Aaaa, got served with response. ?s on relevance

[DecentDad]

Okay, got the responsive declaration re clarified orders.

A) She says how litigious and harassing I am, offering evidence that I wrote her attorney 4 times in past month (yeah, trying to settle), outlining that in the past 2 months, I've done OSC for contempt (and lost), school selection, and now all the order clarifications.

B) She introduces (yet again) 2002 declaration from a former employer (multiple convicted criminal and social extremist) of mine who vowed vengeance against me when I left his organization in 1999.  I resigned, citing that we simply had different approaches to running the organization (I was Director, he was President of the Board and a wacko).  His declaration calls me a rage-filled woman hater, an overly litigious person (huh?), an unethical business person, and a person devoid of compassion because he found out that I had to find a home for my elderly dog (due to growling at my daughter).  Custody evaluator's report dismissed the credibility of this same declaration.

C) She says that she has pulled daughter out of preschool on Fridays so she can attend ballet class (nothing to do with attempt to frustrate Friday exchanges), and I'm an awful father to want to prevent daughter's ballet class (though I already declared that I could take daugther to ballet on Friday).

D) She concocted a word-processed log, showing all the alleged dates that I talked to daughter by phone.  Totally fraudulent document.  It's now he-said-she-said on this, but if she's so cooperative, I'd ask why not just agree to clarify how telephone contact works (i.e., 5pm to 7pm, make child available).

E) She declared she'll agree to "uninterrupted" 2 weeks summer vacation if she can also have the week prior to school start (i.e., she wants 3 weeks' vacation).  The orders say, "uninterrupted", so I'm just asking court to clarify it's a mandate, not an option.

School is being decided same day in court, so I want to maintain some credibility on that.  I've argued merits with objective measures (distance, cost, standardized tests, state rank, after-school enrichment, etc).  She's mostly relied on "private schools are better than public schools, so his position is ridiculous" as her primary argument along with all of her feelings about how she knows what's best for child.


1.  Worth replying to any of it via a Reply Declaration?  I know you've previously said Reply Decs aren't customary, but all three lawyers I've had in my jurisdiction did them as a matter of routine.

2.  I can get my employer of 3 years to write a dec saying I'm a wonderful person, a great employee.  Think the court will care about that other dec from a prior employer I had prior to child's birth?

3.  I have a declaration from a prior attorney that describes mother as one of the most difficult people she's ever had to negotiate with, that mother refused to agree even to standard clauses that are pre-printed on stip forms, claiming it was all my way to control her.  Relevant to submit?

4.  Custody evaluator report described mother's psychological issues (some abnormalities, difficulty with on-going conflict, refusal to accept responsibility for her problems); but obviously not bad enough to lose custody.  Relevant to mention per my recollection (i.e., report is sealed)?

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,
DD

[socrateaser]

>1.  Worth replying to any of it via a Reply Declaration?  I
>know you've previously said Reply Decs aren't customary, but
>all three lawyers I've had in my jurisdiction did them as a
>matter of routine.

Seems a waste of time to me. What is this declaration supposed to prove? It's inadmissible hearsay, anyway.

>
>2.  I can get my employer of 3 years to write a dec saying I'm
>a wonderful person, a great employee.  Think the court will
>care about that other dec from a prior employer I had prior to
>child's birth?

I think she's just trying to get you distracted. If she raises the issue in court, I'd object to it as hearsay, and then I'd mention that it is beneath the standard of the profession for an attorney to resort to this sort of prejudicial and immaterial rhetorical tactic, obviously intended to throw a pro se litigant off, and for no other relevant purpose, except to placate her client and raise her fees.

That would make her wet her panties.

>
>3.  I have a declaration from a prior attorney that describes
>mother as one of the most difficult people she's ever had to
>negotiate with, that mother refused to agree even to standard
>clauses that are pre-printed on stip forms, claiming it was
>all my way to control her.  Relevant to submit?

If you want to sink to your opponent's level. I'd prefer to note that the level has been sunk to by the other side, and leave it at that.

>
>4.  Custody evaluator report described mother's psychological
>issues (some abnormalities, difficulty with on-going conflict,
>refusal to accept responsibility for her problems); but
>obviously not bad enough to lose custody.  Relevant to mention
>per my recollection (i.e., report is sealed)?

I don't know what you're trying to prove, but it all seems like the exact sort of thing that judges do not want to listen to...pure bull!@#$.

[DecentDad]

Thanks for your help, as always.  :)

[DecentDad]

Hi,

You know I was served with a (titled) response declaration, but I realized it didn't include the responsive dec form on which party checks I Agree / I Don't Agree, I Agree to Other Orders, etc.  

She doesn't even title her declaration "in opposition to."

Biomom said in her Declaration that for purpose of settling this she'll agree with my interpretation of vacation, but only if my ability to take summer vacation is more restricted than currently ordered.  

So, I'm not quite sure if she has agreed to clarify per my request but is also asking the court to modify, or if she's somehow attempting to settle via way of submitted declarations.

Also, I told you she provided an exhibit that she called a correct copy of the phone log she keeps (i.e., she said it was a copy of the actual log).   What she served on me actually had two copies of that exhibit, at first glance, and I figured her attorney just messed up and included two photocopies.

When I looked more carefully, the two copies of the phone log are different.  Like she made one version (fax stamp header to her attorney on May 11), and went and back-dated additional entries in version two (fax stamp header to her attorney on May 12), along with other edits on times.  I was probably only supposed to get version 2.  Oops!  LOL

1.  Is her offer to agree to my interpretation of vacation, via way of declaration, reasonable grounds that she agrees to clarify orders on vacation and independent of the condition she's trying to put on it (i.e., she created this trouble in attempt to modify the orders in bad faith)?

2.  Is it even relevant that the "true copy" of her phone logs have at least two versions per what was served on me?  Her attorney is a slimeball, maybe coached her on the need for additional dates in her phone log, and at very least, clearly knew there are two versions represented as a "true copy" of the original phone log.


:)

DD

[socrateaser]

>1.  Is her offer to agree to my interpretation of vacation,
>via way of declaration, reasonable grounds that she agrees to
>clarify orders on vacation and independent of the condition
>she's trying to put on it (i.e., she created this trouble in
>attempt to modify the orders in bad faith)?

Don't worry about her responses. Go into court, tell the judge what you need and why, keep it short and sweet, express your desire to advance the child's best interests and not waste the court's time, and then wait for your opponent to respond. If she starts bad mouthing you, just object to it as irrelevant and immaterial, like, "Your honor, I don't understand why opposing counsel is using all this unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric, however, I am merely here to try to straighten out the existing parenting orders in the child's best interests."

>2.  Is it even relevant that the "true copy" of her phone logs
>have at least two versions per what was served on me?  Her
>attorney is a slimeball, maybe coached her on the need for
>additional dates in her phone log, and at very least, clearly
>knew there are two versions represented as a "true copy" of
>the original phone log.

I don't know why the logs are introduced, or what they are intended to prove. If the intent is to prevent you from setting up a regular calling schedule because you are unreasonably interfering with your ex's exercise of custody, by constantly calling the child, then I would just ask about the remarkable coincidence of Ms. X submitting two different phone logs showing two different series of events for the same time period, and then wonder about whether either one of them was an accurate record of past events.

Then, let the judge do something about it if he wants to. Let's face it, if the two logs are manufactured, and your ex submitted them both to court inadvertantly, that's a pretty contemptuous act. However, it may not be material to the case, because I don't know what she is hoping to prove.

[DecentDad]

I've declared that orders on phone access needs to be clarified because it's impossible to enforce or interpret "There shall be no restrictions on phone access between minor child and the parent currently not exercising custody."

I've asked for orders to clarify the phone access (among other things) to state that each parent shall make the child available by phone between 5pm and 7pm, which are enforceable orders.

My declaration outlines the huge difficulty I've had in reaching child by phone for the past three months.

Her phone log I guess is entered to show that I've manufactured these problems, and that orders are fine as is.

1.  But it's sounding like judge will want to spend all of 45 seconds on this, and I just play it by ear?

[socrateaser]

>I've declared that orders on phone access needs to be
>clarified because it's impossible to enforce or interpret
>"There shall be no restrictions on phone access between minor
>child and the parent currently not exercising custody."
>
>I've asked for orders to clarify the phone access (among other
>things) to state that each parent shall make the child
>available by phone between 5pm and 7pm, which are enforceable
>orders.
>
>My declaration outlines the huge difficulty I've had in
>reaching child by phone for the past three months.
>
>Her phone log I guess is entered to show that I've
>manufactured these problems, and that orders are fine as is.
>
>1.  But it's sounding like judge will want to spend all of 45
>seconds on this, and I just play it by ear?

Stick with the point. You don't want to keep bothering the court. You just want something that's easy to understand and enforce, so there will no longer be any arguments in interpretation.