Court Ordered Drug Rehabilitation

Lee MacGuyver and Mary Richards met in 1983 while attending Memorial University in Newfoundland and relocated to North Bay, Ontario. After living together for several years, they separated shortly before the birth of their daughter, Venessa, in late 1989. During her pregnancy, Richards went home to live with her mother but returned to North Bay when her child was seven months old. The couple lived together for six months but separated permanently thereafter. The relationship broke down because of MacGuyver’s drug and alcohol problems and his abusive behaviour towards Richards. In June 1991, a judge of the Ontario court, Provincial Division, awarded sole custody of the child to Richards. MacGuyver, who had entered a treatment program for his addictions, was given alterenate weekend access. in 1993, Richards made plans to marry a master corporal in the military who had been transferred to Washington for four years. After the wedding, she planned to move there with her daughter. MacGuyver applied to the court to vary the custody order to provide joint custody and to prohibit either parent from removing the child from North Bay without the other parent’s consent. The trial judge ordered that the mother retain sole custody but that the child continue to reside in North Bay. Mary Richards successfully appealed to the Ontario Court, General Division, which confirmed her sole custody and removed the requirement that the child remain in North Bay. MacGuyver appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but his appeal was dismissed.

If you were the judge, who would you grant sole custody to? Mary Richards or Macguyver ? Do you agree with the decision of not removing the child from North Bay or allowing the child to leave ? If you choose giving custody to the other parent, why not the other?
who ever gives the best answers i will give them points

Lee MacGuyver and Mary Richards met in 1983 while attending Memorial University in Newfoundland and relocated to North Bay, Ontario. After living together for several years, they separated shortly before the birth of their daughter, Venessa, in late 1989. During her pregnancy, Richards went home to live with her mother but returned to North Bay when her child was seven months old. The couple lived together for six months but separated permanently thereafter. The relationship broke down because of MacGuyver’s drug and alcohol problems and his abusive behaviour towards Richards. In June 1991, a judge of the Ontario court, Provincial Division, awarded sole custody of the child to Richards. MacGuyver, who had entered a treatment program for his addictions, was given alterenate weekend access. in 1993, Richards made plans to marry a master corporal in the military who had been transferred to Washington for four years. After the wedding, she planned to move there with her daughter. MacGuyver applied to the court to vary the custody order to provide joint custody and to prohibit either parent from removing the child from North Bay without the other parent’s consent. The trial judge ordered that the mother retain sole custody but that the child continue to reside in North Bay. Mary Richards successfully appealed to the Ontario Court, General Division, which confirmed her sole custody and removed the requirement that the child remain in North Bay. MacGuyver appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but his appeal was dismissed.

If you were the judge, who would you grant sole custody to? Mary Richards or Macguyver ? Do you agree with the decision of not removing the child from North Bay or allowing the child to leave ? If you choose giving custody to the other parent, why not the other?
who ever gives the best answers i will give them points

It is 2:30 am; a man makes a left turn doesn’t use a signal. Officer behind him pulls him over smells alcohol; after a field sobriety test, and breathlizer man is arrested for DUI, BA of .09
5 days later this man goes before a judge (with an attorney he has to hire) pleads no contest and takes his penalty. No one is hurt, every thing went smooth right?
Now what if I tell you this man was 21 years old had just come back from deployment from Iraq. Hasn’t been home since he was 18. Was drinking at a bar 2 blocks from home and driving his friend home who passed out and was unable to walk. This young man gets the following;Suspended liscense.
Court ordered DUI prevention, MADD, and several other classes. Court ordered interlock device for 1 year. court ordered 96 hours community service,He paid the attonery $2000, the court $700 after all is said and done,and the interlock company gets a total of $ 1000,Plus his commanding officer gives him a dishonarble and fines him 30days pay.
I guess what I am asking does the punishment fit the crime?
Not apples to oranges..
We are talking about someone who came home went drinking and started taking a friend home who was obviously intoxicated. While the person in question was over the legal limit and breaking a law why is the punishment so harsh. This is a first time offense. However with the nations current laws this man will not be eligble for any respectable career because he recieved a dishonarble discharge, and is now presumably in debt. My personal opnion is that this penalty does not fit the crime in question. No one was injured or in apperant danger. The person in question was nearly a 100 yards from home. So why so strict for every offender?
No people this does happen in several states on a first offense. Also several commands through out the US will give a dishonarble or Other than honarble to a first time offender that pleads guilty to prevent backlash from MADD or other agencies.

An eastern Idaho judge who lost patience with the disruptive behavior of a defendant ordered court officials to tape the man’s mouth shut with duct tape during a court hearing. The unusual move was ordered by 6th District Judge Peter D. McDermott during a probation violation hearing for Nicklas Frasure, 23.

Frasure was convicted of felony theft in 2008, but the judge retained jurisdiction for sentencing depending on Frasure’s response to treatment. In October, Frasure was released from a state mental hospital in Blackfoot.

He is accused of violating his probation by not taking prescribed medication.

During the hearing, witnesses told the judge that Frasure’s behavior had been strange and erratic since his release from the state hospital. They also said he has not been taking his medication and has been consuming alcohol, factors also contributing to mood and emotional swings.

Probation officer Julie Guiberson testified that Frasure is a threat to himself and others.

During Monday’s hearing, Frasure interrupted the proceedings with repeated verbal outbursts and unusual behavior and ignored several orders from McDermott to restrain himself. After another series of outbursts, McDermott told bailiffs to silence Frasure.

The bailiffs then found a roll of duct tape, tore off a piece and put it over Frasure’s mouth, according to the Idaho State Journal.

“He’s obviously not mentally competent,” Frasure’s lawyer Kent Reynolds told the judge.

Earlier in the hearing, Reynolds had asked the judge to order a mental competency evaluation for Frasure.

McDermott said he would consider the request, but did not immediately rule on it. McDermott placed Frasure under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Department of Correction. He is being held in the Bannock County Jail awaiting transfer to a state facility. Officials, citing privacy rules, declined to say where he would be transferred.

An Associated Press call for comment, left with the Idaho Judicial Council, was not immediately returned Tuesday. The council investigates all complaints filed against Idaho judges.

The American Civil Liberties of Idaho refrained, for now, from commenting on McDermott’s decision to silence Frasure.

“The ACLU of Idaho cannot comment on the specifics of this case,” said Monica Hopkins, executive director. “However, on one hand judges have a right to keep order in their court and on the other the defendants have a right to assist in their own defense and be present at trial. Our hope is that judges employ the least restrictive manner of keeping order in their courts.”

At the end of the hearing, the judge ordered bailiffs to remove the gag and said he hoped Frasure’s condition would improve with being under state custody.

Frasure responded, “You want to arm wrestle?” as he was led out of the courtroom by bailiffs.
Question is, what do you think?

Should state medical licensing boards and the courts be allowed to order mandatory AA/NA participation?
I was an RN who self-reported a substance abuse problem to the NC board of nursing. One of the requirements is that the nurse not just attend meetings, but do all the “stuff” that the 12 steps require. With the main requirement that you profess to the group a belief in a “Higher Power”. Evidence of your participation and attitude have to be documented by your “sponsor” and submitted monthly to the NC Board of Nursing. Well, I believe that AA is inherently religious, and that this requirement violates the 2nd amendment. There were several Rn’s who were atheists and understandingly objected to the higher power nonsense, since by their nature as atheists they of course do not believe in a higher power. But the Board would not lift the requirement for them. I’m Christian, but I believe AA/NA are religious cults and my religion teaches against praying in groups outside of church services.
Sorry this is so long, but I’m dying to hear everyone’s opinion.
typo: “understandably”, not “understandingly”.
mnwomen:
As a matter of fact when I received my nursing license the subject of Board disciplining programs wasn’t in the by-laws. No one knows what their particular disciplinary actions will be until aech case is reviewed. But when I went to nursing school I didn’t plan to become addicted to drugs, so there was no reason to go before the board and say: “BTW when and if I get on drugs what is the board’s discipline policy”?
As far as the judicial system is concerned most people who drive impaired know what the consequences are before they do it, but that still does not give the government the right to violate the constitution as part of the punsihment.
Read the 2nd amendment.
Rosen: You’re definately in the minority amoung your colleagues I’m sure.
The NCBON wouldn’t hear of giving an option to choose behavioral therapy like R. Recovery, Lifering, etc. It’s so damn frustrating because I don’t think there are any hard studies that support AA’s claim that they have a “97%” recovery rate. Unfortunately the majority of SA IOP programs are run by step-nazis, at least here in Charlotte.

I’m on probation. Judge ordered drug and alcohol evaluation, mental health evaluation, ETC. I haven’t used drugs in over 7 months, and the drug and alcohol dirtbags want me to come for treatment anyway. My crime wasn’t even drug related. I have phsycological problems as well. I’ve maintained being clean for so long, I’m not worried about their testing. I don’t like to remember the past, because a lot of stuff deeply depresses me, and some stuff will affect me for my entire life. I have difficulty talking to people due to traumas from childhood. THIS IS TORTURE. There must be some kind of law against this. I’ve heard from other people that they are there for the money. My medicaid expired, I was also on food stamps and cash assistance, and i’m not reapplying because I want to go back to work. I don’t want to live on the system forever. Now I have to give them money out of my pocket that I don’t have, and I don’t even have a problem. I’m trying so hard to overcome a lot of issues, and these people are making things 10 times harder. Are there any laws or ways out of this? Sources and links would be very helpful as well.
wayne county pennsylvania. Or should i say HELLVANIA.
I’m being forced to talk to their drug counselors. i’m already going to counseling with a counselor I feel comfortable with. I’m facing my problems, but not with these people. As long as I don’t use drugs, and my system is clean upon testing, that’s what counts. Many times I tell them, “I don’t remember.” Actually, as long as I don’t relapse, which I know I won’t, I don’t have to tell them anything, do I?

William Matthews lives with his three week pregnant wife Jennifer, their four year old daughter Emily, their six year old daughter Daria and their eighteen year old daughter Mallory. William and Jennifer have a strong bond in their commitment, but that bond is broken the day Jennifer and Emily are involved in a terrible car crash that ends her and Emily’s life. William is tremendously devastated by the loss of his wife, his unborn child and his four year old child. He goes through two stages of grief: The extreme and immediate outburst of sorrow, and the act of denial. William tries to hide his grief from his children as he informs them of their mother’s death, but he fails at it. He further tries to hide his grief from his children and other family members by immediately planning his wife and child’s funeral just hours after their death. William tries to cope with his grief, and the responsibility of taking care of his children as a single father by putting all of his time into working on the job, but he finds stressful problems following him there when he receives a call about Mallory’s three weeks of skipping school and the several warning notices that were sent home about her fighting with the teachers and students. William knows his daughter is acting out because of the death of Jennifer and Emily.

As he spends several days trying to work out matters with Mallory at the school, he becomes distraught when he loses his job. His problems increase when he discovers that his sister is in cahoots with his children’s school to try to take the children away from him. William feels he’s at the end of his rope as he fights in the court to keep his children, and his suffers an extreme nervous breakdown when the judge orders the children to be temporarily removed from his care. As a result of this, the children break into severe emotional sorrow and William falls into deep depression and unbelievable despair. He feels he has lost all hope and when he eventually becomes homeless, he turns to drugs and alcohol to ease his sorrows. However, it is when he’s about to attempt suicide that he’s visited by Jennifer’s sister Beth who gives him strong words of encouragement.

With Beth encouraging William to reclaim his children and his life back, he goes back before the courts to get his children back, but he finds it isn’t an easy task. However, with severe pleading from William, the judge gives him a choice: He has three months to get himself off of drugs, find himself a good paying job, and a suitable place to live. If he accomplishes all of that in the three month period, he can regain custody of his children. William feels this will be a task that will be impossible for him to complete, but with Beth’s encouragement and assistance, he checks into a drug rehab center, but he finds that getting off drugs isn’t that easy as he suffers several relapses in a one month period that causes him to go through enormous pain in trying to get clean.

Beth tries to help William as much as she can but knows he’s going to need more than just her help. It is during this time that she introduces William to someone he has never known about in his life—God. Beth’s introduction at first is ignored, but as William realizes he must try something better than what’s been in front of him, he accepts Beth’s offer of God. However he finds that his problems don’t vanish away because of his acceptance of God, but through him, William finds new meaning to the words “perseverance, faith and strength”. He uses those skills to fight pass the pain and get off drugs. In her assistance, Beth helps him financially in finding a place to live and through his discovery of God; he attains the motivation he needs to endure.

He finds several hardships trying to find a job that will pay enough to take care of himself, but as he holds on to his faith in God and in himself and he finds eventual success. He has accomplished all three goals but then disappointment hits him again—despite accomplishing all three goals, the judge orders that the children stay with his sister for an additional six months, until there is assurance that William is completely capable of raising his children. William is severely heartbroken by this; he feels that all of his hard work and belief in God hasn’t gotten him anywhere but to failure. He wants to give up, but Beth encourages him that what he is experiencing is just one of life’s tests to see if he will maintain his faith or give up and quit. William is tempted to quit, but after several tears, and hard work to maintain a stable lifestyle he proves that he’s capable to be a father to his children and the blessings come in his favor and he is granted his children back.

As the year comes to an end, William finds himself finally able to reclaim his life back with his children and they all eventually reclaim the joy they had before Jennifer and Emily’s death. As William and his children think back on all the lessons they learned during the year, there’s one lesson they remember that changed them forever—the lesson of how to live life after death.

… when steps like this are required for completion?

“Make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.”

Does anyone see this as conflicting with the Constitution?

would this be considered a court order and what would happen if they just left

I am in the middle of a divorce. My wife, who has been diagnosed with BPD, has threatened to harm our 23 mo. old. She was given temporary custody last year. I am fighting for full custody since wife has drug and alcohol issues. She was in rehab when she was awarded custody. I am trying to find out about other BPD patients and their behavioral problems in order to fight this in court. Wife is currently leaving our child with wife’s mother who severely abused her as a child to the extent that she was placed in several foster homes. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much.