Custody evaluation report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He wants to parent his kids and so he had to get a lawyer.

He wants to harass his ex and so he had to get a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAYBE A JUDGE would give IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY solo parenting rights. But even that, HOW would they go through all of their custody analysis with just one parent presenting their side and wishes for their child ???!

All custody agreements, unless they are TPR are temporary. Yes, if a judge has a situation where one parent is in front of them asking for custody, and the other parent has been absent from the kids' lives, and hasn't responded to the court at all, the judge will give custody (not rights, rights is something different) to the parent who is asking for the kids. Now, the other parent could return to court, particularly if there has been a change in circumstances, and there might be a different outcome, but for right now, the kids will go home to the parent who is asking for them, barring something very unfortunate like a finding of abuse against the parent who is asking for the kids.

Now, if the other parent has been making an effort to parent, and something prevented them from filing the correct paperwork, that's a different story altogether. But the comment was about parents who are completely absent.

What do you mean “the kids will go home with the parent who is asking do them? Wouldn’t that child would already be with that parent if the other parent did not show up? — Or would the court get the police to take the child from the other parent? I am confused about “go home”
part.

And why a parent would need this if the other parent is not contesting. Would they determine child support without the other parent present???

OK, I completely flubbed that. I was writing and doing something else at the same time.

If a parent who has had the kids 100% of the time, goes to court to establish a custody agreement, and either the other parent can't be found, or evades service, or is served and doesn't respond, the parent who has the kids will keep the kids. The judge isn't going to force custody on someone who has made it clear they don't want to be part of the kids' lives, when there's another parent who wants them. Custody orders aren't "permanent" in the way other people use the word. The other parent can come back and request to have it revisited. But no judge, even a judge who believes in 50/50 is going to to award 50% custody to a parent who can't be found, and is doing everything in their power to avoid custody. Similarly, if Parent A files asking to have primary custody, with Parent B seeing the kids once a week, and Parent B files and says they'd rather have them once a month, the judge isn't going to give Parent B primary custody.

As to why a parent would need a custody order if the other parent doesn't want the kids: to obtain child support, as a step towards an eventual step parent adoption, because they are filing for divorce and custody is one of the things that gets settled in the divorce process, because of concerns about the kids' safety, etc . . .

As to child support, the filing parent may be able to find evidence of what the other parent earns, or evidence of what they earned before they disappeared, or whatever. They might be able to subpoena information from the employer, or other form of income. But if refusing to show up in court meant that you'd never owe child support, we'd see plenty of people doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He wants to parent his kids and so he had to get a lawyer.

He wants to harass his ex and so he had to get a lawyer.

The rule is this: If the judge finds that parent is emotionally abusive to her/him, there is not much at all he can do and it’s not his business (literally not part of his legal test)

If the judge finds that parent is terrible toward the child— that is his business.

The unwritten rule : If the judge even gets the smallest sniff (the smallest) that parent is making up or exaggerating or being generally “difficult” (that’s you ladies and a lot of ladies) then you are sc#%d. The judge will take it out on that parent to “teach them a lesson.”
The other unwritten rule is: Stay away from custody court because it’s like a jury trial - you have NO idea what that judge is going to do with you family life (ie basically your whole life) in 30 minutes. It depends on what he had for lunch.

A single Judge has wide discretion . He can literally say he didn’t believe so and so and rule to flip custody. A lot of people are unhappy w American custody court

[Anonymous]

If you are poor, you can get help from your county.

[Anonymous]

Judges don’t care about moms or dads —as individuals —basically bc every couple hates each other. Many (esp the ones in court) get vicious at the end of a romantic relationship. They see it all of the time. The law doesn’t really want to get in the middle of it.

They don’t care about squabbling ex lovers Really don’t

[Anonymous]

OP: what happened? I fear the worst . You were evicted? You live with teens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A custody evaluator is NOT your therapist. That’s the thing you need to know going into one. Tell them facts, preferably ones that can be verified by others, and if you have to mention feelings do it briefly and neutrally.

If you need a therapist to vent and cry to about it get one. Do NOT act like the custody evaluator cares about you at all. They’re just writing a report.

I had one that went very well (another state, years ago), because I just told him what happened. No feelings, just facts. He saw the kid, kid was fine (also kid was a baby, so couldn’t talk other than saying Bus or Cat), and my ex tried to feed a lot of BS (like said I breastfed for too long, so the guy asked about nursing and I said “yes baby is still nursing, and eating solids 2-3x per day but he’s been a little slow to get enough calories from it so he’s still nursing X times a day” - the evaluator said that it was still developmentally appropriate to be nursing and he wasn’t concerned).

But I only gave facts. I didn’t get emotional. I didn’t say anything negative about my ex - I let the guy draw his own conclusions based on the facts I gave him.

It’s inappropriate to refuse custody to the child’s dad over breastfeeding.

As long as you think the father’s wishes are of greater import than the best interests of the child standard, sure.

Or the child is 3+

Mom can pump or child can use formula at dad’s house. That is alienation to the core. Dads are just as capable as moms and under three is prime bonding time. If you keep these dads out of their kids lives in the early years with made up excuses don’t be surprised when they give up and stop trying. Yes, dads wanting to be in their child’s life trumps breastfeeding. And after one, kids should be on solids. Kids van start solids at 4-6 months. That is about mom’s needs, not the child’s.

None of this is the best pediatric guidance, which says breastfeeding to two, kids *start* solids no earlier than one.

So again, why do you think dad’s convenience trumps the best interests of the child? He can come get baby between feedings.

NP. The idea that a father shouldn't get any overnights until a kid is 2 because of APA's out-of-touch breastfeeding guidance that a tiny portion of people actually follow and misinformation about babies starting solids at one year old is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That case is stomach turning. The guys was controlling and mean to the mother so she gets primary custody and gets to move away?

That has nothing to do with the child.

Ummm … How is that stomach turning? You also left out the fact that he didn’t do hardly any childcare. The court decides what is in the best interests of the child and they made the correct decision here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“If one parent asks for custody, and the other either expresses that they don't, or doesn't file at all the parent who wants it will get it. “

No. That is not how due process works. That is not entirely correct. Lack of expression does not mean consent

Do you actually think you can just not show up at a custody hearing and still get custody? yeah, no.

[Anonymous]

PP said it would be delayed for due process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That case is stomach turning. The guys was controlling and mean to the mother so she gets primary custody and gets to move away?

That has nothing to do with the child.

Ummm … How is that stomach turning? You also left out the fact that he didn’t do hardly any childcare. The court decides what is in the best interests of the child and they made the correct decision here.

A court was not involved here. Read carefully.

You are reading one account (from an ex partner).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: what happened? I fear the worst . You were evicted? You live with teens?

Report favored ex. Sucks. Evaluator didn't mentioned the eviction. Didn't mention the fact that teens refused to get out of car at ex's place and so he could not evaluate them hanging out with ex. Said, "I moved out". Going to trial.

[Anonymous]

Yeah. You might lose
we said that it would favor the evictor
if you are poorish (eviction) find a women’s group asap and ask for resources

judges do not care if you have a roe- no matter what the details - with your ex

I am not writing here again. Re read above a feee times over . Don’t just listen to what “you want to hear.” That is a normal part of a trauma response btw

[Anonymous]

Correction/: Typo. Requestor

It favors the requestor

[Anonymous]

Your case sounded really crummy so get help and completely change your strategy and expectations

courts can make it worse for you and your family BELIEVE IT

you have to get nice … asap