[ad_1]
A Supreme Court judge upheld orders denying a mother, who has serious alcohol and other problems, meaningful access to her teenage daughter whom she has not seen in over a year.
In what he described as a “deeply sad” case, Judge Max Barrett ordered that the mother only send cards, notes and small gifts on the girl’s birthday and Christmas, plus a weekly “general” text message that does not It can be sent if the mother is under the influence of alcohol at the time.
That limited access was mandated by reports from a psychotherapist that this form of access was in the best interest of the girl, including her mental health, and the evidence in the case.
The woman also has not seen her eldest daughter, now 18, for more than a year, but she was not the subject of Thursday’s trial.
In an unusual move, the judge attached a letter addressed directly to the woman and her ex-husband, the father of both girls, at the end of her sentence.
In that letter, he said that much of their trial “might sound like legal jargon” and wanted to identify the key issues that affect them.
Married
She told the woman, on the condition that she commit in court not to call the youngest daughter, known as X, and stay away from her school, as well as stay away from her ex-husband (who has since remarried ), his wife and both children, he could send cards, short notes and small gifts to X on Christmas and birthdays, addressed to his ex-husband and for him to keep safe until X wishes to receive them.
The woman will also be allowed to send a weekly “general” text message to X, for as long as X wishes, which should not put pressure on the girl. No text messages could be sent under the influence of alcohol and her ex-husband might periodically check the text messages.
The judge suggested that the woman seriously consider seeking additional treatment, including residential treatment, for her relationship with alcohol.
In his comments to the father, the judge said that the father should facilitate the mother’s limited access as it was considered in X’s best interest. He asked him to keep cards, notes or gifts addressed to him but intended for X, in case X asked for them. He said that the woman has the right to see X’s medical and school reports and that the father should send them to her without her having to ask for them.
The ruling concerned the woman’s appeal against a Circuit Court ruling in a legal separation proceeding involving the couple, since they were divorced. The man said there had been serious difficulties in his marriage for some years due to the woman’s alcohol abuse and the resulting behavior.
The Circuit Court had awarded the father sole custody of both girls, and the mother’s appeal to the Superior Court focused primarily on access to them.
Judge Barrett said the Supreme Court hearing was “a profound test” in which the mother “repeatedly and genuinely cried” and insisted that the person represented in the allegations is not the real one, she is a good person who has always worked hard lately, his life has “sunk”.
The court accepted that the person in the allegations may well not be her as before and that “drinking changes a person.”
Unfortunately, the events related by her ex-husband and her children “ring true”, the court had to act on what had historically occurred over a long period and some of it was very unpleasant for the man and the children. They and other witnesses had told a constant story and there was no evidence of “training.”
Crashed car
The evidence included that the woman once crashed her car, in which X was a passenger, into a wall and was taken from her workplace multiple times by emergency services due to alcohol.
The eldest daughter, in an interview when she was 16 years old, had represented a home environment in which her mother had a major drinking problem, appearing drunk at home and at work, being very controlling and hitting the girl frequently. X was 10 years old when the psychotherapist interviewed her for the first time and said that her mother got drunk every night, assaulted her paternal grandmother and repeatedly beat her older sister. X also said she had received “excessive” phone text messages after her parents broke up.
In a later interview, X spoke of being afraid of her mother, fearful that she might go to her school or home, and described her mother’s touch as “too much.”
The judge noted that the psychotherapist considered that the children were now in a stable home with their father and stepmother and had concluded that X had formed an age-appropriate free view and clearly did not wish to see their mother in this moment.
[ad_2]