On going pro per... thoughts for these needs?

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

Court hearing was today on court's own OSC to determine sanctions against opposing counsel.

Court received OC's submitted judgment prior to today, and also a judgment from my attorney on my behalf with cover letter.

Court said that today was for sanctions, so everything (including sanctions) gets moved to another day to hear objections to the submitted judgment by OC.

Previous hearing was also continued.  Every passing month, every passing hearing, I go further in debt on attorney fees, and I'm looking at pro per.

Here's what needs to happen:

A) Finalize judgment language.  I'm arguing that the judgment language should stick to what we signed in settlement at time of trial.  OC unilaterally changed the language substantively.  I have evidence in the form of email correspondence from biomom showing her attempt to exploit OC's judgment language in a way that would be prohibited by what we signed.

On OC's judgment language, it's not HORRIBLE but it introduces some possible chaos opportunities that I want to seal up.  If I lost to his language, it wouldn't be the end of the world; except for child support.  Child support was never discussed at settlement, let alone stipulated, so existing orders from 2001 remain in effect.


B) Modify child support due to change of circumstances.  I've got all the components covered per your prior guidance and case reference.  Evidence is all per biomom's deposition testimony and response to discovery, along with half a dozen job listings I pulled off the internet one day that show availability of work.  

Modifying the CS is the big one for me to nail, as going by biomom's earning capacity would be a $300/month reduction.

Question 1-- are these two things fairly straightforward to argue in pro per, or is the judge's wildcard element mitigated by presence of counsel in determining judgment language?

Thanks for your thoughts, as always.

DD

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

Court hearing was today on court's own OSC to determine sanctions against opposing counsel.

Court received OC's submitted judgment prior to today, and also a judgment from my attorney on my behalf with cover letter.

Court said that today was for sanctions, so everything (including sanctions) gets moved to another day to hear objections to the submitted judgment by OC.

Previous hearing was also continued.  Every passing month, every passing hearing, I go further in debt on attorney fees, and I'm looking at pro per.

Here's what needs to happen:

A) Finalize judgment language.  I'm arguing that the judgment language should stick to what we signed in settlement at time of trial.  OC unilaterally changed the language substantively.  I have evidence in the form of email correspondence from biomom showing her attempt to exploit OC's judgment language in a way that would be prohibited by what we signed.

On OC's judgment language, it's not HORRIBLE but it introduces some possible chaos opportunities that I want to seal up.  If I lost to his language, it wouldn't be the end of the world; except for child support.  Child support was never discussed at settlement, let alone stipulated, so existing orders from 2001 remain in effect.


B) Modify child support due to change of circumstances.  I've got all the components covered per your prior guidance and case reference.  Evidence is all per biomom's deposition testimony and response to discovery, along with half a dozen job listings I pulled off the internet one day that show availability of work.  

Modifying the CS is the big one for me to nail, as going by biomom's earning capacity would be a $300/month reduction.

Question 1-- are these two things fairly straightforward to argue in pro per, or is the judge's wildcard element mitigated by presence of counsel in determining judgment language?

Thanks for your thoughts, as always.

DD

[socrateaser]

>Question 1-- are these two things fairly straightforward to
>argue in pro per, or is the judge's wildcard element mitigated
>by presence of counsel in determining judgment language?

Getting your version of the orders is a crap shoot, if you go in pro per, because the court is biased, let's face it, in favor of an attorney's draftings of orders. If you're gonna argue this pro per, you need to have your evidence down to a knat's eyebrow. I can't say how you will be received by the judge, because I don't know his/her disposition.

On the CS issue, if you can prove earning capacity, and that the children have no extraordinary needs, requiring that the mother be available rather than working, then the court must impute income to her.

This is all about getting your evidence admitted. $300 per month is $3600 per year, for as long as nether of your financial situations materially changes. You can do the math, and determine at what point the risk of self representation exceeds the benefit of paying for legal counsel.

[DecentDad]

.