Doctors letter in custody case.

[kaizen]

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

Forgive me, I could not find the previous thread I started and how to add on to it. My position is my son's problems started after Dad took him off his anti depressant meds and dad did not contact the doc as he was instructed. *Dad's lawyer established a timeline in court already that dad began calling him with concerns of child's behavior and wanting to know what steps he could take around the very same time son was taken off meds..

Today I got the letter I requested from son's doctor. I'm thinking the contents of this letter is a great piece in the upcoming Friend of the Court investigation. Copying from the doctor's letter, it reads:

"In the spring of 2010, *** was brought to my office by his father for a routine visit. At that time, and after inquiry by *** and his father, it was my instruciton to wean *** off his antidepressant medications and to call if there were any changes in his behavior or mental status. I did not ever receive a call to that effect. *** apparently had significant issues last academic year while off the medication, and at the recommendation of his therapist, he was restarted on medication 2 months ago. His mother was in favor of htis to help him academically. His father did call me after this to inquire why this had been done and expressed he did not believe that *** needed medications. I further discussed the situation with ***'s therapist who felt that medication would be beneficial if *** agreed to take it willingly.

*Dad's using an incorrigibility charge (which is on diversion - so no guilty on record right now) to obtain custody. The acts leading to the incorrigibility largely started after discontinuation of the meds. I kind of think Dad created that for his own agenda.

Thoughts on the docs piece? Does it read as helpful to my case as I hope it does?

 

[Just Blue]

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

Forgive me, I could not find the previous thread I started and how to add on to it. My position is my son's problems started after Dad took him off his anti depressant meds and dad did not contact the doc as he was instructed. *Dad's lawyer established a timeline in court already that dad began calling him with concerns of child's behavior and wanting to know what steps he could take around the very same time son was taken off meds..

Today I got the letter I requested from son's doctor. I'm thinking the contents of this letter is a great piece in the upcoming Friend of the Court investigation. Copying from the doctor's letter, it reads:

"In the spring of 2010, *** was brought to my office by his father for a routine visit. At that time, and after inquiry by *** and his father, it was my instruciton to wean *** off his antidepressant medications and to call if there were any changes in his behavior or mental status. I did not ever receive a call to that effect. *** apparently had significant issues last academic year while off the medication, and at the recommendation of his therapist, he was restarted on medication 2 months ago. His mother was in favor of htis to help him academically. His father did call me after this to inquire why this had been done and expressed he did not believe that *** needed medications. I further discussed the situation with ***'s therapist who felt that medication would be beneficial if *** agreed to take it willingly.

*Dad's using an incorrigibility charge (which is on diversion - so no guilty on record right now) to obtain custody. The acts leading to the incorrigibility largely started after discontinuation of the meds. I kind of think Dad created that for his own agenda.

Thoughts on the docs piece? Does it read as helpful to my case as I hope it does?

How old is the child? What is the DX of the child? What is the Rx that was given?

 

[kaizen]

14 years old.

Diagnosed with depression. Was on meds for years. Dad and I discussed it prior to appt. We were on the same page (or so I thought). Dad would take son for a refill of his meds. Called after and told me he was taken off.

On Wellbutrin prior and once again.

 

[CJane]

I don't think it's as helpful as you're hoping. You've basically got a doctor saying "Yup, I agreed kiddo could go off meds and asked Dad to call if there were issues."

YOU admit that you supported the stoppage EVEN AFTER issues started happening.

While I totally agree that if there's a legitimate diagnosis and the child needs meds, the child should be on meds. But NOT taking the meds is not the SOLE reason the child was screwing up. And you CHOSE to go the incorrigibility route - and again - that means you told the state that YOU could NOT handle your child.

Dad did exactly what ANY of us would have recommended. Mom says she can't control kiddo, so why shouldn't he have custody?

 

[Proserpina]

I don't think it's as helpful as you're hoping. You've basically got a doctor saying "Yup, I agreed kiddo could go off meds and asked Dad to call if there were issues."

YOU admit that you supported the stoppage EVEN AFTER issues started happening.

While I totally agree that if there's a legitimate diagnosis and the child needs meds, the child should be on meds. But NOT taking the meds is not the SOLE reason the child was screwing up. And you CHOSE to go the incorrigibility route - and again - that means you told the state that YOU could NOT handle your child.

Dad did exactly what ANY of us would have recommended. Mom says she can't control kiddo, so why shouldn't he have custody?

Yeap, I have to agree 100% here.

 

[kaizen]

I never supported stopping the meds.

There has been a ton of alienation/playing only good guy by Dad, while undermining and demeaning me to son along the way. I was asked by the referee why I did not immediately say no to the stopping the meds plan.

The reason is that to do so would have further caused alienation. My son would have seen me as the witch who "did this to him" after Dad agreed with him to ask the doc. For me to veto that plan once set in motion and discussed with son would have been undermining Dad and putting our son in the middle - something I did not want to do.

I think Dad should have co-parented with me and discussed that idea before running with it, as I co-parented with him and discussed the agenda for the doctor's visit that day (getting a check up and keeping things status quo on the meds because he is "doing so well" on them).

So, I begrudginly went with it. We gave it a shot. All the while, I was not privvy to the instruction by the doc to call if there was a change. Which I ultimately wound up to irrespectively, and got him put back on meds.

 

[gam]

I never supported stopping the meds.

There has been a ton of alienation/playing only good guy by Dad, while undermining and demeaning me to son along the way. I was asked by the referee why I did not immediately say no to the stopping the meds plan.

The reason is that to do so would have further caused alienation. My son would have seen me as the witch who "did this to him" after Dad agreed with him to ask the doc. For me to veto that plan once set in motion and discussed with son would have been undermining Dad and putting our son in the middle - something I did not want to do.

I think Dad should have co-parented with me and discussed that idea before running with it, as I co-parented with him and discussed the agenda for the doctor's visit that day (getting a check up and keeping things status quo on the meds because he is "doing so well" on them).

So, I begrudginly went with it. We gave it a shot. All the while, I was not privvy to the instruction by the doc to call if there was a change. Which I ultimately wound up to irrespectively, and got him put back on meds.

But by not standing up and doing what you thought was best, the child got his way and so did Dad. You have to parent first and worry about how the child will see that parenting after.

I have seen several Judges say, your fault for not being privvy to the instructions by the doc. Your an adult, you can call the Dr and find out the information yourself.

It's not uncommon for a Dr to take a child off of meds, to see how it goes without them. The problem comes in, cause you say your child did not do good with them, and then you went with the incorrigibility route. And as CJane said that is telling the state you can't handle your child. If you can't handle your child, the state can and will find someone who can. Since dad is seeking custody, it could go his way.

You have to convince the FOC investigator, your the better choice. Even if you do that, you still will most likely have to convince the Judge. FOC can only make a recommendation and Judges do not have to take that recommendation, they can and will change it. If the investigator goes your way, you can bet dad will object and this will be heard by the Judge.