Ron C. #8

[nomoresorrow]

It is in regards to fathers day weekend and RC wanted to spend fathers day with his son not just from 6pm on fathers day night. Crystal was scheduled for visitation that weekend.

Thank you Busy.

 

[nomoresorrow]

Thanks, Busy~ I recall now they had an issue with it.

I hope the judge, he or she, is a wise and fair individual who abides by the law - not by his or her own personal feelings in the matter. Special occasions occur throughout the year, i.e, Mother's Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving . . .those issues are addressed during the visitation arrangement proceedings and the finished product reflects that - If the parent didn't take that, i.e, father's day, up with the court and request to have the child/children that day - No he/she can't just, out of the blue and with no prior discussion, refuse the other parent their scheduled visitation day. That's the way the law works and for very good reasons!!

IMO

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I hope the judge, he or she, is a wise and fair individual who abides by the law - not by his or her own personal feelings in the matter. Special occasions occur throughout the year, i.e, Mother's Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving . . .those issues are addressed during the visitation arrangement proceedings and the finished product reflects that - If the parent didn't take that, i.e, father's day, up with the court and request to have the child/children that day - No he/she can't just, out of the blue and with no prior discussion, refuse the other parent their scheduled visitation day. That's the way the law works and for very good reasons!!

IMO

It was probably never an issue before and why it may not have been addressed. It should not have been an issue this time either.

 

[Busylady]

The custody documents state that RC was to have the children fathers day, just as it states Crystal is to have them mothers day. The problem is her visitation ends at 6 pm on Sunday - which would of meant that RC got to spend from 6pm - 8pm (roughly bedtime) with his son on fathers day. RC chose to deal with the consequences and keep JR so he could spend that day with his son. It appears based on the no information and the entries on the custody documents that this has since been worked out. JMO

I hope the judge, he or she, is a wise and fair individual who abides by the law - not by his or her own personal feelings in the matter. Special occasions occur throughout the year, i.e, Mother's Day, Christmas, Thanksgiving . . .those issues are addressed during the visitation arrangement proceedings and the finished product reflects that - If the parent didn't take that, i.e, father's day, up with the court and request to have the child/children that day - No he/she can't just, out of the blue and with no prior discussion, refuse the other parent their scheduled visitation day. That's the way the law works and for very good reasons!!

IMO

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Well...I am glad he did it! He deserved to have his son with him on Father's Day.

 

[twall]

The custody documents state that RC was to have the children fathers day, just as it states Crystal is to have them mothers day. The problem is her visitation ends at 6 pm on Sunday - which would of meant that RC got to spend from 6pm - 8pm (roughly bedtime) with his son on fathers day. RC chose to deal with the consequences and keep JR so he could spend that day with his son. It appears based on the no information and the entries on the custody documents that this has since been worked out. JMO

Busy, this doesn't make sense. If the custody docs state that RC was to have Jr. on Father's Day and if that day falls on Crystal's weekend then she would have to return Jr. prior to that day. Vice versa for Mother's Day falling on RC's weekend. She filed a complaint because RC would not give Jr. to Crystal on the Friday prior for her visitation and he was in contempt.
I know you have seen the full docs pertaining to this issue. Does it state at what time Crystal would have to return Jr. to RC for the Father's Day visit?
For example Sat. evening, early Sunday morning?
Thank you for an answer!

 

[Busylady]

The original documents do not state a time just says Father gets children fathers day. Crystal visitation schedule was to pick up children Friday at 6pm and return on Sunday at 6 pm. Because the documents do not specify a specific time for Fathers Day, as long as Crystal returned JR at 6pm on Fathers Day she was not breaking the visitation agreement. Because RC wanted to spend fathers day with his son instead of just a few hours, he did not allow her to take JR Friday. I will have to say IMO to this part, he asked that she return him early Sunday or Saturday and they were not able to reach an agreement. Yes he was in contempt, however based on future entires it appears to have been worked out at this point and her lost weekend will be made up.

Busy, this doesn't make sense. If the custody docs state that RC was to have Jr. on Father's Day and if that day falls on Crystal's weekend then she would have to return Jr. prior to that day. Vice versa for Mother's Day falling on RC's weekend. She filed a complaint because RC would not give Jr. to Crystal on the Friday prior for her visitation and he was in contempt.
I know you have seen the full docs pertaining to this issue. Does it state at what time Crystal would have to return Jr. to RC for the Father's Day visit?
For example Sat. evening, early Sunday morning?
Thank you for an answer!

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

The original documents do not state a time just says Father gets children fathers day. Crystal visitation schedule was to pick up children Friday at 6pm and return on Sunday at 6 pm. Because the documents do not specify a specific time for Fathers Day, as long as Crystal returned JR at 6pm on Fathers Day she was not breaking the visitation agreement. Because RC wanted to spend fathers day with his son instead of just a few hours, he did not allow her to take JR Friday. I will have to say IMO to this part, he asked that she return him early Sunday or Saturday and they were not able to reach an agreement. Yes he was in contempt, however based on future entires it appears to have been worked out at this point and her lost weekend will be made up.

How are you able to glean all this information from these public records ?

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

The original documents do not state a time just says Father gets children fathers day. Crystal visitation schedule was to pick up children Friday at 6pm and return on Sunday at 6 pm. Because the documents do not specify a specific time for Fathers Day, as long as Crystal returned JR at 6pm on Fathers Day she was not breaking the visitation agreement. Because RC wanted to spend fathers day with his son instead of just a few hours, he did not allow her to take JR Friday. I will have to say IMO to this part, he asked that she return him early Sunday or Saturday and they were not able to reach an agreement. Yes he was in contempt, however based on future entires it appears to have been worked out at this point and her lost weekend will be made up.

How do you know this ? Are there interviews somewhere ?

 

[Busylady]

Ordered the documents.

How are you able to glean all this information from these public records ?

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Order the documents.

Thought about it and then decided no. The published documents suffice for me and and his behavior speaks for itself. Without any substantiation provided to this Forum, other information regarding the incident is rumor IMO.

 

[Busylady]

2009-07-14 065.AGREED ORDER ON CHILDRENS ISSUES - AWN

This is an entry on the custody docket

 

[Busylady]

Not a problem.

Thought about it and then decided no. The published document suffices for me and an his behavior speaks for itself. Without any substantiation provided to this Forum, other information regarding the incident is rumor IMO.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Anyone happen to know anything about this?

Putnam Criminal Dockets

UCN: 542009CF001105XXAXMX
File Date: 2009-06-22 Judge: TERRY J LARUE
Defense Atty:

Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2009-06-22 1 COMPLAINT - PPD OFF/BRYANT (6/19/09)

2009-06-22 1 BOOKING NUMBER: N/A

2009-06-22 1 INTERFERENCE WITH CHILD CUSTODY

2009-07-27 2 ANNOUNCEMENT OF NO INFORMATION TO (ALL CTS)

http://www.putnam-fl.com/clk_apps/crim_dkts/frame.php

TIA -

MOA

BBM


Not sure of the process here. Since Ron was being represented by an attorney at the time, I expected to see that attorney's name on this booking document. The attorney did not publically withdraw from Ron's case until July 16th.

 

[debs]

Seems to me, all it would have taken is for an agreement that, since her visitation was going to fall upon Father's Day, that Ronald switch a weekend visit with Crystal. That he didn't, that he chose instead to not only NOT switch a weekend so she could see her son, and also chose to be in contempt of court by refusing to allow Crystal her legal right to see her child, the only vindictiveness I see is on the part of Ronald.

Glad to see that a month later, when he realized that he can't just play fast and loose with court orders, they could come to an agreement.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

I just hope Jr wasn't witness to any confrontation that Friday evening. He's been through so much already.

 

[atherella]

BBM


Not sure of the process here. Since Ron was being represented by an attorney at the time, I expected to see that attorney's name on this booking document. The attorney did not publically withdraw from Ron's case until July 16th.

Ron's attorney, if you look at the docket actually does not have a withdrawal in place yet. The only one listed so far is Kim Picazio's.

2009-07-17 066.MOTION TO WITHDRAW - KIM PICAZIO/RESPONDENT
2009-07-22 ----:NOTE TO FILE----(DKT#66) ATTORNEY TO SET HEARING
2009-07-22 08/05/09 @ 11:00 BY PHONE - AWN ----
2009-07-27 067.NOTICE OF HEARING/AWN FOR 08/05/09 AT 11:00

I suspect that the "Note to File" may be Atty. Kimball's, which was filed on July 22nd.

It's hard to tell sometimes since the docket isn't always updated right away.

In any event, the "Interference with Custody" appears to be settled now through the courts and with the 7/27 "Announcement of No Information". IIRC, that was worked out by allowing Crystal an extra weekend on her extended visit this summer.

 

[atherella]

Seems to me, all it would have taken is for an agreement that, since her visitation was going to fall upon Father's Day, that Ronald switch a weekend visit with Crystal. That he didn't, that he chose instead to not only NOT switch a weekend so she could see her son, and also chose to be in contempt of court by refusing to allow Crystal her legal right to see her child, the only vindictiveness I see is on the part of Ronald.

Glad to see that a month later, when he realized that he can't just play fast and loose with court orders, they could come to an agreement.

It's interesting how you assume with no information to back you up, that RON is the one that was unwilling to work out an agreement to switch weekends so that Ron would be allowed to spend Father's Day with his son. Unless, of course, you have proof that Ron didn't try to work out something with Crystal?

Seems just as likely to me that Crystal was unwilling to allow Ron to have Junior on Father's Day until 6pm when HER visitation ended. Without PROOF - we just do not know and it is pointless to guess and make assumptions about either party.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Ron's attorney, if you look at the docket actually does not have a withdrawal in place yet. The only one listed so far is Kim Picazio's.

2009-07-17 066.MOTION TO WITHDRAW - KIM PICAZIO/RESPONDENT
2009-07-22 ----:NOTE TO FILE----(DKT#66) ATTORNEY TO SET HEARING
2009-07-22 08/05/09 @ 11:00 BY PHONE - AWN ----
2009-07-27 067.NOTICE OF HEARING/AWN FOR 08/05/09 AT 11:00

I suspect that the "Note to File" may be Atty. Kimball's, which was filed on July 22nd.

It's hard to tell sometimes since the docket isn't always updated right away.

In any event, the "Interference with Custody" appears to be settled now through the courts and with the 7/27 "Announcement of No Information". IIRC, that was worked out by allowing Crystal an extra weekend on her extended visit this summer.

BBM

Hmmm, that's interesting, the attorney's press release dated July 16 states this:

"There are no pending legal matters involving Ronald Cummings.We are ending today our representation of Ronald Cummings on good terms.Our website, findhaleighnow.com will remain online but will not be updated.

We also note that Attorney Kim Picazio, who represents Crystal Sheffield, has indicated in writing that she is withdrawing from representing Crystal Sheffield."

Again, BBM. But as you said, perhaps the docket just hasn't been updated.

BTW - Why do you think the attorney wasn't listed on the booking doc ?

 

[atherella]

BBM

Hmmm, that's interesting, the attorney's press release dated July 16 states this:

"There are no pending legal matters involving Ronald Cummings.We are ending today our representation of Ronald Cummings on good terms.Our website, findhaleighnow.com will remain online but will not be updated.

We also note that Attorney Kim Picazio, who represents Crystal Sheffield, has indicated in writing that she is withdrawing from representing Crystal Sheffield."

Again, BBM. But as you said, perhaps the docket just hasn't been updated.

BTW - Why do you think the attorney wasn't listed on the booking doc ?

BBM

If you look at this --

Putnam Criminal Dockets

UCN: 542009CF001105XXAXMX
File Date: 2009-06-22 Judge: TERRY J LARUE
Defense Atty:


Defendant
CUMMINGS, RONALD LEMYLES
Alias


Date # Docket Description
2009-06-22 1 COMPLAINT - PPD OFF/BRYANT (6/19/09)

2009-06-22 1 BOOKING NUMBER: N/A

2009-06-22 1 INTERFERENCE WITH CHILD CUSTODY

2009-07-27 2 ANNOUNCEMENT OF NO INFORMATION TO (ALL CTS)

http://www.putnam-fl.com/clk_apps/crim_dkts/frame.php

Specifically the part I bolded, you'll see that Ron was never actually booked. I think that perhaps it was only a complaint filed and Ron was never actually arrested, therefore he was never actually brought into the station?

Since this happened on 6/22 before the attorneys left the case, this was probably one of the issues that was dealt with in the agreement that was filed with the court with regards to the custody issues:

2009-07-14 065.AGREED ORDER ON CHILDRENS ISSUES - AWN

That happened prior to the attorneys withdrawing. That would explain why the charge would be dismissed and no attorney ever filed an appearance.

Just guessing, of course.