Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy

Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy: Violation of Visitation Order Does Not Excuse Nonpayment of Support.

In the case of In re Marriage of Popa and Garcia, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Sixth Division, ruled that a custodial parent's violation of the terms of a custody and visitation order does not excuse the non-custodial parent from paying child support.  But, active and extreme interference with the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children by the custodial parent may establish a substantial change in circumstance that warrants modification of the noncustodial parent's child support obligation. 

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Custody and Visitation and Child Support Lawyer.  For help with your questions about child support or custody and visitation, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.  

Charlottesville Custody and Visitation Lawyer Rob Hagy: Father Properly Awarded Sole Legal Custody and Mother's Visitation Properly Made Supervised.

In the case of Bernard v. Bernard, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court properly awarded sole legal custody of parties’ children to father and ordered that mom’s visitation with the children be supervised.  This was a modification proceeding.  In the prior order the trial court recalled mother’s prior diagnosis of “Delusional Disorder, Jealous Type” and the court still perceived “questionable behavior” on mother’s part. The trial court concluded mother “has ways to go in her treatment.” As a result, the trial court ordered mother to continue counseling and to follow all treatment recommendations. The children were ordered to continue counseling. The parents were ordered to participate in co-parent counseling. It was further ordered that neither parent disparage the other in the children’s presence, “nor discuss disputed issues with the children, nor discuss the divorce litigation.” Mother was also ordered not to discuss with the children her perceived fear of the father.  

Based on a complaint made to CPS that the children were underweight and malnourished, mother filed a motion for a change of custody and to award mother full custody of the children. The children’s guardian ad litem moved the trial court to modify the prior order to award sole legal custody to father and to suspend or restrict mother’s visitation. 

The court found that the children were not malnourished; the mother’s thinking and conduct towards father and the children was not normal; and mother suffers from “some mental abnormalities . . . .” Mother’s “continued agenda of sabotage” has thwarted father’s role as primary custodian of the children. The trial court accepted the testimony of the parties adult daugther that mother continues to degrade father to the children, telling them one child is malnourished, that father has denied them food, that father had beaten mother, that father used child pornography, such that the daughters should keep their bedroom doors shut when father is present, and that father had “paid off” people to win custody.

The court further found the children are rude and disrespectful to father when they return from visitation with mother and that both girls expressed a desire to live with mother. Further, the court opined “the court is convinced that unless [mother] is stopped the girls will eventually be harmed emotionally.” The court concluded that mother has not changed her conduct. While she has participated in therapy, “she has not been able to internalize what she has learned in these sessions.” The court concluded that the girls be “isolated from [mother’s] vitriol against [father].” 

From this record, the Virginia Court of Appeals found ample evidence to support that mother suffered from a mental illness that was harmful to her children, she sabotaged father’s parenting, the children’s preference to reside with her was not in their best interests, mother’s behavior will eventually be emotionally harmful to the children, and the trial court properly granted sole custody to father with supervised visitation to mother. 

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Custody and Visitation Lawyer.  For help with your children's custody and visitation needs, please contact me at rob@robhagylaw.com or (434)293-4562.

Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer Rob Hagy: Husband Improperly Converts HELOC and Joint Savings Account.

In the case of Pliuskaitis v. Pliuskaitis, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court properly determined that husband converted joint funds totaling $48,149.29 from a home equity line of credit and $3,000.00 from a joint savings account to personal use and not for a proper purpose.  While husband testified about how the funds were used and testified the funds were used for a proper purpose, he presented no documentation for these expenditures.  In addition, the husband's unauthorized investment of marital funds in a business venture did not constitute a proper purpose any more than his unauthorized use of such marital funds to gamble at a casino to increase the family bank account would constitute a proper purpose.

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce Lawyer.  For help with your property distribution questions, please email me at rob@robhagylaw.com or call me at (434)293-4562.

Charlottesville Custody and Visitation Lawyer Rob Hagy: Mother's Motion To Terminate Therapy Properly Denied.

In the case of Tartaglino v. Tartaglino, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court did not err in denying mother’s request to terminate her children’s therapy.  Father and mother divorced on December 22, 2011. They have two children. During the parties’ separation, father requested that the children receive therapy because of problems between him and the oldest child. The final decree of divorce awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with mother having primary physical custody. Paragraph 11 of the final decree stated: The children shall continue in therapy with Dr. Van Syckle until Mother and Father agree that therapy is no longer reasonable or necessary, Mother and Father agree to select a new therapist for either child, or Dr. Van Syckle elects to discontinue therapy with either child. The parties shall pay for Dr. Van Syckle’s services, or the services of another therapist, per income share as used to calculate child support. Dr. Van Syckle provided therapy for the children. On July 3, 2012, mother asked Dr. Van Syckle to conclude the children’s therapy. Dr. Van Syckle declined and informed mother that therapy would continue on an as-needed basis. On July 19, 2012, Dr. Van Syckle met with father and the children. He informed them that there was no need to return, except on an as-needed basis. Dr. Van Syckle also met with mother and father and informed them that therapy would be provided on an as-needed basis.  On October 4, 2012, mother filed a motion to modify the final decree and asked the trial court to enter an order terminating the requirement that the children remain in therapy with Dr. Van Syckle because the therapy was no longer reasonable or necessary. On February 22, 2013, the parties appeared before the trial court on mother’s motion to terminate the children’s therapy. Dr. Van Syckle testified that the children’s relationship with their father had improved and that therapy had been “very successful.” Dr. Van Syckle confirmed that he had not terminated the children’s therapy, although he had not seen them for several months. He explained that he thought it was in the best interests of the oldest child for him to remain involved on an as-needed basis. Mother testified about the children and their “warm and loving relationship” with their father. After hearing the testimony and argument, the trial court noted that Dr. Van Syckle thought the therapy should continue and father did not agree to terminate therapy.

Mother argues that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to modify the therapy provisions in the final decree of divorce. She contends that the therapist had not seen the children for months and therapy was no longer necessary. The trial court heard evidence about the children’s progress in therapy. Mother testified that she thought therapy should terminate, whereas Dr. Van Syckle testified that the children should not discontinue therapy. Dr. Van Syckle specifically stated that it was in the oldest child’s best interests to continue therapy on an as-needed basis. The final decree stated that therapy with Dr. Van Syckle would continue for the children until mother and father agreed that it should be terminated, mother and father obtained a new therapist, or Dr. Van Syckle terminated therapy with either child. The trial court noted that the parents did not agree on whether the therapy should be terminated and “Dr. Van Syckle thinks that for the future, the short-term future or whatever, that this therapy needs to continue.” Accordingly, the trial court explained that “the order speaks for itself” and denied mother’s motion.

Here, the trial court held that the language in the final decree prevented termination of the children’s therapy unless the parties agree or Dr. Van Syckle agrees. None of the conditions for termination had been met. The trial court did not err in denying her motion. 

-Rob Hagy, Charlottesville Divorce and Custody and Visitation Lawyer.  For help with issues like this or with other custody and visitation issues, please contact me at (434)293-4562 or email me at rob@robhagylaw.com.