• 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.

Possible kidnapping and harassment?

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

M

mkmoore

Guest
What is the name of your state? --PA

A friend of mine and her ex-husband right now are in a custody battle for their son, whom the ex-husband has taken despite his saying he felt no responsibility for the child and refuses to let her see it, despite the fact they both have custody for the boy. Can he legally do this? Also, the ex-husband is also saying a lot of untruths about the mother, from implying she uses drugs to her sexual activities to her lack of care for the child, when in actuality she is a very loving mother as the child never had any needs or wants that were not fulfilled.

As for the harassment question, a mutual friend of ours decided to get even and submit the ex-husband's name and address to dozens of different mailing addresses and other such things over the Internet. Could this be considered harassment? He never ordered things, mind you, just a bunch of silly junk mail and catalogs.
 
Last edited:


Bravo8

Member
It's not kidnapping. It's a child custody issue and is civil in nature. Your friend needs to contact her attorney about her ex-husband violating any custody order that is in place. The Judge certainly won't go kindly on him for violating the order that was issued (more than likely, it will be the same judge who issued the initial order).

Signing the ex-husband up for junk mail and such may constitute Harassment (Title 18, Section 2709), but I think it's a bit of a stretch.
 
M

mkmoore

Guest
Bravo8 said:
It's not kidnapping. It's a child custody issue and is civil in nature. Your friend needs to contact her attorney about her ex-husband violating any custody order that is in place. The Judge certainly won't go kindly on him for violating the order that was issued (more than likely, it will be the same judge who issued the initial order).

Signing the ex-husband up for junk mail and such may constitute Harassment (Title 18, Section 2709), but I think it's a bit of a stretch.
Thanks for the help. Unfortunately when they divorced they never made any kind of written agreement over the custody of the child, so it looks like they're going to have to fight it out in court.
 

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
mkmoore said:
Thanks for the help. Unfortunately when they divorced they never made any kind of written agreement over the custody of the child, so it looks like they're going to have to fight it out in court.
Where did they/you get divorced? Some where back in the stone age?
 
M

mkmoore

Guest
--PARIDISE-- said:
Where did they/you get divorced? Some where back in the stone age?
From what she tells me, they merely annuled their marriage but never filed any paperwork for custody, they had an oral agreement to merely split the days of the week up: 3 days for her and 4 for him, then 4 days for her and 3 for him. He had claimed he felt no responsibility for the child before, so she was filing paperwork to get full custody but now all of a sudden he comes to her house on the day he is supposed to return the child and merely hands her court papers stating that he's fighting for full custody and filled with false implications of her lifestyle and treatment of the child.

And no, it is not my situation, she is just a very good friend of mine and her son is her life, so I'd hate to see that taken away from her. She has a much larger income than he does and devotes the majority of her time to raising the boy, while the ex-husband works at Wal-Mart and spends a lot of time at frat parties and the like.
 
O

OhBullship

Guest
When you say they just had the marriage annulled, are you saying a legal annulment, or an annulment through their church, or the two just decided they were no longer married? It is weird that they would go through the legal system and the issue of custody was never addressed.

If there is not a court order in place, both parents have equal rights to custody, and either parent can do exactly what he did. Has he gotten a temporary order in place yet? As far as the accusations he is making against her, he will have to prove them true. How far along in the process was she before he brought her the papers?
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
mkmoore said:
From what she tells me, they merely annuled their marriage but never filed any paperwork for custody, they had an oral agreement to merely split the days of the week up:
Quite honestly, when people do something this stupid, they should expect problems.
 
M

mkmoore

Guest
OhBullship said:
When you say they just had the marriage annulled, are you saying a legal annulment, or an annulment through their church, or the two just decided they were no longer married? It is weird that they would go through the legal system and the issue of custody was never addressed.

If there is not a court order in place, both parents have equal rights to custody, and either parent can do exactly what he did. Has he gotten a temporary order in place yet? As far as the accusations he is making against her, he will have to prove them true. How far along in the process was she before he brought her the papers?
I got more info. They just annulled it through the church so far, the divorce is not final yet as they've been sitting on it hence why they have no papers regarding who gets custody. She had just started when he did this, probably to strike back at her for trying to take full custody even though he admitted on several occasions he never wanted anything to do with the boy.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
He has the exact same rights as she does - and that includes not allowing the other parent access to the kid.

Your friend needs an attorney. ASAP.
 
M

mkmoore

Guest
stealth2 said:
He has the exact same rights as she does - and that includes not allowing the other parent access to the kid.

Your friend needs an attorney. ASAP.
She's speaking with one today hopefully. Also, another question: she is allowed to see her son but only under supervised care. Who supervises, the ex, a court official, or something similar?
 
O

OhBullship

Guest
mkmoore said:
I got more info. They just annulled it through the church so far, the divorce is not final yet as they've been sitting on it hence why they have no papers regarding who gets custody.
Are these divorce papers with custody as part of it?


mkmoore said:
She had just started when he did this, probably to strike back at her for trying to take full custody even though he admitted on several occasions he never wanted anything to do with the boy.
Earlier you stated that they were sharing time with the child equally. That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't want anything to do with the child. It sounds like an involved parent. Are you sure she wasn't using time with the child as a way to force behavior modification? Was she upset with how Dad was spending the time he had with the child, because things were not being done "her" way, and using the threat of full custody in order to try to force change?


mkmoore said:
She's speaking with one today hopefully. Also, another question: she is allowed to see her son but only under supervised care. Who supervises, the ex, a court official, or something similar?
Is that a court order? Did the court grant a temporary order, giving her only supervised visitation? It just doesn't feel right that she went from having the child half of the time to having the child for supervised visits only. Something is missing here.....
 
M

mkmoore

Guest
OhBullship said:
Earlier you stated that they were sharing time with the child equally. That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't want anything to do with the child. It sounds like an involved parent.
He would take the child but he was never really enthusiastic about it. She was the one that wanted a child in their marriage and he went along with it with a grain of salt. She began filing the papers for full custody after he told her he felt no responsibility for their son and would often just leave the boy at his parent's house for the whole 3-4 days he was supposed to watch him. He has constantly been contradicting himself of late, and we cannot understand how he could have changed his view so quickly.

Is that a court order? Did the court grant a temporary order, giving her only supervised visitation? It just doesn't feel right that she went from having the child half of the time to having the child for supervised visits only. Something is missing here.....
Her ex went to the court and told them she did hard drugs, hung out with dealers, mistreated the boy, and that the boy was suffering from malnutrition. Meanwhile this is the happiest kid you'd ever see, all his needs and wants are taken care of by his mother almost to the point of being spoiled rotten :) Her lawyer is reviewing the papers and she goes to see her tomorrow, he might have just told that to her and it may not be official but until my friend's lawyer lets us know the additional details, this is all we know.
 
O

OhBullship

Guest
This would be much easier if your friend was posting. Was there a temporary order, made by the courts? Are they finally divorcing, and custody is being brought up as part of the divorce? If the court ordered it, then she needs to take whatever visitation was granted by the court in the way the court put it in the orders. If it is just him stating that she can only see the child if she is supervised, she has to go by what he is saying. He does not have to let her see the child at all without a court order.
 
M

mkmoore

Guest
OhBullship said:
This would be much easier if your friend was posting. Was there a temporary order, made by the courts? Are they finally divorcing, and custody is being brought up as part of the divorce? If the court ordered it, then she needs to take whatever visitation was granted by the court in the way the court put it in the orders. If it is just him stating that she can only see the child if she is supervised, she has to go by what he is saying. He does not have to let her see the child at all without a court order.
It is a temporary, and certainly after this she is pulling for the full divorce rather than them just being separated and wants full custody of her son. I'll know more tomorrow.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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