AL: Bill would outlaw blocking visitation

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...custody26w.htm
Bill would outlaw blocking visitation

By Jannell McGrew
Montgomery Advertiser

Alabama parents who interfere with court visitation orders in child
custody cases could face jail time.

The Alabama Legislature is considering making it a crime to willfully
obstruct child visitation. Members of the House Judiciary Committee will
meet this week to take up House Bill 683, a proposal that would make
interference a Class "C" felony.

According to local authorities, that could mean up to 10 years in
prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

"I've gotten so many complaints through the years about the custodial
parent being uncooperative with the noncustodial parent," said bill sponsor
Rep. Steve McMillan, R-Gulf Shores. "When the noncustodial parent is
supposed to see their children on Saturday morning, we want to make sure
that they do see their children on Saturday morning.

"It's time that we put a little teeth in the law," he said Monday.

According to the 2002 U.S. Census, there are approximately 259,000
non-custodial parents in the state.

Alabama resident Alan Rusmisel is one of them, and he supports
McMillan's bill.

"Our intent is not to get people thrown in jail," Rusmisel said. "Our
intent is to have some motivation there to make them abide by the judges'
visitation orders."

The House committee is expected to vote on the measure Wednesday
during a 9 a.m. meeting at the Alabama State House.

Jerry Baxley, executive director of the Family Law Association of
Alabama, has some reservations about McMillan's measure. He wants to see it
revised.

"That bill on its face is very nebulous," Baxley said. "It's a crime
that is hard to prove. In its current form, right now, we would be against
it just because it does not accurately depict the crime; it does not
accurately depict the punishment."

McMillan said existing law does not expressly make it a crime for a
parent to interfere with court-ordered visitation.

A parent, however, can file a complaint with the court if they feel
their child's visitation is being blocked or hindered.

Under McMillan's proposal, a parent would be justified in blocking
visitation if he or she did so in order to protect the child from "imminent
physical harm."

Richard Weiss, a noncustodial parent from Auburn, also supports the
measure.

"Obstruction of visitation is a very serious matter," he said.
"Ignoring this act and not punishing the person for it only encourages it to
continue and only harms the child."

Also on Wednesday, members of the House Judiciary Committee will
consider another McMillan-sponsored bill, House Bill 650, a measure creating
a shared parenting arrangement for divorcing and separating parents.

Currently, courts may order some form of joint custody without the
consent of both parents. McMillan's proposal would ask for mutual formal
consent.

Parents would be required to develop a comprehensive parenting plan to
address such issues as the child's education, day care, health insurance and
visitation, McMillan said. Either parent could submit the outline or they
could present a joint plan.

"Ideally, it would be best if they could sit down and discuss it and
work it out," he said.



--
----------------------------------------------------
The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmond Burke

Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come back to
see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope California
follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous excuses
why my son couldn't spend time with me.

The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce parenting
time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney). Later, if
it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court) the
maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost never
enforced.

b.

wrote:

Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come back to
see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope California
follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous excuses
why my son couldn't spend time with me.

The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce parenting
time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney). Later, if
it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court) the
maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost never
enforced.

What happens when a NCP finally does get an outing with his kid and
skips off to Brazil with the child?

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:boUbe.56$c83.55@lakeread07...


wrote:

Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come
back to
see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope
California
follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous excuses
why my son couldn't spend time with me.

The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce parenting
time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney). Later,
if
it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court) the
maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost
never
enforced.

What happens when a NCP finally does get an outing with his kid and
skips off to Brazil with the child?

- Ron ^*^

Man, that's an easy one - they become Public Enemy #1.

And then every kind and nature of "law enforcement" is brought to bare in
the effort to apprehend them. Hey, if they're lucky, even Congress will get
into the act and create a special "law" just for them.

But if it's the CP.. nothing much at all will be done. Even Barney Fife
won't look for them. Hell, Congress might even create a special "law" to
protect them! It's not like they haven't done it before..

Dusty wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:boUbe.56$c83.55@lakeread07...


wrote:


Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come

back to

see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope

California

follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous excuses
why my son couldn't spend time with me.

The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce parenting
time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney). Later,

if

it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court) the
maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost

never

enforced.

What happens when a NCP finally does get an outing with his kid and
skips off to Brazil with the child?

- Ron ^*^


Man, that's an easy one - they become Public Enemy #1.

And then every kind and nature of "law enforcement" is brought to bare in
the effort to apprehend them. Hey, if they're lucky, even Congress will get
into the act and create a special "law" just for them.

But if it's the CP.. nothing much at all will be done. Even Barney Fife
won't look for them. Hell, Congress might even create a special "law" to
protect them! It's not like they haven't done it before..

OK... And just because I'm curious...

What if the parents have joint custody?

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
newsEZbe.160$c83.78@lakeread07...


Dusty wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:boUbe.56$c83.55@lakeread07...


wrote:


Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come

back to

see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope

California

follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous
excuses
why my son couldn't spend time with me.

The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce
parenting
time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney). Later,

if

it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court)
the
maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost

never

enforced.

What happens when a NCP finally does get an outing with his kid and
skips off to Brazil with the child?

- Ron ^*^


Man, that's an easy one - they become Public Enemy #1.

And then every kind and nature of "law enforcement" is brought to bare
in
the effort to apprehend them. Hey, if they're lucky, even Congress will
get
into the act and create a special "law" just for them.

But if it's the CP.. nothing much at all will be done. Even Barney Fife
won't look for them. Hell, Congress might even create a special "law"
to
protect them! It's not like they haven't done it before..

OK... And just because I'm curious...

What if the parents have joint custody?

Don't need it.

If you are a little boy from Cuba named Elian, the Justice Department will
send in jack-booted, machine gun carrying troops to award a foreign citizen
custody without due process or a court hearing.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
newsEZbe.160$c83.78@lakeread07...


Dusty wrote:


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:boUbe.56$c83.55@lakeread07...


wrote:



Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come

back to


see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope

California


follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous

excuses

why my son couldn't spend time with me.

The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce

parenting

time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney). Later,

if


it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court)

the

maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost

never


enforced.

What happens when a NCP finally does get an outing with his kid and
skips off to Brazil with the child?

- Ron ^*^


Man, that's an easy one - they become Public Enemy #1.

And then every kind and nature of "law enforcement" is brought to bare

in

the effort to apprehend them. Hey, if they're lucky, even Congress will

get

into the act and create a special "law" just for them.

But if it's the CP.. nothing much at all will be done. Even Barney Fife
won't look for them. Hell, Congress might even create a special "law"

to

protect them! It's not like they haven't done it before..

OK... And just because I'm curious...

What if the parents have joint custody?


Don't need it.

If you are a little boy from Cuba named Elian, the Justice Department will
send in jack-booted, machine gun carrying troops to award a foreign citizen
custody without due process or a court hearing.

IIRC, Elian's mother had died, and his father was still alive in Cuba.
Actually, that case may have been one of the few in recorded history
where the US actually got off of its ass to award custody to a father!

I'm thinking of a situation where, say, Mom and Dad have joint
legal/physical of a child, and Dad (who matches Mom hour for hour in
parenting time per week and has child 4 nights out of every 7) is
ordered to pay 90% of the standard CS award. Dad skips to Australia
with child for a year and disappears into the outback, then sues for
full custody in Australia (since he's had the child in his care 100% of
the time for a year).

How would this situation work out? How would it work out if Mom pulled
this stunt instead?

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:co3ce.103$xY3.22@lakeread03...


Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
newsEZbe.160$c83.78@lakeread07...


Dusty wrote:


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:boUbe.56$c83.55@lakeread07...


wrote:



Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come

back to


see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope

California


follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous

excuses

why my son couldn't spend time with me.

The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce

parenting

time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney).
Later,

if


it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court)

the

maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost

never


enforced.

What happens when a NCP finally does get an outing with his kid and
skips off to Brazil with the child?

- Ron ^*^


Man, that's an easy one - they become Public Enemy #1.

And then every kind and nature of "law enforcement" is brought to bare

in

the effort to apprehend them. Hey, if they're lucky, even Congress
will

get

into the act and create a special "law" just for them.

But if it's the CP.. nothing much at all will be done. Even Barney
Fife
won't look for them. Hell, Congress might even create a special "law"

to

protect them! It's not like they haven't done it before..

OK... And just because I'm curious...

What if the parents have joint custody?


Don't need it.

If you are a little boy from Cuba named Elian, the Justice Department
will
send in jack-booted, machine gun carrying troops to award a foreign
citizen
custody without due process or a court hearing.

IIRC, Elian's mother had died, and his father was still alive in Cuba.
Actually, that case may have been one of the few in recorded history
where the US actually got off of its ass to award custody to a father!

I'm thinking of a situation where, say, Mom and Dad have joint
legal/physical of a child, and Dad (who matches Mom hour for hour in
parenting time per week and has child 4 nights out of every 7) is
ordered to pay 90% of the standard CS award. Dad skips to Australia
with child for a year and disappears into the outback, then sues for
full custody in Australia (since he's had the child in his care 100% of
the time for a year).

How would this situation work out? How would it work out if Mom pulled
this stunt instead?

The way this would work out is simple. The child will not be allowed to
leave the country without a valid passport. And both parents must sign off
on the passport application and approve the travel outside the country.
There are international treaties that cover this topic and the airlines take
this stuff seriously.

There was a case about a year ago where a judge ordered a plane carrying a
child, who had left a country without the other parent's approval, to turn
around and return the child to the origin country.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:co3ce.103$xY3.22@lakeread03...


Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
newsEZbe.160$c83.78@lakeread07...


Dusty wrote:


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:boUbe.56$c83.55@lakeread07...


wrote:



Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come

back to


see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope

California


follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous

excuses

why my son couldn't spend time with me.

The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce

parenting

time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney).
Later,

if


it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court)

the

maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost

never


enforced.

What happens when a NCP finally does get an outing with his kid and
skips off to Brazil with the child?

- Ron ^*^


Man, that's an easy one - they become Public Enemy #1.

And then every kind and nature of "law enforcement" is brought to bare

in

the effort to apprehend them. Hey, if they're lucky, even Congress
will

get

into the act and create a special "law" just for them.

But if it's the CP.. nothing much at all will be done. Even Barney
Fife
won't look for them. Hell, Congress might even create a special "law"

to

protect them! It's not like they haven't done it before..

OK... And just because I'm curious...

What if the parents have joint custody?


Don't need it.

If you are a little boy from Cuba named Elian, the Justice Department
will
send in jack-booted, machine gun carrying troops to award a foreign
citizen
custody without due process or a court hearing.

IIRC, Elian's mother had died, and his father was still alive in Cuba.
Actually, that case may have been one of the few in recorded history
where the US actually got off of its ass to award custody to a father!

I'm thinking of a situation where, say, Mom and Dad have joint
legal/physical of a child, and Dad (who matches Mom hour for hour in
parenting time per week and has child 4 nights out of every 7) is
ordered to pay 90% of the standard CS award. Dad skips to Australia
with child for a year and disappears into the outback, then sues for
full custody in Australia (since he's had the child in his care 100% of
the time for a year).

How would this situation work out? How would it work out if Mom pulled
this stunt instead?

The way this would work out is simple. The child will not be allowed to
leave the country without a valid passport. And both parents must sign
off
on the passport application and approve the travel outside the country.
There are international treaties that cover this topic and the airlines
take
this stuff seriously.

While true, it is not that difficult to get around if one really wanted to.
The passport application signatures could easily be forged. When I got my
daughter PP, there was no real questions about the sigs, and the approval
to travel is simply a letter, once again easily forged and rarely asked for.
I have traveled extensively internationally with my daughter, (including
post 9/11) and there has only been ONE time that an airline agent asked for
an approval document (that was going to Mexicio) everywhere else, there was
no such demand, and no questions upon entering at immigration.



There was a case about a year ago where a judge ordered a plane carrying a
child, who had left a country without the other parent's approval, to turn
around and return the child to the origin country.

Werebat wrote:


: wrote:

: Having driven 115 miles only to be met with a note on the door "come back to
: see your son on another weekend" (no phone call) I certainly hope California
: follows suit on a similar law. For 7 years, I've heard numerous excuses
: why my son couldn't spend time with me.
:
: The current contempt of court sanction is powerless to enforce parenting
: time. First, a "slap on the hand" (according to my attorney). Later, if
: it happens enough (and each time must be concretely proven in court) the
: maximum would be 5 days in the county jail. The sanction is almost never
: enforced.

: What happens when a NCP finally does get an outing with his kid and
: skips off to Brazil with the child?

: - Ron ^*^
Depends where they go. If the country signed the Hague Convention Treaty
allowing extradition of parentally-"kidnapped" children, they could be
sought out and arrested.

For some countries (Canada is one for example) both parents must sign
a notarized statement allowing the child in/out of the country (I
signed such a statement so my son could visit Canada). Search it out
on google.

For my personal situation, I feel that I'd be looked at pretty badly
if I kept my son from ever seeing his mother in spite of the big
problem that she is. Personally, I feel that if I had primary custody
(I have joint legal/physical custody but only a "weekend dad" by order
of the court) that I'd foster a better relationship that'd allow him
to spend time with both parents without opposition. California law actually
states that part of the determination of the primary custodian is to
consider which parent would encourage contact with *both* parents although
it's not practically applied.

b.