dracos blog got me thinking
I was reading everyone's posts about if a child should have the right to decide they don't want to be at the other parents house.
I wonder what would happen if a child chose not to be in that parents life, if the judge then would say that parent then has no obligation to provide for you any more.
Please read here that IF the child chooses not the visiting parent.
SS15 has not visited our house in 4.5 mo because its boring and he doesn't like me. It has been encouraged ny BM in my opinion. Any time you send constant messages that a 2 year old, 4 yr old doesn't like visiting (the happenings when he was younger), that they should be given the right to choose not to come, and then say you never see him- the VP has played games to help that feeling.
But I'm sure that BM would have acted much different if her support was linked to them coming to our house. Instead of going up because they/ he doesn't come.
- 12yrstepmonster's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I think that CS and
I think that CS and visitation should be linked.
in our state is IS linked.
in our state is IS linked. the more you see your kid the less you have to pay.
but i get that's not what you probably meant.
Exactly. In our state the
Exactly. In our state the more you have your kid the less you pay. But, CS and visitation are not entirely linked.
Say you abuse your kid and have visitation taken away. You still have to pay for your kid even though you don't get visitation. If they were not separate I bet we'd have people mistreating children to have visitation taken away so they didn't have to pay.
I agree. Visitation and
I agree. Visitation and support is linked here too.
However I'm talking about lowering it because the kid de used I don't like SM so I am not going to dads, or its boring.
I'm not talking about abuse situations.
No I don't think a kid should
No I don't think a kid should be allowed to choose if it is just an issue of being bored or wanting to see friends.
Spending time with a parent is important to a kids development...oftentimes as a teen, the kid can't see that.
Children should not get to
Children should not get to decide if they want to go to a parent's house or not for a visit.
In California...the time spent with a parent does figure into the child support and is a usual ploy for more money...
I also do not think that one parent should bare the brunt of the child rearing. Case in point...my SD is now 19...her mom left the state and we got stuck for 4 years with her and SD kept throwing little hissy fits not to go to her moms...
What we have now is a 19 yr old who cannot stand her mom and thinks she is gonna attach on to us....UMMMMMMMMMM...NO. Her reasoning is that it is boring out there and little to do...well, too bad...that's where mama moved to.
Kids needs to have good relationships with their parents before worrying about friends or fun time. It's a fact of life for kids in these situations. Only in an abusive situation should a kid be kept from a parent.
Me DD dad lives out of state,
Me DD dad lives out of state, has since she was 3. She didn't have an option. He is HER dad. But I brought my kid up that family is more important than a single want.
I think up until the age of
I think up until the age of 12 or so, kids should be MADE to visit the other provided that there is no abuse, obviously. Period.
After that, if the kid CHOOSES NOT to visit the NCP, it should be taken to court by the NCP and if found that the reason they don't want to visit is BS, ie. friends, other stuff to do, boring or BM doesn't care to make them, the CS should be lowered to a minimum amount. The fact is that MANY, not ALL, but MANY CPs allow this and encourage it from early on and then claim "well, it's not me". Nope. Too bad.
PS - if a CPs CS went DOWN because their kid did not visit the NCP, I can ASSURE you many would encourage the visitations and would change their tunes about visitation to the NCP...he would be portrayed as a good person vs. an ahole like they are now