Father seeking protection of rights

[Zephyr]

I would look up Barry Brazelton and Stanley Greenspans book "The Irreducable Needs of a Child". In includes their ideal custody visitation schedule as being no overnights until the age of 3 years old. Before any one attacks me, they explain why.

If you are willing to have an open mind, and coparent in the future with the child, I behoove you to check this book out....

Onebreath

I THINK THAT IS BUNK- and I will say that every time I see you promote it....really anyone can justify just about anything....in the end BOTH parents are equally important in a child's life, and should have equal standing in the child's eyes

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

I would look up Barry Brazelton and Stanley Greenspans book "The Irreducable Needs of a Child". In includes their ideal custody visitation schedule as being no overnights until the age of 3 years old. Before any one attacks me, they explain why.

If you are willing to have an open mind, and coparent in the future with the child, I behoove you to check this book out....

Onebreath

Horse****...

 

[LdiJ]

Did the attorney that told you to wait a while, go into much detail of the attorney's reasoning?

I only ask because its a bit unusual for an attorney to recommend that, therefore the attorney may have some inside knowledge of how judges normally rule in your area.

Right now you are stating that you are spending time with the child about 4 days a week. (although no overnights) That is quite a bit of time and my only concern is that if you take it to court, that mom might seriously cut you back, or deny time entirely, until a judge rules.

However the others are right, you absolutely do need enforceable court orders, and you particularly need to establish paternity. Just go into it with your eyes wide open.

 

[CJane]

I would look up Barry Brazelton and Stanley Greenspans book "The Irreducable Needs of a Child". In includes their ideal custody visitation schedule as being no overnights until the age of 3 years old. Before any one attacks me, they explain why.

If you are willing to have an open mind, and coparent in the future with the child, I behoove you to check this book out....

Onebreath

No overnights at all? Wherever does the child SLEEP? Or do you just mean no overnights with the one who has a penis?

 

[LdiJ]

Horse****...

Edited to add: I should have seen this NEXT post comimg...

So, you think its better that he get surprized if mom cuts him off until a judge rules? His paternity isn't even established yet.

And...if an attorney gives an unusual answer, its wise to check it out.

 

[Zephyr]

So, you think its better that he get surprized if mom cuts him off until a judge rules? His paternity isn't even established yet.

And...if an attorney gives an unusual answer, its wise to check it out.

the lawyer did give a bit of explanation

Some lawyers say that I should wait a few years before attempting to file any motions as it is important to set the precedent that I have been involved in the child's life for a very long time prior to doing so.

can he not file temp order requesting the status quo be maintained throughout the process?

 

[LdiJ]

the lawyer did give a bit of explanation

He gave us a bit of an explanation of what the attorney said. I wondered if the attorney had gone into more detail than what the OP expressed here.

can he not file temp order requesting the status quo be maintained throughout the process?

He certainly can, but it would still take until at least the first hearing date to get a judge to make that order. The judge also might not make any rulings before paternity is established.

How many upset dads have we seen here who are devistated that they can't see their kids until a judge rules or until a hearing takes place?

I simply think that posters should be aware of things that might happen.

 

[Zephyr]

He gave us a bit of an explanation of what the attorney said. I wondered if the attorney had gone into more detail than what the OP expressed here.






He certainly can, but it would still take until at least the first hearing date to get a judge to make that order. The judge also might not make any rulings before paternity is established.

How many upset dads have we seen here who are devistated that they can't see their kids until a judge rules or until a hearing takes place?

I simply think that posters should be aware of things that might happen.

absolutely! and thank you for clarifying

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

So, you think its better that he get surprized if mom cuts him off until a judge rules? His paternity isn't even established yet.

And...if an attorney gives an unusual answer, its wise to check it out.

Now now. Not what I said.

I took that edit out when I saw that you didn’t post what I expected you to, namely repeating(after onebreath) the “kiddo doesn’t need overnights with Dad” drivel that you normally spout.

 

[Ohiogal]

I would look up Barry Brazelton and Stanley Greenspans book "The Irreducable Needs of a Child". In includes their ideal custody visitation schedule as being no overnights until the age of 3 years old. Before any one attacks me, they explain why.

If you are willing to have an open mind, and coparent in the future with the child, I behoove you to check this book out....

Onebreath

How's about you go without any overnights without your child with you. NONE. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Okay? Because we wouldnt' the child to panic or anything.

 

[proud_parent]

I would look up Barry Brazelton and Stanley Greenspans book "The Irreducable Needs of a Child". In includes their ideal custody visitation schedule as being no overnights until the age of 3 years old. Before any one attacks me, they explain why.

If you are willing to have an open mind, and coparent in the future with the child, I behoove you to check this book out.... Onebreath

I've said it before on this board, and I'll say it again: how arrogant of one person -- in this case, two people -- no matter what their credentials (Brazelton: celebrated and highly respected pediatrician; Greenspan: clinical psychiatrist and authority on mental health disorders in infants and young children) to presume to speak to the best interests of all children.

I have immense respect for Dr. Brazelton. The book is diligently researched, and the authors' arguments are well-reasoned. That said, this is not a "how to parent" book, but a discourse on public policy. I would LOVE to live in Brazelton and Greenspan's ideal society. Every child would have two fully involved (and even -- *gasp* -- still married) parents who place the child's needs above their own. Every employed parent would enjoy a much-better-than-living wage with outstanding benefits, allowing that parent maximum contact with his/her family, as well as affording the opportunity for his/her spouse to stay at home. Every public school would be an institution of higher learning, more concerned with inspiring young minds than in catering to the lowest common (read: NCLB) denominator.

If, like mine, the world in which you live is less than utopian, don't expect the recommendations in this book to be applicable to your family situation. I would recommend this book to every legislator, educator, and public health professional. I would also recommend it to every parent -- not as a source for the ideal parenting/visitation plan, but rather as a cautionary tale in the critical importance of picking the correct life partner and coparent for your children!

*proud_parent now executes a full-twisting layout from her soapbox*


Oh, and Onebreath: one cannot behoove someone to do something. I would urge you to consult a dictionary.

 

[MUNCIEMOMUV2]

I would look up Barry Brazelton and Stanley Greenspans book "The Irreducable Needs of a Child". In includes their ideal custody visitation schedule as being no overnights until the age of 3 years old. Before any one attacks me, they explain why.

If you are willing to have an open mind, and coparent in the future with the child, I behoove you to check this book out....

Onebreath

Well, usually I just read around on here but I have to ask something about this....I have never heard of this book so I dont know what all it says regarding this issue but I'm wondering....does this mean absolutely noone except the CP should have the child overnight until age 3 or just the father? Now if its just the father then that is bs....why shouldnt fathers get their children overnight just the same as the mothers?

 

[CJane]

Well, usually I just read around on here but I have to ask something about this....I have never heard of this book so I dont know what all it says regarding this issue but I'm wondering....does this mean absolutely noone except the CP should have the child overnight until age 3 or just the father? Now if its just the father then that is bs....why shouldnt fathers get their children overnight just the same as the mothers?

I haven't read the book. But I'm guessing the theory is that children shouldn't spend extended periods of time away from their 'caregiver' or 'home' whoever/wherever that may be for fear it'll damage their lil psyche.

 

[MUNCIEMOMUV2]

I haven't read the book. But I'm guessing the theory is that children shouldn't spend extended periods of time away from their 'caregiver' or 'home' whoever/wherever that may be for fear it'll damage their lil psyche.

Oh, ok. Well my oldest went with her father for overnights when she was little and it sure never damaged her in any way to be away from me and with her father.

 

[cerberus75]

Did the attorney that told you to wait a while, go into much detail of the attorney's reasoning?

I actually spoke to several attorneys who shared this philosophy. They indicated that I am already getting to exercise a great deal of visitation. They also indicated it would look more favorably if I were to show a long pattern and history of spending time with my daughter. In addition, they alluded that there is still a lot of bias in the court system and things might not go my way... that I had things good and should be more *reactive* rather than *proactive*.

While I agree on some of these points to a certain extent, the main thing is that I am bending over backwards to meet the mothers 'mandated' schedule. Every time I have suggested a scheduling change she says she is not flexible and it's either on her terms or nothing. I have even suggested we go to mediation together (which I indicated I would be happy to pay) and also went to several co-parenting classes (which she refused to take with me). The most important thing to me is getting to spend time with my daughter, and even though the mother has been incredibly difficult to deal with, I'd rather grin and bear it so that I can be with my daughter. I only wish we could work things out amicably so we could both enjoy spending time with our daughter with a schedule which was conducive to both of our lives.

Right now you are stating that you are spending time with the child about 4 days a week. (although no overnights) That is quite a bit of time and my only concern is that if you take it to court, that mom might seriously cut you back, or deny time entirely, until a judge rules.

I agree, it is quite a bit of time. I am very lucky in that regards I admit. With regards to the mother cutting me back or denying me visitation entirely, while it is possible it's also highly unlikely... basically she works Wed., Thurs. and Fri. evenings as well as all day Saturdays and that is precisely when I watch my daughter. She's unlikely to find someone else to watch our daughter during those times.

P.S. I might add that I was a child of a mother who was very pro-womens rights, so while I agree there is still of lot of unequality amongst the sexes and I am very much for womens-lib... it really sucks being on the losing end of that stick.