another PAS story part #3

The very next day after parent “B” was released from the drug rehab program a telephone call come into the home of parent “A”. It was CPS, they had been to the school to talk to the child and wanted to come to the home to see the home and talk to parent “A”.
Just before CPS was to arrive at the home of parent “A”, parent “B” and grandparent “B” come to the home unannounced wanting the take the child. Parent “B” walked into the home without even knocking on the door, therefore the sheriff’s department was called. About the time the sheriff’s officers arrived, and was sorting things out is when CPS showed up. Parent “B” and grandparent “B” were told by the sheriff deputies to leave the property. CPS come into the home and done the inspection, all the accounts were unfounded and parent “A” was told that the home was more than appropriate, and that the child was doing quite well.
But this would not be the end of the story. Several more visits from CPS erupted to the point that parent “A” had to tell CPS if they showed up at the home again that a suite would be filed against the department for harassment as they had been to the home several times and each time they come nothing could be found that would warrant an investigation, and any further contact should be directed to the legal team. CPS has never showed up at the home again.
Finally a court date come. Parent “B”’s legal team failed to explain to the judge why parent “A” had taken the child. The only thing that was stated was that parent “A” just took the child suddenly. Parent “A” stood in front of the judge and told the judge that the child was taken because parent “B” was in a DRUG REHAB. At this time the judge turned a little red, and wanted to know what for. Parent “B”’s legal team jumped nervous like and said for LONG TERM USE OF POT. LONG TERM USE, and I repeat again LONG TERM USE.
Parent “A” was awarded FULL custody of the child on the spot, but another court date needed to be had to hear the entire case. Parent “B” was awarded what was supposed to be supervised visitation. The unfortunate part is that parent “A” was so nervous that they allowed the supervisor to be grandparent “B”. This would be a fatal mistake.
Weekend visits ensued. This time parent “B” was to do ALL the transporting of the child. When the weekend visits started, so did another twist to the story. Parent “A” started disclosing everything to the child again as if the child were the parent’s best friend. Every intimate detail of parent “B”’s problems were laid upon the child, as well as parent “B” crying to the child about how parent “A” did both of them wrong for seeing to it the child was taken care of.
In the meantime the child finished the school year with excellent grades, and was advanced to the next grade dispute all the days of school missed prior to moving in with parent “A”.
The child was missing the sibling from parent “B”’s second marriage. Parent “B” was to have the sibling for a summer visit. The child wanted parent “A” to allow extra visit time with parent “B” in order to spend time with the sibling that had not been seen in a few months. Sibling “A” understood the need to be with the sibling and allowed the extra time.
The extended visit gave parent “B” more time work on the child. We can all guess what come next. When the child come back the child did everything in the world to break up parent “A”’s home, and destroy what was there. The child become very emotional and all the good that parent “A” had accomplished went down the drain. The child was in worse shape emotionally as was when the child arrived in parent “A”’s home.
The stress was more than parent “A” could bare, and the emotions were high. The child desperately wanted to be with parent “B”. As much as parent “A” was against sending the child to a home to live with a recovering addict, the choice had to be made to ensure the child would be able to stable out and have some peace in its life. You see, by this time the child was not a small child anymore, the child was at a point in its life where when opinions and beliefs are formed, there is no turning back. Arrangements were made for the child to return to parent “B”’s custody, but not without rules.
Despite the rules, the alienation continued. Parent “A” to this day has never again laid eye’s on the child. The child calls from time to time wanting demands for money and wanted processions to be handed over, all parent “A” asks for is a little time together, that one request is never met.
But here is where the story turns again. Remember that parent “B” does not have physical custody of the child from the second marriage, this much we know because the child was “visiting” during the summer. You see, parent “B” lost custody of the second child because of the events over the last several months. Parent “B” misses the second child, and is angry because parent “B” is now being alienated from the second child.
The moral of this story is “What goes around, comes around” Parent “B” is now experiencing what parent “A” has experienced for years and does not like what is happening to them.