Can a Babysitter Keep a Child from One of Its Parents

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

Young couple together for 9 years but never married.They have a 6 year old son. The couple separates and goes different ways but are still working together for the care of the child.
There has been no court involvement, no custody ruling. No history of negligence or abuse of any kind.
The mother leaves the child with a baby sitter. Her new boyfriend. This new boyfriend was just released from prison and has a history
of 20 arrests with 53 charges of drugs and theft of all kinds.
The father not liking this goes to retrieves his son from this man and meets with physical resistance.
Does this new boyfriend babysitter have the right to keep the child from the father?

Thanks for any info I can get.

Looks like Mom is the only person entitled to custody of the child. She gets to choose the sitter.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Looks like Mom is the only person entitled to custody of the child. She gets to choose the sitter.

---

I agree. However, I will also add that even if they were both entitled to custody its a pretty dumb move to go and snatch the child away from the babysitter that a parent has chosen, on that parent's time. Its always going to cause a scene and result in chaos. Its better to discuss it with the other parent and get their ok, and have the parent inform the babysitter to expect them.

Yeah equal rights have become unequal. Its a sad world we live in these days that a piece of shit like this man has more rights than the child's father just because the mother says so. Seems no one wants to acknowledge there are bad mothers out there too.

Post history.

The physical resistance you ran into didn't happen to end up with you being charged where there are photos with no metadata, would it?

No one is saying there aren't bad mothers out there. They are just saying that without a court order or being married when baby was born, mom legally is the only one who can call the shots.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

Yeah equal rights have become unequal. Its a sad world we live in these days that a piece of shit like this man has more rights than the child's father just because the mother says so. Seems no one wants to acknowledge there are bad mothers out there too.

---

Did the father ever establish paternity/rights legally?

Many child care places require that the person dropping the child off is also the person picking up the child UNLESS the dropping off parent has made prior arrangements and let the caregiver know to expect someone else. That is for the safety of the child. You really should have gone through the mother and discussed the issue first.

And the picture gets ever more clear.

No court ruling on custody makes mom the primary custodian.

Going to snatch the kid from mom's babysitter, regardless of the sitters/boyfriend's criminal past, is completely out of line.

The rights of the mother are not out of proportion with the fathers. It's rather hard to be a mother without having given birth but any jerk could be the father. Get a court order and solve part of the problem...but that'll be a lot harder now. That said, even as the legal father you couldn't do this.

The dad (I presume it's you) is an absolute idiot.

Quote:

---

Quoting hr for me

---

Many child care places require that the person dropping the child off is also the person picking up the child UNLESS the dropping off parent has made prior arrangements and let the caregiver know to expect someone else. That is for the safety of the child. You really should have gone through the mother and discussed the issue first.

---

Yo zDO realize that we are not talking about a "child care place", yes?

Quote:

---

Quoting hr for me

---

Many child care places require that the person dropping the child off is also the person picking up the child UNLESS the dropping off parent has made prior arrangements and let the caregiver know to expect someone else. That is for the safety of the child. You really should have gone through the mother and discussed the issue first.

---

Except this wasn't a daycare. The mom's boyfriend was the babysitter.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

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

Young couple together for 9 years but never married.They have a 6 year old son. The couple separates and goes different ways but are still working together for the care of the child.
There has been no court involvement, no custody ruling. No history of negligence or abuse of any kind.
The mother leaves the child with a baby sitter. Her new boyfriend. This new boyfriend was just released from prison and has a history
of 20 arrests with 53 charges of drugs and theft of all kinds.
The father not liking this goes to retrieves his son from this man and meets with physical resistance.
Does this new boyfriend babysitter have the right to keep the child from the father?

Thanks for any info I can get.

---

Perhaps you or whoever the father is needs to take mom to court and get a court order on custody and/or visitation.

Right now the father has no legal rights because the father decided not to go legally establish them. So the father going and causing chaos around his six year old son now looks like a moron.

Yes there are bad moms out there but that's not what we are talking about here. This situation is about someone who didn't go establish his rights.

What if you had a girlfriend that she didn't like and your kid was being babysat by her and she came and snatched the kid up? Got in a fight with her?

Yeah I probably wouldn't want my kid around someone with an extensive criminal record but if I didn't have any rights to the kid I'm not risking jail on a kidnapping charge. Which you basically tried to do.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

Yeah equal rights have become unequal. Its a sad world we live in these days that a piece of shit like this man has more rights than the child's father just because the mother says so. Seems no one wants to acknowledge there are bad mothers out there too.

---

Mom's taste in men seems to be consistent.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Mom's taste in men seems to be consistent.

---

^^^^^ Thumbs up.


OP what makes you think you're any better than her boyfriend? Based on your other posts you seem to have somewhat of a criminal history as well.

I didn't come on here to get insulted, the story is involved but no it wasn't me it was my son and grandson. We went over to get the child, the man opened the door wide open to my son and called the child to his father. When my son reached in to pick the child up this man slammed the door against him separating them, in shock my son shoved the door back open reached in and picked up the child. The claim made was the he told the father that he couldn't have the child and closed and locked the door. Then my son kicked the door down went in and hit him then took the child. I was there and know this is a lie, my son did not break down no door, nor did he hit the man. The detective produced the pictures in question of a damaged door frame. Two thing wrong here, how do they know that wasn't done by the plaintiff? and this same detective investigated a breakin at this same house 2 years earlier, pictures with out dating could have been from that case. The report also says there are pictures of the injury to the plaintiff. Problem here is there is none, and a report from an officer that was assigned to take the pictures states there was no injury or"redness or swell" to photograph.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

I didn't come on here to get insulted, the story is involved but no it wasn't me it was my son and grandson. We went over to get the child, the man opened the door wide open to my son and called the child to his father. When my son reached in to pick the child up this man slammed the door against him separating them, in shock my son shoved the door back open reached in and picked up the child. The claim made was the he told the father that he couldn't have the child and closed and locked the door. Then my son kicked the door down went in and hit him then took the child. I was there and know this is a lie, my son did not break down no door, nor did he hit the man. The detective produced the pictures in question of a damaged door frame. Two thing wrong here, how do they know that wasn't done by the plaintiff? and this same detective investigated a breakin at this same house 2 years earlier, pictures with out dating could have been from that case. The report also says there are pictures of the injury to the plaintiff. Problem here is there is none, and a report from an officer that was assigned to take the pictures states there was no injury or"redness or swell" to photograph.

---

Hey we just went off your posting history.

Your son has zero legal rights to that child. If he would like some rights he needs to go to court and establish them as stated. As such he had no legal right to be at the child's mother's home. That man who was watching him had no legal obligation to hand that child over.

You can hate it all you want. You can bitch and moan about how women get all the rights and men get none. That won't change your son's legal standing with his son.

If you have seen or believe your grandson is being abused or neglected you can alert the authorities. However, that boyfriend having a criminal record doesn't mean he's a dangerous person or that your grandson can't be around him.

Again your son better go get a lawyer and take care of this family law stuff asap. He should have done it years ago. And HE needs to be on here asking questions. Not you.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

I didn't come on here to get insulted, the story is involved but no it wasn't me it was my son and grandson. We went over to get the child, the man opened the door wide open to my son and called the child to his father. When my son reached in to pick the child up this man slammed the door against him separating them, in shock my son shoved the door back open reached in and picked up the child. The claim made was the he told the father that he couldn't have the child and closed and locked the door. Then my son kicked the door down went in and hit him then took the child. I was there and know this is a lie, my son did not break down no door, nor did he hit the man. The detective produced the pictures in question of a damaged door frame. Two thing wrong here, how do they know that wasn't done by the plaintiff? and this same detective investigated a breakin at this same house 2 years earlier, pictures with out dating could have been from that case. The report also says there are pictures of the injury to the plaintiff. Problem here is there is none, and a report from an officer that was assigned to take the pictures states there was no injury or"redness or swell" to photograph.

---

Do you understand that your son had NO legal right to take the child - at all?

Do you understand that it's not up to the boyfriend to prove that he didn't do the damage or that it was fixed after the break-in?

Do you understand that just because there was no redness or swelling AT THAT TIME, it does not mean there was no injury?

NONE of you should have been there. NONE of you. And thanks to your (that's all of you combined, not just you) incredibly stupid actions, your son stands an excellent chance of being awarded only supervised visitation - at his expense.

Quote:

---

Quoting hr for me

---

Many child care places require that the person dropping the child off is also the person picking up the child UNLESS the dropping off parent has made prior arrangements and let the caregiver know to expect someone else. That is for the safety of the child. You really should have gone through the mother and discussed the issue first.

---

Which is a violation of the law UNLESS they have a restraining order on file stating the other parent can NOT pick up. If they interfere with the OTHER PARENT (who has been established) picking up, they can be sued and/or charged with a crime and/or and in some places found in contempt, and jailed.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

I didn't come on here to get insulted, the story is involved but no it wasn't me it was my son and grandson. We went over to get the child, the man opened the door wide open to my son and called the child to his father. When my son reached in to pick the child up this man slammed the door against him separating them, in shock my son shoved the door back open reached in and picked up the child. The claim made was the he told the father that he couldn't have the child and closed and locked the door. Then my son kicked the door down went in and hit him then took the child. I was there and know this is a lie, my son did not break down no door, nor did he hit the man. The detective produced the pictures in question of a damaged door frame. Two thing wrong here, how do they know that wasn't done by the plaintiff? and this same detective investigated a breakin at this same house 2 years earlier, pictures with out dating could have been from that case. The report also says there are pictures of the injury to the plaintiff. Problem here is there is none, and a report from an officer that was assigned to take the pictures states there was no injury or"redness or swell" to photograph.

---

Your son is an idiot. Your son needs to go to court and establish his parental rights and get a court order. The plaintiff in a criminal case is the state. THE STATE did not damage the door frame. That would be impossible. Please quit encouraging your son to be stupid.

You know what I think, that the day a career criminal has more rights than a father or grandfather does just because a stupid ass mother says so is the day I realize how bad the country has gone to hell. I don't see how my son has no legal rights to his son. Many people talk a lot of shit about how we need to protect our children, well this is a piss poor example of it. My son's parental right are already established. To you smart ass's out there maybe some day something like this will happen to you. Then lets see how amused you will be.

Are any of you a lawyer or of some kind of legal back ground?

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

My son's parental right are already established.

---

From your original post:

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

There has been no court involvement, no custody ruling.

---

How were your son't "parental rights" established then? If it hasn't been done through the courts or at least an acknowledgment of paternity when they child was born, then his rights have not been legally established.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

You know what I think, that the day a career criminal has more rights than a father or grandfather does just because a stupid ass mother says so is the day I realize how bad the country has gone to hell. I don't see how my son has no legal rights to his son. Many people talk a lot of shit about how we need to protect our children, well this is a piss poor example of it. My son's parental right are already established. To you smart ass's out there maybe some day something like this will happen to you. Then lets see how amused you will be.

Are any of you a lawyer or of some kind of legal back ground?

---

What an absolute delight you are!

This is actually none of your legal business. Send your equally delightful offspring here to ask his questions if he wants answers. You're not helping him.

If your son was so concerned about mom's choice of babysitter, he should have gone to court and sought full custody or at least shared custody long before this. Until there are court orders, mom has every right to leave the child with a babysitter and dad has no inherent legal right to forcibly remove the child from the sitter's home. If he had a concern for the child at that time, the proper course of action would have been to call the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

You know what I think, that the day a career criminal has more rights than a father or grandfather does just because a stupid ass mother says so is the day I realize how bad the country has gone to hell. I don't see how my son has no legal rights to his son. Many people talk a lot of shit about how we need to protect our children, well this is a piss poor example of it. My son's parental right are already established. To you smart ass's out there maybe some day something like this will happen to you. Then lets see how amused you will be.

Are any of you a lawyer or of some kind of legal back ground?

---

Why don't you read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. No one cares what YOU think. Your son has ZERO LEGAL RIGHTS to that child because YOUR SON is a moron who didn't go to court and establish his rights. When an unmarried woman has a child SHE has full rights to that child SHE gave birth to. When men can start giving birth they will start out with all the rights until the mother establishes hers. Until then deal with the way the law works.

No they are not established. How are they established? This is what you said: "Young couple together for 9 years but never married.They have a 6 year old son. The couple separates and goes different ways but are still working together for the care of the child. There has been no court involvement, no custody ruling. No history of negligence or abuse of any kind." If there is NO court involvement and NO custody ruling then your son has NO PARENTAL RIGHTS!!!!!! Unmarried couple. No court involvement. Google it moron.

Oh you're a real peach. Wishing bad things on people. I sure hope you don't talk like this around your grandson because if you do and it comes up in court whenever one of those two go it's going to hurt your son. That "stupid ass mother" is the mother of your grandson whether you like it or not. It's unfortunate your grandson has a "stupid ass" grandfather though.

Tell your son to come on here and ask questions. Because you have none.

"In Florida, paternity must be established by court order. A DNA test may be ordered at the request of either the mother, the alleged father, or by the court. With paternity legally established, then the unmarried biological father will enjoy all the legal rights entitled to him including custody and visitation rights." If your son hasn't done this then he has no rights.

Also you have no rights: "While some states have, in the past, given grandparents some ability to ask the court for visitation rights, Florida has traditionally been hesitant to grant a grandparent visitation rights, especially when one or both parents do not want a grandparent to see their child"

Do grandparents have visitation or custody rights in Florida? "YES but only if: Both parents are deceased, missing, or in a persistent vegetative state OR one parent is deceased, missing, or in a vegetative state AND the other parent has been convicted of a felony or an offense of violence evincing behavior that poses a substantial threat of harm to the minor child’s health or welfare. IF there is one parent who is around and not a violent felon, grandparents have no rights to visitation. "

Is the mother dead? Nope. Is your son dead or in a coma and the mother a felon? Nope. So then you have zero ****ing rights to visitation or anything. Bye bye.

Minor correction.

While the laws are still technically on the books in FL, the FL Supreme Court has long since decided that their GPV laws were unconstitutional and they have never been satisfactorily rewritten.

GPs have more luck in WA ... and we don't DO GPV here ;) We're the home of Troxel!

You know what dogmatique, you can kiss my ass, the purpose of a forum is to get help from people that know about things you don't know. It's not a place where you can find people to prey on at a time when their life has gone to shit. Now are you a legal expert of any kind or just a big mouth?

She had just left him a couple weeks before for this new boyfriend, appointments were already made to establish child support.

Ok your an ass hole, the purpose of a forum is to get help not insults and be called names. Like any story of this nature its very involved. I just asked some basic questions to get an idea where we stand. I find it hard to believe that our laws are so distorted that they go against all moral beliefs. He had arranged for them to be married several years ago shortly after the baby was born then he found out she was having an affair with a co worker. He wanted to marry her before the birth but she insisted on a million dollar wedding. He told her she would have to wait till it all could be paid for then.

What he may have wanted to do is different than what he is allowed to do under the law. He needed to establish paternity and go to court to establish custody and visitation. There was time to do all of that and he apparently chose not to do so. The authorities cannot magically discern who is related to a child. The legal relationships must be established under the law. Absent a court order permitting him to take certain actions (like removing a child from the person the mother had sought to take care of the child) he can be criminally charged for his actions. I suspect he got carried away with his emotions or frustrations, and took an ill-advised and rash action. That is why he is now in trouble with the law.

He can still establish his paternity and work to seek at least visitation. It may be more difficult now, but, it should be possible. he - and you - need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and do things the right way or your son may be forever forbidden from coming anywhere near the child.

If she had an affair before the birth of the child and is a known cheater he should insist upon a dna test. Even if the child looks exactly like him, he should insist.

Even if she wasnt a cheater, he should insist on a dna test

Quote:

---

Quoting readytoleave

---

If she had an affair before the birth of the child and is a known cheater he should insist upon a dna test. Even if the child looks exactly like him, he should insist.

Even if she wasnt a cheater, he should insist on a dna test

---

Well, if he did not acknowledge paternity at the hospital a DNA test will be required by the courts to prove his paternity.

If he did acknowledge paternity at the hospital and wants to remain dad no matter what, then perhaps he should NOT insist on a DNA test.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Well, if he did not acknowledge paternity at the hospital a DNA test will be required by the courts to prove his paternity.

If he did acknowledge paternity at the hospital and wants to remain dad no matter what, then perhaps he should NOT insist on a DNA test.

---

Excellent point! ��

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

... There has been no court involvement, no custody ruling. No history of negligence or abuse of any kind." If there is NO court involvement and NO custody ruling then your son has NO PARENTAL RIGHTS!!!!!! Unmarried couple. No court involvement...

---

OP is now insisting in one of his other threads that the courts have declared his son to be the legal father yadda yadda.

Thank you cdwjava, you answered my question about his right at the time of this incident. There has never been any denial of my son being the father by the mother just that by law she can transfer that right to anyone she wants. I can't believe it myself, blood relation once created should not be able to be stripped by law. Then it darn well shouldn't be handed to any piece of crap that wanders into the picture. may be the law but not right.

The affair was just before the wedding, child was an infant at that time. my son tried to marry her before the birth but she wanted a wedding the cost a years salary so they were paying for the rings and saving for it to come later.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

Thank you cdwjava, you answered my question about his right at the time of this incident. There has never been any denial of my son being the father by the mother just that by law she can transfer that right to anyone she wants. I can't believe it myself, blood relation once created should not be able to be stripped by law. Then it darn well shouldn't be handed to any piece of crap that wanders into the picture. may be the law but not right.

The affair was just before the wedding, child was an infant at that time. my son tried to marry her before the birth but she wanted a wedding the cost a years salary so they were paying for the rings and saving for it to come later.

---

If you think that the law allows the mother to strip the legal father of his rights and transfer them to someone else, then you have misunderstood what you have been told. If you think that mom, as the only custodial parent stripped dad of his rights by leaving the child with a babysitter, then you do not understand how the law works.

As I said in your other thread, I am beginning to form the opinion that you are the one who riled dad up about the babysitter and then led the "posse" to go snatch the child. I think that all of this righteous indignation on your part is because you feel guilty for getting your son in trouble. You certainly didn't act as his father in this instance, or you would have counselled your son not to go there.

No one "stripped" the father's rights from him. He had never established those rights under the law. The law presumes a legal husband is the father of a child, not a boyfriend. He should have followed the legal process to assert his rights, and I am sure he had ample time to do so. For whatever reason he apparently chose not to avail himself of the legal options until it was too late. It now appears he is paying for that mistake.

Please clarify one last time.

Did your son establish his paternity of the child legally? Did he sign an Acknowledgment of paternity when the child was born? Is he on the birth certificate?

Ok the problem is time line. I have been asked all kinds of questions and the time line isn't established. At the time of this incident they had only been separated about a month. They already had a hearing scheduled for custody and support. Lets evaluate this now from the law view at this instant. There is a child involved. They know there has got to be a father somewhere, she couldn't do it by herself. The mother stated to the officer and its in her statement that my son is the father. At this point why would they not accept that. Her word is strong enough to hand the rights to the boyfriend but not strong enough to trust who she says is the father? If she was denning him as the father I could understand the whole problem but she isn't. They have since then had their court date and he was ruled as the father by the state.

She is not handing over rights to her boyfriend. She as a parent is having someone watch her son. Just like your son could have you watch his son during his parenting time. But at the time of the incident, it was not established in the COURTS that he was the father, and there was no visitation set up.

The sad part of this is not that your son has lost any rights, because he hasn't. The sad part it that the relationship between him and the child's mother is so volatile that it needs to come to this point. Dad should have been a grown up and called mom and asked if he could take the child. If she said no, he should have just left it at that and waited for Court. That's what grown ups do. He CANNOT just go to the child's house and cause an altercation. Mom has a right to chose babysitters during her time. Your son has a right to choose babysitters during his parenting time once it is established in COURT. Your son, and the child's mother, DO NOT get to tromp all over each others parenting time just because they don't like each others decisions.

The reason the courts need to be involved in the first place is because Mom and Dad are too childish and emotional to work things out on their own. EVERYONE, and especially you since you aren't really a party to any of this legally, needs to calm down. And just food for thought. The child is six. Dad KNEW there was going to be an altercation when he went to pick up the child without mom's permission. He couldn't possibly think the guy was just going to hand over the kid, which is why he brought you as back up to witness it. In all of this, did ANYONE think about what it would do to the child to witness an altercation like this? Did anyone think, "Man, maybe we shouldn't do this because we don't want Junior to possibly see Dad get into a fight?" None of you are thinking about the child at all.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

Ok the problem is time line. I have been asked all kinds of questions and the time line isn't established. At the time of this incident they had only been separated about a month. They already had a hearing scheduled for custody and support. Lets evaluate this now from the law view at this instant. There is a child involved. They know there has got to be a father somewhere, she couldn't do it by herself. The mother stated to the officer and its in her statement that my son is the father. At this point why would they not accept that. Her word is strong enough to hand the rights to the boyfriend but not strong enough to trust who she says is the father? If she was denning him as the father I could understand the whole problem but she isn't. They have since then had their court date and he was ruled as the father by the state.

---

She did not hand any rights to the boyfriend. She had the right to have someone babysit the child and therefore had the right to have her boyfriend be the babysitter. An unwed father has no custody rights until a court establishes those custody rights. A husband does, but an unwed father does not.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

You know what dogmatique, you can kiss my ass, the purpose of a forum is to get help from people that know about things you don't know. It's not a place where you can find people to prey on at a time when their life has gone to shit. Now are you a legal expert of any kind or just a big mouth?

She had just left him a couple weeks before for this new boyfriend, appointments were already made to establish child support.

Ok your an ass hole, the purpose of a forum is to get help not insults and be called names. Like any story of this nature its very involved. I just asked some basic questions to get an idea where we stand. I find it hard to believe that our laws are so distorted that they go against all moral beliefs. He had arranged for them to be married several years ago shortly after the baby was born then he found out she was having an affair with a co worker. He wanted to marry her before the birth but she insisted on a million dollar wedding. He told her she would have to wait till it all could be paid for then.

---

Easy there trigger. Here since you can't read the disclaimer I'll post it for you: "Notice: Information provided in the forum is not intended to substitute for professional advice, including but not limited to professional legal advice. If you submit a question or comment it is assumed that you are interested in soliciting, receiving or giving general information and not legal advice. Laws vary by state, and the laws described in this forum may be different in your state or may have been changed since the information was posted. The legal help offered in this forum comes from volunteers who may not have any formal legal training or knowledge, and all information should be confirmed with a qualified legal professional. All information is made available on an "as is" basis. You should accept legal advice only from a licensed legal professional with whom you have an attorney-client relationship. Use of this forum is subject to the ExpertLaw terms of use."

The only asshole on this forum is you. YOU have NO RIGHTS in this story. YOU are no one in this story. Tell your son if he wants help he can come on here himself and get it. How are the laws going against "moral belief?" The law is pretty clear. UNMARRIED mothers have all the rights because it's 100% clear who the mother is. The mother gave birth to the child. So it's pretty obvious who the mother is. The father - not so much. Now if a couple is married then the husband has equal rights whether he is the biological father or not.

Yes I'm sure she wanted "a million dollar wedding." Smh. It doesn't ****ing matter about that. They did NOT get married when the child was born so therefore he has to ESTABLISH his paternity in court. I'm not sure why you don't seem to comprehend this. It's pretty simple.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

Thank you cdwjava, you answered my question about his right at the time of this incident. There has never been any denial of my son being the father by the mother just that by law she can transfer that right to anyone she wants. I can't believe it myself, blood relation once created should not be able to be stripped by law. Then it darn well shouldn't be handed to any piece of crap that wanders into the picture. may be the law but not right.

The affair was just before the wedding, child was an infant at that time. my son tried to marry her before the birth but she wanted a wedding the cost a years salary so they were paying for the rings and saving for it to come later.

---

He told you the same thing everyone else told you. No she cannot "transfer" any parental rights to anyone. You're a moron. She isn't giving this boyfriend "rights' to her kid. She simply allowed him to babysit. SHE has the rights. Your son has none. YOU said there has been NO court involvement. So now you're going to change your story? If he did not get a DNA test and establish his paternity he has no rights.

No one cares about the wedding. It has nothing to do with this. They were not married before the birth or at the time of the birth of the child. So it doesn't matter why they didn't. You need to just step the hell out of your son's life before you screw up everything for him.

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

Ok the problem is time line. I have been asked all kinds of questions and the time line isn't established. At the time of this incident they had only been separated about a month. They already had a hearing scheduled for custody and support. Lets evaluate this now from the law view at this instant. There is a child involved. They know there has got to be a father somewhere, she couldn't do it by herself. The mother stated to the officer and its in her statement that my son is the father. At this point why would they not accept that. Her word is strong enough to hand the rights to the boyfriend but not strong enough to trust who she says is the father? If she was denning him as the father I could understand the whole problem but she isn't. They have since then had their court date and he was ruled as the father by the state.

---

You are completely ignorant. Look carefully at the words you wrote: They have a hearing SCHEDULED. But they have yet to have the hearing right? So at the time you led your little posse to go kidnap the child did he have his rights established yes or no?

Yes the court knows there is a father but they have to establish someone as the father when the mother is unmarried. It's obvious who the mother is right? So she gets all the rights at birth. Are you following along? How did she "hand over rights" to the boyfriend???? She did NOT! She let her boyfriend BABYSIT her son.

So now he has been established the father. So he has a court ordered visitation schedule? Child support? Okay so now if it's his day to go pick up his son and the boyfriend refuses, the boyfriend gets in trouble. BUT before this, that day you riled up your son, he had NO RIGHTS ON THAT DAY! Do you get it now or do you need pictures?

Quote:

---

Quoting yoder440

---

You know what dogmatique, you can kiss my ass, the purpose of a forum is to get help from people that know about things you don't know. It's not a place where you can find people to prey on at a time when their life has gone to shit. Now are you a legal expert of any kind or just a big mouth?

She had just left him a couple weeks before for this new boyfriend, appointments were already made to establish child support.

Ok your an ass hole, the purpose of a forum is to get help not insults and be called names. Like any story of this nature its very involved. I just asked some basic questions to get an idea where we stand. I find it hard to believe that our laws are so distorted that they go against all moral beliefs. He had arranged for them to be married several years ago shortly after the baby was born then he found out she was having an affair with a co worker. He wanted to marry her before the birth but she insisted on a million dollar wedding. He told her she would have to wait till it all could be paid for then.

---

Apples and trees.

You're welcome. :cool:

(And I'm pretty sure Outraged Grandparent is actually "talking" to someone else, but that's fine - I'll take one for the team. I kinda do that from time to time. Happy New Year!)

As this has been splashed over a few different threads I'll cover my responses only in this one.

You've made contradictory statements regarding whether or not your son has gone to court to have himself declared the father. Either he has or he has not. If he has he can move on to step two.

You've made contradictory statements regarding whether or not your son has gone to court to establish a visitation plan (CS is irrelevant to visitation). If he hasn't been party to a court order regarding visitation, custody and a mess of other possible clauses then he has no rights pertaining to the child. IF he does have a court ordered plan then that covers right of first refusal then he may have some ground to stand on until said violence ensued.

See? It's really quite simple. If there is no court order with a clause covering the right of first refusal then your son and you are trying to kidnap a child, by force, and damaging someone else's property and committing assault to accomplish those aims.

Criminals have the same rights as you and I, excepting the ability of own firearms or vote (one that I take issue with). Given that you and/or your son allegedly participated in a crime, your tangled threads are unclear as to the level of your participation, you may feel differently, soon as to those rights.

If you believe that a deputy with the sheriff's department is a good place to seek legal advice you are sorely mistaken. Generally they are prohibited from providing such and , generally, the will not participate in retrieving a child during a custody dispute, even one with a court order, as it's a civil dispute. If there is a court order they may aid but not always, the police have some discretion.

You've been unclear as to whether you son has been arrested or charged. Has he?

You stated that your son now has a custody order AFTER this fracas. If was after (if he really got one, your statements about so many other things are suspect so why not this one as well?) then it doesn't matter it's not retroactive.

My personal commentary is that you are behaving as an ass. If you treat people the way that you have treated members of this forum then you must've have had a problem or two in a bar after one to many appletinis, of course you'd probably never go to a bar such as that (even though they are the best kind). You've egged your son into a criminal problem, believe that you rank higher than an ex con, and, because no one here thinks you're in the right or are incensed on your behalf, that no one here knows what they're talking about. If you can't be more civil and stop the name calling then perhaps you should go back to playing with blocks in short pants.