Motion to Modify Custody - change in circumstance: Update

[mcwjjm]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio The day after my last post in the previous [closed] thread I filed an ECO and Motion to Modify Custody. In my petition I requested sole parenting rights, the mother's visitation of the children be supervised and she sign a HIPAA release so the court/GAL could investigate what lead to her most recent placement in a behavioral health facility. The GAL report and recommendations is scathing to say the least. Her recommendation are ECO and Motion to Terminate and Motion to Modify Shared Parenting be granted, visitation be supervised until further order of court or recommendation of GAL, execute HIPAA release, etc...

The ECO hearing this morning couldn't procede due to the fact service was not confirmed [she was still in residence] and during our Custody trial this afternoon the defendant had an anxiety attack and had to be removed by squad and transported to a hospital.

Fortunately the magistrate had heard enough testimony for all three parties to determine recommendations; a temporary order that my petiton for supervised visits be granted. And a continuance on the matter of custody. She urged the defendant to cooporate with the GAL and sign the release so she could complete her investigation. Bizarre day in court.


https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/motion-modify-custody-change-circumstance-573586.html

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio The day after my last post in the previous [closed] thread I filed an ECO and Motion to Modify Custody. In my petition I requested sole parenting rights, the mother's visitation of the children be supervised and she sign a HIPAA release so the court/GAL could investigate what lead to her most recent placement in a behavioral health facility. The GAL report and recommendations is scathing to say the least. Her recommendation are ECO and Motion to Terminate and Motion to Modify Shared Parenting be granted, vistation be supervised until further order of court or recommendation of GAL, execute HIPAA release, etc...

The ECO hearing this morning couldn't procede due to the fact service was not confirmed [she was still in residence] and during our Custody trial this afternoon the defendant had a anxiety attack and had to be removed by squad and transported to a hospital.

Fortunately the magistrate had heard enough testimony for all three parties to determine recommendations; a temporary order that my petiton for supervised visits be granted. And a continuance on the matter of custody. She urged the defendant to cooporate with the GAL and sign the release so she could complete her investigation. Bizarre day in court.


https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/motion-modify-custody-change-circumstance-573586.html

Thank you for the update.

It sounds like the most important thing was addressed - the supervised visits.

 

[CJane]

The GAL report and recommendations is scathing to say the least. Her recommendation are ECO and Motion to Terminate and Motion to Modify Shared Parenting be granted, visitation be supervised until further order of court or recommendation of GAL, execute HIPAA release, etc...

The bold still makes no sense.

She urged the defendant to cooporate with the GAL and sign the release so she could complete her investigation.

How did the magistrate urge the defendant to do ANYTHING, since the defendant had been removed?

 

[mcwjjm]

Last May I filed a Motion to Terminate our existing Shared Parenting decree. At our December hearing after listeing to my petition it was brought to my attention that was not what I wanted. And while the GAL was in agreement with my initial motion I wanted change my plea to reflect my true wishes.

The magistrate had already reviewed the GAL report, heard testimony from all parties and come to her recommnedations when the defendant was attempting to contact council * at the assignment desk to arrange a court date when she had the anxiety attack.

* She dismissed her previous attorney a week ago, informed the court she would be representing herself then changed her story today and told the magistrate she was meeting with another attorney this afternoon in the hopes they would represent her. The magistrate found this particurally curious since she hasn't paid the GAL for services until the defendant clarified it would be Pro bono. At least that's what she told us - bizarre.

 

[mcwjjm]

Ohiogal

You were correct, the GAL only stated that the Plaintiff had paid the retainer but the defendant did not without mention of not performing duties until she was paid as she told me in her office. Though the magistrate made a point by asking her if she could pay the fees today or establish a payment schedule. She could not. The magistrate also put language in the temporary order that if the matter was not addressed that it could result in limitation of evidence or other sanctions at our next trial.

 

[mcwjjm]

Update

Finally, resolution to my motion to modify / terminate shared parenting decree was settled last Thursday. Defendant had new council but she advized her client to settle to the terms of my amended motion and the GAL's report and recommendation. That our shared parenting decree [2009] would be terminated naming father as sole guardian of our two children. That visitation would be limited to very strict guidelines and if met eventually phase into local rule 22 and C/S set. The defendant reluctantly agreed to terms. The only hickup was in the wording / understanding [by defendant] of the visitation protocal.

At our last hearing the magistrate had modified our existing order to include supervised visitation [which the defendant never exercised] as per my motion and the recommendation in the GAL's report. In our private discussion [on Thursday] her attorney requested if I would consider having visitation in a public setting where I would be present vs a court-appointed facility. I agreed. When I reviewed the agreed entry it stated that visitation would continue to be "supervised". But after reviewing the order after our hearing I noticed that the word "supervised" was scratched out. When the defendant and I spoke about a visitation date she was under the impression that she could come over and P/U the children and was surprised when I said that I needed to be present. Since no additional medical documenation on her condition has been submitted to the court / GAL I can't imagine that either would be in favor of removing the supervised order. Still waiting to hear back from her attorney and the GAL.

Since the GAL was strongly in favor of continuing the supervised visitation shouldn't she have made sure the wording was more clear about her and the magistrate's intent? The defendant's attorney was only retained 10 days ago, though it was clear in our conversation with myself and the GAL that supervised visitation should continue.

 

[Ohiogal]

This so sounds like a case in Medina county of which I know.

 

[mcwjjm]

In what respect? This was contested in Franklin.

 

[Ohiogal]

In what respect? This was contested in Franklin.

Just similar with the agreement due to medical records and supervised visits.

 

[mcwjjm]

Her attorney requested if I would consider not limiting visitation to a Children's Services facility [to eliminate cost to her client] and since we couldn't agree upon an individual to supervise visitation she suggested the option of conducting the visits in a public place.

The defendant's attorney wants to change the order from temp. supervised visitation [twice week / 2 hrs per] to visitation in a public place. Both the GAL and magistrate felt the need for supervised visitation in March until she signed the HIPPA release to determine her condition and why she was placed in residence facility. She has not cooperated with this request and the court has no more information to base judgement than when they issued the temp order.

Other than her not signing the HIPPA and not following the temp. visitation order nothing has changed other than she's moved in with a new boyfriend and managed to lose a job after two weeks. Her attorney "proposed the option of a public place because there would be other people around to address the concerns". Does this request seem reasonable whatsoever? I requested to supervise the visitation by being at the same location, while keeping my distance and not interfering with their interaction, but her attorney felt that my presense "taints her time with the children". The children haven't spent any real time with the mother since January, I'm trying to facilitate a measure of normalcy in their relationship with her but ATST I want them to be safe.

 

[PQN]

Personally, I would stick with the visitation center as recommended by the GAL. Their staff are trained on how to supervise a visit and when to intervene. Random strangers at a park won't be paying any attention to your group.

I'd tell mom's attorney that you would be willing to consider adding visits in a public place after all 3 of the following occur.

1. Mom signs the HIIPA release for the court.
2. Mom successfully attends 6 months of visits at the visitation center (defined as attending 90% of the visits and no 'no-shows'; mom behaves appropriately at all visits as determined by the visitation center)
3. The court approves.


ETA: My eldest is mentally ill and while she is less likely to explode in public, it does still happen and 'the public' for the most part turns away. While some people can have a single stay in a behavioral health facility and regain stability, others remain unstable. Most mentally ill people are not violent or dangerous, but when they are, it is devestating to the family.

 

[LdiJ]

Her attorney requested if I would consider not limiting visitation to a Children's Services facility [to eliminate cost to her client] and since we couldn't agree upon an individual to supervise visitation she suggested the option of conducting the visits in a public place.

The defendant's attorney wants to change the order from temp. supervised visitation [twice week / 2 hrs per] to visitation in a public place. Both the GAL and magistrate felt the need for supervised visitation in March until she signed the HIPPA release to determine her condition and why she was placed in residence facility. She has not cooperated with this request and the court has no more information to base judgement than when they issued the temp order.

Other than her not signing the HIPPA and not following the temp. visitation order nothing has changed other than she's moved in with a new boyfriend and managed to lose a job after two weeks. Her attorney "proposed the option of a public place because there would be other people around to address the concerns". Does this request seem reasonable whatsoever? I requested to supervise the visitation by being at the same location, while keeping my distance and not interfering with their interaction, but her attorney felt that my presense "taints her time with the children". The children haven't spent any real time with the mother since January, I'm trying to facilitate a measure of normalcy in their relationship with her but ATST I want them to be safe.

How about a member of her family supervising?

 

[Ohiogal]

Her attorney requested if I would consider not limiting visitation to a Children's Services facility [to eliminate cost to her client] and since we couldn't agree upon an individual to supervise visitation she suggested the option of conducting the visits in a public place.

The defendant's attorney wants to change the order from temp. supervised visitation [twice week / 2 hrs per] to visitation in a public place. Both the GAL and magistrate felt the need for supervised visitation in March until she signed the HIPPA release to determine her condition and why she was placed in residence facility. She has not cooperated with this request and the court has no more information to base judgement than when they issued the temp order.

Other than her not signing the HIPPA and not following the temp. visitation order nothing has changed other than she's moved in with a new boyfriend and managed to lose a job after two weeks. Her attorney "proposed the option of a public place because there would be other people around to address the concerns". Does this request seem reasonable whatsoever? I requested to supervise the visitation by being at the same location, while keeping my distance and not interfering with their interaction, but her attorney felt that my presense "taints her time with the children". The children haven't spent any real time with the mother since January, I'm trying to facilitate a measure of normalcy in their relationship with her but ATST I want them to be safe.

No it doesn't seem reasonable. If your child was a teenager, that would be different. But too many people don't get involved if there are issues. So I wouldn't agree at all.

 

[PQN]

No it doesn't seem reasonable. If your child was a teenager, that would be different. But too many people don't get involved if there are issues. So I wouldn't agree at all.

As a foster parent, I brought kids to the DCFS visitation center for supervised visits. Even with a supervisor in the room, sometimes parents act out. The supervisors are there to protect the children, document the interactions of the parent and child, and in some cases, provide prompts for the parent in learning how to interact with their child. Strangers in a park will not provide the safety nor the documentation that is necessary.

I'm so glad to see that you want to support your kids having a relationship with their mom at whatever level is safe. That will give her some motivation to work her treatment as well as showing your daughters that (a) they are empowered to set boundaries with people for their safety (b) mental illness is an illness and their mom is not evil. Since most mental illness has a genetic component, it will also show your daughters that if they become ill that you will support and love them and that you believe in treatment.

 

[mcwjjm]

I appreciate the replies. Her attorney and the GAL are at odds. I'll re-open the conversation about a family member supevising the visits.

In March the GAL and magistrate put a temp. order for supervised visitation in place for the defendant until she signed a HIPPA release and the courts were able to review / make a determination on her condition. She never signed the release but last week the defendant agreed to the terms of my Motion to Modify / Terminate our Shared Parenting Decree; terminating our S/P decree and naming me residential and custodial parents, establishing C/S and limiting vistation to 2 hours / 2xweek, while phasing into local Rule 22.

Her attorney requested if I would consider having visitation in a public place vs the court-ordered facility in the temp. order [eliminate cost to her client] since we couldn't agree on a family member to supervise visitation. It was explained to me that I would be able to remain with the children [8&10 YO] during the visits while ATST respecting their privacy as much as possible.

Unfortunately, that specific language wasn't included in the agreed entry [actually the word "supervised" was scratched out and I didn't catch it] but I assumed since there was no new information for the courts to review they wouldn't remove the temp. order. I should also add that neither the magistrate, myself, the defendent, her council or the GAL commented on the specific language in court of maintaining or removing supervised visitation. I think everyone just assumed. In my filed Motion I specifically petitioned to maintain supervised visitation per the GAL's report / recommendation.

The problem is that her attorney is now saying that she "proposed the option of a public place because there would be other people around to address the concerns". And that "my presense taints her time with the children". The GAL is completely on my side but her attorney is being stubborn. Again, there is no language in the agreed entry about maintaining or removing supervised visitation.


QUESTION: How long do you have to amend an Agreed Entry without having to re-file an Amended Motion, wait months for another hearing? Can't I approach the bailiif and request the agreed entry amended to reflect this oversight w/o having to re-file and wait for another trial months down the road? I thought you had two [2] weeks to petition the court.