Restraining Order Visitation

[stealth2]

No custody oreder has been written so therefore if the father has not through the courts proven paternity and there is no court order that allows him visitation yet then he is not entitled to see the child. I am reading it as he was harassing her about it while they are going through the divorce and so the judge ordered him to not contact her about it until a parenting plan has been made that allows him visitation. If I am reading it wrong then I am wrong but that is the impression that I was under.

Sweetheart - they were married when the kid was born. He is the presumed father and does NOT have to prove paternity. This is so basic it isn't funny.

 

[Jillian483]

Sweetheart - they were married when the kid was born. He is the presumed father and does NOT have to prove paternity. This is so basic it isn't funny.

Not in all states sweetheart! Arizona being one of them. If either parent contests the paternity then until it is proved the mother is given automatic rights. What a google search????? No way!!!

 

[stealth2]

Not in all states sweetheart! Arizona being one of them. If either parent contests the paternity then until it is proved the mother is given automatic rights. What a google search????? No way!!!

And has paternity been contested? (edit) And let's add that what AZ law says is completely moot. What does Idaho law tell you?

 

[Jillian483]

And has paternity been contested? (edit) And let's add that what AZ law says is completely moot. What does Idaho law tell you?

The point is that you said: "Sweetheart - they were married when the kid was born. He is the presumed father and does NOT have to prove paternity. This is so basic it isn't funny." You implied that this was for all states. well honey all states do not have the same laws. Arizona happens to be one of them but I am sure there are others.

 

[Jillian483]

And has paternity been contested?

I don't know.. there has to be some reason why the judge issued a restraining order you would have to ask the poster this not me. I just said IF it was contested.

 

[stealth2]

Oh, and actually, sweetpea, if you go to page 6/7 of http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dr/pdf/paternity.pdf you'll find that it says:

Note: If the mother is married, or was married during the ten-month period before the child was born or when the child was born, other requirements may be necessary to establish paternity voluntarily because the husband, under Arizona law, is presumed to be the legal father.

Wanna argue some more? Or are you willing to concede that you may not be so smucking fart as you think you are?

 

[FLFamof5]

I think that was FLFam's point. But, well, we wouldn't want to tell Jillian that she's wrong. Again.

Yep.. was my point.. was seeing what her response would be since they were married, etc.

 

[Jillian483]

Oh, and actually, sweetpea, if you go to page 6/7 of http://www.supreme.state.az.us/dr/pdf/paternity.pdf you'll find that it says:



Wanna argue some more? Or are you willing to concede that you may not be so smucking fart as you think you are?

You see I am a little confused. It says that paternity must be proved if it is contested and how to do so. It says that if they were married then the father is presumed to be the father unless either parent contests it. Perhaps you should read further. The father would have to prvoe paternity if either of them were contesting it. Until this is done he has no rights. Which I further go to say this is pretty stupid to argue about because I don't even know if either one of the IS contesting it I only said that great word that means that I am not sure: IF

 

[Jillian483]

I just checked and in Idaho as long as the father signs the birth certificate he acknowledges that he is the father, he can however contest it at a later dats. Furthermore there have been situation where children have been born that have different fathers than the husband that the mother is married to . Mothers have been know to challenge paternity in cases like this. So anyway I am not going to argue about this anymore because you once again have managed to turn my big IF into a definite answer.

 

[FLFamof5]

It says that paternity must be proved if it is contested and how to do so. It says that if they were married then the father is presumed to be the father unless either parent contests it. Perhaps you should read further. The father would have to prvoe paternity if either of them were contesting it. Until this is done he has no rights. Which I further go to say this is pretty stupid to argue about because I don't even know if either one of the IS contesting it I only said that great word that means that I am not sure: IF

You need to go back and read the original post. BM is not contesting paternity so it doesn't have to be proven. She wanted advice on how to handle the visitation when he has a restraining order against him for 90 days and he is just showing up at the door.

He can't do that with a restraining order. They have no CO in place...waiting for court so the general advice was to contact the police everytime that he shows up and wait until court.

I'm sorry... please read a little more of the post. I know that everyone can make mistakes but take a little more time and effort and then you will not get lashed at so much.. unless that is what you are here for is the negative attention.

 

[stealth2]

Well, hey, IF the moon is green it MIGHT be made of cheese.

OP has said nothing at all that would indicate paternity is contested. They were married. The presumption, therefore, is that he is the father. You make things much too complicated.

 

[Jillian483]

go back to court for clarification on the restraining order. If he has not proved paternity and there is no court order for custody then the shildren are with you all of the time alyway.

This was my post. It very clearly states IF. As in If either parent was contesting it then he would have to prove that he was the father but like I said... "there has to be some reason why the judge issued a restraining order". I think there is more to the story here. There has to be a reason. If the father was harassing to the mother about having visitation (or custody or hell, anything else for that matter) then the mother is going to have to go back and get a clarification on the restraining order here. I made a general statement about something else that might be an issue her (i.e. why the judge issued a restraining ordr) and it was turned into something huge. I am still a little baffled how it turned into that though.

 

[stealth2]

Nevermind, Jillian - you're not going to get it at this point. And before you go into whether it's you or your sister or cousin or whichever relative it is you share a login with - you use Jillian as a handle, and that's who you're going to be.