I’m dealing with a tough situation with my STBXH. He lost unsupervised visitation due to parental alienation and withholding the kids back in August. The judge allowed him 2 supervised visits a week until trial next month, but he hasn’t used any of them. His first attorney quit in July, and he was without representation until he hired a new attorney in November. Recently, during a pre-trial conference, he tried to get unsupervised visitation for Christmas, but the judge denied him since he hadn’t done any supervised visits and skipped court-ordered mediation in October. We were ordered to try mediation again, which he did attend this time. During that, I learned he’s not doing the supervised visits because his attorney told him not to. Why would an attorney advise that? The judge has made it clear he won’t grant more time with the kids until he shows he can be safe. It’s possible he’s lying, though, as he has a history of that. He even called the supervised visits a setup. Mediation didn’t go well since he refused any step-up plan and insisted on unsupervised visits right away. I don’t trust him not to poison the kids against me, especially since he’s shown no remorse for his actions. He even slandered me online for keeping the kids from him. I’m just wondering why he would continue to avoid seeing them and if an attorney would really advise him against using his supervised visits.
It sounds like a really complicated situation. An attorney might advise against supervised visits if they think it could hurt his case or if they believe he won’t pass the visits. They might also feel that he should wait for a better opportunity to demonstrate his parenting capabilities.
@WilliamMia
That makes sense. But it seems risky to just not show up when the judge is clear about the conditions.
Drue said:
@WilliamMia
That makes sense. But it seems risky to just not show up when the judge is clear about the conditions.
Exactly. It’s like he’s playing a high-stakes game and might be miscalculating.
Honestly, it sounds like he might be trying to avoid any potential failures in front of the judge. If he thinks he might not do well during those visits, it could backfire on him later.
GuardianshipGuides3 said:
Honestly, it sounds like he might be trying to avoid any potential failures in front of the judge. If he thinks he might not do well during those visits, it could backfire on him later.
That’s a good point. It’s just frustrating to see how he’s handling everything.
He could also be using this as a strategy to appear like he’s taking the high road. By not attending, he might be trying to manipulate the situation to his advantage in court.
Leo said:
He could also be using this as a strategy to appear like he’s taking the high road. By not attending, he might be trying to manipulate the situation to his advantage in court.
Yeah, I can see that. But it just makes me worry about the kids and how he might talk to them about this.
It’s possible he’s just trying to stall things until he feels more prepared or has a better case. Some people think they can outsmart the system, but it often backfires.
Parker said:
It’s possible he’s just trying to stall things until he feels more prepared or has a better case. Some people think they can outsmart the system, but it often backfires.
I hope that’s not the case. I just want what’s best for the kids.
Given his history, I wouldn’t put it past him to lie about his attorney’s advice. He could be trying to manipulate the narrative to play the victim.
Nari said:
Given his history, I wouldn’t put it past him to lie about his attorney’s advice. He could be trying to manipulate the narrative to play the victim.
That’s true. He’s definitely good at twisting things to make himself look better.