i miss my girl.

[mistoffolees]

De facto parent deals with acting as a parent when NEITHER parent is around.

The fact that he was married to mom and is not allowed to see mom, not that he is not with mom, pretty much kills the de facto parent status.

Pro's research seems to confirm that to be the case in TX (although I believe some states will grant a stepparent visitation even if the parent doesn't agree).

The link Pro provided says "Texas courts have never applied the common law
doctrine of in loco parentis to grant custodial or visitation rights to a non-parent, against the parent's wishes, when the parent maintains actual custody of the child."

So, based on that, it appears that OP's only chance is to be nice to Mom and hope that she voluntarily lets him see the child.

I wonder where Dad is in all of this?

 

[paul-6749]

The real father has not been herd of after his daughter was born. he left my wife before she had the girl. No child suport was ever filed cause when i met my wife i raised her 6 month old girl as my own. we have know clue where he is today all we know of him is his name.

 

[Proserpina]

Sigh. This is just so sad.

OP, I know it's a moot point now, but if you and Mom would have done a stepparent adoption years ago, you'd at least be able to get visitation (if not custody) of the little girl.

Now it appears you're out of luck outside of Mom's grace.

 

[paul-6749]

Thanks for your info. im praying that after this is over she will let me see her. I wonder if i went to her school to have lunch with her if that would be ok? i have meny times in the past.

 

[Proserpina]

Thanks for your info. im praying that after this is over she will let me see her. I wonder if i went to her school to have lunch with her if that would be ok? i have meny times in the past.

Quite honestly if I were you I wouldn't do ANYTHING without Mom's consent.

You don't actually have any right to just turn up at the school and the last thing you want to do is antagonize Mom.

 

[LdiJ]

Pro's research seems to confirm that to be the case in TX (although I believe some states will grant a stepparent visitation even if the parent doesn't agree).

The link Pro provided says "Texas courts have never applied the common law
doctrine of in loco parentis to grant custodial or visitation rights to a non-parent, against the parent's wishes, when the parent maintains actual custody of the child."

So, based on that, it appears that OP's only chance is to be nice to Mom and hope that she voluntarily lets him see the child.

I wonder where Dad is in all of this?

Misto, I know that you are really pro the "defacto parent" issues because this has been discussed on other threads. However, you honestly hurt people (particularly stepparents) when you give them the impression that they may have a chance of "in loco parentis"

Even prior to Troxel, stepparents, as a third party almost never, in any state, were ever granted any visitation rights unless they raised the child, without any biological parent being present in the home, for a very significant amount of time. Even grandparents or other biological relatives couldn't claim that standing in the few states that allow it, unless neither of the children's parents were also present in the home.

It would really be in the best interest of this forum and the people who post here if you stopped mentioning that as an option. I do understand that because its me telling you that, that you won't. However you might want to do some research on third party issues, particularly case law, so that if you suggest it, you are suggesting it from a true basis in law.

 

[Proserpina]

Misto, I know that you are really pro the "defacto parent" issues because this has been discussed on other threads. However, you honestly hurt people (particularly stepparents) when you give them the impression that they may have a chance of "in loco parentis"

Even prior to Troxel, stepparents, as a third party almost never, in any state, were ever granted any visitation rights unless they raised the child, without any biological parent being present in the home, for a very significant amount of time. Even grandparents or other biological relatives couldn't claim that standing in the few states that allow it, unless neither of the children's parents were also present in the home.

It would really be in the best interest of this forum and the people who post here if you stopped mentioning that as an option. I do understand that because its me telling you that, that you won't. However you might want to do some research on third party issues, particularly case law, so that if you suggest it, you are suggesting it from a true basis in law.

YOU don't know all there is to know about third party cases, LdiJ. In some instances it IS a valid option that the OP should discuss - in your favourite words - with a local attorney.

Turning this into a "you won't listen because it's me" pissing contest isn't going to help anyone.

 

[mistoffolees]

Misto, I know that you are really pro the "defacto parent" issues because this has been discussed on other threads. However, you honestly hurt people (particularly stepparents) when you give them the impression that they may have a chance of "in loco parentis"

Even prior to Troxel, stepparents, as a third party almost never, in any state, were ever granted any visitation rights unless they raised the child, without any biological parent being present in the home, for a very significant amount of time. Even grandparents or other biological relatives couldn't claim that standing in the few states that allow it, unless neither of the children's parents were also present in the home.

It would really be in the best interest of this forum and the people who post here if you stopped mentioning that as an option. I do understand that because its me telling you that, that you won't. However you might want to do some research on third party issues, particularly case law, so that if you suggest it, you are suggesting it from a true basis in law.

Ld, I'm not the least inclined to take your opinion on what I should post or not post. De facto parent status is well established in some states. There are plenty of cases where de facto parent status HAS been allowed. In most cases, I find out how likely it is in a given state, but in this case I couldn't find it, so I told OP that they should look into whether it applies in TX - and Pro and OG pointed out that it doesn't. There's nothing wrong with my suggesting an option for someone.

It's really incredibly hypocritical for you to attack my suggestion that someone should look into whether something applies when you routinely provide advice like "ignore the court order" or "do what I'm recommending even though attorneys in the state say that I'm wrong" or making recommendations that flat out disagree with statute. You really have no grounds to be criticizing ANYONE in this forum.

And, in fact, your assertion that step-parents can't get visitation is just plain wrong.

Rights of Step-Parents in Custody and Visitation - Attorneys.com

Today, nearly half the states (23) have enacted laws to authorize step-parent visitation. Ten more states expressly granted step-parents rights to seek visitation. Thirteen additional states grant interested third parties rights to request visitation and deem step-parents as fitting within the "interested third party" definition. In the absence of state statutes on point, some courts have held that step-parents may still petition for visitation. Four states, Alabama, Florida, Iowa, and South Dakota, foreclose this right entirely to step-parents.

Or
Divorce Source: Table: Stepparent's Right to Request Custody or Visitation

Or
NY:
Goldweber Epstein | Child Custody and Support

However, where a close relationship between the child and the stepparent has been established, a court will consider granting rights of visitation and in some case, stepparents have been awarded legal custody.

Or
CA:
Step Parent Rights in California

California Family Code, Section 3101
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may grant reasonable visitation to a stepparent, if visitation by the stepparent is determined to be in the best interest of the minor child.

Or
TX:
Grandparents & Step Parents Visitation Rights | Houston Attorney Sugar Land Fort Bend Texas
(As Pro says, this is one state where it is very rare for stepparents to get rights unless the child is in jeopardy)

Stepparent rights can generally only be obtained in extreme and unique circumstances. A stepparent may be able to obtain custody if a birth parent has placed a child's safety in jeopardy.

You see how it's supposed to work? Instead of making things up based on your own limited experience, you do some research from the experts and find out whether something is true or false. And since I didn't say that OP would get visitation (only that he should look into it as one option), there's absolutely nothing wrong with the suggestion to look.

 

[stealth2]

Thank you all for your info. After thinking about it i do plan to tell her im not her real dad. As hard as that will be. I still need to have a chance to talk to her first though. I hope my wife will come to terms and reason. She is using our daughter as a bargaining chip right now and its wrong. She is hurting the child to try and better her chances in court.

You and Mom need to be on the same page here. You should NOT be doing this unilaterally.

 

[Ohiogal]

Thank you all for your info. After thinking about it i do plan to tell her im not her real dad. As hard as that will be. I still need to have a chance to talk to her first though. I hope my wife will come to terms and reason. She is using our daughter as a bargaining chip right now and its wrong. She is hurting the child to try and better her chances in court.

And how do you plan to destroy this child's world? Because quite seriously just blurting it out that you are not dad will cause harm to this child. So if your main purpose is to destroy the child and hurt her majorly -- GO FOR IT. If you want her to know the truth, then make sure it is done wisely -- in a therapeutic setting.

Again NOT YOUR DAUGHTER. You state mom is hurting her daughter but yet you want to do the same thing and damn the consequences.

 

[Proserpina]

And how do you plan to destroy this child's world? Because quite seriously just blurting it out that you are not dad will cause harm to this child. So if your main purpose is to destroy the child and hurt her majorly -- GO FOR IT. If you want her to know the truth, then make sure it is done wisely -- in a therapeutic setting.

Again NOT YOUR DAUGHTER. You state mom is hurting her daughter but yet you want to do the same thing and damn the consequences.

It's pretty obvious that the last thing he wants to do is actually hurt the child.

Is he confused? Misguided? Hurt? Yes, probably all three.

But wanting to hurt the little girl? I'm not seeing that. At. All.

 

[Ohiogal]

It's pretty obvious that the last thing he wants to do is actually hurt the child.

Is he confused? Misguided? Hurt? Yes, probably all three.

But wanting to hurt the little girl? I'm not seeing that. At. All.

He needs to realize that being reactive however -- which is what he is doing -- WILL hurt this child immensely. It will destroy her world and all because he has now decided that the truth will set him free. Should she be told the truth? Yes. But not by a hurt person that she sees as her father and expects to protect her. There is a right and a wrong way to tell the child the truth. Him telling her is NOT the right way. Her being told in a therapeutic setting -- definitely the right way.

 

[mistoffolees]

He needs to realize that being reactive however -- which is what he is doing -- WILL hurt this child immensely. It will destroy her world and all because he has now decided that the truth will set him free. Should she be told the truth? Yes. But not by a hurt person that she sees as her father and expects to protect her. There is a right and a wrong way to tell the child the truth. Him telling her is NOT the right way. Her being told in a therapeutic setting -- definitely the right way.

You are correct, of course. However, I don't think that was Pro's point. Your previous post sounded like you were suggesting that his intent was to hurt the child (put it down to the difficulty in expressing emotions on a forum like this) and Pro was expressing her view that it sounded like the guy really wanted to do what was right, but just didn't know how. He probably never realized how much he could hurt the child by lying about her paternity. LOTS of people here play that game - it's not an uncommon occurrence.

I read it the same way Pro does. The guy (and Mom) messed up badly by lying to the child, but never realized how badly they messed up. Now that he's been told, it sounds like the guy wants to do what he can to fix the problem and said the first thing that came to his mind (because so many people had told him that the child needed to be informed). The suggestion of getting professional help for the disclosure is a good one, but I really don't think his intent was to do anything that would harm the child.

 

[Ohiogal]

You are correct, of course. However, I don't think that was Pro's point. Your previous post sounded like you were suggesting that his intent was to hurt the child (put it down to the difficulty in expressing emotions on a forum like this) and Pro was expressing her view that it sounded like the guy really wanted to do what was right, but just didn't know how. He probably never realized how much he could hurt the child by lying about her paternity. LOTS of people here play that game - it's not an uncommon occurrence.

I read it the same way Pro does. The guy (and Mom) messed up badly by lying to the child, but never realized how badly they messed up. Now that he's been told, it sounds like the guy wants to do what he can to fix the problem and said the first thing that came to his mind (because so many people had told him that the child needed to be informed). The suggestion of getting professional help for the disclosure is a good one, but I really don't think his intent was to do anything that would harm the child.

I can agree with that. But he can't just decide to tell the child or it will hurt her. My second post expressed it better.

 

[mistoffolees]

I can agree with that. But he can't just decide to tell the child or it will hurt her. My second post expressed it better.

Much better. The suggestion of professional help was a good one.

(Plus, if Mom is on the fence about the subject, the professional might be able to help convince Mom that letting the child have some continuing contact with OP is good for the child).