Is joint legal custody for real?

[rmet4nzkx]

Her response got to me today. I’m surprised, because she has lied in the past and many times I have gone unserved, but because she filed a proof of service (even without proof of mailing) she always got away with it. Just my luck. I did call the paralegal and in our phone tagging and messages left, the paralegal said it was filed with the courts on 9/2/05 showing a supposed mailing/service date of 8/31/05. And, she said that my ex still missed the deadline. It should’ve been filed and served no later than 8/27/05. Since I just received the response in today, will they still consider her late? I figure asking won’t hurt. I don’t have her reply right now in front of me, and I will post it tonight, but she basically states that the CO says SHE can choose and she chooses the agency who cannot accommodate Sat. therapy sessions. She states that if I can go to school and have that worked into my week’s schedule than I can work week day therapy sessions in Fresno into my week schedule. Can you believe this!? I can’t! And, then again, I feel stupid…I SHOULD believe this! She also goes on to say that if the courts choose to accommodate the Sat. request that was already granted me in the CO from 7/1 then she is asking that they order a female therapist due to past experiences ??? and how our children feel more comfortable with female authority figures. This is what I get from her reply. Oh, also she says that the therapist I chose does not comply with some law stating that the therapist is supposed to meet separately with each parent and have an interview or assessment, etc.. ??? and that she called him several times but he refuses to speak to her. She actually was harassing him and I told her to stop. I told her when she brought the kids to the first session she could meet with him and speak to him then, Of course, she refuses. So, has done some sort of research showing the courts some law he has now broken and she does not want to work with his agency now.

Anyway, things are ok with my girlfriend and I. The weekend was not a good one, but we were able to talk everything out and make goals for ourselves in how we will deal with everything going on. I will try to be extra kind to her as you suggested Miss Met. She’s just drained…in ALL aspects, especially financially.

Well you have the wording of the order which doesn't coincide her version, nor would her version had been congruent with the dates for therapy ordered by the court. Yes, it is true that the therapist should meet with both parents for assessment but the purpose of the court ordered therapy was for you to have an opportunity to reestablish your visitaiton with your children in a therapeutic and objective setting. If the parents are not together a therapist conduct their assessment as they feel best, although sometimes everyone meets together, there is no LAW per se but her meeting can be later or over the phone, the therapist can't do anything until she presents the children for therapy since this was court ordered, as opposed to volluntarily seeking therapy. If there was a law, why didn't she contact you and inform you when she obtained therapy for your son without your knowledge or consent, why didn't that therapist contact you for assessment over the phone at least? See she is digging her own hole deeper all the time.

There was nothing in the mediator's report or the order about a female therapist being required, there was some discussion about her not wanting therapy to begin for some months because of the children's activities and for that reason the court ordered Saturday, she is clearly in contempt on many levels. There is nothing saying that she gets to chose your therapist.

The court ordered x number of sessions starting at a certain date and to be completed by a certain date so there could be a new mediation/court date. THe court ordered that sessions be with a licensed therapist. Your therapist qualifies if they are licensed.

Now once you are able to meet with the therapist and your children, if the therapist believes it best for additional sessions beyond the ordered sessions because the children were not present as ordered, also petition that she pay all costs related, that is co pays, milage, fuel, etc and you will ask that she pay for your legal costs and allow your visitation. Have the costs to date ready and the expected cost for future sessions and with gas over $3 gal, also when you have visitation have the court order that she deliver the children to your door and pick them up since she created the distance. So if you are to have them from 6 pm Fri to 6 pm Sunday she has to bear the cost.

 

[daddenied]

Thanks Miss Met. I did want to ask...who can I contact about the Dentist and Ortho office completely ignoring all of my correspondence? I have tried to call and left messages with both offices...no return calls. I have faxed, emailed and sent letters through the USPS (again 2 weeks apart from each other as not to harrass) and still no response, but as you saw from my ex's reply they have contacted HER. Is it the Better Business Bureau or the Consumer Affairs or am I way off? They seem not to care that I am asking them specific questions and asking that they contact me.

 

[casa]

Thanks Miss Met. I did want to ask...who can I contact about the Dentist and Ortho office completely ignoring all of my correspondence? I have tried to call and left messages with both offices...no return calls. I have faxed, emailed and sent letters through the USPS (again 2 weeks apart from each other as not to harrass) and still no response, but as you saw from my ex's reply they have contacted HER. Is it the Better Business Bureau or the Consumer Affairs or am I way off? They seem not to care that I am asking them specific questions and asking that they contact me.

Did you send the outline letter I originally gave you from www.deltabravo.net? Go to the site and look up alternate letters....there are a few and start from initial contact, to when you are being ignored.

Your X takes the cake! I hope when it's all said and done she is as transparent to the judge! It happens...trust me

 

[daddenied]

Yes..

Hi Casa.

I sent that letter maybe a day after you posted the info for me. I still cannot believe that they continue to ignore me. Do they know something I don't know? Like...they don't have to reply and furnish me-the NCP with anything.

And, yes...every time I think she has done the worst thing...she does something else...she DOES take the cake.

 

[daddenied]

Response from ex-PLEASE READ and comment

I said I would post my ex's response when I had a chance so here it is. Please read it and let me know what you think my chances really are next week. I feel good about the hearing and feel as if she is just playing games, but still worry nonetheless. Here it is:

----------------------------------------------------------------
As noted by Respondent , the Court has ruled that "in the event of a disagreement regarding the selection of a mental health clinician or agency, the mother shall select said provider." Petitioner (mother) has selected CYS, as was adopted by Order of the Court. CYS has an established partnership with the Court and was recommended by the Mediator's Office and advocated by the Family Law Facilitator's Office as one of the very few full-scale child mental health/counseling agencies in the Fresno area.

Respondent has filed a Motion to employ (my chosen agency) to facilitate the therapeutic superivsed visitations as ordered by the Court. Petitioner is not agreeable to utilizing (my chosen agency) based upon the agency's apparent lack of awareness and/or adherence to Uniform Standards of Practice Providers of Supervised Visitation set forth in section 26.2 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration Uniform Standards.

In accordace with the requirements of the Uniform Standar4ds, the therapeutic provider is required to: "Conduct a comprehensive intake and screening to assess the nature and degree of risk for each case. The procedures...include separate interviews with parties BEFORE THE FIRST VISIWT." [Section 26.2(d)(2)]

Petitioner has made FOUR separate attempts to contact (my chosen agency), specifically (name of the therapist), in an effort to ascertain the scope of his services. (Name of therapist) has REFUSED to return any phone calls and Respondent has warned Petitioner to "stop harrassing his therapist." Petitioner is not willing to engage an agency that does not conform to Judicial Administration Uniform Standards and believes (agency/name of therapist) to be biased and prejudicial to Respondent as his primary client.

Court Order further stipulates: "Any cost of said therapeutic visits shall be paid by the father" [3.03] There is no stipulation that the chosen provider be restricted to an agency that accepts Respondent's insurance. However, it should be noted that the cost of CYS services ($30) is the SAME amount as the Respondent's insurance co-pay, thereby rendering Respondent's insurance/financial contention not relevant.

Shoud the Court reverse its original Order allowing Petitioner to select the Provider, Petitioner seeks to ensure the gender of the therapist be factored when selecint a provider. Past incidents inflicted by Respondent have resulted in the children connecting and communicating more comfortably with femaile authority figures. To wit, the Court has ordered that Respondent enroll in an Anger Management Program [7.02] and directed that "said therapeutic visits shall be specifically desinged to alleviate distress evident in the child" [3.03]

Respondent frequently and readily arranges his work schedule to accomodate his class schedules and litigious filings and should have minimal difficulty rearranging his schedule to accomodate visitations with his children at the selected reputable agency (CYS).
---------------------------------------------------------------

I'm absolutely sick reading this mess. I know that my ex is just ticked that SHE did not get to meet the therapist first. She is just ticked because I told her to bring the children to the sessions and at that time she could meet and speak to the therapist. She also lies in this response mis-stating the cost of CYS. CYS tells me that it will cost me $50 to see them right now only during the week after an assessment and orientation with me. They also tell me that their waiting list is also 4 months to get on if I want to have the sliding scale fee which is $30. In July when I first contacted them, that would have put us back to November before my children and I could see a therapist and start the healing process of all the damage that has been done. Of course I said no and found the agency I found. NOW, CYS is telling me the waiting list is to January! My ex knows this...CYS wrote the both of us telling us this. On top of this, our children are in school from 7:45pm-3:40pm (the latest time they are out) and they play sports after school. They TOO are not available to obtain therapy from CYS Mon-Fri 9-5pm. She KNOWS this! My ex knows that I attend school at night and never have to rearrange my work schedule unless I am required to be in court in Fresno during the week because of her madness! "Past incidents inflicted by Respondent" are incidents my ex insists happened but there has never been DV in our history nor any abuse or any filings for that matter. We divorced under "irreconciliable differences" and it was VERY amicable...ugly only when I got over the fact that SHE left me and took our children away. It was only AFTER I chose to move on with my life and choose to be with someone she could never be...supportive, kind and unconditionally loving. She's pissed that our children spent the summer with us and even travelled to visit my girlfriend's family who they mad quick friends with. She's pissed that our chidlren actually thought my girlfriend was a nice and kind woman and did NOT try to be their mother (as their mother had told them). She pissed about all of these things. She's ticked because her choice of agency can't accomodate us and she has already gone in and told her sob dishonest story painting me as a bad dad and a monster (who is biased?) She is so blinded by jealousy that she has lost her mind...I'm sure of it. Actually, it makes me feel less like a dummy for ever being with her in the first place when I say she has lost her mind. I can trace it back to then...I have emails from her prior to then saying how great of a father I had always been and the problem had been between us and now she files a response alluding to past incidents! I read that and thought I needed to just ignore her stupidity, but it's hard. The judge on July 1st specifically granted me Sat. visits due to her requests being unreasonable. I think they wil rule on me, if not by default (her late response), then in the name of honesty and truth. I know...that was corny, but I sure do hope that justice truly does prevail.

Tell me what you think about her response and what my chances are. Please be brutally honest if need be.

My chidlren have been so poisoned I am afraid to see them in therapy or even more afraid if the judge ever gives them to me. I mean, don't get me wrong...that would be a dream come true, but I wonder at what cost and how much damage control I will have to deal with.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Well, this will take some careful consideration for a response.

You will want to be sure to focus on each of her statements pointing out the evidence and the errors in her citations.

Quote the actual order, the reasons behind it, the fact that existing orders remain in place and that the report of the mediator was not accepted by the court.

Point out that the judge reduced the amount of therapy from what was requested.

While it is easier for your schedule therapeutic visitations on Sat, which would be the normal time of your visitation since she removed the children to Fresno creating the distance. It was upon the specific request of mom that it be on SAT because of the children's and her schedule. Mom had also made comment that the children would not be available for some months due to sports activities of which she failed to inform you, in an attempt to delay visitation. You agreed with this schedule in the belief that it was in the best interest of the children and because you were assured that you would be able to see your children in this context which was grossly and intentionally misrepresented to you and the court, you will recite the evidence.

The court was assured by mom that CYS http://www.cysfresno.org/ was available to preform such therapeutic visitations on Saturdays, not supervised visitations or exchanges, immediatly and therapeutic visitation services were available on Saturdays, thus the schedule set forth in the court's order so that the therapeutic visitations would be complete by a certain date when the court would then reconsider the orders.

According to the CYS site these are the various forms of services available and as noted your children are beyond the scope of therapeutic visitations CYS provides!
-------
Our Services

Parent/Child Interactive Therapy (PCIT): This program offers at-risk families an opportunity to modify their interaction style and gives parents the skills to create a safe, nurturing environment for their children. Through a one-way mirror, a specially-trained therapist watches the parent interact with the child. The parent wears an electric device in one ear and can hear suggestions and real-time feedback from the therapist in the next room. The program is targeted at children between two and eight years of age, and is currently by referral only.

Supervised Visits & Exchanges: Comprehensive Youth Services offers a safe, neutral environment for children to visit with their non-custodial parent or to be exchanged between parents for visitation purposes. Supervised visits and exchanges are available weekdays, weekends, and holidays. (not what was requested)

Therapeutic Supervised Visitation: This program targets at-risk children, aged 2-8 years, who have been exposed to child abuse, neglect, and domestic violence or are at-risk for attachment disorders. Through observation, instruction, modeling, counseling and analysis by a licensed therapist, the child receives needed therapy and the parent and child are assisted in repairing and strengthening their relationship.
----------

When you discovered that there was a waiting list that exceeded the length of time to meet the court's orders you made a good faith attempt to follow the court's order after consulting the court and sought out a competent and qualified LICENSED therapist upon referal of your insurance company, meeting a HIGHER STANDARD than the guidelines cited which have been REPEALED since 2001 and replaced with Rule 1257.1 which I will put in the next post, you can use this in response to her outdated citation.
2005 California Rules of Court
Sec. 26. [Repealed 2001]
Sec. 26 repealed effective July 1, 2001, by Rules memorandum No. R-1(99); adopted effective January 1, 1991.
Drafter's Notes
1990-The council added section 26, with commentary, to the Standards of Judicial Administration to establish uniform standards of practice for court-connected mediation of child custody and visitation disputes.

1999-Effective July 1, 2001, section 26 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration will be repealed, and new rule 1257.1, providing standards of practice for court-connected child custody mediation, will be in effect. The revised standards will better serve the growing number of pro per litigants with increasingly complex and diverse family law disputes and ensure minimum service levels and accountability. The effective date of this rule change has been extended to July 1, 2001, to allow time for each family court services unit to consider the administrative or case management changes it may need and to submit and receive funding for whatever incremental or budget development proposals are indicated.

Thus no choice on your part was involved in making the choice of therapist, there is no bias. The therapist she employed without your knowledge or consent did not follow these outdated guidelines or attempt any assessment at a time when mom claimed the child was suicidal which by law requires specific documentation and notice. The therapist had refused to comply with lawful requests for records and you are requesting the court issue a supoena for the records and that they be sent to the therapist who will be treating.

Insofar as assesment, according to the court's order the therapy was for you and the children, not cojoint with her, she has no right to chose your therapist, although she is welcome to speak to the therapist as you suggested, she is not privy to your therapy and the therapist rightly ignored her calls according to HIPAA laws inacted 4-14-4 until a signed waiver is on file, the provider has a choice as to communicate or not to unsolicited communications. You have already completed the assessment in good faith and the best interest of the children and she has failed to follow the court's order and instead falls back on a section of repealed rules of court, this also speaks to the competency of who ever is advising her. There was no request for a female therapist prior to this date. Often times there is need of assessment at other times other than prior to therapy, this is based on the professionals opinion.

While CYS may be one of the community agencies listed by the court, these are for the most part non profit agencies intended to serve the ecconomically challenged populations not those with private insurance, thus their availability to provide therapeutic visitation is limited. CA Rule of Court 1257.1 addresses bias, nor dies it exclude other competent and qualified licensed therapists in favor of an agency which may employ less qualified unlicensed therapists. One way such agencies provide therapy at a reduced rate is, grants and the utilization of MFC trainees/interns, ASW interns, Psychologist practicum/interns operating under group supervision of a limited number of licensed therapists most of who are administrators and don't see clients, this is why they don't do therapy on Saturdays and why the fees are higher and not covered by insurance. There is no guarentee that the visits will be conducted by anyone with more than a few graduate units of education or even a degree as long as they are supervised.

From the Fresno Superior Court site:
Treatment and Counseling
Marjaree Mason Center: (559) 233-4357(HELP)
Adult Mental Health: (559) 453-4099
California School of Professional Psychology: (559) 253-2277
Central Valley Indian Health: (559) 299-2634
Children’s Mental Health: (559) 445-3225
Children’s Services Network: (559) 456-1100
Comprehensive Youth Services: (559) 229-3591 (559-229-3561 [email protected])
Northwest Family Crisis Center: (559) 225-3222
Rape Counseling Service: (559) 497-2900
Spirit of Women: (559) 264-5985

Was there an order for anger management or did she get that off the site because aspects of anger management might be covered in the therapeutic visitaitons? I suggest that you request that she be ordered into anger management 52 sessions based on her contempt of court give the example that the DA office already had to intervene in the past.

Be sure to point out that the report of the mediator was not accepted by the court and it's recommendations are not the court's orders. She failed to present the children for any of the scheduled therapeutic appointments and has a history of interfering with visitation, communication and hiding information about the the children. She has contracted for services for the children without your knowledge or consent and gave her address as your address so you would not receive the bills or know about the care, this has adversley affected your credit and is a form of fraud.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

rule 26 repealed replaced by rule 1257.1 aka rule 5.210

2005 California Rules of Court
Rule 5.210. Court-connected child custody mediation

(a) [Authority] This rule of court is adopted under article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution and Family Code sections 211, 3160, and 3162(a).

(b) [Purpose] This rule sets forth standards of practice and administration for court-connected child custody mediation services that are consistent with the requirements of Family Code section 3161.

(c) [Definitions]

(1) "Best interest of the child" is defined in Family Code section 3011.

(2) "Parenting plan" is a plan describing how parents or other appropriate parties will share and divide their decision making and caretaking responsibilities to protect the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of each child who is a subject of the proceedings.

(d) [Responsibility for mediation services]

(1) Each court must ensure that:

(A) Mediators are impartial, competent, and uphold the standards of practice contained in this rule of court.

(B) Mediation services and case management procedures implement state law and allow sufficient time for parties to receive orientation, participate fully in mediation, and develop a comprehensive parenting plan without unduly compromising each party's right to due process and a timely resolution of the issues.

(C) Mediation services demonstrate accountability by:

(i) Providing for acceptance of and response to complaints about a mediator's performance;

(ii) Participating in statewide data collection efforts; and

(iii) Disclosing the use of interns to provide mediation services.

(D) The mediation program uses a detailed intake process that screens for, and informs the mediator about, any restraining orders or safety-related issues affecting any party or child named in the proceedings to allow compliance with relevant law or court rules before mediation begins.

(E) Whenever possible, mediation is available from bilingual mediators or other interpreter services that meet the requirements of Evidence Code sections 754(f) and 755(a) and section 18 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration.

(F) Mediation services protect, in accordance with existing law, party confidentiality in:

(i) Storage and disposal of records and any personal information accumulated during the mediation process;

(ii) Interagency coordination or cooperation regarding a particular family or case; and

(iii) Management of child abuse reports and related documents.

(G) Mediation services provide a written description of limitations on the confidentiality of the process.

(H) Within one year of the adoption of this rule, the court adopts a local court rule regarding ex parte communications.

(2) Each court-connected mediator must:

(A) Maintain an overriding concern to integrate the child's best interest within the family context;

(B) Inform the parties and any counsel for a minor child if the mediator will make a recommendation to the court as provided under Family Code section 3184;

(C) Use reasonable efforts and consider safety issues to:

(i) Facilitate the family's transition and reduce acrimony by helping the parties improve their communication skills, focus on the child's needs and areas of stability, identify the family's strengths, and locate counseling or other services;

(ii) Develop a comprehensive parenting agreement that addresses each child's current and future developmental needs; and

(iii) Control for potential power imbalances between the parties during mediation.

(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2003; previously amended effective January 1, 2002.)

(e) [Mediation process] All court-connected mediation processes must be conducted in accordance with state law and include:

(1) Review of the intake form and court file, if available, before the start of mediation;

(2) Oral or written orientation or parent education that facilitates the parties' informed and self-determined decision making about:

(A) The types of disputed issues generally discussed in mediation and the range of possible outcomes from the mediation process;

(B) The mediation process, including the mediator's role; the circumstances that may lead the mediator to make a particular recommendation to the court; limitations on the confidentiality of the process; and access to information communicated by the parties or included in the mediation file;

(C) How to make best use of information drawn from current research and professional experience to facilitate the mediation process, parties' communication, and co-parenting relationship; and

(D) How to address each child's current and future developmental needs;

(3) Interviews with children at the mediator's discretion and consistent with Family Code section 3180(a). The mediator may interview the child alone or together with other interested parties, including stepparents, siblings, new or step-siblings, or other family members significant to the child. If interviewing a child, the mediator must:

(A) Inform the child in an age-appropriate way of the mediator's obligation to disclose suspected child abuse and neglect and the local policies concerning disclosure of the child's statements to the court; and

(B) With parental consent, coordinate interview and information exchange among agency or private professionals to reduce the number of interviews a child might experience;

(4) Assistance to the parties, without undue influence or personal bias, in developing a parenting plan that protects the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of the child and that optimizes the child's relationship with each party by including, as appropriate, provisions for supervised visitation in high-risk cases; designations for legal and physical custody; a description of each party's authority to make decisions that affect the child; language that minimizes legal, mental health, or other jargon; and a detailed schedule of the time a child is to spend with each party, including vacations, holidays, and special occasions, and times when the child's contact with a party may be interrupted;

(5) Extension of time to allow the parties to gather additional information if the mediator determines that such information will help the discussion proceed in a fair and orderly manner or facilitate an agreement;

(6) Suspension or discontinuance of mediation if allegations of child abuse or neglect are made until a designated agency performs an investigation and reports a case determination to the mediator;

(7) Termination of mediation if the mediator believes that he or she is unable to achieve a balanced discussion between the parties;

(8) Conclusion of mediation with:

(A) A written parenting plan summarizing the parties' agreement or mediator's recommendation that is given to counsel or the parties before the recommendation is presented to the court; and

(B) A written or oral description of any subsequent case management or court procedures for resolving one or more outstanding custody or visitation issues, including instructions for obtaining temporary orders; and

(9) Return to mediation to resolve future custody or visitation disputes.

(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2003.)

(f) [Training, continuing education, and experience requirements for mediator, mediation supervisor, and family court services director] As specified in Family Code sections 1815 and 1816:

(1) All mediators, mediation supervisors, and family court service directors must:

(A) Complete a minimum of 40 hours of custody and visitation mediation training within the first six months of initial employment as a court-connected mediator;

(B) Annually complete 8 hours of related continuing education programs, conferences, and workshops. This requirement is in addition to the annual 4-hour domestic violence update training described in rule 5.215; and

(C) Participate in performance supervision and peer review.

(2) Each mediation supervisor and family court services director must complete at least 24 hours of additional training each calendar year. This requirement may be satisfied in part by the domestic violence training required by Family Code section 1816.

(Subd (f) amended effective January 1, 2005; previously amended effective January 1, 2003.)

(g) [Education and training providers] Only education and training acquired from eligible providers meet the requirements of this rule. "Eligible providers" includes the Administrative Office of the Courts and may include educational institutions, professional associations, professional continuing education groups, public or private for-profit or not-for-profit groups, and court-connected groups.

cont...

 

[rmet4nzkx]

(1) Eligible providers must:

(A) Ensure that the training instructors or consultants delivering the education and training programs either meet the requirements of this rule or are experts in the subject matter;

(B) Monitor and evaluate the quality of courses, curricula, training, instructors, and consultants;

(C) Emphasize the importance of focusing child custody mediations on the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of the child;

(D) Develop a procedure to verify that participants complete the education and training program; and

(E) Distribute a certificate of completion to each person who has completed the training. The certificate must document the number of hours of training offered, the number of hours the person completed, the dates of the training, and the name of the training provider.

(2) Effective July 1, 2005, all education and training programs must be approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts.

(Subd (g) adopted effective January 1, 2005.)

(h) [Ethics] Mediation must be conducted in an atmosphere that encourages trust in the process and a perception of fairness. To that end, mediators must:

(1) Meet the practice and ethical standards of the Code of Ethics for the Court Employees of California and of related law;

(2) Maintain objectivity, provide and gather balanced information for both parties, and control for bias;

(3) Protect the confidentiality of the parties and the child in making any collateral contacts and not release information about the case to any individual except as authorized by the court or statute;

(4) Not offer any recommendations about a party unless that party has been evaluated directly or in consultation with another qualified neutral professional;

(5) Consider the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of the child in all phases of the process, including interviews with parents, extended family members, counsel for the child, and other interested parties or collateral contacts;

(6) Strive to maintain the confidential relationship between the child who is the subject of an evaluation and his or her treating psychotherapist;

(7) Operate within the limits of his or her training and experience and disclose any limitations or bias that would affect his or her ability to conduct the mediation;

(8) Not require children to state a custodial preference;

(9) Not disclose any recommendations to the parties, their attorneys, or the attorney for the child before having gathered the information necessary to support the conclusion;

(10) Disclose to the court, parties, attorneys for the parties, and attorney for the child conflicts of interest or dual relationships and not accept any appointment except by court order or the parties' stipulation;

(11) Be sensitive to the parties' socioeconomic, gender, race, ethnicity, cultural values, religious, family structures, and developmental characteristics; and

(12) Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In the event of a conflict of interest, the mediator must suspend mediation and meet and confer in an effort to resolve the conflict of interest to the satisfaction of all parties or according to local court rules. The court may order mediation to continue with another mediator or offer the parties alternatives. The mediator cannot continue unless the parties agree in writing to continue mediation despite the disclosed conflict of interest.

(Subd (h) relettered effective January 1, 2005; adopted as subd (g) effective July 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 2003.)

Rule 5.210 amended effective January 1, 2005; adopted as rule 1257.1 effective July 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 2002; amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2003.

Drafters' Notes

1999-Effective July 1, 2001, section 26 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration will be repealed, and new rule 1257.1, providing standards of practice for court-connected child custody mediation, will be in effect. The revised standards will better serve the growing number of pro per litigants with increasingly complex and diverse family law disputes and ensure minimum service levels and accountability. The effective date of this rule change has been extended to July 1, 2001, to allow time for each family court services unit to consider the administrative or case management changes it may need and to submit and receive funding for whatever incremental or budget development proposals are indicated.

2002-The rule now requires that notification of the limits of confidentiality be provided to the parties in writing so that litigants are more likely to be informed of the circumstances under which information they provide to mediators may be disclosed to third parties.

 

[casa]

That was a lot of jargon which 'sounds' like she only wants to enforce the court's decision...The important fact is that CYS is closed on Saturday. They cannot accomidate the scheduled day the court suggested.

Get a FAX of the insurance company or CYS's actual quote of charges for you- demonstrating she is lying re; the amount being the same as the co-pay.

You accomidating your schedule to filing (most of which you can do at home) or school (a small commute from home) is NOT the same as traveling all the way to Fresno. Note the difference in distance to Fresno vs. your school.

 

[daddenied]

That was a lot of jargon which 'sounds' like she only wants to enforce the court's decision...The important fact is that CYS is closed on Saturday. They cannot accomidate the scheduled day the court suggested.

Get a FAX of the insurance company or CYS's actual quote of charges for you- demonstrating she is lying re; the amount being the same as the co-pay.

You accomidating your schedule to filing (most of which you can do at home) or school (a small commute from home) is NOT the same as traveling all the way to Fresno. Note the difference in distance to Fresno vs. your school.

I contacted CYS today leaving them a message asking that they fax me confirmation of the fees they qouted over the phone with me. They have already sent both of us (my ex and me) a letter stating they cannot accomodate the CO being closed on Saturdays.

My ex is killing me regarding my having no problem adjusting my schedule to have therapy in the week! I sure hope all goes well next week.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Please read my post, there is some good stuff for you, I have to go to the store and will check later.

 

[daddenied]

----------

When you discovered that there was a waiting list that exceeded the length of time to meet the court's orders you made a good faith attempt to follow the court's order after consulting the court and sought out a competent and qualified LICENSED therapist upon referal of your insurance company, meeting a HIGHER STANDARD than the guidelines cited which have been REPEALED since 2001 and replaced with Rule 1257.1 which I will put in the next post, you can use this in response to her outdated citation.
2005 California Rules of Court
Sec. 26. [Repealed 2001]
Sec. 26 repealed effective July 1, 2001, by Rules memorandum No. R-1(99); adopted effective January 1, 1991.
Drafter's Notes
1990-The council added section 26, with commentary, to the Standards of Judicial Administration to establish uniform standards of practice for court-connected mediation of child custody and visitation disputes.

1999-Effective July 1, 2001, section 26 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration will be repealed, and new rule 1257.1, providing standards of practice for court-connected child custody mediation, will be in effect. The revised standards will better serve the growing number of pro per litigants with increasingly complex and diverse family law disputes and ensure minimum service levels and accountability. The effective date of this rule change has been extended to July 1, 2001, to allow time for each family court services unit to consider the administrative or case management changes it may need and to submit and receive funding for whatever incremental or budget development proposals are indicated.

Thus no choice on your part was involved in making the choice of therapist, there is no bias. The therapist she employed without your knowledge or consent did not follow these outdated guidelines or attempt any assessment at a time when mom claimed the child was suicidal which by law requires specific documentation and notice. The therapist had refused to comply with lawful requests for records and you are requesting the court issue a supoena for the records and that they be sent to the therapist who will be treating.

Insofar as assesment, according to the court's order the therapy was for you and the children, not cojoint with her, she has no right to chose your therapist, although she is welcome to speak to the therapist as you suggested, she is not privy to your therapy and the therapist rightly ignored her calls according to HIPAA laws inacted 4-14-4 until a signed waiver is on file, the provider has a choice as to communicate or not to unsolicited communications. You have already completed the assessment in good faith and the best interest of the children and she has failed to follow the court's order and instead falls back on a section of repealed rules of court, this also speaks to the competency of who ever is advising her. There was no request for a female therapist prior to this date. Often times there is need of assessment at other times other than prior to therapy, this is based on the professionals opinion.

Thank you so much for all of this. I didn't have time to look it all over, but as soon as I get home from work tonight my girlfriend and I plan on going through the entire thing. I want to apologize for my ignorance, but I see what you said about her citation she qouted being outdated...I still am confused, but tonight I plan on posting an outline of exactly what I will be saying (hopefully confident and ready) next Wed. in court regarding this. I just want to feedback to ensure I am saying the right things and have understood all the help you all have offered me here.

BTW, my ex told the mediator that she was scared of me and that the children are too???? Again, NEVER DV or abuse in the past... the mediator (a woman I felt at the time during the mediation was almost in tears herself listening to my ex and watching her Oscar academy portrayal of an abused woman only protecting her children) stated she felt that it would be good for me to have anger management...thus the order of the court. I was upset at first, but went ahead and did it...It's done and I'm glad I went through it because it has helped me realize that a lot of times my anger and disappointment with what is going on with my ex I transfer to my current girlfriend out of frustration. It really has helped me too to realize that my ex is ticked that I am happy with someone else and I agree I will be requesting that she obtain anger management counseling too. Okay, I'll post later tonight,

thank you again.

-feeling as if there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but don't want to be too sure.

 

[casa]

I contacted CYS today leaving them a message asking that they fax me confirmation of the fees they qouted over the phone with me. They have already sent both of us (my ex and me) a letter stating they cannot accomodate the CO being closed on Saturdays.

My ex is killing me regarding my having no problem adjusting my schedule to have therapy in the week! I sure hope all goes well next week.

check rmet's post re; the children that CYS is able to accomidate also

 

[daddenied]

Hello...it's daddenied's girlfriend

check rmet's post re; the children that CYS is able to accomidate also

Hi. I'm daddenied's girlfriend. He just called me from work and asked me to get on and check out today's posts. First of all, thank you and Miss Met and everyone else for your time and help on this matter. I skimmed through Miss Met's posting and did see as well as on CYS' website that therapeutic supervised visitation is provided to children whose ages are much younger than his children. His youngest is 10 and the oldest 15. ??? Hmmm... Interesting.. I want to go through Miss Met's posting right now as requested and reply. Thanks!

 

[daddenied]

Focusing on each of ex's statements

Well, this will take some careful consideration for a response.

You will want to be sure to focus on each of her statements pointing out the evidence and the errors in her citations.

Hello Miss Met. I'm daddenied's girlfriend. I feel so old using the word "girlfriend". He asked me to log on and check this out. I think it's great he's been on here and had the help and support of you, Casa and others. I am going through your post and will be replying to each section. Sorry...but I just want to understand everything so when I see him tonight at his place to study and continue preparation for this upcoming hearing, we can get on line together and discuss it and be on the same page.

Okay, here goes...I copied her response from the earlier post.

As noted by Respondent , the Court has ruled that "in the event of a disagreement regarding the selection of a mental health clinician or agency, the mother shall select said provider." Petitioner (mother) has selected CYS, as was adopted by Order of the Court. CYS has an established partnership with the Court and was recommended by the Mediator's Office and advocated by the Family Law Facilitator's Office as one of the very few full-scale child mental health/counseling agencies in the Fresno area.

Mother has chosen an agency-CYS. She told the judge pro tem on July 1st that she had already checked out the agency and they were open on Sat. from 8-8pm and even holidays for this service. But, she did not realize that supervised visitation and therapeutic supervised visitation (which SHE specifically asked for) are two different things. It is not only outlined in CYS’ website description of services offered, but has already been told to both parties by CYS over the telephone, in person for her and more recently in writing from CYS to both parties. (Copy of letter is included in motion) As of Aug. 3rd the Family Law Facilitator’s attorney has stated that she would relay this message to the courts indicating CYS cannot accommodate therapeutic supervised visitations on Saturdays.

Respondent has filed a Motion to employ (my chosen agency) to facilitate the therapeutic superivsed visitations as ordered by the Court. Petitioner is not agreeable to utilizing (my chosen agency) based upon the agency's apparent lack of awareness and/or adherence to Uniform Standards of Practice Providers of Supervised Visitation set forth in section 26.2 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration Uniform Standards.

In accordace with the requirements of the Uniform Standar4ds, the therapeutic provider is required to: "Conduct a comprehensive intake and screening to assess the nature and degree of risk for each case. The procedures...include separate interviews with parties BEFORE THE FIRST VISIWT." [Section 26.2(d)(2)]

This is the part where I am embarrassed to admit, but both my boyfriend and I are a little confused as we are pretty ignorant to the intricacies of the law in California pertaining to what his ex has said. I read where you say her citation is outdated and understand her as saying that she does not want to use his chosen agency because they have not conducted a “comprehensive intake and screening to assess the nature….” where she specifies “separate interviews with parties BEFORE THE FIRST VISIT”. I also understand that you note that she is NOT a party to the ordered therapeutic supervised visitations, which is true. But, how exactly can my guy word this in court next week-the guidelines that were repealed in 2001? My understanding is that section 26 (which his ex cites) was repealed in 2001 with a new rule 1257.1 right? It’s the next part that I am not understanding.

“The revised standards will better serve the growing number of pro per litigants with increasingly complex and diverse family law disputes and ensure minimum service levels and accountability. The effective date of this rule change has been extended to July 1, 2001, to allow time for each family court services unit to consider the administrative or case management changes it may need and to submit and receive funding for whatever incremental or budget development proposals are indicated”.

Am I totally ignorant and did you explain it in the next paragraph “Thus no choice on your part was involved in making the choice of therapist, there is no bias”?

If you could just help clear this up then I will know how to help him actually write this down and present it next Wed. at the hearing. I do understand enough to know that her citation is outdated and what you posted I think refutes what she has stated in her response.

Petitioner has made FOUR separate attempts to contact (my chosen agency), specifically (name of the therapist), in an effort to ascertain the scope of his services. (Name of therapist) has REFUSED to return any phone calls and Respondent has warned Petitioner to "stop harrassing his therapist." Petitioner is not willing to engage an agency that does not conform to Judicial Administration Uniform Standards and believes (agency/name of therapist) to be biased and prejudicial to Respondent as his primary client.

The Petitioner was leaving messages asking (therapist’s name) for information regarding the therapy session for my guy and his children. As you noted, he did not respond to her, but told us of her calls and his ex was simply asked to stop harassing the therapist and to bring the children in where he had no problem meeting with her. In fact, the therapist even said when they are almost through with the 12 sessions he would venture to invite the mother into the session-1 or 2 closer to the end. This was also told to his ex, but she of course has refused.

Court Order further stipulates: "Any cost of said therapeutic visits shall be paid by the father" [3.03] There is no stipulation that the chosen provider be restricted to an agency that accepts Respondent's insurance. However, it should be noted that the cost of CYS services ($30) is the SAME amount as the Respondent's insurance co-pay, thereby rendering Respondent's insurance/financial contention not relevant.

We are awaiting written correspondence either by email or fax from CYS detailing the costs of visits on their regular scale (IF he was available to have session during the week) as well as the costs with their sliding scale fee (the one that has a 4 month waiting period). We also wanted to note that all the providers listed on the court website:

Treatment and Counseling
Marjaree Mason Center: (559) 233-4357(HELP)
Adult Mental Health: (559) 453-4099
California School of Professional Psychology: (559) 253-2277
Central Valley Indian Health: (559) 299-2634
Children’s Mental Health: (559) 445-3225
Children’s Services Network: (559) 456-1100
Comprehensive Youth Services: (559) 229-3591 (559-229-3561 [email protected])
Northwest Family Crisis Center: (559) 225-3222
Rape Counseling Service: (559) 497-2900
Spirit of Women: (559) 264-59851. Either do not provide therapeutic supervised visitation or
2. Do not provide any Sat. services at all.

We believe his ex is just being plain ugly here, acting as if she does not know that his finances are below poverty level after CS is paid and that he lives on begged, borrowed and gratefully not stolen money. Besides the fact that she is dishonest about the cost. Actually she is correct about the $30 cost for the sliding scale fee with the soonest appointment being in January.

Shoud the Court reverse its original Order allowing Petitioner to select the Provider, Petitioner seeks to ensure the gender of the therapist be factored when selecint a provider. Past incidents inflicted by Respondent have resulted in the children connecting and communicating more comfortably with femaile authority figures. To wit, the Court has ordered that Respondent enroll in an Anger Management Program [7.02] and directed that "said therapeutic visits shall be specifically desinged to alleviate distress evident in the child" [3.03]

Again, there have never been past incidents that have been reported nor proven…no DV…nothing ever in anyone’s records. Like he said their divorce was amicable…he was devastated with the divorce, than the move, etc…the Mother’s allusion to these “past incidents” are unfounded. Also, that is where some of the problem has been...his ex's influence on their children (all boys by the way) has been so strong that we think that she may even have them convinced that female authority figures are always right and are the "caring" ones, unlike their father (who BTW hasn't been able to see them now for 8 months due to his ex's madness).

Respondent frequently and readily arranges his work schedule to accomodate his class schedules and litigious filings and should have minimal difficulty rearranging his schedule to accomodate visitations with his children at the selected reputable agency (CYS).

And, like Casa stated his drive from work to school in the evenings are approximately 200+ miles less than a trip to Fresno. His ex is just being ridiculous and hurtful at this point and time. And, his filing as you all know has not had him leave this area at all...all done from home and/or through the mail with help from others.

Okay, with all that said. This is how we think he will be focusing on each of her statements next week. Please give us any feedback…anything that you think will help and tell us what we should leave out too.

Thank you.