Q on relevance of a matter

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

Reminder - biomom filed for sole custody, based on nothing.

In my response, I'm hammering that biomom is increasingly struggling in her life, has significant mental issues that appear to be getting worse, and is having increasing difficulty providing stability for child.

I'm not only opposing the sole custody attempt, but I'm also requesting we now go to 50/50 a bit earlier than custody evaluator recommended to start in 2006.

I recently got preschool attendance records.  In May and June 2005, there were 36 days of preschool.  On 24 of the 36, biomom brought daughter more than 30 minutes late, or took her out more than an hour early, or had her absent altogether (i.e., absences were about half of these).

The preschool had the same schedule daily, with different activities within the schedule (e.g., art was always the same time, but new art on different days).

No other kid had to endure such craziness in constantly coming/going/missing things (i.e., the attendance records are actual copies of the sign-in/sign-out sheets I received from the school, showing biomom's signature along with other parents).

Biomom, in her pleadings, claimed that daughter is "always very cranky" and "anxious" in her home, though she concludes it's a result of me.  I've consistently declared (and continue to) that daughter thrives in my home, that I don't recognize the child biomom describes.

Preschool director has spoken candidly with me about biomom's issues, but always prefacing her comments as off the record because she doesn't want to get involved.  She let me make copies of the attendance records.

1.  I know preschool doesn't "count" in the court's eyes as mandatory, but would it be worthwhile to include in my response the recent attendance records?  I'd use it to help support my contention that the chaos and struggle in biomom's life prevents this child from having any predictability or routine; and biomom seems unaware that a young child needs those things.

Congrats on the recent wins you've seen vicariously through other posters!

:)

[socrateaser]

>1.  I know preschool doesn't "count" in the court's eyes as
>mandatory, but would it be worthwhile to include in my
>response the recent attendance records?  I'd use it to help
>support my contention that the chaos and struggle in biomom's
>life prevents this child from having any predictability or
>routine; and biomom seems unaware that a young child needs
>those things.

I think that you should steer clear of describing the other parent as mentally disturbed or in distress unless you have credible expert proof to back it up.

I think that the preschool records could be submitted to show that the mother's allegations of your inconstent parenting as being the reasons for the child's anxiousness, are nothing when compared to mother's own inconsistent parenting, and therefore that it is more likely than not, that the mother is the actual cause of any anxiety that she may be observing.

However, you are not seeing any of this anxiety when the child is in your care.

You need to seem level headed, only interested in the child's best interests, and not interested AT ALL in bashing the Mom.

Bashing the other parent is the surest way to get the court to believe that you are hostile and vindictive and only interested in yourself. So let the other parent do that. Take the HIGH road.

[DecentDad]

Okay, that would be my gut approach to this, and it's the style in which I'm WAY more comfortable writing.

However, in our prior exchanges of nearly a month ago, immediately after you reviewed biomom's declaration and learned of the actual events (per me explaining her distortions/delusions), you suggested my response should insinuate that biomom's problems are a result of her own "mental illness", enough to warrant a psych eval at this time.

No doubt, her exact words are now a faint memory for you given your pro bono load, but that was your initial reaction.  So, I've been trying to build a case to that end.

BTW, 730 evaluator concluded in 2004 that biomom has some psychological challenges including abnormal paranoia, limited capacity to accept responsibility for any conflicts or difficulties in her life, and tendency to shift blame onto others.  (but obviously not bad enough to lose majority timeshare at that time).

1.  Any thoughts on your prior thoughts (when you were momentarily immersed in the pleadings)?

2.  In my response, "I recall" that the evaluator said that about her... so, it's not me concluding it on my own.  That's how I explain some of her actions.  Appropriate?

3.  Supposed I'm building my response via snippets of her past declarations and depositions, and simply let her own words speak to her instabilities/paranoia/venom as fuel for her instant action.  Would you still view that as bashing?

Thanks,
DD

[socrateaser]

>1.  Any thoughts on your prior thoughts (when you were
>momentarily immersed in the pleadings)?

Yes. When I suggested that you respond to each and every allegation, I didn't mean to turn it into a he-said, she-said kind of affair. What I meant is that your responses should be calm and succinct, not really dismissive, but rather "Huh? No objective evidence for Ms. X's allegation here exists," or "On ??/??/????, such and such happened, which demonstrates that Ms. X's allegation is unreasonable."

And, so on with the next issue.

Remeber, the judge doesn't know you from Adam, and he will expect you to be a hostile actor, so demonstrate that you are a reasonable guy who just wants to move on with his life, and you don't know why your ex wants to play in court, but here's the rebuttal evidence, now, if there's nothing else, your honor, I'd really like to have this nonsense dismissed.

>
>2.  In my response, "I recall" that the evaluator said that
>about her... so, it's not me concluding it on my own.  That's
>how I explain some of her actions.  Appropriate?

She raised the evaluator report, so no reason why you shouldn't return the favor. Tell the court that you would be happy to have the report unsealed and for the court to examine it in view of Ms. X's current allegations.

>
>3.  Supposed I'm building my response via snippets of her past
>declarations and depositions, and simply let her own words
>speak to her instabilities/paranoia/venom as fuel for her
>instant action.  Would you still view that as bashing?

No. I'd view that as lawyer like.

[DecentDad]

.

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

Reminder - biomom filed for sole custody, based on nothing.

In my response, I'm hammering that biomom is increasingly struggling in her life, has significant mental issues that appear to be getting worse, and is having increasing difficulty providing stability for child.

I'm not only opposing the sole custody attempt, but I'm also requesting we now go to 50/50 a bit earlier than custody evaluator recommended to start in 2006.

I recently got preschool attendance records.  In May and June 2005, there were 36 days of preschool.  On 24 of the 36, biomom brought daughter more than 30 minutes late, or took her out more than an hour early, or had her absent altogether (i.e., absences were about half of these).

The preschool had the same schedule daily, with different activities within the schedule (e.g., art was always the same time, but new art on different days).

No other kid had to endure such craziness in constantly coming/going/missing things (i.e., the attendance records are actual copies of the sign-in/sign-out sheets I received from the school, showing biomom's signature along with other parents).

Biomom, in her pleadings, claimed that daughter is "always very cranky" and "anxious" in her home, though she concludes it's a result of me.  I've consistently declared (and continue to) that daughter thrives in my home, that I don't recognize the child biomom describes.

Preschool director has spoken candidly with me about biomom's issues, but always prefacing her comments as off the record because she doesn't want to get involved.  She let me make copies of the attendance records.

1.  I know preschool doesn't "count" in the court's eyes as mandatory, but would it be worthwhile to include in my response the recent attendance records?  I'd use it to help support my contention that the chaos and struggle in biomom's life prevents this child from having any predictability or routine; and biomom seems unaware that a young child needs those things.

Congrats on the recent wins you've seen vicariously through other posters!

:)

[socrateaser]

>1.  I know preschool doesn't "count" in the court's eyes as
>mandatory, but would it be worthwhile to include in my
>response the recent attendance records?  I'd use it to help
>support my contention that the chaos and struggle in biomom's
>life prevents this child from having any predictability or
>routine; and biomom seems unaware that a young child needs
>those things.

I think that you should steer clear of describing the other parent as mentally disturbed or in distress unless you have credible expert proof to back it up.

I think that the preschool records could be submitted to show that the mother's allegations of your inconstent parenting as being the reasons for the child's anxiousness, are nothing when compared to mother's own inconsistent parenting, and therefore that it is more likely than not, that the mother is the actual cause of any anxiety that she may be observing.

However, you are not seeing any of this anxiety when the child is in your care.

You need to seem level headed, only interested in the child's best interests, and not interested AT ALL in bashing the Mom.

Bashing the other parent is the surest way to get the court to believe that you are hostile and vindictive and only interested in yourself. So let the other parent do that. Take the HIGH road.

[DecentDad]

Okay, that would be my gut approach to this, and it's the style in which I'm WAY more comfortable writing.

However, in our prior exchanges of nearly a month ago, immediately after you reviewed biomom's declaration and learned of the actual events (per me explaining her distortions/delusions), you suggested my response should insinuate that biomom's problems are a result of her own "mental illness", enough to warrant a psych eval at this time.

No doubt, her exact words are now a faint memory for you given your pro bono load, but that was your initial reaction.  So, I've been trying to build a case to that end.

BTW, 730 evaluator concluded in 2004 that biomom has some psychological challenges including abnormal paranoia, limited capacity to accept responsibility for any conflicts or difficulties in her life, and tendency to shift blame onto others.  (but obviously not bad enough to lose majority timeshare at that time).

1.  Any thoughts on your prior thoughts (when you were momentarily immersed in the pleadings)?

2.  In my response, "I recall" that the evaluator said that about her... so, it's not me concluding it on my own.  That's how I explain some of her actions.  Appropriate?

3.  Supposed I'm building my response via snippets of her past declarations and depositions, and simply let her own words speak to her instabilities/paranoia/venom as fuel for her instant action.  Would you still view that as bashing?

Thanks,
DD

[socrateaser]

>1.  Any thoughts on your prior thoughts (when you were
>momentarily immersed in the pleadings)?

Yes. When I suggested that you respond to each and every allegation, I didn't mean to turn it into a he-said, she-said kind of affair. What I meant is that your responses should be calm and succinct, not really dismissive, but rather "Huh? No objective evidence for Ms. X's allegation here exists," or "On ??/??/????, such and such happened, which demonstrates that Ms. X's allegation is unreasonable."

And, so on with the next issue.

Remeber, the judge doesn't know you from Adam, and he will expect you to be a hostile actor, so demonstrate that you are a reasonable guy who just wants to move on with his life, and you don't know why your ex wants to play in court, but here's the rebuttal evidence, now, if there's nothing else, your honor, I'd really like to have this nonsense dismissed.

>
>2.  In my response, "I recall" that the evaluator said that
>about her... so, it's not me concluding it on my own.  That's
>how I explain some of her actions.  Appropriate?

She raised the evaluator report, so no reason why you shouldn't return the favor. Tell the court that you would be happy to have the report unsealed and for the court to examine it in view of Ms. X's current allegations.

>
>3.  Supposed I'm building my response via snippets of her past
>declarations and depositions, and simply let her own words
>speak to her instabilities/paranoia/venom as fuel for her
>instant action.  Would you still view that as bashing?

No. I'd view that as lawyer like.

[DecentDad]

.