I've Sent Mothers to JAIL for Not Facilitating Parenting Time | скачать в хорошем качестве

I've Sent Mothers to JAIL for Not Facilitating Parenting Time |

We have multiples cases in this content: The court case involves Chelsea Bio and Trenton Bio, with Miss Greenley representing the plaintiff and Mr. Totes representing the defendant. The issue at hand is temporary custody, as the parents are sharing parenting time on an equal basis. The plaintiff initially agreed to a shared parenting schedule, but later tried to have exclusive custody of the child. The defendant is requesting a court order to establish a week-on, week-off schedule for parenting time. The defendant also mentions that the plaintiff is unemployed and has not been actively seeking employment. Additionally, the defendant agrees to allow the plaintiff to use a Toyota RAV4, as long as it is kept in good condition. They mention false allegations made about the living situation and vehicle ownership, as well as the need for insurance coverage and access to personal belongings in the marital home. The respondent counters by suggesting parenting time on specific days, questioning the petitioner's employment status, and raising concerns about financial support and property division. The court intervenes with temporary orders for joint physical and legal custody, alternating parenting time schedules, and maintenance of insurance coverage and assets. The court also allows the petitioner access to the marital home to retrieve personal items. The next court proceeding involves a discussion about parenting time arrangements between the plaintiff and defendant, referred to as Mr. Vile and Mr. Health, respectively. Mr. Vile's work schedule is taken into consideration as the court reconsiders the days for parenting time. It is clarified that Mr. Vile does work on Saturdays but not on Sundays, and his days off are from the end of his workday on Saturday until Monday at 6:00 PM. The court orders that appropriate childcare must be arranged when the child is in the defendant's care. Additionally, the support for the plaintiff will be based on her previous income level from her full-time employment. The effective date for this support will be two days after the date of the motion service. The next hearing the court is dealing with a custody and supervised parenting time case involving a 4-year-old child named Isaiah who has a new diagnosis that will lead to further neurological problems. The parties involved are unable to communicate effectively due to domestic violence and past difficulties in determining the best interests of the child. The stability and consistency are crucial for Isaiah due to his unique medical condition. The petitioner is seeking sole custody and supervision due to the mother's instability, inconsistency, and erratic behavior. An evidentiary hearing is requested to provide evidence of the mother's behavior and to ensure the child's safety. The respondent requests an adjournment to prepare for the hearing but the court sets a date for an evidentiary hearing. In another case, the court hears a motion for violation of a protective order brought by Ms. Edwards against Mr. Edwards. She alleges that he violated the order by being at her residence and taking pictures, working with a third party to harass her, and having neighbors spy on her. The court rules that hearsay evidence is not admissible, and without sufficient evidence of a violation, the motion to hold Mr. Edwards in contempt is dismissed. The court warns Mr. Edwards against violating the order in the future and advises Ms. Edwards to report any future violations promptly. The next case the court had two matters before it: the plaintiff's objection to an order submitted by Mr. Scott and a motion for changing custody, parenting time, and support. Mr. Carroll raised the objection first, stating that the therapist's report should be included in the order for timing purposes. Mr. Scott argued that the therapist's opinion was not necessary and that the hearing should proceed without it. The court clarified that the therapist's report would not impact parenting time and warned the parties to follow the court orders. Mr. Carroll then moved to change custody, citing the 16-year-old daughter's refusal to visit her father. He argued that the father had not made enough effort to communicate with the daughter and that a change in custody was necessary. Mr. Scott disputed this, stating that the mother should enforce the court order and that the child's preferences should not dictate custody arrangements. Mom filed a Motion to Enforce Child Support but she is the one Ordered to Pay | Allegations Made    / watchv=_pe1xlnnpzy&list=pl4opn6bx53lc4gd4x...   @courtwatchers #video #viral #familylaw #familycourt #court #livecourt #law #court #storytime #lawandcrime #childsupport #zoomcourt #courtcam #familycourt #courtdrama #crime #childbenefit #news #childmaintenance #zoomcourt #judgesimpson #courtroomdrama #courtdrama