Ron C. # 11

[debs]

How many appointments were missed with Crystal watching the children either with or without living with Ronald? Was she at home and in charge of their care? Was she working during those times?

It would be a reasonable expectation of ANY mother who is considered a "stay at home" mom that she would take the children to the doctor for medical care when necessary.

How many appointments were presented? 12. The parents lived together when those appointments were missed, and therefore they are both responsible for any failure.

I don't understand where reason comes into any argument past what I have just stated. It is the only REASONABLE conclusion to draw.

 

[KSH352]

If the delay was soley RCs fault as you say Shaymus, then why did Crystal and KP not address it in the amended agreement instead she waits until she returns him from summer visitation and files a motion for counseling. So apparently she did not feel it was critical to get him in counseling ASAP either. Once again what is important is the child will be receiving counseling.

The amended agreement was created prior to BB's summer visitation. When the behavior of BB was noticed CS requested counseling through the Victims' advocacy. It took some time but an appointment was set with a counselor in Baker County. BB would not talk. The counselor's office said they could not see BB again until they had Rc's permission. RC said NO.

Your statement " So apparently she did not feel it was critical to get him in counseling ASAP either. " yes CS did feel it was critical to get him counseling. LE knew that RC had refused to allow counseling for BB.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

The amended agreement was created prior to BB's summer visitation. When the behavior of BB was noticed CS requested counseling through the Victims' advocacy. It took some time but an appointment was set with a counselor in Baker County. BB would not talk. The counselor's office said they could not see BB again until they had Rc's permission. RC said NO.

Your statement " So apparently she did not feel it was critical to get him in counseling ASAP either. " yes CS did feel it was critical to get him counseling. LE knew that RC had refused to allow counseling for BB.

Please provide a link that she took him without Ronald's knowledge to a counselor in Baker County and the date. If it is stated in the agreement that they are both to be notified of any Doctor or Dental appointments...it sounds like Crystal was in contempt by setting this up and is the underhanded tactic I mentioned a long time ago, imo.

 

[debs]

Please provide a link that she took him without Ronald's knowledge to a counselor in Baker County and the date. If it is stated in the agreement that they are both to be notified of any Doctor or Dental appointments...it sounds like Crystal was in contempt by setting this up and is the underhanded tactic I mentioned a long time ago, imo.

I imagine if an emergency situation arises where it is necessary to take a child to see a doctor (of any sort) the visit takes place and the other parent can be notified. Just sayin' it doesn't all have to be "contempt." It could actually be construed as CONCERN for the child's well-being.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I imagine if an emergency situation arises where it is necessary to take a child to see a doctor (of any sort) the visit takes place and the other parent can be notified. Just sayin' it doesn't all have to be "contempt." It could actually be construed as CONCERN for the child's well-being.

Unless he was showing signs of a "nervous breakdown" or otherwise being in acute mental distress...it looks like she could be in contempt (as near as I can tell not being an attorney here)...IMO. So you are saying that Crystal did not make an advanced appointment, but took Rj immediately to a hospital to see a qualified therapist so was unable to provide Ronald with the date and time plus the name of the therapist? This doesn't appear to be at all what took place and she had adequate time to call Ronald to advise him of the counseling appointment she set up, imo. This does make it exactly the underhanded tactic I had addressed earlier.

Ronald's new attorney should be advised of that concealed visit and he should be provided everything discussed during that visit with the therapist, IMO. Ronald could possibly also call the therapist to discuss it at length as he has every right to know in detail what took place in that session, imo.

This should not, imo, be "construed" as having been done for the wellbeing of this child when it is done in such an underhanded fashion in an attempt to gain information to further a custody case, imo. It is obvious to me this was not because Rj needed immediate counseling and that Ronald refused it...since he wasn't given the option. For Ronald not to further agree for Rj to go to counseling in Baker County is understandable after it was set up in this manner and he should be going to regular sessions close to his home...I still haven't seen where he disagreed tho.

I would like to see the link for this information which has not yet been provided by the poster.

 

[debs]

Unless he was showing signs of a "nervous breakdown" or otherwise being in acute mental distress...she would clearly be in contempt of the court...IMO. So you are saying that Crystal did not make an advanced appointment, but took Rj immediately to a hospital to see a qualified therapist so was unable to provide Ronald with the date and time plus the name of the therapist? This doesn't appear to be at all what took place and she had adequate time to call Ronald to advise him of the counseling appointment she set up, imo. This does make it exactly the underhanded tactic I had addressed earlier.

Ronald's new attorney should be advised of that concealed visit and he should be legally provided everything discussed during that visit with the therapist, IMO. Ronald could also legally call the therapist to discuss it at length as he has every right to know in detail what took place in that session, imo.

I'm basing what I said on what you suggested, as a supposition and not as a confirmation that anything took place. But hey. Crystal=bad in your eyes and it's all good for me because I at least know where you're constantly coming from. No worries here!

 

[SeriouslySearching]

The amended agreement was created prior to BB's summer visitation. When the behavior of BB was noticed CS requested counseling through the Victims' advocacy. It took some time but an appointment was set with a counselor in Baker County. BB would not talk. The counselor's office said they could not see BB again until they had Rc's permission. RC said NO.

Your statement " So apparently she did not feel it was critical to get him in counseling ASAP either. " yes CS did feel it was critical to get him counseling. LE knew that RC had refused to allow counseling for BB.

The poster indicates this is what happened and appears to have knowledge...but I am not seeing anything to back up these statements.

I hope Ronald's new attorney will be notified and if found to be true...should address this in court in the pending hearing, imo.

 

[debs]

The poster indicates this is what happened and appears to have knowledge...but I am not seeing anything to back up these statements.

I hope Ronald's new attorney will be notified and if found to be true...should address this in court in the pending hearing, imo.

I'm not seeing anything either and calling for contempt and tar and feathers seems a little premature.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Contempt would be for a judge to decide, but I would hope his attorney would address the issue at the hearing if this is true that she took Rj without his knowledge to a counselor, imo. IMO, it shows a lack of regard for what I see as Ronald's right to know and if the court already laid out the rules...did she break them?

 

[debs]

Contempt would be for a judge to decide, but I would hope his attorney would address the issue at the hearing if this is true that she took Rj without his knowledge to a counselor, imo. IMO, it shows a lack of regard for what I see as Ronald's right to know and if the court already laid out the rules...did she break them?

which takes me back to my initial statement that there are times when care is needed and the other parent is informed after-the-fact. Not all cases are matter of contempt. Sometimes it's just a cigar.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

If he was physically ill or injured, I would agree. Anytime immediate medical or dental care needs to be administered...it would be understandable for him to be contacted either during or after the appointment (depending on the severity of the crisis), imo.

This has nothing to do with an emergency situation, imo. There is no reason other than she did not want him to know as to why she would not inform him his son was being taken in for counseling...if it is true, imo.

This is NOT a cigar, imo. It is serious business when you take a child in for counseling without the other parent's consent...especially if it goes against what a judge has already laid out, imo.

I appreciate how some would like this to go unnoticed and to sweep it under the rug if it is true. I wouldn't let it go if I was Ronald. I would want to know if it happened and be certain it would never happen again.

 

[debs]

If he was physically ill or injured, I would agree. Anytime immediate medical or dental care needs to be administered...it would be understandable for him to be contacted either during or after the appointment (depending on the severity of the crisis), imo.

This has nothing to do with an emergency situation, imo. There is no reason other than she did not want him to know as to why she would not inform him his son was being taken in for counseling...if it is true, imo.

This is NOT a cigar, imo. It is serious business when you take a child in for counseling without the other parent's consent...especially if it goes against what a judge has already laid out, imo.

So then you are stating that taking a child in for counseling when he shows a need for it is less important than taking him in for a physical injury. Okay. I'm glad we're clear on the delineation of importance for you. I hope his father thinks far differently than that.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

So then you are stating that taking a child in for counseling when he shows a need for it is less important than taking him in for a physical injury. Okay. I'm glad we're clear on the delineation of importance for you. I hope his father thinks far differently than that.

The distinction is advanced notice. She would have every opportunity to notify the other parent of a counseling session set up in advance, imo. Again, she would not need to if he was showing acute signs of distress and she took him to an emergency room to be seen, imo. If she had to call one party to set it up and then wait on them to get the appointment...then wait on the appointment...there is definitely adequate time to pick up the phone to tell Ronald, GGS, or Teresa of the time, date, name of the counselor, etc., imo.

 

[elle1919]

Sorry to butt in you two seem to have a little tit for tat going...a question, when was the stipulation that either parent must notify the other of dr visits? is it perhaps too much to hope that Crystal might have forgotten about that stipulation and was just concerned about getting her son the care he needed? It was the right thing to do. I must be missing the reason that there has to be a right or wrong in this particular discussion. Shouldn't we wait for just a tad more info?

No disrespect meant to either of you, both of you present terrific argument I just don't think there is a right or wrong here.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Sorry to butt in you two seem to have a little tit for tat going...a question, when was the stipulation that either parent must notify the other of dr visits? is it perhaps too much to hope that Crystal might have forgotten about that stipulation and was just concerned about getting her son the care he needed? It was the right thing to do. I must be missing the reason that there has to be a right or wrong in this particular discussion. Shouldn't we wait for just a tad more info?

No disrespect meant to either of you, both of you present terrific argument I just don't think there is a right or wrong here.

Yes, we probably should wait on more information and links. I did post it as a possible rumor in case.

I have no problem with Rj receiving counseling and see it as a positive move. However, if it is done in such a way that appears underhanded and deceitful by one parent...I have a huge problem with it. This tactic is used time and again by parents in an attempt to gain custody information instead of it being in the best interest of the child, imo.

The reason to notify the other parent is obvious, imo. They should have a say in who, when, where, and how someone is going to dig into the mind of their child, imo. This isn't like a baby tooth is being extracted or tylenol is being given for a fever, imo. Both parents have a right to ask questions about a therapist beforehand, imo.

Are they qualified? Do they have a background in working with children who have been in this particular situation of a missing sibling? So many things need to be addressed before someone is given free reign to delve into mental issues of a child which could possibly later be detrimental to him, imo. IMO, some quacks out there have put false memories into those little brains, for instance. There should be safeguards in place and one of those is to notify the other parent so they can agree on the counselor and have the opportunity to voice their concerns, imo.

I am sorry, but if she did do this...there is no way for me to buy she "forgot" she needed to notify Ronald.

 

[Indiana at Heart]

Contempt would be for a judge to decide, but I would hope his attorney would address the issue at the hearing if this is true that she took Rj without his knowledge to a counselor, imo. IMO, it shows a lack of regard for what I see as Ronald's right to know and if the court already laid out the rules...did she break them?

If she didn't take him then people would bash her too:waitasec:

 

[Skully]

The amended agreement was created prior to BB's summer visitation. When the behavior of BB was noticed CS requested counseling through the Victims' advocacy. It took some time but an appointment was set with a counselor in Baker County. BB would not talk. The counselor's office said they could not see BB again until they had Rc's permission. RC said NO.

Your statement " So apparently she did not feel it was critical to get him in counseling ASAP either. " yes CS did feel it was critical to get him counseling. LE knew that RC had refused to allow counseling for BB.

happy to see you back!!

 

[PorcineGranny]

Yes, we probably should wait on more information and links. I did post it as a possible rumor in case.

I have no problem with Rj receiving counseling and see it as a positive move. However, if it is done in such a way that appears underhanded and deceitful by one parent...I have a huge problem with it. This tactic is used time and again by parents in an attempt to gain custody information instead of it being in the best interest of the child, imo.

The reason to notify the other parent is obvious, imo. They should have a say in who, when, where, and how someone is going to dig into the mind of their child, imo. This isn't like a baby tooth is being extracted or tylenol is being given for a fever, imo. Both parents have a right to ask questions about a therapist beforehand, imo.

Are they qualified? Do they have a background in working with children who have been in this particular situation of a missing sibling? So many things need to be addressed before someone is given free reign to delve into mental issues of a child which could possibly later be detrimental to him, imo. IMO, some quacks out there have put false memories into those little brains, for instance. There should be safeguards in place and one of those is to notify the other parent so they can agree on the counselor and have the opportunity to voice their concerns, imo.

I am sorry, but if she did do this...there is no way for me to buy she "forgot" she needed to notify Ronald.

For anyone to suggest that Crystal was under handedly trying to pull something on Ron is laughable. He is the king of deceptiveness. Also, I find it interesting that someone would think that Ron would give a second thought to the qualifications of a doctor when he hasn't had a thought in the first place on any counseling or need of anyone other than himself. If I was
Crystal , I would do what I felt was needful for my child and let Ronald stew in the situation of his own making. These are my opinions only.

 

[debs]

Elle, you ask a good question: In a hypothetical case, the parent who has physical custody of a child when said child exhibits signs of distress, calls the other parent in order to inform that parent that the child is in distress and is in need of counseling. Say that the first parent (in the hypothetical) received a negative response, a NO! You WON'T take my child in, no matter what you think the child's distress level might be; or no answer to the calls at all.

Should the first parent then ignore the distress signals of the child in favor of the parent who refuses to allow it, or should that parent meet the child's needs and let the chips fall where they may?

A child in distress is a child in distress and any adult quibbling over contempts of court should be put aside in favor of getting the child the help he needs, when he needs it.

Back to Ronald, I am hoping he sees counseling as a step ahead for Jr and a way to support his son in his efforts to make sense of a horrible horrible situation. For Ronald, I hope the realization that his son needs his father to help him find a way to be "all right" in the world is more important than anything else.

 

[Busylady]

Could you provide a link that states RC refused counseling, that RC was even aware that Crystal made this appointment and had taken JR to a counselor. Otherwise, RC refusing JR treatment is just another one of the million rumors thrown out there to trash RC as a father.

In addition, I stand by my statement that Crystal also did not feel it was critical to get JR into counseling ASAP, as it was in response to a poster who stated Feb to July was along time for RC not get JR into counseling, Crystal waited until July summer visitation so it was not an ASAP situation for Crystal either. It also may be that JR is just now showing signs that a counselor is needed, we do not know the reason for the delay on either parents part.

The amended agreement was created prior to BB's summer visitation. When the behavior of BB was noticed CS requested counseling through the Victims' advocacy. It took some time but an appointment was set with a counselor in Baker County. BB would not talk. The counselor's office said they could not see BB again until they had Rc's permission. RC said NO.

Your statement " So apparently she did not feel it was critical to get him in counseling ASAP either. " yes CS did feel it was critical to get him counseling. LE knew that RC had refused to allow counseling for BB.