Significant Change in Circumstances

[Troubledmom]

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

[socrateaser]

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

The existence of a "neighbor" who would file multiple police reports re the child being left alone should be sufficient. However, my question is why haven't the reports been investigated, and brought to the court's attention?

>
>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?

You can ask for anything you want, but you're gonna have to ask the juvenile court.

>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.

It's not clear to me exactly what you want to achieve, so I can't give you any advice, yet.

[Troubledmom]

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

[socrateaser]

Based on what you've posted, I think you can show a substantial change in circumstances. If you get to the point where you have a proposed order, I'll be happy to review it.