|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| In l999, Mother and Father separated. Then Mother and Father filed for a pro se annulment of their 4 year marriage. The annulment was granted on the basis of the "fraudulent act or misrepresentation of one party, which misrepresentation goes to the essence of the marriage." Father had come into the marriage with longstanding sexual "perversions" which interferred with the couple's intimacy. In fact, Father has admitted that these behaviors, including transvestite fetticism, date back to junior high school. He conceded that he dressed in Mother's lingerie and other clothing for sexual stimulation while the children were in his care. However, prior to the separation, the young child, J, began exhibiting unusual behaviors of a sexual nature, including inappropriately jumping on a teddy bear and licking doorknobs. He also began to stutter badly. In response to questions from Mother, Father wrote a series of letters wherein he stated that he had watched internet pornography at work with the boy after normal hours. While he concedes he normally masturbates to this pornography, he "can't remember" if he did so with the boy there, he has testified. He also wrote that he had not been "a safe man to share your life with", among many other bits and pieces of inappropriate behavior admissions. Father asked for, and received no, terms of parenting time in the permanent parenting plan entered as part of the annulment, and assured Mother that he would seek legitimate counselling for his sexual issues, although he testifed that he had always manipulated and been dishonest with counsellors in the past and hadn't found anyone who really understood his "brute issues". The court assured Mother it would uphold the parenting plan, which gave Mom major decision making authority and custody of the children. Father agreed to provide Mother with documentation of just what type pornography J might have been exposed to at work and possibly at home. He did not. J's sexualized behavior continued, and he began making disclosures to Mother of Father wearing her nightgown and other clothing and the use of lipstick for games. Mother's concern grew. Finally, when Father did not come thru with his offer to provide information and to demonstrate that he was in appropriate counselling, Mother took the child to a local nonprofit agency to be evaluated. The evaluators determined that the child has been sexually abused, and the perpetrator appeared to be Father. The agency reported suspected abuse to the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, which opened an "investigation". Father then hired an attorney, and demanded unrestricted access to the boys. His motions have included the fraudulent statement that the annulment decree did not include a permanent parenting plan, implying that his parenting time had been denied by something other than his own assent. The parties agreed to a complete evaluation of the sexual abuse. There was a provision that any evaluators used would have special expertise in matters regarding child sexual abuse. Father asked that the special advocate appointed by the Court have the authority to determine the evaluators to be used in the case. This request was granted by the Court. The special advocate's first report indicated that Father should have a specialized sex offender specific evaluation to include a lie detector test. She contacted father's attorney numerous times. Father's attorney informed the special advocate that they were using their own people, and not the ones she had ordered them to. Despite this, at a hearing shortly thereafter, at which the s.a. was not in attendance, father's attorney told the Court that his client had and was complying with the special advocate's order. With detrimental reliance on Father's attorney's misrepresentation, the Court issued a minute order that Mother choose an evaluator and get the show on the road for an upcoming hearing regarding the matter of the sexual abuse. Father's attorney wrote the s.a., who had been on vacation, that the Court had thrown out her orders, and essentially ordered a free for all on the evaluations. This was not true or correct. Prior to, but at about the same time, Father was being interviewed by the DCSO regarding the 3rd party report of the abuse. Father's attorney indicated that his client was willing to take a lie detector test, but he failed to report to the investigator that his client was under court order for a sex offender evaluation and lie detector test. Father and his attorney both misquoted Mother's statements and statements in her deposition to DCSO's investigator. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
 johngaultwhoam@yahoo.com |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00094 |