STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF CHAUTAUQUA

 

MARIJKA E. LAMPARD,


Plaintiff,


-vs- Index #H-04197


WILLIAM W. LAMPARD,


Defendant.


 



MARIJKA E. LAMPARD,

Pro Se



SCINTA, RINALDO & DEE

(Denis A. Scinta, Esq.

of Counsel) for Defendant



DECISION and ORDER



GERACE, J.



Defendant moved for an order to (1) to enforce his access


to his children for legal holidays, especially either


Christmas Day or Christmas Eve 1994; (2) weekday evenings (3)


family counseling (4) access to extra curricular activities,


all of which were ordered by this Court in its Judgment of


Divorce. Plaintiff appears Pro Se.


After argument on motion, the parties stipulated and the


Court approved that defendant have the children December 23,


1994, overnight to the evening of December 24th, and again on


the 26th; that Plaintiff would have the children the 27th for


a trip to Canada; and Defendant would have the children New


Year weekend.


The Court reaffirmed its order for counseling and made


arrangements with Charles Weis, Executive Director of Family


Services to see the family.


Mr. Weis reported he saw the family and determined that


conditions necessary for joint sessions - mutual respect,


trust, commonality of counseling goals - do not exist; he


concludes further family centered counseling would not be


useful; that individual counseling would be beneficial only if


requested by each party.


Nathaniel L. Barone,II, Esq., law guardian, again met


with the children and filed his report with the Court only.


That report clearly shows that these children have been the


innocent victims of this matrimonial history. As observed by


Hon. Marianne Espinosa Murphy, who wrote in Redbook magazine


April 1995:



"When parents divorce, time with children can

to easily become turf. In a misguided effort to

prove they love their children, parents allow

child related issues to become one more battle-

ground.


"My interviews with children of divorce made me

acutely aware of the price they pay when their

parents can't or won't resolve their differences."


*********


"Children are bound to be disappointed and some-

times hurt by things their parents do. Divorce

doesn't enable one parent to shield a child from

the thoughtlessness of the other - in fact, it may

well sharpen the child's already keen ability to

detect a parent's shortcomings.


"Some parents DO navigate divorce without scuttling

their children's childhood. From what I have seen,

these parents are more concerned with their child's

welfare than with wining. They respect the child's

right to a relationship with both parents and

don't "help" the child by pointing out their ex's

flaws.


"The decision to divorce is always painful,

especially when there are children. If you choose

to divorce, acknowledge the pain, and remember

that frequently the best way to win is to forget

to keep score. "



Plaintiff was directed by the Court to submit an


affidavit in response to the affidavit of Defendant on this


motion that could be in the form of the statement she prepared


for her Court appearance on this motion, provided she swore or


affirmed to the truth of it as provided by law. She was


directed to send a copy of her affidavit or statement, to the


Court, to defendant's attorney and to the law guardian. This


she did not do.


Neither did she prepare for the Court the report directed

in the order. The defendant did comply.


The Court expected a more positive response from


plaintiff; she is a writer; she is educated; she is


articulate; she appears to care for her children.


Notwithstanding her positive reports on the PEACE


program, the plaintiff has placed at least one of her children


in the middle of tardy support payments. This is highly


inappropriate.


It also appears plaintiff has not kept defendant informed


of activities of the children; nor has he received information


concerning report cards of at least one of the children.


Upon the arguments on the motion, the in camera


discussions with the parties, the submissions of the parties,


it is hereby


ORDERED, that the Law Guardian interview each parent and


step parent and step children at their respective homes and


report to the Court; and


ORDERED, that the Court and Law Guardian conduct in


camera meetings with the children, following which the Court

will determine the type of counseling appropriate for this


family; and


ORDERED, that each parent at all times shall have:


1) the right of access to all health and

educational records of the children;

2) the right to consult with any professional

rendering care to the children;

3) the right to consult with school officials

concerning the child's welfare and educational

status, including school activities;

4) the right to notice of and to attend school

activities;


5) the right to be designated on all records as a

person to be notified in cause of emergency;

6) the father is to be kept informed of events involving the children such as baptisms, school activities and accomplishments, report cards, etc; that if the parties cannot discuss matters over the telephone or in person, that they communicate in writing or through the Law Guardian; and


Each parent during his or her parenting time shall have:


1) the duty of care, control, protection and

reasonable discipline of the children;

2) the duty to support the children including

providing the children with clothing, food,

shelter, medical and dental care not involving

invasive procedure; and

3) the power to consent to medical, dental and

surgical treatment during an emergency

involving immediate danger to the health and

safety of the children.


ORDERED, that because this Decision and Order contains


matters and topics personal to the parties but not relevant to


the school, the Court directs defendant to draft a separate


Order directing school officials to provide both parents with

information about the Lampard children and advising them of


the rights of each parent pertaining to the school as recited


herein;


ORDERED, that both parties are to refrain from forcing


the children to take sides and refrain from criticizing,


condemning, ridiculing, complaining about or making any


negative comments whatsoever to the children about the other


party or their families under potential penalty of fines and


sanctions; and



ORDERED, that the fee for counseling from Family Service


shall be submitted to defendant's health insurance carrier


within 30 days; the Court will determine how the uninsured


amount is to be paid and by whom after learning the outcome of


the claim; and


ORDERED, that this motion be adjourned to May 15, 1995,


at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, unless otherwise adjourned by


the Court.



Dated: April 13, 1995

Mayville, New York



 

JOSEPH GERACE

Justice of Supreme Court