Topics

This is a free site or you can pay the membership of $25.00 a month and get even more info. Check it out it helps alot. Its a site that you can look up any cases filed in Iowa criminal and civil. Some of you may already know of this site but I thought I would post it for those who don't.


http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame

Make sure you go under:
Trial Court
  Case Search (Available to all users)
        Note:  Use this search to perform a statewide search on a limited number of fields. The search results are cases entered into the ICIS System through the end of the last business day. Once a case is selected from the search results, the case data displayed is up-to-the-minute as entered by the Clerk of Court

Not sure what all of this is about or if the changes are really going to happen but this is something that I found on Iowa Courts Online:


http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/orders/reports/final%20report%20for%20web.doc




Iowa Supreme Court
Committee to Review Child Support Guidelines
Final Report*
May 2004


A.  Introduction

Pursuant to the Federal Family Support Act of 1988, each state must maintain uniform child support guidelines and criteria, and review the guidelines and criteria at least once every four years.  In Iowa, the Iowa General Assembly has entrusted the Iowa Supreme Court with this enormous responsibility (see Iowa Code section 598.21(4)).  

In October 2003, the court established this committee, composed of judges and attorneys with expertise in the field of family law, to assist with the latest scheduled review of Iowa's child support guidelines.  The committee included:  

Court of Appeals Judge Anuradha Vaitheswaran, co-chair,
Court of Appeals Judge Larry Eisenhauer, co-chair,
Attorney Eric Borseth,
Attorney Diane Dentlinger,
Assistant Attorney General Patricia Hemphill,
Attorney Deborah Hughes,
Assistant Attorney General Kevin Kaufman,
Attorney Steven Lytle,
Attorney Evelyn Ocheltree,
District Court Judge Eliza Ovrom, and
Senior Judge Richard Vipond.  

Mary Loven, CSRU Management Analyst, and Rebecca Colton, Assistant to the Chief Justice, served as staff.  Policy Studies Inc., Denver, Colorado, served as technical consultant for the review.  

When conducting this review, federal regulations require the consideration of economic data on the cost of raising children, as well as analysis of data concerning application of, and deviation from, the guidelines.  In addition, Iowa Code section 598.21(4) requires that the guidelines review "emphasize the ability of a court to apply the guidelines in a just and appropriate manner based upon the individual facts of a judgment or case; and in determining monthly child support payments, consider other children for whom either parent is legally responsible for support and other child support obligations actually paid by either party pursuant to a court or administrative order."   The committee fulfilled these requirements, and more.  

Over the course of four months, we reviewed information about the number of deviations from the Iowa guidelines, studied current economic measures and health insurance data, and compared Iowa's guidelines to the latest child-rearing measures and to the guidelines of other states.  We also considered perceived strengths and weaknesses of the current guidelines, and carefully evaluated a number of proposals for improvement.

We received substantial assistance from economist Jane Venohr, with Policy Studies Inc. (PSI), Denver, Colorado.  PSI, nationally recognized for its expertise on child support guidelines, has assisted many states, including Iowa, with guideline reviews.  Ms. Venohr was involved in Iowa's 2000 guidelines review.  We are grateful to Ms. Venohr for her knowledge, hard work, and abundance of patience.  She is an invaluable resource.

We are pleased to submit to the court the following report outlining our study, describing our findings, and presenting our recommendations for strengthening Iowa's child support guidelines.  

B.  History of Iowa's Child Support Guidelines

We began our study by reviewing the history of Iowa's child support guidelines, a useful exercise that gave us a clear understanding of the values guiding the formation and development of Iowa's guidelines.  

Iowa's use of child support guidelines began with the courts in the early 1980s.  From the beginning, the Iowa Supreme Court has implicitly recognized two fundamental principles:  (1) the duty of both parents to provide adequate support for their children in proportion to their respective incomes, and (2) this shared obligation should be tied to the cost of raising a child.  These principles serve as the foundation of Iowa's guidelines.  Guided by these principles, the court has adapted and refined the guidelines over time to address the increasingly complex economic and societal issues facing families.  

In 1984, the Iowa Supreme Court, upon the recommendation of the Judicial Council, adopted guidelines for temporary support. In adopting the first guidelines the court hoped to promote uniformity in temporary support orders, advance judicial economy, and reduce the cost of litigation.  The early guidelines were simple tables that factored in both parents' net incomes and the number of minor children involved.  

In 1987, the court adopted new temporary guidelines on the advice of the Judicial Council.  They were arranged in simple charts depending on the number of children involved, using the net monthly income of both parents ranging from $0 to $1001 in increments of $100.  The charts included a percentage that, when multiplied against the non-custodial parent's net monthly income, would determine the monthly child support obligation.  These guidelines set the standard for future guidelines.

In 1988, soon after Congress passed the Federal Family Support Act, members of the Iowa General Assembly approached the Supreme Court about assuming the responsibility of promulgating permanent guidelines for Iowa.  The legislators favored the court's involvement because the process of adopting court rules is much easier and less politically charged than the process for approving administrative rules and statutes.  The court agreed to take on the duty, and the General Assembly codified the court's new responsibility.  

In 1989, the court adopted the guidelines previously used for setting temporary support as Iowa's first permanent uniform guidelines.  Since this initial action, the court has reviewed and revised the guidelines three times—in 1990, 1995, and 2000.  
 
In 1990, after months of study and an opportunity for public comment, the court approved a more complex set of permanent guidelines.  The 1990 guidelines included several more items as deductions for determining net income, addressed the issue of medical support, and revised the charts to include new percentages and special instructions for cases involving parents in low income ($500/month and under) and high income ($3000/month and above) brackets.

The court revised the guidelines again in 1995, after receiving recommendations from its advisory committee.  The 1995 amendments included:  extending the schedule to cover net income up to $6000/month, adjusting the schedules for persons with income under $500/month, adopting a fixed deduction as a multi-family adjustment (QADD), and adopting a uniform support computation form.

Major innovations to the guidelines followed the 2000 review.  Based upon the recommendations of its advisory committee the court amended the guidelines to include a credit for noncustodial parents for extraordinary amounts of visitation, allowed parties to deduct the total health insurance premium costs paid by each parent when the child is covered by the plan and a limited amount of unreimbursed medical expenses for purposes of calculating net income, and added a provision outlining the respective obligations of both parents with regard to medical expenses not covered by insurance.  

C.  Fact Finding

After taking time to reflect on the past, we turned our attention to the present—we examined the guidelines within the context of today's realities.  Our fact finding covered a broad scope of information, including child support guidelines used by other states, economic data on child-rearing costs and health insurance premium costs, and deviations from the guidelines.  

The committee learned about a number of measures of child-rearing costs, including Espenshade, USDA, Rothbarth, Betson, and Engel, and summarized each.  According to Ms. Venohr, the USDA and Engel methods tend to overstate child-rearing expenses, while Rothbarth is slightly low.  Betson is considered to be the most accurate measurement.  Twenty-one states, including Iowa, use the Betson-Rothbarth method as the basis for their guidelines.

Ms. Venohr indicated that Iowa's present child support guidelines track very closely with the Betson-Rothbarth child-rearing expenditures and, therefore, need not be adjusted with one exception—when the custodial parent has no income, the schedule for families with three or more children is too high relative to both the order amounts from other states and the current measures of child-rearing costs.  

Although Iowa's guidelines are considered to be an income shares model, the format is unique.  For instance, Iowa uses percentages of the non-custodial parent's net income in its schedule, while most income shares states use dollar amounts that are apportioned between both parents.  Also, Iowa does not use marginal proportions between income brackets, which results in "notches" in the Iowa guidelines.  Ms. Venohr strongly recommended Iowa adopt a pure income shares model.  Switching to a pure income shares model would eliminate the notch effect and provide other advantages.

Ms. Venohr distributed charts illustrating how Iowa's guidelines, applied in different scenarios, compare to guidelines of bordering states, including Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.  Although Iowa's guidelines are near the high end of the group of states, they are right in line with the 2003 income shares prototype model and current child-rearing costs, with the exception noted above.  

The committee reviewed the latest case data concerning the number of, and reasons for, child support orders that deviate from the guidelines.  The data, generated by the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU), indicate that in Iowa, deviations from the guidelines are rare.  The data was based on IV-D cases (cases enforced by CSRU).

D.  Public Outreach

In addition to gathering empirical data, the committee sought the views of other Iowans.  Because restrictions of time and money did not allow for any scientific surveys, the committee relied on a public outreach process to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current guidelines.

As in the previous guideline reviews, the committee received public comment through the Child Support Advisory Committee established pursuant to Iowa Code section 252B.18.  In February 2003, this committee sponsored public meetings in three locations—Fort Dodge, Tipton, and Des Moines—to gather public comment.  The committee also received and accepted written comment.  In July 2003, the committee submitted a summary of the public comment, along with its recommendations, to the State Court Administrator who later provided the information to our committee.  

In addition, one of our committee members, District Court Judge Ovrom, surveyed Iowa's district court judges about their views of the extraordinary visitation credit.  Nineteen judges responded.  For the most part, the judges' collective view of the credit was neutral.

We also received comment from members of the Iowa State Bar Association.  Committee members communicated with members of the Family Law section of the Bar Association and relayed the information to our committee.

E.  Identifying Issues for Improvements

Aided by information gathered from these outreach efforts, we assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the current guidelines and identified the following issues to study in addition to the mandatory aspects of our review:

   Tax filing status for calculating net income.  
   Adjustments for recipients of SSI.  
   Extraordinary visitation.  
   Shared physical care.  
   QADD.    
   Health insurance premium costs.
   Expansion of top income brackets.  
   Custodial parents with high income when non-custodial parent has low income.

Our committee discussed the provision for allocating uncovered medical expenses adopted in 2000.  There was a consensus among committee members that this provision has been highly effective in equitably allocating expenses and reducing conflicts between parents.  For these reasons, we did not review the issue beyond this initial discussion or recommend any changes to the rule.

At least three conclusions emerged from our review of the guidelines.  First, we confirmed that Iowa's guidelines generally provide for a just and appropriate level of support based upon the individual facts of each case.  Second, the exercise reminded us that it would be virtually impossible to design child support guidelines perfectly suited to address the unique circumstances of every family.  And finally, we concluded that while Iowa's guidelines are for the most part in line with current child-rearing costs, they can be improved somewhat.  

The recommendations that follow are our strategies for improvement.  We believe that, if adopted, these proposals will clarify certain provisions, enhance others, and further promote the best interests of children and families in Iowa.  

F.  Recommendations for Improvements

1.  Calculating Net Income
There appears to be widespread confusion over tax filing status.  Judges and lawyers suggest the guidelines specify the appropriate filing statuses to be used when calculating the federal and state tax deductions for purposes of the guidelines.  

During its discussion of this issue, the committee explored a number of related issues including situations when a married parent's new spouse has no income, the earned income credit, standard vs. itemized deductions, exemptions for dependents, the alternate method of computing taxes followed by CSRU pursuant to Iowa Code section 252B.7A, and cases in which actual taxes paid by a party differ substantially from the amount of the deduction allowed by the guidelines.  

With regard to the earned income credit, the committee decided the credit should not be considered as income.  Many states do not include the credit as income because it is considered a form of public assistance and is "means-tested."

After giving careful consideration to a wide range of tax-related issues, and analyzing the impact various proposals would have on the calculation of support, the committee approved a number of proposals concerning the calculation of net income.  Committee members agreed that these recommendations would apply only for the purposes of calculating child support and would have no bearing on matters outside the guidelines.

Recommendation:  We recommend for purposes of computing the taxes to be deducted from a parent's gross income, the court adopt the following uniform rules:

•   An unmarried parent shall be assigned either single or head of household filing status.  Head of household filing status shall be assigned if a parent is the custodial parent of one or more of the mutual children of the parents.
•   A married parent shall be assigned married filing separate status.
•   The standard deduction applicable to the parent's filing status as determined above shall be used.
•   Each parent shall be assigned one personal exemption for the parent.  The custodial parent shall be assigned one additional dependent exemption for each mutual child of the parents, unless a parent provides information that the noncustodial parent has been allocated the dependent exemption for such child.
•   If the amount of federal and/or state income tax actually being paid by the parent differs substantially from the amount(s) determined by the guideline method of computing taxes, the court may consider whether the difference is sufficient reason to adjust the child support under the criteria in Rule 9.11.  This rule does not preclude alternate methods of computation by the Child Support Recovery Unit as authorized by Iowa Code section 252B.7A.  

In addition, the committee recommends that gross monthly income not include the earned income tax credit.


2.  Extraordinary Visitation Credits  
Committee members raised concerns about the extraordinary visitation credit.  Some members believe the credits are too high and result in parties using the credit as leverage for obtaining lower support obligations or as a reason for resisting increased visitation time because of the resultant decrease in child support.  However, some committee members saw the credits as serving valid purposes—promoting more visitation and recognizing the contributions of noncustodial parents.  After careful consideration of these issues, the committee agreed to preserve the credits but reduce the amounts in order to reduce its value as a bargaining chip.  The committee studied different scenarios applying the credit at different rates.  In addition, the committee considered, but decided against, a proposal to lower the threshold for credit from 127 days to 120.

Recommendation:  We recommend the court reduce the amounts of the extraordinary visitation credit from 25%, 30%, and 35%, to 15%, 20%, and 25%.
 

3.  Shared Physical Care or Split Care for Multiple Children
In 2001, at the request of the Supreme Court, the 2000 advisory committee reconvened to discuss the impact of the extraordinary visitation credit on shared physical care arrangements.  The committee recommended that the 2004 review committee consider the method of calculating support in shared physical care arrangements.

The current guidelines do not address how to calculate support for shared physical care arrangements in which a child lives with each parent 50% of the year.  Many lawyers and judges use a method referred to as an "offset" for purposes of determining the appropriate support in these cases.  The offset method involves calculating the support obligation of each parent as if each was the noncustodial parent.  The parent with the higher support obligation pays the other parent the difference between the two amounts.  The offset is intended to cover each parent's obligation for providing routine expenses such as housing, food, and transportation.  The offset method is the subject of case law.  

Ms. Venohr reviewed the methods other states use for support in shared-parenting arrangements: the cross-credit approach (21 states), the Indiana approach or variations (5 states), and other formulas.  In most methods, the support amount includes basic expenses such as food and housing, and parents work out other expenses such as music lessons and child care costs.  Most states set a threshold amount of time that a child spends with a parent for triggering the shared parenting formula.  Typically, most states use 20% to 35% shared time as the threshold because this is the amount of time at which the custodial parent's costs are significantly reduced.  

Most committee members favored the offset method commonly used in Iowa.  They believe it is the most equitable method for determining support in shared care cases.  However, a few members questioned whether the subject needed to be included in the guidelines given the existence of case law.  Shared physical care is growing in popularity and becoming more common.  Providing a specific rule for support in these situations would eliminate uncertainty and promote uniformity in orders.  

The committee discussed whether or not an amendment to the guidelines adopting the offset method should also include specific instructions about allocating expenses.  Committee members familiar with shared physical care arrangements indicated that parents who are open to these arrangements are generally those who work well with each other on matters affecting their children.  With this in mind, the committee agreed not to address allocation of expenses in the proposed rule, but to let parties work out the details themselves.  

Recommendation:  We recommend the court amend the guidelines to clarify the Extraordinary Visitation Credit is not applicable when the court orders equally shared physical care for a child.  We also recommend the court amend the guidelines to include specific direction about using the offset method for calculating support in court-ordered shared physical care arrangements in which the parents equally share physical care of a child.  We further recommend a similar provision when there is more than one child and the court orders split or divided physical care.  


4.  Health Insurance Premiums
No topic consumed the committee's time and energy more than the topic of health insurance premium costs.  The committee conducted an extensive study of this complicated issue.  

Currently, for purposes of calculating net monthly income, the child support guidelines allow both parents to deduct the total cost of health insurance paid by the parent if the child is covered by the plan, actual medical support paid pursuant to court or administrative order, and up to $25 per month for the parent's unreimbursed medical expenses.  In addition, current Iowa law allows the court to consider the premium cost of a health insurance plan as a reason for varying from the child support guidelines (Iowa Code section 598.21(4)(a)).  Although these provisions have worked well, they may not provide sufficient adjustments for skyrocketing health insurance premiums.  For this reason, the committee closely examined health insurance costs and their impact on support.

The committee asked PSI to provide detailed information about health insurance premium costs and methods used by other states for allocating these costs, and to analyze a variety of options for addressing premium costs, including examples of their application within a range of income levels.  

In addition, Ms. Venohr provided abundant information on health care costs, including information about children's insurance status in Iowa and nationally, the average annual cost of family coverage for employment-based health insurance plans, and the treatment of health insurance costs in other income shares states.  The Consumer Expenditure Survey includes the average amounts of all out-of-pocket expenses, and does not separate medical expenses.  Average health care costs in the 1991-1993 survey ranged from $1,000-$1900 a year.  However, health care costs have increased substantially in recent years.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average monthly health insurance costs in the Midwest region are $155 for family coverage, and $38 for single coverage.

Most states that use the income shares model for child support guidelines include the cost of ordinary medical expenses in their support schedule.  In addition, these states also pro rate the cost of insurance premiums and extraordinary medical expenses between parents.  Most income shares states do not deduct medical expenses or health insurance premium costs from income as Iowa does.  

Most states use the actual cost of covering a child under a health care plan.  If this information is not available, these states pro rate the premium by the total number of people covered by the policy.  Alabama includes the difference between the cost of a single policy and the cost of a family policy, but is considering changing to the pro rating method used by most states.  Nebraska treats health insurance costs as a separate consideration distinct from support.  Pennsylvania includes the actual cost of covering the parent and the child if this information is available and if it is not, Pennsylvania pro rates the cost among the total number of people covered by the plan.

According to PSI, the upper brackets of Iowa's current schedule ($3000 to $6000/net income per month) include the average cost of all routine medical expenses because these brackets, which were developed by PSI, were derived from the Betson-Rothbarth measurements of child rearing costs.  PSI does not have information about the $801-2000 portion of Iowa's schedule, which appears to be based upon a number of sources.  

The committee considered a number of different options for treating health insurance premium costs, including treating the cost as an uncovered medical expense with and without a cap on the expenses with no deduction of the cost from income.  Other options included pro rating the cost of the child's share of insurance above one percent of combined income, or deducting the entire premium cost from income and pro rating the child's share between the parents.  The committee reviewed numerous examples of the impact of each option on each parent at different income levels.  


The committee carefully evaluated each option according to the following goals: (1) an outcome that is fair to both parties, (2) simple to apply, and (3) in line with economic values.  The committee reviewed numerous examples of the impact of each option on each parent at different income levels.  After an exhaustive analysis, the committee found no compelling solution to the issue because no option provided an equitable solution in all of the scenarios.  The committee believes that this problem is related to Iowa's variant form of the income shares model.  Consequently, the committee does not recommend any changes with respect to health insurance premiums at present, but suggests an interim study committee to consider whether adoption of a pure income shares model would better address health insurance.

No Recommendation.

5.  Extending Top Income Brackets of Schedule  
The top income levels of the schedule, from $3000 to $6000, were added in 1995.  The committee agreed it was time for another extension so that the schedules track rising incomes.  The committee directed PSI to develop a proposal extending the top brackets from $6000 to $10,000 in increments of $1000, with support amounts in line with the current schedule and child-rearing costs, which include a factor for routine medical costs.  

Recommendation:  For the reasons stated above, we recommend the court extend the guideline schedules from $6000 to $10,000 according to the percentages devised by PSI at the committee's direction.  The committee further recommends inclusion of a double asterisk consistent with the current footnote for income in excess of the maximums on the schedule, and replacing certain percentages with an asterisk designated for minimum amount orders in the low income end of the schedule.  




6.  Adjustments for Recipients of SSI
Federal law prohibits attachments of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments received pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1381a.  SSI is a federal welfare payment to provide a subsistence allowance for needy aged, blind or disabled individuals.  Unlike other benefits, SSI benefits are not intended to support the recipient's dependents.  A majority of courts have held that federal law preempts state law from treating SSI as income available for child support calculations or upon which support can be based.  Therefore, the child support recovery unit (CSRU) does not ask the court to order child support when a noncustodial parent's only income is SSI.  For these reasons, the committee suggests amending the Iowa guidelines to make an exception from the minimum support requirement for noncustodial parents whose sole income is derived from SSI.  

Recommendation:  We recommend the court add the following statement to the footnotes in the guideline schedules:  "However, the appropriate figure is zero if the non-custodial parent's only income is from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) paid pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1381."

7.  QADD  
Some committee members wanted to revisit the QADD provision with the possibility of raising the amounts of the deductions.  However, the committee decided against recommending any change to the QADD as it may be unnecessary in light of the recommendation to change the method for calculating the deductions for taxes.  

No Recommendation.

8.  Custodial Parent Income  
An anomaly in the guidelines results in disparities in application of the guidelines when custodial parents earn much more than noncustodial parents.  This inequity would be addressed if Iowa adopted the pure income shares model as recommended by PSI.  The committee agreed that this issue should either be studied during the 2008 review or by an interim committee.

No Recommendation.

9.  Interim Study of Pure Income Shares Model
One idea resurfaced time and time again during the committee's discussions—replacing Iowa's present guidelines with a pure income shares model.  A pure income shares model has many advantages.  It is easy to understand and apply.  It would help address the problem of sharing rising medical expenses and health insurance costs.  A pure income shares model would eliminate the "notch effect" in Iowa's current guidelines.  And it would reduce the inequities discussed above with regard to custodial parents who earn more than noncustodial parents.

Recommendation:  We urge the court to establish an interim committee to study whether Iowa should adopt a pure income shares model.  

(See an example of a model developed by PSI).

10.  Worksheets

Recommendation:  We recommend adjustments to the worksheets consistent with our other recommendations.


* This copy of the report has been slightly modified for the purpose of posting it on the Web.

My ss had lived with his grandmother for the most of his life. There was a cs order for MEDICAL ONLY for 5 years naming grandma as the caretaker. There is a current order for cs and now the cs office is saying that my dh is owes over 11,000 in past due suport. The thing I dont get is that grandma requested no suport and got no welfare assistance during the 5 years in question. The cs office is doing a review on the above situation but we are waiting to hear the outcome. DH is considering consulting with his attorney in regards to the above but we would like to hear some other suggestions and comments.

He does pay current support and that is not a problem at all with either of us. We just dont see why he would owe any money since it is a MEDICAL ONLY order.

Any ideas? Please help!

This is an email that I recieved and thought some of you might be interested in this:

Please feel free to pass this onto as many persons/email groups as possible.  Also be sure to identify where you are from, i.e., city, state (AND country if you are outside the US).  Click on the link below the description to take you to the sign up menu if you are interested.  It would be very convincing for Dr. Phil to see that people all over the world are suffering from the same problems - and courts everywhere are making the same mistakes.

For those of you who have never seen the Dr. Phil Show, Dr. Phil is one excellent psychiatrist/psychologist (I'm not sure which, but he's one of these).  He doesn't get conned or buy into excuses.  He sees through BS.  He focuses on the real issues. He hones in on irresponsibility, dishonesty and denial, and spots it immediately.  He catches people in their lies and excuses. He doesn't make any bones about telling anyone who perpetrates them what their real agenda is and what they need to do about it.

His show might make a good forum for bringing up parental alienation syndrome.

Patti Diroff






      Divorcing? Locked In Bitter Custody Battle ?
     

      The Dr. Phil show is looking for parents involved in a bitter custody dispute. Are you in a daily battle with your ex over your children? Have you been falsely accused of physical or sexual abuse or already lost visitation over a false allegation? Feel like you can?t compete with your spouse?s high priced legal team? Afraid of losing your children forever? If you feel that your children are suffering in your nasty custody battle, you want help from Dr. Phil and ARE ALL WILLING TO APPEAR ON THE SHOW, please email us your story.

The following is the link to submit your story:

//www.drphil.com/drphilplugger/templates/BeOnTheShow.jhtml?action=respond&plugId=D121500006

All parties are in the state of Iowa. CP took minor child to the Dr. Minor was admitted to the hospital for 2 days. NCP has joint legal custody.  NCP never informed NCP that child was in the hospital. NCP found out through the school that child had been in the hospital.

After hearing this from the school NCP tried to contact the Dr that took care of the child while in the hospital. Dr never called NCP back but instead called the CP. CP called NCP saying child was in hospital. (This was 5 days after the child was released from the hospital)


NCP got the records in question yesterday. NCP tried to call the Dr that took care of child while in hospital.  After getting the records from the hospital NCP had many questions. NCP called the Dr office again.

Receptionist at the Dr office told NCP that she had given the Dr the message and that the Dr said she was going to call the CP and then call the NCP back but that the CP said the Dr couldn't call the NCP. Therefor now the medical clinic is refusing to speak to the NCP although they have in the past sent him med records about the same minor child.


There is a possiable serious medical issue with the minor child and it keeps getting passed off as the flu. NCP is very worried about this and Dr office refuses to talk to NCP.

The other thing that makes this tough is that CP keeps changing Dr's for the minor child. Never sees the same Dr.

There are pending issues in court at the present time. NCP has filed numerous counts of contempt and it is set for trial on 4/27


1)  What kinds of options does NCP have?
2)  Any suggestions on how to get the Dr to hear NCP?
3)  Any thing else that might help?

The Newest Court order reads:

1) That an amended Temporary Order is hereby entered adopting the April 2, 2204 Order, but adding

A)Father will pick up child from "station" at 8 pm in x town on friday and mother will pick up child from "station" in x town on sunday.

B)If child has homework it is to be sent to fathers house to be completed if it is his weekend.

C)The Holiday visitation schedual that is listed in the mediation agreement is adopted.

    !) Father will have extended visitation of four (4) days for Thanksgiving 2004; (6) six days for Christmas 2004; and 6 days for Spring Break of 2005.



The April 2, 2004 Court Order reads: (Im only going to list the holiday part of this order cause it is what i have questions about)

 Father shall have visitation as follows:

B)Every other Holiday beginning with Easter with the mother. Holidays include Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day. When Holiday visitation follows a weekend visitation, the fathers visitation shall end at 7pm on the Monday Holiday instead of Sunday.

C) Father shall have visitation on Fathers Day and his birthday. Mother shall have visitation on Mothers Day and her birthday.Holidays shall take precedence over normal visitation.


Ok Child has Spring Break from March 24- March 28. This does not give the 6 days that the court has ordered. During this time it is also Easter. So according to the courts order the Father and the Mother are intitled to visitation. The mother agreed to the Extra Holiday Visitation due to all the time that she denied the father and child during 2004 and in exchange the father dismissed the show cause hearing for contempt but was dismissed without prejudice.

Now more recent mother and father were in court for the final trial Feb 9th and 10th. The has been no decision to date. During this custody hearing also heard was the contempts from before (that were dismissed without prejudice) plus new ones that occured just before trial. Still pending a decision on all the contempts plus physical custody and child support of the child. (Also the weekend before and the weekend after Spring Break is the fathers weekend. So this would make 3 weekends in a row and the mother has been known to deny anytime father gets 2 or more weekends in a row.)

Questions: (we are concerned about this because we would really enjoy having child here for the extra days like the court order says but are a little leary of being too pushy due to the pending decision)

1) As for the Holiday ............who gets Easter the father or the Mother?  

2) If the father gets Easter should he push the point if the mother says it is her Holiday.

3) Is there a normal time frame that a judge has to make his decion in or can he just leave us hanging like this forever??

4) Are there certain reasons that you are aware of that would take a judge soooo long in making his decision?

4) Any advise on any of the above??

Thank you as always Soc for all your help!

Dear Soc,

I am trying to help DH answer the following Interoggatory:

Describe in detail why you believe that you should be given primary physical care of your minor child, along with any and all evidence that you have to support your belief.

We want to answer this question to the best of our ability because it is the only question, other than one about criminal background, that BM's attorney has asked that is relevent to custody.

We have a few good ideas. Such as

1) School issues, SS has fallen behind due to missing 9 days of school already this year, 34 last year and 37 his kindergarten year.

2) DH would foster a realationship with both parents and would follow a CO. (BM has not done either and there are 12 counts of contempt on BM for the same day as trial)

3) DH has employment and can show SS the importance of holding a job

4) Stability of living in one home rather than jumping back and forth between 4 homes.

DH attorney told him to focus on the positive things that DH can provide.

Questions:
1) How would you direct us to answer this question if you were representing DH?

2) Is there any, general rather than our case specific, key points that you would recromend us to include in the answer?

3) What is your opinion on what we have thus far?

Thank you Soc!

Ex's attorney has requested a production of documents and also interrogatories for DH to answer. (Dh attorney has done the same as part of the discovery process in the custody trial)

Ex's attorney is asking for the following production of documents......

All statements relative to prepayment or withholding of Federal or State income tax by or for the petitioner for the tax year of 2002.

Interoggotories:
Please provide your complete criminal history, including each and every interaction with law enforcement at any time since your birth to the present date. In your answer please include:
1)all criminal charges filed against you.
2)all convictions of criminal charges
3)the sentence of said convictions
4the status of pending chages
the status of outstanding arrest warrents (if any) and
5 the current status of your driving priviledge, or lack thereof

questions:

1) What is the production of documents above in refrence to?

2)Is juvenile record relevent? Does DH have to according to law answer the question in regards to juvenile record?

3)What do you think an attorney is up to when there is a custody trial pending and the main thing that they request is documents related to financial status past and present? (out of out of 8 interrogs there are 3 not pertaining to financial information. For the production of doc's there are 3 out of 14 that are not pertaining to finances)

Thanks for any and all information that you may have!

Soc,

My Dh court order reads:

Petitioner (DH) shall have visitation every other weekend and every other holiday beginning with Labor Day with the petitioner (DH). Holidays include Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day. When holiday visitation follows a weekend visit, the petitioner's visitation should end at 7pm on the Monday holiday instead of Sunday.

Additionally petitioner is to have 4 days for Thanksgiving 2004 and 6 days for Christmas of 2004. (this was due to her denial of DH summer visitation as well as Memorial Day and Labor Day)

So DH's holidays are Christmas Eve and New Years Day. Ex's is Christmas Day:  so he requested that he have his 6 days from Dec 26 to Dec 31 (5 days) plus New Years would be his holiday and then the 1st of Jan to the 2nd of Jan is the 6th day.

DH sent a letter to confirm what days he wants visitation, sent certified with return reciept. He has heard no response as of yet.

Questions:

1)Does the above request for his 6 days sound like it is with in what the court order reads?

2)If he does not get child when he requested does he hold the cards for another contempt motion? (he has 11 that were dismissed with out prejudice)

3)Ex always seems to deny visits around holidays and any time that is for more than the normal weekend visit. Is there an advantage that we can use in court in Feb that we are over looking? (final trial is in Feb for custody)

4)Any other advise??


Thank you as always Soc!!!

Soc,

There was a mediation agreement met.

BM had continously not followed by the agreement.

The agreement has not been ordered by a judge.

Dh attorney sent BM attorney a letter saying we are no longer following the agreement and that we are following the temp court order.
 (the only thing signed by the judge.) The letter is dated August 5th.

DH sent a letter certified return reciept that BM signed for. It states the pick up drop off points and times (the same ones as in the temp co.)

The temp co says that Dh is to pick up ss at bm residence at 8pm on friday and that bm is to pick up ss at dh residence on sunday.

BM called and left a voice message on Friday saying that if we dont meet her at xx town and station like the agreement says then SS will not go.

Dh and I both spoke to her and told her that we were following the CO and we will be at her residence at 8pm.

BM says she is not in contempt because she never said ss could not go.

We arrived and ss was not there and neither was bm.

Called the police and got a complaint filed and also got a copy of it.

There is a current custody trial but no date yet. Should have a date the first of the week.



Questions:

1) Is Bm in contempt?

2) Any suggestions for us in regards to the aove?

Parties came to an agreement in mediation.

Bm has since failed to follow that agreement.

BM and her attorney had till Aug 1 to send the signed mediation agreement back to DH attorney. (a deadline made by DH and his attorney) DH attorney sent 3 letters to BM attorney in regards to this and never recieved any response not even a phone call.

They failed to send the signed agreement by the deadline and there was no contact from BM's attorney as to what the hold up was.

The mediation agreement came in the mail to DH attorney on Aug 18, 2004 and is signed by BM and her attorney now.

DH attorney is going to try and get the agreement waived so we can proceed with obtaining physical custody of ss.


Mediation was complete on 6/23/04 and DH attorney typed up the agrrement and sent it to BM attorney on 6/26/04.


Question

1) Are Dh and his attorney being unreasonable by expecting Bm and her attorney to respond within the time they set?

2) Do you think the judge will set aside the agreement and let us procede?

3) Any other advise?

 

When SS was born he lived with BM for about 3 months. During that time CS agency got an order for support on DH because BM was recieving welfare.

A month after that order there is another order entered for MEDICAL only naming a caretaker, not BM. The caretaker requested no support but must have had the child on medical through the state

During the 5 year period that the caretaker was careing for SS BM was recieving CS payments and there is past due support during this time as well.

Both cases are under the same CO in the same county. There is no order entered for BM to pay support only DH during that 5 year period. and BM gets the support even though she did not have SS.

The CS agency says there is nothing they can or will do although they do see why DH would question this.


1) Does this seem right to you?

2) If your answer is no what do you suggest DH doing to fix this.

3) There is a current custody case going on, can DH address this during the custody case or does it all need to go through the same county in which it was started?

I dont know if you will get to this in time to help my DH but we sure hope so!

His visitation order says: (exact text in regards to holiday visitation) He is the petitioner and BM is the respondent.  
Petitioner shall have visitation as follows:

Every other holiday beginning with Easter Sunday with the Respondent.
Holidays include Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day. When Holiday visitation follows weekend visitation the petitioner's visitation should end at 7pm on the Monday holiday instead of Sunday.  

BM has denied DH regular visitation for this weekend. This is DHs holiday as well. (Memorial Day) This denial among others has been recorded by the police department.


Question:

              1) Should DH show up on Monday for the Holiday visitation and try to pick his son up for the day? Even though this was his weekend and he was denied.

               2)If the answer to the above is yes should he go ahead and have the police assist as normal and file another complaint on this denial as well?

Facts are:

Biological Mother has tried to keep 7 year old away from Biologiacal Father all the childs life. (They were never married and seperated before he was born) Talks bad about father in front of child and tries to scare him so he doesnt want to go for visits. (she tells him that his Biological father is mean and ect)

CPS is doing an investigation about drugs in the home. The CPS worker has stated there are definately some serious issues but so far she hasnt been able to pinpoint it yet. We are in close contact with CPS. They asked Biological mom to do a drug test and the results are pending for that. (Because she waited for 2 weeks after CPS requested her to take the test)


There has been several other recorded CPS reports on Biological mom. Plus grandma has been the main caretaker for son and is now in jail for the 2nd time in the past year on drug related charges. She will be going to prison this time because she was on probation at the time with a defered sentence.


We have also been in touch with the school and child has missed 37 days of school so far. Mother doesn't insure make up work gets done. Recentally school turned over the situation to the Juvenile Court School Officer.


Biological father has a temp order stating that he gets joint legal custody, every other weekend visitation, every other holiday, and 2 two week segmants in the summer. We are in Iowa. Also in the order it states that we are to pick him up on friday at 8 pm at her home, and she is to pick him up sunday at our home. We have provided all transportation both ways for both visits so far.


We have agreed with Biological mom that for the first few visits we would bring along Biological Moms sister to make son feel more comfortable. (this in not in the court order) We now find out this girl is 1)acting as a "spy" and telling Biological mom everything plus some things that arent true. 2) Being put in the middle and being forced to act like an adult. (she is only 9)

Biological mom is living with a man, not married. Son tells us that boyfriend is mean to him. I am married and have been for 7 years and have 3 biological kids, 2 that live with me, and two stepchildren that i have raised for the last 7 years.


We have now had our second visit and son is very happy and loves it here!! In fact he didnt want to talk to his mom at all over the weekend even when she was on the phone asking for him. Plus we had to convince him to get in the car so we could take him home because he didnt want to go.
Questions:

           1) Is it going to hurt our case if we say no more to the sister comming along?

            2) What are our chances of switching custody based on the above?

             3) What more can we do to insure he is going to school and insure he is being properly cared for while in Biological Moms care?

             4)What can we do to insure she will pick him up on sunday? He has missed so much school already that we have to make sure he is getting to school.


Any advise will help because we dont know what we can do!!
Thank you all so much!!

 
 




Subject: FW: 7 reasons not to mess with a child

>

>* A little girl: was talking to her teacher about  whales.

>

>The teacher: said it was physically impossible for a whale to  swallow

>a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat  was

>very small.

>

>The little girl: stated that Jonah was swallowed by a  whale.

>

>Irritated, the teacher: reiterated that a whale could not swallow  a

>human; it was physically impossible.

>

>The little girl: said, "When I  get to heaven I will ask Jonah".

>

>The teacher: asked, " What if Jonah went  to hell?"

>

>The little girl: replied, "Then you ask him".

>

>

>

>*  A Kindergarten teacher: was observing her classroom of children while

>they  were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's

>work. As  she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked

>what the  drawing was.

>

>The girl: replied, "I'm drawing God."

>

>The teacher:  paused and said, "But no one knows what God looks like."

>

>Without missing  a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl:

>replied, "They will in a  minute."

>

>

>

>* A Sunday school teacher: was discussing the Ten  Commandments with her

>five and six year olds. After explaining the  commandment to "honor" thy

>Father and thy Mother, she asked, "Is there a  commandment that teaches us

>how to treat our brothers and  sisters?"

>

>Without missing a beat one little boy: (the oldest of a family)  answered,

>"Thou shall not kill."

>

>

>

>* One day a little girl was  sitting and watching her mother do the dishes at

>the kitchen sink. She  suddenly noticed that her mother had several strands

>of white hair sticking  out in contrast on her brunette head.

>She looked at her mother and  inquisitively asked, "Why are some of your

>hairs white, Mom?"

>

>Her  mother replied, "Well, every time that you do something wrong and

>make me cry  or unhappy, one of my hairs turns white."

>

>The little girl thought about  this revelation for a while and then said,

>"Momma, how come ALL of grandma's  hairs are white?"

>

>

>

>The children had all been photographed, and the  teacher was trying to

>persuade them each to buy a copy of the group  picture.

>

>"Just think how nice it will be to look at it when you are all  grown up

>and say, 'There's Jennifer, she's a lawyer,' or 'That's Michael,  He's a

>doctor.'

>

>A small voice at the back of the room rang out, "And  there's the teacher,

>She's dead. "

>

>

>

>* A teacher was giving a  lesson on the circulation of the blood. Trying to

>make the matter clearer,  she said, "Now, class, if I stood on my head, the

>blood, as you know, would  run into it, and I would turn red in the face.."

>

>"Yes," the class  said.

>

>"Then why is it that while I am standing upright in the ordinary  Position

>the blood doesn't run into my feet?"

>

>A little fellow shouted,  "Cause your feet ain't empty."

>

>

>

>The children were lined up in the  cafeteria of a Catholic elementary

>school for lunch. At the head of the table  was a large pile of apples. The

>nun made a note, and posted on the apple  tray:

>

>"Take only ONE. God is watching."

>

>Moving further along the  lunch line, at the other end of the table was a

>large pile of chocolate chip  cookies.

>

>A child had written a note, "Take all you want. God is watching  the

>Apples.

>

>

>

>It doesn't matter how many people you send this  to, just remember if it

>made you laugh, your friends will laugh  too.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>GOOD, BETTER, BEST

>

>

>

>GOOD:

>

>A Richardson, TX policeman had a perfect spot to watch for speeders,  but

>wasn't getting many. Then he discovered the problem - a 12-year-old boy  was

>standing up the road with a hand painted sign, which read "RADAR  TRAP

>AHEAD". The officer then found a young accomplice down the road with a  sign

>reading "TIPS" and a bucket full of money. (And we used to just  sell

>lemonade!)

>

>

>BETTER

>

>A motorist was mailed a picture of  his car speeding through an automated

>radar post in Plano, TX. A $40 speeding  ticket was included. Being cute, he

>sent the police department a picture of  $40. The police responded with

>another mailed photo of  handcuffs.

>

>

>BEST

>

>A young woman was pulled over for speeding. As  the TX State Trooper Officer

>walked to her car window, flipping open his  ticket book, she said, "I bet

>you are going to sell me a ticket to the Texas  State Police Ball." He

>replied, "Ma'am, Texas State Troopers don't have  balls. "There was a moment

>of silence while she smiled, and he realized what  he'd just said. He then

>closed his book, got back in his patrol car and drove  off. She was laughing

>too hard to start her  car.

>
 
 

 
 
 

I have been feeling as though something has been missing here at the Sparc community for the past several weeks. I am not sure if anyone else has noticed this or not but there is for sure something missing!

It took me a little time to figure it out but I think I have it figured out now. We are missing a member that has been here and has offered many people GREAT advise here! Yep you guessed it ........Its Kitty!

I sure do miss her here at Sparc!

We all know that she has switched positions and cant get to a computer as often and we all understand but it sure does seem diffrent here without her here!

I hope she can get computer access at her home soon so that we can hear from her more often!

Kitty if you see this I just wanted you to know that you are missed and that you are still in my thoughts and prayers too!!

I should have posted this under something diffrent but I couldnt make up my mind where I should put it.

DH says that it is not good when I start thinking! LOL!

Ok there are many NCP and CP on this forum. Now some may or may not like what I am about to say but I want to remind everyone that I am a CP and my DH is a NCP. So I can see both sides to this.

In my situation my ex only pays $90.00 per month in cs for 2 children. It is 75.00 current and 15.00 to his arrears, he is more than 11,000.00 in arrears. He does not have to carry medical insurance on either child and never has been ordered to do so. I am not working at this time and ex is. (I am not working due to taking care of my elderly grandma that has just passed away as well as my youngest daughter just started kindergarten and in reality it was cheaper for me to stay home with her than to pay for child care. I am now seeking employment as my days are now very boring with grandma gone and the little one in school) I allow my ex to see his children any time he wishes or anytime the children wish to see there father. I have sole custody but I still share.

My DH has one child and he pays over $200.00 per month in CS. He is in arrears but I am not sure how much now as he has been making extra payments to catch up. DH is required to carry insurance on SS. BM does not work and NEVER has had a job EVER! BM has physical custody and joint legal with DH. BM denys regular court ordered visitation but DH still pays support.


I can't understand how or why NCP's are paying support on kids they cant see but yet the BM doesn't work or provide financially and they get to see their children everyday.

If my DH with held support because BM denied visitation, who gets in trouble and goes to jail? DH does! If BM denys visitation so DH with holds support DH is in trouble again!!

I know, I know CS and visitation are two seperate issues! But why?? We have a duty to support but not a right to see our child everyday??!!

In my case ex can see his children when ever he wants to! (because I am a nice ex I guess! LOL) But yet he doesn't pay sh** for support and has never even offered to pay for anything on his own! Lucky guy if you ask me!!

Sorry you all!! I guess I needed to vent! Feel free to give me some feedback on this!

My father in law is having a pace maker put in at 11 am.

He has had 4 major heartattaches already so there is alot of damage to his heart. We pray that there are no complications but the doctors have said that it is possiable because of the damage he already has.

Please pray for FIL and for a full recovery afterwards!! Also for all of the rest of the family as well to be strong.

Thank you all and I will update as soon as we know something!

A little background: Mediation agreement was made on June 23, 2004. BM and her attorney have not signed it. During mediation Dh settled for a lot less than what he wanted and has since got more info to support his case. it is now Aug. 3 and still we have no co in regards to the mediation agreement that was made.

Dh called his attorney and told his attorney that he is ready to procede to gain physical custody of SS as we stated in our petition. DH's attorney tells him that she sent a letter to BM's attorney with a deadline of Aug 1 for them to get us the signed mediation ageement, but she wants to give them some professional courtsey and give them till Aug 6th to get it to her.

DH is upset!! He wants to move on this and he feels like the attorney is giving him the run around. What is the deal with this professional courtsey stuff? Anyone know? Got any advice?

This was my DH's weekend to have SS. We had a great time! We went to the State Fair on Saturday, all day. And on Sunday we went swimming most of the day. It was a great weekend!

Then on Sunday PBFH starts calling and demanding that DH bring SS to her home at the end of visitation.

CO says DH is to pick SS up on at BM's home Friday night at 8pm. On Sunday BM is to pick SS up at DH home at 8pm. This was agreed to and signed by the judge in April of this year.

Last Tuesday she recived Dh's certified letter with return reciept that outlined the visitation plan. (we found the letter on this site, the intent to excersize visitation letter) Plus last week she also recieved a letter from her attorney that DH attorney sent to her attorney and it told her that we were following the Temp order and that DH is going to court for physical custody of SS.

(we have had alot of problems getting BM to follow the co. She has denied visitation including fathers day of all days,plus many weekends and holidays, tried to change pick up drop off, tried to change the times, shortened visitation, and false accusations made in court that have been proven false.)

Bm has her mother call and say that if we dont meet them in town "X" that they will call the police. This was on the voicemail. There were several voicemails that we saved even BM demanding we bring SS all the way to her house.

BM showed up  at our home at 10:40pm last night to pick up SS. She had several family members with her. When she knocked on the door she about pounded it down, mind you there are a total of 5 children sleeping inside the house including SS. We got SS up and told him that BM was here. We walked him out (he was awful tired) and Bm started saying, " Oh baby whats the matter?" She said this about 4 times and he kept telling her that he was tired. Dh got a little upset that she seemed to be insenuating that we would harm SS in anyway! He came out and told her that he just woke him up and he was tired. He gave SS a hug and kiss and love you and told SS that we would see him in 2 weeks.

She then told us that our directions suck that we gave her to our house. We gave her the same directions we have given anyone else and noone else has ever complained!

This woman doesnt get the point that she cant change the co at her whim! We are in the midst of a custody case for many reasons all leading to the best interest of SS, and still she dont want to follow the court order! We just dont understand it!

Anybody ever deal with anything like this? Anyone got any advice? Anything would help at this point. We are now expecting some new false accusations, we just arent sure what they will be and how far the courts are gonna let her go with this!

Oh ya and BM didnt bring any police with her when she arrived to pick up SS. But she has stated many times that she fears DH and claims he is a violent criminal. (she has nothing to back up her claim to that so we beat it in court. She tried to get supervised visitation and it didnt work.)

From SS's teacher today. She wrote to let DH and I know that SS was NOT in school again today.

This is Dh's weekend. PBFH has been known to not send SS to school on the days she is going to DENY visitation. (this is about the norm for her)

Also still pending is the decision from the judge on the custody issue. (nope still nothing decided)

Im getting ready now to go pick DH from work and then head to pick up SS at the station. DH was denied the last visit so it has been a month so far and will be a month and a half if she denys tonight and we have to wiat till our next schedualed weekend. DH is really missing his DS! The kids are missing their brother and think all of this is so unfair! It is so sad that she can cause this much pain to so many people!

Send us good thoughts and prayers as we head to the station to pick up SS and also to help us deal with the pain if PBFH does not show up once again!

Thank you all in advanced.

Ok heres the story ........

Last weekend we had SS because of a week that we got to spend with him for Christmas break. SS was returned to BM on Sunday. DH told BM that this weekend is his normal weekend because it is his weekend off and that he would see her Friday for the pick up at 8PM as the CO states.BM said ok.

We went to pick up SS and they never showed up.

CO reads DH gets every other weekend starting the weekend of April 2, 2004.

DH final hearing is on Feb 9th and 10th along with several contempts on BM to be heard for denial of visitation on the same day. (i think there is like 12 or 13 of them) Should we do as we normally do and send a letter in refrence to this denial and if so how would you word it?

DH and I are so angry that everything that we come up with seems.......well like something that we would not want a judge to read! Dealing with her not following the CO for so long is starting to weigh on us. DH has been denied 35 days of contact with SS since April of 2004 when this temp order was entered.

Any ideas?

Hi all.......need some help.


DH picked ss up last night and Bm is requesting that she have SS for trick or treat night in her town. Their trick or treat night and ours are on the same night and same times. This happens to fall on DH's weekend. DH has missed 3 holidays this year due to BM's denial of visitation and also missed  many many hours of time. (we also dont really think she will even show up but this way at least he tried to comprimise???)

DH is thinking of telling her that she is more than welcome to come to our town and go trick or treat with us but he does not want to loose any more time.

What do you all think??

Just wanted to update and let everyone know that ss did get to come for the weekend! We are having a wonderful time and actually are getting ready to have a birthday party ds!! The BIG 7 today and ss gets to be here for the party!!!!!!!!!!!!

used the notice of intent to exersize visitation in court??

If so what was the response of the judge in your case?

Opposing attorney's response?


Any information would be great.

(excuss the spelling mistakes I have a new computer and cant seem to figure out how to run my spell check! LOL!!)

Went to pick up SS and the sheriffs office informed us that BM went to XX town to meet us " like the CO says!" We then inform the sheriffs office that there is no such CO and that we need to file a complaint.

Filed the complaint and then decided to travel to XX town and see if BM was in fact there to meet us.

Got there at 8:07pm. And we got a reciept from the station to prove time and date we were there! As we suspected NO BM or ss was there!! So we went to the sheriffs office in XX county and filed a report there as well since BM's county sherrif told us that was where she was at.


(XX town is the mediation agreement that we are trying to have waive so we can go to trial. This agreement has NEVER been signed by a judge, so it is NOT a CO. We have been directed to follow the only CO that there is and that is the temp order.)

We have a total of 9 contempts filed and have the hearing on Thursday. The judge has already told BM to follow the temp order when she tried to get supervised visitation on false accusations.

The thing that gets me the most is the fact that ss and dh are not the only ones who suffer due to PBFH's actions!! DH and I have 4 children that live with us and really look forward to seeing SS eow. So she is not ONLY hurting her child she is hurting my children as well!! AND there is nothing that I can do to protect them except to sit back and hope and pray that the courts will help the situation!!\

Any feedback is welcome as well as advise on how to protect my own kids from this PBFH!!

This was my DH's weekend to have SS. We had a great time! We went to the State Fair on Saturday, all day. And on Sunday we went swimming most of the day. It was a great weekend!

Then on Sunday PBFH starts calling and demanding that DH bring SS to her home at the end of visitation.

CO says DH is to pick SS up on at BM's home Friday night at 8pm. On Sunday BM is to pick SS up at DH home at 8pm. This was agreed to and signed by the judge in April of this year.

Last Tuesday she recived Dh's certified letter with return reciept that outlined the visitation plan. (we found the letter on this site, the intent to excersize visitation letter) Plus last week she also recieved a letter from her attorney that DH attorney sent to her attorney and it told her that we were following the Temp order and that DH is going to court for physical custody of SS.

(we have had alot of problems getting BM to follow the co. She has denied visitation including fathers day of all days,plus many weekends and holidays, tried to change pick up drop off, tried to change the times, shortened visitation, and false accusations made in court that have been proven false.)

Bm has her mother call and say that if we dont meet them in town "X" that they will call the police. This was on the voicemail. There were several voicemails that we saved even BM demanding we bring SS all the way to her house.

BM showed up at our home at 10:40pm last night to pick up SS. She had several family members with her. When she knocked on the door she about pounded it down, mind you there are a total of 5 children sleeping inside the house including SS. We got SS up and told him that BM was here. We walked him out (he was awful tired) and Bm started saying, " Oh baby whats the matter?" She said this about 4 times and he kept telling her that he was tired. Dh got a little upset that she seemed to be insenuating that we would harm SS in anyway! He came out and told her that he just woke him up and he was tired. He gave SS a hug and kiss and love you and told SS that we would see him in 2 weeks.

She then told us that our directions suck that we gave her to our house. We gave her the same directions we have given anyone else and noone else has ever complained!

This woman doesnt get the point that she cant change the co at her whim! We are in the midst of a custody case for many reasons all leading to the best interest of SS, and still she dont want to follow the court order! We just dont understand it!

Anybody ever deal with anything like this? Anyone got any advice? Anything would help at this point. We are now expecting some new false accusations, we just arent sure what they will be and how far the courts are gonna let her go with this!

Oh ya and BM didnt bring any police with her when she arrived to pick up SS. But she has stated many times that she fears DH and claims he is a violent criminal. (she has nothing to back up her claim to that so we beat it in court. She tried to get supervised visitation and it didnt work.)

We had visitation this weekend with SS. It went very well. Although DH and  I were  a little upset by a few things that took place. First of all BM has not been following the CO in regards to transportation. Well that was a hassle because DH refused to provide all the transportation. Well in turn during a phone conversation BM's boyfriend gets on the phone and begs DH to provide the transportation. DH said no we are going to follow the CO. Well then the boy friends mother gets on the phone and starts screaming and yelling at DH telling him that he is the father and he should provide the transportation. ( For those of you that dont know the situation.... Temp order says DH picks up at BM's on Friday and BM picks up on Sunday at our home. But we have a mediation order that has not been signed by the judge but it was agreed that it was effective the day of mediation.... It says there is a neutral pick up drop off point, that is very specific as to where, and gives times. So either was DH does not go to BM's on Sunday to drop of SS.) Anyways the end of the conversation with DH and BF's mom ended when BF said just F***ing hang up onm him and she did. Later there was a message on the voice mail from BM stating she would meet us at "another town" at the "station." (not the town in the order and we would provide 3/4 of the transportation.) DH did not return her call till the next day and at that time she agreed to meet at the neutal drop off point. Anyways that was our transportation issue.

SS told us that BM's BF does not want him and will not let him stay at dads longer than the weekend even though BM and SS dont have a problem with it. BM is obviously intimidated by her BF and always says no to SS about staying here longer.

SS also told us that BM's BF told him dad dont have his job anymore! (Thats a bunch of s***)  

Another issue we had was that BM sends filthy clothes with SS. If they are not stained or filthy they are ripped. Only 1 pair of filthy socks that are full of holes. My DH pays CS and SS has no clothes! We have started to buy clothes and keep them here for SS. But what about at home the kid has to run around looking like hell?

Ok thats enough of me venting! Any advice or words of wisdom would be great!

Ok a little background: Temp matters were settled and CO went into affect April of this year. BM has denied visitation several times and made false accusations. (sp?) In temp order it states that BM is to pick child up at our home on Sunday after visitation and we are to pick child up at her home on friday. This never happened, ever! We provided all transportation to and from visits.

Then we go to mediation and she dont show although her attorney does. Dh made and agreement to proceed with mediation with her on the phone and her attorney there as well. Ok this ended up going alright and an agreement was made. The mediator asked BM if it is ok for her attorney to sign the agreement on her behalf and she said it was ok. Mediation agreement was effective that day. In the agreement it was decided that on friday and on sunday that we would meet at a point that is about half way between the 2 homes. ( an exact location is in the agreement) Ok first weekend BM calls friday afternoon and leaves a voice message stating that if DH wants child he would have to pick him up at her home and also bring him back to her home. He agrees because he hadnt seen child in over a month due to her denial of visitation. Ok now comes the 2nd visit after mediation, DH spoke to BM on the phone and she says that he will once again have to provide transportation. He didnt say yes no or anything to her about it. The plan is to call DH attorney in the morning and procede from there about this.

Ok the thing I dont get is that this is the second CO that she doesnt want to follow. We have in the past provided this transportation but only because DH wants to see their child. Ok, DH attorney says not to pick child up unless its at the point thats in the mediation agreement. DH wants to see his child and I understand that but at the same time I see this becomming a habit that we provide transportation. DH does not want to leave his son to wonder why dad didnt come. BM has made a habit of telling child lies and so far she has been unable to convince child that dad is a bad dad. We are trying our best to keep it like that. PAS has been an  issue that we have been working hard to prevent and so far child has not "listened" to BM when she talks bad about DH but we dont want that to change over something like us not picking him up. (she has told child when she denied the visit that dad didnt come because dad dont love you and ect.) It seems like BM is trying to see how far DH will bend her way. Also DH attorney says it may be a plan of BM's to prove that DH can and will provide all transportation and she may try to change the CO based on that.

What advice do any of you have for us in regards to this? HELP we are at our wits end about this!! DH wants to see child and so do the other children. What do you suggest we do from this point? We dont want her to be able to get a CO for DH to provide transportation but DH wants to see child. We are affraid if we dont go get child at BM's home then we wont see child this weekend! DH told me that not showing up at BM's residence is not an option because he will not leave his child hanging like that. Any advice? We were wondering if we picked him up at her home and then on Sunday request that she meet us at the place in the mediation agreement. Then if she dont show child would come back to our home untill she could arrange to pick him up at our home. OK someone let me know the pros and cons of all this and some advice or suggestions!                                    stepmom0418

DH's visitation in regards to Holidays is as follows:

Every other holiday beginning with Easter Sunday with the Respondent.
Holidays include Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day. When Holiday visitation follows weekend visitation the petitioner's visitation should end at 7pm on the Monday holiday instead of Sunday.  

BM has denied DH regular visitation for this weekend. This is DHs holiday as well. (Memorial Day) This denial among others has been recorded by the police department.


Question:

              1) Should DH show up on Monday for the Holiday visitation and try to pick his son up for the day? Even though the weekend was his and was denied.

               2)If the answer to the above is yes should he go ahead and have the police assist as normal and file another complaint on this denial as well?

 Any quick advise will help as tomorrow is the Holiday in question!