Why my motion was denied...

[ProSeDadinMD]

I forgot to mention...at least you ARE going to have the modification issue heard. Meaning you DO NOT have to give up your wednesdays~ and it's up to MOM to prove there is a valid reason the court should REMOVE parenting time. Specifically since you live so close together. She's flipped out at the possibility of 50/50. Either way...the point is, the judge will still be hearing what the issues are & making a determination. Without any valid cause, I wouldn't think he would reduce parenting time.

Yeah, I thought about that. However, her lawyer seems pretty confident. He even went so far as to state in his last correspondence that:

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. …

and,

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.

I checked out the school districts. I am actually in the district for a different elementary school. However, again, I am within a mile of her current school, daycare, and ...her ... house.

It sounds like the lawyer is saying that Little Miss Pro Se's relationship with her little sister is more important than her relationship with me, right? Never mind the fact that they are in the same daycare facility for at least part of ther day, and I know that my daughter usually spends some time in her sisters class.

 

[fairisfair]

I forgot to mention...at least you ARE going to have the modification issue heard. Meaning you DO NOT have to give up your wednesdays~ and it's up to MOM to prove there is a valid reason the court should REMOVE parenting time. Specifically since you live so close together. She's flipped out at the possibility of 50/50. Either way...the point is, the judge will still be hearing what the issues are & making a determination. Without any valid cause, I wouldn't think he would reduce parenting time.

Casa, do you think maybe HE should motion to dismiss, based on the fact that she has not shown any change in circumstance to change visitation either? Especially if he can file that motion with documentation from the school? Or is he better off letting it be heard?

 

[casa]

Yeah, I thought about that. However, her lawyer seems pretty confident. He even went so far as to state in his last correspondence that:

and,

I checked out the school districts. I am actually in the district for a different elementary school. However, again, I am within a mile of her current school, daycare, and ...her ... house.

It sounds like the lawyer is saying that Little Miss Pro Se's relationship with her little sister is more important than her relationship with me, right? Never mind the fact that they are in the same daycare facility for at least part of ther day, and I know that my daughter usually spends some time in her sisters class.

and you WRITE in your responses and you SAY in court that your concern is that YOUR relationship with your child will 'change' at the 'whim' of the other child's father's visitation....First he had it & so did you...now he doesn't & she wants to take yours away too. What next? He shows up again & then you can 'have' your night again?? I mean...don't say it smartass, but DEFINATELY address it. It's ridiculous.

Her attorney is going to sound confident bc #1) He is, he's an attorney & you are not....and #2) He wants you to cave & do what his client wants.

Stick to your guns. There is NO reason to reduce your parenting time. Provide your evidence that her allegation re; homework is a smokescreen. Address the issue of your visitation changing when the other child's Dad's does. Let the judge see the rest for what it is.

 

[casa]

Casa, do you think maybe HE should motion to dismiss, based on the fact that she has not shown any change in circumstance to change visitation either? Especially if he can file that motion with documentation from the school? Or is he better off letting it be heard?

There are times that could work, but not this time. IMO. First reason is that since his motion was dismissed, this is the ONLY way left for the issues to be heard/addressed. Next reason is the X and attorney are NOT compromising/negotiating...rather, they are stalling and alleging and playing power games. It's unlikely for that situation to change if BOTH motions get dismissed. Also, Mom is alleging there IS a change in circumstance (homework) and therefore, Dad needs to respond to that allegation....and in doing so will demonstrate there is no harm in the schedule continuing the way it was on Wednesdays. In the interim, the judge/court hears surrounding issues and there is a new Court Order. (That also helps in case Mom tries to do it again in the future- she'll be setting a pattern)

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Ok, her “motion” states:

1. That the court entered our consent agreement in '02, "pursuent to which" we agreed to allow me the "minimum number of overnights neccesary to establish shared custody in order to reduce Defendants(me) legal obligation for" CS.

2. That I have not "in fact, utilized all of his custody and visitation days in order to avoid having to pay his share of employment-related child care. Instead the child has been in the care of her maternal grandmother in New Mexico for 30 days during the summer. As a result, the defendant has the financial benefit of reduced obligation for child support without having to actually care for the child himself."

3. That our prior agreement providing midweek overnights is "proving unworkable because of the adverse impact" on schoolwork, and having the "routine" interupted by these visits is "interfereing with her homework activities, which are closely supervised by her mother". A separate item that relates to this is that …her … “proposed visitation schedule would provide up to 4 weeks of overnights for vacation time, but would theoretically reduce" the total # of overnights "by elimination of the Wednesday overnight visitation. In practice, the actual number of overnights under Plaintiffs plan would be about the same"

Number 1 is horsepucky, as I never stated that, nor did I sign anything that did. #2 is also a crock of excrement, especially considering that “employment-related child care” is already factored in to the CS, and I don’t recall her ever having offered me a refund when our daughter was in NM at …her … mothers house. And #3 is, as I have stated above, totally false.

I have already responded to …her … motion, on 2/16/07

1. “The respondent denies this fact, except I admit that we agreed on the schedule because it was in the best interests of the child. Child support was not at issue.”

2. “The respondent denies this fact, with the exception that “the child”, ****** *********, was in New Mexico for more than 30 days during the summer of 2006, per a mutual agreement, and that this only financially benefited the petitioner.”

And 3. “The respondent denies this allegation.”

There is more, like the statements that I have "historically been able to get all the time he wanted for birthdays, Fathers Day, and the like", and that my recent "demand for vacation is disingenuous", and that I just want to have my daughter live at my house and "have his current girlfriend care for her, and further reduce his obligation to pay support". And also, that the reason that I do take vacations in the spring and fall is in order to take advantage of "off-peak, low fare periods of travel.". And I "refuses to accomplish his visitation" on any Wednesdays that my daughter is sick, thereby forcing …her … to use up all her leave. However, I don’t think these last 2(or the other things along the same line) are major factors.

I have also, in several emails, stated things like this:

On the subject of ******’s relationship with her sister, I have consistently done whatever I could to foster a strong relationship between them, as evidenced by the fact that you and I had previously come to an understanding with regards to the night of weeknight visitation. As I stated in my email of 11/1/2006, "Since "we" have apparently decided that we are following the consent order from May 2002 exclusively, I think that it would be in both of our best interest to return to the correct schedule for weekly overnight visitations, which would be Wednesdays, rather than alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays(per your verbal request). .... I know that we have been doing this in an effort to permit the children to be away the same evening for visitation, and I have no problems with this. But as you have pointed out to me, ***** does not generally pick ****** up for those evenings. That being the case, I feel it would be best to return to overnights every Wednesday in an effort to keep the number of "violations" to our order to a minimum". I fail to see, and have found no precedent stating such, how fostering a relationship with her sister is considered more important than her fostering a relationship with her father. I also fail to see a legitimate reason why ****** should be penalized by losing time with me simply because ***** fails to accomplish his visitation with ******. That would not be taking ******'s best interest into account. Conversely, if ***** were to begin, or has begun, utilizing his visitation with ****** again, I would have no problem with returning to the Tuesday/Thursday overnight schedule that we had agreed to in the past, upon suitably amending our order.

 

[casa]

Ok, her “motion” states:

1. That the court entered our consent agreement in '02, "pursuent to which" we agreed to allow me the "minimum number of overnights neccesary to establish shared custody in order to reduce Defendants(me) legal obligation for" CS.

2. That I have not "in fact, utilized all of his custody and visitation days in order to avoid having to pay his share of employment-related child care. Instead the child has been in the care of her maternal grandmother in New Mexico for 30 days during the summer. As a result, the defendant has the financial benefit of reduced obligation for child support without having to actually care for the child himself."

3. That our prior agreement providing midweek overnights is "proving unworkable because of the adverse impact" on schoolwork, and having the "routine" interupted by these visits is "interfereing with her homework activities, which are closely supervised by her mother". A separate item that relates to this is that …her … “proposed visitation schedule would provide up to 4 weeks of overnights for vacation time, but would theoretically reduce" the total # of overnights "by elimination of the Wednesday overnight visitation. In practice, the actual number of overnights under Plaintiffs plan would be about the same"

Number 1 is horsepucky, as I never stated that, nor did I sign anything that did. #2 is also a crock of excrement, especially considering that “employment-related child care” is already factored in to the CS, and I don’t recall her ever having offered me a refund when our daughter was in NM at …her … mothers house. And #3 is, as I have stated above, totally false.

I have already responded to …her … motion, on 2/16/07

1. “The respondent denies this fact, except I admit that we agreed on the schedule because it was in the best interests of the child. Child support was not at issue.”

2. “The respondent denies this fact, with the exception that “the child”, ****** *********, was in New Mexico for more than 30 days during the summer of 2006, per a mutual agreement, and that this only financially benefited the petitioner.”

And 3. “The respondent denies this allegation.”

There is more, like the statements that I have "historically been able to get all the time he wanted for birthdays, Fathers Day, and the like", and that my recent "demand for vacation is disingenuous", and that I just want to have my daughter live at my house and "have his current girlfriend care for her, and further reduce his obligation to pay support". And also, that the reason that I do take vacations in the spring and fall is in order to take advantage of "off-peak, low fare periods of travel.". And I "refuses to accomplish his visitation" on any Wednesdays that my daughter is sick, thereby forcing …her … to use up all her leave. However, I don’t think these last 2(or the other things along the same line) are major factors.

I have also, in several emails, stated things like this:

Sounds to me like...she ...is the one worried about CS.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Sounds to me like...she ...is the one worried about CS.

That's about the size of it...

 

[casa]

That's about the size of it...

Stick to your guns

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Stick to your guns

Not to worry, I am. I am truly annoyed by the way ...she ... feels that she can dictate the terms of my time with our daughter.

I am thinking that a part of the reason that money is such an issue for her is that little sisters dad not only doesn't do his visitation, but also is not paying CS, at least as of the last time we talked about that, maybe 8 mos. ago. Since she can't seem to get it from him, she is directing her anger at me.

 

[fairisfair]

Not to worry, I am. I am truly annoyed by the way ...she ... feels that she can dictate the terms of my time with our daughter.

I am thinking that a part of the reason that money is such an issue for her is that little sisters dad not only doesn't do his visitation, but also is not paying CS, at least as of the last time we talked about that, maybe 8 mos. ago. Since she can't seem to get it from him, she is directing her anger at me.

You'd think the comparison between the two of you would be favorable to you.

oh oops, didn't mean to post her picture there!! LOL

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Got a response from the teacher....

...and she says she can have all of Little Miss Pro Se's progress reports and report cards for me on Friday. Score one for the good guys.

I haven't spoken with the teacher about whether or not she would be willing to come to court regarding this. Should I ask, or simply have her subpoena'd? I really want to stay on her good side.

Also, I've considered, although not acted on it, informing ...her ... of my intent to have the teacher come to court(I would think that unless her lawyer is a complete moron he would be prepared for this), and that it may well have an "adverse" effect on their relationship once ...she ... starts spouting lies.

 

[fairisfair]

...and she says she can have all of Little Miss Pro Se's progress reports and report cards for me on Friday. Score one for the good guys.

I haven't spoken with the teacher about whether or not she would be willing to come to court regarding this. Should I ask, or simply have her subpoena'd? I really want to stay on her good side.

I doubt that she will be willing, and in fact the school administration is the proper authority to approach with your request, not the teacher. Perhaps the records will be enough?

 

[casa]

...and she says she can have all of Little Miss Pro Se's progress reports and report cards for me on Friday. Score one for the good guys.

I haven't spoken with the teacher about whether or not she would be willing to come to court regarding this. Should I ask, or simply have her subpoena'd? I really want to stay on her good side.

Also, I've considered, although not acted on it, informing ...her ... of my intent to have the teacher come to court(I would think that unless her lawyer is a complete moron he would be prepared for this), and that it may well have an "adverse" effect on their relationship once ...she ... starts spouting lies.

The records are enough. The teacher probably won't want to miss school &/or pay to attend court over it- and also make her life with your X uncomfortable. The records really speak for themselves.

File those & serve them upon all parties...sooner rather than later

 

[Eekamouse]

Why do you keep refering to your daughter as "Little Miss Pro Se"? It sounds like you're calling her names or are you calling your ex-wife that and I'm just confused?

 

[fairisfair]

Why do you keep refering to your daughter as "Little Miss Pro Se"? It sounds like you're calling her names or are you calling your ex-wife that and I'm just confused?

actually I started that, for lack of a better name, I suppose it could have been "the daughter", but little miss pro se, just sounded kind of like little miss muffet, and I guess it stuck. What the heck is up with everybody worrying so much about what we call them anyway??? The questions remain the same, as do the answers. He is Pro Se Dad, she is little Miss Pro Se. The little being intended so as to avoid confusion. little, girl, get it??

by the way, why do you call yourself eek a mouse. I don't like that scrreeeeching noise, and I certainly don't care much for rodents. but then, that doesn't really matter, does it???