Motion To Modify Parenting

review a motion

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY DEFENDANT’S PARENTING TIME I. INTRODUCTION *. PARTIES: This motion is filed by MATTHEW BAHR, the Plaintiff in the above-referenced case. The Defendant is PHYLLIS WHITTIE. *. CHILD: The subject of this motion is the parenting time schedule for our child, ANTON GRAM BAHR, DOB: */*/*. Anton was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder on a educational basis in October of * by the Grosse Pointe School District and on a medical basis through the McCrory Center in October *. Anton attends Early Childhood Preschool (ECP) in the Grosse Pointe School District during normal school season and attends Applied Behavior Analysis therapy (ABA) at Gateway Pediatrics Monday – Friday, four hours a day. II. JUDGEMENTS AND ORDERS *. The current DEFAULT JUDGEMENT OF CUSTODY, as ordered by this court on NOVENBER *, *, provides the Plaintiff with sole physical and legal custody and no overnights for the Defendant at this time. It provides the Defendant has supervised visits at Impact once a week and regular video calls with the child. The Defendant was also required to undergo a full psychological evaluation and revisit parenting time upon its completion. *. Additionally, the ORDER RE: PARENTING TIME signed by this court on */*/* Ordered that the Defendant restart therapy as soon as possible, to work with her therapist on treatment goals, to provide both the treating therapist and psychiatrist a copy of the report, and attend a parenting class. Both parties are to attend a co parenting class (COPE). III. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION *. The Plaintiff is requesting that the court modify the current parenting time arrangement to eliminate or limit the video calls and cancel the supervised visits. The Plaintiff understands the gravity of this request and has refrained from filing until now, believing that such drastic action has become necessary. IV. BASIS FOR MODIFICATION *. FALSE REPORTS: · The Defendant has repeatedly filed false reports, often using screen-shots from video calls with misleading angles or poor lighting to suggest the presence of marks on the child. The Plaintiff feels this behavior is going to continue until someone with authority steps in and puts a stop to the Defendant’s constant accusations and harassment. The Defendant has also made reports of sexual abuse as early as the child was three months old. (EXHIBIT E) This report is referenced in (EXHIBIT A) the defendant claims it to be covered up by police. Police and Child Protective Services (CPS) have consistently found no evidence of harm in any of the investigations and all cases have been closed. The Defendant still believes these to be true as evidenced in past testimony and text messages in (EXHIBIT A AND B). · Additionally, the Defendant has a history of making false police reports against the father of her other child. Notably, on March *, *, right before the Defendant went to New Mexico, she wrote a letter to Care House of Oakland County falsely claiming that both he and I are part of a sex trafficking ring, despite the fact that I have never met this man in my life. Please see (EXHIBIT C). Please Also see (EXHIBIT D) where in a police report dated back to * it is stated that the Defendant told her daughter what to say to the police in in a case that involved very serious accusations against the father of her daughter. The case Crews v. Crews demonstrated the significant impact of false reporting and its effect on parenting time decisions [*]. *. LACK OF PROGRESS IN THERAPY: · Despite the court's directive for therapy, the Defendant has shown no improvement. The Defendant’s actions of filing false reports, harassing the Plaintiff persist as part of an attempt to coerce compliance with her demands. Her behavior continues to be disruptive and uncooperative, undermining her role as a responsible parent. In Kuebler v. Paul, the court emphasized the importance of complying with therapeutic recommendations in modifying custody arrangements [*]. *. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS: · The Defendant’s failure to complete the court-ordered SMILE program is further evidence of her disregard for the court's authority and her unwillingness to engage in constructive parenting. In Mildenberg v. Mildenberg, the court highlighted the significance of compliance with court orders in modifying parenting time [*]. *. EMOTIONAL IMPACT ON PLAINTIFF AND CHILD: · The Defendant's ongoing false felony accusations have caused significant emotional distress to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is concerned that if this motion is not granted, the child will suffer due to the Plaintiff’s constant fear of normal childhood injuries being falsely reported as abuse. CHILD CUSTODY ACT MISINTERPERETATION cases have emphasized the importance of considering emotional and psychological impacts when making custody decisions [*]. *. MISREPRESENTATION OF REPORTS: · The Defendant has made a false accusation of abuse by Plaintiff to a doctor, leading to a mandated report. The Defendant testified to this as a third party report at the De Novo Hearing held in person on */*/*. The Defendant might perceive this as a third-party report, but it stems from the Defendants false allegations, with no evidence of abuse found and case closed. The Crews v. Crews case demonstrated how false reporting can impact the credibility and stability of custody arrangements [*]. *. REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION: · The Defendant has rejected the findings of the court-ordered psychological evaluation, demonstrating her unwillingness to acknowledge or address identified issues. Kuebler v. Paul provides precedent on the importance of accepting and acting on psychological evaluations in custody modifications [*]. *. CONTINUED ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE CUSTODY: · The Defendant continues to make false claims in attempts to alter custody arrangements, rather than adhering to court orders. This behavior disrupts the child's stability and well-being. The Plaintiff is deeply concerned about the Defendant's persistent behavior. The case Dorfman v. Dorfman, No. * (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. *, *), demonstrates the significant legal implications of frequent, unfounded attempts to modify custody. The Michigan Court of Appeals in this case emphasized that such actions could severely impact the child’s emotional and psychological well-being, underscoring the importance of maintaining stability and prioritizing the child's best interests. [*] · Furthermore, the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Kuebler v. Andrew, No. * (Mich. Ct. App. May *, *), highlights the complexities and consequences of improperly granted custody modifications. This case reinforces the need for courts to adhere strictly to established standards and procedures to protect the child’s best interests and avoid unjustified disruptions.[*]. *. BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION: · The Defendant’s refusal to communicate effectively has significantly hampered co-parenting efforts, leading to ongoing conflicts and misunderstandings. According to the case of Cummings v. Bahr, effective communication between parents is essential to maintaining a stable environment for the child. The breakdown in communication can be substantial grounds for modifying parenting time to better serve the child's best interests. [*] V. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE *. EXHIBIT A: Text messages from the Defendant following the court’s opinion and the signing of the order regarding the Defendant’s last motion. *. EXHIBIT B: Text messages showing the Defendant’s ongoing harassment and intent to make false claims against the Plaintiff. *. EXHIBIT C: Police report of letter to Care House of Oakland County *. EXHIBIT D: Police report with statement from a detective that he believed the Defendants daughter was not telling the truth and had been told what to say. *. EXHIBIT E: Police report of first report made against Plaintiff with statement from Defendant. *. EXHIBIT F: Messages after the video call on */*/* showing that the issue remains ongoing as the date this motion is signed. VI. RELIEF REQUESTED *. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court: · Eliminate or limit the video calls between Plaintiff and the child. · Eliminate the supervised visits. · Grant any other relief the court deems appropriate. VII. CASE LINKS *. https://casetext.com/case/crews-v-crews-* *. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20230511_C362488_68_362488.OPN.PDF *. https://casetext.com/case/mildenberg-v-mildenberg-* *. https://www.speakerlaw.com/blog/child-custody-act-misinterpreted-fathers-change-of-domicile-motion-wrongly-denied *. https://casetext.com/case/crews-v-crews-* *. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20230511_C362488_68_362488.OPN.PDF *. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/*.html *. https://casetext.com/case/cummings-v-bahr *. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20230511_C362488_68_362488.OPN.PDF VIII. CONCLUSION *. For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff believes that the requested modification is in the best interest of the child and requests that the court grant the proposed changes.

will you redo a draft for me

if you were a judge would you grant that motion