Full Legal Custody

[breezymom]

I'm going to close my thread, for now, and keep most things in private.

 

[breezymom]

Just to try and get a jump-start on this for this year and next, what would be your advice on the following:

Concerning holidays, the court order just reads that holidays are whatever both parents agree to.

Visitation, this year, is Monday, December 26-Tuesday, December 27. He has always wanted her (and to avoid argument, especially with our child being so young and not having the holiday concept at 6 mos and 1.5 years for the past 2 Christmases), I have not made a big deal, especially considering the old visitation schedule not including over nights at those points, but he has always wanted her, starting at 9 or 10 AM and wanted her until at least 3 PM. Last year he made his mother set up the visit with me and they wanted the child to stay from 9 AM until 5 or 6 PM Christmas Day.

I kind of put my foot down and said 2 PM, please, especially since an infant's waking hours are so limited, and both those years, those were MOST of her waking hours. They returned her an hour early, last year, anyway, at 1 PM.

So, this year, I am sure they will want her 6-9 hours again on Christmas Day, then she goes back Monday morning and stays through Tuesday afternoon. With the current court order being so ambiguous, what would be fair for a 2 year old (I know life isn't fair) to spend. He always takes her mid-day, so I never make any family plans on Christmas, since when she gets home it's nearly dinner time, and we rush the present-opening and such in the morning since she usually is to be there by 9 AM. It's not quality, but I've been agreeable because I don't think upsetting him and getting him on edge for the holiday is in the child's best interests.

Next year, his normal visitation day will be Christmas Eve to Christmas Day. As you can most likely gather, from my posting hx, he will not allow normal visitation to change because it falls on the holliday, rather he will want her both days. I am rather dumbfounded, at this point, on what to do next year, for fear that if I ask to switch days that week, he will go on a rampage. Any suggestions?

 

[CJane]

Either resign yourself to a situation where whoever has that day normally, also has the holiday, or file for a modification of the order to include a specified holiday plan.

Before long, status quo will matter, and if Dad can say that he's always had her for the bulk of the day, it's likely to continue. That's why I have every Christmas with my kids.

 

[breezymom]

Thank you, CJane. Honestly, I wish we could just communicate normally and compromise. It would make things SO much easier. I try so hard and it's so frustrating and I just want our child to have two parents in her life who love her and care about her.

I feel so sorry for her that I loved him and chose him to have a child with, but if I didn't I wouldn't have the same amazing little girl who is so damn smart and beautiful, loving, strong, and funny.

Maybe I can address the idea of a holiday schedule. I think that would eliminate a lot of grief and not make either parent feel "left out" of the holidays.

 

[breezymom]

Convo with the CPS Caseworker

We are three weeks in, three weeks left until court/investigation due.

None of my references have yet to be contacted.

My therapist has yet to be contacted.

It does not seem like any of the resources given to shed light on his behavior have been looked into (all public organizations).

I am really rather afraid to open this thread, again, but, I really have some questions:

I spoke with the caseworker, yesterday. I was told to notify her he was retaliating with sending me a message about stupid things (scratch on the side of the child's nose from her nails, etc.).

What I was told is that since the child does not *seem* to be afraid of either parent (not sure if HIS interaction has been seen with the child or not, but from the conversation it seems no other contact has been made there, either, since the initial visit with him), and since we fail to communicate, the judge can make us BOTH responsible for the bruising.

My lawyer advised me to be cooperative and answer questions, but not to say anything more--ESPECIALLY not to him. She said do NOT (and I haven't), reply to any of his accusatory messages and such. Just wait until our briefing before court and our actual court date. The last time I saw her (about two and a half weeks ago) and she viewed all the current communication between my ex and myself, she made the remark, "Is he STILL going on about (all the irrelevant, harassing comments), what? one and a half or two years later, now?"

Well, I went over, with the caseworker, that I *had* numerous times tried to communicate with him, to no avail, giving several examples. The caseworker was pushing the family meeting, again. I agreed to it because I, quite frankly, was afraid and backed into a corner, especially hearing we could both be made responsible. I have told her, numerous times, that all the parenting classes and the domestic violence counselors, and others, have advised against face-to-face mediation type situations because of the DV history.

I received a phone call from my DV advocate, today, who said she reviewed my case history with her supervisor and asked my permission (which I granted, anyway, because she is one of my support systems who will be going with me to this meeting, if it is to occur), to phone the caseworker and try and advocate for, if not some other way to handle things, at least to have the meeting at the Children's Advocacy Center, where she feels it would be more appropriate.

So, my question is this:

In my opinion, it seems like I should be (and probably will be on the same page with the lawyer) focusing on how many times I have tried communicating with him and the results of this, since it seems communication is going to be the big focus of the investigation results.

Anyone have any other insight?

 

[st-kitts]

The caseworker was pushing the family meeting, again. I agreed to it because I, quite frankly, was afraid and backed into a corner, especially hearing we could both be made responsible. I have told her, numerous times, that all the parenting classes and the domestic violence counselors, and others, have advised against face-to-face mediation type situations because of the DV history.


Anyone have any other insight?

Breezy - You already know that pretty much everything that has ever been written about domestic violence and face to face mediation indicates that it ends in failure for the person that was the abused party. It may not be a failure from the caseworker's standpoint - she isn't the one that will feel threatened by your ex. One of the challenges in mediation is that the intimidation is based on history and so even if he is openly threatening, it may be veiled enough to go over a mediator or caseworker's head because they lack the context and history to understand the threat - but it won't be lost on you. I think this mediation is likely to make your situation with the ex and the child worse for you AND likely worse for your child. Since the caseworker is recommending mediation, she ALREADY doesn't understand that mediation doesn't work in relationships where there is DV or she doesn't believe that DV matters in mediation, or she doesn't give a damn. Which of the three is worse? I don't know but it really doesn't matter because the end result for you will be the same, most likely. This is a terrible beginning.

I realize this is a really complicated situation, and I don't know the details of how much CPS is threatening you or how strong handed they are in your county or whether you risk losing the child if you don't cooperate. Maybe your attorney has told you. I do know that everything I have ever read, and it is quite a library, says you are agreeing to do something that is not in your best interest and frankly I don't think it is in your child's best interest. If the caseworker didn't mandate the meeting, you may have felt uncomfortable saying no, but you could and maybe you still can.

I agreed to it because I, quite frankly, was afraid and backed into a corner, especially hearing we could both be made responsible

Unless she promised that you can't be "both be made responsible" if you agree to mediation, than agreeing to mediation doesn't take that risk off the table. Did she put in writing with some legally binding document that you agreeing to mediation took that risk away? NO she did not. Keep that in mind.

I hate this situation for you. Good luck.

 

[breezymom]

I can tell you what it's going to do:

Yes, much of it will be things that outside folks will not understand (I think the judge would understand, even, by now, with as little as he has seen of us, as we already have a clause in our order stating that, "Communication is to be solely about the child).

It will keep putting me in front of him and his mother (who admitted in his other child's court case that she, herself, was mentally and physically abusive to him and his siblings) who will, within their guidelines, continue to intimidate me, if not with words, with body language, and then outside of the meeting with words. Now, the good thing is, right now, every bit of communication is written. This may take things back to spoken.

It will help him to continue to further isolate me from my family and friends from an outside standpoint, which is one of the many reasons why I left. Both my parents have high blood pressure and heart problems and cannot take knowing he is hurting me and the child any more, which is why they will not be present at this meeting.

So, all said, I will keep everything inside, away from my family and my friends so that I don't burden them with my own issues. I will continue to keep my own fear away from my child so she is not jaded by MY fears, which may send the message that it's ok for him to do this to her, too, later on. I think it already has sent that message, since she only shows her fear in her sleep. I don't let her see how much it bothers me when she wakes up saying, "Daddy out there. Gonna get me." Or when she keeps control over the only thing she can in the situation at this point: over the doll she calls Daddy that she goes back and forth between throwing and hitting and beating to cuddling and loving, and holding in her bowel movements. She has to tell herself, out loud, that it's ok to go. She refuses, after being nearly trained, to use the toilet. And I know it's him and her sister (who doesn't understand since her sister is 4, but he encourages it) who constantly belittle her because, at 2, she still defecates in her pants. He posts is publicly on his facebook with laughter.

So, no, it won't be good for me or for her. I can tell by our conversation that the caseworker never followed up on his anger issues. They are not new. The court knows he had a another court order in another county for anger management because he refused to take it until after I took him to court. Then he only took it to make himself look good.

I know all this stuff is irrelevant, but, it is affecting a lot, especially what people don't see. Even now, and moreso when I have to even read what he is saying, my pulse rate goes up, well above 100, my bloodpressure goes to insane heights for a healthy woman (I'm talking as high as nearly 200/130), and I can't stop shaking for hours. But I handle it.

So, the caseworker saying that we both need to suck it up and deal with it in the best interests of the child, really, I feel, is facilitating the abuse to continue and worsen. But what do I know. And, legally, I probably can't do a thing. The police even know they can't do anything. It's sad when an officer says, "He knows he is towing the line between no charge and aggrevated harassment."

 

[breezymom]

And, I've been told, the caseworker has been in trouble, before, for not doing her job properly. But I can't tell where that information is coming from because of where I got it.

 

[st-kitts]

I can tell you what it's going to do:

Yes, much of it will be things that outside folks will not understand (I think the judge would understand, even, by now, with as little as he has seen of us, as we already have a clause in our order stating that, "Communication is to be solely about the child).

It will keep putting me in front of him and his mother (who admitted in his other child's court case that she, herself, was mentally and physically abusive to him and his siblings) who will, within their guidelines, continue to intimidate me, if not with words, with body language, and then outside of the meeting with words. Now, the good thing is, right now, every bit of communication is written. This may take things back to spoken.

It will help him to continue to further isolate me from my family and friends from an outside standpoint, which is one of the many reasons why I left. Both my parents have high blood pressure and heart problems and cannot take knowing he is hurting me and the child any more, which is why they will not be present at this meeting.

So, all said, I will keep everything inside, away from my family and my friends so that I don't burden them with my own issues. I will continue to keep my own fear away from my child so she is not jaded by MY fears, which may send the message that it's ok for him to do this to her, too, later on. I think it already has sent that message, since she only shows her fear in her sleep. I don't let her see how much it bothers me when she wakes up saying, "Daddy out there. Gonna get me." Or when she keeps control over the only thing she can in the situation at this point: over the doll she calls Daddy that she goes back and forth between throwing and hitting and beating to cuddling and loving, and holding in her bowel movements. She has to tell herself, out loud, that it's ok to go. She refuses, after being nearly trained, to use the toilet. And I know it's him and her sister (who doesn't understand since her sister is 4, but he encourages it) who constantly belittle her because, at 2, she still defecates in her pants. He posts is publicly on his facebook with laughter.

So, no, it won't be good for me or for her. I can tell by our conversation that the caseworker never followed up on his anger issues. They are not new. The court knows he had a another court order in another county for anger management because he refused to take it until after I took him to court. Then he only took it to make himself look good.

I know all this stuff is irrelevant, but, it is affecting a lot, especially what people don't see. Even now, and moreso when I have to even read what he is saying, my pulse rate goes up, well above 100, my bloodpressure goes to insane heights for a healthy woman (I'm talking as high as nearly 200/130), and I can't stop shaking for hours. But I handle it.

So, the caseworker saying that we both need to suck it up and deal with it in the best interests of the child, really, I feel, is facilitating the abuse to continue and worsen. But what do I know. And, legally, I probably can't do a thing. The police even know they can't do anything. It's sad when an officer says, "He knows he is towing the line between no charge and aggrevated harassment."

EXACTLY. If you are walking into this mediation on a voluntary basis when every bone of your body knows nothing good will happen, maybe you should take your chances on the alternative, whatever the heck that alternative might be.

 

[mistoffolees]

EXACTLY. If you are walking into this mediation on a voluntary basis when every bone of your body knows nothing good will happen, maybe you should take your chances on the alternative, whatever the heck that alternative might be.

However, make sure to check the court rules. You may need to go through the process and attend the mediation sessions - even if you don't agree to anything.

 

[breezymom]

Yes, definitely, misto. I will do anything that they think is in the child's best interest, even if I am not sure it is. I just don't get why (it wasn't court-ordered for me, but I took it anyway), the parenting class, even, that is accepted by the courts and ordered frequently by the courts, says parallel parenting is best in this type of situation, for the parents and especially the child, when at least CPS pushes otherwise. I really wish we could, honestly. There are such things out there as relationships where people just can't be married/living together, but get along well outside of the home.

I suppose, at this point, I just sit quiet (easy enough for me), answer any questions that come my way and be cooperative, and wait for court. I emailed the GAL, per my lawyer's request, and let her know what was up. I'll just wait and see how far the DV advocate gets.

I know one thing: It makes me afraid to contact CPS again if there's another issue down the road, which is kind of sad because not only am I a mandated reporter by career, but this is our child.

 

[breezymom]

I found this a few moments ago and wanted to post it, so I hope this helps others:

Domestic Violence and Mediation: Concerns and Recommendations

...and I am in this category:

The couples in the third category are those most likely to experience harm and should be excluded from mediation. If one or both parties are unable to negotiate, or if indicators exist that the abuser is capable of seriously injuring his partner, these cases cannot be safely mediated. Interviewers conducting the pre-mediation screening should exclude from mediation couples with the following situational factors: (Girdner, 1990)

Abusers who seem to have a need to control the abused partner
An abuser who is easily frustrated by the idea of not getting all that he wants
An abuser who accepts no responsibility for the abuse
An abused partner who discloses that she has been abused, but does not want it revealed to the abuser
Patterns of psychological abuse (with or without physical abuse) that has led to a situation where the abused partner identifies with the abuser's needs as primary and necessary for her survival.

 

[breezymom]

So, here is how today went: (Nothing was accomplished)

The judge saw no immediate change in circumstance, so visitation was not amended. That's okay. That's not my concern. My concern is only her safety.

The GAL expressed her concerns: Dad's behavior is bizarre and disturbing. The communication is unproductive.

My lawyer expressed her concerns: Communication is unproductive.

My ex expressed his concerns: He wants to talk to my therapist. He said he did not know I was seeing this woman. A letter was written by her, and addressed by the court, stating I was seeing her for coparenting strategies, that I am patient with the child, and that she has no concerns of my parenting approaches. I was seeing this woman when I was with him, so this has not changed and he refused to go until long after I left. He said he had no knowledge of a way to get in touch with the therapist by just being given her name. He was told, "How about a phone book?" but the court provided him with a copy of the letter with the phone number and address on it. He is going to make an appointment. The judge is going to subpoena my therapist, as well. He also demanded he be allowed to attend my sessions with and/or speak with my safe house advocate. This request was simply ignored. He also was continually interrupting the judge, as he does me, during the hearing.

The CPS findings were produced: The child and I were met and observed. The caseworker met with the father alone. The medical paper trail was introduced: the head banging from right after the over nights started (when she was about 1 year old) and night terrors/nightmares that went on nearly nightly for approximately 4 months with comments made by the child concerning Dad (the concerning Dad part was not in the CPS report). The child seems to not be in immediate danger in either person's care.

The GAL spoke to me concerning the night terrors/nightmares and began with what she found as research on them, with me agreeing and finishing her sentence (prior to the court room), so she knows I have done much research/consulting on them to find out what I can do to help our child with this issue.

We have a trial date set in about 3.5 months (earliest date). In the mean time, since we have no tangible/credible evidence to support the concerns, I will be making an appointment with a child psychologist who has expertise in her age group where Dad will be included. The only issue with this is there are no participating ones within 80 miles, therefore, I will be making the appointment with the one in town who is very well-respected, if he has experience with and will take children her age. I will probably end up paying the bill, since he is unemployed, but the court order states that we each pay half of medical fees, while I am paying for the insurance. I will attempt, nicely, to get him to pay his half, but not expect it, and it will have to be paid, most likely, at time of service.

I would like to be able to have productive communication both ways, but I still will not expect it. My thought is this: Instead of ending communication (originally advised by my lawyer) after several attempts to re-direct him back to talking about the child and her best interests, perhaps just plainly asking the same question, again may be a good thing to try?

I keep things business like 99.9% of the time. My lawyer has told me that before that I am too nice. So, the issue is this:

What advice is there, other than what my lawyer originally suggested or just repeating the question again, to get him to keep his conversation regarding the child and her interests?

Example: The county that is in the order that the child is not allowed to travel to, but is where he wants to return and work and have visitation. He told me three times in two months I needed to come to an agreement to let him have visitation there. I told him all three times, "If you wish to change the visitation order, then it is your choice to file the paperwork." This was months ago. It still hasn't been done.

My goal:

*To have a two-way effective communication system where our child can have a relationship with both of us safely

I know I can only change my behavior and not his, hence my reading and participating on this site, hence attempting numerous venues of communication tools to try and minimize hostility, and hence actively seeking community resources

Ideas?

 

[breezymom]

I would like your thoughts, as well, on his proposal for the holidays:

Thanksgiving 8a.m-11a.m.-Christmas Eve pick up at 4p.m.return at 12pm Christmas Day.

That would put the child there, for the Christmas holiday, adding on visitation on the following schedule:

4 PM on 12/24 until 12/25 at 12 PM
9 AM on 12/26 to 2 PM on 12/27

So, she would come home for less than 24 hours.

I want to be fair to him and to her on this, so, is that an appropriate schedule for a 2 year old?

 

[mistoffolees]

My goal:

*To have a two-way effective communication system where our child can have a relationship with both of us safely

I know I can only change my behavior and not his, hence my reading and participating on this site, hence attempting numerous venues of communication tools to try and minimize hostility, and hence actively seeking community resources

Ideas?

Yes. As you are starting to realize, your goal is unrealistic in that you can not control it nor guarantee that it will happen.

A more realistic goal would be for you to have solid, enforceable court orders that allow ex the OPPORTUNITY to participate in the child's life, but you can't make him.

Safety is a problem. It is certainly reasonable to hope for the child's safety to always be the top concern, but courts have multiple agendas that need to be balanced. The court can't simply say "we will not allow anything to happen which might create a risk to a child". If they said that, then they could take away a parent's right to have a relationship with the child (and vice versa) if there's a 0.000000001% chance of harm. Considering that removing the child's parent would in and of itself cause harm, that isn't reasonable. The court has to balance risks and benefits, so "zero risk of harm to the child" isn't going to happen (heck, even if the child never left your sight, you can't guarantee zero risk). So all you can do is present the information that the court needs to make a decision and hopefully convince the court that the risks are great enough to take precautions. But there are no guarantees.