I clearly did not understand the “gravity of the situation” because there had never been any abuse, and I did nothing intentionally abusive. However, what I did learn, and I continued to discover, is that the courts don’t seem to care about preventing abuse as they are more interested in making sure people show them sufficient respect. I wonder if the Centre County judges think they are helping society by issuing so many PFA orders and putting people in jail for things that violated the order but were not abusive or intentional. It reminds me of Eric Cartman on South Park saying, “Respect my authority!!”
14. The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or member of a party’s household. There is no history of drug or alcohol abuse of either party.
There is no history of drug or alcohol abuse of the members of Mother’s household if she is permitted to move to Michigan. The Court is not aware of any drug or alcohol abuse by Ava Glantz, who lives in Father’s household, or Mike, Mother’s paramour in Michigan.
15. The mental and physical condition of a party or member of a party’s household.
Mother does not have any mental or physical condition which would preclude her from caring for the children.
Father has had significant mental health issues over a Jong period of time. Currently, Father is managing his mental health. Father continues to seek the help of his therapist and his psychiatrist. His recent diagnosis and subsequent change to his medications appear to be working well for him. Father’s psychiatrist testified that Father’s condition is stabilizing, though only time will tell if he is stabilized. Father’s psychiatrist has seen improvement in Father’s condition since March 2013.
I was glad Judge Ruest did not make a huge deal out of my mental health as Tonia did in her proposed version of this section.
One thing that I always wanted was for Rita to get a psychological evaluation. She certainly needed, but refused to get, psychiatric treatment when our nephews died. I also think maybe some of her paranoia could have been identified and addressed. I’m confident Rita would claim that she’s not paranoid because she believes what she thinks happened did.
I supposed that is what makes paranoia such a problem, i.e., those who are paranoid either think they aren’t or have a reason to be. On the other hand, I know for a fact that all of Rita’s allegations were not true. While some of the events did happen as I have and will describe, only her paranoia made her think I had ill intent.
As each of my lawyers told me when I brought this up, requesting a psychological evaluation for Rita would have just backfired with the court thinking I was being vindictive. There was no way they would force her to get a psychiatric exam if I requested it, which meant there was no way they would ever learn that she was, in fact, paranoid to a very unhealthy degree.
My advice to anyone who thinks someone might accuse them of something is to blame that person for something first. Accusations from the other party will then seem vindictive.
II. Relocation-23 Pa.C.S.A § 5337(h)
1. The nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration of the child’s relationship with the party proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating party, siblings and other significant persons in the child’s life.
Both parties have significant relationships with the children. The parties maintained a “traditional” role relationship with regards to the children, wherein Mother was primarily responsible for the children’s day-to-day care and Father was the breadwinner.
Father took the primary role in Caleb’s educational and developmental needs, meeting with his teachers to develop Caleb’s Individualized Education Plan. Since moving out of the marital home, Father has maintained frequent and regular contact with the children.
The children have strong ties to their maternal aunt, grandparents, and cousins who live in Michigan. Over the years, the children have visited their extended family in Michigan for summer visits and some holidays, and the maternal aunt, Deborah Benson, and grandparents regularly visited the children in State College. The children also have a strong tie with their Paternal Grandfather.
This factor is neutral.
I suppose I would agree with Judge Ruest on this factor and call it neutral.
2. The age, developmental stage, needs of the child and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.
Caleb is 14 years old, and will be entering high school this coming year. He was previously diagnosed on the autism spectrum, but his psychologist more recently changed his diagnosis to an “emotional disorder.” Mother and Father described him as a “loner.” He does not make friends easily, but has several close friends in State College. He has received special education assistance throughout his educational career. Though he has learning disabilities, he is bright and loves to read. His most recent Individualized Education Plan indicates that Caleb’s learning disabilities in math, writing, and social skills necessitate specially designed instruction in order for Caleb to access the general education curriculum. His special education teacher for the past three years, Ms. Westerhaus, testified that he does not transition well. Caleb has difficulty completing his homework on time. Ms. Westerhaus testified that she has met with special education teachers at the State College Area School District High School. and that those teachers are prepared for Caleb’s arrival in 9th grade.
Amanda is 11 years old, and will be entering middle school this coming year. Amanda Is typically an A/B student, and likes math. Amanda is socially outgoing and makes friends easily. Amanda has significant medical problems that require constant adult supervision. She has had multiple surgeries over the years, and has a reconstructed bladder and Hirchsprung’s disease. Amanda has to take special care to maintain her physical health, and must complete certain medical procedures every three hours to avoid complication. Although she is learning how to do this herself, she still requires adult assistance. She was absent from school multiple times during 51” grade with colds, strep throat, and urinary tract infections.
Amelia is 5 years old, and will be entering kindergarten this coming year. She is a sweet, loving, and well-adjusted child. She socializes well with her preschool peers.
This factor weighs against relocation with respect to Caleb and Amanda, and is neutral with respect to Amelia.
Again, I would agree with Judge Ruest here. However, I would have put Amelia in with Caleb and Amanda because some of the activities she had started in State College, like ice skating, would have to stop when she moved to Michigan.
3. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating party and the child through suitable custody arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.
Mother proposes relocating to Maybee, Michigan, a 6.5 hour drive from State College, Pennsylvania, where the children and both parents currently reside. It appears unlikely that Father would relocate to Michigan if the Court grants relocation because he is a tenured professor at The Pennsylvania State University. It is not feasible that the children would be able to have regular visits with Father given both the distance and their increasing extracurricular obligations as they get older. Father would be unable to continue to participate with the children’s educational development on a daily basis. The parties have not suggested a workable parenting and visitation plan if the Court grants relocation.
This factor weighs heavily against relocation.
I was glad to see that Judge Ruest realized that the plan Rita had proposed was not workable. However, when she eventually allowed Rita to move, she implemented a schedule that was even crazier than what Rita suggested here. This factor was the only one Judge Ruest needed to consider, and I would agree that it weighs heavily against relocation.
4. The child’s preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.
Neither party presented any testimony on this factor.
5. Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of either party to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the other party.
There does not appear to be an established pattern of conduct of either party to either promote or thwart the relationship of the children and the other party. In a few instances, Mother apparently told the children not to tell Father where they had been or what they had done. In a few instances, Father posted inappropriate message alerts about Mother to his iPhone calendar that the children eventually saw.
This factor is neutral.
My actions were entirely accidental. Rita’s were undoubtedly intentional, and in fact, Rita told them to lie to me on several occasions. According to Amelia, I would later learn that there were specific topics Rita “forbade” them to discuss with me.
Next page…