How could this happen?

[pphil]

I am a single parent who has had custody of his daughter (now 6) for over 3 + years.  At one time, mother only had supervised visitation and was given very limited vistation (every other weekend only and one weekday over night ever other week).  Mother was mandated to attend therapy for "deep seeded issues".  It was noted that therapy was not helping her.  Numerous custody evaluations were done (all supporting father) and two failed co-parent cousellors later, we were back in court.  There were X pending contempt petitions against mother and after numerous and continuous allegations (some involved DHS) against me by mother (all unfounded) and ongoing disputes that have affected the child (her continued behaviour affects the child), the judge decided to play Solomon with the child and give us 50/50.  He also ordered therapy again for mother as well as other phych tests.  Valid concerns about schooling, location, behavior and affect on child were all raised and substantiated.

The trial spanned three court sessions as the judge ordered couselling again that failed, heard testimony and made a ruling (supporting father) and then wanted to complete the trial because the second was rushed.

It was clear that for some reason, he had some negative view point about me saying it was half my fault.  He even stated that I should tell the child he made the order this way if she was having trouble. He made it a temp order so it can not be appealed.  Now my daughter is going through adjustment that is affecting her.

It was apparent that the judge had a conversation with the coparent cousellor and CE as he disclosed in court that he seen them and made a comment along those lines.  This is obviously an ethics violations that will be almost impossible to prove.  I have seen a total of 6 phsychological experts.  Two of which were the mother's and they were outrageously biased and the judge seen it.  The two coparent cousellors were supposedly the top of their field but it was obvious that they were unable to address any trust issues.  The other was the court's evaluator which spent less than an hour with each of us. THe only professional that I respected was the CE. I really never, ever want to see someone in that field again because of the history of this case.

What to do?  

[mistoffolees]

What to do?

Accept that the court has jurisdiction in the matter and learn to live with it without badmouthing your ex.

Looks to me like the court evaluated evidence from a large number of experts. Whether YOU consider them to be credible is irrelevant. The court has accepted them as credible, so that's a dead issue. If it were one or two, it could be written off as a bad judge, but when there's that much evidence backing the mother's position, it's going to carry some weight.

You also need to learn that taking an adversarial position with a judge is NEVER a good position to be in. For example, the judge has the right to talk with the counselors he assigns. Granted, it should be done in court so your attorney can cross examine them, but as long as you got that right later, I don't see it as that big a deal. In cases where the decision is not black and white, the court will generally go with the side that seems most likely to obey the court and work with the other side. From reading the above, you didn't put yourself in the position of being that person.

Finally, 50:50 is getting to be pretty routine in many states, so the judge may simply be saying "supervised visitation might have been appropriate years ago, but in the current situation, let's get back to the norm. Either he felt that both of you were acceptable (not necessarily great, just acceptable) parents or he may have felt that you were both terrible parents and therefore there was no reason to favor one over the other. Be thankful that you have 50:50.

[pphil]

I appreciate the response but I belive you misunderstood my situation.  The CE ruled in my favor and was very concerned about the on-going accusatins by mother, the Co-parent cousellor just stated we can't get along.  Both counsellors said there was a total lack of trust.  Any and all agreements negotiated with the counsellors were broken by mother.  The experts supported me with the exception of her so called experts.  I was just not impressed with any of them overall.

Finally, I never bad mouthed the mother.  I presented evidenced that showed she blantantly disobeyed the current order.  The contempt petitions were substantiated.  She was caught lying, over and over again.  We showed her decisions were not about the child (actually witheld her from school to spend time with her, etc..) She has a history of anger management and phychological issues as well as alienation (verified by CE multile times).  Three and half years later, nothing has changed and the order states she is to again go to therapy (mind you, one of the contempt petitions was that she stopped going to therapy and another because she refused co-parenting).

I was never adversial with the judge.  In fact, he became that with me.  When I told him my child had trouble adjusting, he told me to tell the child that he ordered it.  I was appauled, the child is 6. The hearings were continued 3 times over the course of a year (this after limited visitation for 3 years).  The first hearing was suspended, the second was found in my favor, 30 days later he wanted to make sure everything was documented and that is when he turned for no apparent reason.

My concern is this, the judge off the record told us that because mother lives in a different state, she can't have the child half the time and now, he has gone back on that.  If affects the child and the child is going through some trama right now, mentally and physically.  It is appauling that I have to wait to prove this.

Thank you for your reply.  I understand it sounds fishy and I am being one sided.  However, there is no rhyme or reason to this.  I realize judges don't want to hear these cases.  I went to court because I showed a valid concern for the child. In addition, I agree with the concept that he should listed to the experts but if a conversation was held without attorneys to comment, it is unethical.  Furthermore, putting a child in a 50/50 situation where the parents do not communicate and do not agree on any issue, i.e. school, extra-cirrucular activities, etc.. puts the child further in an emotional rollercoaster.  

[mistoffolees]

Not being there, it's impossible to say exactly what happened. Your post sure sounds adversarial - you continue to call the judge unethical even after receiving an opinion that it's not necessarily so.

In any event, it could well be that the judge said "there's conflicting evidence and I don't have any way to decide which one to believe and I'm convinced that the child is safe in both locations, so we'll just go with 50:50."

[pphil]

Thank you for your input.  I don't believe it was ethical for parties to have a conversation (irrelevant of disclosure) on the topic if it can not be presented in court for cross.  Overall, with the exception of the last hearing, I had no issues with the judge and in fact, was impressed with his insight.

I can only assume that by giving her what she asked for, this may suppress her issues.  However, the fact that the child is in the middle of this is what is causing me concern.  This issue has been fraught with violent behaivor from the mother and her family.  The latest even involved a threat to the CE.  However, because it was by a family member and not her, it was ignored.  Believe me, I know it's about the child's best interest and some of her actions, irrelevant of how deplorable they may, will be ignored if it does not affect the child.  I went to court offering to increase the visitation schedule with the caveat that the weekday overnights be removed because of concern.

We'll see what happens in the follow up.  However, it is my intention to appeal the case once the order is finalized.  I am extremely knowledgeable in this area as well.  The evidence was overwhelming and when the judge asked me if I wanted to punish her for the contempt petitions, I stated no. Just consideration for the custody.

Again, this is a true high conflict case and I just can't see 50/50 being a valid alternative.  Three evals by the CE who recommended discontinued co-parenting and sole legal, two co-parent cousellors later, etc.. and we are back to square one.

[Giggles]

You stated that the Mother lives in a different state...if that's the case then many judges would order 50/50 LEGAL custody with a Primary residence (most likely you)...because she is of school age, I don't see how a true 50/50 placement could work.  Please clarify.

[pphil]

I agree with your thoughts and it is exactly what the court stated but then went back on.  She does live in a different state.  She does live over the bridge and is roughly 15-20 mins away (not including bridge traffic during rush hour).

My issue is with the child and her adjustment.  She has begun to be extremely clingly, not active at all, doesn't play with her friends, etc..  and to be honest, realistically what kind of message is that sending to the mother, rewarding her behaviour which was cited as being harmful to the child.

[janM]

document everything.

Is this one week on/one week off?

If there were problems with attendance at school, you keep track of how many times she was late/absent during mom's time. If she's not already, get dd in counselling to help her deal with the setup and you can see how she's handling it.

If it works, then good. If you can prove it really isn't working for the child (per the counsellor, teachers, etc), then you go back to court to try to change it.

Will mom have to drive her to school on her time? Maybe she'll find that to be too inconvenient and you may end up having dd more than half the time. Document that too.

You are lucky to have 50/50, although it's a change from fulltime. Could be the judge is giving mom some rope and she may hang herself at some point.

[pphil]

I do have everything documented.

Yes, week on, week off.

There were previous substantiated problems with school attendance and participation.  

Yes, she has to drive her.  Previously, she slept locally over relative's house (which added to the child's confusion, i.e. sleep one place during school night and another on weekend.  No consistency) to avoid driving.

I considered the issue of allowing her to fail, however simply put, that has already been done.  Original order 3+ yrs ago was a temp and she did not follow through. The current pending trial is a status hearing not another hearing (due to temp order, not appealable now).  What's the use of ordering numerous phych evals and other testing (axis II, anger mgmt, process deficit, etc..) if no formal report is being made?

Yes, it appears my only recourse is to wait and see.  I just feel there is no need to put a child through this in the first place.  She has gone through enough, mother will not support x-cirrucular activities that she has been doing, take her to class mate's parties, choice of school, etc... and nothing has changed.  This has only gotten worse.