Motion To Vacate Hair Follicle

The reason to vacate the motion for hair follicle is I’m a I’m a bald man and I feel like it’s an invasion of my privacy and it could be inaccurate. You know sort of getting her from other sources of my body violation privacy, and I don’t think I don’t deem that worthy and it’s particular case due to the fact that you know I’m doing my part as far as being flexible with time I can prove to you I’m saying based off of of an appointment that wasn’t that I did not cancel so with that being of substantial, you know proof that I didn’t that don’t deem worthy that this would serve any point in purposes and I’ve been in compliance. You know what I’m saying with drug test before the past.

my reason for sanction is because one the documents. The evidence that was presented stated by a petitioner that there was a deadline of February * at that our son need to have a lead test that’s not true and my son is my chart. He just said you know check for your unusual lead saying, but he had already had a lead checkup last year and the doctor said that he was a minimum risk this year in May he had to have a full physical and have a thorough check over by the doctor to see if he was physically capable of having a surgery on September * of * at the particular time if he was at any risk and harm that we’ve been addressed at that particular time not for the surgery purposes, he’s all colonel all shots with me, taking him to get those shots. Also, the fact that the text message was presented as far as evidence There is typo errors of double print where the date on the messages was not of original stamp for messages the date is stamped on top of some of the messages that is not of authentic messaging too. That was claims that we had a dental appointment we didn’t. I did not cancel dental appointment that is a lie Because based on the fact that it was a protective order in place and a DCS case in place and with that being said, there’s no way that I would turn around that the non-custodial parent being released one week from jail and scheduling appointments for the child full cost parents Job. I have no knowledge of this particular dental that was used against me. I was in question about a lead check up that my son does not have to have visits as though two hours two days a week no more than four hours, but there’s days and months months to wear. He’s exceeding over 10 days of the eight days in a month that she could possibly get visits they were overnight where she was not in town no overnights being flexible with the Indiana parent guidelines. I was told that I was holding the child from the parent. That’s not true because I was getting mad when she was getting her visit to her time

my reason for Poseidon, judges that I feel that the current magistrate is it very knowledgeable of the Indiana parenting guidelines. I feel that it was very biased based off the evidence it was given because one I shouldn’t have to find myself defending myself on the responsibilities of a full custodial parent to non-custodial parent When the parent for the last four years would be going in and out of incarceration and dealing with drug addiction, and I feel that the current magistrate was it very knowledgeable of the person that was there of the two parents stayed in front of him. I also felt that you know I’m saying the magistrate was just letting the petitioners attorney Ask me questions. I really have non-relevance of why I’m there in the first place, but more to take shots at me for degrading me as a single parent for the last five years and giving credit to a non-custodial parent has been out of conservation and without actually making sure that you don’t say that things were in order. I felt like the petitioners you know what I’m saying LAWYER was stating that there’s only two days a week at four hours in a month time maybe it seems like * hours as though I’m telling myself that that’s all they entitled to a 30 day span their hours cannot be less than * within a month And the magistrate didn’t really even try to question it. I made comments a family incest by the petitioner petition, lawyer didn’t object, but the magistrate overlooked it as though it wasn’t a serious concern when it comes to the welfare of a child of the mindset of a non-custodial parent and granting them temporary visitations There was nothing based. There was nothing that was given to the magistrate that said that that I canceled the visit and with with any legal paperwork coming from my dentist office anything stating that I did or even a conversation that I stated that I canceled the visit there was no Proof of how many days given on the participant petition side of how many days they got and they didn’t have visits the petitioner is a non-custodial parent that’s all supervise visits but Indiana parent parent guidelines it is not the non-custodial parent and full custody parent responsibility to set up visits to provider to the noncustodial parents responsibility by Indiana party guidelines to set up visits with the full custodial parentbut the magistrate went ahead and instead of asking instead of asking about the words the provider just let you don’t say that the petitioners you don’t say Lori just freelance to courtroom like that there’s no reason that the full custodial parent to not consider practice on supervised visits should be questioning about the responsibility of the customer care about Indiana per the guidelines which states the responsibility