Check out some similar questions!

jackfrost · Mar 30, 2009, 07:14 PM

Does my husband have rights to his baby if he's paying childsupport his baby mama don't want him to have anything to do with this child

jackfrost · Mar 30, 2009, 07:16 PM

What should we do about this matter

liz28 · Mar 30, 2009, 09:00 PM

He should exercise his rights by taking her to court for visitations.

His baby moma is very childish by not letting her child see the father for any pity reasons she might have.

I glad that your husband wants to be a father to his child. Best of luck!

stevetcg · Mar 31, 2009, 04:11 AM

The mother has no say in the matter. Like Liz said, go to court and request a full visitation schedule... and then stick to it. Deviation from a visitation schedule is often used to modify it later by the other party.

dontknownuthin · Mar 31, 2009, 10:55 PM

He has to pay support, she has to permit him visitation. It's best to make the arrangements with the help of a lawyer so that a court order can be put in place. It's best if they can plan the arrangements cooperatively, but if not, the court can order suitable visitation.

Nikita1x · Apr 3, 2009, 05:21 PM

Access and child support are not contingent on each other. Paying support does not give you the right to access the same as not receiving support is in no way a reason to withhold the child.

He should ask why she is not providing him with access. If it is a genuine concern that needs to be addressed then perhaps they can work it out. If there is no specific concern and the child is just being used as a tool then he should go to court.

liz28 · Apr 3, 2009, 07:32 PM

I am sure that her husband tried to reason with his baby momma but some people you can't reason with.

He needs to go to court because she is using the child as a pawn.

JudyKayTee · Apr 4, 2009, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Nikita1x

Access and child support are not contingent on each other. Paying support does not give you the right to access the same as not receiving support is in no way a reason to withhold the child.

He should ask why she is not providing him with access. If it is a genuine concern that needs to be addressed then perhaps they can work it out. If there is no specific concern and the child is just being used as a tool then he should go to court.

I say you go to Court whether you can work it out or not and get an Order in place so it ends the possibility of future visitation being affected in some way.

Why not use the Court system when that's why it's in place?

dontknownuthin · May 17, 2009, 09:58 AM

In my original post I was not saying that child support pays for visitation or that visitation requires payment - Each are independent responsibilities. However, when either party tries to assert their rights, if they've not met their part of the bargain, they will be viewed negatively by the court. A mother whining that she doesn't get enough child support will not be well received by the court in her complaints if she blocks the father's attempts to see the child. And a father complaining about visitation will not be viewed positively if he's a deadbeat on the child support responsibilities. If this mother is asking for support payments, she is acknowledging that the father is the father, and as such owes him the consideration of parenting time with the child. If she's claming he's not the father and should not have access to the child, then that acknowledgement applies also to support.

He should get a lawyer to either assert his rights and set visitaiton and support in a legal document, or to determine if there's a way to relinquish his rights to her if he does not want to take a role in the child's life.

Before he does that though, he needs to consider how he would feel if his father signed a paper to say, "I don't want you". It is, in my view, a terribly selfish thing to do unless both birth parents are open to placing the child for adoption. It's one thing to relinquish your child to others because they can do a better job than you can, but entirely something else if no other person will be a father figure and you just quit on the child.

As his current girlfriend, your role should be to support what your boyfriend wants to do in the best interests not of you or your finances, but of the child. The child exists and deserves to be taken care of.

JudyKayTee · May 17, 2009, 10:01 AM

Again - he HAS to pay support. She does NOT have to grant him visitation. We have no idea if there are Orders in place or if he is a danger to the child.

You have given a very simplistic answer which is NOT correct in many cases.

liz28 · May 17, 2009, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by dontknownuthin

Before he does that though, he needs to consider how he would feel if his father signed a paper to say, "I don't want you". It is, in my view, a terribly selfish thing to do unless both birth parents are open to placing the child for adoption. It's one thing to relinquish your child to others because they can do a better job than you can, but entirely something else if no other person will be a father figure and you just quit on the child.
.

He can't just terminate his right because if this was the case many deadbeat dads will be trying to do this. And even if he was able to terminate his rights he might still be held responsible to pay child support.

This is why you have to watch who you decide to go half on a baby with. Some mothers uses their child as a pawn but they don't realize they are only hurting the child.

JudyKayTee · May 26, 2009, 08:42 PM

[QUOTE=Comments on this post
dontknownuthin disagrees: She needs a legal agreement to enforce either visitation or support. But it's a rare situation where a court will order a father to pay support and not also grant him visitation if he wants it..[/QUOTE]

This is a very obvious revenge reddie - and I was not the only one who disagreed with you.

You are absolutely incorrect. I don't know how much time you spend in the Courtroom but it is not unusual in my area - NY State - for a father to be denied visitation due to any number of reasons. However, I have NEVER seen an acknowledged father NOT ordered to pay support. It is not a case of support equals visitation, which is the argument you continue to make in different forms. Not at all.

You don't need a "legal agreement" (whatever you think that is) to enforce "either visitation or support." You need a COURT ORDER to enforce either visitation or support. You can agree to anything you want. It's up to the Court to put it into an Order and enforce it.

I think your name says it all - and continues to say it all when it comes to legal matters.