I received a copy of the new CO today

[CJane]

What is the name of your state? MO

It's so clear and concise and easy to read! The original order is like 15 pages long. This one is maybe 5. So nice.

The order states wrt transportation:

Husband shall pick up the minor children for his parenting time and Wife shall pick up the minor children at the end of Husband's parenting time.

Other than the fact that it makes my skin crawl to think of him as 'husband' at this point... I'm willing to assume that either of us could designate a representative to pick up the kids in our stead, right?

Should I notify the ex that he/his wife will need to pick up the kids on Wednesdays for his parenting time since I won't have a reason to drive them to his house? I don't want it to be an issue next Wednesday when I don't drive them there... I'd rather have it arranged before hand. So... notification, or let him look like an ass?

I also received a letter today - actually a CC of a letter that was sent to him on Friday. It states the CS amount he is to pay, and informs him that he's already 2 months behind. I called the court house and the woman w/the child support office recommended that I give him to the end of the month to catch up, and then call CSE to start garnishment. Would this be the course of action that y'all would recommend?

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? MO

It's so clear and concise and easy to read! The original order is like 15 pages long. This one is maybe 5. So nice.

The order states wrt transportation:


Other than the fact that it makes my skin crawl to think of him as 'husband' at this point... I'm willing to assume that either of us could designate a representative to pick up the kids in our stead, right?

Should I notify the ex that he/his wife will need to pick up the kids on Wednesdays for his parenting time since I won't have a reason to drive them to his house? I don't want it to be an issue next Wednesday when I don't drive them there... I'd rather have it arranged before hand. So... notification, or let him look like an ass?

I also received a letter today - actually a CC of a letter that was sent to him on Friday. It states the CS amount he is to pay, and informs him that he's already 2 months behind. I called the court house and the woman w/the child support office recommended that I give him to the end of the month to catch up, and then call CSE to start garnishment. Would this be the course of action that y'all would recommend?

Q: Other than the fact that it makes my skin crawl to think of him as 'husband' at this point... I'm willing to assume that either of us could designate a representative to pick up the kids in our stead, right?

A: No, that is not right.

 

[casa]

What is the name of your state? MO

It's so clear and concise and easy to read! The original order is like 15 pages long. This one is maybe 5. So nice.

The order states wrt transportation:


Other than the fact that it makes my skin crawl to think of him as 'husband' at this point... I'm willing to assume that either of us could designate a representative to pick up the kids in our stead, right?

Should I notify the ex that he/his wife will need to pick up the kids on Wednesdays for his parenting time since I won't have a reason to drive them to his house? I don't want it to be an issue next Wednesday when I don't drive them there... I'd rather have it arranged before hand. So... notification, or let him look like an ass?

I also received a letter today - actually a CC of a letter that was sent to him on Friday. It states the CS amount he is to pay, and informs him that he's already 2 months behind. I called the court house and the woman w/the child support office recommended that I give him to the end of the month to catch up, and then call CSE to start garnishment. Would this be the course of action that y'all would recommend?

No on both accounts. *IMO*

It means <literally if it were to be fought out> that ONLY "Husband" (Dad) and/or "Wife" (Mom) pick up the children. If it were worded only that "Pick up to be at child's residence" or some such, it'd be 'open'. I'm not saying he'd get a contempt ruling out of it~ But it specifies who is to pick up the child, it doesn't JUST address how the CHILD is picked up/dropped off.

And...I wouldn't start contacting CSE just yet...The order is new...the only reason he's 'behind' is because it just happened & he didn't even have a copy of the final order to go by. I'm sure he'll pay it (albeit he may wait til the very last minute bc he's an ass...)...but starting a conflict over reporting him to CSE is NOT the way to start your new co-parenting relationship under the new court order.

 

[Silverplum]

No on both accounts. *IMO*

It means <literally if it were to be fought out> that ONLY "Husband" (Dad) and/or "Wife" (Mom) pick up the children. If it were worded only that "Pick up to be at child's residence" or some such, it'd be 'open'. I'm not saying he'd get a contempt ruling out of it~ But it specifies who is to pick up the child, it doesn't JUST address how the CHILD is picked up/dropped off.

And...I wouldn't start contacting CSE just yet...The order is new...the only reason he's 'behind' is because it just happened & he didn't even have a copy of the final order to go by. I'm sure he'll pay it (albeit he may wait til the very last minute bc he's an ass...)...but starting a conflict over reporting him to CSE is NOT the way to start your new co-parenting relationship under the new court order.

I agree with your whole post, casa.

 

[LdiJ]

I agree that the way that the order reads that specifically you and dad have to do the transporting. I am not sure that the court intended the order to be that restrictive, but technically it is. IMO you should really not press that issue with him, in hopes that he won't press it with you either.

Yes, I would recommend touching base with dad about the transportation ahead of time, in order to avoid "drama" on Wednesday. Just send him an email quoting that portion of the order and stating that you are reminding him in order to avoid any confusion on Wednesday. He isn't going to be happy about that...but its best to get the drama handled in advance.

I again agree that it would be best not to jump the gun as far as the CS is concerned. Give him a chance to obey the orders. Remember, he and his wife really got their egos trampled over this new order.....which I think has a lot to do with his rather absurd reaction to the school thing the other day. Give them a chance to adjust to the whole thing.

 

[BL]

No on both accounts. *IMO*

It means <literally if it were to be fought out> that ONLY "Husband" (Dad) and/or "Wife" (Mom) pick up the children. If it were worded only that "Pick up to be at child's residence" or some such, it'd be 'open'. I'm not saying he'd get a contempt ruling out of it~ But it specifies who is to pick up the child, it doesn't JUST address how the CHILD is picked up/dropped off.

And...I wouldn't start contacting CSE just yet...The order is new...the only reason he's 'behind' is because it just happened & he didn't even have a copy of the final order to go by. I'm sure he'll pay it (albeit he may wait til the very last minute bc he's an ass...)...but starting a conflict over reporting him to CSE is NOT the way to start your new co-parenting relationship under the new court order.

Do not fret Cjane will constantly be typing on FA because her " husband " makes her skin crawl .

 

[casa]

Do not fret Cjane will constantly be typing on FA because her " husband " makes her skin crawl .

Well, to play Devil's Advocate~ her X husband IS an a$$. However, I'm of the belief that one shouldn't lower oneself to that level in either misguided intent or retaliation.

 

[seniorjudge]

I agree that the way that the order reads that specifically you and dad have to do the transporting. I am not sure that the court intended the order to be that restrictive, but technically it is. IMO you should really not press that issue with him, in hopes that he won't press it with you either.

Yes, I would recommend touching base with dad about the transportation ahead of time, in order to avoid "drama" on Wednesday. Just send him an email quoting that portion of the order and stating that you are reminding him in order to avoid any confusion on Wednesday. He isn't going to be happy about that...but its best to get the drama handled in advance.

I again agree that it would be best not to jump the gun as far as the CS is concerned. Give him a chance to obey the orders. Remember, he and his wife really got their egos trampled over this new order.....which I think has a lot to do with his rather absurd reaction to the school thing the other day. Give them a chance to adjust to the whole thing.

I am not sure that the court intended the order to be that restrictive, but technically it is.

It doesn't make any difference what the court "intended"...just what the court orders in writing in the judgment in the lawsuit.

 

[casa]

I agree that the way that the order reads that specifically you and dad have to do the transporting. I am not sure that the court intended the order to be that restrictive, but technically it is. IMO you should really not press that issue with him, in hopes that he won't press it with you either.

Yes, I would recommend touching base with dad about the transportation ahead of time, in order to avoid "drama" on Wednesday. Just send him an email quoting that portion of the order and stating that you are reminding him in order to avoid any confusion on Wednesday. He isn't going to be happy about that...but its best to get the drama handled in advance.

I again agree that it would be best not to jump the gun as far as the CS is concerned. Give him a chance to obey the orders. Remember, he and his wife really got their egos trampled over this new order.....which I think has a lot to do with his rather absurd reaction to the school thing the other day. Give them a chance to adjust to the whole thing.

Are you certain re; the bolded above? Considering how the step-mom behaved...and the issues re; b/f that were in the case...it may very well have been EXACTLY what the judge intended to order.

 

[LdiJ]

I am not sure that the court intended the order to be that restrictive, but technically it is.

It doesn't make any difference what the court "intended"...just what the court orders in writing in the judgment in the lawsuit.

I realize that....its simply that I doubt that was the court's intent.....therefore I suspect that the judge might get annoyed if they end up back in court over just that issue.

 

[seniorjudge]

I realize that....its simply that I doubt that was the court's intent.....therefore I suspect that the judge might get annoyed if they end up back in court over just that issue.

The judge probably has no idea who these people are.

Get real.

 

[casa]

The judge probably has no idea who these people are.

Get real.

Hey judge~ Did you see the thread about step-mom's deposition??? I think the judge knows who these people are.

 

[LdiJ]

The judge probably has no idea who these people are.

Get real.

Well...in this particular case I think that the judge probably does....its been a bit of a complicated case, with some oddities thrown in that the judge is unlikely to forget.

At one point the judge looked over the original order and stated in court...."what idiot signed this original order....and then said, oh, that would be me."

This is definitely a case that the GAL won't quickly forget....LOL

 

[BL]

Well...in this particular case I think that the judge probably does....its been a bit of a complicated case, with some oddities thrown in that the judge is unlikely to forget.

At one point the judge looked over the original order and stated in court...."what idiot signed this original order....and then said, oh, that would be me."

This is definitely a case that the GAL won't quickly forget....LOL

From personal experiences in Court , when litagants are in front of the Judge numerous times , They tend to get Irratated , and what comes from their mouths a rulings aren't fun to hear . One even Stated I don't want to see either of you in front of me again . But of Course they nitpick at each other again like masitoes , nats , or flies that bite , and whon't abide by the Orders . Until the Judge has had it .

 

[seniorjudge]

...
At one point the judge looked over the original order and stated in court...."what idiot signed this original order....and then said, oh, that would be me."
...

No, I did NOT do this one!