Child visitation advice needed: should you force kids to visit if they don't want to?

In My Humble Opinion
41

As a divorced dad with an adversarial relationship with my Ex (many examples on this board) I read this thread in horror. Maybe I should be happy that my relationship is not this bad with my ex, though.

Susan is being an ass and Greg is the victim here. Unfortunately, she holds all the cards. Right, you can get the courts involved and it’s correct that he has rights but in practice the courts are slow and her ability to cause damage as primary custody holder is much greater than his ability to counter it as long as he lives so far away.

What’s his ability to return to California? The core problem here is the distance. As long as the children are so far away, this will always be a problem. He may have to choose between his children and his job - I know that’s harsh but it sounds like reality with his ex-wife’s attitude & obvious intentions (to estrange the children from their father).

Greg may have to sacrifice his career in Virginia if he wishes to save his relationship with his children.

The only other choice, as I see it, is to try to get primary custody - though the chances are slim. There’s sometimes a clause in a parenting agreement that forbids one parent deliberately estranging the parent from their children. The “Dad” vs “Greg” thing ought to be proof enough of her intentions (but more documented evidence would establish greater proof, of course).

He might be able to turn the tables and go for primary custody in Virginia. That’d be very hard, of course, especially since Susan’s caused so much obvious damage in that relationship so far. A judge asking the children questions might get Susan’s words in response.

Can Greg move back to California and try for half custody? It might be the only thing that would save the relationship with his kids.

42

God this thread is pissing me off. Susan is a right royal bitch who makes all the men in her life cow-tow to her.

Greg should make the kids go just so they get a break from her.

43

[QUOTE=Zebra]
God this thread is pissing me off. Susan is a right royal bitch who makes all the men in her life cow-tow to her.

Greg should make the kids go just so they get a break from her.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly! Like I said before, I don’t feel like the kids get enough individual attention. Susan has 3 new kids, including a newborn baby and a 1 1/2 year old. There’s a total of six kids in the house plus 2 adults plus 1-2 exchange students (she constantly has exchange students, and has done so for the past several years).

She’s really just in this all for the money. Having Greg’s $2,000/month child support payment allows her to not work, and stay at home with her new children. They live a pretty nice lifestyle too – a nice big single family house; they take the whole crew (including kids) out to eat several times a week; they go on several vacations a year (the past couple of years included several week-long trips to Disney Land, and a cruise). They’ve got all the frills of upper-class living: big screen TV, all the latest video games, etc.

All the while Greg has to pinch his pennies, and hardly ever gets to see the kids. Susan goes on 3 vacations a year while Greg never takes a vacation (except for the time off to visit with the kids). :frowning: :mad:

44

Given that, he should DEFINITELY have the kids come visit him. She has more kids, new family, and it isn’t unusual for teenagers to become “invisible” in a house with little kids - her “first family” is getting old and independent (and possibly starting to remind her of her ex). Those kids may need him - because “I’m going to live with DAD!” followed by “FINE!” is not an unlikely outcome.

45

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t touch that aspect of it. However, I’m a child of a contentious divorce and have seen my dad (who unfortunately for him married three times and had to pay child support for two out of the three marriages before he stopped getting married) go through exactly what the OP is describing with my half brother and sister.

My humble opinion is that Greg should visit the kids if at all possible and let the attorney know of the documents he’s being forced to sign. When my dad was going through his last divorce from the woman who gave him my baby brother and sister, my ex-stepmom was feeding these poor kids (I think about 7-8 years old at the time) lines like, “If you visit your dad, he’ll kidnap you and we’ll never see each other again,” “You don’t love me if you visit your dad,” and if he was late, “Your dad doesn’t love you and doesn’t love me, so he’s not going to bother to show.” The kids were understandably confused. My dad decided to take the path of least resistance and didn’t bother to see them, sometimes for a year at a time even though they lived in the same town, and as a result, at 18, my brother and sister are only now interested in having a relationship with him.

With my sister and I it was different. My mom rarely said anything negative about my dad until I was in my teens when I was provided a clearer picture of the whole situation (apparently dad cheated on her with his secretary; I’m sure there’s more to it than that, but my dad admitted that that was basically what happened and we’re not really close enough for me to ask for details). When I was younger, my dad’s actions spoke far louder than words - he simply didn’t bother to make time for us, justifying his actions by saying it was somehow better for us. It wasn’t at all - I used to wish I’d get a terminal illness so he’d come and feel bad he didn’t love me. (What? I stopped having those types of fantasies by high school, realizing how lame they were.)

So tell Greg to visit his kids. Tell him to tell them how much he loves them and to spend as much quality time as possible with them.

46

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
She’s really just in this all for the money. Having Greg’s $2,000/month child support payment allows her to not work, and stay at home with her new children. They live a pretty nice lifestyle too – a nice big single family house; they take the whole crew (including kids) out to eat several times a week; they go on several vacations a year (the past couple of years included several week-long trips to Disney Land, and a cruise). They’ve got all the frills of upper-class living: big screen TV, all the latest video games, etc.

All the while Greg has to pinch his pennies, and hardly ever gets to see the kids. Susan goes on 3 vacations a year while Greg never takes a vacation (except for the time off to visit with the kids). :frowning: :mad:
[/QUOTE]

(Post #28, re: making her pay half of plane fare, court costs etc.): That would be nice but remember, she has no money. She does not work and has no income. The only income she has is the child support Greg sends her.

I’m lost. It doesn’t sound like she can claim poverty. But I realize this only counts if you drag her back into court. “So, Susan, you can’t pay half the plane fare but you CAN take several vacations a year (yadda)…”

47

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
(Post #28, re: making her pay half of plane fare, court costs etc.): That would be nice but remember, she has no money. She does not work and has no income. The only income she has is the child support Greg sends her.

I’m lost. It doesn’t sound like she can claim poverty. But I realize this only counts if you drag her back into court. “So, Susan, you can’t pay half the plane fare but you CAN take several vacations a year (yadda)…”
[/QUOTE]
Let me clarify: the only income she has is the child support she gets from Greg. Her household also has the income of her new husband which is a moderate income. It’s only because of the child support that she can afford extravagant (imho) things like eating out several times a week, and their multiple vacations a year.

Also, like I said, the child support enables her to stay at home with her new children (ages 1 month, 1 1/2 and 3) and not work. She has never worked - Greg often had to work two jobs to support the family while they were married WHILE he went to college and got his bachelors. He also recently got a masters degree while working full-time, so that tells you something about the difference between his motivation and ambition to be successful and her desire to leech off others. As he worked his way up in his career and got an advanced degree, he made more money, and his child support went up, which turned her eyes into dollar signs.

Of course her kids deserve the child support, but my feeling is that she doesn’t use the child support directly for the care of Greg’s 3 kids… she uses it to enable her entire new family to live in a big house, go on vacations and to enable her to be a stay-at-home mom. That might be tolerable if Greg got to see his kids without a fight and she wasn’t demonizing him to them.

This whole thing is so frustrating. I tell my boyfriend that I don’t understand how he doesn’t just explode.

48

[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
I’m lost. It doesn’t sound like she can claim poverty. But I realize this only counts if you drag her back into court. “So, Susan, you can’t pay half the plane fare but you CAN take several vacations a year (yadda)…”
[/QUOTE]
Also, I wonder, would the court really hear an argument like this? She could just say that her new husband pays for the vacations. The new husband’s income cannot be taken into consideration, I don’t think. But regardless, her husband doesn’t have a huge income – it’s about half of what Greg’s is, so it’s pretty clear to me that the extravagant living is made possible by the high amount of child support Greg pays.

As an aside: in the most recent custody agreement, made last fall, there was a section that said that both parents would contribute to the kids’ college education. They both agreed to this. Now, in her new pleadings to the court to modify the agreement, she want to completely pull out of this clause, stating that she could never afford that.

Maybe that is true now, but what about in 6-8 years? She could get a job, right? Her backing out of the college thing just shows that she has no intent on ever getting a job to contribute to her children’s education. Why should she when Bank of Greg can just pay for everything? :rolleyes:

How infuriating is that?! :mad:

49

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
Also, I wonder, would the court really hear an argument like this? She could just say that her new husband pays for the vacations. The new husband’s income cannot be taken into consideration, I don’t think. But regardless, her husband doesn’t have a huge income – it’s about half of what Greg’s is, so it’s pretty clear to me that the extravagant living is made possible by the high amount of child support Greg pays.

[/QUOTE]

I have only two kids. My takehome is more than what Greg is paying in child support. Brainiac4’s income is more than mine. We live in fairly reasonable to afford Minnesota, not fairly expensive California (though parts of California aren’t horrible).

IMHO, her extravagant living is made possible by DEBT. Because taking six kids, plus foreign exchange students out to dinner several times each week, living in a single family home, and taking six kids on cruises for vacation is not financed off of $2000 in child support and a husband with a modest income.

Greg may want to be prepared for this house of cards collapsing.

50

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
I have only two kids. My takehome is more than what Greg is paying in child support. Brainiac4’s income is more than mine. We live in fairly reasonable to afford Minnesota, not fairly expensive California (though parts of California aren’t horrible).

IMHO, her extravagant living is made possible by DEBT. Because taking six kids, plus foreign exchange students out to dinner several times each week, living in a single family home, and taking six kids on cruises for vacation is not financed off of $2000 in child support and a husband with a modest income.

Greg may want to be prepared for this house of cards collapsing.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh yes, you are probably right. They live in a fairly-expensive area of Northern California – the far suburbs of San Francisco. She is certainly digging herself a financial grave.

After Greg and Susan’s divorce, he had to pay off a bunch of debts of hers on numerous credit cards she had run up. Finally he is debt free and has no debt at all - not even a credit card or car loan.

So instead of being financially responsible and perhaps getting a job to help pay for the kids’ college expenses, she knows she can just rely on Greg, since he has a good income. So she’s trying to back out of it. I think that is despicable.

51

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
Ahh yes, you are probably right. They live in a fairly-expensive area of Northern California – the far suburbs of San Francisco. She is certainly digging herself a financial grave.

After Greg and Susan’s divorce, he had to pay off a bunch of debts of hers on numerous credit cards she had run up. Finally he is debt free and has no debt at all - not even a credit card or car loan.

So instead of being financially responsible and perhaps getting a job to help pay for the kids’ college expenses, she knows she can just rely on Greg, since he has a good income. So she’s trying to back out of it. I think that is despicable.
[/QUOTE]
Does she have a salable skill?

My lawyer in my divorce suggested that my ex- wouldn’t be allowed to simply ride the child support payments - and said that the court could basically order her to get a job or adjust the CS payments to what they would be if she had a job appropriate to her skills.

I’m in Colorado, not California, but the rules may be similar.

Note, this may make him responsible for a portion of job-related day-care, though. In my case, it was a near wash - pay half of daycare or the additional CS for ex having zero income initially - but it was a bad precedent to set considering her potential for long-term versus starting income. It was a good bet - she’s more than doubled her take home since she started working and I’m definitely ahead now compared to the day-care savings of her being a stay-at-home mom.

In Colorado, too, the obligation for child support and splitting extraordinary child expenses ends when the child turns 19. If CA is similar, he may not be obligated for much in the way of educational expenses. What he does voluntarily is, of course, up to him.

52

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
Ahh yes, you are probably right. They live in a fairly-expensive area of Northern California – the far suburbs of San Francisco. She is certainly digging herself a financial grave.

After Greg and Susan’s divorce, he had to pay off a bunch of debts of hers on numerous credit cards she had run up. Finally he is debt free and has no debt at all - not even a credit card or car loan.

So instead of being financially responsible and perhaps getting a job to help pay for the kids’ college expenses, she knows she can just rely on Greg, since he has a good income. So she’s trying to back out of it. I think that is despicable.
[/QUOTE]

If it’s true that she’s doing all this with the hocus-pocus of credit cards, it may work to Greg’s advantage. Sounds like “unfit mothering” to me. Maybe the question of taking her back to court isn’t “if” but “when.”

“So Susan you can take all these vacations but can’t pay half the airfare…and you can’t pay half the costs of college…” That sentence seems likely to grow. I hope you’re documenting all the known vacations and other extravagances. IANAL but it seems to go toward a lack of good faith on her part.

53

I wonder if Susan’s current husband is sharp enough to see the writing on the wall…he’s probably gonna become “Greg #2” in 5-10 years.

Has Greg ever showed up with a cop when he has a scheduled visitation in California? Having a cop present might cut through Susan’s bullshit form signings, and she just might be forced to play it cool when Greg gets the kids.

As others have pointed out, I still think it was a mistake to take the job in Virginia. It seems the kids are much more important than the job. Even if the job pays better, it is by no means making it easier for him to see the kids, but to give Susan more power (and money) in this adversarial relationship.

54

[QUOTE=Yeticus Rex]
I wonder if Susan’s current husband is sharp enough to see the writing on the wall…he’s probably gonna become “Greg #2” in 5-10 years.

[/QUOTE]

I used to have a friend who’s husband had been previously married.

His ex-wife had two big issues

#1, she LOVED babies. Loved loved loved babies. Loved being pregnant, loved giving birth, loved having babies around

#2, she spent like a drunken sailor on leave in a whorehouse

She dumped him (not surprisingly, the other way around), when he wouldn’t have child #6. She found another well paid man, and when I last heard, had another four children with him and was divorcing him - he didn’t want more kids. Although the nine children in the house didn’t last. She LOVED babies - teenagers and preteens not nearly so much - so each child went to live with Dad when she was done…

55

[QUOTE=Yeticus Rex]
As others have pointed out, I still think it was a mistake to take the job in Virginia. It seems the kids are much more important than the job. Even if the job pays better, it is by no means making it easier for him to see the kids, but to give Susan more power (and money) in this adversarial relationship.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said previously above: Is it really reasonable to expect fathers never to move out of the state that the mother chooses to live in? Especially since Greg is the sole financial provider for the kids - he has to make money. The mother does not work and contributes $0 to their care. Why should she dictate where he can live?

I really do wonder about this. Why should the working parent have to live in whatever place the non-working parent chooses to live? She doesn’t work; she could live anywhere.

Another point: Susan likes to move a lot. She has moved 4 times in the past 2 years. One school year the boys were in 3 different schools! As for why she moved: no reason in particular. I think it started out when she got irked at her mother over something and wanted to piss her off by moving; and also she found she could get a bigger house for the same rent in a more rural town. Then she kept finding better houses for cheaper in different towns and kept moving.

If Greg lived in California, should he have had to follow her around all over Central California, to towns where there are NO jobs?

The point is, they agreed to 2 visitations a year in which the boys would travel to Virginia. That is not unreasonable and she should not make it difficult for him.

56

I assume that the phone/email contact he has with the kids is happy, quality time with their father. It sounds like she’s being difficult. If the kids don’t want to come, I think he should go there (as others have suggested).

I also think he should do things with the kids that show that he is not being a dick. For instance…is her birthday coming up? Take the kids shopping for a nice present for her. Help her out by reminding them that they need to have their household chores finished before he takes them to the movies. Unless she’s an unfit parent, he should be supporting her in her parenting efforts. I’m not saying he should be a doormat, but he should use her attitude to his advantage wherever possible.

Yes, it’s his time with them, but he needs to show them that whatever problem there may be in her mind, it has nothing to do with him. Words mean nothing in the long run. They will remember their parents’ behavior in the end. I know Kid Kalhoun did.

I think their reluctance to go is probably related to leaving their friends. I know I was very bummed to take a 2 week vacation with my intact family when I was 12. I didn’t want to leave my friends.

57

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
I agree in theory, but in reality but he had only 2 choices: (1) sign it and see his kids or (2) not see his kids, fly back home, hire a lawyer, wait at least a month to get a hearing, have the judge order it to mediation (which is what they always do), wait another month for mediation, wait again for the next hearing…
[/QUOTE]

Or 3) Call the police from her doorstep because she’s violating a legal court order.

Someone’s got to stand up to this woman so that her children learn how to stand up to overbearing women in general. My goodness, what a piece of work!

The kids will NOT remember “Mom told Dad we didn’t want to visit him,” they’re going to remember, “We went to visit Dad for a while after the divorce, and then when he got married again and moved out of state, we stopped visiting. Guess he just wanted to forget about us and get on with his life…”

So yes, they must visit him. To give them the power in this situation gives them far greater power than children can handle, and far, far greater power than any child in a married family has. You think my kids don’t sometimes get bored or feel put-upon in my house? Of course they do! But they don’t get to not live here. They learn to deal with it, learn to speak up, to get their needs met while meeting the needs of others…they learn how to live in a family. Letting the kids have any say at all before they have a driver’s license is falling into that trap of having a family *for *your kids, instead of a family *with *your kids. They and their wants are not more important than your husband and his wants, or you and your wants. You’re all family now, and family sometimes shows up when we don’t want to, because our family wants us around (says the woman wearily going to a very boring family 4th of July party today…)

Wait, what? The older they get, the LESS TIME they’re going to want to spend there! Have y’all met any teeenagers? They’re not generally big on the happy happy family fun time. The older they get, the more completely their peers replace their family in primacy - and that’s a good thing, developmentally. But it’s a hard thing when you’re a parent and even harder when you’re non-custodial.

I started visitation with my dad when I was 6, pretty much the same arrangement. I flew Unaccompanied Minor status from Chicago to LaGuardia and spent 4 weeks with him that first summer. By the time I was 9, we were up to a six week visit (as well as one week at Christmas). One week is nothing, nothing at all - it actually worries me being so short. It takes time to warm up and sink into a routine - in one week, you’re barely off your best behavior. That’s “guests”, not “family”.

58

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
I suggested what OtakuLoki also suggested: I suggested he tell them how he feels - that he misses them and wants to see them, and then ask if they want to come, and see what they say when asked directly. The problem is, he thinks they might just say whatever they think he wants to hear, or that they won’t be completely honest to his face (or, on the phone, I should say). So he’s not sure if he’ll be getting a real answer.
[/QUOTE]

I haven’t read everything, so don’t know if anyone has already answered to this.

First, any person, not just a young kid, can lie. But if we go through life overthinking anything anybody has said and their motives for it, we’ll end up in those shirts with the real long sleeves. You have to take what people say at face value until you find out that you can’t.

Second, if the kids are dumb enough to lie, then they’ll get the consequences for it. They, like everybody else, need to understand that actions get reactions.

In principle I reckon they should go visit; if they don’t go, it has to be after Greg has talked with them and made sure they understand that this is their choice, that he loves them very much and wants to see them, that he doesn’t see them more often because he can’t, not because he doesn’t want to.

59

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
Like I said previously above: Is it really reasonable to expect fathers never to move out of the state that the mother chooses to live in? Especially since Greg is the sole financial provider for the kids - he has to make money. The mother does not work and contributes $0 to their care. Why should she dictate where he can live?

I really do wonder about this. Why should the working parent have to live in whatever place the non-working parent chooses to live? She doesn’t work; she could live anywhere.
[/quote]
He would be choosing to live where his kids live in order to be close to them. I’m not sure you should look at it as “dictating where he can live.” This man has children. It’s a plain fact that the farther away a non-custodial parent is from the children, the harder it will be to have a lot of contact with them, and children do better when the parent is closer. Therefore a person who is making the children’s welfare a first priority should be living as close as possible, because they are the important ones in this equation. The parents are not as important as the children. (The mom’s problem is that she’s making it all about her, rather than all about the kids, right? Dad will therefore have to work doubly hard to put his kids first.)

No one said he should live next door, only that it would be a good idea to live in the same state. In CA, we can amend that to the same section of the state–south, central, or north.

No, she shouldn’t. But she is. As far as the kids are concerned, it’s more important to deal with what is than with what should be. The kids live across the country and their mother is difficult. Contact is deteriorating, and the kids are growing up fast.

And WhyNot is absolutely right that the kids won’t want to spend more time with Dad as they get older.

60

Is it different in every state in regards to moving?

When I obtained my divorce in Nebraska but moved to Kansas for a job I was surprised to find out that I was to have received permission from the courts to take the children out of the state. Of course, I did not find out about this til I was promoted and would have to move to another state. My ex’s wife told me they were going to take me to court to prevent another move and also turn me in for moving to KS without his ok. I quickly made a call to a lawyer, found out that yes, I supposed to get it cleared through the courts (this was not in the divorce decree). Fortunately, we had already been living in KS for several years with no complaints from the ex and since I was the primary bread winner (and the courts did not view him as a very good role model for the kds) and he rarely saw/talked to the kids during the school year, it was not a problem getting my next move approved through the courts.

Even though both parents live in different states - should she be going through the courts as well? This may be something to look in to as well, although I’m not sure how it would benefit him at this time… except maybe effecting the travel expenses, depending how far she is from a major airport.

As for the way she is spending the child support - oh! dont be so quick to dismiss that one! If there is reason to doubt she is not putting the money towards the children’s upkeep the judge can order bank statements/receipts showing how the money is spent. A ‘friend’ of mine went through this and lost custody of her oldest… it was a good thing because she gambled & drank away the payments and her daughter dressed in dirty, old clothing and her diet consisted of mac&cheese, hotdogs, cereal & sodas. Oh, and Ramen noodles.
Of course, the easy route would be to just go along with everything the ex and kids want - or say they want - and blame them for not wanting much to do with you as they get older. If you are persistant with visitation and the sort, but they still decide to ignore you when you get older, then go ahead and post a pit.