An update, hopefully we are done.

[ProSeDadinMD]

What is the name of your state? MD

We had our “Oral Recommendations Hearing” yesterday. I was on the phone, and …her … and her lawyer were there. The Master made the ruling that there would be no change of the current visitation schedule, as far as the midweek overnights and EOW are concerned.

We will each have 4 weeks vacation in the summer, alternating on an odd/even schedule who gets first choice.

We now have a schedule for the main holidays, set by the Master, which is not very different from my proposal.

CS didn’t change.

…She … wasn’t happy, and the Master told me on the phone that she was crying.

The Master, again, told us that we needed to behave like adults for the sake of Little Miss Pro Se.


There is a 10 day period in which one of us can file an “exception”, which would take all of this to a judge, rather than a master, for review and additional hearings, if needed. I feel the need to prepare for this, although I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Thank you all again, very, very much, for all the invaluable help and advice that you provided
PSDIM

 

[casa]

What is the name of your state? MD

We had our “Oral Recommendations Hearing” yesterday. I was on the phone, and …her … and her lawyer were there. The Master made the ruling that there would be no change of the current visitation schedule, as far as the midweek overnights and EOW are concerned.

We will each have 4 weeks vacation in the summer, alternating on an odd/even schedule who gets first choice.

We now have a schedule for the main holidays, set by the Master, which is not very different from my proposal.

CS didn’t change.

…She … wasn’t happy, and the Master told me on the phone that she was crying.

The Master, again, told us that we needed to behave like adults for the sake of Little Miss Pro Se.


There is a 10 day period in which one of us can file an “exception”, which would take all of this to a judge, rather than a master, for review and additional hearings, if needed. I feel the need to prepare for this, although I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Thank you all again, very, very much, for all the invaluable help and advice that you provided
PSDIM

Perfect I doubt she'd file an exception~ on what basis would ...she ??

Glad to hear you kept your Wed. That makes sense to me!

 

[fairisfair]

whee and 50.14 more wednesdays this year!!!!

I am with Casa, highly unlikely that she will attempt to file an exception.

I am pleased for you. and for Little Miss Pro Se.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

I've already made some mental plans for the vacation time I'm now getting. Looking forward to that. We'll just keep doing what we normally do on Wednesdays.

As for what grounds she would have for an exception, I don't have a clue. I wouldn't have thought she would try to go to court to prove an "adverse impact" on LMPS's schoolwork when there wasn't one, but that is exactly what happened. At this moment, nothing that ...she ...does would suprise me.

Like I said, thanks to both of you, and several others, for sound advice, not to mention keeping me "in line" so to speak. You folks kept me from making some rather large mistakes.

Edited to add: I'm going to give daily calls to the courthouse for the next 10 days to see if anything has been filed on this, just in case...

 

[ezmarelda]

So glad to see things worked out well for your daughter's sake!

Good luck in the future, I'm willing to bet this will not be ...her ...last attempt at messing up your relationship with your daughter.

 

[jbowman]

Dad, its time to relax a little bit. hahha calling the court house everyday??? just relax and enjoy.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Maybe I'm just seeing things that aren't there....

But then again, maybe I’m not completely paranoid. In looking at our case online, the most recent entry says this:

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S LASS-MINUTE SUBMISSION OF "PROPOSED VISITATION SCHEDULE," FILED. (LP)

This was filed on the day of our recommendations hearing, 4/10/07. What the Master recommended that day was very, very similar to what was in the proposal.

Knowing …her …, this sounds like the precursor to additional litigation. Any thoughts?

 

[Ohiogal]

But then again, maybe I’m not completely paranoid. In looking at our case online, the most recent entry says this:
This was filed on the day of our recommendations hearing, 4/10/07. What the Master recommended that day was very, very similar to what was in the proposal.

Knowing …her …, this sounds like the precursor to additional litigation. Any thoughts?

Find out what time this was filed. There should be a timestamp -- was it before OR after the hearing?

 

[GrowUp!]

But then again, maybe I’m not completely paranoid. In looking at our case online, the most recent entry says this:
This was filed on the day of our recommendations hearing, 4/10/07. What the Master recommended that day was very, very similar to what was in the proposal.

Knowing …her …, this sounds like the precursor to additional litigation. Any thoughts?

Keep your eyes open for it. IMO, it does not sound like she has anything. What is she talking about the "last minute submission" filed? She would have to prove how it's not in the best interest and how the court either abused its' power or made a legal mistake. Wait until you get served to see how you should respond accordingly. And don't forget to request the court tax HER for the costs of this.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Find out what time this was filed. There should be a timestamp -- was it before OR after the hearing?

I will call there shortly, we are having phone issues at the moment. However, my thought is that it was after the hearing since ...her ...lawyer said(incorrectly) that he hadn't seen it untill I distributed copies to him and the Master.

This was on 4/3, but I emailed it to him once on 3/6/07(Although that time it included an offer to drop my motion for 50/50, and he's the one who told me that it had been dismissed).

I'd think he would remember the email, if simply due to this exerpt from what I sent:

I would also like to add that, while I am sympathetic to your statement that "It is my policy to minimize my contacts with unrepresented parties", and that "I would suggest that if you have a specific proposal, rather than a long litany of complaints as you have forwarded to me, that you hire a lawyer and ask them to review it and then you or your lawyer can send that to me", it is your responsibility, as an Officer of the Court(pursuant to Rule 4.3 of the Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct), to attempt to maintain a dialogue with an unrepresented party(such as myself) in an effort to reach an equitable settlement.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Ok, so I spoke with the Master’s assistant/secretary. She doesn’t have the file at hand(it’s with the clerks office), but will try to get it today, and if not today, tomorrow, and fax me a copy of the Motion to Strike.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Ok, I got a copy of the motion, and additionally, the order responding to the motion.
Lets start with the response. It’s typed with a line in the middle, which states:

Upon consideration thereof, the Court finds good and sufficient cause to sustain the Plaintiff’s motion.

Then in handwriting which is written large, underlined, and circled over the body of the order, it says “Denied”. Not understanding, I called back and spoke with the assistant/secretary of the Master, who stated that this order was being denied.

Now, as to the motion itself. Here are a couple of excerpts:

…The proposed visitation schedule essentially duplicated his previously dismissed Motion to Modify Visitation. This submission is nothing more than an end-around the prior dismissal.

Furthermore, Defendant ********* did not previously supplied a copy of this to undersigned counsel, including submission as a supplemental response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents…

…In the event that Defendants writing is not stricken, undersigned counsel requests an additional five days to respond thereto.

Well, I have the emails between the lawyer and myself, and …her … and myself, all dated between the dates of 3/6/07 and 3/19/2007. Additionally, now that I think about it, one of the last items that I entered into evidence was an email that included the reply from …her … lawyer telling me that my original motion was dismissed, showing that he was made aware of my proposal in a timely manner. I'd think that since he thanked me for my "e-mail of March 6, 2007", he should have a copy of it, huh?

I don’t know what’s up with the 5 days.

I can only presume that since this was filed at 12:56pm, and the Recommendations hearing was scheduled for 1pm, that this was done in an effort to have grounds for an appeal, or an exception.

Any thoughts?

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Response to Motion to Strike…

Some of you may remember when I posted this response from …her … lawyer, to my proposal, in early March.

Dear Mr. *********:
Thank you for your e-mail of March 6, 2007. Your complaint for 50/50 custody is, of course, already dismissed.
This case will probably resolve with Wednesday overnights going back to my client and you getting more summertime visitation. With that being the case, I would suggest that you contact Ms. ***** and start working on how summer will actually work. For example, will you take a real vacation, or just have ****** living with yourself and ***** and going to day camp or other activities while you stay at home and go back and forth to work each day?
Since ****** is very close to her little sister, and with Ms. ***** the three comprise a very close family unit, I see the court being quite deferential to an arrangement whereby the sisters are not separated just so you can have visitation with her, so much as to allow ****** to maintain a strong relationship with you. This would be especially true if you are not living in the same school district. There is, of course, a big difference between your having time with your daughter for the sake of it and your building a strong relationship with her. Ms. ***** supports the latter, but it is important that you agree that your daughter's home is at Mom's house with ******, and that the time she spends with you is special and privileged.
It is great that she has her own, separate space at your home, which I'm sure you have already arranged, and there is nothing to take away from your relationship with ****** by recognizing her attachment to her mother and sister. If you agree with me on this structural construct for custody and visitation, I think you will find that Ms. ***** is very accommodating to your requests for time with ****** over the summer and that this case will resolve amicably. Please let me know if this threshold issue is something we can approach with like minds.
******* ******

And then there was the “negotiating” with …her … that continued thru 3/19/07.

Since this Motion to Strike contained things that weren’t in the “Order” that was denied, I feel compelled to answer it to nip any appeals in the bud, as they seem intent on continuing this. My logic for this is that since they filed this 5 minutes before the hearing was scheduled, and then didn’t bring up the fact that it had been filed, as well as the fact that it requests a continuance or 5 days to respond to my proposal. This seems to me to be an attempt to form the basis of an appeal on the grounds that the Master didn’t consider that before the Hearing.

Here’s my response(#1 just says that our scheduled 3 hour hearing turned into an all day affair):

Answer to Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant’s “Last-Minute” Submission of “Proposed Visitation Schedule”

1. The Defendant agrees to this fact.

2. The Defendant agrees to this fact, with the exception of denying the allegation that this proposal was “nothing more than an end-around the prior dismissal.


3. The Defendant denies this allegation, as the aforementioned proposal was submitted to Plaintiffs’ counsel via email on March 6, 2007, with the Plaintiff being provided a copy of this submission at that time. This proposal was also included in Discovery under item 31 of Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents. Further, both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have responded, in writing via email, to the aforementioned proposal. Evidence of this was submitted as evidence during the hearing that occurred on April 3, 2007.

4. The Defendant agrees to the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel did object to the submission of the proposal, but denies the allegation that the Plaintiff, or Plaintiff’s counsel, has not been afforded time to respond, either in kind or orally. Plaintiff’s counsel, violating Rule 4.1 of the Maryland Lawyer’s Rules of Professional Conduct, has falsely stated this. Both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel did, in fact, respond to this proposal.


5. The Defendant denies that there is sufficient cause to move for continuance in this matter, and further feels that this is merely a tactic being used by Plaintiff’s counsel to form the basis of further appeals on this matter, as shown by the fact that although this Motion had been filed prior to the Oral Recommendations Hearing, no mention of said Motion was made at this hearing. An additional five days for response should not be granted.

Further, both the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are falsely representing their knowledge of these matters in a calculated effort to mislead the Court, and influence the Court’s decision.


Signed, in full knowledge, and under penalty of perjury.

__________________________
******* *********, Pro Se

Should I attach the emails to this?