I Have Not Seen My Daughter in 19 Days - Father is Holding Her from Me

[aardvarc]

I have acknowledged to dss that he was the father. At the hospital he did not sign the birth certificate but he told me that he had went to dss and signed it but I was not there so I cannot say for sure.

So if mom declared him the father to DSS, and he has supposedly declared himself same with DSS, then for all PRACTICAL purposes, he's the father, and if mom willingly handed over the child to the legal father without the benefit of the protections of a visitation order, she's about to find out the long, painful, and likely expensive way that court orders protect EVERYONE, and that without them, there is nothing established about which to ask for enforcement. In states and situations where the parents have prima facie equal rights regarding the child, it amounts to possession being not just 9/10ths, but 10/10ths of the law - and now that mom has handed over the child, she's in a position with no way, short of a court's order, to make dad give the child BACK. And, every day that goes by with the child supposedly doing ok under dad's care is another day of "history" in favor of dad's argument that the child should remain with him.

So mom, get moving. Speak to an attorney, and get motions for custody/visitation filed ASAP.

[Mr. Knowitall]

North Carolina Legal Aid offers a "file it yourself" custody packet.

[tex11]

In North Carolina, once paternity is established an unmarried father has the same rights as a married father. If she tells the police what she told us: that the father is in fact the father, that she doesn't know whether paternity was established, and that she's acquiesced to his custody for three weeks, they should be telling her to go to court. The police shouldn't be treated as a "Hail Mary" solution for parents who don't take the necessary steps to establish and protect their rights. If paternity has been established, you would be advising her to do to the father exactly what she's complaining that he's doing to her.

DSS is open. If mom wants to know if dad established his paternity, it is easy enough for her to find out. Everything else flows from there.

I suggested going to the police is a viable option that may or may not work. And while one may argue the way things SHOULD be, one cannot affirmatively claim calling the police as a "Hail Mary" play in this instance will NOT work.

And even if it does not, the police report will serve as a RECORD that the mother indeed filed a complaint and did NOT acquiesce to the father taking the child. So either way there is arguably a benefit of contacting the police in this matter.

The father refusing to allow the mother any contact whatsoever with her child in three weeks is a clear showing of BAD FAITH that will be hard to overcome, and will negate any custody advantage gained as a result. Even less so if he argues to the judge he took the child because he did not approve of the new boryfriend as suggested here, or if any of his threats of violence are credible.

Any yes, if the police are able to retrieve the child, it will be essentially be doing the same things as she complains the father has done. But as already noted by aardvark, possession is 10/10th of the law.

However, before calling the police mother should contact DSS to establish whether or not paternity has been established. In these types of cases, many fathers tend to neglect this little detail until it is too late, and this neglect often stems from an unwillingness to volunteer to pay child support. If DSS confirms paternity has not been established, it will make mom's job much easier to have police intervene in this matter.

[Mr. Knowitall]

You threw out an idea of what "could work", and I elaborated on why there is more to consider than "Try anything that could theoretically work."

A complaint to the police three weeks after-the-fact does not establish that mom didn't acquiesce to dad's taking custody, and it's hearsay so its not admissible in court.

You specifically recommended that mom get the kid and shut dad out, so if your position is that your recommendation would demonstrate "a clear showing of BAD FAITH that will be hard to overcome, and will negate any custody advantage gained as a result", that's something for her to consider. (You need to make up your mind as to whether we are talking about "a clear showing of bad faith" that will undermine a custody claim or "Possession is 10/10ths of the law".) To be clear, unlike you, I did not speak in favor of that type of conduct by either parent. They should be seeking a custody and visitation order.

I appreciate that, by the end of your screed, you recognized the importance of determining the facts before trying to bring in the police.

[df04527]

Police here have a favorite saying: It's a civil matter. They say this until a court order is in their hands. Then they still aren't too eager to get involved as long as child is not in immediate danger, and they will check that.

[aardvarc]

That's correct, and it's not just there....it's really EVERYWHERE. Until there's a court order, it IS a civil matter. Once a court has made an order, then the court's enforcement arm, in the form of the sheriff and the sheriff's deputies, have directions from the court on what should be happening regarding the parties to the order. Without that order, nada. And since the courts have their own law enforcement personnel (the sheriff), city police can be reluctant to get involved in the process, preferring to allow the sheriff's office to do the job they are obligated to do on behalf of the court.