[JudyKayTee]

I'm glad everyone seems to have gotten this right. There is no such thing in American law as "forced visitation." Forced child support, yes. Visitation, no.

I start getting concerned when a post contains the dreaded words - "Please, no moral judgments, just the legal facts."

And, yes, the whole forced visitation thing has been covered on various threads to the point of nausea.

You can't force ANYONE to be a father, or a mother for that fact. Maybe that explains a lot of why some children behave the way they do.

Oh, excuse me - maybe that was a moral judgment.

[cdad]

Point very well taken. And I appreciate your respectful/concerned tone.

I fully acknowledge that mine is a selfish position because I don't expect anyone to look out for my family (which is just me and him at the moment) like myself. And I do like how you characterized taking on someone's future as well as their past....but I am only looking for legal advice, not parenting or moral advice. These are our choices (alone) to make.

Thanks!

What you may not realize is that sometimes there is a fine line between the morals and legal options you have. And if you were in a boat Im sure you wouldn't want advice to turn into a waiting storm. That needs to be clear. Because from a legal standpoint your heading into a storm and need to get turned around. So you can enjoy smooth sailing.

[Synnen]

The long and the short of it is this:

Very few judges are going to let him walk away from his parental OBLIGATIONS (like child support) but there aren't very many that will make him exercise his parental RIGHTS (like having a say in how they are raised, providing moral inspiration to the child, choosing which behaviours to reward and which to punish, teaching them religion, and visiting the child on their designated days).

So no--he probably doesn't HAVE to visit the kids when he has visitation. However, I hope he has the balls to at least tell the kids himself why he won't do it--and I hope that YOU realize that his past is his past, and you live with that in the present.

Congratulations on helping to create another uninvolved parent situation. If he fought for MORE visitation, he could have MORE say in how the children act. He's the only dad these kids know--and that's not THEIR fault.

How selfish both of you are to treat people like they mean nothing just because they are not "yours".

[twinkiedooter]

Is she wishes to have the child support increased she would have to have a good reason for the extra expense and demonstrate the need for the extra child support money. Also his salary would be the deciding factor if say he got a raise or a new job that paid more.

You definitely need to consult with a good family law attorney on how to proceed with your asset protection and how to go forward with the child support problem. Each case is different and each case is reviewed by a Judge who is familiar with the divorce circumstances and rulings. These matters may have to be reviewed and ruled on by the original divorce Judge in whatever state the divorce was granted.

[Fr_Chuck]

I am closing this thread,

First don't, you knew not to but did anyway, start a new thread to add more and more info.

Everything all mattered to make a good complete answer and you stated I think 5 or more threads about similar subjects.

In my attempt to merge them, it messed it all up

I am closing this,
If you want, start only ONE< and only one thread with all the info and then merely add more info by answering that.

One of your posts said you knew this but did it anyway since you felt it was different issues, it was still the same real issue.

Sorry for destroying the threads but they were reported and needed to be combined

[ScottGem]

Not sure what happened, but I believe I've been able to reopen this thread if the OP still needs help.

[Synnen]

I'm confused here... are Susan2963 and ggill the same person?

[Susan2936]

I'm confused here....are Susan2963 and ggill the same person?

No, we are not the same person. When Fr_Chuck tried to combine threads he made some sort of unintentional mistake, I think.

I'm sorry for multiple threads, I did not know that was not allowed (is that stated somewhere?). I actually thought that separate simplified threads were preferable to a single enormous multi-layered post. But I was apparently wrong per the protocols of this board. I'm sorry.

But everyone has been very helpful and I did get my legal questions answered. Thanks!

[ScottGem]

OK, I'm going to close this thread again. It seems that threads from different people have been combined here and its impossible to tell what responses were made to whom.