Status Quo.....what is the exact meaning in this paragraph?

[Isis1]

I live in California.

okay, i am doing the finishing touches on my answer to his response to my motion on change of custody which was served on me via mail on Nov 28, 2007.

his last paragrah reads....


Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the petitioner does not have respect for the court's orders, the law, or for the safety and welfare of our children. More importantly, she has failed to act in a manner that is in the best interest of our children. I respectfully submit that the court should return the children to me to the status quo that existed for S****** until June 2007, and for A******* until August 2007.


....now, the oldest (S) was residing with his father at the time. the youngest one (A) was residing with the paternal grandmother as the now NCP did not want to deal with (A) and would rather have his paternal grandmother have him then myself (mother and petitioner). So i was granted custody

now, if i understand the last paragraph correctly, it states he wants A to go back to the paternal grandmother. or am i reading this all wrong?

 

[Zephyr]

that's what I get from it too, however was the court aware that the one child was not living with dad?

 

[Some Random Guy]

Although the wording choice is poor, it should be clear that he wants the court to give him back the legal status he enjoyed before as the custodial parent during that period.

You or your lawyer can bring up his inability to parent effectively during that period as a reason not to return to that custodial arrangement.

 

[Isis1]

the courts were very aware, which is one of the main points of which i was granted custody. he only wanted to have his younger son move back to live with him if it was the only way he could keep custody. he only mentioned this after the judge ruled to grant custody to myself. at all other times, he said he couldn't keep the youngest as he wasn't even in Kindergarten. although the wording in his entire amended declaration, he keeps claiming that (A) was in his custody. isn't that perjery? the courts were well aware (A) was never residing with the father during the whole custody case.

 

[LdiJ]

the courts were very aware, which is one of the main points of which i was granted custody. he only wanted to have his younger son move back to live with him if it was the only way he could keep custody. he only mentioned this after the judge ruled to grant custody to myself. at all other times, he said he couldn't keep the youngest as he wasn't even in Kindergarten. although the wording in his entire amended declaration, he keeps claiming that (A) was in his custody. isn't that perjery? the courts were well aware (A) was never residing with the father during the whole custody case.

In your response you should mention what the status quo actually was, (that S was living with dad and A was living with the grandparents), that you object to that, and that it is one of the reasons why primary custody was awarded to you.

 

[CJane]

In your response you should mention what the status quo actually was, (that S was living with dad and A was living with the grandparents), that you object to that, and that it is one of the reasons why primary custody was awarded to you.

I would also file a motion to dismiss... stating that custody was awarded to you, in the best interests of the children and that there has been no significant change in the circumstances of the children since that time. Therefore, his motion should be dismissed.

 

[OhReally?]

I would also suggest not using your real name either.

 

[casa]

I live in California.

okay, i am doing the finishing touches on my answer to his response to my motion on change of custody which was served on me via mail on Nov 28, 2007.

his last paragrah reads....


Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the petitioner does not have respect for the court's orders, the law, or for the safety and welfare of our children. More importantly, she has failed to act in a manner that is in the best interest of our children. I respectfully submit that the court should return the children to me to the status quo that existed for S****** until June 2007, and for A******* until August 2007.


....now, the oldest (S) was residing with his father at the time. the youngest one (A) was residing with the paternal grandmother as the now NCP did not want to deal with (A) and would rather have his paternal grandmother have him then myself (mother and petitioner). So i was granted custody

now, if i understand the last paragraph correctly, it states he wants A to go back to the paternal grandmother. or am i reading this all wrong?

I would respond with a Motion to Dismiss as there has been no Significant Change of Circumstance since the Court's ruling in Aug. 07

"Status Quo" means, basically the way things WERE/HAVE been. In your case, the current Status Quo is that YOU are CP. I have no idea why he'd even TRY to use Status Quo right now...you can't skip back in time for Status Quo. (although obviously that doesn't keep people from trying)

 

[CJane]

I would respond with a Motion to Dismiss as there has been no Significant Change of Circumstance since the Court's ruling in Aug. 07

YAY Casa agrees w/me!

 

[casa]

YAY Casa agrees w/me!

'Course I do

LOVE the new sig. line you added BTW

 

[Isis1]

it wasn't a brand new motiong, just an amended declaration.

but hey....that was a good point to have brought up.


well the continued hearing was today, he surprised me with an attorney present, the attorney didn't serve me with a substitution of attorney until after i signed the waiver to have a commissioner hear the continued hearing. what a *****.

so, the new commisioner increased his visitation which is not such a big deal if he had been responsible to deal with the children's homework to begin with when he had custody.

which means more babysitting and work for me to do in making sure he gets the children's homework done because now i have to go down to the school and be on top of the teachers and my sons and the NCP. I can't risk letting my kids grades slip again to let it see how it rides out. but no change of custody like he requested. that was a resounded no. i don't like this new judge at all. she refused to listen to anything i had to say and would only converse with NCP's attorney.

i know this is hindsight, but i should have immediately asked for a continuance to obtain my own attorney. and we are continuing the hearing again until June.

oh....and somehow all the transportation is up to him.

but i did file a Motion for CHild support for a different date. lets rack up those attorney's fees for him