CP jailed, plan B?

[paterunum]

I agree that in this context it is a huge no-no. It is not an emergency situation that would justify invoking that clause in UCCJEA.

A request for a hearing in the court which currently has jurisdiction is most appropriate.

What is UCCJEA?

I think I'll just be lucky if I do get the courts to grant me visitation with stronger enforcement (and the current caregiver refused to let me talk to the child, and he will be utterly unwilling to drive the child to Mom's area of residence where CO states I should start his travel - nor will he diverge from the letter of the CO), though I cannot be blamed for trying to give more to this child (you know, it ain't going to be easy to be single dad, but I would do my best).

Ex husband/care-giver also said "You will talk through CPS only" - not courts, CPS. But that could be just him threatening about the alleged molestation ...sorry, I'm still in shock: if you knew me, you would see I'm the kind of rather meek guy whom nobody would suspect of such things - I know this may not matter, but I think it was a factor in the interviews I had with CPS and PD: my openness and cooperation with them was thorough [when asked about med. info and finances - these were parts of CP's accusations - I gave them more than they asked for: all my passwords to med. recs., financial recs., etc. - ... too trusting?]. The apparent trust they showed in return is also what induced me to keep contact with them.

I'm keeping contact also because the case of "emotional abuse" that I had opened BEFORE CP opened hers on child molestation, is still open. (But I made a mistake contacting them yesterday to inquire about ex husband's report).

Of course the biggest factor in my favor in those CPS PD interviews was the overwhelming evidence of CP's wrongdoing and coaching of our child, plus the child's own testimony in forensic interview.

Ronin, sorry, I thought I had said earlier that CP was released from jail after a couple of days (big bond). She's just not allowed to reside with the child until her trial is set up, and rehab is completed.

That's all I know, and, true, CPS never gave me a detailed answer on whether they simply placed the child in emergency care, or actually took formal custody of the child. I asked them, via email, three times. They only answered to my first inquiry saying how this was done ALL on the night of the arrest: decision to send the child to step sister AND decision that one week later he would go with ex husband. But I don't know if the second step required court documentation with CPS.

Care-giver's statement about "going through CPS" might also imply that CPS have custody, but, again, I think he just meant "you are being investigated on a highly 'immoral act', a simple fact that supersedes any rights you might have from the CO" (he knows just as well as CP that, this time, I could really have a chance to keep the child for a while, and he wouldn't want to deal with the consequences from crazy mom, and mom of his two children too).

 

[paterunum]

Just a quick update. I had an email reply from CPS. They do NOT have custody. CP still has custody. They also wrote that they have no objection to the child traveling across state lines, as established by CO.

Now, it's just a matter of having CO modified, because CO does not entitle me to pick up the child from the ex husband's residence OR to drive him all the way from mom's residence. + the ex husband for sure is NOT going to drive the 300 miles to take the child to mom's residence, nor is the child going to be willing to fly.

Why can I not file for BOTH temporary custody AND modified visitation schedule. Can my atty. not explain to the judge that we are concerned and aim at option 1 but, if that cannot be granted, we must at least find practical ways to get my child to visit for long term?

 

[CJane]

Right now, isn't Mom only being held pending bail?

She's not yet been tried/convicted, yes?

And I know I've said this many many times, but your lack of relationship with the child (regardless of whose fault that lack of relationship IS) isn't going to help you at all. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to show that it's in the child's best interests to be uprooted AGAIN and moved out of state to wherever it is that you live, on a temp basis.

Particularly when yet ANOTHER person has contacted CPS regarding molestation accusations against you.

 

[paterunum]

Right now, isn't Mom only being held pending bail?

She's not yet been tried/convicted, yes?

And I know I've said this many many times, but your lack of relationship with the child (regardless of whose fault that lack of relationship IS) isn't going to help you at all. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to show that it's in the child's best interests to be uprooted AGAIN and moved out of state to wherever it is that you live, on a temp basis.

Particularly when yet ANOTHER person has contacted CPS regarding molestation accusations against you.

Mom is at home, but the trial is pending.

Answer to second Para: if CPS is telling me I can take the child across state lines, it means that either 1) they follow the letter of the CO, regardless of the NEW investigation or 2) they already believe this new accusation is unfounded. ... or both.

But the "lack of contact" and the new "uprooting" may be a problem, I see. Mom is bad, and that can be easily proven. But current ex husband is not, and, as I said, he also chairs a child advocacy center.... yet, it seems unnatural to me that the child should stay with him and NOT an actual CP family member. Despite his credentials, I do not think he's safe for the child, especially now that he supports Mom's version of the facts, and continuous poor influence on the child (you may smile at this, but I'm not just saying this in self-defence).

So you all seem to point in the direction of just trying to get visitation (modified, because of basic impossibility of previous CO travel arrangements), through the court. ALL? Ohiogal? In light of further explanations, are you still saying I should act ASAP to get my child to stay with me instead of a non-relative?

And even if so, why can I not at least try? How could this backfire on me? Is it because you think a judge would see it as some kind of "cover" against an investigation against me? You don't think we would show the same evidence I showed to the first PD investigators, including subpoenaeing their testimony? You don't think I would offer all possible checks on my environment and background, school system, and show how well the child would thrive here? Assuming the judge takes all that evidence into consideration, how else could my motion backfire?

And finally, is it "technically" possible to have in the same motion a request for temp custody and an alternative for a feasible visitation arrangement? (I mean this last ? only from a technical/legal standpoint, regardless of the bearing on this case).

 

[paterunum]

P.S.: by mom being at home, I am just assuming: jail open recs. told me she posted bail, and was out in a few days, but the trial is pending. Until then, she cannot "reside" with the child, only visit him under supervision. But she's still the CP.

 

[CJane]

P.S.: by mom being at home, I am just assuming: jail open recs. told me she posted bail, and was out in a few days, but the trial is pending. Until then, she cannot "reside" with the child, only visit him under supervision. But she's still the CP.

How do you know she cannot "reside" with the child?

 

[LdiJ]

How do you know she cannot "reside" with the child?

And if she cannot reside with the child, then how can CPS not be involved and not have taken custody of the child?

Seriously, if mom still has custody, without CPS involvement then there can be no prohibition against mom residing with the child.

If there is a prohibition against mom residing with the child, then CPS has to be involved and has to have custody of the child.

 

[PQN]

Cps

Not necessarily. CPS in our area will sometimes offer a 'deal'. They will not get formally involved as long as parent(s) sign a safety plan that could include the child living elsewhere as chosen by the parent or certain people not being allowed near the children, etc. If someone reports the parent for not following the safety plan, then CPS grabs the child.

It puts the parents in a tight spot because they have the option to protect their child by sending him to live with grandma but because it is not 'official' CPS never takes them to court to prove their innocence and if they break the safety plan, CPS assumes guilt on the first allegation and uses the fact that the parents signed a safety plan against them in court (as in 'mom agreed to the need for a safety plan')

 

[CJane]

And if she cannot reside with the child, then how can CPS not be involved and not have taken custody of the child?

Seriously, if mom still has custody, without CPS involvement then there can be no prohibition against mom residing with the child.

If there is a prohibition against mom residing with the child, then CPS has to be involved and has to have custody of the child.

And again, I think that OP has NO IDEA what is happening, and his attorney couldn't care less because he knows he's not getting paid, and it's unlikely that OP will get any form of temp custody due to his lack of relationship with the child.

 

[paterunum]

And again, I think that OP has NO IDEA what is happening, and his attorney couldn't care less because he knows he's not getting paid, and it's unlikely that OP will get any form of temp custody due to his lack of relationship with the child.

I DO have now a clearer idea of what happened. CPS told me in no unquestionable terms that they DO NOT have custody of the child. They placed the child under emergency care (not custody) with CP's ex husband based on CP's suggestion, which indicates that kind of arrangement described by PQN.

My atty. has not been the sharpest/quickest, and it's NOT because I'm not paying him. I pay him alright. He has just cut me some slack because 1) I kept him on the case for over four years 2) he knows my financial situation 3) he's aware of the couple of mistakes he made in the past about this case and he is admittedly "amending" for that. I know I should have fired him after the FIRST mistake, but now I cannot think of anyone else seeing this job through without need for catching up with a huge backlog of info, court orders, violations, evidence, etc., and with consequent huge expenses I would not afford.

If you think that some atty. in the TX area would slam this quickly without needing much instruction/background info, please let me know, via private msg. if possible (in that case, I would reply individually with all the info on court district etc.).

 

[CJane]

I DO have now a clearer idea of what happened. CPS told me in no unquestionable terms that they DO NOT have custody of the child. They placed the child under emergency care (not custody) with CP's ex husband based on CP's suggestion, which indicates that kind of arrangement described by PQN.

If CPS was so involved as to enact a safety plan, and to tell Mom that she cannot "reside with" the child, then they should be able to tell you exactly what is in that safety plan and exactly how long it's meant to last.

And you need a clear definition on "reside" as well. Because Mom could go stay w/boy and ex-husband and still not be considered to "reside" with the child.

 

[paterunum]

update-post-court

OK, we went to court last month. CP had new atty. New atty. asked for continuance. Judge said to proceed on partial hearing re. visitation. Visitation was secured for the xmas holidays. It was the FIRST time the child was with me in my place of residence (out of TX). The visit went wonderfully.

But....CP filed a report to the police when I returned the child because I was 3 hours late. I had communicated with the child's caregiver, CP's ex husband (see above as reminder that CP is not currently residing with the child due to her DWI with child on board), telling him that due to snow, the roads were impassible in my area until later in the morning, which forced us to leave late. Nevertheless they filed both the police report and contempt charges against me.

I have a video recording of the roads, the conditions, plus weather reports from that date, though I don't have a recording of my conversations with the caregiver.

They also complained that I tried to "corrupt" the child, because.... I told him about the theory of evolution. I did not try to "indoctrinate" the child. This came up while we were watching Ice Age, and a 4 year old friend told him about dinosaurs and neanderthals. My poor 6 yr old knew nothing about this stuff. the 4 yr old knew everything!

My reply to CP and caregiver was simple: the child can be presented with different viewpoints, then he can make up his mind later in life. Their reply: the child MUST abide by ONE foundation of beliefs, and NCP has no right to interfere.

Anyway, regardless of our differences in worldview, opinions, etc., isn't it a right of each parent to educate the child and tell the child about his/her values, views, etc? Or is the NCP limited in this? I would be stunned if a court listened to their arguments (and yes, I do have a problem with my child being raised as a bigot).

Rather, on the imminent court hearing we have this week, we will show where the danger really lies: CP was not only driving intoxicated - she also had the child unrestrained. CPS also found that she had problems of mental illness (but, for some reason, they did not recommend a psychiatric evaluation, just counseling).

As we had called the CPS agents to testify this last time, they did say what you guys had predicted: that their goal is to reunite the child with the CP. However, they also absolutely ruled out her outlandish reports of pedophilia, and also recommended that the child spends time with the father (not specifying though if they would endorse temp custody or just visitation).

During my visit with my son, he relayed to me some of the things that his mother and his caregiver are saying about me. The 6 yr old has been subject to lurid comments about sexual perversions, and in fact, I can now see how that very "indoctrination" is causing him to have weird ideas about sex. In other words, the perversion comes from that side (as I always knew). I noticed how he talks about sex almost obsessively. With friends and family we tried to dissuade him. The best we could do was to show our caring and refocus his mind on constructive, learning thoughts. Some of these interactions were filmed.

3 days from now we are in court. Do you still think that I won't have a case for temporary custody? At least NOW he has spent 10 days at my home, discovering how much not only I, but my fiancee, her family, our friends, love him, and what real care and growth should be. I know, 10 days is a short time, but there is NOTHING showing that he shouldn't stay with me for the duration of his mother's rehabilitation.

 

[CJane]

Is the 6 year old not in SCHOOL?

 

[paterunum]

Is the 6 year old not in SCHOOL?

No, in this period while he stayed with the ex husband, he skipped the full semester, starting from the DWI accident in October. (in fact, for complicated reasons, he was still in kindergarten, but he could start first grade now in January, and if I get temp custody - as I have already checked about this - I can place him in a public school in my area)

BTW, given the current caregiver's belief that the child is going to be reunited with the mother soon (she lives in a different county, and the child was in school there), he's not taking any measure to put him in school during the evaluation period. According to CPS, this counseling/evaluation period could last as long as six more months.

 

[CJane]

No, in this period while he stayed with the ex husband, he skipped the full semester, starting from the DWI accident in October. (in fact, for complicated reasons, he was still in kindergarten, but he could start first grade now in January, and if I get temp custody - as I have already checked about this - I can place him in a public school in my area)

BTW, given the current caregiver's belief that the child is going to be reunited with the mother soon (she lives in a different county, and the child was in school there), he's not taking any measure to put him in school during the evaluation period. According to CPS, this counseling/evaluation period could last as long as six more months.

Well, Kindergarten isn't required.

I still think you have an incredibly uphill battle, and part of the reason why is your apparent desire to paint Mom in as terrible a light as possible. Now you think she's turning kiddo into a pervert?

According to you, she's done nothing right, ever, except have the good sense to let you plant your seed.

Whether it's your intent or not, that's exactly how you're coming across. And again, you have virtually NO relationship with this child.