Visitation

[aardvarc]

Put it this way: even if the order didn't specify a location for visitation, there is NO judge that is going to make a parent take a child to a jail or prison to visit the other parent or penalize them for not doing do. If the visitation order from the court says that visitation occurs at grandma/grandpa's home, then the burden is on dad to be at the ordered place and meeting any other criteria spelled out in the order. If he's not, whether he's in jail, or on the moon, or on a cruise, visitation is moot due to DAD'S actions. If/when dad is released and again ABLE to visit as outlined in the order, the court will expect that visitation to take place. If this new incident involving dad and one or more children had got you worrying about whether supervision by his parents is effective or appropriate, then you'll want to ask the court to modify the visitation order (for example, to some place like an actual visitation center, where the person(s) supervising won't be busy doing things like cleaning house, watching TV, etc. while the visitation is occurring). I can't speak for anyone else, but if it were ME, given dad's MULTIPLE and RECENT "problems" with staying away from children, I'd be damned if I'd let him visit my child under the supervision of anyone not watching EVERY SECOND like a hawk.

 

[mommyanme]

Put it this way: even if the order didn't specify a location for visitation, there is NO judge that is going to make a parent take a child to a jail or prison to visit the other parent or penalize them for not doing do. If the visitation order from the court says that visitation occurs at grandma/grandpa's home, then the burden is on dad to be at the ordered place and meeting any other criteria spelled out in the order. If he's not, whether he's in jail, or on the moon, or on a cruise, visitation is moot due to DAD'S actions. If/when dad is released and again ABLE to visit as outlined in the order, the court will expect that visitation to take place. If this new incident involving dad and one or more children had got you worrying about whether supervision by his parents is effective or appropriate, then you'll want to ask the court to modify the visitation order (for example, to some place like an actual visitation center, where the person(s) supervising won't be busy doing things like cleaning house, watching TV, etc. while the visitation is occurring). I can't speak for anyone else, but if it were ME, given dad's MULTIPLE and RECENT "problems" with staying away from children, I'd be damned if I'd let him visit my child under the supervision of anyone not watching EVERY SECOND like a hawk.

I agree. I would have my backside in the court house asap(emergency not needed, he's in jail) to suspend visitation pending the outcome of his violation and requesting it be modified to a supervision center upon his release and subsequent approval by the courts to resume visitation. While it MAY NOT be seen that dad can not control himself by staying away from children it COULD BE seen that he can not and an argument can be made that his own child needs protection more so than what has been agreed to in the past.

Before I possibly take a computer forum tongue lashing, be fair, the courts have given Dad the benefit of the doubt and he is not showing himself to be about recovery. Otherwise he wouldn't be in jail for a violation of his parole/probation.

 

[Ohiogal]

Put it this way: even if the order didn't specify a location for visitation, there is NO judge that is going to make a parent take a child to a jail or prison to visit the other parent or penalize them for not doing do. If the visitation order from the court says that visitation occurs at grandma/grandpa's home, then the burden is on dad to be at the ordered place and meeting any other criteria spelled out in the order. If he's not, whether he's in jail, or on the moon, or on a cruise, visitation is moot due to DAD'S actions. If/when dad is released and again ABLE to visit as outlined in the order, the court will expect that visitation to take place. If this new incident involving dad and one or more children had got you worrying about whether supervision by his parents is effective or appropriate, then you'll want to ask the court to modify the visitation order (for example, to some place like an actual visitation center, where the person(s) supervising won't be busy doing things like cleaning house, watching TV, etc. while the visitation is occurring). I can't speak for anyone else, but if it were ME, given dad's MULTIPLE and RECENT "problems" with staying away from children, I'd be damned if I'd let him visit my child under the supervision of anyone not watching EVERY SECOND like a hawk.

And no one said she had to take the child to visits at jail. SHE HAS TO FOLLOW THE COURT ORDER. For which she has NOT stated the actual court order.

 

[Ohiogal]

I agree. I would have my backside in the court house asap(emergency not needed, he's in jail) to suspend visitation pending the outcome of his violation and requesting it be modified to a supervision center upon his release and subsequent approval by the courts to resume visitation. While it MAY NOT be seen that dad can not control himself by staying away from children it COULD BE seen that he can not and an argument can be made that his own child needs protection more so than what has been agreed to in the past.

Before I possibly take a computer forum tongue lashing, be fair, the courts have given Dad the benefit of the doubt and he is not showing himself to be about recovery. Otherwise he wouldn't be in jail for a violation of his parole/probation.

Visitation was already decided AFTER his conviction. That is NOT new information. And quite frankly, has he been CONVICTED of a parole violation? Yeah, she didn't say he had.

 

[BL]

And ya kow the PO brabaly violated him on a call in ,So it's up to the court Judge .

What happened with the prior violation? Details ?

 

[stealth2]

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

OK my ex husband has supervised visitation with my child and is a registered sex offender and just recently got arrested for violating his probation. He is still in jail and can not be bonded out can i stop visitation since he is in jail? And the agreement is for his visitation to happen at his parents house.

It would really help to know what exactly the visitation order says. You can xxx out the names, but the rest is important for us to help you. Thanks.

 

[single317dad]

Visitation was ordered AFTER he was placed on the registry and therefore it took into consideration his conviction and registry. Was he at Chuck E Cheeses with your child? And if that is what his probation states, I could see a lawyer arguing that that is unconstitutionally vague and broad. Children gather 90% of places or could. You don't have to make your child visit him in jail if the court order does not require it but unless he committed a new offense, I don't see you getting visitation changed once he is out of jail based on the violation itself.

I would wager that OP made the language of the order more vague than it actually is; if there's a clause barring him from Chuck E Cheese, it's probably more specific than "he is not allowed around places children gather at."

That would cover movie theaters, public recreation areas, and fast food restaurants. Not that prosecutors and POs couldn't make that mistake, but they probably don't very often.

 

[Ohiogal]

I would wager that OP made the language of the order more vague than it actually is; if there's a clause barring him from Chuck E Cheese, it's probably more specific than "he is not allowed around places children gather at."

That would cover movie theaters, public recreation areas, and fast food restaurants. Not that prosecutors and POs couldn't make that mistake, but they probably don't very often.

They might do it all the time however. In my area they have. Heck in my area the same mistakes are made constantly until an appellate court tells them not to do so. So if it states that he is not allowed around place children gather at, that is an issue. He couldn't go anywhere. As has been said by stealth and others, the actual wording of the order matters.

 

[BL]

I really think that only the opinions of his probation officer and the judge count in regards to whether or not he has violated his probation. Since he is actually in jail for violating his probation, I think that speaks for itself.

Don't be so sure of yourself.

Even if ,when he goes in front of a Judge with the lawyer it may not remain.

 

[LdiJ]

Don't be so sure of yourself.

Even if ,when he goes in front of a Judge with the lawyer it may not remain.

That wasn't my point. I was responding to someone who was being disparaging of the OP in regards to the reasons for the ex's probation violations. Someone who was acting as if the OP was being ridiculous in considering those to be violations.

I was pointing out, quite validly, that in the end, only the opinions of the probation officer and the judge count...and since the ex was actually in jail for the alleged violations, that someone whose opinion matters actually considered the ex to have violated probation. In other words, its hardly fair to disparage the OP.

 

[Ohiogal]

That wasn't my point. I was responding to someone who was being disparaging of the OP in regards to the reasons for the ex's probation violations. Someone who was acting as if the OP was being ridiculous in considering those to be violations.

I was pointing out, quite validly, that in the end, only the opinions of the probation officer and the judge count...and since the ex was actually in jail for the alleged violations, that someone whose opinion matters actually considered the ex to have violated probation. In other words, its hardly fair to disparage the OP.

No one was disparaging OP. She was being asked exactly what was the probation violation and how it was written. And quite frankly, if the ex's violations are based on what OP stated, the ex may not be found to have violated an overbroad, unconstitutional requirement. And OP hasn't answered as to whether her ex WAS CONVICTED of the violation this time around.

 

[LdiJ]

No one was disparaging OP. She was being asked exactly what was the probation violation and how it was written. And quite frankly, if the ex's violations are based on what OP stated, the ex may not be found to have violated an overbroad, unconstitutional requirement. And OP hasn't answered as to whether her ex WAS CONVICTED of the violation this time around.

I am well aware of how probation violations work. The probation officer makes the initial determination to violate the probationer, and the judge makes the ultimate decision as to whether or not a violation occurred.

Bottom line, the ex is in jail. The OP cannot be faulted for taking the situation seriously. Particularly when the ex's conviction was for sexual exploitation of a minor. Also, to be quite honest what sane adult chooses to hang out at Chuckie Cheese if they don't have to do so. The food is lousy and its full of loud and screaming children.

 

[CJane]

I'm not sure how "overbroad" the conditions of this guy's probation actually are... a local man - facing charges of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 14 - has been ordered as follows (direct copy from docket entry) Request to Amend Bond is denied but court does add a condition that DEFENDANT IS TO HAVE NO CONTACT WITH ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18. He's not even allowed into the local Subway that's attached to the gas station. He goes into the gas station side, places his order, and THEY go place it for him at the Subway, then bring it to him. He isn't allowed any contact with any of his children who are under the age of 18 either.

That order has been in place since December of 2012, pending his trial. Yeah - he hasn't even been convicted yet, only charged.

His son, also charged with the same crimes, has the same order against him, with the exception that he's allowed supervised visitation with his infant (at the time) child, at a visitation center and at his expense.

OP - in answer to the question you asked - whoever said that if he's unable to be at his parents' home for the visits, you're not obligated to go hang out there anyway, or drop the child off to do so, is correct.

Whether or not your ex REMAINS in jail for the violation isn't really for any of us to guess or speculate on. Though I do agree that no one in their right mind would hang out at Chuck E Cheese's if they didn't have to be there.

 

[Ohiogal]

I am well aware of how probation violations work. The probation officer makes the initial determination to violate the probationer, and the judge makes the ultimate decision as to whether or not a violation occurred.

Bottom line, the ex is in jail. The OP cannot be faulted for taking the situation seriously. Particularly when the ex's conviction was for sexual exploitation of a minor. Also, to be quite honest what sane adult chooses to hang out at Chuckie Cheese if they don't have to do so. The food is lousy and its full of loud and screaming children.

No, you do not know how probation works -- as I already posted once. The judge does NOT necessarily make the ultimate decision. Due process exists. In other words, the individual is entitled to a trial -- even a trial by jury. So quite frankly, you have an overly simplistic view. And I still call TROLL on this OP as she has not been back. Another weekend troll passing through to stir things up.