Thank you for your replies and sorry for the hiatus. One poster says that the definition of coercion is to get someome to do something illegal under threat. I don't understand that. If I hold up someone at gunpoint and take their money wouldn't that be coercion? And there is nothing illegal about taking someone's money.
Were you held at gunpoint? No. So don't compare it.
Secondly, I do have in writing some of the tactics used. My ex-husband, in a court filing claimed I assaulted him and the child (which is not true not even conceivable). Based on that, undoubtedly the court would have given me no access to my child at all. The courts don't bother to verify information. They just do what they want to do and such horrible claim would affect any judge to "err" on the safe side.
For emergency, temporary orders, they err on the side of caution.
However, you would have the opportunity to contest such allegations at a follow up hearing before the temporary orders become a final order, if you chose to do to. And depending on whose version seems more credible, you could have even prevailed.
That you are gullible and believed your ex-husband more credible than yourself is not coercion.
In fact, having this in writing proves nothing, save that there were allegations against you, and you
signed willingly rather than repudiate them. Yes. "Willingly." You weighed your options and decided to sign. There was no gun to your head, there was no knife at your throat.
Also, I do not mean to argue with the kind people here who replied. I just have a really hard time wrapping my mind around that it would not only condoned by the courts but impossible to fight that one person gets another person to agree to something solely by putting that person under extreme fear and pressure. I am not a lawyer but to me a situation like this seems to be among the very basic rules of why laws even exist, like you cannot steal, assault, etc...
I mean if you read the law code about harassment, stalking, etc.. many of these things are felonies. Threatening a parent to take their child and ruin their life seems so far worse than, let's say, stalking or harassment, I just cannot believe there would no remedy. And what would be the reason for that? Thank you
Here's the thing:
you signed.
You have no proof that you were, say, tortured... that he chained you to a wood chipper, pulled out your toe nails one by one, and was going to throw the rest of you in if you did not sign. (Just an extreme example.) Nope. He did not touch a single hair of yours; he just threatened to make allegations in court that
he could not prove.
So, rather than facing a
temporary order that could be thrown out if you contested it, you chose to
sign an agreement. The agreement you signed is legally binding. You cannot backtrack on it to get the order changed; the judge is not going to accept that.
Your only recourse is
time and a
change of circumstances (for the child, not you).
This may not happen for years. Meaning that out fear of not seeing your child for 6 months, you signed onto an arrangement that could remain in effect for years. This does not make you come across as rational.
In the meantime, my advice stands:
The option you are left with: exercise every minute of parenting time that you are allowed, and wait. There may be non-visitation opportunities to be present in your child's life. Get active at your child's school, for example.
