Won't be up long.

If you recall, BM (who has schizophrenia among other things) has been ordered to supervised visitation. The supervisor is GBM. In November, during a visit, GBM went in sat in the car in a parking lot/garage area and let BM take the kids shopping at a strip mall. OSDstb14 got very upset, told BM and GBM she wasn't comfortable being alone with BM without GBM and they both ignored it. It was also during a phase where BM was not seeing her therapists and was exhibiting manic tendencies (paranoia, non-stop and unintelligible communication to DH, etc.) 

The DH told BM they needed to move to professional supervision since GBM wasn't supervising and stated he nor the girls (which was true at the time) were comfortable with GBM as supervisor. BM took DH to court, there was a temporary judge that day, and he ruled in favor of BM stating that DH violated the CO when he wouldn't agree to GBM being the supervisor and sent the case back to FCS for review. BM then filed for DH to pay her attorney's fees because "DH was the reason she had them in the first place." In the meantime, GBM resumed the role of supervisor, BM "apologized for not taking her medication but now that she has better insurance promises she will take it now" and the skids think BM is totally fine and BM is basically mother of the year.

Got the report back today from the Family Court social worker.

Ouch. 

Highlights: the social worker acknowledges that "based on mother's repeated history of frequent psychotic relapses, there is reason father would be concerned over grandmother's supposed failure to supervise but as grandmother reports she was in eye site and earshot of the store in which BM and the children were shopping" -- side note, GBM wasn't -- "grandmother was still able to perform her supervising duties". Goes on to say that "mother has received glowing approval from her mental health professionals and it appears father is threatened by mother's progress". About the issue with the last reunification therapist, which DH fired after 5 months with no progress between BM and skids (he got another one right away and they are already scheduled for their first joint therapy session), the social worker writes "Although father has sole physical and legal custody and the court order dated XYZ stated that father had final approval of the reunification therapist, it is this writer's opinion that father should not have terminated the therapist and may have done so to control and punish mother. Current reunification therapist is XYZ. Both parties must agree to termination of services with current reunification therapist moving forward".

Report recommends the court adopts the following:

• Mother's visits shall remained supervised as mother and children report they are not ready for unsupervised visits.  (BM did actually state she's not ready for unsupervised visits or overnights. Both kids told us that they told the social worker they wanted more time with BM but not unsupervised.)
• Hours of mother's supervised visitation to be increased from 4 hours to 8 hours. (BM requested this. DH agreed to this during the interview, in front of both BM and the social worker so this isn't an issue.)
• Mother is permitted to call and text children directly. Calls no longer need to be made through father's phone or put on speakerphone or at certain time of day. (BM requested this.)
• Mother shall receive all holidays (lists major holidays) in even number years. (Not sure where this came from as NO ONE mentioned holidays AT ALL. But apparently the social worker wants BM to get all the holidays starting immediately.)
• Father should begin individual therapy. (BM requested this specifically. DH stated in the interview that he began therapy immediately after this happened and actually even before BM did, but apparently the social worker "forgot".)
• Father should consider joining mental health support groups to understand mother's condition. (BM also requested this AND co-therapy for both her and DH together -- but she didn't get the co-therapy. Even this is worked as a "should consider" so is not exactly a requirement. Additionally DH stated in the interview that he'd already attended months of these kinds of meetings and was very familiar with her diagnosis as four of BM's 8+ psychotic episodes happened when they were married.) 

There are a couple other recommendations that are completely non-nonsensical (to both BM and DH) but they are highly specific and I don't want to get into them until it's actually relevant  (i.e. BM refuses to follow them) so I guess I'll be posting about those soon enough! Haha.

There's more stuff from the interview that is summarized, but none of it is good for DH. He's big and mean and doesn't want BM to see her children (despite the fact that he agreed to extended visitation in the actual interview without any issue???) and BM is basically completely better (despite the fact that she herself states she's not ready for unsupervised visits???) and basically everything that happened has been DH's fault but it's kinda-sorta reasonable that he did these things but also he did them to hurt BM. 

Nothing DH brought up in the interview was addressed: the fact that BM stopped seeing her mental health professionals during the months leading up to the visit where GBM sat in the car, the fact that BM was acting manic and paranoid in the weeks leading up to that, the fact that GBM tells the skids that the current situation is all DH's fault because "he doesn't give BM enough money to buy her medication", none of it.

According the DH, the social worker was very responsive and even fair during the interview. He got his hand slapped for some things, BM got her hand slapped for some things. At one point in the interview, DH said the social worker told BM that "most cases are textbook examples of parents trying to hurt one another and be petty, but it honestly sounds like that is not the case here and instead DH is hyper vigilant because of BM's past episodes". But not a word of that is in the report, and in the fact the opposite is suggested in multiple places. I guess there is a tiny little tidbit where the social worker addresses the fact that GBM "should have deferred to the children's emotional well-being when OSD expressed fear and discomfort at being left alone with her mother" but there is nothing more than that that could really be considered negative towards BM. 

Attorney has advised that, based on the previous court date and this report, it is likely DH will have to pay at least some of BM's legal fees, possibly all. We can try negotiating now, or we can take it to court and end up with one of four scenarios: pay none, some, all, or all with sanctions (which was the recommendation of the visiting judge and could likely be supported by the report, since it alleges that DH may have tried to stop GBM from being the supervisor just to punish BM).