Civil orders...

[stealth2]

Kinda important video (LONG) if youthink cops can/will enforce your custody orders...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfm723mISo

 

[I'mTheFather]

Wow. It's also a great example of crappy coparenting.

 

[CdwJava]

Assuming that the order actually SAYS that the teenager gets to choose where he goes and when, it is also a good example of why these are badly written orders. In some/many states (like mine) the police can enforce court-ordered visitation. Since it is a crime to disobey a judge's order (PC 166(a)(4)) failure to follow a custody agreement signed by the court can result in criminal charges and even the compelled transfer of the child. In other states (perhaps the state shown in the video) these orders may not be enforceable by the police and they may have to refer the parties back to the court for sanctions ... admittedly I did not watch the whole video - a few at the front, and a couple when the officer got there, but that was it.

So, don't assume that this video is in any way indicative of the laws in all states, or the options of law enforcement who might respond to such custody matters. But, if the court order states that the minor has the right to make that decision, then such is the order ... though I think that is a baaaaad idea.

 

[Proserpina]

What strikes me (after 16 mins - not done yet), is that his mother should NEVER have been forced to take a stand to begin with. It shouldn't even be open for discussion.

 

[CdwJava]

Yep. Poorly crafted order ... much like the dismal, "Visitation as mutually agreed ..." <---- THERE is a recipe for disaster!

 

[I'mTheFather]

I don't think the order gave the son a choice. The father has been in jail for contempt more than once. He set up a Facebook page dedicated to his fight for the son, and there are 3 other shared children. What a mess. Google Caleb Leverett if you're interested.

 

[TheGeekess]

I don't think the order gave the son a choice. The father has been in jail for contempt more than once. He set up a Facebook page dedicated to his fight for the son, and there are 3 other shared children. What a mess. Google Caleb Leverett if you're interested.

Transcripts are fun.
http://www.christophercantwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Transcript-of-Temp-Hearing-8-19-2013-Leverett-A127182-EMAIL.pdf

 

[CdwJava]

I know a great number of people that seem to believe that a child does have a choice if they are a certain age (i.e. 14+), but, unless specifically stated in the order, this is simply not true. I also think that it is a mistake to give a child that kind of choice because it can allow one parent (perhaps the "easier" one) to poison the child against the other one in order to win that child's preference. It's another form of leverage that one parent can exert on the other in the often never-ending war between exes.

 

[Proserpina]

Well. That was quite the transcript.

While neither parent is going to be awarded Parent Of The Year any time soon, Dad was so blatanty out of line I'd be fighting to have his visitation supervised (flight risk), at his cost, in my location.

You don't flip the bird at the court, and you sure as hell don't exploit your kid and post videos on YouTube glorifying the fact that Mom was upset and ha ha ha ha we showed her, didn't we?

Oy.

 

[I'mTheFather]

If this seems at all familiar:

https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/have-you-seen-599421.html

And to add to the bizarre:

http://www.oaoa.com/news/article_8252921e-b936-11e3-8aa9-001a4bcf6878.html

I'm surprised he still has any kind of unsupervised visitation.

 

[stealth2]

I slogged through the entire video - there's an hour+ that I will never get back! - and I think both parents stink. StepDad at least pretty much stayed out of it, so kudos to him. Dad should never have put the kid in the position he did, and Mom should've quit with her "you shouldn't be involved in this" while then telling the kid about what a loser Dad is and/or addressing Dad.

 

[single317dad]

I know a great number of people that seem to believe that a child does have a choice if they are a certain age (i.e. 14+)

That's actually the "prevailing wisdom" around here. It's so common it's almost completely pervasive.

There's one state in particular I remember that had codified police response to custody issues. I think it was Missouri, but I'll edit this when I remember which and find the code.

This comment is mostly to remind myself to watch the video later while i eat lunch

 

[Proserpina]

That's actually the "prevailing wisdom" around here. It's so common it's almost completely pervasive.

There's one state in particular I remember that had codified police response to custody issues. I think it was Missouri, but I'll edit this when I remember which and find the code.

This comment is mostly to remind myself to watch the video later while i eat lunch

Watch it after lunch. It's so downright jaw-droppingly unbelievable I wouldn't want your appetite to be spoiled.


The FA link you provided was also out and out jaw-dropping. That self-proclaimed teacher finds it hard to make her SEVEN year old go? And criticizes the SENSIBLE parents on the thread? And then... and then... she's the most well-versed person on the forum?!

BAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAA no.

 

[CJane]

That's actually the "prevailing wisdom" around here. It's so common it's almost completely pervasive.

There's one state in particular I remember that had codified police response to custody issues. I think it was Missouri, but I'll edit this when I remember which and find the code.

This comment is mostly to remind myself to watch the video later while i eat lunch

ALL court orders used to include the provision outlined in statute. However, the statute has changed to say that court orders MAY contain the provision.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/45200004251.html

452.425. Any court order for the custody of, or visitation with, a child may include a provision that the sheriff or other law enforcement officer shall enforce the rights of any person to custody or visitation unless the court issues a subsequent order pursuant to chapter* 210, 211, 452 or 455 to limit or deny the custody of, or visitations with, the child. Such sheriff or law enforcement officer shall not remove a child from a person who has actual physical custody of the child unless such sheriff or officer is shown a court order or judgment which clearly and convincingly verifies that such person is not entitled to the actual physical custody of the child, and there are not other exigent circumstances that would give the sheriff or officer reasonable suspicion to believe that the child would be harmed or that the court order presented to the sheriff or officer may not be valid.

 

[Just Blue]

Watch it after lunch. It's so downright jaw-droppingly unbelievable I wouldn't want your appetite to be spoiled.


The FA link you provided was also out and out jaw-dropping. That self-proclaimed teacher finds it hard to make her SEVEN year old go? And criticizes the SENSIBLE parents on the thread? And then... and then... she's the most well-versed person on the forum?!

BAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAA no.

I wasn't able to pull up the FA thread you are referring to...Can you direct me to it please?