Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
michigan custody laws?
my husband and i have custody of his 3 children from his previous marriage. we have had them for about 8 years, they were 2 (twins) and 4 when she VOLUNTARILY gave them up. every year at tax time she claims to want them back. this time she claims to have talked to a lawyer, but only wants the twin girls, not her older son.
she has made many hallow promises to them, like own rooms, pool, ponies many material things, none of which she can afford. the twins believe her and are wanting to move with her.
what are her chances of getting them?
no abuse, neglect on our end. both of us are employed, steady jobs. she has been through many jobs over the years.
this only happens at tax time, but i think she may be serious this time.
2 Answers
- TiLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Her chances of getting the girls are slim to none. At ten, they are to young to decide who they want to live with. Child custody is an emotional issue and a lawyer is not going to be cheap. She might be bluffing. It seems to me that the only thing she can afford is to talk to a lawyer and not actually hire one to represent her in a custody case.
I found this link, hope it helps,
- wendy cLv 71 decade ago
I CAN give an example of something I researched in Texas..
there is a topic called 'presumption of parental rights', meaning that it is assumed a parent has 'superior' rights to custody, which of course, courts can rule against. In a custody decision, both parents have equal rights to begin with.
IF a parent CHOOSES to relinquish custody to someone else (normally the other parent), it is handled differently from a judgement from the court. Once a parent does this.. they no longer have the argument that they have more rights than a 3rd party (ie grandparents). They don't have the right anymore to ask for kids back, on grounds they are still the parent, having more rights. They HAVE to prove to the court that THERE IS some important reason to CHANGE the situation.. for example, the children are being harmed where they are at. They don't get to simply say "I can provide more for the child now".
You don't have a 3rd party situation. Moving the children now would undermine their stability, you are not harming them, so forth. If you could prove that she is making empty promises, you could make the point that she is manipulating them by material things.
I am not a lawyer.. but I would think that anyone who asks for modifying what is in place, HAS TO have a valid reason. No telling what she THINKS or has told a lawyer, but doesn't sound as if she has anything that will mean they SHOULD be moved. Court looks at what kids need, not what they think they want. I THINK she would need to prove that they are being harmed in some way, which does not come across in your post.
