Rights as Single Mother in FL

[Chrissy1982]

Answers & Clarifications

Thank you everyone for all your advice and perspectives so far. First, I will answer some questions as well as make some serious clarifications here.

We have already established paternity, and this was done at the hospital when the baby was born. The baby’s father also signed the birth certificate acknowledging this as well.

Regarding my previous quote, “Right now I am allowing the father visitation with baby 7 days a week, before he goes to work, on his days off, and until 8 PM when he doesn't work at night. I am being very flexible and generous with him, as I truly think it is important that he be involved in our baby's life. However, the father seems to be a father when it is convenient for him, and I feel that is wrong.” All I did here was mention that this was the visitation schedule that I am allowing the father on a weekly basis. I NEVER mentioned whether or not he was involved, that is why I said that he only wants to be a father when it is convenient for him. I give him time to come over and spend time with our baby and only once has he come in the morning like he said he would. He says he’d rather sleep in on his days off, and he doesn’t like getting up early (despite he gets an AMPLE amount of sleep!). However, he CHOOSES not to come to see the baby when he says he will (and often does not call at all and does not show up!). Furthermore, I include the father in the baby’s appointments (doctors/cardiologists), his current health & status, achievements, what he does on a daily basis, etc. by proactively calling him. Yet he does not follow-up daily to see how the baby is doing (and I am NOT going to keep pressing him to come visit and give him a daily report of how our baby is because I feel it is his duty as a father to be committed and involved on his own), and I am not about to play the role of parent to him, when he is perfectly capable of picking up the phone to ask about our baby. Despite this, the father would rather sleep and do other trivial things at the moment than sacrifice a bit of his time to spend with our son. Right now, the baby’s father is not showing responsibility or maturity at this stage in his life, nor any eagerness to visit with the baby. In total this past week he has come for only 3 hours! All in all, the father only wants to be our baby’s father when he feels like it, when he is “done” sleeping (for 10+ hours), and when it fits his schedule.

I also do not control what he does with the baby or his ways of doing things at all. When he visits, I allow him to plop on MY bed, make himself comfy in my mother’s home, eat and drink whatever he’d like…basically, I am very civil towards him and still remain friendly. But when he comes over to visit and help out (like he said, he wants to “help out” with the baby), he often falls asleep on the recliner with the baby in his arms! What is this all about?! I do not know, but I told him to leave if he was going to come to my home to sleep and take care of the baby.

Let me also add that prior to the baby being born (and months after separating), the father and I discussed visitation and such. He did not want to go to court at all and wanted to avoid it at all costs. I have absolutely no problem with this arrangement and am glad to have him visit with the baby. I also would never deny him visitation rights as it is vital he plays a role in the baby’s life (and why I WAS pushing him to come see our baby before).


With travel, I do not have a problem at all with my newborn son traveling. That is not simply the issue. It is the fact that his father wants to take him out of state to his family at such a young age when I am solely breastfeeding him, and when I am the sole provider for this young child. I told him to have HIS family come and visit. I already allowed his parents to come for one week and visit every day with the baby, only 3 days after he was born! The baby’s father does not seem very eager at the moment to full share the responsibility of raising our son, that is why I would like to take the next step in obtaining full sole custody.

 

[haiku]

hon, as someone who has been there and done that, I have 3 words for you...

see a lawyer....

 

[krispenstpeter]

that is why I would like to take the next step in obtaining full sole custody.

You go right ahead and get full sole custody. And guess what. He'll get visitation rights and then he'll be allowed to take his child any damn place he wants.

Unless the child is on your breast 24/7 you are using that as an excuse. Or does your mother or babysitter also breastfeed the child?

 

[haiku]

I think that some of the posters here may not be very up to date on how visitation orders are working these days when we are talking about situations where the parents are not together at the time the child is born. (the situation is completely different if the parents lived together for the first few months of the infants life).

Please do some research. Fathers truly are not getting immediate overnights and weekends with newborns, at least not unless its done through an agreement rather than by a judge's decision. The other exception is where the actual orders are made after the infant is already 8 or more month old and the bonding process between the infant and child has been ongoing since birth.

In addition, a mother who is cooperating with visitation, even if she doesn't allow overnights or extended visitation is not considered to be "denying visitation". Certainly the mother in this case is not denying visitation since the father and child see each other basically 7 days a week.

Visitation generally starts out with short, frequent visits in the mother's home to allow the child and father the opportunity to bond. Then it graduates to short and frequent visits outside the home, then to longer visits outside the home, and then to the occasional overnight, then to a more normal type of schedule. This is all based on child developement and the needs of the child at various stages of infancy.

The Gal's, casa workers, and others who assist the judges in making these decisions are very up to date on child developement and what is best for a child at each stage. Sure, you can have a Gal or casa worker who is an exception to this, but it wouldn't be the norm. Sure there are state's out there that do not have laws or formal guidelines spelling these things out, but to assume that the courts and the court helpers are not following child developement patterns in making best interest decisions, simply because formal guidelines don't exist, is making an incorrect assumption.

You can't compare the one time disruption to an infant that occurs with an adoption, to the consistant back and forth that occurs in parental visitation.

This is an issue that I have studied heavily. It has everything to do with child developement and is intended to facilitate the bonding between the father and child, not to deny the father his rights. A happily bonded infant, that is not dealing with attachment issues responds well to his/her father and the time they spend together is quality time. An infant who is dealing with attachment issues can actually begin to fear his father and can be severely stressed or even traumatized by visitation and it can bode badly for the father/child relationship.

back this up with FACT, becuase there are quite a few people here who are well versed in fathers visitation rights, because we lived it ourselves, we didn't just read about it. (and we also are parents to very well adjusted children, who spent lots of overnight time with thier dadies from a very tender age)

 

[haiku]

FYI in my state if unmarried parents declare paternity, BOTH parents have equal rights to the child if there is no custody order.

kinda blows that whole "mommy gets to call the shots" thing right out of the water.....

 

[Chrissy1982]

You go right ahead and get full sole custody. And guess what. He'll get visitation rights and then he'll be allowed to take his child any damn place he wants.

Unless the child is on your breast 24/7 you are using that as an excuse. Or does your mother or babysitter also breastfeed the child?

You know what, thank you for your advice, but you need to take it easy here! I am not using breastfeeing as an excuse at all, but that is the baby's sole source of food. I do not want formula at all for personal preference. My mother does not breastfeed the child at all, though it would help out a lot considering our son is going through a major growth spurt right now.

Currently, I feel strongly about not letting the father take the child to another state not only because of what I have already said, but because the father has shown no responsibility whatsoever is caring for the baby. He does not even give me any child support, nor have I asked him for it, due to the fact that he does not make that much money. He only likes to visit with Christopher to burp him and change his diaper. I am sorry, but that is not what being a parent is all about-mother or father.

I also consulted a lawyer dealing with these issues and will discuss this with him this coming Monday.

Thanks again for everyone's input.

Christine

 

[LdiJ]

And LdiJ, I don't think you understand what the others are saying.

The father in THIS situation is spending time with his child each and every day of the week according to the OP. I also don't think you understand or remember that a one month old infant spends the majority of each day sleeping. Therefore, the child would have NO difficulty in being with the other parent 8 hours a day.

Tell me, just how is this poster's situation different than a married couple, where the father works 8, 10, 12 hours a day, comes home, and spends some time with his infant child? The OP says that he spends time with her before work (as would a married father), on his days off (as would a married father), and until 8 PM on the nights he doesn't work nights (as would a married father, because the child's bedtime is probably 8 PM or so.)

Explain how your analogy would apply in THIS OP's situation, when according to her, the father is spending a substantial amount of time with the infant now.

It doesn't matter what your "studies" say "can" happen, ALL that applies is the OP's situation. And quite frankly, by her own admission, this so-called "absent" father is spending as much time with this one month old child as my ex husband (who was the breadwinner in our family) spent with OUR children when they were the same age, and he and I were still married and living in the same household.

Quite frankly, with the staus quo having been established already by this father having a substantial amount of time with his child (by the poster's own admission that the father spends time with the child 7 days a week), a judge would be loathe to change that status quo.

Well, I do think that we are misunderstanding each other to a great degree. I have already stated that this father is getting the necessary bonding time that normally would be incorporated into early visitation orders.

I also agree with you that a judge would be loath to change that status quo either. In fact, I think these two parents are handling this situation far better than most parents would in similar circumstances. I applaud them for that and I would hope that a GAL would recommend a contiuation of the "plan" or something similar if ever things broke down.

I also agree that there probably would be almost no problem in this child spending 8 consecutive hours with the father (assuming that the mother isn't breastfeeding and/or is capable of pumping enough breastmilk to provide the father with the necessary supplies).

Where I think we might disagree, is that I don't think that month old child is ready to be separated from their primary caretaker for the amount of time that a trip/visit from Florida to Kentucky would take. In fact, personally I disagree with the appropriateness of a trip like that entirely, based on my own doctor's recommendation that I not travel with my child until she was at LEAST 6 weeks old. Therefore, on the rare offchance that a judge might actually award such extended time away from the primary caregiver, and based on the fact that the mother is opposed to such a trip, and based on the fact that everything other than that is going smoothly, I personally think that the mother shouldn't "rush" going to court.

The mother is in control right now. Once it goes to court she won't be any longer. While its likely that her views would still prevail in this instance, there is still at least a small risk that they won't. The dad is getting plenty of time with the child. Proper parental bonding is going on. The mother can't be accused of "denying visitation". Nobody is making any threats. Therefore as far as I am concerned there is no urgency in getting to court, and some valid reason for the mother to wish to retain control. Heck!...its even possible that "dad" could be just as greatful for the mother to be in control at this point. Even HE may not think its time to take the child to Kentucky but is getting pressured by his family. He might even be happy that he can "blame it on mom" (even if he doesn't admit it).

When my ex and I separated we had an arrangment that was nearly identical to the the OP here. (our daughter was three at the time though) He came by both before and after work nearly daily and spend most Saturdays with her. It was WONDERFUL for our daughter. For complex reasons due to business and religion we didn't actually divorce for nearly 8 years after our separation. There were no court orders and I was basically "in control" but he actually WANTED it that way. He knew I that there was little chance that I would ever "veto" anything that he wanted, but he was happy that he could blame me for anything that that he was getting pressure to do by a girlfriend or by his family (all of whom live in Italy).

Believe it or not there are actually "unwed" families out there that raise their children together without EVER going to court. My ex and I have NEVER set foot in a courtroom despite our divorce and our daughter is now 16.

 

[haiku]

among other things,you are basing your answer on a doctors recommendation from 16 years ago, and you say WE are uninformed?....

 

[Whyte Noise]

I'm sorry LdiJ, I still can't agree with you on the "infant shouldn't be apart from the primary caregiver for 8 hours" theory.

Look at daycare centers. I used to work in one before my children were school age. There were children there that were only 2 weeks old, all the way up to 12 months old in one of the infant rooms. (We had 2 rooms and 2 separate providers for them, because we did have 10-12 infants on any given day.) If your argument was correct, then NO mother would go back to work and put their child in daycare that early, therefore there would be no daycare for children under 12 months of age or so.

See what I'm saying?

To Chrissy1982.... please don't use the breastfeeding argument with a judge. In this day and age of expressing ones breast milk for the child, that argument doesn't hold much water any longer. If breastfeeding is the child's sole source of nutrition, then expressing milk and bottling it is as permissable as feeding from the breast. There was one case in my state where the mother did try to use that argument, and the WOMAN judge (who had recently had a child herself) didn't want to hear it. She was expressing and bottling for her daycare provider to use and flat out told the mother standing in front of her, "If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for you."

 

[krispenstpeter]

I like tit milk

And who the hell do you think breastfed my girls at 2 a.m. when they couldn't sleep and their mother was working the overnight shift at the emergency room?

Yep, Daddy walked the floor with them, a bottle in one hand and a baby in the other, a towel draped over his shoulder. And miracle of all miracles, the milk in the bottle came from mommy's tit.

There are pumps kids. And I ALWAYS helped

 

[LdiJ]

I'm sorry LdiJ, I still can't agree with you on the "infant shouldn't be apart from the primary caregiver for 8 hours" theory.

Look at daycare centers. I used to work in one before my children were school age. There were children there that were only 2 weeks old, all the way up to 12 months old in one of the infant rooms. (We had 2 rooms and 2 separate providers for them, because we did have 10-12 infants on any given day.) If your argument was correct, then NO mother would go back to work and put their child in daycare that early, therefore there would be no daycare for children under 12 months of age or so.

See what I'm saying?."

I do understand, but forget I used the number 8, and just translate it into a day. The child still returns to their primary caregiver and their own environment
at the end of the day.
However there is some debate out there in the child developement "world" as to whether or not daycare is damaging to newborn infants. I am not talking about the legal world, but rather the medical one.

To Chrissy1982.... please don't use the breastfeeding argument with a judge. In this day and age of expressing ones breast milk for the child, that argument doesn't hold much water any longer. If breastfeeding is the child's sole source of nutrition, then expressing milk and bottling it is as permissable as feeding from the breast. There was one case in my state where the mother did try to use that argument, and the WOMAN judge (who had recently had a child herself) didn't want to hear it. She was expressing and bottling for her daycare provider to use and flat out told the mother standing in front of her, "If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for you."

If you will go back and look at what I said about the breastfeeding you will note that I addressed that issue. However, perhaps I should be clearer. There are some woman who are not capable of expressing enough of a supply to supply either a father's home or a daycare. The women in that position generally have to go to a daycare during their lunch hour to feed the child.
However I agree that a woman should not use that argument in court unless they can provide evidence of the problem from their doctor.

Also, to the person who made the crack about "16 years ago". Not every issue that is more than a couple of years old is automatically invalid. Many issues that were considered valid during my pregnancy and my child's infancy are still considered just as valid today.

 

[haiku]

it wasn't a "crack", it was a point.

this is a LEGAL website we shouldn't be basing our answers on things we supposedly read, or on our emotional thoughts.

this girl needs legal answers, if she were a girl in my state, what you told her could make her lose physical custody, and her so-called control.

going to court to have a legal agreement is SMART. It protects everyone, most of all the kids.

it doesn't have to mean the parents are fighting and/or will continue to fight, it does not even mean they have to follow the order they agree to, to the letter. it just means it is there if they ever do disagree. And quite frankly, if they agreed all the time they would still be together.

I think now that she has questions it is the perfect time to get them answered by going before the court for a visitation agreement.

 

[krispenstpeter]

Haiku, you may as well forget it. Lidj's time here is limited. Whomever this idiot is he/she still doesn't get it but will very soon.

 

[stealth2]

However there is some debate out there in the child developement "world" as to whether or not daycare is damaging to newborn infants.

Dang. I suppose I'd better ignore those straight A's and great comments about the little one who started in daycare at 4 weeks.

I am not talking about the legal world, but rather the medical one.

However, we're not talking about the medical world here - but the legal ramifications of OP's situation. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say what any particular judge may or may not rule. It is entirely likely that a judge will say that the father should absolutely have the right to take the infant overnight so that he can spend time bonding with the baby on his own, without Mom hovering.

OP... From experience, no two people parent the same way. That includes the two parents of a child. Even when they stay together. Some of the things you cite are really not that out of line. Sleeping in a chair or on a sofa with the babe on your chest is a bonding experience in and of itself. It's not an unusual occurance. For a small child, it's probably better than constant stimulation which can be too much for them to take and results in other problems. Due to the situation the two of you have - where you are no longer together, the reality is that Dad is likely NOT going to be 100% involved due to the logistics. Hopefully he does maintain a relatively high level of involvement, as that's best for the child. And realistically speaking, a lot of men simply don't have the experience of dealing with infants and are scared of hurting them - something that's amplified when Mom is right there and has the potential of telling him he's doing it "wrong". When he comes over to spend time with the child - go out. Take advantage of the break to go for a walk, do some grocery shopping, etc - leave him to handle things his way. He may make some mistakes, but no kid died of having a diaper put on backwards. Give him the opportunity to do it his way. In other words - your son will be fine. And if you work it right, he'll have the benefit of two involved parents.

 

[LdiJ]

FYI in my state if unmarried parents declare paternity, BOTH parents have equal rights to the child if there is no custody order.

kinda blows that whole "mommy gets to call the shots" thing right out of the water.....

How? If mom refuses to allow the child out of her sight..just HOW does dad enforce that without a trip to court?