Rebuttal Presumption was Never Applied - He won temp Sole Custody!

[Zigner]

That answers my most recent question about her background. My apologies for.not seeing this sooner. But as for helping? Nothing constructive has been said to point me in any positive direction. Now that I have educated myself day and night, I understand the mistakes I made. But to defend an attorney who clearly has no intentions to do what we paid him to do? I can't grasp that idea.

You gave him 6 business days, what did you expect?!?

 

[Silverplum]

I can't prove it here. The other party has not been given a copy yet.

You don't need to prove anything here. You were to do it in court, properly, but that ship sailed. Given that you never proved it and went on to marry and have a kid, it's beyond irrelevant: except that your harping on the irrelevant issue makes you sound like an obsessed liar.

 

[PAisAbuse]

You gave him 6 business days, what did you expect?!?

I only ever expected anything other than what he confidently promised

 

[PAisAbuse]

You don't need to prove anything here. You were to do it in court, properly, but that ship sailed. Given that you never proved it and went on to marry and have a kid, it's beyond irrelevant: except that your harping on the irrelevant issue makes you sound like an obsessed liar.

Wow. Way to pay attention. Look I appreciate whatever "help" you are claiming to provide but since we can't even stay on topic or even relevant years? It a waste of everyone's time. Thank you all. Take care

 

[Silverplum]

Wow. Way to pay attention. Look I appreciate whatever "help" you are claiming to provide but since we can't even stay on topic or even relevant years? It a waste of everyone's time. Thank you all. Take care

Alrighty, then.

 

[Zigner]

I only ever expected anything other than what he confidently promised

Right - a continuance (as you already stated.) During court, YOU agreed to a stipulation regarding custody.

ETA: Maybe it was after court...we can't really tell since you've told the story both ways.

 

[Ohiogal]

I can't prove it here. The other party has not been given a copy yet.

A copy of anything PROVES NOTHING. It really doesn't. A copy is NOT evidence. A court filing is NOT evidence. An affidavit is NOT evidence. Evidence is certified business records with proper foundation laid. Evidence is witnesses who observed things. Evidence is many things but NOT a court filing. Again, you don't know the rules of evidence. Hence, you have nothing.

 

[Ohiogal]

Wow. Way to pay attention. Look I appreciate whatever "help" you are claiming to provide but since we can't even stay on topic or even relevant years? It a waste of everyone's time. Thank you all. Take care

You are the one who thought 2008 and 2009 mattered. That was in YOUR first post. All the abuse from THEN. Way to waste our time with that irrelevance. Understand? And then you insult people who are your betters and not ignorant? Lovely. I vote Leave -- as in you.

 

[Just Blue]

OP...I see you are modifying. I hope that you do not delete the thread...As you will NOT get further assistance if you do.

 

[Proserpina]

OP, when you discussed parental alienation with the attorney, what did the attorney say? What did any prior attorneys say?

('scuse me if I missed a vital point in this lengthy thread)

 

[PAisAbuse]

OP, when you discussed parental alienation with the attorney, what did the attorney say? What did any prior attorneys say?

('scuse me if I missed a vital point in this lengthy thread)

Nothing was deleted. There were typos.
The attorney is the one who classified it as a parental alienation case.

 

[PAisAbuse]

You are the one who thought 2008 and 2009 mattered. That was in YOUR first post. All the abuse from THEN. Way to waste our time with that irrelevance. Understand? And then you insult people who are your betters and not ignorant? Lovely. I vote Leave -- as in you.

Nope. Wrong again. I asked if the CCRC reports from 2015 were considered a valid reason for the court to.apply the presumption. I love your hypocrisy when it comes to insults.

 

[Zigner]

Nope. Wrong again. I asked if the CCRC reports from 2015 were considered a valid reason for the court to.apply the presumption. I love your hypocrisy when it comes to insults.

What presumption? The court has not decided that DV has occurred in the first place...

Additionally, the "CCRC reports" are hearsay.

 

[Proserpina]

Nothing was deleted. There were typos.
The attorney is the one who classified it as a parental alienation case.

What on earth are you talking about? I said not one word about deletions or typos.

 

[Zigner]

What on earth are you talking about? I said not one word about deletions or typos.

The OP was responding to Blue Meanie