Re: X-husband Dilemma
You brought the word honorable in the discussion :D
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Let me get this straight. I just want to make sure i am reading. Just because something doesn't make sense to you (a random person on the internet) personally it can't be true? Wow.
Ummm....no. I never said that.
And Monk: If you think I'm contradicting myself, be specific and feel free to clearly point out where.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
The daughter when she grows up will naturally be closer to her real father and not the step-father. She will want to see her real father at all of her important occasions in life. Preventing her from meeting her real father will just end up in her hating her step father and mother. I have seen this personally with american goras and hispanics kids in the same exact situation. I have seen the girls are especially emotional about their fathers even if they not been in their lives a lot.
The Pakistani father only own his home and does not own the street or any public place. He cannot prevent the real father from picking up his daughter from in front of his house because it is public property (unless there is a court order that prevents this).
The real father has legal rights (as well as natural rights) to meet his daughter. He may have had bad habits before or may still have bad habits but people change and mature over time. And having some bad habits does not automatically make you into a bad parent.
Plus there is no evidence that the real father is doing anything bad when he is with his daughter.
The mother should make arrangements to have the father pick up his daughter from another place or drop off the daughter herself. Also, she should not try to place hurdles in having the father meet his daughter, for example on birthdays and special occasions.
The mother should be thankful that the real father does not drag her back into court and change the custody arrangements.
I have seen in similar situations where the real father able to go to court and modify custody agreements to allow more time with kids, for example: having the kid entirely for a weekend twice a month, having the kid entirely for one month during summer vacation etc.
I have also heard of situation where the father has got court orders that prevents that mother + kids from moving to another state or relocating to another place that is far from the real father.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
So in other words you all would allow a man who abused the mother, beat her, used her for a green card, abandoned the mother and child when she was born in to the girls life because......?
I am still not getting why you would allow a wife beater in the same room as the woman he beat. Care to shed light on that?
You all do read the text right? The father stated he didn't want to have anything to do with the kid for 8 years, as long as she didn't ask for alimony he would never be in their lives. If that isn't a dead beat dad I am not sure what is.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Zafra.....you don't know how wrong you are. There are many, many Pakistani men that will marry a divorced woman and/or a divorced woman with a child and care for that child as if it were his own
Yeah, I cringe when I read things like "oh, he must be a god to marry a woman with a kid". Because marrying someone with a child is like doing charity work you know?
So in other words you all would allow a man who abused the mother, beat her, used her for a green card, abandoned the mother and child when she was born in to the girls life because......?
I am still not getting why you would allow a wife beater in the same room as the woman he beat. Care to shed light on that?
You all do read the text right? The father stated he didn't want to have anything to do with the kid for 8 years, as long as she didn't ask for alimony he would never be in their lives. If that isn't a dead beat dad I am not sure what is.
You suppose quite a lot. I feel like I am actually standing in a room with my back to the door trying to save myself from the wife beater. Its not about you being right or wrong here...it has nothing to do with you. The wife beater is coo-coo right? So I don't understand why a mentally stable man would marry a woman with a kid thinking "oh no...she'll probably never see her own father or even want to" or "court orders? joint custody? do what? what's that mean?". It doesn't matter what the situation was ten years ago...what matters is how its being handled today. The child did not just appear out of the blue...she was always there. If you marry anyone with children, its with the understanding that at some point you WILL be dealing with the ex no matter how uncomfortable it is. You made the choice to marry...now deal with it. The ACTUAL facts here - not the supposed ones - are that she has a child with her ex husband. Her ex has every right to his child - whether mommy or new hubby like it or not. If they do not like it, they will have to go to court and fight for sole. If they cannot, they will have to just deal and find a workable situation.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Then you are essentially saying the man who beat the mother and abused her should have the right to see a child who he abandoned 8 years ago. If that is your view that is your view. He gave his "right" to see his kid when he left the mother and kid abandoned 8 years ago.
Of course you would just assume the man who raised his hand at his wife would never do so with the kid? Nah he would just be coo-coo if he did so.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Then you are essentially saying the man who beat the mother and abused her should have the right to see a child who he abandoned 8 years ago. If that is your view that is your view. He gave his "right" to see his kid when he left the mother and kid abandoned 8 years ago.
Of course you would just assume the man who raised his hand at his wife would never do so with the kid? Nah he would just be coo-coo if he did so.
He never abandoned his child or given up his 'right' to her since you have said that he is currently visiting her on the weekends.
The fact that he is currently has a regular relationship with her will work in his favor if he decided to go to family court for more visitation rights.
Also, is their any evidence that he has ever raised his hand at his child?
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Seems everybody has selective reading skills. Check page two. The child and mother were left alone 8 years ago when she was born. The statement made was that if you don't harass me for alimony I want nothing to do with the kid. So for 8 years the guy doesn't give a damn and now he is back.
That is abandonment. That is being a dead beat dad.
There is no evidence, but its a pretty easy conclusion since he beat his wife.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Then you are essentially saying the man who beat the mother and abused her should have the right to see a child who he abandoned 8 years ago. If that is your view that is your view. He gave his "right" to see his kid when he left the mother and kid abandoned 8 years ago.
Of course you would just assume the man who raised his hand at his wife would never do so with the kid? Nah he would just be coo-coo if he did so.
I am not sure why this is not registering here.
I am talking about the facts...not my views. My views nor YOUR views actually matter here or are important. Your opinion on my opinion is again...irrelevant. The courts will decide according to the law of the land...please don't expect a phone call from the judge asking for your views. Ain't gonna happen.
He has legally NOT given up his right to see his kid...that's just how it is. We can poo-poo about it all we want but that's how it is. If I married a man with kids and then AFTER I marry him, I tell him "what's with your ex always trying to see her kids all the time"...who's the crazy one here? I would marry him with the understanding that a kids need their parents.
One more thing. The man was abusive with his wife and she left him. I am glad she did. No one deserves that kind of life. BUT divorcing someone does not mean you're also divorcing your kids. His child is his responsibility. His daughter has a right to her father's attention, support and care.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Few things:
Having legal sole custody does NOT mean that you can deny access. It does not work like that.
The ex-husband did have no contact with the daughter for 8 years. This is a fact. By definition, he was indeed a "dead beat dad" for 8 years. Now, if he is stepping up and paying support and being a positive role model for his daughter, we do not know these facts.
The mother is NOT denying him access or blocking his visitations. The whole issue is on the pick up/drop off location for the visitations which can be easily resolved. This really is not a big deal, but it is being made into a big deal. The mother needs to man up and take control of this situation instead of whining. Yes, I assume she is whining cause it is being made an issue that her current husband does not want the ex coming to the house. Well, she can take her daughter to a coffee shop up the street and have that as a pick up/drop off location. There are several ways to resolve this.
The current husband does not want to have to deal with the ex at future milestone events (birthdays, graduations, etc.). We do not have any info on whether the ex will even stick around that long. If all these events happen in public venues, then again, it is a moot point for the current husband. It isn't happening in his home and he will need to get over it.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
You brought the word honorable in the discussion :D
yes, I did.
when the question of the current husband being good because he married a woman that was divorced with child came up.
I suppose you didn't follow my train of thought because I was suggesting that if he truly is a good man then he wouldn't be putting road blocks up between a father and a daughter.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
Then you are essentially saying the man who beat the mother and abused her should have the right to see a child who he abandoned 8 years ago. If that is your view that is your view. He gave his "right" to see his kid when he left the mother and kid abandoned 8 years ago.
Of course you would just assume the man who raised his hand at his wife would never do so with the kid? Nah he would just be coo-coo if he did so.
As others have mentioned, as long as he didn't legally give up the right to his child, it really doesn't matter what we think or believe, does it?
Nobody is suggesting that what he did was right.....but you can't deny a man his right to access to his child if he cleans up his act. No court would prevent it.
By the same token, if he is raising his hand to the child then the mother has the judicial system at her disposal as well. All she needs to do is report him and seek action.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
So in other words you all would allow a man who abused the mother, beat her, used her for a green card, abandoned the mother and child when she was born in to the girls life because......?
because he is her father.
as long as he doesn't abuse the child in any way then nobody has the right to keep him from her.
the mother needs to accept the reality that she and him made a child. that child is not hers alone and even with sole custody she cannot keep the child from its biological father.
I am still not getting why you would allow a wife beater in the same room as the woman he beat. Care to shed light on that?
while you accuse others of "selective" reading, you are guilty of it yourself.
there have been several posts in this thread that suggest meeting the father in a public place where no harm could come to the mother and the current husband's demands would also be met.
You all do read the text right? The father stated he didn't want to have anything to do with the kid for 8 years, as long as she didn't ask for alimony he would never be in their lives. If that isn't a dead beat dad I am not sure what is.
couple things about this.....
- has she suddenly started asking for alimony? if not, then how did it come about that the father is back in their lives?
- you keep avoiding the question about the legalities surrounding the situation. has the father gone to court and sought access and therefore has an order allowing him visitation?
- you can well call him a dead beat dad as long as he fails to support his child and be involved in her life. as soon as he steps up, you can't call him that anymore.
another thing that the mother needs to consider and I believe that Enterprise touched upon.....
what will she do when the child is old enough to make her own decisions and ask why her stepfather made it so difficult to see real dad and why the mother didn't do something about it?
Re: X-husband Dilemma
There are no legalities present in the current situation. No information is provided. I do not assume beyond a reasonable extent. I can not answer anything regarding the legal neither can anybody else.
In other what is being stated is you can beat a woman, walk out on her and your kid but come back afters 8 years and all is forgive. You lot are far more forgiving then I am. But then again that is the beauty of the internet and when things don't have personal implications.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
There are no legalities present in the current situation. No information is provided. I do not assume beyond a reasonable extent. I can not answer anything regarding the legal neither can anybody else.
In other what is being stated is you can beat a woman, walk out on her and your kid but come back afters 8 years and all is forgive. You lot are far more forgiving then I am. But then again that is the beauty of the internet and when things don't have personal implications.
No legalities? Really? As in none? Father...mother...visitation...blah blah blah. Still none?
Actually you just assumed quite a bit. The second bolded line is what you're stuck on and what I find so interesting is that no one has even implied that. Who said forgive? Find the post, quote it and then you'll make sense. You're upset that he still has rights because he was an abusive husband.
People are being simply realistic here since some posting in this thread have actual experience in the matter...you're **ASSUMING **that reality is also another poster's opinion.
Its not.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
There are no legalities present in the current situation. No information is provided. I do not assume beyond a reasonable extent. I can not answer anything regarding the legal neither can anybody else.
If no information is present it does not mean that there are no legalities present. It simply means that you do not have that information to your disposal.
And if you do not assume beyond a reasonable extent, then does it not go that no "reasonable" woman having lived through beatings and 8 years of abandonment, would, without legal compulsion, give up the safety of her child to a man that at best, is of questionable character?
In other what is being stated is you can beat a woman, walk out on her and your kid but come back afters 8 years and all is forgive. You lot are far more forgiving then I am. But then again that is the beauty of the internet and when things don't have personal implications.
I haven't seen anybody suggest that "all is forgive".
Nobody is saying that. You are merely interpreting in that manner.
The wife and her current husband are more than welcome to carry their grudges in their hearts and continue to hate the ex for what he did in the past. What they cannot do is prevent him from seeing his offspring, provided that he is now fulfilling his duties.
If your friend wants to punish him for what he did to her in the past, then I'm afraid that it is too late and/or she may have already made a decision on that matter by leaving him. And if she is using the daughter as a pawn, well......that will eventually backfire on her in the future too.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
No legalities? Really? As in none? Father...mother...visitation...blah blah blah. Still none?
Actually you just assumed quite a bit. The second bolded line is what you're stuck on and what I find so interesting is that no one has even implied that. Who said forgive? Find the post, quote it and then you'll make sense. You're upset that he still has rights because he was an abusive husband.
People are being simply realistic here since some posting in this thread have actual experience in the matter...you're **ASSUMING **that reality is also another poster's opinion.
Its not.
One assumes he has visitation rights. No where is it stated he does have them. He could just be showing up randomly without legal cover as well. There is no evidence or statement to suggest there is any legal agreement. If there is please point it out.
This is also rich coming from a bunch of women whose first reaction was to blame the Pakistani husband because all they knew was he was Pakistani so he should be jealous automatically.
I also find it interesting that you assume I have no real life experiences in the matter. Odd consider my rather vicious response to the notion of a man beating his wife. I thought that would be a dead give away. But then again chickens clucking in a hen house don't know much about the farm.
Also if you look it up on average men who abuse their wives are 30 to 35% more like to abuse their kids.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
If no information is present it does not mean that there are no legalities present. It simply means that you do not have that information to your disposal.
And if you do not assume beyond a reasonable extent, then does it not go that no "reasonable" woman having lived through beatings and 8 years of abandonment, would, without legal compulsion, give up the safety of her child to a man that at best, is of questionable character?
There are various reasons for that intimidation, fear, blackmail or something else. Those are all plausible factors and can not be ruled out unless other information is provided. Ignoring them is simply leaning to a view point and not an objective analysis.
[quote]
I haven't seen anybody suggest that "all is forgive".
Nobody is saying that. You are merely interpreting in that manner.
The wife and her current husband are more than welcome to carry their grudges in their hearts and continue to hate the ex for what he did in the past. What they cannot do is prevent him from seeing his offspring, provided that he is now fulfilling his duties.
If your friend wants to punish him for what he did to her in the past, then I'm afraid that it is too late and/or she may have already made a decision on that matter by leaving him. And if she is using the daughter as a pawn, well......that will eventually backfire on her in the future too.
[/QUOTE]
Actually the interpretation is based on the notion that the only one offended by the act is myself. To date the only phrases to describe the man are a jerk and coo coo. Words 2 years old to describe people who tease them. Such high thresholds are truly amazing.
And yes you can stop a spouse from seeing the children if there is a history of abuse and neglect. A court will allow for such a situation. Divorce law 101. Its like saying the father beat the kids but hey the law says he can meet them again and beat them when he does.
When a parent abandons a child the court has the right to limit the interaction of the abandoning parent for the benefits of the child. That even google can prove is correct.
Re: X-husband Dilemma
OMG
how fast we lose sight of real issue when we want to win debate.
To all walaity chicks:
is abusing mother not abusing child ???????
Why H you have to be so white washed ??
Any ways
Zafara wins.
Mehnaz most sensible(judge should call her for her input )
Rest are "just supporting their own"
Thread closed !!!
Re: X-husband Dilemma
There are various reasons for that intimidation, fear, blackmail or something else. Those are all plausible factors and can not be ruled out unless other information is provided. Ignoring them is simply leaning to a view point and not an objective analysis.
Plausible, perhaps. Reasonable? No.
If the woman is looking for advice and you suspect that any of the reasons you have listed above are cause for her allowing visitation rather than an official court order then I would suggest that you advise her to seek legal assistance. Seek a proper court order that can be enforced and will allow her to have recourse should he fail to follow.
Why is she allowing continued abuse by this man if she is in a new, safe and happy relationship? Why is she not seeking the protection of the law for both herself and her child?
Actually the interpretation is based on the notion that the only one offended by the act is myself. To date the only phrases to describe the man are a jerk and coo coo. Words 2 years old to describe people who tease them. Such high thresholds are truly amazing.
What's the point of stating the obvious? If the guy was beating his wife then he's obviously got problems. The point is that this happened 8 years ago. She removed herself or he left. From what you have shared, the abuse stopped for a long duration and she has re-established herself in another relationship. All we know is that he magically re-appeared in their lives and now has visitation rights with her blessing. We can only assume that he is not abusing anyone or why would a mother allow her child to be in danger?
If you are looking for someone to bash him for being a wife-beater.....perhaps someone will oblige.
And yes you can stop a spouse from seeing the children if there is a history of abuse and neglect. A court will allow for such a situation. Divorce law 101. Its like saying the father beat the kids but hey the law says he can meet them again and beat them when he does.
I'm sure that you are correct that a court can prevent access if there is evidence of abuse. The fact that visitation is occurring here is testimony to at least 2 things:
- the mother is assured that there is no abuse happening else why would she allow her child to be exposed
- the court has found no abuse present and therefore has permitted unsupervised visitation to the father.
I haven't taken DivorceLaw101 so I'm not as well versed but logic is not alien to me.
When a parent abandons a child the court has the right to limit the interaction of the abandoning parent for the benefits of the child. That even google can prove is correct.
If Google can prove that this is correct then why is your friend not seeking assistance from the law?
Very simple answer it seems.