Login Form

2007 02 23 Final Complaint For Initial Mediation

Statement of Grievance:

 

Case # 01-138???DM                                                                                                                                                                            2/23/2006

 

On May 3rd of 2005 I was party to a mediation hearing that later admittedly not handled in a way that is described in literature from the FOC and various other Family court documents.  On 12/5/2005 I filed a grievance that was answered on 1/31/2006.

 

In my initial complaint, I mentioned that Mrs. Wells had refusedreview of documents that I wanted to use to dispute my ex-wife’s denial of certain relevant incidents. Mrs. Wells refused these while accusing me of “Trying to make your ex look like a bad mother”.  In your response, Mr. Frasik explains that all relevant documents are reviewed following the appointment and prior to the recommendation. The documents were not allowed so they most certainly could have not been reviewed.

 

Mrs. Wells made her recommendation prior to the end of our meeting. This was relayed to us, by Mrs. Wells, prior to the end of the meeting. Once released, four months later, the recommendation was exactly as stated in the meeting. This recommendation was based on something other than the best interest of our son Quincy. Mrs. Well ignored, minimized or dismissed relevant medical documents, photos and statements presented by me. She dismissed the contents of the photos by stating that there was no way of dating them. Other photos showing open sores on our son’s legs and buttocks were dismissed by Mrs. Wells when I told her that I had immediately took Quincy in for medical attention. This was done even though my ex wife denied any such occurrence. Instead, I was accused of trying to make her look like a bad mother.

 

A letter from Pediatric Dentist Dr. "G" states “It was apparent that she did not give the medication as prescribed since she stated that the last dosage administered was at 10pm last night and there was a considerable amount of medication remaining in the bottle. Fortunately, we were able to perform the nerve treatment indicated but it was a difficult procedure under the circumstances.” I was allowed to present a letter from the Dentist explaining failures on the part of my ex, regarding a root canal that our son suffered. Mrs. Wells dismissed the letter stating that if the dentist thought the child was in danger, that he was obligated to report it. That may be so, but I don’t feel that that reason alone was sufficient to dismiss the contents of the letter. The threats that I made of police intervention in order to get Q to the Dentist, was viewed as “sufficient.” The dentist later told me that, because I was there and that there was no question of my abilities as a parent, there was no reason to notify the state. I don’t understand how an adult can have knowledge of a root canal on a two year old and not ask questions. When I complained about my ex failing to get out son to the dentist on numerous occasions, Mrs. Wells asked me “Well, did you take him to the dentist?” When I responded, yes, she said “That’s all that matters. Again, this is a mediator that accused me of trying to make my ex look like a bad mother. I got the same response from Mrs. Wells when I mentioned the many missed appointments with our son’s pediatrician. It was obvious to me this was not a hearing based on any procedure but on emotion, personal opinion and or laziness. And I paid for this.

Dental photos, records and a letter from the dentist were also dismissed.

 

Mr. Frasik also writes that Mrs. Wells stated that a certain comment made by her, “Occurred at a point in the investigation when Mrs. Wells stated  that there appeared not to be enough to support a change in physical custody”. Please correct me if I’m wrong but it is not the job of the mediator to decide custody, its establishment or weather there should be a change in it. I thought the mediator was supposed to make a recommendation based on the “Best interest of the child”. How can this be done when she was busy deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to change custody? The legal physical custody had not yet been decided in our case. In short, my son and I were denied the benefits of the best interest factors, its purpose and its intent.

 

Mrs. Wells described the conversation between my ex wife and I as confrontational. Yes, I will be confrontational with a person that keeps my child away from me for up to five months at a time, without so much as an attempt at an explanation. I grow increasingly worried when an agency such as the Friend of the Court, does not demand an answer. Mrs. Wells witnessed my ex wife admitting this and did not think that an explanation was in order. She didn’t even ask for one. One of the best interest factors requires a finding on each parents’ willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.

 Who can best cooperate with the parenting time schedule? At the meeting I presented proof of 4 show cause hearings, all which resulted in make up parenting time to me. To Mrs. Well this seemed insignificant or maybe she would have mentioned it. 

Does either parent criticize the other parent in front of the child? I have a picture of my son wearing a shirt describing the ethnicity of my wife. My mention of this brought a smirk from Mrs. Wells that seemed to say that I was being picky or childish. Mrs. Wells did not inquire. My ex did address the shirt in a deposition hearing held on 11/8/2005. Her response was as follows:

 

Q-Did you purchase a T shirt for Quincy that reads, I have a Puerto Rican grandmother?

A-Yes, Gibraltar Trade Center.

Q-Did you alter it?

A-Yes, I did.

Q-What does it say now?

A-I have a Puerto Rican stepmother.

Q-And who is it referring to?

A-Amanda.

Q-Why did you do that?

A-I thought it was cute.

There is no doubt in my mind that my ex would have admitted to this misuse of our son. This is not small and insignificant; this says a lot about the character of the offending parent.

Mrs. Wells defended a statement that her recommendations were followed or accepted by the court, by saying that she stated “most of the time”. This is not true. I didn’t ask what the likelihood was of the acceptance of her recommendation. I stated that I did not agree with her recommendation and that I would still request more time with our son. Her response was “That’s my recommendation and my recommendations are followed 99% of the time”. The statement was made with arrogance and surety and was designed to discourage my contest.

Described above was the tone of our meeting. It is my strong belief that an impartial, professional, attentive mediator would have concluded something much different that the recommendation that came from Mrs. Wells. Mr. Frasik has admitted that there were some shortcomings in hearing. Some of these short comings certainly should have brought a different recommendation. I am unfamiliar with your inter-operational policy but there has to be something that can be done. The Friend of the Court process has failed and it is documented. What is your procedure for a correction? Perhaps a letter, from your office, to the Judge explaining the failures with the recommendation of an additional hearing, performed correctly. I’m not sure what the answer is but I look forward to your response and resolution.

 

Sincerely

 

 Richmond