S.P.A.R.C.

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - wysiwyg

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6
51
Father's Issues / cell phone question
« on: Dec 18, 2006, 03:40:17 AM »
I know this has been posted about before - but I have an added twist and want opinions please.

15Y SS got a cell phone recently.  He has not been to our home yet with it, so I do not really know if he will be allowed to bring it but I venture to say he will as I think his BM will use it as a short lease for him.

I (SM) say if he brings it, put it up and hand personally to BM when she gets him at the conclusion of parenting time, with the statmemetn that he is not to bring it to our home and to continue to call him on our home phone or either cell if necessary as she has done in the past.

BF says lets see what happens.

True, SS will be calling everyone he knows, but here are my concerns:

1.  The phone has pix, text, video and voice messanging, this can be used for unconventional things that he can give his mother, such as convdersations, pictures videos etc.  I do not have anything to hide, but 14 years in the court room have shown us how anything can be twisted to harm you, and I believe this is an invasion of my privacay and my home.
2.  The phone can be used at all hours of the day/night whereas no quality time will be spent with BF or siblings.
3.  Previous Letters from BM says that the child does not like to speak on the phone - so I think the cell phone will be used for other intentions that are not good, as I have a horrible feeling about this.
4. SS has not called us yet to give us number and I am assuming that BM will tell him not to give us that number.
5. BM has handed out our home unpublished number to all SS friends so no one has a problem calling him and geting ahold of him, additionally he is allowed to IM with his friends when he is here with us within reason, ie not for an entire day but for maybe 1-2 hours a day.
6. BM has our home, both cells and both work numbers to call us at.
7. BM refuses any communicaitn from BF, refuses certified letters, does nto return calls, and when she gets the child, knocks on the door then runs 50 yars away from the door so when it is opened she is long down the road.

Opinions please?  

52
Father's Issues / comments?
« on: Nov 12, 2006, 04:47:27 AM »
When I (SM) went to get SS, BM said he would be a few min and slammed door in my face, when SS comes out at 610 he says on way to car that he has a school activity at 630. I said we did not know and did his mom talk to his dad he said no. When we got in the car I handed him my cell phone and asked him to call his mother and ask her to work it out with his dad (she calls me a whore, flips me off and will not speak to me - all this is docucmented in court with the GAL's report) I pulled over in the car and waited for him to co,plete his call so that I did not get too far in case there was some decision to be made.  BM refuses to answer home or cell phone, so SS leaves a message to contact dad. I called dad and asked him what we should do that I felt uncomfortable in that I had nothing from BM that said he had any activity and not that I do not trust SS, but court records from GAL already pegged him as a liar - and I was not going to leave him some place on a minors word with no confirmation that this was indeed a school function that he was to attend.

BM finally calls back nearly an hour after child was to be at the school and leaves a mesasge that "SS was negligible for not contacting BF earlier in the week" and "that the child "was delinquent" in giving BF the information" and that SS left 2 phone messages earlier today and if we caused him to not go then SS would face repercussions in school...etc etc etc. When we got home tonight there were 2 prior calls from SS - but both on home phone and he knew we were both at work and no call was ever placed to either cell phone or to our work. As a parent I would never allow my kids to go anywhere without speaking to antoher parent with whom my child was to be with.

The court order does not give me the authority to take and drop off the child anywhere I see fit without the knowledge of his father while in our care. When I called BF he had heard nothing from BM or anything to confirm this activity. So he said he was only comfortable with having the child with us since nothing was discussed otherwise.  The GAL report entered into court already found the child to be a liar and while I had no reason to doubt SS at this time, I felt uncomfortable leaving him anywhere without any kind of documentation or parental knowledge of the activity.  

Court orders pertaining to this situation provide for SM to pick up child in place of BF as his representative. BF to have parenting time EOW from 6 to 6 and to be availalbe at the residence of the CP, BM is to tell BF as far in advance of any activity on his time to either work out alternate arrangements or decide if child is to go due to pre scheduled activities with BF, neither party is to involve the child in their disputes in regards to parenting times and the child is not to act as a go between.


Comments?


53
Father's Issues / venting - I just dont get it
« on: Sep 25, 2006, 07:48:35 AM »
We are in court Wednesday, becasue BM is PO'd and claims "failure/refusal" to pay CS.  The facts, BF got a new job and waited 2 pay periods to see if the withholding order would go back into effect, when it hadn't BF paid all Support in full and current and remains so.  She claimes she was without for 6 weeks, the facts again: she got all money 2 weeks PRIOR to her filing and was paid ahead at the time BF changed jobs.  No malice at all on BF part, we expected to continue on as we had for the previous 5 years with a WH order.

BM gets held in contempt and ordered to pay our attorney's fees within 90 days or an immediate judgement in favor of our attorney firm will result.  Guess what?  She never paid it all and got the judgement, got a court date to show up for wage with holding, and she nor her attorney show up!  Got another court date in fall, but she now says if we FORGIVE her failure to pay her arrears, she will drop the CS petion!  So she wants us to over ride a judges order and forgive her and allow her to not pay the outstanding attorney's fees that the court ordered her to pay, her failure to show up in court and in the mean time we have 3-4 more billable hours in preparation and court time that she wants to not have to pay?  Who is the one at fault here?  What was willful?  Additionally BM has several other actions against her for failure to pay her Credit cards and once she was backed into a corner she pays them in full at the last minute, the last one was in excess of 10K after her filing on us that she "can not afford to bring the action to court "and asked the court to award her attroney's fees.  Again, the facts, claims she is poverty stricken, gets CS routinly and pays off a debt in excess of 10K after she files............

Thanks for letting me vent.............I hope the court system can see through this BS when we go to court.


54
Father's Issues / interesting reading
« on: Aug 05, 2006, 06:35:03 AM »
Ind. Decisions - More on: Supreme Court denies transfer in the Morgan County same-sex adoption case
Cordell Eddings of the Indianapolis Star has a story today headlined: "Challenge fails: Adoption by gay couples stands State supreme court declines to hear case." Some quotes:

Same-sex couples in Indiana will be allowed to adopt children after the Indiana Supreme Court let a lower court ruling stand.

In a 4-1 decision Friday, the state's highest court declined to hear arguments against unmarried couples adopting, effectively upholding a lower-court ruling that allowed adoption by joint petition -- a procedure that gives both partners equal custody.

"This is a very important victory for children and the lesbian and gay community," said Patricia Logue, who represented Kim Brennan and Becky Hamilton.

In 2004, the Morgan County couple's adoption of a baby girl was approved by a judge in Marion County but denied by a judge in Morgan County.

Brennan and Hamilton, who could not be reached for comment, have foster and child-care experience and have lived together for more than 10 years.

Logue said the decision would mean more homes for children who wouldn't have one otherwise. She said it's also a victory over the bias against gays and lesbians.

"The facts speak for themselves," said Logue. "Two people can create a caring, stable, loving home for children without being married."

But Justice Brent Dickson wrote a three-page dissent suggesting the Supreme Court should have heard the case in order to clarify issues regarding same-sex adoption.

"The court is missing a valuable opportunity to address and resolve important questions left undecided," Dickson said. "By denying this case, we are missing a valuable and important opportunity to minimize uncertainty and confusion."

The decision also disappointed state Sen. Jeff Drozda, R-Westfield, who is opposed to same-sex adoptions. He said the courts were not representing the views of Hoosiers. He said he will introduce legislation in 2007 to bar same-sex couples from adopting. * * *

Attorney General Steve Carter, who could not be reached for comment, sought the Supreme Court review after the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a ruling by Morgan Circuit Judge Matthew Hanson.

Hanson opposed the joint petition of Hamilton and Brennan because, he said, Indiana law limits adoption to married couples and individuals. State law prohibits same-sex marriages.

The appeals court ruled that adoptions by unmarried couples were legal and there was nothing in Indiana code that limits a lesbian couple's right to adopt.

Previously, adoptions by unmarried couples were granted only if the child was either the offspring of one partner or already had been adopted by one of the partners, rights that have been granted by other recent appellate decisions.

The appeals court ruling placed Indiana among about 25 states that allow joint adoptions by unmarried couples, Logue said.

Ashley Herer of the AP wrote this report, first posted Friday by the Chicago Tribune online, as in today's paper. Some quotes:
INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana's Supreme Court let stand a ruling that allowed unmarried couples, including those of the same sex, to adopt children through a joint petition that gives both partners equal custody.

In a 4-1 decision posted Friday, the high court refused to hear arguments in the case that the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on in April.

"The court acknowledged that two people can create a caring, stable, loving home for children without being married," said Patricia Logue, senior counsel for Lambda Legal's Midwest office in Chicago. "Not only is this a decision that will keep our clients' family intact, but this is a victory for the thousands of children in Indiana desperately in need of a caring home."

Logue represented a lesbian couple from Morgan County whose 2004 attempt to adopt a baby girl was approved by a judge in one county but denied by a judge in another. * * *

The earlier Appeals Court decision overturned a ruling by Morgan Circuit Court Judge Matthew Hanson, who opposed the joint petition of Becki Hamilton and Kim Brennan because he said Indiana law limits adoption to married couples and individuals. State law prohibits same-sex marriages.

The appeals court said state law requires married persons seeking adoption to petition jointly.

Justice Brent Dickson, in a three-page dissent, said the Supreme Court should have heard the case.

"This court is missing a valuable opportunity to address and resolve important questions," Dickson wrote. * * *

Hanson was conducting hearings to terminate the parental rights of the girl's birth mother when he learned that Hamilton and Brennan were living together and not married. He ordered the Office of Family of Children to look for a married couple to adopt the baby instead.

The couple turned to adjacent Marion County in their bid to keep the girl, and a probate court judge granted the adoption, saying it was in the child's best interest to be with the couple.

Hamilton and Brennan have retained custody of the child during their appeal.

55
Father's Issues / shaking my head - too funny
« on: May 01, 2006, 01:46:47 PM »
Thought I would post this - I find hysterical and I am sure many can relate.  Maybe it is becasue after 12 years of trivial BS I finally hit a place that everything is funny.

Got an email from BM the other night, she had sent the original email to an email address she "Thought" we "might be using".  It bounced back to her as no such user, obviously not a valid email address.  She then forwards it ALL to me at my  normal email address that she has been using for 3 years, now mind you all the above is in the email - the forward the wrong addy etc.

She starts off the email that she "believes" that that address that bounced is my "real one" and insisits that I email her from that account as she will only accept email from that account from now on!  

ummmmmm ok.........

So now I am thinking of new email address to set up accounts - some examples -

eatdrinkandremarry@......com
happywithoutu@.....com


your turn........:)

56
Father's Issues / what is your opinion of.......
« on: Apr 04, 2006, 11:42:53 AM »
A few weeks ago child said BM told him he could do an activity after school.  When he got home BM confronted him and was angry he forgot to turn in some papers at school - child said it was ok that he still had time as the deadline to turn in had not passed yet.  BM yelled at child and told him he was not going to his activity.  CHild got extremely angry, stomped to his room and stated he started to cut up some collectible stuffed animals, like ears, feet, hair and tails off and thought it was really funny.  BM found out and told him that "You make me sick".

I think this is some underlying scary anger issue and think the child is headed down a dark path.  This is the 4th child BF and I raised and aside from the other 3 normal lying, refusing to shower and change clothes and  dirty rooms, I do not see cutting as any behavior that would be considered as anything other than troublesome.

Comments welcome.........please!

57
Father's Issues / Summer vacation question
« on: Jan 22, 2006, 02:17:48 PM »
Opinions please:

Order reads that each parent gets 1/2 the summer vacation.  The order also spells out which holidays go to each parent in what year and that holiday take precidence over summer vacation.  

My theory has been to take the time the child is out of school to the time child returns, subtract the total holiday time (which includes fathers day, 4th holiday and both parents b days = 4 total holidays) then split the remaining summer time in half.  I feel this is fair because holidays take precidence over summer vacation.  QUESTION: would you use this theory or just divide the total summer vacation in half?  The order does not specifically say to do this however my belief is that since holiday takes priority it can not be considered part of the 1/2 either parent receives........ thoughts?

The other problem is that the order also says that when one parent has the child for more than 14 days the other parent can exercise an evening during the week, and that the summer time MAY be consecutive or split into 2 segments.  The child and the mediator both believe (and was mediated the last 2 years) that the child is old enough to not need to visit with the other parent for three hours during the week, child is 15.  Thus we have always done the summer schedule as 2 weeks with mom, 2 weeks with dad, for the entire summer which gives each parent 3 segments.  If we schedule 2 segments then she will be over here every week for her 3 hours, but due to Dad's work schedule he is unable to see child during the week, and she will not allow dad an alternate time for this three hours, if we schedule three segments BM has threatened legal intervention for what we have exercised for the last several years.  QUESTION:  can anyone see any other alternative I have not yeat explored, which alternative would you use?

58
The "babysitting" clause in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines is just the type of area where such hay can be made. The clause provides:  
When it becomes necessary that a child be cared for by a person other than a parent or a family member, the parent needing the child care shall first offer the other parent the opportunity for additional parenting time.
Straightforward, no? No. "Family members" in my experience have included step-parents (reasonable), grandmothers, great-grandmothers, siblings, nieces, distant cousins, etc.  You get the picture.  So long as the custodial parent can find someone, anyone related to them to watch the kids, the non-custodial parent gets no extra time.
 
Well, in  Greg Shelton v. Alaina Alice Shelton, dad called foul, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court (very rare in domestic litigation) and ruled that the term "family member" is limited to relatives living in the custodial parent's home.  This is good clarification, because at least now we know (at least until the Supreme Court gets a-hold of it).  

(found on Kempblog.com)
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10120502mgr.pdf

59
Father's Issues / Brain teaser?
« on: Dec 23, 2005, 10:49:04 AM »
Please decifer this for me:

One-half of the period which will begin at 8:00 P.M. on the evening the child is released from school (Dec 20) and continues to December 30 at 7:00 P.M.  If the parents cannot agree on the division of this period, the custodial parent shall have the first half in even-numbered years.  In those years when Christmas does not fall in a parent’s week, that parent shall have the child from Noon to 9:00 P.M. on Christmas Day.

My take:  Figure out the time between Dec 20 and Dec 30 and divide in half evening the "half" for the parent who gets noon to 9 so that each parent gets one half of the holiday.

BM says that since xmas falls in my half and my "half is over at 8 PM" the child will not come back to me at 9 since her "half starts at 8 PM.  I contend that the time is to be split in half totally and that the order is inteneded to split Chrsitmas with one parent getting 12-9 and the other parent getting to noon and after 9.  I also believe that you can not consider time NOT spent with me to be a portion of my half of the holiday.

Any ideas?

60
Father's Issues / Familicide
« on: Nov 05, 2005, 01:22:07 PM »
Recently I read- a father killed his 4 year old son then took his own life.  Fathers estranged wife had temp custody and plans on taking the child several states away.  

The father was quoted in his email as saying: ""I was going to try to fight this legally, but I have almost no chance of winning. The mother automatically gets the benefit of the doubt as being the most important parent when the child is age 8 and under -- the "tender years". I would have to show that she is not fit to be a parent in order to gain custody."

A psychiatrist in a major hospital quoted in the paper said:

"To think that you have the power or opportunity to judge how someone else's life should go, or to end somebody's life because of whatever I believe, is wrong. And it usually comes from a disturbed mind."

isnt this what the courts do?  They decide if you get to be put to death or when, where and how you see your child?  I suppose that this guy is really stating that our court system has a disturbed mind since they do have the power to to judge how an entire family can spend their life in a divorce situation.

Just my 2 cents here........

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6
Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.