Dad refuses to return child to mom

[kellyj]

Jurisdiction

Texas

In Texas, an 18-year-old mom of a 1.5-year-old child is single, never married baby's dad but allows dad to see baby. Dad is refusing to return baby after having him 4-5 days. No legal custody has been established. What are her rights, his rights, and what should she do?

 

[leslie82]

In Texas, an 18-year-old mom of a 1.5-year-old child is single, never married baby's dad but allows dad to see baby. Dad is refusing to return baby after having him 4-5 days. No legal custody has been established. What are her rights, his rights, and what should she do?

She has all the rights. He has NO rights. She needs to call the police and report a kidnapping because technically that's what he's done.

If he wants rights he needs to go to court and establish his paternity if he hasn't done so yet which it sounds like he hasn't. From now on she shouldn't let him have the baby until the court says she has to do so.

 

[army judge]

Plus, if he's charged with parental interference or kidnapping, he most likely won't be allowed time alone with YOUR child for many years, after several classes.

Be smart, don't associate with bullies, liars, batterers, abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, or people who don't hold down a STEADY, FULL TIME job!!

 

[mightymoose]

It is not kidnapping, especially since you apparently released the child to him willingly. It is not parental abduction either, at least not as you describe it.
Police involvement might intimidate dad to give the child back, but he would be under no obligation to cooperate. Your real tool here is an emergency custody order obtained from a judge which the police could then enforce. It is in your best interest to obtain a permanent custody order to help prevent this from occurring in the future.

That said, I assume by now this has been resolved. If you have the child back, you also have no obligation to hand the child over to dad until he proves paternity and obtains a valid custody order. If you proceed without a custody order you can expect frequent problems like this. Even with an order there will be disagreements, but the existence of the order is what gets you help when you need it.

 

[leslie82]

It is not kidnapping, especially since you apparently released the child to him willingly. It is not parental abduction either, at least not as you describe it.
Police involvement might intimidate dad to give the child back, but he would be under no obligation to cooperate. Your real tool here is an emergency custody order obtained from a judge which the police could then enforce. It is in your best interest to obtain a permanent custody order to help prevent this from occurring in the future.

That said, I assume by now this has been resolved. If you have the child back, you also have no obligation to hand the child over to dad until he proves paternity and obtains a valid custody order. If you proceed without a custody order you can expect frequent problems like this. Even with an order there will be disagreements, but the existence of the order is what gets you help when you need it.

Why wouldn't he be under an obligation to cooperate? He seemingly hasn't established his paternal rights so he has no right to visitation. So he has no right to keep the child past any time the mother said he could see the child.

 

[army judge]

Why wouldn't he be under an obligation to cooperate? He seemingly hasn't established his paternal rights so he has no right to visitation. So he has no right to keep the child past any time the mother said he could see the child.

Moose makes a valid point.

It seems mom allowed the dude to take the child.

He didn't take the child without mum's approval.

I doubt that any prosecutor would pursue kidnapping charges in that scenario.

 

[mightymoose]

Why wouldn't he be under an obligation to cooperate? He seemingly hasn't established his paternal rights so he has no right to visitation. So he has no right to keep the child past any time the mother said he could see the child.

Police do not determine or even care if paternity is established. Police enforce laws and court orders. If there is no violation of law, which there does not appear to be with the details given, a court order is necessary.
Absent a court order or an arrest there is no obligation of anyone to do anything.
It would not likely take long, or be very hard, to obtain such an order, likely with assistance of child services, but it would be the most appropriate approach to the problem.
Consider from a police officer perspective that an officer can't determine paternity or maternity. Birth certificates and ID don't matter. Anyone could claim to be the mother of a child. Should they just take a child from a man and give it to a woman because she says so and waves some paper? It would be pretty foolish. Any smart officer would have a valid court order in hand before even trying to get the child from one person and hand it over to another against someone's will.
This is a common problem parents run into when they don't get along and don't get proper custody orders. Sometimes it happens even when they do get along.
That said, usually just the presence of police will help them resolve their differences, but if someone refuses to cooperate the options are limited.

 

[leslie82]

Police do not determine or even care if paternity is established. Police enforce laws and court orders. If there is no violation of law, which there does not appear to be with the details given, a court order is necessary.
Absent a court order or an arrest there is no obligation of anyone to do anything.
It would not likely take long, or be very hard, to obtain such an order, likely with assistance of child services, but it would be the most appropriate approach to the problem.
Consider from a police officer perspective that an officer can't determine paternity or maternity. Birth certificates and ID don't matter. Anyone could claim to be the mother of a child. Should they just take a child from a man and give it to a woman because she says so and waves some paper? It would be pretty foolish. Any smart officer would have a valid court order in hand before even trying to get the child from one person and hand it over to another against someone's will.
This is a common problem parents run into when they don't get along and don't get proper custody orders. Sometimes it happens even when they do get along.
That said, usually just the presence of police will help them resolve their differences, but if someone refuses to cooperate the options are limited.

There is no court order granting him visitation. So there's no law that says he gets to have the kid.

Just like a woman who had lost her rights to her children and she took them from their home and there was an Amber Alert on the two kids and on her. And if this guy took off with the kid in this case, she could call the cops and say he took the kid and show he has no rights and I guarantee there would be an Amber Alert issued.

 

[cynthiag]

I'm confused by those of you who are saying that, since the mother willingly let the presumptive (but not technically proven) father see the child, he's under no obligation to return the child, absent a court order.

Since he hasn't been proved to be the father, then technically he has no more legal right to keep the child from the mother than, say, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or a friend. What would happen if my daughter let me take her baby on an outing for the day and then when she came to pick her up, I just said nope, sorry, I'm keeping her? Would you say then that, because my daughter willingly allowed me to see and spend time with the baby, that I was under no obligation to return her when the time came? Would she have to get a court order just to get her child back from me, because she willingly allowed me to spend time with the child?

I understand that it's not up to police officers to determine the parentage of a child, but if someone asked for the help of the police in getting their child back from anyone, no matter who that might be, wouldn't the police at least have the ability to look into the situation to determine what might be going on? Would they not be able to tell the presumptive father that if he agreed to return the child at a certain time then he should do so? If he refused, then clearly there would have to be some sort of court order in hand, but absent that at the moment, why does the presumptive father seem to hold all the cards in the situation simply because the mother willingly let him take the child?

 

[army judge]

I'm confused by those of you who are saying that, since the mother willingly let the presumptive (but not technically proven) father see the child, he's under no obligation to return the child, absent a court order.

Since he hasn't been proved to be the father, then technically he has no more legal right to keep the child from the mother than, say, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or a friend. What would happen if my daughter let me take her baby on an outing for the day and then when she came to pick her up, I just said nope, sorry, I'm keeping her? Would you say then that, because my daughter willingly allowed me to see and spend time with the baby, that I was under no obligation to return her when the time came? Would she have to get a court order just to get her child back from me, because she willingly allowed me to spend time with the child?

I understand that it's not up to police officers to determine the parentage of a child, but if someone asked for the help of the police in getting their child back from anyone, no matter who that might be, wouldn't the police at least have the ability to look into the situation to determine what might be going on? Would they not be able to tell the presumptive father that if he agreed to return the child at a certain time then he should do so? If he refused, then clearly there would have to be some sort of court order in hand, but absent that at the moment, why does the presumptive father seem to hold all the cards in the situation simply because the mother willingly let him take the child?

I don't think anyone is saying the "dude" is under no bling action to return the child.
What was said, I think, is that "dude's" possession of the child wasn't acquired illegally, as in kidnapping.