# Lastinline: my court experience



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

LIL,

Remember when I advised you to not match with women in court? Well, I should have followed my own advice.

Thought I would share my experience to mirror yours.

Basically, I am paying household support now - which is more than child support and my wife filed a motion for 100% possession of the house. Haven't missed a payment but I only see the kids sporadically now between working 2 jobs. Luckily one of the jobs I am changing to is closer and I may get them a little more.

Here's essentially what happened - my attorney made a very eloquent argument, cited case law, exposed the weakness in my oppposition's position about having 100% posession of the house when we are both on the deed and mortgage, made a good case why "birdnesting" (where I come in and she leaves to care for children) is a good thing for the kids. Oh, they tried to make me seem like an ogre but really had no proof to submit at all.

I mean. . .even the judge starting questioning my wife, "Why cna't he come in and you leave?" I thought it was going my way.

My attorney was Perry Mason in action.

And you want to know what happened at the end?

She ruled in favor of my wife. LOL!!!! I'll admit my jaw dropped.

I own my own house and despite state statutes saying otherwise, my co-owner has barred me from my own home because she says it causes her and the kids "emotional distress" me being in the house.

Just like the book said. . .

Men. . .do not try to go to the mat against women in court. Always be prepared to lose no matter what the ridiculous motion they may file.

The woman could be a crack addict (but is in rehab) and a prostitute (but stopped yesterday) and the courts will not go against women. Mark my words - negotiate! Avoid court hearings at all cost!

I kinda *had *to go to court though, becuase she filed the motion. . .there was some issues with her demanding household support and child support and attorney costs that needed to be dismissed (and they were so I guess I was successfully defended on those points). . .and luckily, I really don't care *that *much. . .she can have 100% possession. I was going to help her mow the lawn, care for the pool, food shop (I always left her a gift card from the supermarket when I stayed before) and I know my oldest son was looking forward to the possibility of me being around in his environment 1 day/week - that's the saddest part. That and they don't really like being separated from their home to come visit me (but they can suck it up 1 day/week).

She won the battle but is losing the war. She is not enlisting my cooperation in raising the children, which I know is what she and her family wants. They want a piece of "Mr. Mom" back, the "ever-consummate father" and they think they can bully it out of me in court.

Her parents dreamnt of a condo in Florida. ..now they are helping to raise my offspring - that's their retirement.

Well, that's what happens when you raise an entitleistic brat.

(actually, technically, it was a "stalemate" ruling - the judge says she gets 100% possession of the home pending a full plenary hearing on what she thinks are material facts she wants to hear  - then we could possibly "birdnest" until the final divorce. . .so we get to air the entire drama in front of the court)

Anyway, I am just trying to plod forward with plans for my future.

This outcome isn't as bad as yours was. They are begging me to help with the kids whereas your wife was taking away your kids.

Funny how the opposition can be. . .you want the kids more. . .your wife takes them away as leverage. I want to work more and focus on providing. . .my wife wants me to take the kids more and is befuddled on how to accomplish that. It's almost tempting to use reverse psychology in these games.

The funny thing is if she would just stop trying to control me (probably the main downfall of our marriage), she would get a lot more involvement from me. I mean, a lot! It used to just be natural for me to call my kids, hey what are you doing. . .wanna do this. . .how about 1 or 2 or all 3 of you come over? Nope, it's got to be all 3 and on a schedule OR NONE DAMMIT!!! LOL.

She's trying to "train a cat" with me and it isn't working.


----------



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

Wow, thanks for sharing SG. I am starting to think that the purpose of family court is to secretly frustrate all parties. During our first meeting my wife wanted money and I wanted greater custody. Final score: her zero me zero. 

I have the money and free time she originally wanted, and she has my kids. All of my kids that are old enough to choose have stated that they'd rather live with me, so I suspect things will go poorly for my wife if I'm forced into petitioning for minor's counsel. 

I'm assuming the courts in their "wisdom" will at least let my four oldest kids pick their own home. However, I'd like to keep the 5 and 7 year old with them as well, as I'd hate to break up our family into even smaller pieces.

My next day in court is at the end of June if things go off as scheduled. I honestly feel badly for my wife as she is truly flailing at this point. I will try to continue to pray for her, but some days this is more than just hard, it's nearly impossible. 

I too have have picked up a second shift. I'll be working PRN on Saturdays. Coverage mostly, in an environment outside of my specialty. Fun. 

I love my kids SG. I'm the better parent, and my kids need me. The divorce hurts, but the cruel separation from my kids is unbearable. Like today, I couldn't take them to church, or to lunch afterward. Was she doing anything with them? No. She actually was gone, but she denies them to me simply because she can. This is one of the few things she has actually done to me that I honestly hate her for.

Yesterday, our Jujitsu team got together to watch UFC 114. My STBX said that my son could only go if she was permitted to drop him off and pick him up. Please, hands down her arrival at that party would have been the best fight of the evening by far. Although I can tell you she doesn't have an answer for my L leg, quick hands, or superior grappling skills, but few do.

I guess I just don't understand purposely difficult. I've told her that if you want the divorce; by all means divorce me. If you would like to reconcile then let's do the work to reconcile. I just can't tolerate her occupying this third position. That position being the one where I continue to pay for everything, but my children are denied access to their father, and I'm denied access to them. 

In closing, I have been very clear to her that it's time to play nice, or I will be going to war over custody. My 17, 15, 13, and 11 year old will all tell a very unflattering story of her parenting. 

I will do what I need to do to protect my kids from their mother. This isn't a "business deal" SG as I am willing to go "all out" to protect my kids. I have left my honor on the mat. I will pull no punches the next time we meet. I will even give her the rope to let her "hang herself" in court if needed. 

I'm sure the judge would love to hear about her rampant cursing and throwing of cell phones. Her cruel teasing of our 13 year old girl, and her repeated threats to "kick out" any children who displease her. She's even counting down to my oldest son's 18 birthday. She's told him the day he turns 18, she's "kicking his @ss out". The count is currently at 26. Why? I guess he reminds her too much of me. Hell, in retrospect maybe we'll get her a R.O. and some supervised visitation. 

LIL


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

LIL,

Well, I disagree with you vehmently that divorce is not some business transaction. It is. . .it's a changing of a business partnership because you both, even with minimal involvement from your sbt-x, will be responsible for raising your children, unless she totally flies the coop.

Even in that case, she'd still have to pay child support and send a check by law.

Anyway, what I will agree with is this statement:



> I am starting to think that the purpose of family court is to secretly frustrate all parties.


Very astute observation and probably one that was a little lost on me.

Rather than perhaps assume the judge/courts are female biased, my attorney said, "I think I know what she's trying to do - she's trying to force a settlement."

It does make sense - rather than just make a ruling. . she basically "kicked the can down the road" and said, "Well, you have 100% possession pending a plenary hearing."

To me, it would have been more simple to just say, "No, in the absence of any proven overt violent behavior, you are both owners of the house and this schedule of co-parenting the kids seems reasonable. You must find accomodations elsewhere for 1 day/week (2 overnights). Furthermore, if he wants to enter the premises, he must give 24 hours notice as a courtesy."

I would have thought that would have been a reasonable compromise. . .but maybe this way it DOES force a settlement because if we do go to a full plenary hearing, I doubt she can paint me to be an ogre. Maybe. . .you never know how much opposing counsel can make a case. She is saying I yelled and screamed at her in front of the kids (lie), she is saying I barged in (she left the door ajar and would enter slowly), she said the kids didn't want me there (they came running over, "Dad! Dad!"). . .who knows. Oh, yes, she said I left her notes on her bed (horrors! very violent behavior, lol)

The kicker is. . .she said to judge (via counsel) that if I get to come back in at all. . .then she's leaving with the kids (I guess I have cooties, lol). 

She would pick them and remove them from the home just because I get to be at the house 1 day/week/2 overnights and apparently stop paying bills and contributing.

I am not sure what kind of injuction I would then have to file to prevent foreclosure/default because we both need to share the bills. She would then pay household support I guess, pending a forced sale of the house, I supppose.

What's rather "Poetic" about this whole motion is, I was thinking this morning, is it's a Metaphor for our entire marriage. She had a significant downpayment we used to buy the house and throughout the marriage, I really never thought I was an "owner" of that house. She made me feel that way. The funny thing was I didn't even want to buy a house with her grandparent's money. . .I would have rather let it go for retirment and we save up together to buy a house. Even though I participating in paying the mortgage, taxes, the upkeep, the maintenance and repairs, and fully participated in child rearing, the purpose of the house, I really never thought it was "our house" - this is apparently confirmed by her motion and temporarily certified by the courts.


----------



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

SG, I downloaded that thing as well. It was a waste of 50 bucks if you ask me. I will agree that if a divorce was handled like a business negotiation that things would be far easier and better for both parties. However, thus far in my travels I haven't encountered "easy".

I wear a couple of hats in my life. It just so happens that I am the CEO of my two clinics. During my 11 year tenure I have successfully negotiated with banks, the city, county,and numerous providers. This time it's different. 

In business there has always been a give and take mentality. There has always been a concensus to reach compromise and find a position that has value for both parties. I just haven't noticed the same "spirit of fairness" in family court. If you have Sir, let me know and I'll see if I can change my venue. 

Sadly, divorce is emotional. If not you, then at least her. Look at your own situation SG; does she sound fair and rational to you? Does she sound like she is going to fire up a Power Point presentation when she speaks to you, or does she sound hurt? Mine sounds hurt, and the only thing she wants to share with me is her pain. 

So will I try to conduct "business" on the 21st of June when I'm in court? No. Why? Simply because I try not to go into business transactions with people who will exagerate, lie, and obstruct so as they can have their way.

Here's to "cheesy" internet downloads. If life's problems were only that simple to solve.

LIL


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

LIL,

Well, you are entitled to your opinion of course with your $50.00 but your divorce is still a business transaction. It's either a hostile one or a colloborative one. Really, divorce is just the final transaction/agreement of marriage (which are still subject to amendments for years to come following the decree).

Hell, marriage *is* a business. The business is 

A. Real estate management
B. Child-rearing
C. Asset accumulation

Since you are emotional about your kids, I would start doing some "self-talk" and just refer to it as "child-rearing agreement." It emotionally detaches you from being a "Father" - which is a loaded emotional word.

If she wants all of the kids all of the time ( a ridiculous, unreasonable request ) ask her why? What role do you think I should play? An uncle who visits on holidays? Just a wallet? Try to vet out her "business reasoning." And let her know your "business interests". . .that you have a vested interest in the outcome of your children as adults.

And yes, if she's totally unreasonable, then there are the courts.

Both of our wives are choosing to make it hostile, full of acrimony, and non-collaborative. . .respectful of our wishes and rights as the fathers and partial or full providers of our children and an agreement without compromise.

And the book is right - the outcome of your divorce is pre-set.

*putting my fingers to my head like Johnny Carson*

In my opinion, after you guys spend all the money on divorce attorneys and court, you will get the kids every other weekend and 1 overnight per week and perhaps your older kids get to decide where to live.

Because she's the woman.

The courts don't care if she was mean to your kids - her attorney is just going to say, "My client was disiplining her children in your absence and he shouldn't play armchair quarterback while he's absent. And we deny that event ever happened."

That's what I would say if I were her attorney.

Child support and/or alimony will be determined upon state guidelines and her education and contribution to the marital partnership.

That's it.

Your outcome has been pre-destined and there's little an attorney can do to change the outcome.

So knowing that, if you have a hostile transaction occurring in your business (i own mine as well), what do you do? Do you get emotional?

Of course not.

I mean, I admit - I was a little emotional about this but also just kind of amused and not let it bother me too much.

Let's say one of the landlords of your clinic is giving you a hard time about your lease saying you need to get out in 90 days. . .you go and get advised of your rights. . .perhaps you withhold rent pending an outcome (probably not that actually). . .you shop around and let him know you can move your business elsehwere. . whatever. . .you get the idea.

The idea is to not go in front of a judge because then you are surrendering control of the situation.

It's the same thing here. In essence, I am surrendering control when I let her take me to court. So is she. . .but the advantage is hers so I have to walk around the jijistu-mat and be wary of my opponent's advantage - the courts.

No of course our wives aren't reasonable. . .this is 50-90% of the reason we are both probably here. Mine told me once when before we were married, "I hope you know what you are doing. I can be difficult."

Lord. . .I had full disclosure but I was whipped and hormonal, I guess.

I just don't see the courts as a remedy to an unreasonable person. Yeah, sure. . .I would like a Judge Judy to lecture my stb-x about a lesson on entitlement mentality but that's small claims court TV and not real life. It ain't going to happen.


----------



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

OK, I get it SG...divorce is a business transaction. I can see you're very attached to this metaphor; so I will not attempt to relieve you of it. 

In both of our cases, and likely in most cases, divorce is a hostile transaction. Yes, ideally cooperation would be better. I get it. I generally play well with others. I am all about "easy" solutions when they present themselves. 

I really only value three things...God, family, and country. I would only be willing to die for three things...please see above answer. I will fight for my kids even if the outcome is "set" as you suggest. Why? Because it is the right thing to do, and if I didn't I couldn't live with myself.

I can handle loosing. I don't do so well with apathy; so please forgive me while I try to get my kids. We'll talk again in a month and I'll let you know how I did.


LIL


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

lastinline said:


> I am starting to think that the purpose of family court is to secretly frustrate all parties.
> 
> LIL


There is a section in the book "The Healthy Divorce" that addresses this. The section is called "The Myth of Justice"

Judges don't feel like they are doing their job if one party gets screwed and the other feels "justice was served".

The premise is that no judge presumes that they know what is best for your family - how property should be divided, how the children need to be, or should be parented. From their perspective, that is supposed to be our job.

So when it goes off the rails, their job is to make sure that neither side gets exactly what they want.

Here is a direct quote from the book:
"Judges who are candid will frequently comment that they have done a good day's work when they have dissatisfied _both_ parties."


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Deejo,

Exactly. . .which is why I am trying my damnedest to avoid court - she'll probably continue to frustrate us and avoid making a commonsense ruling.

I think the book that LIL and I are referring to was most hopeful to me in that it writes it from the father's perspective, who is usually the "non-custodial" parent (I will use the terms interchangably but they are certainly not).

The lesson from the book is this:

1. When it comes to the negotiation process, you have to know when to fold. When it comes to custody, fold when up against a woman. It's just too weighted towards the mother.

In LIL's case, he is now working a second job. 

Here it comes:

"Your honor, with my opposition working two jobs, he is most certainly going to need a child sitter to care for them. . .why would the state opt for a child sitter over their own mother when she is ready and willing to raise her own children in their own home? Why remove them from the only home they've ever known and risk that?

Is LIL seriously going to present to the court that she is psychologically unfit? Are you willing, your honor, to take that chance, in the absence of a $15,000 psychobabble evaluation?"

Really, it all may be true. . .she may be as batty and hormonal as female dog in heat. . .but it's better to just fold and live to fight another day. Let her kids work on her vs. the courts.

My humble opinion.

2. The freedom issue. The father loses the following in a divorce:

a. His wife, perhaps the love of his life
b. His home (since custody goes to the mother, the home goes with the kids)
c. 50% or more of the equity in house
d. Unimpeded access to his kids
e. 20-33% of his income or more depending on alimony

Take in the above and the gravity of all that.

But in life, there is give and take. . .there always is. . .what is the one thing the father gets?

The answer is freedom and the book advises to not barter it away so easily, because you can't put a price on it. And I have remained adimant in that position.

And the courts protect fathers with visitation rights anyway. . .they've come a long way. I sense fear in LIL's position - he will get to visit his kids and see them and he will always be their father.

Keep me posted though. . .I respect your position and I hope it all works out for all parties.


----------

