JOHN R. SHEARING,
Superior Court of
Kim Maurer: Case Manager
DOCKET NO. A-001476-05T1
Motion To Consider Parenting Plan
Contents: also serves as a summary of the entire motion
<![if !supportLists]>A. <![endif]>Certification of Facts Regarding the Marriage of Plaintiff to Alien Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx.
<![if !supportLists]>B. <![endif]>Complaint Regarding Physical Assault in Courtroom
<![if !supportLists]>C. <![endif]>Marriage Certificate Between Plaintiff and Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx
<![endif]>Sworn testimony before the Honorable Judge Pisansky,
that Plaintiff entered into marriage with Alien in order to circumvent NJ
Family Law that required she reside in the state of
<![if !supportLists]>E. <![endif]>Deposition Transcript: Plaintiff Denies Knowing Current Husband Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx
<![if !supportLists]>F. <![endif]>Marriage Certificate Between Plaintiff and Myself
<![if !supportLists]>G. <![endif]>Report On Plaintiff’s Firing for Relationship with Murderer at Rahway State Prison
<![if !supportLists]>H. <![endif]>Proof Plaintiff Fabricated Evidence And Had Me Falsely Jailed.
<![if !supportLists]>I. <![endif]>Psychiatrists Report States Defendant is NOT a Danger
<![if !supportLists]>J. <![endif]>Rahway Taxi License for which Background Check is Required.
<![if !supportLists]>K. <![endif]>Parenting Plan Brief
<![if !supportLists]>L. <![endif]>Court Order Defers Parenting Decision to Appellate Courts Under Rule 2:9-1 but Same Rule is Ignored on Same Day When Granting $10,000 to Plaintiff
<![if !supportLists]>M. <![endif]>Court Order Grants Plaintiff $10,000 in Opposition of Rule 2:9-1.
<![if !supportLists]>N. <![endif]>Letter From Supervisor Stating Her Home Is Open For Any Length Visitation But Can Not Provide Supervision Or Transportation.
<![if !supportLists]>O. <![endif]>Email Where Plaintiff Disparages Me To My Son’s Teacher
<![if !supportLists]>P. <![endif]>Void
<![if !supportLists]>Q. <![endif]>Letter Warns Plaintiff is Flight Risk
<![if !supportLists]>R. <![endif]>Void
<![if !supportLists]>S. <![endif]>Emergent Motion Take Child To Doctor
<![if !supportLists]>T. <![endif]>Plaintiffs Response To Emergent Motion: Refuses To Take Child To Doctor
<![if !supportLists]>U. <![endif]>My Reply To Plaintiff’s Response: Will Pay For Doctor Though Indigent
<![if !supportLists]>V. <![endif]>Judges Order
<![if !supportLists]>a. <![endif]>confiscated the plaintiff’s passport and our child’s again.
<![if !supportLists]>b. <![endif]>ordered that the plaintiff is not to travel outside a 100 mile radius.
<![if !supportLists]>c. <![endif]>ordered that the plaintiff take our child to the doctor within 24 hours, and to tell the doctor where the child had been.
<![if !supportLists]>d. <![endif]>She ordered that I be given a report of the checkup.
<![if !supportLists]>e. <![endif]>That she find health insurance for my son within the month.
<![if !supportLists]>W. <![endif]>Friendly Emails Between Supervisor And Plaintiff Arranging Visitation
<![if !supportLists]>X. <![endif]>Plaintiff’s Email, Attempts to Strong Arm Supervisor and Interferes with court order
<![if !supportLists]>Y. <![endif]>Judge Brock’s Divorce Decision
<![if !supportLists]>Z. <![endif]>Email: Plaintiff Threatens to Disappear With Child
<![if !supportLists]>AA. <![endif]>Children’s Bill of Rights
<![if !supportLists]>BB.<![endif]>Letter of Recommendation from Son’s After Care Provider.
<![if !supportLists]>CC. <![endif]>Letter To Judge Cassidy Regarding Gun Threat and Suspension
I am John Shearing the defendant. I am appealing a divorce from a woman to whom I was never legally married. As you will see, from reading this brief and examining the evidence, denial of parenting time is being used as punishment for filing this appeal. This only harms my son and so I am asking for immediate intervention. Please accept the following as my motion brief.
2. Forced To Divorce A Woman To Whom I Was Never Married.
3. Case Background and Proof Of A Legitimate Appeal
<![if !supportLists]>1. <![endif]>Elisa Gonzalez, (Plaintiff), married a school principal, Mark Conneran, in the early 1990s and produced a daughter from that marriage.
<![if !supportLists]>2. <![endif]>After a year or there about Ms. Gonzalez filed a domestic violence claim against her husband (later dismissed) saying that her husband threatened to kidnap their daughter. This complaint against Mr. Conneran is in the possession of Judge Brock but is only available to me by in camera inspection so I cannot include it as an exhibit. Still, I believe that you can access it.
<![if !supportLists]>3. <![endif]>Immediately after filing this complaint, Ms. Gonzalez filed for divorce.
<![endif]>Ms. Gonzalez explained during sworn testimony before
the Honorable Judge Pisansky, Exhibit D, that she entered into
this marriage with Xxxx in order to circumvent NJ Family Law that required she
reside in the state of New Jersey where Mr. Conneran (her first husband) would
be able to parent his daughter. Mr. Xxxxxxxxxx received access to our
<![endif]>After leaving the state, of
<![if !supportLists]>7. <![endif]>In fact, during deposition and under oath, the defendant denied even knowing Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, the man who is still her husband. See Exhibit E.
<![endif]>When the plaintiff took her wedding vows with me on
<![if !supportLists]>9. <![endif]>A couple of years after our marriage ceremony Ms. Gonzalez and I were gathered with her family when they started talking about a marriage that took place in Florida that allowed Ms. Gonzalez to remove her daughter from the State of New Jersey and away from her daughters father. This how I found out about this marriage. I asked Ms. Gonzalez about the marriage and asked her to see her divorce papers. It was then that she told me that the marriage had never been dissolved
<![if !supportLists]>10. <![endif]>In April of 2001, 4 ˝ years ago, I was seeking a divorce from the plaintiff because she was having an intimate relationship with a convicted murderer at the prison where she was working. She was eventually fired for this Exhibit G.
<![if !supportLists]>11. <![endif]>In order to gain an advantage in the divorce proceedings, the plaintiff told the police that I had threatened to kidnap our child (the exact same claim she made against her first husband when seeking a divorce from him. I was arrested and jailed for the first time in my life. Fortunately, when the issue came before Judge Brock, I was able to produce and email from the plaintiff to her sister stating that she was going to set me up in this way Exhibit H.
<![if !supportLists]>12. <![endif]>So Judge Brock released me and allowed me to return to my home, but failed to punish the plaintiff for bearing false witness against me and for having me falsely jailed.
<![if !supportLists]>13. <![endif]>Emboldened
by the judges indifference to abuse of domestic violence law, the plaintiff
abducted my son. She ripped him right out of my hands and disappeared with him
while I was in municipal court trying to cleanup the false charges. The
plaintiff knew this would terrify me because I was abducted by my father when I
was 9. I called the police but they informed me that they could not intervene
in the matter until 24 hours had passed. Since the plaintiff admitted to having
abducted her first child by use of marriage to an illegal alien Exhibit D,
and since the plaintiff had threatened to take my son to
<![if !supportLists]>14. <![endif]>Also in 2001 I called the plaintiff and sent her 3 letters asking for reconciliation in violation of a restraining order (why on earth could I have possibly wanted to continue with this woman? Clearly, the strain of all this caused me to lose my sanity).
<![if !supportLists]>15. <![endif]>For all of the above I was given a 3 ˝ month sentence which I served in the Union County Jail in 2001. Since leaving the jail until this day, I have been fully compliant with the law.
<![if !supportLists]>16. <![endif]>Jail was a transforming experience which rid me of my need to reconcile with the plaintiff and I have never broken the law since. That is more than 4 years that I have been compliant with the law. In fact, when Judge Depuis heard the account of my jail experience, she removed the condition of my probation requiring anger management.
Although I have not broken the law since 2001, I have been falsely jailed and hauled into court many times just for being involved in my son’s life. One time, I spent 3 days in jail for giving my son a toy. Finally, my case came before Judge McDaniel of the Union County Court who determined that it is not a crime to give toys to your children and so he released me from jail. As of this day, I continue to stay as involved with my son as the law permits. I do this despite the high risk that plaintiff will deceive the courts again into having me jailed. Many fathers would give up and walk away from their children. I will not despite the risk of more false jailings.
I have a letter from my psychiatrist stating that I am not a danger to anyone and that she sees no reason that I can not have unsupervised contact with my son. See Exhibit I.
I have a current
Judge Brock made claim to the Sheriff’s Department that I might be a threat to her. This was nothing more than character assassination meant to limit my access to the court and to falsely paint me as a danger/anger management problem. As mentioned before, Judge Depuis has already ruled that I am not an anger management problem and as such removed the requirement from my probation that I take anger management counseling. How often does that happen? Also, as a result of the judge’s claim that I might be a danger to her, I have been investigated by Lt Frank of the Union County Sheriff’s department and Detective Lubertazzi of the NJSP Central Security Unit (609 341 5058). These are the guys that investigate death threats against the Governor and other public officials. Both men have determined that I am committed to using only legal means to accomplish my goals and that I pose no threat of any kind. This is the absolute truth. This kind of character assassination only raises barriers to understanding the situation and really solving problems. Sadly, thousands of men are falsely labeled anger management problems by a few bad judges because destroying the credibility of one of the litigants makes it easy and simple to make politically correct decisions and makes it possible to quickly move on to the next case. But nothing is solved this way and people continue to suffer.
4. Defendant Files Parenting Plan Motion After Divorce Proceedings
The basis of my appeal is this that parenting time was used in an attempt to strong arm me into signing my children’s trust fund over to the plaintiff and her lawyer and that the trust fund was the reason I was forced to divorce a woman to who I was never married. For this reason, I filed a parenting plan with Judge Cassidy in the hopes of having parenting time with my son. Please see Exhibit K the parenting plan brief.
5.Judge Cassidy Declines To Consider Parenting Plan But Awards $10,000 To Plaintiff In Direct Opposition Of The Rule Used To Deny Parenting Time.
For the above reasons, I am requesting parenting time with my child by way of this motion. The plan is as follows: For probably a year and a half, Irene Shearing, my first wife (not the plaintiff), had been acting as visitation supervisor for my 8 year old son and I. Irene and I were married for 16 years and are still very good friends. We have a daughter Kathryn who is now 19 years old and we have always worked well together in raising her. My daughter and I are very close, talk frequently, and see each other once a week.
Supervised visitations with Jack
were every Saturday for 11 hours. Irene would first drive down from Moonachie
Irene works long hours as a medical technician 5, sometimes 6 days a week. Some weeks she had literally no time to herself. As I mentioned she maintained this schedule for a very long time and it finally took it’s toll on her health and well being. Irene was already under a lot of financial strain and had to declare bankruptcy because the money that I used to pay her in child support became unavailable when these proceedings destroyed my ability to earn a living and stripped me of all my assets. Clearly, Irene has sustained heavy collateral damage in this legal war. This makes her generosity even more amazing. Finally one night after dropping us off and returning to Moonachie, tired from all this driving, she received a traffic ticket that cost her over $200 and a lot of time to straiten out. At this point Irene realized that she couldn’t continue to supervising these visitations, and I supported her decision. That was late spring or early summer.
During these supervised visits, Jack has benefited from the joy and great self-esteem that a child receives when a loving parent devotes time and attention. Jack loved our time together and his only complaint when interviewed by Judge Brock was that he wished I had better eyesight so that I wouldn’t have to take off my glasses before we wrestled. For all of the time that Irene supervised, things went along smoothly.
While Irene is unable to supervise, she is more than willing to open her home for this purpose. If Jack and I can get there, we are welcome in her home for the duration of the visitation. Irene has provided a letter confirming this (Exhibit N) and is available by phone at the following number to testify: (201) 444 4530.
There is no problem preventing me from caring for my son during visitation. It is the plaintiff and I that should never have unsupervised contact. So In order to facilitate visitation, I recommend that the plaintiff drop my son off at the Rahway police station where I will be waiting for him. It is then only a short walk to the train station where a train ride, short subway ride and then a short bus ride brings us to Irene’s home. When visitation is over, this process can be reversed. Probably, most of the time, Irene will let me borrow her car to transport Jack.
In conclusion, I have a place to care for Jack which has already proven for 1 ˝ years to be safe, fun, and familiar. I have for the past 4 ˝ years proven compliant with the restraining order and remained free of entanglements with the plaintiff. My son wishes to spend time with me and I wish to spend time with him. There are simply no problems preventing me from caring for my son. The problem is between the plaintiff and I. Just recently, the plaintiff has sent me a harassing email against her own restraining order Exhibit O. This demonstrates that she is still looking for drama and conflict. For this reason, I ask that a restraining order be placed on her such that she may not come near me or communicate with me directly. So as long as my child can be transferred in a safe public manner such as at the police station where the plaintiff and I do not have contact with each other, everything will go smoothly. I ask that we keep the same parenting schedule outlined in the divorce decision and that I be allowed to care for my son and transport him without supervision. Please Your Honor, this boy wants and deserves to have time with his father and I dearly want to spend time with him. I am ready and fully able to care for my child and everything is in place to facilitate visitation.
6. Nov 21 2005, Plaintiff Asks For Passport And Permission To Take Child To Bahamas
On Nov 21, my son's mother filed a motion with Judge Cassidy to regain her passport and my son's so that she could take my son out of the country to the Bahamas.
7. I Advised Judge Cassidy That Plaintiff Is Flight Risk
I agreed to this on the condition that she provide proof of her destination prior to a court decision Exhibit Q (I believed she was a flight risk and so did the courts otherwise they would not have confiscated the passports in the first place). The Judge Cassidy declined to hear oral argument on the matter.
8. Dec 16, 2005, Judge Cassidy Returns Passports to Plaintiff and Allows Her To Take Our Son To The Bahamas (specifically)
On the very day that they were to travel to the Bahamas, a small plane from Miami destined to the Bahamas crashed into the ocean killing all aboard. I knew from past experience that this was the exact route that they were supposed to take to the Bahamas because first the whole family would meet in Miami where the plaintiff’s parents lived, and they would all fly together. So terrified, I called Elisa's lawyer and he told me that they were not on that plane (Thank God). Still, he did not give me their destination as required by the court order.
In the end, it turned out that my son was taken to Guatemala (not the Bahamas as the court order Exhibit L specified) which was just as Exhibit Q predicted. Further, I was not told his location until his return. I was told by my son who was afraid to tell me but thought it was important. Examination of the passports proved my son correct and that I had reason to believe that the plaintiff would lie to Judge Cassidy. To make things worse, the plaintiff deprived my child of inoculation and medication recommended by The Center for Disease Control when traveling to Guatemala.
10. Our Child Became Sick
Since my sons return from Guatemala he had been suffering from flu like symptoms and had been sleeping in school. While I prayed to God he was only suffering the flu, it was quite possible that he had picked up a tropical disease from Guatemala as most of these diseases start out with flu like symptoms. In fact, tropical diseases are very often misdiagnosed in the United States because they mimic the common flu in the beginning.
As I was concerned, I called The Center For Disease Control at 404 498 1600. They expressed concern about what happened to my son and gave the following information and recommendations. The CDC reports that Guatemala represents a Malaria risk in rural areas only at altitudes lower than 1,500 meters (4,921 feet).
It was latter discovered that my son spent time on the beach (the lowest possible altitude) and was near areas that he described as jungle.
The CDC reports that Malaria is always a serious disease and may be a deadly illness. If you become ill with a fever or flu-like illness either while traveling in a malaria-risk area or after you return home (for up to 1 year), you should seek immediate medical attention and should tell the physician your travel history.
As I mentioned, my son became ill right after returning home.
The CDC advises that all travelers to malaria-risk areas in Central America including infants and children, should take chloroquine as their antimalarial drug.
My son was not protected by chloroquine.
11. Plaintiff Refused to Take Child To Doctor
Upon finishing my research, I determined that my son may be at risk so I filed an emergent motion with Judge Cassidy to have my child examined by his doctor to be sure he was well. Exhibit S is my motion brief. In response to my motion, the plaintiff filed a reply. Exhibit T stating that she had no intention of taking my son to the doctor. This was after becoming aware of Center For Disease Control recommendations. She claimed that she was unable to afford it. As it turned out, she was out of compliance with a previous court order mandating that she provide health insurance for our child. I responded to the plaintiff’s reply (Exhibit U is the brief) by noting that the plaintiff was able to afford a trip to Guatemala in defiance of a court order and that she owns a house. So her claim that she was unable to afford a doctor visit for our child was not credible. I on the other hand was granted the right to proceed as indigent by the Honorable Howard Kestin because all my money is going to my legal defense and for protection of my child.. Still, I offered to pay for my son’s doctor visit.
12. Judge Confiscates Passports Again and Orders Child To Doctor
The Judge considered the facts and provided a court order Exhibit V that:
a. confiscated the plaintiff’s passport and our child’s again.
b. ordered that the plaintiff is not to travel outside a 100 mile radius.
c. ordered that the plaintiff take our child to the doctor within 24 hours, and to tell the doctor where the child had been.
d. She ordered that I be given a report of the checkup.
e. That she find health insurance for my son within the month.
I called my son’s doctor and asked if he was indeed examined and he was. The doctor volunteered over the phone that usually the parents come in before a trip and tell the doctor where they are going, the doctor will then inoculate and medicate as required to protect the child. The doctor also told me that she asked the plaintiff if my son had fever or chills and that the plaintiff said no. And so the doctor did not order a blood test. As you know from above, my son had flu like symptoms which is why I requested that he be examined. I reported to the doctor that my son did have flu like symptoms when he returned from Guatemala and the plaintiff admitted this to the court. I asked the doctor to include in her report to the court that she asked if my child had fever and chills, and that the plaintiff said no. At this point the doctor became protective of the plaintiff and said that she would call the plaintiff and question her on this issue but did not say that she would include it in the report. I told that doctor that any questions you asked during the examination should be included in the report. It this is especially important because the doctor’s decision not to order tests may have been different if the plaintiff had been forth coming about my son’s recent medical history. As the doctor wanted to protect the plaintiff, she told me that she asked the plaintiff in the present tense. In other words, the doctor asked if my son was suffering from fever and chills at the time of the examination. Then she told me that she was not interested in getting involved with issues between the mother and father and that she was only trying to protect the child. I told the doctor that my goals were the same and that the protection of my child requires that the doctor have accurate and complete information and that the report to the courts disclose what the doctor knew at the time of the examination. That was the end of our first conversation.
Latter I called the doctor again and because I remembered what the doctor told me about parents usually coming in before a trip and getting the required inoculations and prophylactic medicine. I asked the doctor if she would include that in her report. Again the doctor told me that she was not interested in getting involved. I replied that I just wanted her to give a complete report and to tell the truth. The doctor assured me that she always tells the truth and that was the end of the conversation.
I am telling you this because this tells you something about priorities of both the plaintiff, and the doctor. The plaintiff did not actually lie to the doctor, nor did the plaintiff violate the court order. The court order only said that the plaintiff must disclose where my child had been. There was no order that she was required to divulge that my child had been sick with flu like symptoms. Still, the plaintiff wasn’t honest either at the potential peril of our son. The CDC says that in the early stages of malaria, fever and chills come and go every three or four days. So knowing about my son’s current symptoms was not necessarily an indication of his medical condition. Clearly, from the beginning of this mess, until the present the plaintiff as been dishonest when it suited her interests at the expense and risk of my son’s well being.
14. Plaintiff Tries To Strong Arm Visitation Supervisor.
My first wife Irene who has a valid court order to supervise visitations with my son and has done so for about a year and a half had stopped supervising last June because it was exhausting all of her free time and was having a negative impact on her health. I was sad about this but I supported her decision. We remain good friends. As chance would have it, Irene bought a Christmas present for my son Jack and wanted to give it to him. She also wanted to give me a nice surprise because my birthday was coming up. So she wrote to the plaintiff and offered to care for Jack one day, which worked out to be January 14th. Exhibit W are emails between Irene and the plaintiff. The exhibits show that the plaintiff agreed to the visitation although as visitation is court ordered, her agreement is not required. Moving along the time line a few days to court order Exhibit V, you see that the plaintiff has just had her passport yanked and her movement was limited to a 100 mile radius of her home. Furthermore, the plaintiff was compelled to take our child to the doctor and pay for it. Worst of all, she understands that she has almost completely destroyed her chances of winning two huge law suits that she had been banking on for years. The plaintiff is angry and it shows in the next exhibit. Exhibit X shows another email from the plaintiff to Irene (the email is reprinted below).
It has come to my attention that you have yet to appear in front of the Court to testify to the seriousness of your commitment to supervise any future visitation between John R. Shearing and Jack, as was ordered in the Final Judgment of Divorce of Oct. 14, 2005, paragraph 2:a, by Judge K. Brock. (Attached)
This provision was entered for good cause. I am allowing this one time Christmas visit only with the understanding and agreement that any future supervised visitation will be scheduled only after you have complied with the aforementioned Court Order and can provide proof of same.
Please reply that you are in full agreement with this at your earliest convenience. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume that you are not in agreement with this and the visit for Saturday, Jan. 14th, 2006 is cancelled.
As you can see, the plaintiff claims to have found a provision in Judge Brock’s divorce decision Exhibit Y mandating that Irene appear in court before anymore visitations can take place. But if you read the provision (reprinted below), you can see that this is simply not what the judge wrote.
1.The defendant’s parenting time shall remain supervised by Irene Shearing.
<![if !supportLists]>a. <![endif]>His present schedule of parenting time every Saturday from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. may be expanded to alternate weekends from Saturday morning until Sunday evening if the defendant files a post-judgment motion to expand his parenting time and Irene Shearing certifies or testifies that she is willing to provide the necessary supervision.
It seems to me that the plaintiff wants every other weekend without any children and so she twisted Judge Brocks words in an attempt to force the visitation supervisor into accepting those conditions. Please imagine for a minute if I told one of the Union County Supervision Volunteers that they had to supervise for the whole weekend or there would be no supervision at all. It’s just nuts. In any case, the plaintiff knows that all communications of a legal nature must go through her lawyer Mr. Duff. So I advised Irene not to respond to the emails because answering them would only invite trouble.
15. Plaintiff Forces Our Child To Tears.
On Friday the 13th, the night before the visitation was to take place, the plaintiff forced my son to call me and demand that Irene call her. My son told me that his mother would not allow him to visit if Irene did not call. I told my son that his mother my not use him to pass messages. I explained that Mommy has a lawyer for that. I then told my son not to worry and that we would be there to pick him up at the correct time and that his mother would allow him to visit because I had the judges permission.
My son then called me again soon after. There was a lot of stress in his voice. Again he told me that Irene must call the plaintiff or she would not allow us to see each other. I tried to comfort and reassure my son, but it was impossible. I begged him not to worry and to get some sleep. Still, I don’t think my child slept well that night.
On Saturday morning, my son called me again. This time he was crying hard. He told me that the visit was off. I told him that we would be there at the correct time and that we would have our visit.
Soon after, my son called again crying even harder. He told me that he and his mother would not be there when we arrived and that this was the last time we would speak together because his mother was taking his phone away from him. I told him I was still coming and that I would call the police to help us work it all out if required. My son told me that he didn’t want his mother to go to jail, so I assured him that no one was going to jail and that the police were only going to explain the law to his mother.
Now in the next email Exhibit Z, you can see that the plaintiff threatens again to disappear with my child. Good thing Judge Cassidy confiscated her passport and limited the radius that she could travel.
Elisa Gonzalez <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:12:57 –0500
It's 7:05 am on 1-14-06. I haven't heard from you or received any reply to my emails. I also tried to call you and was told it was the wrong number by the person who answered. Obviously you are trying to dodge me. As I wrote you in my past two emails, without your stated agreement to abide to the Court Order of 10-14-2005 there will be no visit today.
Jack will be very disappointed.
Don't bother trying to come down and making a scene, or whatever else you have in mind, we will not be here.
The plaintiff’s behavior is exactly the same as it was when:
<![if !supportLists]>1. <![endif]>She married an alien for the purpose of separating her first child from the child’s father, Exhibit D
<![if !supportLists]>2. <![endif]>When she snatched my child right out of my arms in a municipal court building and disappeared with him five years ago.
<![if !supportLists]>3. <![endif]>When she disappeared with my child to Guatemala a few weeks ago.
Finally I got a call from my son telling me that he would be allowed to visit after all. Of course he would be allowed to visit, I had a court order mandating the visitation. But why did my son have to suffer so? On this issue I will ask you to look at the back of the Trans-Parenting guide book distributed by Don Shapiro at the Union County Courthouse Exhibit AA. There you will see a Bill of Children’s Rights. Please notice Point Nine which states, “To be a child and not asked to lie, spy, or send messages between my parents.” Clearly, my child’s basic right to be a child has been violated and he has suffered for it. The truth is that my son has been suffering for years. He suffers every time the plaintiff puts her needs before his and uses him to manipulate me.
<![if !supportLists]>17. <![endif]> Indications Are: The Plaintiff and Mr. Duff Are No Longer Communicating.
I say this because the plaintiff tried to strong arm the visitation supervisor though my child instead of using Mr. Duff to do this work as she normally does.
<![if !supportLists]>18. <![endif]>Why This Is Dangerous For My Child
As a result of the poor communication between the plaintiff and Mr. Duff, my child is suffering. He is suffering because the plaintiff is not getting any feedback from the court which would help her understand the damage she is doing to herself and to my son. At this point, Mr. Duff has given up all hope of cashing in on this tragedy and he knows that the more damage the plaintiff does to herself and to my son the quicker he will be rid of her and free to exploit other families in crises. The point is that, it is no longer in Mr. Duff’s interest to try and protect my son from his mother’s poor judgment, and that puts my son at even greater risk as Ms. Gonzalez continues to fall apart. At this point, there is no one to help Ms. Gonzalez understand what the court requires of her and that is a dangerous situation for my son.
18. Child Threatens To Defend Himself With Gun
My son who is a 3rd grader at the Roosevelt Elementary School in Rahway was just suspended for threatening to bring in a gun. This occurred after school on school property. What happened is that another other boy was continually challenging my son to punch him. My son declined and backed away 3 times before he became frightened enough to make that threat. Upon hearing the threat, the other boy told his mother who was standing right there and my child was subsequently suspended. I believe this occurred because there was no adult to care for my son after school. I am available everyday for this purpose and did so everyday for a full year under supervised conditions. Exhibit BB Is a letter from my sons after care provider, Ms Rosie, who supervised daily visitation with my son.. This confirms that I have a long and steady record of providing care for my son. Ms. Rosie is available for phone conversation and is willing to testify over the phone as required. Her home number is (732) 680-0547. Also she can be reached on her cell phone at (732) 396-1065.
Unfortunately, my son’s school will not communicate with me on my son’s condition even though they have a court order in their possession mandating that I am to receive all records. I am attempting to address this in family court now. Exhibit CC is a letter to Judge Cassidy with supporting news paper articles that demonstrate the link between school shootings and bullying. From the article it is clear the children go through an enormous amount of torment before bringing a gun to school starts to seem like a good idea. I maintain that my son is lonely, terrified, and angry in school and at home and that if this is not addressed this king of thing will happen again. While suspending my son was appropriate, we must address the root causes of the incident. At this point I do not know what if anything is being done to help my son.
19. Plaintiff Restricts and Monitors Communications Between Me And My Child
The plaintiff now understands that the only way the courts can get information on my son’s condition is through telephone conversation with me. For this reason, the plaintiff has taken away the cell phone that I purchased for him and now monitors all calls and keeps them very short. By doing this, the plaintiff has effectively made all my son’s current problems disappear from the court’s view.
20. What I Am Asking The Court To Do
<![if !supportLists]>A. <![endif]>Please give immediate consideration to my parenting plan. My 8 year old son and I have been apart for to long and he needs me in his life.
<![if !supportLists]>B. <![endif]>After School Care: Please allow me to care for my child after school if the plaintiff is unable to provide adult supervision for him during this time.
<![if !supportLists]>C. <![endif]>Bifurcation: I maintain that throughout these proceedings in the Family Court, child welfare considerations have been used in attempt to strong arm me into rolling over on monetary issues. As such, child welfare issues have not been addressed. For this reason, I am asking that the case be bifurcated and all monetary issues and issues of whether or not the marriage ever existed, be handled separately from all child welfare issues such as parenting time, physical custody, and legal custody and so on.
<![if !supportLists]>D. <![endif]>Children First: I am further asking that all child welfare issues be handled prior to monetary issues as this will help reverse the damage done to my son when these issues were used for leverage.