What's stopping this from happening?

[t_p_us]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

The stipulation is that my ex gets to randomly give me notice to get tested for liver enzyme function due to alcoholism. Now, I've been clean and sober for 10 months now. She hasn't given me a notice since April. The random test ends in September.

What happens if she comes across as if she gave me a notice and I just chose to ignore it?

The notice, as far as I know, doesn't go through our lawyers. It's basically just a notice that she gives me. I take the test, and give it her just to show that my liver is functionaly normal. The lawyers aren't involved.

OR what's from stopping me from saying that she never gave me a notice even though she DID give me one and I just chose to ingore it?

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by t_p_us

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

The stipulation is that my ex gets to randomly give me notice to get tested for liver enzyme function due to alcoholism. Now, I've been clean and sober for 10 months now. She hasn't given me a notice since April. The random test ends in September.

What happens if she comes across as if she gave me a notice and I just chose to ignore it?

The notice, as far as I know, doesn't go through our lawyers. It's basically just a notice that she gives me. I take the test, and give it her just to show that my liver is functionaly normal. The lawyers aren't involved.

OR what's from stopping me from saying that she never gave me a notice even though she DID give me one and I just chose to ingore it?

Um...I'm a bit confused here.

What exactly is testing your enzyme levels going to prove or disprove? It doesn't exactly prove that you are or have been drinking again....

ETA: There are several reasons AST and ALT can be higher or lower than normal - you can be tested first thing in the morning, not touch alcohol all day and still test higher in the evening.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Dogmatique

Um...I'm a bit confused here.

What exactly is testing your enzyme levels going to prove or disprove? It doesn't exactly prove that you are or have been drinking again....

Actually I think it does...I am no expert on this but I think it does.

[t_p_us]

Taking a liver enzym test "proves", it depends on who is actually LOOKING at the test, that I'm drinking.

Before the stipulation was given, I went to a psycho dr. and he ordered me to take a liver enzym test (LET). It came out that they were pretty high. Thus, there's something wrong with my liver. Given the circumstances? I'm still drinking pretty heavily.

SO, if they're still high? I'm still drinking.

Up until April, they have been coming back negetive, because I haven't been drinking, but I was just curiouse . . . .

1. How can she prove that she "attemped" to give a notice to get test, and I just refused?

2. How can she prove that I "refused" a notice that she gave me? For all she knows, I could have been drinking since April!

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

Actually I think it does...I am no expert on this but I think it does.

It can indicate (and suggest) alcoholic liver disease but it's by no means conclusive.

Diabetes, hepatitis, non-alcoholic cirrhosis, Crohn's Disease, other medications (actually too many to list)....the list is fairly extensive, and all of these can produce abnormal liver enzyme values.

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by t_p_us

Taking a liver enzym test "proves", it depends on who is actually LOOKING at the test, that I'm drinking.

Before the stipulation was given, I went to a psycho dr. and he ordered me to take a liver enzym test (LET). It came out that they were pretty high. Thus, there's something wrong with my liver. Given the circumstances? I'm still drinking pretty heavily.

SO, if they're still high? I'm still drinking.

Up until April, they have been coming back negetive, because I haven't been drinking, but I was just curiouse . . . .

1. How can she prove that she "attemped" to give a notice to get test, and I just refused?

2. How can she prove that I "refused" a notice that she gave me? For all she knows, I could have been drinking since April!

Maybe the name of the actual test would clarify things a little, though I don't want to stray too far from the topic.

(now I think about it , generally speaking other tests must be performed after finding elevated enzyme levels before the diagnosis (and cause) can be made....maybe there's more to the story than has been shared so far?)

[t_p_us]

It's just an LFT. A liver function test. That's what they had me take when I saw the psych Dr.

It was an evaluation to see if I'm capable of having more time with my son. Depending on the test. If it showed positive? Then I'm still drinking. If they were normal? Then I'm not drinking.

I did my research and I did find if funny how someone can assume that just because the test came out positive, that I'm still drinking. I guess based on the reason I was there in the first place?

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by t_p_us

It's just an LFT. A liver function test. That's what they had me take when I saw the psych Dr.

It was an evaluation to see if I'm capable of having more time with my son. Depending on the test. If it showed positive? Then I'm still drinking. If they were normal? Then I'm not drinking.

I did my research and I did find if funny how someone can assume that just because the test came out positive, that I'm still drinking. I guess based on the reason I was there in the first place?

That's what is actually disturbing me - even the standard liver panel cannot conclusively diagnose alcoholic liver disease. But more to the point there are more than a few other causes of elevated (or depressed) enzymes.

(boring bit alert)

LFT is actually a group of tests, not just one. The exact panel can vary a little bit, but it would generally include total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, ALT and AST, probably GGT too...maybe one or two others. The ALT/AST ratio can, as I said, indicate alcoholic liver disease - but then so can a few other things. The results won't be positive or negative, but will fit into either "elevated", "wnl" (within normal limits) or "depressed".

Again I'm really not trying to sidetrack the thread, but it does make me a little uneasy to think that OP is assumed to have been drinking and having his fitness as a parent decided on the results of a liver panel.

(this might be a weird cultural thing though - I'm not American and admittedly I'm used to physicians not even wanting to diagnose the type/cause of liver disease based solely on that elevated liver panel. Maybe it's more common here to do that?)

[t_p_us]

So like I was saying before . . . .

1. How can she prove that she "attemped" to give a notice to get tested, and I just refused?

2. How can she prove that I "refused" a notice that she gave me? For all she knows, I could have been drinking since April!

Like I said, we're not going through our lawyers. It would make sense to me that she gave the notice to her lawyer. Her lawyer gave it to my lawyer, and my lawyer gave it to me.

But it was a cost issue, so it was stipulated that she just give it me and I just give her the results.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by Dogmatique

LFT is actually a group of tests, not just one. The exact panel can vary a little bit, but it would generally include total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, ALT and AST, probably GGT too...maybe one or two others. The ALT/AST ratio can, as I said, indicate alcoholic liver disease - but then so can a few other things. The results won't be positive or negative, but will fit into either "elevated", "wnl" (within normal limits) or "depressed".

Again I'm really not trying to sidetrack the thread, but it does make me a little uneasy to think that OP is assumed to have been drinking and having his fitness as a parent decided on the results of a liver panel.

I agree. A liver function test can not determine if someone has been drinking. For example, I have a genetic disorder called Gilbert's disease which casues elevated total bilirubin and elevated direct bilirubin - with absolutely no dependence on drinking alcohol (interesting 'disease', though - no harmful effects in most people other than the excess bilirubin, but it DOES appear to be linked to a lower risk of heart disease).

The point is that there are a huge number of reasons why any particular liver function test (or all of them) would be abnormal. His attorney should have objected right from the start.

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by t_p_us

So like I was saying before . . . .

1. How can she prove that she "attemped" to give a notice to get tested, and I just refused?

2. How can she prove that I "refused" a notice that she gave me? For all she knows, I could have been drinking since April!

Like I said, we're not going through our lawyers. It would make sense to me that she gave the notice to her lawyer. Her lawyer gave it to my lawyer, and my lawyer gave it to me.

But it was a cost issue, so it was stipulated that she just give it me and I just give her the results.

1. She could provide certified mail documentation that she sent something. Or, she could have a phone conversation with you on speaker phone and someone else in the room listening in. Or record a conversation (if that's legal in your state - I didn't look it up). Or probably some other things, as well.

2. She doesn't have to prove that you refused. She would go into court with proof that she requested the test (#1 above). The judge would then ask you to produce the results. If you can't produce them, you lose.

As I said in the previous post, using liver function tests to indicate that someone has been drinking is pseudoscience at its best. It sounds good on paper, but it's not reliable. Your attorney should have challenged it right up front. Since you didn't challenge it up front, you're stuck with it, so you'd better hope she doesn't ask and if she asks, you'd better hope the results are OK.

And make sure you're not drinking regardless of the liver tests.

[t_p_us]

I understand if she had proof, then I'm SOL, BUT she has never given me a notice with any kind of witness at all. It's always been when I dropped off the child.

That's the thing. That's the tricky part. I did bring it up to my lawyer (useless) and he said "well . . . let's just hope nothing like that happens . . ."

I'm just trying to avoid any further issues as the end of her giving my notices is at the end of Sept. She was given a year to randomly test me and stopped in mid April.

Like I said, for all she knows I could be drinking it up right now and all I have to say is that she never gave my ANY notices at all since there never was any witnesses . . . .

Also, for all I know, she could say that she HAS been giving me notices and failed to produce the results?

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by t_p_us

I understand if she had proof, then I'm SOL, BUT she has never given me a notice with any kind of witness at all. It's always been when I dropped off the child.

That's the thing. That's the tricky part. I did bring it up to my lawyer (useless) and he said "well . . . let's just hope nothing like that happens . . ."

I'm just trying to avoid any further issues as the end of her giving my notices is at the end of Sept. She was given a year to randomly test me and stopped in mid April.

Like I said, for all she knows I could be drinking it up right now and all I have to say is that she never gave my ANY notices at all since there never was any witnesses . . . .

Also, for all I know, she could say that she HAS been giving me notices and failed to produce the results?

It's really not hard, please follow along.

She could absolutely say that she has given you notice. You would then respond (assuming it's true), "No, your honor, she never gave me notice". The judge would then ask her for evidence of her giving you notice. If she has no evidence, then it gets dropped. If she has evidence of giving you notice, then you'd better have the test results.

It's that simple.

[t_p_us]

Then that would not be fair? The stipulation reads that I have two days to get tested upon notice.

Are you saying that all she has to do is take me back to court. Write up a fake notice in the court parking lot with any date she wants and just say to the judge, "See? Here's my proof!"

[mistoffolees]

Originally Posted by t_p_us

Then that would not be fair? The stipulation reads that I have two days to get tested upon notice.

Are you saying that all she has to do is take me back to court. Write up a fake notice in the court parking lot with any date she wants and just say to the judge, "See? Here's my proof!"

That's not what I said.

She has to prove that she gave you the notice. Certified mail, paying for service, etc. She can CLAIM she delivered it, but the judge is going to want proof. Without proof, she's not going to win.