Things that cannot be said enough...

[CJane]

What is the name of your state? N/A

We end up saying the same things over and over... so I thought I'd compile some, bookmark the thread, and then I can bump it when appropriate. I'm feeling all public servicey today.

Be as succinct as possible in ALL communications with ex's/babydaddys/babymommas/etc.

Leave your anger/bitterness/self-righteousness/high moral ground at the door. The courts don't care and you're not helping anyone.

The 'best interests' is a legal standard, not your opinion. Learn it, live it, deal with it.

An unborn child of an unmarried couple has no father.

When in court, behave professionally. Your children's future is being determined. Give it the credit it deserves.

Anger helps no one, least of all your children. Don't let your ex prod you into acting irrationally.

Be very forthcoming w/your attorney and anyone else you want help from. Hedging isn't going to help you.

Do not try to share 'the whole story' going back years and years. Honestly, no one in the legal arena really cares. And if there's been a court order in the meantime, all that old crap is just history. Rambling on will kill you in court.

Do not try to use anything against someone in court that you wouldn't think was 'fair' to be used against you.

Stop caring who your ex has sex with. Stop caring when they have sex. Stop caring how often they have sex. Stop caring what kind of sex they're having.

Don't even visit their myspace page. You don't want to know.

Keep your new wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/bedwarmer/sperm donor/etc out of the picture. They do not belong on the front lines, I don't care how much they love your kids.



to be continued...

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Hey, I've got one...

Having a uterus does not automatically make you the "better parent"(to be fair, neither does having testicles).

 

[casa]

Here's one:

GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND!

 

[CJane]

When you're engaged to a married man, you're the only one who can't figure out why his wife thinks you're a tramp.

 

[casa]

When you're engaged to a married man, you're the only one who can't figure out why his wife thinks you're a tramp.

Thanks CJane~! I needed to clean my monitor anyway...now I just had to wipe coffee off it.

BTW~ Did you see the newest Whack-A-Mole toys on TV?

 

[StampGirl]

How about my personal favorite?

Being a step-parent means you are a LEGAL STRANGER! No matter what. End of story. No more curtain calls!

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

It doesn’t matter what you think or believe, only what you can prove.

If you are unwilling to give any real info, be prepared to not get any real advice.

 

[CJane]

It doesn’t matter what you think or believe, only what you can prove.

If you are unwilling to give any real info, be prepared to not get any real advice.

I specialize in pretend advice though, so I'm ok with it.

And you're welcom Casa.

 

[mommyof4]

You cannot have your boyfriend/girlfriend/lovere/friend/fiancee/future fiancee/wife/husband/extra marital lover adopt your child because you are sick and tired of the child's existing parent, whether that be the mother or the father.

Musical Mommies and Musical Daddies is not a game a court likes to play.

**********************

You cannot will your children to someone else in order to keep the children out of the nasty clutches of the other parent.

 

[stormyautumn]

Don't go on and on about how abusive your ex is and how many times you have been pushed, shoved, slapped, yelled at etc. We are truly sorry for you; but as long as they are not doing it to the children it doesn't matter, post those troubles in the Domestic Violence forum.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Don't go on and on about how abusive your ex is and how many times you have been pushed, shoved, slapped, yelled at etc. We are truly sorry for you; but as long as they are not doing it to the children it doesn't matter, post those troubles in the Domestic Violence forum.

We'll have to watch this one in Florida. Looks like a bill will be passing that if a parent has been CONVICTED of DV, they may possibly only get supervised visits.

 

[CJane]

We'll have to watch this one in Florida. Looks like a bill will be passing that if a parent has been CONVICTED of DV, they may possibly only get supervised visits.

In MO, there's a whole long list that'll keep you from getting visitation... but no DV yet.

(2) (a) The court shall not grant visitation to the parent not granted custody if such parent or any person residing with such parent has been found guilty of or pled guilty to any of the following offenses when a child was the victim:

a. A felony violation of section 566.030, (forcible rape) 566.032, (statutory rape) 566.040, (sexual assault) 566.060 (forcible sodomy), 566.062 (statutory sodomy), 566.064 (second degree statutory sodomy), 566.067 (child molestation), 566.068 (second degree child molestation), 566.070 (deviate sexual assault), 566.083 (sexual misconduct involving a child), 566.090 (sexual misconduct in the first degree), 566.100 (sexual abuse), 566.111 (unlawful sex with an animal ), 566.151 (enticement of a child), 566.203 (abuse through forced labor), 566.206 (human trafficking/slavery), 566.209 (trafficking/sexual exploitation), 566.212 (sexual trafficking of a child), or 566.215 (contributing to human trafficking), RSMo;

b. A violation of section 568.020 (incest), RSMo;

c. A violation of subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of section 568.060, RSMo;

d. A violation of section 568.065, RSMo;

e. A violation of section 568.080, RSMo;

f. A violation of section 568.090, RSMo; or

g. A violation of section 568.175, RSMo.

(b) For all other violations of offenses in chapters 566 and 568, RSMo, not specifically listed in paragraph (a) of this subdivision or for a violation of an offense committed in another state when a child is the victim that would be a violation of chapter 566 or 568, RSMo, if committed in Missouri, the court may exercise its discretion in granting visitation to a parent not granted custody if such parent or any person residing with such parent has been found guilty of, or pled guilty to, any such offense.

(3) The court shall consider the parent's history of inflicting, or tendency to inflict, physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault on other persons and shall grant visitation in a manner that best protects the child and the parent or other family or household member who is the victim of domestic violence, and any other children for whom the parent has custodial or visitation rights from any further harm.

 

[stormyautumn]

Oh you know you are right Ginny J I did read that on the Sun-sentinal page (I used to live in Florida). A mother kept warning the courts about her husbands abuse and then he took the children and killed them. I personally think the two do go hand in hand but it is a shame the law does not think so.

 

[stormyautumn]

That would be good if they did pass that bill. Because if there was ever a chance in hell that my daughter's bio dad got his act together (very unlikely) (reminder he is not on BC and has made no attempt to establish paternity) The chances for unsupervised would be slim to none considering he has 4 restraining orders on him by four different women!

 

[mommyof4]

Here's TX's stand on DV affecting custody/visitation.

§ 153.004. HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. (a) In
determining whether to appoint a party as a sole or joint managing
conservator, the court shall consider evidence of the intentional
use of abusive physical force by a party against the party's spouse,
a parent of the child, or any person younger than 18 years of age
committed within a two-year period preceding the filing of the suit
or during the pendency of the suit.
(b) The court may not appoint joint managing conservators if
credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or
present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent
directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child, including a
sexual assault in violation of Section 22.011 or 22.021, Penal
Code, that results in the other parent becoming pregnant with the
child. A history of sexual abuse includes a sexual assault that
results in the other parent becoming pregnant with the child,
regardless of the prior relationship of the parents. It is a
rebuttable presumption that the appointment of a parent as the sole
managing conservator of a child or as the conservator who has the
exclusive right to determine the primary residence of a child is not
in the best interest of the child if credible evidence is presented
of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or
physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other
parent, a spouse, or a child.
(c) The court shall consider the commission of family
violence in determining whether to deny, restrict, or limit the
possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory
conservator.
(d) The court may not allow a parent to have access to a
child for whom it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
there is a history or pattern of committing family violence during
the two years preceding the date of the filing of the suit or during
the pendency of the suit, unless the court:
(1) finds that awarding the parent access to the child
would not endanger the child's physical health or emotional welfare
and would be in the best interest of the child; and
(2) renders a possession order that is designed to
protect the safety and well-being of the child and any other person
who has been a victim of family violence committed by the parent and
that may include a requirement that:
(A) the periods of access be continuously
supervised by an entity or person chosen by the court;
(B) the exchange of possession of the child occur
in a protective setting;
(C) the parent abstain from the consumption of
alcohol or a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481,
Health and Safety Code, within 12 hours prior to or during the
period of access to the child; or
(D) the parent attend and complete a battering
intervention and prevention program as provided by Article 42.141,
Code of Criminal Procedure, or, if such a program is not available,
complete a course of treatment under Section 153.010.
(e) It is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best
interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation
with the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or
pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse
by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a
child.
(f) In determining under this section whether there is
credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child
neglect or physical or sexual abuse by a parent directed against the
other parent, a spouse, or a child, the court shall consider whether
a protective order was rendered under Chapter 85, Title 4, against
the parent during the two-year period preceding the filing of the
suit or during the pendency of the suit.