Ex-Wife Blocks Dad’s Visitation — Judge Shuts Her Down in Court

追加: 2026-05-10

[00:00:00]That's fine with the judge. We'll >> Okay.

[00:00:03]All right. Miss Ratmaker.

[00:00:05]>> Thank you, your honor. Uh your honor, the the motion is quite simple, I believe. Um this court um we had a hearing on August 21 regarding child support. Um and the court actually encouraged the attorneys uh to talk over this 415 order. As I came in on this case, I was reviewing it and it was very clear to me in black and white. The uh April 15th order says that a front of the court recommendation regarding the parenting time is adopted as to all parenting time. To me, all means the entire recommendation. Then the matter was further scheduled for review to show housing stability. So they were following up with the uh after the adoption of this front of the court recommendation. Once my client did have uh his home that he lives in now, that lease was provided to the court. In fact, even on that day and we have not been able to move that uh forward. So, I have now had to file this motion. So, I'm asking the court to enforce the April 15th order. Uh it is very clear as it's written. uh and we need to go into that next phase as my client has proven and they've admitted that he now has appropriate housing. Thank you.

[00:01:23]>> Right. Thank you, Mr. Vikin.

[00:01:25]>> Thank you, honor. The order was clear.

[00:01:27]It was the court to review the parenting time in 6 months. Uh not me, not Miss Bradaker, the court. And I believe that was the discussion at the August 21 child support hearing as well. That's why the court has set the matter for an evidentary hearing in November. Um for with that, your honor, we don't we are not we are not against implementing the front of the court recommendation, but there seems to be some dismissal about what that parenting time looks like.

[00:01:57]It's not week on week off. It's simply Wednesday evenings and every other weekend. Amy, Miss Bradmaker made that allegation in her response to my motion for uh custody and parenting time. We still have hesitation with the things that Mr. um Griffin is saying to these minor children. Um which is part of my motion to change legal and physical custody and kind of withhold some of that parenting time back until he can get the ability to communicate. That was another part of the order was that it was the ability of the parties to communicate. that's what the referee or referee or this court was going to review at that time with the things that I placed in my um motion for legal and physical custody and parenting time modification. You can see that that communication has not improved at all.

[00:02:42]So I believe this leaves it up for the court to have that evidentary hearing to see if that appropriate reinstatement of parenting time is appropriate. Thank you, >> Miss Rmaker.

[00:02:55]>> Thank you. Uh, I heard a a circular argument there. The bottom line is is that the 415 order needs to be implemented. If they wanted to modify that, they could have filed a different motion. Now that we've se sought to enforce it, they filed this change of custody thing, which you'll rule on that next. Um, but the bottom line is the review hearing is to review how things have been going. And so we can't I agree with with Span Dyken that the attorneys can't >> All right, guys. Let's break this down.

[00:03:30]This starts as a straightforward enforcement motion, but it's really a battle over control. One side argues the prior order is crystal clear and should already be in effect. The other side doesn't oppose it outright, but tries to slow things down by reframing it as something the court still needs to review. It's compliance versus delay dressed up as legal nuance.

[00:03:53]>> Unilaterally uh make those decisions.

[00:03:56]The court can. That's what the review hearings for. We need to implement the order as written. It's very clear. Thank you.

[00:04:04]>> All right. Thank you. Um I will grant the motion. Um however, we are looking at an evidentary hearing coming up very soon. Um so at at which point the court will review all of it. Um but I will grant the motion.

[00:04:16]>> Thank you, your honor.

[00:04:22]Moving on to the motion to modify custody.

[00:04:25]>> Thank you, your honor. I believe that we've reached the threshold to have the court take a look at the best interest factors of these children again with the comments that the the father is making to these children clearly affects the children and the best interest their emotional well-being as well. So, it does affect not only that best interest factor but many others. As for the the change of physical custody, your honor, while I understand that physical custody is not a statutory mandate, we've always assumed that when parties have joint physical custody, people think that they have 50/50. They do not. Um, as for the parenting time, we we still have the ongoing same concerns about Mr. Griffin's involvement with the involving the children in inappropriate comments, inappropriate communication. He's inserting himself into um educational uh endeavors that are not we're educational endeavors in confronting my client at the school where the where teachers and other adults had to intervene from him approaching her and they were the ones who asked her to that she should call the police because the excha the communication and the involvement between the two parties is hostile at best. Um, we believe that we've reached the threshold and this court can then look at the same physical, legal, and parenting time when it does its review in the soonest evidentiary hearing in November. Thank you.

[00:05:45]>> Thank you. Are the parties using our family wizard or applose or any of those kinds of apps?

[00:05:51]>> Our family wizard. Yes. Yes.

[00:05:52]>> I thought so. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh, Miss Rataker.

[00:05:56]>> Thank you, your honor. Um, I disagree entirely. Um, the the parties are using our family wizard. We don't have any attachments as an offer of proof. The parties have communicated regarding I mentioned their son LEG who went through a whole autism assessment. The parties did uh agree on the getting the assessment. Uh they've agreed to the medication. They've attended many IEPs with with him. Um and also uh CEG has had a little bit of school involvement and IEP type meetings. So there's nothing that has been alleged that impacts a timely decision or uh parenting of these children uh other than these parties don't like each other quite frankly and that is not a basis for change of custody. Uh they mentioned late exchanges that is not a threshold.

[00:06:50]In fact I there's no offer of proof at all. My client indicates he's a very timely person. He does not uh even understand that allegation. Uh what they've indicated is there's a hostile demeanor by my client. Their pickup and drop offs are at safe connections. When I was asking and and I mentioned that when I came in on this case, they were at Safe Connections already. Well, when I was talking to him about this allegation, they don't even do the uh normal exchange that I would have assumed safe connections meant. And that's where one party drops off, the kids go in the building and so on. No one informed these people that that's the process. They were just literally meeting in the parking lot at Safe Connections. I wished they would have known better. Now, >> let me if I could just interject.

[00:07:37]Unfortunately, >> the judge cuts through the noise and grants the motion, but with a catch.

[00:07:42]There's an evidentiary hearing coming.

[00:07:44]Anyway, so yes, the order stands, but it's temporary breathing room, not a final win. Then the fight escalates into custody where allegations shift from paperwork to parenting behavior, communication issues, and emotional impact on the kids.

[00:08:00]>> Safe Connections is no longer >> they lost their funding. So there's going to have to be something else figured out on that. So I just wanted to interject that.

[00:08:08]>> Yep. I and I mentioned that in my response. So what we looked at is where state connections were. We think St. Mary's because it's 247 has security and so forth. And we think the parties can just stay in their car. They don't need to be outside of their car, which unfortunately Save Connections did. But the problem with the children is I think when I'm reading this motion is they clearly are becoming reporters for mother. That to me is a red flag that the mother is involving them in regard to this matter. Um what we do is we the remedy is we ex we modify the exchanges.

[00:08:47]We don't modify custody. We need to just clean that up a little bit better. So, I do ask the court to allow that St. Mary's exchange. The parent stays in the car with the kids. The other parent pulls up four spaces away. The kids are old enough that they can hop into the other one. This incident, alleged incidents at school, my client again was never contacted by teachers, never contacted by police, never contacted by principles. We we he reached out and we attached that as an exhibit. Was there ever incident? The exhibit the principal confirmed there. She looked no incidences in regard to any problem. So again, the offer of proof is insufficient and um and certainly my client would have heard something even from the plaintiff. You would think she would have said, "Hey, what happened today?" or "Your behavior was inappropriate." Even on Family Wizard, they alleged no the drinking as a threshold argument. No evidence of that other than children reporting. They we attach uh his wife little statement as to um you know their behavior, what they do as a family.

[00:09:59]There's no arguments or offer of proofs in regard to any parenting that's affect affected the the children. they're stable in school and the only thing that they seriously desire is to spend the time back with dad that they don't aren't allowed. But thank you for at least granting the first part of that motion. So the bottom line is that Marie Classler back in April heard many of these same or similar arguments. She granted a review in regard to what she deemed were two issues between the parties, their communication and um and the housing stability. That's all.

[00:10:38]Nothing else has changed and we have a hearing date for those two issues. So again, I believe that this motion fails in its offer of proof and even the allegations themselves remedies are more addressed to communication and exchange versus a change of custody. Thank you.

[00:10:56]Now the defense pushes back hard, reframing everything as ordinary co-parenting conflict. No hard evidence, no real threshold met, just two adults who don't get along. Instead of changing custody, they argue the real fix is logistical, better exchanges, less friction. It's a strategic pivot.

[00:11:18]Minimize the accusations, focus on practicality, and avoid reopening custody.

[00:11:24]>> Right. Um, Miss Van Dyken, um, any response to the change of location for exchange?

[00:11:30]>> Yeah, I'm just saying a parking lot at St. Mary's is ineffic insufficient. I mean, there is a front parking lot by the hospital, there's one across the street, there's a parking structure, there's one in the back lot. I mean, I think we need more specificity with that, quite frankly. Um, just saying a parking lot is not appropriate. I'm not sure that there are cameras in all of the parking lots like the one across the street. I think it would have to be in the main parking lot in front of at the hospital.

[00:11:56]>> I see Miss Rataker nodding her head. So that sounds like >> I'm not sure they're always going to be access to that because I've been to the hospital where that parking lot is full and you have to go park in the ramp. So I'm just saying there's going to be there's going to be >> issues.

[00:12:15]Miss Rabbaker, any thoughts on that?

[00:12:18]That's a fair point. So, um, if the, uh, the exchange is in the evening on Sundays, uh, he would pick up from school on Fridays, so we're good there. And he picks up Wednesdays. And I think, uh, I don't recall what the Wednesday parenting time >> is, if it's an overnight or just an evening. Let me see.

[00:12:40]>> Wednesday until 7:30. So, we have Wednesday night exchanges and um, holiday exchanges and Sundays. Sundays at 4:30. So, the only thing I can suggest is um I I haven't scoped out that main parking lot lately. Um but perhaps Miss Van Dyken and I can look at that parking lot and pick a corner that they can exchange or maybe even up near well up near the front if there's cameras. I I don't know how to describe that, but I'm pretty sure we could figure out where in the parking lot.

[00:13:21]>> Okay. And you probably would need it you would need a backup.

[00:13:24]>> Yeah, >> is what I'm hearing.

[00:13:26]>> Okay.

[00:13:27]>> A very clear plan.

[00:13:29]>> We're not that far from the Grand Rapids Police Department on on Monroe Center Drive. Perhaps that could be the backup.

[00:13:35]>> Okay.

[00:13:41]All right. Uh >> so, uh what I'm going to do on the motion to modify custody is I am going to set that for the EV.

[00:13:55]>> The debate zooms in on something surprisingly telling exchange locations.

[00:13:59]What sounds minor actually exposes deeper trust issues. Parking lots, cameras, backup plans. It's all about control and safety without saying it outright. Both sides start sounding more reasonable here, which usually means the court is about to take a middle ground approach.

[00:14:17]>> Entry hearing. I'm going to adjourn it because I have not been the the judicial officer dealing with this case and I think referee Kesler is probably in a better um position even though I've read everything um to to rule on that. Um and I'm not frankly it's not clear to me either way. So, I I'm just going to defer and uh set it at the same time as the evidentiary hearing for her to to to rule on the motion.

[00:14:43]>> Thank you, honor.

[00:14:44]>> Thank you, honor. So, to make it clear, evidentary hearing will proceed as to parenting time and then Miss Kesler would rule on the motion.

[00:14:52]>> That's correct.

[00:14:53]>> Okay. And then Miss Van Dyken and I will um confirm the location in the St. Mary's parking lot and back up as >> Get a backup. Yep.

[00:15:04]All right.

[00:15:06]>> Um, can I ask one more question?

[00:15:08]>> Sure.

[00:15:09]>> Do we know whose weekend this weekend would be?

[00:15:13]>> And my client's indicating it's your client. So, we'll start with his next weekend.

[00:15:18]>> Next Wednesday.

[00:15:20]>> Well, Wednesday. Yes, I agree.

[00:15:22]>> Okay.

[00:15:22]>> Yeah. His weekend next. All right. Thank you so much.

[00:15:26]>> And and before we leave, I just want to admonish both parties. Do not talk about what's going on here with your kids.

[00:15:32]They they feel regardless, they feel that they're half and half each of you.

[00:15:37]And so any disparaging remarks, any negative comments about the other parent, they're internalizing whether you think they are or not. It's just really damaging to them. So please don't do it. If you love your kids, don't.

[00:15:51]Okay? All right. We're journ. Thank you.

[00:15:53]>> Thank you. The judge sidesteps the custody fight entirely and defers it to the upcoming evidentiary hearing, keeping things procedural and cautious.

[00:16:03]But the real closing moment hits with the warning to both parents, stop involving the kids. That's the underlying problem, and the court calls it out directly. In the end, no dramatic ruling, just a reminder. The children are the ones absorbing all of