Ten Posts directed to trusted advisors, addressing issues of referring "clients with issues", to whom G.S.L.O. can provide ingenuity and practicality in advice and assistance:
I of X:
HOW DO I REFER A PARENT WHO WANTS TO RELOCATE WITH A CHILD?
Recent news stories about the ongoing Kelly Rutherford litigation have brought parental relocation issues to the public attention again, but haven't provided much enlightenment as to what's really going on. Interstate and international mobility continues to expand, demanding that such issues be resolved more frequently, as the "global economy" becomes more truly global.
Parental relocation custody issues are among the most difficult we handle, since there is often only a "least bad" solution for the child, and since reaching that solution can, unless handled carefully, be extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming. As the Rutherford litigation makes clear,unless a relocation issue is addressed optimally, in advance, parents can spend thousands of dollars, and months, if not years, of time, fighting over which court, in which state or country, will hear the custody issue, before any court even begins the process of actually making custody orders, and can so escalate and raise the stakes as to make consensual resolution vastly more difficult.
That delay and expense can work irreversible harm. Unlike ordering the payment of money, a court simply has no way to order one parent to give the other parent back "lost" or "missed" parenting time, "with interest".
The rules applied by courts in parental relocation cases are complex, and vary widely state-by-state, and both the rules for determining custody, and the rules for determining custody jurisdiction vary even more widely internationally. We have more than forty years of combined experience in and familiarity with relocation issues. We tap the wisdom of "coordinating counsel" in the destination state or country, relying on close relationships with accomplished family law attorneys in 46 states*, and in a dozen countries, for that input.
Contact us to learn how our application of "Ingenuity When It Matters, and Practicality When It Counts" can provide critical advance advise, counsel and assistance.
*We fall down on the Dakotas, and Wyoming, but we know four in Alaska!
Courts are being asked to decide vaccination issues between disagreeing parents in child custody cases . These disagreements are catching the public's eye and ears in the wake of the Disneyland measles outbreak, and the public opposition to mandatory vaccination by prominent or at least visible people, who are mostly not scientists.
If you have parenting or custody issues connected with medical treatment of your child, GSLO has experience in addressing these disputes promptly, sensitively, and discreetly.
Acknowledgment for the pointer, as usual, to Eugene Volokh.
Kathleen Aubain is in the Oneida County Jail in New York for violating a court order. Aubain has a two and a half year old daughter, Isabellah Rose Campos with Eric Campos. All three were living in Arizona. Campos has custody of Isabellah. Aubain’s mother says the only reason Campos has custody is because Aubain didn’t bring Isabellah back to him at the end of her custodial time.
Aubain then left the state of Arizona and fled, with Isabellah, to Utica, New York. She didn’t have permission to leave Arizona. She has been arrested and is currently in jail. She is refusing to tell authorities where Isabellah is or who is caring for her. Aubain claims that she is protecting Isabellah who she believes is being abused by Campos. The Arizona social worker determined that the police investigator who examined Isabellah found the bruising to be consistent with Campos’ account that the child’s five-point safety harness used while riding a Rhino vehicle on rough terrain in the desert caused the bruising.
http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Mother-still-refuses-to-disclose-Arizona-toddlers-whereabouts-270534811.html
I have said it before. Do not exercise self help. Do not defy a court order. If you feel like there is something happening, such as abuse, notify the proper authorities, and make a request through the court. Exercising self help is a good way to lose custody.
We've got another child custody and religion case from New York, about, at least ostensibly, what should happen when one parent, but not the other, decides to "change horses mid-stream" in terms of the child's religious upbringing.
A closer reading of the facts suggests that other facts played a much greater role in the decision than the religion issue did, and that the judge may have used the religion issue as a tie-breaker as between two fairly horrendous-sounding parents, to decide who was the "least bad" parent.
The interesting question, when the hard facts are stripped away, however, is the extent to which a general presumption that "stability" is good for kids, (and good for kids of divorcing parents, and good for kids of high-conflict divorcing parents) should weigh against the right of parents, under the First Amendment, to change religions, if they want, as frequently as they change their socks.
A (waterproof) hat tip to Doc Volokh at UCLA, with hopes that they get the campus dried back out before Fall Semester.
P.S.: ...and this just in from Florida, again by way of Volokh:
a trial judge who restrained a Jehovah's Witness non-custodial father from doing "...
anything in front of the children or around the children...” that “...conflicts with the Catholic religion...." (practiced by custodial mom) was reversed, the appeals court noting: "While the mother’s concern that exposure to two different religions
could confuse the children may be reasonable, neither that concern nor
the evidence presented below established the requisite showing of harm
to grant the mother ultimate religious decision-making authority for the
children and to restrict the father..."
Interesting read regarding grandparent rights. The Court of Appeals upheld a Dependency Court order granting a grandmother visitation rights. It’s a case right here in Los Angeles County involving DCFS.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2014/visitation080814.htm
Grandparent rights come up relatively regularly, but I don't believe that this case will necessarily significantly broaden the law that currently exist. In the absence of DCFS involvement or a Dependency Court case (such as in this case), or the consent of the parents, grandparents typically have limited, if any custodial rights to their grandchildren.
Maria Jose Carrascosa, 48, is a native of Spain and lived in Fort Lee, New Jersey. She had a child, a daughter, with Peter Innes while in New Jersey and the couple separated in 2004. They signed a parenting agreement prohibiting either parent from taking the child out of the country without the consent of the other. In 2005, while custody was still unresolved, Carrascosa took the child, then 4, to Spain.
In 2006, the New Jersey Court ordered the child returned, but Carroscosa refused. Carrascosa returned to New Jersey and was promptly arrested for contempt. She has been in jail for the last five years. The child, now 14, is still in Spain and has not been returned.
Carroscosa was sentenced to 14 years in 2009, after being convicted of interference with custody. She has recently been paroled but has not been set free yet. Innis has not seen his daughter since she has been taken to Spain. As the article states, until she returns the child to New Jersey, she is still in contempt and she can be placed back into prison.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime-and-courts/mom-released-from-jail-in-custody-case-1.1052854
When there are court orders regarding custody, make sure to follow them. When, as Carroscosa did here, one parent makes it difficult/impossible for the other parent to see their children, then this will certainly be taken into account when making future orders. In California, this type of behavior, whether just restrictive gate-keeping parenting, or whether more extreme like this case, can serve as a basis for a modification or custody orders and even a change of custody entirely. Judges want to see co-parenting, and in the absence of that, will award custody to the parent that they feel will encourage the relationship between the child and the other parent. As always, you should consult an experienced family law attorney before making any major decisions regarding the children especially those that will impact the custodial time of the other parent.
Professional basketball player, Chris Bosh, has been in a custody battle over his young year old daughter with the child’s mother, Allison Mathis. Apparently Mathis is requesting that their daughter, Trinity, (either four or five years old), testify in court.
http://cocoafab.com/uh-oh-chris-boshs-baby-mother-seeks-to-have-their-child-testify-in-custody-battle/
http://madamenoire.com/444759/5-year-old-to-testify-in-chris-bosh-child-custody-trial/
Calling a child to be a witness as to their custodial preferences is always a risk. Judges, at least in Los Angeles County, disfavor it. It’s the Judges discretion whether to allow it, but there would generally need to be a fairly compelling reason if the child is under the age of 14. Judges are not mental health professionals. Since there are a number of different methods of obtaining a child’s preferences or input which does not involve his/her direct testimony in court, such as a custody evaluation, a parenting plan assessment (in Los Angeles County), or minor’s counsel, judges are typically reluctant to meet with children. The younger the child, the more unlikely it will be that the judge will want to speak with her/him.
It is unclear with Mathis wanted her four/five year daughter to testify to and I don’t know the rules as to minor’s testimony in Florida. In California, at least in Los Angeles County, I would be surprised if a judge would want to speak to a four/five year old directly. Also, I would caution against even making this request for a child that is this age unless there are extenuating circumstances because it may reflect poorly to a judge who’s primary objective is to determine the child’s best interest.
Kim and Dave Hodgin became the foster parents of Sonya before she was two. She was adopted by them in 2008. Before the adoption was finalized, Sonya’s birth father, John McCaul pled guilty to transporting firearms and was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. Under Tennessee law, parents who are incarcerated for more than ten years do not have any rights to a child under the age of 8, so McCaul’s custody rights to Sonya were terminated. McCaul later cut a deal by providing information that he had about a homicide and his sentence was reduced to 7 ½ years which allowed him to assert his parental rights and fight to reverse the adoption.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/15/us/tennessee-adoption-battle/
In November 2009, the adoption was reversed but Sonya continued to live with the Hodgins while both sides disputed custody. In January 2014, a judge returned Sonya, now 9 years old, to McCaul’s custody. Sonya has moved from the Hodgins’ home in Tennessee and now lives in Omaha, Nebraska with McCaul. According to the Hodgins, Sonya has been begging to come home. The Hodgins have filed a petition in Tennessee requesting that Sonya be returned to their custody.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/girl-begs-adoptive-parents-retrieve-biological-dad-custody-article-1.1795109
Both these article imply that there were no visits between Sonya and her biological father during his incarceration, so she essentially has no memories of him and as the Hodgins state, he is a stranger to her. It is surprising to me that custody was changed so drastically and so suddenly. I am not implying that this was the wrong decision, only that I am surprised that the judge ordered Sonya to live with essentially a stranger without some type of transitional period. While McCaul will remember Sonya, the reverse isn’t true and I would imagine there would be a slightly less traumatic way to transition Sonya into McCaul’s custody gradually.
Layla Billie and Kevin Stier had two children. Billie is a Native American part of the Miccosukee tribe in Florida. Stier is non-Native American. They were never married and it’s unclear whether they ever lived together.
Billie initiated custody proceedings in Miccosukee Tribal Court on October 1, 2012. The Tribal Court accepted jurisdiction and awarded Billie temporary custody and set a hearing for November 5, 2012. The only notice that Stier received was a mail addressed to his mother’s house. He appeared at the hearing with an attorney, but his attorney was not allowed to attend the proceedings. Stier was allowed to attend, but they were largely conducted in the Miccosukee language which he doesn’t understand. He wasn’t provided an interpreter. At the end, Stier was given a short synopsis of Billie’s testimony, then the Tribal Court extended Billie’s temporary custody.
Stier filed a Petition for custody on November 1, 2012 in the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. In March 2013, Billie filed for permanent custody in the Tribal Court and simultaneously filed a motion in the Circuit Court requesting a dismissal of Stier’s Petition on the grounds that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act). The Circuit Court determined that it had proper jurisdiction because the Tribal Court didn’t substantially comply with the jurisdictional requirements of the UCCJEA.
http://www.indianz.com/News/2014/013394.asp
Billie appealed the order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court. According to the Court of Appeals, the Tribal Court was not in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA for five main reasons, 1) Stier didn’t receive proper notice of the Tribal Court proceedings pursuant to Florida law and hadn’t submitted to jurisdiction of the Tribal Court, 2) Stier didn’t have an opportunity to be heard at the temporary custody hearing; 3) Stier’s attorney wasn’t allowed into the Tribal proceedings; 4) The proceedings in the Tribal Court were conducted in the Miccosukee language, Stier wasn’t given an interpreter; 5) Billie testified in Miccosukee for over 20 minutes, the Tribal Court gave Stier only a two minute summary in English before granting temporary custody to Billie.
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D13-3180.pdf
What I find interesting about this case is that while the Circuit Court doesn’t have to comply with the orders of the Tribal Court, the Tribal Court doesn’t necessarily have to comply with the decision of the Circuit Court or the Court of Appeals. Presumably, the Tribal Court isn’t within the American court system and they were found to not be in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA. I would suspect that the decisions of the Circuit or Appellate Court are not binding on them and they can still issue rules under their own jurisprudence. If Billie chooses to disregard the Court of Appeals ruling and to live with the children on Miccosukee land and if additional orders are issued from both courts, I imagine there may be an issue of enforcement in both directions of both sets of orders.
Kelly Cooney, 35 of Lee’s Summit, Missouri has been charged, in Iowa with conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, conspiracy to go armed with intent, and child endangerment. Kevin Carter, 50, from Raytown, Missouri has also been charged, in Iowa, with first degree burglary, going armed with intent, assault while causing serious injury and carrying weapons.
Apparently, Cooney and Carter broke into the house of Cooney’s son’s father. Carter used a stun gun on the father while he was holding the child and Cooney took the child from the father. Cooney and Carter attempted to flee with the child. The ex-husband of a neighbor saw what happened and had a valid weapon permit. He retrieved his gun and fired several shots to deflate the tires of the Cooney and Carter’s vehicle.
Cooney and Carter are being held in Boone County Jail in Iowa.
There are some reported custody issues between Cooney and the boy’s father. It is unclear whether there are existing orders, or whether there are legal proceedings in Missouri or Iowa.
http://www.lsjournal.com/2014/04/16/114117/lees-summit-woman-arrested-in.html
There are limited, if any, instances in which exercising self help in a family law matter is appropriate. Even if one party may not be doing anything technically against any rules, self help typically implies a lack of communication and cooperation. Using the example from above, even though it’s an extreme one, let’s assume there were no custody orders in place and there wasn’t even a case filed. It would be true that the father had no more custodial rights to the child than Cooney. Even if she is a perfectly competent mother, she would be hard pressed to find a judge that would be able to overlook the facts (assuming they are true), that she broke into the house, used a stun gun on the child's father, then tried to forcibly remove the child from the father. At this point, she may be hard pressed to find a judge that will give her anything other than monitored visitation with her child, and that’s after she’s released from jail.
This is a follow up to one of my older blogs about Justina Pelletier, the 15 year old Connecticut teenager who suffers from some psychiatric and physical medical issues. Justina was removed from her parents’ custody while receiving medical treatment at a Boston area hospital and temporarily placed in the custody of the state.
Last week, Massachusetts Juvenile Court JudgeJoseph Johnston awarded "permanent" custody of Justina to the state. Her parents are not allowed to appeal the decision until summer.
According to the Boston Globe, the Judge found there was sufficient evidence to find that Justina’s parents "were unfit to care for the complex medical and psychiatric needs of their daughter." The state has no immediate plans to return Justina to Connecticut or to the custody of her parents.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/03/25/justina-pelletier-placed-permanent-custody-massachusetts/lMO3EJpwPOfiVJWu06IY5K/story.html
Christian Nørgaard, a Danish computer science engineer was working in California when he met and married Tammy Zied, a software engineer. They married in Redwood City, California and had two daughters, Mia and Sarah, both born in California. The family moved to Germany then Denmark for Christian’s employment.
While living in Denmark, the couple separated and in 2012, the Danish courts granted sole custody of both children to Christian. Tammy accused Christian of violence against her and the daughters. Mia began running away from Christian’s home, according to Tammy, to "escape the violence". Last May, Mia arrived in the United States and Sarah was left in Denmark with Christian. It is unclear whether Mia came to the United States with permission of Christian and was never returned, or whether Mia went to the United States without the consent of Christian and against the court order.
According to an article published in the Copenhagen Post in August 19, 2013, Mia was reported as kidnapped to Interpol after Tammy failed to return her to Christian after an Easter visit. Tammy had told the police that Mia had run away and she didn’t know where she was. Police suspected that Tammy was hiding Mia and held her in custody for five days. When she was released, Tammy disappeared.
http://cphpost.dk/news/american-mother-suspected-of-kidnapping-her-daughter.6461.html
Mia and Tammy were living in Laguna Niguel. On January 31, 2014, the local authorities took Mia to a youth facility. Christian returned to California and Mia was returned to him a few days later. It appears that Mia is now with Christian and Sarah in Denmark.
Christian filed a Petition in Orange County under the Hague Convention and received assistance from the United States in the return of Mia to his custody.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/mia-604827-denmark-danish.html
Generally, exercising self-help in custody cases is not a good option. If faced with a similar situation or if you don't like the orders that are in place, the remedy would be to petition the court that made the orders, in this case Denmark, for a modification. Orders are binding and disobeying a court order or using self-help will make it more difficult to obtain custody or visitation in the future.
A British court removed two boys, ages 11 and 14 from their 41 year old mother’s custody and placed them in the custody of their 43 year old father. Judge Laura Harris ruled that the mother had "significantly failed" the boys by her permissive parenting. She would sleep, use her Ipad or phone for hours at a time while her children would care for themselves. This caused issues for the children who were frequently late or would miss school. Additionally, mother was found to be systematically "poisoning" the children against their father.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10643643/Mother-loses-custody-battle-over-permissive-parenting-style.html
In California, similar to Judge Laura Harris in this case, courts will be reluctant to tell parents how to parent their children and will be tolerant of various parenting styles. If, however, the parenting is not in the best interest of the children or is causing the children harm, then courts will intervene. Also, "poisoning" or alienating the children against the other parent is also not in the best interest of the children and courts will tend to favor the parent they believe will foster the relationship between the children and the other parent.
Linda and Lou Pelletier from West Hartford, Connecticut are the parents of 15 year old Justina. Justina was originally diagnosed with a rare, genetic mitochondrial disease. She was being treated at Boston’s Tufts Medical Center. In February 2013, Justina was barely able to walk and virtually stopped eating so her parents took her to Tufts. She was sent to Boston Children’s Hospital because her Tufts gastroenterologist had recently transferred there. At Children’s Hospital, the doctors disputed the diagnosis and began to suspect that there was a psychological issue and that her parents were blocking the psychiatric care that she needed.
The parents complained of the change in treatment without involving Justina’s gastroneterologist. They then threatened to take Justin from Children’s hospital and back to Tufts. At this point, the doctors reported their suspicions of medical child abuse to the state and the child protective agency took emergency custody of Justina.
Justina has been in Boston Children’s Hospital for the last ten months, mostly in the psychiatric ward. The state has had difficulty placing Justina in foster care or a residential center due to her complicated case. Justina’s parents have been trying, over the last ten months, to regain custody of their daughter.
Their last court date was at the end of December, 2013. They had been hoping that Justina could return by Christmas. The Judge ruled that Justina would remain in the custody of hte state but that a court investigator should look at the case and set a new hearing for January 10.
Due to the gag order placed on this case preventing the release of information, we don’t know most of the details of this case or facts. It does appear that based on an evaluation, there was some determination of "medical child abuse" which, according to this article, is "applied to parents suspected of interfering with their child’s medical care of pushing for unnecessary and even harmful treatments." The Pelletiers are still attempting to regain custody of Justina.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/12/21/state-retains-custody-teen-limbo-children-hospital-for-months/5TGcy5X8IxQusdtXgRmXdK/story.html
In California, the standard is the best interest of the child(ren). A determination would be made whether withholding treatment is in the best interest of the child(ren). In an instance where withholding or refusing medical treatment would result in the death or series injury in a minor child, it is likely that a judge would appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor who would then authorize the medical treatment, even if it is against the wishes of the parents.
29 year old Nancy Gonzalez was a federal corrections officer when she was impregnated by death row inmate Ronell Wilson who has been convicted of murdering two police officers. Their son, Justus, is now seven months old is in the custody of one of Gonzalez’s relatives. Wilson request for parental rights has been denied since he is already "civilly dead". Gonzalez has lost custody of Justus since she intentionally became pregnant during the commission of a crime (having sex with a death row inmate while a correction’s officer), knowing that neither parent could care for the child.
Gonzalez also admitted to going through an "alcohol and cocaine binge" when she was eight months pregnant and to also driving while intoxicated with Justus in the car at least twice.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/guard-impregnated-killer-loses-custody-baby-article-1.1521047
So it appears, at least in New York, death row inmates lose custodial rights to their children since they are considered "civilly dead".
There’s a “Winter RomCom” which bears on family law this season: Vince Vaughn’s comedy of assisted-reproductive-technology, “Delivery Man” (short non-spoiler synopsis: he’s been a artificial insemination donor, and discovers that, due to a paperwork snafu, he’s the father of 500+ children). Haven’t seen it yet, but I’m hoping it has a bit more of legal reality infused in it than past “family law” movies, comic or serious, including “Mrs. Doubtfire”, “Kramer v. Kramer”, “Intolerable Cruelty” (a prenup comedy) and “Next Best Thing”, a fairly dismally received film (Rotten Tomato-meter: 19%) on which, I must admit, I received a screen credit (I and my partner are right there, between the caterer and Madonna’s yoga consultant), but couldn’t manage to get director to make the courtroom scenes quite right.
Dorothy Maraglino, 38, was pregnant when she was put in jail in May 2012 and charged with the murder of Brittany Killgore, a 22 year old marine’s wife whose husband was stationed in Afghanistan at the time of the murder. The child, a girl, was born in July 2012. Louis Ray Perez, 47, also a marine, is the father of the child. Perez is also charged with the murder, conspiracy, kidnapping, torture and attempted sexual battery of Killgore.
Maraglino gave custody of her child to Becky Zagha, 38. She says that she didn’t know Zagha well, but Perez asked her to give custody to her. Problems arose when, according to Maraglino, Zagha broke her promise to live in San Diego County and bring the child to weekly visits. Zagha moved to central California soon after the child was born. Zagha apparently also visited Perez and Maraglino frequently before the baby was born, but visits significantly decreased after she took custody.
Last month, Maraglino attempted, in a Fresno Court, to remove the child from Zagha and place her with Maraglino’s sister in South Carolina. The Court declined the request. Maraglino is now appealing that decision.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Nov/02/marine-wife-accused-killer-custody/
A parent that is incarcerated doesn’t necessarily immediately lose their parental rights. Depending on their crime, and assuming that it doesn’t involve violence towards the other parent or the children, the incarcerated parent may retain, at least legal custody (decision-making) rights. Visitation can be more complicated and, obviously, overnight visits cannot typically happen. If both parents are incarcerated, in the absence of other arrangements regarding the custody of the children, the state will take custody of the child(ren) and they will be placed in foster care. Similar to any other custody dispute, unless there are written court orders for visitation, there won’t necessarily be visitation unless the custodial parent/guardian chooses voluntarily, to bring the child to the incarcerated parent.
While Zagha may have "promised" to bring the child to Maraglino every week, if there weren’t court orders, then there is no remedy if she doesn’t do that. Once Marglino and Perez gave Zagha custody without any other orders, Zagha was not obligated to bring the child to either parent for visits.
In June 2008, in Carson City, Nevada, partners Sha’Kayla St. Mary and Veronica Lynn Damon had a child. Damon’s egg was used with donor sperm. St. Mary carried the child. St. Mary was listed on the child’s birth certificate on the mother and a year later, she signed an affidavit naming Damon as the biological mother.
The mothers had a co-parenting agreement and broke up when the child was about a year. St. Mary petitioned for custodial rights. A lower court judge ruled that St. Mary had no biological or custody rights since she was only the surrogate and they refused to consider a joint parenting agreement both mothers signed before the child was born. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled that the joint parenting agreement was more than a surrogacy agreement and St. Mary assets that she is the legal mother of the child in addition to Damon, not instead of Damon. Nevada’s Parentage Act does not prevent a child from having two legal mothers.
http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/nevada/surrogate-mom-can-seek-child-custody/nbFSj/
In California, Jerry Brown just recently signed a bill that allows a child to have more than two legal parents. This bill is in response to the changing family structure and the increasing number of same sex couples having children. The bill is to allow a courts to recognize the roles of all parents and to not separate a child from a figure that he/she knows as a parent.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-brown-bills-parents-20131005,0,7226241.story
With medical marijuana becoming more common, both in growing and in prescriptions, it has raised the issue of the effect of medical marijuana and child custody. The general rule in California is the best interest of the child(ren). Despite having a valid prescription/license, there are an increasing number of custody disputes involving medical marijuana. This does not appear to be state specific and is becoming an issue in many states.
For example:
In Michigan, after deeming their home unsafe for a child because both parents are medical marijuana patients and marijuana growers, the state removed six month old Brielle from her parents' custody.
http://www.wlns.com/story/23486257/state-takes-medical-marijuana-caregivers-child-away
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2013/09/lansing_marijuana_caregiver_fi.html
In San Diego County, California, two children were removed from the home of Michael Lewis and Lauren Taylor. Lewis, a Gulf war veteran was exposed to chemicals that cause debilitating migraines has a prescription for medical marijuana. Taylor tested negative in every drug test given and there was no evidence of neglect or abuse.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/12/60182.htm
In Colorado, a couple claims that were denied custody and were not allowed to adopt their ten month old great-granddaughter because both are medical marijuana patients. The child lived with them for five months before being removed by her mother. The state intervened and placed the child in foster care.
http://www.koaa.com/news/couple-claims-they-were-denied-custody-because-of-medical-marijuana-use/#_
Since this is a relatively new change, even though there is a steadily increasing number of medical marijuana patients and growers, there isn’t a law in California that addresses medical marijuana specifically. While there is no set definition of "best interest of the child", a court uses a set of factors to make this determination, as well as any other information it deems relevant. One of the factors used in deciding the best interest of the child(ren) is the "habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances, the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol, or the habitual or continual abuse of prescribed controlled substances by either parent" (Family Code 3011(d)). For now, it’s best to treat medical marijuana use like any other prescription medication. The general "rules" for prescription medication apply here, such as do not smoke in front of the children, keep it in a safe place out of reach of the children, do not ingest so much that you will be unable to properly care for the children, do not drive the children while under the influence, and so on.
A Maine woman is charged with endangering the life of a child in a child abduction case. Jennifer Dore from Maine was supervising a visit between BethMarie Retamozzo and her children last month. Retamozzo drove away with the children and was lost in traffic. Dore did not report the incident to the authorities and spoke with them more than five hours later when the police contacted her.
The children were reported missing by their grandmother on August 15. Retamozzo and the children were found more than 1,100 miles away sleeping in their car at a rest stop on Interstate 95 in South Carolina. The police went to South Carolina and returned the children to Maine on August 26.
Dore was not a professional monitor, she was an acquaintance of the family and was selected by the parties to monitor the visits. She was not paid for her services. She is scheduled to appear in court on November 5.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/child-visitation-supervisor-charged-in-abduction-case_2013-08-29.html
In California, you also have an option to select a non-professional monitor to supervise visits. There can be a number of benefits in selecting a family friend or relative to monitor visits: it’s cheaper, there can more flexibility in time and locations of visits, the children may be more at ease in front of people they already know just to name a few. That said, be careful in selecting a monitor. If supervised visits are appropriate, then there are concerns about the children’s safety while with that parent. In selecting a monitor, the person must be someone you trust and that will protect the children, even if that requires preventing the supervised parent from doing or not doing something. Especially with family friends and/or relatives of the supervised parent, this can be difficult to do since they may feel loyalty to that parent.
Being a monitor is a big responsibility and it’s important that you explain their duties and responsibilities. If they are unwilling to perform those duties, then you’re better off selecting a different monitor or paying a professional monitor.
