Dad doesn't spend time with daughter during placement.

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Custody has been changed because of over-stepping stepparents. Isabella was only warning you about it.

Understand the "we" in the pocketbook since your wife may need your assistance with paying for an attorney. but take the "we" out of your vocab when it comes time to go in front of the judge.

 

[partiallypeeved]

Custody has been changed because of over-stepping stepparents. Isabella was only warning you about it.

Understand the "we" in the pocketbook since your wife may need your assistance with paying for an attorney. but take the "we" out of your vocab when it comes time to go in front of the judge.

Thanks, Ginny. You've given me level-headed responses to a couple of other issues in this forum too.

However, for argument's sake, please allow me to respond with a query: if I am legally irrelevant (or whatever the term was), what business would I have going in front of a judge anyway?

I guess I felt like I came here for feedback on whether there may be grounds for modifying a placement schedule - a modification that would provide the child with more time with her parents - and that makes me the bad guy.

Getting YELLED AT, being dismissed as "interfering" and having my syntax nit-picked by one or two posters (we can waste all of the mental energy that we want and it has no bearing on anything) wasn't very helpful, but aside from that, several people did address the actual question and seemed to reach an agreement that:

1. the placement schedule isn't ideal,
2. a request to modify it to include a couple of weekends with Mom during the school year and some vacation time with Mom in the summer isn't unreasonable, and
3. the fact that Pebbles, during her placement time with Dad, spends most of her days and nights at Grandma's house (and not Dad's house) may have some bearing on a judge's decision-making process.

With that information, let it be said that a potential petitioner would be more inclined to seek counsel from a family law attorney than if the resounding consensus was "lost cause". That is progress, as I am sure that there are countless instances of people chosing to not pursue legal remedy because they assume it would be a lost cause.

And if matters do progress to where a potential petitioner ends up hiring an attorney and seeks a modification, it would seem probable that the flesh-and-blood attorney would advise said petitioner's legally impotent, irrelevant, interfering, spouse to go fishing on the day of the hearing or to sit in the back of the courtroom with a bag of caramels.

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks, Ginny. You've given me level-headed responses to a couple of other issues in this forum too.

However, for argument's sake, please allow me to respond with a query: if I am legally irrelevant (or whatever the term was), what business would I have going in front of a judge anyway?

I guess I felt like I came here for feedback on whether there may be grounds for modifying a placement schedule - a modification that would provide the child with more time with her parents - and that makes me the bad guy.

Getting YELLED AT, being dismissed as "interfering" and having my syntax nit-picked by one or two posters (we can waste all of the mental energy that we want and it has no bearing on anything) wasn't very helpful, but aside from that, several people did address the actual question and seemed to reach an agreement that:

1. the placement schedule isn't ideal,
2. a request to modify it to include a couple of weekends with Mom during the school year and some vacation time with Mom in the summer isn't unreasonable, and
3. the fact that Pebbles, during her placement time with Dad, spends most of her days and nights at Grandma's house (and not Dad's house) may have some bearing on a judge's decision-making process.

With that information, let it be said that a potential petitioner would be more inclined to seek counsel from a family law attorney than if the resounding consensus was "lost cause". That is progress, as I am sure that there are countless instances of people chosing to not pursue legal remedy because they assume it would be a lost cause.

And if matters do progress to where a potential petitioner ends up hiring an attorney and seeks a modification, it would seem probable that the flesh-and-blood attorney would advise said petitioner's legally impotent, irrelevant, interfering, spouse to go fishing on the day of the hearing or to sit in the back of the courtroom with a bag of caramels.

Spouses are often needed to testify to certain facts (as a witness) or are interviewed by court professionals, basically as a witness. Often, there are not attorneys involved because many people represent themselves, because they can't afford an attorney.

Yes, if someone has an attorney, odds are that the attorney will prevent a spouse from causing too many problems in court or with the court professionals, or at least the attorney will try.

However, if there is no attorney, then at least we warned them. You really wouldn't believe how many stepparents come on here insisting that they are just as important as a child's actual parent...and how many of them total their spouse's case because they won't back off. Its honestly a REAL problem.

 

[Ohiogal]

Just asking the question. I don't know that that should officially be considered interfering. Besides - I am advocating more time between the child and her parents. I don't know that calls for YELLING at me...

I wasn't yelling. LD explained why. YOU could very likely be in the courtroom testifying in front of the judge about what you know. Making a mis-step like using the word "we" continuously and or otherwise implying that you are a parent can total your wife's case. It is very easy for an attorney to pick apart someone who does it. Nit-picky? Quite frankly maybe. However as an attorney that is my job and I do it well. You could be the best witness there -- the question is for whose side will you be the best witness?