Messages

The symptoms you have described are symptoms of a child with some type of emotional health issue. That being the case, I would recommend that if your brother has the ability to seek therapy for the child then he should do it.

It will establish that he recognizes that the child appears to be having some issues, it will beat her to the "expert" witness if one needs to be used, and most importantly, it will get the child the help he needs.

As far as the imigrant issue goes, perhaps a brief inquiry to INS would resolve the questions you have about that situation.

Good Luck
TM

Seek first to understand, then to be understood

State: California

California's move away law is highly favorable to the custodial parent when there is not substantial time share. The situation is  the non custodial parent has a significantly lower income than the custodial parent (the cp pays the ncp child support) but the NCP cannot meet the substantially equal time share factor as directed in Burgess.

In a situation where the income of one parent would prevent visitation from occuring would it be likely that the court would consider De Facto termination of visitation as a factor in preventing the child's residence from being changed from the state?

Thank-You
TM

I do not know what Iowa has in the way of Intra-District-Transfer laws, but I know that my Ex and I during our divorce realized that the children would no longer be able to attend the school they had been attending.

Through the court we got an order that states that XXXX School is where the children are required to attend. With that order we have kept the children at the same school for their entire Elementary School educations through an Intra-District-Transfer.

TM

perhaps this is the better way to have worded this whole saga:

Approximatly 3 weeks ago, my children informed me that they were seeing a therapist. The children said they do not know the therapists last name. 5 seperate attempts to obtain the information from the other parent resulted in no response until the 5th request. The response at that time was "I'll tell you when it is appropriate".

Question:

What would be the quickest legal way to compel the other parent to disclose the information?

TM

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/narcissist.htm

http://samvak.tripod.com/siteindex.html

http://www.narcissisticabuse.com/

hope those help

TM

State: California
Joint Legal Custody

There are current custody orders in place where in it states:
"The father is obtain mental health treatment for the minor children. Mother is to participate in the counseling sessions with the children."

These were made orders in 2003. The children briefly saw a therapist in early 2004. When I made contact with the therapist and showed her the court orders he pulled the children from that therapist. The reason he gave the therapist was he couldn't afford the co-pays. The children said it was because she was going to make him follow the court oders.

About 3 weeks ago, I was told by the children that they were seeing a new therapist.

I have made 5 seperate email requests and a certified letter request for the name address and telephone number of the treating therapist. He has ignored 4 of the 5 requests.

I recieved an email tonight after the 5th request that states "I will provide the information when it is appropriate."

Now for my questions:

1. In sharing joint legal custody is it his responsibility to provide that information, especially after a request for it?

2. Since the court orders state that I am to be involved, would this constitute contempt?

3. Is there any plausible excuse he could give the court for failing to provide the information that would stand?

Your help is greatly appreciated

TM

And what ours did was subtract the amount for the policy holder then divided the balance by the number of persons covered.

In our case monthly premium was $360. For the policy holder alone the premium was $200. There were 5 additional persons covered after the policy holder. They divided $160 by 5 coming to the sum of $32 per person for coverage costs per person.

TM

An interesting experience reagarding delivering items in an envelope when you need "evidence" of delivery:

UPS delivers envelopes, you are provided tracking information and can recieve proof of delivery. And how often do you ever see someone hide from that big brown truck?

It was very effective in a friends fight to show he was attempting to contact his child until Mom caught on and actually starting refusing packages from UPS. Which went to show the cusotdial parents frustration of contact.

Just an experience I thought I would share....

TM

CPS terminated jurisdiction over the children. So all custody and visitation issues will now be in Family Court.

As for reports being investigated, it would be nice to know why no action has been taken. Police took emergency custody of the child in one instance. CPS was called. CPS then contacted a family member to take control of the child until CP returned. CPS went out on another investigation, turned the child over to the NCP with instructions to return the child to the CP when CP was available. CP was given a written notification that the child was not to be left unattended. Yet it still happens.

Because some of the information is identifiable information, I am not comfortable posting any further information on a public forum.

Thank-You for your quick response. Your help is greatly appreciated.

TM

State: California

Basic Facts:
A custody order was made in accordance with Welfare and Instution Code Section 362.4. This order has never been filed in the family law case although both parents and the local law enforcement office have copies.

The Juvenial Court Orders grant joint legal custody with sole legal custody to the one parent. The visitation periods are 3 days per week for short periods of time.

The orders fail to specify the circumstances under which the consent of both parents is required to be obtained in order to exercise legal control of the children and the consequences of the failure to obtain mutual consent.

The orders further contain wording regarding termination of a visit by the children. Specifically the order states: The children are permitted to terminate any visitation period when they have reasonable fear of neglect.

We are trying to find if enough information is present to qualify as a significant change in circumstances as stated in W&I Code 302.(d) to
be brought under Family Code 3021 for a modification.

The custodial parent has verbally stated an intention to move out of the area.

The custodial parent has scheduled medical appointments for Child A out of the area on visitation days. When Non custodial parent complains' custodial parent says the child fears for health if the visit were to take place and therefore is declining the visit that day (it is in writing via email on a public server)

The custodial parent has on 5 occassions in 9 months denied NCP visitation times because CP has scheduled vacation times during visitation times. (Non Custodial Parent is aware that because there is only 3 days between any visit it complicates vacation for Custodial Parent)

Child B is being left without adult supervision for periods as short as 2 hours and up to 12 hours on at least one documented occasion. The child has been diagnosed by a clinical psychologist and a forensic psychologist with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and fails to meet California's maturity test to be left alone (documented by child's clinician)

This child, while without adult supervison physically assulted a sibling. The physical assult required medical treatment.

The NCP is aware of a minimum of 5 police or cps reports regarding the child being left alone over the last few months. Two reports were made by a neighbor of the CP who contacted NCP before the police. One complaint was made by another child (not in this case) of the CP. One complaint was made by local store, who called NCP to come get the unsupervised child. The other complaint was made by an unknown party.

Child B has also been the victim of sexual assult, perpetrated by an unknown assailaint. The child has refused to say who the assailaint may be. CPS determined that neither parent was a risk to have been the assailaint and terminated investigation.

NCP is not looking at changing the actual custody status. NCP is more concerned with ensuring that the visitations are enforcable, that Child B is not left unsupervised, and if possible some additional time with the children without losing the frequency of visits.

Questions:

1. Is this sufficent criteria to meet a significant change in circumstances?

2. If yes, would the NCP be able to reasonably request that the right of first refusal be inacted so as to ensure that Child B is not unsupervised?

3. If yes, what would be more appropriate wording for the children's right to terminate a visit if they fear neglect? NCP acknowledges that the children should have this right given the past situation that brought about the current orders but wants to also have safegaurds to prevent occurances as stated above with CP scheduling things during visitation.

Thank You for your time and consideration of this.



TM