LafayetteLady
Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007 From: Northern New Jersey Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote:
ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Like it or not, a parent doesn't have the right to put the other parent on "probation" with visitation. Of course in the OPs' case, there is no formal visitation agreement, but even if there was, courts rarely force a child to see a parent, especially in a case like this. Trying to force him to pay for counseling, when he is already far behind in child support would be opening a can of worms she really doesn't need to open. It would be detrimental to both her and her child. It's very easy to talk about what you would "force" someone to do when it isn't you, and you lack the knowledge of the realities from the legal standpoint. She doesn't even have to allow any visitation whatsoever. She can and needs to let him know that he loses the privilege to see his daughter if he hurts her, which he's done. I'm not referring to any court-ordered legal situation, but rather the situation in which Breagha has full control of whether her daughter sees him. If he can't afford to fix the problems he made, then no seeing his daughter. Breagha's not wealthy, and he caused a financial hardship to her. If he can't pay, that's it - no visitation. Actually, upon rereading, I'd recommend that Breagha simply cut off all contact whatsoever. The guy's bad news, and her daughter doesn't like him. She feels no need to stay in touch, and he forfeited his right to see her by staying out of her life for years. Wonderful idea. Then he decides to take it to court, and how do you think that goes? Do you think the court says breagha has all this legal right? Here's a clue, she doesn't. In fact, courts very much frown on a custodial parent denying visitation based on non-payment of anything. Visitation and support are NOT connected. It isn't that everyone wouldn't think that it is a wonderful idea, it is more that the courts don't view it the same way. So, please, if you are going to attempt to give advice, know what the legal viewpoint is, so you don't advise her to do something that could get her in trouble. It's very irresponsible. ETA: We don't "own" our children, we are simply guardians of them. Even when they only have one guardian, they typically have two parents. Negating the other parent, regardless of their actions is very rarely a good idea, and the OP's situation is no different. She doesn't need to force her daughter to talk to her father, nor should she. But every time he calls, yes, she should let her daughter know and if she doesn't want to talk, she won't, if she does, she will. The concept that eliminating a parent from a child's life is in "their best interest" serves one purpose, and that purpose has little to do with the child. Regardless of what he has done, breagha (a very smart young lady) doesn't need to bad mouth him, and she doesn't make excuses for him either. She doesn't lead her daughter one way or the other, and THAT is the right decision. She needs to make sure she has some documentation should litigation occur, but that litigation is unlikely. If she, as suggested, eliminates father from child's life, child may not be all that happy about it later. If child makes decision (which is happening), then the child will not later blame the parent, which DOES happen, all the time.
< Message edited by LafayetteLady -- 4/9/2013 4:46:28 PM >
|