Can the mother of my child make it so that my parents cannot pick up my child for the time till I get home from work? Court order states that I get him for a mid week visit.

can the mother of my child make it so that my parents cannot pick up my child for the time till i get home from work? court order states that i get him for a mid week visit.
No!!

You may designate a responsible adult to pick up your child.

But, if the child is in a daycare, you may have to show them the custody agreement (signed by a judge) and your right to designate a competent adult.

But, check if you agreed to something differently that overrides this - in the custody agreement.

But, your designated adult cannot pick up the child earlier than the time noted on the agreement.

And you can even designate your girlfriend.

Mary

Well I may disagree, you may have to go back to court and get them approved to pick up the child. It is your visits, not their visits that are court ordered

I disagree with F Ch's answer. Check your court order. Most standard custody agreements provide for the ability to designate an adult. There is no way that a parent can always pick up a child, that is why this is allowed by the court.

I agree with Mary... the visitation is your time... she cannot control "your" time. As Mary said, a designated adult (especially a member of your family) should be allowed to pick up your child if you are unable to do so. Just the same, if you had you child for visitation you are entitled to (if you need to) have that child in a daycare, or in the care of your family.
If she is refusing, you can file contempt of court.

I agree with Mary....the visitation is your time....she cannot control "your" time. As Mary said, a designated adult (especially a memeber of your family) should be allowed to pick up your child if you are unable to do so. Just the same, if you had you child for visitation you are entitled to (if you need to) have that child in a daycare, or in the care of your family.
If she is refusing, you can file contempt of court.
Bows! You are right-the visitation is HIS time... not his parents'time. It is lawful for her to refuse "grand parents picking up" unless it was designated previously.Fr_Chuck is right!!

I disagree with GVT0:
Look under GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS in your order and check for
"Designation of Competent Adult -- Each conservator may designate any competent adult to pick up and return child, as applicable. IT IS ORDERED that a conservator or a desigated competent adult be present when the child is picked up or returned."

Unless there is an "Except as otherwise explicitly provided in this Possession Order..."

Be sure you have a standard order and let me know what you find. I don't see the court's reasoning in not letting you choose someone else unless you had agreed to it.

Be sure you have a standard order and let me know what you find. I don't see the court's reasoning in not letting you choose someone else unless you had agreed to it.

I side with Chuck and GV here. I think, Mary, that you are assuming that there is a "standard" order. In my experience, while there may be a RECOMMENDED form for a visitation order, the final result is far from standard.

The bottomline here is that austin needs to read the visitation order carefully. It may very well state that he can designate someone to pick up the child. If it does then the mother can't refuse. However if it doesn't give that right, them the mother can refuse. IN that case, he needs to go back and petition the court to modify the visitation order, or pick the kid up himself.

As to the court's reasoning, what if the grand parents have tried to poison the child's mind against the mother? What if there is a problematic family history on the father's side. I can see many reasons the court would limit who can pick up the child.

I disagree with GVT0:
And I disagree with you .Please read first:

court order states that i get him for a mid week visit.
I cannot see "I or designated of me member of my family get him for a mid week visit."
It is possible the visitation order not to be a standard order.And many orders are NOT standard orders.

It does depend on the state though. Here in California as long as the person is over 18, licensed, insured and considered a competent adult it is implied in our orders (unless otherwise specifically stated so) that someone other than the parent can pick up the child. In fact, unless you had a really good reason the court would get mad for a parent to deny the other their parenting time because they didn't like who was picking up the child. And if you went onto court saying I want to designate that only dad can pick my child up the Court would be REAL unhappy, it would be considered a waste of court time for a trivial matter.

The best answer I think Austin, is to simply call an attorney in your area and ask. I am sure there are plenty of attorneys who would answer that simple question for you over the phone free of charge. And let us know, everyone likes to find out these types of answers.

Thanks Tawnykids. Mary

Tawny/without the second N -I often miss it:D /,

What about if a person comes and says to the mother"I am a friend of the neighbour of a co-worker's girlfriend's uncle of the father but I am over 18 ,I am licenced,insured and considered a competent adult and you must give me the children".. I had a similar to this case.The mother said that she would not allow the grandparents to pick up the children because they spent the time with children during their FATHER'S time.Also she stated that the grandparents had negative impacts on the children .
She can refuse the grand parents to pick the children up.But you are mistaken.Not she,THE FATHER HAS TO GO TO COURT!If the mother acts as a case above the father and his parents have to defend themselves.We do not know Austin's case in every detail but it is possible for the court to decide that it is not parenting time because it likes to be a grandparent visitation.
Second:Let us immagine that a man has mid-week parnting time from 4 to 8pm but he works from 9 am to 6 pm and he can see his children at 7 pm... Is it parenting time when the children spend 3/4 of the time with their grandparents? I believe you will understand me.:) :)

OK GV70 not just any random person, the father would have to say "hey so and so is going to pick up what's his name for me". And yes, it would be expected that it is someone the child is familiar with and feels safe with. I am sorry but the courts here simply don't care if grandma is taking care of the child until dad gets there. As my lawyer put it "he has a right to his visitation time and yes that will include the kids being with a sitter when he can't be with them". As there are 50/50 time shares it is clear the children will spend time away from both parents in someone else's care. And that is how the court views it.

And no sorry dad doesn't have to go to court to ask if he is allowed to have someone else pick up the kids for him. Like I said though I am only speaking of here. And yes I do know of this to be fact as I have been through it and asked the lawyer. They don't care if the girlfriend or grandma comes to get the kids, and if you want to designate that only the parent can pick up the children you have to ask for it in the court order, there is even a special little place for it on the form, it is not implied.

If dad is never spending time with the kids but rather someone else is than that can be something mom could go to court for, given that she has actual proof because dad will just say it isn't true mom will say it is.

HOWEVER, aside from your "what ifs" I did say that this was the case in California. But I did tell him he needs to check with a lawyer in his area to be sure of what is allowed for him specifically.

And no sorry dad doesn't have to go to court to ask if he is allowed to have someone else pick up the kids for him.
Right, but... if he is ALLOWED...



If dad is never spending time with the kids but rather someone else is than that can be something mom could go to court for, given that she has actual proof because dad will just say it isn't true mom will say it is.

No need... it is more than enough not to allow grandparents to pick up the child

HOWEVER, aside from your "what ifs" I did say that this was the case in California. But I did tell him he needs to check with a lawyer in his area to be sure of what is allowed for him specifically.
Good idea... but I think he has to open the case not she because he has problems.:)

I don't think any of us is really disagreeing with the others. I think the problem here is that some are talking absolutes where no absolutes exist.

OK, in CA, it may be implied that the non custodial parent can designate someone else to pick up the child. That may not be the case where Austin lives.

And what would happen if, in CA, the custodial parent refused to turn over the child to anyone but the non-custodial parent? Could the designated person call the police and show them their authorization and the court ordered visitation. Would the police then order the hand over of the child? Or would the more likely scenario be that the police would tell the designated person to have the non custodial parent take the custodial parent to court? I think the police would tell them to go to court. Now it may be likely that the court will uphold the non-custodial parent's ability to designate someone. But that just jives with what GV and I have said. That the custodial parent has the right to refuse to hand the child over to anyone that the court has not specifically designated that she must hand them over to.

I am not speaking in absolutes. And yes there are exceptions to everything. So I am not saying this would be the case for him just that it could be. I can only to speak to what would be the norm here in California. Because I have custody orders, I can only speak to personal experience, and I have asked my lawyer about this specifically because I was afraid that in the event my ex had to take a trip on business during his weekend that Grandma would come pick up our kids and they would spend the weekend with grandparents rather than with dad. I was told he very well might and that was his option. As long as I was notified in advance that someone else would be picking the kids up by dad then there was nothing I could do about it. And that if I didn't cooperate the Court would only hold it against me for "frustrating his visitation" and I would be viewed as the person who isn't supportive of the parent-child relationship.

My ex sister in law wanted to be able to deny dad to have his girlfriend come get the kids for his weekend, same thing, she was told he could designate anyone he wants. On the same hand, dad didn't want to be told to drop the kids of with her mom (grandma) when it was time to return the kids and again he had to. Now just to clarify, there is nothing in our orders about who has to/is/is not allowed to pick up the kids.

I don't believe the police would order the child to handed over in any state. Here and in another state I had to ask the police to assist in picking up my child and was told they would "ride along to assist" but that they couldn't "order"/make him do anything (and I am the parent not a designated person). They said if he refused I would have to go to court or speak to my lawyer to enforce it. They will ask that the parents cooperate with the order but other than that their advice is to go to court. They did say my other option was that if I felt the children were actually being concealed from me that I could press charges for child abduction and they would file a report to begin pressing charges (extreme).

I am not sharing this to argue, but because I always like to know information about how different states handle custody issues. And having gone to co-custody classes these were the same stories/complaints I heard over and over and over again. So just sharing information.

Anyway, these were true for me. In other states maybe they are allowed to withhold the kids when not being picked up by the parent themselves. And of course you don't need permission to file an action against someone in court. So he could easily file to try to get the court to allow him to designate someone else to pick up his kid and enforce his visitation. But the chances are unless mom has a real good reason, she is likely going to get in trouble for not allowing a reasonable request. The Court will likely see his employment being a legitimate reason for needing to designate someone else (especially another member of his own family not some random stranger) to pick up his child and sit with them until he gets off work. And probably at the very least modify the visitation time to work better with his work schedule. But if it's anything like here she could actually get sanctioned for forcing him to bring the action against her.

Again, I was just speaking on personal experience and how differently the courts do view things. Reading form what I wrote maybe it would be enough for him to call her and say hey look I need my mom to pick up our child until I get off work, if you won't agree to that than I may just have to file in court for frustration of visitation and I will be asking for lawyer fees for having to do this. Is she is just be a pissy mom who likes to make things difficult maybe she will think twice, if she has a valid concern for not cooperating then it should probably go to court anyway. Either way, a lawyers advice would be best for him.

Tawny,
I'm afraid you ARE talking absolutes. You are saying that this is what YOU were told was the way things were done in YOUR state. That's what I mean by talking absolutes.


I don't believe the police would order the child to handed over in any state. Here and in another state I had to ask the police to assist in picking up my child and was told they would "ride along to assist" but that they couldn't "order"/make him do anything

This is what I (and I believe GV70) are saying. Without a court ruling the parent CAN refuse to hand over the child. The police are not going to force it
Unless specifically ordered to do so by a court. That's all we are saying.

Your information and experience are that, in CA, the court will allow the non custodial parent to designate someone. GV70 and I are saying, there there may be instances where the court (maybe not in CA) will uphold the custodial parent's decision to not turn the kid over to someone else.

Wow-I found a case in California... Stevens v.Johnson/LA 2005
The mother refused to allow her two children to spend their father's time in the summer with their step-mother and step-siblings/ that time the father was abroad/.The court uphold mother's decision and asserted that "the step-mother does not have any custody rights" and in this way "she is not entitled to parenting time".And this happened notwithstanding that the step-mother was over 18, licensed, insured and considered a competent adult and she was DESIGNATED with a notarized letter/signed by the father/ to pick up the children .

That's the edge.If a child spends his/her parenting time not with the parent but with a DESIGNATED person the court has to decide whether to change the visitation plan or to cut visitation.

wow-I found a case in California...Stevens v.Johnson/LA 2005


I don't think that proves the contention because in that case, the father was away for the summer so would not be spending any time with the child. Had the father been home, even though he might be out working during the day, the judge would probably have ruled differently.

The issue here is whether a custodial parent can refuse to hand over the child for a scheduled visitation to someone designated by the non custodial parent to pick up the child to bring them to where the non-custodiail parent will eventually be.

As I've stated, unless a court order specially names the designated person, then the custodial parent can refuse. They might (probably will) have their decision overturned by the court, except if the designated person is proven to be a danger to the child.

Scott-legally it is same... if Austin's child does not spend his/her midweek father's time with his/her father and spend this time with grandparents.

Scott-legally it is same...if Austin's child does not spend his/her midweek father's time with his/her father and spend this time with grandparents.

But that wasn't the question. The question was whether his parents could pick up the child instead of waiting for him to get off work. I'm assuming the pick up time was like 3 or 4 PM and Austin works until 5 so, rather then waiting until he gets off work, he wanted his parents to pick up the child so they would be there when he gets home.

The case could be made that the grandparents were using Austin's visitation time instead of him and that might be upheld. That would mean either the visitation time should be made later or Austin takes off work.

You are right. We all theorize this case because there is lack of information.

GV70 and ScottG,
The Stevens case is not similar, I believe to this one here. The Stevens case denotes summer visitation. Summer visitation schedules require written notification or default specifications on the order for summer.

You are both reading more into this than necessary. Designation of the person WOULD NOT REPLACE THE PARENT VISITING THE CHILD (usually not the primary conservator); designation refers to someone other than the parent TO PICK UP THE CHILD.

If a parent denies visitation, the judge will get very upset. Judges do not like denied visitation -- and it is very difficult to prove imminent danger, drugs or the like. Even so, law enforcement does not like to get involved in the visitation schedule that parents have. By theory, law enforcement should help, but they really don't want to get involved. They will label it a Civil Matter.

I know because I have had two marriages and dealt with designation of adults and denied visitation as well as having spent $ 20, 000 in visitation issues. I also have a law degree.

Now all this is Texas law. CA, I believe is in the minority in their case law. Also, the family code in that state would need to be researched.

It is not worth denying visitation and pissing off a judge and risking contempt--mom's doing. I would advise him to talk to the mom and try to work out something. Money is all this will cost. Contempt may not even happen unless it is a chronic issue on her part.

But I agree with Tawny. Judges do not like these nit picky problems about who can pick up Johnny. It is presumed that the visiting parent is responsible enough to designate a responsible human being to pick up the child.

Mary,
If you read my responses you will see I do not disagree with you about the Stevens case. Nor am I disagreeing that a judge will not like the nit-picking about designating someone to pick up a child to bring them to a scheduled visitation.

But we are dealing with legal facts here. And I believe the fact is that absent a court order allowing the ncp to specify someone else to pick up the child, the cp can refuse the hand over the child to somoen other than the ncp. This would then require the ncp to go to court and force the issue or the cp to show sufficient cause why the designated person should not be allowed to pick up the child.

In all probability the court will side with the ncp, but that wasn't the question.

Oh and where is your admission that you are wrong about relinquishment and child support?

I don't have to answer to your that I was wrong about relinquishment. Who are you? I don't owe you any explanation for anything -- including an answer I had for someone else.


As far as this issue is concerned, I did answer the question. I think you and Scott are just reading more into this than necessary.

We don't even know what the standard order is in Austin's state. You're assumption are too illogical. My conclusions are based on stardard common law and even standard statutory law. Find a family code and read the definitions included in a possessory order for visitation rights on behalf of custodial parents.

This is only standard, of course Austin's order may read differently. As Tawny noted earlier, there are exceptions and this is only a pick up issue, standard order style. You are just distorted everything and assuming facts yourself.

Sorry but you do have to answer, just as I would have to answer if someone questioned the accuracy of my statements. And if someone can show that I had made an error then I would be quick to acknowledge that error.

As I said, we have been over this before. Your statement that a parent could get out of child support by relinquishing their parental rights was, to my knowledge, incorrect. Relinquishment alone does not relieve them of the responsibility for support. GV70 asked you to cite any statute or case law that supports your statement. Either do so or recant.

You seem to be confused about who you are replying to. You also seem to think there a lot more standards than there are. If you can cite me a statute or even case law where the CP cannot refuse to hand over the child to someone other than the NCP without a court order, then I will be happy to acknowledge I'm wrong.

"Sorry, but you have to answer"? I find your threats to be offensive. I will not cite any statutes for you or disclose the circumstances involving my termination of parental rights. You are not the person I chose to address this with.

For the present issue, I already answered your questions about citations of case law or statutory law:

Read the Family Code (statutory law) in the state where the child has jurisdiction and read the definitions found in the code defining the legal terms. Legal terms are also found in the order agreed to by the parties.

I made no threats. I simply stated a fact of how this and sites like it work. Its called put up or shut up. If you are going to make a statement, then you better be able to back that statement up or recant. Otherwise, you will look foolish and your credibility damaged.

I take your refusal to backup your claims as a tacit admission that you can't because the cites don't exist.

As for the case here, I have researched the issue and can find nothing to back up your claims. So unless you can cite some specific "Family Code" or other statute that states that a CP has to turn over a child to a designated person for pickup if that person is not defined in the visitation order, then I will continue to be right and you wrong.

We care about the quality of the advice we give here. If people are sloippy about accuracy, they will be called out on it.

ScottGem: Termination in Texas need not be accompanied by an adoption; Child support duties are relinquished:
Texas Family Code:
Section 161.005 Termination When Parent is Petitioner:... "if in best interest of the child."

Section 161.103 Affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights "(c) affidavit MAY contain waiver of process ... or in a suit to terminate joined with a petition for adoption,"

Section 161.206 Order Termination Parental Rights "(b) Except as provided by Section 161.2061, (includes terms for post-termination biological parent contact), an order terminating the parent child relationship divests the parent and the child of all legal rights and duties (which includes child support).

Case by case decisions-- any lawyer may argue case law, and public policy does not advocate this, but it is possible. Don't call me a liar. And I suggest that you stop acting like you know everything with your arrogant attitude.

You can predict what will happen in a court room, but it all depends on your burden of proof and a good lawyer.

We care about the quality of advice? Your quality of advice is arrogant and dismissive of those who disagree with you. You don't care about those on this site who genuinely want to help others, you just want to flaunt you so called "knowledge."

This does not pertain to you, and I do consider you a bully on this website. Don't tell me to put up or shut up. I suggest you learn to deal with others who disagree with you and leave those of us alone who refuse to qualify our answers. Dude. Get real. This is an opinionated site, not a legal forum. But I guess since you charge people for advice, you would want to know everything you can to add to your list of chargeables.

And I find your posts to be rude and bad-mannered.It is very easy to say"Who are you? I don't owe you any explanation for anything"... instead to give an argument.I cannot see the reason for you to be too nervous.
BTW I know by heart Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes - DOMESTIC RELATIONS (TITLE 23)and there is no such provisions.
The second-if you read my previous posts there I said that if the children spend most of their father's time without their father it will be NOT illogical for the mother to refuse this sort of parenting time.

Voluntarily terminating your parental rights is not just a matter of YOU wanting to do so. All parties (including the party that would no longer receive child support if they agree to the termination) must be in agreement to the termination AND the judge must agree also. So, mom and dad agreeing to the termination doesn't necessarily mean it will happened. Just because mom and dad can't comprehend the importance of fatherhood, doesn't mean a judge can't. Also, any back child support owed will continued to be owed and accure interest after the termination.
That is from Texas...
And you suggest that if you want to relinquish your parental rights you will be awarded by the judge immediately with freedom for paying child support.BAH

GV70, read my previous posts. Law provided. You are not the rude person that I was addressing and I apologize if I offended you. I meant to address my being bullied to a Scott person. Mary

GV70, of course back child support would be noted. And of course parties would have to agree and the judge would decide. I did not state otherwise. Check my previous posts.

But Yes, a parent can address the court for a voluntary termination -- read the state law on that.

GV70, read my previous posts. Law provided. You are not the rude person that I was addressing and I apologize if I offended you. I meant to address my being bullied to a Scott person. Mary
Yes-I read them:) :) :)

I don't have to answer to your that I was wrong about relinquishment. Who are you? I don't owe you any explanation for anything -- including an answer .... I think you and Scott are just reading more into this than necessary.

Ok, the only cite that matters here is 161.206. The wording "divests the parent and the child of all legal rights and duties" seems to support your contention since support is a duty. But there is nothing in 161.206 that states that includes child support. In fact, I could find nothing in the code section pertaining to relinquishment that says anything about child support.

I did find Section 154.006 that lists r4easons for termination of support and relinquishment is not one of them. Also Sections 160 and 161 that refer to relinquushment make it very clear that relinquishment will be granted in a limited set of circumstance and very rarely.

Your attempts to insult me fall far short of their mark. I do not claim to know everything. Nor have I displayed any arrogance here. And I'm the one who genuinely wants to help people because I am questioning the accuracy of the advice given.

Oh and I do not charge people for my advice. I do offer the option of contacting me directly on a fee basis. But as can be noted large number of posts I have made, I give my advice freely through this forum. You really need to be more careful of you're your facts before making accusations that you know nothing about.

You also missed one point here that further disproves your false arrogance accusation. I don't hold others to any standard I don't hold myself to. As I stated, if any advice I have given is challenged I will back it up or recant. I don't question the challengers right to question me (that is arrogance). In fact if I post anything incorrect I WANT to be challenged because I want to make sure the people here are given the most accurate advice.

You may call me a bully (wrong again), but my motivation is simply and solely the quality and rep of this site.

But Yes, a parent can address the court for a voluntary termination -- read the state law on that.
I know it... also I know that Michigan has similar provisions.But the judges there are obligated with one of their Supreme Court decisions where the SC stated that it is in best interest the child support to continue if there is no one who is willing to adopt the child.

GV70 thank you.

Scott, reread your posts on this thread. You just want to have the last word and interpretation on everything, and I do consider your demeanor on this site to be threatening and patronizing. You assumed I was wrong and insulted me for it. If someone disagrees with you, you dismiss it and even use circular reasoning. Even when one proves his or her argument, you have something else to say with premises that are not even in the original argument. Illogical. I still find your last answer to Austin's question inaccurate.

This is an opinionated forum; you are not someone I have to address. People using this web are intelligent enough to read these answers and ultimately hire an attorney. That is the purpose of this site. If I'm deceitful, I'll eventually get figured on it. But your duty to scrutinize my answers, and insult me for it is uncalled for. And I don't have to choose to answer your questions -- as is my right. Your attitude turns me off -- that is why I don't feel the need to substantiate myself to you.

And you do charge people for advice -- option or not. Given that, your legal opinions on this threads are inaccurate.

Scott, statutes are argued for in court. That is where the facts, the lawyer and case law affect the outcome. I'm done arguing with you tonight. This thread is for Austin, not you.

GV70 thank you.
... for what?:)

Just for being nice. Munchas Gracies mi amor.
Mary

Gracias. Que le va bien. Maria

GV70 thank you.

Scott, reread your posts on this thread. You just want to have the last word and interpretation on everything, and I do consider your demeanor on this site to be threatening and patronizing. You assumed I was wrong and insulted me for it. If someone disagrees with you, you dismiss it and even use circular reasoning. Even when one proves his or her argument, you have something else to say with premises that are not even in the original argument. Illogical. I still find your last answer to Austin's question inaccurate.

This is an opinionated forum; you are not someone I have to address. People using this web are intelligent enough to read these answers and ultimately hire an attorney. That is the purpose of this site. If I'm deceitful, I'll eventually get figured on it. But your duty to scrutinize my answers, and insult me for it is uncalled for. And I don't have to choose to answer your questions -- as is my right. Your attitude turns me off -- that is why I don't feel the need to substantiate myself to you.

And you do charge people for advice -- option or not. Given that, your legal opinions on this threads are inaccurate.

You really amaze me. I don't know if you actually read the threads or not. But you are so far off base I'm at a loss where to begin.

You thank GV70 for being nice after (correctly) referring to your posts as "rude and bad-mannered". Also it was GV70, not I, who first questioned the accuracy of the information you had posted and asked for you to provide backup for it. I didn't assume you were wrong, I KNEW you were wrong because of research I had done previously. But even then you were given the opportunity to backup your statements which you at first refused. It was only after I showed that not doing so affected your credibility did you offer proof of what you were saying.

I have never dismissed anyone simple because they disagree with me. But I do expect people to justify anything they say, because I hold myself to the same standard. You have called my arguments illogical and my advice inaccurate. Yet you don't specify what arguments or how they are illogical nor how any advice was inaccurate. You are very good at throwing out accusations without any substance behind them. You came up a cite (161.206) that does appear to support your claim. I acknowledge that, however, my interpretation (which may or may not be correct) is at least reasonable.

Also no one, least of all me, has called you deceitful. Incorrect and inaccurate, but not deceitful.

My "duty to scrutinize" ANY answers here is the same as anyone else's who cares about the quality of the advice given here. This is another point you totally miss. When you offer advice on a forum like this, you have to expect your advice to be scrutinized. I certainly do. I WANT my advice to be scrutinized. I WANT any mistakes I might make to be bought to light so that the askers get the right info. That's because I care about the quality of the advice given. If you find any advice I have given to be incorrect, inaccurate or illogical, feel free to point it out. If you are right, I would thank you for it and aplogize for the error. But I am very careful about the advice I give and I'll defend it unless its proven wrong.

Finally, talk about illogical: "And you do charge people for advice -- option or not. Given that, your legal opinions on this threads are inaccurate". I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. How offering advice on a fee basis makes any advice I give inaccurate is beyond me. Again, I offer an option for people to contact me directly for real time advice at a fee. I have been contacted a few times by people in areas where I am not a professional. In those cases, I have declined the offer.

I find your reactions here typical. You posted advice and the accuracy of that advice was challenged. Instead of defending the advice with supporting documentation or logic, you strike out at the challengers, giving out insults and attacking them with unsupported accusations. All you had to do was support your advice and we would have had a polite discussion about it. Since your advice was inaccurate, though, you couldn't do that so you strike back. Well you were right about one thing, people will see through you. I'm sure most people will see the same things I have seen and detailed here.

What? First you insult me on post #24, I don't even have to substantiate my answer to you, then I do, then you begin your circular reasoning again.

Your arguments regarding VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF parental rights are too emotional. Public policy is not the law. Judges theoretically consider it on a case by case basis. Termination is possible and child support cessation will follow (In Texas, Section 161.206).

Termination primarily to cease child support can happen if the petitioner has good reasons and the judge sees this. Petitioning the court for this procedure is of course a serious matter. However, I don't think you understand a parent's reason for doing this. Are YOU a practicing attorney having interviewed those on this web and their personal reasons for doing so? They may have personal reasons too personal to put on these threads.

I have provided statutory law, it is rare, but it is possible in Texas.

My personal attacks are personal attacks -- but only after I've done everything I've had to do according to "your agenda," in the midst of being insulted by you before and after.

Your just providing post #44 because I've noted all these things about and I don't take them back. I stand behind all my posts.

Guys, guys please this is not helping the OP... your original point, right, Scott? Bringing up information from other posts is not appropriate.

The bottom line is this... physically Scott yes the mom can reuse to turn over the child. HOWEVER, she can refuse to turn over the child to dad for that matter. She can in that she is capable of doing both.

If their order says nothing about who can/can not transport the children, mom will likely be found to be within her "right" technically (your point right GV/Scott?) HOWEVER the judge will likely get pissy with mom for forcing this issue and over turn it anyway. Judges expect parents to work together and don't take kindly when parents don't use their better judgment and bring trivial matters and waste the courts time. Because a judge will likely see it in that the "permission" to designate an alternate for transportation is inclusive to the order (such as by giving joint legal custody). For all we know the wording in their order could be, like it is in mine, "the receiving party is responsible for transportation". Pretty common and pretty vague. Just as an example, we all know "joint legal custody" statements do not clearly define every single thing that is supposed to be reasonably implied for each party to be held to. You could, not tell dad about a simple routine check up appointment with the doctor, "my court order didn't state that specifically just says illnesses...." Dad confronts you on it says you need to let me know about all appointments. You don't, next appointment comes and goes, so Dad takes you to court and you give this lame excuse to the judge... what do you think is going to happen? I'll tell you, while the judge may not be able to find her in contempt they will be REALLY unhappy that you wanted to get pissy about the "it didn't specifically say I had to" and he will give you a grand lecture about what you should reasonably expect an order is telling you as a responsible parent and then could if he/she wanted to and depending their mood and the request of an aggressive lawyer order you to pay the other parties legal fess by way of maybe sanctioning you for being a jerk. (mine and Marys point) I seriously doubt it is meant to be inferred that the responsible parent is not allowed to designate a responsible alternate to pick the kids up.

Fact is, if you called the police for assistance in EITHER situation the answer would be the same. The police will NOT order a turn over of the child, they will ask the parent to be cooperative. And not really the issue anyway.

NOW, would the court be happy with her doing either? NO. Would what she has done probably be ruled against and would other designated person be allowed to transport the child either to or from? YES.

I think that is all Mary and I are really trying to say.

Further, we aren't talking about designated persons being unfit, drug addicts or abusers. Or about the entire parenting time being spent with someone other than the NCP. No such information was given. Really need to stop assuming things into this post. Simple, simple the facts as we know them for this questions is: grandma wants to pick up my child and keep him/her for 1 HOUR until I get home from work.

So, conclusion:
1. Yes, mom can physically refuse. Obviously.We know that.
2. She may or may not have the "right" to do this without suffering a major penalty in court because of the way their order is written. WHICH we DO NOT know about, so all we can do is speculate.
3. Even if she does have the "right" it will likely not be upheld in court and a responsible designation of another person will be allowed.

So, to the OP, mom may or may not have the "right" to refuse, it all depends on how your order its written. See a lawyer. You do have the right to take it to court to have your order written so specifically that you would be allowed to designate someone other than yourself to pick up your child. See a lawyer.

Now as for the rest of you children, play nice :) :)

Tawny, your response is awesome. Lol. Chuckle, chuckle.
Yes. Okay. Play sweet.
Take care.

Excellent answer.

Tawny, good synopsis and I fully agree. However, I will not submit to vicious and unsupported attacks as Mary has done here.

Mary,
You continue to amaze me in how you can say things that have absolutely no basis in fact or logic. You claim I insulted you in post #24. Please explain how? There is nothing insulting there. In fact I started by saying we don't really disagree. I did ask you to admit you were wrong since, at that point, you had offered no support for some statements you had made. But there is no insult.

Nor are my arguments emotional or my logic circular. Yes Texas, Section 161.206 appears to say that support will stop with termination because it refers to "duties". If that's the intent of that clause, then Texas is different from almost every other state. For almost all others treat parental rights and parental responsibilities as separate issues.

Getting back to post #24. Since there is nothing insulting there, your personal attacks (which you admit) were not provoked and not justified. I had not attacked you personally, just what you have posted until you violated the rules of this site with your attacks. Attacks that you continue.

As for post #44. When attacked I defend myself. Post #44 is simply a defense against your attacks.

If your parents are the ones picking up the child, she probably can make trouble. You should ask the court to modify the visitation order to stipulate that your parents be permitted to pick him up ; then that ties her hands.

ScottGem, Getting banned? No wonder you are so upset with my opinions and my assertions about your inaccuracies. You are an administrator for this website.

I am not upset by your opinions, they are easily shown to be without merit. I am concerned by your false accusations of inaccuracies because they represent bad advice for the people who come here for information.

And no I am not an administrator of this site, I am a moderator, there is a difference. I'd assumed you were aware of that.

I will note here that Mary has now been permanantly banned for creating and using a second account to launch an attack against others.