No custody order as of yet

[cookiedough]

Indiana; I am currently separated from my husband. We have a son that is 4. Last week I was suspicious that he was planning on pulling a stunt (his gf has a pre-law degree so they know everything haha). I got onto his facebook account and read a conversation between the two of them that said he was planning on taking our son for visitation and not returning him because there is no current custody order. He also said that he would file an emergency custody order once he had him. I have been kind and civil about everything up until this point. I was going to let him have our son this coming weekend, but now I don't think I should. Please help!!

 

[CJane]

Logging into his Facebook shows poor decision-making/impulse control. FYI.

Please explain the difference between YOU keeping the child from Dad and DAD keeping the child from YOU.

Why are your actions better/more in the child's best interests?

 

[Proserpina]

Indiana; I am currently separated from my husband. We have a son that is 4. Last week I was suspicious that he was planning on pulling a stunt (his gf has a pre-law degree so they know everything haha). I got onto his facebook account and read a conversation between the two of them that said he was planning on taking our son for visitation and not returning him because there is no current custody order. He also said that he would file an emergency custody order once he had him. I have been kind and civil about everything up until this point. I was going to let him have our son this coming weekend, but now I don't think I should. Please help!!

What exactly were you doing on HIS Facebook account?

Do you understand that as married parents you BOTH have equal rights to your mutual child?

 

[LdiJ]

Indiana; I am currently separated from my husband. We have a son that is 4. Last week I was suspicious that he was planning on pulling a stunt (his gf has a pre-law degree so they know everything haha). I got onto his facebook account and read a conversation between the two of them that said he was planning on taking our son for visitation and not returning him because there is no current custody order. He also said that he would file an emergency custody order once he had him. I have been kind and civil about everything up until this point. I was going to let him have our son this coming weekend, but now I don't think I should. Please help!!

You need to file for custody yourself, ASAP (like this week) and get him served. And no, you should not let him have the child until you have done so and temporary orders have been established.

Yes, you both have equal legal rights to the child, however that means that either one of you can keep the child. Get to court today and file for custody, asked that temporary orders be made ASAP and get dad served as soon as possible.

 

[Silverplum]

You need to file for custody yourself, ASAP (like this week) and get him served. And no, you should not let him have the child until you have done so and temporary orders have been established.

Yes, you both have equal legal rights to the child, however that means that either one of you can keep the child. Get to court today and file for custody, asked that temporary orders be made ASAP and get dad served as soon as possible.

One of these responses is not like the others.

One of these responses is about winning: it's self-serving.

 

[InfantCustody]

I'm not certain she hacked into his facebook account, but rather read his facebook wall. If that is the case, I don't really see it as a bad decision. Plenty of people read their ex's facebook wall. If she hacked in, yes, that is a big issue.

As far as the difference in her keeping the child from him vs him keeping the child from her:

* She is not withholding the child from him up until now. She has been allowing regular visitation.

* He is planning on taking the child for that regular visitation and not returning the child to her, thus keeping the child from her.

If I were OP, I would print out the conversation from facebook so she has it. I would file for cutody and visitation this week and ask for temporary orders establishing parenting time. Pending those temporary orders, I would offer dad supervised visitation. Assuming the conversation she has is legit, she could tell dad the reason for her not allowing the visitation that was going on previously. Of course, he could say the whole thing was a joke, a set up, he knew she would read it, etc.

Regardless, they need a custody order in place, so nothing is lost by filing for custody, temp orders and a parenting plan.

 

[Silverplum]

I'm not certain she hacked into his facebook account, but rather read his facebook wall. If that is the case, I don't really see it as a bad decision. Plenty of people read their ex's facebook wall. If she hacked in, yes, that is a big issue.

As far as the difference in her keeping the child from him vs him keeping the child from her:

* She is not withholding the child from him up until now. She has been allowing regular visitation.

* He is planning on taking the child for that regular visitation and not returning the child to her, thus keeping the child from her.

If I were OP, I would print out the conversation from facebook so she has it. I would file for cutody and visitation this week and ask for temporary orders establishing parenting time. Pending those temporary orders, I would offer dad supervised visitation. Assuming the conversation she has is legit, she could tell dad the reason for her not allowing the visitation that was going on previously. Of course, he could say the whole thing was a joke, a set up, he knew she would read it, etc.

Regardless, they need a custody order in place, so nothing is lost by filing for custody, temp orders and a parenting plan.

You're just the latest one to write the words, and this is not directed AT you, IC.

The words "allowing visitation" piss me off on principle.

He's the child's FATHER. Mom has no Superiority, and she should not be thinking it's all up to her to "allow" anything.

Further, the word "visitation" is alienating in and of itself. It's "parenting time," for either parent.

*disgruntled*

 

[InfantCustody]

Well, if she wasn't "allowing parenting time" she would be said to be "denying parenting time" so by virtue of the fact she is not required to give him anything (nor is he required to give her anything) she is "allowing" contact.

As it sounds, he does not intent to continue to "allow" mom any contact should he get ahold of the child without a court order...so the best option is really to just get a court order. They really do protect everyone.

Visitation vs parenting time, I usually say parenting time but visitation slipped out. Showing my "older' roots as a child of divorce who always had "visitation" with my father...

 

[Silverplum]

Well, if she wasn't "allowing parenting time" she would be said to be "denying parenting time" so by virtue of the fact she is not required to give him anything (nor is he required to give her anything) she is "allowing" contact.

As it sounds, he does not intent to continue to "allow" mom any contact should he get ahold of the child without a court order...so the best option is really to just get a court order. They really do protect everyone.

Everybody's a jerk, aren't they?

I don't care to continue encouraging jerkitude. Even when it's technically correct. Someone sue me.

Visitation vs parenting time, I usually say parenting time but visitation slipped out. Showing my "older' roots as a child of divorce who always had "visitation" with my father...

I know. I use it, too, sometimes.

But it creates an ugly "word-atmosphere," IMO, and then entitlement and possessiveness and then it goes on and on and on. And, like the despised "bio-parent," I think "visitation" is a disrespectful term that oughta be outlawed.

 

[Silverplum]

Everybody's a jerk, right?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TX

NCP texts CP that NCP will be picking up child at 7pm the following week. The pickup time in the CO is 5pm.

On 1pm the day of pickup, NCP texts CP again to remind CP that the child will be picked up at 5pm. CP texts back that since the first text said 7pm, CP has plans, and child won't be available until 7pm. NCP is furious, states that first text was a typo, and that the child must be available for pick up at 5pm, since thats the CO'd time.

Who is right??

https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/whos-right-565342.html

 

[LdiJ]

One of these responses is not like the others.

One of these responses is about winning: it's self-serving.

Dad has already indicated that if he gets the child he will keep the child. Therefore, she has no choice but to hurry up and get emergency orders made so that everybody has to play nice.

That's not self serving, that is a necessity.

 

[Silverplum]

Dad has already indicated that if he gets the child he will keep the child.

Sez Mom.
And Mom has been keeping the child. Glass houses. Stones. Do I have to spell it all out, or do you get it right away??

Therefore, she has no choice but to hurry up and get emergency orders made so that everybody has to play nice.

So everybody plays by HER rules. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

That's not self serving, that is a necessity.

YOU can call it chocolate with raspberries. Still doesn't make it right. Still doesn't make it anything other than the constant untrue and stupid mantra: Mom "owns" Child.

 

[LdiJ]

Sez Mom.
And Mom has been keeping the child. Glass houses. Stones. Do I have to spell it all out, or do you get it right away??


So everybody plays by HER rules. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.


YOU can call it chocolate with raspberries. Still doesn't make it right. Still doesn't make it anything other than the constant untrue and stupid mantra: Mom "owns" Child.

Silver...sigh....

So you think that its better for the child to go on visitation with dad and then be denied the right to see mom at all, even if mom has been the primary caretaker?

The ideal situation would be if everybody played nice and shared their children without having to have court intervention. However, dad indicated that he was not going to play nice, and he has a paralegal girlfriend cheering him on. So exactly what do you think that mom should do in a situation like that?

You talk about everybody having equal rights, but what specific advice would you give a parent who KNOWS that if they let the child go with the other parent that they will never see the child until a court says so? Dad certainly isn't going to be in any hurry to get temporary orders made.

The only viable solution is for mom to take it to court as rapidly as possible and ask for temporary orders to be made as rapidly as possible.

 

[Silverplum]

Silver...sigh....

All I *ever* want to type to you is:

LdiJ...sigh...

And then throw in as many rollie-eyes as I can.

So you think that its better for the child to go on visitation with dad and then be denied the right to see mom at all, even if mom has been the primary caretaker?

The exact same way YOU think that it's best for MOM to KEEP the child -- DESPITE THE FACT that she and Dad were MARRIED.

Yes. The EXACT same way.

Difference between me and you? I tell the truth. You kiss Moms.

The ideal situation would be if everybody played nice and shared their children without having to have court intervention. However, dad indicated that he was not going to play nice, and he has a paralegal girlfriend cheering him on. So exactly what do you think that mom should do in a situation like that?

You talk about everybody having equal rights, but what specific advice would you give a parent who KNOWS that if they let the child go with the other parent that they will never see the child until a court says so? Dad certainly isn't going to be in any hurry to get temporary orders made.

The only viable solution is for mom to take it to court as rapidly as possible and ask for temporary orders to be made as rapidly as possible.

I would whack everyone and let God sort 'em out. (Old Marine saying.)

 

[proud_parent]

Therefore, she has no choice but to hurry up and get emergency orders made so that everybody has to play nice.

Let the race to the courthouse begin.

I see NO indication that this situation warrants emergency relief for either party.