Children’s access, sometimes called visitation, can be very difficult for divorced or separated parents. Children are always best served when both parents act reasonably and courteously towards each other and realize that regardless of what they think of each other, their children benefit most from having two caring and caring adults. in their lives, even after the divorce. The cooperation of both parents is essential to ensure that each parent has enough quality time with the children to maintain a healthy relationship despite the divorce.
But what happens when a divorce is so bitter that it causes one parent to resent the other so much that the best interests of the children take a backseat to inflict pain on the other parent? How can the access rights of the so-called “access parent” be enforced? The answer is complicated.
When separation agreements or divorce orders give one parent the right of “liberal,” “reasonable,” or “generous” access, it is nearly impossible to get a court to enforce it when the “custodial” parent or “primary care” parent refuses to cooperate. When the access parent takes such a complaint to court, the result is almost always a change to a more specific access, one based on a fixed schedule. The reason is obvious. Words like “reasonable” are too vague to apply easily. Such terms are ideal when they allow reasonable parents all the flexibility they need to act in the best interests of their children. But they are worse than useless when one or both parents are in the business of exploiting intentional vagueness. Changing the terms of access in the divorce order to a fixed schedule allows the divorce judge to have a better idea of whether or not there has actually been a breach of the terms.
Even when scheduled access is denied, a court is more likely to reissue a slightly revised divorce order and give a stern warning than to penalize the custodial parent in any significant way. Only once the denial of access becomes chronic is a divorce judge likely to resort to more severe measures.
This is unfortunate, of course, because it means that the parent who has been denied access has to incur the financial and emotional costs of repeated trips to court before a judge actually “does anything” about the access. refusal of the other parent to comply with the terms of the law. access. In addition, repeated court appearances take time, and in the meantime, children are denied the opportunities that access is supposed to provide to build and maintain a strong relationship with the access parent.
The reason judges are so reluctant to act swiftly and decisively in response to denial of access complaints is that the available responses are often far from attractive. Finding the custodial parent in contempt of the divorce order can result in a fine or even jail time. A fine simply deprives the family, especially the children, of often much-needed money. The imprisonment obviously denies them their primary caregiver and is likely to exacerbate the already strained relationship between the parents.
Adjusting the amount of alimony paid is an unattractive option because, presumably, the previously set amount was determined to be in the best interest of the children. Allowing the aggrieved parent to agree to pay less or withhold payment simply denies the children necessary financial resources.
Another option is to apply for some form of compensatory access, but this broadly raises the question of how compensatory access can be enforced. Appointing someone to be an access facilitator can help. However, unless the parents can agree on someone who will perform for free, it is likely to be quite expensive. Also, disputes between a parent and the access facilitator are likely to end up in court.
A rigid but usually effective response is for the court to reverse the parental roles so that the children are placed in the primary care of the person who had been the access parent. It is now the responsibility of the access parent to ensure that the children have proper access with the other parent. This places the respective shoes on the other feet. Sometimes the mere threat of this is enough to cause a change in the attitude of access deniers. But the threat must be real.
The problem with this latter approach is that presumably the custodial and access parent roles were originally created because that was what was best for the children. The court must find that the denial of access is severe enough to warrant it. The reversal of roles, despite the other factors that had originally led the court, or the parties themselves, to make the original assignment of roles.
Sometimes, when the denial of access is significant, when the reversal of roles is inappropriate, and when adverse effects of the ongoing dispute are affecting the children, the divorce court should seriously consider reducing or even terminating access altogether. Of course, this is totally unfair to the aggrieved access parent, and unfairly rewards the parent guilty of denying access, these considerations being secondary to the best interests of the children. Therefore, in some situations, it is an option that a divorce court will seriously consider.
The best course of action for a parent whose access is being denied by the other parent is to take the high road. This means making sure that her own behavior is above reproach. It also means being reasonable, patient and long-suffering and doing everything possible to minimize the adverse effects of the dispute on the children. However, it doesn’t mean just laying down and taking it. But before filing an access dispute with a divorce court, he should think carefully about what he will ask the divorce court to do to enforce it. It is up to you to convince the court that your remedy is in the best interest of the children.