Confused about outcome

[backwardsbike]

Hi Soc,

All parties and order are in PA.  I have been NCM for 6 years, divcorced for 9.  There have been numerous court actions.  We have been through two custody evals and worked with two different mediators.

I wrote about six weeks ago concerning a petition my X filed in which he claimed the children said my DH was drinking and driving them around in the car.

 My vistis were also inavertantly suspended by the judge then reinstated when my lawyer realized what had happened.  The judge claimed he never meant to suspend them that he had not read the order prepared by OC and thought he was just setting a hearing date.

The hearing was today.  The attorneys spoke to the judge in chambers.  Then the attorneys and the children spoke with the judge in chambers. Then we all went into the court room and the judge issued his order.

He has ordered that the children DS 17 and DD14 have a GAL with whom to voice thier concerns.  No Hearing was held.  No questioning, no cross examination. No other changes to the order.

The judge also spoke to both X and I off the record.  He admonished X for sharing motions, orders custody evals etc with the children.  He told me not to read my children's email or pose as them online ( which I have never done and this was news to me).

He was upset that the counseling he ordered between X and I in Februray 06 has resulted in only two joint sessions thus far.

  He admonished X for blowing off a session last week and me for cancelling one prior in which the X was going to include the children without my knowledge or consent.  The therapist called to inform me that the children "may" be there.  I asked her what the goals were and she couldn't answer.  I told her I felt the adults needed to work out a few things before bringing in the children and she agreed.  SHE cancelled the session and my lawyer was involved in this.

The judge said he did not want the children to be cross examined which would have been necessary to discern the thruth of what they were alledging about my Dh driving drunk with them in the car.  No more was said about this issue at all.

X had asked for "safegaurds to be put in place and for the children to not be at my home when I'm not here."  None of that was addressed.

I had an adult witness who was with Dh and kids that night ready to testify that he was not driniking and that the vist went normally.  I aslo spoke to the children during the visit by phone and was going to testify that they never said there were any problems and that dad called during the visit but still allowed DH to drive the chidren to the drop off point at the end of the visit.

Questions:

What do you suppose the judge hopes to gain by appointing the GAL?

Is the GAL going to be a sort of permenant evalautor from now on?

How does the GAL fit in with the counsleor who is supposed to work with X and I?

Did I win or loose this round becasue I don't know?

[socrateaser]

>Questions:
>
>What do you suppose the judge hopes to gain by appointing the
>GAL?

The judge is seeking an objective report of "What's Going On." Everyone's testimony is biased or manipulated, including the children, and the judge can't decide who's telling the truth.

Regrettably this is where the legal system breaks down. Without truly disinterested witnesses and evidence, there's no real means of discerning the truth (except for a polygraph -- which is inadmissible without consent of all parties).

>
>Is the GAL going to be a sort of permenant evalautor from now
>on?

I'm not a mind reader, but probably yes.

>
>How does the GAL fit in with the counsleor who is supposed to
>work with X and I?

The GAL is the children's attorney, and represents their interests, not you or your X. The danger zone with a GAL is that there is no way to determine if the CAL is representing the children's best interests, rather than the children's interests, which is a different premise.

Best interest is subjective to the evaluator/judge. Interest is subjective to what the children actually say they want. One premise may be better than the other for you.

>
>Did I win or loose this round becasue I don't know?

"Lose" -- not "loose." I don't think anyone one or lost. I think that the judge is just unable to operate in the absence of objective facts, and until he gets enough to draw a reasonable conclusion, he's not drawing any. Meanwhile, of cours, he's praying that the kid's will become adults and move away, thereby rendering the either case moot. lol!

[backwardsbike]

Yep, we all hope they just grow up.  Four more years to go.  Thanks for your input.