More on 13 year old who want to identify preference

[MiRoCK]

Hi Soc,

Further to my earlier post re 13 year old want to identify his preference of managing custodian......

BM called my DH on Tuesday and said that she wanted to know the status of moving SS to come live with us.  We told her because she did not respond to our efforts to resolve this privately, as she requested, we had engaged an attorney and she would be served shortly.  BM claims not to have received any of our messages (I guess the cat must have deleted them cause the kids are NOT allowed to use the phone without permission), and that her attorney did not notify her of any of the paperwork we sent to her throughout November and early December (more lies).  DH advised her to contact her attorney immediately.

About 1 hour later, we received a call from our attorney, telling us that BM's attorney wants to work a deal out.  We told our attorney that we would agree to a temp order that has SS here by December, to have the CS recalcalated, and we agreed to make a 1K payment towards the outstanding CS DH built up when he lost his job this summer (leaving a remaining balance of $1200).  We said that our priority is dealing with SS and getting him ready to start school here, and he needs time to adjust.  We indicated that we would be willing to commit to a hearing, in TX, the first week of January, to finalize all other details.  But, if that we could not get agreement on transferring SS and the CS issues by the end of the week, the offer was dead and that we would take our chances in front of a judge the first week of January (we also have a whole pile of contempt of court charges against here for failing to provide prescribed medical treatment of autism to the middle child, so appearing before a judge isn't going to be real pleasant for her - particularly since we got court to specifically the order her to do this last May, and she still hasn't done anything).

Our lawyer said that the sticking points for BM seems to be that she still wants a lump sum payoff, and that she isn't very happy about the impact on CS from transferring SS to us.  

So, my question is this:

1.  Is the fact that she called the dad and asked for progress update on working out the details on transferring SS AND the fact that she has officially entered negotiations again sufficient proof for a judge that she has acknowledged that SS's best interests are to live with dad?  The reason I'm asking is because if negotiations fall through this week, we were wondering if in our appearance in January - will we have to start from the point of arguing that the move is in the SS's best interests, or if the actions, particularly this week, are sufficient to prove that all parties have acknowledged this already.

Thanks Soc

[socrateaser]

>1.  Is the fact that she called the dad and asked for progress
>update on working out the details on transferring SS AND the
>fact that she has officially entered negotiations again
>sufficient proof for a judge that she has acknowledged that
>SS's best interests are to live with dad?  The reason I'm
>asking is because if negotiations fall through this week, we
>were wondering if in our appearance in January - will we have
>to start from the point of arguing that the move is in the
>SS's best interests, or if the actions, particularly this
>week, are sufficient to prove that all parties have
>acknowledged this already.

Negotiations towards settlement of a pending legal matter are generally inadmissible as evidence. And, it doesn't matter whether the other parent believes that the child would be better off with you. It only matters whether an objective trier of facts (the judge) believes that the child's best interests are served by the move.

If negotiations fail, then you will first have to demonstrate that there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests -- otherwise, the court won't even consider your request. The fact that the child wants to move, by itself, is probably not sufficient evidence to create the necessary substantial change.

[MiRoCK]

Hi Soc,

Further to my earlier post re 13 year old want to identify his preference of managing custodian......

BM called my DH on Tuesday and said that she wanted to know the status of moving SS to come live with us.  We told her because she did not respond to our efforts to resolve this privately, as she requested, we had engaged an attorney and she would be served shortly.  BM claims not to have received any of our messages (I guess the cat must have deleted them cause the kids are NOT allowed to use the phone without permission), and that her attorney did not notify her of any of the paperwork we sent to her throughout November and early December (more lies).  DH advised her to contact her attorney immediately.

About 1 hour later, we received a call from our attorney, telling us that BM's attorney wants to work a deal out.  We told our attorney that we would agree to a temp order that has SS here by December, to have the CS recalcalated, and we agreed to make a 1K payment towards the outstanding CS DH built up when he lost his job this summer (leaving a remaining balance of $1200).  We said that our priority is dealing with SS and getting him ready to start school here, and he needs time to adjust.  We indicated that we would be willing to commit to a hearing, in TX, the first week of January, to finalize all other details.  But, if that we could not get agreement on transferring SS and the CS issues by the end of the week, the offer was dead and that we would take our chances in front of a judge the first week of January (we also have a whole pile of contempt of court charges against here for failing to provide prescribed medical treatment of autism to the middle child, so appearing before a judge isn't going to be real pleasant for her - particularly since we got court to specifically the order her to do this last May, and she still hasn't done anything).

Our lawyer said that the sticking points for BM seems to be that she still wants a lump sum payoff, and that she isn't very happy about the impact on CS from transferring SS to us.  

So, my question is this:

1.  Is the fact that she called the dad and asked for progress update on working out the details on transferring SS AND the fact that she has officially entered negotiations again sufficient proof for a judge that she has acknowledged that SS's best interests are to live with dad?  The reason I'm asking is because if negotiations fall through this week, we were wondering if in our appearance in January - will we have to start from the point of arguing that the move is in the SS's best interests, or if the actions, particularly this week, are sufficient to prove that all parties have acknowledged this already.

Thanks Soc

[socrateaser]

>1.  Is the fact that she called the dad and asked for progress
>update on working out the details on transferring SS AND the
>fact that she has officially entered negotiations again
>sufficient proof for a judge that she has acknowledged that
>SS's best interests are to live with dad?  The reason I'm
>asking is because if negotiations fall through this week, we
>were wondering if in our appearance in January - will we have
>to start from the point of arguing that the move is in the
>SS's best interests, or if the actions, particularly this
>week, are sufficient to prove that all parties have
>acknowledged this already.

Negotiations towards settlement of a pending legal matter are generally inadmissible as evidence. And, it doesn't matter whether the other parent believes that the child would be better off with you. It only matters whether an objective trier of facts (the judge) believes that the child's best interests are served by the move.

If negotiations fail, then you will first have to demonstrate that there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests -- otherwise, the court won't even consider your request. The fact that the child wants to move, by itself, is probably not sufficient evidence to create the necessary substantial change.