Visitation for 4 month old

[scaredandconfused]

I am a new mother of a 4 month old. His father and I were not married- dated on and off less than one year- broke up when I was 6 months pregnant. My ex had unprotected sex with me against my wishes (I told him no before and during- we both knew I was ovulating). He is a controlling and unstable (emotionally, physically, financially) person with a massive alcohol problem. I could go into further detail, but that is it, in a nutshell. He wants half time custody. He was granted 6 hours twice a week, 5 and a half on Saturdays (I was advised to be "generous" in mediation). He has opted not to pick him up on Saturdays. Now he wants "full days" (not sure the extent of hours, but greater than at least twice a week. I am trying to find reliable empirical evidence as to the amount of visitation that is considered ideal for a nursing child of 4 months. In addition, I have spoken with the father about a possible relocation. He works a low-end job, I will be pursuing my career and/or graduate school. I was only in CA for my education. My family is elsewhere, and I graduate soon. Hypothetically, he could relocate and find similar work anywhere else... but he has filed new papers requesting that if I leave the state it will not exceed 1 week. Any advice? I am at a loss as to what to do, what my rights are, what is in my son's "best interest" in this complicated situation. Any info would be appreciated. Thank you

[Kitty C.]

Did you ever consider having him charged with sexual assault or rape................if it was against your will?  Because now that you have some kind of order in place, it is deemed consensual and any details about 'how' the pregnancy happened is now a moot point.

[Simplydad]

First and foremost if you do not have an attorney you should get one as soon as possible.

The courts responsibility will always be what is in the best interest of the child.  Sometimes we may not agree on what their "interpretation" of that is.  A child needs both parents in their lives. If one of the parent exhibits behaviors that would be detrimental to the welfare of the child then some intervention is definately necessary.

Does your current order have any provisions in it that pertain to relocation? IF it does not then your ex can't do anyting to stop you from moving but he can make the request (and it seems he has) to prevent you from moving.  THat is normally granted until a hearing a hearing is actually held to determine custody.  So if you do want to move then an attorney is going to really be necessary.  If you do move I would still say that you should make sure the father is in the child's life. You may not like him but children adore their parents and as long as he does not cause any harm to the child he has the right to be in his/her life.

[gemini3]

This is kind of up in the air for me.... I am not sure if you're saying that he raped you, or that you consented to sex with him.

[tigger]

She consented to sex but not condomless sex.  How the baby got here is irrelevant to the situation as the baby is 4 months old and the incident happened (presumably) roughly 13 - 14 months ago.

[ocean]

Yeah, I do not think she can use the "rape" card now after there is an order in place and it was not brought up before.

How is the father with the child when he has child now? That is ALL that will matter. If her care is taken care of (fed, has a bed/nap time) then he will get visitation. You will be made to pump breast milk into bottles for him, that is not an excuse for him not to have her.

Usually that age, father gets a few times a week and a full day on weekends then goes to overnights....depends on the area/judge. He should be getting half the holidays (or every other year...) and longer periods in summer once child is a little older...

If you want to move, you will need to prove it is in the best interest of child.
Get proof of a job at new area, proof of new place to live, and a want to be able to have father in her life (long distance, child will be with him longer periods at a time, a few times a year).

Here, it depends on the judge, many are not allowing the moves if the father is trying to stay involved. You can bring up that you were in area for college and want to go back "home".

How many days of court ordered time has he missed? Make a calendar and keep track. At court, print it out, colorful with the days he missed and when he asks for more time, you can bring up how much time he refused to take child.

If you are still going to school or work, offer the time you are gone as the extra time. A child should be with a parent first before babysitters/daycares.

[gemini3]

I just don't know how you can consent to sex, but not condomless sex, and then end up having sex without a condom and getting pregnant.  Either you consent or you don't.  It's not like you can't tell whether there's a condom or not.

[Davy]

Ya'll are being silly and attempting to continue the great societal prudish myth.  I hate to kill your joy but everybody knows females are far more sexually aggressive than their male counter parts.

So it follows that it is highly likely the father was assualted or raped and probably absent a comdom in hopes of a financial reward to take back home to mama along with baby.

In addition, I have never found any evidence that a child, young or old, is better served with the mother vs the father.  In fact, just the opposite. 

It seems these posts are often brain-dead with assumptions while we should be accentuating the need for a child to be presented with both parents. 

[scaredandconfused]

As for attorneys- I have met with 3- spent almost $1000 in initial consultations, and have yet to find one that is anything less than very liberal- the least I have been quoted for representation is $5000. As a student, I cannot afford the cost of an attorney, so I am trying to represent myself. While I understand that I should have brought up everything the first time we went to court, in my defense, I was trying very hard to maintain a somewhat reasonably "friendly" relationship for the sake of my child. Unfortunately, I have tried for months to be friendly, and it has gotten me nowhere- he walks all over me, and capitalizes on any opportunity to dominate me. I agree that both parents should be in a child's life, ideally, however, I do think time with my ex should be limited considering all the circumstances. A child should not grow up learning that men can treat women in the way that the father treats me... he may not be abusive to the child, but that does not excuse his behavior towards me, and it certainly does not mean that the child will not be hurt/affected by it. In addition, because my ex drinks very excessively, he is hungover (sometimes still drunk) when he has visitation- and yes, he drives in this condition! So while he may not be abusing the child, there is definitely a heightened risk of harm.

With regards to the move: again, ideally, moms and dads shouldn't live in different towns, states, etc. But realistically, if there are no decent jobs in a place that is not my home, that has relatively high crime rates and a crappy education system, is it unacceptable to think that a better life can (and should) be pursued elsewhere? That because I conceived/gave birth in this state, I now should not be allowed to leave? As a reminder, he is free to go wherever he may choose- he has a job with the flexibility to literally go anywhere, and he has been in this area less than a year (and has only worked this job a few months).

By the way, the information that many loosely refer to, that "both parents should be in a child's life" is somewhat misleading. It has been shown that children raised by one parent can (and do) thrive when other factors, such as income level and level of conflict within the home are controlled for. I am not advocating for divorce or single parent households, but I think it is important to consider other facets to custody issues than the blanket statement that 2 parents are always better...

Thanks for the responses

[scaredandconfused]

Ya'll are being silly and attempting to continue the great societal prudish myth.  I hate to kill your joy but everybody knows females are far more sexually aggressive than their male counter parts.

So it follows that it is highly likely the father was assualted or raped and probably absent a comdom in hopes of a financial reward to take back home to mama along with baby.

In addition, I have never found any evidence that a child, young or old, is better served with the mother vs the father.  In fact, just the opposite. 

It seems these posts are often brain-dead with assumptions while we should be accentuating the need for a child to be presented with both parents. 

Right... If you honestly believe that I took advantage of the father, you need a quick little math lesson- I'm sure even you can do this simple computation:
When he and I dated and I became pregnant: I made about twice as much money per month than he did.
                                         I had ZERO debt
                                         My earning potential within my career is about three times as high as his
                                         Oh, and he hates to work- is incredibly lazy.
                                         And it deserves mention that I have never asked for/received any money whatsoever

                                         Oh, and my family is extremely affluent

On the other hand: He made less than me (by alot)
                  He has a huge amount of debt
                  He works a mediocre sales job- calls it his career (top salary is 1/3 my top salary)
                  He cannot seem to work a full 40 hour/week job (too many hours)
                  

So I ask you, why would I have assaulted him? To take his "money"? Really? If I wanted to trap someone I would have at least made it worth my time.

As for the statement about females being more sexually aggressive: I do agree that women can be aggressive, and they can certainly be devious. However, to pretend that a 105lb female has a prayer of a chance when a 225lb male forces himself on her is ridiculous. To pretend that all women are more sexually aggressive and thus cannot be taken advantage of, assaulted, or raped, is also ridiculous. I am very interested in where you find your information