Question about Temp Order

[cmtx2]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) TX

As many of you already know, I went to court on the 30th of January and temporary orders were ordered that required me to return my daughter to her old school, supervised visitation for my ex, and absolutely no driving for my ex with our daughter. I also had to give up Spring Break since I denied him visitation over Christmas.

However, and here's where my questions comes into play, it's my understanding that either his or my attorney was supposed to draw up these orders and have the judge sign them into effect. I hired a new attorney and informed them this morning that the orders still aren't drawn up and I still don't know what was exactly if I was found in contempt/what the orders will say specifically. My new attorney is looking into this and will tell me this afternoon how her office will proceed.

My question is does this mean that we don't have to follow the orders since they haven't been signed. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF NOT OBEYING, but i'm not sure that he and his family will obey since nothings been signed and will not supervise adequately and then turn it around and say nothing was signed.

How does this work and what should I my new attorney do about this? Should I be worried? No, we don't have a new court date set yet either and yes, my new attorney was approved to represent me as of last Friday.

 

[Ohiogal]

You need to follow the orders.

 

[cmtx2]

You need to follow the orders.

I will follow them! I have no intention of messing up. I just wish I had a copy.

Do I just wait for my new attorney to draw them up?

 

[Ohiogal]

I will follow them! I have no intention of messing up. I just wish I had a copy.

Do I just wait for my new attorney to draw them up?

Yes that is how you will get a copy. But when the judge ordered them AT the hearing, they became orders. Most judges will NOT let it fly that you didn't have it in writing and hence didn't know.

 

[wileybunch]

Yes, you need to follow the orders. Even the verbal orders. They need to, as well, but you can't really control whether they do or not, if you know what I mean. Your attorney's going to get this squared away so that it's not in limbo and there's no question about what the orders are by making sure someone is preparing them. Even after the orders are prepared, they have to go back/forth for signature so more time for parties to "play dumb", but anyone doing that does so at risk because the parties were there in the court room and ignorance won't be an excuse.

 

[cmtx2]

Yes, you need to follow the orders. Even the verbal orders. They need to, as well, but you can't really control whether they do or not, if you know what I mean. Your attorney's going to get this squared away so that it's not in limbo and there's no question about what the orders are by making sure someone is preparing them. Even after the orders are prepared, they have to go back/forth for signature so more time for parties to "play dumb", but anyone doing that does so at risk because the parties were there in the court room and ignorance won't be an excuse.

That's what I thought. I had no intention of playing dumb, but I did think that they might and I understand I have no control over that. Believe me when I say I understand that ignorance is no excuse.

Thanks for the answers.

I know that there are so many cases that get handled and heard daily, but I still can't believe how much time everythings takes.

 

[wileybunch]

That's what I thought. I had no intention of playing dumb, but I did think that they might and I understand I have no control over that. Believe me when I say I understand that ignorance is no excuse.

Thanks for the answers.

I know that there are so many cases that get handled and heard daily, but I still can't believe how much time everythings takes.

I was rushing when I replied earlier, but if there's something that doesn't make sense with the new orders, your attorney can hash out with his attorney (ie. where the new orders conflict with previous order and you can't comply b/c the other party's still going by old orders), so wanted to throw that out there.

If your ex is not following the supervised visitation, you can have your attorney advise you on what to do with that, but he was at the court appearance so can't act like he doesn't know he's supposed to be supervised.

 

[cmtx2]

I was rushing when I replied earlier, but if there's something that doesn't make sense with the new orders, your attorney can hash out with his attorney (ie. where the new orders conflict with previous order and you can't comply b/c the other party's still going by old orders), so wanted to throw that out there.

If your ex is not following the supervised visitation, you can have your attorney advise you on what to do with that, but he was at the court appearance so can't act like he doesn't know he's supposed to be supervised.

Everything is in order now. For whatever reason, my previous attorney and my exes attorney had agreed that my exes attorney would draw up the orders. My new attorney is waiting for the transcripts so that she can review them and make sure that the temporary orders cover/order what was said in court.

I've also continued to document incidents of paternal gma overstepping her boundaries. For example, I had an appointment yesterday and picked up my daughter from after school care an hour earlier then I usually do. She wasn't in after school care and when I asked the care givers where she was, they told me that gma had pulled her into her office.

I went to the office and asked gma why DD was in there and she said that DD wasn't in trouble or anything and that she had just wanted to give her a book and show DD a new music box. I was a little ticked, so I left things at that. DD ended up saying that she finished her work early and forgot her book at home so gma took her to her office (not the library) to acquire one, but that gma also asked her why she didn't go to the school dance on this past Friday (on my weekend). My DD simply told her that we went bowling and had fun with some friends.

Later last night, I sent gma an email (to her office address) stating that it's inappropriate for her to have DD in her office unless it relates to school and that as the principal it's highly inappropriate for her to question my DD as to her whereabouts Friday when she wasn't at the school dance and this seemed to occur at an oppurtunistic time when gma was able to get my DD in her office alone. I told her don't do so again.

That woman will be the death of me.

New attorney agrees with the email and we will start working the case for final hearing soon. We hope to have this settled before DD has summer visitation. Ex is still a no show and didn't take DD to the dance he had asked for last Wednesday and I just documented that as well. DD was very disappointed.

I've said it before and i'll say it again...i'm fighting Gparents and not my ex, but he's the one with the rights.

 

[wileybunch]

Later last night, I sent gma an email (to her office address) stating that it's inappropriate for her to have DD in her office unless it relates to school and that as the principal it's highly inappropriate for her to question my DD as to her whereabouts Friday when she wasn't at the school dance and this seemed to occur at an oppurtunistic time when gma was able to get my DD in her office alone. I told her don't do so again.

I think most would agree g'ma shouldn't have DD in her office and use her position there to gain more access to DD than she would otherwise be entitled to, but I think you are overreacting telling g'ma that it's "highly inappropriate" for her to "question" DD why she didn't go to the school dance. For pete's sake, I'm a g'ma and my mom --a g'ma -- was here visiting this past weekend and a question like that is par for the course for a grandparent. In fact my 9yo DD spent a lot of time alone with Nana chatting in her BR this weekend. I really don't care what Nana was asking her during that time. I realize you dislike g'ma knowing any more than you want her to know, but she is still family to your DD. You cannot put the g'parents in the box you want to without both hurting your DD and causing yourself unncessary grief. While g'ma has overstepped, you are controlling. You two are going to do this dance forever if you can't learn to relax and g'ma doesn't learn to separate her school vs. familial ties.

 

[cmtx2]

I think most would agree g'ma shouldn't have DD in her office and use her position there to gain more access to DD than she would otherwise be entitled to, but I think you are overreacting telling g'ma that it's "highly inappropriate" for her to "question" DD why she didn't go to the school dance. For pete's sake, I'm a g'ma and my mom --a g'ma -- was here visiting this past weekend and a question like that is par for the course for a grandparent. In fact my 9yo DD spent a lot of time alone with Nana chatting in her BR this weekend. I really don't care what Nana was asking her during that time. I realize you dislike g'ma knowing any more than you want her to know, but she is still family to your DD. You cannot put the g'parents in the box you want to without both hurting your DD and causing yourself unncessary grief. While g'ma has overstepped, you are controlling. You two are going to do this dance forever if you can't learn to relax and g'ma doesn't learn to separate her school vs. familial ties.

I wouldn't be so controlling, but remember Wiley...Gma testified (lied) in court that she NEVER oversteps her bounderies. She testified that she is ONLY the principal from the moment DD steps onto the premises til the moment she leaves. This is simply not true. There are several other ways that she did overstep boundaries before, but she didn't acknowledge them in court.

That's the reason that i'm trying to remind her that she is the principal there. If she's going to talk the talk, then she needs to walk the walk. She can ask my DD any other time, especially because Gma will be picking up DD tonight for dads visitation. She will also have the oppurtunity to do so this weekend when DD goes for her weekend visit.

I believe Gma is trying to take advantage of the situation and that's why she got DD alone and then asked her. I also believe this is why all the exes were so against my DD going to another campus. It's a matter of control for them as well. Gma didn't leave the public school system on good terms and that's why she is the principal of a private school. Hopefully, after final orders, DD can return to her public school. She really loved it there for the 2 and 1/2 weeks she was there. DD still draws pics about it and tries to talk to the exes about going back, but they just ignore her. DD is still not adjusted to being back at her private school. She gets in daily fights (verbal) and her grades are suffering a bit, but me and her couselor are working with her to adjust.

Thanks for the input Wiley, but that's why I told her it was highly inappropriate. Just wanted to give you more insight.

 

[Zigner]

I wouldn't be so controlling, but remember Wiley...Gma testified (lied) in court that she NEVER oversteps her bounderies.

Actually - that would be a judgment call. It's not a "lie".


Disclaimer: I have not read any of your history - I'm just commenting on what is in THIS thread.

 

[cmtx2]

Actually - that would be a judgment call. It's not a "lie".


Disclaimer: I have not read any of your history - I'm just commenting on what is in THIS thread.

You may be right, but there was a documented incident in which I complained to her and her superior because she took our daughter out of school w/out permission to attend a funeral luncheon (not family member). Gma admitted to superior and my self that she was wrong in doing so and would not remove our daughter from school without our permission again.

When asked about this in court, she claimed that this incident had never occured. That's a lie, right?

That's just an example I wanted to provide. She denied oversteppig her boundaries even when there is a documeted case of doing so. She also stated she is ONLY the principal when DD is there. That's why I told her it was highly inappropriate as the principal to ask personal questions of my DD whereabouts last Friday in the privacy of her office. There are other times she can ask as she is a supervisor of her sons visits with our daughter.

Does that make sense?

 

[wileybunch]

Take it for what it's worth -- save "highly inappropriate" for really weighty matters otherwise it looks like you blow things out of proportion.

 

[cmtx2]

Take it for what it's worth -- save "highly inappropriate" for really weighty matters otherwise it looks like you blow things out of proportion.

Will take that under advisement. Thank you.

 

[cmtx2]

Amicus Attorney Vs GAL

If your ex is not following the supervised visitation, you can have your attorney advise you on what to do with that, but he was at the court appearance so can't act like he doesn't know he's supposed to be supervised.

Wiley, these are the two options that my attorney has spoken with me about regarding our daughter saying that GP aren't supervising her visitations. She has told her counselor this and he told me out of concern for my daughter.

I understand that an AA would represent our daughter, but I thought GAL would also do the same but in her best interest and as a neutral party between us parents.

If i'm wrong, would someone go into a little bit more and/or clarify for me. My attorney did go into a little detail, but we would discuss these options in more detail in the near future. She's still waiting on the court transcript so that we can approve the temp orders written by his attorney just so there's no discrepencies.

Thanks in advance.