Well, exceptions have been filed…..

[ProSeDadinMD]

What is the name of your state? MD
I’m glad that I am being kind of anal about this, and called this morning about the order.

Plaintiff’s exceptions to the Family division Master’s Recommendation and Report of 4/10/07
1. This matter was heard on 4/3/07. Although scheduled for 3 hours for modification hearing, the afternoon time became available and the hearing progressed until 4:30pm; approximately 6 hours of testimony and argument were entered into the record.
2. At the conclusion of the hearing, Master ********* continued the time for entering his recommendations and findings on the record to April 10, 2007. He also offered some surprising statements regarding his disappointment that the person who mattered the most, specifically ****** *********, was the person about whom he knew the least. This was surprising to both the Plaintiff and her counsel, as Ms. ****** had testified extensively regarding the child’s school performance and the impact of the Wednesday visitation schedule thereon. Also at the conclusion of the hearing, Defendant ********* tendered his “Proposed Visitation Plan” to the court, over Plaintiff’s objection.
3. On April 5 2007, Master ********* delved into plaintiff’s other custody file(1) and contacted the partied by conference call to verify certain financial information which had not been introduced at the hearing by either side. On 4/5/07 Master ********* stated that each side would be afforded a 5 minute argument in respect of additional evidence he was considering that had not been introduced during the hearing, including argument on Defendant’s proposed visitation schedule.
4. Thereafter, on 4/10/07, Master ********* did not allow argument, and opened the hearing beginning immediately with his report of findings and recommendations, to which Plaintiff takes exception as follows:
Plaintiff’s Exceptions
5. It is apparent form Master *********’s report that he considered matters outside the hearing; indeed he considered matters from Plaintiff’s other custody case which had nothing to do with the dispute involving Defendant *********. Plaintiff takes exception to the Master’s consideration of evidence from Plaintiff’s other custody matter, none of which was introduced or referred to by either party during the hearing of April 3,2007
6. Plaintiff takes exception to the Master’s consideration of disability income which was not introduced at the hearing, though known to Defendant as to the nature and extent of both the disability and the compensation prior to the hearing. Plaintiff links the disability income to her second child, for whom she is the sole source of support since her former husband has not paid court-ordered child support for more than one year and is approximately $20,000 in arrears.
7. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s finding that there is no material change of circumstances. The child was three years old and not in school at the time of the order of 2002. Now, thew child is in second grade and travel times in respect of visitation arte crucial for her on-time arrival to school and the amount of time available for homework after school. This is significant because Plaintiff is moving from **********, where the parties reside within 1 mile of each other, to ********, Maryland, which will be approximately 20 miles away on back roads, or 44 miles via interstate highways. The hearing master did not address the fact that the child was not in school at the time of the last order, but now is in second grade.
8. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s finding that Mr. ********* was currently paying in excess of the guidelines amount. The finding contributed to the Master’s bias against plaintiff and determining that she was simply seeking additional child support.
9. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s finding that the consent order of 2002 was entered into “in the spirit of negotiation”. Plaintiff’s uncontroverted testimony is that she has repeatedly sought to “keep the peace” in the face of Defendant’s overbearing bullying tactics, including his filing of a meritless motion for contempt, and that the Order of 2002 gave Defendant everything that he said he wanted at the time: 35% of overnights to establish a shared custody arrangement to minimize his child support obligation. The evidence is that Defendant did not ask for vacation time because he hardly ever utilizes vacation time and Plaintiff would give him all he wanted if he asked for it. Further the evidence was that Mr. ********* went from two evenings of visitation to one overnight from the prior order to the 2002 Order, which netted him reduced obligation for child support but less “awake” time with ******

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Part Deux....

Part two....

10. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s finding that there was no change of circumstances in the uncontroverted testimony that Defendant ********* had only maintained 128 or more overnights, including Sunday and Wednesday overnights which involve only 12 hours of actual visitation time, in one of the proceeding five years that the custody order was in place. Master ********* stated that he heard no testimony as to why Mr. ********* had not met the 128-day requirement, and whether it was close. The evidence is that ****** was at her maternal grandmother’s for a month during the summer of 2006, and on various vacations with the Plaintiff. The testimony is uncontroverted the he never wanted make up time, that he never took vacation when it was in the parties custody order which was in effect prior to the 2002 agreement, that plaintiff never said “no” to any extra time prior to Defendant’s demand that the child live with her for the month of November 2006, that the Defendant took one vacation in 5 years, in 2005, when ***** ******’s mother paid for a family vacation to Florida which included Defendant and ******. Defendant made up days when she was sick and he wanted to.
11. Plaintiff ***** takes exception to Master *********’s finding that she “controls” the vacation time for Defendant. The uncontroverted testimony is that Defendant only asked for three vacation periods with ****** in five years – the first being a Thanksgiving Day holiday in 2005, which turned out to be the week after T-Day and for which ****** missed an entire week of school. The second was his request that ****** live with him for the entire month of November 2006. The third was his request that ****** stay with him for Christmas break from Christmas Eve to New Year’s Day, with no provision for the child to visit her mother during the entire break. The uncontroverted testimony is that Plaintiff agreed to Defendant’s first request, disagreed to the second, and agreed to the third provided that ****** could spend a few hours on Christmas Day with Plaintiff and ******, ******’s 5 year old sister.
12. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s reliance upon e-mail communication between the parties, much of which amounted to settlement negotiations and were only admissible in respect of Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees. Instead, Master ********* appears to have reviewed these communications as evidence in respect to the ongoing issues between the parties.
13. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s failure to rule on her request for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff incurred substantial fees in this case, which was initiated by Defendant’s filing of a motion to modify, and amending same.
14. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s failure to understand the case before him, to wit, he plainly considered this to be a matter proceeding on Defendant’s motion to modify. Untill he reviewed the record at the moment he was articulating his recommendations, Master ********* did not seem to be aware that Defendan’t motion had been dismissed.
15. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s inconsistency regarding wanting to preserve the consent order from 2002, yet not adjusting time within the 65-35 sharing percentage of the child’s time. Master ********* was intent on preserving that agreement, as it appears he was, for he refused to acknowledge the change in circumstances resulting form the child’s attending school and moving to a new school district miles away form the parties’ present day-care provider. However, rather than adjusting time within the percentage distribution originally demanded by defendant ********* and agreed upon by Plaintiff, he simply added more than four weeks additional time despite the uncontroverted testimony that the Wednesday night visitation was not working out in respect of the child’s educational requirements. The Wednesday night visitation would be exacerbated by Plaintiff’s move to ********.
16. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s criticism of her counsel calling ***** ******, defendant’s live-in girlfriend, as a witness in this case. Master ********* completely discounted the evidence that Ms. ******, who is married to another man while living with Mr. *********, is believed to by ****** to be her father’s “wife” and was introduced to ******’s teacher by Mr. ********* as his “wife”. Ms. ****** had failed to appear for her deposition in this case. Plaintiff believes that Ms. ******’s marital status is relevant to the quality of ******’s upbringing and her understanding of the importance of regarding marriage with the highest degree of respect and commitment.
17. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s off the record comment, “tell her don’t give me an excuse to reduce her Child Support”. Plainly, Master ********* completely misunderstood the thrust of Plaintiff’s case by expressing that he had somehow preserved her $350.00 Child Support amount consented to by the parties in 2002 as a favor to her or ******. During the hearing, Master ********* initially declared that his finding that the prior award in 2002 was in excess of the Guidelines; when corrected that it was, in fact, $25.00 less than the guidleine, he simply demurred, saying “I can’t figure out these financial statements”.
18. Plaintiff takes exception to Master *********’s finding that there was any evidence or argument whatsoever on Defendant’s voluntary impoverishment. That the hearing officer even ventured into this area during his findings and recommendations phase reflects that he was considering evidence from outside the courtroom; specifically, the voluntary impoverishment argument applied to Plaintiff’s husband, from whom she obtained a divorce in 2002. Further Master *********’s findings regarding Defendant’s “prior income” of $50,000.00 applied to the defendant in the other case, which he obviously mixed up with this one.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

And finally....

In consideration of the foregoing, your Plaintiff prays that the court would vacate the Master’s recommendations of April 10,2007 and grant the following relief in respect of this matter.
1 Determine that a material change of circumstance exists by virtue of the child’s growing up from toddler age to second grade over the course of the last 5 years, and that the existing order does not adequately consider the impact of the child’s educational needs.
2. Replace mid-week Wednesday overnight visitation with Friday evening visitation in alternate weeks, so that ****** will never be more than six days apart from spending time with her father.
3. continue alternate weekend visitation, however, require that ****** be picked up by Plaintiff from Defendant’s home on Sunday Evenings by 6:30pm or, if school is closed for students on the following Monday(including, but not limited to holidays, teacher development days and snow days), or if ****** is home sick from school on Monday, from Defendant’s home on Monday evenings at 6:30pm.
4. Provide alternating Spring Break and Christmas Break schedules, so that one parent obtains a week plus their weekend, and the other obtains at least their weekend at the beginning or end of the week off from school. On Christmas Eve, each parent who does not have Christmas Break would have ****** from 6pm on Christmas Eve until 12pm on Christmas Day. Mother to have spring Break and Christmas Break in odd-numbered years, Father in even-numbered years.
5. For Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, the parent’s will swap weekends, if necessary, since Mothers Day and Fathers day are usually an odd number of weekends apart, so that both would fall on one parent’s weekends, the parties will swap the weekend before the parent’s day for that parent who does not have visitation on their parent’s day.
6. Parent’s will alternate Thanksgiving weekend by alternating visitation commencing Wednesday after school through Friday at 6:30pm, Friday 6:30pm to Sunday at 6:30pm, regardless of whether the weekend would ordinarily be with that parent.
7. Weekend Visitation shall be determined first on the calander, and any adjustments for holidays and breaks during the school year shall be determined secondly. Thus, in respect tof parent’s days, Thanksgiving and Christmas, it may be that one parent has the child for two or even three weekends in a row.
8. Summer vacation shal be determined by whole weeks, three per parent, commencing on Sunday night at 6:30pm. Each parent shall designate three such weeks of vacation, alternating their choices, with Mother choosing first on odd-numbered years and Father choosing first in even-numbered years. Weekend visitation shall be suspended for the other parent if the parent taking vacation is more than 50 miles away for their weekend, and it shall not be deemed a denial of access for a parent to plan a weekend-only trip for the week of their vacation. In the event that vacation is taken and the Saturday and Sunday at the end of the vacation week is ordinarily the other parent’ weekend, that parent shall have their visitation, as ordinarily scheduled, if the child is not more than 50 miles form home and is retrieved by the parent seeking their weekend visitation.
9. The parties shall coordinate time such that ****** may have one evening visitation on each parent’s or her sister, ******’s celebration of their birthday, from 6:30pm to 9pm
10. The parties shall coordinate such time that ****** may be celebrating her birthday with each parent from 6:30pm to 9pm, and preference shall be given to Mother on odd-numbered years and Father on even numbered years for celebration of ******’s birthday on or near her actual birthday.
11. Child Support for ****** should be recalculated based on primary physical custody with Plaintiff, giving due consideration to Plaintiff being the sole source of support for ******’s little sister, ******.
12. To make an award for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees
13. For such other relief as the ends of justice seem meet.
Your Plaintiff respectfully requests that this matter be scheduled for a hearing before a Circuit Judge of the Family Division.

I’m already preparing my answer to this, and will post it shortly. Some of them I need the transcripts for, and will be ordering them in the morning. Any thoughts before I get too far?

Sorry for the book....

 

[fairisfair]

why didn't she just say, plaintiff takes exception to the fact that she is a controlling biatch and the master saw her for that.

She is quite a piece of work, that one

The master is going to absolutely love the idea of being called a moron, I can assure you of that.

As for legal advice, none really, except carry on as you have been.

If it helps at all, I would be happy to join you in the Pro Se chant.

 

[fairisfair]

just one other thing, she actually thinks that you should pay more child support, because the other father pays none, for a subsequent child?? What the he11, how does that work?

I suppose you could offer to have her spayed.

 

[casa]

I’m already preparing my answer to this, and will post it shortly. Some of them I need the transcripts for, and will be ordering them in the morning. Any thoughts before I get too far?

Sorry for the book....

Wow, judges in MD actually have time for those kind of long-winded, whiny exceptions?

That basically means ...she objects to nearly everything~ and now...her attorney is stomping their feet bc they didn't get what ...she wanted.

I'm sure the judge will love that story about why she hid her SSI income...and how in the world do they expect to argue that the other child's support issues have ANYTHING to do with YOU?

 

[LdiJ]

Actually, there were a few things in there that I didn't think were proper. If this was a master or magistrate rather than a judge, it does open the door for an appeal.

It does sound to me like the Master, at a minimum, didn't follow proper proceedure and considered some facts not entered into evidence.

I am not saying that I disagree with the overall decision, however it does open the door for it to be appealed to the judge.

 

[casa]

Actually, there were a few things in there that I didn't think were proper. If this was a master or magistrate rather than a judge, it does open the door for an appeal.

It does sound to me like the Master, at a minimum, didn't follow proper proceedure and considered some facts not entered into evidence.

I am not saying that I disagree with the overall decision, however it does open the door for it to be appealed to the judge.

They want to have her other child's support considered into THIS case...but they deem it innapropriate that the Master wanted to consider aspects of that Custody case? They open the door to all that when they try to use her 'excuse' of hiding income...and how is ProSe supposed to know what evidence to present re; her income when she's hiding it?

 

[LdiJ]

They want to have her other child's support considered into THIS case...but they deem it innapropriate that the Master wanted to consider aspects of that Custody case? They open the door to all that when they try to use her 'excuse' of hiding income...and how is ProSe supposed to know what evidence to present re; her income when she's hiding it?

I realize the point that you are making. However support paid for other children is often included in child support calculations, but support received for other children almost never is in an income shares model. That support belongs to the other children.

That also doesn't make it proper for the master to use non-child support related issues, that were not entered into evidence.

That is the downside to going pro se. You don't necessarily know what evidence to introduce. However that doesn't give the master/judge the leeway to go search out evidence on their own.

Again, I think that the master made the correct decision. However I can see that the master did some things that were not proper.

 

[CJane]

I realize the point that you are making. However support paid for other children is often included in child support calculations, but support received for other children almost never is in an income shares model. That support belongs to the other children.

I know that in my state, support received for other children IS included in child support calculations - even subsequent children.

For instance:

Asshat pays child support in the amount of $200/month for a child born years and years before the lil man. That amount is deducted from his income prior to setting CS for our child together. I get a 'credit' of about $700 for my 2 girls since I have custody of them. The $398 that their father pays in CS is deducted from that $700 credit, leaving me around $300 in the hole as far as 'support' goes. Asshat's CS obligation is actually HIGHER than it 'should' be because Stupidhead pays below the guidelines due to our custody arrangement.

Same thing when I figure what Stupidhead should be paying. He gets the credit for his subsequent kid, I get the credit for my subsequent kid. My credit is slightly offset by Asshat's CS. Since Stupidhead is married and gets no CS, his credit is much higher than mine so he pays below guidelines.

That all totally made sense in my head. I'd be more than happy to link you to the spreadsheet that MO uses.

 

[LdiJ]

I know that in my state, support received for other children IS included in child support calculations - even subsequent children.

For instance:

Asshat pays child support in the amount of $200/month for a child born years and years before the lil man. That amount is deducted from his income prior to setting CS for our child together. I get a 'credit' of about $700 for my 2 girls since I have custody of them. The $398 that their father pays in CS is deducted from that $700 credit, leaving me around $300 in the hole as far as 'support' goes. Asshat's CS obligation is actually HIGHER than it 'should' be because Stupidhead pays below the guidelines due to our custody arrangement.

Same thing when I figure what Stupidhead should be paying. He gets the credit for his subsequent kid, I get the credit for my subsequent kid. My credit is slightly offset by Asshat's CS. Since Stupidhead is married and gets no CS, his credit is much higher than mine so he pays below guidelines.

That all totally made sense in my head. I'd be more than happy to link you to the spreadsheet that MO uses.

It makes sense that the CS you receive factors into your credit for the subsequent or prior child....but again, that's strictly related to the "other child".

That doesn't factor into our state's calculation...but then our state only factors in the amount of support you pay or are obligated for, for the other children. It doesn't factor in the entire amount of "support" for that other child.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Here's my response, not in filing form yet

1. I agree, but mostly because the lawyer spent way more time than allotted on his part of "testimony and argument"

2. I agree that the master made those statements, but disagree that anybody should have been surprised, because it's the truth. I had effectively neutralized her contention that the Wednesday overnights were an issue, via school records. Also, as stated in my answer to the Motion to Strike my proposed visitation schedule, I stated where my proposed schedule was known to ...her ... and her "counsel" as of 3/6/07.

3. The info alluded to(it's not SSI, it's military disability) was in our file from our last round). As I was in on the conference call, I don't recall the Master saying that he would hear arguments at the "Oral Recommendations Hearing".

4. Since it was a hearing that we were able to attend by phone, I don't see how any arguments could be offered.

5. The visitation schedule for the other custody case was brought up at the original hearing, by me, in regards to the fact that I had worked with her on the actual days of visitation(Tues/Thurs as opposed to every Wed).

6. Again, this info appears in our prior financial disclosure documents, and from my understanding(although I could be wrong), the fact that Daddy #2 is a deadbeat should not affect me.

7. The move is so far simply proposed, not a fait accompli, and is for the sole purpose of making my visitation difficult or impossible. (...She ... is a Federal Employee, and somehow wants the court to believe that there are more Fed jobs available near Baltimore than there are near DC)

8. I didn't work the numbers, so I have no comment yet.

9. There is absolutely no evidence that I bullied her into an agreement that she didn't want. ...She ... was in contempt, simple fact, but I made the mistake of letting it be dismissed.

10. ...She ... states that she has taken vacations(which, as she points out, were NOT in the order). And my circumstances have changed in a manner that allows me to take vacation time that I had not been able to in the past.

11. My offer for Christmas break included ...her ... having her on Christmas Eve till 8pm.

12. Emails were submitted as evidence by both sides during the hearing, so why the surprise that they are being considered in the process?

13. I'm Pro Se, not my fault that ...she ... felt the need to hire a lawyer.

14. I need the transcripts, but I believe we were operating on ...her ... motion, not mine.

15. As stated, education was shown to not be an issue. The move is a ploy on ...her ... part to limit my visitation(she would be "house sitting" for somebody who is being deployed to Iraq, or so she says.)

16. My daughter is aware that my fiancé is not my wife, and there are phone records of a conversation between my fiancé and ...her ... lawyer, at which time she attempted to reschedule.

17. I don't recall the wording of this exchange, and need the transcripts.

18. Again, I need the transcripts, but my recollection is that they brought this up, not the Master.

19. Blah Blah Blah

I haven't gotten so far as my response to the proposed changes from them. I know I have more work to do, but really need the transcripts to finish.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Out of curiousity....

On #8, if I can show where Federal jobs are located around the area, with very few in Baltimore, will that squash that rational for her move? If so, it would be obvious that the move is strictly to make visitation between my daughter and I difficult, with the additional benefit of not having to pay rent, since she will be "house sitting" for a year, thereby being a semi unstable environment. She did state at the 4/3 hearing that it was mostly to ease her commute.

Also, if I can show that they are the ones who brought up the things about the other custody case, doesn't that constitute, if not perjury, at least uttering false statements in her motion?

They did that, and I called them out on it, in the motion to strike my proposed visitation schedule. I am going to be filing a grievance with the MD state Bar Association regarding that set of false statements.