Disappear - 0 Compliance to Prior Custody Order

Defendant’s Failure to Adhere to Prior Custody Order

A court restricts visitation when a party presents reason for serious safety concerns. The defendant in this matter was given a severely restricted visitation schedule due to the extremely disturbing and violent facts he admitted to without argument in trial, including severe violence toward the plaintiff pre- and post-partum.

The defendant failed to fulfill his obligations as described in the April and May 2004 custody orders granted in Anchorage, which included a 28+ week course focusing on domestic violence intervention.

Given his violent history and failure to address the same, and obvious disregard for many court rules, defendant’s July 2017 motion for modification of custody should not have been granted. He has not fulfilled his obligations to the issuing Court’s requirements for visitation and after having approximately thirteen (13) years to do so. The custody order reflecting defendant as the full custodian with control over any and all visitation from anyone is unheard of, outrageous, and has endangered the child. Since Krystin’s arrival in Fairbanks, Alaska near the end of May, the defendant has shamelessly abused any rights he may have had or hoped to obtain as the child’s legal guardian, in his decision to keep her concealed for nearly three (3) months.

Mr. Gardiner has shown little to no consideration or empathy for Krystin and the situation he created for her in Fairbanks, Alaska. He has had a strong negative influence on Krystin’s life, including doing all in his power to severe all of Krystin’s emotional supports and personal relationships. He has kept her from attending public high school, her voiced preference as opposed to any alternatives, for her sophomore year. She has not had an internet presence for nearly three (3) months. She has been kept from any communication with anyone outside of her undisclosed location, believed to be in Fairbanks, for the same amount of time. The legal parental rights of Ms. Fauver-Hernandez have been outrageously and unconscionably interfered with to the extreme by the defendant and to the child’s unimaginable and absolutely unnecessary detriment. The defendant has consistently refused and denied any demand or request made by Ms. Fauver to communicate with her only child for nearly three (3) months, despite daily demands/requests sent to the Mr. Gardiner by the Plaintiff, asserting her legal right to do so (Dec. of Fauver, Ex. ___). The defendant has also denied visits and/or conversations between the child and her grandmother, great uncle and cousin (Pl. Dec., Ex. 3, p. 4, 5). The child’s location should be revealed immediately and 100% custody returned to the Plaintiff, Ms. Fauver-Hernandez, who has been the child’s sole caretaker and provider since her birth.