Child Custody Change

"Chris" wrote in

Somehow, I don't think your Ex will be showing up anywhere near you!
LOL

Considering he doesn't bother calling the kids for 3 years, nor
acknowledging their b'days or Xmas for 3 years, he'll have a tougher sell
with them than me.

Contact with them means contact with YOU! I'm sure he's aware of that, you
agree?


Concidering that she has flooded this NG with here constant rants, it's
apparent she enjoys or is addicted to conflict.
I couldn't imagine her ex showing up for all the grief!

"Tiffany" wrote in

Moon, post anything you want. I just thought you might need reminded that
the op was looking for help and as usual, this isn't helpful.

And you need to read the posts.... I did offer suggestions to the OP.


As per usual, the thread goes on so long that the topic is lost and it all
becomes pointless.
How many more posts will it take to convince this looney that the man was
only looking for help to cleanup his child's living conditions?

Why don't we just drop the topic now as all she is doing is creating more
attention for herself?

Nuff said!

Can we all just end this here?

It's pointless to keep feeding the Troll and the original poster hopefully
got enough information to help him make a decision.

Thanks

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:41:10 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:35:55 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:36:02 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:08:49 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
news:2r4do15pgo8ahrsf6opb7hacj6p760t8q3@4ax .com...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:55:56 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Chris" wrote in message
news:5ruhf.8731$dv.4680@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:c7chf.8066$dv.6415@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
. com...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Why not simply keep him with you, as you've been doing, and
file
for
physical placement?

He doesn't have to file for anything, all he needs to do is
lift
the
phone
and have child services take a look at the putrid conditions
the
child
has
to live in. Would you allow your child to live in such
terrible
conditions?

Of course not - though I recognize that all anyone has is
whatever
he's
chosen to post to an internet newsgroup, which may or may not
have
any
basis
in reality.

I wonder, though, about ANY person who thinks they have the
right
to
get
rid
of some else's pet, or make changes in someone else's home.

Don't you?

Nowhere did he ever state that he had the right to do ANYTHING
in
her
home.

Ah - so he stated he was thinking about getting rid of her cat
and
washing
her carpets for the helluvit?

I'm sorry, but nowhere did I read that he was thinking about
getting
rid
of
her cat and washing her carpets. Perhaps you might clue me in.

"Secret Asian Man" wrote in message
news:eIQgf.42699$2k5.38151@dukeread09.. .

or I start stepping on her heels to
get rid of the cat, wash the carpet, and shoulder some
responsibility
in
raising our child.


Must be a matter of perception when reading. Sometimes the internet
is such a hard place to communicate effectively.

What I thought when I read the OP's words was that his ex admitted
she
had a problem which caused conditions unsuitable for a small child
and, therefore, allowed him to care for the child more often as she
got her act together. However, instead of doing as she proposed, it
has become easier for her to simply let him keep their child more
often.

I see a man who is asking his ex to do what she proposed in order
that
their child have the benefit of both parents equally in a sanitary
environment. For what it is worth, living in this manner can be a
sign of depression and losing (time with) her child can be a factor
that may only make it worse. I suppose if I had a friend with this
going on, I would encourage her to do what she needs to do before it
makes matters worse for her. Would encouraging my friend to do
something she rationally proposed as a solution to a problem be
"taking over?"

Of course not - though stepping on toes (or heels) and going in and
doing
it
for her, or demanding that she do things his way, sure would be, don't
you
think?

I think I may have found the communication problem... please bear with
me. His use of the phrase "stepping on her heels" must mean something
different to you than it does to me and many others. I see this now
because you interchange "toes" with "heels".

I read "stepping on her heels" to mean "encouraging her to go foward."
I would read "steppiing on her toes" to mean "holding her down."

And that's what I've been trying to say for any number of posts, while
others have chosen this as another opportunity for them to launch full
scale
attacks, complete with accusations.



There's a far cry between asking someone to do something, and
demanding
it
or taking over and doing it that way for them - and that's what I've
been
protesting in the OP's post.


I don't see him demanding her to do anything. As he said, his choices
included doing nothing, but keeping his child safe with the means
available to him, He was evaluating his options, not declaring what
he was going to do.

He DOES, however, say that he takes the child over there daily, which
makes
me wonder why he would do that, if it's the health hazard he claims.

I see why you would wonder, but there could be a myriad of reasons
including "I don't know." Other speculated reasons could be:
1. Fear that if he didn't that something worse could happen.

Worse than the health risk he's claiming exists?

His ignoring a 50/50 custody arrangement would justify her asking for
sole custody. This is not to say she'd get it, especially given the
circumstances provided he could prove it, but he would not be the
first man to be wary of the family court. IF she were to get sole
custody, would not the child be exposed to the health risks to a much
greater extent?

That all depends on just how much of a risk there actually is (or isn't) -
S.A.M. is oddly silent now that the discussion includes why he's dropping
child off there if it's that unhealthy - have you noticed?

As I said, the answer could be "I don't know." However, his new
thread addresses it and I am completely satisfied with his answer.


My experience with sole custody and visitation is that it takes quite a
prolonged period of ignoring custody arrangements - certainly more than
enough time to contact HHS or CPS or whatever agency in his locale handles
this sort of situation.

I'd love to hear of your experience that relates to ignoring custody
arrangements.

MY experience with CHILD PROTECTION is that:

1. If they find a parent's home to put the child at sufficient risk
and remove a child, both parents are considered guilty until proven
innocent and the potential of the child ending up in fostercare is
greater than the child ending up with a family member.

2. Child protection will not consider a child at risk if the child no
longer lives/visits there, despite what a court order may say. They
do not care what family court says, but will threaten the
non-offending parent with removal of the child should the court order
be followed.

If you want to know my relevant experience, I'd be happy to share...
but it is quite a long story.








2. Perhaps the worst of it is in the child's bedroom and sleeping
there is the biggest hazard.

A perhaps, at best.


3. Inability to think of another way to keep the mother-child
relationship going.

Then perhaps he needs to brainstorm other ways.

Easy to say, harder to do when immersed in a situation.

He stated in his original posting - he knows he needs to call a lawyer - he
apparently simply hasn't done it, and continues to take the child there?

Nah... something wrong with this picture.

Calling a lawyer, although I know I may need to, is always my last
resort when it comes to my ex. I suppose that is how he managed to
get nearly $10,000 in arrears while taking the children as tax
deductions. I tried reasoning with him for way too long, I know, but
I kept hoping that he would want to avoid what eventually happened
when I DID call a lawyer.







You have been quite clear that he should not step in and do it
himself, but I really don't think he wants to. I think all he wants
is for his ex to follow through on what she proposed as a solution to
her problem.

And if she chooses to not do so, isn't that her right? According to a
problem pyramid (a concept I came across in some book ages ago) -

Absolutely; however, her choosing not to may also be making other
choices of which she is unaware. The OP has been considering his
choices given hers and I believe he would prefer not to make the
choice he feels he must make if she chooses to do nothing. I think he
sees encouraging her to make the choice she proposed as being what is
best for his child.

From the tone of his original post, he took a much more antagonistic
position rather than 'encouraging' anything - I can't imagine that
'stepping
on heels' (regardless of anyone's personal translation of that phrase) can
be interpreted as 'encouraging' anything.



He is the one who feels there is a problem (the condition of her
apartment)

As I understand it, so does she.

He is the one who needs to find a solution (which, to me, does not
include
going into her home and making changes, but can certainly include
choosing
to not take the child there)

Yes, he certainly does need to find a solution and choosing to not
take the child there is one. However, this solution may not be what
he considers best for his child. It would certainly be the easiest
one. But, as you may well know, making best decisions for a child is
not always the easy decision.

Of course not - though I still can't imagine that 'stepping on heels'
(regardless of one's personal interpretation of that phrase) can possibly
be
considered to be in anyone's best interests, except possibly his own.

His child's, perhaps? Does his child not deserve to be nurtured by
his mother in a safe environment?

Like I said, I'm not so sure how unsafe it actually is - In reading his OP,
it's quite clear that this is something of his own engineering - this so
called "agreement" was more like: "At first I gave her a couple of days to
clean up the place" - the more I look at it, and the more S.A.M. is so oddly
quiet after being fairly vocal about defending his position.....

This'll be my last response on this whole thing - I believe it less and
less, and am more than bored with some of the others on here who would take
any opportunity to attack..........





However, just because HE feels there's a problem doesn't, in and of
itself,
make it HER problem, nor does it mean that there's actually a problem -
especially since he continues to take the child there. It just means
that
HE feels there's a problem.

But she also says it is a problem and she is the one who proposed the
solution.

Only according to him, which is suspect (to me) since he continues to drop
the child off there for his own convenience - I assume he's heard of day
care?

I'm assuming he read the custody orders. If he did not let her care
for the child at all and she wished to, he'd be in contempt.

Re-read the OP - he already is out of compliance with the custody order, and
according to him, she agreed to it - so if we're going to assume that his
'agreement' is valid in one case (her agreeing to clean up the apartment
willingly, even though he clearly 'gave her a couple of days') then we would
have to assume that this other agreement (to let him keep the child extended
times) is equally valid.

What's your point?




It IS her problem, but more importantly, it is a problem
for their child (agreed by both)

Only according to him.

If the situation differs from what he says, then any advice he may
find here would be innappropriate. Given that one could post pretty
anonymously, why should he lie?

Many people do it at one time or another, some of them all the time - you've
seen trolls before? And golly gee, this thread is the only time he's posted
with that email address.......... ever! ... imagine that!

Some trolls are quite obvious, but what he described is plausible...
if not in his case, perhaps in someone else's. Who am I to decide
whether he is lying or not? Who am I to determine when his first post
should ever appear?






in which he is taking an active role
in solving. As a parent, would you not take an active role in solving
your child's problem?

I consistantly do - and I've managed to do it for 7 years without
'stepping
on heels'.

Since we disagree with the saying "stepping on heels," I can't comment
on this.




As an example, my children attend a school where hazing existed until
I got involved. The law says my children must be educated. Sure, I
could have simply pulled them out of the school and homeschooled;
instead, I chose to make the school change their ways. What right did
I have to change a century old tradition in the school when I could
have simply removed my children from that environment?

Completely different scenario, and not comparable.

We're talking about an already charged situation (since they're divorced),
not a public school.

I stepped in
and forced a change because of the benefits I felt my children would
lose by NOT attending school. This is not to say a decision to
homeschool would have been bad (would have been easier), but I didn't
think it was best for MY children.


My ex smokes heavily. He has all down comforters and feather pillows in
his
home. For years.. YEARS... my daughter would return from his home, and
within 2-3 days be in the school health room with ambiguous, vague
complaints of feeling ill.

It took years until I discovered, by taking her to an allergist, that
she's
highly allergic to both cigarette smoke and feathers.

Why did it take years for her to be taken to an allergist?

Because I don't generally take children to a specialist for what had been
primarily mild, seasonal allergies - it wasn't apparent that the vague,
unspecified complaints were allergies for quite some time. (and any number
of family practitioner visits). Why would you want to take a scenario and
pounce on one item with which to attack?

I wasn't trying to attack. I've just never had an experience where
the doctor didn't do everything possible to track down symptoms which
were recurring, even if vague.




Recognizing that I had no right to tell him how to run his personal life,
I
chose allergy medication to treat her allergy symptoms.

Did he have a right to know how his environment affected his child
with an opportunity to change things if he didn't want her to require
medication? This would be informing, not forcing.

Hard to inform someone of anything when he won't listen, and won't open
letters that would contain such information.



How well do you think it would have worked if I had insisted that he stop
smoking in his own home, around my daughter, and oh, by the way, replace
all
of the pillows and blankets?

If you had informed him of your concerns (not demanding anything) and
he said he would change it for the sake of your daughter, would you
not care if he followed through?

Probably wouldn't have assumed that he would actuallt make any changes in
the first place - he wasn't very diligent about keeping his word to me or
the kids.

Understood. But I had the feeling that the OP's ex cared about the
well-being of her child and nothing was said that contraindicated
that.


Would you not rather he follow
through with his offer than to have to have the child take medicine to
spend time there?

I'd rather that my daughter not get ill.

So far, you've wanted to know why it took so long to have her diagnosed by a
specialist (an allergist), whether he was informed that his environment was
poisoning the child (which he was, and ignored), whether I would have cared
if he had followed through on something he agreed to (actually, I would have
fallen over in shock), and wouldn't I rather that he followed through with
something than my daughter take medicine.

Gee, I thought the whole point of the scenario was that it's possible to
take care of things that might be an issue WITHOUT making demands that the
ex spouse change.....at least, that was MY point, in support of my point
that it was highly inappropriate for S.A.M. to have handled the situation
the way he had posted.

I am one of these people who prefer to not medicate my child until
non-medical interventions are explored (i.e. although the doctor was
willing to give us a pill for my child's bedwetting, I chose to try a
bedwetting alarm first and it worked). Fortunately, I have not had a
situation where it involved my ex. I'm not certain how I would handle
it if it did.

Of course, since he's looking more and more like a troll, I suppose the
whole thing is moot.

- finis -

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:41:10 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:35:55 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:36:02 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
news:d5deo1hat0r53ab6rrjc5k78u41pr061ir@4ax. com...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:08:49 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
news:2r4do15pgo8ahrsf6opb7hacj6p760t8q3@4a x.com...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:55:56 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Chris" wrote in message
news:5ruhf.8731$dv.4680@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:c7chf.8066$dv.6415@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
. com...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Why not simply keep him with you, as you've been doing,
and
file
for
physical placement?

He doesn't have to file for anything, all he needs to do
is
lift
the
phone
and have child services take a look at the putrid
conditions
the
child
has
to live in. Would you allow your child to live in such
terrible
conditions?

Of course not - though I recognize that all anyone has is
whatever
he's
chosen to post to an internet newsgroup, which may or may
not
have
any
basis
in reality.

I wonder, though, about ANY person who thinks they have the
right
to
get
rid
of some else's pet, or make changes in someone else's home.

Don't you?

Nowhere did he ever state that he had the right to do
ANYTHING
in
her
home.

Ah - so he stated he was thinking about getting rid of her cat
and
washing
her carpets for the helluvit?

I'm sorry, but nowhere did I read that he was thinking about
getting
rid
of
her cat and washing her carpets. Perhaps you might clue me in.

"Secret Asian Man" wrote in message
news:eIQgf.42699$2k5.38151@dukeread09. ..

or I start stepping on her heels to
get rid of the cat, wash the carpet, and shoulder some
responsibility
in
raising our child.


Must be a matter of perception when reading. Sometimes the
internet
is such a hard place to communicate effectively.

What I thought when I read the OP's words was that his ex admitted
she
had a problem which caused conditions unsuitable for a small child
and, therefore, allowed him to care for the child more often as
she
got her act together. However, instead of doing as she proposed,
it
has become easier for her to simply let him keep their child more
often.

I see a man who is asking his ex to do what she proposed in order
that
their child have the benefit of both parents equally in a sanitary
environment. For what it is worth, living in this manner can be a
sign of depression and losing (time with) her child can be a
factor
that may only make it worse. I suppose if I had a friend with
this
going on, I would encourage her to do what she needs to do before
it
makes matters worse for her. Would encouraging my friend to do
something she rationally proposed as a solution to a problem be
"taking over?"

Of course not - though stepping on toes (or heels) and going in and
doing
it
for her, or demanding that she do things his way, sure would be,
don't
you
think?

I think I may have found the communication problem... please bear
with
me. His use of the phrase "stepping on her heels" must mean
something
different to you than it does to me and many others. I see this now
because you interchange "toes" with "heels".

I read "stepping on her heels" to mean "encouraging her to go
foward."
I would read "steppiing on her toes" to mean "holding her down."

And that's what I've been trying to say for any number of posts, while
others have chosen this as another opportunity for them to launch full
scale
attacks, complete with accusations.



There's a far cry between asking someone to do something, and
demanding
it
or taking over and doing it that way for them - and that's what I've
been
protesting in the OP's post.


I don't see him demanding her to do anything. As he said, his
choices
included doing nothing, but keeping his child safe with the means
available to him, He was evaluating his options, not declaring what
he was going to do.

He DOES, however, say that he takes the child over there daily, which
makes
me wonder why he would do that, if it's the health hazard he claims.

I see why you would wonder, but there could be a myriad of reasons
including "I don't know." Other speculated reasons could be:
1. Fear that if he didn't that something worse could happen.

Worse than the health risk he's claiming exists?

His ignoring a 50/50 custody arrangement would justify her asking for
sole custody. This is not to say she'd get it, especially given the
circumstances provided he could prove it, but he would not be the
first man to be wary of the family court. IF she were to get sole
custody, would not the child be exposed to the health risks to a much
greater extent?

That all depends on just how much of a risk there actually is (or isn't) -
S.A.M. is oddly silent now that the discussion includes why he's dropping
child off there if it's that unhealthy - have you noticed?

As I said, the answer could be "I don't know." However, his new
thread addresses it and I am completely satisfied with his answer.


My experience with sole custody and visitation is that it takes quite a
prolonged period of ignoring custody arrangements - certainly more than
enough time to contact HHS or CPS or whatever agency in his locale handles
this sort of situation.

I'd love to hear of your experience that relates to ignoring custody
arrangements.

He's ignored visitation and custody arrangements for years - no penalties
incurred whatsoever.



MY experience with CHILD PROTECTION is that:

1. If they find a parent's home to put the child at sufficient risk
and remove a child, both parents are considered guilty until proven
innocent and the potential of the child ending up in fostercare is
greater than the child ending up with a family member.

2. Child protection will not consider a child at risk if the child no
longer lives/visits there, despite what a court order may say. They
do not care what family court says, but will threaten the
non-offending parent with removal of the child should the court order
be followed.

If you want to know my relevant experience, I'd be happy to share...
but it is quite a long story.








2. Perhaps the worst of it is in the child's bedroom and sleeping
there is the biggest hazard.

A perhaps, at best.


3. Inability to think of another way to keep the mother-child
relationship going.

Then perhaps he needs to brainstorm other ways.

Easy to say, harder to do when immersed in a situation.

He stated in his original posting - he knows he needs to call a lawyer -
he
apparently simply hasn't done it, and continues to take the child there?

Nah... something wrong with this picture.

Calling a lawyer, although I know I may need to, is always my last
resort when it comes to my ex. I suppose that is how he managed to
get nearly $10,000 in arrears while taking the children as tax
deductions. I tried reasoning with him for way too long, I know, but
I kept hoping that he would want to avoid what eventually happened
when I DID call a lawyer.

I believe that in cases where the divorce is contentious enough, it's better
to simply deal with things legally, rather than beat one's head against the
brick wall of trying to reason with an unreasonable ex. Hence, my choice to
always go the legal route.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:35:55 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:36:02 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:08:49 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
news:2r4do15pgo8ahrsf6opb7hacj6p760t8q3@4ax. com...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:55:56 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Chris" wrote in message
news:5ruhf.8731$dv.4680@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:c7chf.8066$dv.6415@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
. com...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Why not simply keep him with you, as you've been doing,
and
file
for
physical placement?

He doesn't have to file for anything, all he needs to do
is
lift
the
phone
and have child services take a look at the putrid
conditions
the
child
has
to live in. Would you allow your child to live in such
terrible
conditions?

Of course not - though I recognize that all anyone has is
whatever
he's
chosen to post to an internet newsgroup, which may or may
not
have
any
basis
in reality.

I wonder, though, about ANY person who thinks they have the
right
to
get
rid
of some else's pet, or make changes in someone else's home.

Don't you?

Nowhere did he ever state that he had the right to do
ANYTHING
in
her
home.

Ah - so he stated he was thinking about getting rid of her cat
and
washing
her carpets for the helluvit?

I'm sorry, but nowhere did I read that he was thinking about
getting
rid
of
her cat and washing her carpets. Perhaps you might clue me in.

"Secret Asian Man" wrote in message
news:eIQgf.42699$2k5.38151@dukeread09...

or I start stepping on her heels to
get rid of the cat, wash the carpet, and shoulder some
responsibility
in
raising our child.


Must be a matter of perception when reading. Sometimes the
internet
is such a hard place to communicate effectively.

What I thought when I read the OP's words was that his ex admitted
she
had a problem which caused conditions unsuitable for a small child
and, therefore, allowed him to care for the child more often as
she
got her act together. However, instead of doing as she proposed,
it
has become easier for her to simply let him keep their child more
often.

I see a man who is asking his ex to do what she proposed in order
that
their child have the benefit of both parents equally in a sanitary
environment. For what it is worth, living in this manner can be a
sign of depression and losing (time with) her child can be a
factor
that may only make it worse. I suppose if I had a friend with
this
going on, I would encourage her to do what she needs to do before
it
makes matters worse for her. Would encouraging my friend to do
something she rationally proposed as a solution to a problem be
"taking over?"

Of course not - though stepping on toes (or heels) and going in and
doing
it
for her, or demanding that she do things his way, sure would be,
don't
you
think?

I think I may have found the communication problem... please bear
with
me. His use of the phrase "stepping on her heels" must mean
something
different to you than it does to me and many others. I see this now
because you interchange "toes" with "heels".

I read "stepping on her heels" to mean "encouraging her to go
foward."
I would read "steppiing on her toes" to mean "holding her down."

And that's what I've been trying to say for any number of posts, while
others have chosen this as another opportunity for them to launch full
scale
attacks, complete with accusations.



There's a far cry between asking someone to do something, and
demanding
it
or taking over and doing it that way for them - and that's what I've
been
protesting in the OP's post.


I don't see him demanding her to do anything. As he said, his
choices
included doing nothing, but keeping his child safe with the means
available to him, He was evaluating his options, not declaring what
he was going to do.

He DOES, however, say that he takes the child over there daily, which
makes
me wonder why he would do that, if it's the health hazard he claims.

I see why you would wonder, but there could be a myriad of reasons
including "I don't know." Other speculated reasons could be:
1. Fear that if he didn't that something worse could happen.

Worse than the health risk he's claiming exists?

His ignoring a 50/50 custody arrangement would justify her asking for
sole custody. This is not to say she'd get it, especially given the
circumstances provided he could prove it, but he would not be the
first man to be wary of the family court. IF she were to get sole
custody, would not the child be exposed to the health risks to a much
greater extent?

That all depends on just how much of a risk there actually is (or isn't) -

The issue is why he takes the child there. Irrelevant how much risk actually
exists. And if ANY risk exists in his mind, which is the case, then it
follows that the mother getting full custody would greatly increase such
risk. Hence a valid reason for his action. Comprende?

S.A.M. is oddly silent now that the discussion includes why he's dropping
child off there if it's that unhealthy - have you noticed?

My experience with sole custody and visitation is that it takes quite a
prolonged period of ignoring custody arrangements - certainly more than
enough time to contact HHS or CPS or whatever agency in his locale handles
this sort of situation.







2. Perhaps the worst of it is in the child's bedroom and sleeping
there is the biggest hazard.

A perhaps, at best.


3. Inability to think of another way to keep the mother-child
relationship going.

Then perhaps he needs to brainstorm other ways.

Easy to say, harder to do when immersed in a situation.

He stated in his original posting - he knows he needs to call a lawyer -
he
apparently simply hasn't done it, and continues to take the child there?

Nah... something wrong with this picture.







You have been quite clear that he should not step in and do it
himself, but I really don't think he wants to. I think all he wants
is for his ex to follow through on what she proposed as a solution
to
her problem.

And if she chooses to not do so, isn't that her right? According to a
problem pyramid (a concept I came across in some book ages ago) -

Absolutely; however, her choosing not to may also be making other
choices of which she is unaware. The OP has been considering his
choices given hers and I believe he would prefer not to make the
choice he feels he must make if she chooses to do nothing. I think he
sees encouraging her to make the choice she proposed as being what is
best for his child.

From the tone of his original post, he took a much more antagonistic
position rather than 'encouraging' anything - I can't imagine that
'stepping
on heels' (regardless of anyone's personal translation of that phrase)
can
be interpreted as 'encouraging' anything.



He is the one who feels there is a problem (the condition of her
apartment)

As I understand it, so does she.

He is the one who needs to find a solution (which, to me, does not
include
going into her home and making changes, but can certainly include
choosing
to not take the child there)

Yes, he certainly does need to find a solution and choosing to not
take the child there is one. However, this solution may not be what
he considers best for his child. It would certainly be the easiest
one. But, as you may well know, making best decisions for a child is
not always the easy decision.

Of course not - though I still can't imagine that 'stepping on heels'
(regardless of one's personal interpretation of that phrase) can
possibly
be
considered to be in anyone's best interests, except possibly his own.

His child's, perhaps? Does his child not deserve to be nurtured by
his mother in a safe environment?

Like I said, I'm not so sure how unsafe it actually is - In reading his
OP,
it's quite clear that this is something of his own engineering - this so
called "agreement" was more like: "At first I gave her a couple of days
to
clean up the place" - the more I look at it, and the more S.A.M. is so
oddly
quiet after being fairly vocal about defending his position.....

This'll be my last response on this whole thing - I believe it less and
less, and am more than bored with some of the others on here who would
take
any opportunity to attack..........





However, just because HE feels there's a problem doesn't, in and of
itself,
make it HER problem, nor does it mean that there's actually a
problem -
especially since he continues to take the child there. It just means
that
HE feels there's a problem.

But she also says it is a problem and she is the one who proposed the
solution.

Only according to him, which is suspect (to me) since he continues to
drop
the child off there for his own convenience - I assume he's heard of day
care?

I'm assuming he read the custody orders. If he did not let her care
for the child at all and she wished to, he'd be in contempt.

Re-read the OP - he already is out of compliance with the custody order,
and
according to him, she agreed to it - so if we're going to assume that his
'agreement' is valid in one case (her agreeing to clean up the apartment
willingly, even though he clearly 'gave her a couple of days') then we
would
have to assume that this other agreement (to let him keep the child
extended
times) is equally valid.



It IS her problem, but more importantly, it is a problem
for their child (agreed by both)

Only according to him.

If the situation differs from what he says, then any advice he may
find here would be innappropriate. Given that one could post pretty
anonymously, why should he lie?

Many people do it at one time or another, some of them all the time -
you've
seen trolls before? And golly gee, this thread is the only time he's
posted
with that email address.......... ever! ... imagine that!






in which he is taking an active role
in solving. As a parent, would you not take an active role in solving
your child's problem?

I consistantly do - and I've managed to do it for 7 years without
'stepping
on heels'.

Since we disagree with the saying "stepping on heels," I can't comment
on this.




As an example, my children attend a school where hazing existed until
I got involved. The law says my children must be educated. Sure, I
could have simply pulled them out of the school and homeschooled;
instead, I chose to make the school change their ways. What right did
I have to change a century old tradition in the school when I could
have simply removed my children from that environment?

Completely different scenario, and not comparable.

We're talking about an already charged situation (since they're
divorced),
not a public school.

I stepped in
and forced a change because of the benefits I felt my children would
lose by NOT attending school. This is not to say a decision to
homeschool would have been bad (would have been easier), but I didn't
think it was best for MY children.


My ex smokes heavily. He has all down comforters and feather pillows in
his
home. For years.. YEARS... my daughter would return from his home, and
within 2-3 days be in the school health room with ambiguous, vague
complaints of feeling ill.

It took years until I discovered, by taking her to an allergist, that
she's
highly allergic to both cigarette smoke and feathers.

Why did it take years for her to be taken to an allergist?

Because I don't generally take children to a specialist for what had been
primarily mild, seasonal allergies - it wasn't apparent that the vague,
unspecified complaints were allergies for quite some time. (and any number
of family practitioner visits). Why would you want to take a scenario and
pounce on one item with which to attack?



Recognizing that I had no right to tell him how to run his personal
life,
I
chose allergy medication to treat her allergy symptoms.

Did he have a right to know how his environment affected his child
with an opportunity to change things if he didn't want her to require
medication? This would be informing, not forcing.

Hard to inform someone of anything when he won't listen, and won't open
letters that would contain such information.



How well do you think it would have worked if I had insisted that he
stop
smoking in his own home, around my daughter, and oh, by the way, replace
all
of the pillows and blankets?

If you had informed him of your concerns (not demanding anything) and
he said he would change it for the sake of your daughter, would you
not care if he followed through?

Probably wouldn't have assumed that he would actuallt make any changes in
the first place - he wasn't very diligent about keeping his word to me or
the kids.

Would you not rather he follow
through with his offer than to have to have the child take medicine to
spend time there?

I'd rather that my daughter not get ill.

So far, you've wanted to know why it took so long to have her diagnosed by
a
specialist (an allergist), whether he was informed that his environment
was
poisoning the child (which he was, and ignored), whether I would have
cared
if he had followed through on something he agreed to (actually, I would
have
fallen over in shock), and wouldn't I rather that he followed through with
something than my daughter take medicine.

Gee, I thought the whole point of the scenario was that it's possible to
take care of things that might be an issue WITHOUT making demands that the
ex spouse change.....at least, that was MY point, in support of my point
that it was highly inappropriate for S.A.M. to have handled the situation
the way he had posted.

Of course, since he's looking more and more like a troll, I suppose the
whole thing is moot.

- finis -

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

However, just because HE feels there's a problem doesn't, in and of
itself, make it HER problem, nor does it mean that there's actually a
problem - especially since he continues to take the child there. It
just
means that HE feels there's a problem.


I've visited houses with enough cat **** odour, it makes anyone gag
when
they enter the door.
I guess you've been living with four cats long enough that you don't
realize the problem anymore?

3 cats, and we have enough people coming by that if there was a problem,
someone would have mentioned it.

Are you SURE about that?

All it takes is cleaning the litter box
regularly, which we do.

What makes you sure that my home smells of cat? Ever been here?

Why would you have chosen to attack for something that doesn't exist here?

"Chris" wrote in message
news:8tqif.10172$dv.6423@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

However, just because HE feels there's a problem doesn't, in and of
itself, make it HER problem, nor does it mean that there's actually a
problem - especially since he continues to take the child there. It
just
means that HE feels there's a problem.


I've visited houses with enough cat **** odour, it makes anyone gag
when
they enter the door.
I guess you've been living with four cats long enough that you don't
realize the problem anymore?

3 cats, and we have enough people coming by that if there was a problem,
someone would have mentioned it.

Are you SURE about that?

Quite. Cats are clean creatures, and as long as the litter box is kept
clean, which ours is, there isn't an odor. It's not that hard.


All it takes is cleaning the litter box
regularly, which we do.

What makes you sure that my home smells of cat? Ever been here?

Why would you have chosen to attack for something that doesn't exist
here?