U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2013, 07:41 PM
 
599 posts, read 918,043 times
Reputation: 585

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Most states have a "presumptive father law". This makes the man who is married to the woman the legal father of the child. In this situation, a biological father almost never can seek custody of the child. He has no standing under this statute. I personally think the law's presumption that a married man is the father of any child born to his wife during their marriage is a good one.
I'm sure if your wife had another man's child while you were married to her, you would have a different perspective.

Answer these three questions honestly:

1) If your wife had a child that was obviously of a different race than you, would you be OK with that?
2) If your wife had a child that was not yours who had severe problems potentially costing millions of dollars over the life of the child, would you be OK with that?
3) If your wife had a child, then divorced you and married the biological father, would you be OK with paying child support for the child? This is EXACTLY what happened in the article I linked above. The mother married the bio father, the bio father was raising the child, but her ex-husband had to pay child support on the child - to the bio father!
Rate this post positively

 
Old 07-02-2013, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago area
1,122 posts, read 3,359,371 times
Reputation: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleasach View Post



I don't think that mom is legally able to put the child up for adoption without the father's consent or the father signing to terminate his parental rights. If mom doesn't want to raise the baby and dad does, I say let him raise his child.

People change. Maybe he was an irresponsible lout before the birth but maybe the birth of the child became real to him and he reached a turning point in his life and realized it's not all about him. To dismiss that and say "too bad, you were a tool, so you get no contact and have no say" is wrong.
Actually in many states the mother can put the baby up for adoption even though the father is standing there jumping up and down saying he wants to raise his child. In South Carolina, for example, the father has no say at all unless he supported the mother for a certain amount of months during pregnancy. In other states fathers have seven days after birth to put his name on a registry or he's SOL.
In Utah a woman from any other state can circumvent the need to have the father sign away his rights as long as she mentions - just mentions - the state of Utah to him some time during the pregnancy. At that time he has 30 days to go to Utah and put his name on a registry which, of course, most men in other states won't know about and wouldn't do anyway if he has no way of knowing that the mother is planning an adoption.

There was recently a case where a baby was born in Florida to an unmarried couple. The father thought they were going to raise the baby together and got the shock of his life when his girlfriend just drops off the face of the earth around the time the baby was due. After he finds out that the baby has been born he contacts a lawyer and goes to court in Florida to protect his rights. But what do you know, the mother has gone to Utah and without the father's knowledge the clock is now ticking over there. He found out too late and lost his baby which he wanted and was very qualified to care for. It's shocking to me that there are people out there that think that men like him should have no rights to raise his own daughter.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-02-2013, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Chicago area
1,122 posts, read 3,359,371 times
Reputation: 2197
[quote=2mares;30292760]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaramouchebluez View Post
I'd say another rarity. If a man acknowledges fatherhood and is there to be in the child's life the mother would have little reason to put the child up for adoption.
You may think so but that's not the case. There are currently a number of cases where father's are fighting for their children that have been put up for adoption by their mothers. One woman, despite knowing that the father wanted the baby, took off to Italy and dumped the baby on the steps of a convent. Thankfully the father managed to track the baby down, went to Italy and gained custody of his son whom he's now raising just fine. He was lucky that the mother put the baby on the steps of an Italian convent. Had she dropped him off with an American adoption agency he would likely have had no rights at all.

Quote:
So its ok for a man to have "reasons" to not skip town and never acknowledge their child but still have the right to come back at any time to be a part of their life, but not ok for a woman to have reasons to put the child up for adoption or not wanting the biological father in the child's life?
We're not talking about men who want to come back at any time. Clearly, at a certain point of not stepping up your ship has sailed. We're talking about men who want their children from early infancy and are not unfit as parents.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-03-2013, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Cumberland Co. TN
31,982 posts, read 27,177,032 times
Reputation: 28568
[quote=Lizita;30304778]

Quote:
You may think so but that's not the case. There are currently a number of cases
where father's are fighting for their children that have been put up for
adoption by their mothers. One woman, despite knowing that the father wanted the
baby, took off to Italy and dumped the baby on the steps of a convent.
Thankfully the father managed to track the baby down, went to Italy and gained
custody of his son whom he's now raising just fine. He was lucky that the mother
put the baby on the steps of an Italian convent. Had she dropped him off with an
American adoption agency he would likely have had no rights at all.
How many cases? What percentage is that? Little enough to be a rarity.
I think the fathers should have a right to custody of the child in these circumstances, but they are rare. I don't think the law should change for the majority to accommodate the minority. Do you not believe in the majority of adoptions the father has skipped and dosen't want the responsibility of the child leaving the mother to raise it on her own or go the adoption route.

Remember the case years ago where the father was basically MIA for 3-4 years, the child was adopted then he came back and got custody. I remember the new cast of the little girl frightened and traumatized when she was ripped from the arms of her adoptive parents by a man she didn't know. I believe a few years later the father and step mother divorced and he no longer wanted his kid.

I never felt it was the best thing for that child. The images were heartbreaking. I guess this is why generally I feel there should be a time limit for a unmarried father to make claim to his offspring just as there is a time limit for a mother to change her mind about the adoption. If he truly cares why isn't he around and involved from the pregnancy and you know maybe marry the mother.



Quote:
We're not talking about men who want to come back at any time. Clearly, at a
certain point of not stepping up your ship has sailed. We're talking about men
who want their children from early infancy and are not unfit as parents.
That was in response to a particular poster's post not the general topic.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-06-2013, 01:32 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
17,607 posts, read 14,351,621 times
Reputation: 16346
There seems to be a per asive feeling, among many people, mostly women, tbat a father has NO rights, whatsoever. I am not trying to pick on women in general, but the "Mother is all" mindset, is, mostly female. Since the mother must carry and give birth, in the minds of many, that ordeal, alone, excludes any "rights" or feelings about his ivolvement in the childs life. Beyond the requirement of financial support, of course, should he and the mother be seperated. Marriage makes the difference. But, even then, Fathers are often treated as way second class.

My view, as a Father, and a Dad, is that I have just as much "right" to love, and be a part of my childs life, as his Mother. In ttuth, in terms of bonding, being an influence, and involvement in his interests, I ha e more time in grade than his mother. Since walking came into the picture, anyway. He is outdoorsy, adventerous and rough and tumble. Mom, not so much.

At any rate, it is my take, that BOTH parents have important roles to play. Both need to be involved, to the exclusion of other things either may want. The child comes first. If a Father balks at responsibility, he's a POS. Same goes for a Mother. If she runs off to adopt a child out , bypassing tbe Father, that is plain wrong. Especially if the Father will take the child and do right by him/her. He should, then, have a say. Mom should not have all power simply because she is the mother.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-06-2013, 08:28 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,675,382 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
There seems to be a per asive feeling, among many people, mostly women, tbat a father has NO rights, whatsoever. I am not trying to pick on women in general, but the "Mother is all" mindset, is, mostly female. Since the mother must carry and give birth, in the minds of many, that ordeal, alone, excludes any "rights" or feelings about his ivolvement in the childs life. Beyond the requirement of financial support, of course, should he and the mother be seperated. Marriage makes the difference. But, even then, Fathers are often treated as way second class.

My view, as a Father, and a Dad, is that I have just as much "right" to love, and be a part of my childs life, as his Mother. In ttuth, in terms of bonding, being an influence, and involvement in his interests, I ha e more time in grade than his mother. Since walking came into the picture, anyway. He is outdoorsy, adventerous and rough and tumble. Mom, not so much.

At any rate, it is my take, that BOTH parents have important roles to play. Both need to be involved, to the exclusion of other things either may want. The child comes first. If a Father balks at responsibility, he's a POS. Same goes for a Mother. If she runs off to adopt a child out , bypassing tbe Father, that is plain wrong. Especially if the Father will take the child and do right by him/her. He should, then, have a say. Mom should not have all power simply because she is the mother.
What the hell is wrong with you man???!!!?!?!? No NVplumber, you have no say so! Lets get one thing straight right now Mr! You have NOT carried a baby for 9 month and/or gave birth to it! Plus, some random dead beat father didn't do enough for some random pissed off bitter woman somewhere out there in some random place. Now because of that, you should NOT have any rights other than to over pay financially! I don't care if you're a good person or dad, some mans got to pay! No, all men do! I dare you think you have any rights to your child! What kind of sick individual are you?

Another thing... When you can spread your legs, have sex, get pregnant by some poor excuse of a man that you were dumb enough to have unprotected sex with, carry a baby for 9 months and are all of a sudden surprised that the POS man you choose is nowhere to be found, give birth to the child, and then have to be a bitter, selfish, closed minded, and pissed off woman who's mad at every man (even the good ones) in the world because she made a bad choice... Then and only then can you even dream about having any rights to your child!

Don't you know that women can do no wrong? If a woman ever did do anything wrong, it's a man's fault. Now get that through your thick skull, go away, and never come back here talking that rational, common sense, "the child comes first" bull crap again... Everyone knows that women and their emotions come before anything and anyone..

Men these days pfft
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-07-2013, 01:05 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,675,382 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by DELL37 View Post
If the father is not paying support then he should have no legal right to the child in anyway shape or form.


On the other hand. If the mother denies him the right to e with his child then he should not be held responsible for the child in any way shape or form.
Both of those options are completely retarded to me, and I'm not alone. In every state courts consider support and parenting time as to separate issues. If a father isn't paying support, but is at least willing to be there emotionally, why stop him? Even if the child isn't being fully supported financially, why withhold the possibility of them being fully supported emotional? That is how judges, legislators, child psychologist, and people who truly have children's best interest at heart see it, so just don't take my word for it.

A woman should not have the option or right to "deny" the father of their child visitation, and again, the courts and lawmakers agree. In fact the mother of my 3 year old decided on her own to up and move across the country in violation of a visitation order and even though she had sole physical and legal custody, she was promptly charged with felony Parental Abduction and Violation of a Court Order.

Quote:
18.2-49.1. Violation of court order regarding custody and visitation; penalty

A. Any person who knowingly, wrongfully and intentionally withholds a child from either of a child's parents or other legal guardian in a clear and significant violation of a court order respecting the custody or visitation of such child, provided such child is withheld outside of the Commonwealth, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. Any person who knowingly, wrongfully and intentionally engages in conduct that constitutes a clear and significant violation of a court order respecting the custody or visitation of a child is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor upon conviction of a first offense. Any person who commits a second violation of this section within 12 months of a first conviction is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor, and any person who commits a third violation occurring within 24 months of the first conviction is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
You see, just like the other women on this forum, she thought she was God and could do whatever she wanted just because she was mom and she carried our child for 9 months. She thought as a father, I had no say so. That thought process ended up getting her charged with a class 6 felony. That's how serious the state of Virginia is about both parents having the opportunity to be in the child's life because they know the child is better off.

So to refute your statements, If a father does not pay child support, he should have to pay the legal consequences , because his children have the right to be supported by both parents.

On the other hand, if the mother denies him the right to be with his child then he should should still be held responsible for the child because the child has a right to be supported by both parents. The mother should held legally accountable and the laws are getting tougher (across the country) on the mothers who deny their child's right to have a physical and emotional relationship with their father.

I suggest that all the catty women on the forum who think they are God and have the right to make the decision on their own to stop their children from having a father in their lives because of support check their local state laws before doing so. I look forward to reading about more and more of you being charged.

Last edited by DoniDanko; 07-07-2013 at 01:28 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-07-2013, 03:28 PM
 
2,085 posts, read 1,977,311 times
Reputation: 3471
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko View Post
Both of those options are completely retarded to me, and I'm not alone. In every state courts consider support and parenting time as to separate issues. If a father isn't paying support, but is at least willing to be there emotionally, why stop him? Even if the child isn't being fully supported financially, why withhold the possibility of them being fully supported emotional? That is how judges, legislators, child psychologist, and people who truly have children's best interest at heart see it, so just don't take my word for it.

A woman should not have the option or right to "deny" the father of their child visitation, and again, the courts and lawmakers agree. In fact the mother of my 3 year old decided on her own to up and move across the country in violation of a visitation order and even though she had sole physical and legal custody, she was promptly charged with felony Parental Abduction and Violation of a Court Order.



You see, just like the other women on this forum, she thought she was God and could do whatever she wanted just because she was mom and she carried our child for 9 months. She thought as a father, I had no say so. That thought process ended up getting her charged with a class 6 felony. That's how serious the state of Virginia is about both parents having the opportunity to be in the child's life because they know the child is better off.

So to refute your statements, If a father does not pay child support, he should have to pay the legal consequences , because his children have the right to be supported by both parents.

On the other hand, if the mother denies him the right to be with his child then he should should still be held responsible for the child because the child has a right to be supported by both parents. The mother should held legally accountable and the laws are getting tougher (across the country) on the mothers who deny their child's right to have a physical and emotional relationship with their father.

I suggest that all the catty women on the forum who think they are God and have the right to make the decision on their own to stop their children from having a father in their lives because of support check their local state laws before doing so. I look forward to reading about more and more of you being charged.
No lie....this dude is hilarious


But per the topic, my only issue is why as a society, we are cherry picking when it is that we want biology and gender to determine which liberties each gender's biology entitles them to during pregnancy and parenting.

I tend to agree that both parties should have a say. Not in whether the woman should have an give birth to the child, because I do believe in a woman's right to control her own body...abortion and all.

But only in the sense that should she decide to give birth to the child , the father should have rights to accept or terminate any responsibility to the child as long as he makes his intentions clear within the first few weeks of pregnancy...Obviously in an ideal world every man and woman would exercise responsibility both before and after conception ...But if we are to accept that both men and women make mistakes and exercise poor judgment, and if we are to accept that biology (the gender of the parent) = natural rights to dictate what one does with their body and thus the child, then the fact that the woman carries the child gives her the biological choice to do whatever she wants with her body and the fetus, ALSO MEANS THAT the fact that the father ISNT the one who carries the child enables him to help create a child and leave at will with no strings attached regardless of what her decision is. That is the way of nature in both genders. Biology is a two way street...The fact that a woman carries the child means that she never has to even notify the father of the pregnancy, let alone whether she has an abortion; but likewise the father, as the one who doesnt have any physical attachment to the developing child, never even has to stick around long enough to find out if she will notify him. This would be the full extent to which we accept that gender determines biological and parental rights. As it stands, our society is operating under a kind of arbitrary, truncated logic in asserting that: Its her body, and since she's the one who carries the child, she's legally entitled to be the one who makes the decision regarding the fetus's future. Which I agree with. But of course, its only rational that the other part of that equation is that: The father, since he's not the one who must carry the child to term, is legally entitled to exercise his right to be both physically and legally independent of the child should he decide to do so.

The other position Ive noticed is that when the discussion moves toward's the father's role in deciding his child's fate, it turns into a bunch of woulda coulda shoulda's (kept his pants zipped, used his brain, controlled himself etc.), whereas for women the woulda coulda shoulda's are basically overridden by the fact that she DIDNT, and therefore should be offered some legal recourse do deal with their imperfection in decision making. Which means that we are basically saying that men must be perfect in their decision making, while women are allowed to be fallible in theirs'...which is fine by me, but there will never be true equality between the gender's as long as men are always held to a higher standard.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-07-2013, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Chicago area
1,122 posts, read 3,359,371 times
Reputation: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko View Post
Both of those options are completely retarded to me, and I'm not alone. In every state courts consider support and parenting time as to separate issues. If a father isn't paying support, but is at least willing to be there emotionally, why stop him? Even if the child isn't being fully supported financially, why withhold the possibility of them being fully supported emotional? That is how judges, legislators, child psychologist, and people who truly have children's best interest at heart see it, so just don't take my word for it.

A woman should not have the option or right to "deny" the father of their child visitation, and again, the courts and lawmakers agree. In fact the mother of my 3 year old decided on her own to up and move across the country in violation of a visitation order and even though she had sole physical and legal custody, she was promptly charged with felony Parental Abduction and Violation of a Court Order.



You see, just like the other women on this forum, she thought she was God and could do whatever she wanted just because she was mom and she carried our child for 9 months. She thought as a father, I had no say so. That thought process ended up getting her charged with a class 6 felony. That's how serious the state of Virginia is about both parents having the opportunity to be in the child's life because they know the child is better off.

So to refute your statements, If a father does not pay child support, he should have to pay the legal consequences , because his children have the right to be supported by both parents.

On the other hand, if the mother denies him the right to be with his child then he should should still be held responsible for the child because the child has a right to be supported by both parents. The mother should held legally accountable and the laws are getting tougher (across the country) on the mothers who deny their child's right to have a physical and emotional relationship with their father.

I suggest that all the catty women on the forum who think they are God and have the right to make the decision on their own to stop their children from having a father in their lives because of support check their local state laws before doing so. I look forward to reading about more and more of you being charged.
You make a lot of sense to me and I fully agree with you on most points. But you completely lose me when you go off on your woman bashing tangent. I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with a scorn woman but I'm sure you can understand that this woman's characteristics are not universally found in all women. Comparing all women to the ones who "think they are God" is no more fair than to compare, and judge, all fathers because some are deadbeats.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-08-2013, 09:26 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,675,382 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
How in the world did you make that happen?
My exDIL did the same but we were unable to get the DA to charge her with parental abduction. The only charge we could get was contempt of court and by the time we got her to court the corrupt judge didn't even sentence her for that.
2mares It's a lot to read, but I think you should because it might help you out in the future..

My ex wife stopped letting me see our child likely because she knew I was moving on. I filed for visitation and it was granted. She appealed, lost, I showed up 4 days later to pick up our child, her home was complete empty... She and my son disappeared.

I called the cops, but they told me I couldn't do anything other than file with courts. I went to the courts, and the female clerks told me that without an address to serve the mother, I COULD NOT DO OR FILE ANYTHING even after pleading and asking her if there was anything else I could do. I ended up filing anyway using my ex's mother's address even though the clerk told me that I could not (I pretended it was my ex wife real address).

Had to wait another 4 months (8 months so far w/o seeing my son) for the hearing. Apparently my ex's mother notified her that I filed and she hired a lawyer at the last minute who asked for a continuance (which made it 1 year without seeing my son), and I found out that my ex moved 2400 away to Arizona.. My lawyer agreed, but ask the judge to order that I have the visitation in the mean time, but THE JUDGE REFUSED. I felt like I was treated by the judge as if I had to be some kind of abuser or something, and that was why mom/ex.wife/female violated the 4 day old court order. (There has never been any history or allegations of abuse ever, and I have no criminal record. Her lawyer also never played that card, so the Judge was unjustified in having me wait for almosr a year because he "wanted to talk to and ask the mom why she left" before doing anything.)

I then knew that I wasn't going to get a fair hearing because the Judge was bias. I knew if I had did what my ex did, I'd be locked up so fast me head would spin, so I started researching. (If you go here, you can see and search other cases (case law) in VA and see how they turned out.) The more I researched the more I saw that other fathers that had the same thing happen to them were F***ed over and the mothers weren't punished and were allowed to stay where they moved to even though they violated a court order. I had to do something, so I joined father's rights forums, police forums (forums.officer.com), and started to research even more.

That's when I found this and that the police and the clerks all lied...
Quote:
LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-49.1

§ 18.2-49.1. Violation of court order regarding custody and visitation; penalty.

A. Any person who knowingly, wrongfully and intentionally withholds a child from either of a child's parents or other legal guardian in a clear and significant violation of a court order respecting the custody or visitation of such child, provided such child is withheld outside of the Commonwealth, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. Any person who knowingly, wrongfully and intentionally engages in conduct that constitutes a clear and significant violation of a court order respecting the custody or visitation of a child is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor upon conviction of a first offense. Any person who commits a second violation of this section within 12 months of a first conviction is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor, and any person who commits a third violation occurring within 24 months of the first conviction is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Quote:
LIS > Code of Virginia > 18.2-47

§ 18.2-47. Abduction and kidnapping defined; punishment.

A. Any person who, by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to deprive such other person of his personal liberty or to withhold or conceal him from any person, authority or institution lawfully entitled to his charge, shall be deemed guilty of "abduction."

B. Any person who, by force, intimidation or deception, and without legal justification or excuse, seizes, takes, transports, detains or secretes another person with the intent to subject him to forced labor or services shall be deemed guilty of "abduction." For purposes of this subsection, the term "intimidation" shall include destroying, concealing, confiscating, withholding, or threatening to withhold a passport, immigration document, or other governmental identification or threatening to report another as being illegally present in the United States.

C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duty. The terms "abduction" and "kidnapping" shall be synonymous in this Code. Abduction for which no punishment is otherwise prescribed shall be punished as a Class 5 felony.

D. If an offense under subsection A is committed by the parent of the person abducted and punishable as contempt of court in any proceeding then pending, the offense shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor in addition to being punishable as contempt of court. However, such offense, if committed by the parent of the person abducted and punishable as contempt of court in any proceeding then pending and the person abducted is removed from the Commonwealth by the abducting parent, shall be a Class 6 felony in addition to being punishable as contempt of court.
Armed with this I went down to the police station to file, but once I mentioned (to the female officer who was taking the report) that the mother took my son, she immediately stop wanting to help and even became combative. I showed her the codes and what my ex should be charged with, but she refused to read it. Instead she called the magistrate's office who also sounded very annoyed with me and as if I was wasting his time. I left there and went to talk to the Commonwealth Attorney (D.A.) who was a man and was sympathetic, but told me the only one who could file felony charges were Magistrates and that the same Magistrate told him that he refused to file the charges.

I then found a case that match mine to a tee, and you should really read through it for future reference:

DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...wp/1689021.pdf

The above case is not only helpful because it shows that the courts were offended by and convicted a mother who took her child, but it also pointed to rulings that set a new precedence that all other courts must go by. The first thing everyone told me was that only the noncustodial parent (usually the father) can be charged with parental abduction. That's kinda sorta true... In high courts ruling, it states that the second the traditional noncustodial parent's (father's) visitation begins, they become the custodial parent for the duration of their court ordered visitation. Get It? Even though my kid's mom has legal and physical custody, she relinquishes it to me (the new custodial parent) when my visitation starts until it ends, so in effect, when she took my son out of state during my visitation time, she did in fact take the child from the custodial parent even though technically, I wan't the "traditional" custodial parent.


A week later armed with copies of the case law from the DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH case, I went directly to the Magistrates' office. There I talked to 2 female clerks who also seemed offended by the fact that I was trying to take out abduction charges on my ex wife and even told me that my ex had a right to do so. I corrected her, and promptly shoved the printouts of the laws my ex violated in her face. she took them to her boss (Police Sargent) (who I didn't get to talk to), came back, and told me that her boss stated that they couldn't file the charges.

I left again and came back later that night armed with experience from my first encounter. A different clerk tried to tell me the same thing, but after I shut her down, she went to the Sargent on duty. I then told her that I wanted to talk to him personally. When he came out and told me the same B.S., I had to argue that law with him for 20mins, and even damn near forced him to read the DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH file. After making him feel stupid and shutting down every argument he attempted to make, he then took me to talk to the Magistrate.

Armed with the VA Magistrate Manual (guidelines) that's also provided and buried on the VA state courts website and before the Magistrate could even talk, I pointed out that not only have other custodial parents been charged and convicted in high VA courts, but that even in her own employee handbook (so to speak) in Chapter #3 page #69 which she was bound by states that my ex should be charged with abduction if:

Quote:

a. This subsection requires that a court has issued an order specifically
regarding custody or visitation.

b. A person must “knowingly, wrongfully and intentionally” withhold a child
from either of a child’s parents or other legal guardian.

c. The violation of the order must be “clear and significant.”

d. Subsection A deals only with a violation of a custody or visitation order
where a person withholds the child out of state from either of a child’s
parents or other legal guardian.

If the action involves withholding a child in state in violation of an order, or
involves other types of violations other than withholding either in or outside
of Virginia, subsection B of Va. Code § 18.2-49.1 applies (see below).

1) A violation of subsection A of Va. Code § 18.2-49.1 constitutes a Class 6 felony.
After that she was charged... So yea it took me almost 2 months and they did not want to charge a woman for the same thing they'd go above and beyond to throw a man under the jail for. I had to argue on multiple forums, with cops, D.A.s, clerks, magistrates, etc. to damn near force them to do anything. At least I think I educated them and made it easier for the next father that has to deal with the same sexist B.S. There are laws on the books in many states that protect fathers, but family court and police only enforce them on men.... I wasn't letting them do me like they've done thousands of other men/fathers across the country.

Last edited by DoniDanko; 07-08-2013 at 10:26 PM..
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:17 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top