COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT PROBATE FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT DOCKET NO.-- MIRANDA BERNSON, Plainti" v. JAMES STANLEY, Defendant JUDGMENT (0n Plaintiff's Complaint for Modification filed June 14, 2010) After trial, it is hereby ORDERED and as follows: 1. Father shall have visitation with the minor child-, as follows; a The 2"d and Saturday for fours hours at times agreeable to the visitation supervisor These visits shall be supervised by Jennifer Carter, Carol Lombard or their designee. Father fihall pay for two thirds of the supervision cost and Mother shall pay for one third of the supervision cost. If Mother fails to pay her share of the cost, the visits shall become unsupervised without further order of the Court. 13. Afier nine visits as described above, Father shall have supervised visitation on the Saturdays set forth in paragraph and every Wednesday for two hours at times agreeable to Lhe visitation supervisor. The choice ofsupervisor and payment of the supervisor shall be as detailed in paragraph 0 After an additional six Saturday visits as described above, only the first hour and last hour of the Saturday Visits shall be supervised under the terms and conditions described herein. di After an additional six Saturday visits, all visitation shall be unsupervised and Father shall have visitation on 2"d and Saturday of cull month from 12:00 1) to 4:00 pm zuid eve Wednesday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 pm. Pick up and drop ol'fshall occur at lhbolice Station. 2' Mother shall forthwith enroll-m Lherapy and shall comply with the eraplsl as to (BEE-equelwy of tun: appoinmients. Mother shall provide to Father, through the supervisor, the name and telcphonc numbet ufths therapist. 3 All other requested relief is DENIED Dated: June 7, 2011 Amy Blake, Justice ex A TS COURT PROBATE 8t FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT DOCKET MIRANDA BERNSON, Plaintiff v. JAMES STANLEY, JR, Defendant RATIONALE (0n Plaintsz's Complarnrfiir Modificatianfiled June 14, 2010) This matter was before the Court (Blake, 1) for trial on May 31 2011. Plaintiff ("Mather") was present and represented by Attorney Theresa Reade, Defendant ("Fn[her" was present and self represented. The child was represented by Attorney Lisa Greenbergt Six were entered into evidence In additian--mrihe parties, the following witnesses testified: fi-- (mother cf-Defeudant's childrefiLiennifer Carter (visitation supervisor), Carol Hanedanian (Department of Children Families social worker), Kelly Maltaney (Defendant's mother) and -- (Defendant's sister). The parties were divorced in March of 2009. They have one child together,- (born . - has several half-siblings as each party has children with other people. This matter was been fraught with litigation since entry of the Judgment of Divorce Nisi. Mother has maintained custody of- throughout the litigation Father has enjoyed Visits both supervised and unsupervised and has had his visits suspended on occasions since entry ofthe Judgment ofDlvorec. Surrounding the suspensmn or supervision ofFather's visits has been allegations of abuse of- both physical and sexual. Mother filed this Complaint in June ofzolo, pro se, alleging "possible child abuse" Father vehemently denies the alle ations. Mother contends that Father was abusive to her during their marriage and that has suffered abuse at the hands ofFalher and - Father contends that he has been a loving and caring Father and that Mother will go to any extreme to remove him fren '5 life. Upon tetuming front a visit in the summer or2010, - was noted to have some bruising on her arms. Mother called the roller: and took- to the emergency room. Mother requested a skeletal examination ofiwhieh the pediatrician ordered>> but which Mother never to the child lo, DCF did not substantiate the allegation of abuse against-or any otheLperSon as there was no eVldence to support such a finding. This event was the change of circumstance proffered by Mother in support of her Complaint for Modification seeking to stop all visitation with Father. Despite numerous complaints to DCF, there has never been a finding of abuse, orany lrind or neglect on the part oreither parent as it relates to-. Much ofthe recent litigation stems from an alleged diselosure orsexual abuse by one ofFaihel"s other children. Father and have- childierl together. Their daugliter,_ is alleged to have made a disclosure of sexual abuse against her Father and subsequently is alleged to have claimed- was abused by her Father as well. Father has not been charged with any crimes in connection with these alleged disclosures for either child, - agedl has experienced much difficulty in her young life. she has cut herself and been hospitalized on three occasions- has experienced difficulties with her peers at school as well as surrounding the use ofbathrooms. She is reported to be "hearing voices" which tell her to cut herself. She has been on medication in the past. has been diagnosed, according to her mother. with post traumatic stress disorder. In September of 2010, while out to dinner, is alleged to have "blurted out" that she saw the Defendant inappropriately touch Two months later.-- told statement. Prior to that time-rid Mother did not get along and had no relationship. Currently-and Mother have aligned themselves against Father in seeking to eliminate-hiseontact with their children. if There has been no corroborating evidence emu] that Defendant sexually abused- At her young age, a reliable disclosure from while not itnpossihle, ls not likely. Accordingly the Court must look to_s interactions with her Father for guidance. Despite an order for supervised visitation, the same did not occur innit shortly before trial. Mother did not easily facilitate the scheduling of these visits. ln fact, Mother indicated during a meeting with DCF that she would not follow the Court orders. By all accounts - was happy to see her father. In tact, Plaintiff testified that- asked her, "when am 1 going to see him again?" Plaintiff testified that supervised visits are a good thing, that- loves her father, and that the two enjoy a good relationship. The visitation supervisor, a DCF social worker, eredibt testified that the visits went well, that the two had a loving and safe relationship and that wanted to spend more time with her father. As mother acknowledges that Defendant should have visitation, the issue ofwheiher the visits should be supervised must be explored. The Court has no doubt that Plaintiff loves her child and desires to protect her, however, much cfller testimony was self--serving and She olicn did not follow through with recommendations of professionals and expressed her intent to defy court orders. Plaintifftestifted to behaviors in_ that in hindsi ht. caused her concern Plaintiff acknowledged on cross examination that DCF had found that she had lied to DCfand Lhat she had coached- While Plaintiffdenies same her actions cause continued concern. When visitation recently began, Plaintiff alleged that-- has severe food allergies, including Red 40 which is found in many foods. In order to be prepared, Ms. Carter asked Plaintiff for a doctor's note which she never provided. Defendant was unable to confirm these allergies through the child's pediatrician. Plaintiffs testimony was inconsistent as to whether she had seen a specialist for these allergies or whether she had plans to see a specialist. Plaintiff asserted that she was too busy with visitation starting to get a doctor-s note. This defies logic and common sense Food allergies of any kind can have serious eonsequences. Plaintiffwas unable to provide the Defendant or the visitation supervrsor with any independent evidence of same, potentially placing the child at great risk ifshe was indeed allergic to Red 40. As aresult o-'s alleged disclosure, Plaintiflbrought- to the hospital to have an internal examination. The results of the examination were normal. Plaintiff had no issue with a three year old having an internal examination, yet she had not begun therapy fo despite repeated suggestions for same, because therapy is "too invasive". This testimony is troubling in view ofthe internal examination- was made to endure. Plaintiff appears, at imcs, to he more interested in gathering evideneeagainst Defendant than doing what is in gee -'s best interest. Plaintiff reports therapy for-was due to begin the week aflsr trial. The motivation ofPlainlifFai-id_ is ofeorcern. Ms.- aitcd two months to tell Plaintiff about-s alleged disclosure sonceru' . .-belioved - was in danger, despite her then lack ofrelationship with Plaintiff, why did she not immediately notif someone? This nestion was never answered at trial and causfi the court to question Mei credibili . is the only person who reports- made a disclosure about-. There is no other evidence to confirm this. Furthermore, the time line set forth by Plaintiff is inconsistent with the reports to DCF and to police. plaintiff alleges she learned o-'s disclosure on July lo, 2010 yet the records refleot the alle ation was made on July 14, 2010. This lends further doubt as to the veracity ofPlaintiif a as it relates to-. MotheT's actions are inconsistent with her words. She ates emergent services and then fails to follow through, A simple example ofthis is the skeletal examination Mother insisted upon and failed to secure. A more complex example is the intemai examination o_ with no therapeutic follow up. It is i -'s best interest to visit with her Father Mother acknowledges same. The relationship heiween the parties is non existent and the Court remains concerned about what the child may hear directly or indirectly from one or both ofhcr parents As Falher has only recently begun visiting de rte a court order for same, some continued supervision is warranted to ensure mails safe, shielded from the details oihtigation anti adjusting to her time with Father. The supervision will also provide some measure of comfort for Mother and QLoLection for FaLher as this lilig alien draws to a conclusion. As Mother has not ahided by the terms of the Court ordered visitmion, it is appropriate for he: to contribute to the cost of the share of the visitation, the requirement for supervised shall he Immedlmely tennmamd and unsupervised Visimiou eemmsuee. The schedule set forth by he Court is meant to allowthc supervision to decrease with rime a- eis older and is ablclo express herseir, ll is the hope that with \hei'apy and eonsisierii Visimiionican enjoy a safe and appropriate with both orher parents. Dated: June 7, 2011 MM Amy Bl ke, Justice