Divorcing a Narcissist: Tina Swithin’s Court Transcripts

Divorcing a Narcissist: Tina Swithin’s Court Transcripts

judge-in-courtby Tina Swithin

October 28, 2014 was one of the best days of my life.  It was the day that we were awarded “peace” after a very long custody battle. I have been anxiously awaiting the transcripts because this 30 minutes of my life was a complete blur. Tonight, I received the transcripts and while they aren’t exact (I remember a direct quote from the Commissioner, “Parents have rights but children also have rights” which didn’t make it into the transcripts).  Other than that, this is pretty much word for word what occurred.

I have changed names to protect identities:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN J. OLSON, COMMISSIONER

SETH COLLINS, PETITIONER, VS. TINA SWITHIN, RESPONDENT.

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2014 8:56 A.M. * * *

THE COURT: LET ME CALL CASE FL-09-0000, SETH COLLINS AND TINA SWITHIN. WE ARE HERE ON MR. COLLINS’– I’M SORRY, I GUESS WE ARE HERE ON MS. SWITHIN’S REQUEST FOR ORDERS.

MR. PETERSON: YES.

MR. SLAROMON: VINNIE SLAROMON ON BEHALF OF SETH COLLINS, WHO IS NOT PRESENT.

THE COURT: MS. SWITHIN IS PRESENT. MR. PETERSON IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN. MR. COLLINS DOESN’T VISIT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, AND NOW HE’S DEMANDING VISITS. IS THAT THE SCENARIO?

MR. SLAROMON: I DON’T THINK THAT’S EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED, YOUR HONOR. WHAT I THINK HAPPENED IS THAT HE STARTED HIS VISITS AFTER A LONG ABSENCE, AND IT WAS A SUGGESTION OF MS. SMITH TO INCREASE THE TIME TO TWO HOURS. AND THEN I READ THE RESPONSE AND THE OTHER RESPONSES, AND I’M GUESSING THEY ARE SUGGESTING THAT HE HAVE AN HOUR FIXED, SUPERVISED, AND THAT YOU COULD INCREASE UP TO TWO HOURS BASED ON THE CHILDREN AND HOW THEY ARE DOING IN THE SESSIONS.

THE COURT: WHERE DOES HE LIVE?

MR. SLAROMON: SAN DIEGO.

THE COURT: MR. PETERSON, WHAT’S YOUR POSITION?

MR. PETERSON: WELL, I GOT SOME NEW INFORMATION TODAY. I FILED A RESPONSIVE DECLARATION, AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING MR. COLLINS HAS NOT VISITED IN 16 MONTHS. HE HAD SOME LIMITED TELEPHONE CALLS, AND IN HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN I THINK THERE IS WHAT WOULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS A GROWING RIFT BASED UPON HIS NON-CONTACT, AND I BELIEVE HE’S HAD TWO VISITS.

MS. SWITHIN: ONE.

MR. PETERSON: ONE VISIT SUPERVISED BY AMBER SMITH. AND IN MY RESPONSIVE DECLARATION WHEN I MADE A PROPOSAL TO THE COURT ABOUT A CAUTIOUS REIMPLEMENTATION OF VISITS, I RECOMMENDED THAT BASED UPON MY DISCUSSIONS WITH MEGAN GOLDEN, WHO IS THE CHILDREN’S THERAPIST, THAT MR. COLLINS MAY CONTACT HER AND MEET WITH HER IN ORDER THAT HE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE CHILDREN’S DISTRESS AND GAIN SOME INSIGHT INTO MAKING PROGRESS WITH HIS RELATIONSHIP. HE NEVER CONTACTED THE CHILDREN’S THERAPIST. I SPOKE TO THE THERAPIST, AND SHE INDICATED TO ME THAT SHE’S BEEN SEEING THEM ONCE A WEEK FOR ALMOST A YEAR.

THE COURT: CAN YOU REMIND ME HOW OLD ARE THE GIRLS?

MR. PETERSON: PIPER IS NINE AND SARAH IS SEVEN. MS. GOLDEN HAD A 45-MINUTE MEETING WITH EACH CHILD LAST NIGHT, AND SHE SAID THAT SARAH USED THE BATHROOM BEFOREHAND, BUT WHEN THEY STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE VISITS, SHE BECOME ANXIOUS AND DISTRESSED AND TRIED TO MAKE IT TO THE BATHROOM, BUT SHE ENDED UP WETTING HER PANTS ON THE WAY TO THE BATHROOM, AND SARAH EXHIBITED SOME ANXIOUS AND FEARFUL BEHAVIOR AT THE TIME THAT SHE WAS DEPARTING THE BATHROOM. THIS WAS ALL CENTERED AROUND CONVERSATIONS THEY WERE HAVING ABOUT HOW THEY WERE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THIS AND HOW THEY WERE GOING TO SEE THEIR DAD, HOW THEY FELT ABOUT IT, HOW THE TELEPHONE CALLS WERE GOING. I ASKED HER WHAT SHE RECOMMENDED, AND BASED UPON LAST NIGHT SHE THINKS THAT BEFORE ANY EFFORTS ARE MADE TO RESUME THE VISITS BETWEEN THE GIRLS, MR. COLLINS NEEDS TO MEET WITH HER, AND THERE NEEDS TO BE –

THE COURT: MEET WITH HER TO DO WHAT?

MR. PETERSON: SO HE UNDERSTANDS THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN.

THE COURT: HE HASN’T UNDERSTOOD THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN IN FOUR YEARS.

MR. PETERSON: I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT’S TRUE. THE FACT IS HE DISAPPEARS FOR 16 MONTHS, AND NOW HIS REAPPEARING IS CAUSING STRESS IN THE CHILDREN’S LIVES THE WAY — I GUESS THE WAY IN WHICH HE’S REENTERING THEIR LIVES. SHE SAID HE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO CALLS AND SENDING THEM LETTERS, AND SHE’S NOT COMFORTABLE TRANSITIONING INTO VISITS, EVEN SUPERVISED, UNTIL THE CHILDREN HAVE A RESUMPTION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR FATHER. IF YOU READ THE REPLY DECLARATION OF MS. SWITHIN AND LOOK AT THE EMAILS AND TEXTS THAT ARE BACK AND FORTH, I THINK MS. SWITHIN HAS MADE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL AND SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO CONNECT WITH HIM TO TRY AND PERSUADE HIM TO SEE THE KIDS, AND ON MANY OCCASIONS HE DOESN’T RESPOND IN AN APPROPRIATE FASHION AND CONTINUES TO BLAME HER AND MISCHARACTERIZES THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND DOESN’T TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY.

THE COURT: I GUESS THAT’S WHY I’M SORT OF WONDERING WHY WE ARE GOING TO FORCE THE KIDS INTO A RELATIONSHIP WITH A GUY WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED REPEATEDLY HE’S NOT CAPABLE OF PUTTING THE KIDS’ INTERESTS AHEAD OF HIS OWN. EVERYTHING IS ON HIS TIMETABLE. HE’S FLAT-OUT LIED TO THE COURT ABOUT VARIOUS FACTS. WE ALL REMEMBER THE HISTORY HERE. HE APPEARS TO BE A SOCIOPATH. WHY ARE WE FORCING THEM? CHILDREN WHO WET THEIR PANTS AT THE MERE DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SEEING MR. COLLINS, WHY ARE WE FORCING THEM TO DO THAT? IT IS PRETTY DRASTIC TO SAY MAYBE THE KIDS NEVER SEE THIS GUY AGAIN, BUT, YOU KNOW, HE’S THE PERSON WHO CHOSE TO BE GONE FOR THE LAST 16 MONTHS. MAYBE I SHOULD ASK MR. SLAROMON.

MR. SLAROMON: I JUST THINK IN EVERY FAMILY LAW SITUATION THERE ARE FATHERS AND MOTHERS THAT HAVE PROBLEMS MUCH WORSE THAN WHAT MR. COLLINS DOES, AND HIS HAVE BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS JUST A LOT OF, AS THE COURT POINTED OUT, ACTIONS THAT WERE UNACCEPTABLE. THAT’S WHY HE’S IN THE POSITION HE’S IN.

THE COURT: NOT REALLY. HE’S IN THE POSITION HE’S IN BECAUSE HE DID A LOT OF THINGS THAT ENDED UP WITH HIM BEING LIMITED TO SUPERVISED VISITS. BUT HE’S THE PERSON WHOSE CHOSE NOT TO SEE HIS KIDS FOR 16 MONTHS.

MR. SLAROMON: THAT’S WHY HE ASKED ME TO COME AND WHY WE FILED THE RESPONSE, BECAUSE HE JUST WANTED SOME OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO REUNIFY WITH THEM UNDER SOME STRUCTURE. AND I THINK TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL VISITATION ISN’T APPROPRIATE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A WAY WE CAN GRADUALLY GET BACK INTO THE KIDS’ LIVES. THAT’S OUR GOAL.

THE COURT: HOW DO YOU PROPOSE DOING THAT?

MR. SLAROMON: WELL, I THOUGHT THAT STARTING WITH SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SEEING HOW IT GOES WOULD BE A GOOD FIRST STEP, INTERTWINED WITH THE THERAPEUTIC APPROACH THAT MR. PETERSON WAS SAYING. I THINK MR. COLLINS DOES NEED TO ENGAGE SLOWLY AND SHOW GOOD CONDUCT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND MAYBE SET A REVIEW HEARING 7AND HAVE THEM HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE VISIT EVERY WEEK FOR AN HOUR, AND LET’S SEE HOW HE DOES. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE KIDS — ACCORDING TO MS. SMITH SHE SAID THAT THE KIDS SAID THAT THEY WANT TO SEE HIM AND THAT SHE THINKS IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THEM, SO MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE HER COME IN AND TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW –

THE COURT: WHAT’S THEIR OWN THERAPIST’S OPINION ABOUT THE KIDS SEEING HIM? THE KIDS SEE THEIR OWN THERAPIST, AND MS. SMITH IS THE SUPERVISION THERAPIST.

MS. SLAROMON: YES, SHE’S THE SUPERVISOR THERAPIST.

MR. PETERSON: SHE’S ONLY MET WITH THEM FOR ONE HOUR, AND THAT’S IN 16 MONTHS.

THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU THINK OUGHT TO HAPPEN?

MS. SWITHIN: THE PAST 15 MONTHS HAVE BEEN THE MOST PEACEFUL FOR MY CHILDREN. THEY HAVE RETURNED TO HAVING A CHILDHOOD WITH ZERO STRESS. THEY ARE 100 PERCENT THRIVING IN EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES. MR. COLLINS’S PHONE CALLS TO THEM INVOLVE INSTRUCTING ME THAT I NEED TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT CHILD SUPPORT AND HOW HE HAS PUT A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD – THE CALLS ARE INAPPROPRIATE. IN SOME OF HIS PHONE CALLS TO THEM, HE’S CLEARLY INTOXICATED, CALLING FROM BARS, AND THE GIRLS HAVE REFUSED TO TALK TO HIM SINCE APRIL BECAUSE OF HOW BIZARRE HIS PHONE CALLS ARE. THEY ARE IN CONTROL OF THEIR PHONE AT ALL TIMES. IN THE ONE SINGLE HOUR THAT HE HAS COME BACK INTO THEIR LIVES – HE HAS TURNED OUR WORLD UPDSIDE DOWN. MY OLDEST DAUGHTER, WHO HAS A NEAR PERFECT ATTENDANCE RECORD THROUGH FOURTH GRADE, HAS MISSED SCHOOL DUE TO ANXIETY SURROUNDING THE VISITS. MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER HAS NOW STARTED WETTING HER PANTS AGAIN AT 7 1/2 YEARS OLD AFTER NOT HAVING A SINGLE ACCIDENT FOR 15 MONTHS. DURING HIS ONE-HOUR VISIT HE BROUGHT IN A LAPTOP COMPUTER AND GRILLED THEM ON QUESTIONS THAT WERE INAPPROPRIATE. HE TOLD THEM THAT THE LACK OF VISITS WERE NOT HIS FAULT. MS. SMITH HAD TO STOP HIM AND TELL HIM THAT THE TOPIC WAS INAPPROPRIATE. THIS MAY BE HEARSAY, BUT MR. PETERSON CAN PROBABLY VERIFY IT. THIS HAS BEEN TRAUMATIZING FOR THEM. JUST ONE HOUR AND MY DAUGHTER’S NIGHTMARES HAVE RESTARTED. WE ARE BACK WHERE WE WERE 15 MONTHS AGO, AND I DON’T THINK HIS PRESENCE IN THEIR LIFE IS HELPING THEM AT ALL -OR IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. AND WITH THE RECENT POLICE REPORT THAT I INCLUDED IN MY DECLARATION- MR. COLLINS ATTACKED HIS FIFTH VICTIM AND THAT INCIDENT OCCURED DURING THE TIME OF THE 3111 EVALUATION WHEN MR. COLLINS WOULD SEEM TO BE ON HIS BEST BEHAVIOR. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT HIS TENDENCIES LEAN TOWARDS THAT OF A SOCIOPATH. HE TERRIFIES ME AND HE TERRIFIES THE CHILDREN. I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT COMPLETELY REMOVE HIS VISITS. I DON’T THINK VISITS ARE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

THE COURT: MR. PETERSON, ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. PETERSON: JUST — NO. I THINK TALK IS CHEAP, BUT I THINK CONDUCT SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS. MR. COLLINS’S CONDUCT DEMONSTRATES THAT IT IS ALL ABOUT HIM, AND HE DOESN’T APPRECIATE THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN, AND FOR HIM TO, I GUESS, REENTER THE CHILDREN’S LIVES IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE HAS CAUSES MORE DISRUPTION. CERTAINLY I ENCOURAGE AND ADVOCATE THAT CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS, BUT THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT BOTH PARENTS HAVE TO HAVE AN APPROPRIATE ROLE IN THE CHILDREN’S LIVES, AND STEPPING OUT FOR 16 MONTHS AND THEN REAPPEARING -AND I DO CORROBORATE THAT I SPOKE TO AMBER SMITH, AND HE STARTED OUT HIS VISIT BY ATTEMPTING TO SAY THAT NONE OF THIS WAS ALL HIS FAULT, AND IF IT’S NOT HIS FAULT, WHY HASN’T HE BEEN VISITING, AND I KNOW THAT’S NOT TRUE, FOR ONE, AND I THINK IT MISLEADS THE CHILDREN AND CAUSES THE CHILDREN MORE DISTRESS RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN. WHAT I TOLD THE COURT IS WHAT MS. GOLDEN RECOMMENDS, AND WHATEVER THE PARENTING PLAN OR PROPOSAL THE COURT PROPOSES OR ORDERS, I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE VERY SLOW, AND I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE AIMED AT PROTECTING THE CHILDREN FROM MR. COLLINS’S UNSTABLE BEHAVIOR. I GUESS I’M CONCERNED — ALSO I TRIED TO CALL (GAZELLE #3). HER PHONE NUMBER IS IN THE POLICE REPORT. I THINK IT IS OUT OF THE EAST COAST. I TRIED TO IDENTIFY MYSELF, AND I CALLED HER A COUPLE TIMES AND TRIED TO GET A CALL BACK SO I COULD CORROBORATE WHAT’S WRITTEN IN THE POLICE REPORT. I FIND ALARMING WHAT IS IN THAT POLICE REPORT. THERE’S BEEN SIMILAR BEHAVIOR WITH OTHER WOMEN THAT’S BEEN REPORTED THROUGHOUT THIS CASE OVER ABOUT FIVE YEARS, AND IT IS JUST ODD THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS WITH MR. COLLINS, AND I THINK HE HAS SOME SORT OF PROBLEM.

THE COURT: I DON’T THINK ITS ODD. I THINK YOU COULD GO WANDER AROUND TO ANY CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT IN THIS BUILDING AND SEE SIMILAR KINDS OF PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR.

MR. PETERSON: THE OTHER ISSUE IS HE’S WRITTEN TO THE MOTHER AND REALLY MINIMIZED HIS USE OF ALCOHOL, HE NEVER ABUSED ALCOHOL. EVERYTHING THAT HE SAYS HE MINIMIZES IT AND SAYS THAT HE NEVER USES ALCOHOL IN ANY DIFFERENT PATTERN THAN ANY PROFESSIONAL OR PARENT. I JUST DON’T THINK THE RECORD SUPPORTS THAT. I THINK WITH HIS CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST HIM AND HIS ALCOHOL-RELATED OFFENSES IT’S JUST ALL AROUND A BAD CIRCUMSTANCE.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO I’M GOING TO GIVE MR. SLAROMON THE LAST WORD, BUT BEFORE I GET TO HIM, THE DILEMMA FOR THE COURT IS ON THE ONE HAND THERE’S A POLICY THAT KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND THERE ARE CERTAIN PARENTS WHO DON’T BELONG AROUND THEIR CHILDREN. WHERE IS HE?

MR. PETERSON: WELL, I THINK THE COURT’S GOT TO BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS.

THE COURT: ACTUALLY, RATHER THAN PHRASING IT AS “WHERE IS HE,” WHERE DO THESE KIDS BELONG?

MR. PETERSON: I THINK THE COURT’S GOT TO BALANCE THE KIDS’ STABILITY AGAINST ANY FURTHER INSTABILITY OR HARM THAT THERE IS BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF CONTINUING WHAT’S CURRENTLY GOING ON. I MEAN, HAS HE INFLICTED PHYSICAL FORCE ON THE CHILDREN? NOT RECENTLY.

THE COURT: BUT THAT’S NOT THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL.

MR. PETERSON: I UNDERSTAND THAT. THESE CHILDREN ARE EXPERIENCING EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS A RESULT OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE MONTHS, AND I THINK THE COURT OUGHT TO RESTRICT HIS CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN UNTIL HE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE –

THE COURT: I GUESS THAT’S MY QUESTION BECAUSE TO DATE HE HAS CHECKED OUT. HE HAS REALLY PUT HIS KIDS IN A HORRIBLE POSITION. I THINK PROBABLY MR. SLAROMON MIGHT AGREE WITH THAT. THE QUESTION REALLY IS, WELL — AND BASED ON ALL OF THAT, I’M NOT CONVINCED HE SHOULD BE SEEING HIS KIDS EVEN ONE HOUR SUPERVISED AT THIS POINT. WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO DO TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE’S NOT A DANGER NOW TO HIS KIDS? AND NOW IT IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR HIM BECAUSE I’VE CONCLUDED HE’S A LIAR. I DON’T BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS. IT HAS GONE ON FOR YEARS. HE’S GOT THIS ISSUE WITH HIS VARIOUS GIRLFRIENDS, ALL OF WHOM SEEM TO END UP IN SOME SORT OF POLICE CONTACT. HE HAS FABRICATED CLAIMS ABOUT GETTING BEAT UP IN SAN FRANCISCO WHEN ACTUALLY HE PUT HIS CAR INTO A LIGHT POLE ON THE EMBARCADERO. WHAT COULD HE DO TO CONVINCE YOU OR CONVINCE ME HE IS NOT JUST A SOCIOPATH AND SHOULDN’T BE AROUND HIS KIDS? IS THERE ANYTHING HE COULD DO?

MR. PETERSON: NOT MUCH. THE ONLY SUGGESTION THAT I KNOW OF IS TO START OFF WITH A SERIES OF LETTERS AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE CONTACT WITH THEM THAT WAY, BUT MY THINKING IS IF THE COURT MAKES AN ORDER LIKE THAT, HE WON’T FOLLOW IT AND CHECK OUT. IT IS A VERY, VERY TOUGH ISSUE. I THINK HE’S RECEIVED PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES FROM THIS COURT, PROBABLY SIX OR SEVEN OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE A NORMAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILDREN, AND HE’S REJECTED THEM OR ACTED IN A FASHION THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH APPROPRIATE PARENTING DECISIONS.

MS. SWITHIN: IN REGARDS TO THE LETTERS, I WANT THE COURT TO KNOW THAT I WOULD ONLY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE GOING THROUGH THE CHILDREN’S THERAPIST BECAUSE HIS PHONE CALLS ARE COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE. MY HUSBAND CAN ATTEST TO THAT. HE’S IN THE COURTROOM NOW. HE HAS HEARD THEM ON SPEAKER PHONE. I DON’T TRUST ANYTHING THAT HE WOULD PUT IN WRITING WOULDN’T FURTHER DAMAGE THE GIRLS.

THE COURT: MR. SLAROMON?

MR. SLAROMON: I’M HEARING A LOT OF THE THINGS WE HAVE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE CASE, AND THE CONFLICT IS RESULTANT. MR. COLLINS SEEMS TO DO THE OBVIOUS THINGS WRONG, BUT I THINK A LOT OF THE EARLY CONFLICT COMES FROM THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MS. SWITHIN AND MR. COLLINS. I HAVE HEARD LOTS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT HER USING HER DIVORCE AS FODDER FOR HER PROFESSION AND A BOOK. NOW SHE’S WRITTEN A SECOND BOOK. SHE’S VERY INTO PUBLICIZING THIS.

THE COURT: I HAVEN’T READ HER BOOK. I KNOW SHE HAS ONE. I KNOW SHE HAS A BOOK. I DON’T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN READING IT, BUT MR. COLLINS PROVIDES A LOT OF MATERIAL.

MS. SLAROMON: I JUST THINK THAT IF WE CLOSE THE DOOR TO IT, THERE’S NO OPPORTUNITY. IF WE GIVE HIM SOME OPPORTUNITY BUT LETTER WRITING IS THE THING THAT YOU THINK IS THE BEST SOLUTION, I DON’T NECESSARILY THINK THAT’S THE BEST SOLUTION. I THINK HE NEEDS TO HAVE SOME CONTACT WITH THE THERAPIST THAT ALSO SEES THE KIDS, AND MAYBE HE COULD HAVE HIS OPEN SEPARATE THERAPY FOR X-AMOUNT OF SESSIONS, MAKE HIM DO SOME REAL ENGAGING THERAPY WITH THEIR THERAPIST FOR SOME WAY THAT SHE CAN MONITOR WHAT HE’S SAYING AND WHAT HE’S DOING, AND THEN COME BACK IN THREE MONTHS AND HAVE THE THERAPIST SAY “HE’S A SOCIOPATH” OR “HE’S NOT A SOCIOPATH, HE WANTS TO, HE CAN, I BELIEVE HE SHOULD.” HE HAS DEFINITELY CHOSEN OVER THE LAST 15 MONTHS TO OSTRICH IT, STICK HIS HEAD IN THE SAND AND NOT DO THE VISITATIONS BECAUSE HE WAS ORDERED SUPERVISED. I TOLD HIM MYSELF TO DO HIS VISITS, DO THEM FROM THE BEGINNING AND DO THEM GOOD, AND HE DIDN’T. I ASKED HIM TO DO THAT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COURT TRY TO FASHION A PLAN THAT CAN GIVE HIM A WINDOW, AN OPPORTUNITY THAT CAN EITHER CLOSE AGAIN AND FAIL OR SUCCEED, WHICH MIGHT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE KIDS IN THE FUTURE.

THE COURT: ALL VISITATION BETWEEN MR. COLLINS AND THE CHILDREN IS SUSPENDED. MR. COLLINS MAY COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHILDREN IN WRITING THROUGH MEGAN GOLDEN. ALL TELEPHONE CONTACT BETWEEN MR. COLLINS AND THE CHILDREN IS TERMINATED AT THIS TIME. IF MS. SWITHIN DOES RECEIVE ANY TELEPHONE CALLS TO THE CHILDREN DESPITE THIS ORDER, WHICH WOULDN’T SURPRISE ME, SHE CAN RECORD THEM. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ORDERS YOU THINK WE NEED?

MR. PETERSON: NO.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. PETERSON WILL PREPARE THE ORDER.

MR. SLAROMON: THANK YOU.

MS. SWITHIN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(AT 9:18 A.M. PROCEEDINING WERE CONCLUDED.) * * *

###

“Like” One Mom’s Battle on Facebook or “follow” on Twitter.

Seeking a Private Forum for advice, inspiration and support? Join Tina and the Lemonade Warriors in The Lemonade Club! For more information, please email Tina@onemomsbattle.com

Seeking a Divorce Coach for your high-conflict divorce and custody battle? Tina Swithin will help you to establish boundaries, navigate the system and regain your power. Contact Tina Swithin at Tina Swithin, LLC

Seeking insight, encouragement and advice while divorcing a narcissist? Tina Swithin’s books, “Divorcing a Narcissist: One Mom’s Battle” and her new book “Divorcing a Narcissist: Advice from the Battlefield” are available on Amazon or through Barnes & Noble. Learn how to set boundaries, navigate your way through the divorce and see the narcissist for who he/she really is. You will learn to forgive yourself and you will begin to heal.

Comments are closed.