Renee Curry - My Turn Visits, Supervised Child Visits

    2 reviews
Write a Review


501 W. Glenoaks Blvd, #733

City: Glendale

State: California

Zip: 91202





Supervised Visitations Monitor/Facilitator


Contracts for Supervised Child Visits under Tamara Daniels







THIS IS ONE UNETHICAL MONITOR!!! I have never met Renee. She was supposed to replace my current monitor for one visit. We spoke on the phone once. I determined that she will not be a good fit even for one visit. She was not willing to provide her driver license number and was very standoffish. But, no sweat. We went our separate ways. Well, at least I thought so. I had an upcoming hearing in court and when I got a copy of the motion that my ex’s attorneys filed, I found Renee’s report to the court as evidence against me. I was shocked. She wrote about me as if she knew me very well. Made me out to be a criminal knowing that I could lose my visitation rights if the judge believed her story. Well, the judge did not. But is it ethical for a monitor to do this? Isn’t she in violation of California Rules 5.20?

Perhaps she feels that since there is not an authority out there that governs monitors she can do what she wants. Well, she may be right in that respect.



Response by renee curry

on 02-20-2015 at 22:37:00

Mr. "Josh Simes",
You requested my drivers license number over the phone and I do recall you also asked for my home address and my drivers record all within the first 5 minutes of our phone conversation, and you're right..."we never met". "Mr. Simes" it's fair to suggest that your demands were oddly inappropriate.
Re: A report, I did not write a "report". The reason that the visit didn't occur may have been included in a declaration or report from a different party. Please refer back to your documents.
Respectfully and Warm Regards,
Renee Curry

Response by Josh Simes

on 03-01-2015 at 17:50:58

Renee Curry should examine facts of this matter a little closer. Renee Curry acted UNETHINCALLY because whether she liked what I requested on the phone or not, the call should not have made it on her damaging report to my ex’s attorneys either on her own or part of someone else’s report. California Standards 5.20 gives me the opportunity to ask a potential monitor for her criminal and driving record. Driver license, insurance and other pertinent information is part of such inquiry allowed by law.

And what was so wrong with my request that it had to go straight to my ex’s attorneys and presented by Ms. Curry in such a way that I sounded like a criminal? Monitors know very well that reports they write can make a difference in a custody case. Ms. Curry intentionally made me out to look negative before the judge and her deed is not only unethical, it’s evil. She INTENTIONALLY attempted to cause me to lose visitation rights with my kids.

The point is that a monitor must write reports to court about cases that she actually monitors. Renee and I never met. She never monitored my visits. And yet her negative testimony/opinion about a phone call with me made it to my ex’s attorneys first and then the court. A PHONE CALL, not a visit!!! Is this ethical?
Renee is, or was, part of Supervised Child Visitations, a Tamara Daniels-Hall racket that allows its affiliates to write false reports to court.

Simes is because custody lawsuits that involve paternity must remain anonymous. This is a lawsuit involving paternity. I hope you know that litigants, as well as, minor children in such cases are protected by the laws of the state of California from public exposure. Violators WILL BE prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Best Regards.

Response by Linda Lagunas

on 11-29-2016 at 08:38:10

Josh Simes, I would be interested in knowing more about your experience. Can you contact me?

Response by Josh Simes

on 12-17-2016 at 10:01:16

Ok. Let me know your email address. Thanks.

Response by Linda Lagunas

on 12-17-2016 at 13:53:36

Go Back