member
And YOU should know that a parent is presumed to be acting in the best interests of their child. So Mom was (legally speaking) acting in the best interests of her child when she stayed married to this man after she found out she was pregnant, after she gave birth to their child, and after she stayed married to him.
Ok,I agree.

The court will also presume that the father will act in the best interests of this child when he has the child with him unless presented with strong evidence to the contrary.
Ok,I agree.

Mom has presented nothing at all to show that he is a danger to this child, or that the child will be harmed when in his presence. There is no conviction of violence towards a child, no evidence that Dad has ever been threatening towards the child, no evidence at all that Mom ever intended to leave Dad prior to his affairs (presumably with adults) and his desire for her to have sex with others as well.
Ok,I agree.
Dad's conviction for what is, essentially, statutory rape is NOT going to be considered by the courts as evidence that he is a danger to this or any other child. Dad is apparently compliant with his registration requirements, is no longer under any sort of court supervision, is not restricted from having contact with minors now, and therefore has been deemed "safe" to live his life free from legal intervention as long as he registers.
Ok,I agree.

What I don't agree is that because she knew of his past,but had a baby with him and married him,in anyway,is relevant to present claims that he is posing danger.It was not addressed before? Ok,so what? It is addressed now. It would be addressed by offering evidence,that would show how is he posing danger to child .That evidence will be evaluated by the court ,to determine,is dad really posing danger to the child,or not.Mom decision to stay with dad regardless of what she knew about his past,is relevant only (for) to her (gives bad picture of her).But,her decision to make the baby and marry dad,is not precluding her to assert that dad is danger to the child.Not one iota.Regardless of how many times I am called idiot :D
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
No one is claiming that she is not allowed to claim that he is a danger simply because she didn't have a problem with him before. They are claiming she SHOULD NOT claim he is a danger to the child, because there is NO EVIDENCE that he is, and her claim will make her look bad.

If there WAS reason to believe he was dangerous, of course she should take action.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
Ok,I agree.



Ok,I agree.



Ok,I agree.


Ok,I agree.

What I don't agree is that because she knew of his past,but had a baby with him and married him,in anyway,is relevant to present claims that he is posing danger.It was not addressed before? Ok,so what? It is addressed now. It would be addressed by offering evidence,that would show how is he posing danger to child .That evidence will be evaluated by the court ,to determine,is dad really posing danger to the child,or not.Mom decision to stay with dad regardless of what she knew about his past,is relevant only (for) to her (gives bad picture of her).But,her decision to make the baby and marry dad,is not precluding her to assert that dad is danger to the child.Not one iota.Regardless of how many times I am called idiot :D
Okay. This is actually a decent point. Had you responded with this clarity in your previous postings you would not have been called an idiot. Or dumb. Or stupid...;)

Nothing Mom has stated in her postings will convince a Judge Dad is a "danger". But all of Mom actions over the last 5+ years will convince a Judge that Mom, in reality and LEGALLY, sees Dad as a non-danger.
 

majomom1

Senior Member
Ok,I agree.



Ok,I agree.



Ok,I agree.


Ok,I agree.

What I don't agree is that because she knew of his past,but had a baby with him and married him,in anyway,is relevant to present claims that he is posing danger.It was not addressed before? Ok,so what? It is addressed now. It would be addressed by offering evidence,that would show how is he posing danger to child .That evidence will be evaluated by the court ,to determine,is dad really posing danger to the child,or not.Mom decision to stay with dad regardless of what she knew about his past,is relevant only (for) to her (gives bad picture of her).But,her decision to make the baby and marry dad,is not precluding her to assert that dad is danger to the child.Not one iota.Regardless of how many times I am called idiot :D
She can assert it all she wants... but her credibility is in question because she clearly stayed in the relationship. The court will see this as mud slinging.

The court will say "What? It didn't matter before, but now it does?" This board is telling her that this argument will not work. She needs a different argument or proof.
 

john39

Member
Okay. This is actually a decent point. Had you responded with this clarity in your previous postings you would not have been called an idiot. Or dumb. Or stupid...;)

Nothing Mom has stated in her postings will convince a Judge Dad is a "danger". But all of Mom actions over the last 5+ years will convince a Judge that Mom, in reality and LEGALLY, sees Dad as a non-danger.
that's cool .....I think I did,and if you go back and revisit you will see that I always did.But,I beg your pardon ,again,moderator.When you say

.....will convince a Judge that Mom, in reality and LEGALLY, sees Dad as a non-danger.
You still don't understand ,:D...,but that is not because you are dumb...no...no...I would not believe that ,ever.It is because I am not clear.I try though.You see....it is the child best interest that matters,for the Court.Therefore,how mom sees dad means nothing,for the Court to determine is there or not,danger from dad.If from presented evidence,Court determines there is danger,doesn't matter how mom sees dad,doesn't matter how she sow dad in the past,it doesn't matter if she changed her mind,it doesn't matter if she believes pigs can fly,it doesn't matter if she believes anything.If by presented evidence,The Court believes the child is in danger doesn't matter all that.The Court will impose measures within its realm to protect the child.

That is why I said to ehm...the counselor, that the fact she knew who she was dealing before,but did nothing is irrelevant.Go see my first response,to the post of the GAL that called me idiot.It is just IRRELEVANT,what mattered or not to mom.So,why bring it?
 
OP-Is your husband still on probation/parole? I'm guessing he is since he hasn't paid all of his fines/costs. If so, is he still restricted from being at any place children congregate?

Also, is he listed on the registry as violent or predatory? I can't help but feel with the polygraphs and your reluctance to leave your daughter alone that there is more to the story than statutory rape.

I agree with the other posters that he will, based on what you have posted, he will more than likely receive unsupervised visitation with your (plurarl) daughter.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
that's cool .....I think I did,and if you go back and revisit you will see that I always did.But,I beg your pardon ,again,moderator.When you say



You still don't understand ,:D...,but that is not because you are dumb...no...no...I would not believe that ,ever.It is because I am not clear.I try though.You see....it is the child best interest that matters,for the Court.Therefore,how mom sees dad means nothing,for the Court to determine is there or not,danger from dad.If from presented evidence,Court determines there is danger,doesn't matter how mom sees dad,doesn't matter how she sow dad in the past,it doesn't matter if she changed her mind,it doesn't matter if she believes pigs can fly,it doesn't matter if she believes anything.If by presented evidence,The Court believes the child is in danger doesn't matter all that.The Court will impose measures within its realm to protect the child.

That is why I said to ehm...the counselor, that the fact she knew who she was dealing before,but did nothing is irrelevant.Go see my first response,to the post of the GAL that called me idiot.It is just IRRELEVANT,what mattered or not to mom.So,why bring it?

Sigh...

I actually DO understand what you are trying to say. It just is NOT LEGALLY RELEVANT.

BTW: I am not a mod of this site. Admin and Mod's on this site do not post.

OhioGal is a site verified Juv/Family law attorney.;) Unless you are an attorney, or have some special knowledge regarding situations such as OP's I would, if I were you, back off and NOT "argue" with a actual attorney. ;):)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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