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

[Qiggli]

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.

 

[Zigner]

Are you one of the parents?
What were the "out of their control circumstances"?

 

[Just Blue]

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.

How old is the child?

 

[zddoodah]

As explained at the other site where you asked about this, facts matter, and you provided none, and your questions are best directed to a New Mexico family law attorney.

 

[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.

What is the age of the child? That can make a huge difference. The facts surrounding it matter as well.

 

[stealth2]

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?

There are many reasons.
A young child may not have adequate memory of the previously absent parent, may suffer from stranger/separation anxiety. An older child may hold resentment at the perceived abandonment. Supervision can help make the transition easier. That's why the details matter.

 

[NeilTheCop]

There may be a form for that.
https://seconddistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/forms.aspx

 

[Qiggli]

As explained at the other site where you asked about this, facts matter, and you provided none, and your questions are best directed to a New Mexico family law attorney.

Please do not be disingenuous. Everybody knows they can contact a lawyer. People do not post here to get the advice to get a lawyer. Besides, I already have one. Further, no need to point out that I also posted on another site. Thanks

 

[Just Blue]

Please do not be disingenuous. Everybody knows they can contact a lawyer. People do not post here to get the advice to get a lawyer. Besides, I already have one. Further, no need to point out that I also posted on another site. Thanks

So ask your attorney these questions. It would be irresponsible for any of the volunteers here to try and advise you when you have an attorney that is aware of ALL sides of this case.

 

[stealth2]

Please do not be disingenuous. Everybody knows they can contact a lawyer. People do not post here to get the advice to get a lawyer. Besides, I already have one. Further, no need to point out that I also posted on another site. Thanks

Well, if you're not interested in providing relevant information, there is little else to tell you except contact your lawyer.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Please do not be disingenuous. Everybody knows they can contact a lawyer. People do not post here to get the advice to get a lawyer. Besides, I already have one. Further, no need to point out that I also posted on another site. Thanks

As you already have an attorney surely you have asked him/her this question.
I do understand your statement that most of the time the answer to questions will be "To contact an attorney", but most of the time this is a valid response due to the complexity of the law. I will caveat that with, the law in itself is not complex as written but has been made so much more complex by prior case decisions.
So we can divide the questions posted on this forum to those that are best dealt with by an attorney due to complexity, those that are fairly simple and don't need an attorney to which the members will freely give advice, to those where if the poster was any dumber he/she would need watering twice a day.

 

[zddoodah]

Please do not be disingenuous.

Ok.

To the extent you were suggesting my prior response contained disingenuity, I'd appreciate an explanation because I can assure you there was no intent to be disingenuous (and I'm skeptical that you know what the word actually means).

Everybody knows they can contact a lawyer. People do not post here to get the advice to get a lawyer. Besides, I already have one.

That's great. One wonders why, if you have a lawyer, you're seeking input from anonymous strangers on the internet.

Further, no need to point out that I also posted on another site.

Sure there is. First, it alerts others to the existence of the post at the other site (I'd have provided a link, but I'm not sure that would be permitted at this site). Since most folks who post on these sites regularly do so at more than one, it allows folks to see if certain points have already been made in response. Second, while I do not now remember (two weeks after the fact) what I posted at the other site, I'm confident it had more detail than my response here, and I'm not generally inclined to repeat what I've already written.

So...thanks for giving me a lesson about how I should and shouldn't post at sites like this. It's always great when folks (like you) who don't know what they're talking about purport to lecture folks like me (someone who's probably made close to 100,000 posts at legal message boards over the past 20 years or so).

 

[quincy]

... First, it alerts others to the existence of the post at the other site (I'd have provided a link, but I'm not sure that would be permitted at this site). Since most folks who post on these sites regularly do so at more than one, it allows folks to see if certain points have already been made in response. Second, while I do not now remember (two weeks after the fact) what I posted at the other site, I'm confident it had more detail than my response here, and I'm not generally inclined to repeat what I've already written.

So...thanks for giving me a less about how I should and shouldn't post at sites like this. It's always great when folks (like you) who don't know what their talking about purport to lecture folks like me (someone who's probably made close to 100,000 posts at legal message boards over the past 20 years or so).

Links to other sites are not permitted on this forum. It is also of little value to know what has been posted on other sites.

A poster often posts in several different places to get additional and different information, not the same information from the same person over and over and over again.

 

[stealth2]

Links to other sites are not permitted on this forum. It is also of little value to know what has been posted on other sites.

A poster often posts in several different places to get additional and different information, not the same information from the same person over and over and over again.

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...

 

[Just Blue]

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...

I agree. There was a poster doing that last year and we had info s/he chose not to post at the other site....and that info made a BIG difference to the answers given.

That poster was trying to get his wife to sign a post nuptial agreement...if I remember correctly.