>>Nah.. not road blocks. I just love my baby girl enough not
>to
>>just drop her off with a complete stranger. And I love her
>>enough to do all I can to make sure she is going to be in
>safe
>>hands. Sounds like you just have a little bitterness
>>concerning your own experience maybe. Hey, this is a man who
>>abandoned his daughter. I don't really care what his legal
>>rights are until he takes me to court. Until then I will do
>>whatever it takes for them to have a relationship but also
>>make sure she's in good hands.
>
>It's not about bitterness (my situation actually went
>reasonably well). It's about mothers thinking that they can
>continue to control everyone's life after a divorce.
>
>You threw out at least 3 roadblocks that I counted, several of
>them quite unreasonable. Furthermore, some people here have
>been suggesting that you prevent ANY visitation without a
>
court order. That's even more unreasonable.
My response:
Pointing out that it is not unheard of for a judge to order supervised visits in the beginning when the father is a complete stranger to the child in response to you saying that she should just leave her small child alone with a stranger (again, this is by the father's choice) is not the same as saying not to allow visits without a court order.
Nor is mentioning that she doesn't have to allow visits until
paternity (or a court order for that matter) has been established is not the same as saying that visits should be prevented (which this mother clearly is not doing, she is allowing visits in a way that takes the CHILD into consideration). Just that, she in fact, doesn't have to allow visits at all.
You said:
>
>As I said, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to visit
>the child in your home (with you completely out of the way)
>the first time or two.
My response:
There is NO WAY on earth I would leave a 2 year old, even in her home, alone with a stranger (and that IS what this father is to the child, BY HIS OWN CHOICE). I wouldn't even let a babysitter alone with my 2 year old without several visits (read that as more than a couple) with me there. It's called taking the child into consideration. I know that is a foreign concept for you, but there are parents who do that.
You said:
>After that, he's the father and you
>don't seem to understand that.
My response:
You don't seem to understand that it takes longer than a couple of visits for a 2 year old to become comfortable with a stranger enough to be away from the
primary caretaker.
You don't seem to understand that it was the father who made himself a stranger.
Just because he's the father doesn't mean that the child's emotional well-being and rights shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Again, it is not unheard of for a judge to order supervised visits for a couple of MONTHS when one of the parents is a stranger to the child.
You said:
Whether he's a good father or
>not isn't at all relevant.
My response:
What is relevant is that the father CHOSE to be a stranger to his child. He now must live with the consequences of HIS actions. And one of them is having to have supervised visits until the child becomes comfortable with him.
You said:
He has the right to live his life
>and see his daughter without your constant interference.
My response:
And the child (you know, the one he abandoned) has a right to get to know and be comfortable with the stranger (again, this is by the father's choice) before going off with him. By the time she is comfortable with him, he will no longer be a stranger.
