Mr. Corletta ends unjustified term of Supervised Visitation.

Mr. Corletta, through vigorous advocacy, and correct citation to the law, not only ended an unjust period of “supervised” visitation, where his client was not seeing their child based upon what the Court characterized as “baseless accusations”, but also got the client a shared residency arrangement in FE v. FL (Mon. Co. Sup. Ct., 1/20).

          In that case, a matrimonial action, the client's spouse had a penchant for obtaining Orders of Protection based upon exaggerated or false accusations, and then withdrawing them when it suited their needs or when confronted. After being exposed by Mr. Corletta, the spouse pursued more baseless accusations, claiming the client had a drinking problem, and then attempted to manipulate his client to settle the case in the spouse’s favor by denying the client access to the party’s son, except with “supervision”.

          The Court initially and unfortunately bought into this accusation, attempting to “protect” the child. The error the Court made was ordering “supervised” visitation, without a full Evidentiary Hearing, where the accusing spouse would have had to prove unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child.

          Mr. Corletta, undeterred, continued to advocate for his client and filed a Memorandum with the Court providing case law authority showing that before supervised visitation is ordered, there must be a full Evidentiary Hearing showing          visitation would be detrimental to the child if not supervised.

          Mr. Corletta had his client obtain an alcohol evaluation, which came back negative, and presented this evidence to the Court. In addition, in the interim, while the “supervision” was in effect, the spouse, again attempting to manipulate the client, allowed the client to have the child unsupervised, in direct violation of the Court Order and contrary to the spouse’s previous protestations that the child would be in “danger” if he visited unsupervised with Mr. Corletta’s client.

          Mr. Corletta brought this to the Court’s attention. Looking at the clean alcohol evaluation and the spouse’s behavior, the court rebuked the spouse for making “baseless accusations”, and gave an unprecedented apology to Mr. Corletta’s client. The spouse is no longer trusted and lacks credibility. Parents may not interfere in the relationship of a child with each other. It is evidence of unfitness.

          The Court responded by severely truncating the spouse’s access and awarding Mr. Corletta’s client extensive “make-up” visitation, amounting to a shared custodial arrangement. His client had not seen the child regularly for over a month. If the spouse continues this behavior, they are in danger of losing custody altogether.

          The client was certainly quite grateful for Mr. Corletta’s persistence and vigorous advocacy.