Topics

BM picked up SS from our house on Monday (make up time cause she scheduled camp over DH's weekend.)

She drops the bomb that she can't afford to get SS glasses to replace the ones he lost, cause she spent $140 on camp and wants us to pony up the dough. DOH!

CO says that BM is responsible for the glasses at her house and DH is responsible for any glasses he purchases for SS at our house. We know what the Atty will say, that DH is NOT to purchase glasses... go strictly by the court order. BM wants DH to give up the pair we bought for SS for our house (SS lost them too when he took them home without permission, but we haven't made a big deal about that). BM always spends $200-300 a pair for frames knowing that SS breaks or loses the glasses. He actually looks geeky chic in the plastic thick rimmed glasses that are usually $70 a pair and would be fully covered by insurance, but NO, can't have him wear THAT.

So I want to smack her between the eyes and tell her to get a clue. Would it be more embarassing to be smacked with a flat open hand or a doubled up fist?

4honor

I just realized that if I had off'd BM when I originally wanted to, I woulda been out by now, instead of having 5 more years to go.

Just a thought in hindsight.

4honor

We are stuck in limbo. Temp plan says EOW and make up time each weekend preempted by BM's "stuff". Old PP says EOH. We have had SS for 4WE in a row with 2  more to go. SS is 6 hrs Round trip away. Ran out of money about the time we got EOW in the temp plan.

I am exhausted, my house is a mess, and my brother & SIL & new nephew are on their way here this next week.

 And to top it all off, the VP of the company (who was mentoring me and protecting me from some slimey characters in the company) tendered his resignation today. I am really bummed. I feel like the child I used to be the day my father walked out of the house after he suffered years of abuse. Relieved for him but sad for me.

BM is starting to threaten DH again... "you still have five more years and if you don't start treating me better (aka let me have my way) I am gonna make your life a living hell. Why don't you ever let SS choose what he want s to do?"   Probably because what SS wants to do is be a mediocre blob loser and I think that is a bad idea.

Got SS's report card. Cummulative GPA is 1.83. Yep you saw that right. 3 D's 3 C's  1 pass, 2 C+ and 1 B- (in his 10 minutes a day special ed, one on one session.)

SS has started caressing the women in the family and it is freaking us all out -- very unacceptable.

I don't think I have been so close to packing my bags and walking out the door and not looking back as I was today.

DH and I are in a position to go for custody of SS. He is 13 and is "normal" for his age as far as development goes. BUT SS has been physically abusive to his younger brothers. DS1 and DS2 are 6 (nearly 7) and 5 respectively. SS has taken to demanding DS1 and DS2 take their pants down so he can spank them whenever they upset him in the least ~ from not sharing with each other, to going into his room without his permission. he also grabs DS1 around the throat (leaving hand prints) every time he is here. We don't allow him to play alone with the younger two any more, but he keeps sneaking upstairs when we are otherwise distracted. Have also caught SS with a new interest in fire.

SS's older brother (abusive in the past) moved home with his mother and has not seen his own father since last May. He is 16 (17 in September.)

I believe PBFH would loose custody of SS if we were to pursue, but I am not sure I want SS in our home any more than he currently is, as I see the pulling down pants  and the pyromania as a HUGE red flag.

PBFH was ordered to take SS to counseling. DH has insurance that covers the first 5 sessions of any issue at 100% (FREE) and she still has not taken him... as she says she cannot afford it. Yep, you heard me right, cannot afford to take him to a free appointment.

Can someone help me with a link to sexual abuse red flags (just wanna know how far off the track I am in thinking it)?

And any advice on this?

I have a very strange thing going on. I was ordered from the bench to "get out of the middle" and make DH and PBFH work on this themselves.

I have done so, but now whenever I begin to hear about injustices being done to SS or DH I get this major guilt feeling going and I literally have to disengage to keep from having severe physical reactions to the conflict.

Anybody else been "blessed" with a physical deterent to engaging? Am I going nuts?

I need some help with court orders for visitation when the child of a CO'd parenting plan has a TRO against anyone else in the NCP family.

I think the DA is going to order no contact. That will be easier on myself and the little guys, but harder on DH and harder financially.

We need to have a temporary parenting plan ready for an ex parte hearing (since SS will likely have a TRO against contact with ANY child... we'll need to get a temp PP in place pronto until after he is tried and other orders are in place. Also, the CS has got to drop due to the increased cost of maintaining a relationship with SS.

Our grocery bill breaks down to about $3.75 per person per day. With DH having to BUY meals for he and SS, it will jump to about $25.00 per person per day and $55-65/night for a motel. That increases vistation by $215.00 per visitation. Two Visits a month and we exceed the amount we pay for CS/month.

This is ridiculous.

Every courtroom is different. AND the procedure is different depending on the REASON you are there. A child support case is diffferent from a Custody case and they are both different when it is a modification versus an original case.

However, at the last CS case - we went pro se in Whatcom County -- the clerk calls the parties to the case into the courtroom. They sometimes move a case to give a missing person a chance to show up. Then they take a look at the CS worksheets and the person bringing the motion goes first (modifications, the complainant may be the "respondent" of previous paperwork). Then the judge hears the other party's case and he or she may ask questions of both sides. It was very informal. Everyone was sworn at the same time. We had prepared for 2-3 years prior to going for a reduction and basically knew what we were getting into. It was before a commissioner, not a judge. We also, had to go do an objection to relocation and a parenting plan modification - BUT I do not suggest doing so without an attorney. The PP modification cost us about $9K, but there was no way to successfully deal with the court for the parenting plan modification without the lawyer in the time we had to come up with the know how.

On the CS mod, we had an advantage in that the Washington State Support Registry sends their own lawyer into the mix -- it was an assistant DA in our case. She was able to get the proper income (don't forget to add any income tax refund as INCOME) from the CP. So on our modification, CS went down and CP's % of uninsured medical went up to 50%... since BM had understated her income originally and an overly high % was attributed to DH.

Don't forget to give the judge a "conformed" copy of everything that was sent to the official court file. It is called a bench copy and you can hand it to the court clerk if you havenl't already. If you do not give the judge a copy in addition to the "file" copy, you will be at a distinct disadvantage in court.

Don't forget to answer everything in the proper amount of time.

New research looking promising for our sons:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6091582.stm

I went to see my baby mom said she was home .I knock on the door .the screen was open .mom was in the back bedroom with my daughter I walked in visited her for 1 hour . and yesterday I got a warrent for my arrest for braking and entering.
I have court order to see my baby but have only seen her 2 hours in the last tirty days . Do I need a lawyer?

http://www.benjerry.com/features/fcd_2006/

April 25th 2006


ENJOY!

I am being interviewed for a radio broadcast on April 25th - Parental Alienation Awareness day.

I am one of the few who is talking that has come out the other end -- only took 25 years! DOH!

It won't be live, so I won't sound like a total doof.

Send prayers my way, Wish me luck. Tink happy tawts, whatever.

Repeal The Bradley Amendment  
 
by Phyllis Schlafly Mar. 1, 2006
 

When our supposedly compassionate federal government pokes its nose into areas that, under our principle of federalism, should be none of its business, the result is often unintended consequences, gross injustices, and of course massive costs. A prime example is the 1986 federal Bradley Amendment, which mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see his children, or loses his job or suffers a pay cut.
The result of this incredibly rigid law is to impose a punishment that makes it impossible for any but the very rich to get out from under a Bradley debt. Thousands of fathers are sentenced to debtor's prison (a medieval practice we thought America abolished centuries ago), and thousands more have their driver's license confiscated (making it extraordinarily difficult to get a job).

There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child's needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition). The Bradley debt is misnamed "child support"; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish men and extract money from them to support some mothers and a $3 billion federal-state bureaucracy.

Take the case of Larry Souter as reported recently in the Grand Rapids Press. He was released after spending 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of second-degree murder.

He was then summoned to court to explain why he should not be convicted of contempt for non-payment of his Bradley debt that kept rising during his years in prison: $23,000 in back support plus interest and penalties that raised the total to $38,082.25. The ex-wife's attorney argues that Larry should pay because she "has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support."

Since the children are now adults, this case proves that the Bradley debt has nothing to do with child support. It has to do with court-ordered transfer payments from which the state gets a cut.

This case is not an anomaly. Clarence Brandley spent ten years in prison before he was exonerated and released in 1990, whereupon the state hit him with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support debt that accumulated while in prison.

Many other cases prove that men cannot escape the Bradley debt even if DNA proves that they are not the father. The law even forbids bankruptcy to alleviate the Bradley debt.

Three years ago, a Maine court ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his. But Maine nevertheless demands that Fisher pay $11,450 in back child support and Maine took away his driver's license for failure to pay up.

The Bradley debt makes no allowance for the growing problem of paternity fraud committed by mothers, estimated by some to be up to 30 percent of DNA-tested cases. Our compassionate government demands that a mother seeking welfare identify the father of her child and, like greedy lawyers, greedy women often target the man with the deep pockets.

A few states have passed a recent law to end so-called child support if DNA proves a man is not the father, but that doesn't get rid of the Bradley debt accrued before DNA results came in. We haven't heard of any women being prosecuted for paternity fraud, and of course the man who was cheated doesn't get any refund.

There is no excuse for Congress and state legislatures allowing these injustices to continue. Court-ordered child support should not be final until DNA proves paternity.

Feminist defenders of the Bradley Amendment claim that the Bradley debtor could have reduced his debt by going into court and challenging the amount of support when his income decreased. That argument is legalistic cynicism taken to the extreme.

Most Bradley debtors cannot possibly afford a lawyer to advise them about and to defend their rights, yet they are up against government or government-paid lawyers; the system has built-in incentives to set the support as high as possible because collections bring bonuses to the state bureaucracy; and, according to the Los Angeles Times, roughly 70 percent of fathers in L.A. County are not present when the court (not biology) rules on paternity and irreducible monthly obligations are set in concrete.

President Bush's initiative to promote marriage is a non-starter so long as the Bradley Amendment exists. Who would marry a man with a Bradley debt hanging over his future?

Shakespeare famously wrote, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." Since the author of the Bradley Amendment, former Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ), is still alive, he should tell his pals in the Senate to terminate his evil law before any more injustices take place.

From //www.eagelforum.org

 

She'll return to Arizona to face charge of interfering with parental custody

Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 27, 2006
ROANOKE RAPIDS, N.C. - A mother charged with abducting her two children was accused of posing as a man while on the run, and authorities say the heavyset woman with cropped hair and a slight mustache even had the kids calling her "Daddy."

Shellie White, 30, said it was all a misunderstanding, claiming in a jail interview with The Associated Press that she never tried to hide her identity or change her appearance.

White was arrested in Roanoke Rapids on Friday, more than two years after she allegedly took her children from Arizona when they were 3 and 5. Investigators said she and another woman were living together as the children's father and mother.

In a statement, the U.S. Marshals Service said White had "radically changed her appearance to that of a man."

"She even went so far as to tell her children, aged 3 and 5 at the time, that she was their father," the Marshals Service said. "When she was arrested, the children, now aged 6 and 8, asked why they were arresting their daddy."

Aliases on the run
Authorities said that White had posed as her husband and had used other male aliases while on the run.

She is 5-foot-9 and 280 pounds, wears her hair closely cropped and has a slight mustache and stubble. She blamed the facial hair on a hormone disorder. White said she had considered a sex-change operation, but decided against it because of the cost and denied it was part of any scheme to avoid police.

White said she made no effort to persuade her children she was their father. She admitted telling her 6-year-old son to tell children at his school she was his father, but said that was only because they teased him about her appearance.

From 'Mommy' to 'Dad'
White was living with a woman named Holly Sirois. When they first met, the children called White their "Mommy," Sirois said. "But progressively, over time, they started calling her Dad," she said. "I don't know why they started doing it. They just did."

Sirois said that when she and White were out in public, people assumed they saw a man and a woman.

White agreed to be returned to Arizona to face charges of custodial interference. Her ex-husband, Ernest Karnes, had custody of the children at the time of their disappearance.

Karnes did not return calls to his home in Globe, Ariz. He and his current wife flew to North Carolina on Sunday to seek custody of the children, Dustin, now 6, and Erica, 8.

White denied she stole her children and insisted she had legal authority to move with them.

Authorities were able to trace the children to various schools, but always came up empty because White "wouldn't keep them in a school no more than maybe six months," said Sheriff's Detective Johnny Holmes of Gila County, Ariz.

The ex-husband told WRAL-TV in Raleigh that the break came when a bill collector led detectives to the home in Roanoke Rapids, about 85 miles northeast of Raleigh.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

FBI: Children kidnapped six years ago found
Kids, abducted by mom, seen during traffic stop; now reunited with father

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:58 p.m. ET Feb. 3, 2006


LILLINGTON, N.C. - Two children abducted more than six years ago by their mother were reunited with their father this week after they were found during a traffic stop, the FBI said Friday.

Authorities have said Joyce Linda Murray Steyne, 45, of Lillington, and her older brother, Stephen Kirk Murray, picked up Steyne's three children on Dec. 17, 1999, at their father's home in Ahoskie.

Despite a court order, Steyne's two daughters were not returned, authorities have said. A teenage son was later found abandoned at a hotel in Roanoke Rapids.

The girls, whom the FBI did not identify by name or age on Friday, were found in a car during a traffic stop Thursday in Lillington when a law enforcement officer became suspicious and identified Steyne. The girls have since been reunited with their father, the FBI said.

In 2000, police said the girls were aged 8 and 6, and the son left at the hotel was 16.

The FBI said Steyne is charged with removal of minor children in North Carolina in violation of a custody order and an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. She was being held Friday in the Harnett County Jail. The FBI said authorities were still searching for Murray.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11167744/

Feminists' Double Standards About Child Care


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Phyllis Schlafly, Jan. 11, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the feminist movement burst onto the American social scene in the 1970s, the rallying cry was "liberation." The feminists demanded liberation from the role of the housewife and mother who lived in what Betty Friedan famously labeled a "comfortable concentration camp."

Feminist ideology taught that the duties of the housewife and mother were (in Friedan's words) "endless, monotonous, unrewarding" and "peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls." Society's expectation that a mother should care for her own children was cited as oppression of women by our male-dominated patriarchal society from which women must be liberated so they can achieve fulfillment in workforce careers just like men.

Articulating vintage feminism in the 1974 Harvard Educational Review, Hillary Clinton wrote disparagingly about wives who are in "a dependency relationship" which, she said, is akin to "slavery and the Indian reservation system."

Demanding that husbands take on equal duties in child care, the National Organization for Women passed resolutions in the 1970s stating, "The father has equal responsibility with the mother for the child care role."

In 1972, "Ms." Magazine featured pre-marriage contracts declaring housewives independent from essential housework and babycare, and obliging the husband to do half the dishes and diapers. As a model, "Ms." published the Shulmans' marriage agreement, which divided child-care duties as follows:

"Husband does Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Wife does Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. Friday is split according to who has done extra work. All usual child care, plus special activities, is split equally. Husband is free all day Saturday, wife is free all Sunday."

Then-ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" that "all legislation based on the breadwinning-husband, dependent-homemaking-wife pattern" must be eliminated "to reflect the equality principle" because "a scheme built upon the breadwinning husband [and] dependent homemaking wife concept inevitably treats the woman's efforts or aspirations in the economic sector as less important than the man's."

Feminist literature is filled with putdowns of the role of housewife and mother. This ideology led directly to feminist insistence that the taxpayers provide (in Ginsburg's words) "a comprehensive program of government-supported child care."

The icon of college women's studies courses, Simone de Beauvoir, opined that "marriage is an obscene bourgeois institution," and easy divorce became a primary goal of the feminist liberation movement. Three-fourths of divorces are now unilaterally initiated by wives without any requirement to allege fault on the part of the cast-off husband.

As divorces became easy to get, the feminists suddenly did a total about-face in their demand that fathers share equally in child care. Upon divorce, mothers demand total legal and physical custody and control of their children, arguing that only a mother is capable of providing their proper care and upbringing, and a father's only function is to provide a paycheck.

Gone are the demands that the father change diapers or tend to a sick child. Feminists want the father out of sight except maybe for a few hours a month of visitation at her discretion.

Suddenly, the ex-husband is targeted as a totally essential breadwinner, and the ex-wife is eager to proclaim her dependency. Feminists assert that, after divorce, child care should be almost solely the mother's job, dependency is desirable, and providing financial support should be almost solely the father's job.

It is settled law in the United States that parents (note the plural) have a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of the upbringing of their children. But feminists have persuaded the family courts, upon divorce, to acquiesce in feminist demands that the mother typically be given 80 to 100 percent of those fundamental rights that belonged to both parents before divorce.

What's behind this feminist reversal about motherhood? As Freud famously asked, "what does a woman want?"

The explanation appears to be the maxim, Follow the money. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the feminists used their political clout to get Congress to pass draconian post-divorce support-enforcement laws that use the full power of government to give the divorced mother cash income proportional to the percentage of custody time she persuades the court to award, but unrelated to what she spends for the children or to her willingness to allow the father to see his children.

Since the father typically has higher income than the mother, giving near-total custody to the mother enables the states to maximize transfer payments and thereby collect bigger cash bonuses from the federal government. When fathers appeal to the family courts for equal time with their children, they are opposed by a big industry of lawyers, psychologists, custody evaluators, domestic-violence agitators, and government bureaucrats who make their living out of denying fathers their fundamental rights.

It's time for a national debate and discussion of the taxpayer incentives that favor divorce, the anti-marriage feminists, and the resulting exclusion of fathers from the lives of their children.

 
 
Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • [email protected]
 


Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-11.html

I'm Not a Male Nanny!
The Stay at Home Dad
by Kristopher Kaiyala

There we were at the mall, my two kids and me, pumping quarters into the mini merry-go-round when I noticed a grandmotherly woman staring at me askew. She watched us for a little while and then seemed to get up her nerve to approach us. "Are these your kids?" she asked.

I looked around. "Are you talking to me?" Uh-huh, she said, her eyes curious and piercing behind wire-rimmed glasses.

The thing is, it's kind of hard to mistake them for anyone else's children. The youngest—who just started walking—is a dead-ringer mini-me and demands that he be held pretty much wherever we go outside the house. The other—a natural-born shopper at age 6—loudly proclaims, "Daddy, daddy, daddy! Look at this!" whenever she sees something that catches her interest in a store, which is about every six seconds.

But I figured this woman hadn't observed any of the above behavior, so I wasn't particularly bothered. (Although, granted, she could have been a stalker-grandma. I once had a grandma follow me all around Costco only to finally catch up with us near the seedless watermelons, whereupon she reached into her purse and presented my son with a newly knit pair of white, boot-high yarn slippers. Another grandma once tailed us around the grocery store with a tissue in hand until she saw her chance to wipe my daughter's nose. Stalker-grandmas are out there, beware. Fortunately they're generally very nice.)

I politely told her that yes, they are my kids, the cute little buggers. It may have been an odd question for her to ask, but I wasn't too surprised by it. I get it every once in a while. The question usually comes when we're out and about during traditional working hours. Apparently there's something about seeing a dad with his kids during the day, when other men are at the office or power-lunching with peers or co-workers.

The grandma smiled and then hit me with another familiar comment. "Well, you don't look a lick over 18." Then I knew she must have thought I was a male nanny.

So, to all grandmas and others who ask The Question or who stare at me oddly when I walk into crowded downtown restaurants at lunch time with kids in tow or in arm: No, I'm not a male nanny. I'm a stay-at-home dad. There are quite a few of us around now, you know. You ought to take a closer look.

Male nannies do exist, and not just on reruns of Friends, but there aren't many of them—at least not compared to their female counterparts. Kind of like the ratio between SaHDs and SaHMs (stay-at-home moms), I suppose.

Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I doubt it. I suspect other SaHDs are similarly questioned or looked upon strangely in public during normal working hours. "Took the day off to be with the kids, huh?" "Is it take your kids to work day today?" The idea that I do this every day may not occur to someone until Job-Related Questions 1 through 7 are asked and answered. Of course I rarely get quizzed at the playground, where I'm likely to find a couple of other random dads—not exactly dressed for business—goofing off with their kids. But the world of retail and business lunches is another realm altogether.

There was a brief time, in my SaHD salad days, when I rarely ventured beyond the neighborhood with my kids, unless it was an evening or weekend. Even going to the grocery store on a Tuesday afternoon with my then-toddler daughter was an exercise in social valor. Fresh out of the business world, enjoying but slightly wary of my new lifestyle, I just wasn't prepared to deal with a culture that I was sure would look down on me for shopping for organic winter-squash baby food instead of attending an editorial meeting.

Fortunately there are some understanding people out there. Among the odd stares are a few faces that wear an expression more like acceptance. To those people, a SaHD going about his kid business in public any time or day of the week is cool. The response I often get from these people isn't "Too bad for you," but "Man, I wish I could do that" and "Your kids are lucky to have you around so much."

Sure, there are still days that I think about trading in my diaper-changing duties for a desk and an executive washroom key. The daily grind sometimes looks pretty good from this side of the fence. But overall the SaHD lifestyle is highly rewarding. I get to see my kids grow up one hour at a time. I'm not a slave to a cubicle. My wife is happy knowing the kids are under my direct care.

Besides, if it wasn't for being at the mall with my kids during the day, I'd never know the thrill of being stalked by a grandma.

Columnist Kristopher Kaiyala writes this feature from his home in Western Washington.

To suggest column topics or provide feedback, send us an e-mail. Please note that due to the volume of mail received, we won't be able to respond individually, but we appreciate your comments and suggestions.

...I must write a handbook for children of high conflict divorce.

I drove 7 hours to go see my Dad this weekend. We REALLY talked about my mother for the first time. She has been dead since November 4, 1988 and they had been divorced since 1983 (amazing the kind of damage a vindictive CP can do to their child(ren) in less than 5 years.)

I told him that very early in the process I had blamed him for abandoning us to my mother (she was looney toons) and making us suffer through the alienation, and her mental abuse.  

I told him about what she put us through just to see him -- he was a truck driver and was home on a weekend about once a month. She used to tell me that she was going to kill herself if I went to see him, and that I should have my father come through the door first when he brought us home... there was alot more, but it was all a real mess with my head. Its been 22 years and the physical response to the memory was as fresh as if it were last month.

It was very healing to hear the pain in my father's voice as he explained that he left because she kept threatening to leave (while he was on the road) if he didn't. I could tell he was pained not only for us (6) kids, but for the wife he loved and lost. (Still waters run deep.)

He asked why we never said anything. Until that moment, I guess I assumed he knew and was simply too busy trying to make ends meet to rectify the situation. It cemented a hole that went all the way through me when he said that if he had known, he would have kicked her out on her backside and he would have  fought EVERYBODY to protect us from that. And he insists, he would have won. I believe he just might have.

Until Saturday, my father had never said anything negative about my mother, except that she was "difficult, and had alot of problems she never got addressed." He did not slam her personally, but he outright condemned her actions. I needed that, and as parents, I do not think we need to be afraid of doing the same. Kids understand there is a right and a wrong. Kids are confused when we do not take a hard stance against wrong.

There are alot of things children of high conflict divorce need to know and need to do. Maybe my own experience can be useful in preventing ongoing harm to these kids.

'Unwitting sperm donor'
Caddie: LPGA player seduced him to get pregnant

Posted: Friday April 29, 2005 7:36PM; Updated: Friday April 29, 2005 8:14PM
                   
 
Jackie Gallagher-Smith gave birth last month and has not played on tour this year.
AP MIAMI (AP) -- A former caddie for LPGA golfer Jackie Gallagher-Smith is suing her, saying she seduced him in order to get pregnant.

Gary Robinson says Gallagher-Smith, who is married, used him as "an unwitting sperm donor." He is suing for an unspecified sum, claiming fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. No hearing date has been set for the suit, filed in circuit court this week in West Palm Beach.

A message for Gallagher-Smith's attorney, Edwin Belz, was not immediately returned.

Earlier, he told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that the suit was, "an attempt at extortion."

The suit says Gallagher-Smith, 37, gave birth last month, but Florida law says a child born into a marriage is deemed to be a result of the marriage. A DNA test can't be forced and Robinson has no legal claim to the child, said Cathy Lively, Robinson's attorney.

"That is why we are seeking damages; he's not going to be able to ask for a DNA test," Lively said. "It is our claim that he was put into a position, and this was an intentional act to father a child. He was led to believe at that point that the child was his.

"He was put into the position of being an unwitting sperm donor."

Robinson said he has been affected professionally. He is currently out of work as a caddie and is pursuing a career as a professional golfer.

"The likelihood that I will ever get another caddying job, especially in the LPGA, is very, very unlikely," he said.

Robinson, 26, began caddying for Gallagher-Smith in February 2004, and soon thereafter began receiving advances from her, he said. Robinson said he was in an emotional state after recently ending a long-term relationship with a girlfriend, and he passed off some early advances as "innocent playful activity."

The relationship became sexual about two months later and the two would sometimes engage in unprotected sex, he said. When rumors of the relationship began spreading around the tour, Gallagher-Smith told Robinson that he must deny they had anything but a work relationship, the suit states.

Robinson goes on to say that Gallagher-Smith told him she and her husband had been unsuccessful in conceiving a child. In July, she told Robinson she was pregnant and led him to believe he might be the father, the suit says.

Under pressure from Robinson, Gallagher-Smith eventually told her husband and said he forgave them, and Robinson continued to caddie for Gallagher-Smith through the end of the tour season in October, Robinson said.

"I hope to get retribution for the emotional pain and suffering and eventually get some rights to the child," Robinson said. "The laws in Florida are very tough with the situation I'm in but this suit is about financial retribution."

An 11-year tour veteran, Gallagher-Smith has one career victory and career earnings of about $1.1 million. She has not played in a tour event this year.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Many have heard that SS has raped and sodomized DS1 and DS2 ( for about 18 months now at last count) and we just recently heard about it.

DH is NCP and his folks are pushing hard for us to take SS back into our home. Frankly, I think it is a bad idea and I would like to tell them if they want to coddle SS they can just F' themselves, cause I won't have him back in the house. I won't have him there overnight  at least until after he is tried, but I DON't really want him back over night at all. There is a way to alter the house and put in alarms, but I really don't want to live like I'm in jail so he can spend 4 days a month with us. But it will start a war if I just stand up to MIL and FIL.

I suggested we purchase an RV and DH and SS can sleep out there or DH can drive it up to SS' house and stay there. DS1 and DS2 go from sad they can't see SS to being angry and afraid of him.

Help me weigh the pro's and con's of me requesting a TRO against SS for myself and the boys. Besides stressing DH to the limits, and the in-laws already being pushy and demanding and unhappy about this, what else should I know in order to make an informed decision?

Thanks,
4honor

Just saw a Coke Commercial. It had a teenage kid at the refrigerator. His dad asks from off comera if there are any more cokes. Son is holding hte last one. flashbacks about the kid driving backward through the garage door, lobbing a golf ball through the study window onto dad's computer keyboard, and a couple other scenes. The kid is narrating in the background about hard decisions and makes the decision to give the last can to Dad.

A good tribute to fathers, all in all.

Please don't forget to contact comanies and let them know when you see positive images about men and fathers that you appreciate it.

 ~ 4honor

I have an idea as a fundraiser for this site.

We do not have alot of money, but I am sure there are crafts that many of us are skilled at and would likely be needed, useful or great Christmas gifts for other households from this site. I am proposing an online auction for the benefit of SPARC.

Anyone who can, will donate an item and then email a photo to anyone interested. The bids occur until Dec 10, and then closes. The winning bidder pays SPARC the agreed amount and the donating person ships the item to the winner. The donator pays shipping. I get to write off what it all cost me as a donator, the winning bidder gets a great item and SPARC gets funding.

Can this/will this work?

For instance, I make gemstone bead jewelry (great gift ideas for the women in your life). I have about $3000 in materials that are just sitting there. I am willing to put together several items for sale so long as the proceeds go directly to SPARC.

Quick history... Saturday I was trying to merge onto the freeway and a semi pulled right, into the right lane, just as I was trying to get left. I was so mad I called the other driver a Sh*t-head. LO asked me what one is, so I explained that it was a bad word he wasn't allowed to say until he was 18, but it meant I thought the other driver had dog poop for brains.
Then LO had a b-day yesterday. He got a present from his brother(DS) that is fun, but it was bought at a garage sale and only one side works. I was going to take it apart and see whats up with it and needed a screwdriver to do so. I asked DH for a Phillips head screwdriver. LO pipes up, "You mean SS' mom?"

(SS's mom's last name is Phillips.)

Guess I need to explain that any word in front of the word "head" is not always derrogatory.

Court of Appeals Division III
                               State of Washington

                            Opinion Information Sheet

Docket Number:       21818-0-III
Title of Case:       In re the Marriage of April D. Kimpel and
                     Gregory Scott Kimpel
File Date:           07/27/2004


                                SOURCE OF APPEAL
                                ----------------
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County
Docket No:      96-3-01034-9
Judgment or order under review
Date filed:     01/17/2003
Judge signing:  Hon. Tari S Eitzen


                                     JUDGES
                                     ------
Authored by Stephen M Brown
Concurring: Frank L. Kurtz
            John A. Schultheis



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In re the Marriage of:                           ) No. 21818-0-III
                                                 )
APRIL D. KIMPEL,                                 ) Division Three
                                                 ) Panel Five
               Respondent,                       )
                                                 ) PUBLISHED OPINION
          v.                                     )
                                                 ) GREGORY KIMPEL, ) )
               Appellant.                        )

     BROWN, J.--April D. Kimpel moved for a minor parenting plan
modification under RCW 26.09.260 to adjust a fairly even split of
residential time with her former husband, Gregory Kimpel.  Although the six-year old decree had designated Ms. Kimpel as the custodial parent for purposes of RCW 26.09.285, Mr. Kimpel pointed out that mathematically he received slightly more time with the children than did Ms. Kimpel under the original and proposed adjusted plans.  Mr. Kimpel asked the court to designate him custodial parent because RCW 26.09.285 requires the superior court to designate as custodian the parent with whom the child resides the majority of the time.  The trial court refused, reasoning the residential time was essentially a 50-50 split, and to change the designation would effect a major modification.  He appealed.
     The custodial parent designation under RCW 26.09.285 is 'solely for
the purposes of all other state and federal statutes which require a
designation or determination of custody.'  We hold that in an intended 50- 50 residential time split situation, exact mathematical precision is not
determinative under RCW 26.09.285.  Although the parties disputed whether a 50-50 split was intended and whether Ms. Kimpel was mistakenly designated the custodial parent for purposes of RCW 26.09.285, the trial court, exercising discretion, resolved these matters in favor of Ms. Kimpel.  The record supports the trial court's decision.  We affirm.
FACTS
     The parties' underlying decree and parenting plan were entered in July 1996.  The plan provided for the couple's two children to reside with the mother, except from Thursday at 5:30 P.M. to Monday at 12:00 P.M.  It specified that the children resided the majority of time with the mother and designated her as the children's custodian.  In fact, the parenting plan schedule placed the children with Gregory Kimpel slightly more than one-half of the time each week.
     In November 2000, Ms. Kimpel moved for a minor modification to adjust the July 1996 plan.  Under RCW 26.09.260(5):
     The court may order adjustments to the residential aspects of a
parenting plan upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances of either parent or of the child, and without consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (2) (inapplicable here) of this section, if the
proposed modification is only a minor modification in the residential
schedule that does not change the residence the child is scheduled to
reside in the majority of the time and:
     . . . .
     (b)  Is based on . . . an involuntary change in work schedule by a
parent which makes the residential schedule in the parenting plan
impractical to follow(.)
(Emphasis added.)

     As grounds for modification, Ms. Kimpel's petition alleged '(t)he
mother's work schedule has changed and the current parenting plan is
unstable because the children are bounced around to three different homes during the course of a school week.  This schedule has caused numerous problems with keeping the children organized with school.'  Clerk's Papers (CP) at 39.
     While the proposed amendment was not hotly contested, Mr. Kimpel
argued, 'in the original parenting plan entered on July 25, 1996, the
'custodial provision' under Paragraph 3.12 incorrectly designates the
mother as the parent with whom the children reside the majority of time.
In fact, the time awarded in that plan places the children the majority of
the time with the father.'  CP at 173.
     Ms. Kimpel replied '(t)here was no mistake in naming myself as the
custodial parent in the original parenting plan.  It was always intended,
and agreed to, that I would be designated the custodial parent, which is
fully supported by the Order of Child Support. (the order of child support
provides a deviation to the Respondent for time with our children).'  CP at 189.
     The parties' amended plan now provides:
(a)  The children shall reside with the mother from the first Saturday of
each month at 7:00 p.m. to the next Tuesday at 8:00 a.m. at which time the children shall be delivered to the father;
(b)  The children shall then reside with the father from that Tuesday at
8:00 a.m. to the next Saturday at 7:00 p.m. at which time the children
shall be delivered to the mother;
          (c )  The children shall then reside with the mother that
Saturday at 7:00 p.m., to the subsequent Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. at which time the children shall be delivered to the father; and
(d)  The children shall then reside with the father from that Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. to the next Saturday at 7:00 p.m. at which time the children
shall be delivered to the mother.

CP at 212.

     The amended plan left unchanged the designation of Ms. Kimpel as
custodian.  The new plan provides, as did the original, that '(t)he
children . . . are scheduled to reside the majority of the time with the
mother.  This parent is designated the custodian of the children solely for
the purposes of all other state and federal statutes which require a
designation or determination of custody.'  CP at 215.  The new residential plan results in the children still living a slight majority of the time with the father - an extra 4 days per four-week period.
     In rejecting Mr. Kimpel's request to be designated the children's
custodian, the court reasoned: '(W)e have here . . . a 1996 parenting plan that (divided) the time . . . essentially 50 percent. . . .  (I)f you count hours, . . . it may be a little skewed one way or the other, but (it's) essentially a 50/50 plan. . . .  Six years went by.  Nobody said anything about it. . . .  And then there is this action filed, which is designated all along . . . as a minor adjustment. . . .  I think the bottom line is you can't do a major modification through the back door by calling it an adjustment and counting hours.  You just can't get there from here.'
Report of Proceedings at 20-21.
     Mr. Kimpel appealed.
ANALYSIS
A.  Designation of Custodian
     The issue is whether, in a minor modification of a parenting plan
under RCW 26.09.260, the trial court erred in refusing to change the
designated custodial parent from Ms. Kimpel to Mr. Kimpel for purposes of RCW 26.09.285.
     RCW 26.09.285 provides: 'Solely for the purposes of all other state
and federal statutes which require a designation or determination of
custody, a parenting plan shall designate the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside a majority of the time as the custodian of the child. .
. .  In the absence of such a designation, the parent with whom the child
is scheduled to reside the majority of the time shall be deemed to be the
custodian of the child for the purposes of such federal and state
statutes.'1
     Mr. Kimpel argues that designating him the custodian would merely
correct the record to reflect where the children have lived a majority of
the time and would not effect a major modification.  During the preparation of this case, we asked the parties to brief the applicability of CR 60(a) to accomplish this result.   We now conclude such an application is inapt because the parties disputed what their intent was in regard to the designation of custodian.  Ms. Kimpel averred it was intended she be named custodian in a 50 percent split situation.  The limited record is unclear whether the trial court resolved this factual dispute, but its ruling is consistent with a finding favoring Ms. Kimpel.
     Given the limited context and thrust of this minor modification
proceeding, the six-year status quo, the paucity of the factual record on
this collateral point, and the trial court's broad discretion in this area,
the trial court did not err in rejecting Mr. Kimpel's request to designate
him custodian for purposes of RCW 26.09.285.  Although the record is skimpy regarding fact finding, the decision is consistent with a fact finding supporting Ms. Kimpel.  In other words, if fact finding was accomplished, that finding is implicit in the trial court's decision.  Mr. Kimpel's other arguments regarding the inconsistencies within the two parenting plans merely raise additional factual questions best left for trial court resolution, in a separate proceeding from this minor modification proceeding, if necessary.
B.  Attorney Fees
     Ms. Kimpel asks for attorney fees pursuant to RCW 26.09.140 and RAP 18.1.  The cited statute authorizes the superior court and the court on appeal to order one party to pay the reasonable attorney fees of the other, based upon the parties' financial resources.  RAP 18.1 sets forth the procedure in this court for obtaining such an award.  Ms. Kimpel has
complied with RAP 18.1(b) by arguing for such fees in her brief.  She has
complied with RAP 18.1(c) by filing an affidavit of financial need at least
10 days before argument.  The affidavit supports a finding that Ms.
Kimpel's resources are insufficient for her to pay her reasonable attorney fees.
     We therefore grant Ms. Kimpel's request for attorney fees and set the
matter before a commissioner of this court for a determination of the
appropriate amount.  See RAP 18.1(f).
     Affirmed.

                         Brown, J.
WE CONCUR:

Schultheis, J.

Kurtz, J.

     1 The 'state and federal statutes' likely referred to in RCW 26.09.285
include the Food Stamp Program, 7 sec.USC 2015; the Criminal Code
(Kidnapping), 18 USC sec.1204; federal regulations issued on Veterans'
Benefits, 38 CFR 3.24, 3.57, and 3.850; Social Security, 42 USC sec.1396r-
la; and Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention - Missing Children, 42
USC sec.5773 and sec.5775.  None are argued here.

OK GUYS what one thing do you wish you were told as a teen? What might you have listened to from another guy?


4honor

In my state (WA) you can get on the email list for Supreme Court decisions - whether the decision is to be published or not. This has "netted" a valuable resource, as the decisions are based on published decisions which CAN be cited.

Get yourself on the list for your state. Save copies of the citations which will assist your case and dig out the cited published cases from inside the unpublished decisions.

This morning I heard this from our Pastor in his Sunday morning sermon:

If my spouse hits me the FIRST TIME I am a victim...
     if I stay and it happens again, I am a VOLUNTEER.

BM asked me to talk and has asked me to type up a parenting plan... mediated in the car in her driveway. She agreed to everything I suggested. Asked for advice and admitted that her attorney is "stirring the strife pot" so to speak.

So I have until 1 Jan to write a parenting plan that allows for some flexibility while having a strong basic structure.

I think it helped that I told BM I found out her BF broke things off right b4 Christmas and that I was sorry it happened right at this time of year.

I don't really trust her, but she has seen the futility of doing things by the current parenting plan... took 4 trips in 5 days to do things the way it was written. Lots of fun... NOT!

Well, any input? BM can't fous long enough to listen to all the words on a song, so every point must be succinct. WA has specific format, so I need good wording on first right of refusal.

Need good wording on how to allot for opportunities for SS and how to trade weekends to accomodate them. (BM into being flexible, DH into structure.)