Children do not want to visit

[wileybunch]

I thought the same. The only "iffy" thing was taking the cell phone away--from a legal standpoint, its Dad's house, Dad's rules but it may cause more issues. Aside from that, i didnt understand what was wrong with it.

Yeah, the cell phone part I wouldn't endorse, but the "showing up" for visitation and pursuing contempt was right.

 

[IrishLady47]

I still can't get over the fact that either Mom or Dad would let a 5 year old decide who they want to visit or not visit. Divorce or no divorce. So when Mom is taking the kids to Grandma, it is only if they (the kids) say OK? When the kid tells Dad they don't want to go to the doctor, he says OK? A five year old can pick out what color hair barrettes she wants to wear. What cereal to eat for breakfast if it's in the house. That's about it.

TexMom--all you can do is help Dad grow a pair of b@lls. Because if he had those, this never would have happened. Take the advice about reverting immediately to the court order and filing contempt when warranted. Google for legal self-help in your area, go to court websites, download forms, OK. But after you do all that--it's on Dad.

 

[MichaCA]

I differ just a bit. Dad has allowed MOM TO NOT MAINTAIN VISITS...THEREFORE, I think he is responsible to pursue visits at a graduated basis.

 

[thedoctorisin]

I differ just a bit. Dad has allowed MOM TO NOT MAINTAIN VISITS...THEREFORE, I think he is responsible to pursue visits at a graduated basis.

This would make sense if the mother had been working to foster a healthy relationship between the dad and the children, and the dad had just let that relationship slip away.

However, in this case, the mother is actively seeking to destroy that relationship. She is having the children address their step-dad as "dad" and their actual father by his given name. After five months of making the children tell their dad they don't want to see him because of all the fun things they would miss, it's going to be a very difficult road reestablishing a normal relationship. The dad can't afford to wait any more, or he might lose his children's affection forever.

 

[Ohiogal]

Humus, I'm trying to figure out why you rolled your eyes at picturesqu's post. It was spot on what Dad should do.

HIDE THE CELL PHONE? Do not let mom talk to the children when with him? Oh my goodness. NOT! How is that spot on?

 

[Ohiogal]

For practical advice on Parental Alienation Syndrome, I recommend Divorce Casualties: Protecting Your Children From Parental Alienation by Douglas Darnall. In addition to reading the book, it might not be a bad idea for the dad to send a copy to the mother as well. She might not be aware just how badly she is hurting their children by her actions.

TexMom, it will be your job to ensure that your step-children address your husband as dad or daddy. Every time they try to address him by his name, you will need to correct their behavior. Psychologically speaking, it is more effective when a third party insists that the children show the proper respect to their parent, instead of the parent trying to enforce this by himself.

Parental Alienation Syndrome has been discredited. Parental alienation exists but leave off the syndrome. You need to realize that.

 

[Ohiogal]

What this does is to send a message to the children that the father is being selfish by insisting on having his visitation, with the consequence that the children are forced to miss out on all those fun things because of the father's decision.

This is a pernicious message to be sending to small children. After five months of canceled visitation, there will be a lot of whining and crying when visitation is resumed. The last thing these children need is the mother reinforcing this message of alienation over the cell phone during the visitation itself.

I stand by my recommendation to confiscate the cell phone for the entire visitation.

You really need to learn and understand the courts.

 

[escape2paradise]

As many of you know I was dealing with PA with my child. Dad called 10-20 times per day and text messaged all day in between on the cell phone I had purchased for her. When I brought this up in court and to the GAL, dad went out and bought her a cell phone from him, so that I couldn't provide any records showing the incessant calling. I guess he had never heard of a subpoena. Anyway, I dealt with that for about 3 mos. Then I took the phone away.

I told the GAL why and it was never an issue in court. Dad now can not call DD on her cell phone as I don't allow her to send or receive calls from anybody who's not on her contact list and dad is not on the list. He can call on the house phone and I made that clear when I took the phone. Further, after showing his phone calling pattern in court the judge limited him to once a day.

I don't see how dad taking the cell phone away is such a huge deal as long as he lets mom speak to the child at least once per day. He does not have to allow mom to try and occupy his time by calling the cell phone of a five year old all day. If the X doesn't like it, let her bring it up in court and dad can subpoena her phone records to show her pattern. I can't see a judge holding it against him if mom is truly calling all the time and he at least allows her contact once per day.

 

[thedoctorisin]

Parental Alienation Syndrome has been discredited. Parental alienation exists but leave off the syndrome. You need to realize that.

Thanks for the info. It wasn't clear from Silverplum's post that it was the "syndrome" part of it that made it a "beat up the newbie" offense.

 

[thedoctorisin]

You really need to learn and understand the courts.

The battleground here is not the courts. The battleground here is in the hearts and minds of the children who are being alienated. The courts aren't going to do a thing to help.

Certainly, the dad should comply with whatever level of telephone communication is required by the court order. If the mother insists on more than that, then she can go to court to explain to the judge why she needs to constantly remind the children how much fun they are missing out on when they are forced to visit with their father.

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks for the info. It wasn't clear from Silverplum's post that it was the "syndrome" part of it that made it a "beat up the newbie" offense.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (and all related websites regarding it) is a dangerous and highly discredited "syndrome". Therefore using it in court, or relying on information from those websites can seriously hurt someone.

Parental Alienation, absolutely exists, and happens, but that is vastly different than PAS. However, I prefer to even keep the "parental" out of it completely, and simply use "alienation"...to further divorce it from PAS.

 

[wileybunch]

HIDE THE CELL PHONE? Do not let mom talk to the children when with him? Oh my goodness. NOT! How is that spot on?

picturesque's post was mostly about pursuing visitation, showing up, pursuing contempt, etc. See my post at top of pg 2 -- was not endorsing hiding cell phone. Though since we are on the topic of the cell phone specifically ... that also needs to be dealt with, but it has to be dealt with in the right way for this situation. A parent should not be dialing up their child constantly while with the other parent and Dad should do something about that, but hiding it gives the connotation of sneakiness and lack of respect for the child. There are better ways to go about handling that situation.

In DH's case, after Mom stopped visitation for several months until he took her to court on contempt motion, she sent 12yoDD with a phone and phoned and mostly text messaged around the clock and the child was frankly an emotional mess, clearly being tugged on quite hard by Mom. At the return court date a week later, the cell phone could no longer be brought on visits and Mom was limited to one call a day for up to 10 minutes. Obviously this was a court action, but there are actions Dad can take now so long as he's thoughtful about his approach and not violating his existing CO.

 

[profmum]

Why the heck does a 5 yr old have a cell phone!!

 

[Madison31]

I'm new and I do not claim to know much. But I've been dealing with a NCP for 6 years. So I'd just like to say a couple things.

The mom certainly should not be telling the kids to call dad by his surname. That's absurd.

I think dad is just as much to blame regarding the visits, as the mom is. He has every right legally to see his kids as the court has ordered. He just has to step up and enforce it. If he has trouble enforcing it, then complaints should be filed.

I don't know about the cell phone. I live in a different state than you. But "The Reasonable Parenting Time" document here, states that children have one phone call per day to the other parent that is to take place before 8PM. This is for both NCP and CP.

If my son is with his dad, I tell him to call me if he wants. If he's gone for more than a day, I only call once a day, if that. I have thought about getting him a cell phone because he tells me that his dad's wife will not let him call me when he's there. But I don't know if a cell phone for his age is a good idea.

 

[wileybunch]

Why the heck does a 5 yr old have a cell phone!!

It's an electronic apron string.