utdivorce
Gold
Reged: 02/26/07
Posts: 147
|
|
Quit or laid off it doesn't matter. What does matter is that your children are taken care of. And if he is not doing his part, maybe you should lead by example instead of crying for more $$$$.
|
justme1961
Gold
Reged: 03/11/08
Posts: 100
Loc: NH
|
|
Sorry, I am not crying for more money. I do take care of my children, shouldn't he also? They are his kids too.
|
movingon2
Platinum
Reged: 12/06/07
Posts: 209
|
|
[quote]Quit or laid off it doesn't matter. What does matter is that your children are taken care of. And if he is not doing his part, maybe you should lead by example instead of crying for more $$$$. [/quote]
Crying for more $$$$? Your statement is absurd. It appears that this person is setting a fine example to her children and doing a darn good job of taking care of them ALL BY HERSELF.
|
andyscouse
New
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 20
|
|
I agree - justme1961 looks as though she's doing a fine job.
In my situation, I have an ex who works at Wal-Mart, but conveniently she was admitted into a psych hospital in late 2006 to avoid paying me CS (I haven't ever received any from her, and have had the two children from the start); as the agreement stated she'd start paying me after working full time for a year (and she was admitted before the end of a full year).
Now, it appears she's doing the same, probably to try and get alimony. She was Section 12'd in Feb '08 (which I didn't find out about until Apr '08, *after* we'd done a revised visitation judgment in Mar '08!). I have motions on for May 22 to suspend her legal custody & visitation and Change the Venue to my county. Her and her lawyer better hadn't bring up alimony again, because I will fight it all the way.
Any ideas on this situation : where the non-custodial parent ends up in a psych hospital / ward of state? I don't believe I should have to pay alimony (and will not do so under any circumstance), as this would indeed be a blight to my children (and me, and my wife & her children). This is in MA, so liberal-city, I'm afraid!
Edited by andyscouse (05/19/08 11:54 AM)
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4839
|
|
It's VERY rare for alimony to be awarded to a non-custodial parent. The courts aren't supposed to consider the issue of whether or not there are children, but they do. Realistically, the parent who gets the kids needs to NOT be paying out money to the non-custodial parent. On the other hand, the judges MIGHT decide to set "alimony" as a fictional number to be about the amount of what child support should be, so that they'd equal each other out and the parent in psychiatric care would neither receive money nor have to pay out any.
If your children are the children of a disabled person who is likely to be a deadbeat and unable to care for the kids because of whatever emotional disability they suffer from, it's so much better to support the claim of disability and then make a claim for social security to be sent to you for "dependent of disabled" person, and have it CLEAR that you AGREE that they're disabled to the extent that they cannot properly care for the children so that (a), you'll at least get SOMETHING to help defray the financing of thier care... your ex is not likely to provide it if she's not capable of holding down a job because of her mental disability and (b), there will be no question that she will be able to come in and claim that she should be primary residential parent, because you should say her disability prevents her from being an appropriate parent (most disabilities do not prevent this, but an emotional disability is the one area that prevents a person from being an appropriate parent, being emotionally unable to provide the proper emotional support, to endure the stress of parenting, to provide a good example of how to work through stresses... not to mention the times when they may be simply incapable of getting out of bed ... as some depressive disabilities are... I'd NEVER say a person with a normal disability couldn't be a parent, but it seems that a person with YOUR EX's disability... mental ... causing her to be several states away from your children... etc... IS cause for saying she's not a fit parent).
If you're going to get nothing anyways because of her disability, why not use that information and get yourself the government aid to which your children are entitled?
|
andyscouse
New
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 20
|
|
Interesting, and thank you - I'll read your reply in detail ... but from what I gleaned reading it just now, that sounds excatly the kind of situation I am in!
Cheers!
|
andyscouse
New
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 20
|
|
Now my ex's lawyer only just sent me an email to say her client can't attend on Thu (doctor's say-so), and wants me to postpone. I have no intention of postponing, and intend to get at least the Change of Venue motion approved. I also await her lawyer trying to threaten me with fees, etc for going ahead with Thursday. She did that when requesting May 1 to be postponed (to this Thursday). I think her problem is that she's just an "of counsel" and is being "hard" to try and "prove" her worth and make partner. Well, she's got some opposition!
Am I crazy, or can a Motion go ahead in these circumstances?
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4839
|
|
No, "of counsel" usually is not trying to make partner. They're usually very well connected and just wanting the business structure of a larger business, the office space, etc. They tend to have thier own caseloads and reputations and are doing quite well on thier own but just want a reliable copy machine, receptionist, delivery service, billing & collections department. They're often not willing to work full time for the firm they're with or they're not willing to take the reduction in pay.
It's quite common for them to ask for you to pay thier fees if you're unreasonably not agreeing to something.
It's unreasonable to not agree to something like a continuance if they've got a reasonable conflict, like they're going to surgery or something. It's common practice... you refuse to agree to something reasonable, thereby costing her more in fees, it's only reasonable that you should pay the fees.
THe only time it's appropriate to object to a continuance when a person is scheduled for surgery is if they conveniently have surgery at the last minute every time you get within a week of a hearing... and just two missed hearings with advanced warning that she has issues that are going to keep her from the hearing are NOT enough to say that she's malingering (faking sick)... which is really what you're complaining about.
Your best bet is to object to the continuance and having them re-set for a hearing in ADVANCE of the current date to avoid your stbx's surgery times. OR to object becasue she knew or should have known of this surgery well before MOnday of a week when trial is scheduled for THursday.
If she's sick, if she needs surgery and has travel issues, you're going to look like a jerk if you dont' bend over backwards to do right by her sickness. And if what you read earlier takes, you'll understand that it might be in your best interests to accept that she is really ill.
|
andyscouse
New
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 20
|
|
In regard to the illness, it's a mental illness (she refuses to give details). If it were surgery, of course I would not be opposed to the request.
I allowed them a continuance on 1 May to 22 May. 3 - 4 weeks should have been plenty of time [in the psych hosptal], and they should have let me know earlier. I think she's intimidated by the fact that I am ready and willing to go pro se against her. She actually moved the motion date *before* I had called the court to do so - and as they are my motions, that is an unethical thing to do; that, and the fact she knew about her "client"'s Section 12 in Feb, but neither of them told me - the BBO will be hearing of that as well.
This lawyer can bleat all she wants for fees, but she won't get any [from me]. She thinks she's "it", and I cannot give in to that; I have my boys' wellbeing to think of, and that is of far greater import.
Therefore, I will deny her lawyer's request, and meet her face-to-face on Thursday, where we can talk this thing through, both in front of the judge and in mediation. Her "client" does not need to be there.
We shall see how "hard" she is when I call her tomorrow to tell her to appear Thursday.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4839
|
|
I understand wanting to have a game face on, and trash talking the opponent, but it does not work well in court. Consider showing some respect and consideration for the fact that this woman is working in the same field as the judge is trained, and disrespect for that field is probably counterproductive to your cause if it makes the judge think you are being arrogant about things.
Your children need you to be showing what a reasonable, responsible parent you are who wants to encourage the maximum reasonable contact between them and their other parent. You can't help it that she's a nutcase (don't use that word) and neither can they, so there may be some kind of accomodations needed.
If she is in a mental hospital, committed or in some program, then she may very well not be out in 3 weeks. Lots of programs require a minimum of 28 days.
Your best bet here is to ask why the hell they didn't disclose to you that it was a mental disorder, why they didn't know about the ened for a second continuance before hand, when they think they WILL be ready to hear this case or are they contemplating delaying it into infinity. And if they have a reasonable answer, like, "we can go next week", then go with that...
Be reasonable, a little contrite, not at all arrogant. You'll see the best lawyers... the best ones who have been trained with 3 years of post-college law school, who have lots of experience in front of judges, who win thier cases.... are not at ALL arrogant, do NOT browbeat people, will act almost solicitous of others in and around the courtroom. When a pro-se person walks in with a chip on their shoulder about how much better they're prepared than the stupid paid lawyer on the other side... it's generally not a good result.
I know you're about to say, "I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the act that she's got a lawyer..." but the thing is, what you've said... it looks an AWFUL lot like you've got a chip on your shoulder about it. I understand... game face & trash talk and being aggressive and not backing down & all... but... it combines to look like a chip on your shoulder and you might want to tone it down ... at least for when you come face to face.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
