Here is the courts opinion in regards to grandparent visitations.

     As I stated on my introduction page, "I will show that people we have had to deal with in these regards will, can and do twist facts to promote their agenda because they have no accountability." What I am going to talk about first is this stalking case Nicole and her attorney tried to pursue. This is a prime example of twisting the facts.

     Prior the getting the overnight visitations with Alyssa and Amber we had never met Nicole. Before ever meeting Nicole she was sent the cookies, thank you card and the personal note that was inside that card. During the overnight visitations her boyfriend was with her during each and every time she dropped off the children and picked them back up. During all these pick ups and drop offs we left Gene's Market first except the last drop off. Whenever we are heading directly home from Gene's there are only 2 routes we take to leave Grant as shown in this picture.

Gene's Market is the red X, the red and green solid lines are the 2 routes we take leaving Grant. We take these routes 50/50 when going home from Gene's. When picking up and dropping off our granddaughters for the first 2 visits we left first and headed East as we always do. The last overnight visit we left Gene's first when picking up the children and took the same Eastern direction. Nicole left Gene's first  after we dropped of Alyssa and Amber off and headed East the same direction we always go. So of course we had to follow her. This particular time we left Grant the green way as illustrated in the picture. Evidently Nicole needed gas so she turned off the green route as illustrated with the broken red line. I'm not sure which gas station she went to but all the gas stations in Grant are on M37. The green X would be where the Wesco Station is located. Because we followed her to leave Grant, which isn't that must of a distance, she used this as one of the examples of use following her.  She also said in court we went a different way this time. OK, questions, how would she know exactly which route we took before when leaving Grant unless, she was following us? If she needed gas why didn't she just leave Gene's and take M37 instead of going around the block? My opinion, she wanted us to have to follow her so she could use this as a reason.

     We live almost 8 miles from Grant and we have always gone to Grant 3-4 times a week.  Her next example they tried to use in regards to stalking was the evening of April 17, 2007. This was the evening the COA reversed the lower courts decision. We stopped off at Wesco to get gas after getting a few thing from Genes and Nicole just happened to be there. Her boyfriend was there as well.

     She used a couple other example to try to relate to the court we were stalking her. We went to Genes a few weeks later on a Sunday afternoon to get a few things and she happened to be there. All the times we had been to Gene's prior to getting visitations with Alyssa and Amber we had never seen her there. Whenever we go to Grant it is because we need something. We went by the day care before and she happened to be there. Those are all examples she used to make the court think we are stalking her. Now it is ludicrous to believe we travel 8 miles to Grant on the slim chance she might just be there. She tried to convey to the court how afraid she was. We have been nothing but pleasant with her.

     During this hearing our attorney asked her about telling our granddaughters to call 911 if anything bad happened at our place. Nicole told the court it was teaching the children safety. Evident Nicole only used this safety teaching when the children were going to grandma and grandpa's home. She didn't try teaching the children this when she took them to daycare and such. No, she tried making our granddaughters afraid of us, even so, it didn't work.

     During this hearing is when Nicole referred to Alyssa and Amber as "wild animals". She stated the children didn't have any table manners and didn't even know how to use silverware. When the children were with us that wasn't the case. Granted Amber was a bit messy while eating but then she was only 3 years old. They did know how to use silverware and they did have table manners. Being a mental health worker I guess she didn't have the insight to think they were acting in this manner because they were taken away from everyone they had ever known and loved and placed with a stranger. No instead the are "wild animals".

     It was getting lunch time so the court was adjourned. We had a few family members that were sitting in the courtroom, my father for one in particular. When Nicole walked past my father he said liar, he didn't address it towards anyone he just said the one word and wasn't even looking at Nicole. Nicole took exception to this and said how inappropriate. Next thing you know her attorney came back into the courtroom and tried making a big deal over this. As I stated this wasn't addressed to anyone...so I guess Nicole had a guilty conscience?

     During this hearing Alyssa and Amber's the rapists testified. The only parts I'm going to address it when they testified about the children regressed. They couldn't state for a fact that it happened because we came back into these young ladies life. They did both testify it started when we were getting the visits with our granddaughters at DHS. Evidently after Alyssa could no longer see us she was throwing tantrums. June 26 as testified by Alyssa's therapist, Alyssa had a "melt down" and her medications were upped. Again here are two more people that didn't have the insight this could be happening because our granddaughters wanted to come back home with grandma and grandpa. Of course this is something they would never consider after all.... Of course the children regressed when we came back into their lives. They probably thought we didn't want anything to do with them and they would never see us again. Who knows where they would get an idea like that? So of course after they saw us again they were:

Really
Eager to
Get
Rid of and
Escape from the
Social
Service
Evil
Doers  and come back home with grandma and grandpa.

     My last statements are about Suzanne Adams and Susanne Jordan from Bethany Christian Services. As I mentioned before on my webpage they supplied fraudulent information in a document to get expedited consent for Nicole. Both of these ladies knew we were never going to quit in our quest to get our granddaughters back home where they belong. This was told to Suzanne Adams during our very first meeting. This was also told to the Bethany participants during our case conference, both of these ladies were at this meeting. They were both at our section 45 hearing that started February 7, 2007. What is a section 45 hearing you may ask? This is a hearing to show that Bill Johnson (MCI)  made his decision to deny us consent to adopt arbitrarily and capriciously. So as I stated both of these ladies were at this hearing, they knew there was a competition to adopt well before they produced this fraudulent information in the document that was sent to MCI on behalf of Nicole on March 5, 2007. This was not the only fraudulent information that was supplied by BCS, the assessments are riddled with fraudulent information.