debs
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 7,700
- Reaction score
- 52
Well....let's look at timing. Crystal left him, date undetermined. Some weeks or months later, Ronald says he's going to TX to work, and Mexico for vacation (at least he testifies that is what he's doing in the Dec 27th 05 court documents). He says the children have been with him since August 21. According to the records, that would put him approx 1 month from completion of both the fines and the ADI level II ([FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Level II is an intensive twenty-four (24) hour course designed for aggravated and repeat offenders and involves group participation.)....that isn't served all at once, by the way. It is usually done in at most a 2 hour class period.[/FONT] We see he received his certificate of completion (way to go Ronald!) In Sept., where he pays the court cost. (There is a fine levied for the ADI class which you pay directly to the teacher. Anywhere from $250-400, depending on where you are, I suppose.)
He'd also been living at the 111 Sharon address for approx 3 months when he got the children in August, which puts that back to May...and before that, he was living at "145 (inaudible) 105 (inaudible) uh, Lake Como, I believe the address is Crescent City..." where he lived with Crystal. So from May backwards, he was living with Crystal and in August, Jr was 6 months old, so backing up into Feb when he was born (and a month before Ronald went to court), they were living together, and in November, when he is arrested, he was not only using while she was pregnant, that means he was also using while Haleigh was living in the home with him as well as a pregnant woman (who states she had stopped using drugs when she found out she was pregnant a second time, so at this point, approx 5 months sober). These drugs are known to make people a little nuts, and she claims he kicked her when she yelled at him for using still.
Anyway, she leaves sometime between the time Jr is born and May. Ronald is arrested in November, and goes to court in March (Jr is not yet 1 month old), takes a plea and starts his drug program (the severity of the level explained above). I can only imagine the stress on Crystal during all this time and can see why she finally left.
By August, he THEN decides he's going to take the kids. I can see how it would appear that Crystal's cooperation could be viewed as dangerous here (boy, I wouldn't have let 'em go but I'm also not emotionally tangled up with the guy) and so I can see how she's thinking "hey, he's attending classes and says he's doing better and the kids haven't seen him in awhile so...."
But he takes them and keeps them. And he files for custody 8 days after completion of this Level II (for aggravated and repeat offenders) certificate program, on Sept 16th. This date is interesting. On Dec 1st, he offers absolutely NO documentation of any charges that Crystal is using, and the magistrate takes at Ronald's word in the Dec 1st hearing that he suspected it, but that he thinks unsupervised visits should be given. She testifies on Dec 27th it had been a year since she had used (and I guess everyone can interpret that any way they want). He also does not offer documentation to the magistrate at the Dec 1st hearing that he was arrested just a year earlier, and only a month AFTER having taken the kids on what Crystal believed was an extended visit with dad, when he just never returned them (based on unsubstantiated claims of HER drug use, all the while never telling the judge about HIS!!!!) completed his Level II classes for aggravated and repeat drug offenders. The magistrate asks her repeatedly in the Dec 27th hearing whether she's using drugs and she repeatedly states "No." Even though just 26 days earlier, that was a claim by Ronald, though unsubstantiated and just what he'd heard, here the magistrate asks her directly and she gives him a straight answer.
Poor girl. She's asked if she knows if Ronald is using. She says she gets calls....oops, can't offer hearsay, sweetie. She hasn't seen him personally doing drugs since she left. But she has a cousin there with her who can testify that Ronald was in an accident with the kids in the car just a month ago, because Ronald was doing drugs! The judge passes on testimony from the cousin, because the cousin would testify that Crystal's brother was in the accident with Ronald. I can see where that wouldn't be allowed. So it's hearsay, and not allowed. Yet, oddly, there stands the testimony on Dec 1st of Ronald, unsubstantiated and even testified as to having only "heard" she was doing drugs. (I hear a train a'comin') Ron offers testimony that yes, he was in an accident and yes the children were with him. Then, he offers testimony that Sharon W. will vouch for him having given a clean urinalysis test! She's not there to vouch but the judge, making the statement that it is hearsay, follows that with 'We'll allow it." Yowza.
Marie testifies that she's the one who called PC DFS to do the urinalysis, because she wanted to "protect her grandkids"...and in return, PC DFS called BC DFS to do a home study and drug screen on Crystal and Marie. Both passed! Marie had given BC DFS all Ronald's arrest records. When the magistrate starts talking about that, Ronald turns it to Crystal and some papers "somewhere" showing she missed all those dr vists. You remember, those visits that HE didn't take them too, also??? Yeah. Those.
The magistrate states he doesn't have the arrest records of either party (Crystal's records weren't the ones offered by Ronald, btw...they were Marie's). Comparatively, we have seen where Ronald's records make Marie's look like she was a piker in the drug arena. Should the magistrate have actually looked at them, I sure wonder what the verdict would have been.
Crystal offers a piece of paper, a police report dated Sept 15...the day BEFORE Ronald filed for custody, where legally she had the right to have her chlidren with her, and he blocked her in and refused to let her. This documentation is not considered by the magistrate....it was a civil matter, afterall. The day before he files for custody she is trying to get her kids back and he calls the police on HER. The State of FL recognizes the rights of the birth mother to have her children when the parents are unmarried....except in PC. Wow.
Child support was set on Dec 1st based on Ronald's income of $2051 and Crystal's of $949. (Even though Crystal wasn't there to testify to her employment status or income. The information was gleaned from Ronald who stated Crystal worked at a restaurant.) But wait! Crystal testifies on Dec 27th that she's been out of a job for a month because she was told by Ronald that she couldn't have visits with the kids and work. She testifies that he told her that he didn't want the kids left with a babysitter while she worked, and she lost her job for complying with the demands of Ronald in order to see her children. Sword of Damocles again! But she testifies that she's been looking for a job and while she has three apps in, doesn't have any leads at the time of the Dec 27th hearing. But she testifies that HER mother will help her out until she gets a job.
The magistrate says there will be a recalculation based on the fact that Crystal was unemployed at the time of the first hearing. That recalculation was never done, if she got herself $12,000 in delinquent child support.
Ronald had offered "My mom will watch the kids while I work." Then the magistrate asks him about daycare and he says cleverly "I was going to get them in night care." uh. He just testified that his mother, grandmother and aunt would be watching them while he works up to a 12 hour shift from 6-6.....what is night care if it isn't with these ladies??? So it's okay for Ronald to have the children at a babysitter, but not Crystal. Wowzers.
But here's the real kicker. The magistrate knew Jr had a Dr's appt. And he'd known from earlier that month when the hearing without Crystal took place where Ronald was awarded custody. Yet Crystal, who is levied the responsibility for this is appt, is told ONLY THE DAY BEFORE THIS HEARING that the appointment was for THAT MORNING!!!!! Wow. And her reasoning for missing the appt versus the hearing is discounted.
Ronald will have insurance in 90 days (in March, so it's a brand new job) when at that time he'll be paying 50% of his paycheck toward health insurance for his children. I can see now why there is a push for health care reform! That's a ridiculous amount for anyone to pay!!!! Although, in the Dec 1 hearing, he states that he's started working for the construction company but on Dec 27th his financial situation had changed, yet he was still working for the construction company. I can only assume the financial situation is that he gave up his $1500/month self-employment career which he states he did to take the construction job but why did he say his finances had changed on the 27th instead of the 1st when he initially informed the court of his employment? Boggles me. He says on Dec 1st that he'll have health insurance for the kids by Feb, after his probationary period is over. On Dec 27th, he says he'll have it in March, where he'll be paying 50% of his paycheck for insurance. (OPT OUT, RONALD!!!! THAT'S TOO HIGH!!!!)
So earlier in December, did Ronald show his pretty completion certificate for aggravated and repeat offenders with Drug/Alcohol problems??? No. His record of serious offenses is never viewed by this judge.
For those who state they wonder why Crystal hasn't filed for custody of Jr: I hope she does. I hope to God she does.
He'd also been living at the 111 Sharon address for approx 3 months when he got the children in August, which puts that back to May...and before that, he was living at "145 (inaudible) 105 (inaudible) uh, Lake Como, I believe the address is Crescent City..." where he lived with Crystal. So from May backwards, he was living with Crystal and in August, Jr was 6 months old, so backing up into Feb when he was born (and a month before Ronald went to court), they were living together, and in November, when he is arrested, he was not only using while she was pregnant, that means he was also using while Haleigh was living in the home with him as well as a pregnant woman (who states she had stopped using drugs when she found out she was pregnant a second time, so at this point, approx 5 months sober). These drugs are known to make people a little nuts, and she claims he kicked her when she yelled at him for using still.
Anyway, she leaves sometime between the time Jr is born and May. Ronald is arrested in November, and goes to court in March (Jr is not yet 1 month old), takes a plea and starts his drug program (the severity of the level explained above). I can only imagine the stress on Crystal during all this time and can see why she finally left.
By August, he THEN decides he's going to take the kids. I can see how it would appear that Crystal's cooperation could be viewed as dangerous here (boy, I wouldn't have let 'em go but I'm also not emotionally tangled up with the guy) and so I can see how she's thinking "hey, he's attending classes and says he's doing better and the kids haven't seen him in awhile so...."
But he takes them and keeps them. And he files for custody 8 days after completion of this Level II (for aggravated and repeat offenders) certificate program, on Sept 16th. This date is interesting. On Dec 1st, he offers absolutely NO documentation of any charges that Crystal is using, and the magistrate takes at Ronald's word in the Dec 1st hearing that he suspected it, but that he thinks unsupervised visits should be given. She testifies on Dec 27th it had been a year since she had used (and I guess everyone can interpret that any way they want). He also does not offer documentation to the magistrate at the Dec 1st hearing that he was arrested just a year earlier, and only a month AFTER having taken the kids on what Crystal believed was an extended visit with dad, when he just never returned them (based on unsubstantiated claims of HER drug use, all the while never telling the judge about HIS!!!!) completed his Level II classes for aggravated and repeat drug offenders. The magistrate asks her repeatedly in the Dec 27th hearing whether she's using drugs and she repeatedly states "No." Even though just 26 days earlier, that was a claim by Ronald, though unsubstantiated and just what he'd heard, here the magistrate asks her directly and she gives him a straight answer.
Poor girl. She's asked if she knows if Ronald is using. She says she gets calls....oops, can't offer hearsay, sweetie. She hasn't seen him personally doing drugs since she left. But she has a cousin there with her who can testify that Ronald was in an accident with the kids in the car just a month ago, because Ronald was doing drugs! The judge passes on testimony from the cousin, because the cousin would testify that Crystal's brother was in the accident with Ronald. I can see where that wouldn't be allowed. So it's hearsay, and not allowed. Yet, oddly, there stands the testimony on Dec 1st of Ronald, unsubstantiated and even testified as to having only "heard" she was doing drugs. (I hear a train a'comin') Ron offers testimony that yes, he was in an accident and yes the children were with him. Then, he offers testimony that Sharon W. will vouch for him having given a clean urinalysis test! She's not there to vouch but the judge, making the statement that it is hearsay, follows that with 'We'll allow it." Yowza.
Marie testifies that she's the one who called PC DFS to do the urinalysis, because she wanted to "protect her grandkids"...and in return, PC DFS called BC DFS to do a home study and drug screen on Crystal and Marie. Both passed! Marie had given BC DFS all Ronald's arrest records. When the magistrate starts talking about that, Ronald turns it to Crystal and some papers "somewhere" showing she missed all those dr vists. You remember, those visits that HE didn't take them too, also??? Yeah. Those.
The magistrate states he doesn't have the arrest records of either party (Crystal's records weren't the ones offered by Ronald, btw...they were Marie's). Comparatively, we have seen where Ronald's records make Marie's look like she was a piker in the drug arena. Should the magistrate have actually looked at them, I sure wonder what the verdict would have been.
Crystal offers a piece of paper, a police report dated Sept 15...the day BEFORE Ronald filed for custody, where legally she had the right to have her chlidren with her, and he blocked her in and refused to let her. This documentation is not considered by the magistrate....it was a civil matter, afterall. The day before he files for custody she is trying to get her kids back and he calls the police on HER. The State of FL recognizes the rights of the birth mother to have her children when the parents are unmarried....except in PC. Wow.
Child support was set on Dec 1st based on Ronald's income of $2051 and Crystal's of $949. (Even though Crystal wasn't there to testify to her employment status or income. The information was gleaned from Ronald who stated Crystal worked at a restaurant.) But wait! Crystal testifies on Dec 27th that she's been out of a job for a month because she was told by Ronald that she couldn't have visits with the kids and work. She testifies that he told her that he didn't want the kids left with a babysitter while she worked, and she lost her job for complying with the demands of Ronald in order to see her children. Sword of Damocles again! But she testifies that she's been looking for a job and while she has three apps in, doesn't have any leads at the time of the Dec 27th hearing. But she testifies that HER mother will help her out until she gets a job.
The magistrate says there will be a recalculation based on the fact that Crystal was unemployed at the time of the first hearing. That recalculation was never done, if she got herself $12,000 in delinquent child support.
Ronald had offered "My mom will watch the kids while I work." Then the magistrate asks him about daycare and he says cleverly "I was going to get them in night care." uh. He just testified that his mother, grandmother and aunt would be watching them while he works up to a 12 hour shift from 6-6.....what is night care if it isn't with these ladies??? So it's okay for Ronald to have the children at a babysitter, but not Crystal. Wowzers.
But here's the real kicker. The magistrate knew Jr had a Dr's appt. And he'd known from earlier that month when the hearing without Crystal took place where Ronald was awarded custody. Yet Crystal, who is levied the responsibility for this is appt, is told ONLY THE DAY BEFORE THIS HEARING that the appointment was for THAT MORNING!!!!! Wow. And her reasoning for missing the appt versus the hearing is discounted.
Ronald will have insurance in 90 days (in March, so it's a brand new job) when at that time he'll be paying 50% of his paycheck toward health insurance for his children. I can see now why there is a push for health care reform! That's a ridiculous amount for anyone to pay!!!! Although, in the Dec 1 hearing, he states that he's started working for the construction company but on Dec 27th his financial situation had changed, yet he was still working for the construction company. I can only assume the financial situation is that he gave up his $1500/month self-employment career which he states he did to take the construction job but why did he say his finances had changed on the 27th instead of the 1st when he initially informed the court of his employment? Boggles me. He says on Dec 1st that he'll have health insurance for the kids by Feb, after his probationary period is over. On Dec 27th, he says he'll have it in March, where he'll be paying 50% of his paycheck for insurance. (OPT OUT, RONALD!!!! THAT'S TOO HIGH!!!!)
So earlier in December, did Ronald show his pretty completion certificate for aggravated and repeat offenders with Drug/Alcohol problems??? No. His record of serious offenses is never viewed by this judge.
For those who state they wonder why Crystal hasn't filed for custody of Jr: I hope she does. I hope to God she does.
arrot:
) I, too, sincerely thank you for taking the time to present all this info in an organized, cohesive, coherent fashion which would have had me working until this time next week (or maybe next year). W your help I can really finally see things in context, and how I hope the Court will one day review the larger picture, for Junior's sake if not Haleigh's.
