visitation help

[kitten]

Huh?  LOL!  Thanks, the argument answered a couple of other ?'s I had.

[Troubledmom]

An interesting experience reagarding delivering items in an envelope when you need "evidence" of delivery:

UPS delivers envelopes, you are provided tracking information and can recieve proof of delivery. And how often do you ever see someone hide from that big brown truck?

It was very effective in a friends fight to show he was attempting to contact his child until Mom caught on and actually starting refusing packages from UPS. Which went to show the cusotdial parents frustration of contact.

Just an experience I thought I would share....

TM

[kitten]

Hmmmm....
Thank you for sharing.  UPS does deliver letters too.  

[TPK]

My NJ attorney initially used UPS to serve wife at her "hide-out" location.

UPS showed a delivery to her on a tracking # and someone with my last name had signed for it.

Sounds like a lock right?

Well, NJ judge did NOT accept this as service mainly because UPS couldn't verify is was actually my wife who signed it.

I'm not even sure USPS could verify a signature unless some handwriting expert was used to determine if it actually was the recipient's signature or a forging.

I had sent some certified letters with signature required and they were all refused or left at the Post Office and returned not deliverable.

Next time around I sent delivery confirmation Priority Mail and was able to at least show it was delivered.

Just my 2 cents

TPK

[socrateaser]

There are different requirements for personal service. The purpose of having definite and certain proof that a person is served with notice of a new action pending, is so that there can be no dispute later that the person was given notice of the legal action pending against them and opportunity to appear and defend. This is the absolute requirement of Constitutional "Due Process of Law," to which we are all entitled.

However, a letter notifying a person who is ALREADY served and a party to a case does not require the same level of certainty. A parent who has a legal obligation to remain in contact with the other parent, with whom that parent shares custodial rights and responsibilities, knows that correspondence is a real probability, and in a circumstance where a court order instructs that a transfer of the child will occur on a specific date, that parent should be EXPECTING to receive correspondence.

So, a certified letter displaying the address of the OTHER PARENT that is rejected in order to allow the recipient to feign lack of notice or knowledge of the correspondence is not only unreasonable -- it is absolute contempt for the court's orders and the legal process in general.

Which is why I suggest that sending this particular letter certified mail is really all that is necessary.