Contradictions…

[ProSeDadinMD]

What is the name of your state? MD

Ok, so I now have received response regarding my last email with regards to working out an agreement:

I would be willing to finish out this school year with the wednesday intact. I have stated numerous times my reasoning behind the wednesday removal. I am not going to go back and forth with you yet again on the same topics. Please revisit prior emails and conversations. This is either a workable point or it is not. Let me know.

******** *****

My response:

********,
Thank you for you response. You are now stating that you would allow something that you feel has an "adverse impact" on ****** to continue for the next several months. If there is such an "adverse impact", this would not be in ******'s best interest. While you are correct that you "have stated numerous times" your "reasoning behind the wednesday removal", what you have stated has all been your opinion, "feeling", or belief. At no point in time have you presented me with evidence of any "adverse impact", despite repeated requests for such information, as well as offers to make a change after the review of any information provided. I have also obtained a copy of ******’s records from school, which give no indication of such an “adverse impact”. This, again, leads me to the logical conclusion that no such evidence exists, or that you are purposely concealing such evidence from me. This is not in keeping ******'s best interest in mind, as without the pertinent information I would not be able to make a sound decision. Nor is it attempting to maintain a reasonable co-parenting relationship.

The removal of Wednesday overnight visitation is therefore not a “workable point” for me. Since you have stated that without me agreeing to the removal of Wednesday that you would be unwilling to continue to attempt to reach an agreement, I can only state again that we shall have to let the court decide this issue.

As always, I am open to reach such an agreement regarding this matter.

******* *********

I am amazed at the contradictions. Any thoughts?

 

[fairisfair]

yeah, I have several thoughts. But since she isn't here. . . . . . . .

Personally, I think it is time to allow the court to decide. It is apparent to me that she does not have documented evidence to prove her points. I would stop the back and forth communication, before she pi$$es you off and you say something you might regret. Just MHO.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

yeah, I have several thoughts. But since she isn't here. . . . . . . .

Personally, I think it is time to allow the court to decide. It is apparent to me that she does not have documented evidence to prove her points. I would stop the back and forth communication, before she pi$$es you off and you say something you might regret. Just MHO.

fair, that's why I am continuing the "back and forth". I've never been a person who says what they think when angry, untill I've had time to think rationally on whatever subject.

...Her ... on the other hand, has a tendency to get carried away with herself.

I'm fine with the court deciding. I don't think, even if she actually had evidence of this "adverse impact", that the court would look kindly on ...her ... withholding it.

 

[fairisfair]

fair, that's why I am continuing the "back and forth". I've never been a person who says what they think when angry, untill I've had time to think rationally on whatever subject.

...Her ... on the other hand, has a tendency to get carried away with herself.

I'm fine with the court deciding. I don't think, even if she actually had evidence of this "adverse impact", that the court would look kindly on ...her ... withholding it.

hmmm. Well, I suppose if it hasn't given you an ulcer by now, it probably won't!

Attorneys are used to being able to intimidate pro se litigants. They sound confident, you feel less sure of your self. They say take it to court, every pro se person shakes in their boots. It is just the nature of the beast. I don't think they have any real desire to take this in front of a judge. And I agree, if she actually has evidence that she is withholding, it just enforced the premise that she is not actively attempting to co parent.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

hmmm. Well, I suppose if it hasn't given you an ulcer by now, it probably won't!

Attorneys are used to being able to intimidate pro se litigants. They sound confident, you feel less sure of your self. They say take it to court, every pro se person shakes in their boots. It is just the nature of the beast. I don't think they have any real desire to take this in front of a judge. And I agree, if she actually has evidence that she is withholding, it just enforced the premise that she is not actively attempting to co parent.

An ulcer? No, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's raised my blood pressure a point or 2.

I don't know how many times I have to make the point to them that I won't be intimidated. I cc'd the lawyer with my last response. I wanted to make sure that everybody involved understands that I am committed to my stance.

I shudder to think of the legal bills being racked up on the "other" side...