[manni28]

I think people should start out small and work in more if they feel good about it.

I think everyone has valid points however, the above quote says it all-Don't bite off more then you can chew.

I guess I would never sign an agreement for someone to see my child, whether it be birthparents, friends or other relatives. It seems too much like a custody case in the event of a divorce and that is certainly not the case here. I don't want the law to tell me who and when my child visits with.

I agree with this statement 100%. I think part of the problem was the agency allowed the bfather to think OA meant joint custody and the aparents, happy to be parents, they went along with the program. I do believe that problems like this happen when people who have nothing in common (except the child) sign legal papers like this. Sad.

I do believe in legally enforceable OAs. I know cases like this are going to scare PAPs, but I just think if you are going to make an agreement, it's only "fair" that it should be enforced. The thing that stinks though is as someone said, you are making these really "important" agreements without really "knowing" each other (there's just not usually enough time) and in cases like this, obviously the kid is going to suffer when a dispute like this happens. Sad. The reality is is that no matter what the court decides here, there is likely never going to be a "healthy" OA in light of what has gone on so far.

I don't believe the law should tell aparents who the child should see. It makes them second rate in my eyes. I agree to cut of contact without warning is wrong, but when you have people who cross boundaries and disrespect the aparents, why should they go to court (and send money and time) to defend their actions? I truly believe if you want to have a role in your child's life, then raise them.

Another thing that got me wondering was, he ( bdad) borrowed money for legal fees, but couldn't do so to raise his child?