Contempt of court

[microbes]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL

X-wife is currently on supervised visits. The order states that at her 8-5 visit, another adult 21 and older MUST BE PRESENT. During drop offs, there is always someone there that guarantees to be there the whole day but I always find her unsupervised when I pick up my kids. She claims the order only applies at drop off. I know for a fact that she is unsupervised because on several occasions I would call or they would call me during the visit and she would confirm they are alone. There was even a time I had to pick them up at a WalMart alone so there's no supervision and the order is clearly violated. Fact is she defiantly claims that she does not need supervision.

I have filed for a petition for her to be found in contempt of court. I believe that I can prove that her violations of the court order is no more than defiance and non-compliance with the court. Is this considered Indirect Criminal contempt or does it still fall under indirect civil contempt?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IL

X-wife is currently on supervised visits. The order states that at her 8-5 visit, another adult 21 and older MUST BE PRESENT. During drop offs, there is always someone there that guarantees to be there the whole day but I always find her unsupervised when I pick up my kids. She claims the order only applies at drop off. I know for a fact that she is unsupervised because on several occasions I would call or they would call me during the visit and she would confirm they are alone. There was even a time I had to pick them up at a WalMart alone so there's no supervision and the order is clearly violated. Fact is she defiantly claims that she does not need supervision.

I have filed for a petition for her to be found in contempt of court. I believe that I can prove that her violations of the court order is no more than defiance and non-compliance with the court. Is this considered Indirect Criminal contempt or does it still fall under indirect civil contempt?

Why is supervision required?

 

[acmb05]

Why is supervision required?

It does not matter at this point. She was ordered supervised visits only and if OP can prove she has been doing unsupervised visits she will be in contempt.

Oh and it would be civil contempt.

 

[LdiJ]

It does not matter at this point. She was ordered supervised visits only and if OP can prove she has been doing unsupervised visits she will be in contempt.

Oh and it would be civil contempt.

Actually it could matter or I wouldn't have asked.

 

[acmb05]

Actually it could matter or I wouldn't have asked.

could you explain how because from what the OP posted there is nothing to suggest it.

 

[microbes]

supervision was due to long history of depression and even suicidal tendencies in front of the children. I understand it's an illness and we all may at one point have had it but the issue was non-compliance to the recommendations of several physicians for treatment. All the details surfaced out during the GAL's investigation. During the trial her atty objected to her medical records being accepted as evidence but the GAL testified and attested to the detail of the records and pattern of depression and non-compliance. She ended up dropping her atty and represented herself. Her first act was to provide a copy of a medical record in question that ended up incriminating herself and at this point it was clear to the court that there was an issue and she arrogantly testified in court that she didnt need help when she just provided proof from her doctor that clearly stated the doctor's concern about her condition. I also made a case that my kids were getting sick in her care when we had equal parenting rights. My kids were at the doctor's office every two weeks and its mostly while in her care or at the end of the children's visit. Since I got the temporary custody, the kids have only been to the doctor once in 4 months.

I can prove the violations because I recorded the pickups on my iPhone. It's in a public area. There's even a part when I confronted her and reminded her of the order and she made a clear defiant statement against it.

Will this fall under Indirect Civil Contempt or Indirect Criminal Contempt? I am a bit unclear but she totally undermines the court's authority and orders. This is not the first time she violated an order. There was another one in the past but it kinda got burried since it was heard around the same time of the temporary custody hearing.

 

[stealth2]

It would be helpful to see the exact wording of the order.

 

[LdiJ]

supervision was due to long history of depression and even suicidal tendencies in front of the children. I understand it's an illness and we all may at one point have had it but the issue was non-compliance to the recommendations of several physicians for treatment. All the details surfaced out during the GAL's investigation. During the trial her atty objected to her medical records being accepted as evidence but the GAL testified and attested to the detail of the records and pattern of depression and non-compliance. She ended up dropping her atty and represented herself. Her first act was to provide a copy of a medical record in question that ended up incriminating herself and at this point it was clear to the court that there was an issue and she arrogantly testified in court that she didnt need help when she just provided proof from her doctor that clearly stated the doctor's concern about her condition. I also made a case that my kids were getting sick in her care when we had equal parenting rights. My kids were at the doctor's office every two weeks and its mostly while in her care or at the end of the children's visit. Since I got the temporary custody, the kids have only been to the doctor once in 4 months.

I can prove the violations because I recorded the pickups on my iPhone. It's in a public area. There's even a part when I confronted her and reminded her of the order and she made a clear defiant statement against it.

Will this fall under Indirect Civil Contempt or Indirect Criminal Contempt? I am a bit unclear but she totally undermines the court's authority and orders. This is not the first time she violated an order. There was another one in the past but it kinda got burried since it was heard around the same time of the temporary custody hearing.

Ok, then the courts decided that mom's visitation should be supervised because she is a potential risk to herself and the children. However, the courts did not feel that the risks were severe enough to require professional supervision or a specific supervisor, only that she needed to have another adult present. That is actually pretty "supervision lite".

Between this thread, and your other thread, you are not at all clear on what your goal is.

What your goal SHOULD be, is to ensure that the children can have an ongoing relationship with their mother in a way that is safe for the children and ensures that the children are not at risk.

Therefore yes, you should be filing for contempt, (and you shouldn't be so worried about what type of contempt) but more importantly you should also be filing to modify the orders so that mom is unable to play the games she has been playing with the supervision.

You should be filing to modify the orders so that either a specific supervisor is named who will take their duties seriously, or you should be filing to for professional supervision to be ordered. Are there any members of mom's family who agree that she is a risk and would be willing to be named supervisors and would take it seriously?

However, again, the kind of supervision ordered was about the lightest form of supervision that I have ever observed. Therefore there is a slight risk that a court could determine that mom no longer needed supervision.

And all of this...acmb05 is the reason why my question was relevant.

 

[microbes]

Ok, then the courts decided that mom's visitation should be supervised because she is a potential risk to herself and the children. However, the courts did not feel that the risks were severe enough to require professional supervision or a specific supervisor, only that she needed to have another adult present. That is actually pretty "supervision lite".

Between this thread, and your other thread, you are not at all clear on what your goal is.

What your goal SHOULD be, is to ensure that the children can have an ongoing relationship with their mother in a way that is safe for the children and ensures that the children are not at risk.

Therefore yes, you should be filing for contempt, (and you shouldn't be so worried about what type of contempt) but more importantly you should also be filing to modify the orders so that mom is unable to play the games she has been playing with the supervision.

You should be filing to modify the orders so that either a specific supervisor is named who will take their duties seriously, or you should be filing to for professional supervision to be ordered. Are there any members of mom's family who agree that she is a risk and would be willing to be named supervisors and would take it seriously?

However, again, the kind of supervision ordered was about the lightest form of supervision that I have ever observed. Therefore there is a slight risk that a court could determine that mom no longer needed supervision.

And all of this...acmb05 is the reason why my question was relevant.

Ultimate goal is to have the kids spend more time with their mother but there is currently a risk. A condition on the supervision is that it's only till she gets an eval which she wont even do for the sake of getting more time with the kids. I want her to get help so that the supervision can be lifted and I can be assured my kids would be safe when with her. I do ensure ongoing relationship by having the kids speak to her 2x a day and even make them available for video conferencing and even with the phone calls, she would call pass 9PM when she knows the kids go to bed at 8:30. Withe the supervision, I drive a total of 4 hours on visitation days just so the kids can see her and she still has the nerve to disobey the order which you referred to as supervision lite.

 

[CJane]

Again, exact wording from the order would be helpful.

Because if it says "another adult 21 or over must be present" and she was at Walmart... how many other adults were present? Heck, when you were video taping, YOU were present.

And confronting Mom doesn't make YOU appear rational, yanno? "Your honor, she's unstable! Look, I secretly videotaped her with my phone to prove it! And see, here where I confront her in public and reprimand her for not following the order?"

Not saying you AREN'T rational -- just that you need to look at your behavior when it's not in context. Because the hardest thing in the world to get across in court is context.

 

[microbes]

Again, exact wording from the order would be helpful.

Because if it says "another adult 21 or over must be present" and she was at Walmart... how many other adults were present? Heck, when you were video taping, YOU were present.

And confronting Mom doesn't make YOU appear rational, yanno? "Your honor, she's unstable! Look, I secretly videotaped her with my phone to prove it! And see, here where I confront her in public and reprimand her for not following the order?"

Not saying you AREN'T rational -- just that you need to look at your behavior when it's not in context. Because the hardest thing in the world to get across in court is context.

The order was very lite. I undertsand your statement about walmart but come on! Just as anyone can argue that there were adults 21 and older at walmart, how about when she went to the bathroom and nobody else was there or was at an isle that was simply just her and the kids, couldn't one argue with the same logic you used that she then violated the supervision?

 

[stealth2]

The order was very lite. I undertsand your statement about walmart but come on! Just as anyone can argue that there were adults 21 and older at walmart, how about when she went to the bathroom and nobody else was there or was at an isle that was simply just her and the kids, couldn't one argue with the same logic you used that she then violated the supervision?

So why don't you simply post what it says? Because, really, it matters.

 

[mistoffolees]

So why don't you simply post what it says? Because, really, it matters.

Because it's easier to multiple new threads whining about how evil ex is without providing the facts needed to give advice.

 

[stealth2]

Because it's easier to multiple new threads whining about how evil ex is without providing the facts needed to give advice.

No cow cakes!

 

[microbes]

So why don't you simply post what it says? Because, really, it matters.

I did and it is right on the second sentence of the thread. The judge ordered the supervised visits and I think between that and my attorney wording the order, something was missed. I agree my attorney may have left a bunch of holes in wording that order.