
Quoting
adiroxstr
Requests for changes in custody are considered by the court when some event that impacts the CHILD has occurred. What is mom claiming has CHANGED since the original order was issued that would warrant full custody going to her? What specific thing(s) is dad accused of as reason for supervision to now be supervised?
*Mother has been fighting for full custody since separation. She wants supervised visitation with a person she hires (father would have to pay) because of several incidents she claims:
(1) incident where child was playing with puppy (in fathers home)Puppy accidently scratched her (very minor injury, PUPPY has shots! hydrogen peroxide and bandaid, shild was back to running around with puppy in no time!) . Mother dramatized the event by taking child to hospital after fathers visitation. Mother then proceeded to contact animal services to have puppy removed from home, implying that "dog" involved in incident was a doberman, when in fact it was a miniature schnauzer.
(2) she brings up in court that father is "mean" to child because he forces chlid to eat. (as a witness he is firm with child and instills that she eat breakfast lunch and dinner, often times child throws tantrums wanting Mcdonalds and such instead of the prepared home cooked meals, which probably explains why child would say he is mean...)
(3)the most ridiculous claim is that mother says father forces child to shower with him! which is a completely false accusation! Father makes child shower, ALONE! he instills good hygiene!
(5) the most recent event: mother says child claims that father slammed her grandmother up against the door!?!? (which is the reason now why mother missed exchange this last time)
- these claims are completely false and untrue, it seems as if the mother and attorney keep throwing these types of claims to see what will stick??? this seems to be a very complicated "case" there is allot of "he said she said" going on. and Judge seems to notice it, and has already advised mothers attorney to stay focused on the real matter at hand.
Anyone, even a perfect stranger, can FILE a restraining order. We need to know on what grounds the court GRANTED that order. What did mom tell the court that dad did that made her afraid for herself and/or the child? Courts don't just hand them out because someone asks for one. We need to know the REASON.
*reason for restraining order is Domestic violence- couple was arguing and father tried exiting room, opened the door and slammed it and mother tried to stop the door to follow him but her finger was caught. She then proceeded in calling the cops, had father arrested for domestic violence and issued restraining order.
Let's say the shoe was on the opposite foot. If mom came here and said "hey, I think dad is dangerous to my kid now, what do I do?" - the answer would be: "go back to court and ask for full custody and supervised visitation". That appears to be what mom is doing. If mom were to ask us "if I'm afraid for the child's safety, can I withhold visitation until the court hears the matter"? We would answer: "court orders are orders, not suggestions, and violating them can have serious consequences - so if you're willing to risk and court's anger in order to do what you feel you need to do to protect your child, you do so at your own risk". How will the court view mom's refusal to obey the order for visitation? The court won't be happy, but MAY entertain hearing mom's reasons (for example, the court isn't going to admonish mom for not letting the child go if, for example, dad has made threats of suicide). The best dad can do is get to court, tell the judge that mom isn't following the orders as given, and let the judge go from there.
Then dad needs to bring these witnesses to court with him.
Reasonable.
Ex's are typically bitter. That's the nature of the beast. She can accuse anything, what the court cares about is what can be PROVEN.
*this explains why the judge keeps disregarding these claims of the mother and attorney- thank you
Then there's a good chance that dad is going to get the short end of the stick. Family court, especially when there are issues like restraining orders, requests for supervised visitation, and such, really should be addressed by someone with not only a lot of practice at such cases, but also by someone who knows the proclivities and tendencies of the particular judges. Dad doing this without an attorney is like fighting a lion with a toothpick. If mom has already been able to convince the court to issue a restraining order, it's likely to only get worse for dad until he gets some ammo and experienced defense on his side.
Again, as noted above, mom risks angering the court over not obeying the order. But without knowing the circumstances of WHY and what justification mom may give the court, and whether or not the court will find her actions reasonable or unacceptable, we can't possibly predict what the court will do, if anything, about it.
That works in dad's favor. The court doesn't care that the child doesn't want to go. Judges love to explain to parents who withhold visitation because "the child doesn't want to go" by putting the parent in the slammer for a day to think it over and realize that children don't want to go to bed, go to school, or eat their veggies either, but it's the parent's responsibility to MAKE them - especially when there's a court's ORDER to do so. Mom, NOT the child is supposed to be in charge and run the show, including presenting the child for visitation as ordered.
Since it's already happened twice, it's time for dad to notify the court that mom is in contempt. If mom already has a case open to modify custody, dad doesn't need to open another, he can present his complaint at the same time.
Dad needs experienced representation who can adequately have the child assessed and who knows how to present the results of any assessment to the court. Unless dad is both an experienced attorney AND a clinical child psychologist, he's not being realistic if the thinks the court is going to allow him to argue these points to any applicable degree.
See the prior comment regarding the toothpick vs. the lion.