Help... my husband has not seen his son only 3 times this year due to mother's excuses for not providing transportation to our meeting place. She lives about 1 hour away and we agreed to meet when she left the county 2 years ago. She now has every reason in the world to not meet

So just drive there, pick up the son and take him back to your place.

Then if the mother wants the son back, she has to drive to your place to pick him up.

That is probably not legal, but what the heck.

At least then just go pick him up yourself.

:eek: If it was only that easy. I wish. The real issue here is that we took her to court to have the visitation order changed as she had relocated and the existing one was unrealistic. The judge orders that we need to continue to meet and she states she has a MD order that she cannot drive long distances due to panic attacks. She wants us to drive there to get him and her husband will pick him up at our house. We did not agree to that. The judge said we cannot force you to go all the way. SO... we get a court order that says ORDERED that parties agree to pick up and drop off at... She has yet to do it and this was 3 months ago. Now she says to us her husband can only come all the way to get him if he is available. So not only is she not following the court order, she is not even doing what she requested in court.

So call the cops on her

Take her back to court.

I don't believe the police enforce child visitation issues like that, at least not in the US. But your husband's divorce attorney can file papers with the court about her violation of visitation terms. Document everything if you can remember... phone calls, letters, any form of communication you have had with her and the visits as well as the missed visits. In my country, the judges are not happy with folks who violate, let me tell you and the loser gets to foot the bill for this sort of shenanigans. Be prepared, ask your attorney lots of questions especially about what happens if this gets heated. Good luck.

Ok, you don't want >>>>> WANT to drive that far, bull... I get so mad when I read this, if you want to see your son, you don't care what the other party wants or is suppose to do, you do what ever, no matter what it is to see your children.

You want to screw with the other partner and make them drive because the judge said they had to. That just means that you have issues with the other parent and want to fight in court over so many miles.

I lived over 600 miles from my boys and their mother often called the police to have me arrested when I did show up, but guess what I still went often for the chance to see them sometimes.

You have not seen the child because you are being to stuborn to go see them.

Sorry but this sort of sillyness just makes me so mad.

You are still fighting the divorse and playing games, not really wanting to see the child. The Child is merely a weapon being used.

You said the mother would let you have the child if you just drove to get him, then drive to get them and be done with it.


I got to get off this site for tonight, this just makes me so mad, a person having a chance to see the child and don't because of what the other parent is not doing

I am pretty surprised Fr Chuck that your post looks more like a melt down than an answer (he isn't usually like this TLC). Is it perhaps time for a vacation?

Okay, here is a bit of a rant...

For what its worth, in the US a divorce decree isn't just a paper that allows you and your spouse to live separate lives... it is an agreement as to property division and how kids are managed, a blueprint that is intended to be fair to both sides and keep the welfare of the children protected. Everyone had their day in court so the war should be over. But sadly for too many, its only just begun.

One of the things I have seen happen all too often is that one of the parents (more often the mothers but I have seen both) starts bending the rules and playing games. This is dead bang wrong and the courts see it that way too, by the way. It often escalates and escalates, with lots of tension all around, including for the kids. People try to appease the one playing games but soon nothing of the agreement is taking place. Add a good measure of letting the kids in on too much of the business or some systematic degrading of a parent's reputation and bingo, you have the classic parental alienation deal. It amounts to those who don't want to deal with their ex-spouse simply look to drive them off. All they want is the check in the mail. Or in some cases, nothing.

This is the number one reason for deadbeat parents (mostly fathers) skipping out on child support... which definitely isn't right either but it behooves seeing the connection on many of these situations. This is not to say all absentee fathers (or mothers) are driven off, either. Some do just run away without provocation or fail to step up to the plate and I am not talking about those here at all.

Whole organizations have built up around parental alienation concern, albeit mostly male ones and they lobbied the courts so now divorce papers come with a standard paragraph about consequences for not honouring the agreement and the hazard of causing parental alienation. It details who will be penalized and pay if the court has to revisit these issues. If you don't believe me go look at a friend's recent divorce papers. The court may even offer classes on how to be good divorced parents or services that act as mediation for the sake of making changes to the agreement - all to avoid these mistakes!

So it is viewed by the courts and the studies too (Second Chances: Ten Years After Divorce is the best book on it) that its really in everyone's best interests to stick to the script. It has been shown to be particularly effective for the sake of the children to have the most stable divorce possible. Play by the rules, no games.

It used to be that spouses could use the kids as a shield while they violated divorce decrees, which in turn forced the other spouse to risk looking the bad guy if they objected. Some got away with terrible things as they held their kids in ransom and later the psychologists had their hands full. The parochial view was whoever objected was blamed for hurting the kids but fortunately those days are long gone, thanks to a lot of hard work that came not soon enough. Courts take the ill effects of putting kids in the middle seriously and whoever isn't complying with the agreement or practices disparaging the other parent needs to plan on getting nailed with some hefty consequences.

Now you know. Rant done. Count on me objecting to any wholesale jumping on the spouse who wants the agreement followed or to have visitation with their children without interference. Plan on me advocating they talk with their attorneys in order to not let it all spin out of control to the detriment of everyone, especially the kids.


So not only is she not following the court order, she is not even doing what she requested in court.