• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Kids say they don't have to visit

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

penelope10

Senior Member
Actually - the judge made the ruling. The jury did not. The judge said that there was a 71% chance he was guilty (or something in that range) and the judge felt that was not beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't remember what the guy blew in the breathalyser but it was well over the limit.

If that had been you or I, 71% would have easily been beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further - I have friends who work with CASA who've seen time after time this very same judge award custody to the druggie parent, or the one with a criminal record.

Just wanted to point out that the correct term is NOT midget, but dwarf. And from what I remember reasonable doubt was created because he was driving his wife's car---so the breaks etc were adjusted to her specifications, not his. Plus the guy is also handicapped--he has weak legs and walks with the aid of crutches. From what I remember it was determined that a standard field sobriety test was not truly a fair assessment given this handicap. Sorry I don't remember anything about him blowing over the legal limit or if he even took a breath test. So the Judge may not have been unfair in this ruling.

In regards to your children not wanting to visit etc....The bottom line is that your children do not act as if they respect you. I believe it was fully within your rights to have the cell phones turned off if they were acting in a disrespectful manner. Now you need to follow up and attempt to exercise your visitation. That means showing up to the house to pick them up. I agree that it should not be a knock down, drag out to get them in the car. Even if they refuse at first, at least they know you are making the effort and may come around in time. And of course there are legal avenues to address the issue.

I have not read all your previous threads, but if you are in arrears you do not have a say so in how the money is spent. Is there anything in your current order about how medical bills are to be split?(In other words you might still owe the arrears plus pay for half of orthodontics)
 


Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Actually - the judge made the ruling. The jury did not. The judge said that there was a 71% chance he was guilty (or something in that range) and the judge felt that was not beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't remember what the guy blew in the breathalyser but it was well over the limit.

If that had been you or I, 71% would have easily been beyond a reasonable doubt.Further - I have friends who work with CASA who've seen time after time this very same judge award custody to the druggie parent, or the one with a criminal record.

BULL. 71% is NEVER beyond a reasonable doubt. End of story. And sometimes the druggie parent or the one with the criminal record is the parent working in the best interests of the children. That is a FACT.
 

penelope10

Senior Member
BULL. 71% is NEVER beyond a reasonable doubt. End of story. And sometimes the druggie parent or the one with the criminal record is the parent working in the best interests of the children. That is a FACT.

As I stated the reasonable doubt was created due to this particular gentleman's handicap in regards to the field sobriety test. I personally don't remember the judge saying that he felt that there was a 71% chance that this person was guilty. (Only that there was reasonable doubt given the unusual circumstances-dwarfism plus handicaps).
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
As a stated the reasonable doubt was created due to this particular gentleman's handicap in regards to the field sobriety test. I personally don't remember the judge saying that he felt that there was a 71% chance that this person was guilty. (Only that there was reasonable doubt given the unusual circumstances-dwarfism plus handicaps).

However the judge did find him guilty of refusing to give a breath test AND failure to maintain his lane. OP is distorting things. I will admit I was incorrect -- it was a jury trial but one of the jurors brought in OUTSIDE information which caused a mistrial.
 

penelope10

Senior Member
However the judge did find him guilty of refusing to give a breath test AND failure to maintain his lane. OP is distorting things. I will admit I was incorrect -- it was a jury trial but one of the jurors brought in OUTSIDE information which caused a mistrial.

You are so smart! How did you get that information so fast!:)
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
OP read this article as you are off base. He didn't find him 71% guilty.


Little People, Big World patriarch Matt Roloff's drunk-driving trial has come to an end, but not before it took a strange turn due to apparent jury misconduct.


Washington County Circuit Judge Donald R. Letourneau found Roloff not guilty of drunken driving stemming from his June 19 arrest, The Oregonian reported Thursday.

"I'm glad it's over," Roloff told The Oregonian as he left the courthouse. "I'm just anxious to get back to spend time with the family."

RELATED LINKS
Reality TV World: Little People, Big World

More Little People, Big World News


Prior to handing down the verdict, Letourneau said the trial's six-man misdemeanor jury disobeyed his order to not seek out additional information on the case. While Roloff could have sought a mistrial due to the jury's misconduct, his defense attorney Robert Thuemmel instead asked the jury be dismissed and Letourneau hand down the verdict, The Oregonian reported.

"In my mind, it was like somebody threw a stick of dynamite into the courtroom," Thuemmel told The Oregonian when asked about the jurors checking the Internet to "go beyond the evidence" presented in Roloff's trial.

The 46-year-old pleaded not guilty in July to a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicants stemming from the aforementioned arrest that began when a deputy followed his vehicle leaving a bar and subsequently stopped Roloff for failing to drive within his designated lane. Roloff was reportedly driving a 2005 Chevrolet van through an unincorporated area of Washington County, OR at the time of the his 11:52PM traffic stop.

"Mr. Roloff allegedly failed the field sobriety test and was arrested for DUII," the police report from Roloff's arrest states. "Mr. Roloff was transported to the Washington County Jail where he was cited for DUII, refusing the breath test, and failure to drive within the lane."

When Roloff testified on Wednesday about the night he was arrested, he claimed to have had one beer at home before traveling to Rock Creek Cafe & Pub -- but only to drop off a friend in the parking lot, according to The Oregonian.

Roloff said during testimony he was tired at the time of the arrest due to a cross-country RV trip his family took and had difficulty driving his wife Amy's van because her pedal extensions fit differently than his.

While he was found not guilty of drunker driving, Letourneau did find Roloff guilty of refusing to take a breath test and not staying in his lane of travel -- fining him $742 for the violations and $103 in court fees, according to The Oregonian.

Before Roloff's trial began, The Oregonian reported that Letourneau "cautioned" the jury each night to not read or watch media coverage of the trial -- which included local television and radio stations, area newspapers as well as TLC and truTV coverage -- and to also not look-up any legal definitions on their own.

After the jury endured two days of testimony and deliberated three hours on Wednesday and another half-hour on Thursday, The Oregonian reported its members sent Letourneau a note that two of them had disobeyed the judge and looked up the definitions of "implied consent" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" via the Internet. In addition, one of the jurors also checked the accuracy of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which The Oregonian reported deputies testified Roloff failed twice on the night of his arrest.

"We came in this morning and we discovered things with this jury had gone seriously off the tracks," Theummel told The Oregonian. "This created an unworkable situation for us because it brought things into the case that we didn't know how to deal with and we didn't know how to confront."

While Letourneau could have found the jurors in contempt of court and fined or jailed them, according to The Oregonian, he instead decided to make an example of them to let the community know how crucial it is "to follow the rule of law."

In addition, Letourneau added the Oregon Supreme Court has found the horizontal gaze nystagmus test to be only 77% accurate, leading to the acquittal.

"That is not beyond a reasonable doubt," said Letourneau, according to The Oregonian.

Due to a previous drunken-driving diversion program that records show Roloff agreed to enter and completed in 2003 -- The Oregonian reported the state's "implied consent" law applied to Roloff following his June arrest -- leading his driver's license to be suspended for three years because he refused to take a breath test.

Despite being found not guilty of drunken driving, The Oregonian reported Roloff is still unable to receive his license any sooner.

Little People, Big World first premiered on TLC in March 2006 and has since aired two additional installments. The docu-reality series follows Matthew and his wife Amy -- both of whom have dwarfism along with their son Zach -- in their daily lives. The Roloff's other three children, Jeremy, Molly and Jacob, also appear in the show. The family resides on a 34-acre farm in Helvetia, OR.

He is also without his driver's license. If you want to criticize the judge try using something other than the judge following the law. Should we look up the judge's record? I would be more than happy to try.
 
Just wanted to point out that the correct term is NOT midget, but dwarf. And from what I remember reasonable doubt was created because he was driving his wife's car---so the breaks etc were adjusted to her specifications, not his. Plus the guy is also handicapped--he has weak legs and walks with the aid of crutches. From what I remember it was determined that a standard field sobriety test was not truly a fair assessment given this handicap. Sorry I don't remember anything about him blowing over the legal limit or if he even took a breath test. So the Judge may not have been unfair in this ruling.

In regards to your children not wanting to visit etc....The bottom line is that your children do not act as if they respect you. I believe it was fully within your rights to have the cell phones turned off if they were acting in a disrespectful manner. Now you need to follow up and attempt to exercise your visitation. That means showing up to the house to pick them up. I agree that it should not be a knock down, drag out to get them in the car. Even if they refuse at first, at least they know you are making the effort and may come around in time. And of course there are legal avenues to address the issue.

I have not read all your previous threads, but if you are in arrears you do not have a say so in how the money is spent. Is there anything in your current order about how medical bills are to be split?(In other words you might still owe the arrears plus pay for half of orthodontics)

My apologies - my mistake on terminology; you are correct.

I am making attempts at visitation. They just say "We don't have to go if we don't want to." and Dad goes ahead and makes plans with them during my visitation. Their attorney has passed along the message to my attorney that it would be best if I didn't force the children to do anything they don't want to. It only makes them resent me.

I understand that Dad has the option of spending the arrears any way he chooses. The dollar amount I set aside was to be his portion of the braces. My insurance pays for the first $2500, I put aside $1500 in my flex spending account and then this $1300 would be ex's portion. He's chosen not to use it towards braces. All non-covered expense of insurance are to be shared 50/50 so this actually would have been a break for him.

We still have not settled on arrears. Had the order from the settlement hearing been signed that day, I would have written the check right then and there. Now I'm told to hold off on the final check until we settle. I mailed the full amount for this month so I'm on top of current child support. We just didn't know how much to base the CS on previously because ex would not turn in his documents. They arrived just two weeks before the settlement conference.

Honestly, all I want to do right now is get a set visitation in place and follow it. I'm not asking to have my kids here every other weekend even. But I don't want months to go by without having an opportunity to see them when they live just 6 miles away. There are no after school sports right now so nothing to sit on the bleachers and watch. The only thing my kids seem willing to accept is if I offer to take them out shopping or to dinner. I'm sorry... but I don't think it's setting a good precedent to give the kids the impression that I need to give them something just to have the opportunity to spend time with them. I will occasionally, of course but for regular visitation? Why can't we cook a meal at home together or go for a bike ride? I'm just tired of the legal system telling me how to spend (literally) time with my kids.
 

TinkerBelleLuvr

Senior Member
Go to dad's and pick up the children at the regularly scheduled time. Don't care if dad said there were other plans. Take a witness. Document, document, document. So, when it goes to court for contempt, it can be shown what is going on.

Get off your pity party and DO something about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top