🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Rick Santorum Is Insane

Kathianne said:
At least in Illinois, you are way off. IF the children are not there at the appointed time, the non-custodial parent can call the police and have the custodial parent charged with visitation interference. THIS holds even when the children refuse to go with the non-custodial parent.

OMG, that exact thing happened to a girl I work with two weeks ago. He knew there would be no visitation, but did it anyway. Children's Aid is now involved, sad situation.
 
dilloduck said:
Right--it's always especially fun when the kids have the police give them from one parent to the other, leaving the non-custodial parent the choice of calling the cops and making a big scene or just leaving to keep his kids out of traumatic situations.
Or you could call your attorney. Personally, if it was an ongoing issue, I'd call the police. Now if the kid(s) do not want to go with you, that should be a different issue altogether, something for a counselor to look into, I'm sure.
 
Said1 said:
OMG, that exact thing happened to a girl I work with two weeks ago. He knew there would be no visitation, but did it anyway. Children's Aid is now involved, sad situation.

I had it happen in the middle of his losing visitation, through his own behavior. But it was a Friday, with court not being until Monday. The psychiatrist had called their father, explaining that it was in the kids best interest not to see him, they were afraid.

That did not set well, so he showed, with the visitation papers. The boys would go, but not my daughter. He called the police, who tried to force her in the car, then the boys got out. The police said they could not get the kids to go with him, but they would charge me. The problem with the police, I lived in the town my brother held a managerial position on the police department. IF they didn't charge me, he could have sued the City.

They did. The following Monday, the judge took away the visitation rights, but could not deal with my problem, which was criminal. Thus I had to take off more time, eventually it got dropped. Twas a big mess and traumatic. My daughter did not, would not visit her father until she was nearly 20 years old.
 
dilloduck said:
Right--it's always especially fun when the kids have the police give them from one parent to the other, leaving the non-custodial parent the choice of calling the cops and making a big scene or just leaving to keep his kids out of traumatic situations.

I always hated that and discouraged it with women clients.

My favorite story is one where I represented the wife and I got a phone call that went something like this:

Client: Jill, he drove the car up on the front lawn to the door of the house to get the kids.
Me: Why'd he do that?
Client: Because the court order said door-to-door pick up and delivery.

:dunno:
 
jillian said:
I always hated that and discouraged it with women clients.

My favorite story is one where I represented the wife and I got a phone call that went something like this:

Client: Jill, he drove the car up on the front lawn to the door of the house to get the kids.
Me: Why'd he do that?
Client: Because the court order said door-to-door pick up and delivery.

:dunno:

I don't even want to think of every whacked person that screws their kids, to get at their ex. It's sick. My kids were lucky that the ex had extremely good insurance for mental health. 50k cap on it. We hit it.

The ex is still going to shrink, as is his family, now going through another divorce. I almost feel sorry for the wife, but not. I do feel for the kids though.
 
Kathianne said:
I don't even want to think of every whacked person that screws their kids, to get at their ex. It's sick. My kids were lucky that the ex had extremely good insurance for mental health. 50k cap on it. We hit it.

The ex is still going to shrink, as is his family, now going through another divorce. I almost feel sorry for the wife, but not. I do feel for the kids though.


All this behavior makes Santorum look pretty sane.
 
GotZoom said:
There are situations out there - albeit very few and far between, when a judge gets it right.

Must have been a conservative.

Heh! Actually you'd have called her a "feminazi". But because she believed men and women were truly equal, she believed that men could parent as well as women. ;)
 
Kathianne said:
I don't even want to think of every whacked person that screws their kids, to get at their ex. It's sick. My kids were lucky that the ex had extremely good insurance for mental health. 50k cap on it. We hit it.

The ex is still going to shrink, as is his family, now going through another divorce. I almost feel sorry for the wife, but not. I do feel for the kids though.

People do mess up their kids. I always say it's harder to get a drivers license than it is to become a parent.

Sounds like you're doing pretty well with your circumstances and did for the kids what you needed to.
 
jillian said:
Heh! Actually you'd have called her a "feminazi". But because she believed men and women were truly equal, she believed that men could parent as well as women. ;)

A feminazi would never give a man anything but some kind of disease or a long jail sentance.
 
dilloduck said:
A feminazi would never give a man anything but some kind of disease or a long jail sentance.

Like I said, you need to live in a blue state. :poke:

Dunno, though....what would you call a female judge who had a sign up in chambers saying "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"? Heh!
 
MissileMan said:
I disagree with your assessment that pro-abortion legislation is anti-family. It takes much more than two people who don't care for each other enough to get married and a child that either one or both don't want to make a family.

Are you talking about two people who care enough to have intimate sexual relations but don't care enough about the life of a human being they might make? A human being who would be their natural son or daughter? A child who they can just kill per the abortion laws if they "choose" because they don't want to take the responsibility to raise it? If that is not anti-family, I don't know what is. :dunno:

Why do you think the left has made abortion the centerpiece of their platform? It's key to the destruction of the family.
 
jillian said:
People do mess up their kids. I always say it's harder to get a drivers license than it is to become a parent.

Sounds like you're doing pretty well with your circumstances and did for the kids what you needed to.
Thank you. I was able to get my kids help. I also got a lot of help, from lawyers, including a pro bono ad litem attorney for the kids and a friend that dealt with the custody stuff/criminal stuff for me-pro bono, psychiatrists, pediatrician, and social workers. Not to mention my dad, then in his late 70's that really took over the 'dad' thing for the boys, and my brother, who backed up my dad, (also got the youngest out of some pretty serious scrapes for a grammar school kid), as he was able, with 3 kids of his own to raise.
 
dilloduck said:
Everyone should get free legal services
I disagree. The system could not take it. The kids were appointed an attorney, after the school and pediatrician had complained about some problems. That resulted in psychiatric testimony and social workers being brought in. At that point, the judge asked for the ad litem attorney for the kids.

As for my 'legal help' that was a friend that way predated divorce.
 
Kathianne said:
I disagree. The system could not take it. The kids were appointed an attorney, after the school and pediatrician had complained about some problems. That resulted in psychiatric testimony and social workers being brought in. At that point, the judge asked for the ad litem attorney for the kids.

As for my 'legal help' that was a friend that way predated divorce.

the system couldnt take it ? justice for the haves huh?
 
dilloduck said:
the system couldnt take it ? justice for the haves huh?
'haves?' :laugh: I hope you are never in the circumstances I've been in!
 
dilloduck said:
My point is that money will still buy you more access to justice. (not everyone is fortunate to be represented pro bono.
Perhaps. But my guess is, if life was as unfair as you portray it, you could have found someone.

Most in circumstances outside of 'normal', can find help. Of course, one needs to be able to present it to the court and others in a rational manner. The help is there.
 

Forum List

Back
Top