Yet another Motion to Redocket.
First, let me hit “play” for some appropriate background music:
But this song came on my stereo as I was sitting here diligently typing away while my 3D printer whirs, flashes, and buzzes next to me as I print a blue reticulated slug for me and Cecelia to play with. We’re into it, even though she’s never been allowed to see the printer by others suddenly (well, 6+ months now) somehow unfairly and uncomfortably over me. And as this song says, “If I could talk to you…”
I have but a few things to occupy my fleeting time on this earth these days. Sleep isn’t one. Neither is spending valuable time with my daughter, as it’s been decided by her mother. The reason has never been explicitly divulged and has deliberately been left open to false presumptions by everyone, and I’ve been ordered to remain quiet about it all to my own daughter. Sounds great, huh?
There’s an adversarial, not cooperative, motivation to portray me to the world as a creep in order to exploit laws, manipulate people and situations and arrange our daughter’s mother’s own life as best possible, at our child and others’ incredible expense. Notably, mine, the fathers. I’m not worried about myself as most might; I’m worried about my ability to help raise our daughter as we agreed years ago, and not as the mother sees fit on an impromptu, unplanned and independent basis.
I’ve been attempting to compel a Judge to understand this. As a result, I file a lot of Motions. Whether she reads them or not, I have no idea. But the evidence is piling up and pointing to “no.”Keep in mind I’m looking for a job, a place to move to and live, battling about 6 other dragons at the same time I’m working on this, and just trying to keep my sanity. With no resources or support or safety net. They’ve all been recklessly and suddenly removed over time in an attempt to make me fail as catastrophically as possible by the mother. Unfortunately, our daughter goes down with me when I go down because I’m her father, which no one but me and other reasonable, non-dysfunctional people seem to realize. And there’s an unseverable bond between me and my daughter which no one realizes and/or wants to admit, that’s trying to be broken as violently and quickly as possible by the mother.
The Court won’t or doesn’t have the time to consider this. But it’s crucial in order to do what’s best for our daughter, Cecelia.
I have to buy copies of notes, at $.50 per PAGE as evidence. $1.00 for 2 pages of copies. That’s theft.
Please note: In my Diagram below, the big, red wall is something our daughter is now being passed over back and forth every week so that the Respondent and the Court and the CSH cannot observe, and therefore not comment, advise, inquire or help in any way. It’s contrived for the benefit of the Petitioner and not in the best interest of our Child.
Here’s a draft of my latest. If any seasoned attorney-friends come across this and who want to help edit, please let me know:
RE: CASE: 17D501898 Watson v Musgrove
The Respondent, Michael Musgrove, respectfully moves that the court immediately grant an order to reconsider and rescind the Order of Supervised Access, dated May 13, 2021, and in support thereof says the 2(two) following LEGAL reasons:
LEGAL BASIS #1:
KRS 403.270(2), a rule that defines doing what is in the best interest of the Child, is a primary deciding and superseding factor in this case.
…”there shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a preponderance of evidence, that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the Child.”KRS 403.270(2)
As support of KRS 403.270(2), I Michael Musgrove, acting as Respondent and attorney Pro Se for, and unlike the Petitioner’s attorney who is paid to only and duly represent the Petitioner, the Child mentioned within this document, provide a solid foundation including additional supportive examples and credible testimony by Court-ordered, involved participants. This erudite finding should overrule all other considerations, excepting LEGAL BASIS #2, as comprehensively outlined below.
Firstly, the Petitioner’s motivation for this entire case is to remove the father in resentment of both having to co-parent in a joint-custody situation which she has never had an interest in with any of her legal children and to imminently remove the Respondent from having any co-parenting abilities and free observation of his child, input or involvement in the joint custody enjoyed and provided by the Court for the Petitioner’s behalf in its entirety.
The Petitioner has never exhibited any interest in co-parenting with the Respondent despite years of pleading and reasoning on the Respondent’s part. Cheap talk is all that’s made available by the Petitioner, and no positive action is ever taken by her despite being given an unlimited opportunity. The Petitioner always becomes hostile, adversarial, and unpredictable and sends the matter for the Court to handle for her at every opportunity, for no good reason and without consideration of what is in the best interest of the Child. She then often becomes hostile in court, as we’ve witnessed already in previous hearings with the Court.
This arrangement enables the Petitioner to make decisions without any say and reasonable, prudent influence from the legal, natural NC parent whatsoever, by severing the father from the Child and placing both him and the Child in a highly censored, emotional, communicative, and strategical straightjacket by the Court.
The Petitioner discovered a common method to exploit the law, found an opportunistic situation to leverage for her own and no one else’s behalf, and placed her own personal specious whims above the obvious best interest of the Child every chance she’s been given both by the Court and the Respondent.
The entire situation proffered by the Petitioner is manipulative, opportunistic, and deceitful at best and has become a tragedy for the Child and is not in her best interest as kept by the status-quo arrangement. The Child, unfortunately, has witnessed and now been thrust into a complicated legal system and emotionally confusing situation by the Petitioner, which the Child has expressed not liking in any way. This fact is evidenced in the CSH notes as well.
She cannot communicate with her own father and cannot understand why she’s not permitted. Most notably, no one is allowed to help her understand, as directly enforced by the CSH citing the Court Order of Supervised Access as their basis for total censorship(Please see Diagram 1.0), under threat of having the Child removed from a weekly meeting if violated and even charges money for the CSH “Cancellation” excuses, adding additional assessments to the Respondent in exchange to visit with the Child. If not paid, the Child is withheld from the Respondent with no explanation being able to be offered to the Child by anyone but the Petitioner, who knows nothing at all and is kept deliberately ignorant of the issue, per the CSH policy, as the owners have explained.
The Petitioner has squandered this 6 (six) plus month opportunity to improve the Child’s life in every positive way imaginable. No educational trips were taken, no reading or math review was done to prepare her for First Grade, and no attention was given to the Child all Summer, even though the Petitioner herself doesn’t work during the Summer. She is on a 10-month/per year contract from her employer of record, IUS. How she spent this quarter of a year is anyone’s guess, but it wasn’t dedicated at all to the Child, as told by the Child to CSH staff members and the father. The Petitioner is spending her available time with the Child away from the Child at every opportunity.
Furthermore, there has been no mention of a desire by the Petitioner to include the Child in her separately- filed EPO (Jefferson County Family Court, Circuit Court 6, Case# 21D501325-001) since she knows it is NOT in the Child’s best interest. It should be noted that this EPO has at times, been legally linked to this Order of Supervised Access, and at others made immediately and mutually exclusive when desired by the Court, and the Court had denied a Motion to bifurcate the cases generated solely by the Petitioner and her defense lawyer. This has caused unnecessary confusion, wasted scarce time and resources on everyone’s part.
It has also furthered the noticeable and already-discussed damages, in copious prior Motions passed by the Court in their entirety for procedural reasons and not for the actual value of content therein, and there has been no mention of the critical content within to date. The Order of Supervised Access was executed by the Court in a quick, de-facto manner, to legally tether the Child to the Petitioner, for which there has been no motion requested to pursue such, or any evidential reason to include the Child as if the Child is unquestionably the Petitioner’s own personal property. This is a tragic misperception in which the Petitioner herself views the Child, to the point she files motions to alleviate herself from any co-parenting questioning by anyone, most notably the natural, legal, and most-loving father, whatsoever. This premeditated arrangement was the Petitioner’s furtive plan from the beginning, which she’s managed to execute with the Court’s help.
In an eye-opening series of actions by the Petitioner that don’t reflect what’s in the best interest of the Child, I submit but a few recent actual examples of the Petitioner’s nefarious and wholesale inattentive parental activities as support this Order should be rescinded immediately:
As a result of the Order of Supervised Access, the Child frequently isn’t even with the Petitioner for long stretches of time, including regular overnight stays during the school week as explained by the Child and the Petitioner herself. Ostensibly, these are irreplaceable and delicate times when the Child, at the very least, would have been cared for by her own loving father instead of non-family members, who the Child is made to believe they are legally related by the Petitioner in acts of deliberate manipulation of the Child away from her both legal and natural family for the Petitioner’s own insipid desires. The Child is encouraged to call the Petitioner’s other daughter “Sissy” and “my Sister” by the Petitioner, although they are not legally related in any way. A fact made abundantly and intentionally clear when the Petitioner took the stepdaughter away from her stepfather one night in 2017 with no goodbye at all after 10 years together.
And in another real example, during the most recent visit with the Child on November 4, 2021, the Respondent was informed that the Child is being left alone during school nights in an entirely different state, with the Petitioner’s 18(eighteen)-year-old daughter from her first marriage, who lives with an unknown number of anonymous roommates. Other teenagers come and go at all hours in this apartment where the Child is left, in a small apartment somewhere unknown to the Respondent in Indiana, USA. And the child, who has medical problems with her eyes, is required to drive the Child around Kentucky and Indiana regularly, once showing up at the Respondent’s house together with no advance notice. Just as the Respondent did on May 3, which was her opportunity to file protective and DV motions out of the blue.
The Respondent helped the Petitioner raise this child for 10 years before the Petitioner suddenly tore her away from the Respondent with no explanation forever at age 14 (after intentionally manipulating her against the Respondent to gain favor, much like she’s doing with the Child now, and the court has already been notified via filed Motion by the Respondent already.) So the other Petitioner’s child’s habits and highly-defined patterns are well-known and demonstrable, as are the Petitioners.
A lot of ongoing opportunistic manipulation and disparagement has taken place against the father by the Petitioner during that time. The CSH notes reflect and support this statement.
As a result, when asked about her regular and frequent overnight stays away from her mother, the Child answers she regularly hasn’t been attending school (this whole school year and Summer opportunities both neglected and squandered), is provided a terrible diet(she always tells me she’s hungry and eats nothing but Pop-tarts, macaroni, pizza, cookies, and doughnuts, according to her, in the Petitioner’s care. the Respondent asks her about these everyday issues every visit.).
She receives no meaningful (or supervised)indoor or outdoor exercise(she’s a very active child, normally who the Respondent takes to parks, playgrounds, hikes, walks, and so on daily. Plus she’s 6 and high-energy already), no basic hygiene(always filthy), no set bedtime(always looks and complains of being tired with dark circles under her eyes), and no discipline, safety, or attention.
She’s told the Respondent and staff at the CSH repeatedly she must ask permission to even sit in the Petitioner’s lap. Her own mother. This is specifically evidenced in the attached CSH notes as well.
The very first visit she and the Respondent had at the CSH in May 2021, the Child showed up with stitches in her forehead, which would have been prevented with basic parenting and the smallest amount of attention. Later during one of the most recent visits, the Child presented a large, filthy wound on her foot where she stepped on 2 nails. No medical care was given. These aren’t your everyday playground “boo-boos,” as the Petitioner always angrily claims with no reason for the injuries available and the tiresome allegation of “harassment” for carefully and thoughtfully asking about it. They are serious injuries to a small 6-year-old girl that require immediate and ongoing medical care.
In other words, the Child is often allowed to do whatever a 6-year-old wants with the most rudimentary of supervision and care if any, and where different statutes and ignored complexities become applicable to the Child. The Petitioner believes in and practices “laissez-faire” parenting, which the Respondent attempts to discuss, with a hostile response always given by the Petitioner. This is an approach by the Petitioner allowing the Child to try and fail to learn how to take care of herself without supervision and aid, usually with disastrous consequences. As already evidenced in the past 6+ months the Child has been away from her father.
This is just the beginning of a long list of unwanted circumstances the Child has been placed into since the Order was created and are in the worst interest of the Child, not the best.
The child regularly also stays with a person (“Sara”) who is a known longtime drug dealer of the Petitioners. the Respondent personally knows this because when married she would send him to “Sara’s” house or workplace (she was a cook in St. Matthews) to pick up the Petitioner’s “orders” so she wouldn’t get in trouble with the law. For years. It’s an example of how the Petitioner always places herself first in any situation and will place others at risk on her behalf, no matter who’s involved, her husband or child with no consideration of the risks she regularly demands others take on her behalf.
She has the Child stay with “Sara” frequently and regularly, for questionable, if not unknown, reasons and with unknown people doing unknown but inappropriate activities. “Sara’s” husband is currently in prison. The Petitioner is absent, as usual. The Petitioner has told the Respondent “Sara” has created homemade porn videos of herself to make money online before, with or without children present not disclosed.
The Child has shown up with head lice from “Sara’s” house before, which the Petitioner knows about and told me about. the Respondent has been present when children are running around naked at “adult” parties. It’s a state of filthy anarchy. This is where the Petitioner’s making the Child stay while she’s off doing what she wants each night, and the Child has complained to the Respondent she does not like it. It’s abandonment and neglectful at best, and in no imaginable way in the best interest of the Child.
Perhaps most interestingly, the Petitioner has recently bought a house, according to the Child, “next door” to “Sara” which has become the Child’s “second home/house,” according to the Child. Not the Respondent’s anymore; a known drug dealer’s now. This is an inexplicable action on the Petitioner’s part. This was also after the Petitioner and our daughter were recently living in a “camper” over the Summer. Again, not in the best interest.
Furthermore and related, the Child has been unable to sleep in her own bed due to bugs, roaches, and mice, as explained by her in detail, so she was moved to sleep in the basement, which recently flooded and is unfurnished. CSH notes support this. Arguably not in her best interest.
The basement then became uninhabitable if it ever was, so she was moved to the Respondent’s bed, where she watches inappropriate movies and TV shows late into the night, she regularly explains. She has no bedtime or schedule at all in the Petitioner’s house. the Child then tells me she has nightmares about roaches and red-eyed rats coming after her and crawling on her all the time. Not surprising and tired, indeed and these statements are contained in the CSH notes. Not in her best interest.
The Respondent is still married to yet another man she hastily swapped vows with after ending her second marriage just a couple of years ago. The Petitioner’s newest husband has demanded physical confrontations with the Respondent until the stepfather and the Petitioner separated around a year ago, and the Child’s stepfather now lives in New Jersey with no known visits made in N.J. by the Petitioner or Child during this time.
The child describes the huge fights they used to get into and yelled and cursed so much she had to go hide in the backyard, she tells the Respondent. This fatherless home once again leaves the Petitioner living with her own decrepit father, who the Child is regularly left to supervise the Child. This is a man who kicked the family dog down the basement stairs so hard it bled, directly in front of the Child. The Petitioner has acknowledged this event to the Respondent and claimed to have “corrected” the situation, somehow. But once an animal abuser, always an animal abuser. Not in the best interest of the Child again and horrible, indelible memories have been created for the Child.
The Respondent has a video on his dashcam of her stepfather holding the Child on their front doorstep and yelling loud profanities 3 inches from the Child’s ear and across the neighborhood, disparaging the father, and demanding to physically fight him while holding his daughter. This was at a visitation exchange before he moved out and far away from the Petitioner to another state. And is why the Respondent refuses to have visitation exchanges at the Petitioner’s house anymore or go there for any reason at all. An agreement was made to only have them at the Respondent’s home, which is safest. It’s too dangerous for the Respondent and his child at the Petitioner’s home because no one knows what danger awaits or who’s even there waiting behind the door.
Additionally, the Petitioner has told the Respondent and Child several times she arms herself with guns. The Petitioner has had no formal gun safety training or even experience, whatsoever. (She lied to the Respondent about this until she was easily caught in her lie.) There are no weapons or ammunition in the Respondent’s possession anywhere as ordered, contrary to the Petitioner’s ignorant claim in court earlier this year when she initiated this entire hoax.
Please keep in mind the Respondent holds no one as an adversary here, despite all the outrageous circumstances presented to him by the Petitioner and her circle of influence. He’s indifferent to them and the Child is his top priority, always. Why the Petitioner holds him as an adversary is anyone’s guess. There are no reasonable ideas, even after all this time. But she’s a naturally hostile person who leaves a long line of enemies throughout her relatively short life. (The Respondent is 12 years older than the Petitioner. A fact that should be taken into account here for a variety of reasons.)
When the Respondent walked and drove away, her husband was still yelling profanity and following me, with our daughter in his arms in the front yard. This is not the environment the Child is entitled to be raised in, and it is against a primary, basic explicit Court Order in the divorce decree signed by the Court about disparagement against the Respondent, in fact.
Since then, at least one unmarried man (“Eli”) regularly stays at the Petitioner and Child’s home overnight, both with the Child there and with her staying somewhere else. Where and with whom is anyone’s guess?
“Eli” once came to the Respondent’s house with the Petitioner, and they both stole over $10,000 worth of belongings as they left, including a case of the Child’s grandparent’s wedding silver and other family heirlooms, which were meant to be given to the Child. The Respondent filed a police report with the LMPD and insurance claim verifying this. The Petitioner becomes hostile whenever mentioned instead of being concerned about the Child’s stolen heirlooms. She eventually returned some of the items, some large photographic statuettes of the Respondent’s mother(the Child’s grandmother and namesake) she strangely took and intended on keeping, without apology.
Perhaps most disturbingly, the Child has told the Respondent in detail how “Eli” hits her and hit her repeatedly at the farm he works on until “she learned to be tough,” defined by both the Child and her mother before as not crying at directly inflicted physical pain. The child’s behavior here, plus showing up for months covered in obvious painful injuries reflects and supports her statement as truth. When asked where the daughter’s mother was, she replies her mother “was around but drinking” and smoking elsewhere, around a fire. This corresponds to when the Petitioner and Respondent were raising her other young daughter and the Respondent saw her hit her with a wooden spoon in the kitchen once and constantly yell at her other young daughter to “Dry it up!” to become angry if disobeyed. And then even proudly told other women about her dubious disciplinary skills later. So this awful scenario with the Petitioner is familiar and recognizable already.
If the Petitioner’s considerately asked about the injuries, she cries that she’s being “harassed” every time and becomes hostile instead of being concerned herself about the Child’s injuries and having a simple explanation for any of it aside from the obvious truth. Which is a curious and inexplicable reaction to that type of question by a parent.
In her frustrated rage and solution to become able to do anything she pleases with the Child without question or involvement by the concerned Father, the Petitioner eventually filed a (second) dreamt-up and impromptu EPO, this time along with a staged, baseless Domestic Violence allegation, along with a fraudulent criminal charge against the Respondent for good measure in an ongoing attempt to ruin his life as her newest hobby.
She individually created the opportunity to maliciously produce and then malevolently pursue to attain her premeditated ends in other words. To everyone’s surprise, she managed to succeed with no actual evidence, plausible reason, or testimony from any witness available. At which time this irreversibly damaging order of Supervised Access was executed with no research as to what is in the actual best interest of the Child in this specific case. This Order of Supervised Access has not been in the Child’s best interest at all.
Incidentally, these are some of the untold reasons the Petitioner wants to keep the Respondent as far away as possible and staged a false DV to exploit the law: To keep herself far from reasonable observation and unquestioned about anything she does, no matter how awful, reckless and irresponsible, or how many lies she needs to tell to achieve her nefarious personal goals.
None of these facts, individually or in aggregate add up to doing what’s in the best interest of the Child, in any situation, ever. They are particularly distressing to her father and should be to anyone who knows about them. It’s why the end of this Order has been so passionately pursued by the father as Pro Se attorney for his and his Child’s best interest for so many months now.
Attached to this Motion is irrefutable testimony from the CSH that the best interest of the Child is to be immediately reunited with the Father as before the Order was enacted to support this legal basis. There already exists filed, undisputed evidence with the Clerk of Court a string of prior motions as irrefutable testimony that elimination of the Supervised Visitation Order(the Order) is in the best interest of the Child. Nothing material has ever been disputed in these Motions mind you and the veracity of the context and content, the most valuable components of the documents, is unquestioned and remains unfettered by the Court, Petitioner or Petitioner’s defense attorney.
LEGAL BASIS #2)
The Order of Supervised Access stealthily violates the Respondent’s 1st Amendment rights.
The entire Order is unconstitutional because it restricts the Respondent’s freedom of speech wholesale (to the Respondent’s daughter, no less.) This infringement is done via a subtle yet powerful transference of legal abilities from the Court to the Children’s Safe Haven Staff via the Order, where it takes place.
The fact Motions must be filed with the Clerk of Court in order to address anything to do with the CSH is proof that there is a mutual bridge to and from the Court to the CSH and they are under the court’s supervision. The court has denied this as well as the ability to influence what happens at the CSH, despite CSH staff stating differently. The buck is passed back and forth where everyone has the ability to cause greater problems for the Respondent and child, but no one saves the Father has the interest, inherent passion, or energy to solve them, for the Child’s best interest it has been shown to date.
The Court orders the Respondent to exclusively and totally comply with the Children’s Safe Haven (CSH) staff, a highly specified type of business he is forced to hire at relatively great expense, to supervise the new meager hourly, once-a-week visits between father and daughter. This creates an authoritarian and totalitarian relationship with the CSH staff on behalf of the Court. The Court has managed to separate itself from the CSH as much as possible on paper, but it’s clear they operate in tandem as well as a surrogate of the Court and there is constant communication between the two about specific cases, including this very one.
This is the interfering and unnecessary degree this Order reduces the Respondent’s child’s and the Respondent’s relationship, which further illustrates and, at the very least, supports Legal Basis #1 as clear evidence this Order is not in the Child’s best interest and should be rescinded immediately.
It establishes a total transference of legal authority over the Respondent and his daughter to CSH by the Court, which the CSH even obligates him to sign in agreement. It also creates a nearly inescapable and hugely resource-wasting, glacially-paced loop in that the CSH reverts to the Court, and then the Court passes the responsibility back to the CSH, both saying the other is the one accountable and able to act, then denying the same for themself:
CSH requires the Respondent, and all “clients” directed to the facility by the Court by Court Order, to sign and agree at great and open threat to obey their self-crafted and specious “Rule Book,” entirely created by the mind of CSH co-owner Tonesha Hearn(As she has explained via email herself). If refused, then the Respondent’s daughter is able to be withheld as collateral and leverage until there is total compliance on the Respondent’s part.)
The “Guide Book” is a scant, deliberately vague reference that dictates the Respondent’s and his daughter’s behavior at all times while at the facility together and apart, as judged by any CSH Staff members. So far, their say has been considered indelible and final in a legal sense by the Court, no matter how preposterous. There is no formal way to appeal that is effective. The case manager has stated “he can’t help” when needed, the CSH says they cannot help, and the motions filed as requested, are rebuked for reasons irrelevant to the substance of the case itself, which have largely been ignored. (Additionally, I’ve recently been informed our Case Manager, Mr. Kelsey Layer-Hamilton, has passed away, with no official notification given to me, or plan provided for replacement, as explained by the CSH.)
This heavily-referenced and enforced anonymous CSH “Book of Rules” is deliberately written as open to interpretation by CSH staff and as vaguely as possible to leave explanation and their Court-enforceable Bylaws as broad, open, and loose as possible for CSH staff to make on a whim and out of thin air. And even after the fact. This is no one’s best interest but the CSH and Court’s, and not of the Child. Especially not in her relationships with her mother and father, because the Guideline book was once used to suspend service between the father and child for 2 long weeks because the Respondent touched his daughter with a sanitizing wipe, that the CSH themselves provided him.
This is illustrated and explained in their “Disciplinary Action” and vague, sometimes illegible, handwritten notes taken from that day and about the incident, and heavily edited thereafter, to their benefit and without explanation. There’s no transparency at the CSH at all, by design which everyone’s well-aware of, but no one discusses, to further the obfuscation of valuable information which often is detrimental to the CSH, which they realize. It’s why it’s being kept so clandestine and handled surreptitiously. It also generates considerable trust and credibility issues for themselves and those associated with them.
A Motion containing this information was filed with the Court to bring the exploitation and abuse of power into light, and in typical fashion, it was rebuked, nothing proactive was done or anything positive achieved. The status quo remains and a lot of resources once again were completely wasted. This is part of the inescapable cycle referred to in Diagram 1.0, created by this series of filings by the Petitioner enacted, and defended by the Court. This Motion defines why this is legally indefensible.
This manifesto of CSH laws forbids the Respondent and his daughter from speaking with one another freely. It’s an ill-conceived, sophomoric work that strictly regulates our topics and even arbitrarily allows staff to control the physical volume of our voices when speaking to one another. Hardened, convicted felons in prison aren’t subject to this intense and unjust level of supervision, with less threat of punishment because of its clear unconstitutionality.
The CSH Staff threatens and regularly executes, to suspend and terminate services if “rules” are disobeyed strictly as they see them, as dictated by the Court. In addition, they freely charge arbitrary fees and costs to an already taxing bill to visit with the Child for a meager hour, once a week. Such as $1.00 per 2 pages just for copies, as are attached to this very Motion. When they generate 60 pages of handwritten notes per case, it becomes another area to exploit the situation for personal wants and overbill the poor people caught in the legal webs.
This fluctuating but omnipresent bill is an unfair, unrequested, and unexpected assessment to the Petitioner each and every week as a result of the Order of Supervised Access for well over half a year of the Child’s life now. And continues to increase due to “fees” incurred by the business and directly passed to the client, with an overly-healthy profit margin. There may be confusion here between incorporating a business and being able to successfully manage a business, which many hapless entrepreneurs find. The CSH has only legally existed for a few years.
From a parent’s viewpoint, these are acts by the CSH that may be viewed by some firm standpoints as legally permitted kidnapping, blackmail, (both emotional & financial), and violating a set of basic US laws. Most are felonies in actual society. But for purposes of the Court, the reasons offered herein should compel the Court to eliminate the Order of Supervised Access altogether and do what is in the best interest of the Child and legal.
For these two specific legal reasons, I ask that the Order of Supervised Access be terminated immediately and the Respondent and his child’s relationship be restored immediately.
As the Respondent, I have attempted to prepare this restoration to take place as quickly, frictionlessly, and seamlessly as possible by taking several proactive actions on everyone’s behalf.
As requested via affidavit by the Petitioner in the original Affidavit, a co-parenting app was personally bought by the Respondent (me) for use by the Petitioner(OurFamilyWizard.com) months ago, which remains unused and undiscussed, save the Respondent.
An effort to introduce himself to and speak with the Child’s new 1st-grade teacher about the Child’s education this school year and obtain a carpool pickup hangtag for the car mirror in anticipation of the Order being imminently and ultimately lifted was made. Without even being consulted, he was forbidden by the court to step foot on the Child’s school grounds as a persecutory consequence for an innocent man’s actions and denying what is in the best interest of the Child. No discussion was ever tendered about the innocent and long-proven harmless father’s actions. And Orders are consistently being filed based on false presumptions and nefarious intent by the Petitioner and her attorney.
Wherefore, the Respondent respectfully requests the Court to issue an order to reconsider and immediately rescind the Order of Supervised Access, dated May 13, 2021.