Tre anni fa, condividendo con mio marito tutto ed amandolo senza giudizio, abbiamo deciso di chiedere al Tribunale di Roma di regolamentare gli incontri con il figlio che mio marito cinque anni fa ha avuto dalla donna con cui in quel momento aveva una relazione. Mio marito ama profondamente il bambino e da sempre non si è tirato indietro rispetto alla responsabilità di padre.
La madre del bambino che aveva fatto un accordo molto “libero” da subito ha dimostrato poca disponibilità ma soprattutto l’uso del bambino per potere verso di lui.
We have asked the court in more than a week and the confirmation of the days already established. In the meantime, had approved the law of shared and then we asked.
E 'came the decree of the Court of First Instance was refused a shared and in practice there has been lifted one day, have been increased day holiday. Was not given a reason if not "high conflict" between the parents. We wanted to give the child a continuity and a constant presence affective (ask us) ... ..
We have so many questions (as well as pain): we do not mind a war for its own sake, we are concerned that a child's eyes are serene and now they are not. There is talk of mothers malevolent, evil mothers, of Stockholm syndrome and much more. ... I think this woman is a bit 'seems all but impossible to prove.
We wonder if our attorney has moved in an appropriate way ... but we are aware of many stories like ours if not worse ... ....
We would like to hear opinions and ask you if you can:
- can be a refusal to share with the motive of "high conflict between parents?"
- you can request that the implementation of the decree be blocked pending the ' appeal?
- make the appeal will lead to new long time, the child grows and suffers. Maybe we should ask for more?
- è possibile poter fare il genitore sulla continuità e costanza senza dover aprire una guerra di distruzione? Perché per aver realizzato un diritto/dovere bisogna dimostrare l’inadeguatezza dell’altro?
madresenzacattedra
La madre del bambino che aveva fatto un accordo molto “libero” da subito ha dimostrato poca disponibilità ma soprattutto l’uso del bambino per potere verso di lui.
We have asked the court in more than a week and the confirmation of the days already established. In the meantime, had approved the law of shared and then we asked.
E 'came the decree of the Court of First Instance was refused a shared and in practice there has been lifted one day, have been increased day holiday. Was not given a reason if not "high conflict" between the parents. We wanted to give the child a continuity and a constant presence affective (ask us) ... ..
We have so many questions (as well as pain): we do not mind a war for its own sake, we are concerned that a child's eyes are serene and now they are not. There is talk of mothers malevolent, evil mothers, of Stockholm syndrome and much more. ... I think this woman is a bit 'seems all but impossible to prove.
We wonder if our attorney has moved in an appropriate way ... but we are aware of many stories like ours if not worse ... ....
We would like to hear opinions and ask you if you can:
- can be a refusal to share with the motive of "high conflict between parents?"
- you can request that the implementation of the decree be blocked pending the ' appeal?
- make the appeal will lead to new long time, the child grows and suffers. Maybe we should ask for more?
- è possibile poter fare il genitore sulla continuità e costanza senza dover aprire una guerra di distruzione? Perché per aver realizzato un diritto/dovere bisogna dimostrare l’inadeguatezza dell’altro?
madresenzacattedra
0 comments:
Post a Comment