Long Post, Camden Cty strategy query w/history

[dadwho]

Hi Soc,

Couple points.  First, visitation has been consistent since the decree in 4/04.  Despite my being nearby as of 1/05, visitation has remained one weekend each month and one evening a week (which I talked them into), now with ex-mandated counseling during the week.  And, again, Middlesex County told this case to take a walk in 11/04, and ruled that jurisdiction had passed to Maryland.

I don't want what was originally ordered ("entitled to") because it presumed I lived 400 miles away.  For the past 8 months I've been a 1/2 hour away.  That's a significant change in circumstances and certainly warrants reconsideration, and affects the status quo.

So, I think (and originally posted) that starting with the original order and building a path does makes sense.  I accept the funny business as a part of my ex's mental illness.  That's not something I can control.  What I won't accept is choking off time with our daughter.  Whether that qualifies as placing the child in harm's way may be up to a clinician's fuzzy dice as interpreted by some Mystery Judge in Camden.

I also can't manage to be quite so jaded, Soc:  "The fact that the other parent may have alienated the child from you, is not particularly relevant..."  Dude, it's not about injury to me so much as it is continued destruction of our relationship and injury to our daughter.  I continue to find that unacceptable.

From the GAL report (clinician with 25 years experience and GAL for over 220 removal cases) yeah, irrelevant it may be,  but simply background:

"This examiner is particularly concerned that the child remain exposed to frequent and continuous positive interactions with her biological father.  This recommendation is based on the evidence that a positive bond/attachment between the father and his daughter has been formed since birth and that this bond-attachment existed up until the point of the parental separation earlier this year when moderately increased experiences of alienation of the daughter from the father and an over-alignment of the daughter with the mother occurred.  This examiner believes that there is a subsequent increased risk for disruption of the father-daughter bond/attachment if the level of interactions between them lessens over time."

So it's windmill time.  :-)

[dadwho]

Thanks Soc.

Again, MA has already said, "bu-bye" on 11/4 after I tried to see my daughter more (tried to go from 8 to 10 weekends per year, which, of course is irrelevant).  So I have a motion from the other side which was ordered that grants jurisidiction to MD.  That's why I filed to enroll it in MD, not knowing that they had planned to move to NJ for quite some time and just wouldn't tell me.  So, I figure a mod in Mass is a total waste of time and, after MD, had filed briefly to protect myself on the support issue back in MA.  Once I knew they had landed in NJ, I pulled the request for mod in MA, citing changes in both residences, residence of the child and custodial parent outside MA for almost a year at that point, and the order of the Court itself saying "good riddance."

Just double checking on the PA possibility./Dadwho

[socrateaser]

>Thanks Soc.
>
>Again, MA has already said, "bu-bye" on 11/4 after I tried to
>see my daughter more (tried to go from 8 to 10 weekends per
>year, which, of course is irrelevant).  So I have a motion
>from the other side which was ordered that grants
>jurisidiction to MD.  That's why I filed to enroll it in MD,
>not knowing that they had planned to move to NJ for quite some
>time and just wouldn't tell me.  So, I figure a mod in Mass is
>a total waste of time and, after MD, had filed briefly to
>protect myself on the support issue back in MA.  Once I knew
>they had landed in NJ, I pulled the request for mod in MA,
>citing changes in both residences, residence of the child and
>custodial parent outside MA for almost a year at that point,
>and the order of the Court itself saying "good riddance."
>
>Just double checking on the PA possibility./Dadwho

I miscommunicated, but it's not particularly relevant. Register in NJ and move to enforce and clarify. PA has no jurisdiction, because the child has never resided therein.

[jolawanda]

do ya like your nads?

if you answer yes......run from NJ

if you answer no.....GO to NJ


now THAT is nuf said!!!!!!!

:7

[dadwho]

Not to clutter up the Board de Socrateaser but...

I like my testicles very much thanks.  And, they've remained attached after Massachusetts.   In fact, mis huevos are the reason I'm *going* to Jersey friend.

But through family court in Mass, a taste in Maryland and now in Jersey, I developed a slogan of sorts early on that still stands:  "It can always get worse; sometimes it gets better."  :+