ENTITLED Mom Cuts Father Out — Judge Forces SHOCKING Custody Rules

Lisa Blue versus Timothy Blue. All right, counsel, I'm going to ask you to make an opening statement because my review of the file shows that there was a final order entered in a divorce action in she in Montgomery County back in 2020 by Judge Clocher that [clears throat] designated them as equal residential parents and had a 50/50 division of time. And since that time, it's my understanding there was an order of protection that was issued in this case. Um that is Is that one of the issues that we're dealing with today? Um it would be, Judge, but there's also a juvenile court case that's happened since then and jurisdiction was relinquished back to this court. That's why Mr. Parks is here. He's guardian ad litem for the children. That was in April through December of 2024. So, and so what are we fighting over today? Well, if I just may briefly, Judge, uh the order the juvenile court case dealt with uh some issues that were going on at Dad's home. He was married to his wife Lacy, his former wife Lacy at that time. She's actually here. They divorced. Uh there was an incident that happened with Levi. As a result of that, my client filed an emergency custody petition. That matter was heard and the children were removed from the father uh for a period of time uh through in December. He was granted some sort of limited visitation. That was an every other weekend. I had that final order and then um relinquished custody back to this court. Uh then he started having issues in his marriage. He divorced his wife. There were some concerning behavioral issues that happened with Dad. Uh he was actually living out in the woods for a period of time. There were some things with animals that happened. Um the he has not seen these children since December 2024. My he's stopped paying child support. My client had to move to Michigan. I filed a notice of relocation with the court. Uh he stopped paying child support. So, there is an arrearage in child support and he's not seen these children since December 2024. These children are now 14, almost 15, and uh 12, almost 13, are both here and do not want to have contact with their father. They're afraid of their father. The ex-wife is here to talk about some substance abuse issues and some concerning behavioral issues and we would ask that there is no contact with the father. Spikes. All right, it's my client's position that mother has continuously and systematically used the system in Montgomery County and in Stewart County to limit my client's contact with these minor children to get what she wants, which is ultimately to move to Michigan to be with her boyfriend. And that that's what she's done. She's accomplished that. And quite honestly, them now coming and saying they've had no contact with their father since December of 2024, they've been coached to say these things, is my client's position. He needs to have a way back to continue to get contact with them, to be able to foster a relationship with them. Mother clearly doesn't want it. I think that the next step would probably be for mother to isolate father even further from these children so that her husband, when she marries, can then adopt the children and completely cut father out of the situation. Yes, he went through some issues. We'll address those issues in the testimony that he's going to provide today, but there's no reason that this order of protection should stay in effect. The allegations that were raised, I believe the order of protection was filed in early 2025. That's what's in place right now is that order of protection. The order of protection that was issued by Judge Brigham expired on March the 3rd of 2026. So, there is no pending order of protection. There was there was another one that it looks like was filed by mother. There was another one that was filed March 4th of 2025. And was there a I I don't have a copy of that. Was that in general sessions? Maybe. This file. Yeah, and one second, maybe. I don't believe there's ever been a hearing on that case. All right, and this one is um basically the client at least partially upon the allegations that were involved in the his prior relationship, prior marriage, in which there were animals involved. Specifically, it says in there that there's no known harm to the children. All right. So, again, we believe that this is mother methodically laying cases out in front of multiple courts to limit father's time, and that's what she's continuing to do. All we're looking for is a way back to children and father to foster a relationship. All right. And if I may, I can fast forward the last order from the juvenile court, which set forth that father did had it was in April of 2025. Father had not visited with the children since December of 2024, and that's when the court relinquished jurisdiction back to this court. I think that would be helpful for the court. All right, we'll let you go ahead and mark that as exhibit one in this hearing. So, so that we're all cleared, there is a pending appeal on the order of protection that was issued by Judge Brigham in March of 2025, and that has not yet been heard by this court or any other court, and therefore we'll have a hearing on that order of protection. Then um the other issue is the request for relocation. There is no pending petition to modify the parenting plan, if I recall correctly. Is there a Yes, there is. It was transferred from Montgomery County. It was filed in Montgomery County, then transferred it to I have the order transferring it to Stewart. >> I see the order transferring it. Um so, All right. >> Here's the petition that was filed back in November of 2024, Judge. Okay. That may be what I missed. Sorry. I I just assumed they sent it down. Assuming you don't have it, you didn't have the petition, you don't have Mr. Spikes' answer that she filed on his behalf. And I filed a motion for default. I'm looking. I don't uh see the first thing that's in this court file is a notice is a notice of filing in June of 2025, the notice of the motions uh the notice to relocate. I do have the order transferring uh with the order transferring it signed by Judge Olita. But it's and it basically transferred the entire file, but I'm not seeing and maybe it's out of order is your petition to for modification. And it was based on the things that happened in juvenile court and him not seeing the children things of that nature, Judge. Mr. Blue, I just want to make sure we've got it in the correct order. So, I'm going to uh would you look to see if your file has this information with the notice of appeal on that appeal? Let's take a short recess so that I I want to make sure the file is reflecting what we're fighting over today. All right. Court is back in session. Continue in order. All right, let me say this to uh the parties, Mr. Wyman and Mr. Blue. This case originated, as you both know, in Montgomery County, and it was transferred over here by an order of Judge Olita. Um and normally that's not a problem except for the fact that they didn't transfer the entire file. Therefore, I do not have in our file a [clears throat] petition to modify the parenting plan that was that was originally adopted. Um and I cannot rule on matters that are not properly before me because um my jurisdiction extends to what's in our court file, not what's in another county's file. So, as a result of that, I necessarily have to continue your hearing. Um I don't really want to do that, but I don't really have any choice. And as a result of that, the next available date that I have, and I've gone over it with your lawyers, is my next regular chancery day, which is August 4th. And that's a long way away. In my opinion, um in this case, there needs to be the reappointment of the guardian ad litem that was appointed in juvenile court. So, I'm [clears throat] going to reappoint Mr. Charles Sparks, who was here uh this morning, to be the guardian ad litem in this court as well. In addition to that, you've got teenage daughters. And and while they are expressing a preference regarding that, it is not a simple thing for this court to simply say that the father can no longer see his children. Period. Although there may be issues that have arisen in the past, um there are instances where there've been abuse of children, and we still are required to allow the children to have some sort of therapeutic visitation with the minor um with them. This is why I wanted to feel stop what you're doing so you can listen to what I'm saying. It's very important for two things. Number one, the children need to understand that the law says Mr. uh Blue has a right as a father to see his children. Termination of the parental rights is one of the most important and significant things that can occur in a courtroom. We had that this morning, and it requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence, which is the highest standard for evidence, that it's in the best interest of the minor children to terminate the father's rights. So, if under these circumstances, there are issues clearly, and that he's not seeing the children, there are allegations about parental uh alienation and so forth. To identify what the issues are between you and your daughters, and to try to protect their best interests, as well as balancing that against your right as a father, I'm going to order that these children be um that there begin some sort of therapeutic um counseling uh between you and your daughters and a therapist. Uh Dr. Charles Eric, I think both of your lawyers are um Earing may be the right way uh to pronounce it. He has been he is an expert witness in many cases in this court. Both of your lawyers are familiar with him. If the the girls live in Michigan, then there should be an an ability to uh do a telehealth type of a situation where they can do that by tele by Zoom if necessary, and that will allow him to make an assessment. But, in order for me to make an informed decision regarding uh what's in the [clears throat] best interest of your daughters, I need some expert testimony regarding what is in the best interest from uh a person who deals with this on a regular basis. Dr. Ering's responsibility will be to talk with the children, determine what is in their best interest, and then make that recommendation to this court. So, as a result of that, this court is of the opinion that uh there should be an order down ordering that the therapeutic visitation uh by therapeutic counseling, it will not be visitation, but therapeutic counseling with Dr. Ering and the parents can all uh be arranged. Now, what that necessarily means is that your daughters are going to be involved in talking to Dr. Ering. So, as a result of that, it is a difficult balance to strike not to talk about this case with the children. Um the main thing we don't want to do is to give any ammunition to Mr. Blue that says he that the children are being influenced. Um and there are subtle ways to influence children, but I think under these circumstances, we just need to have a a rule that the children will not be involved in any discussions about this case uh other than the fact that this is what the court has ordered regarding Dr. Ering's counseling, and that is a mandatory thing that they're going to have to enroll in. Um but beyond that, uh talking to the kids about what their preferences are and so forth, then we'll get to that eventually. And we have a guardian ad litem. Let the guardian ad litem speak for the children, and let them communicate with him so that he's fully informed as to what their position is. That's his whole purpose is to determine what's in the best interest of the children. But, putting the children in the middle and asking them to pick or choose or trying to influence them just makes things more difficult for them in my opinion. So, we're going to try to protect them the best we can uh from having to be exposed to that. Under these circumstances, I'm sorry, I cannot go forward with it today, but I do believe that this is in the best interest of the children to do that. So, anything else before we adjourn? My intentions with Dr. Ering, uh I've also had a lot of experience with his reports. He does like non-self-reporting uh type situations where he speaks to other individuals such as both parents and other individuals to get a background with regard He does Rule 45 evaluations with regard to mental health evaluations. And we think that's critical in this particular case that as part of this, we look into Mr. Blue's mental health. Uh I think we >> There's been no Rule 35 request that's been filed, so you would have to file a motion for a Rule 35 evaluation for me to make a determination. Again, I can't rule on something that's not before me, but I understand the basis for your saying that, and I understand the reasons why you would suggest that. And uh clearly, based on the orders of protection that I've reviewed and the information that was supplied, there is an issue. So, you know, if Mr. Blue is in is serious about seeing his children, he might want to address some of those situations either with Dr. Ering or someone else so that there can be some evidence that as to what he's uh dealt with. There is clearly a pattern in teenage boys, for example, who uh abuse animals, that that can lead to uh more serious crimes, including uh sexual or violent tendencies. A lot of serial killers started out killing animals and and uh abusing animals as a result of that. So, let's get that, you know, taken care of, but I do not have an order I do not have a motion for a Rule 35 evaluation, which would be court-ordered. But, Mr. Blue, if he's willing to try to help uh the court in making a determination regarding his children, obviously it would be in his best interest to try to address that issue. All right. Then, uh this matter will be reset for April for August the 4th, and Mr. Turner, you're the moving party. I'm going to ask you to draw an order that reflects what I said. I'll do that, Judge. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. The children aren't willing today. Father has not seen them since December 24th. He would just like the opportunity to say hello to them, to see them in the courtroom. The daughters There's it's a daughter and son. The daughter is crying. No, she does not want to talk to him today. Uh you know, you know, if the son is here, the son I mean, any contact he can have with these children, he's Contact Mr. Sparks, who is now the guardian ad litem, and tell him what the situation is. See if he can talk with the children to determine whether or not they're willing to do it. Forcing teenage kids who don't want to do something to do it may be counterproductive for Mr. Blue. Um but, he does They need to know that he would like to see them and like to have an opportunity to talk with them. So, I think that Mr. Sparks who's here in town could be could come back over and talk to the kids, and and then one of before you leave, since you were going to be here most of the morning anyway, one of before you leave, let's see if he can't get something worked out. Maybe Mr. Blue can just say hello to them if anything, but I think they do need to know he wants to see them. It is a difficult thing for a child to process in this court's opinion that when they haven't [clears throat] seen someone you know, one of their parents for a long time, they don't necessarily understand why that has happened. Uh and oftentimes they will think it's because that parent does not care about them. So, letting them know that he does care enough to wants to see them would be, in my opinion, something that would be beneficial to the children. Whether they then say they want to see him or not, at least let them know that he wants to see them. All right. We stand adjourned. All right. I don't know that I have it. I just