Custody evaluation report

[Anonymous]

That case is stomach turning. The guys was controlling and mean to the mother so she gets primary custody and gets to move away?

That has nothing to do with the child.

[Anonymous]

Relocation case
https://casetext.com/case/emerick-v-emerick-13

[Anonymous]

In one of the cases above the attorney added an extra $800/month child support —that were entirely fraudulent and MADE UP. The Court was asleep (they do these fast) and accepted it. The court also gave her attorneys fees for that bold lie! Obviously, as seen, both pieces of the county court award were overturned. But only after both parents spent tens of thousands of dollars on services. For what?

Wish Musk could clean up the custody courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In one of the cases above the attorney added an extra $800/month child support —that were entirely fraudulent and MADE UP. The Court was asleep (they do these fast) and accepted it. The court also gave her attorneys fees for that bold lie! Obviously, as seen, both pieces of the county court award were overturned. But only after both parents spent tens of thousands of dollars on services. For what?

Wish Musk could clean up the custody courts.

Based just on that it wasn’t entirely fraudulent and made up, it was based on two different interpretations of the situation.

It appears that either option, public school plus extended day, or private school with no need for extended day cost the same. It is reasonable to me that if Dad was required to contribute $800 if they attended public, and agreed to the choice of private, might continue to contribute the same amount. If he didn’t choose private and just agreed asking him to pay more wouldn’t make sense. If he didn’t like private then asking him to pay at all, even if the custody order said mom could
pick, makes sense, but in this case I could see why mom thought it made sense.

[Anonymous]

Are you the lawyer for the mom who lost big time (the appellee) ??!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you the lawyer for the mom who lost big time (the appellee) ??!

No, I am just someone who can read. I am not saying that the judge’s decision was right or wrong, but the costs weren’t fraudulent or made up, there was just disagreement about who should pay them.

[Anonymous]

The Fairfax Virginia “trial court erred in including in the child support award an $800 amount for child-care costs when no such expense had been incurred.”

The lawyer and her client turned in an expense to the Court that did not exist. What other definition of fraud is there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you the lawyer for the mom who lost big time (the appellee) ??!

How is $9600 a year “big time”?

If I were this dad I would prepare for the relatives to be unavailable for free child care.

[Anonymous]

I’m confused. Are you reading Emerick v. Emerick Court of Appeals of Virginia or something else?
Is that that a good outcome?

It looks like folks had to return to court again to sort it out. The relocation of the children out of state was allowed to be closer to extended family. It was not revisited— but I can not tell. Can you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A custody evaluator is NOT your therapist. That’s the thing you need to know going into one. Tell them facts, preferably ones that can be verified by others, and if you have to mention feelings do it briefly and neutrally.

If you need a therapist to vent and cry to about it get one. Do NOT act like the custody evaluator cares about you at all. They’re just writing a report.

I had one that went very well (another state, years ago), because I just told him what happened. No feelings, just facts. He saw the kid, kid was fine (also kid was a baby, so couldn’t talk other than saying Bus or Cat), and my ex tried to feed a lot of BS (like said I breastfed for too long, so the guy asked about nursing and I said “yes baby is still nursing, and eating solids 2-3x per day but he’s been a little slow to get enough calories from it so he’s still nursing X times a day” - the evaluator said that it was still developmentally appropriate to be nursing and he wasn’t concerned).

But I only gave facts. I didn’t get emotional. I didn’t say anything negative about my ex - I let the guy draw his own conclusions based on the facts I gave him.

It’s inappropriate to refuse custody to the child’s dad over breastfeeding.

As long as you think the father’s wishes are of greater import than the best interests of the child standard, sure.

Or the child is 3+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A custody evaluator is NOT your therapist. That’s the thing you need to know going into one. Tell them facts, preferably ones that can be verified by others, and if you have to mention feelings do it briefly and neutrally.

If you need a therapist to vent and cry to about it get one. Do NOT act like the custody evaluator cares about you at all. They’re just writing a report.

I had one that went very well (another state, years ago), because I just told him what happened. No feelings, just facts. He saw the kid, kid was fine (also kid was a baby, so couldn’t talk other than saying Bus or Cat), and my ex tried to feed a lot of BS (like said I breastfed for too long, so the guy asked about nursing and I said “yes baby is still nursing, and eating solids 2-3x per day but he’s been a little slow to get enough calories from it so he’s still nursing X times a day” - the evaluator said that it was still developmentally appropriate to be nursing and he wasn’t concerned).

But I only gave facts. I didn’t get emotional. I didn’t say anything negative about my ex - I let the guy draw his own conclusions based on the facts I gave him.

It’s inappropriate to refuse custody to the child’s dad over breastfeeding.

As long as you think the father’s wishes are of greater import than the best interests of the child standard, sure.

Or the child is 3+

Mom can pump or child can use formula at dad’s house. That is alienation to the core. Dads are just as capable as moms and under three is prime bonding time. If you keep these dads out of their kids lives in the early years with made up excuses don’t be surprised when they give up and stop trying. Yes, dads wanting to be in their child’s life trumps breastfeeding. And after one, kids should be on solids. Kids van start solids at 4-6 months. That is about mom’s needs, not the child’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A custody evaluator is NOT your therapist. That’s the thing you need to know going into one. Tell them facts, preferably ones that can be verified by others, and if you have to mention feelings do it briefly and neutrally.

If you need a therapist to vent and cry to about it get one. Do NOT act like the custody evaluator cares about you at all. They’re just writing a report.

I had one that went very well (another state, years ago), because I just told him what happened. No feelings, just facts. He saw the kid, kid was fine (also kid was a baby, so couldn’t talk other than saying Bus or Cat), and my ex tried to feed a lot of BS (like said I breastfed for too long, so the guy asked about nursing and I said “yes baby is still nursing, and eating solids 2-3x per day but he’s been a little slow to get enough calories from it so he’s still nursing X times a day” - the evaluator said that it was still developmentally appropriate to be nursing and he wasn’t concerned).

But I only gave facts. I didn’t get emotional. I didn’t say anything negative about my ex - I let the guy draw his own conclusions based on the facts I gave him.

It’s inappropriate to refuse custody to the child’s dad over breastfeeding.

As long as you think the father’s wishes are of greater import than the best interests of the child standard, sure.

Or the child is 3+

Mom can pump or child can use formula at dad’s house. That is alienation to the core. Dads are just as capable as moms and under three is prime bonding time. If you keep these dads out of their kids lives in the early years with made up excuses don’t be surprised when they give up and stop trying. Yes, dads wanting to be in their child’s life trumps breastfeeding. And after one, kids should be on solids. Kids van start solids at 4-6 months. That is about mom’s needs, not the child’s.

None of this is the best pediatric guidance, which says breastfeeding to two, kids *start* solids no earlier than one.

So again, why do you think dad’s convenience trumps the best interests of the child? He can come get baby between feedings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A custody evaluator is NOT your therapist. That’s the thing you need to know going into one. Tell them facts, preferably ones that can be verified by others, and if you have to mention feelings do it briefly and neutrally.

If you need a therapist to vent and cry to about it get one. Do NOT act like the custody evaluator cares about you at all. They’re just writing a report.

I had one that went very well (another state, years ago), because I just told him what happened. No feelings, just facts. He saw the kid, kid was fine (also kid was a baby, so couldn’t talk other than saying Bus or Cat), and my ex tried to feed a lot of BS (like said I breastfed for too long, so the guy asked about nursing and I said “yes baby is still nursing, and eating solids 2-3x per day but he’s been a little slow to get enough calories from it so he’s still nursing X times a day” - the evaluator said that it was still developmentally appropriate to be nursing and he wasn’t concerned).

But I only gave facts. I didn’t get emotional. I didn’t say anything negative about my ex - I let the guy draw his own conclusions based on the facts I gave him.

It’s inappropriate to refuse custody to the child’s dad over breastfeeding.

As long as you think the father’s wishes are of greater import than the best interests of the child standard, sure.

Or the child is 3+

Mom can pump or child can use formula at dad’s house. That is alienation to the core. Dads are just as capable as moms and under three is prime bonding time. If you keep these dads out of their kids lives in the early years with made up excuses don’t be surprised when they give up and stop trying. Yes, dads wanting to be in their child’s life trumps breastfeeding. And after one, kids should be on solids. Kids van start solids at 4-6 months. That is about mom’s needs, not the child’s.

None of this is the best pediatric guidance, which says breastfeeding to two, kids *start* solids no earlier than one.

So again, why do you think dad’s convenience trumps the best interests of the child? He can come get baby between feedings.

What pediatric guidance says no solids till one? Can you link something?

Best pediatric guidance is also for kids to have opportunities to bond with and form a relationship with both parents.

[Anonymous]

Judges and lawyers both like custody reports.

1. Judges like or feel ambivalent about litigants seeking professional reports because it keeps the adults out of their court. The person asking for the report pays. It basically keeps you away (and busy) and in someone else’s “court” for a long time. Judges need to triage their heavy civil and criminal docket. A Divorce suit is typically the worst part of their day.

2. Attorneys (both sides) like engaging in reports because they take a long time and the process is naturally confusing. Talking about how you shop or drive is weird AF. For the lawyers, this report means lots of prep and lots of questions. Afterwards, there is built in “lawyer reading and analysis” (2 hours); maybe a lawyer phone call to the evaluator (.5 hr) and of course arguments -lots of arguments - over the content (5-6 hours). This not including prep and time in court.

[Anonymous]

Custody court cases seem voluntary to me

What happens if one parent just doesn’t participate in a hearing? Will a judge order termination of a parental right in absence of a parent? Like “Oh Dads not here, give rights/custody to the mom.” Or moms not here, just give the rights/custody of the child to dad?

It’s not like a debt case where they rule against you right ?

Does anyone know?