Visitation

Status
Not open for further replies.

kaisgirl

New Member
What is the legal age in California that a child can refuse to go on visitation with the non-custodial parent?

Do they take in consideration of other siblings not in the same marriage when deciding visitation?

How many years of "no contact" does there have to be until my ex can have his parental rights taken away?
 
What is the legal age in California that a child can refuse to go on visitation with the non-custodial parent?

18 years of age

Do they take in consideration of other siblings not in the same marriage when deciding visitation?

No... Why would they?

How many years of "no contact" does there have to be until my ex can have his parental rights taken away?

There is no set time limit that I'm aware of, and according to California code, the abandonment must result in harm or danger to the child.

BTW, "no contact" does not only refer to visitation, phone calls, letters, emails, and texting, but also to child support.
 
18 years of age



No... Why would they?



There is no set time limit that I'm aware of, and according to California code, the abandonment must result in harm or danger to the child.

BTW, "no contact" does not only refer to visitation, phone calls, letters, emails, and texting, but also to child support.



(It would appear that Mom is trying to get Dad out of their lives - period. Post history)
 
i know it is not eighteen in the state of california. I just wasn't sure if it was thirteen or eleven. There is a specified age when i no longer have to make them go. thanks though
 
They may take into consideration that the children don't want to be away from their other sibling. I know for a fact that Illinois family law is probably not even in the same reality as california law. Thanks for letting me know what it would be over there though
 
i know it is not eighteen in the state of california. I just wasn't sure if it was thirteen or eleven. There is a specified age when i no longer have to make them go. thanks though


No. You don't know that. Because you are quite categorically incorrect.

Period. Even if.

Thanks.
 
They may take into consideration that the children don't want to be away from their other sibling. I know for a fact that Illinois family law is probably not even in the same reality as california law. Thanks for letting me know what it would be over there though



There isn't a state in the entire country which allows a minor child to decide that they can go against court ordered visitation.

Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

(Clue: you can't)
 
The children cannot make the decision to stop seeing their Dad at any age. Period. Until they are 18. Mom can be held in contempt. Children do NOT get to decide to not to go visitation.
 
They may take into consideration that the children don't want to be away from their other sibling. I know for a fact that Illinois family law is probably not even in the same reality as california law. Thanks for letting me know what it would be over there though

No, they don't.

You are correct that Illinois family law is different in some respects from California family law. You are wrong to assume that I did not check California statutes before answering your questions.

Sorry for you, but you can't keep the children away from their father. With your current behavior, he just might take you to court for parental alienation. Keep it up and you might just lose custody.

BTW, "I know for a fact" and "probably" don't belong in the same sentence. Um, and what does "in the same reality" mean?
 
There isn't a state in the entire country which allows a minor child to decide that they can go against court ordered visitation.

Please feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

(Clue: you can't)

But she KNOWS it... for a FACT.... PROBABLY... :D
 
have spoken to an attorney about this in Southern California and the prescedent set by case law in the State of California for a child to be able to refuse visitation is 11 years of age: this does not mean never seeing the non-custodial parent, it means "I have a ball game or a social event and don't want to come for a visit today". The established age for a child to firmly say "I am deciding that I want to live with this parent" is typically 12 years of age, but can be younger if they are mature. At 14 years of age if a child decides not to visit at all, generally it would be an uphill battle for a parent to fight to see them; it's difficult to enforce.

The defining element in the courts regarding these ages has more to do with the responsibiity of the custodial parent if a child decides they don't want to visit the other parent. That is to say, if a child doesn't want to visit from the age of 11 on, the court will not hold the custodial parent responsible in court as "withholding" the child as the prescedent setting cases on this have determined that 11 years of age is seen as an "age of reason" for a child wherein they are respected as being able to make their own choices.
 
have spoken to an attorney about this in Southern California and the prescedent set by case law in the State of California for a child to be able to refuse visitation is 11 years of age: this does not mean never seeing the non-custodial parent, it means "I have a ball game or a social event and don't want to come for a visit today". The established age for a child to firmly say "I am deciding that I want to live with this parent" is typically 12 years of age, but can be younger if they are mature. At 14 years of age if a child decides not to visit at all, generally it would be an uphill battle for a parent to fight to see them; it's difficult to enforce.

The defining element in the courts regarding these ages has more to do with the responsibiity of the custodial parent if a child decides they don't want to visit the other parent. That is to say, if a child doesn't want to visit from the age of 11 on, the court will not hold the custodial parent responsible in court as "withholding" the child as the prescedent setting cases on this have determined that 11 years of age is seen as an "age of reason" for a child wherein they are respected as being able to make their own choices.


Looks like you forgot the rest of that post on avvo.... Here it is:

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/at-what-age-does-a-child-have-the-right-to-refuse--54967.html

Now, for the not so good news, prescedent setting cases are rarely cited in family court. With the new wave "parent alienation syndrome" accusations being made, the court may begin to lean in a different direction in that you could end up with an order for "reunification therapy" for your child if they consistently don't want to visit at a young age. Your 13 year old is probably safely out of that age range, but your 9-year old is not. I know this from experience; I have two children; one 15 years of age who doesn't see other parent and one 12 years of age who would like to have more freedom, but I'm still having battles with ex over it. If you get put into this situation with the PAS accusation, you just have to point out that it's not about you wanting to "keep your child all to yourself." It's ludicrous to think a teenager is not wanting to visit the other parent because they want to stay with you; if anything, it's just a kid wanting a normal social life. Best wishes for you. I hope your children can have a normal social life; not an easy task in a divorce. My heart breaks for these kids; they are so exploited by the court system and the lawyers that like to keep everyone fighting over them.

You also conveniently ignored the replies by the 2 attorneys on the same thread. Their responses didn't differ much from any you've gotten here.

Nice try though.
 
Last edited:
i know it is not eighteen in the state of california. I just wasn't sure if it was thirteen or eleven. There is a specified age when i no longer have to make them go. thanks though

It absolutely is 18 in California, and probably everywhere else.
If it is dad's visitation time and a child under 18 is refusing to go with him, parenting skills need to kick in and persuade the kid to go.
If mom doesn't do her part to make the kid, and is perceived to be keeping the father from having his visitation, she might find herself in some new legal problems.

A kid that is refusing to go when a judge has ordered it is just causing parents unnecessary problems. Get the judge to change the order- then the kid won't have to go.
 
if you look at the definition of parent alienation, that's not what's going on in my home, I do force my children to see their father, whenever he asks to see them. He has seen them exactly 10 times in five years. I do not speak ill about him at all in front of my kids and have been doing this by my self for the past five years, save for two weeks a year. Now if you look at the definition of parental alignment, you may have an argument there, my kids tend to side with me because they have had almost no contact initiated by their biological father their entire life. I am happily married now and just want my kids to be happy, and visiting their father makes my daughter, at least, miserable. My son is older and a little more receptive, but he is growing away from his father as well due to lack of involvement. I would appreciate it irish223 and proserpina if you would keep your judgmental and hurtful comments to yourself. I came here for some information, not to be ridiculed by people who seem to be hunting for someone to be cruel to.I did not come here for your personal opinions. I don't really care about your narrow minded, self- righteous advice.
 
That's lovely. But if you actually care to read the thread again, you'll see that you were given accurate information AND you were corrected appropriately.

Have a wonderful evening.
 
You have had negative comments on two of my quotes now. I would appreciate it if you would just refrain from answering my questions in the future. Your taunting nature is antagonistic and leaves no room for some one that is actually trying to help to respond.
 
Ooooh, I received a negative rep from OP with the following comment:

Visitation
06-07-2010 05:36 PM
i didn't forget the resof the post, I was only questioning the legal age. I did not ask your opinion about my parenting skills.

Nowhere did I voice an opinion on your parenting skills. I advised that your current endeavors, if you continue to pursue them, may result in loss of custody. Believe it or not, that is legal advice, not an opinion.

Oddly, you thanked mightymoose who said the same thing I said, though in a different way. Or was it the last sentence of his post that swayed you? If so, I doubt that he meant it the way you took it.

You ought to get a consult with an attorney. Clearly, you won't believe anyone on this board.
 
They may take into consideration that the children don't want to be away from their other sibling. I know for a fact that Illinois family law is probably not even in the same reality as california law. Thanks for letting me know what it would be over there though

YOU took a CONDESCENDING tone with me in this post. Show me where I was judgmental, hurtful, or opinionated prior to that. Your post was hurtful to me, and all I did was provide answers to your questions. Gratitude, huh? :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top