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

In My Humble Opinion
61

[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.
[/QUOTE]

Divorce makes for hard choices, no matter which choice you (or Greg in this case) make. I don’t know about reasonable, all I know is that yes, I did choose to stay in the area after my divorce simply because having been that child shuttled between two angry parents I flat out was not able to do the same to my children.

Please, please, please don’t think I am saying Greg should or should not move back to California. I’m only sharing one alternate view from someone who’s walked part of that path (not all, I’m the mother, not the father).

And Pixilated, yeah I think perhaps regardless of the agreement you work out with your ex spouse, the states add their own boilerplate stuff. My divorce was in KS and part of the default language was that neither of us could move more than 50 miles away OR cross a state line. I did violate that a bit when I moved from Lawrence, KS to the MO side of Kansas City. My ex was thankfully not a dick about that.

62

If the kid couldn’t fly back because of his ear, maybe flying to see his dad with the ear was also a bad idea. Could there be a case of some kind of negligence on mom’s part? And could that affect the divorce agreement?

OTOH, you did wait a few days to see the doc, and maybe that could be twisted into negligence.

63

[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle]
If the kid couldn’t fly back because of his ear, maybe flying to see his dad with the ear was also a bad idea. Could there be a case of some kind of negligence on mom’s part? And could that affect the divorce agreement?

OTOH, you did wait a few days to see the doc, and maybe that could be twisted into negligence.
[/QUOTE]

Yes it was definitely negligent on her part to allow him to fly from CA to VA in the first place. She knew about the ear injury; her husband looked at it and said it was “just a scratch” and not a problem (even though it was oozing yellow/green pus). She believed him because of his “expertise” as a former army medic, therefore she considered his opinion to be a medical opinion (this is how dumb she really is).

See, it would have ruined her big plans if the kid couldn’t fly because her whole family was flying out to Virginia with Greg’s 3 boys so she and her husband could visit her husband’s family in neighboring North Carolina (i.e. they all flew together, and Greg’s 3 boys went to his house, and Susan her husband and their 2 other kids went to NC). So if the kid couldn’t fly, she wouldn’t be able to bring her whole brood out for their scheduled visit.

In other words, she ignored a potentially dangerous medical problem so it wouldn’t mess up her plans.

And likewise, she ignored it after Greg called and said he wanted to take the kid to the doctor when pus was oozing out of his ear. She refused to give Greg the health insurance info and hung up on him. Again, it would have been inconvenient for her if the kid couldn’t fly, so she just tried to ignore it.

And that is why she got so angry when Greg took the kid to the doctor, and the doctor “grounded” him for 10 days. – because it became inconvenient for her. Never mind that her boy could have burst his eardrum if he flew with an ear infection.

It was all rooted in her original negligence, so to hide her fuck up, she told her family and friends that Greg tried to “kidnap” the youngest boy. Seriously. We have the text of a message she wrote to a former exchange student of hers saying “It was a nightmare, Greg almost wouldn’t let [Kid] come home!” And she insinuated in her most recent court filings that this was a kidnap attempt. And this was also the basis for those papers she tried to get Greg to sign.

Is this incredibly f*cked up or what??

The thing is, based on what I have seen from the family court so far, they won’t even listen to a story like this. They just send it to mediation… Susan and Greg had mediation a couple of weeks ago and nothing was resolved. I suppose I will urge Greg to somehow bring this up in the next hearing if he can. I think her negligence here was extremely egregious. I have never seen a mother act in such an irresponsible and irrational way.

64

[QUOTE=Contrary]
Divorce makes for hard choices, no matter which choice you (or Greg in this case) make. I don’t know about reasonable, all I know is that yes, I did choose to stay in the area after my divorce simply because having been that child shuttled between two angry parents I flat out was not able to do the same to my children.

Please, please, please don’t think I am saying Greg should or should not move back to California. I’m only sharing one alternate view from someone who’s walked part of that path (not all, I’m the mother, not the father).
[/QUOTE]
I see what you’re saying, although it’s not so cut-and-dried. The only reason they lived in California to begin with is because he was in the military and stationed there. After he got out of the military, he would not have been able to find any jobs in his field there. And he was the breadwinner, so it only made sense to go to where he could get the best job. Remember, she doesn’t work; she could live anywhere.

Also remember what I said about her obsession with moving all the time – she moved about 4 times in the last 2 years (and one school year the kids were in 3 different schools). There was no reason for her moving, just was just restless and wanted prettier houses. If Greg were still in CA, what would he have done? She was moving around all over the place.

In addition, right before Greg moved to Virginia, Susan kept talking incessantly about how she and her new husband were going to be moving to North Carolina, where her husband’s family lives. And NC neighbors Virginia; there would have only been a 6-8 hour drive between them. Well lo and behold, after Greg moved to VA, Susan changed her mind and just kept house hopping all over Central CA.

There’s no way for him to win here. Even if he stayed in CA she would have made things difficult for him. And he would have lost some 10 years of career experience if he had to stay there. That would not have been good for anyone involved.

65

Then my advice, such as it is, is aimed squarely at you. If Greg is the man you want to be with (and I have no reason to think otherwise), then you will need to find a way to let go of your anger and resentment toward Susan and toward the situation. You are in it for at least the next ten years and if you can’t find a way to be at peace regardless of the circumstances, this situation will poison you.

66

[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]

It has nothing to do with the other parent. It has to do with being able to see the kids on a regular basis, and remaining an active part of their lives.

67

I googled this question ,
Out of state visitation to noncustodial parent ?

and found this forum site it says registraion is free .

68

[QUOTE=Contrary]
Then my advice, such as it is, is aimed squarely at you. If Greg is the man you want to be with (and I have no reason to think otherwise), then you will need to find a way to let go of your anger and resentment toward Susan and toward the situation. You are in it for at least the next ten years and if you can’t find a way to be at peace regardless of the circumstances, this situation will poison you.
[/QUOTE]
I think it is only human to feel frustrated and helpless when someone is harming people you love and care about. In this situation, I care about Greg and the kids. I feel she is harming the children, and that makes me sad. She is also treating Greg horribly and putting him through a lot of anguish. How can I not feel emotions when I see my loved one going through this? I think I would have to be a robot not to feel anything. I can’t just turn off my natural human emotions. I wish I could, but I can’t. That said, it’s not like I’m sitting around thinking about this 24/7 – I’m not. In my day to day life, I don’t really think about it that much since it doesn’t directly affect me.

Also, in a general philosophical sense, I feel great frustration at how flawed the “system” is. I can’t help but think that it is unfairly biased against fathers.

I feel my role in this is to just be supportive and understanding of Greg, and that’s what I feel I am doing.

69

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
I think it is only human to feel frustrated and helpless when someone is harming people you love and care about. In this situation, I care about Greg and the kids. I feel she is harming the children, and that makes me sad. She is also treating Greg horribly and putting him through a lot of anguish. How can I not feel emotions when I see my loved one going through this? I think I would have to be a robot not to feel anything. I can’t just turn off my natural human emotions. I wish I could, but I can’t. That said, it’s not like I’m sitting around thinking about this 24/7 – I’m not. In my day to day life, I don’t really think about it that much since it doesn’t directly affect me.

Also, in a general philosophical sense, I feel great frustration at how flawed the “system” is. I can’t help but think that it is unfairly biased against fathers.

I feel my role in this is to just be supportive and understanding of Greg, and that’s what I feel I am doing.
[/QUOTE]

I think its unfairly biased against whomever isn’t on the scene and whomever wants to make a scene. Sometimes its unfairly biased against mothers - particularly when Dad is well funded and Mom is not (but generally women seem to get the upperhand with kids - and men seem to get the upperhand with money). I’m not sure there is a fair way for the court system to mandate parenting for divorced families - the fair way is for all parties who are grownups to behave like grownups and put aside differences for the kids. You can’t force someone to behave like a grownup.

I feel your pain, had Greg decided to give up his career to stay in California with the kids, his wife would have moved to North Carolina. He can’t live his life reacting to what his ex wife does - I think that teaches his kids is that its OK to be a pushover.

70

I do understand why you are feeling frustrated and helpless. I just know from my own experience that anytime I stayed angry etc, I hurt myself and those around me.

As a quick aside, I believe you are being supportive and understanding of Greg. But Greg didn’t post, you did and I would equally hate to see you not taking care of you during all this.

71

[QUOTE=Contrary]
I do understand why you are feeling frustrated and helpless. I just know from my own experience that anytime I stayed angry etc, I hurt myself and those around me.

As a quick aside, I believe you are being supportive and understanding of Greg. But Greg didn’t post, you did and I would equally hate to see you not taking care of you during all this.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you, I appreciate the understanding! I have been dealing with this for over 3 years now, and it’s never boiled over into anything that would affect anyone around me. On the surface, I have tried to be as mellow as possible. And I always keep in mind that these are his problems not mine, and that it was his poor decisions that got him into this situation in the first place (which was getting this girl pregnant when they were 19 and only dating for a short time; having a shotgun wedding to someone he says he didn’t really love; having more kids with her even though he was aware of her problems, etc.)

It just helps to vent here and to get some third-party perspectives on things.

72

Here are a few things from my limited experience in family court systems:

Unless there are drugs, alcohol, abuse, or other immediate danger to the children, they will sit on their hands until the end of time. They might threaten contempt and jail, but they won’t do it. The only exception is a failure to pay child support. Then the full force of law will descend upon the non-payee like the wrath of God on a sinner.

It sounds to me like Greg is 100% right in his situation and that Susan has done some things that are in direct violation of the court order. Doesn’t matter. The family court judge will take it upon himself to try to make Greg and Susan get along for the best interests of the children. Sanctions against Susan will only make the situation worse in the court’s eyes because she might get angry and do worse things.

All the more reason to nip it right now, wouldn’t you think? Well you would never be elected to be a family court judge thinking rationally like that.

I wish I had better advice, but trust me that you will get no satisfaction in the courts. Greg should simply document all things (like calling newdad “Dad”) and keep them for the next visit with his lawyer, and do his best to placate Susan and try to get to the heart of why she is like she is.

73

I am in total agreement with Contrary and Orual…they posted what I was thinking earlier on but I failed to mention it. I am not trying to pick on you, nyctea, or Greg, but the there is no real winning decision here. Either your kids will be first priority no matter what, or his career will be, regardless if he’s paying support or not.

Let me ask you this…

  1. If you married Greg and you had kids together, would you…
    a. Let him work long and hard to support your family, but forfeit many hours of time with you and kids?
    b. Balance his career with your career so he can actually spend time with your kids, possibly sacrificing advancements, or sacrificing one job so the other can be relocated for something better?
    c. You would be the sole supporter for the family and you would forfeit many hours of time with Greg and the kids?

  2. If he just decided to leave (you and his job) for California one day because that might mean more time with his kids, would you respect him for that? Would you follow him to California, or try to keep him from moving, hoping that things will get better with the kids and the ex-wife and visitations commence without interference?

  3. Any of these scenarios sound like a possibility in his (and your) future…have you given any of those consideration?

Again, I sympathize with your situation, but until the youngest turns 18, Greg will have to deal with someone who is only looking out for her best interests, and she will play as fast and loose as possible with the rules to keep Greg from getting what he’s entitled to. If he really does want those kids, he should make himself as available as humanly possible to show the court that he’s doing his best to be a father…not just financially, but physically and emotionally. That could be the biggest discredit to his ex-wife’s wall of bullshit that she constantly builds.

And as for her moving around in California…any place in California is a shorter distance than from California to Virginia. And as for North Carolina…he should have waited for her to give him notice on where the kids have been relocated. She might have used the “North Carolina” plan to send Greg as far away from California to keep him far away from the kids. You make her sound like she’s crazy enough to try this stunt, so that might have been her plan all along.

74

[QUOTE=Yeticus Rex]
3. Any of these scenarios sound like a possibility in his (and your) future…have you given any of those consideration?
[/quote]
Well those scenarios are not really relevant to the matter at hand. This is his problem, not mine, although I do want to support him as much as I can, but in the end what he does with his kids is his decision and his business. I was just focusing on the matter at hand and trying to get some advice to help Greg decide what to do – buy the tickets and make the kids come visit or let them decide for themselves?

In this circumstance, I want what is best for the kids and for Greg’s relationship with the kids. Would they resent him if he made them come visit? Or would they view him as uncaring if he doesn’t put up a fight for them to come?

[QUOTE=Yeticus Rex]
If he really does want those kids, he should make himself as available as humanly possible to show the court that he’s doing his best to be a father…not just financially, but physically and emotionally.
[/QUOTE]
That is the crux of this situation. It is a very big financial burden for him to put up all the money for 3 plane tickets, plus the cost for their food and entertainment and travel for a week, plus time off work. But he wants to do it, and he’s trying to do it. This is him making himself available. But she is blocking him at every turn.

The fact is, after he moved they agreed to this visitation arrangement - one holiday and one summer visit a year with Dad in Virginia. She is breaking this agreement. And like some others have said it probably won’t do him much good to take this to the courts. It will just be another exercise in futility.

I honestly think many fathers would have given up long ago. The hoops and agony that Susan puts Greg through would be enough to make many men just say “fuck it.” But Greg has hung in there for years.