a little advice needed

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Gini" wrote in message
news:nixjj.6580$rG.1492@trndny02...
"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote in message news:7e50dd8195759@uwe...
he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told
me
i
have to take him back to court first.
===
Why haven't you done that?

Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST place?


====

Bob Whiteside wrote:
the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was
taking
them with me and not bringing them back. the restraining order has
nothing
to
do with the child support. but he is not letting me talk to them cause
we
have had some "Myspace wars " going on. just childish stuff

This doesn't sound quite right. Judges will sign just about anything
when
it comes to RO's and they sign them ex parte so you have to ask for a
hearing to give your side of the story. But an RO should not be used to
modify the visitation terms in a divorce decree. And you have a
Constitutional right to live wherever you want.

Re your other comment - He can have the RO rescinded by telling the
court
it
is no longer needed. In any event, RO's have expiration dates, but they
can
be re-upped.

My personal opinion of RO's is they are attempts to control the other
party.
They do not protect anyone from anything. They are just pieces of paper
that make people feel powerful. As an example - my ex knew I was taking
our
children on a vacation trip to an adjoining state to see my realtives.
She
got an RO telling me I could not take the children out of state. I got
it
rescinded, but the issue was she was just being nasty about a lot of
things
to give me a hard time.

--
steph

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote in message news:7e4eb52717064@uwe...
This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I
currently pay 600.00 for my two boys. Back last year in july my ex
husband
put a temporary restraining order on me because i wanted to move an hour
away
and he thought i was gonna take the kids with me and not bring them
back.
Which was never mentioned or anything. Plus an argument between my
brother
and father happened while my children were there the last day i seen
them.
i
havent seen them at all in six months and he threatens me with if hes
not
getting a child support check i cant talk to them and i can only talk to
them
two nights a week before seven. here lately he has been getting child
support
but not letting me talk to them at all (he wont answer his phone). he
threatens me by saying he will take me back to court since i am four
thousand
dollars behind in child support. Anyone have any advice on this at all.

Like Gini said - CS payments and visitation are legally unrelated. What
that means is your contact with the children is not dependent on whether
or
not you pay CS on time.

Non-payment is considered child abuse, thus subjecting the "abusing" parent
to loss of visitation due to being "unfit".



Your divorce decree should spell out the terms of visitation (some states
call it access). If the terms are not being followed you can suggest to
your ex-husband your option to file a Motion For Contempt of Court to
force
your right to visitation. I would keep that legal option very low key by
saying you want to work it out between the two of you as adults and not
have
to get the court involved with a contempt proceeding.

Why not just hire a feminazi lawyer to re-establish her custody of the
children, thus putting all this to bed?



If your decree has more generic visitation language (something like
reasonable and seasonal visitation) you can get what each court calls
their
"standard visitation order". Most of them are very structured and
detailed
so they are not flexible enough to meet the realities of parenting. But
they do lay out a schedule for every other weekend, alternating holidays,
birthdays, summer vacations, etc.

Many states are adopting legislation to allow the parents to develop and
agree on what are called Parenting Plans. They are usually put together
through a court related mediation facilitator and approved by the judge.
They are modeled after the specific lifestyles of the parents and children
and go so far as to detail if changes need to be made to the schedule, how
the parents will communicate and be given compensatory time for any
adjustments.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote in message news:7e50d9f50de0e@uwe...
thanks for all the comments. but we do have a parenting plan and a
schedule
of every other weekend and holidays. but the judge signed this RO and i
havent been able to see them at all in six months because of it. his mom
and
wife now both work at our courthouse. his mom has been there for 20 years
as
a clerk and his wife a few years now. she is in the juvenile department
of
the courthouse. i live in Tennessee.

So if you have a parenting plan in place that covers your visitation
rights, there must be some valid reason the court is not willing to
enforce the existing order. What are you restrained from doing?
===
We seem to be missing some key pieces of information here.

"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote
he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told
me
i
have to take him back to court first.
===
Why haven't you done that?

Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST place?
===
Why is that a better question? I see no relevance.
===
===

On Jan 16, 6:00 pm, "kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote:
he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told me i
have to take him back to court first.





Bob Whiteside wrote:
the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was
taking
them with me and not bringing them back. the restraining order has nothing
to
do with the child support. but he is not letting me talk to them cause we
have had some "Myspace wars " going on. just childish stuff

This doesn't sound quite right. Judges will sign just about anything when
it comes to RO's and they sign them ex parte so you have to ask for a
hearing to give your side of the story. But an RO should not be used to
modify the visitation terms in a divorce decree. And you have a
Constitutional right to live wherever you want.

Re your other comment - He can have the RO rescinded by telling the court it
is no longer needed. In any event, RO's have expiration dates, but they can
be re-upped.

My personal opinion of RO's is they are attempts to control the other party.
They do not protect anyone from anything. They are just pieces of paper
that make people feel powerful. As an example - my ex knew I was taking our
children on a vacation trip to an adjoining state to see my realtives. She
got an RO telling me I could not take the children out of state. I got it
rescinded, but the issue was she was just being nasty about a lot of things
to give me a hard time.

--
steph- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think the RO can trump a judge's decision on visitation, or
custody. Correct if I am wrong, but the RO and CC/CS would both be
civil cases (except in cases of domestic violence), so wouldn't the
judge who issued the RO have to stipulate in the documents that
visitation is rescinded, or schedule a show cause hearing as to why it
should be rescinded? I would file for the contempt and document
everything you do to gain access to your children, and what things
your ex-does to block access to the children. There's something
missing......
It would be wise to read the RO carefully and make sure it says your
access/visitation with the children are suspended or disallowed.
Chances are the RO restrains you from leaving the jurisdiction with
the children, but not bar you from your visitation, or access to the
children.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Gini" wrote in message
news:4iAjj.17802$Y63.6096@trnddc03...
"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote
he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he
told
me
i
have to take him back to court first.
===
Why haven't you done that?

Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST place?
===
Why is that a better question? I see no relevance.

She had to forfeit her children in order to be in her current
predicament............... WHY?


===
===

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Gini" wrote in message
news:4iAjj.17802$Y63.6096@trnddc03...
"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote
he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he
told
me
i
have to take him back to court first.
===
Why haven't you done that?

Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST place?
===
Why is that a better question? I see no relevance.

She had to forfeit her children in order to be in her current
predicament............... WHY?
===
Are you saying that she might be abusive?
That could be relevant. Hadn't thought of that.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
"Gini" wrote in message
news:1lMjj.7778$U4.4773@trndny01...
"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Gini" wrote in message
news:4iAjj.17802$Y63.6096@trnddc03...
"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote
he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he
told
me
i
have to take him back to court first.
===
Why haven't you done that?

Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST place?
===
Why is that a better question? I see no relevance.

She had to forfeit her children in order to be in her current
predicament............... WHY?
===
Are you saying that she might be abusive?
That could be relevant. Hadn't thought of that.

Not exactly what I had in mind. My point is that she voluntarily surrendered
her children to the father. Remember? It's the FATHER who's on trial in
"family" court", not the mother.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Gini" wrote in message
news:1lMjj.7778$U4.4773@trndny01...
"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Gini" wrote in message
news:4iAjj.17802$Y63.6096@trnddc03...
"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote
he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too.
he
told
me
i
have to take him back to court first.
===
Why haven't you done that?

Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST
place?
===
Why is that a better question? I see no relevance.

She had to forfeit her children in order to be in her current
predicament............... WHY?
===
Are you saying that she might be abusive?
That could be relevant. Hadn't thought of that.

Not exactly what I had in mind. My point is that she voluntarily
surrendered
her children to the father.

There is what we think, what we know, and what we can prove. I say your
conclusion is based on what you think because you can't possibly know that
is true and you can't prove it either.

Remember? It's the FATHER who's on trial in
"family" court", not the mother.

Family court is a civil matter without a jury so therefore the proceedings
are called hearings and only require a lot of BS playing to a judge's
predictability for rulings. In Family Court most of the "evidence" is made
up and tailored to influence the judge's decision. There are no trials as
in criminal proceedings for either party in Family Court. If there were
trials the outcomes would be more father-friendly.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Gini" wrote in message
news:1lMjj.7778$U4.4773@trndny01...
"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"Gini" wrote in message
news:4iAjj.17802$Y63.6096@trnddc03...
"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"kennyfan06" u40691@uwe wrote
he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too.
he
told
me
i
have to take him back to court first.
===
Why haven't you done that?

Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST
place?
===
Why is that a better question? I see no relevance.

She had to forfeit her children in order to be in her current
predicament............... WHY?
===
Are you saying that she might be abusive?
That could be relevant. Hadn't thought of that.

Not exactly what I had in mind. My point is that she voluntarily
surrendered
her children to the father.

There is what we think, what we know, and what we can prove. I say your
conclusion is based on what you think because you can't possibly know that
is true and you can't prove it either.

Remember? It's the FATHER who's on trial in
"family" court", not the mother.

Family court is a civil matter without a jury so therefore the proceedings
are called hearings and only require a lot of BS playing to a judge's
predictability for rulings. In Family Court most of the "evidence" is
made up and tailored to influence the judge's decision. There are no
trials as in criminal proceedings for either party in Family Court. If
there were trials the outcomes would be more father-friendly.
=======
They are called "trials" in FL. Sounds a little silly but that's what they
call it.