Entering orders 17 months later ???

[DecentDad]

Hi Soc,

I've received a cc from OC on correspondence to the court regarding a May 2005 hearing (yes, 2005).

BACKGROUND

OC didn't prepare orders from that OSC, so I did a couple weeks later.  OC didn't object within 4 weeks (more than required to wait), and I submitted them to the court to be entered.

OC says they were never entered.  I haven't gone to the courthouse yet to check.

At that May 2005 hearing, judge ordered that after consulting with me, mom can pick the school and pay for the school.

May 2005 judge also said - straight from the transcript and as his final statement about school selection, "...let me make this clear.  If you (mom) want the public school that is for your residence, no consultation needed with dad.  But if you want any other school, public or private, it has to be within ten miles of Respondent's home, with costs born by mom."

Now, in July 2006 orders after hearing, a new judge entered his own boilerplate language stating that parents jointly decide about education, though it wasn't ever mentioned in the respective hearing.

For the past few months, OC made several attempts to have me stip to language that overrides the July 2006 orders about school, so it reflects the May 2005 orders.  I said fine, let's correct one other nominal thing too about the July 2006 orders.  They said fine.

But their proposed language repeatedly veered from what was originally ordered (in the transcript).  I repeatedly advised to take it straight from the transcript.  They kept trying to get around that 10 mile distance barrier (from my home).

---------------------

PRESENT DAY

OC has written to the new current judge, asking him to enter orders from the May 2005 hearing.

Despite the transcript above, OC is proposing orders that read, "On school selection, Petitioner shall consult with Respondent and then select child's school.  The school shall not be more than 10 miles from Petitioner's residence."

To be clear, they're proposing language that keeps the school within 10 miles of mom's home, not mine (as originally ordered, to ensure distance isn't a burden on me).  There is nothing anywhere in the transcript that allows for that interpretation.

There's one other relevant issue in the orders after hearing, which is identical to what I proposed.

In 2005, Petitioner selected the K-8 school for child.  It was 10 miles away from my home (45 minutes away in morning traffic).  In summer 2005, my wife and I moved to be a few miles away from the school.

As Petitioner has paid her attorney several hours to regain school selection and modify it to be within 10 miles of HER home, it's apparent to me that she's wanting to change schools.  She denies it.


1.  The court entered orders July 2006.  These orders state that parents jointly make education decisions.  OC never objected, moved to vacate, moved to clarify, moved to correct, or moved to reconsider.  She now wants orders from a May 2005 hearing entered in Oct 2006-- isn't this just a veiled OSC to modify the July 2006 orders?!  Else, what's to stop me from reviewing our file, seeing what was never entered that was more favorable to me in the past, and now ask the court to enter it as though it's effective in current day?

2.  How else should I respond?  Is the draft letter (posted below) appropriate?

Thanks,
DD

[DecentDad]

Dear Hon. Judge J,

I'm in receipt of a correspondence sent to you on October 25 from Ms. Attorney for Petitioner, asking this court to enter orders from a May 2005 hearing.

Your orders entered July 2006 clearly state that parties are to jointly make educational decisions for minor child XXXX.  Ms. Attorney filed no objections to your orders.

Via ex parte correspondence, Ms. Attorney now requests that this court modify its July 2006 orders on education decisions.  It's my understanding that it would be proper for Petitioner to file an OSC if she wants to modify the July 2006 orders.

In May 2005, minor child XXXX was in preschool.  In October 2006, she is now in first grade and stable in her K-8 school that Petitioner herself already selected.  There are seven years before the parents need to select a new school.  There is no existing conflict about education decisions.

Further, Ms. Attorney never timely submitted orders to the court for the May 2005 hearing.  Because Ms. Attorney didn't,  I took the liberty to draft orders for submitting to the court.  Ms. Attorney waived objections by not responding timely.  Enclosed is correspondence sent to Judge D in June 2005 stating the same, accompanied by the orders I submitted to the court to be entered (some of which are now superceded by Your Honor's July 2006 orders).

Finally, Ms. Attorney now willfully misleads this court in this matter.  She is in possession of the May 2005 hearing transcript, which she provided to Your Honor.  Page 13, line 27 to page 14, line 5 clearly and unequivocably states that the school Petitioner selects MUST be within ten miles of the Respondent's home.  Moreover, I've repeatedly advised Ms. Attorney that she has been inventing her own proposed orders, rather than following Judge D's ruling - an example of such advisory is enclosed.

Petitioner has spent several hours of attorney fees recently in efforts to create orders that give her complete authority to change XXXX's school on her whim, and at whatever distance from my home that she wishes.  I've already moved once to be closer to XXX's school, since I pick her up on 40% of schooldays.  To give one parent in a joint custody situation such unilateral authority to disrupt a child's stability and select schooling far from the other parent at least deserves a hearing, if Petitioner elects to pursue it.

At this point, I request that Your Honor take no action on Ms. Attorney's October 25 correspondence and let her file an OSC to argue best interest with regard to modifying the recent July 2006 orders so that I may respond and minor's counsel may be present.

Sincerely,

DD



Cc:  OC and minor's counsel

[socrateaser]

>Hi Soc,
>
>I've received a cc from OC on correspondence to the court
>regarding a May 2005 hearing (yes, 2005).
>
>BACKGROUND
>
>OC didn't prepare orders from that OSC, so I did a couple
>weeks later.  OC didn't object within 4 weeks (more than
>required to wait), and I submitted them to the court to be
>entered.
>
>OC says they were never entered.  I haven't gone to the
>courthouse yet to check.
>
>At that May 2005 hearing, judge ordered that after consulting
>with me, mom can pick the school and pay for the school.
>
>May 2005 judge also said - straight from the transcript and as
>his final statement about school selection, "...let me make
>this clear.  If you (mom) want the public school that is for
>your residence, no consultation needed with dad.  But if you
>want any other school, public or private, it has to be within
>ten miles of Respondent's home, with costs born by mom."
>
>Now, in July 2006 orders after hearing, a new judge entered
>his own boilerplate language stating that parents jointly
>decide about education, though it wasn't ever mentioned in the
>respective hearing.
>
>For the past few months, OC made several attempts to have me
>stip to language that overrides the July 2006 orders about
>school, so it reflects the May 2005 orders.  I said fine,
>let's correct one other nominal thing too about the July 2006
>orders.  They said fine.
>
>But their proposed language repeatedly veered from what was
>originally ordered (in the transcript).  I repeatedly advised
>to take it straight from the transcript.  They kept trying to
>get around that 10 mile distance barrier (from my home).
>
>---------------------
>
>PRESENT DAY
>
>OC has written to the new current judge, asking him to enter
>orders from the May 2005 hearing.
>
>Despite the transcript above, OC is proposing orders that
>read, "On school selection, Petitioner shall consult with
>Respondent and then select child's school.  The school shall
>not be more than 10 miles from Petitioner's residence."
>
>To be clear, they're proposing language that keeps the school
>within 10 miles of mom's home, not mine (as originally
>ordered, to ensure distance isn't a burden on me).  There is
>nothing anywhere in the transcript that allows for that
>interpretation.
>
>There's one other relevant issue in the orders after hearing,
>which is identical to what I proposed.
>
>In 2005, Petitioner selected the K-8 school for child.  It was
>10 miles away from my home (45 minutes away in morning
>traffic).  In summer 2005, my wife and I moved to be a few
>miles away from the school.
>
>As Petitioner has paid her attorney several hours to regain
>school selection and modify it to be within 10 miles of HER
>home, it's apparent to me that she's wanting to change
>schools.  She denies it.
>
>
>1.  The court entered orders July 2006.  These orders state
>that parents jointly make education decisions.  OC never
>objected, moved to vacate, moved to clarify, moved to correct,
>or moved to reconsider.  She now wants orders from a May 2005
>hearing entered in Oct 2006-- isn't this just a veiled OSC to
>modify the July 2006 orders?!  Else, what's to stop me from
>reviewing our file, seeing what was never entered that was
>more favorable to me in the past, and now ask the court to
>enter it as though it's effective in current day?

This is an intentional violation of due process -- OC should be disbarred, IMHO. OC is attempting to enter an order without any hearing -- ex parte or otherwise. Adjust your correspondence so that this result cannot be missed by the court.

Also, make sure that your correspondence directly states that OC is attempting to change the 10 mile radius from the court's instruction that it be from your residence, to Petitioner's, and attach the transcript as proof.

>
>2.  How else should I respond?  Is the draft letter (posted
>below) appropriate?

It's pretty good -- try and shorten it as much as possible, and fix what I suggest above.

[DecentDad]

.