Messages

At my last hearing the Judge signed a order that stated
"The court further orders that unless further action is taken on this case, the temporary orders for sole legal and sole physical custody shall become permanent 90 days from todays date (Oct 15th)"
Do I need to write up a new order stating permanent sole? does the 15th count as  a date that it can be filed on?

I would think if the civil judge said no way I couldn't see WHY this has any merit in justice court. Being u need a slight proof of evidence to support civil and justice needs beyond a doubt proof.

If the judge won't throw it out in justice u have to go with it. Can't get it to go away until hearin for judge to decide if it has any weight to push forward. Ya it will have a impact on custody.

Was this home both of your homes??

Sorry for the language. But it's frustrating. I don't get it. I just wish I knew why. I couldn't imagine doing it myself. I hope it's short lived. I didn't want the BM to just leave. I wanted the kids safe.

I mean seriously?? Are there any books?? I can not figure out why someone would say f**** it; I don't need to see or talk to my kids. It's been nearly a year since physical contact and 2 months no phone calls.

Most district courts have a website you can also search the family law records to see what's up.

Most states require hand served to initiate divotce.....if person is "unfindable" they then require a publication to attempt to notify other party. If both done the. They will enter default judgement.

Default judgements are easily over turn to start the legal process. However don't think a judge won't hold it against you for showing up late if you were served.

[125.490]

Check the laws in your state before going with any of this advice.  In my state, married parents have equal rights, however an unwed mother immediately has custody of the child as the paternity of the father may be in question.I would not suggest picking up the child and keeping him/her without consulting a lawyer family with your state laws.

absolutly 100% THIS!!

Oneman......I dont see where you think the argument stands is "she wont agree to 50/50, that means I should have sole custody"
Here, lets look at my states laws....which is tailored after so many other states
  NRS 125.490  Joint custody.
     1.  There is a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody would be in the best interest of a minor child if the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage.
OK. presumption.....not guarenteed nor "you may force the other one into joint custody otherwise we will give you sole custody"
Here, I'll even give you personal first hand knowledge.
I handled my divorce ProSe. I wanted sole legal and Primary physical custody. she wanted one week on one week off. She insisted her cause was for best interest of children and the only reason I wanted her to have a EOW schedule was to keep kids out of her life. Kids were 6 and 4. I argued it was NOT in there best interests (and mind you mom lived just one school zone over) based upon a history of instability for children while we were married, the kids were in need of a stable lifestyle, and during the court proceedings I have been responsible for the oldest child getting to school where she was thriving!
So I never once agreed to her 50/50 arangement........oh, and I still was awarded Primary custody based on my argument.

well put simplydad!

Im sorry....but where is this a "good case for sole custody"??
If there arent any orders in place and shes not violating any visitation orders......the sad truth she is in her rights. Screwed up as she may be, thats what it is. And from the way grandma is posting, sounds like there may not be any orders in place.
If a married couple seperates and the dad takes kids somewhere and doesnt allow mom to see them he is within his rights. Thats why courts make orders is to outline a pattern for visitaion.
And yes, I know in most judges eyes the aboove scenario would be made a reason to give mom sole, but going off state laws, its not illegal.

Did you receive minimum because you wanted that??

This is tricky. It sounds like if you suspend it though you will open up to a "stopped frequent access" attack. Even though there is no court order regarding it, I assume, it's something that could be argued that it has been acceptable for some time so why not now.

How does the dad and in law feel about it. I honestly think if the only reasoning is to stop BM from interrupting time it's norton a be good.