I assume this is normal...

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

He also admits that he left me off the school forms because I had not informed him of my work phone number (he KNOWS I was unemployed and I can prove that) and that my cell phone was not in working order (a TOTAL LIE). If I can get my cell phone co to cooperate, I can prove he called me AFTER alleging to CPS that my phone didn't work... which was the end of July and just before school started. I just need to get copies of my cell phone bills.

My X tried a similar trick on me. He would call the house when I was at work, but leave NO voice mail. I don't have caller-ID, so guess what - I had NO idea he called. Of course, he landed up with NO record either that he actually tried to call.

I ALWAYS leave a short and sweet message on his voice mail. He told me in the summer how he RECORDED them for posterity. So, he'll sound like an idiot when he plays them in court and all they state is "Please return my call. My numbers are ....." AND he didn't return any of my calls for WEEKS. I would call my daughter about every 7-10 days in the summer (so as not to interfere with his parenting time). When he wouldn't answer, I would then try twice a day, leaving voicemails. I eventually took to calling the grandmother and doing a 'status check' since I can't reach anyone What he doesn't understand is that I have 'documentation' on his NOT answering the phone. If he leaves a voicemail, I always return the calls.

 

[wileybunch]

He is trying to imply that if you were included on the intake forms, that you would negligently interfere with her medical care. First, that's a really STUPID thing to imply without hard core evidence, and second you have JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY, so he is admitting that he is in contempt.

He would have been far better served to simply admit the mistake...or to blame it on his wife's lack of understanding of how things were supposed to work...but then, he would have been admitting that his wife was the one taking them to the doctor.

Object to the dismissal again.

I totally agree. He is admitting he is in contempt of the order. He's not special. He has to follow like everyone unless he can prove some overriding emergency situation of some sort that didn't allow him to get into court to change the court order first. But, didn't you file this motion? So it's not like he even went to court at this point, either, to change the court order, nor is he requesting to change it now, either? He seems to be saying he will decide unilaterally what the court order has already decided.



Whenever you do respond, whether in a written reply (you don't need to do that at this point, right?) or at your court date or if it's just the opposition again to the dismissal, you have a situation where he provides no evidence, documentary or otherwise, to refute the facts of your assertion he's been obtaining medical care without your permission (or whatever's required by your CO) and that his response is based solely on a broad claim that he needed to handle things as he did so that you wouldn't interfere with their medical care despite offering no evidence, documentary or otherwise, why he had good reason to interfere with your parental rights and that he is purposely attempting to obscure the issues using outright misrepresentations (and in the case of the cell phone bill, that would be distortions of fact), that his responses demonstrate he willfully interfered with your parental rights, and that your motion is meritorious and should be granted.

 

[CJane]

But, didn't you file this motion?

Yes.

So it's not like he even went to court at this point, either, to change the court order, nor is he requesting to change it now, either?

No. He knows he'd fail (or he SHOULD know) at modifying it at this point. He JUST LOST sole custody a year ago. He JUST LOST his appeal of that decision in April of this year.

Apparently, since he can't get me removed from their lives legally, he's just going to pretend I don't exist.

He seems to be saying he will decide unilaterally what the court order has already decided.

Yes, well, he told a psychologist that the judge, the GAL, the people at DSS and the judges on the appeals court are all idiots and sociopaths. So yeah, clearly he's the only one qualified to make decisions about the kids.

Whenever you do respond, whether in a written reply (you don't need to do that at this point, right?)

Gawd, I hope not. His answer is 56 pages long. I haven't even read it all.

or at your court date or if it's just the opposition again to the dismissal, you have a situation where he provides no evidence, documentary or otherwise, to refute the facts of your assertion he's been obtaining medical care without your permission (or whatever's required by your CO) and that his response is based solely on a broad claim that he needed to handle things as he did so that you wouldn't interfere with their medical care despite offering no evidence, documentary or otherwise, why he had good reason to interfere with your parental rights and that he is purposely attempting to obscure the issues using outright misrepresentations (and in the case of the cell phone bill, that would be distortions of fact), that his responses demonstrate he willfully interfered with your parental rights, and that your motion is meritorious and should be granted.

Look at you speaking legalese!

 

[wileybunch]

Yes, well, he told a psychologist that the judge, the GAL, the people at DSS and the judges on the appeals court are all idiots and sociopaths. So yeah, clearly he's the only one qualified to make decisions about the kids.

Well, there you go! This statement wouldn't happen to be admissable, would it? What a lovely pattern he's set with losing sole custody, losing his appeal, and now this contempt. Speaks a heckuva lot louder than, "It wasn't wanton".

Look at you speaking legalese!

Well, :::cough cough::: it's not like contempt hasn't been a topic of interest in our home lately or anything ....

 

[Zephyr]

Well, there you go! This statement wouldn't happen to be admissable, would it? What a lovely pattern he's set with losing sole custody, losing his appeal, and now this contempt. Speaks a heckuva lot louder than, "It wasn't wanton".

Well, :::cough cough::: it's not like contempt hasn't been a topic of interest in our home lately or anything ....

that screams LOOOO-OOO-OOOOSER to me!!!

 

[CJane]

*ahem*

Main Entry: 1wan·ton
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯn-tən, ˈwän-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from wan- deficient, wrong, mis- (from Old English, from wan deficient) + towen, past participle of teen to draw, train, discipline, from Old English tēon — more at tow
Date: 14th century
1 aarchaic : hard to control : undisciplined, unruly b: playfully mean or cruel : mischievous
2 a: lewd, bawdy b: causing sexual excitement : lustful, sensual
3 a: merciless, inhumane <wanton cruelty> b: having no just foundation or provocation : malicious <a wanton attack>
4: being without check or limitation: as a: luxuriantly rank <wanton vegetation> b: unduly lavish : extravagant <wanton imagination>
—

It certainly was not THAT.

Main Entry: will·ful
Variant(s): or wil·ful \ˈwil-fəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 13th century
1 : obstinately and often perversely self-willed <a stubborn and willful child>
2 : done deliberately : intentional <willful disobedience>

But since he admits it, I think we can assume it wasn't an accident.

Main Entry: ma·li·cious
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 13th century
: given to, marked by, or arising from malice <malicious gossip>

And...

Main Entry: mal·ice
Pronunciation: \ˈma-ləs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
Date: 14th century
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

Yeah.

So anyway... maybe he should stick to monosyllabic words that he understands the meaning of.

Let's not forget that Missouri Statute defines contempt as:

476.110. Every court of record shall have power to punish as for criminal contempt persons guilty of:

(1) Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior committed during its session, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceeding or to impair the respect due to its authority;

(2) Any breach of the peace, noise or other disturbance directly tending to interrupt its proceedings;

(3) Willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued or made by it;

(4) Resistance willfully offered by any person to the lawful order or process of the court;

(5) The contumacious and unlawful refusal of any person to be sworn as a witness, or, when so sworn, to refuse to answer any legal and proper interrogatory.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

CJane, I don't think the man understands what JOINT LEGAL and PHYSICAL custody means. And failure to understand the law doesn't justify breaking it. He just doesn't get it - maybe he will after a judge slap.

 

[CJane]

Question about evidence:

One piece of evidence that I want to have (court transcripts) is not available to me. 1) I can't afford to pay the reporter for them and 2) he can't promise that I'll have them in time for the hearing anyway.

BUT... I CAN get the Audio CD of the hearing for 1/2 the price and in 2 days. My understanding of this though is that it may or may not be admissable. What say y'all? SH and the judge and I were ALL at this hearing, so it's not like I'd be presenting anything we don't all KNOW took place. I just want to use it to... jog SH's memory a bit.

 

[casa]

Question about evidence:

One piece of evidence that I want to have (court transcripts) is not available to me. 1) I can't afford to pay the reporter for them and 2) he can't promise that I'll have them in time for the hearing anyway.

BUT... I CAN get the Audio CD of the hearing for 1/2 the price and in 2 days. My understanding of this though is that it may or may not be admissable. What say y'all? SH and the judge and I were ALL at this hearing, so it's not like I'd be presenting anything we don't all KNOW took place. I just want to use it to... jog SH's memory a bit.

It should be admissable BECAUSE you were unable to obtain the transcripts in time for the hearing....so that is why you purchased the audio. You need to just reference the part you want the Judge to know~ and then provide the audio as 'evidence' if he wants to confirm what you are referencing.

Can I just say I am LMAO about his responses! What an idiot! He is essentially saying he DID actually PURPOSELY omit your name...because he gives a REASON why he did it!! (What a dumbass)

This is looking really great for you CJane!

 

[>Charlotte<]

He is essentially saying he DID actually PURPOSELY omit your name...because he gives a REASON why he did it!! (What a dumbass)

Classic! "I don't know what you're talking about...but if I did know what you're talking about, I didn't do it...but if I did do it, this is why"

 

[ezmarelda]

I do believe it is possible that StupidHead has finaly aquired enough rope

 

[Zephyr]

Classic! "I don't know what you're talking about...but if I did know what you're talking about, I didn't do it...but if I did do it, this is why"

shall we rename him OJ???

 

[casa]

Classic! "I don't know what you're talking about...but if I did know what you're talking about, I didn't do it...but if I did do it, this is why"

No $hit! That's one of the FEW times I've seen someone nail THEMSELVES in a response to Contempt.

I soooo wish I could be a fly on the wall at the hearing!

 

[casa]

shall we rename him OJ???

darn it...LMAO...coffee's all over monitor now...LOL!...ouch, ouch, I gotta pee!

 

[Zephyr]

darn it...LMAO...coffee's all over monitor now...LOL!...ouch, ouch, I gotta pee!

hehehehhe