Why did you ask for input if you're just going to argue with those who offer it?
I appreciate the replies and I wasn't intentionally being agrumentitive, just clarifying info that was in some instances miscontrued.
And what do you mean, the GAL wants to 'terminate' the existing agreement?
I originally filed as "Teminate Shared Parenting Decree" in April 2011 after she abruptly moved out-of-state. At our last hearing the GAL as in agreement with this motion. I realize that was premature seeing my hope is we continue with our existing visitation schedule therefore I'll refile as a "Motion to Modify".
And why are you in such close contact with the GAL outside of the case?
Because both the defendant and her attorney have been extremely non-responsive to the GAL communications, so she would contact me asking for any info as to her whereabouts or current situation. She ocassionally asks about how things are on my end and if anything dramatic has happened, in which case I would let her know and she'd investigate. Isn't that what a GAL does?
The fact that Mom is seeking treatment for her issues actually speaks IN FAVOR of her being able to make good choices occasionally.
True, but it is also proves that her issues are not isolated but ongoing and in fact have gotten worse since we entered our Shared Parenting Decree.
Who determines when she's 'capable'? Are you requesting, in your motion, that visitation be suspended? Because it doesn't read that way.
No, just the opposite. Despite her erratic, suicidal tendencies and the fact there is zero stability in her life I know it's in the best interest of the children to have contact with their mother. I have never once said she shouldn't see our children. I was very clear about this to the GAL. ATST, she has sevre issues that need to be addressed. This is not the 1st time she's basically said
"you need to take the kids, I need help". We're now at the same point we were in 2009; another suicide attempt, homeless / jobless. The only difference is now she's in a treatment facility. I simply bring the matter to the courts attention and allow them to determine what criteria [if any] they choose to set on her ability to exercise her visitation. Her behavior doesn't ease my mind but I'm trying to be as patient as possible while still keeping the safety of our children paramount.
And why would you say she cannot make medical decisions for the children, but she CAN have normal visitation with them? Are you not concerned about daily parenting decisions?
I think she is capable of normal day-to-day decisions or else I would ask for supervised visitation. But she has shown that she makes terrible life decisions for herself and don't want that sort of decision-making to affect our children.
Wow. I just read through your posting history. You've been at this whole terminate Mom's legal custody thing for over a year.
Why the new motion?
And you've already brought the suicide attempts before the judge/magistrate. They're no longer relevant.J
Continuances. One of them was due to the magistrate retiring. At our last hearing we briefly discussed the case but I don't know if that issue was even raised. At the time my motion was still to terminate and the magistrate, after listening to my wish to continue visitation, said that doesn't sound like what you really want to do and suggested since ALL were in agreement with the motion asked us to work it out seperately. Naturally, she changed her mind and now wants to keep our next hearing date [this was before her lastest blow up].
None of that is evidence. You need to look up rules of evidence and pay particular attention to the section on hearsay. My statement is correct.
But, even aside from hearsay, your 'evidence' is useless:
- Her attorney is not qualified to diagnose PTSD. His statement (on the record, or not) is not proof, even if he actually said what you THINK he said.
I have court minutes with her and her attorney admitting she suffers from PTSD. True, neither are doctors but ATST I think it's could be stated that beyond a reasonable doubt neither would make this up in her defense!
- Even if you were able to get that admitted as an admission of PTSD, that disorder does not make someone unfit as a parent. One needs to prove that it endangers the child.
Police records show that the children were in her care when the medics found her unconscious in her apartment alone.
- The fact that she's not living with her father any more does not mean that she's homeless. Last time I checked, an adult is free to move out of Mommy and Daddy's home and find somewhere else to live. (Especially since she has moved out to go live with a boyfriend before).
She wasn't living with her family. She was living with her BFs family and they got tired of them arguing and asked her to move out. She has no job, burned all of the bridges with her actual family. The words "homeless" are not mine but what she said to me.
- Her work record is completely irrelevant to custody
- The police records may or may not be admissible.
It supports my case that's she been unable or unwilling to provide a stable home for our children. The previous judge and magistrate [when she tried to regain custody two years ago] found the records I supplied admissible.
Truthfully the GAL can file a motion to terminate the shared parenting plan IF the GAL is in agreement. That would be the better route to take -- have the GAL write and file the motion explaining why it is in the children's best interest.
I received correspondence from the GAL in two seperate communications. The 1st was a
"Motion of Gaurdian Ad Litem for an order of interim fees and trial deposit" in which she states "This matter was set for hearing on December, 9, 2011. At that time, the undersigned [GAL] presented an oral recommendation that the parties Shared Parenting Plan be terminated and/or modified such that Plaintiff shall have all final decision making authority." and that was followed up with an email that states
"Attached hereto is a proposed Notice of Waiver of Guardian ad Litem Report and Recommendations in the above-referenced matter. Inasmuch as it appears that there is no agreement between the parties as to the sole issue before the Court, the final decision-making authority, I am proposing a waiver of the requirement that I have to file a report 7 days before the final hearing and/or trial in this matter. Specifically, I do not feel that a report is necessary at this time given that my interim recommendation given at the December 2011 hearing has not wavered. Therefore, I would like the opportunity to weigh the testimony and evidence presented at any final hearing and/or trial prior to making any updated recommendations or reports.
Please consider this matter carefully and get back to me whether or not you are in agreement. Should you be willing to waive this requirement, I would ask that you sign and return it to me as soon as possible."
Attached was a Motion for "Notice for Waiver of Guardian Ad Litem Report and Communications" in which she states "Upon agreement of the parties and with good cause, that the requirement of the Guardian Ad Litem file her report and recommendations seven [7] days in advance of the final court hearing/date be waived."
Is this essentially, the same thing?
