15 yr old refuses not to visit with parent

[Ohiogal]

Please state the statutes or case law that gives a 15 year old child the legal right to choose where he/she lives and can choose whether or not to be associated with his/her parents.

Thanks.

Re-read what Cjane is saying Cyjeff. She is right. I understand what you are stating but she is right. The child cannot choose and have that choice be LEGALLY binding. However the child can choose. The court doesn't have to uphold the child's choice.

 

[cyjeff]

Want me to also post statutes or case law that state people can CHOOSE to speed in their cars? Or CHOOSE to deal drugs w/in 100ft of a school? Or CHOOSE to beat the crap out of some random homeless guy and upload the video to youtube?

This is ONLY going to become a LEGAL ISSUE if MOM CHOOSES TO MAKE IT SO. As of right this very second, it does not appear to BE a legal issue as it does not appear that MOM has filed anything. Therefore RIGHT THIS SECOND, the child CAN CHOOSE and IS IN FACT currently CHOOSING where to live.

No 15 year old child in any jurisdiction has the "right" to choose for him/herself where he/she lives and with whom he/she associates with. The ADULTS that have control over him/her do.

Mom has not lost her rights to her child. She does NOT have to go to court to reassert the rights she never lost. Dad can not sign away Mom's right to visit her child.

Mom may go and assert her rights to visitation as per the court order. The granting of temporary guardianship does NOT supersede a court ordered visitation schedule.

However, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please state the statutes or case law that gives a 15 year old child the legal right to choose where he/she lives and can choose whether or not to be associated with his/her parents in direct violation of a court order.

Thanks.

 

[Ohiogal]

No 15 year old child in any jurisdiction has the "right" to choose for him/herself where he/she lives and with whom he/she associates with. The ADULTS that have control over him/her do.

Mom has not lost her rights to her child. She does NOT have to go to court to reassert the rights she never lost. Dad can not sign away Mom's right to visit her child.

Mom may go and assert her rights to visitation as per the court order. The granting of temporary guardianship does NOT supersede a court ordered visitation schedule.

However, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please state the statutes or case law that gives a 15 year old child the legal right to choose where he/she lives and can choose whether or not to be associated with his/her parents in direct violation of a court order.

Thanks.

By statute he doens't have the legal right to choose. HOWEVER the child apparently can choose. Mom has to make an issue of it however if she wants the relationship. Mom has to assert her rights. If mom does NOT assert her rights then junior's choice stands. You two are on the same side -- neither of you are idiots. YOU are just missing the point the other is making.

 

[cyjeff]

Re-read what Cjane is saying Cyjeff. She is right. I understand what you are stating but she is right. The child cannot choose and have that choice be LEGALLY binding. However the child can choose. The court doesn't have to uphold the child's choice.

But CJane was saying that the child CAN choose.

A child cannot choose. A child can, if the judge is willing, let the court know his/her wishes but that choice may or may not be compelling.

In the meantime, all parties must abide by the court ordered visitation schedule that HAS been decided by a judge.

 

[CJane]

Re-read what Cjane is saying Cyjeff. She is right. I understand what you are stating but she is right. The child cannot choose and have that choice be LEGALLY binding. However the child can choose. The court doesn't have to uphold the child's choice.

Thank you. I was beginning to think I'd lost the ability to communicate in a logical and orderly fashion.

 

[cyjeff]

By statute he doens't have the legal right to choose. HOWEVER the child apparently can choose. Mom has to make an issue of it however if she wants the relationship. Mom has to assert her rights. If mom does NOT assert her rights then junior's choice stands. You two are on the same side -- neither of you are idiots. YOU are just missing the point the other is making.

The question was "Does the 15 year old have to associate with Mom?" The answer is yes.

 

[CJane]

But CJane was saying that the child CAN choose.

A child cannot choose. A child can, if the judge is willing, let the court know his/her wishes but that choice may or may not be compelling.

In the meantime, all parties must abide by the court ordered visitation schedule that HAS been decided by a judge.

You're wrong.

Just as a parent CAN CHOOSE to withhold ordered visitation - CAN CHOOSE to not pay child support as ordered - CAN CHOOSE to have overnight guests in violation of a court order - a child CAN CHOOSE where to live. That choice WILL STAND UNLESS/UNTIL one of the ADULTS makes an issue of it.

 

[cyjeff]

You're wrong.

Just as a parent CAN CHOOSE to withhold ordered visitation - CAN CHOOSE to not pay child support as ordered - CAN CHOOSE to have overnight guests in violation of a court order - a child CAN CHOOSE where to live. That choice WILL STAND UNLESS/UNTIL one of the ADULTS makes an issue of it.

Your wording is imprecise.

People can decide to act illegally. However, the purpose here is to suggest the LEGAL course of action.

That course of action would be to follow court ordered visitation until that visitation is changed.

Mom is, apparently, trying to visit or else the child wouldn't be asking if he/she had to go. Therefore, mom IS exercising visitation....or, at least, attempting to.

 

[cyjeff]

To review the question...

Consequently, 15 yr old refuses to visit with his mother. 15 yr old states, “as long as she continues to act crazy, I do not want to visit with her … she needs to try and build trust with me….”

Does minor have the right of choice NOT to visit with his mother in this case? If so, what case law is there for support?

 

[Silverplum]

Thank you. I was beginning to think I'd lost the ability to communicate in a logical and orderly fashion.

I understood you the first time.

 

[cyjeff]

My confusion stemmed from a philosophical answer to a legal question.

My answers were an attempt to clarify the answer in such a way where a 15 year old poster that didn't want to visit with Mom wouldn't be able to say, "I read where I have a choice to do what I want. Lawyers and everything told me so. If you don't like it, take me to court."

That is NOT the result that we want, is it?

If it is, are we, then, going to start answering EVERY legal question with the option of choosing to act in a manner in direct conflict with the law?

 

[Ohiogal]

The question was "Does the 15 year old have to associate with Mom?" The answer is yes.

The answer is NO. Unless mom decides to assert her rights to have said child associate with her. If mom forces the issue then child will have to or the other parent will be in trouble. And child needs to realize that there are CONSEQUENCES to said choice.

 

[cyjeff]

The answer is NO. Unless mom decides to assert her rights to have said child associate with her. If mom forces the issue then child will have to or the other parent will be in trouble.

Exactly.

It appears that mom IS asserting visitation or the question of "do I have to go" wouldn't be coming up.

Question for you...

Would Dad or Guardian be in contempt if they refused mom's legal request?

 

[Ohiogal]

Exactly.

It appears that mom IS asserting visitation or the question of "do I have to go" wouldn't be coming up.

Question for you...

Would Dad or Guardian be in contempt if they refused mom's legal request?

Both possibly. Did dad serve mom properly in order to have the Guardian appointed? Or is dad still the one mom thinks is the guardian?

 

[CJane]

I would just like to point out that I mentioned consequences in EVERY POST.

Also, i still assert that there is currently no LEGAL question - there is no pending action before the court. AND, mom has 'limited visitation' whatever that means - since we don't KNOW what it means, maybe junior really CAN decide whether or not to visit.

Funny no one asked what the EXACT wording of the order IS.