When Will a Judge Delay Overnight Visitation

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: California

Currently I am in the process of a divorce. My husband left my daughter and I when she was 2 yo. She is now 6 yo. He has never asked to take her for overnights and only visits her in my home twice a week for a few hours by his choice.

I learned during the divorce that he has been living with a woman and her children for the past 4 years since he moved out. My daughter has asked him on several occasions where he lives and he gives her evasive and generic answers such as "I live in a house." She has never asked me where her father lives.

Now that we are officially getting divorced and he is going to have to pay child support, he is asking for overnights at the home he shares with his girlfriend and her children. My daughter does not even know these people exist.

My attorney has told me that there is no way the judge will allow this without a period of time for my daughter to be introduced to his living situation gradually, which sounds correct to me. Through my attorney I am asking for my soon to be ex-husband to pay for co-parenting counseling to address this situation and my attorney thinks it is likely that the judge will order it. The purpose of the counseling is to get professional advice on how to gradually introduce my daughter to my soon to be ex-husband's life that he has hidden from her for 4 years.

However, my soon to be ex-husband's attorney in writing is fighting my attorney and in her emails is saying my attorney has no basis for thinking the judge will order this.

I don't know who to believe. I want my attorney to be right because I think my daughter needs to be introduced to the new people gradually rather than to go from her father refusing to tell her where he lives to overnights at a place where 3 additional people she doesn't even know exist live. Her father has never even asked to take my daughter anywhere let alone an overnight until now when I have requested child support formally.

My attorney and my soon to be ex-husband's attorney are both California certified family law specialists. My attorney frequently appears before this judge and socializes with the judge through a charity and she says she knows how the judge will handle a situation like mine so I assume she knows what she is talking about but if so, why is my soon to be ex-husband's attorney acting so sure that the judge will order overnights without a gradual period of introduction to the new people?

Was there an introductory period between you and your daughter before you were allowed to take her home?

(I'm honestly not being snarky - but I do know how California courts tend to work)

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

I am asking for my soon to be ex-husband to pay for co-parenting counseling to address this situation and my attorney thinks it is likely that the judge will order it. The purpose of the counseling is to get professional advice on how to gradually introduce my daughter to my soon to be ex-husband's life

---

Does your child suffer from some disorder where she has some irrational fear of people? You DO realize that MOST people a 6 year old meets are strangers, right? Part of the natural process of going from infant to child and growing as a child is that the circle of people you know increases exponentially. That's NORMAL. As as infant, the child's circle is mom and dad and siblings. Then grandparents, cousins. Then maybe a baby sitter, then neighbor children, then the explosion of children and teachers at daycare, kindergarten, etc. Is there some reason to believe that your child is going to freak out to meet the few other people in dad's new family? Or are you projecting YOUR issues onto your child? Unless you've got some evidence that dad's new family are somehow a danger to the child, the court is likely to assume that dad is perfectly capable of having his child around "normal" people, and that shouldn't be an issue for the child, since the child and dad already have a relationship. I'm just not seeing anything to be rationally concerned about. Your kid is SIX. They adjust. It's ADULTS who don't respond well to change.

Quote:

---

However, my soon to be ex-husband's attorney in writing is fighting my attorney and in her emails is saying my attorney has no basis for thinking the judge will order this.

---

I'm not seeing any rationale by which the court would need to intervene as you've asked. Dad isn't a stranger to the child. And strangers in and of themselves aren't inherently problematic.

Quote:

---

I think my daughter needs to be introduced to the new people gradually

---

WHY???

Quote:

---

rather than to go from her father refusing to tell her where he lives to overnights at a place where 3 additional people she doesn't even know exist live.

---

Again, this is an issue for YOU. Your six year old realistically does NOT worry about this stuff on her own.

Quote:

---

Her father has never even asked to take my daughter anywhere let alone an overnight until now when I have requested child support formally.

---

That happens a LOT. Predictably.

Quote:

---

My attorney and my soon to be ex-husband's attorney are both California certified family law specialists.

---

Most attornys who meet in family court are family law specialists.

Quote:

---

My attorney frequently appears before this judge and socializes with the judge through a charity and she says she knows how the judge will handle a situation like mine so I assume she knows what she is talking about but if so, why is my soon to be ex-husband's attorney acting so sure that the judge will order overnights without a gradual period of introduction to the new people?

---

They ALL hang in the same circles and know most of the same people. It's the nature of the legal business. Your attorney might get SOME concession on gradual introductions, but without there being some OTHER factors that you haven't shared, courts don't work on the assumption that meeting new people (since dad will be there too) is traumatic to most children, so ex's attorney has good chance at holding that to a minimum.

Are you going to have introductory periods when signing your child up for Girl Scouts? Are you going to send her to half days of 3rd grade, so she has a chance to acclimate? No. Ridiculous, right? The child and dad already have a relationship. The courts assume that dad is capable of introducing the child to people - ANY people, family or not, just as it assumes you're capable of bringing new people into the child's life.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: California

Currently I am in the process of a divorce. My husband left my daughter and I when she was 2 yo. She is now 6 yo. He has never asked to take her for overnights and only visits her in my home twice a week for a few hours by his choice.

I learned during the divorce that he has been living with a woman and her children for the past 4 years since he moved out. My daughter has asked him on several occasions where he lives and he gives her evasive and generic answers such as "I live in a house." She has never asked me where her father lives.

Now that we are officially getting divorced and he is going to have to pay child support, he is asking for overnights at the home he shares with his girlfriend and her children. My daughter does not even know these people exist.

My attorney has told me that there is no way the judge will allow this without a period of time for my daughter to be introduced to his living situation gradually, which sounds correct to me. Through my attorney I am asking for my soon to be ex-husband to pay for co-parenting counseling to address this situation and my attorney thinks it is likely that the judge will order it. The purpose of the counseling is to get professional advice on how to gradually introduce my daughter to my soon to be ex-husband's life that he has hidden from her for 4 years.

However, my soon to be ex-husband's attorney in writing is fighting my attorney and in her emails is saying my attorney has no basis for thinking the judge will order this.

I don't know who to believe. I want my attorney to be right because I think my daughter needs to be introduced to the new people gradually rather than to go from her father refusing to tell her where he lives to overnights at a place where 3 additional people she doesn't even know exist live. Her father has never even asked to take my daughter anywhere let alone an overnight until now when I have requested child support formally.

My attorney and my soon to be ex-husband's attorney are both California certified family law specialists. My attorney frequently appears before this judge and socializes with the judge through a charity and she says she knows how the judge will handle a situation like mine so I assume she knows what she is talking about but if so, why is my soon to be ex-husband's attorney acting so sure that the judge will order overnights without a gradual period of introduction to the new people?

---

I think that you should listen to your attorney. Your attorney knows best.

Just trying to get other insights here since it seems odd to me that 2 qualified attorneys could reach the exact opposite conclusions.

I did speak with my attorney again. She said we are moving the court under CA Family Code 3190. She said my soon to be ex-husband's attorney is just blowing smoke because she knows the judge is going to order counseling and a gradual introduction to the hidden family will be what the counselor recommends. The only issue will be who pays. She thinks the judge will say he will have to pay for it all since he created the situation but there is no guarantee on that.

I will let you know tomorrow how the judge rules.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

Just trying to get other insights here since it seems odd to me that 2 qualified attorneys could reach the exact opposite conclusions.

I did speak with my attorney again. She said we are moving the court under CA Family Code 3190. She said my soon to be ex-husband's attorney is just blowing smoke because she knows the judge is going to order counseling and a gradual introduction to the hidden family will be what the counselor recommends. The only issue will be who pays. She thinks the judge will say he will have to pay for it all since he created the situation but there is no guarantee on that.

I will let you know tomorrow how the judge rules.

---

I'm sure you will.

Update as promised – Today was what they called a family resolution conference. My attorney notified the judge of the motions that will be filed this week. For now, my soon to be ex-husband has agreed that everything is to stay the same as it has been for the last 4 years since he moved out meaning he will continue visitation in my home and continue to pay the same bills. This week my attorney will file motions for temporary child custody/support and ask for an order for counseling regarding the introduction.

- - - Updated - - -

My attorney sent me a draft of the motions. The arguments make sense to me but it seems like there should be more to them. For temporary child support she is arguing that the court should just keep everything the same since this maintains the standard of living for the child that has existed since she was born and there is no compelling reason to change that during the proceeding. She phrased it differently but that is the basic point.

For temporary custody, pretty much the same argument but also she argued that the child has been actively deceived by my husband and that due to his poor judgment it is necessary to get professional guidance so that my daughter can be told the truth without further harm. Again she phrased it differently but that is the basic point.

Still looking for legal insights as to how 2 family law specialists can reach such opposite conclusions. It would be nice if someone had some actual case law to cite. Haven't seen any of that so far.

You can ask your attorney for that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

You can ask your attorney for that.

---

I did but looking for additional legal insights here because as I stated, it perplexes me that both my attorney and my husband's attorney can be qualified and yet disagree on such a basic point.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

I did but looking for additional legal insights here because as I stated, it perplexes me that both my attorney and my husband's attorney can be qualified and yet disagree on such a basic point.

---

Because there is likely caselaw supporting BOTH points of view.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

I think that you should listen to your attorney. Your attorney knows best.

---

I personally believe that with my 10 years in the CA courts, her attorney is attempting to rack up attorneys fees. Children don't get introductory periods to introduce themselves to new teachers, new classmates, new neighborhoods when their parents who are in an intact home move...

there is absolutely NO evidence that introducing a child to dad's new girlfriend and her children is going to cause her harm.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Because there is likely caselaw supporting BOTH points of view.

---

And you know what? Little CourtClerk didn't meet Stepdad CourtClerk until Stepdad CourtClerk proposed to CC. Stepson CourtClerk didn't meet CourtClerk officially in person until 3 days before the wedding.

Amazingly.... no one is psychologically damage, needs counseling and gets along famously. Little CourtClerk and Stepson CourtClerk actually talk to each other more than Mommy and Daddy CourtClerk speak to their sons.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

there is absolutely NO evidence that introducing a child to dad's new girlfriend and her children is going to cause her harm.

---

That's NOT what we are arguing. I want the deception ended but it needs to be done appropriately. What we are arguing is that my husband's way of doing the introduction - going from deceiving my child when my child has expressly asked for the information to all of sudden saying, oops! sorry, daddy lied, here's my new family that I have been living with for 4 years but wouldn't tell you about - is harmful

I am asking for professional guidance in how to go about the introduction. Do you understand now or are you still confused?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

Amazingly.... no one is psychologically damage

---

keep telling yourself that and eventually even you may believe it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

That's NOT what we are arguing. I want the deception ended but it needs to be done appropriately. What we are arguing is that my husband's way of doing the introduction - going from deceiving my child when my child has expressly asked for the information to all of sudden saying, oops! sorry, daddy lied, here's my new family that I have been living with for 4 years but wouldn't tell you about - is harmful

I am asking for professional guidance in how to go about the introduction. Do you understand now or are you still confused?

- - - Updated - - -

keep telling yourself that and eventually even you may believe it.

---

Please feel free to pay your attorney.

You're welcome!

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

That's NOT what we are arguing. I want the deception ended but it needs to be done appropriately. What we are arguing is that my husband's way of doing the introduction - going from deceiving my child when my child has expressly asked for the information to all of sudden saying, oops! sorry, daddy lied, here's my new family that I have been living with for 4 years but wouldn't tell you about - is harmful

I am asking for professional guidance in how to go about the introduction. Do you understand now or are you still confused?

- - - Updated - - -

keep telling yourself that and eventually even you may believe it.

---

Well aren't YOU a peach. I'm sure if I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly, you wouldn't be so nasty.... bitter is never a good look.

But here's what you don't know. I'm probably the ONE person on this entire forum who has seen the ins and outs of the CA Family Court System and knows it like the back of my hand. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Good luck on those attorney fees. A 6 year old who's mother thinks that she should be entitled to every piece of information about what dad does. Laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Please feel free to pay your attorney.

You're welcome!

---

You know my kids, are they psychologically damaged? I mean, mini me is all grown up and in college. When is he going to crack?

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

You know my kids, are they psychologically damaged? I mean, mini me is all grown up and in college. When is he going to crack?

---

My magic 8-ball says "not flippin' likely".

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

But here's what you don't know. I'm probably the ONE person on this entire forum who has seen the ins and outs of the CA Family Court System and knows it like the back of my hand.

---

Do you have any cases for me? That is what I came here for; so far all I have received are snarky responses. I see now why you all are referred to as hens here by the other posters. Peck, peck.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Good luck on those attorney fees.

---

The motions were pretty short, shouldn't be too bad. Regardless, my child's mental health is worth every penny to me.

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

A 6 year old who's mother thinks that she should be entitled to every piece of information about what dad does. Laughable.

---

I never said anything at all like that. But really, you think a 6 yo shouldn't know where her father lives when she asks? And then when I ask for formal child support all of a sudden he should be able to take her for overnights to stay at the home with 3 people he has actively deceived her about?

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

You know my kids, are they psychologically damaged? I mean, mini me is all grown up and in college. When is he going to crack?

---

I don't know, but calling your child a mini me, well, enuf said.

CC - YOUR kid? Psychologically damaged?

It is to laugh.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

Do you have any cases for me?

---

Well yes I do, but generally I get paid to allow people to talk to me crazy

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

Do you have any cases for me? That is what I came here for; so far all I have received are snarky responses. I see now why you all are referred to as hens here by the other posters. Peck, peck.

The motions were pretty short, shouldn't be too bad. Regardless, my child's mental health is worth every penny to me.

I never said anything at all like that. But really, you think a 6 yo shouldn't know where her father lives when she asks? And then when I ask for formal child support all of a sudden he should be able to take her for overnights to stay at the home with 3 people he has actively deceived her about?

I don't know, but calling your child a mini me, well, enuf said.

---

You never did answer my question. Did your child have to have an introductory period with you before you brought her home from the hospital?

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

generally I get paid to allow people to talk to me crazy

---

Hmmm....looks like imma be rolling quarters on my day off!

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

You never did answer my question. Did your child have to have an introductory period with you before you brought her home from the hospital?

---

You never did answer my question - do you have any LEGAL cases/insights? This is a legal forum, not just a hen house, yes?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting CourtClerk

---

Well yes I do, but generally I get paid to allow people to talk to me crazy

---

I doubt it, if you did you wouldn't have gone off on your screed. I'm calling your bluff.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

You never did answer my question - do you have any LEGAL cases/insights? This is a legal forum, not just a hen house, yes?

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt it, if you did you wouldn't have gone off on your screed. I'm calling your bluff.

---

In other words, "No, of course not". CC knows California family law better than virtually ANYBODY else on this forum.

YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY. That's what you pay HIM/HER for.

Understand?

Yes. We have legal cases.

Your turn.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

CC knows California family law better than virtually ANYBODY else on this forum.

---

well that's not saying much about this forum, eh?

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY. That's what you pay HIM/HER for.

---

did you even read my original post? I asked because my husband's attorney has a good reputation as well as my attorney and they both disagree on what seems to me to be a basic point. Looking for other opinions. Understand?

Looks like this isn't a good place to get legal insights, though, just hen pecking.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

well that's not saying much about this forum, eh?

did you even read my original post? I asked because my husband's attorney has a good reputation as well as my attorney and they both disagree on what seems to me to be a basic point. Looking for other opinions. Understand?

Looks like this isn't a good place to get legal insights, though, just hen pecking.

---

Please feel free to keep paying your attorney to tell you what you want to hear.

You're welcome!

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Please feel free to keep paying your attorney to tell you what you want to hear.

You're welcome!

---

No thanks from me. I still don't see any law cited.

You can collect your refund at the door.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

No thanks from me. I still don't see any law cited.

---

You're welcome!

In case you're still not getting it: THAT is what you're paying your attorney to find. Not us very kindly volunteers.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

You can collect your refund at the door.

---

nah, I feel good about helping another poster who was getting hen pecked. worth the price of admission.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

You're welcome!

In case you're still not getting it: THAT is what you're paying your attorney to find. Not us very kindly volunteers.

---

In case you're not still getting it, this is a LEGAL forum, not a hen house.

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

Hmmm....looks like imma be rolling quarters on my day off!

---

Oh no Sugarplum. CC only takes the green stuff, and in big bills only. Ask her husband. He says the air I breathe is expensive.

Please feel free to keep paying your attorney.

You're welcome!

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

You never did answer my question - do you have any LEGAL cases/insights? This is a legal forum, not just a hen house, yes?

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt it, if you did you wouldn't have gone off on your screed. I'm calling your bluff.

---

What's a screed?:confused:

Quote:

---

Still looking for legal insights as to how 2 family law specialists can reach such opposite conclusions.

---

What part of "Because there is case law that supports both points of view?" do you think is not an answer to that?

You have an attorney. If you distrust your attorney such that you are asking total strangers on the internet to second guess her, why are you using her services? No one here is going to second guess the person who went to 4 years of undergrad, 3 years of law school, sat for and passed the Bar, and was successfully licensed to practice law. We are educated lay people here, we are NOT your attorney.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

What part of "Because there is case law that supports both points of view?" do you think is not an answer to that?

---

the part where someone actually cited some case law, lol! peck, peck.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

You have an attorney. If you distrust your attorney

---

I don't distrust her. It is just as I have stated - both my attorney and my husband's attorney went to 4 years of college, 3 years of law school and passed the bar. And both are family law certified specialists. Yet they have come to the exact opposite conclusions.

Quote:

---

Yet they have come to the exact opposite conclusions.

---

Yes, that's their job. They are each doing their job, which is to search out case law that supports their client's position, and argue that position in court.

You are unhappy with that answer, but that's the answer. You don't get to stomp your foot and demand that people here dig around in case law just because you don't like the answer you were given. Ask your attorney to dig it up.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

Yes, that's their job. They are each doing their job, which is to search out case law that supports their client's position, and argue that position in court.

---

only if such case law exists. Hence, my original question.

Quote:

---

Quoting Biscuitbiscuit

---

only if such case law exists. Hence, my original question.

---

You're not understanding how the system works. Missy gave you the correct answer.

Yes, such case law exists. However, you are out of your mind if you think anyone here is going to dig it up for you at this point.

Quote:

---

Quoting EA1070a

---

You're not understanding how the system works. Missy gave you the correct answer.

---

Actually, Doggie did. I just reiterated. Some people's capacity to argue in the face of correct information will never cease to amaze me.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

Actually, Doggie did. I just reiterated. Some people's capacity to argue in the face of correct information will never cease to amaze me.

---

Ah, ok. I think I missed Doggie's post amidst all the clucking. :)