Mom's denial of contact to dad

[snowrose]

Do not expect the police to help ... they seldom try and oftened get flicked off if they do. If a parent refuses to comply with a court order why would they comply with a patrol officer.

Because the officer embodies carrying out the law, and many people will comply with an officer.

I actually have several friends who've had the police come with them to pick up the children.  The officer looks at the court order and tells the offending parent that it must be obeyed, and the kids leave with the collecting parent.

So there are times that it can work.

[Davy]

I hope what you say is true but on the other hand one has to ask why would any parent need to have the force of a badge and gun to gather their precious children.

Given the criteria you just expoused then patrol officers should hear all contempt motions and we could have fewer judges and more police officers.

I wish it were that simple but here in the real world I've seen literally 1000's of posters on this site and 1000's of fathers I was associated with over a long period of time being denied court ordered access to their children and the the children to their fathers.

In essence, this is one of the main reasons the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice with the assistance of the ABA developed the Criminal Custodial Interference statues and got them enacted in all states.  No one should act like these statues appeared out of thin air.  There was much suffering.

[snowrose]

Given the criteria you just expoused then patrol officers should hear all contempt motions and we could have fewer judges and more police officers.

I think you've confused hearing a motion and enforcing an order already made by the court.  You don't have officers hearing motions in court anymore than you have judges out of the street enforcing the law.

I wish it were that simple but here in the real world I've seen literally 1000's of posters on this site and 1000's of fathers I was associated with over a long period of time being denied court ordered access to their children and the the children to their fathers.

Many of those posters don't have an order.  Many of those posters who have an order never thought of asking the police to enforce the order.  And this site isn't the only site on the internet that deals with this sort of thing, so I doubt your pool used for comparison is any larger than my own.

Your post is patronizing for no reason at all.  Next time I won't bandy straw man arguments with you.

[Davy]

Ding Ding.  The OP has already posted that the PD is contacted and they refuse to even take a repor which is normal.  At the same time, you post that "The officer looks at the court order and tells the offending parent that it must be obeyed".  Wouldn't it be great if the court looks at their own court order and tells the offending parent that it must be obeyed ?  Zing.........

I also posted :

- a parent should not need a badge and a gun to have a loving relationship with their precious children.  MOREOVER, I didn't want my kids to be shown to disrespect authorithy and then wonder why they become hard core juvenile delinquents.

- to exemlify that non compliance with court orders has taken place over a long period of time and many parents, family members and children have suffered greatly alongside the children

- to give evidence of the magitude of the problem by citing the criminalization of custodial intererence across this once great nation.

There was nothing patronizing about my post.  While my post is rationally truthful your post and practically all your posts are full of mambie pamie BS.  Why don't you stick to the subject matter and try to help if you really can.  You are PATRONIZING and you will not patronize me or people like me so get over yourself..   

[Kitty C.]

Davy, don't go there..........

Snowrose was only describing what she and others she knows have experienced.  She did NOT say that it was or should be the norm, just that it DOES happen.  We even had it happen, tho many years ago.  Many here, including snowrose, understand that every jurisdiction is different, both the courts and law enforcement, in dealing with family issues.  What snowrose and others (I included) are doing is giving their perspectives on THEIR experiences, NOT what is or should be the norm.

In a perfect world, parents would NOT have to call the cops to try to enforce an order.  In a perfect world, ALL children would have 50/50 access to their parents after a divorce/separation.  Heck, in a perfect world, parents would stay together and there would be no use of family court to begin with.  But this is not a perfect world and those who come here and have been here will still utilize whatever means available to get acess to their kids.  If that means calling the cops, so be it.  If that doesn't work, then another approach is needed.  But we keep at it until either our children have us in their lives or the system beats us down so far, we no longer have the strength to fight it.

But that's what this site is for....the trading of experiences and ideas on how to deal with this archaic system that seems hellbent on keeping children and their parents separated.  I will repeat again......what may work for one may not work for another......but one won't know until they try.

Davy, your question is valid........why should a parent have to resort to calling a cop just to see their child?  The ideologic answer is they shouldn't....but reality is sometimes they have to.  In some places it works, in others it doesn't.  Fact of life, period.  Believe it or not, both of your posts (yours and snowrose's) are 'rationally truthful', just from different experiences.

Patronizing is one thing, and only a matter of perception.  Deliberately putting down a poster's comments by name-calling is immature and will not be tolerated here.  MY perception.

[ocean]

In our case, the police would not do anything...we forced the issue and they had DH pull past BM house and they would write a report...took them usually over an hour to get there...sometimes two. BUT the police reports helped somewhat in court...Bottom line is that usually the BM gets told dont do it again...and then she does...back to square one. It really depends on the juristiction and if the judge gets tired of seeing BM break their orders...

[Davy]

Please Kitty don't you go there...

There was nothing at all in my posts that could be considered patronizing or name calling.
 
Raising pertinant issues like the impact on the children pertaining to police presence and

the long history and magnitude of these situations and the advent of the custodial

interference statues as a possible remedy is not patronizing and there was no name

calling.

None of the above would be an issue if somebody had a few friends where a patrol office read the court order.  Don't you think that is trite when considering the lives that have been destroyed when a child is denied access to a parent and vice-versa ?  These issues should not be played down and swayed from the real problem just because there were a couple of officers that could read.  It is not the police fault and I seiously hope you understand.

[Kitty C.]

You do not know my experience.........BT, DT.........

Remember, it's all in the perception..............do NOT patronize me.........

[Davy]

I truly do not understand what you are talking about.  I thought I was sticking to the issue.

Could you kindly and briefly elaborate on your pereption(s) and experience(s) and why on earth you think I am patronizing.

[snowrose]

But that's what this site is for....the trading of experiences and ideas on how to deal with this archaic system that seems hellbent on keeping children and their parents separated.

Exactly.  Everyone's experiences are valid, because they add to our foundation of knowledge as to how things are working in the real world.  Our ideas, well sometimes we're on target for a specific situation and sometimes we aren't - but at least we care enough to try and help those who come to ask for help.

Thanks, Kitty.