Chapter 14 - Child Protection
The child-protection investigation focused on safety.
Could Ivy remain with me?
Yes.
Was I protective?
Generally.
Had I used violence in front of her?
Yes.
That mattered.
The investigator, Karen Doyle, asked:
“Any prior physical conflict between you and Celeste?”
“No.”
“Between Celeste and Ivy?”
“No known physical.”
“Punishments?”
Time-outs.
Toy removal.
Normal.
“Any confinement?”
I remembered one incident.
Celeste once shut Ivy in her bedroom for ten minutes after a tantrum.
Door not locked.
Ivy could open it.
Not same.
“Any threats of travel?”
Not known.
Then Karen asked:
“Why was the child’s passport accessible to Celeste?”
Because we were married.
Shared cabinet.
Normal.
Now changed.
Passport moved to secure location controlled by legal parent pending proceedings.
Not because passports are dangerous.
Because unauthorized travel had become specific risk.
Child protection created safety plan:
No contact between Celeste and Ivy pending criminal/family review.
No Nolan contact.
No unsupervised exchange.
Ivy remained home with me.
Therapy increased.
No foster placement.
No dramatic custody loss because Dad slapped stepmother once.
But Karen wrote:
Father’s retaliatory physical conduct in child’s presence requires intervention.
I hated that.
Signed anyway.
Anger counseling.
Parent coaching.
Appropriate.
May you like
Protective parents are still accountable for what children see.
────────────────────
