Check out some similar questions!

lindseyf25 · Jul 16, 2012, 08:06 PM

I have a question for my best friend, who unfortunately got pregnant after a one-night stand. She lived in Las Vegas at the time and the father lives in the Bay Area. She moved to Northern California, but about 2 hours away from where the father lives. The baby was born in CA and the father is on the birth certificate. The baby is 2 months old and breastfeeding.

The father believes he should get 50/50 custody, but at this point is asking the mother to drop off the baby (2 hours away) for the weekends, and pump enough bottles for him to feed her with. We think this is absolutely inappropriate for a small breastfeeding baby and a huge demand on her. She also has a very old, unreliable car and is not keen on driving down the two hours, so she has said that they are always welcome at her place to visit. However, the father and grandmother are very demanding and want her to come to them. The family state that they miss the baby, but haven't made much effort to come to where my friend lives to visit. Also, he flakes when he schedules time to come up and visit.

She is not denying them visitation, but is not willing to drive the two hours. Is that her right? She also doesn't want them taking the baby without her present, does she have that right?

He hasn't paid child support yet, but she has filed for it. And there are no custody/visitation orders at present.

She is very stressed out by the father's demands, but also wants to know what her rights are, especially since the baby is so young. Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Fr_Chuck · Jul 16, 2012, 09:16 PM

There is no reason in court he can not get a 50/50 child custody order and that is what he should apply for , if that is what he wants. Courts are giving that to fathers more and more.
If not at the nursing stage but within a year.

Asking for weekend onlys and for her to pump enough milk is a very reasonable request. Most likely they would have to arrange a place to meet 1/2 way.

So they will need to fight this out in court. Child visit and custody is not related to child support.

lindseyf25 · Jul 16, 2012, 10:38 PM

I think the issue is that that is a tremendous amount of milk to pump for an entire weekend. The baby feeds at some points about every 30 minutes. In my opinion, it's not an appropriate request for weekends until the baby is not breastfeeding as much/on solid foods (I think she wants to breastfeed until about 6 months).

Also, in my research, visitation and custody are related to child support. From what I've read, the father doesn't get visitation rights court ordered unless paying child support. I may be wrong, but that's what I've read several times.

So, I guess I feel like the questions I asked weren't really addressed. Anyone else have any input per my original post that would be helpful?

ScottGem · Jul 17, 2012, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by lindseyf25

Also, in my research, visitation and custody are related to child support. From what I've read, the father doesn't get visitation rights court ordered unless paying child support. I may be wrong, but that's what I've read several times.

Where are you reading this? In most areas (and its very true of CA) Child support and visitation are separate issues, not tied to each other.
Child custody and visitation are issues that impact child support; however, they are legally separate issues from child support.
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/childsupportservices/menuitem.61346ec675cfbfef50ba1d23d17332a0/?vgnextoid=17c204484abb0210VgnVCM1000001937230aRCR D&cpsextcurrchannel=1

And yes your questions were addressed. You asked a legal question in a legal forum. The answer was and is, that the court will grant him reasonable visitation if he pursues it in court. That the visitation he is requesting would not be considered unreasonable.

However, I think a court will side with her. I think a 2 hour drive both ways, along with the issue of pumping enough milk for the child. Will tip the scales for her. However, no one can predict what a court will do.

At this point she is in control. Without a court order, she can set whatever visitation she wants. She can explain to the court why she felt his requests placed too much of a burden on her. She should be prepared to offer a reasonable alternative.

lindseyf25 · Jul 17, 2012, 07:40 AM

[QUOTE=ScottGem;3198523]Where are you reading this? In most areas (and its very true of CA) Child support and visitation are separate issues, not tied to each other.
Child custody and visitation are issues that impact child support; however, they are legally separate issues from child support.
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/childsupportservices/menuitem.61346ec675cfbfef50ba1d23d17332a0/?vgnextoid=17c204484abb0210VgnVCM1000001937230aRCR D&cpsextcurrchannel=1

I got it from this website: http://www.livestrong.com/article/144155-rights-single-father/ And I think a few others. I'll check out the link you provided and give the info to my friend, thanks!

"And yes your questions were addressed. You asked a legal question in a legal forum. The answer was and is, that the court will grant him reasonable visitation if he pursues it in court. That the visitation he is requesting would not be considered unreasonable."

I most definitely realize I asked a legal question in a legal forum as that was my goal when I clicked on the family law link. But the above post did not answer my question. My initial question was: "She is not denying them visitation, but is not willing to drive the two hours. Is that her right? She also doesn't want them taking the baby without her present, does she have that right?"

I was referring to rights before a court order for visitation. Maybe I worded it wrong or maybe it was a bad question. But, I was basically asking what her rights were to set visitation at her house as opposed to doing a 2 hour drive prior to going to court. Here is where you answered my question, and I very much appreciate it:

"At this point she is in control. Without a court order, she can set whatever visitation she wants. She can explain to the court why she felt his requests placed too much of a burden on her. She should be prepared to offer a reasonable alternative."

Hopefully they will come to an arrangement that works for both of them otherwise it looks like the court will have to step in.

ScottGem · Jul 17, 2012, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by lindseyf25

I got it from this website: http://www.livestrong.com/article/144155-rights-single-father/ And I think a few others. I'll check out the link you provided and give the info to my friend, thanks!

OK, I read this article and can see where you misunderstood. What the article was saying was that the AMOUNT of child support can be adjusted based on the amount of time the child spends with the father (or NCP). So if a father gets the child 25% of the time, this could reduce the amount he has to pay. But that doesn't mean the father doesn't get visitation without paying support. The law is generally just the opposite. The law does not want to deny the child access to the NCP or vice versa, just because they are unable to pay support. So when a court determines visitation they do so without regard to the amount of support being paid of if support is being paid at all. Nor would an order of support be predicated on whether the NCP has visitation. The AMOUNT of support may be adjusted depending on the amount of time. But not the fact of support.

Fr_Chuck · Jul 17, 2012, 08:22 AM

Yes, support in some states ( not all) is based on time with the child. And incomes, with 50/50 custody, if the two parents have equal salary there would or could be no support.

But a father who gets a child 3 days a week each week will normally pay less support than a father who only gets child every other weekend.

The drive may be considered too much, but one parent taking child and the other bringing child back could be considered equal.

lindseyf25 · Jul 17, 2012, 08:31 AM

Thanks for the clarification!

cdad · Jul 17, 2012, 01:02 PM

Since this is the first trip through the courts they like to see custody and support matters at the same time. They are separate issues and mediation is mandatory for custody situations. When support is set there will be a question of custody. California does it by formula. There are online resources to calculate it (dissomaster).

That being said it can go either way as from what is being said the mother moved 2 hours away intentionally. That could show that she is trying to interfere with his rights to see the child thereby granting him more liberal rights. Your friend needs to be very careful with all of this until there is a court order in place.

ScottGem · Jul 17, 2012, 01:07 PM

The odd thing here, is if she remained in Vegas, she would be on firmer ground. By moving just outside a reasonable commute area, it makes her look bad. If she was going to move, why not move closer? Courts will look at those things.

lindseyf25 · Jul 17, 2012, 01:19 PM

Finances and family are why she wasn't able to move as close. I would hope that the court would look at the fact that she moved at all so that he could be in the baby's life given that she didn't have to. She's beginning to regret that she moved. If she was still in Vegas, would it mean that the father would have had to go to her to see the baby?

cdad · Jul 17, 2012, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by lindseyf25

Finances and family are why she wasn't able to move as close. I would hope that the court would look at the fact that she moved at all so that he could be in the baby's life given that she didn't have to. She's beginning to regret that she moved. If she was still in Vegas, would it mean that the father would have had to go to her to see the baby?

No not really. It could mean depending how it is perceived that she would end up paying to fly the child to him for the purpose of visitation.

ScottGem · Jul 17, 2012, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by lindseyf25

Finances and family are why she wasn't able to move as close. I would hope that the court would look at the fact that she moved at all so that he could be in the baby's life given that she didn't have to. She's beginning to regret that she moved. If she was still in Vegas, would it mean that the father would have had to go to her to see the baby?

Its hard to tell. If she hadn't moved then Nevada would have jurisdiction. If he wanted visitation he would have to argue in a Nevada court. I think he would get visitation, but I don't think it would be at her expense but at his.