I Just Dont Get It!!

[faithnlve]

What is the name of your state? Vt I cannot believe I live in a state that decides which parent is better than the other. When BOTH parents are fit what legal rights does a state have to decide only one parent can have 100% say in everything with the child. Medical, school, religion, etc. I just don't get it. In Vermont both parents have to "agree" on joint...or only one parent gets it. The custodial parent gets to decide legal everything on that child. That parent can even appt a guardian (like the new spouse) to make decisions on the child leaving the other parent hanging in limbo. The saddest part is that most non custodial parents don't know exactly what they lost until the battles begin. Plus, you as a non custodial parent cannot change the order unless you show a real change of circumstances. So, you wanting to be a more involved parent is not going to happen, since the courts gave more power to the other parent to control you having rights with your child. So now the custodial parent owns the child, and you lose the rights to parent your child. So what happens if the custodial parent remarries and gives the new spouse the right to make legal decision and the custodial parent sadly passes away? Does it mean the stepparent has the right to hang onto your child until a court decides its ok?? Or is the non custodial parent allowed to just pick up their child to bring home to care for? How is it that parental rights and responsibilities are taken away without first proving a parent unfit? I just don't understand. Oh, and who can I write to in my state of Vermont to ask these questions to?? I really would like some answers.....oh, and I thank CJane and all others whom have been great advisers on this forum. Thanks Faith

 

[CourtClerk]

Couldn't this have been posted in one of your other numerous threads?

If you want to suggest new legislation, write your congressperson

 

[CJane]

I know it's not what you want to hear, but I can see what the legislators were thinking when they wrote the statutes.

Joint-legal custody requires two people who presumably have a difficult time communicating anyway (or they wouldn't be living apart) to communicate about EVERYTHING having to do with the child/ren. It's very difficult, and even when ordered, it doesn't happen as intended.

In order to avoid situations like a lot of us are in, where we have joint-custody and are excluded anyway and so we're on a nearly constant info gathering quest for the next contempt hearing, they won't award joint w/out agreement. I get it.

I've been the NCP in a situation where Ex had sole legal. I managed to modify to joint legal, and I'd imagine that eventually I'll be trying to get sole legal because he can't be trusted.

But unless you can successfully change the order to YOU having sole legal (and you've already said you don't want that) you're not going to get any legal custody of the child.

All of that said, I can't find ANYWHERE in VT statutes where it says that the CP can appoint a guardian, or where it says that it's ok for the school to allow CP's wife to have more say in decision making than you have. THAT is the issue you need to be fighting, not the laws.

And you need an attorney. I'm not saying it again.

 

[peppier]

I do have some experience in political things, not legal. What you need to do is start a grassroots movement because most of these things will never get done on one person's common sense.

It isn't easy and it doesn't happen overnight but if you are determined, you can do it, I have. You will have to devote considerable time to it.

The very first thing to do is try to go see your most local state legislators. Talk to them, tell them your concerns and ask if they have had any other input on this subject.

Now you have to go for maximum public exposure. Write letters to the editor of as many papers in the state that you can. In that way you get the interest of others who feel as you do. In your letters you encourage others who feel the way you do to write and call their legislators. Include all your friends and family and hope that you can start a movement that gets the attention of the legislators.

Next write a nice, sincere, intelligent letter and send one to each of your state's legislators and the governor. Call them also and if they have web pages, email them. If you are lucky you could even get a newspaper or 2 to interview you. If you're web savvy you could start a website and include it in any correspondance.

If what you say is true there should be a lot of people who feel the same way as you do and you stand a real chance of making some headway. It doesn't happen overnight but it can happen if you truly believe in your cause.

 

[faithnlve]

I know it's not what you want to hear, but I can see what the legislators were thinking when they wrote the statutes. Faith: The statutes go against our Constitution as so many already know. The state of California I see is one of the only states which has used the Constitution to change parental rights to be equal. Our own state does not even follow with it's own Constitutional laws is many areas. All I can say about what the legislators were thinking when they wrote the statutes....."Hindsight is 20/20".

Joint-legal custody requires two people who presumably have a difficult time communicating anyway (or they wouldn't be living apart) to communicate about EVERYTHING having to do with the child/ren. It's very difficult, and even when ordered, it doesn't happen as intended. Faith: So the courts become parents to the parents. Then shouldn't the parents have joint ordered after a divorce until a contempt charge occurs?

In order to avoid situations like a lot of us are in, where we have joint-custody and are excluded anyway and so we're on a nearly constant info gathering quest for the next contempt hearing, they won't award joint w/out agreement. I get it. Faith: I do not have joint at all. So, being excluded since I don't have joint can be looked at as a contempt of my rights as a parent due to exclusion then, right?

I've been the NCP in a situation where Ex had sole legal. I managed to modify to joint legal, and I'd imagine that eventually I'll be trying to get sole legal because he can't be trusted. Faith: What was your change of circumstance to be able to modify to joint legal? And can a change of circumstances be based upon how the custodial parent is not fostering or allowing other parent input into their child's life?

But unless you can successfully change the order to YOU having sole legal (and you've already said you don't want that) you're not going to get any legal custody of the child. Faith: Never said I didn't want that....I did say I didn't want to uproot my son. I do want joint legal.

All of that said, I can't find ANYWHERE in VT statutes where it says that the CP can appoint a guardian, or where it says that it's ok for the school to allow CP's wife to have more say in decision making than you have. THAT is the issue you need to be fighting, not the laws. Faith: Well, I called a family law attorney, and I was told that the custodial parent can appoint anyone they want to make educational/medical decisions on their behalf since he has full legal/parental rights, and, the school's stand is that the stepparent has legal access to my child's records as much as the parents do, and the custodial parent is allowed to appoint anyone they wish on their behalf to make decisions, so I guess she is in and I am out, unless they divorce.

And you need an attorney. I'm not saying it again.

Faith: You don't have to, I know I will need an attorney. I won't go to court without one. Thanks, Faith

 

[faithnlve]

How come when I hit quote and answered Cjane's reply my remarks where still in gray box....yet my last sentence was not? Faith

 

[CourtClerk]

How come when I hit quote and answered Cjane's reply my remarks where still in gray box....yet my last sentence was not? Faith

because you answered it outside of the quote (which you should do anyway)... This is the way it is supposed to look when you hit the quote button.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

From everything that I have read across all the posts, I thought it would take BOTH parents to either terminate their rights, or appoint another person as a guardian.

I haven't found anywhere where one parent can designate another as a 'GUARDIAN'.

I know that I have signed a medical release to another person. Think about the emergency cards that we all sign for the school, that in the event that it is AN EMERGENCY, and neither parent can be reached, can the school then act upon an emergency.

Now, I question whether I have done correctly in having authorized it for my mother to take kids to dentist offices, and the like, when I was at work. She did it as a convenience to me (so I didn't have to take PTO) for just routine visits. Since my mom was 1.5 miles from me (and retired), and dad was 30, I never even thought about it much. My ex never squack (sp?) about it - guess if he had, I would said "go for it - you can take 'em".

Reason I bring this up is that this may have all just started innocently - just a convenience thing. And then the step-parent just starts thinking they have rights. Guess I tend to think the best about folks until they screw up royally. Just a thought.

 

[CJane]

Faith: What was your change of circumstance to be able to modify to joint legal? And can a change of circumstances be based upon how the custodial parent is not fostering or allowing other parent input into their child's life?

Missouri standards are much different.

This is from the appeals court decision in my state re: my case...

With the appropriate standards in mind, we turn to Father's claim that the trial record contains no evidence of a change in circumstances. At trial, Mother testified that she and Father were able to communicate and make joint decisions regarding the health, education and welfare of the children for the first year following the dissolution of their marriage. Shortly before the filing of the petition and cross-motions in the present case, however, a breakdown in communication and cooperation occurred. A "breakdown of parental communication and cooperation is sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a change in circumstances." Hollins v. Hollins, 13 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000).

Mother's testimony, apparently believed by the trial court, was to the effect that Father had abused and misused his status as legal custodian to discourage or prevent Mother's participation in decisions concerning the children. In addition, there was evidence that Father had attempted and would continue to attempt to interfere with Mother's parenting time

That MIGHT work in VT also, but if they have a presumption of sole legal unless there's an agreement, then I don't see how you plan to get joint legal. He's not going to agree.

Your best bet is to attempt to modify the plan only to include language such as 'no third party guardians shall be appointed by either parent' ... but again, I don't know if VT allows such things and I can bet that Dad isn't going to agree to that either.

 

[LdiJ]

From everything that I have read across all the posts, I thought it would take BOTH parents to either terminate their rights, or appoint another person as a guardian.

I haven't found anywhere where one parent can designate another as a 'GUARDIAN'.

I know that I have signed a medical release to another person. Think about the emergency cards that we all sign for the school, that in the event that it is AN EMERGENCY, and neither parent can be reached, can the school then act upon an emergency.

Now, I question whether I have done correctly in having authorized it for my mother to take kids to dentist offices, and the like, when I was at work. She did it as a convenience to me (so I didn't have to take PTO) for just routine visits. Since my mom was 1.5 miles from me (and retired), and dad was 30, I never even thought about it much. My ex never squack (sp?) about it - guess if he had, I would said "go for it - you can take 'em".

Reason I bring this up is that this may have all just started innocently - just a convenience thing. And then the step-parent just starts thinking they have rights. Guess I tend to think the best about folks until they screw up royally. Just a thought.

A parent can authorize someone else to act on their behalf in medical emergencies...not on the behalf of the other parent, but on their behalf. That is honestly acceptable.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Back to the question I saw in OP's post. Can the father, who has legal & physical custody, appoint a 'guardian' for the child and who has more rights than the mother?

I thought 'guardians' have to be appointed thru court orders?

 

[CJane]

Back to the question I saw in OP's post. Can the father, who has legal & physical custody, appoint a 'guardian' for the child and who has more rights than the mother?

I thought 'guardians' have to be appointed thru court orders?

No. I can find nothing in VT statutes that support the claim made by Faith.

Father HAS allowed Step-Mother to sign as 'parent/guardian' on school forms and Dr. forms. Neither the schools nor the doctors are refusing to accept her as such, and that is where Faith's problem lies. BUT that's not the same thing as what Faith is claiming has happened.

That said, I have provided my parents and siblings with medical release forms stating that in the event my children are injured while in their care, they must attempt to reach either myself or my ex, but in the meantime they are authorized to seek and approve medical care. Again, not the same as guardianship.

 

[kat1963]

So Dad is going to say he gave Mom a POA (power of attorney) to act in his absence. In that case there really isn’t anything that can be done. Fair to you, no, but it’s his rights he signed away.

Faith, have you Googled non custodial parents rights groups in your area? They can be great sense of information & comfort for you. If you don’t like the laws then you have to fight to change them. Albeit changes come slow but they do come. If not for your own benefit then for that of your sons & daughters. Do a search I guarantee you aren’t alone in your state.

KAT

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

A POA in the case of absence does NOT make the step-mother a 'guardian'. The problem is that SM has overstepped her boundaries and the mother is trying to make sure she is informed of what happens with her son.

 

[CJane]

A POA in the case of absence does NOT make the step-mother a 'guardian'. The problem is that SM has overstepped her boundaries and the mother is trying to make sure she is informed of what happens with her son.

I absolutely agree with you.

I'm just becoming less sure what can really be done about it since VT law is what it is.