- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Single Parents
.
What I learned in mediation
I learned:
That as long as STBXH doesn't practically leave B on the side of the highway, that in the courts eyes, he's suitable to care for B - physical care is really all that matters. The court doesn't consider much of the emotional, psychological effects the the child psychologists talked about. As long as he can change diapers, give bottles, and play, he's good to go.
Even though STBXH is a bipolar alcoholic with a track record as long as my arm, including reeking of alcohol when he picked up B from daycare, that the courts don't care about that and the mediator (a retired judge) said supervised visits wouldn't be granted.
The no overnights for breastfed infants rule of thumb doesn't apply. The only reason STBXH doesn't get overnights is because I fought tooth and nail to prevent it.
And I learned STBXH and OW have moved in together. Lovely....
.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: What I learned in mediation
Wait wait. The breastfeeding thing is a joke? Like they would really take the infant that is being EBF'd away from the mom?
How can they do that? That's ridiculous.
That is just terrible and is EXACTLY what i'm afraid of. I just don't see how an alcoholic is capable of caring for a child when they clearly cannot care for themselves or make sound life decisions. I just don't see how the courts can find these type of people as acceptable role models or fit parents.
It doesn't surprise me, sad to say. My ex is definitely an alcoholic. The only thing the court would do in our situation is put a stipulation that if I ever showed up and he smelled like alcohol for drop off or pick up he would be in violation of it- which means I could call the police and they would arrest him after a breathalyzer- there is a clause stating he cannot be under the influence of drugs and or alcohol because of this. So it gives me a little power in the situation. But still..... the fact that someone who has done what he has done is "fit to parent" just stuns me.
My lawyer told me all of that too.
Yes, just because a mom is breastfeeding doesn't mean the father will not get visitation. My lawyer said judges do not care now because moms can express milk and send it with the baby. She also said that if the child goes to daycare then they are away from the mom while she is working and has to be fed then so they can be with the dad and be fed.
Overnight visitation depends on the living situation before the separation. If a child was living with both parents then the father can usually get overnights before 18 months.
It has taken me a little while to come to terms with it but it is better to work with your LO's father no matter what you think about them. If you can work with them then it is easier to come to an agreement you both are ok with. It also makes it easier to do what is right for your child.
Sorry it didn't go how you wanted it to :-(
"There comes a time in life, when you walk away from all the drama and people who create it. You surround yourself with people who make you laugh, forget the bad, and focus on the good. So love the people who treat you right, pray for the ones who don't. Life is too short to be anything but happy. Falling down is a part of life, getting back up is living."
I hated our mediation. The lady was a biitch and was so mad because I refused to agree to anything (per my attorney's advice.) She also tried to make me sign a confidentiality agreement which said I couldn't use anything I found out there in court, or tell my attorney anything about the session.
It's sad that sometimes the court seems more focused on the fathers rights than what is really best for the child.
I was able to get supervised visitation but that was because XH agreed to it in our first mediation, and I also had pictures of holes that he had punched in doors, his drugs (with needles and a burnt spoon), etc.
Then when we went back to mediation I wouldn't agree to unsupervised visits with one clean drug test. i didn't feel right about it and worried that XH would find some way to pass a drug test and then he'd be able to have P unsupervised and could potentially drive with him, etc. We ended up having trial set and luckily he didnt show up. Your story makes me thank my lucky stars it all turned out the way it did for me.
I would not agree to something you aren't comfortable with. Don't let the mediator bully you.
I know in the past the mother was almost always given custody in situations like this. Then the fathers caused a stir and the courts have now swung too far in the other direction, giving them far too much leeway for the choices they have made in their lives.
It's almost as if we have a reactionary system rather than a preventive system. Makes me sad for all the situations that some of these children have had to endure before the courts would help them and actually protect their best interests-physically, emotionally, and pschologically.
I've said it before and I'll say it again--our legal system stinks.
I'll just wait patiently for him to mess up again.... ::taps foot:: I hope he does it soon enough that B doesn't remember it, because if I have to wait years and then it's harder on B, I'll be the one picking up the pieces as usual.
Just so you guys know- feeling screwed in this situation is totally normal. In fact my lawyer warned me that even though we had so much against him, even though there are multiple instances where we have demonstrated his inability to function above a sheisty, violent, criminal level towards me- he would still be involved and I would feel screwed.
He was right. So what you're feeling is totally normal. Sucks doesn't it?
I don't feel screwed. This isn't about me. I feel a sense of injustice for my child because his best interests aren't being advocated for by anyone but me. Not even the courts which are supposedly designed to do so.
Ohhhhh I know - I wasn't meaning that I was taking it personally or feeling screwed and stomping my feet in that sense- I just meant I feel like I am the one watching out for my son and noone else is. Even the courts who supposedly want what is best for the child.
Very frustrating
The court didn't sleep with him. They are just stuck with the mess you created.
Justice requires that it be a somewhat reactionary system. Men AND women say horrible things about each other. If simply saying bad things about the other parent were all that was required, the biggest liar would be rewarded. That system does not bring justice. Parents must be equal until there is proof that the court should show caution. The rules of proof exist to protect the child's right to have a relationship with each parent, even when the parents can only see the worst in each other.
I have seen parents lie and accuse the other of sexual abuse, drinking, drugs ... I have seen it all. Women are no better than men. Every single time (but for rape) the court restricts a parent's rights to visitation, they are showing caution where the parent now calling foul, didn't.
http://oi62.tinypic.com/2w73hq9.jpg
I had stacks of papers showing the proof of his alcohol problems. Most before B was born and then thinking he had it together-hence B exists. Since becoming pregnant, 2 OWI's, probation violation for showing up drunk to a probation meeting last month, being diagnosed as being bipolar and psysiologically dependent on alcohol (several times). Then finding out he smelled of alcohol when picking up B-twice. That was the breaking point because it directly affected B. All in all, I think there were 17 alcohol related charges among other things such as recorded drunken raged phone calls, admitted verbal abuse, etc. The stack was a few inches thick. (Yes, I was in deep denial about his alcoholism until recently) How much more proof do you need without having direct negative impact on the child? I know he loves B just as much as I do, but seems like there should be more to it than just that. I'm just trying to understand it all from a legal perspective...
I am certainly not an expert, and state law varies greatly, but these are a few thoughts that come to mind:
Legal perspective = rules of evidence. I don't know exactly what you brought in or how much of it was admissible for consideration, but that is usually hurdle number one.
Mediators have a goal of resolution. Their effectiveness is limited to the terms they can persuade the parties to agree on. Judges have more discretion, but the mediators are usually the first step.
Mental illness is not proof of unfitness. Particularly if the diagnosis is new. Lots of parents are bi-polar and do a wonderful job. There needs to be a sustained lack of treatment and a nexus between the lack of treatment (or insufficient/ineffective treatment) and abuse/neglect.
Thirdly, there are a lot of drinkers, even alcoholics, who don't drink around their kids (functional alcoholics, binge drinkers, part-time parents). Unless a nexus between the drinking and the neglect/abuse of the child can be shown, the parent is within their legal rights to drink. To go one step further, all the stuff from before the baby is unlikely to be given much consideration since LOTS of people change their behavior once there is a baby. Thank goodness, because if this weren't the case many-a-mother would have their children snatched upon birth. The silver lining is that evidence of any kind from this point forward will be much more persuasive than anything in the past.
The other thing that may or may not be worthy of consideration is whether you were believable. Mediators/judges/courts, have to decide who they believe. Also they notice when a party is not likable. I don't know you and I am not suggesting this is the case, but when a couple comes in and one of them is ranting and the other seems very reasonable, the right call is less obvious.
The way a court would define best interests and a wronged/protective parent might define best interests is often substantially different. More than 90% of mothers don't think their ex's should have visitation because they don't already know how to feed/change a baby. Or because their car is old, or because their glasses prescription is old. The court must consider the impact of limiting visitation on the bonding of the child and father and the relationship over the child's life.
The process is slow. I believe that the court I am familiar with usually gets it right reasonably quickly. They often just can't sort out that big a mess in one fell swoop. If you yourself were fooled for months or years, fooled over a long period of knowing him, his family, his friends, fooled well enough to be intimate, give him chances, and engage in the inherently risky behavior of sex, it is simply unreasonable to expect a court, required by law to presume equality, limited by rules of evidence, and accustomed to absolutely horrendous lying, to get to the right answer within an hour's time. That would be equivalent to expecting the court to get it right after the appetizer portion of a first date.
http://oi62.tinypic.com/2w73hq9.jpg