YouTube staff have very clear (but complex) guidelines to follow. Any sexually suggestive content must be kept to an absolute minimum, must be firmly and obviously in context, and must not be the main focus of the video (and must not feature in the thumbnail image).
My apologies for the quality of this video as a file was corrupted (much like too many of the Courts and many attorneys unfortunately) and the movie would not export from FC Pro, prompting me to re-shoot it as it played through.
A Rhode Island man claims that the mother of his child lied in order to obtain a restraining order against him and that she is misusing the order and is using other means to keep him from his child and to force him to drive both ways for delivery & drop off. He claims that the TRO out of Massachusetts specifically noted that there was to be no deviation from the Family Court Order issued in Providence that provided for transportation to be shared between the two of them as any contact would be incidental.
To my observation he makes a valid point, and it seems unreasonable that he should have to do all of the driving. He also posited an argument to the Court that he is concerned that the mother may move into Maine or another state and he was seeking an Order from the Court as denying such a move as not in the child's best interests given that he has another child with whom their child has bonded, in addition to the hardship involved as far as his opportunity to visit. The Court acted as if it wasn't going to entertain that Motion however it is a valid concern and the Court may indeed forbid a parent from moving further away from the other parent, I have seen case law on that point and seen cases myself when I practiced on this very issue.