Wife left with daughter and refusing visitation

[Just Blue]

Please wait for OP to clarify his postings.

 

[HammerDad]

What I, and others, are trying to say is that OP needs to disclose the reason for this sudden split. It may make a difference for the advice we give.

All of us are about the best interest of the child. That is why we ask the questions we do.

I agree more facts give better answers. But the question was

"What are my options for seeing my daughter?"

I gave an answer. But because some don't agree with the premise they dismissed it as being wrong or bad, when the reality is it is very much one of the OP's options, and depending on the circumstances may be the right route to take (admittedly in other circumstances it may be the wrong route). The OP has many other options. But based off of the simple question asked by the OP, my answer is as legitimate as any other proposed.

Point to me where I am actually wrong, that this isn't a option that OP may exercise, than you say what you want. Being aggressive is a tactic, and not necessarily a wrong tactic. Just because one doesn't like such tactic does not make it any less legitimate.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree more facts give better answers. But the question was

I gave an answer. But because some don't agree with the premise they dismissed it as being wrong or bad, when the reality is it is very much one of the OP's options, and depending on the circumstances may be the right route to take (admittedly in other circumstances it may be the wrong route). The OP has many other options. But based off of the simple question asked by the OP, my answer is as legitimate as any other proposed.

Point to me where I am actually wrong, that this isn't a option that OP may exercise, than you say what you want. Being aggressive is a tactic, and not necessarily a wrong tactic. Just because one doesn't like such tactic does not make it any less legitimate.

Here is the first response that I gave to the OP:

Since you are in NC, its probably a legal separation that you want. However, its only been a few days. If you think that there is any chance that things will calm down and she will come home you might want to wait a couple of weeks.

Here is the first answer you gave:

If the child is of school age, there is nothing stopping the OP from showing up at the school and picking up his child.....even if it happens to be before the OP's ex arrives, than so be it.

Immediate and hostile action guaranteed to take the situation to def-con 3.

OP cannot force the ex hand over the child if the ex is there and has the kid. Doing anything aggressive would be stupid, counter-productive and possibly land OP in jail and/or with a protective order against them.

That part was good advice.

Unless the OP has an order restraining them from contacting the ex, they should email the ex, in a very calm and business like manner, requesting that the child be a) returned to the matrimonial home or b) a parenting time schedule. If/when the ex refuses, the OP should file a motion in court for a) the child to be returned the matrimonial home and for exclusive possession of the house, or failing that b) a fixed parenting time schedule.

Again, way to early to give that kind of advice, unless he absolutely wants his marriage to end.

The ex doesn't get to hide out with the child without sufficient reason. We don't know if the reason for this split was DV or not, as such it doesn't make much sense to speculate either way. Right now it is garbage in, garbage out.

There is no evidence that she is hiding the child. Bottom line, you were telling the poor guy to immediately go to war without attempting to solve the problem through diplomatic means.

 

[HammerDad]

Here is the first response that I gave to the OP:



Here is the first answer you gave:



Immediate and hostile action guaranteed to take the situation to def-con 3.



That part was good advice.



Again, way to early to give that kind of advice, unless he absolutely wants his marriage to end.



There is no evidence that she is hiding the child. Bottom line, you were telling the poor guy to immediately go to war without attempting to solve the problem through diplomatic means.

This is a measured response I can accept.

I will admit, I could've premised my reply more like "if the OP is certain the marriage is dead and the ex is being unreasonable in withholding the kid"**************than go nuclear.

In reading the post, the OP's focus is on the child. There is no hint of wanting to reconcile. I am normally a fairly diplomatic person, but not seeing my kid for 4 days (so far) would have me fairly up in arms, as I believe most people would be. I reacted as such.

If the OP intends on working it out with the ex, my advice was bad. If the OP's concern isn't about reconciliation and more about spending time with their child, most my advice has merit. It is up to the OP to decide how they want to proceed based off of what they now know.

There are reasons why these sites exist. One of them is to get varied ways of seeking the same remedy. Knowing your options is important when dealing with the law, especially family law. Again, the OP didn't provide many details, but that doesn't mean any of the advice provided was wrong.... well except maybe the part on exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, as what the OP provided likely doesn't meet the tests required under NC law given what I have read (unless further details are given relating to domestic violence, substance abuse, forgiven adultery or abandoning the family - which I doubt would work, as the "family" includes the child).

 

[Just Blue]

This is a measured response I can accept.

I will admit, I could've premised my reply more like "if the OP is certain the marriage is dead and the ex is being unreasonable in withholding the kid"**************than go nuclear.

In reading the post, the OP's focus is on the child. There is no hint of wanting to reconcile. I am normally a fairly diplomatic person, but not seeing my kid for 4 days (so far) would have me fairly up in arms, as I believe most people would be. I reacted as such.

If the OP intends on working it out with the ex, my advice was bad. If the OP's concern isn't about reconciliation and more about spending time with their child, most my advice has merit. It is up to the OP to decide how they want to proceed based off of what they now know.

There are reasons why these sites exist. One of them is to get varied ways of seeking the same remedy. Knowing your options is important when dealing with the law, especially family law. Again, the OP didn't provide many details, but that doesn't mean any of the advice provided was wrong.... well except maybe the part on exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, as what the OP provided likely doesn't meet the tests required under NC law given what I have read (unless further details are given relating to domestic violence, substance abuse, forgiven adultery or abandoning the family - which I doubt would work, as the "family" includes the child).

Or you could have held back till OP answered my question.

There was a very GOOD reason why I asked OP that question. As I said to you early on.

 

[Silverplum]

This is a measured response I can accept.

It was quite nice of Ld to school you. She didn't owe you that.

I will admit, I could've premised my reply more like "if the OP is certain the marriage is dead and the ex is being unreasonable in withholding the kid"**************than go nuclear.

You are in no position whatsoever to advise anyone who comes here. Your words are far too incendiary, and that "nuclear" attitude is far too MUCH for a legal site. This is not the type or quality of "advice" we give here.

In reading the post, the OP's focus is on the child. There is no hint of wanting to reconcile. I am normally a fairly diplomatic person, but not seeing my kid for 4 days (so far) would have me fairly up in arms, as I believe most people would be. I reacted as such.

Again, normal words would be best. You would be up in arms. You.

If the OP intends on working it out with the ex, my advice was bad. If the OP's concern isn't about reconciliation and more about spending time with their child, most my advice has merit. It is up to the OP to decide how they want to proceed based off of what they now know.

There are reasons why these sites exist. One of them is to get varied ways of seeking the same remedy. Knowing your options is important when dealing with the law, especially family law. Again, the OP didn't provide many details, but that doesn't mean any of the advice provided was wrong.... well except maybe the part on exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, as what the OP provided likely doesn't meet the tests required under NC law given what I have read (unless further details are given relating to domestic violence, substance abuse, forgiven adultery or abandoning the family - which I doubt would work, as the "family" includes the child).

You are more than welcome to read and learn. You will speak/type what you think. We will correct you if you are incorrect. We will correct you if you are leading a poster down a road we know is not the best road.

 

[LdiJ]

This is a measured response I can accept.

I will admit, I could've premised my reply more like "if the OP is certain the marriage is dead and the ex is being unreasonable in withholding the kid"**************than go nuclear.

In reading the post, the OP's focus is on the child. There is no hint of wanting to reconcile. I am normally a fairly diplomatic person, but not seeing my kid for 4 days (so far) would have me fairly up in arms, as I believe most people would be. I reacted as such.

If the OP intends on working it out with the ex, my advice was bad. If the OP's concern isn't about reconciliation and more about spending time with their child, most my advice has merit. It is up to the OP to decide how they want to proceed based off of what they now know.

There are reasons why these sites exist. One of them is to get varied ways of seeking the same remedy. Knowing your options is important when dealing with the law, especially family law. Again, the OP didn't provide many details, but that doesn't mean any of the advice provided was wrong.... well except maybe the part on exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, as what the OP provided likely doesn't meet the tests required under NC law given what I have read (unless further details are given relating to domestic violence, substance abuse, forgiven adultery or abandoning the family - which I doubt would work, as the "family" includes the child).

Anyone who cannot handle not seeing their child for 4 days better be doing everything in their power to reconcile their marriage, because unless the judge agrees to some ridiculous schedule that doesn't allow the child to ever settle in one place for more than a day or two, they are absolutely going to have periods where they don't see their child for 4 days, and probably even longer.

Seriously. If they just had a fight your type of advice is horrible. If they truly are separating then it takes more than 4 days to get over the trauma and get your head straight so that you can think like a rational person, so its still not very good advice.

The best interest of a child is two parents who love the child enough to handle things in a civil manner. Going all def-con 3 after 4 days is insane.

 

[Just Blue]

Anyone who cannot handle not seeing their child for 4 days better be doing everything in their power to reconcile their marriage, because unless the judge agrees to some ridiculous schedule that doesn't allow the child to ever settle in one place for more than a day or two, they are absolutely going to have periods where they don't see their child for 4 days, and probably even longer.

Seriously. If they just had a fight your type of advice is horrible. If they truly are separating then it takes more than 4 days to get over the trauma and get your head straight so that you can think like a rational person, so its still not very good advice.

The best interest of a child is two parents who love the child enough to handle things in a civil manner. Going all def-con 3 after 4 days is insane.

LD...

I know that often we do not agree. But your postings on this thread has been spot on!

 

[LdiJ]

LD...

I know that often we do not agree. But your postings on this thread has been spot on!

Thank you...and when we do all agree, people really need to listen.

 

[Just Blue]

Thank you...and when we do all agree, people really need to listen.

I agree.

 

[HammerDad]

Anyone who cannot handle not seeing their child for 4 days better be doing everything in their power to reconcile their marriage, because unless the judge agrees to some ridiculous schedule that doesn't allow the child to ever settle in one place for more than a day or two, they are absolutely going to have periods where they don't see their child for 4 days, and probably even longer.

Seriously. If they just had a fight your type of advice is horrible. If they truly are separating then it takes more than 4 days to get over the trauma and get your head straight so that you can think like a rational person, so its still not very good advice.

The best interest of a child is two parents who love the child enough to handle things in a civil manner. Going all def-con 3 after 4 days is insane.

There is a difference between not seeing your child, and being prevented from seeing your child. And an even bigger difference between not seeing your child for 4 days, but expect to see them on the 5th day, vs, not seeing your child for 4 days and no ETA on when you may be allowed to see them. Just saying.

In law, there are different routes to take. Knowing all of your routes is an important part of process. Without knowing what you can do may limit your ability to adjust/react when situations change (for better or worse). To limit your advice to that which suits your prospective limits the ability to individual make informed choices. The OP may make the wrong choice, but at least they know their options.

Having worked in law as a corporate paralegal for over 16 years, I have learned that the client has the right to know all their options and to make their own choices. That leading them with one route deprives them of another.

 

[Zigner]

There is a difference between not seeing your child, and being prevented from seeing your child. And an even bigger difference between not seeing your child for 4 days, but expect to see them on the 5th day, vs, not seeing your child for 4 days and no ETA on when you may be allowed to see them. Just saying.

In law, there are different routes to take. Knowing all of your routes is an important part of process. Without knowing what you can do may limit your ability to adjust/react when situations change (for better or worse). To limit your advice to that which suits your prospective limits the ability to individual make informed choices. The OP may make the wrong choice, but at least they know their options.

Having worked in law as a corporate paralegal for over 16 years, I have learned that the client has the right to know all their options and to make their own choices. That leading them with one route deprives them of another.

An experienced corporate paralegal should also know that giving advice based on obviously incomplete information is far worse than giving no information at all.

 

[Just Blue]

There is a difference between not seeing your child, and being prevented from seeing your child. And an even bigger difference between not seeing your child for 4 days, but expect to see them on the 5th day, vs, not seeing your child for 4 days and no ETA on when you may be allowed to see them. Just saying.

In law, there are different routes to take. Knowing all of your routes is an important part of process. Without knowing what you can do may limit your ability to adjust/react when situations change (for better or worse). To limit your advice to that which suits your prospective limits the ability to individual make informed choices. The OP may make the wrong choice, but at least they know their options.

Having worked in law as a corporate paralegal for over 16 years, I have learned that the client has the right to know all their options and to make their own choices. That leading them with one route deprives them of another.

As you are stating that you have a legal background I am reporting this to Admin for vetting. Standard for this site.

 

[HammerDad]

As you are stating that you have a legal background I am reporting this to Admin for vetting. Standard for this site.

No problem. I will provide them the link to my bio on my firms webpage! I like that picture!

 

[HammerDad]

You could send links to bios on websites all day long. Doesn't make you any of those people.

What you should do is learn about the topic before giving inappropriate advice.

Should the admin email me using the email provided on that page, I will gladly respond. But anyway, it isn't like that will appease the skeptics, so I digress.

And was it inappropriate because you didn't agree with it? Or was it inappropriate because it was actually wrong at law? Yes, I admitted it was the aggressive option, but who says the aggressive option is actually wrong? I gave an option, you don't like or agree with it. That isn't my problem. The reality is, it is an option. Nothing more, nothing less.