Why is this happening?

[Silverplum]

#1Nana, I wouldn't waist your time arguing nonsense with posters here.

Your son needs to talk to his lawyer and if he doesn't like what has happend he can fire him/her and get a new one before the final hearing takes place. It is a simple as that.

Also, at this point your son will probably not be getting 50/50 custody at all regardless of what the temporary court order says. 50/50 is not the norm in most family courts at this point. He can always ask for it and take his chances in court but in the end he will probably get a more standard visitation schedule. I think the mom has been generous to give your son 16 hrs at this point. That is more than mom new dads who aren't with the moms of their kids get.

Precisely what I, and others, already wrote.

 

[#1nana]

Actually it is Silverplum and Silver is correct. No use to you? Well you know what marriage affords parenting rights that having a child out of wedlock does not. that is a fact and something that your son could have considered by not having sex with someone he wasn't married to. It is simple really. However he now has to go through with the consequences of his actions which means he has to FIGHT for time with his child because the child was born a ******* (and yes that it is a legal term).

Marriage rights or no rights, he would be in a custody battle regardless. To make those kind of statements is absolutely useless. People obviously post on this forum after they have had sex, not before.

My son understands he has to fight for his rights. He is trying to be the father of this child which means he is accepting the consequences of his actions. Remember, he initiated this custody fight in order to spend time with his son. To do what is right by his son. Not to run from his responsibilities. Yes, we have all made mistakes in some form or another.

For someone to post needless, self-righteous comments that do nothing to help anyone is uncalled for. We all know he would have rights to this child had he been married to the mother. Rights to a child that very possibly could have been fathered by someone else.

People come to this forum for 'legal advice' not 'moral advice'. I highly doubt anyone on this board is spotless enough to throw stones.

 

[LdiJ]

That's disappointing and sad. He was certainly hoping he could prove himself and get more time than what this temporary arrangement allows. His attorney assured him when he first retained her that 50/50 legal and physical custody was practically a given.

If the attorney told him that it was practically a given (50/50 timeshare) then the attorney led your son astray. However if the attorney told him that "shared parenting" was practically a given, then the attorney didn't. Shared parenting however does not equate to a 50/50 timeshare. It can equate to that, but it can also equate to virtually any other kind of physical timeshare.

He certainly can prove himself and get better than 16 hours per week...he may even see some improvement as soon as the case is heard by the judge. However, it will most likely increase as the child gets older...in stages.

Grandma, think about one thing. When your son was an infant would you honestly have believed that it was best for him to go back and forth between two homes on a 50/50 basis? 50/50 placement is great for the parents, but its awfully hard on an infant who doesn't understand at all what is going one. Just because your son probably can't get 50/50 placement while the child is an infant doesn't rule out him getting that when the child is older.

The child needs to come first here...not either of the parents.

 

[#1nana]

#1Nana, I wouldn't waist your time arguing nonsense with posters here.

Thank you, Halls. I get the picture.

 

[Silverplum]

Marriage rights or no rights, he would be in a custody battle regardless. To make those kind of statements is absolutely useless. People obviously post on this forum after they have had sex, not before.

My son understands he has to fight for his rights. He is trying to be the father of this child which means he is accepting the consequences of his actions. Remember, he initiated this custody fight in order to spend time with his son. To do what is right by his son. Not to run from his responsibilities. Yes, we have all made mistakes in some form or another.

For someone to post needless, self-righteous comments that do nothing to help anyone is uncalled for. We all know he would have rights to this child had he been married to the mother. Rights to a child that very possibly could have been fathered by someone else.

People come to this forum for 'legal advice' not 'moral advice'. I highly doubt anyone on this board is spotless enough to throw stones.

The apple didn't fall far from the tree, did it? It's a sad thing when a simple legal statement that has moral overtones (and where DID the law come from?) makes Granny get all freaked out. Get over it, Granny.

 

[#1nana]

If the attorney told him that it was practically a given (50/50 timeshare) then the attorney led your son astray. However if the attorney told him that "shared parenting" was practically a given, then the attorney didn't. Shared parenting however does not equate to a 50/50 timeshare. It can equate to that, but it can also equate to virtually any other kind of physical timeshare.

He certainly can prove himself and get better than 16 hours per week...he may even see some improvement as soon as the case is heard by the judge. However, it will most likely increase as the child gets older...in stages.

Grandma, think about one thing. When your son was an infant would you honestly have believed that it was best for him to go back and forth between two homes on a 50/50 basis? 50/50 placement is great for the parents, but its awfully hard on an infant who doesn't understand at all what is going one. Just because your son probably can't get 50/50 placement while the child is an infant doesn't rule out him getting that when the child is older.

The child needs to come first here...not either of the parents.

Although disappointing to hear, I appreciate your honesty and your help. I understand what you mean by a child being shuffled between 2 homes, and no I don't think that would be best. However, I do think a child needs both parents equally. My son's dad and I divorced when he was young. He did not have a close relationship with his father (by his father's choice) and I see what it did to him. My son just wants more for his own son, that's all.

 

[Halls]

I actually gave this poster pretty good advice without all the extra rude garbage.

 

[LdiJ]

Although disappointing to hear, I appreciate your honesty and your help. I understand what you mean by a child being shuffled between 2 homes, and no I don't think that would be best. However, I do think a child needs both parents equally. My son's dad and I divorced when he was young. He did not have a close relationship with his father (by his father's choice) and I see what it did to him. My son just wants more for his own son, that's all.

Its perfectly understandable and natural that your son wants more for his son. However, he doesn't have to have a 50/50 timeshare in order to be seriously involved in his son's life.

My ex and I split when our daughter was three. For many reasons we didn't divorce for quite a few years. Although things were quite strained in the first few months, what we "morphed" into was my ex stopping by my house every day before and after work (until she started school) then it was just after work. After work he would stay anywhere from 30 minutes to until she went to bed, depending on what he had going on. He played outside with her and her friends, got her involved in sports, helped her with her homework, and just generally did the same sorts of things that he would have done if we had stayed together. Then, he generally spent Saturdays with her (sometimes I went along if they were doing something particularly fun...at his invite) I generally spent Sundays with her.

He rarely had overnights with her (because he honestly believes that a child should have ONE home) and when he did they were fun treats...sleepover at daddy's....and generally at least one of her friends was invited along.

It worked because we both left our egos at the door and focused on what we honestly thought our daughter needed. It also worked because I deliberately chose NOT to date or get involved with anyone else, and because his girlfriend was self confident enough to honor/accept what he thought was best for his child.

One of the best parts of that whole arrangement is that my ex and I honestly ended up being best friends....its like having another brother. We are "family" still and always will be...and I treasure that. We have never set foot in a courtroom, not even for our divorce. Everything that we have ever done has been by agreement.

I know other people like us.....I know people who have both remarried yet they are ALL good friends and they do dinners/holidays/barbeques together....they babysit for each other's kids...one group even trades off ALL the kids (bios, halfs and steps) every other weekend so that all the kids get to be together every weekend, and so that they all get free weekends to be "adults"...LOL. Heck...my ex not only took care of my daughter, but took care of my friend's kids too once a month or so, so that we could have a "girls night out".

Anyway, the point I am making (sorry this was so long) is that its possible for your son to truly be a real part of his child's life....and you too...by thinking "outside the box"....and now is the time to do that. "Now" sets the tone for the next 18 years.

So...maybe he should consider truly talking to mom....with the focus not on "his or her rights"...but on the child and what they both want for the child. Wouldn't it be marvelous if you could all be one big happy family? Wouldn't it be marvelous if the courts didn't need to be part of everyone's lives for the next 18 years? Its not an impossible dream.

 

[GrowUp!]

That's disappointing and sad. He was certainly hoping he could prove himself and get more time than what this temporary arrangement allows. His attorney assured him when he first retained her that 50/50 legal and physical custody was practically a given.

You're missing what LdiJ and I and others have pretty much told you. No one ever said or implied he would NEVER get joint physical custody. We're talking about a newborn. If the parents live close to each other, it could be possible for joint physical. But if either one of you move away, then whether joint physical can be accomplished without being disruptive for the kid comes into question.

Joint LEGAL affords BOTH parents the same legal rights. Neither parent has any more rights over the child as the other (outside of day-to-day decisions while the children are in each of the parent's care).

Listen, you've been told by me and a few others on here that he should consider himself EXTREMELY lucky he got that much. He'll, I can't even get that much and mine are way older. He should be taking it and running to the hills with it. If he utilizes every single minute he's been granted at this point, there's no reason he won't get AT LEAST that much while the child is an infant...or until mom stops breastfeeding.

He should also have his lawyer include language that gives him more time as the children get older (age-specific) and then joint physical at a certain age.

If he truly takes advantage of this time, it could only benefit him SOONER.

 

[GrowUp!]

Correct, mom didn't have to agree to anything and if dad didn't like that he could have taken in front of a judge to decide.

And more proof you do not know what in the hell you are talking about. Mom lost some control when Dad filed for parenting and custody. PERIOD! Mom would have no reason to deny him parenting time on a temporary order basis to develop a relationship with the children. How is that not in the "best interest of the children"?

 

[stealth2]

And more proof you do not know what in the hell you are talking about. Mom lost some control when Dad filed for parenting and custody. PERIOD! Mom would have no reason to deny him parenting time on a temporary order basis to develop a relationship with the children. How is that not in the "best interest of the children"?

GU - I think *you* missed the point on this one. Absent a court order, Mom would be within her rights to refuse visitation. Now that there IS an order, she can't.

 

[GrowUp!]

GU - I think *you* missed the point on this one. Absent a court order, Mom would be within her rights to refuse visitation. Now that there IS an order, she can't.

I am aware of the whole without a court order thing, but my understanding from reading this was that some people were advising that Mom didn't have to agree to a temp order or something like that. Uggh...my heads spinning...

 

[LdiJ]

I am aware of the whole without a court order thing, but my understanding from reading this was that some people were advising that Mom didn't have to agree to a temp order or something like that. Uggh...my heads spinning...

No, mom didn't have to agree to a temp order. The timeline of the whole thing is that the temp order was based on a negotiated agreement between the attorneys.

Mom didn't have to do that. A judge could have made temp orders absent mom's agreement, but that would have required a hearing, and they have NOT had a hearing yet.

Mom could have held out until they had their first hearing...mom didn't. That indicates that mom is at least recognizing that dad has some rights. Many moms would have held out until at least the first hearing.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Many moms would have held out until at least the first hearing.

Or at least until closing time

 

[carbro]

<<smirk!>>


This is what I was talking about. Natural and logical consequences for one's choice of actions. If Sonny had any self-control he wouldn't be in this situation now. He will have virtually no chance at 50-50 custody, because he had no rights at birth, unlike a legal father (i.e. wed). It's not that hard to figure out.

Another thing that's not too difficult to figure out is that Mama is doing Sonny's business for him. That shows me what kind of stuff makes up Sonny's character.[/QUOTE]


Big words...Have you ever gone through this personally?

I guess that some people are not as "strong" as you and need help from family.