When Family Law Clashes:

MDT AFTERMATH

3/29/20243 min read

The Case of Christopher Slaton being above the law.

In the realm of family law, disputes over child custody and visitation rights are sadly common. These conflicts can escalate to the point where the courts must step in to enforce visitation agreements, often leading to further contention and, unfortunately, legal consequences for those who refuse compliance. A notable case that has caught the attention of both the public and legal professionals alike involves Christopher Slaton, a embroiled in a bitter struggle over the visitation rights of their children in Arkansas.

The Dispute at Hand

Christopher Slaton has made headlines for his outright refusal to adhere to a court-ordered visitation agreement that grants his children's mother, De'dra Thompson, specified access to their children. This refusal not only strains the relationship between the children and their mother but also places Slaton in a precarious legal position, potentially facing severe penalties under Arkansas law.

Arkansas Law on Visitation Interference

In Arkansas, like in many other states, interfering with the visitation rights of another parent is taken seriously and can have significant legal consequences. According to Arkansas Code Ann. § 9-13-107, interference with custody or visitation rights can be considered a form of custodial interference and may be treated as a misdemeanor or, in severe cases, a felony. This law is designed to ensure that court-ordered visitation agreements are respected and followed, emphasizing the importance of both parents' roles in the lives of their children.

Furthermore, Arkansas Code Ann. § 9-13-101 highlights the state's policy of assuring frequent and continuing contact of the child with both parents. When a parent, without good cause, fails to comply with a court order regarding custody or visitation, they not only violate the law but also act against the best interests of the child, which is the paramount concern in all family law proceedings.

The Implications of Refusal

Christopher Slaton's refusal to allow court-ordered visitation has several implications. Legally, he risks charges of custodial interference, which could lead to fines, jail time, or both. Additionally, this defiance could influence future custody determinations, potentially leading to a modification of custody arrangements that might not be in his favor.

From a relational perspective, denying visitation can have long-lasting effects on the children involved. It can strain their relationship with the non-custodial parent and contribute to emotional and psychological distress. Courts often emphasize maintaining healthy relationships with both parents, assuming it is in the best interest of the child, and actions that undermine this principle are viewed unfavorably.

Moving Forward

For parents like De'dra Thompson, who find themselves being denied court-ordered visitation, legal recourse is available. They can petition the court to enforce the visitation order, which might involve not only the restoration of visitation rights but also potential penalties for the offending party. It's crucial for parents in these situations to document instances of visitation interference and seek the advice of a skilled family law attorney to navigate the complexities of the legal system effectively.

Cases like that of Christopher Slaton and De'dra Thompson serve as a somber reminder of the challenges that can arise in the aftermath of separation or divorce, especially concerning children. They underscore the importance of adhering to court orders and the legal and emotional consequences of failing to do so. For the sake of the children caught in the middle, it is hoped that such disputes can be resolved in a manner that promotes healing and allows for the continued love and support of both parents.

Conclusion

The legal battles over visitation rights highlight the intricate balance between the law's authority and the nuances of family dynamics. For the well-being of the children involved, it's imperative that parents work towards resolving their disputes in a constructive manner, respecting both the legal obligations and the emotional needs of their children. The case of Christopher Slaton and De'dra Thompson is a cautionary tale, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with court orders and the potential repercussions of refusal.

Contacts

info@mdtaftermath.com

Socials

Subscribe to our newsletter

!!!DISCLAIMER!!!

This website is the intellectual property of MRS. DE’DRA THOMPSON and is copyrighted. Everything you read is MRS. DEDRA THOMPSON rights as a U.S. Citizen National, Here's a clarification below:

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: This is a part of the United States Constitution, specifically one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. It protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Article 2, Section 6 of the Arkansas Constitution: This is a provision within the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, part of the state's fundamental law. It specifically protects the freedom of press and speech within the state, ensuring that individuals have the right to freely express themselves, subject to responsibility for the abuse of that liberty.

Contact for shout outs, product endorsements and ideas. No Refunds, no responsibility & educational information only. Non combatant, non belligerent & treaty with the U.S. UCC 1-308 Private US national.

Any opinions expressed here by host or guests are coincidental, actor portrayals, satire, etc. we assume no responsibilities for educational content mentioned here by operator or guests, guests are solely responsibile if found guilty of an action(s).

This waves the liability of the host and youtube of any harm & legal suits whatsoever. Waiver or liability.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UCC 1-308 without Prejudice Confidentiality Notice: This private electronic correspondence, including any/all attachments) are limited for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged and/or confidential Information.

FAIR USE. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Governments), Municipality (ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agents), investigator(s), or informant(s),et. al., and/or Third Partyies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring this electronic correspondence, and/or any other means of spying and collecting these communications Without Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution, With Explicit Reservation of All Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse.

Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights.

Information in this or any following correspondence is not to be construed as legal advice. Education Materials Enclosed. In-house credit no refunds.

collusion by collecting and/or monitoring this electronic correspondence, and/or any other means of spying and collecting these communications Without Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution, With Explicit Reservation of All Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse.

Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights.

Common Law Copyright. Kinuri National Government / Private Sector Rights. Any opinions by speakers are satire.

Government / Private Sector Rights. Any opinions by speakers, publisher are satire.

WE ARE NOT PART OF THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS MOVEMENT, any claims of my being anything of the sort will be litigated as defamation and/or slander. This website is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.

The accompanying message and any

attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipients.

Thank you for your cooperation.

In esse, sui juris, and de jure, is a private, protected living woman, American National - international protected treeman.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (1)and executed "Without the United States," within a non-military occupied private estate, and is excluded from 12 U.S.C. 95b and 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b). de’dra nicole thompson