Imp ? Infant overnight visitation

[MareQ]

My daughter and her boyfriend broke up. We live in extreme South Jersey and he lives (now with his parents) at extreme Northern Jersey, like 250 miles apart. They have a 7 month old baby. My daughter has never been away from the baby. The dad wants her for weekend overnights. Would a court force her to give him the baby for these overnight visits? I think she is too young to be away from her mom. He does love this baby but my daughter does the majority of her care. She is not breastfeeding. I am heartsick for my daughters pain. The dad keeps saying "You don't want to take this to court". Anybody know her rights? He wants to come today to get her and we don't have enough time to see a lawyer. Thoughts/ advise?

The father has rights as well. If the mother isn't breatfeeding then I see no reason why a child cannot be in their father's care - regardless of the child's age.

 

[lclark0621]

The other grandparents definitely love her. I am thrilled that her dad loves her too. My concern is the disruption in her life. Yes the traveling will be hard but to not see her mom, whom she has seen every day of her life, for 3 days seems detrimental. I think this is going to end up in court and no, there is no support arrangement. He seems to think since she is a baby he may only need to pay a small sum since she eats so little.

Talk to a lawyer before you do anything!

Yes it is great the Father want to see the baby. Yes the Father has rights to the child.

But threatning court already? Not a good sign. Only paying "a small sum because the child eats so little" also NOT a good sign!

Your daughter needs a formal custody arangement with visitation set up & a formal child support arangement NOW.

Just because your daughter will miss her daughter is no reason to deny a father visitation. Also "disrupting her schedule" & the child "not seeing her Mother for 3 days" are also not good reasons. It could be said she is not seeing her father for days on end.

The only way to resolve this is to have some agreements in place now, before she goes to her father's for the weekend.

 

[agnes!]

What a mess...the entire family - baby, mom, dad, even the grandparents - have my sympathy. Btw, who moved away from the other? Did he or did she?
I echo what other posters have stated...
prepare for the worst, hope for the best
papers should have been drawn up when they broke up

My two cents..
1) He is already threatening the mother. What makes you all think that he will just blithely hand the baby back to her after three days?!?
2) From the OP's last post...
"He seems to think since she is a baby he may only need to pay a small sum since she eats so little."

agnes!

 

[wdwlover54]

They just broke up on Tuesday. I did not suggest a lawyer because I expected them to get back together. Just thought it was an argument. I am walking a slippery slope as I don't want to be accused of meddling. I just think my daughter is so upset she is not thinking clearly as to her rights.

 

[MELSMICE]

The other grandparents definitely love her. I am thrilled that her dad loves her too. My concern is the disruption in her life. Yes the traveling will be hard but to not see her mom, whom she has seen every day of her life, for 3 days seems detrimental. I think this is going to end up in court and no, there is no support arrangement. He seems to think since she is a baby he may only need to pay a small sum since she eats so little.

I'll reiterate what other posters have said...............call a lawyer this morning.

Without any legal agreement my fear would be that he wouldn't bring the baby back. You must know that this does happen.

Is he serious when he says he'll only need to pay a small sum because she eats so little. Child support has nothing to do with how much a child eats. How about clothing, child care, dr. visits, diapers, medical insurance, saving for college?

Really, contact a lawyer. Keep us posted on how it all turns out.

 

[lindalinda]

Don't let him take the baby yet. I am sure the courts WILL allow overnight visits, but his statement "you don't want to take this to court" may mean he plans to seek custody. There have been several compromises mentioned here that will show that she is not vindictively preventing him from seeing the child, but rather just waiting for the legal issues to be worked out. Inviting the grandparents to visit might help also. How old are these parents? Where is your DD living? Is she working?

 

[The Mystery Machine]

They just broke up on Tuesday. I did not suggest a lawyer because I expected them to get back together. Just thought it was an argument. I am walking a slippery slope as I don't want to be accused of meddling. I just think my daughter is so upset she is not thinking clearly as to her rights.

If she is very upset then you have to be the one looking out for the baby and handing a 7 month old baby to a man that has already made "threats" is not in the baby's best interest.

500 miles away? No way...not without a court order.

 

[peachgirl]

What does attachment parenting have to do with custody. Certainly you're not suggesting these people start living by this philosophy in order to manipulate the court system.

Ummm...I thought it was an interesting site describing the unique problems with infants and overnight visitation...nothing more, nothing less.

Without a legal agreement in place, if the father takes the baby, he's just as entitled to keep it as she is and then she'll be in the position he is right now until a custody agreement is in place.

Bite your lip and allow him to stay at the home for visitation. Take the child and go visit him...but I simply wouldn't allow unsupervised visitation of any kind until a legal visitation agreement was set up,overnight or not.

He doesn't have to bring the baby back and that's a big risk to take.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

well if they are not going to live together as a family, then it does need to end up in court in order to formalize the support and custody that BOTH the Mother and the Father deserve.

I'm not sure what attachment parenting has to do with the issue. AFAIK, Father's have the same right to attach to a baby as Mother's do.

1) He is already threatening the mother. What makes you all think that he will just blithely hand the baby back to her after three days?!?

But this is a very one sided argument. Let's all advise the MOTHER not to hand over the baby because the baby is so small and too young.

But God Forbid a FATHER decide not to hand over a baby. In that case, he is "threatening and evil."

 

[MELSMICE]

They just broke up on Tuesday. I did not suggest a lawyer because I expected them to get back together. Just thought it was an argument. I am walking a slippery slope as I don't want to be accused of meddling. I just think my daughter is so upset she is not thinking clearly as to her rights.

I am sure your DD is extremely upset, considering the breakup just occurred.

Maybe you can talk to her & tell her that while you know she's upset, it might be best to contat a lawyer "just in case" they don't get back together, as it would be the best thing for the baby. Maybe in her heart she's hoping the do get back together.

Good luck.

 

[sugarpie]

Yes, she should talk to an attorney.

I have a friend who has been going through a similar situation. She's been fighting her soon to be ex-husband for over a year. They're constantly in court. It has cost her about $25,000 up to this point. In this state, and in most I would guess, the basic arrangement is custody is shared between parents and placement of the child is 50/50 unless you can prove it's not in the childs best interest. And proving a parent unfit is extremely difficult.

It can be very ugly and I hope they can work it out without a court battle. Hopefully they can come to an agreement between themselves & then draw up the neccessary legal documents.

 

[MareQ]

If she is very upset then you have to be the one looking out for the baby and handing a 7 month old baby to a man that has already made "threats" is not in the baby's best interest.

500 miles away? No way...not without a court order.

Not 500 miles away - probably about 200 miles away....

 

[phillybeth]

My daughter and her boyfriend broke up. We live in extreme South Jersey and he lives (now with his parents) at extreme Northern Jersey, like 250 miles apart. They have a 7 month old baby. My daughter has never been away from the baby. The dad wants her for weekend overnights. Would a court force her to give him the baby for these overnight visits? I think she is too young to be away from her mom. He does love this baby but my daughter does the majority of her care. She is not breastfeeding. I am heartsick for my daughters pain. The dad keeps saying "You don't want to take this to court". Anybody know her rights? He wants to come today to get her and we don't have enough time to see a lawyer. Thoughts/ advise?

Where in NJ is 250 miles from somewhere else in NJ? According to Wikipedia, the entire state is only 150 miles long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey

 

[ducklite]

As long as his name is on the birth certificate and there is no court order to the contrary, he has just as much right to spend time with the child as your daughter. She is not breast feeding and there's no reason that that child shouldn't be allowed time to bond with the father--who you should be glad WANTS to spend time with the child.

My brother and his ex split up just after my niece was born, and my brother has had her for overnights since she was about six months. In fact the court very much sided with him on the entire custody issue, as he was more stable in a lot of ways. He gets her two evenings a week and at minimum every other weekend. He also gets her for Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Fathers Day, plus the weekend of our annual family reunion, which is usually the first or second weekend in August--even if it's not his "weekend." Here's the best part, she isn't allowed to move with the baby more than 15 miles from his house. So she's stuck. Period. He did allow her to move 16.3 miles away, but it's in writing that this is a one time deal, and not to be construed as a permanant allowance or revocation of that clause in the court order.

Also, they have joint physical and legal custody, and HE is allowed tot ravel outside of the State or even country with her by simply giving notice to her mother. her mother must give notice and get his approval before doing to.

All this because the ex was being a jerk at the beginning about letting him see her, so he got a very good lawyer and the mothers actions were brought up in court. It looked like she was being an unreasonable witch, and the judge was very sympathetic to my brother because he was being reasonable. The judge gave him more than he was asking for.

So I'd be very, very careful, you are walking a slippery slope. Unless there is a VALID reason for the father to not spend time with his child (he lives in a crack house, sells drugs, is an alcoholic, as a record as a child molester, etc.) then there is absolutely no reason for him not to. The best interest of the child trumps those of either parents, and unless there is a compelling argument otherwise, it is in the childs best interests to have a relationship with both parents. Your daughters "feelings" are simply not important as far as the law is concerned.

And for those posters who think six months is too young for overnight visits, or it's too far to travel... What if the OP wanted to take her daughter and grandchild to WDW? Would it still be too far to travel? My guess is you wouldn't think so. And if you had a six month old and needed to go away for a weekend, would you leave your child with your husband? I can't imagine most of you saying no. So how is this ANY different?

BTW OP--if God forbid something were to happen to your daughter, you do know that full legal and physical custody of your grandchild would AUTOMATICALLY go to the surviving parent, and unless you can prove him unfit, you wouldn't have a chance at custody. And he could even deny you visitation and potentially win. It is in everyone's best interests to allow him the occasional over night visitation he wants, and to keep at least a civil relationship with him.

Anne

 

[Bob Slydell]

If she is very upset then you have to be the one looking out for the baby and handing a 7 month old baby to a man that has already made "threats" is not in the baby's best interest.

500 miles away? No way...not without a court order.

It's 250 miles, BTW. And I don't think his "threat" of taking it to court is that big of a threat, IMO (at least not in the ways people are portraying it on this thread). As others have said, if they're truly broken up, they're going to pretty much have to go to court to work out the custody arrangement. He has rights, he's the father.

 

[MareQ]

Where in NJ is 250 miles from somewhere else in NJ? According to Wikipedia, the entire state is only 150 miles long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey

If you go corner to corner driving distance can be about 200 miles.

 

[NewJersey]

Where in NJ is 250 miles from somewhere else in NJ? According to Wikipedia, the entire state is only 150 miles long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey

Thought the same thing...and it's definitely not 500 as someone else said. But if you are taking the Parkway to say 280 to get up to northwest jersey, it would be about 200 miles because you aren't going tip to tip in a straight line, you're taking roads tthat go west and northwest, making the trip longer. But the state is only 150 miles long.

This is all really a moot point though. Carry on!

 

[dcgrumpy]

But this is a very one sided argument. Let's all advise the MOTHER not to hand over the baby because the baby is so small and too young.

But God Forbid a FATHER decide not to hand over a baby. In that case, he is "threatening and evil."

well said

 

[MareQ]

It's 250 miles, BTW. And I don't think his "threat" of taking it to court is that big of a threat, IMO (at least not in the ways people are portraying it on this thread). As others have said, if they're truly broken up, they're going to pretty much have to go to court to work out the custody arrangement. He has rights, he's the father.

And nobody knows how the "threat" came about. What man WOULDN"T threaten court if he aked to see his own child and have a visit and was told no?? I can see being scared but I don't see why it's necessary to make the father out to be some evil person because he wants to have a weekend with his child 200 miles away- he's the FATHER and he has a right to see his child and dictate who, what, when, where, how and why UNLESS a court tells him otherwise.

 

[marybet]

Don't let him take that kid.

If he's already threatening legal action against her for a 7 month old, the guy's got issues and you need to consider the fact that he may not return the baby if you let him take her 500 miles away.

Call a lawyer asap, tell the boyfriend he can visit the baby in your home, and have another male figure there just in case he tries to bully or threaten you into giving him the baby.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

I think this is very good advice. Yes it is great that he is taking an interest in the child, but he may also be trying to manipulate your daughter by using the child. How old are they? At this point I don't think she has to let him take the child. As others have said let him come and see her at your home, but don't allow him to take her away unless you have a formal agreement.