She wasnt trying to cut him out, she just want him to put some stability in his life.
yes and no - she wasn't trying to directly cut him out but she was trying to impose her rules about what he could or couldn't do, especially rules that are extremely difficult for him to meet.
In the real world it shouldn't be up to one parent to set the rules of whether the other parent is allowed to be a parent - it doesn't work that way. But for the purposes of the film we are supposed to see why he ends up going for a criminal venture that he'd turned down- hence he has to be knocked back by what are preconditions he cannot meet any time soon.
It doesn't help that this is an emotive issue that tends overwhelmingly to be pushed on here as the mother should have the right here to set rules and run things how she wants. The problem is people are viewing this episode on that basis. Firstly it leads to people reading into the plot their own tangents about this must have happened, or that, leading to the ability to say but he's a criminal so automatically he shouldn't have the right to just see his daughter etc. All of which totally ignores the fact the only piece of information we're consistently given is that there was something about his crime that was based on (for him) a matter of principle and it wasn't just some petty or sordid or violent or substance fuelled act that deserves the response people are giving. More so it actually dampens the key plot point here, how his desire to have that contact with his daughter leads him into this set of events.
Put it this way, for him to meet her preconditions would take a considerable time, at which point contact with the daughter could be so distant that it is never possible to pick it up again. (Which then makes it easier for the new couple to argue he shouldn't be in her life now). Hence the reason he is tempted into going for the quick solution.
It is interesting how careful they are to not show the mother in a bad light and that is possibly why the key unfairness in the rules she is trying to set doesn't really come across. By making the new partner a jerk and the mother not they've managed to deaden that plot twist too much. On first viewing it almost becomes about a battle between him and the new man, when in reality what pushes him into the crime is the conditions being put against him seeing his daughter. To the point where I'd say they screwed this one up in the writing by trying to continue the plot but be careful about how.

When Captain America needs your help.
I mean, think about this. It is one thing to say to your wife that you got arrested because you stopped the evil corporation from screwing over its employees. It is a lot different to tell her you got arrested for helping Captain America stop a plot to unleash enhanced terrorists on the world.

Regardless of what position Scott
was
in the end of the film, that is rendered moot now due to the events of Civil War. As much as I love that movie, it basically ruined Scott's character in the context of
his
world.

I get what you are saying, but he also becomes a distraction. Instead of the focus being on the girl, now the focus is on the convicted, ex-husband being there.
What Scott did was noble, but at the same time, he broke his promise to his wife. He was supposed to be there for her and their child, and because of his actions, he was taken away for 3 years. Who knows what the wife and child went through? Did they lose their house? Did they have to move to a sleazy apartment building while she picked up the pieces of her life?
It is understandable for her to be upset, but at least she left the door open for Scott to still be a part of their daughter's life.

This message has been deleted.

She wasnt trying to cut him out, she just want him to put some stability in his life.

This message has been deleted.

She was the typical controlling ex wife you see in most films involving an ex wife.
Lazy writing but that's most of the sub plot already written.
The most important thing was her child having a healthy relationship with both parents sorry money and complete control of her daughter and father's relationship.

Wow! Someone else who gets it!

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!

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.