Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge approves limited supervised home visits while criminal case proceeds, orders anger-management enrollment
Summary
After contested opening statements with allegations of domestic violence and drug possession, attorneys for Gabriela and James Galleon reported a tentative agreement: supervised visits at the home and modified bond conditions allowing certain medical-appointment attendance; the judge approved the agreement and entered it as an order pending a further hearing.
A contested custody-and-visitation matter between Gabriela Galleon and James Galleon produced a negotiated outcome in Humphreys County Chancery Court. In opening statements counsel for the mother alleged a long history of domestic violence and drug use and asked the court to prevent the father from contacting the children until criminal charges are resolved. Defense counsel disputed aspects of the allegations and emphasized that many claims should be decided on the evidence presented in this proceeding, not by re-litigating the criminal case.
After a recess for conferral, counsel reported a tentative agreement: the father may have supervised visitation at the family home under specified conditions; the bond conditions will be modified so that such visitation and attendance at medical appointments are not violations of bond. The father agreed to enroll voluntarily in anger-management classes and provide proof, and the parties agreed to coordinate parenting time using a documented communication tool to reduce direct contact. Judge David D. Wolfe approved the arrangement "as an order of the court today" and set a follow-up return date to aim for a global settlement while criminal matters remain pending.
The hearing record includes disputed factual claims: the mother’s counsel said some children have previously been the subject of a DCS report; defense counsel said a prior DCS allegation was found unfounded and argued some statements presented in opening were exaggerated. The judge emphasized that the court would decide custody on the evidence presented in this courtroom and repeatedly framed his role as focused on the children's best interests. The court endorsed the short-term safety measures and directed counsel to submit a written order reflecting the modifications and visitation details.
