Maybe going back to court wouldn't be bad. Maybe he would just not bother with it.
The term father and dad's are used interchangeably and shouldn't be. This guy is her father (sp*rm donor) not her dad. A dad is there all the time for the kid. In this situation you're the dad. This a hole is the father and should have been man enough to be both. Guys like this are the reason fathers, who want to be dads as well, struggle in court to have enough visitation during a divorce. I'm fortunate in the fact my ex is a great mom and wants us to both be involved in our daughters life so we both get her 50/50.
The only option and I don't know if it could even work would be to tell him "you had your month, it was June right when she got out of school and you never called, maybe next year.
Most custody papers will dictate which month is his and generally it's as soon as school gets out, pull the documents and look at them. The judge will have to set the terms and designate a month specifically incase there is a dispute the visitation which then resorts back to the terms in the custody papers.
Next, the courts are supposed to rule based on what is best for the child, after him not calling or visiting, if you go back the judge may just say it's best for a reduced visitation till he re-establishes a relationship. I would set a court date without an attorney and just tell the judge you don't necessarily want to change the ruling that has been in place for the future but don't think it's a good idea this year and then ask him if he would make a decision based on the PRECEDENT the father set and what's best for the child. Typically the judge will base his decision on precedent set by the father.
Hopefully Eddie Howard will weigh in on this, he's a judge and while I don't think he deals with this he might have better insight. (pm him if he doesn't)
But check the custody paperwork, it should define the dates he gets her and like I said the state statue is usually as soon as they come out of school.
Court and the judge are your friend on this, especially since he hasn't been involved.
The term father and dad's are used interchangeably and shouldn't be. This guy is her father (sp*rm donor) not her dad. A dad is there all the time for the kid. In this situation you're the dad. This a hole is the father and should have been man enough to be both. Guys like this are the reason fathers, who want to be dads as well, struggle in court to have enough visitation during a divorce. I'm fortunate in the fact my ex is a great mom and wants us to both be involved in our daughters life so we both get her 50/50.
The only option and I don't know if it could even work would be to tell him "you had your month, it was June right when she got out of school and you never called, maybe next year.
Most custody papers will dictate which month is his and generally it's as soon as school gets out, pull the documents and look at them. The judge will have to set the terms and designate a month specifically incase there is a dispute the visitation which then resorts back to the terms in the custody papers.
Next, the courts are supposed to rule based on what is best for the child, after him not calling or visiting, if you go back the judge may just say it's best for a reduced visitation till he re-establishes a relationship. I would set a court date without an attorney and just tell the judge you don't necessarily want to change the ruling that has been in place for the future but don't think it's a good idea this year and then ask him if he would make a decision based on the PRECEDENT the father set and what's best for the child. Typically the judge will base his decision on precedent set by the father.
Hopefully Eddie Howard will weigh in on this, he's a judge and while I don't think he deals with this he might have better insight. (pm him if he doesn't)
But check the custody paperwork, it should define the dates he gets her and like I said the state statue is usually as soon as they come out of school.
Court and the judge are your friend on this, especially since he hasn't been involved.
Comment