From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Flakey ex. husband/dad
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:12:46 GMT


In a recent missive jd@sequent.com (Jim Duckering) tells us:

*upbringing for our daughter.  Bitter, his idea of cooperating is it's
                ^^^???

*none of her business how he handles things while the daughter is
*with him. (PROBLEM 1)
*
* How do you ensure that he doesn't leave her in the care of others
* of weak character,(ex. He lived with a fellow for awhile he hardly knew
* and would go out and party while leaving his child with this person) or
* other equally irresponsible decisions.  Also he lets the little girl stay up
* till 1am or whenever, eat garbage food etc.  Not responsible at all.
* Fortunately this person has settled down with a gal, but still uses
* poor judgement.


This is a really hard one, and I can really empathize, having gone
through much of the same thing with my ex-husband.  The hard and sad
truth is that if the things he is doing aren't endangering her, there
probably isn't a whole lot she can do.  For instance, his letting her
stay up late, and eat junk, while is what many consider a poor
parenting style, is non-the-less just that, a parenting style.  At
least in my own situation the Judge just didn't really want to make
any changes which would affect a parent's rights on something which
was arguably subjective.

Now, on the other hand, if he is doing something which is demonstrably
putting her daughter at danger, she would be well within her right to
request a modification of visitation (or an initial visitation order,
if there isn't currently a formal court order).  She might want to
talk to him first, asking if he wouldn't be willing to modify how his
visitation is spent.  If she approaches him non-threateningly, from
the aspect of her being concerned about *their* daughter, and can they
work *together* on this, and she doesn't intend to reduce the amount
of time he spends with his daughter, it may be able to be worked out
without court intervention.


As to the rest, it sounds as if on the negative side he is not
parenting their daughter as your friend would like, and he is not
providing support (which undeniably he should be, at least
*something*).  However it sounds as if there is a positive side as
well, evidenced by his continued involvement in their daugther's life,
much to your friend's surprise.  And, as you stated, he seems to love
their daughter.

Therefore, I am a bit nonplussed by your suggestion that the best
thing to do would be for her to move away, as that would effectively
get him out of their life.  I'm confused, because if, as you say, he
is a continued presence in her life (and I think nobody here would
disagree that wherever possible it is best for a child to be aware of
the presence of both parents) why would your friend want to deny their
daughter access to her father?

I'm wondering if it is possible that your friend (and perhaps you as
well?) are personally unhappy at still having to deal with what your
friend would like to think of as her "past life", and that is
consciously or unconsciously colouring your judgement about this
situation?  That would certainly be a very human and common position
to be in.

But given what you have told us, it would seem that the thing I would
do would be to not punish the daughter for the sins of the father (as
keeping her from seeing him would do) and instead work with him to the
extent possible, while still protecting her (your friend's) rights
through the legal system [I'd be very surprised if Oregon didn't have
a child support collection unit to which your friend could avail
herself free of charge].


-- 
    LOOKING FOR: Michael Hobson, Alex Craven, David Runyon, & Lorna Taylor
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, law student, shedevil@leland.stanford.edu or @vix.com
     	  founder of FREE, the Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange.
 The fathers' rights paper & FREE files available via ftp: gw.home.vix.com;/pub
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1155 alt.dads-rights:689