Opinion
File No.: CK12-01226 Petition No.: 15-11135
08-29-2016
Re: A------ Q. B----- v. T------ K. B------B-----
A------ Q. B----- SBI # -------- ----- ---- ------- Road S-----, DE ----- T------ K. B------B----- --- -------- Way C-----, DE
LETTER DECISION AND ORDER
Dear Mr. B----- and Ms. B------B-----:
On August 17, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on a Petition for Visitation filed by A------ Q. B----- ("Father") in the interests of A---- B----- ("A----"), born --- --, ----, R--- B----- ("R---"), born ------ --, ----, and A---- B----- ("A----"), born ----- --, ----. Present in Court were Father, representing himself, and T------ K. B------B----- ("Mother"), representing herself. Based upon the evidence presented, which consisted of the testimony of both parties, the Court enters the following decision on Father's Petition for Visitation.
Procedural History
The parties were married from 2003 until February 19, 2013, during which time all of the children were born. Mother was awarded sole legal custody and primary residency of the children after a hearing on December 17, 2013. Father was incarcerated at that time and remains incarcerated for fourth degree rape and unlawful sexual contact with a child, discussed further below. The Custody Order did not address visitation.
Father filed the instant Petition for Visitation on April 9, 2015, and Mother filed a response in opposition to Father's request on May 5, 2015. Father filed a Motion for Parent Education Requirement Waiver due to the unavailability of such programs at his correctional facility and attached a certificate demonstrating his completion of the Alternatives to Violence Project. Father's Motion was granted by the Court on November 17, 2015, and this visitation hearing was scheduled for August 17, 2016.
Factual Background
Father is fifty-four years old and has been incarcerated at ----- -. ------ Correctional Center for fourth degree rape of a victim under the age of sixteen and unlawful sexual contact with a child since July 17, 2013. Father indicated that he was originally sentenced to ten years but that it was reduced by one year immediately. He expects to be released in 2020 or 2021 at the latest; however, he believes he could be released sooner since his current program for sex offenders is eighteen months in duration. Prior to his incarceration, Father worked as a crane operator at the Port of Wilmington.
Father testified at the hearing that the offenses were committed in 2011 and that he was ultimately arrested on November 10, 2012. However, the Court has reviewed Father's DELJIS criminal record, which reflects his arrest date as July 17, 2013 for the offenses committed on December 10, 2011.
Mother is forty-two years old and resides at --- S------- Way in C-----, Delaware. The other residents of her home include A----, R---, A----, and Mother's twenty-year old biological daughter, M------ V----, who was Father's step-daughter and the victim of his rape. Mother has been employed as a certified nursing assistant at W---------- D---- Nursing Home for three years. She works night shifts from 11:00pm through 7:00am on a part-time basis since she plans to return to school. Mother has off every other weekend, every other Thursday, and every other Friday.
Father was residing with Mother and the children as a family at the time of his arrest and has not had any type of contact with the children since he became incarcerated. Father is now seeking visitation at his correctional facility at least once a month. Father would also like additional telephone contact with the children and the ability to write them letters. Mother is opposed to Father's request for any contact with the children in light of his incarceration and sex offender status, as well as the children's young age and unawareness of Father's current circumstances.
Mother clarified that she has since relocated to a different home with the children.
Legal Standard
The Court shall determine, whether the parents have joint legal custody of the child or one of them has sole legal custody of the child, with which parent the child shall primarily reside and a schedule of visitation with the other parent, consistent with the child's best interests and maturity, which is designed to permit and encourage the child to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with one parent would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development. The Court shall specifically state in any order denying or restricting a parent's access to a child the facts and conclusions in support of such a denial or restriction."
However, under 13 Del. C. § 728(d), before entering an order for visitation to be conducted in a correctional facility, the Court shall in addition to other relevant factors consider the following: (1) the parent seeking visitation in a correctional facility had a substantial and positive relationship with the child prior to incarceration; (2) the nature of the offense for which the parent seeking visitation is incarcerated; (3) whether the victim of the offense is the child, a sibling of the child, stepsibling, half sibling, parent, stepparent, grandparent, guardian or custodian of the child; and (4) whether the child seeks a relationship with the incarcerated parent.
Further, § 728(e) prohibits the Court from entering an order requiring visitation in a correctional facility if the person incarcerated is a sex offender unless the requirements of subchapter II of Chapter 7A of this title are met. Pursuant to § 724A(a), there is a rebuttable presumption that no sex offender shall have unsupervised visitation with a child unless and until the sex offender can successfully overcome the presumption with evidence to satisfy the factors set forth in § 724A(b). Should the Court grant custody, residential responsibilities, or visitation to a sex offender, the Court shall make specific written findings in support of its decision, including any limitations or requirements for further counseling, services, or other safeguards necessary to ensure the safety and best interests of the child continue to be served.
Under 13 Del. C. § 724A: (a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no sex offender shall be awarded sole or joint custody of any child, that no child shall primarily reside with a sex offender, and that no sex offender shall have unsupervised visitation with a child. (b) The above presumptions may be overcome if:
(1) There is not a criminal sentencing order prohibiting same; and
(2) There have been no further sexual offenses or criminal acts of violence; and
(3) The sex offender is in compliance with the terms of probation, if applicable; and
(4) The sex offender has successfully completed an intensive program of evaluation and counseling designed specifically for sex offenders and conducted by a public or private agency or a certified mental health professional, and as a result of such, does not pose a risk to children; and
(5) The sex offender has successfully completed a program of substance abuse counseling if the court determines such counseling is appropriate; and
(6) The best interests of the child would be served by giving residential or custodial responsibilities for the child or visitation with the child to the sex offender.
§ 722 Best Interest Factors
(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
Father would like to have at least one visit with the children per month at his correctional facility, plus additional contact in the form of telephone calls and written letters to them. Father does not believe the children know where he is and fears that they are under the impression he abandoned them; he would like the opportunity to explain his incarceration and assure them that he loves them. Father clarified that he would not discuss the details of his sexual offense with them at this time since they are too young, but he would explain that he is incarcerated because he "did something bad." According to Father, children are often brought to his incarceration facility to visit their inmate-parents.
Mother is opposed to any contact between Father and the children at this time. She would like to wait until Father is released from jail and has the opportunity to "get himself together" before re-implementing visitation. According to Mother, the children do not know about Father's incarceration and believe he is with his brother in Maryland. She does not want to confuse them or disrupt their emotional wellbeing by allowing them to visit Father's correctional facility. Mother told the Court that she could foresee a future time when visitation with R--- and A---- may be appropriate when they are older; however, she does not trust Father around A---- in light of his history, notwithstanding any counseling he may receive.
(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian(s) and residential arrangements;
A----, R---, and A---- are only ten, eight, and four years old, respectively, and the parties did not request that the Court conduct an interview to ascertain their preferences on visitation. Accordingly, this factor is not applicable to the Court's analysis.
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents , grandparents , siblings , persons cohabiting in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child , any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests ;
Father believes he was an excellent father and provider for the children up until the time he committed his offense. However, he acknowledged that the nature of his crime "wipes out everything good [he] ever did as a parent." He asserted that his relationship with A---- and R--- prior to his incarceration was "excellent" and that he was very involved in caring for A----, who was still a baby at the time of his arrest. Father indicated that he would work either the morning or afternoon shift and spend the other part of the day with the children. Father claims that he "did everything with [the children," including teaching them to ride bicycles, cooking for them, taking them to amusement parks, and playing their favorite songs for them on his band equipment.
Mother contends that Father's representation of his relationship with the children prior to his incarceration is inaccurate. She agreed that he would have fun with the children "every now and then, when he felt like it" but asserted that he typically refused to be involved in their care.
Father has not had any contact with the children since his arrest in 2013. He told the Court that he last spoke with A---- the night he was arrested to say goodbye and tell him that he loves him; however, the other children were sleeping when the police arrived. Father believes he can mend his relationship with the children if given the opportunity and that he would be a positive influence on them.
Mother represented that she and M------, who also resides in the home, both have good relationships with the children.
(4) The child's adjustment to his or her home , school and community;
A---- and R--- both attend ----- ----- Elementary School, where they are fifth and third grade students, respectively. A---- is four years old and will begin school next year. Mother provides for A----'s care every day and M------ cares for her at night while Mother is at work.
Mother told the Court that the children do not know about Father's incarceration. The children reportedly believe Father is with his brother in Maryland, and Mother has never corrected them. According to Mother, the children are not upset by Father's absence and never express an interest in seeing him. Mother fears that the children would be negatively impacted if they learned the truth and were forced to have contact with Father, especially at his correctional facility. She has discussed with A---- his feelings about individuals who are incarcerated, at which point he stated that it is "a very bad thing" and that he would "feel ashamed" if his family member was in jail. According to Mother, A---- can still recall a time when Father was pulled over for speeding while he was in the car, which had a lasting mental impact on him. Mother emphasized that she wants the children to develop good habits, and she fears Father would be a negative influence on them during this impressionable age.
Father had no independent knowledge about the children's adjustment to their home and/or school, but he believes they would "do better" if he were to have contact with them.
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
Father has no physical health issues and represented that his mental health is "a whole lot better than it was" before his arrest. He spent some time in the hospital in 2012 after attempting suicide on account of marital issues and remorse for his criminal offenses. He reported that he is currently involved in a group program for sex offenders at his correctional facility.
Mother represented that she is in good physical and mental health. According to Mother, the children also have no physical or mental health issues and are not involved in any counseling. Mother explained that they are very happy at this time and that beginning therapy would likely only cause them confusion. Mother believes the children's mental health would be negatively impacted if they were to have any contact with Father.
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under §701 of this title;
Father represented that he was a good father prior to his arrest and was a "family man." Although he believes Mother was also a good parent, he asserted that he was there for the children most of the time. He asserted that he would take them to their doctors' appointments and to the emergency room when they would have accidents, and he transported them to their schools and daycares. According to Father, the children's schools had his telephone number on file and would call him whenever there was a problem. He described one occasion when he drove an hour from work to A----'s school to pick him up after he urinated in his pants. Father told the Court that he made light of the situation and that A---- eventually opened up to him about the cause of the issue.
Mother does not believe Father's representations about his care for the children are accurate. According to Mother, Father would never agree to help with the children and was not active in their education. Mother explained that the parties originally agreed Father would work a split shift in the daytime in order to watch the children; however, they ultimately resorted to paying for babysitters and daycare after Father began complaining. Mother claims she constantly had to change her work shift and find other jobs to accommodate the children's schedules on her own and afford the household bills.
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title;
Mother testified that Father was abusive towards her during their marriage but that only one Order of Protection from Abuse ("PFA") was ever entered since she always "gave up." The Court notes that a Default PFA was entered against Father in favor of Mother on February 14, 2012. Mother described the incident which led to that PFA as follows. Mother had to take the children to register for school one day and was in a rush since Father refused to help her. Mother had picked up french fries for the children's lunch, and Father became enraged when he came in from washing his car and saw that she did not bring him lunch as well. Father slammed a plate against a wall in the children's presence, and Mother called the police. Father had already left the home when the police arrived. According to Mother, the police advised her to file a PFA petition or else the children would be taken away. Mother indicated that criminal charges were not filed against Father as a result of the incident in addition to the PFA.
Mother filed a Motion to Vacate the PFA Order shortly thereafter based upon her alleged desire to resume her marriage and residence with Father. However, Mother told the Court that she did so because Father had no place else to reside at the time. By consent of the parties, the Court modified the PFA on September 4, 2012 to prohibit Father from having unlawful contact with Mother.
Father could recall four occasions on which the police were involved in domestic disputes. According to Father, the incident described by Mother resulting in a PFA took place in 2011. He explained that he had driven an hour home from work just to have lunch with Mother but that she had gotten lunch for herself only. Father admitted he became angry and slammed the plate against the wall but claimed that the children were all at daycare at the time. Father had to return to work before the police arrived but told the Court that he spoke with an officer on the telephone and admitted his fault. Father maintains that this was the only incident where he became violent and that Mother was merely "looking for a way to get rid of [him]." He explained that the PFA was entered on default since he was hospitalized on the date of the hearing.
Father testified that, during the second incident, he was cooking oatmeal for the children when R--- accidentally dropped a spoonful of hot oatmeal on his leg. R--- began crying, and Mother accused Father of pouring oatmeal on him. According to Father, Mother called the police but the responding officer determined the incident to be an accident. R--- did not require any medical attention.
Father described the third incident of police involvement as follows. Mother reportedly became angry due to her inability to obtain car insurance through his plan and began ripping cords out of the television entertainment center. Father grabbed Mother to calm her down, but she proceeded to push him, scratch him, and tear his t-shirt. Father called the police but ultimately asked them not to arrest Mother.
Lastly, Father testified that he had switched cell phones with M------ on the date of the last incident in 2012 since her battery was dead and she wanted to ride her bicycle to the store. Mother reportedly called M------'s phone and "went off" when Father answered. Father left the home to take the children to the park, and Mother called the police. The police were present when Father returned home but reportedly left without any consequences.
Father denies that he was ever abusive towards Mother despite their marital issues, which began several years before his arrest. The only time the parties were physically separated prior to his incarceration was during the brief duration of the PFA Order in 2012. Father told the Court that Mother simply "went cold" one day but would only state that he complained too much.
(8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
Mother has no criminal history other than motor vehicle violations.
On the other hand, Father has a significant criminal history. As discussed throughout, Father pled guilty to four counts of fourth degree rape of a victim under the age of sixteen as well as unlawful sexual contact with a child on April 16, 2014. M------, who was fifteen years old at the time, was the victim of those crimes. Mother told the Court that she suspected Father had been sexually abusing M------ for some time but that it was "hard to find the evidence." At one point she caught Father naked on top of M------ in the parties' bedroom, and she eventually went to the police after M------ disclosed the details of the abuse to her in a letter.
Father had previously been convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse third degree and unlawful sexual contact second degree on July 2, 1991. Those crimes were perpetrated on Father's nieces, who were five and six years old at the time. Father advised that he was placed on probation and the sex offender registry as a result of those convictions. Father is presently registered as a "moderate risk" Tier II sex offender.
Additionally, the Court notes that Father was convicted of criminal impersonation in 1991 as well as criminal trespass and third degree burglary in 1980.
Father testified that he told Mother about his criminal history prior to their romantic involvement so that she could make an "informed decision" about whether to begin a relationship with him. However, according to Mother, Father maintained that the sexual allegations regarding his nieces were false and she decided to give him a second chance. Mother no longer believes Father is capable of changing his ways now that he has committed another sexual offense.
§ 728(d) Factors
Before entering an Order for visitation to be conducted in a correctional facility, the Court shall, in addition to other relevant factors, consider the following:
(1) The parent seeking visitation in a correctional facility had a substantial and positive relationship with the child prior to incarceration;
As indicated above, the evidence of Father's relationship with the children prior to his incarceration is conflicting. Father asserts that he had a positive relationship with the children and "did everything" with them, but Mother claims that he refused to assist with their care. Mother admitted that Father occasionally would have fun with the children "when he felt like it."
(2) The nature of the offense for which the parent seeking visitation is incarcerated;
Father is incarcerated for fourth degree rape of a victim under the age of sixteen and is a Tier 2 registered sex offender.
(3) Whether the victim of the offense is the child , a sibling of the child , stepsibling , half sibling , parent , stepparent , grandparent , guardian or custodian of the child; and
The victim of Father's sexual offense is Mother's biological daughter, M------, who was his step-daughter at the time and is the half-sibling of A----, R---, and A----. M------ is now twenty years old but was fifteen at the time Father committed the offense.
(4) Whether the child seeks a relationship with the incarcerated parent.
Neither party requested that the Court conduct an interview with the children to determine whether they seek a relationship with Father. However, Father believes the children would want to see him and resume their relationship. Conversely, Mother testified that the children do not ask where Father is and have never expressed an interest in seeing him.
§ 724A Presumption
In order to overcome the presumption against an award of unsupervised visitation to a convicted sex offender set forth in 13 Del. C. § 724A, Father must satisfy the following elements:
(1) There is not a criminal sentencing order prohibiting same;
Father testified that there is a no-contact order in place pursuant to his sentencing order which prohibits contact with the children unless allowed through Family Court. However, the Court has reviewed Father's criminal sentencing order and notes that Father is only prohibited from having contact with Mother and M------, except as permitted by Family Court Order. A----, R---, and/or A---- are not specifically mentioned in this order. Accordingly, there is no evidence of a current criminal sentencing order that would preclude Father's contact with them.
(2) There have been no further sexual offenses or criminal acts of violence;
Father is still incarcerated as a result of his conviction. There is no evidence to suggest that he has committed a further sexual offense or criminal act of violence since his sexual offense against M------. However, Father admitted that M------'s rape was not his first sexual offense. Father was convicted of unlawful intercourse third degree and unlawful sexual contact second degree in 1991, which were perpetrated on his five and six year old nieces. Father was placed on probation and the sex offender registry as a result of his conviction and was still on the registry when he committed fourth degree rape of M------.
(3) The sex offender is in compliance with the terms of probation , if applicable;
Father is not currently on probation but received a sentence of incarceration as a result of his fourth degree rape conviction. Father is still incarcerated and expects to be released in 2020 or 2021 at the latest. However, he believes he may be released sooner after he completes his eighteen month sex offender program.
(4) The sex offender has successfully completed an intensive program of evaluation and counseling designed specifically for sex offenders and conducted by a public or private agency or a certified mental health professional , and as a result of such , does not pose a risk to children;
Father is currently participating voluntarily in a Life Skills group program for sexual offenders through his correctional facility but has not yet completed the program, which reportedly lasts eighteen months. Father testified that he also took two classes prior to this program, including Thresholds Thinking for a Change ("Thresholds") and the Alternatives to Violence Project. However, there is no evidence that these programs are specifically designed for sex offenders.
(5) The sex offender has successfully completed a program of substance abuse counseling if the court determines such counseling is appropriate; and
To the Court's knowledge, Father has not been required to complete a program of substance abuse counseling.
(6) The best interests of the child would be served by giving residential or custodial responsibilities for the child or visitation with the child to the sex offender.
As discussed in its § 722 analysis below, the Court does not find it to be in the children's best interest to grant Father visitation with them at this time.
Conclusion
First, based on the evidence presented under § 722, the Court finds that it is in the children's best interests to DENY Father's request for visitation at this time. Factors (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of the best interest analysis support this determination, factor (1) is neutral, and factor (2) is inapplicable to the Court's decision.
In regards to visitation, the parties are opposed in their positions under factor (1). Father would like at least one monthly visit with the children as well as additional telephone contact and letter correspondence. However, Mother is opposed to any contact at this time so as not to confuse or upset the children about Father's incarceration. Accordingly, factor (1) is neutral.
The Court did not conduct an interview with the children to ascertain their preferences regarding visitation with Father. Regardless, the Court likely would not place great weight on their expressed desires in light of their ages. Thus, factor (2) is not applicable to the Court's analysis.
Under factor (3), the evidence presented about Father's relationship with the children prior to his incarceration is conflicting. Father maintains that he was a good father who was very involved and "did everything" with the children, while Mother asserts that Father refused to participate in their care. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that Father has not seen or spoken to the children since he was arrested in July 2013. The Court notes that Mother and the children's half-sister, M------, both have positive relationships with them and interact with them daily. For those reasons, the Court finds that factor (3) supports Mother's position with respect to the children's best interests for visitation with Father.
The children appear to be well-adjusted to their home, schools, and daycare under factor (4). They are still young and are reportedly unaware of Father's incarceration or the details of his offense. According to Mother, the children do not question Father's absence or ask to have contact with him. The Court credits Mother's concern that implementing contact with him, especially at his correctional facility, would be disruptive to their wellbeing at this age and would significantly impair their emotional development. Accordingly, the Court finds that factor (4) also disfavors Father's request for visitation at this time.
The evidence under factor (5) suggests that the children are in good physical and mental health. They are happy at this time, and as indicated above, learning of Father's incarceration and having contact with him in such a setting would likely have a negative impact on their mental health. The Court further notes that Mother is in good physical and mental health. Although Father is reportedly "doing better" mentally, he was admittedly hospitalized in the past after attempting suicide and has not yet completed his sex offender program. Thus, the Court finds that factor (5) also supports its decision to deny Father's request for visitation.
As indicated above, the evidence of Father's compliance with his parental obligations under factor (6) prior to his incarceration is conflicting. Father claims he was there for the children "most of the time" and would take them to school and doctors' appointments. Conversely, Mother asserts that Father refused to be involved, causing her to hire babysitters and alter her work schedule to accommodate the children's needs on her own. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that Father has been incarcerated since 2013 and has not been involved in the children's life or had any contact with them since that time. For that reason, the Court finds that factor (6) also weighs against his request for visitation.
Under factor (7), the parties dispute the severity of the incidents of domestic violence that occurred during their marriage. The Court received testimony in regards to four separate incidents involving police, one of which resulted in a PFA Order granted in Mother's favor in February 2012. The parties both indicated that Father slammed a plate against a wall during this incident, but they offered conflicting accounts of whether the children were present at the time. Father claims this was the only occasion on which he became violent and that Mother was the one who acted in a physically abusive manner during the second incident. Mother did not testify about the other three incidents but told the Court that Father has a history of abusive behavior. In light of the fact that a PFA Order was entered in Mother's favor against Father, the evidence under this factor supports Mother's position in the best interest analysis.
The Court places significant weight on Father's criminal history under factor (8). In addition to other offenses, Father was most notably found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and unlawful sexual contact of his five and six year old nieces in 1991. He committed subsequent sexual offenses against a child in 2011, for which he was convicted of fourth degree rape and unlawful sexual contact second degree in April 2014. The ages of the victims in those cases and their relationship to Father are of particular concern to the Court in its decision on whether to allow Father contact with A----, R---, and A---- at this time. The Court also notes that Mother's criminal record contains only motor vehicle offenses. Thus, the Court finds that factor (8) supports its conclusion that it is in the children's best interest not to have any contact with Father at this time.
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that it is in the children's best interests to deny Father's Petition for Visitation. Factors (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of the § 722 analysis support the Court's conclusion, factor (1) is neutral, and factor (2) is inapplicable to the Court's analysis.
Additionally, under § 728(d), the Court finds that factors (2) and (3) strongly support its decision to deny Father's request for visitation. The Court takes grave concern with the nature of Father's offense under factor (2), which is fourth degree rape and unlawful sexual contact of a child. Factor (3) is also very concerning since the victim of Father's offense is his step-daughter, M------, who is also the children's half sibling and continues to reside with them.
As noted, the evidence regarding Father's relationship with the children prior to his incarceration under factor (1) and the children's desire to have a relationship with him under factor (4) is conflicting. Father claims that he was a great parent to the children and that the children would want to resume their relationship with him. Conversely, Mother contends that Father refused to participate in the children's care before he became incarcerated and that they do not ask about him or express a desire to see him.
Notwithstanding the inconsistent evidence under factors (1) and (4), the Court places greater weight on factors (2) and (3), which raise sufficient concern to support its decision to deny Father's request for visitation at his correctional facility.
Lastly, the Court finds that Father failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption against unsupervised contact with the children in accordance with § 724A. There is no evidence that Father's criminal sentencing order prohibits him from having contact with the children under factor (1) or that he committed a subsequent offense of a sexual or violent nature under factor (2). Nonetheless, Father has failed to satisfy factors (4) and (6). He has not yet completed a program designed for sex offenders as required by factor (4), and thus the Court cannot find that he no longer poses a risk to children as a result. Under factor (6), the Court has already determined as a result of its § 722 analysis that it is not in the children's best interests to have contact with Father at this time. Factors (3) and (5) of § 724A are inapplicable. Since Father is an incarcerated sex offender and is unable to meet the requirements of § 724A, the Court is prohibited from entering an order of visitation in his correctional facility under § 728(e).
For the all of the reasons outlined above, the Court DENIES Father's Petition for Visitation at this time. However, the Court does not discount the possibility of future contact between Father and the children upon his release from incarceration, at which point the children will be older and more capable of understanding the circumstances. At that time, it is the Court's hope that Father will have successfully completed a rehabilitation program designed for sex offenders such that the Court could confidently find Father no longer poses a risk of harm to the children and their emotional development.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2016 that Father's Petition for Visitation is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/
MICHAEL K. NEWELL, Chief Judge MKN/amp
Date mailed: 8/29/16