Avoiding communications

[escape2paradise]

Another Update

Today was the hearing to attempt striking X's pleadings. The motion we filed asked for either the court to strike X's pleadings or to exclude his testimony at trial. We also asked for reimbursement of fees incurred in having to file the motion and for deposition costs.

X did not show for the hearing, imagine that!

The commissioner was all set to strike the pleadings, but we confirmed that this would close the case and no parenting plan would be implemented. This is because X is the petitioner. I didn't want this. I am into this for way too much money, blood, sweat and tears. I don't want X to start this again in a few months only to have to start from square one.

The commissioner also agreed that excluding his testimony was a reasonable request, however, he could not grant the request. Evidently he does not have the authority. As a commissioner he does not preside over trials and he said he couldn't tell a judge who's testimony he/she could or could not hear at trial. So this issue is left as reserved, to be determined by the judge on trial day.

The day was not a total loss as we did get awarded our fees and X is ordered to pay them by 9 am trial day. Like he will!

Bottom line is we are unable to be fully prepared for trial, yet are expected to be ready to go on 3/25. If X shows for trial, we will have to motion to have his testimony, witnesses and any other evidence excluded. All based on the fact that he is not sharing anything with us, if in fact there is anything to share.

I'm beyond frustrated with this whole process!!!

 

[wileybunch]

Slowly but surely winding it's way through ....
Hang in there. Glad you "got" fees. Ha!

 

[escape2paradise]

Slowly but surely winding it's way through ....
Hang in there. Glad you "got" fees. Ha!

Yes, I knew going in that the fees were pretty much a given.

Now, I just have to wait and see if X shows for trial. Evidently, if he doesn't show that doesn't automatically award me my proposed parenting plan. I still have the GAL to contend with. She is so back and forth it is amazing.

My attorney and I talked with her after the hearing yesterday about a parenting plan including supervised visitation until X got drug treatment and counseling. She agreed X needs both, but that she doesn't believe he would ever do either and that would mean visitation to remain restricted as supervised. She feels that since X won't comply, that would not be in best interest of child and therefore we shouldn't place restrictions or requirements. UNBELIEVABLE!

Since when does the court make orders based upon wether or not a parent is likely to follow them or not. If I had know that was the standard I guess I could have played X's games to. I am just completely frustrated with the GAL. I dont' get her saying "yes X is a drug addict, yes he emotionally abuses the child, but since he won't get help we should just pretend everything is all right and hope for the best" My attorney doesn't think the court is going to agree with her line of thinking. I guess we will see!

 

[waitinMd]

She feels that since X won't comply, that would not be in best interest of child and therefore we shouldn't place restrictions or requirements. UNBELIEVABLE!

it's a good thing it's not up to her to decide.

 

[Zephyr]

Good Luck!!!!

 

[casa]

Yes, I knew going in that the fees were pretty much a given.

Now, I just have to wait and see if X shows for trial. Evidently, if he doesn't show that doesn't automatically award me my proposed parenting plan. I still have the GAL to contend with. She is so back and forth it is amazing.

It's not automatic, No. But, it IS possible. Yes.

My attorney and I talked with her after the hearing yesterday about a parenting plan including supervised visitation until X got drug treatment and counseling. She agreed X needs both, but that she doesn't believe he would ever do either and that would mean visitation to remain restricted as supervised. She feels that since X won't comply, that would not be in best interest of child and therefore we shouldn't place restrictions or requirements. UNBELIEVABLE!

I *think* what the GAL is *trying* to do is ensure the child is ABLE to have contact with the other parent, if not under IDEAL circumstances, at least under the existing circumstances... unless/until such time the other parent's behavior escalates to the point of Supervision being absolutely necessary &/or until the Court's order it.

Since when does the court make orders based upon wether or not a parent is likely to follow them or not. If I had know that was the standard I guess I could have played X's games to. I am just completely frustrated with the GAL. I dont' get her saying "yes X is a drug addict, yes he emotionally abuses the child, but since he won't get help we should just pretend everything is all right and hope for the best" My attorney doesn't think the court is going to agree with her line of thinking. I guess we will see!

It seems that way, but it's actually a sort of protection/last chance for the other Parent. ie; the GAL works for the CHILD. Not either parent. The GAL looks at the long-term viability of a parent to remain in their child's life. Unification &/or reunification is ALWAYS preferred.

However, I also agree that the Judge may not necessarily agree with the GALs line of thinking. BUT, then the Judge makes the decision & the GAL is not seen as 'biased' or unable/unwilling to allow the other parent opportunities to remain in the child's life. Remember also, there is Trust between the GALs & Courts to the extent that the Judge can and will rule differently than the GAL....if it is in the Child's Best Interests.

My 2c

 

[escape2paradise]

I *think* what the GAL is *trying* to do is ensure the child is ABLE to have contact with the other parent, if not under IDEAL circumstances, at least under the existing circumstances... unless/until such time the other parent's behavior escalates to the point of Supervision being absolutely necessary &/or until the Court's order it.

I do get that, however, I think everyone involved can clearly see that X's restricted involvement since summer has had a positive impact on DD. She is doing remarkably well since he hasn't had oppurtunity to manipulate her. What is better for the child, continue to allow dad to abuse, have dad force child to do things ie running away, that could potentially put child in harms way or require Dad visit where he can't do these things.

It seems that way, but it's actually a sort of protection/last chance for the other Parent. ie; the GAL works for the CHILD. Not either parent. The GAL looks at the long-term viability of a parent to remain in their child's life. Unification &/or reunification is ALWAYS preferred.

I agree, dad, should be involved in child's life, but not have the ability to harm the child.

However, I also agree that the Judge may not necessarily agree with the GALs line of thinking. BUT, then the Judge makes the decision & the GAL is not seen as 'biased' or unable/unwilling to allow the other parent opportunities to remain in the child's life. Remember also, there is Trust between the GALs & Courts to the extent that the Judge can and will rule differently than the GAL....if it is in the Child's Best Interests.

I hope the trial judge acts similarly to the commissioners. The last one point blank asked the GAL since when did child's wishes override the safety of the child? The GAL kept stating that child clearly wishes to spend time with Dad. The commissioner told her that her job as GAL was not to pave the way for the child to have what she wants, but to do what is in the child's best interest. I almost felt bad for the GAL after that scolding!

My 2c

Thanks, I think I need to be prepared for anything, but hope common sense rules the trial and not the antics of a grown man who spits in the face of authority.

The X's latest deal is claiming he is not DD's biological father. He sent a letter to my attorney last week saying he now wants a DNA test and me to pay for it. Funny he is the one who filed the paternity action and stated in his declaration that he is dad. He dared me in the filings to deny this and if I did that the court require me to pay for the testing. I don't deny it and could care less about the DNA test. Trust me,I didn't claim him to be dad because he was the best candidate. He was the only candidate. My concern here is getting DD swabbed and what she is going to think when she figures out Dad is now denying her. The GAL and my attorney say there is no way the DNA test is going to happen at this late date. I think it is all a tactic by the X to continue the trial.

The GAL hasn't spoken to DD since summer, she is going to meet with her tomorrow. Maybe the GAL seeing for herself the positive changes in DD, back to her old self, will give her pause to reconsider what is in DD's best interest.

 

[casa]

I do get that, however, I think everyone involved can clearly see that X's restricted involvement since summer has had a positive impact on DD. She is doing remarkably well since he hasn't had oppurtunity to manipulate her. What is better for the child, continue to allow dad to abuse, have dad force child to do things ie running away, that could potentially put child in harms way or require Dad visit where he can't do these things.

I think there are more than just those 2 options (harm or restricted visits).

I agree, dad, should be involved in child's life, but not have the ability to harm the child.



I hope the trial judge acts similarly to the commissioners. The last one point blank asked the GAL since when did child's wishes override the safety of the child? The GAL kept stating that child clearly wishes to spend time with Dad. The commissioner told her that her job as GAL was not to pave the way for the child to have what she wants, but to do what is in the child's best interest. I almost felt bad for the GAL after that scolding!

I didn't say the GAL does what the Child WANTS... I said their job is to try to determine what is Best for the child under individual circumstances. It's very severe to limit a parent's Rights...I'm just explaining they will allow all opportunities to the contrary BEFORE implimenting restrictions. That is not to say it will NOT happen, but that (up to this point) the GAL hasn't agreed with such.


Thanks, I think I need to be prepared for anything, but hope common sense rules the trial and not the antics of a grown man who spits in the face of authority.

It's always wisest to go in realizing you may not get what you've asked for...but still be Hopeful for the outcome you desire. Being prepared is the best way to take the emotion out of it.

The X's latest deal is claiming he is not DD's biological father. He sent a letter to my attorney last week saying he now wants a DNA test and me to pay for it. Funny he is the one who filed the paternity action and stated in his declaration that he is dad. He dared me in the filings to deny this and if I did that the court require me to pay for the testing. I don't deny it and could care less about the DNA test. Trust me,I didn't claim him to be dad because he was the best candidate. He was the only candidate. My concern here is getting DD swabbed and what she is going to think when she figures out Dad is now denying her. The GAL and my attorney say there is no way the DNA test is going to happen at this late date. I think it is all a tactic by the X to continue the trial.

First of all, I would NOT feel the need to explain Dad is 'denying' paternity. Rather, I'd explain it as a medical procedure (DNA) which is legally required in some cases. Do not make an emotional situation more dramatic with explanations outside of what is necessary.

The GAL hasn't spoken to DD since summer, she is going to meet with her tomorrow. Maybe the GAL seeing for herself the positive changes in DD, back to her old self, will give her pause to reconsider what is in DD's best interest.

That last paragraph is very important. UNTIL the GAL is able to review DD's progress & Dad's progress (or lack of) ....she will not have an accurately updated overview of the whole situation. Until the GAL has again met with DD and again states the same opinion....You are only assuming she will feel the same way she felt almost a year ago.

I would wait to see what the GAL actually says NOW.

 

[escape2paradise]

I think there are more than just those 2 options (harm or restricted visits).

I am willing to listen to any ideas you have. So far nothing has seemed to stop X from manipulating DD until his visitation was removed. He won't go to counseling, he won't even acknowledge that what he is doing is harmful in anyway. He admits a lot, not all, of his influence on DD, his involvement of her, but see's nothing wrong with his behavior. As the GAL states he doesn't understand proper parent child boundaries, thinks DD is an adult encourages her to defy all authority, except his of course.

Please elaborate on any ideas you have, I need as many fresh ideas as I can get.

I didn't say the GAL does what the Child WANTS... I said their job is to try to determine what is Best for the child under individual circumstances. It's very severe to limit a parent's Rights...I'm just explaining they will allow all opportunities to the contrary BEFORE implimenting restrictions. That is not to say it will NOT happen, but that (up to this point) the GAL hasn't agreed with such.

I wasn't stating that this was your claim. I was saying that according to the commissioner our GAL seems to be confused with her role. She keeps reiterating the child's supposed wishes, not what the child's best interest is. I agree with the commissioner, I think she is a little bent on trying to give what she percieves DD wants (at least what she wanted last year) and is discounting the harm done and potential harm of not helping Dad to stop the destructive behavior.

First of all, I would NOT feel the need to explain Dad is 'denying' paternity. Rather, I'd explain it as a medical procedure (DNA) which is legally required in some cases. Do not make an emotional situation more dramatic with explanations outside of what is necessary.

I totally agree, however, you see I am at a severe disadvantage, because I bet you dad will tell DD that I am the one denying the paternity and then what do I say. I am not going to let dad blame everything on me and paint me a liar anymore. I have covered, and covered, and covered for dad all DD's life. Two years ago he was able to essentially put all the blame of his parental shortcoming's on me. Why, because DD only knew bits and pieces of the truth. Knew dad didn't show up most of the time to visit, but mom made excuses for dad. Dad, years later, tells DD mom kept her from him. DD knows Dad disappeared for 1/2 a year, but Dad tells DD I actually knew where he was at the whole time and just let DD worry he was dead or hurt somewhere. See what I mean. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I know it is in DD best interest to shelter her from the fact that her dad is a nutter, but in doing so I have opened the door for DAD to turn all of it around on me. That is what caused the disaster that was this entire last year. If I am not truthful with DD, I can almost promise Dad will tell her his skewed version of reality. Dad counts on the fact that I don't tell DD what is going on with the case, what is going on in the conflict between he and I and he uses that against me. Tells DD that I lie and keep the truth from her and here he is and will tell her everything, the "whole truth" as he puts it. Here's a quote from his reply last year "DD has caught E2P in more lies that it is worth E2P telling her the truth and being HONEST with DD instead of painting a perfect picture" He also goes on to say that "I (X) tell her (DD) everything - more than my wife. And she tells me everything." What do I do?

 

[casa]

I am willing to listen to any ideas you have. So far nothing has seemed to stop X from manipulating DD until his visitation was removed. He won't go to counseling, he won't even acknowledge that what he is doing is harmful in anyway. He admits a lot, not all, of his influence on DD, his involvement of her, but see's nothing wrong with his behavior. As the GAL states he doesn't understand proper parent child boundaries, thinks DD is an adult encourages her to defy all authority, except his of course.

Please elaborate on any ideas you have, I need as many fresh ideas as I can get.

Rather than restricted/supervised visitation, how about requesting the Court order a Co-Parenting Class, Parenting Class or Child/Family therapy. This suggests you are genuinely towards a solution. (Keeping in mind the CHILD does state they want a relationship w/other parent~ just that there are issues to be resolved for DDs well-being).

A Court is more likely to order those things, than Restriction.




I wasn't stating that this was your claim. I was saying that according to the commissioner our GAL seems to be confused with her role. She keeps reiterating the child's supposed wishes, not what the child's best interest is. I agree with the commissioner, I think she is a little bent on trying to give what she percieves DD wants (at least what she wanted last year) and is discounting the harm done and potential harm of not helping Dad to stop the destructive behavior.

One way to approach this would be to make sure you are thorough in your 'updating' of the GAL. ie; accomplishments/improvements since last seeing DD. Then follow that with your continuing concern re; Dad's behavior. ie; not showing for court. (Again, this is a good time to suggest family counseling, parenting classes, co-parenting or conflict resolution of some sort). GAL can be helpful in getting guidelines/time frames for such. THEN if Dad fails, you'll be able to proceed to restriction/visitation rather easily.


I totally agree, however, you see I am at a severe disadvantage, because I bet you dad will tell DD that I am the one denying the paternity and then what do I say. I am not going to let dad blame everything on me and paint me a liar anymore. I have covered, and covered, and covered for dad all DD's life. Two years ago he was able to essentially put all the blame of his parental shortcoming's on me. Why, because DD only knew bits and pieces of the truth. Knew dad didn't show up most of the time to visit, but mom made excuses for dad. Dad, years later, tells DD mom kept her from him. DD knows Dad disappeared for 1/2 a year, but Dad tells DD I actually knew where he was at the whole time and just let DD worry he was dead or hurt somewhere. See what I mean. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Mention it as I/similar to how I suggested (if/when asked) and drop it. Short, to the point, age-appropriate answers without all the extras - emotion, over-explaining, debating, adult content, etc. Eventually these types of responses will take some of the anxiety out of it all for yourself as well as DD.

I know it is in DD best interest to shelter her from the fact that her dad is a nutter, but in doing so I have opened the door for DAD to turn all of it around on me. That is what caused the disaster that was this entire last year. If I am not truthful with DD, I can almost promise Dad will tell her his skewed version of reality. Dad counts on the fact that I don't tell DD what is going on with the case, what is going on in the conflict between he and I and he uses that against me. Tells DD that I lie and keep the truth from her and here he is and will tell her everything, the "whole truth" as he puts it. Here's a quote from his reply last year "DD has caught E2P in more lies that it is worth E2P telling her the truth and being HONEST with DD instead of painting a perfect picture" He also goes on to say that "I (X) tell her (DD) everything - more than my wife. And she tells me everything" What do I do?

I would suggest these issues be brought up with GAL as well....and of course, in any mediation or conferences. It's usually covered under 'not speaking disparaginly of the other parent', but can also be 'not to address ongoing custody/court/adult issues with minor child'. Again, these issues would be handled in counseling. AND a Professional's opinion would weigh in on the actual psychological impact of the child. (beyond the GALs opinion, etc.)

I see it as the Courts (& usually parents) trying everything first. Restriction/Supervision is the last resort. If the situation hasn't been handled appropriately (therapy) from the beginning...then it is understandable there's been little progress.

Hang In There. I'm not saying give in to the nutter I'm saying make sure you really are trying everything first. Dad & Daughter COULD wind up with a viable relationship...in part (only in part)....due to how you have a hand in handling it Now. Isn't that worth the chance?

 

[escape2paradise]

Rather than restricted/supervised visitation, how about requesting the Court order a Co-Parenting Class, Parenting Class or Child/Family therapy. This suggests you are genuinely to wards a solution. (Keeping in mind the CHILD does state they want a relationship w/other parent~ just that there are issues to be resolved for DDs well-being).

A Court is more likely to order those things, than Restriction.

The parenting class offering's her are severely lacking IMO. I have looked, talked to my attorney, the GAL and even DSHS' Family Services about available co-parenting classes. As far as I know they do not exist in our area. The class that we were both ordered to take is called S.T.E.P. (Systematic Training for Effective Parenting). I took the class and X has yet to do so, both ordered to do so about this time last year. While the class was very informative on how to deal with a teen, it did not address any co-parenting issues with an X. I am going to bring this up with the GAL again. Who knows maybe there is something new out there that wasn't available last year.

I would suggest these issues be brought up with GAL as well....and of course, in any mediation or conferences. It's usually covered under 'not speaking disparaginly of the other parent', but can also be 'not to address ongoing custody/court/adult issues with minor child'. Again, these issues would be handled in counseling. AND a Professional's opinion would weigh in on the actual psychological impact of the child. (beyond the GALs opinion, etc.)

GAL is well aware of X and his disparaging remarks. A lot of this came out in family counseling shortly after this all started. Counselor reported directly to GAL. Also, X is so not together, that he tells the GAL how terrible I am and the discussions he has had with DD along those lines. I'm sure in one of his many "Truth" tirades. I don't know what DD's counselor has told GAL in this regard, but I know DD has at least mentioned it to her counselor. The counselor has asked me questions about why I think X may be so hostile towards me. There is no question in GAL's mind what dad is doing, she had discussed it with me at length and it is all over her reports.

I see it as the Courts (& usually parents) trying everything first. Restriction/Supervision is the last resort. If the situation hasn't been handled appropriately (therapy) from the beginning...then it is understandable there's been little progress.

We (DD, me and my husband) attended family counseling for months when this first started. X was requested by the family counselor to participate in sessions. He declined even though our court order stated that all parties should attend at the request of said counselor. DD has attended an individual counselor since before the family counseling started and continues to do so now.

The GAL does talk with DD's counselor. Some things she has stated in her report, in regards to the counselor, have been opposite of what the counselor has said to me. For instance this past summer, the counselor called to tell me that X was involved with DD running away and that DD had told her so, this was the day after DD had run away last. (She is allowed to tell me this as it falls under the category of harm to DD) When I told her that DD may be going to spend half the summer with Dad, the counselor was concerned. She felt there should be more requirements than dad just having to pass a follicle test and she felt it would be too long a visit with no way to stop dad from his attempts to alienate daughter. A week later, the GAL interim report had a one liner comment about the counseling which said that DD's counselor said it would be "beneficial" for DD to spend half the summer with dad. While I can see that at some point in the their conversation the counselor could have said something to that effect. I am sure it was not her only comment on the situation as the GAL's report would lead one to believe. There have been other inconsistencies with GAL's report of the counselors findings as well.

Hang In There. I'm not saying give in to the nutter I'm saying make sure you really are trying everything first. Dad & Daughter COULD wind up with a viable relationship...in part (only in part)....due to how you have a hand in handling it Now. Isn't that worth the chance?

I realize I can't expect you or anyone on here for that matter to remember the details of my case. Dad was ordered to parenting classes, dad was ordered to participate in counseling, dad is ordered to pay half of DD's counseling, dad was ordered to take a hair follicle. Dad does not comply with any of the court orders and does not follow any suggestions made by the GAL. This is why the GAL is confident that dad will not comply now with any requirements placed on him. I think that the only way dad is going to get it is if he is forced to do the counseling and the only way to force him to do it is an either you do it or else. He doesn't get that he is hurting DD. He certainly won't listen to me, won't listen to his parents, won't listen to the GAL. I don't know what's left besides counseling and I guess we can't haul him their and make him do it!

Thanks for your help. I think I am going to revisit these issues with the GAL. Maybe we both need a reminder of what has happened over this last year and a half!

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

dad was ordered to take a hair follicle.

Does he still mimic Telly Savales? (or however that is spelled)

 

[escape2paradise]

Does he still mimic Telly Savales? (or however that is spelled)

I've only seen him once since the test was ordered in late July. That was on Halloween when daughter had a supervised visit at Grandma's. He had a few inches at least then.

There's no reason he can't take the test now, he just plain refuses to do so. DD told me back in October that her dad was staying sober. I tried not to say too much, just told her that was a good thing. I haven't heard anything about him being sober since then and since he still hasn't taken the test, I seriously doubt the sobriety lasted. Shocker, I've only heard dad claim he is getting sober about a bazillion times now. The longest I've ever seen him last is four weeks and three of those he was in inpatient treatment.

 

[LdiJ]

I would suggest these issues be brought up with GAL as well....and of course, in any mediation or conferences. It's usually covered under 'not speaking disparaginly of the other parent', but can also be 'not to address ongoing custody/court/adult issues with minor child'. Again, these issues would be handled in counseling. AND a Professional's opinion would weigh in on the actual psychological impact of the child. (beyond the GALs opinion, etc.)

I see it as the Courts (& usually parents) trying everything first. Restriction/Supervision is the last resort. If the situation hasn't been handled appropriately (therapy) from the beginning...then it is understandable there's been little progress.

Hang In There. I'm not saying give in to the nutter I'm saying make sure you really are trying everything first. Dad & Daughter COULD wind up with a viable relationship...in part (only in part)....due to how you have a hand in handling it Now. Isn't that worth the chance?

Casa, we all know that a parenting class for a parent who is darned determined to alienate the other parent is not going to be of any value whatsoever. It works for a parent who honestly has the child's best interest at heart, but can't get there on their own, but it doesn't work for someone like the dad in this case. This case is way beyond a parenting class.

The fact that dad is now insisting on challenging paternity is extremely "telling" of dad's motivation. If he really was motivated out of love for his child, the LAST thing that he would be doing at this point is challenging paternity. Even if he suspected that she wasn't his biological child, after all he has done the LAST thing that he would do is bring THAT up.

I don't think that you are helping the OP here....I think that this case is already several steps beyond that kind of advice being of any help.

This is a case where, and very sadly, a parent's access really does need to be restricted, for the sake of the child. I sincerely hope that eventually the court views it the same way.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

ldij, I agree, but only to a point. If the GAL is going to recommend open access to this parent BECAUSE he won't comply with court orders, then angling it the way Casa recommended might show that Escape is really looking out for the best interest of the child.

We all know the saying about leading a horse to water ... It appears that for the X, CONTROL is the biggest issue. He can't stand that others are telling him what to do, and by golly, he just won't do it.