attorney fees

[herdoc2005]

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

First: I'm in the military stationed in Ft. Bragg NC, and going through court in Benton County, WA State.

I recently went to court over custody, and the whole point of going to court was to improve my daughter's life by makeing the mother accountable for her actions of frequently moving to include changing schools, moving in and out with men, very bad dental records etc.

In the end, of course, the court decided that thigns were not bad enough for long enough to change custody (understood, dont agree, but I understand it is hard to change primary custody)

ISSUE #1
I was made to pay for her lawyer fees based on the fact that she could not pay? Is this legal? Am I being lied to?

ISSUE #2
She was not held in contempt for:
moving without noticing me (becuase I didnt take her to court quick enough, even though I didnt know when she moved AND her lawyer kept pushing the court dates to the right)
or
Not paying for her part of plane tickets even though she agreed in emails and on the phone(that is explained in the divorce decree) (Becuase the custodian who flew with her did not travel straight there and back)
How is this justice? How can someone do what they want and get the backing of the court?

In the end, the child again is living with the mother who moved right back in with the boyfriend, and has been tardy to school (that is right down the street) countless times!

thanks for your help

 

[mistoffolees]

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

First: I'm in the military stationed in Ft. Bragg NC, and going through court in Benton County, WA State.

I recently went to court over custody, and the whole point of going to court was to improve my daughter's life by makeing the mother accountable for her actions of frequently moving to include changing schools, moving in and out with men, very bad dental records etc.

In the end, of course, the court decided that thigns were not bad enough for long enough to change custody (understood, dont agree, but I understand it is hard to change primary custody)

ISSUE #1
I was made to pay for her lawyer fees based on the fact that she could not pay? Is this legal? Am I being lied to?

ISSUE #2
She was not held in contempt for:
moving without noticing me (becuase I didnt take her to court quick enough, even though I didnt know when she moved AND her lawyer kept pushing the court dates to the right)
or
Not paying for her part of plane tickets even though she agreed in emails and on the phone(that is explained in the divorce decree) (Becuase the custodian who flew with her did not travel straight there and back)
How is this justice? How can someone do what they want and get the backing of the court?

In the end, the child again is living with the mother who moved right back in with the boyfriend, and has been tardy to school (that is right down the street) countless times!

thanks for your help

#1. Yes, it's perfectly legal.

#2. Courts are hesitant to find someone in contempt. There needs to be real evidence (not just your word) and, often, repeated infractions before they are found in contempt. Not knowing the specifics, it's impossible to comment further.

 

[herdoc2005]

#1. Yes, it's perfectly legal.

#2. Courts are hesitant to find someone in contempt. There needs to be real evidence (not just your word) and, often, repeated infractions before they are found in contempt. Not knowing the specifics, it's impossible to comment further.

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate the knowledge to help me understand.

If you dont mind explaining a lil more to me, I would really appreciate it.

1. Please explain how its legal (and american) to make the apposing individual pay for lawyer fee's, just basd on the fact that she couldnt pay? Why was she allowed to get services if she knew she couldnt pay? Why was she not recommended to get state assisted help? Where is it justice to punish someone for bringing someone to court, souly based on the financial ability of that person? (and please account for the fact that it was not for bringing that person to court under false pretenses) With a system like this, whta is stopping her from geting the most expensive lawyer and then always pushing the expenses on me? (and I'm a military soldier, so its not like I make alot of money either, I'm not a doctor or anything)

2. well the two situations are black and white.
A: she moved without notifying me (I provided proof from the school that she moved the child out of, and didnt even notify them! She also has to notify me by mail, which she couldnt provide proof of. and lastly it wasnt ruled against based on the fact there wasnt evidence, it was ruled against, becuase I didnt act in time (even though I didnt kinow when it happened, and then her lawyers kept pushing the court dates off)
B: she didnt pay for her part of chaperone tickets (I provided proof where she agreed to the tickets, the chaperone, the price, and even made up a plan to pay me back! Never did she EVER email me to say, "I dont feel that its right that I should pay this" to open up discuss!)

Thank you again, I'm just looking to understand better. I understand that the court does not like to change custody (unless extreme circumbstances), and they wouldnt hold someone in contempt (unless there is bold truth), the the fact is I provided that proof, and was discriminated against becuase of other reasons. It left my lawyers completely baffled on the system.

 

[mistoffolees]

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate the knowledge to help me understand.

If you dont mind explaining a lil more to me, I would really appreciate it.

1. Please explain how its legal (and american) to make the apposing individual pay for lawyer fee's, just basd on the fact that she couldnt pay? Why was she allowed to get services if she knew she couldnt pay? Why was she not recommended to get state assisted help? Where is it justice to punish someone for bringing someone to court, souly based on the financial ability of that person? (and please account for the fact that it was not for bringing that person to court under false pretenses) With a system like this, whta is stopping her from geting the most expensive lawyer and then always pushing the expenses on me? (and I'm a military soldier, so its not like I make alot of money either, I'm not a doctor or anything)

2. well the two situations are black and white.
A: she moved without notifying me (I provided proof from the school that she moved the child out of, and didnt even notify them! She also has to notify me by mail, which she couldnt provide proof of. and lastly it wasnt ruled against based on the fact there wasnt evidence, it was ruled against, becuase I didnt act in time (even though I didnt kinow when it happened, and then her lawyers kept pushing the court dates off)
B: she didnt pay for her part of chaperone tickets (I provided proof where she agreed to the tickets, the chaperone, the price, and even made up a plan to pay me back! Never did she EVER email me to say, "I dont feel that its right that I should pay this" to open up discuss!)

Thank you again, I'm just looking to understand better. I understand that the court does not like to change custody (unless extreme circumbstances), and they wouldnt hold someone in contempt (unless there is bold truth), the the fact is I provided that proof, and was discriminated against becuase of other reasons. It left my lawyers completely baffled on the system.

1. I doubt very much that the court ordered you to pay simply because she couldn't pay. More likely, the court determined that your suit was unnecessary and since you didn't convince them otherwise, they ordered you to pay her legal expenses. The courts don't do very much to penalize frivolous suits, but once in a while they do make the loser pay. It doesn't happen that often and generally only in fairly clear cut situations.

2. First issue - you lost because you didn't follow the court rules. There was a timeline and you failed to meet it. You lose. (There are ways to file later if you can prove that you just discovered it, but you apparently failed to do so).
Second issue - it's not entirely clear what the issue is. What does the decree say? Does it flat out require her to pay 1/2 of chaperone costs? If so, there's no need for her to agree. I'm guessing that she since needs to agree to the travel, it's not a simple black and white issue. Furthermore, by having the chaperone doing their own travel, you're adding expense that she has no obligation to pay. If I had a court order saying that you owe me a Ford Focus and went out and bought a Mercedes, I would not be able to collect the greater value. By having your chaperone making other stops, you're not following the intent of the agreement. (The intent of the chaperone is that they are with the child at all times. If they didn't fly right there and back, they weren't acting as chaperone).

I don't see any signs of terrible injustice. The problem is that you decided to handle this on your own without fully understanding how the system works. That is why I strongly discourage people handling divorce issues pro se.

 

[herdoc2005]

1. I doubt very much that the court ordered you to pay simply because she couldn't pay. More likely, the court determined that your suit was unnecessary and since you didn't convince them otherwise, they ordered you to pay her legal expenses. The courts don't do very much to penalize frivolous suits, but once in a while they do make the loser pay. It doesn't happen that often and generally only in fairly clear cut situations.

2. First issue - you lost because you didn't follow the court rules. There was a timeline and you failed to meet it. You lose. (There are ways to file later if you can prove that you just discovered it, but you apparently failed to do so).
Second issue - it's not entirely clear what the issue is. What does the decree say? Does it flat out require her to pay 1/2 of chaperone costs? If so, there's no need for her to agree. I'm guessing that she since needs to agree to the travel, it's not a simple black and white issue. Furthermore, by having the chaperone doing their own travel, you're adding expense that she has no obligation to pay. If I had a court order saying that you owe me a Ford Focus and went out and bought a Mercedes, I would not be able to collect the greater value. By having your chaperone making other stops, you're not following the intent of the agreement. (The intent of the chaperone is that they are with the child at all times. If they didn't fly right there and back, they weren't acting as chaperone).

I don't see any signs of terrible injustice. The problem is that you decided to handle this on your own without fully understanding how the system works. That is why I strongly discourage people handling divorce issues pro se.

Once again, thank you for your help, I alway appreciate assistance.

First off: I never said I did this pro se, and stated in my last statement that these contempt hearings left "my lawyers" completely stumped. I seeked legal advice for everything.

#1 I can provide the email from my lawyer showing that the judge ruled me to pay lawyer fees based on the fact that I can, and she cant. NOT becuase of how the case went. I argued how this can be allowed, and they stressed over and over again, this is how it is.

#2 I can scan the page that explains the custody prices.

thanks again.

 

[herdoc2005]

1. I doubt very much that the court ordered you to pay simply because she couldn't pay. More likely, the court determined that your suit was unnecessary and since you didn't convince them otherwise, they ordered you to pay her legal expenses. The courts don't do very much to penalize frivolous suits, but once in a while they do make the loser pay. It doesn't happen that often and generally only in fairly clear cut situations.

2. First issue - you lost because you didn't follow the court rules. There was a timeline and you failed to meet it. You lose. (There are ways to file later if you can prove that you just discovered it, but you apparently failed to do so).
Second issue - it's not entirely clear what the issue is. What does the decree say? Does it flat out require her to pay 1/2 of chaperone costs? If so, there's no need for her to agree. I'm guessing that she since needs to agree to the travel, it's not a simple black and white issue. Furthermore, by having the chaperone doing their own travel, you're adding expense that she has no obligation to pay. If I had a court order saying that you owe me a Ford Focus and went out and bought a Mercedes, I would not be able to collect the greater value. By having your chaperone making other stops, you're not following the intent of the agreement. (The intent of the chaperone is that they are with the child at all times. If they didn't fly right there and back, they weren't acting as chaperone).

I don't see any signs of terrible injustice. The problem is that you decided to handle this on your own without fully understanding how the system works. That is why I strongly discourage people handling divorce issues pro se.

can you attach things? I cant seem to figure out how! LOL

 

[mistoffolees]

Once again, thank you for your help, I alway appreciate assistance.

First off: I never said I did this pro se, and stated in my last statement that these contempt hearings left "my lawyers" completely stumped. I seeked legal advice for everything.

#1 I can provide the email from my lawyer showing that the judge ruled me to pay lawyer fees based on the fact that I can, and she cant. NOT becuase of how the case went. I argued how this can be allowed, and they stressed over and over again, this is how it is.

#2 I can scan the page that explains the custody prices.

thanks again.

1. Then that's life. Live with it.

2. Why not just write exactly what it says.

 

[herdoc2005]

1. Then that's life. Live with it.

2. Why not just write exactly what it says.

1. Are you serious? I see your not someone that explains anything or gives advice,

2. No reason to go any further with what anything says with you, becuase in the end you'll just say "then thats life. live with it.

So, on the other hand thanks for nothing, and helping with nothing.

 

[mistoffolees]

1. Are you serious? I see your not someone that explains anything or gives advice,

2. No reason to go any further with what anything says with you, becuase in the end you'll just say "then thats life. live with it.

So, on the other hand thanks for nothing, and helping with nothing.

1. The system isn't perfect. I explained to you the way it is supposed to work. If you are reporting things accurately, then you could appeal, but it would likely cost you more than just paying it. Sometimes things don't work out the way they should.

2. How do you expect anyone to give you advice when you won't tell them what the decree says? It looks as though you're simply here to whine and not interested in getting advice.

 

[herdoc2005]

1. The system isn't perfect. I explained to you the way it is supposed to work. If you are reporting things accurately, then you could appeal, but it would likely cost you more than just paying it. Sometimes things don't work out the way they should.

2. How do you expect anyone to give you advice when you won't tell them what the decree says? It looks as though you're simply here to whine and not interested in getting advice.

1. See now, that is more of a respone. I know the system is not perfect. I more expected a response of, "the system is supposed to protect things like that" or "this is what the law says and why", not "thats life live with it" There is a huge difference in advice and your response.

2. I said what is the point of responding, if your response is just going to be "thats life" If I thought you were going to provide advice, I would write out the entire document. But based on your other response, I dont feel that your trying to give advice or help me understand anything, your just saying "live with it" the

this is what it states:
3.11 Transportation arrangements
Transportation costs are included in the child support worksheets and/or the order of child support and should not be included here.

Transportation arrangements for the child between parents shall be as follows:

Father shall pay for child's transportation costs. If a chaperone is requiredto accompany the child, the parties shall split the costs of transportationfor that individual.

 

[mistoffolees]

Father shall pay for child's transportation costs. If a chaperone is requiredto accompany the child, the parties shall split the costs of transportationfor that individual.

It would have been easier if you had posted that at first.

That's fairly clear, but still open to question.

If a chaperone is required AND accompanied the child, then your ex should pay part of it. In order to collect, you might have to go back to court to have her held in contempt.

HOWEVER, there are some serious problems with the statement:

1. Who determines if a chaperone is required? If it spells that out, OK. If it's not spelled out, your ex could say that it wasn't required, but you voluntarily chose to do it.
2. This would only apply if the chaperone actually accompanies the child. If the chaperone used a different routing, she could argue that it was a vacation trip or something. More importantly, unless the routings were identical, the fares could vary.
3. Saying that the parties should split the fare isn't very useful. Split 50:50? 90:10? Something else?

 

[herdoc2005]

It would have been easier if you had posted that at first.

That's fairly clear, but still open to question.

If a chaperone is required AND accompanied the child, then your ex should pay part of it. In order to collect, you might have to go back to court to have her held in contempt.

HOWEVER, there are some serious problems with the statement:

1. Who determines if a chaperone is required? If it spells that out, OK. If it's not spelled out, your ex could say that it wasn't required, but you voluntarily chose to do it.
2. This would only apply if the chaperone actually accompanies the child. If the chaperone used a different routing, she could argue that it was a vacation trip or something. More importantly, unless the routings were identical, the fares could vary.
3. Saying that the parties should split the fare isn't very useful. Split 50:50? 90:10? Something else?

To me its easiest to scan and provide the real document, but this works as well.

To awnser your questions about the problems:
1. That is determined and agreed on by both. It's due to her age, so right now this is not an issue at all.

2. What do you mean with routing? If I buy the tickets for the chaperone and my daughter at the same time for the exact same flights, does that clarify the situation better?

3. Split was determinted to be the same as the child support work sheet of 67/33. Not argeuing this point, but it was clarified.

Here is what the commissioner ruled.
Spouse does not have to reimburse becuase the chaperone, did not fly for the soul purpose of being a custodian. Becuase the chaperone stayed a couple days before returning, it was considered a visit.

My issue is not only does this make for an almost impossible situation of someoen flying just to take her to her destination and then returning AND the ex wife AGREED in emails which I have all the copies, numerous times to the flight plans to include the chaperone, and agreed to pay her portion, and even made a payment plan. But whens he failed for a couple years, and I took her to court, the commissioner ruled in her favor.

My goal was to have her held accountable, so she cant just get away with anything she wants! So, am I crazy to feel slighted becuase for the two reasons I took her to court for contempt, she was given a pass for both?