The message below references a restraining order against the mother from the fathers "friend" at the time now wife. It can be found in Nashua District Court and was unfounded - because the mother brought in her wittnesses including her employers to verify she was working on all the site dates she supposedly drove by her house. Moreover, several other wittnesses testified to where she was and it was thrown out. Coincidentally Lori Wilson Ayotte McIntosh also filed a restraining order against her x-husband who then had to go to anger managment classes for something when you look at her disclosure makes no sense on how it could have happened.
---- Forwarded Message -----
From: "William McIntosh"
To: d-mvc@comcast.net, "Howard A. Roever"
Cc: COUNSELOR
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 7:16:21 PM
Subject: RE: response to your Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:15:57 AM
Denise:
"It should be noted that your client had the ability to choose someone "local", and for reasons unknown did not, furthermore the visitation center is not on the table." Denise, the court order gave me thirty days and wanted me to start with the list you provided. I contacted everyone on your list and nobody local would take the case in the time frame allotted. As you have noted we started later than the thirty days (not 67 days by the way) he is correct was 68+. I did not have the name of your insurance provider to look for anyone beyond the list you provided the court as your insurance is paying for your visits. However, at the same hearing I gave him our childs insurance card. But I guess one would assume mine would be different.Let me refresh your memory that you did have a restraining order against you from Lori and she chose not to continue it for longer. mentioned above and Lori Wilson Ayotte McIntosh currently at Nashua North HS in special education never showed up for the hearing with our wittnesses - ;-) Perhaps in hindsight, that was a mistake. However, moving forward with the tortured history of the case I do not think it is necessary for us to review it all. The final court order from district court as well a superior court both have referred to this case as long and tortured so review your court orders for clarification. Yes because some guy named Clemmins from a fathers right group told him to take me to court continously - if you look at McIntosh and McIntosh Nashua Superior Court you see he is the Petitioner taking the mother back to court.
There have been three incidents where you have seen myself and/or Lori at the end of the visits. Once when I was there and (xxxx therpist on list with other providers and insurance) took her next client and left us both to leave, once with Lori when Child had to use the bathroom in the waiting room and you waited to use the rest room, and at the last visit when you left right after Child and started a conversation with Lori in the waiting room. You started to leave with Lori and xxxxx when Lori said for you to go ahead that her and xxxxx will would wait for you to leave. You then said for them to leave that you were going to use the rest room.
therpist, on all three of these occasions you took another client into your office and closed the door. I met with you twice before this process began and we were very clear that this was a scenario that we had great concern about. You strongly reassured us that you understood our concern and would put everyone's safety at the forefront. We are very discouraged that this is not the case.
therpist, of even greater concern is at the last visit you instructed Child to go in and say hello to his mother while you stood in the doorway closed the door and expressed concern to Lori for her late arrival and need to know if Bill could accept the next appointment. The entire time Denise and Child were unsupervised. I do not think you understand that your role is to supervise visits not to provide a therapy session for Child and his mother. The Nashua district court judge expressed grave concern t hat Denise not have unfettered access to the child. I have tried to explain the situation to you , have asked you to contact child's counselor and school. I do not feel you have an appropriate handle on this case.
I understand you and Denise feel that visits have gone well. I think that you have provided a visitation setting but without the security we had hoped for.
xxxxx has reported several things in the session that he has not felt comfortable with. The most recent being you and his mother asking him where he would prefer visits, with you or at the visitation center. When he stated the visitation center (which is where he has always told his therapist that is where he wants to see his mom)You then asked him why he wanted to go here. He stated that he felt as though you were mad that he told you that he would like visits to occur. According to Alexis' last e-mail the last visit Child went to was going to be a transition visit. Instead xxxxx was interrogated as to where he wants the visits to occur. This questioning was all done with his mother present in the room. This is in contrast to what you assured us and in contrast to what the district judge who stated when he said mom should not have unfettered access to Simon. Here we are in superior court with an order for theraputic visits - which the marital master Alice Spelas Love changed to suit the fathers request and not hold him in contempt. The conversation with the Child was because the child told the therpist daddy is ending visits - we asked why he said the father wanted to go to the visitation center - then he was asked what he preferred.
At our initial intake meeting Child asked you to keep mom busy, not be left alone, and no whispering. You assured us you would do this. We spoke to you twice on this issue. You assure me that you would put Simon's safety first. I don't feel that you are honestly doing that at this time, I do not feel comfortable with you supervising these visits in this manner.
So, I think until we have a court date I should look for another therapist in the Nashua area that will provide a setting in which all of the parties can feel comfortable. Denise, the same problem arises as when we searched for a therapist the first time, we need the name of your insurance to confirm that any therapist we contact will take your insurance.
Bill
________________________________
From: d-mvc@comcast.net [d-mvc@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:05 PM
To: Howard A. Roever
Cc: Alexis Wallce, M.Ed., C.A.G.S.; William McIntosh
Subject: Re: response to your Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:15:57 AM
Dear Attorney Roever,
Thank you for taking the time to get back to me.
It should be noted that your client had the ability to choose someone "local", and for reasons unknown did not, furthermore the visitation center is not on the table.
Please elaborate on the torture history where, whose security maybe a concern? There are no restraining orders or incidents that require one, nor has there ever been one on your clients behalf. To-date there has been one incident where the Respondent inadvertently saw your clients wife and engaged in mimal conversation including wishing her a Merry Christmas in the presence of xxxxx, the child (so that he would feel comfortable). The Respondent let them leave and left 10 minutes after them (documented), the Respondent has never seen your client or his wife going in or in the waiting area as the Respondent arrives early, nor have the parties ever left the building or parking area at the same time.
With that in mind, thank you for bringing your clients real issue to the forefront. In keeping visits consistent for the benefit and best interest of the child xxxxx, of course the Respondent would be happy to oblige in the following manner: On 1/8/08 xxxxx will leave at 6:20 the Respondent will stay behind until 6:30 with therpist for parenting feedback, your client can make an appointment for himself under his own coverage and time frame.
The Respondent would like to propose that at future visits (until a court date is set), the following, if the therpist and your client are willing to book two hour appointments (incidentally as court ordered but not happening for a 20 minute drive) in the future, the Respondent would be happy to arrive on time with the child/xxxxx arriving 10 minutes after the booking time, and then leaving 10 minutes early. Moreover, the Respondent will pay any associated costs with the longer time frame booked.
This counter-offer should appease your clients concerns, while allowing mother and child their current standing visitation times. At all times it would be appreciated if your client could arrive on time.
Looking forward to your reply and best wishes to all for the New Year.
--
Sincerely,
Denise-Marie McIntosh
This has been going on for 8 - 9 years
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/2010/11/it-started-after-wedding-now-he.html
No comments:
Post a Comment