[GV70]

GV70 thank you.

... for what?:)

[Mary Surette]

Just for being nice. Munchas Gracies mi amor.
Mary

[Mary Surette]

Gracias. Que le va bien. Maria

[ScottGem]

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.

[Mary Surette]

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.

[tawnynkids]

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 :) :)

[Mary Surette]

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

[Mary Surette]

Excellent answer.

[ScottGem]

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.

[s_cianci]

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]

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.

[ScottGem]

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