Thanks, msme.
My concern is that the judge does not allow video evidence. And without allowing a video, I don't think they would allow a transcript because without a video to back up the transcript, the transcript could be full of lies. Also, if I did video everything in the house for an entire weekend, what about the drive to my home...I guess that could be videod but then the judge won't allow video evidence involving the child. That is why the BM got away with her allegations of talking inappropriately. I had a video of my daughter saying her mom makes her tell the counselor bad things about me but the judge didn't want to know about it, and wanted to accuse me instead. So I can only guess the same will be true if I have further video evidence to prove my innocence. All the BM has to do is let me see my daughter a couple of times, have her tell the "counselor" I said bad things, and then file a motion to the court. The judge believed the "counselor" this time, and no doubt will again.
The BM is stalling the process of court ordered parental coordination and qualified psychologist for the child, and this is because they don't want my daughter going to someone who can find out the truth. They want me to see my daughter before those people are in place, so they can get the unqualified counselor to go to court and repeat lies and get my rights revoked. If the coordinator and psychologist were already seeing my daughter, the judge would be unlikely to base a decision solely on the unqualified counselor. But as long as they are not in place, and there is testimony from the "counselor", the judge is likely to accept that testimony and I no longer see my daughter and get my joint custody revoked.
The court has put me in an impossible situation. They are quite happy to stop a young child seeing her father when it's a known fact that children need both parents. The attorney is even stating now that both he and the BM have to approve a coordinator and psychologist, when the Order states that both parties must come to an agreement about them. The attorney now says "we" have to agree and then explains what he means by "we". This is a corrupt situation.
My concern is that the judge does not allow video evidence. And without allowing a video, I don't think they would allow a transcript because without a video to back up the transcript, the transcript could be full of lies. Also, if I did video everything in the house for an entire weekend, what about the drive to my home...I guess that could be videod but then the judge won't allow video evidence involving the child. That is why the BM got away with her allegations of talking inappropriately. I had a video of my daughter saying her mom makes her tell the counselor bad things about me but the judge didn't want to know about it, and wanted to accuse me instead. So I can only guess the same will be true if I have further video evidence to prove my innocence. All the BM has to do is let me see my daughter a couple of times, have her tell the "counselor" I said bad things, and then file a motion to the court. The judge believed the "counselor" this time, and no doubt will again.
The BM is stalling the process of court ordered parental coordination and qualified psychologist for the child, and this is because they don't want my daughter going to someone who can find out the truth. They want me to see my daughter before those people are in place, so they can get the unqualified counselor to go to court and repeat lies and get my rights revoked. If the coordinator and psychologist were already seeing my daughter, the judge would be unlikely to base a decision solely on the unqualified counselor. But as long as they are not in place, and there is testimony from the "counselor", the judge is likely to accept that testimony and I no longer see my daughter and get my joint custody revoked.
The court has put me in an impossible situation. They are quite happy to stop a young child seeing her father when it's a known fact that children need both parents. The attorney is even stating now that both he and the BM have to approve a coordinator and psychologist, when the Order states that both parties must come to an agreement about them. The attorney now says "we" have to agree and then explains what he means by "we". This is a corrupt situation.