Strange Custody Question

[M30USA]

I have joint custody with ex (she has primary). We live 2 and 1/2 hours away. Currently I have them for my extended possession in the summer. Since I have no family in the area, I hire a babysitter to watch them during the remaining work hours which I have not taken off for vacation. My ex has voiced the desire to have them on some of these days in my city instead of the babysitter. The problem is that the babysitter requires 4 day minimum per week, so if my ex took boys some of the days, then I'd be paying the sitter for nothing. Another reason I wouldn't want my boys watched by her in this manner is that they are comfortable at home in my house and she would spend all the days with them galavanting around town. So it would be stressful for them.

 

Basically what I'm wondering is...

 

She has a history of being violent and confrontational. Does she have the legal right to show up at my house during my period of possession and demand (even through assistance of police) that she have the kids instead of my appointed sitter?

Edited July 22, 2013 by M30USA

[pteromom]

I think it is better for them to be with their mother than with a babysitter. However, it can't be done in any way that causes you financial issues or chaos.

 

So if she agreed to go ahead and pay the babysitter for the day, and she gives enough notice for you to prepare the kids, then I say go for it.

 

You aren't losing out on anything since you aren't there anyway.

 

And - "galavanting around" is good for your kids. If they are stressed by going on adventures with their mother, that's all the more reason they should do it.

[pteromom]

Does she have the legal right to show up at my house during my period of possession and demand (even through assistance of police) that she have the kids instead of my appointed sitter?

 

No - she should talk with you calmly and you guys should work out an agreement together.

[hayewils]

I dont know where you are but generally when the court has set the visitation and custody agreement, thats it. Your time is your time And your ex, even though she is primary cannot come and demand the kids be with her. What you decide for your children during their visitation with you is none of mommas business

[amaysngrace]

What is in their best interest?

 

Forget the law and just do what you honestly believe is best for them.

[M30USA]

My kids actually love spending time with the babysitter's boy.

[tbf]

Child Custody in Florida - Know Your State's Child Custody Laws

[amaysngrace]

My kids actually love spending time with the babysitter's boy.

 

More than their own mom? That's sad

[tbf]

More than their own mom? That's sad

His ex has a history of physical violence. It's not sad at all. It's a good thing. The last thing these kids need is someone to teach them that punching people out means love.

[2sure]

Well, my x used to leave my daughter with a baby sitter for his entire weekend visit on occasion when it was his turn and there was nothing I could legally do about it. I'm in NY.

 

Are you talking about her coming one day a week to see them? That seems reasonable even if you have to commit to paying the babysitter for 4 days. Chances are you will need the sitter in the morning anyway before she arrives. I would stipulate that the boys need to be home upon your arrival from work.

[xxoo]

Some co-parents are able to be flexible about custody arrangements, swapping care on each other's day to make things easier for both kids and parents.

 

But it takes a lot of maturity and trust. From what you've posted about your relationship with your ex, it's not a good idea. Keep it to the letter of the law, with as little opportunity for grey area and drama as possible.

[M30USA]

His ex has a history of physical violence. It's not sad at all. It's a good thing. The last thing these kids need is someone to teach them that punching people out means love.

 

Physical violence on part of a woman has no negative repercussions in family court. If anything it harms the man because "he must have driven her to do it" and therefore he, not her, is a threat to kids.

 

I also know that my ex's parents overcompensate for her violence and instability by intruding and trying to in essence be coparents with her. When it's time to see their mom, it's not just her, it's all of them. When they talk to their mom on phone most days her parents also talk to them on the phone--occasionally more than my ex does. I even caught my older son a few times saying that they are going to see their grandma when in fact they are going to their moms. They do this because they view my ex's family as a single unit. Whereas on the other side it's just "daddy". Suffice it to say she never cut the apron strings. And all the while she accused ME of still siding with my own family--even though they are 2900 miles away. And the saddest part is I believed her for several years.

Edited July 23, 2013 by M30USA

[2sure]

Because your X is so reliant on her parents and basically depends on them to help her parent...eventually (and sooner than you think) ...your kids are going to take note of this. They will see her as their grandparents child more than as a parenting adult. That's going to be your role. And your doing it well. Stay the course man!

[hayewils]

What dad has to do with his children while in his custody, dad has to do.

I was a single dad with twins 8 and a 6 yr old boy a long time ago.

Been thru all kinds of crap with their mother. One thing I always found, when she called child protective services and the police many many times..

The children were fine and not in harms way, nothing ever happened, nobody could do anything.

Its a civil matter, If your wife has an issue, she should drag you to court..

[hayewils]

What dad has to do with his children while in his custody, dad has to do.

I was a single dad with twins 8 and a 6 yr old boy a long time ago.

Been thru all kinds of crap with their mother. One thing I always found, when she called child protective services and the police many many times..

The children were fine and not in harms way, nothing ever happened, nobody could do anything.

Its a civil matter, If your wife has an issue, she should drag you to court..

 

And I always told my ex.. BRING IT!!

cause no court is going to make you give up your children when its your time unless the court decides otherwise.

[M30USA]

What dad has to do with his children while in his custody, dad has to do.

I was a single dad with twins 8 and a 6 yr old boy a long time ago.

Been thru all kinds of crap with their mother. One thing I always found, when she called child protective services and the police many many times..

The children were fine and not in harms way, nothing ever happened, nobody could do anything.

Its a civil matter, If your wife has an issue, she should drag you to court..

 

Mark my words. CPS, while occasionally helpful in preventing abuse, will be one of the Trojan horses by which tyranny takes over our culture. Once you sacrifice due process for ANY purpose (no matter how noble), you are asking for tyranny. It's just a matter of time until other areas also get sucked into the slippery slope and before you know it due process as a whole is gone. Think this is impossible? So did all tyrannies in history past.

 

If you ask me, false claims of child abuse should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Accusers should not be given immunity. When my wife's false claim was shot down, they told me in writing that I could not use her name in court for this particular accusation. Wonderful. Since when did my constitutional right to face my accuser go out the window?

[Mme. Chaucer]

Mark my words. CPS, while occasionally helpful in preventing abuse, will be one of the Trojan horses by which tyranny takes over our culture. Once you sacrifice due process for ANY purpose (no matter how noble), you are asking for tyranny.

 

So … how do you propose that children be protected from abuse and / or neglect from their own parents? It happens A LOT.

 

If you ask me, false claims of child abuse should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Accusers should not be given immunity. When my wife's false claim was shot down, they told me in writing that I could not use her name in court for this particular accusation. Wonderful. Since when did my constitutional right to face my accuser go out the window?

 

How was her claim "shot down"? From your descriptions of the circumstances, I got the impression that you actually did the things you were accused of, but you don't think they were abusive. And your ex wife did.

 

So, she accused you of things you actually did - and the court agreed with you that those things were not in fact abusive, so the charges did not hold?

 

Is that right?

 

That is not really a "false claim of child abuse." This may be why you were prohibited from carrying this further.

[M30USA]

CPS ruled that the "abuse" my wife accused me of never took place, based on the evidence of investigation. So, no, it wasn't just a matter of whose definition of abuse is correct. The accusations were lies solely for the purpose of her getting full custody. This happens to fathers across the country all the time. And mothers KNOW there is no possible repercussions to false claims so they figure, "Why not? You can only gain!"

[M30USA]

So … how do you propose that children be protected from abuse and / or neglect from their own parents? It happens A LOT.

 

It's called due process. If a parent is proven in a court of law to have abused a child, THEN they should lose custody. Not before. CPS is known to remove children from parents merely due to accusations before a trial even takes place. Yes, there is risk of abuse continuing in this case, but there is an equal chance of a good parent being deprived rights to their child and a child being deprived access to their parent. Innocent until proven guilty. It's not a perfect system, but the alternatives are all worse and more dangerous for the long-term of a society.

 

As I've said, if you start removing due process in ANY area, it creates a Trojan horse for other areas to be sucked into it. All it takes is for those in power to determine what is "too important" to risk, and you've lost justice and liberty. This is how tyranny always begins. They claim to be offering a good and noble cause which people are willing to sacrifice liberties and due process for. History repeats itself.

Edited July 23, 2013 by M30USA

[Radu]

Imho the problem is not the power of the CPS but the way they use it [we have a version of it here as well and false allegations, and i have relatives in the US].

They are biased for women, against men; even cops are trained at first to see violence and abuse as coming only from men.

 

So you have this very strong bias against men, and because the judges are not willing to strike at the one they know will take the kids, the blame is shifted fully on the man.

It's one of those nasty little hypocritical things that women will [mostly] never accept.

 

M30, you need to ask the opinion of a lawyer, but i don't think that she can intrude in your own time with the kids.

Mostly because during those times, the kids are in your care; even if they are with a babysitter you have guardianship over them, it's not shifted to the babysitter so the babysitter from legal pov doesn't go into contest with the ex-wife. [this is pure speculation, so pls check it with a lawyer]

 

I also don't advise you to sacrifice any of your time with the kids, or your place to her.

You are letting her intrude in your own place, place that you want to create

'safe' and 'daddy controlled' ... letting her in will destroy this goal.

 

Remember what you were told when you joined this forum.

This woman is incapable of seeing a win-win situation; she can only accept a situation where she wins fully or where she doesn't play the game.

Any deal you make with her will be invalidated at the first chance she feels like it.

So i would expect some form of trouble from her in the future if you say no, but you have to say no.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Radu

[Mme. Chaucer]

It's called due process. If a parent is proven in a court of law to have abused a child, THEN they should lose custody. Not before. CPS is known to remove children from parents merely due to accusations before a trial even takes place. Yes, there is risk of abuse continuing in this case, but there is an equal chance of a good parent being deprived rights to their child and a child being deprived access to their parent. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

I agree that CPS is terribly flawed, but mostly for the exact opposite reason than you do. I know of so many children who were returned to terrible home situations because of lack of "proof" and the legal support of "rights" of their parents. Some of them lost every chance of a healthy life because of due process being followed.

 

Protection of children WAY trumps the "rights" of their parents to have access to them. When there is doubt, ALWAYS err on the side of the protection of children.

 

Still, CPS is not doing a very good job of protecting many children from abusive / neglectful mothers and fathers.

 

That was not directed personally at you or your circumstances in any way. But the following is:

 

Do what is best for your kids and stop bringing the ongoing battle between you and your ex wife into it.

 

It is meaningful that you brought all this crap into a thread that is ostensibly about the logistics of your custody situation.

 

This baggage about your horrible marriage is probably something you need to work through with professional help at some point, but your kids access to BOTH you and their mom with the least amount of negativity, complication, weird emotional acting out and drama is what's really important here.

[M30USA]

Protection of children WAY trumps the "rights" of their parents to have access to them. When there is doubt, ALWAYS err on the side of the protection of children.

 

That's what totalitarian midnight services said. They believed the "good of society" was WAY too important for any threat or descent. So guess what? Because they didn't want to risk the "good society", they dragged people away in the middle of night any time there was a simple accusation of descent--even if completely false.

 

You need to get a better understanding of why our founding fathers instilled due process in our nation.

[Radu]

Let me rephrase what Chaucer said.

She did not say that what is happening is right, she only gave you a glimpse into their mindset, and their reasoning which can only help you.

 

From a legal pov, the ones who are in the end in charge of the kids is the society and it does it through the state.

That means that, the state has the power to remove the custody of a parent if the parent proves itself unfit to be one.

The judges [CPS too], they all come from the mindset of the 'best interest of the child', which trumps everything.

When you get in front of the judge, you have to prove that it is in the best interests of the child to be with you.

 

The trouble starts here [as well as in the mindcourt of the CPS], where the assumption is that the woman by default is the best at this.

But this does not mean that long term you [the man] can't win, you just have to be consistently good, and wait for your wife to screw up ... which is inevitable for an individual who does not believe in being held responsible.

[M30USA]

Radu, thanks for the clarification.

 

But that's the problem right there. Children do NOT belong to the state--or at least they should not. This is the same line of reasoning which says that our rights and liberties come from the state. They do not. Our forefathers intentionally said they come from our Creator. Why? Because if the state gives us our rights, then they can take them away. The same applies with children. If you believe the state owns children, then you also believe they can take them away at any time if--in their opinion--you are deemed unfit. Sooner or later, it's inevitable that the state's definition of "unfit" clashes with yours as a parent and then...bye bye kids.

[Janesays]

I agree that CPS is terribly flawed, but mostly for the exact opposite reason than you do. I know of so many children who were returned to terrible home situations because of lack of "proof" and the legal support of "rights" of their parents. Some of them lost every chance of a healthy life because of due process being followed.

 

Speaking as someone who has worked with abused children and has been abused as a child myself, this is absolutely correct. Are some of the reports to CPS false and end up inconveniencing some parents? Sure. But, statistically speaking, a heck of a lot more kids get stuck in abusive situations for their ENTIRE CHILDHOODS because CPS is too afraid to step on toes in removing them.

 

I cannot count how many times CPS was called on my Mother when I was growing up. Multiple teachers, friends, family, they all called on her. I was never removed from that home. And the level of abuse I suffered in the time I was there was shocking. Seriously, if my childhood were a movie, they would have to TONE IT DOWN before people could actually stomach watching it.

 

But I guess my Mother's "rights" as my parent outweighed my personal (emotional and physical) safety.

 

Listen, I know the knee jerk reaction is to be OFFENDED if CPS is called on you. But I'd try to look at like this, if you're doing what you're supposed to, you have nothing to worry about. And isn't it nice that some people out there CARE enough about your children that they're willing to take a look 'just in case?' If you love your child, there can never be 'too many' people out there to care about him. I'd think the more people that love and care for your child, the better.