What did you guys think about the ex?
-
Ghetto_Defendant — 9 years ago(May 22, 2016 05:49 PM)
Wow.
You read way too much into my response about a fictional character. Where did I write that Scott couldn't ever redeem himself? I think I also wrote that the relationship was rather positive given the circumstances. And I didn't notice anyone write about the death penalty, which is clearly not part of the story. -
LukeLovesFilm28 — 9 years ago(May 22, 2016 05:45 PM)
Personally, after reading some of these uptight, yuppy responses, after his ex threw him out of his daughter's own party, demanding child support like a greedy bitch, treating him less than human, I gotta say I hated her snide, conceited ass.
-
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(May 23, 2016 03:22 PM)
I'm no where near a yuppie, and I'd be willing to bet money you are one of the ex-con losers who effed up their lives and thinks people should just ignore that you ignored the law and paid the price.
What Scott did was noble, but it was also a betrayal of his wife and daughter's trust. What he did caused them great pain. He spent 2+ years in prison, plus however long he was out of the picture from the time of his arrest until his conviction. So, 3 - 4 years of him not working a job and his wife and daughter have to suffer because of it.
Did the mom have to go back to work, thus leaving the daughter in someone else's care? That is a heck of a betrayal if they'd talked about how if they had children she was going to stay at home so she could raise the children with their values.
Did the mom lose the house? Did they have to move into some cr*ppy place putting her daughter's safety at risk?
She demanded child support because it would mean he had a steady job and some security in his life as opposed to just being an ex-con who blamed everyone else for his mistakes. -
TDizzle21 — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 08:44 PM)
Throwing Scott out of the party was necessary, but I can see why she needs to see some stability before she shares custody. It also wouldn't have hurt her if Scott came to her house to see his child every once in a while, just cutting him out when his daughter really wants to see him doesn't help anyone.
-
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 08:44 AM)
Throwing Scott out of the party was necessary
I think you meant "not" necessary. It actually was. He's got times set by the court as to when he can see his daughter. The party is supposed to be for the daughter - why make it about him? He can have a party or special day with her at another time. By barging in it draws attention to him.
It also wouldn't have hurt her if Scott came to her house to see his child every once in a while, just cutting him out when his daughter really wants to see him doesn't help anyone.
Which came first, the chicken or the chicken's egg? He needs to be part of her life, but he needs to get his life together first. He needs to get his life together first, but he needs to be part of her life.
Under different circumstances, heck even if he just showed up at the end of the party, she wouldn't have reacted to him the way she did. -
zeenutrose — 9 years ago(June 01, 2016 03:02 PM)
I feel as though she was being unreasonable in throwing him out of his daughter's birthday party and in preventing him from seeing his daughter until he was in a more stable situation (which he projected to be nearly a full year away). I am not saying that she was wrong for wanting to protect her daughter from his past, but she could have at least let him visit his daughter at her house or in public until he got his life back together.
-
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 06:55 AM)
There is a difference between visiting the daughter at the house, and visiting her during the birthday party when Scott would be a distraction to the party. Instead of the focus being on the daughter, the focus would be on Scott.
-
zeenutrose — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 07:20 AM)
However the daughter clearly wanted him there, it meant the world to her to see him and that is far more important than the "focus" staying on her. She was so happy about seeing him that she still had him on her mind over the next few weeks, so I feel as though the mom was wrong for not allowing him to even visit her. Plus while at the party he made no effort to take the spotlight away from his little girl. Instead of letting him stay and watch his daughter play with her friends he was immediately told to leave or he would be arrested then his ex-wife tells him that he can't see his daughter until he can fufill her list of requirements.
-
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 12:10 PM)
However the daughter clearly wanted him there,
The daughter has no say in the matter.
I feel as though the mom was wrong for not allowing him to even visit her.
You do realize that was decided by the court, right? I'm sure it is what the mother wanted, but the judge in their case decided that until Scott showed stability in his life he wasn't supposed to have full visitation rights.
Plus while at the party he made no effort to take the spotlight away from his little girl.
Irrelevant. It is simply his presence which takes the focus away from the birthday girl.
Instead of letting him stay and watch his daughter play with her friends he was immediately told to
leave or he would be arrested
In other words, he was trespassing.
his ex-wife tells him that he can't see his daughter until he can fufill her list of requirements.
No, he has to fulfill the JUDGE's list of requirements. If she put up her own requirements, which were not agreed to by the judge, then she could be held in contempt of court. -
zeenutrose — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 12:33 PM)
The mother may have had full custody of the child, however that just means that his rights to see his daughter can be granted or denied at her discretion unless he takes her to court. This does not mean that she can not allow him to see his daughter, at any time she could let him see her, but she chooses not to. Besides the question of this thread is more about the moral implications of her denying him time with his daughter than her legal power to do so. In the end it boils down to her not letting him see his daughter who wants nothing more than to be with and vice versa. She may have legal custody of the child, but she is making a conscious decision to needlessly keep him away from their child as he is trying to get his life back on track. There are no negative consequences for her letting him visit his daughter at her house or at a public park for a few hours a week, but she seems to be acting spiteful towards him for his past choices instead of his present actions.
-
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 06, 2016 07:38 AM)
The mother may have had full custody of the child, however that just means that his rights to see his daughter can be granted or denied at her discretion unless he takes her to court. This does not mean that she can not allow him to see his daughter, at any time she could let him see her, but she chooses not to.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
There are no negative consequences for her letting him visit his daughter at her house or at a public park for a few hours a week, but she seems to be acting spiteful towards him for his past choices instead of his present actions.
I would agree with you more if Scott actually did what he's supposed to do. I'm happy that he wants to be part of his daughter's life, but he effed up when he decided to hack the company. He will always pay the consequences of his actions, and should.
Part of the conditions of the divorce and custody agreement is that he has a steady job and a place to live. Once he does that, he can get better visitation rights.
Remember, the issue wasn't that he hasn't gotten to see his daughter at all since the divorce. It is that he intruded on the birthday party instead of calling his ex and asking when he could stop by to give his daughter the gift.
Again, I'm happy that he's not a dead-beat dad. -
TDizzle21 — 9 years ago(June 06, 2016 06:44 PM)
At the end of the day he should be allowed to visit his daughter. Not allowing him any contact with the kid until he gives child support isn't a good enough reason. The only one who gets hurt by not letting him see her is the daughter.
-
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 07, 2016 06:49 AM)
I don't disagree that he should be allowed supervised visits. But, he should NOT have shown up at the party. That is where the sh!t hits the fan.
I've had a few friends get divorced. The one thing I've always told them is to NEVER say anything bad about their ex, because it is still their child's mom/dad. It will always come back to hurt them.
And, for my male friends, I've told them to do EXACTLY what the judge says for them to do. If the ex is being unreasonable, address it in court and not on the front steps. -
ejc15 — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 02:26 PM)
I happen to be a family law attorney and the mother's behavior bothered me greatly. She seemed to think she has some right to set what the requirements are for him to see his daughter. I think going to the party was wrong and he should have just planned his own party. But based on mother's demands I highly doubt she would have allowed him to take the child out on his own for a celebration. If he doesnt want his daughter to think he has forgotten her, he had to go.
Your assuming its a court order that gives her control. As he just got out of prison its unlikely she has already gone to court to get an order for supervised visitation. Even if there is a court order, her requirements were unreasonable.
If she is going to hold visitation as a carrot to get his life together she is forcing the father and daughter to lose irreplaceable bonding time. As its clear best case its gonna take him a year to do what she wants.
The child is only 5 once. He has already lost several years, To say come back when she is 6 may damage that relationship beyond repair.
Unless the mother has some basis to believe he will harm the child her demands would not go over very well with the court.
Nothing in this movie showed me he had ever hurt the child physically or emotionally. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 03:58 PM)
Did you have an actual point to your post, or just wanted to say, "I think going to the party was wrong and he should have just planned his own party."
Because,
Your assuming its a court order that gives her control. As he just got out of prison its unlikely she has already gone to court to get an order for supervised visitation.
You do realize that they either divorced before he went to prison or while he was in prison. And, since he was in prison for a couple of years, she would have to have FULL control over their daughter.
Also, she wasn't allowing zero visitation. She was allowing zero UNSUPERVISED visitation. As in, he couldn't take their daughter back to his place, or the park, or whatever. But, he could arrange visitation with his ex there.
I think she could be more kind to him, but she's still dealing with his betrayal. -
ejc15 — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 06:37 AM)
What right does she have to demand supervised vistation. She had control while he was in prison, but he is no longer in prison. Just because someone goes to prison does not mean when they get out there is automatically supervised visitation.
There is no evidence either the child is uncomfortable with him or that he is a danger to the child. His crime is not a violent crime, there was no abuse and no substance abuse claim.
I'd like to know in your scenario when he would be able to see his daughter on her birthday. She wont let him take her and she wont let him come over.
I guess maybe next year she will think about it. After he pays his child support, and gets a place she approves of, and gets a job satisfactory to her.
I bet her comment to the judge and her lawyer will be.."I want him to have a relationship with MY daughter but."
She would be ripped by any judge.
Unless that judge has a mindset several decades in the past.