EDIT: 02/13/2023- The person updated their public reviews (thank you).  We have removed the screenshots and redacted the person's name from this response.

Chico, California- Response to [REDACTED] Various Online Complaints 

Since Supervised Visitation is NOT a HIPAA - compliant service, and the party in question has decided to publicly defame our reputation with untrue statements, we will publicly respond here:

All supervised visitation clients go through an orientation and sign an agreement with us before services commence. Our agreement is thorough and covers things like:

- appropriate parent behavior during visits
- fees for visits
- additional fees
- reasons for termination 
​- etc.

Generally speaking, a person will be terminated from services if they do not comply with our Guidelines that are based on California Standard 5.20, and years of experience. The most frequent ways in which parents violate guidelines are:

- arguing with Staff
- demanding that Staff take their side (become biased)
- no-showing or late canceling on visits
- not paying fees owed

All clients are well aware of these guidelines before starting services.  

REDACTED was terminated from services, as she has already publicly stated. She then began to harass staff via email, texting, and phone calls. We provided her with a CEASE and DESIST order.

She then posted six negative google reviews (see images in the slide show above). The first in her name, and the additional ones in nonsensical names.  You will notice all comments were posted at the same time. (Our guess is that she posted that many in order to bring our five stars to one.)

We contacted Google, who stated they will remove the posts with a court order. Sadly, we may be forced to move forward with a civil lawsuit against REDACTED for harassment. On a side note, it is interesting that Google allows reviews by "people" named "No Name" or "Amf Issues," but this is the world we live in now.

Additionally, REDACTED, the person, not the anonymously cloned reviewer, created bank disputes against legitimate charges for services that she agreed to and received. 

She also wrote a public BBB review (see screenshot above), and filed two BBB complaints (one in her name and one in her friend's name). 
​
Our agency treats all people with respect, while enforcing necessary boundaries for the safety of children, staff, and the public. Our primary goal is to remain NEUTRAL while providing non-custodial parents with the opportunity to visit their children. Any attempts to get us to be not neutral are corrected.  

Our notes contain factual - not opinionated- information about visits.  We cannot legally offer any opinions regarding visits. REDACTED has all copies of visit documentation and will not be able to provide any evidence therein that would indicate that we in any way caused her any harm in her court case, as she has claimed.

Former SV clients who act like this cause a great deal of harm. First, through defamation, and second, through an unsustainable amount of administrative time related to disputing chargebacks with banks, writing response letters to organizations such as the BBB... and the necessary increases in fees to cover these tasks.  And ultimately, as the ongoing hassle becomes less worth our effort or time, potentially the termination of the program, harming those who will have less access to their children.

We wish REDACTED healing and wellness in the future and again request her removal of duplicate, anonymous and/or untruthful defamatory reviews. 

Description of photos: Several screenshots of statements posted online by REDACTED. (SCREENSHOTS REMOVED AS MENTIONED ABOVE)