child refusing to come during visitation

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChargersDad

New Member
My jurisdiction is: California

Lately when I go to pick up my three children from their mother's for visitation (court ordered), my oldest daughter -- 14 years -- refuses to come with me. It started several months ago with her calling and asking at the last minute if she could stay behind and hang out with friends. I almost have always okay'd these requests because I know she's a teenager and want to respect her desire to spend time with people her age. However, as of a couple weeks ago she has flat-out refused to come along with me, never really giving an explanation as to why. Last night when I tried to talk to her about it she wouldn't come out of the house, forcing me to have a conversation with her through a closed door. She told me that she doesn't have to come because, "the courts said so." Nowhere in the divorce paperwork or child visitation/custody agreement documents does it state that she or any of the children can choose when they want to come or not. Also, these documents do not give anyone else the right -- i.e., her mother -- to tell her that the courts have authorized her to stay behind whenever she feels like it. Is there anything that I can do about this? It's such a tough position to be in, because I can't physically make her do anything and I don't want to get into trouble. But I'm missing out on quality time with one of my children and her mother seems to be spearheading this effort, or at a minimum, perpetuating it. Please help! Thanks!
 
Last edited:
ChargersDad said:
My jurisdiction is: California

Lately when I go to pick up my three children from their mother's for visitation (court ordered), my oldest daughter -- 14 years -- refuses to come with me. It started several months ago with her calling and asking at the last minute if she could stay behind and hang out with friends. I almost have always okay'd these requests because I know she's a teenager and want to respect her desire to spend time with people her age. However, as of a couple weeks ago she has flat-out refused to come along with me, never really giving an explanation as to why. Last night when I tried to talk to her about it she wouldn't come out of the house, forcing me to have a conversation with her through a closed door. She told me that she doesn't have to come because, "the courts said so." Nowhere in the divorce paperwork or child visitation/custody agreement documents does it state that she or any of the children can choose when they want to come or not. Also, these documents do not give anyone else the right -- i.e., her mother -- to tell her that the courts have authorized her to stay behind whenever she feels like it. Is there anything that I can do about this? It's such a tough position to be in, because I can't physically make her do anything and I don't want to get into trouble. But I'm missing out on quality time with one of my children and her mother seems to be spearheading this effort, or at a minimum, perpetuating it. Please help! Thanks!
Click to expand...

File a motion for contemt.
 
How do you intend to prove contempt against the mother? Can you show that she is actively encouraging her daughter NOT to come? Do you intend to file contempt charges against your daughter?! THAT wouldn't be possible as she is not a party to the order.

Mom telling her daughter something like, "You don't have to go if you don't want to," is not likely going to constitute a violation of the order as it is effectively true. Now, if the court feels that any comments by mom are actively encouraging her to defy you, that might be another matter. But giving her comfort or comment to reinforce the daughter's own decision is not likely to result in sanctions.

It gets tough when the child becomes a teenager. You can either physically pick her up and move her (which can lead to some uglier conflicts) or you can try and address the issue with her one on one. As you correctly infer, the physical end of it could land you in some kind of trouble.

About all you might hope to do is get the court to reinforce that mom must not interfere or discourage the visitation. But, absent any proof that mom is violating the order, I don't know how mom is going to get into trouble for the daughter refusing to go.

Sorry, but this may be something to be addressed in counseling or one on one time with that daughter and not through court action.

- Carl
 
titangirl said:
mom is violating a court order by allowing her daughter to refuse to see her dad. wether dear daughter like it or not, she must obey the order, and mom must make her go, or dd( dear daughter) could end up visiting mom instead of living with her
Click to expand...
So, how do you suggest mom handle it? You prefer that mom assault the child and drag her from the house bound and gagged?

Sorry, but that won't work either.

Unless mom is encouraging the behavior - and this can be proven to a judge - mom will not be held accountable for the daughter's refusal.

In CA we tend to frown on physically dragging children screaming from a home for purposes of visitation. Maybe your state is different.

There is likely more that mom CAN do to encourage the daughter to go, but whether the court will require mom to go the extra mile is something that only the judge can answer.

- Carl
 
titangirl said:
the judge will not like the fact that this woman's daughter( who is legally a child, and cannot legally make these kind of decisons) is refusing to see her father, and her mother is allowing it. dad has a court order, and like it or not, it must be obeyed. this woman is clearly in contempt, and on her way to being the ncp
Click to expand...
First, there is no proof in what has been written that mom is "allowing it". While the OP opines that he believes mom is encouraging the behavior, he apparently has no proof of it. But, ultimately, it's not what the mother allows it is what she encourages. Mom is under no legal obligation to hogtie and transport her daughter out the door. In fact, mom could be arrested if she tried such a thing. If a court interviews the daughter and finds out that mom is encouraging this behavior, she can certainly be held accountable. But, if it happens that the teen says she just doesn't like dad or does not want to go with him - even if for a dumb, childish reason, mom is almost certainly not going to be held accountable for something that is ostensibly the decision of the daughter. Is it likely that mom is subtly encouraging the defiance? Sure. Is it easy to prove? If no one 'fesses up, no. The court can act only on what can be proven, not what it think may or may not be happening.

Second, the court order is binding on mom - not the child. The child is not a party in the matter and cannot be held accountable for contempt. If no direct nexus can be made to mom, then she cannot be held accountable for her daughter's actions.

Could mom do more? Almost certainly. Will the court require her to do more? They just might.

- Carl
 
I agree with Carl.

OP isn't even sure the mother has encouraged the daughter's refusal to visit, and she hasn't denied visitation.
 
CdwJava said:
First, there is no proof in what has been written that mom is "allowing it". While the OP opines that he believes mom is encouraging the behavior, he apparently has no proof of it. But, ultimately, it's not what the mother allows it is what she encourages. Mom is under no legal obligation to hogtie and transport her daughter out the door. In fact, mom could be arrested if she tried such a thing. If a court interviews the daughter and finds out that mom is encouraging this behavior, she can certainly be held accountable. But, if it happens that the teen says she just doesn't like dad or does not want to go with him - even if for a dumb, childish reason, mom is almost certainly not going to be held accountable for something that is ostensibly the decision of the daughter. Is it likely that mom is subtly encouraging the defiance? Sure. Is it easy to prove? If no one 'fesses up, no. The court can act only on what can be proven, not what it think may or may not be happening.

Second, the court order is binding on mom - not the child. The child is not a party in the matter and cannot be held accountable for contempt. If no direct nexus can be made to mom, then she cannot be held accountable for her daughter's actions.

Could mom do more? Almost certainly. Will the court require her to do more? They just might.

- Carl
Click to expand...


Carl, titangirl is that troll Kelly. I don't know if you remember her from freeadvice...She used to post ridiculous stories on the family law, juvie and criminal law forums. Mary banned her about 300 times under different user names.
 
BayState said:
Every thing Kelly posts is wrong. She is a troll...;)
Click to expand...

Oh, good to know.

I don't really mind trolls. They're kind of fun to play with sometimes. Kind of like having a pet that you don't have to clean up after! :p

OTOH, you DO have to keep an eye on them so they don't cause too much trouble.

If titangirl becomes a problem, she will be banned. :D

Thanks for the heads up!
 
irish223 said:
Oh, good to know.

I don't really mind trolls. They're kind of fun to play with sometimes. Kind of like having a pet that you don't have to clean up after! :p

OTOH, you DO have to keep an eye on them so they don't cause too much trouble.

If titangirl becomes a problem, she will be banned. :D

Thanks for the heads up!
Click to expand...

You're Welcome!! But be aware she will come back under a different name...Usually it's something really dumb...like "mommyof16" or "desperateandafraid"...Something like that. She also uses :mad: all the time and she posts only to scold others ESPECIALLY step-parents!! She HATES steps!!
 
BayState said:
Carl, titangirl is that troll Kelly. I don't know if you remember her from freeadvice...She used to post ridiculous stories on the family law, juvie and criminal law forums. Mary banned her about 300 times under different user names.
Click to expand...
Ah! I remember Kelly ...

Thanks for the head's up.

- Carl
 
CdwJava said:
The court can act only on what can be proven, not what it think may or may not be happening.

- Carl
Click to expand...

Au contraire, the courts do act, daily, without any proof at all, especially when a woman petitions for an Order of Protection. Based on her word alone, many men are criminalized and forced to take anger management classes at a minimum. At least in the state I reside, Orders of Protection are given out like candy to women, ex parte and in non-evidentiary hearings. Have a man file for the same protection and he is denied. Our courts need to be blind to gender and open to facts. That of course will cause profit loss.
 
NotSunkYet said:
Au contraire, the courts do act, daily, without any proof at all, especially when a woman petitions for an Order of Protection. Based on her word alone, many men are criminalized and forced to take anger management classes at a minimum. At least in the state I reside, Orders of Protection are given out like candy to women, ex parte and in non-evidentiary hearings. Have a man file for the same protection and he is denied. Our courts need to be blind to gender and open to facts. That of course will cause profit loss.
Click to expand...

This post has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread and the poster's questions.
 
NotSunkYet said:
Au contraire, the courts do act, daily, without any proof at all, especially when a woman petitions for an Order of Protection. Based on her word alone, many men are criminalized and forced to take anger management classes at a minimum. At least in the state I reside, Orders of Protection are given out like candy to women, ex parte and in non-evidentiary hearings. Have a man file for the same protection and he is denied. Our courts need to be blind to gender and open to facts. That of course will cause profit loss.
Click to expand...
I doubt that.

An order might be granted as a temporary measure, but then there shall be a hearing at which the respondent will have an opportunity to address the charges against him or her. The woman does not get to have their say and a man is ordered to classes - it does not work that way. Yes, very often the court bends over backwards for the woman - the perceived victim. But, it is also very common that the woman IS the victim and situation is as it seems.

Men are not "criminalized" unless charged with a crime. if they choose to take classes as part of a custody and visitation order, or to try and get out of a restraining order, that's their decision. If they are ordered to classes as a result o fa criminal conviction, then that's hardly a case of the woman filing a request for an order from the court and getting her way.

- Carl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top