[ScottGem]

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.

[GV70]

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

[Mary Surette]

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.

[ScottGem]

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?

[Mary Surette]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[Mary Surette]

"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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[Mary Surette]

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.

[Mary Surette]

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.

[GV70]

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.

[GV70]

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

[Mary Surette]

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

[Mary Surette]

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.

[Mary Surette]

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

[GV70]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[GV70]

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.

[Mary Surette]

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.

[Mary Surette]

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.