Just look up the term "narcissistic personality disorder" or
"antisocial personality disorder". The offending parents, whether
custodial or noncustodial, aren't hard to weed out once you're
familiar with pathology. Make sure if you're getting divorced or putting
together a parenting plan, that the wording doesn't leave any room for
interpretation... you can include emergencies or other situations in parenting
plan provisions. Your court order trumps all and even if you believe you get
along fine, never underestimate a third-party's influence in a future
co-parenting situation. I see all too often outside parties getting involved
when they shouldn't --- whether it be an attorney, family member, or new
dating parting. Make your court order air-tight "just in case".
I wish this would have passed several years ago. I am a non-custodial mother and
I have gone through nothing but hell. They squeeze every dime out of me for
child support but I hardly ever got to see my children. Now ORS has gone a step
further, my ex-husband kicked my daughter out of the house back in November. She
just turned 18 and is staying with friends to finish her last year of school.
Well I contact ORS and let them know she is no longer in the home and they told
me that I would have to get a lawyer and take it to court. I can't afford to
hire an attorney so when I asked if there was another option my case worker told
me "just keep paying till she graduates, it's cheaper that way" This is a fine
example of how screwed up the system really is.
I have to say that I completely understand most of these statements. I
extremely value the belief in knowing the importance the children really need
the exact equal time with both parents to not be effected by a divorce and all
the tension and stress caused by seperation from either parent. The only reason
why a parent would not want joint or split custody is if they want a free income
from the other spouse. The only exception to this rule would be if one of the
parents was a danger to the child. Other then that you are hurting the children
by not equally sharing parent time.
It is so frustrating to have a court order for non custodial parents "rights"
and having no one to enforce those rights. The only thing that is enforced is
the non custodial parent's right to pay. Time and time again I have been denied
visitation and the cops or court system does nothing. Currently my ex has moved
over 150 miles away and has not given me an address so I can see my children. (I
haven't seen them since Christmas) Where are my rights? It clearly states in my
court documents that she can't move more than 150 miles away without the courts
or my permission and she must provide notice and a visitation schedule but with
no one to enforce this then she can take my kids from me and not let me know
where they are.
I understand that vindictive people, whether they are the custodial parent or
the non-custodial parent, will use the system and hurt their own children in
their desire to destroy the ex spouse. "Do as I say or I am calling the cops"
described a situation that my children, and I, have lived with for over 5 years.
With the current visitation guidelines and policy, a vindictive non custodial
parent who still wants to hurt and control an ex-spouse can do so many things to
hold on to the control and abuse they had during the marriage by using the
children, and the current law protects them as they abuse. I have seen this
situation go on and on and it hurts not only the custodial parent they are
after, but tragically the chidren involved in the case.
Utah's courts resist the notion of equal parenting which is a better soltion. No
valid argument can be made for automaticly "giving" children to mothers as a
reward for having given birth. A few of the comments betray a deep anti-father
(anti-male) sentiment in the authors. Children need both parents That's a
biological and psychological imperitive. Surely there are bad fathers out
there,and there are also bad mothers. We can make it a contest or judge each
case individually.Police really want to stay away from domestic
disputes as much as they can. They need to be forced to deal with cases like
these or they'll never step in. This should be for the kids not a
turf contest between parents, it isn't about the "intrinsic rights of the
custodial parent" (almost always the mother) it's about making a mechaniism to
enforce the court orders. If the dad is bad, go back to court and prove it.
This bill will help some citizens and forcibly victimize others.Some
won't help. They don't have to. They find jobs where they are paid under the
table. They find willing ears to receive their sour stories about their
ex-spouses. They are ungarnishable, untrackable, unenforceable people. They receive visitation in spite of no offering of assistance. They
don't reveal their location, nor where the kids will be. They use the people
supporting their kids and exes for personal gain, and turn them in to the
authorities whenever possible.They don't maintain insurance on
themselves or the kids, don't take care of the kids' medical, social, or
community needs and responsibilities. Nothing stated or implied in the original
marriage contract is apparently their responsibility regarding family. This bill won't solve the problem. It will only shift the power balance.
'Do as I say or I'm calling cops' said 'But the law already provides enforcement
against those who intentionally obstruct visitation.' You are both correct and
incorrect. Correct it's already in the criminal code & in the books, incorrect
that the police do anything about it. Please hear the testimonies at the
hearing for more details.
'Custodial parents can be fathers' : I want you to know that I wear all hats as
a Parent. Custodial, Non-custodial & Step. I have 4 kids. I am definately not
biased. I want to protect the kids & make sure the kids who need both Parents
can have both Parents. Bottom line, keep your problems in check with your x's.
Don't let the kids get hurt or be used as pawns by interfering with the
relationship between Parent and child, because you harm the child the most,
Nice to have one for us non-custodial parents. The law is strongly slanted in
favor of custodial parents. Thanks for a win for us for once.
This bill is a step in the right direction for non-custodial parents. It took
time to create a peaceful and cooperative relationship with my ex. I no longer
have complaints in this regard. However, my review of divorce law
and most anecdotal reports clearly favor the custodial parent. Even Rep.
Fowlkes new bill on out of state parent time makes it more difficult for
non-custodial parents. Nice to see someone sticking up for us for a change.This bill won't fix everyone's problems but after all the asinine bills
before the legislature, it is nice to see one that actually helps kids and their
parents.Thank you Rep. Wimmer.
" Being a noncustodial parent is like being escorted from the kitchen to the
back porch and told to wait until someone remembers you're there,"It's great to know that someone knows how I feel.
This all boils down to the KIDS VISITATION RIGHTS and to protect the kids from
being denied the right to see the other parent weather the get along or not and
that is what this bill is all about nothing else.
I have mixed feelings on this bill. There are many parents whos only issue was
they had a hard time communicating. I can see how this bill can help them
enforce their parental visitation but what about the parent that has felonies
against children? My ex has such felonies and because of state law I get to
wait until he does it again before I can do anything about it. I can not limit
or restrict his time because "he hasn't done anything" to this child yet (I
won't even go into the emotional abuse that he likes to dish out!). How, as a
parent, can I protect my child if the state ties my hands? There is only so
much education I can give my child! My child is afraid of my ex, and I, as the
custodial parent, must force the visitations on my child! I don't think that is
right! My child deserves better than that!! My child deserves to be protected
and to know that I will protect them from harm!
I didn't see one thing that was accurate in your comments. Clearly you don't
understand this bill even in its most basic sense. To the person
who stated there is already a law on the books, but it is not enforced. You
asked how this bill will help. It will help for several reasons.
First, it lowers the crime to a class B misdemeanor. Next, it provides no jail
time unless it's a habitual offender. Third, it clarifies what is and what is
not a crime (i.e. Emergencies, safety issues, unintentional missed time, etc. is
not a crime). For these reasons, I believe judges will be more
likely to be willing to convict and therefore police will be more willing to
issue a citation to an offender. This is a good bill that is long
overdue in Utah. UT has some of the worst protections for children when it comes
to maintaining a relationship with their non-custodial families. The
fact that mom and dad aren't married anymore does not mean that non-custodial
parent is no longer family. Children deserve better than they are getting right
It is patently obvious that almost all of you have no idea what you're talking
about (with all due respect). to address all your concerns: *The bill is NOT exclusive to protecting non-custodial parents only. It
works both ways.*The bill provides for emergencies, safety issues,
etc. You will not be charged if you Have a LEGITIMATE reason for bumping time.
Note that complying with court orders being inconvenient for you is not
legitimate. *the article states that it protects non-custodials is
misleading. But the vast majority of offenders are CUSTODIAL parents.*there is existing law, but it's unenforcable. This bill fixes that. *to the person who said, "do as I say or I'm calling the cops:" no-- do
as the COURT says, or I'm calling the cops. What's wrong with that? Obviously
you don't have a clue at all. I stopped reading your rant after the third
inaccuracy in your comment. This bill is a FANTASTIC bill that helps
children see both parents. Many children haven't been allowed to see a parent
for most their lives. Every complaint I've read on here is
addressed in the bill already.
People, this law is not about putting people in jail who are trying to protect a
child. It is about Parents who are constantly kept from children wrongfully.
Examples of people dying or emergencies or danger posed to a child would not be
a situation where a charge would be placed on anyone. This is for the people
who HAVE court orders and are still not able to see the kids. This does not
help with the ORS mess, that is something we hope to be able to resolve as well.
5 1/2 years - that's how long it's been for my brother to see his daughter.
Never missed a payment, has gifts ready for her forEvery birhtday and
Christmas missed, been thru two lawyers, and is not any closer to seeing her Because her mom moves from state to state and avoids any contact at all - she
just collects the money and keeps on going .Sounds pretty fair huh
RE: Do as I say or I'm calling cops "That's the problem that people don't
understand and why this bill is so dangerous since it makes it a crime even in
emergencies unless there is belief of child abuse which means abusive former
spouses prevail."Actually I think the story makes it clear that the
law is for "intentional disruptions". That would preclude emergencies,
obviously. Thus my pointing out that the language needs to be extremely well
written and specific, so as not to create these problems you point out. It's
very clear that the system is frequently being abused by custodial and
non-custodial parents alike all too frequently. If this law can redress some of
the issues that the advocates of the law hope it can, then it could be a
positive thing. If they don't walk a very fine line, it could be abused, as
several people have expressed their alarm about. It's all about the
RE: Do as I say or I'm calling copsThe instances you bring up are
why I made the specific point that the language would have to be worded
extremely carefully. Let's face it, any parent can be vindictive and try to use
custody issues to control the lives of others. Custodial or non-custodial makes
no difference when it comes to the capacity for pettiness and selfishness. The
point of a law like this is to take away some of the motivation to do so. Like any bill, it's effectiveness lies in how it is written, the
language used, and the loopholes for abuse it leaves. I suspend judgement on
whether the law is good or not until after I see the specifics of what it says.
Unlike you, I do not dismiss it out of hand, sight unseen. You claim there are
already laws, but if so then why does the abuse of the system continue?
Obviously, if there is similar legislation already, then it's language is not as
carefully written as I have mentioned it needs to be, or there would not be so
much rampant abuse going on.
"This bill infringes on the most basic rights of custodial parents to ensure the
safety of their children and to live their lives."A: Nope, the bill
has a clause that covers the issue of safety for the children."If no
exceptions are made for emergencies, this could cause lots of custodial parents
to be charged with crimes for things like having to stay late at work, medical
emergencies, etc."A: Same as above."What about custodial
parents who are constantly pushing their children on the non-custodial parents
because they never see the children on their scheduled time?"A: It
works BOTH ways. If the noncustodial parent cry's to the police in this case,
then they should expect to never see their kids during the custodial parents
time. Yes, it is destined to happen... but they would be a stupid fool if they
Re:JJ"I find it interesting that so many people think only custodial
parents can be vindictive. Non custodial parents are just as capable of being
so. I understand the need for this bill but there needs to be some safeguards.
This is life and schedules do not always run just as the court documents state.
Parents have to work together and occasionally rearrange days."With
this bill a vindictive non-custodial parent can strictly enforce the court order
and even use it against their own children to force them to give up activities
they enjoy as a way to demonstrate their power over them and their custodial
parent and then use the time to blame the custodial parent by saying that they
wouldn't arrange a different time and that is why the child couldn't go to their
game or activity."This could cause BIG problems in nasty custody
battles when one or both parties are not above deceit."That's the
problem that people don't understand and why this bill is so dangerous since it
makes it a crime even in emergencies unless there is belief of child abuse which
means abusive former spouses prevail.
Re:Anonymous"I think this legislation could be a very good thing to
bring balance to what ORS does now..but only if worded very specifically and
carefully so as to avoid abuse. I think the key here is that it provides
enforcement against those who INTENTIONALLY obstruct visitation."But
the law already provides enforcement against those who intentionally obstruct
visitation. That isn't what these people want. They want to make it possible for
non-custodial parents to control the lives of custodial parents and have the
ability to call the cops on custodial parents who exercise their rights."Emergencies will always arise. In a perfect world, no child would be
used as a pawn be either parent, but we know in reality this happens often. And
it only makes sense that custodial and noncustodial parents should have equal
protection under the law."It's not equal protection when a custodial
parent can't use an emergency as a legitimate excuse to take or withhold custody
of their children and it instead gives non-custodial parents the ability to
intimidate and harass custodial parents by using the provisions of law to
This is ten years too late for me. But better late than never for the sake of
the newer generation of dysfunctional broken marriages. The custodial parent
has too much freedom to abuse their "custodial rights". "If the parents can't
agree then the custodial parent gets to make the decision". This is typical
domestic law language and it is abused so much by the custodial parent that it
is detrimental to the relationship of the child(ren) to the non-custodial
parent. Yes, ORS goes after the dead-beats, and is totally justified, but there
needs to be some type of consequence for the emotionally depleted custodial
parents when they abuse this. It is all too frequent in this state and others
that children are alienated from their non-custodial parent.
I find it interesting that so many people think only custodial parents can be
vindictive. Non custodial parents are just as capable of being so. I
understand the need for this bill but there needs to be some safeguards. This
is life and schedules do not always run just as the court documents state.
Parents have to work together and occasionally rearrange days. This could cause
BIG problems in nasty custody battles when one or both parties are not above
deceit. To all of you who "know someone" that's been in this situation
remember...There are three sides to every story his, hers, and the truth.
I think this legislation could be a very good thing to bring balance to what ORS
does now..but only if worded very specifically and carefully so as to avoid
abuse. I think the key here is that it provides enforcement against those who
INTENTIONALLY obstruct visitation. Emergencies will always arise. In a perfect
world, no child would be used as a pawn be either parent, but we know in reality
this happens often. And it only makes sense that custodial and noncustodial
parents should have equal protection under the law.
Sorry to break the news to everyone, but we already have a criminal code its
custodial interference 76-3-304, and its a class A misdemeanor for a parent, non
custodial or custodial, to withhold or deprive another parent of lawful parent
time. The problem is that most law enforcement agencies don't enforce the law,
so how is this going to help?
Apparently the previous comment was by someone who hasn't been a non-custodial
parent. I have and I was "allowed" to see my kids approx. 10 times in 14 years.
After several times of calling the police because I had one of those "orders" to
see my kids, it became easier for me to just leave the state and have Recovery
Services take the money. Take it from one who has been there that this bill is a
long time over due.
I have seen time and again the custodial parent walk all over the non custodial
parents rights. My friend went 8 months without seeing his kids because the
custodial parent wanted to get revenge. Custodial parents end up using kids as
pawns and legislation needs to force custodial parents not to harm the kids and
the non custodial parents constitutional rights to see their children.
What about custodial parents who are constantly pushing their children on the
non-custodial parents because they never see the children on their scheduled
time? So the custodial parent must always have the child there on time and at
the scheduled time but the other parent is free to pick and choose when they use
thier time and has the law on their side? Give me a break. It sounds more like
bitter issued people are passing this law then the majority. Utah needs to focus
on Dead beat parents mother or father who arent paying. ORS is just a waste of
tax dollars, rarely do they ever go after the real dead beats that try to beat
Amen. I was a non-custodial mother enduring the same treatment as a typical
non-custodial father in Utah. ORS will hunt you down for the money, but no one
cares about your rights, or the children's rights, and whether they are being
If no exceptions are made for emergencies, this could cause lots of custodial
parents to be charged with crimes for things like having to stay late at work,
medical emergencies, etc.
This bill infringes on the most basic rights of custodial parents to ensure the
safety of their children and to live their lives. A custodial
parent, whether mother or father who was called into work at 5:00 am but only
receives a call at 9:30 pm should be able to go to get their kids at 9:30 so
they can put them to bed so they can get them up early in the morning to take to
a babysitter even if the scheduled visit lasts until 10:00 pm.A
mother who just got a call from her father that her mother was rushed to the
hospital and is in ICU should be able to get her kids before the end of a
scheduled parent-time so that she can ensure their safety while she is with her
mother and to make sure her kids get to see their grandmother before she passes
away 35 minutes later instead of ending up being taken to jail while her mother
dies in a hospital.Godfrey's comment about ""Utah deserves better
than to treat fathers as a paycheck to encourage meal-ticket motherhood," shows