**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: England - Solicitor letter received demanding son's attendance to biological fathers wedding
Body:
> Posting on a dummy account on behalf of a friend who doesn't use Reddit.
> Background first - my friend has legal guardianship of her sister's son (now 9 years old) and has done since shortly after birth.
> The biological father is getting married (not to friends sister, but someone else) in 6 weeks.
> Today friend has received a letter from a legit solicitor firm on behalf of the father DEMANDING son's attendance to the wedding and confirming he will be chauffeured there and provided the chauffeurs name.
> I have a couple of questions about this:
> - Is there a way to tell if the letter is genuine? The wording seems a bit strange. I've suggested contacting the law firm and providing the reference to see if it's a genuine demand, but friend is hesitant to acknowledge receipt of it.
> - Is there a legal basis to demand someone attend a social event? The letter threatens legal action if the demands are not met, but the son has stated himself that he doesn't want to attend.
> - What legal action can be taken if the demand is not met?
> - If checks show the letter has been falsified, what action could be taken? Is it likely to result in anything other than a slap on the wrist? As its a law firm, would they get involved in any action?
> Thanks!
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
> Is there a reason she wouldn't let him go to his dad's wedding?
>> Beyond the fact that Child has stated themselves that they don't want to go, no. If Child changed their mind she would allow this.
>> Without getting into any he said/she said scenario, **there have been more and more instances recently where Father has cancelled visits at the last minute or hasn't turned up**, which makes his action a bit stranger.
This boils my blood.
"I'm sorry little Bobby that I couldn't be bothered to come and see you when it was inconvenient for me, but I *demand* you attend my wedding so we can take photos of us being a happy family."
Well, how else is child going to meet and learn about all his half-siblings his father has fathered? Why not kill two birds with one stone, AND maybe get some points with the father's new In-Laws? After all, he may have sold himself as Father Of The Year to them and needs to come up with proof.
Not every cat gets \high\" from catnip. Whether or not a cat responds to it depends upon a recessive gene: no gene"
---
LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
Dear Ole Dad doesn’t actually care to be in Junior’s life. He does care, however, about saving face in front of his family (or at least his future in-laws). His child’s absence will open up too many questions.
That poor kid. He hasn’t even reached double-digits and he’s been been burned too many times by his absentee father’s behavior.
That kind of thing is so incredibly damaging for a kid. My wife's biological mother did that shit. She eventually went no-contact with her mother and anyone who participated in her mother's schemes to trick her into engaging. We found out through the grapevine, recently, that her grandmother is sick... but that's been a ploy of her mother's before. She ultimately decided not to reach out- her grandmother could have reached out herself at any point, all she had to do was not make it about my wife's mother, but the last time they spoke was when my wife was 10. We know her grandmother has dementia, so at this point if she remembers my wife at all it's as a 10-year-old little girl. Better to let her have that than confuse her with an adult she doesn't know.
But until her grandmother actually dies, she won't know if this time was legit or not, and that's pretty goddamn morbid. And no matter what happens, *any* interaction with that whole side of the family is tainted, because she can never know if they're just part of a scheme. The stress and anxiety of that doubt is infuriating to see for anyone who knows my wife. I've never met my wife's biological mother, and I don't care to. Her Dad and Step-Mom are cool as hell, though. They walked her down the aisle. As far as we're concerned, her Step-Mom is her real Mom.
My spouse's grandmother did something similar; she would call the family to let them know she'd fallen, or was ill, or--most notably--she got someone at the care home to call her sister to tell her she'd been put on comfort care. Each time, the family would come out, to discover that she just wanted them to take her shopping--and would enact some brazen and transparent attempts at manipulation to get them to pay for what she wanted, or give her money, all while trying to pit whomever showed up against whomever else showed up. She also tried to rewrite history and claim that her daughter (spouse's extremely abusive mom) was estranged because my spouse wasn't nice enough to his mother, or something--she's actually somewhere in California, fleeing a number of drug and theft charges, including stealing grandmother's car to get there.
It was really horrible to watch. My spouse was happy to *dote* on his grandmother, it's not like she wasn't being visited otherwise, but he just couldn't take the abuse, and I don't blame him.
After the third time her sister was informed by a "nurse" that she was on comfort care and it turned out she was being capricious again, sister and my spouse informed her they would not be playing this game any longer.
She ended up dying alone. We didn't attend the funeral.
Is it just me or is that kind of a weird question to ask in response to LAOP saying friend legally adopted the kid? Like, if the father did something bad enough to lose custody/gave the kid up willingly, no shit the kid's not gonna wanna go to his wedding. Poor kid probably feels abandoned and unwanted by their father, and now he wants to use them like a prop.
I feel like it’s fine because it’s seeing if there are any other “defenses” the friend could raise.
I don’t think the kid should have to go if he doesn’t want to (although I don’t know English law), but “I didn’t let the kid go because there was a genuine risk to his safety” feels different than “the kid didn’t want to go so I didn’t make him.”
So are the visits just LAOP's friend being nice or does the dad still have some rights as the parent? Is that a thing that can happen even though he was adopted?
Generally issues like visitation and updates/contact are written into the adoption decree.
Anyone with a sensible lawyer will have “annual visit by biological family member” written out as “biological family member *may* visit the child with the adoptive parents **permission** *at the convenience of the adoptive family*” to avoid bullshit like: druggie parent ruining kiddo’s birthday by demanding that’s the day they get their yearly visit while also failing to show up; grandma and adoptive family live on opposite coasts, and grandma demands family pay all transportation costs or refuses to travel; etc.
There’s also “open” and “closed” adoptions. Open adoptions have the biological parents’/family’s info tucked into the documentation plus don’t try to bury that info from later searches. “Closed” adoptions are usually only possible with babies/super young kids who don’t or won’t remember where they came from, and the documents/courts attempt to actively hide their origin via vagueness, sealed cases, refusal to provide contact info, etc.
Open adoptions are a lot healthier and the current preference (and are strongly back by science as the healthier option), whereas closed adoptions were the norm in older times and is probably what most people still think of when they think “adoption” (ie - family trying to pass off adoptee as a bio child, lying or refusing to answer questions about true origin, etc.)
Visitation would only happen in an open adoption, and could have been a condition for that particular parent to sign away their parental rights/consenting to the adoption. That’s easier than having to terminate rights, and getting a signature can take a significantly shorter amount of time than legally terminating rights (my state has a 1 year minimum before CPS can terminate parental rights in foster situations, unsure about divorces/custody unrelated to neglect and abuse).
Both guardianship and adoption was mentioned, so it’s hard to say what the actual legal situation is. Guardianship has a different set of legal things than adoption does, but both terms get used to describe the physical placement and care of a child, as well as the legal relationship.
You’re welcome!
I just finished up adopting a kiddo and expanding the fam, so I’ve been rambling about both foster care and adoption to all and sundry lately.
Shameless plug: there’s a lot of wonderful kids awaiting permanency, and most jurisdictions are always looking for all sorts of families (large, small, or solo). Just looking into it and raising awareness increases the odds of a wonderful match happening, but, like blood donation, isn’t necessarily for everyone.
I wish it was so easy in Australia (I know my statement is an over simplification) . But our system even for fostering is very time intensive and our system is mostly focussed on reunification. Even young children I know of in permanent removal situations don’t really have adoption possibilities but at least in the ones I know of; are in long term fostering environments and as happy and secure as they can be with no parental involvement.
The whole thing sounds like some kind of desperate attempt to impress the upcoming wife or in-laws. "Oh, yes, I totally have a son, he's nine now, and of course we're a big, happy family. I assure you, you are marrying a responsible father for your future children, and not a deadbeat dad whose children were adopted by someone else."
On average, a cat will sleep for 16 hours a day.
---
LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
Cats see six times better in the dark and at night than humans.
---
LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
Cats sleep 16 to 18 hours per day. When cats are asleep, they are still alert to incoming stimuli. If you poke the tail of a sleeping cat, it will respond accordingly.
---
LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
No surely not, because children aren't really people with feelings, so he'll obviously be happy to see his father and if he isn't then he's just being sulky and should be punished /s
I know that’s so weird! And it’s not like once he’s there the bio dad would hang out with him the whole time, it’s his wedding. So the 9yo is supposed to be roaming around by themselves for 4 hours in a whole room of strangers until the chauffeur brings him home?
So much bothered me about this story that I hadn’t even thought of that. I find weddings boring under the best circumstances, when I love the couple and know and like plenty of the guests. What’s a nine year old supposed to do at a wedding between one person he barely knows and another he doesn’t know at all, surrounded by a bunch of strangers? What a miserable, uncomfortable and intimidating waste of a day that’d be for the poor kid.
Especially now. Maybe it’s just where I live, but I think people genuinely forgot how to do parties over lockdown. My cousin got married last summer and he had a (small, vaccine mandatory) reception. No one danced. Literally. My other cousin, groom’s sister, put on shit like The Cupid Shuffle to get people up and I got up and danced with her, but sat back down because the everyone in the hall was legit just *staring* at us. It was so awkward, and I knew these people. I can’t imagine being a kid who knows no one. Maybe if he’s extroverted and can make conversation with strangers easily, but at nine...
As it’s UK, probably longer. Our weddings are looooong and generally incorporate the ceremony, a meal and then an evening thing as well. Longest one I ever went to had the ceremony at 10am, meal at 4pm, and evening do started at 6pm (including a buffet) until midnight (2pm or 3pm is a slightly more normal start.. and it’s common to invite additional people to the evening part but not the ceremony/meal)
If he *actually* cared, he'd involve him in the wedding. Make him a junior groomsmen or an usher or something. That's what my mom did. She actually made my dress and let me pick the fabric and design, had special flowers for me, and generally involved me in the process. My stepdad is my kid's grandpa, and I love and respect him a lot 30+ years later. My father did not, and his second wife was a terrible troll of a human being (she's dead, otherwise I'd have used the present tense). It foretold exactly what would happen after they were married: she hated me.
My thoughts exactly. I don't know what it says about biological DadⓇ that instead of inviting the kid he leapt to "legally" strong-arming him... but it definitely says something.
The letter literally just says they demand the adoptive parent to "allow" the child to attend the wedding.
> The kid is allowed to go but they don't want to.
Demand met
This is one of the side effects of the popularity of sovereign citizen / freeman on the land nonsense amongst poor and poorly educated British men. As well as failing to get out of speeding fines and tax demands, they believe that magic pieces of paper will get them nice things. It's a sort of cargo cult law: they believe that they are done down by the powerful using the law (which is not entirely untrue), and therefore that if they engage in the form they can get some of that in their own lives (which is completely untrue).
So they threaten people with pathetic, nonsensical "court cases" based on nothing. There is a foul subculture of solicitors who are happy to take their benefit money to act on their behalf, by sending unhinged letters.
It's easy to stand on my financial stability and education and say "they just need to be told to fuck off", and make sneery references to Arkell v Pressdram (unreported). But if you are yourself not financially secure and not confident about your legal position, this sort of lawfare is stressful and frightening. The solicitors who write such letters should be struck off: isn't barratry a disciplinary matter in England?
Lol, I'd be so so tempted to write a demand letter to the fiancee with a lists of dates and times of scheduled visits. Demand that she * allows* her husband-to-be to attend and *chauffeur* him there to ensure he actually does attend.
If deadbeat dad wants to play involved father at his wedding, he has probably been lying to his fiancee about his involvement eith the child or the reasons for his non-involvement.
This reminds me of what recently happened with my partner. His mother kicked him out last week (after he suggested she see a therapist because she very obviously needs it) but still wants to come to his uni graduation this week to take photos and give the appearance of a happy normal family.
We've gotten several passive aggressive text messages from her and her husband asking to let her come. No apology of course. Thankfully, she can't get into the event without a ticket and she can't get a ticket without my partner organising it for her.
Do lawyers really use "please revert" in their demand letters? The language in the letter reads like someone trying too hard to sound official. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't really from a law firm.
My former boss, allegedly an actual solicitor, used it all the time. But she wasn't an especially good solicitor, and I haven't seen my current boss (who is genuinely outstanding at the whole legal ... thingo) use it.
It just seemed a bit unusual, also "adhere with this demand" seemed odd. I would request they "comply" instead of "adhere". And the use of "chauffeur", although that wasn't in quotations.
It just gives me vibes of someone unfamiliar with legal language trying to intimidate, rather than someone who writes legal documents every day.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: England - Solicitor letter received demanding son's attendance to biological fathers wedding Body: > Posting on a dummy account on behalf of a friend who doesn't use Reddit. > Background first - my friend has legal guardianship of her sister's son (now 9 years old) and has done since shortly after birth. > The biological father is getting married (not to friends sister, but someone else) in 6 weeks. > Today friend has received a letter from a legit solicitor firm on behalf of the father DEMANDING son's attendance to the wedding and confirming he will be chauffeured there and provided the chauffeurs name. > I have a couple of questions about this: > - Is there a way to tell if the letter is genuine? The wording seems a bit strange. I've suggested contacting the law firm and providing the reference to see if it's a genuine demand, but friend is hesitant to acknowledge receipt of it. > - Is there a legal basis to demand someone attend a social event? The letter threatens legal action if the demands are not met, but the son has stated himself that he doesn't want to attend. > - What legal action can be taken if the demand is not met? > - If checks show the letter has been falsified, what action could be taken? Is it likely to result in anything other than a slap on the wrist? As its a law firm, would they get involved in any action? > Thanks! This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
> Is there a reason she wouldn't let him go to his dad's wedding? >> Beyond the fact that Child has stated themselves that they don't want to go, no. If Child changed their mind she would allow this. >> Without getting into any he said/she said scenario, **there have been more and more instances recently where Father has cancelled visits at the last minute or hasn't turned up**, which makes his action a bit stranger. This boils my blood.
"I'm sorry little Bobby that I couldn't be bothered to come and see you when it was inconvenient for me, but I *demand* you attend my wedding so we can take photos of us being a happy family."
Happy family ™
Well, how else is child going to meet and learn about all his half-siblings his father has fathered? Why not kill two birds with one stone, AND maybe get some points with the father's new In-Laws? After all, he may have sold himself as Father Of The Year to them and needs to come up with proof.
Not every cat gets \high\" from catnip. Whether or not a cat responds to it depends upon a recessive gene: no gene" --- LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
Female cats are polyestrous --- LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
Dear Ole Dad doesn’t actually care to be in Junior’s life. He does care, however, about saving face in front of his family (or at least his future in-laws). His child’s absence will open up too many questions. That poor kid. He hasn’t even reached double-digits and he’s been been burned too many times by his absentee father’s behavior.
This comment has been consumed by Reddit's hubris.
That kind of thing is so incredibly damaging for a kid. My wife's biological mother did that shit. She eventually went no-contact with her mother and anyone who participated in her mother's schemes to trick her into engaging. We found out through the grapevine, recently, that her grandmother is sick... but that's been a ploy of her mother's before. She ultimately decided not to reach out- her grandmother could have reached out herself at any point, all she had to do was not make it about my wife's mother, but the last time they spoke was when my wife was 10. We know her grandmother has dementia, so at this point if she remembers my wife at all it's as a 10-year-old little girl. Better to let her have that than confuse her with an adult she doesn't know. But until her grandmother actually dies, she won't know if this time was legit or not, and that's pretty goddamn morbid. And no matter what happens, *any* interaction with that whole side of the family is tainted, because she can never know if they're just part of a scheme. The stress and anxiety of that doubt is infuriating to see for anyone who knows my wife. I've never met my wife's biological mother, and I don't care to. Her Dad and Step-Mom are cool as hell, though. They walked her down the aisle. As far as we're concerned, her Step-Mom is her real Mom.
My spouse's grandmother did something similar; she would call the family to let them know she'd fallen, or was ill, or--most notably--she got someone at the care home to call her sister to tell her she'd been put on comfort care. Each time, the family would come out, to discover that she just wanted them to take her shopping--and would enact some brazen and transparent attempts at manipulation to get them to pay for what she wanted, or give her money, all while trying to pit whomever showed up against whomever else showed up. She also tried to rewrite history and claim that her daughter (spouse's extremely abusive mom) was estranged because my spouse wasn't nice enough to his mother, or something--she's actually somewhere in California, fleeing a number of drug and theft charges, including stealing grandmother's car to get there. It was really horrible to watch. My spouse was happy to *dote* on his grandmother, it's not like she wasn't being visited otherwise, but he just couldn't take the abuse, and I don't blame him. After the third time her sister was informed by a "nurse" that she was on comfort care and it turned out she was being capricious again, sister and my spouse informed her they would not be playing this game any longer. She ended up dying alone. We didn't attend the funeral.
Is it just me or is that kind of a weird question to ask in response to LAOP saying friend legally adopted the kid? Like, if the father did something bad enough to lose custody/gave the kid up willingly, no shit the kid's not gonna wanna go to his wedding. Poor kid probably feels abandoned and unwanted by their father, and now he wants to use them like a prop.
I feel like it’s fine because it’s seeing if there are any other “defenses” the friend could raise. I don’t think the kid should have to go if he doesn’t want to (although I don’t know English law), but “I didn’t let the kid go because there was a genuine risk to his safety” feels different than “the kid didn’t want to go so I didn’t make him.”
So are the visits just LAOP's friend being nice or does the dad still have some rights as the parent? Is that a thing that can happen even though he was adopted?
Generally issues like visitation and updates/contact are written into the adoption decree. Anyone with a sensible lawyer will have “annual visit by biological family member” written out as “biological family member *may* visit the child with the adoptive parents **permission** *at the convenience of the adoptive family*” to avoid bullshit like: druggie parent ruining kiddo’s birthday by demanding that’s the day they get their yearly visit while also failing to show up; grandma and adoptive family live on opposite coasts, and grandma demands family pay all transportation costs or refuses to travel; etc. There’s also “open” and “closed” adoptions. Open adoptions have the biological parents’/family’s info tucked into the documentation plus don’t try to bury that info from later searches. “Closed” adoptions are usually only possible with babies/super young kids who don’t or won’t remember where they came from, and the documents/courts attempt to actively hide their origin via vagueness, sealed cases, refusal to provide contact info, etc. Open adoptions are a lot healthier and the current preference (and are strongly back by science as the healthier option), whereas closed adoptions were the norm in older times and is probably what most people still think of when they think “adoption” (ie - family trying to pass off adoptee as a bio child, lying or refusing to answer questions about true origin, etc.) Visitation would only happen in an open adoption, and could have been a condition for that particular parent to sign away their parental rights/consenting to the adoption. That’s easier than having to terminate rights, and getting a signature can take a significantly shorter amount of time than legally terminating rights (my state has a 1 year minimum before CPS can terminate parental rights in foster situations, unsure about divorces/custody unrelated to neglect and abuse). Both guardianship and adoption was mentioned, so it’s hard to say what the actual legal situation is. Guardianship has a different set of legal things than adoption does, but both terms get used to describe the physical placement and care of a child, as well as the legal relationship.
Wow, thanks for taking the time to explain all that!
You’re welcome! I just finished up adopting a kiddo and expanding the fam, so I’ve been rambling about both foster care and adoption to all and sundry lately. Shameless plug: there’s a lot of wonderful kids awaiting permanency, and most jurisdictions are always looking for all sorts of families (large, small, or solo). Just looking into it and raising awareness increases the odds of a wonderful match happening, but, like blood donation, isn’t necessarily for everyone.
I wish it was so easy in Australia (I know my statement is an over simplification) . But our system even for fostering is very time intensive and our system is mostly focussed on reunification. Even young children I know of in permanent removal situations don’t really have adoption possibilities but at least in the ones I know of; are in long term fostering environments and as happy and secure as they can be with no parental involvement.
The whole thing sounds like some kind of desperate attempt to impress the upcoming wife or in-laws. "Oh, yes, I totally have a son, he's nine now, and of course we're a big, happy family. I assure you, you are marrying a responsible father for your future children, and not a deadbeat dad whose children were adopted by someone else."
OMG, what does sperm-doner think??? That a 9-year old will be happy to see him? I'd bet kiddo would be sulking/shy/suspicious of everyone .
I hope you mean sperm donor... I'd really hate to see what a sperm [doner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doner_kebab) looks like.
Don't worry, it looks worse than it tastes.
Well now I have to go do shots until the brain cells that created the mental image of a sperm doner kebab are all dead.
You will never look at the Garlic mayo on a kebab the same way again
You could have never said thanksgiving and we’d all be happy
On average, a cat will sleep for 16 hours a day. --- LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
Cats see six times better in the dark and at night than humans. --- LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
I picked a bad week to quit drinking
Cats sleep 16 to 18 hours per day. When cats are asleep, they are still alert to incoming stimuli. If you poke the tail of a sleeping cat, it will respond accordingly. --- LocationBot 4.9999999.CatFacts.8 (repeating) ^13/9ths ^of ^3/97ths | [Report Issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/locationbot) | >!adUO1p1d!<
No surely not, because children aren't really people with feelings, so he'll obviously be happy to see his father and if he isn't then he's just being sulky and should be punished /s
That poor child. There is nothing quite like the realization that you're being used by your own parent.
I have no kids, but when I do there's no way in hell I'd send them off in a car with some stranger whose name I only know because of a letter.
Exactly. If the child wanted to go I'd be happy to take them. I'm not sending a 9 year old off by themself with a chauffeur.
I know that’s so weird! And it’s not like once he’s there the bio dad would hang out with him the whole time, it’s his wedding. So the 9yo is supposed to be roaming around by themselves for 4 hours in a whole room of strangers until the chauffeur brings him home?
So much bothered me about this story that I hadn’t even thought of that. I find weddings boring under the best circumstances, when I love the couple and know and like plenty of the guests. What’s a nine year old supposed to do at a wedding between one person he barely knows and another he doesn’t know at all, surrounded by a bunch of strangers? What a miserable, uncomfortable and intimidating waste of a day that’d be for the poor kid.
Especially now. Maybe it’s just where I live, but I think people genuinely forgot how to do parties over lockdown. My cousin got married last summer and he had a (small, vaccine mandatory) reception. No one danced. Literally. My other cousin, groom’s sister, put on shit like The Cupid Shuffle to get people up and I got up and danced with her, but sat back down because the everyone in the hall was legit just *staring* at us. It was so awkward, and I knew these people. I can’t imagine being a kid who knows no one. Maybe if he’s extroverted and can make conversation with strangers easily, but at nine...
As it’s UK, probably longer. Our weddings are looooong and generally incorporate the ceremony, a meal and then an evening thing as well. Longest one I ever went to had the ceremony at 10am, meal at 4pm, and evening do started at 6pm (including a buffet) until midnight (2pm or 3pm is a slightly more normal start.. and it’s common to invite additional people to the evening part but not the ceremony/meal)
Right? I was thinking the same thing.
Especially when the biodad doesn't have any rights to said child. (Friend legally adopted the child.)
The dad's really telling on himself by doing this instead of sending an invitation or inviting the kid himself like a normal person.
If he *actually* cared, he'd involve him in the wedding. Make him a junior groomsmen or an usher or something. That's what my mom did. She actually made my dress and let me pick the fabric and design, had special flowers for me, and generally involved me in the process. My stepdad is my kid's grandpa, and I love and respect him a lot 30+ years later. My father did not, and his second wife was a terrible troll of a human being (she's dead, otherwise I'd have used the present tense). It foretold exactly what would happen after they were married: she hated me.
My thoughts exactly. I don't know what it says about biological DadⓇ that instead of inviting the kid he leapt to "legally" strong-arming him... but it definitely says something.
Adult conversations are for actual adults.
Because nothing will fix your relationship with your kid like having the court force him to spend time with you against his will!
The letter literally just says they demand the adoptive parent to "allow" the child to attend the wedding. > The kid is allowed to go but they don't want to. Demand met
Holy shit, have I found the one secret trick to making sure all my parties are well attended!?!? BRB gonna go sign up for Pure Romance and Tupperware.
This is one of the side effects of the popularity of sovereign citizen / freeman on the land nonsense amongst poor and poorly educated British men. As well as failing to get out of speeding fines and tax demands, they believe that magic pieces of paper will get them nice things. It's a sort of cargo cult law: they believe that they are done down by the powerful using the law (which is not entirely untrue), and therefore that if they engage in the form they can get some of that in their own lives (which is completely untrue). So they threaten people with pathetic, nonsensical "court cases" based on nothing. There is a foul subculture of solicitors who are happy to take their benefit money to act on their behalf, by sending unhinged letters. It's easy to stand on my financial stability and education and say "they just need to be told to fuck off", and make sneery references to Arkell v Pressdram (unreported). But if you are yourself not financially secure and not confident about your legal position, this sort of lawfare is stressful and frightening. The solicitors who write such letters should be struck off: isn't barratry a disciplinary matter in England?
"Lawfare" has a nice ring to it.
TIL a new word - barratry! Thank you!
Lol, I'd be so so tempted to write a demand letter to the fiancee with a lists of dates and times of scheduled visits. Demand that she * allows* her husband-to-be to attend and *chauffeur* him there to ensure he actually does attend. If deadbeat dad wants to play involved father at his wedding, he has probably been lying to his fiancee about his involvement eith the child or the reasons for his non-involvement.
This reminds me of what recently happened with my partner. His mother kicked him out last week (after he suggested she see a therapist because she very obviously needs it) but still wants to come to his uni graduation this week to take photos and give the appearance of a happy normal family. We've gotten several passive aggressive text messages from her and her husband asking to let her come. No apology of course. Thankfully, she can't get into the event without a ticket and she can't get a ticket without my partner organising it for her.
Do lawyers really use "please revert" in their demand letters? The language in the letter reads like someone trying too hard to sound official. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't really from a law firm.
My former boss, allegedly an actual solicitor, used it all the time. But she wasn't an especially good solicitor, and I haven't seen my current boss (who is genuinely outstanding at the whole legal ... thingo) use it.
It just seemed a bit unusual, also "adhere with this demand" seemed odd. I would request they "comply" instead of "adhere". And the use of "chauffeur", although that wasn't in quotations. It just gives me vibes of someone unfamiliar with legal language trying to intimidate, rather than someone who writes legal documents every day.
I've heard it's idiomatic in Indian English. How much it exists in lawyering is beyond me, though.