Do you guys think she was messed up for trying to cut him out of his daughter's life?
shareI don't necessarily think she was trying to cut Scott out. She clearly just had expectations of him that he wasn't meeting that she wanted fulfilled before he got to see her. She said job, apartment, child-support. Then we'll talk about visitation.
shareYeah, to me she wasn't trying to cut him out. She just wanted him to be in a stable position, in a position to help provide for Cassie which means a good stable, safe place to live, which means having a stable job.
I don't think she was unreasonable or messed up.
Nillindeiel
Agent Hill: ...Then aliens invaded New York and were beaten back, by among others, a giant green monster, a costumed hero from the 40's.... and a god.
Agent Ward: I don't think Thor is technically a god.
Hill: Well...you haven't been near his arms.
~Agents of SHIELD; Season 1 Episode 1 "Pilot"
She wasn't trying to cut him out, but she needed to see that Scott had stability in his life before letting him share custody. Do you think it's healthy for a child to hang with her father when he's living with other ex-cons in a trashy apartment?
Actually, I thought the relationship was maybe too good. However, it was nice that they wrapped up the movie with all three parents on great terms.
Given how hard it seemed for Scott to hold down a job given his record, how in the hell is he supposed to better himself? He clearly wasn't doing harm to his daughter.
Are you one of those uptight yuppies that thinks so highly of themselves that they can not possibly understand the mistakes and hardships of other less fortunate people?? I'm surprised people like you don't talk about executing convicts, you think so little of them as human beings.
Wow.
You read way too much into my response about a fictional character. Where did I write that Scott couldn't ever redeem himself? I think I also wrote that the relationship was rather positive given the circumstances. And I didn't notice anyone write about the death penalty, which is clearly not part of the story.
"Are you one of those uptight yuppies that thinks so highly of themselves that they can not possibly understand the mistakes and hardships of other less fortunate people?? I'm surprised people like you don't talk about executing convicts, you think so little of them as human beings."
I'm not uptight or a yuppie, but committing crimes does not define someone as "less fortunate". It defines him as someone who makes stupid decisions that hurt other people physically, psychologically, and financially. The victims of his crimes are the ones who are less fortunate.
As for convicts, the ones who have committed torture and murder of innocent victims--yes, I think so little of them as human beings that I believe they should be executed. The sooner the better.
She wasn't trying to cut him out. She was just telling him to get his sh!t together, so as to be a responsible father.🐭
sharePersonally, after reading some of these uptight, yuppy responses, after his ex threw him out of his daughter's own party, demanding child support like a greedy bitch, treating him less than human, I gotta say I hated her snide, conceited ass.
shareI'm no where near a yuppie, and I'd be willing to bet money you are one of the ex-con losers who effed up their lives and thinks people should just ignore that you ignored the law and paid the price.
What Scott did was noble, but it was also a betrayal of his wife and daughter's trust. What he did caused them great pain. He spent 2+ years in prison, plus however long he was out of the picture from the time of his arrest until his conviction. So, 3 - 4 years of him not working a job and his wife and daughter have to suffer because of it.
Did the mom have to go back to work, thus leaving the daughter in someone else's care? That is a heck of a betrayal if they'd talked about how if they had children she was going to stay at home so she could raise the children with their values.
Did the mom lose the house? Did they have to move into some cr*ppy place putting her daughter's safety at risk?
She demanded child support because it would mean he had a steady job and some security in his life as opposed to just being an ex-con who blamed everyone else for his mistakes.
She was horrible. She only cared about herself and had no compassion for Scott.
shareWhat compassion did Scott show for her and their daughter when he decided to commit a felony?
shareThrowing Scott out of the party was necessary, but I can see why she needs to see some stability before she shares custody. It also wouldn't have hurt her if Scott came to her house to see his child every once in a while, just cutting him out when his daughter really wants to see him doesn't help anyone.
shareThrowing Scott out of the party was necessary
It also wouldn't have hurt her if Scott came to her house to see his child every once in a while, just cutting him out when his daughter really wants to see him doesn't help anyone.
I feel as though she was being unreasonable in throwing him out of his daughter's birthday party and in preventing him from seeing his daughter until he was in a more stable situation (which he projected to be nearly a full year away). I am not saying that she was wrong for wanting to protect her daughter from his past, but she could have at least let him visit his daughter at her house or in public until he got his life back together.
shareThere is a difference between visiting the daughter at the house, and visiting her during the birthday party when Scott would be a distraction to the party. Instead of the focus being on the daughter, the focus would be on Scott.
shareHowever the daughter clearly wanted him there, it meant the world to her to see him and that is far more important than the "focus" staying on her. She was so happy about seeing him that she still had him on her mind over the next few weeks, so I feel as though the mom was wrong for not allowing him to even visit her. Plus while at the party he made no effort to take the spotlight away from his little girl. Instead of letting him stay and watch his daughter play with her friends he was immediately told to leave or he would be arrested then his ex-wife tells him that he can't see his daughter until he can fufill her list of requirements.
shareHowever the daughter clearly wanted him there,
I feel as though the mom was wrong for not allowing him to even visit her.
Plus while at the party he made no effort to take the spotlight away from his little girl.
Instead of letting him stay and watch his daughter play with her friends he was immediately told to leave or he would be arrested
his ex-wife tells him that he can't see his daughter until he can fufill her list of requirements.
The mother may have had full custody of the child, however that just means that his rights to see his daughter can be granted or denied at her discretion unless he takes her to court. This does not mean that she can not allow him to see his daughter, at any time she could let him see her, but she chooses not to. Besides the question of this thread is more about the moral implications of her denying him time with his daughter than her legal power to do so. In the end it boils down to her not letting him see his daughter who wants nothing more than to be with and vice versa. She may have legal custody of the child, but she is making a conscious decision to needlessly keep him away from their child as he is trying to get his life back on track. There are no negative consequences for her letting him visit his daughter at her house or at a public park for a few hours a week, but she seems to be acting spiteful towards him for his past choices instead of his present actions.
shareThe mother may have had full custody of the child, however that just means that his rights to see his daughter can be granted or denied at her discretion unless he takes her to court. This does not mean that she can not allow him to see his daughter, at any time she could let him see her, but she chooses not to.
There are no negative consequences for her letting him visit his daughter at her house or at a public park for a few hours a week, but she seems to be acting spiteful towards him for his past choices instead of his present actions.
[deleted]
At the end of the day he should be allowed to visit his daughter. Not allowing him any contact with the kid until he gives child support isn't a good enough reason. The only one who gets hurt by not letting him see her is the daughter.
shareI don't disagree that he should be allowed supervised visits. But, he should NOT have shown up at the party. That is where the sh!t hits the fan.
I've had a few friends get divorced. The one thing I've always told them is to NEVER say anything bad about their ex, because it is still their child's mom/dad. It will always come back to hurt them.
And, for my male friends, I've told them to do EXACTLY what the judge says for them to do. If the ex is being unreasonable, address it in court and not on the front steps.
I happen to be a family law attorney and the mother's behavior bothered me greatly. She seemed to think she has some right to set what the requirements are for him to see his daughter. I think going to the party was wrong and he should have just planned his own party. But based on mother's demands I highly doubt she would have allowed him to take the child out on his own for a celebration. If he doesnt want his daughter to think he has forgotten her, he had to go.
Your assuming its a court order that gives her control. As he just got out of prison its unlikely she has already gone to court to get an order for supervised visitation. Even if there is a court order, her requirements were unreasonable.
If she is going to hold visitation as a carrot to get his life together she is forcing the father and daughter to lose irreplaceable bonding time. As its clear best case its gonna take him a year to do what she wants.
The child is only 5 once. He has already lost several years, To say come back when she is 6 may damage that relationship beyond repair.
Unless the mother has some basis to believe he will harm the child her demands would not go over very well with the court.
Nothing in this movie showed me he had ever hurt the child physically or emotionally.
Did you have an actual point to your post, or just wanted to say, "I think going to the party was wrong and he should have just planned his own party."
Because,
Your assuming its a court order that gives her control. As he just got out of prison its unlikely she has already gone to court to get an order for supervised visitation.
What right does she have to demand supervised vistation. She had control while he was in prison, but he is no longer in prison. Just because someone goes to prison does not mean when they get out there is automatically supervised visitation.
There is no evidence either the child is uncomfortable with him or that he is a danger to the child. His crime is not a violent crime, there was no abuse and no substance abuse claim.
I'd like to know in your scenario when he would be able to see his daughter on her birthday. She wont let him take her and she wont let him come over.
I guess maybe next year she will think about it. After he pays his child support, and gets a place she approves of, and gets a job satisfactory to her.
I bet her comment to the judge and her lawyer will be....."I want him to have a relationship with MY daughter but.........."
She would be ripped by any judge.
Unless that judge has a mindset several decades in the past.
What right does she have to demand supervised vistation.
She wont let him take her and she wont let him come over.
Its people who think like you that make me a lot of money.
Being a felon does not automatically give you supervised visitation. It would be crime specific and his would not get supervised visitation. Overnight visitation would be in question.
In practice very few people get a modification of the original visitation order when someone goes to prison, because its clear what will go on while in prison. Therefore when the person gets out they are normally entitled to exactly what they had when they went in.
If true here, she is making her demands on her own without a court order. From what we saw of the character there is nothing that would require supervised visitation.
No, people who sacrifice their marriages and/or never put any effort into their marriages make you money.
Being a felon does not automatically give you supervised visitation.
Based solely upon the conviction there is no situation that you would lose all parental rights. To lose all parental rights would require further neglect of the relationship. Certain convictions would lead to supervised visitation, such as child molesting, child abuse, possibly domestic abuse.
Conviction for drug and alcohol offenses could lead to supervised parenting time if you can show the person still has issues with the use of the drugs.
The only other reason a prison term would lead to supervised visitation is if the child has gone such a long period of time away from the parent that the child no longer remembers the parent.
As to making me money, I mean when people take positions that are unreasonable it leads to more litigation. A position that this guy should have supervised time would be unreasonable. If what we see is true my advice to the mother here would be to allow unsupervised time but we would restrict overnight parenting time in his apartment until we can look further at his roommates and if the child has her own bed, enough food etc.
Even this is only very temporary as the courts for the most part assume that the father would use good judgment in who he exposed his child to. For instance if the Pena character was a bad guy, you hope dad is responsible to keep them apart.
You would have to prove dad is negligent and would expose her to a bad situation. I don't think ant-man would.
We get cases all the time where one parent wants to restrict parenting time based upon past bad behavior. In almost all cases the question to the court is who is he now. Child support is ignored for parenting time purposes. Poverty and/or employment are not reasons to deny time.
So what you are saying is that you practice law in the same state as the movie is set in AND you know 100% of the facts of the case - even though they weren't shown or discussed in the movie.
Got it.
Thanks for playing.
Better luck next time.
States are very similar on this issue, and I am basing my facts on what is presented in the movie.
I suppose you practice law in the same state as the movie and know 100% of the facts.
Tried to have a civil conversation, but what is to be expected on the internet, my bad.
The mother was a stereotype of the entitled mother who thinks she owns the child because she has custody.
I am basing my facts on what is presented in the movie.
Tried to have a civil conversation, but what is to be expected on the internet, my bad.
The mother was a stereotype of the entitled mother who thinks she owns the child because she has custody.
So he made a mistake, they have to deal with it. To make his daughter continue to pay because she has the anger is not reasonable.
I looked at your other posts and you always descend into a very angry individual with anyone who disagrees with you.
Must be nice to always be right and the smartest in any conversation. I hope in person you are not the same.
Must be nice to always be right and the smartest in any conversation.
[deleted]
Again, not wanting the ex to be a distraction. Not wanting people to turn and whisper about him instead of having all of the attention be on the daughter.
Believe me, I'm really happy he wanted to be a part of her life. But he effed up. Now he has to bend over and take it in the shorts until he redeems himself.
Had he talked to the mom and asked if he could come over after the party when all of the guests were gone and she said no, then I'd certainly be on the side saying she was being unreasonable.