Ex Refuses To Disclose Location

[jimboa26]

So my ex and I are not on good terms. The relevant history is she left my house, willingly and against my wishes, while she was pregnant and chose to live on the street because I evicted her dead-beat boyfriend. Before I go any further, I want to stress that there is no history of stalking, abuse, violence, or anything of the sort. She chose to leave to prove some kind of point. After she gave birth, she came to stay with me; it was either that, or CPS would have taken our son away. I wanted to get a DNA test done to prove paternity, but she asked we hold off. After living with me with no incident (but a lot of passive-aggressive bickering), she moved out to go live with her brother and sister in law. I have sued to establish paternity and for conservatorship. We have agreed upon a joint conservatorship arrangement, with her being the primary and me being the possessory, until our son turns two.

Here's the thing: she refuses to disclose his location. For no other reason than that she doesn't want me knowing where she is. Again, there is no history of abuse or stalking or violence or anything of the sort, and I have a completely clean history. I simply want to know where my son is, and it is my position that it is my legal right as a conservator to know his location - I've been told as much by an attorney at Legal Shield.

She still refuses to disclose his location and it's going to end up going to court it looks like. I want to know going in: who is right? Don't I have a right to know where my son is? The law says conservators are entitled to know any information relevant to the child's health and well-being, and considering she willingly went homeless (which was obviously contrary to her health and well-being while pregnant), doesn't that entitle me to know for a fact that my son has a roof over his head?

 

[jimboa26]

She lived with me for four months, by the way. Forgot to include that detail.

 

[army judge]

Only a court can decide.
So, follow the current path into court, litigate the matter, and the judge will decide.
You'll at least get shared conservatorship, but because the child is so young, she'll probably by given primary, UNLESS you PROVE she's unfit.

With her history, that's a possibility.

I suggest, if you're serious, HIRE a lawyer.

Let the attorney do the heavy lifting.

It's so much easier that way.

 

[jimboa26]

Only a court can decide.
So, follow the current path into court, litigate the matter, and the judge will decide.
You'll at least get shared conservatorship, but because the child is so young, she'll probably by given primary, UNLESS you PROVE she's unfit.

With her history, that's a possibility.

I suggest, if you're serious, HIRE a lawyer.

Let the attorney do the heavy lifting.

It's so much easier that way.

I'm not arguing that she shouldn't necessarily be the primary, but that I must be given the address/location of my son; so that I can know for sure he is taken care of. As a managing conservator, is that not an inherent right, to at least know where he is?

 

[Betty3]

You need to go through the court system though. You need to get a lawyer as suggested.

 

[Proserpina]

I'm not arguing that she shouldn't necessarily be the primary, but that I must be given the address/location of my son; so that I can know for sure he is taken care of. As a managing conservator, is that not an inherent right, to at least know where he is?

You said you were suing - does that mean that there are no actual court orders yet?

If that's the case, Mom is doing nothing wrong (legally, at least).

 

[jimboa26]

You said you were suing - does that mean that there are no actual court orders yet?

If that's the case, Mom is doing nothing wrong (legally, at least).

We have a court date on Dec. 10th. I know she's not doing anything legally *right now* but at this point it's inevitable that eventually I will be getting some form of conservatorship. When it reaches that point, she will have to disclose all relevant info on his health and well-being and everything that comes with it. I would love to hire a lawyer, but neither one of us can afford it. We are both arguing our own cases pro se.

 

[Proserpina]

We have a court date on Dec. 10th. I know she's not doing anything legally *right now* but at this point it's inevitable that eventually I will be getting some form of conservatorship. When it reaches that point, she will have to disclose all relevant info on his health and well-being and everything that comes with it. I would love to hire a lawyer, but neither one of us can afford it. We are both arguing our own cases pro se.

Mom won't have to disclose anything. You however can call the providers and get your information directly

But as of right now, Mom's under no obligation to tell you anything or allow you to see the child.

 

[jimboa26]

Mom won't have to disclose anything. You however can call the providers and get your information directly

But as of right now, Mom's under no obligation to tell you anything or allow you to see the child.

Not even when I am appointed as a joint managing conservator?

 

[army judge]

Not even when I am appointed as a joint managing conservator?

For the one hundredth time, mom doesn't even need to acknowledge you, let alone answer you.

No, mom is not under any legal obligation to tell you anything, including where sje and Junior reside.

That said, only a judge can require mom to disclose that information.

And, ntil the judge rules, you are nothing but an unmarried bio-dad to the lad, in effect a LEGAL STRANGER.

You might be a joint-conservator one day, if a judge rules that way.

Until the judge has issued a ruling, the answer remains no, mom can ignore you and isn't required to say hello, moreover provide you her address.

In fact, mom can thwart you and the process, if she decides to say you stalked her, beat her, abused her, and bullied her.

So, I'd not be so worried where mom and Junior reside.

You really don't need to know that anymore than she needs to know where you reside.

In many cases, address are never disclosed, because parents decide to exchange the child at a police or sheriff's station.

Why are you so persistent in obtaining mom's address?

That has nothing to do with your ability to parent or mom's ability to parent, either.

Mom could be homeless, or living in a battered women's shelter; and why would you need to know that?

Homelessness doesn't mean you can't be a good parent, and neither does being a battered or abused person.

 

[jimboa26]

For the one hundredth time, mom doesn't even need to acknowledge you, let alone answer you.

No, mom is not under any legal obligation to tell you anything, including where sje and Junior reside.

That said, only a judge can require mom to disclose that information.

And, ntil the judge rules, you are nothing but an unmarried bio-dad to the lad, in effect a LEGAL STRANGER.

You might be a joint-conservator one day, if a judge rules that way.

Until the judge has issued a ruling, the answer remains no, mom can ignore you and isn't required to say hello, moreover provide you her address.

In fact, mom can thwart you and the process, if she decides to say you stalked her, beat her, abused her, and bullied her.

So, I'd not be so worried where mom and Junior reside.

You really don't need to know that anymore than she needs to know where you reside.

In many cases, address are never disclosed, because parents decide to exchange the child at a police or sheriff's station.

Why are you so persistent in obtaining mom's address?

That has nothing to do with your ability to parent or mom's ability to parent, either.

Mom could be homeless, or living in a battered women's shelter; and why would you need to know that?

Homelessness doesn't mean you can't be a good parent, and neither does being a battered or abused person.

With all due respect, I'm sensing open hostility to the notion that the biological father has any rights whatsoever, and a sense of presumption that I'm in some way a harmful or hostile factor and should not be granted any legal rights whatsoever. Is this really how the courts view fathers petitioning for custody? I'm doing what I must for my son's best well being. If I could afford a lawyer, I'd spend everything I had in obtaining one, and I'm confident that my case is stronger than hers; I've been there to support my son and even her at every juncture - paid her bills, given both of them food and shelter, done everything I can to ensure that my son is well provided for. Are you seriously suggesting that even a unfit mother will be treated far more favorably than a father who has done everything he can to ensure that his son has food, shelter and everything he needs? Because his mother cannot economically provide that, nor is he better off with her than he is with me.

So if we go to court, even if I can objectively prove that there is no way she could have made it this far without me being there for her and our son every step of the way, the judge will outright favor her without exception and without any consideration to what I've done for her and our son? That's what I'm getting out of this and your post. And yeah, his whereabouts are important to me because an infant doesn't belong on the street just because his mother is too arrogant and stubborn to accept shelter and help from her ex AND from her family. Show me where in the Texas Family Code, which I've been pouring over the past three months, it says anything like this. If anything, it explicitly states that the best interests of the CHILD, and not of the mother's claim over the child, will always be given first priority (section 153.003).

I posted here because we have both signed a notarized agreement that we have an arranged parenting plan for joint managing conservatorship, which will be presented to a judge. After reading the Texas Family Code, which states in 153.076 that both conservators have a right to full information on the status of the child, I interpret that to include his residency. She contends that it does not. I posted here because I wanted to know if anyone familiar with Texas case law can tell me how the courts have interpreted that section of the law and what the standing ruling is. As I said before, there is no history of violence, menacing, stalking, or anything between me and my ex. We are simply very different people who don't get along anymore and don't agree on key things. And she has a history of lying and deceit, not just to me but to her family; I don't trust her to put our son's needs above her own, which is why I don't trust her with sole information on where he resides.

 

[Proserpina]

The biological father has absolutely no rights until a court gives him those rights; as it stands establishing paternity does nothing really than give you standing to sue for custody/visitation.

Let's simplify things though.

A notarized agreement means nothing at all UNTIL a judge signs off on it. Being unwed, you are not equal to Mom at this point; since she's been the primary caregiver since birth, the courts will generally be reluctant to change the status quo without having a darned good reason for doing so.

And this is going to sound cold, but it's the reality: When you made her the mother of your child, you've basically indicated to the court that she's absolutely fine parenting material. Nothing you've said here indicates that she's legally unfit*. And if you did think the child was genuinely at risk, the fact that you haven't done anything about it isn't in your favor.

What you've contributed financially (and what she hasn't contributed) cannot be the deciding factor in custody.

*you'd be amazed at how low the "acceptable" standard of parenting is.

Had you been married to Mom, you wouldn't have half of the red tape you're now wading through.

 

[jimboa26]

I HAVE done something about it, to keep our son safe. He AND his mother have both been living with me since his birth, until this last Friday. Had I not taken them in to my home, she would have lost him to CPS; a caseworker was here to inspect my home and interview both me and her. I took her in, cared for her and our son at great expense, fed him, watched him, changed him, played with him, everything except resume my relationship with his mother. There is literally nothing else I could have done, and she made it clear that marriage was not in the cards. What else could I have done? That being said, I have acted as our son's father ever since he came home, and she has told others I am his father. She's indicated in writing that she acknowledges me as his legal and biological father and at this juncture, the only points of contest are knowledge of his location and his name.

It's just frustrating to have done the right thing no matter what the personal cost, and being told that too bad, I don't have the right genitalia so I'm screwed no matter how hard I fight, and nothing I do will ever be considered enough.

 

[army judge]

I HAVE done something about it, to keep our son safe. He AND his mother have both been living with me since his birth, until this last Friday. Had I not taken them in to my home, she would have lost him to CPS; a caseworker was here to inspect my home and interview both me and her. I took her in, cared for her and our son at great expense, fed him, watched him, changed him, played with him, everything except resume my relationship with his mother. There is literally nothing else I could have done, and she made it clear that marriage was not in the cards. What else could I have done? That being said, I have acted as our son's father ever since he came home, and she has told others I am his father. She's indicated in writing that she acknowledges me as his legal and biological father and at this juncture, the only points of contest are knowledge of his location and his name.

It's just frustrating to have done the right thing no matter what the personal cost, and being told that too bad, I don't have the right genitalia so I'm screwed no matter how hard I fight, and nothing I do will ever be considered enough.

It's the law. None of us made these laws, yet we all live with them.
By the way, ALL money you may have given her to support your son, the court will view that as a gift, NOT support.

Say you've given her $150,000 over the last five years. Say she admits that in open court, and you present PROOF.
That's just fine, the court will see it as a gift!!!!

Why? Because it isn't child support unless accepted and disbursed by the sate's child support/collection agency, or it was paid pursuant to a court order, NOT a notarized document.

No hostility at all, I'm not her, I'm not the kid, I never had these problems, I don't know her, I don't know you, and I have no dog in this fight. Bottom line, if you dislike the law, complain to your state or federal lawmakers.

Me? I'm just a simple, old, country Texas lawyer.
I don't like most laws, but I've taken an oath as an officer of the court to act ethically. That said, as Pro so ably and clearly said, for unwed fathers, they seek custody, visitation, and support via court orders after proving paternity.

Whether I like it, hate it, or am neutral to it, no one asked my approval, and the law simply rolls on and over us all.
At this point I invoke the Abominable Scare Act, and that's all I need say. Few like it, most don't understand it, fewer wanted it, but it's here, and that's that.

As it is with unwed fathers, you want rights, you go to court and argue your position before a judge.

If you've proven paternity, you'll get visitation, and it might start as supervised, meaning you'll pay a social worker to let you play with Bobby in an office for a couple of hours a week. You won't take Bobby home. Once the social worker has vetted your behavior, you might get Bobby for 3-4 hours on a Saturday. Eventually, Bobby might be allowed to spend a night or two a month with you at your home.

It's a slow process, and it gets expensive, because you'll be shelling out child support, too. In Texas, child support is determined as a percentage of your earnings, and it's all table driven.

Eventually, when Bobby is in school, you'll get him for longer periods of time. You're expecting equality, and unless mommy is a devil, that ain't happening for some time.

 

[army judge]

Oh, that's possibly another error you made by trying to help her not lose him to CPS.
You see, had CPS taken the chid, as the father (having proven his paternity), CPS would have worked to help you obtain custody and placed the child in your care. Why? Because you're dad, and CPS claims to try to keep kids with their family. As dad, you were the logical next of kin. Doing it your way, helped her, but SCREWED you and the boy.

 

[Proserpina]

I have a feeling that CPS simply "told" him that.

The reality is, CPS cannot remove the child without a court order, and they will try - multiple times, frequently - to reunite the child with the primary parent.

It has nothing to do with what's in your pants. Many, many fathers are CP. The problem is that without the protection of marriage, you do have to go through some hoops.

 

[army judge]

I have a feeling that CPS simply "told" him that.

The reality is, CPS cannot remove the child without a court order, and they will try - multiple times, frequently - to reunite the child with the primary parent.

It has nothing to do with what's in your pants. Many, many fathers are CP. The problem is that without the protection of marriage, you do have to go through some hoops.

We sometimes have to hear things we dislike if we seek the truth.

Choices do have consequences.

 

[Betty3]

The bottom line is get a lawyer & see what can be worked out in court.