NM: Parent has not seen child in 2 years. Typical re-integration.

[quincy]

I do find it usefull to be made aware if a poster has been "forum shopping". Frequently, they include important information on one forum and not the other. Or vastly different "stories" - often to see what will play better. Just me, though...

True. But I don’t find it helpful when a contributor to this forum says “see what I said on another forum.”

I also don’t see it as “forum shopping” when a poster poses the same question on several different forums. It can be important for a poster to gather information from various sources and compare/contrast. It is smarter to do that than to rely on a single source.

And, there can often be quite different responses depending on the site and the contributors to the site. Unfortunately, a poster could find the same responses everywhere s/he goes because the same person answers the same question on every single site.

 

[stealth2]

True. But I don’t find it helpful when a contributor to this forum says “see what I said on another forum.”

I also don’t see it as “forum shopping” when a poster poses the same question on several different forums. It can be important for a poster to gather information from various sources and compare/contrast. It is smarter to do that than to rely on a single source.

And, there can often be quite different responses depending on the site and the contributors to the site. Unfortunately, a poster could find the same responses everywhere s/he goes because the same person answers the same question on every single site.

Good points. Yes, it can be helpful to gain insight from different sources. I guess I find it (personally) problematic when someone posts different stories in different forums. It makes me feel as though I'm wasting my time. I don't expect a poster to know what all info might be important, but I do appreciate it when they answer relevant questions (as OP was and didn't). I'm also not unequivocally opposed to helping a poster who has a lawyer - I found it helped me to know better what questions to ask, when to ask for clarification, etc. I think most attorneys appreciate a client who works at educating themselves.

 

[cbg]

I, too, prefer to know if the poster has posted elsewhere. I remember the case Blue is talking about and I've seen several others like it; they don't get the answer they want on one forum so they post again, this time shifting the facts trying to get the answer they want.

But even if they're not doing that, I remember at least one case where the poster answered a question that was asked of him on Forum A, and it made an ENORMOUS difference to the legal answer. He hadn't deliberately withheld the information; he just hadn't realized it was important until someone asked the question. But knowing that he had already posted also in Forum B and C, I don't recall if the responders on multiple forums took the info back ("down the street we learned that..."or if we told him to go back to the other forums and include that info, but in any case we were able to keep the other two forums from posting innocently misleading info because they didn't have all the facts.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? NM

If a parent has not seen their child for 2 years (except once, 3 months ago), due to out of their control circumstances what is the typical requirement by the court if the other parent is opposed to letting that parent see their child?

Currently no parenting plan exists. Can the parent just go to court and ask the court to approve a parenting plan which allows immediate resumption of parenting? Would the court routinely only allow supervised reunification visits first? What is the standard approach of the New Mexico Court to a situation like that and are there any tips on how to fast track for the parent to resume parenting their child?

Someone told me that there is a blanket approach meaning that a parent who has not seen their child because they were sick or out of the country would be treated the same as a child molester or violent parent. This seems odd. while ordering supervised visitations and reintegration counseling might be justified if there had been harm to the child, how would the courts justify an act so extreme as to not let a parent parent their child without supervision? Is there just a presumption that a counselor can do better than the actual parent?

Thank you very much for your thoughts.

Despite the fact that you appear to not wish to answer questions so that you can get legally valid answers I am going to give you one piece of information. The courts care almost nothing about what is fair to either parent. What the courts care about is what is best for the individual child. So that is why parents who have become virtual strangers to their children have to visit under supervision or in theraputic sessions until their child has a chance to become comfortable with them again.

 

[zddoodah]

I, too, prefer to know if the poster has posted elsewhere. I remember the case Blue is talking about and I've seen several others like it; they don't get the answer they want on one forum so they post again, this time shifting the facts trying to get the answer they want.

And sometimes the discussion at one site advances at a quicker pace than at another site, which means, among other things, there may be additional facts given at the other site (whether or not it has anything to do with trying to get a particular answer). It's no different than indicating that the OP already has another thread on the same topic at the same site. It is unfortunate that this is the only site of the half-dozen-plus sites where I've posted over the past two decades that isn't tolerant of linking.

 

[quincy]

And sometimes the discussion at one site advances at a quicker pace than at another site, which means, among other things, there may be additional facts given at the other site (whether or not it has anything to do with trying to get a particular answer). It's no different than indicating that the OP already has another thread on the same topic at the same site. It is unfortunate that this is the only site of the half-dozen-plus sites where I've posted over the past two decades that isn't tolerant of linking.

FreeAdvice has made it clear in their terms and conditions that commercial messages and links to commercial sites are prohibited.

There are several reasons for this. One reason is that this site makes money through advertising. If for example you link to an attorney website, you are providing that attorney with free advertising.

Another reason is that the other sites you and others frequent are FreeAdvice competitors. Promoting these competitors is like Target telling you to shop at Kohl’s.

And linking to videos and the like is often a violation of copyright laws.

 

[stealth2]

LOL Of course, SRs do tend to keep one another abreast...

 

[quincy]

LOL Of course, SRs do tend to keep one another abreast...

Having a separate place for discussion (etc) certainly is an advantage for senior members that other members don’t have. I haven’t seen many restrictions there.

 

[Just Blue]

Having a separate place for discussion (etc) certainly is an advantage for senior members that other members don’t have. I haven’t seen many restrictions there.

Thank Goodness, otherwise I would have the word "guest" under my name.

 

[quincy]

Thank Goodness, otherwise I would have the word "guest" under my name.

All of us would. Haha.