Where do we go ? Who can help us ??

[Boxcarbill]

I didn't say that wasn't her goal.. just to not go into a counselors office sounding as if that's her ONLY goal. Yes, I realize that it could be but then how do you not know this counselor sees that, agrees to do it then goes to court and when asked says. "Father and step-mom came to my office and the first thing they asked was if I would testify in their behalf in order for them to win custody."? As I said it may in fact be the goal and I'm not saying not to ask and not to find someone that would do it but not to go in there looking like they are simply doing this to go out for revenge. A counselor may be reluctant then.

Here is how you know. You are honest and forthright and tell the psychologist that she is being hired to evaluate the child concerning visitation with the mother. She either interviews the child and says, " I have concern in this area and I feel that visitations with the mother should be . . . . " n which case she testifies accordingly. Or she says, " The child is curious about the drinking and the arguing in the mother's home but the child does not have any serious concerns and based upon my findings I cannot recommend that the child's visitation with Mom be limited. In fact, I would have to testify based upon my observation that any limitation with the Mom would be far more harmful than the continuing contact" Then you say, "Thank you very much. We appreciate the information and we feel better knowing that you don't have any serious concerns. We won't be needing your testimony at trial." And then you say, "Wow, I feel much better knowing this" and drop the request for supervised visitations. Or you say, "I don't give a damn what that stupid bitch thinks. Somewhere there is a psychologist who will say whatever I need them to say for the right price and I want that psychologist." Her lawyer can tell her which psychologists are reputable and which is anyone's dog that will hunt with them. The judges know which is which too. Hence my earlier post.

A psychologist owes a duty to her client. And psychologist have a disciplining committee.. And when a psychologist hides behind the log and torpedoes her client's case in the manner that you described her a55 is grass. That is how you know that the psychologist will tell you what her evaluation revealed and what are her recommendation based upon that evaluation are before trial.

 

[mamadi]

Boxcar - In your highly qualified opinion (I'm such a kiss up) do you think this is grounds for supervised visitation or are these incidents of drinking/driving and domestic violence not "serious" enough yet ??

In my readings it seems like it has to take an awful lot of horrible events to even consider supervised visitation. Or it takes something terrible to happen to the kids before it's considered.

Should we not worry with that yet and just let a therapist make a recommendation after talking with children and wait for trial ??

It's hard to put the issue of supervised visitation aside knowing we will be sending them back there in two weeks. I feel awful knowing what we know but still sending the kids into that environment.

You've been very helpful today and we really appreciate it

 

[Boxcarbill]

Boxcar - In your highly qualified opinion (I'm such a kiss up) do you think this is grounds for supervised visitation or are these incidents of drinking/driving and domestic violence not "serious" enough yet ??

In my readings it seems like it has to take an awful lot of horrible events to even consider supervised visitation. Or it takes something terrible to happen to the kids before it's considered.

Should we not worry with that yet and just let a therapist make a recommendation after talking with children and wait for trial ??

It's hard to put the issue of supervised visitation aside knowing we will be sending them back there in two weeks. I feel awful knowing what we know but still sending the kids into that environment.

You've been very helpful today and we really appreciate it

I can't tell you whether this is grounds for supervised visitations because I don't know the extent of the problem. People drink. That is not a basis for supervised visitation. Parents argue and sometimes they get into shoving matches and that is not grounds for supervised visitations. If it were a lot of parents would not have visitations with their children--both married and divorced parents. Having a few drinks and driving is not illegal either. It is having a few drinks in such a short period of time and then driving while the blood alcohol level is higher than the legal level which is prohibited. Many people have a DWI including the President of the United States (and I'm sorry but the increased penalties now from then in no way changes the legal acts of DWI then and now) and they still have their children. So, no, I do not see even a DWI as grounds for limitation of visitation.

I do believe that if there is proof of driving while intoxicated, that the mother needs to be made aware of the very real danger of doing so and if that requires attending an alcohol offender program to see that and hear from victims of DWI, then she needs to be required to attend and complete the program.

The fact of the matter is different people do things differently. Divorced parents become enraged over everything. I've had clients raise hell because Dad (ncp) had Harley calendar girls on the refrig and it offended Mom's religious beliefs. I've had Mom (ncp) upset because the children weren't allowed to watch regular commercial television with Dad because "He's a freak and a holy roller." I've had Dad (ncp) raise hell because Mom was home schooling the children. I have Mom (c.p) not let her child wear his glasses to Dad's house because the boy would loose them. (Custody was changed during that hearing on that basis alone. The Judge found that the mother was attempting to make the visitation so unpleasant for the child because he couldn't have his glasses that he wouldn't want to go. Mother claimed that the boy really didn't need his glasses. The Judge had the child remove his glasses and then asked him to describe the picture hanging behind her desk.)

I think if you are genuinely concerned have a reputable psychologist evaluate the child and see if these things are causing harm which out weighs the harm that would result from loss of contact with the mother. Personally I seriously doubt it but I don't know what is actually happening. I do know that limiting contact between a child and their parents is harmful for a child so there should be a very compelling reason for doing so.

The client I told you about earlier had trained his children in how to call him and how to call 911 in case they felt frightened by being with their mom.

 

[mamadi]

You're right again Boxcarbill. We really do not want supervised visitation because that would ultimately lead to limiting mom's time with the children. Basically what we really want is someone, a professional to help cororborate (?spelling) that these incidents that we are hearing about are true and for someone to get a hold of mom and let her know these things can't be happening.
(of course we've already tried that -- I guess it needs to be a much higher power than DH LOL)

We also definitely want to make certain that these things are not affecting the children in a negative way, although I cannot see how it wouldn't.

BTW we did teach the children to dial 911 and we explained to them what would constitute an emergency. BM was very upset when she found out the kids knew how to dial 911. She told DH he was "stalking" her. She also told him "you told the kids to call 911 if anyone has a beer". Which is not the case , if so they would have to call when we had a beer also. She got so mad that she told the kids they were never to call 911. Therefore, I imagine that's why they haven't called when these incidents were taking place.

This is what we are dealing with Boxcarbill. Thanks again dear !

 

[stealth2]

Some additional thoughts... You might ask your lawyer for recommendations in terms of a therapist. S/he will know who is amenable to testifying and who won't. We had a GAL appointed (called a law guardian in NYS), and she suggested that the kids would benefit from speaking with a counselor. I got some names from my lawyer and went with the one I liked best in terms of interaction with the kids. She would have been willing to testify, but as an added bonus spoke with the GAL and provided her impressions. That went a long way, IMO.

 

[Boxcarbill]

Today's lecture in Law 101 will be evidence.

Basically what we really want is someone, a professional to help cororborate (?spelling) that these incidents that we are hearing about are true . . . . /B]

I want to take a little time to comment on this statement because it is important. (Not the spelling or form of the statement but rather the substance.) The idea that the professional can corroborate that these incidents are true is misplaced. The psychologist cannot do that. Let me explain why not. A corroborating witness is present during the incident in which they are testifying. Therefore parties to an offense can corroborate who was the mastermind of the crime. Guests at the party can corroborate the alibi that a suspect was, in fact, at the party during the time period in which the crime occurred. But the psychologist cannot testify to something that she did not observe.

What the psychologist knows about "these incidents" are based solely upon what someone else has told her. She can state that the boy told her that monsters live in his closet and that they come out at night and try to carry him off. If doesn't make the statement true. Same is true of regarding "these incidents."

A statement, other than one made by the declarant made while testifying at trial, offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay. Hearsay is not admissible unless the Hearsay fits within one of the exceptions. If the psychologist were asked to repeat the statements told by the boy regarding these incidents for the purpose of proving that these incidents are true, it is hearsay and it is inadmissible. The statements regarding the monsters living in the closet are admissible because they are not offered to prove that their are monsters live in the boy's closet (truth of the matter asserted) but are being offered to prove state of mind of the boy.

Class is excused

 

[mamadi]

I see what you are saying. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I see that it's pretty hard to actually "prove" what a child is saying to be true. Especially if that child is the only one who can tell you what happened.

I had another thought. Should DH share these incidents with his lawyer and let him know that he will be taking son to a counselor ? What do you think about DH's lawyer informing BM's lawyer about SS sharing these incidents with dad ?

I didn't know if that way BM's lawyer can try to talk to her and try to reason with her that these are dangerous happenings for the children to be witnessing in hopes that when the children go back there's less of a chance for it happening again. Or do we just sit back and see what happens ???

I think we will definitely start with the counselor and see where it goes from there. Thanks once again Boxcarbill ! I can't thank you enough !!

 

[Boxcarbill]

I see what you are saying. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I see that it's pretty hard to actually "prove" what a child is saying to be true. Especially if that child is the only one who can tell you what happened.


I had another thought. Should DH share these incidents with his lawyer and let him know that he will be taking son to a counselor ? What do you think about DH's lawyer informing BM's lawyer about SS sharing these incidents with dad ?

I didn't know if that way BM's lawyer can try to talk to her and try to reason with her that these are dangerous happenings for the children to be witnessing in hopes that when the children go back there's less of a chance for it happening again. Or do we just sit back and see what happens ???

I think we will definitely start with the counselor and see where it goes from there. Thanks once again Boxcarbill ! I can't thank you enough !!

I definitely think both are a good ideas. If the counselor may be used at trial, your lawyer certainly needs to know about the counseling and who will be doing it. Also I think it is a good idea for parents to express their concerns to one another about the safety and welfare of their children. Sometimes going through lawyers is a better way to get your message heard rather than stating it yourself. When people are being accused, they cannot hear what is being said to them because they are too busy thinking about what their reply will be. The dialogue quickly degenerates into a accusations and defenses. Her lawyer can tell her about the concern and she will hear it!

 

[mamadi]

That's what we were thinking would be the best way to go. Any time DH tries to talk to her about any concerns she ends up cussing him out and hanging up the phone.

Boxcarbill you've been such a tremendous help in pointing us in the right direction. We'd buy ya a drink if we could Thanks so much !

And thanks to everyone else who helped out also !!

 

[Boxcarbill]

You're welcome.

 

[mamadi]

DH typed letter to lawyer concerning these incidents because he will not have time to speak with him tomorrow (mamadi gets to have surgery on her broken foot tomorrow - yahoo). We will be dropping letter off on the way to the hospital.

One of our concerns is that once BM realizes SS is telling dad things she told him not to tell, that he will get in serious trouble. He will also receive a guilt trip. She likes to make him feel bad about everything, including liking me (stepmom).