PLEASE READ-My declaration to be filed b4 hearing
Hello Miss Met and Casa. It's me and my girl together now.
We couldn't get a hold of the paralegal, but will try to get this declaration to her some time Monday afernoon and possibly Tuesday morning. We may be forced to have my girl take it up early Monday morning and then serve my ex...we'll see. We know...we are late, but could not reach her. We did want to run this by you. This is what is on the declaration...it's pretty long as we are rookies and wanted to make sure we didn't miss anything. Here goes...We know it's the weekend, but if any of you are on before tomorrow night, PLEASE give us feedback. Otherwise, if you read this Monday we will already have sent it out in hopes it was okay.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Respondent makes the following declarations to address all points that the Petitioner includes in her responsive declaration received on Sept. 7, 2005. Each of her paragraphs is addressed numerically in this declaration.
The Respondent would like the courts to make note of the fact that Petitioner’s response was not filed within the required time frame noted on the Notice of Motion (Form FL-301-Revised July 1, 2005) served her on Aug. 3, 2005 stating “In the absence of an order shortening time, the original of the responsive declaration must be filed with the court and a copy served on the other party at least 9 court days before the hearing date. Add five calendar days if you serve by mail within California.” 9 court days prior to the hearing would have been Aug. 31, 2005 and after adding 5 calendar days it would have had to have been filed and served to the Respondent no later than Aug. 26, 2005. According to the case file history, the Petitioner’s proof of service is dated Aug. 31. 2005 and her responsive declaration and proof of service were filed on Sept. 2, 2005. A copy of her responsive declaration was not received by the Respondent until Sept. 7th, 5 court days prior to the hearing.
1) On July 1st, Petitioner stated that she had already checked with CYS regarding therapeutic supervised visitation and that their agency was open on Saturdays 8a-8p to provide this service as well as on holidays. Petitioner would have known that CYS does not offer therapeutic supervised visitations to children over the age of 8 had she simply looked up their web site at www.cysfresno.org and read through their services offered. (See Attachment A). Respondent called CYS and emailed CYS for information and was told that they do provide therapeutic supervised visitations, but
a) not on Saturdays
b) there was a 4-month waiting list for those who needed to be billed on a sliding scale fee/the cost would be $30 a session at that time
c) for immediate consideration for the services the Respondent would have to attend an assessment and orientation only held on week days and it would cost $50 a session/sessions were only held Mon-Fri. 9-5pm. (See Attachment B-also included in original motion)
Petitioner was not only informed of these facts regarding CYS' inability to provide the court ordered service on Saturdays in numerous e-mail contacts from Respondent (See Attachment C), but from several messages left on her home answering machine. Respondent has asked her to bring the children to (my chosen agency) to see Mr. (therapist) in order to immediately start the necessary
Counseling and that it would be the right thing to do in the best interest of the children.
2) Respondent asks that the Petitioner's response citing the Uniform Standards of Practice Providers of Supervised Visitation set forth in section 26.2 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration Uniform Standards [Section 26.2(d)(2)] be stricken as it has been superceded by CA Rule 1257.1, HIPAA (See Attachment D) and no intake assessment is required of the Petitioner as she is not court ordered for therapy nor is she privy to the contents of Respondent's therapy.
3) It was appropriate that Mr. (therapist) did not communicate with the Petitioner as she is not a party to the therapy ordered. The July 1st court order requires that she is simply responsible to present the children to the counseling agency on the scheduled days and times. To respond to the Petitioner would have been an HIPAA violation on the part of Mr. (therapist)
4) Again, CYS’ session fees are actually $50 a session for immediate week day only therapy sessions. Respondent requests that Petitioner be responsible to pay for all visits thus far as well as all future therapeutic visitations, including additional travel costs from L.A. County to Fresno County every week. Respondent requests that he be allowed to pick up the children from their home every Saturday that a therapy session is scheduled as well as allow an extra hour after therapy to spend with them due to the delay Petitioner has caused in the therapy sessions before dropping them back off at their home. Due to the Petitioner purposely delaying therapeutic visitations with children and Respondent, the Respondent requests to be allowed regular visitation for the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday as proposed (See Attachment E). Prior to Petitioner's denying visitation after the Summer of 2004 visit the children had in L.A. County with Respondent, all visits with children and Respondent occurred with no supervision and without incident. If the courts feel that regular visitations should not start until after all 12 sessions are completed, the Respondent requests that the supervisors for holiday supervised visits be his parents, (parents names) and/or his brother and sister-in-law, (their names). All parties have agreed to this and have signed letters stating so. (See Attachment F) Respondent requests that the Petitioner be required to drop off and pick up children during these holiday visitations from the Respondent's home in Long Beach or his parents home in Moreno Valley as outlined in the proposed holiday visitation. Respondent has traveled to Fresno every week that the court ordered therapy sessions were to take place to (my chosen agency) each time asking Petitioner to compromise due to CYS not being able to accommodate the court order and bring the children so that the healing could begin. Respondent asks that Petitioner bear all the costs of travel until his time on the road and expenses have been made up with holiday visits and any further visits ordered starting Jan. 2006.
5) There are no past incidents on record of Domestic Violence or abuse in the family, thus no cause for requiring a female therapist. Mr. therapist is qualified to provide the therapeutic visitations. (See Attachment G). The Respondent was surprised to find out in late June 2005 only through the Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration for the July 1st hearing that she had employed a LCSW, (therapists name) to treat their oldest child, (sons name)in some sort of therapy and counseling from Apr. 2003-Apr. 2004. All this was done without any knowledge or consent given by the Respondent to administer treatment of any kind. The letter that was presented to the Respondent in June 2005 was dated Apr. 2004 and simply mentioned that (sons name) was in counseling for reasons associated with distress and anxiety stemming from his parent’s recent divorce (Filed Dec. 2002) and anxiety about visitation with the Respondent. Again, the Petitioner has a history of keeping important information from the Respondent in her attempt to alienate the children from him. Miss (therapist) has refused any and all requests from the Respondent for all
documents pertaining to (son’s name) treatment under her care. Respondent has recently on Sept. 7th sent another letter asking for “Photocopies of the paperwork for all check-ups, inoculations, emergency treatment, therapy sessions and any other paperwork (including all bills, statements, as well as records of all payments received for serviced rendered him) that has been and will be sent to (sons name) primary residence (their mother, (my ex's) ). Due to her refusal, Respondent is in the process of subpoenaing all of these documents for another motion re: contempt against the Petitioner for many other violations she has committed from the original divorce decree to the most recent July 1st court order. Respondent has also already signed a waiver and release with Mr. (therapist) for him to obtain (sons name) records in preparation for the actual therapeutic supervised visits to start.
The boys have no problem with male authority figures such as coaches or teachers. Respondent has spoken with their male teachers and their male coaches who have all confirmed this and state they will do so in writing if required by the courts.
-cont-
Hello Miss Met and Casa. It's me and my girl together now.
We couldn't get a hold of the paralegal, but will try to get this declaration to her some time Monday afernoon and possibly Tuesday morning. We may be forced to have my girl take it up early Monday morning and then serve my ex...we'll see. We know...we are late, but could not reach her. We did want to run this by you. This is what is on the declaration...it's pretty long as we are rookies and wanted to make sure we didn't miss anything. Here goes...We know it's the weekend, but if any of you are on before tomorrow night, PLEASE give us feedback. Otherwise, if you read this Monday we will already have sent it out in hopes it was okay. ---------------------------------------------------------------
The Respondent makes the following declarations to address all points that the Petitioner includes in her responsive declaration received on Sept. 7, 2005. Each of her paragraphs is addressed numerically in this declaration.
The Respondent would like the courts to make note of the fact that Petitioner’s response was not filed within the required time frame noted on the Notice of Motion (Form FL-301-Revised July 1, 2005) served her on Aug. 3, 2005 stating “In the absence of an order shortening time, the original of the responsive declaration must be filed with the court and a copy served on the other party at least 9 court days before the hearing date. Add five calendar days if you serve by mail within California.” 9 court days prior to the hearing would have been Aug. 31, 2005 and after adding 5 calendar days it would have had to have been filed and served to the Respondent no later than Aug. 26, 2005. According to the case file history, the Petitioner’s proof of service is dated Aug. 31. 2005 and her responsive declaration and proof of service were filed on Sept. 2, 2005. A copy of her responsive declaration was not received by the Respondent until Sept. 7th, 5 court days prior to the hearing.
1) On July 1st, Petitioner stated that she had already checked with CYS regarding therapeutic supervised visitation and that their agency was open on Saturdays 8a-8p to provide this service as well as on holidays. Petitioner would have known that CYS does not offer therapeutic supervised visitations to children over the age of 8 had she simply looked up their web site at www.cysfresno.org and read through their services offered. (See Attachment A). Respondent called CYS and emailed CYS for information and was told that they do provide therapeutic supervised visitations, but
a) not on Saturdays
b) there was a 4-month waiting list for those who needed to be billed on a sliding scale fee/the cost would be $30 a session at that time
c) for immediate consideration for the services the Respondent would have to attend an assessment and orientation only held on week days and it would cost $50 a session/sessions were only held Mon-Fri. 9-5pm. (See Attachment B-also included in original motion)
Petitioner was not only informed of these facts regarding CYS' inability to provide the court ordered service on Saturdays in numerous e-mail contacts from Respondent (See Attachment C), but from several messages left on her home answering machine. Respondent has asked her to bring the children to (my chosen agency) to see Mr. (therapist) in order to immediately start the necessary
Counseling and that it would be the right thing to do in the best interest of the children.
2) Respondent asks that the Petitioner's response citing the Uniform Standards of Practice Providers of Supervised Visitation set forth in section 26.2 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration Uniform Standards [Section 26.2(d)(2)] be stricken as it has been superceded by CA Rule 1257.1, HIPAA (See Attachment D) and no intake assessment is required of the Petitioner as she is not court ordered for therapy nor is she privy to the contents of Respondent's therapy.
3) It was appropriate that Mr. (therapist) did not communicate with the Petitioner as she is not a party to the therapy ordered. The July 1st court order requires that she is simply responsible to present the children to the counseling agency on the scheduled days and times. To respond to the Petitioner would have been an HIPAA violation on the part of Mr. (therapist)
4) Again, CYS’ session fees are actually $50 a session for immediate week day only therapy sessions. Respondent requests that Petitioner be responsible to pay for all visits thus far as well as all future therapeutic visitations, including additional travel costs from L.A. County to Fresno County every week. Respondent requests that he be allowed to pick up the children from their home every Saturday that a therapy session is scheduled as well as allow an extra hour after therapy to spend with them due to the delay Petitioner has caused in the therapy sessions before dropping them back off at their home. Due to the Petitioner purposely delaying therapeutic visitations with children and Respondent, the Respondent requests to be allowed regular visitation for the Thanksgiving and Christmas Holiday as proposed (See Attachment E). Prior to Petitioner's denying visitation after the Summer of 2004 visit the children had in L.A. County with Respondent, all visits with children and Respondent occurred with no supervision and without incident. If the courts feel that regular visitations should not start until after all 12 sessions are completed, the Respondent requests that the supervisors for holiday supervised visits be his parents, (parents names) and/or his brother and sister-in-law, (their names). All parties have agreed to this and have signed letters stating so. (See Attachment F) Respondent requests that the Petitioner be required to drop off and pick up children during these holiday visitations from the Respondent's home in Long Beach or his parents home in Moreno Valley as outlined in the proposed holiday visitation. Respondent has traveled to Fresno every week that the court ordered therapy sessions were to take place to (my chosen agency) each time asking Petitioner to compromise due to CYS not being able to accommodate the court order and bring the children so that the healing could begin. Respondent asks that Petitioner bear all the costs of travel until his time on the road and expenses have been made up with holiday visits and any further visits ordered starting Jan. 2006.
5) There are no past incidents on record of Domestic Violence or abuse in the family, thus no cause for requiring a female therapist. Mr. therapist is qualified to provide the therapeutic visitations. (See Attachment G). The Respondent was surprised to find out in late June 2005 only through the Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration for the July 1st hearing that she had employed a LCSW, (therapists name) to treat their oldest child, (sons name)in some sort of therapy and counseling from Apr. 2003-Apr. 2004. All this was done without any knowledge or consent given by the Respondent to administer treatment of any kind. The letter that was presented to the Respondent in June 2005 was dated Apr. 2004 and simply mentioned that (sons name) was in counseling for reasons associated with distress and anxiety stemming from his parent’s recent divorce (Filed Dec. 2002) and anxiety about visitation with the Respondent. Again, the Petitioner has a history of keeping important information from the Respondent in her attempt to alienate the children from him. Miss (therapist) has refused any and all requests from the Respondent for all
documents pertaining to (son’s name) treatment under her care. Respondent has recently on Sept. 7th sent another letter asking for “Photocopies of the paperwork for all check-ups, inoculations, emergency treatment, therapy sessions and any other paperwork (including all bills, statements, as well as records of all payments received for serviced rendered him) that has been and will be sent to (sons name) primary residence (their mother, (my ex's) ). Due to her refusal, Respondent is in the process of subpoenaing all of these documents for another motion re: contempt against the Petitioner for many other violations she has committed from the original divorce decree to the most recent July 1st court order. Respondent has also already signed a waiver and release with Mr. (therapist) for him to obtain (sons name) records in preparation for the actual therapeutic supervised visits to start.
The boys have no problem with male authority figures such as coaches or teachers. Respondent has spoken with their male teachers and their male coaches who have all confirmed this and state they will do so in writing if required by the courts.
-cont-