Messages

I am sorry NY.  This is a set back, but don't give up.  Keep sight of your goals in the modifications at this point.

Hmm, seems like I didn't handle it too well.   Couldn't even drive past the courthouse for 4 months.  But the biggest problem was lack of support.  Tell your doctor what you are going through.  Get help.  See a psychologist (behavioral is best for dealing with stress).  And I agree deeply with others, don't let it take over your life (easier said than done).  Don't talk about it all the time, constantly updating family and friends (there is a fine line between support and wallowing in it).  Need to get it into the background.  We worry about the worst, but keep in mind the actual probability of it happening.  *Try* to keep your perspective.  *Try* to enjoy your life still.  It will get better once a status quo is established.  It is the beginning court stuff that is the worst (at least in my experience).

Poster did state that child was born in US.  We don't know if poster returned to country or if mother came to US after pregancy but before birth.  It may be (not saying that it IS) that visitation has been limited due a fear of child being taken to father's country.  That would be rather concerning if father has a custody order valid in his country.  Especially if mother would normally be awarded custody according to US standards.  Other countries have custody provisions that are wildly different than US.  In some, woman are not allowed to be custodians, period.  So having more info from poster would help a lot.  There's just not enough info to give reliable advice so that poster has reasonable expections of outcome.

By emergencies do you mean:  Child is in car accident-Will they wait for your permission to treat?  No, emergency treatment is admistered to save lives, cannot for obvious reasons worry about the legalities of custody (or else children would die everyday, right?), and does not require permission. Non-emergency treatment would require your permission in most cases.  Your distance is one of the reasons that could be argued for withholding legal custody, since it will be difficult for you to make accurate determinations without "seeing" the situation firsthand.  You do not have legal custody in the US right now.  Your country may be different.  There is every type of law that one could imagine in this world when it comes to child custody, and maybe you are from a place that fathers have final say in all aspects of their children's lives automatically, married or unmarried.  What country are you in, if you don't mind disclosing the info?

PS: Right now, as things stand, you have no legal standing in any decision, so until that final court ruling, mother alone makes all decisions.

I agree, you are being too nice.  Plus, paying all of travel would mean that it would be an open-ended cost that impacts her in no way.  What if she wants to fly first class?  Or gets her flight at the last minute?  I would say a child support deduction (which she should be paying, not you) that she can use toward the costs of travel.  Maybe that will mean zero child support, but she shouldn't profit from the situation.  If you can get her to settle by offering these things, then settle away, but make sure that your costs are clear and the process that will be used is also crystal clear (so many dollars per visit, so many times per year...ect).  You might want to think of a way that you could facilitate the child's relationship with the grandparents though, especially if they have taken care of child for a long time.  That way, that roadblock might be uplifted, because it might be them that she is fighting for.  You could offer to bring child every so often to see grandparents, or allow them to fly child to where they are...depends on your situation.  Might not be a good idea either, so take these suggestions for what they are worth.

I think you are very noble with your approach concerning paternity.  That's true love, and I hope that you get custody of your son!

I've got your argument, Davy, but the question really comes down to: What happens when two parent disagree about a medical decision.  If both don't want or want a vaccine, the state does not override that decision (usually....).  When they disagree, that's when we invite the state into our private decisions regarding these issues.  Of course, the state can stop children from attending daycare, school ect, so it is important to keep those issues in mind as well when making those decisions.  Since father is out the country, it is in his interest to see the types of discussions that take place regarding this sensitive issue (I know father doesn't want discussion of that in this forum, but it is a great learning experience for him).

As a result, a discussion about other issues is pertinent to the question.  This father does have to think about these things to get a full answer to likely outcome.

My little piece, depending on how strongly father feels about issue, is that:  There are several factors working against his struggle for joint legal.  Long distance, age of child (thus amount of time mother has had sole legal) to name a couple biggies.  By making an issue, you are showing a third big one, that you are not able to come to agreements with mother in some cases.  Joint legal works when parties agree on (most) joint decisions and are of a like mind.  If you are going to end up in court over these issues, then it may be a reason for the court to go the sole legal route.  Additionally, if mother believes in vaccination, this is going to be a relatively moot point given the age of the child.   

Additionally, as an aside social issue (to inform father) this is a hot button issue in USA right now, so depending on your judge, they may label you a (forgive this term but it makes the point) nutcase, again making them go against joint legal.  Given the proven benefits of vaccination, you are going to have a hard time making a case that you are in the right due to potential and yet unproven significant risks of side effects from vaccine administration. If you could do so, reliably, you are likely to make CNN headlines also. Remember also, the state likes vaccinations.  Judges and courts are members of the state.  I guess what I am saying is: it may not be in your interest to pursue this route if your goal is obtaining joint legal?  Comes down to what is more important to you?  Having a say in her life decisions in the future or do you feel that the risks of vaccination warrent a hot pursuit of this avenue that you are going down?  I understand where you are coming from, since my DH is from out of the country and has strong feelings about this also, but there is an overwelming set of factors in US that are hard to work against when it comes to medical related issues and child custody.

Horrible situation.

Sounds like diagnosis is well-documented.  You need to balance the baby's safety with not forcing the situation so that mother harms herself or baby.  In other words, I would not broadcast the plan until you are able to implement it.  Actually, trying to work things out, so that you are there everyday, gives you the most power, but I don't see how you could stay in that situation very long.  You call it "hell", and I would imagine it could be worse than that.  When the time comes, you should be asking for full-custody.  Consult a lawyer to strategize your options.  It would be very nice if a paternity test could be swabbed at birth and the results be confirmed prior to the baby going home from the hospital.  She sounds very unbalanced and I would be frightened for her to care for the baby by herself.  You could(should) make her have supervised visits and standards regarding medication being properly adhered to.  As far as her threatening abortion, there are only a couple of places in the country that do abortions that late.  You won't be able to stop it, because "health of mother" is a reason, and her mental history would have many agreeing that it is not best for mother's health to have a baby.  Is she the type to go through hell and high water to try to get that done?  Or do you think it is just a threat?  If she harms herself to abort baby, I am not sure what you can do about that, except try to have her committed (can't do that based on her "harming" baby, since baby isn't born yet, but she would be harming herself in the process).  That is very tough, especially since you are not a family member.  What are her family's feelings on the situation, and would they back you up?  They have a bit more power regarding a mentally ill adult who is off meds and threatening harm to herself.  And her mother could file for custody upon birth, considering her mental status and threats.  That would be where the "strategy" comes into play.  Pushed too hard though, sounds like this mother will harm herself to get out of the situation.  The threat of losing her child, mental illness or not, is what is scaring the hell out of her and why she wants you to terminate your rights.  In the meantime, find out if your state is a one-party state or a  two-party state.  If it is a one party state, start recording these conversations.

The step-dad just left child behind because HE didn't want to be late for work.  Not cool.  The grounding from school is just a stupid cover.  Who grounds a child from school??  Isn't that almost a reward in the kid's eyes?  That is REALLY weird, and I would try to get it in writing (like email) for later possible use.

Ok, so someone can correct me, this is just my advice...

Are you established as the father (legally, birth certificate not enough)?  If so, you should file for a parenting arrangement and get a temporary restraining order so that she doesn't leave the state.  AND DO THIS ASAP.  The temporary restraining order part of all of this advice is very important, and you need to get her served with it before she leaves the state of Texas.  You do not want to try to fix things after she leaves.  That is a mess!  Stop her from leaving (via court order, obviously she may not listen and go, but your case is much more straighforward if she has this served on her inside the state of Texas).  She will be ordered to stay at least until things are settled.  The good news is: Texas is reluctant to allow moves, so she will have to justify why it is in the best interests of children for her to move considering it will greatly diminish the amount that you can see them and you will have a good shot at keeping her there. Free rent won't be enough.  If her family is there, a new job ect....stronger case for her, but it will have to be really strong and you still will probably win.  You have a long strong relationship, having lived with children all their life.

If you are not established as father, run to the court even faster than ASAP (like yesterday) because she currently is the only recognized legal parent of the children and can make decisions by herself as to where they live.  Only real difference is you have to file to establish paternity also.  Otherwise you still get the temporary restraining order to prevent her from leaving with children.

Now, since you lived with mother so long, engaged ect...you can also say that you are common-law married.  There are some standards to prove this, but it can be better to go through child custody from this stand point (although you will also have to get divorced, which isn't so great for the financials).  If #2 situation is true (paternity not established) and she leaves before you can serve the temporary restraining order on her, then you can use the argument that you are common law married to get her back quickly (since then you have joint custody of children rather than her having sole custody).  Also, when I say her, it is really the children, she can move anywhere she wants, but not with kids).  You need evidence to assert common law marriage.  If you ever put her on health insurance, that is good evidence that you were common-law married.  Remember, this is if she leaves before the TRO is served on her and paternity has not been established.  You might have a really hard time getting her to move back if she has legal sole custody, since she has a right to make that decision.

Someone else can talk about joint custody/child support stuff....

This is one of the arguments that my lawyer made.  I was a little afraid that might be brought up, and it might be hard to overcome if NY willing decides that it will be too hard to deal with evidence that resides mostly in Texas.  I won on other conditions, but I guess it comes down to the cost of home studies ect..and bringing in the locals for hearings.  New York may not want to deal with that if the child's doctors, daycare providers, counslers,ect are all in Texas and will have difficulty testifying.  I know you were thinking of bringing the daycare worker to testify, this might be a reason not to do so?  Don't know, but it might bring the inconvience to the courts attention?  A simple set of clarifications isn't as big of a deal.  I think your lawyer has the right idea.  And you want to keep it in NY as long as you can.