Object to GAL continued

[reagantrooper]

Soc

As per you last post on this issue I have started this new thread.

Seems I cant catch a break. I just got the courts answer on the other sides motion for me to pay the GAL in full.

I can bearly make out the Judges writing but I think is says, "motion granted without prejudice to upcoming hearing"

1. What does without prejudice mean in this case?

Thanks a bunch

[socrateaser]

>Soc
>
>As per you last post on this issue I have started this new
>thread.
>
>Seems I cant catch a break. I just got the courts answer on
>the other sides motion for me to pay the GAL in full.
>
>I can bearly make out the Judges writing but I think is says,
>"motion granted without prejudice to upcoming hearing"
>
>1. What does without prejudice mean in this case?

It's not all bad news. Without prejudice, in this instance, means that if you demonstrate that a fraud has been purpetrated on the court, or that your ex has incorrectly stated her numbers, you will get your money reimbursed, and/or sanctions, etc.

So, you may still present your case in the upcoming hearing, regardless of the fact that you must pay the entire bill up front now.

This is a reasonable ruling. And, if your ex is really playing games, her attorney may be getting a little worried.

[reagantrooper]

Soc
I got the GAL report today and it aint so good! Here is the the report. The names I will change. I post it as it is so I cannot abide by the 4 line pargraph guideline

"father, child and mom all related several times in the summer child has come over for more time than allowed under the decree. It can be for as long as a week at a time and this has occured for at least 7 summers. Extended weekends have occured in the past, according to father, when child would call mom and ask if she could stay on. According to father and the request was uaually granted.

child related when asked what she had told mom she said she really didn't tell her anything. There was discussion the weeks her dad requested fell when she was going to be at horseback riding camp. When asked what she told her dad child related she said she might want more time, "I dont know, maybe". Child has a clear understanding dad may have interrupted this as a positive.

there is 4 weeks of horseback riding camp she wishes to particapate in near her home. This is the first time her instructer has ever offered camp during summer. child also wishes to participate in shows and feels she may only be in a couple of shows at the end of the summer as she probley wont be ready for them. However next summer she feels she will probaley be ready for more shows. She is uncertain her dad will take her to lessons, camp or shows if she gets locked into more required time with him. It appears the biggest issue around spending time with her dad during camp weeks is she doesnt know if he will get her to camp. She related when she asked him if he would take her to her lessons and camp is she where with him, he related "if we dont have plans". Therfore she figured he wouldn't get her to her shows. When asked what she was basing this on, child related her brother david.  Dad would not take david to soccer pratice during the time david was with him. He would if david did somthing for his dad in return such as stay longer with him.

Child has been working on a calendar which takes into account the horseback riding camp, the two weeks which she knows foe certain she will be with dad and she worked to fit in other times with her dad. In reviewing them the 2 weeks are accounted for. She has another week with her dad blocked off and another week in which 3 or 4 of the 5 days is blocked off. Therfore she would propose almost the requested 4 weeks albeit 2 days shy of it. Those 2 days fall on thursday and fridasy before school starts in august. It is very usual and typical for a child to be with the parent they primarily live with.

In essence what she told gal was she wanted to continue to have the 2 weeks and keep the remaining weeks in the summer flexible because she doesnt know what the future summers and activities will bring. She didnt want what would happen this summer to happen for certain next summer.

RE: extended weekends. There is precedent for child to stay on with her dad if monday is a holiday such as memorial day. She related she and her mom would talk on friday or somtimes she would call her mom during the weekend and child related it wasent a problem with her mom. Child doesnt have a issue with it either but doesnt want it built into orders because she wants flexabilty. In essence she was saying she wants to be able to chose dependent upon who was at her dad house (step-sister specifically) or if one of her friends in the neighborhood might be around.

Child will be 12 in august. She is extremely bright young lady, well spoken, in tune with her feeling beyond many 11 year olds and this gal feels on the high end of the spectrum of maturity in referring 11 year old. There was no problem disclosed about spending time with her dad but a lack of trust about getting her to activities.

SUMMARY:

Child presents as thinking though things and she is very intelligent. She should have input into her summer. Unfortunately she is unable to trust her father will get her to activities she wishes to particitpate in during the summer. This is based upon what she heard him say this year when she asked him and upon observation with what occurred between her older brother and dad.

usally parents draw up calendars for this GAL and this GAL finds it interesting that neither parent did but child did. This is viewed as taking responsibility for what she wants and working on apresentation of what she wants . This is a sign of maturity.

This gal feels the decree should remain as is and childs summer calender should be adopted via agreement but not become part of the decree. As she grows older no one probaly includes child will know here her interest lie for activities during the summer. Expanding time in the decree would not have been an issue if father could have been more definitive in what she thought his response was when approached about taking her to her camp if she were with him. Also, it was really influentail in her opinion when she saw her father didnt provide for her brother to be taken to his activities during his time with him. Based upon these two things, she would have little faith in his getting her to an activity. Relative to the expanding out of weekends it does not appear as if there has ever been a problem therfore this gal feels ther is not a need to adjust the decree.
 
END OF REPORT

Now I have all kinds of problems with this report. This person only met my daughter for 45 minutes thats it. The following is my response.
 
A: "father, child and mom all related several times in the summer child has come over for more time than allowed under the decree. It can be for as long as a week at a time and this has occured for at least 7 summers."

This is a direct contridiction to what she filed with the court. In her response to my petition she denys this ever happened.

B: "child related when asked what she had told mom she said she really didn't tell her anything."

This is a direct contridiction to what she filed with the court. In her response to my petition she claims child "told her she did not want more time" with me.

C:"When asked what she was basing this on, child related her brother david.  Dad would not take david to soccer pratice during the time david was with him. He would if david did somthing for his dad in return such as stay longer with him."

This is just bogus, out of left field. My son her Brother is 10 years older than her. He came to live with me full time in 1999 when she was only four years old. He never played soccer ecept for maybe one year when he was in the 3rd or 4th grade.

Before she was born or just after she was born. Furthermore it was me who encourged him to play baseball, football and basket ball. It was me who atended his to his games and practices before he came to live with me full time.

As a matter of fact this was an issue that we went to court for as the mom tried to stop me from going to these events prior to me getting custody of our son. At one of these games the mom had the cops come to take my very young daughter from me because it was past the time I was sopose to have her back the game went long.

So I dont know what to make of this. This must be somthing the mom pumped into her brain. It seems to play a major part of this GALs thinking. The "did somthing for his dad in return such as stay longer with him." line is beyond my belief.

D:"in tune with her feeling beyond many 11 year olds and this gal feels on the high end of the spectrum of maturity in referring 11 year old. There was no problem disclosed about spending time with her dad but a lack of trust about getting her to activities."

I dont believe this gal could possibly come to this conclusion from a 45 minute talk with my daughter. I dont see her as being mature beyond her years.

E:"usally parents draw up calendars for this GAL and this GAL finds it interesting that neither parent did but child did"

Not sure what I make of this I was not asked to make a calender.

F:"This gal feels the decree should remain as is and childs summer calender should be adopted via agreement but not become part of the decree."

This is just crazy it puts the child smack dab in the middle and make her take side. It give a 11 YO power over her parents.

G:"Expanding time in the decree would not have been an issue if father could have been more definitive in what she thought his response was when approached about taking her to her camp if she were with him. "

I dont think I could have been any more definitve with my daughter about htis issue I told her that this horse was not going to dictate our time. This hole horse issue is bigger than it looks, let try to epalin it .

When me daughter was 8 I started her in riding lessons every other week I took her to them, paid for them, bought her the needed equipment it was something we did together.

I gave her mom an open invitation to come to any and/or all of the lessons. On a few occations when the coach was not able to do the lesson on my weekend I would send a check home with my daughter so her mom could take her the following weekend.

Now the times her mom took her was probley 3 or 4 times and the times she came to the lessons was maybe another 3 or 4 times. My goal was to support my daughter with this hobby/sport with the goal of getting her her own horse when she was ready.

Now out of the blue  2 Christmas's ago I get a call from my daughter telling me that gradmother bought her a horse. (mom lives in grandmother house). I was not consulted talked to or anything. Now I know that Grandmas (IE MOM) has the right ot do anything she pleases.

It not rocket science to see what the motivation was. ( here "child" look we got you your very own horse). Well needless to say they "stole" this thing from me and my girl. It just is not feasable for my daughter to go to a riding lesson with one coach today then to another coach on another day.

I made it clear to my daughter that this was rude and uncalled for on the part of her grandmother and mom. But she was elated to have her own horse.

1. Please tell me what you think of this gal report and my responses?

2. How would you proceede?



Thanks a bunch!

[socrateaser]

>1. Please tell me what you think of this gal report and my
>responses?

I think you're getting annoyed about things over which you have no control and which are irrelevant with regard to the only issue before the court, i.e., getting more time.

>2. How would you proceede?

I don't know the process where you're at, but I would suggest simply that you can solve the child's apparent concern over spending more time with you by asking the court to order you to take her to her equestrian activities. That will eliminate the child's concern as a roadblock.

I would also explain to the court that you are puzzled by your daughter's reference to your son's experiences, as the last time that he played soccer while in your custody was the year ????, and that you never deprived him of his sports activities -- on the contrary, you encouraged them.

Short and to the point. I understand your irritation with the other issues, but it really doesn't matter, because all you care about is increasing time with the child, so concentrate on that, and let the rest slide off your back.

[reagantrooper]

Soc
i just recieved the courts order and its in my favor. Although I did not get all of the time with my daughter spelled out the way I wanted I got the time none the less. The judge basicicly ordered us to follow the GAL report and take into acount my Daughters wants.

He said " the court encourages the parties to be flexible with respect to **** schedule and the time with her father" . So we shall see mabey this issue will be over, however given my Xes past with regards to any cooperation I have my doubts. She did "let" me have her the past 2 weeks with out it being spelled out in a court order. So this is a good sign.

On the other issue with regards to the money I owe her. I think the judge realy spanked her saying in part

"MS. **** representations were either intentionally or negligently inaccurate. Had Mr. **** not been doggedly persistent and had the court not requested further infomation from MS.****, her misrepresentations would have gone undetected. The courts order of june 2004 requiring Mr. ****to reimburse Ms. ****  her IRS debt,is vacated. The court finds that in light of Ms.**** conduct in this matter, requiring Mr.**** to reimburse Ms. **** monies paid the IRS is not justified".

This is even more than I expected. At the hearing I got the feeling that the Judge was very displeased with her atempts to talk away her dishonesty.

1. What would you be expecting from your openent in this type of situation?

THANKS for all of your help and ideas on this issue.

[socrateaser]

>"MS. **** representations were either intentionally or
>negligently inaccurate. Had Mr. **** not been doggedly
>persistent and had the court not requested further infomation
>from MS.****, her misrepresentations would have gone
>undetected. The courts order of june 2004 requiring Mr. ****to
>reimburse Ms. ****  her IRS debt,is vacated. The court finds
>that in light of Ms.**** conduct in this matter, requiring
>Mr.**** to reimburse Ms. **** monies paid the IRS is not
>justified".
>
>This is even more than I expected. At the hearing I got the
>feeling that the Judge was very displeased with her atempts to
>talk away her dishonesty.
>
>1. What would you be expecting from your openent in this type
>of situation?

SHE GOT HER ASS WHOOPED!!!! ADIOS MOTHER F!@#ER!

The court found her to have committed deceit (misrep), which satisfies the clean hands doctrine and authorizes the court to leave her without a remedy. I don't know if you realize how hard that is to get from a judge. It's practically impossible in family court against a woman. The gods smile upon you!

I think your ex will play nice now, although she probably has a little voodoo doll lying around with some of your hair and fingernail clippings and some hatpins stuck in it!

>THANKS for all of your help and ideas on this issue.

You're welcome.

[socrateaser]

Send me a copy of that finding to [email protected], and include a thank you note. I want this one for my office wall!

[reagantrooper]

Soc
email sent with attachments. Please let me know if it worked
Thanks

[socrateaser]

.