Opinion
File No.: CN10-05305 Case Nos.: 19-24242 (RTSC)
08-30-2019
DE D , pro se Petitioner, v. DO D , pro se Respondent. IN THE INTEREST OF: D D (born 12/23/2006)
Date of Hearing: August 30, 2019 ORDER
Petitioner, D D ("Father"), filed Petition Rule to Show Cause on August 26, 2019 seeking a finding of contempt against Respondent, D D ("Mother") for unilaterally changing the school for their daughter, D D ("Child")(born / /2006). Father requests that Child be re-enrolled at Gunning Bedford Middle School until this matter is resolved.
Mother was served with the petition on August 27, 2019 along with a copy of the Order scheduling this matter for trial on August 30, 2019.
After a hearing on the issues, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mother violated the Court's order awarding the parties joint custody and shared placement. Consequently, Mother is in contempt and is ordered to reimburse Father the filing fees of $90 within ninety days of this Order.
Testimony of the Parties
Testimony of Father:
Father testified that Mother informed him in late June to early July that she was taking Child to see a new school. Father sent Mother a text that he was not in agreement and that they either had to agree or go to court. Father testified that he received no response from Mother but that Mother claims that she called him. Father did not hear again from Mother. Sometime between August 20-23, 2019, Child told Father that she would be attending a new school. Father sent a text message to Mother again stating his disagreement. On Sunday, August 25, 2019, Mother notified Father of a new bus schedule. Father filed the Petition Rule to Show Cause the next business day.
Father explained that Child attended Gunning Bedford Middle School for sixth grade. She attended St. Anthony of Padua School for fifth grade. She also attended Thurgood Marshall school for third and fourth grades. Father is concerned about this latest change as it will be the fourth school in as many years for Child.
Father testified that Child had struggles at the beginning of sixth grade, particularly in English, but that she finished much stronger in the fourth quarter. Child was promoted to the next grade level. Father noted that Child has Attention Deficit Disorder as does her brother. Father works with Child on her homework on his custodial days and found that she is able to perform well when redirected to her work.
Father is particularly concerned about the poor performance of the new school. Father relies on the information provided to him from other parents and a bus driver that the new school is underperforming. Father had no statistics to support his position.
Father lives in the Christina School District. He seeks to have Child return to Gunning Bedford in the Colonial School District. Alternatively, he would like Child to be placed in a school in his feeder pattern in the Christina School District
Testimony of Mother:
Mother testified that she is frustrated with Father's past inability to discuss matters calmly. She explained that in the past she has raised issues that Father refused to discuss.
Mother testified that class size at Gunning Bedford exceeds 30 students and that Child is not able to focus in that environment. She presented Child's report card for sixth grade showing that Child had a failing grade in English during the first two quarters of year. However, the report card showed that Child improved to a D in the third quarter and a C in the fourth quarter. Mother said that Child did not always turn in her homework but that was remedied.
Mother stated that she told Father about the interview with the new school, Gateway Lab School, and that Father agreed orally on the phone to her enrolling Child. However, Mother's call was to Father on the same day as the interview. Mother stated that the new school informed her that she only needed one parent's signature to enroll the child and she believes that she has a "contract" with the school for an entire year.
Upon questioning by the Court, Mother testified that she did due diligence on the new school by looking at the website. Mother was not aware of any of the statistics on the school's performance against the State's standards of performance for English and Mathematics.
Mother stated that she did not respond to Father's text message objecting to enrolling Child because he has already agreed orally and had a contract with the school. Mother testified that she understands that joint custody requires the parents to discuss and agree, where possible, about all of the important aspects of their children's lives which include education.
Mother identified three school meetings during sixth grade that she attended and gave advance notice to Father. She further stated that she did not provide any update to Father on the results of the meetings and has not discussed her concerns with Father.
Mother requested that the Court interview Child. The Court excused the parents and interviewed Child on the record. Child is excited about her new school. She states that she has a teacher and a helper in the classroom that has very few students. She looks forward to this year and enjoys writing. Child stated that she was bullied at Gunning Bedford and does not wish to return. She said that she has not told either of her parents about the bullying and had tears in her eyes when she explained it to the Court.
The Court summarized Child's testimony for the parents, neither of whom were aware of the bullying at Gunning Bedford.
Analysis
Mother's testimony was contradictory and not supported by her own evidence. Mother admits that she gave Father same-day notice of Child's interview. She further admitted that she did not respond to Father's text messages despite the fact that was clear that he was not in agreement with changing schools. Her claim that she checked the website for the new school was at best cursory as publicly available information discussed at the hearing indicated that the new school is significantly below the same information available for Gunning Bedford and far below the State's standards. This causes the Court to give very little weight to Mother's testimony.
Conversely, as evidenced by Mother's exhibits, Father provided written disagreement with the change in schools and reminded Mother that the parents had "to agree or go to court." Mother's decision not to respond but instead to allow Child to attend the school three weeks later is clear and convincing evidence of her intent.
Therefore, Mother is found in CONTEMPT OF COURT and is ordered to reimburse Father $90.00 for filing fees within ninety days of this Order. Father may reduce this obligation to a judgment if it is not paid within ninety days. Father's request to return Child to Gunning Bedford is not granted at this time. Mother was not permitted change Child's school without his approval but the disclosure of bullying, previously unknown to the parents, and her strong interest in attending the new school convinces the Court that she should have the chance to try to improve in this new environment that is smaller in size with additional assistance.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
A. Mother is in Contempt of Court for changing schools for the parties' daughter over the known objections of Father;
B. Mother shall reimburse Father $90.00 within ninety days of this Order. Father may reduce this obligation to a judgment if it is not paid within ninety days;
C. The parties shall discuss Child's performance in the new school during the fourth quarter of the school year and jointly decide on her education for eighth grade and high school. If the parties are not in agreement, Father shall file a petition in mid-May 2020 seeking a decision from the Court.
This is a final order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of August 2019.
/s/Michael W . Arrington
Honorable Michael W. Arrington
Judge Date of Written Order: August 30, 2019
Date E-Mailed to Parties: August 30, 2019