In 2000, the plaintiff was found guilty, through a plea of no contest, of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-IV). This led to a five-year probation term and the completion of a sexual rehabilitation program. The plaintiff and the defendant first met in 2016 on an online dating platform. During their initial date, the plaintiff admitted to his previous conviction but distorted the actual details. He confessed to the defendant that, at 17 years old, he had sexually abused an 11-year-old girl. However, the truth was that he had sexually abused his three-year-old half-sister about 30 times.
Their cohabitation began in 2017 when the defendant had a nine-year-old son, BL, who also lived with them. Subsequently, the couple had a child together, CAD, born in 2019.
In 2022, the defendant stumbled upon documents known as “presentencing report documents” that revealed the accurate nature of the plaintiff’s CSC-IV conviction and additional sexual assaults on two other children prior to the 2000 conviction. Concerned about the safety of CAD and BL, the defendant took photos of the documents and three encrypted USB thumb drives to the authorities, including Children’s Protective Services. This action marked the end of their cohabitation and relationship.
Detective Kelly Ebersole testified that plaintiff attempted to communicate with her about the encrypted drives but refused to provide the passwords, insisting she contact his lawyer and obtain a search warrant. Despite no criminal investigation concerning the thumb drives and a lack of probable cause for a warrant, Ebersole tried to interview CAD and BL forensically. While CAD, at four years old, was too scared to undergo the interview, BL, on the other hand, did not disclose any instances of sexual assault or physical abuse.
The plaintiff sought custody and parenting time for CAD, leading to an evidentiary hearing where both parties and Ebersole provided testimony. The trial court, unable to establish by a preponderance of evidence that plaintiff had assaulted CAD or BL, ordered supervised parenting time due to concerns about potential risks to CAD. The court required plaintiff to surrender access to the contents of the drives to resume unsupervised parenting time if no illegal content was found.
The trial court emphasized the importance of a child’s relationship with both parents and granted four hours of supervised parenting time per week to the plaintiff. The court expressed reservations about unsupervised time due to perceived risks to CAD. The plaintiff did not contest the supervised parenting time but challenged the suspension until he disclosed the passcodes for the thumb drives.
The trial court’s decision to suspend supervised parenting time until the passcodes were disclosed raised concerns as no specific harm to CAD under supervision was identified. While an incident of not following rules during supervised visitation was mentioned, there was no indication of any inappropriate behavior. The court’s focus on the contents of the thumb drives and the desire for unsupervised time seemed to overshadow the current supervised arrangement, potentially acting as an undue punishment or a means to enforce compliance rather than ensuring the child’s best interests.