Judge sets every-other-weekend visitation and bars parents from discussing case with children

A Dixon County judge ordered a temporary parenting schedule during a family-court hearing and issued a directive forbidding either parent from discussing the divorce or making derogatory remarks about the other parent to the children.

The judge set father David Dixon's visitation at every other weekend, from Friday at 6 p.m. to Sunday at 6 p.m., and said the court will not force a child to attend visitation if the child resists; refusing to send a child under those circumstances "shall not be used against him in any future proceeding," the judge said. The order addresses two children, ages 15 and 12, and reflects testimony about one child's sensitivity: "Our daughter is borderline autistic, and she can't handle this much stress," petitioner Sabrina Smithson told the court.

Why it matters: The court weighed the children's ages and preferences and sought to balance parental access with the children nd family's well-being. The judge emphasized that the children re entitled to two parents but that the court must protect minors from being drawn into adult disputes.

The judge also issued a strict prohibition against either parent discussing the case or making derogatory comments to the children. He announced a direct enforcement mechanism: proven violations of that prohibition will be treated as contempt of court with a 10-day jail term per contempt finding. "I am putting an order down that specifically and explicitly prohibits either 1 of these parties from discussing this case with the minor children and from making any derogatory remark about the other parent to the children," the judge said. "Violation of this order will be dealt with as contempt of court. That means I will put you in jail ... you will serve 10 days in jail, and that goes for both of it."

Testimony at the hearing described sustained contact and communications after the petitioner left the marital residence. Counsel pointed to messaging records presented in court: the judge referenced approximately 263 text messages from Dixon to Smithson in one seven-day span and testimony that Dixon called and texted dozens of times after she told him to stop.

Smithson said she feared that Dixon's communications and statements could reach and affect the children, and she asked the court to prohibit him from interfering with the family and the business. Dixon acknowledged sending many messages and said he would not harm the children; he also apologized in court for the messages and said he would own that behavior.

The judge emphasized enforcement and future process: he ordered the temporary visitation schedule, prohibited both parents from disparaging the other to the children, and warned that future violations will be sanctioned. He also said the issue of a parenting plan and final custody will be determined later in the divorce proceedings after discovery and mediation. "If he is awarded some court order visitation, ... if she has a choice, she won't go," Smithson said of one child's likely preference; the judge noted that a child 12 or older may express preferences that the court will consider when setting longer-term parenting arrangements.

Ending: The court—alanced parental access and child welfare by issuing a short-term schedule for visitation while imposing strict limits on parental communication about the case with the children; the matter of final custody and any longer-term parenting plan remains subject to discovery and later hearings.