Court ordered for the Dad to have "Supervised Visits" at the children's daycare from 2-5. That was in 2005. Since then, the oldest is now in school, and can't visit until 3:00 due to school, and they are no longer at the daycare because the Mom's schedule changed.
The mom proposed to meet at Mc Donalds, with her or a third party supervising his visit from 3-5, due to school which can no longer be from 2-5.
The Dad "agreed" to this written down and signed by both parties.
As long as they agreed, and they have been doing it for a year, the judge should have no problem with it right?
The dad only comes like once a month and it's only when it's "Convenient for him"
Please only honest, nice, respectful answers, all others will be ignored.
The mom made a reasonable solution so he can visit, and if he didn't agree they could have gone to court but since they did agree there was no reason to go to court.
What if they STOP agreeing on it or a problem arises?
2007-10-10 02:32:24 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This is the only thing we could do without going back to court. The DAD refuses to go visit at FYI which is a third party but he has to pay for it so thats why he wanted to do it here. If he was paying child support the mom could still have them at the daycare. But he isn't he owes 20 grand. "court order"
2007-10-10 02:53:17 · update #1
The reason for supervised visits was "He hit his wife, he drank bleach "yes bleach" and he took pills and was in a HOSPITAL "supposibly getting help" but thats why he lost his rights and only has visitation
2007-10-10 02:54:14 · update #2
We are trying to fix any problems OUTSIDE the courts time, which is what the divorce decree says if we can reach an agreement we can do that but if a problem dispute arises we can go back to court.
2007-10-10 02:55:40 · update #3
This is an amicable arrangement and it would be a fool of a judge not to go with it. He is the arbiter, he wants to get an arrangement that everyone can live with. The couple have saved precious court time and expense. 10/10 for that. If the agreement is written too it will be seen a legally binding. If one side brakes the agreement a judge might hold up the written agreement as binding. The visitation times are within those laid down by the court ruling. To change those hours it would be necessary to go before a judge.
2007-10-10 03:01:25 · answer #1 · answered by outremerknight 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is no telling what a particular judge will do in any case but most judges will review the entire case based on the changed circumstances. There are two issues here. The first is, are supervised visits still required and the second is what should be the extent of visitation. The father has been having supervised visitation for 2 years. Depending on the reason for the supervision and the facts as they exist today, the court may remove that supervision requirement. The ultimate goal is guideline visitation whenever possible. The parties' agreement will provide little guidance as the matter would end up in court upon the filing of a petition to modify the visitation. Even if it were an order of the court, the court would still revisit the issues in light of the facts as they are currently. Why would an agreement in the past carry more weight than an order in the past?
2007-10-10 09:41:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all, I want to say I am NOT an attorney and I am NOT giving you legal advice here. I'm answering a question of general procedure followed by most courts in cases such as this. Knowing that I'm not an attorney, take the following information for what it's worth.
Technically, if there are court orders specifically stating where and when the supervised visits are to take place, they must be followed. Any agreement, written down and signed or not, outside of the court is contrary to the order and is technically contempt.
If you want to change the order, you must file for a hearing and go before the judge.
The business about not having to go to court because they both agreed, etc... makes no sense. The reason they should go to court and get the specific order agreed to before a judge is precisely illustrated in your last sentence about "what if a problem arises" from the "agreed" change. There is recourse if there is a court order, otherwise, there isn't any legal way to rectify it since any other agreements aren't lawful.
2007-10-10 09:43:29 · answer #3 · answered by jobel 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Again, I agree with sensible. One point however is that you are BOTH in violation of the original order.
Visitation is a right, not a requirement. Therefore, his not exercising his right to visitation causes no harm in the legal sense.
If you want this 'agreement' to have judicial authority, then submit it to the court on Motion to Modify. Otherwise, the ex can and SHOULD file his own motion to modify to exclude supervised visitation and be awarded full visitation with custody rights.
EDITED BASED ON ADDITIONAL INFO:
The fact that he was in the hospital for drinking bleach and he hit his wife, more than two years ago is insufficient to continue supervised visitation.
I would advise dad to file the motion to modify for full visitation rights.
As to the back child support, it has absolutely nothing legally to do with his right to visitation.
In summary, your additional 'facts' do not give rise to any right to enter into an agreement in violation of a court order.
2007-10-10 09:44:28 · answer #4 · answered by hexeliebe 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the judge will feel the agreement is as important as what is in the best interest of the child. Just as the dad "agreed" to the arrangement, doesn't he have the right to change his mind later when his circumstances change?
I think to be fair it is time to come to a new agreement. One that is in the best interest of the child. In these situations it is hard for parents to remember it is not about your feelings but the childs interest.
2007-10-10 13:30:48 · answer #5 · answered by Two 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe for some reason the judge thought his plan would work out better for the two of you. I do agree though that it was morally in the wrong if you guys agreed to a certain time and day. You can always appeal the decision made by the judge. Good luck.
2007-10-10 09:41:41 · answer #6 · answered by atlantagal 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
will if this has failed , and is uncomfortable well its back to the solicitor .you are his mum and the ball is in you`r court , you have to remember the children in all this thy always end up in the middle . and thy don`t no why things have changed , between mum and dad there emotions must be all over the place bless tham . its got to be one or the other if he love`s tham at all and won`ts to be apart of there lives he`s got to play the game , things will change as thy get older days and times so for this you to have to play the game . but you see its not a game is it its real.get it sorted now , you just cant go on if`s and but`s x
2007-10-10 10:52:56 · answer #7 · answered by star 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The court made a legal ruling that is enforceable. Any other agreement can be made, but the court ordered one still stands.
2007-10-10 09:38:27 · answer #8 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
seems to me MOM is making all the desicions.
Is this why marriage failed?
Without a flight risk or danger to kids, why don't you just let the man be the kids father without you running the show?
I may be wrong but someone sounds like acontrol freak here
2007-10-10 09:37:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋