Some encouraging and some frustrating developments. In this episode, the outcome of the criminal/Child Protective Services investigation.
To recap: On July 1, after a failed attempt by my ex and her lawyer to get an ex parte motion granted by the judge based on coached statements by my child that I had inappropriately touched them, a complaint “mysteriously” surfaced with Child Protective Services with the same allegations. While I’m not sure if it’s the same in all states, in my state they launched a criminal and a CPS investigation.
On August 25, I called the police detective who interviewed me four weeks prior and he said that they had closed the case, that they determined the allegations to be unfounded.
Three weeks later, CPS determined the abuse allegations to be unsubstantiated.
However, they did substantiate emotional neglect against my ex whom they determined—in part because of other mental health professionals who have been involved—has been coaching our child and engaging in alienating behaviors that are causing emotional distress. Big sigh of relief on that one. But of course, as has been since the beginning of the story, it’s not as clean as it might initially sound.
CPS told my ex that if she does not stop it, she risks losing the child to foster care. After the wave of relief washed over me that they had to at least some degree gotten it right, it registered that they said, “losing the child to foster care”. I asked them why foster care instead of me?
The reason, they stated, was that they also substantiated emotional neglect against me. Why? Here is their rationale:
- I am being what they called “emotionally reactive”, a term my therapist says isn’t any kind of diagnosis. They were not able to give me a clear definition as to what that meant.
- A comment my child made about something I supposedly said (which I didn’t and which I can’t figure out why they would take seriously given that 1. It’s hearsay and 2. It’s coming from a child who they’ve determined has been coached),
- My child finding out that I had given some materials on parental alienation to my child’s therapist.
What I think is that CPS went through a custody evaluation which was done last year rather than do another evaluation on our child. They said that the child was to undergo no more evaluations. That was good, but they seemed to be unable or unwilling to take in any new information. For example, they did not know that I ad been seeing a therapist and did not change their report even when the therapist wrote a letter stating my diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety (F4322), my substantial progress, and that my reactions have not been outside of normal range responses to the high amounts of stress my ex’s behaviors have caused.
I have made it clear to them though that although I do not agree with their finding or their reasoning, I want to do whatever they need me to do so they will close the case and make me the parent our child would go to if my ex can’t help herself. I am less interested in trying to have them see my point then making sure our child doesn’t go to strangers.
This is such a bittersweet update and yet it’s personally disheartening since I’m about to blow the whistle on my ex to the Presiding Judge this week. My biggest question/fear in doing so was whether she would be returned to me or put into dependency. I think about the many parallels in our cases very often, and still can’t truly grasp the reality of it all. I keep waiting for my alarm to go off and wake me up. I will continue to send positive thoughts your way… For both you and your family.
The message I keep getting is to remain calm as much as you can. The way it was put to me was: The judge thinks you’re both crazy so it’s your job to not be the crazy one. Obviously, anything you have from professionals, like a therapist can’t do anything but help. The system is set up in such a way that judges are by-in-large incentivised to defer judgement to experts. Anyone in your corner means less risk for them in making the determination you want them to make.
I’ve reached the conclusion that pro per litigants are easier to rule on than those that have representation… Which makes sense since the majority of self represented are unaware of their rights. Our commissioner has only ever ruled once in her own without relying upon some form of recommendation or stipulation.
Once I cleared myself from the suspected drug use, I was still left to disprove the allegations of general neglect. As we know, proving something DOESN’T exist or DIDN’T happen is nearly impossible.