If there are therapist involved in supervised visits, no F2F & a Psych report pending, I can only assume that at the least there has been allegations made.... Judges have to act on that.
That said, if the supervised visits have been going well & the psych report shows no risk, then the conclusion will be that mum is the problem & the allegations are without merit. GOOD...
Now think about this... If a therapist & a shrink give a negative report against you, no amount of your happy video chat time will have the slightest influence... On the other hand, if it's concluded that there is no risk, having a happy video chat vid won't add a jot to what the judge is going to do, BUT, it has the potential to be used against you.... Your choice ultimately. Personally I wouldn't be bringing it up in court.
That said, if the supervised visits have been going well & the psych report shows no risk, then the conclusion will be that mum is the problem & the allegations are without merit. GOOD...
Now think about this... If a therapist & a shrink give a negative report against you, no amount of your happy video chat time will have the slightest influence... On the other hand, if it's concluded that there is no risk, having a happy video chat vid won't add a jot to what the judge is going to do, BUT, it has the potential to be used against you.... Your choice ultimately. Personally I wouldn't be bringing it up in court.
Yes, primarily allegations of me saying or doing things she didn't appreciate (e.g. being "coercive"). No allegations of me being abusive to the kids.
that is my hope.
They are good points. Thanks again Atticus.
Petros
On what basis was the psych report made? This also seems to be an ongoing process (the psych evaluations). Have orders / agreements been made stating words to the effect that psych appointments should be attended by the parties? Why was this ordered? I am also interested to know why you agreed to the consent orders like you have stated, and am I right in saying they included supervised time? What was the reason for this? This would only really be ordered when there are risk factors with regards to unsupervised visits.
My 2 cents worth is that a video is not a good idea, especially not one where you may be seen to be leading the children to act or answer in a particular manner. A judge will be very critical of any attempt of coaching or manipulation. I agree that a family reporter / consultant / psych will be able to make a very good judgement as to the relationship you have with your children and that if you overly try and force the issue that the kids are "happy" or "good" in you company this can backfire.
I believe allegations of "coercive" behavior will be increasingly view as a "risk factor" by the courts and there is legislation afoot to include "coercive control" as a form of FV. This doesn't mean courts won't view it as an issue already. It would be paramount to be on your absolute best behavior no matter the circumstances in light of such allegations.
My 2 cents worth is that a video is not a good idea, especially not one where you may be seen to be leading the children to act or answer in a particular manner. A judge will be very critical of any attempt of coaching or manipulation. I agree that a family reporter / consultant / psych will be able to make a very good judgement as to the relationship you have with your children and that if you overly try and force the issue that the kids are "happy" or "good" in you company this can backfire.
I believe allegations of "coercive" behavior will be increasingly view as a "risk factor" by the courts and there is legislation afoot to include "coercive control" as a form of FV. This doesn't mean courts won't view it as an issue already. It would be paramount to be on your absolute best behavior no matter the circumstances in light of such allegations.
Psychiatrist report was agreed to via consent order at the interim trial.
yes. Counselling/therapy sessions agreed to by consent order for all family members (in various combinations) to attend. Agreed to by consent because Mum refused to let me see the kids unsupervised until a therapist gave the OK.
because if I didn't agree to Mum's demands then I would not have seen the kids at all, at that point they had been kept from me for more than 6 months. The consent order included time with the therapist (hence supervised) until the therapist deemed it unnecessary. Plus I was expecting the Judge's order at the interim trial (6 months post consent order) to offer much more and remove any "need" for supervision. The Judge did not have the therapists report in time to base any interim orders on and declined to make any orders.
Petros
Tough position to be in, no doubt Petros. I hope the report comes through soon enough. It sounds like your ex was very "dictatorial" and if it is shown that she had no intention of facilitating a meaningful relationship between you and the children then this will most likely backfire. However, if there is emotional and physical risk to the children then this is seen as a more important factor than facilitating a meaningful relationship with the children. Hence why the nature of the allegations she has leveled against you (that a judge has obviously had sight of) is important.
However, I would not rely solely on the therapists report as the sole basis for obtaining future orders / outcomes, and while a judge may rely heavily on such reports, they will not be the only thing relied on. Don't provide your ex any reason in the mean time to raise concern with a judge, unfair as this may sound to you.
However, I would not rely solely on the therapists report as the sole basis for obtaining future orders / outcomes, and while a judge may rely heavily on such reports, they will not be the only thing relied on. Don't provide your ex any reason in the mean time to raise concern with a judge, unfair as this may sound to you.
Similar threads
