The Court Order States Mom Has No Contact with the Child
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- • Mom`s Boyfriend Is Not...
Mom`s Boyfriend Is Not Supposed to Be Around Their Son
Court Hearing Summary
This court hearing focuses on establishing in-person visitation between a child (Eric) and his mother (Miss Hart), while considering the father's (Mr. Hart) concerns and the child's need for gradual transitions. The current status is video visitation, which has been successful for two weeks. The judge recommends maintaining the status quo for a few more weeks to allow Eric to adjust to being back home after staying with his grandparents.
A key concern is Mr. Hart's reluctance to trust anyone in Miss Hart's life to supervise visits. The judge emphasizes the need for a plan to move towards supervised in-person visitation, suggesting Mr. Hart brainstorm potential supervisors. If Mr. Hart cannot identify a suitable supervisor, supervised visitation will proceed, but he will bear the cost.
The judge also addresses outstanding requirements: Mr. Hart needs to provide a copy of his mental health evaluation to Miss Call or file it under seal with the court. Both parents are required to use the Our Family Wizard app for communication and scheduling, with a fee waiver available for Mr. Hart if needed.
Judge: Presiding over the hearing.
Ms. Call: Mother of the child (Eric). She seems to be more organized and cooperative.
Mr. Hart: Father of the child. He appears less organized, more resistant, and potentially struggles with communication and following court orders.
Eric: The child at the center of the custody dispute.
Key Issues:
Unauthorized Recordings and Livestreaming: The hearing begins with a discussion about unauthorized recordings of court proceedings being uploaded to UA-cam. The court acknowledges this is happening but has limited control over it once the recordings are online.
Video Visitation: Currently, video visitation is occurring via Zoom, but the court orders the transition to the "Our Family Wizard" app for better oversight and communication. Mr. Hart initially resists due to cost, but a fee waiver option is presented. The judge stresses the importance of consistent video visitation.
In-Person Visitation: The ultimate goal is in-person visitation, but a gradual approach is recommended due to Eric's sensitivity to abrupt changes. A timeline and "scaffolding system" are proposed.
Supervised Visitation: The court anticipates the need for supervised in-person visits. Mr. Hart's reluctance to identify suitable supervisors is a major obstacle. He expresses mistrust of individuals in Ms. Call's circle.
Mental Health Evaluation: A previously ordered mental health evaluation for Mr. Hart is outstanding. The judge requests Mr. Hart to provide the evaluation to the court (under seal) or Ms. Call.
Communication: Significant communication issues exist between the parents. The "Our Family Wizard" app is intended to improve communication and record-keeping.
Summary of the Judge's Decisions:
Continue Video Visitation: Video visitation will continue, but using "Our Family Wizard." Mr. Hart must address the app access issue immediately.
Review Hearing: A review hearing is scheduled for August 9th to address progress on video visitation, the mental health evaluation, and plans for supervised in-person visitation.
Supervised Visitation: The judge strongly encourages Mr. Hart to identify potential supervisors for in-person visits; otherwise, supervised visitation through a professional service will be ordered, and Mr. Hart will bear the cost.
Potential Mediation: The judge hints at the possibility of mediation if the parties cannot reach agreements.
Overall Impression:
The hearing highlights the challenges of navigating custody disputes, particularly when communication and cooperation are lacking. The judge attempts to balance the parents' needs with the child's best interests, emphasizing gradual transitions and consistent communication. Mr. Hart's resistance and lack of cooperation are significant obstacles to progress.
#ChildCustody #FamilyLaw #Legal #TexasLaw #Court #Parenting #Visitation #ChildSupport #ZoomCourt #Lawyer #Attorney #Judge #Paternity #Lawsuit #court #law #legal #justice #judge #attorney #lawsuit #familylaw #childcustody #parentingtime #childsupport #settlement #mediation #discovery #contempt #grandparentsrights #guardianship #texas #michigan #zoom #virtualcourt #evidentiaryhearing #trial #motion #objection #refereerecommendation #default #parenting #legaladvice #legalhelp #legalrepresentation #familycourt #familymatters #case #courtroom #legalproceedings #courtcase #lawandorder
That dad seems shady. He is blocking
KIDDO!!!......Even the language from the professionals has gone downhill along with the entire court system!
He is pointing out the glaring difference in which this GAL and this COURT is treating him as apposed to the 1000s of cases where dads have lost all custody because of accusations of drug and abuse.
Dude, this isn't family therapy- answer the question and zip it.
He has to pay for the supervisor? Seriously?
Yes, when parents can't come to an agreement on supervisor and force the courts/state to figure it out for them and provide staffing, then yes. Of course. The court isn't there to parent for you, and in this situation it's 100% proper to make him pay instead of the taxpayers. That's an extremely reasonable policy put in place for parents who simply refuse to handle their own family and business.
If you are a mother and you lose custody you should probably never get your kid back. As a mother you have to be a special type of horrible to even lose your kids.
Not always true.
Unfortunately, he’s not the roadblock. Why does he need to be the one that pays for mom’s supervisor? And why does he need to file the evaluation with the court and not the GAL?
There’s a very good reason that the court didn’t want the mom to be with the kids unsupervised.
Sometimes reunification isn’t in the best interest of the child. All of these players don’t care about the child (except the dad), they just want to give the child back to the mom and get the family out of the system.
If he refuses to name a supervisor, which he is, then the State has no choice but to do it for them and it's totally unreasonable to expect taxpayers to cover that. Mom clearly sucks here but the dad is acting like a stubborn baby. If you refuse to do your job as a parent, then you foot the bill. He wouldn't need to pay a dime if he simply put in the effort to find a supervisor. Neither parent is doing the bare minimum for their kid here.