Preview
F fp IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
AVRIL MaRIA ADAMS-WILLIAMS,
Case No. Roo2-27
FD Docket D eee eb
FEB 25 202!
Petitioner,
VS.
TC THOMAS WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDNET’S MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF VISITATION AND PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
CoMES Now, the Petitioner, Avril Maria Adams- Williams, by and through her attorney of
record, Jonathan M. Watson of the firm Watson Law, P.L.L.C., and for her Response to
Respondent’s Motion for Enforcement of Visitation and Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, alleges
and states as follows, to wit:
I.
That Petitioner admits the facts and allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 (save
and except for the title of paragraph 5) of Respondent’s Motion for Enforcement of Visitation filed
in the above styled case on February 12, 2021.
Il.
That Petitioner denies the facts and allegations contained in paragraphs 5 (the title), 6, and
Respondent’s Wherefore paragraph and demands strict proof thereof. Specifically, Respondent
alleges that Petitioner “kept the minor child on the Protective Order after the Court ordered she be
removed”, that Petitioner did “not provid{e] Respondent with the child’s phone number”, that
Petitioner did “not inform[] the school in a timely manner that the Protective Order had been
lifted”, and that Petitioner “discourage[ed] the child from wanting to see Respondent.”
Respondent’s Motion for Enforcement of Visitation at paragraph 6. Petitioner would state that
DON NEWBERRY, Court Clerk
STATE AF OFLA. TULSA COUNTY1) she is incapable of removing the minor child from a protective order once filed. The court must
approve the removal of a minor child from a protective order; 2) Respondent has always had the
minor child’s telephone number as he set up the phone, has access to the account, and receives the
statements; 3) that Petitioner did in fact advise the Owasso School district of the fact that the
Protective Order was no longer operative, however due to the school administration’s involvement
in verifying the same for the safety of their student, it took longer that Respondent wanted to
confirm; and 4) Petitioner has never discouraged the minor child from visiting Respondent. The
reality of the situation is quite to the contrary. Petitioner continually encourages the minor child
to communicate with and visit Respondent. However, the minor child has repeatedly stated that
she does not trust Respondent enough to be alone with him and that she does not want to visit him
for extended lengths of time. The minor child is eager to speak to this Court and express her
opinion and the facts her opinion is based on. In short form, the minor child does not want to visit
Respondent based in large part on her last overnight visit on or about the weekend of January 15"
—175. Petitioner and Respondent arranged for visitation that weekend through their attorneys as
requested by this Court. Respondent is an over the road truck driver with no physical residence or
family in the area. Due to this fact, Petitioner requested Respondent provide her with an address
where the minor child would be staying, a pick-up time, and a drop off time and location.
Respondent repeatedly refused to provide said information, only stating that the child should be
ready to be picked up from school and that he would ensure that any residence the minor child
stayed in would be “appropriate”. After many requests, Respondent indicated that he and the
minor child would be staying in a hotel in Tulsa for the weekend and that he would drop the minor
child off at the entrance of Walmart in Owasso at the agreed upon time. Thereafter, visitation
began without incident and continued until Saturday evening. On Saturday evening, Petitionerreceived a phone call from the minor child stating that upon the minor child’s pick up by
Respondent, respondent removed all forms of communication from the minor child and rather than
stay at the hotel, Respondent packed up the minor child in the cab of his truck and left the state.
The minor child further informed Petitioner that the minor child and Respondent eventually
stopped in Missouri, where Respondent forced the minor child to sit in a room full of truck drivers
she had never met with no means of communication while Respondent worked for the weekend.
Since that visit, the minor child arranged a dinner visit with Respondent for valentine’s
day. Two day prior to that visit however, Respondent demanded that the visit be modified to a full
overnight weekend and the minor child declined, as she had other plans. When it became clear to
Respondent that the visit would not be modified, he refused to participate in the original visitation
plan and instead, left town.
MOTION TO DISMISS
Ill,
That Respondent’s seeks to enforce an order of visitation that does not exist. An order for
visitation was never entered in this case. In fact, Petitioner is currently working to get a Temporary
Order Hearing set so that visitation and child support can be addressed.
Petitioner is unaware of any statute or line of case law that entitles Respondent to the relief
he requests. Respondent himself cites no authority showing this Court that he is entitled to his
requested relief.
IV.
Here, Respondent is attempting to cause his own injury by refusing to visit with the minor
child as originally planned and playing the victim, hoping the Court will not see what is actually
going on. It has long been the law that one cannot throw themself upon a clearly visible log in theroad and claim injury. That is what Respondent seeks to do here. He lied to his attorney, Petitioner,
and the minor child about where his first visitation would take place, then he wants to pretend
Petitioner and the minor child are unjustifiably mistrustful. Then Respondent refuses to participate
in the visitation he arranged and wants this Court to believe Petitioner prevented the visit.
Respondent has caused the injuries he complains to this court about and wants this Court to hold
Petitioner responsible. This Court should not be manipulated by Respondent.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner prays that Respondent take nothing from his
Motion and the same be DENIED and/or DISMISSED; that Petitioner be awarded her reasonable
attorney fees associated to responding to this frivolous motion; for all relief requested herein; and
all and further relief this Court deems just and equitable based upon the facts and circumstances
presented.
- eo
7 enathal MW aison, OBA 31262
WATSON LAW, P.L.L.C
1408 S. Denver Avenue
Tulsa, OK 74119
Telephone (918) 582-5444
Facsimile (918) 794-3336
Attorney for the RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the gs day of Feo - > 2024 . a true and correct copy of this
instrument was:
x mailed with postage prepaid thereon;
mailed by certified mail,
Return Receipt No. 5
transmitted via facsimile; or
hand-delivered;
to: Brian Jackson, Esq.
WIRTH LAW OFFICE
500 W. 7” Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
Telephone —_ 918-932-2800
Facsimile 918-932-2900
ee M. Watson
Preview
F fp IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA AVRIL MaRIA ADAMS-WILLIAMS, Case No. Roo2-27 FD Docket D eee eb FEB 25 202! Petitioner, VS. TC THOMAS WILLIAMS, Respondent. PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDNET’S MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VISITATION AND PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS CoMES Now, the Petitioner, Avril Maria Adams- Williams, by and through her attorney of record, Jonathan M. Watson of the firm Watson Law, P.L.L.C., and for her Response to Respondent’s Motion for Enforcement of Visitation and Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, alleges and states as follows, to wit: I. That Petitioner admits the facts and allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 (save and except for the title of paragraph 5) of Respondent’s Motion for Enforcement of Visitation filed in the above styled case on February 12, 2021. Il. That Petitioner denies the facts and allegations contained in paragraphs 5 (the title), 6, and Respondent’s Wherefore paragraph and demands strict proof thereof. Specifically, Respondent alleges that Petitioner “kept the minor child on the Protective Order after the Court ordered she be removed”, that Petitioner did “not provid{e] Respondent with the child’s phone number”, that Petitioner did “not inform[] the school in a timely manner that the Protective Order had been lifted”, and that Petitioner “discourage[ed] the child from wanting to see Respondent.” Respondent’s Motion for Enforcement of Visitation at paragraph 6. Petitioner would state that DON NEWBERRY, Court Clerk STATE AF OFLA. TULSA COUNTY1) she is incapable of removing the minor child from a protective order once filed. The court must approve the removal of a minor child from a protective order; 2) Respondent has always had the minor child’s telephone number as he set up the phone, has access to the account, and receives the statements; 3) that Petitioner did in fact advise the Owasso School district of the fact that the Protective Order was no longer operative, however due to the school administration’s involvement in verifying the same for the safety of their student, it took longer that Respondent wanted to confirm; and 4) Petitioner has never discouraged the minor child from visiting Respondent. The reality of the situation is quite to the contrary. Petitioner continually encourages the minor child to communicate with and visit Respondent. However, the minor child has repeatedly stated that she does not trust Respondent enough to be alone with him and that she does not want to visit him for extended lengths of time. The minor child is eager to speak to this Court and express her opinion and the facts her opinion is based on. In short form, the minor child does not want to visit Respondent based in large part on her last overnight visit on or about the weekend of January 15" —175. Petitioner and Respondent arranged for visitation that weekend through their attorneys as requested by this Court. Respondent is an over the road truck driver with no physical residence or family in the area. Due to this fact, Petitioner requested Respondent provide her with an address where the minor child would be staying, a pick-up time, and a drop off time and location. Respondent repeatedly refused to provide said information, only stating that the child should be ready to be picked up from school and that he would ensure that any residence the minor child stayed in would be “appropriate”. After many requests, Respondent indicated that he and the minor child would be staying in a hotel in Tulsa for the weekend and that he would drop the minor child off at the entrance of Walmart in Owasso at the agreed upon time. Thereafter, visitation began without incident and continued until Saturday evening. On Saturday evening, Petitionerreceived a phone call from the minor child stating that upon the minor child’s pick up by Respondent, respondent removed all forms of communication from the minor child and rather than stay at the hotel, Respondent packed up the minor child in the cab of his truck and left the state. The minor child further informed Petitioner that the minor child and Respondent eventually stopped in Missouri, where Respondent forced the minor child to sit in a room full of truck drivers she had never met with no means of communication while Respondent worked for the weekend. Since that visit, the minor child arranged a dinner visit with Respondent for valentine’s day. Two day prior to that visit however, Respondent demanded that the visit be modified to a full overnight weekend and the minor child declined, as she had other plans. When it became clear to Respondent that the visit would not be modified, he refused to participate in the original visitation plan and instead, left town. MOTION TO DISMISS Ill, That Respondent’s seeks to enforce an order of visitation that does not exist. An order for visitation was never entered in this case. In fact, Petitioner is currently working to get a Temporary Order Hearing set so that visitation and child support can be addressed. Petitioner is unaware of any statute or line of case law that entitles Respondent to the relief he requests. Respondent himself cites no authority showing this Court that he is entitled to his requested relief. IV. Here, Respondent is attempting to cause his own injury by refusing to visit with the minor child as originally planned and playing the victim, hoping the Court will not see what is actually going on. It has long been the law that one cannot throw themself upon a clearly visible log in theroad and claim injury. That is what Respondent seeks to do here. He lied to his attorney, Petitioner, and the minor child about where his first visitation would take place, then he wants to pretend Petitioner and the minor child are unjustifiably mistrustful. Then Respondent refuses to participate in the visitation he arranged and wants this Court to believe Petitioner prevented the visit. Respondent has caused the injuries he complains to this court about and wants this Court to hold Petitioner responsible. This Court should not be manipulated by Respondent. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner prays that Respondent take nothing from his Motion and the same be DENIED and/or DISMISSED; that Petitioner be awarded her reasonable attorney fees associated to responding to this frivolous motion; for all relief requested herein; and all and further relief this Court deems just and equitable based upon the facts and circumstances presented. - eo 7 enathal MW aison, OBA 31262 WATSON LAW, P.L.L.C 1408 S. Denver Avenue Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone (918) 582-5444 Facsimile (918) 794-3336 Attorney for the RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the gs day of Feo - > 2024 . a true and correct copy of this instrument was: x mailed with postage prepaid thereon; mailed by certified mail, Return Receipt No. 5 transmitted via facsimile; or hand-delivered; to: Brian Jackson, Esq. WIRTH LAW OFFICE 500 W. 7” Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 Telephone —_ 918-932-2800 Facsimile 918-932-2900 ee M. Watson