What did you guys think about the ex?
-
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. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 08:29 AM)
What right does she have to demand supervised vistation.
Ummm, let's see. He's a convicted felon. He spent the last couple years in jail. He doesn't have a suitable home/apartment for visitations. He hangs out with other convicts.
She wont let him take her and she wont let him come over.
Won't let him take her UNSUPERVISED.
She won't let him come over UNANNOUNCED AND UNINVITED.
For a family law attorney, you don't seem to get it.
You might want to spend more time learning the law and less posting online. -
ejc15 — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 09:06 AM)
Its people who think like you that make me a lot of money.
Being a felon does not automatically give you supervised visitation. It would be crime specific and his would not get supervised visitation. Overnight visitation would be in question.
In practice very few people get a modification of the original visitation order when someone goes to prison, because its clear what will go on while in prison. Therefore when the person gets out they are normally entitled to exactly what they had when they went in.
If true here, she is making her demands on her own without a court order. From what we saw of the character there is nothing that would require supervised visitation. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 10:41 AM)
No, people who sacrifice their marriages and/or never put any effort into their marriages make you money.
Being a felon does not automatically give you supervised visitation.
So, you are admitting that it can cause you to lose all of your parental rights - especially since we don't know what was all in the divorce decree. And, since he didn't raise a stink about it, it seems like he didn't have unsupervised visitation rights. -
ejc15 — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 11:32 AM)
Based solely upon the conviction there is no situation that you would lose all parental rights. To lose all parental rights would require further neglect of the relationship. Certain convictions would lead to supervised visitation, such as child molesting, child abuse, possibly domestic abuse.
Conviction for drug and alcohol offenses could lead to supervised parenting time if you can show the person still has issues with the use of the drugs.
The only other reason a prison term would lead to supervised visitation is if the child has gone such a long period of time away from the parent that the child no longer remembers the parent.
As to making me money, I mean when people take positions that are unreasonable it leads to more litigation. A position that this guy should have supervised time would be unreasonable. If what we see is true my advice to the mother here would be to allow unsupervised time but we would restrict overnight parenting time in his apartment until we can look further at his roommates and if the child has her own bed, enough food etc.
Even this is only very temporary as the courts for the most part assume that the father would use good judgment in who he exposed his child to. For instance if the Pena character was a bad guy, you hope dad is responsible to keep them apart.
You would have to prove dad is negligent and would expose her to a bad situation. I don't think ant-man would.
We get cases all the time where one parent wants to restrict parenting time based upon past bad behavior. In almost all cases the question to the court is who is he now. Child support is ignored for parenting time purposes. Poverty and/or employment are not reasons to deny time. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 12:04 PM)
So what you are saying is that you practice law in the same state as the movie is set in AND you know 100% of the facts of the case - even though they weren't shown or discussed in the movie.
Got it.
Thanks for playing.
Better luck next time. -
ejc15 — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 12:10 PM)
States are very similar on this issue, and I am basing my facts on what is presented in the movie.
I suppose you practice law in the same state as the movie and know 100% of the facts.
Tried to have a civil conversation, but what is to be expected on the internet, my bad.
The mother was a stereotype of the entitled mother who thinks she owns the child because she has custody. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 23, 2016 01:57 PM)
I am basing my facts on what is presented in the movie.
Would you please let me know when they had a detailed presentation of the divorce decree? I don't seem to remember that.
Tried to have a civil conversation, but what is to be expected on the internet, my bad.
Yes. It was your bad that you tried to act like you knew what you were talking about and assumed you knew all of the facts - including the ones never presented in the movie.
The mother was a stereotype of the entitled mother who thinks she owns the child because she has custody.
Yeah, God forbid she feel that way when her husband chooses to commit a felony for people other than her/wasn't to protect her or their child, goes to jail, etc.
How dare she feel "entitled" to having her husband be there to provide for their family!!! -
ejc15 — 9 years ago(June 24, 2016 08:10 AM)
So he made a mistake, they have to deal with it. To make his daughter continue to pay because she has the anger is not reasonable.
I looked at your other posts and you always descend into a very angry individual with anyone who disagrees with you.
Must be nice to always be right and the smartest in any conversation. I hope in person you are not the same. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 24, 2016 02:34 PM)
Must be nice to always be right and the smartest in any conversation.
The more I post here the more I realize how easy it is. Especially when people think they are really smart and start posting what they believe to be true and/or things which weren't shown at all in the movie. -
justanicknamed — 9 years ago(June 24, 2016 02:30 PM)
Again, not wanting the ex to be a distraction. Not wanting people to turn and whisper about him instead of having all of the attention be on the daughter.
Believe me, I'm really happy he wanted to be a part of her life. But he effed up. Now he has to bend over and take it in the shorts until he redeems himself.
Had he talked to the mom and asked if he could come over after the party when all of the guests were gone and she said no, then I'd certainly be on the side saying she was being unreasonable. -
DracTarashV — 9 years ago(June 07, 2016 09:29 PM)
She is one of the most reasonable ex-wives I've seen in a movie by far. Yes, it was unfortunate for the well-meaning Scott that he couldn't see his daughter, but the wife was just following the damn rules.
You want something corny? You got it!