# Restraining Orders...one size fits all.



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

Well on the positive front, I was indeed awarded primary custody of all six of my children in court. Her visits with the kids have been limited to Saturday and Sunday from 10 am to 6 pm, every other weekend. No sleep overs.

I was also given back possession of the family residence, and her vehicle as it is the only one of sufficient size to cart about all 7 of us. She has until the 1st of September to vacate the property. I feel this is friggin ridiculous; as when I was served the Sheriff simply told me "not to go home". Somehow, 3 weeks seems strangely generous for one person to move.

I was told to pay her legal costs, and she will receive approximately 2k a month in spousal support. No biggy. On a quasi comical note, she tried to have me mandated by the court to attend her counseling sessions to deal with her "esteem" issues. The judge quashed this. 

Needless to say, she has not taken any of this well. I simply cannot fathom why someone is surprised that their spouse had the "audacity" to challenge them for the house and kids, after they themselves desired to terminate the marriage in both act and misdeed. 

Also, I cannot and will not take another day of screaming, ranting, or veiled threats towards myself or my children. The legal hounds have been called in today, and missy...you've been served.

I give her a day, before she completley violates her T.R.O.. I am seriously considering carrying at this point, but alas she drew first blood, and I am still prohibited from carrying a weapon.

I just can't get a story out of my head a story that she used to tease me with about her local Dr. when she was growing up. How he was shot to death by his wife because he cheated, and that I should learn from that and behave. Well I've never cheated, but that admission won't likely get me much. My own attorney commented following court on how much she "hates me". Nice. 

My attorney had offered to have the R.O. bounced, but I felt it actually protected me from her. However, she doesn't see it as limiting her towards approaching me. If only my instructors had taught me some of that Matrix stuff. I'm afraid I still don't have a very reliable defense against bullets. I can't imagine ducking will work for me more than once. Pray for me TAM readers.

LIL


----------



## Wisp (Jul 17, 2010)

Absolutely marvellous.

Start fixing your life and your children's

Very best wishes for the future..


----------



## DawnD (Sep 23, 2009)

I am so glad to hear you got your children and the house, etc back. Are the kids handling this all okay, or do you think they might need some counseling of their own, just to understand what happened with their mom??


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

If you don't mind me asking, what was the basis for the $2k in spousal support? Is this a temporary agreement? 

She won't have the kids to support, so is she ordered to pay child support?

Thanks and congrats.


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

> ... Also, I cannot and will not take another day of screaming, ranting, or veiled threats towards myself or my children. The legal hounds have been called in today, and missy...you've been served.
> 
> I give her a day, before she completley violates her T.R.O.. I am seriously considering carrying at this point, but alas she drew first blood, and I am still prohibited from carrying a weapon.
> 
> ...


Lastinline~

I do realize you rarely if ever listen to my advice or take it seriously but as I understand it, when you were awarded custody of the children, you were also given a Temporary Restraining Order forbidding either one of you from basically interrupting the other ones "peace"--including neither one of you contacting the other, showing up at the others' home or at their place of work, etc.-- and forbidding either one of you from hiding or transferring assets...right?

You may want to read and carry the T.R.O. with you, because the moment she calls you on the phone to scream she is violating it and can be held in contempt. The moment she threatens you, she is DEFINITELY violating it and can be held in contempt. In fact, just for your own future protection you may want to always carry a mini-tape recorder or video camera with you and tape your interactions. States have various laws about notifying a person who's being taped, so make it easy: turn on the tape and say, "(Name) I am notifying you that I am taping this interaction. If you do not walk away, you are indicating your agreement to be taped. If you do walk away I will take that as your indication you do not agree to be taped." 

Either way then you are covered. As one party in the interaction, you are taping yourself and that indicates your own permission. If she stays and carries on, she was notified, her staying indicates her permission, AND you have rock solid proof of her threats. If she walks away ... well frankly you don't have to deal with her and that makes life easier for you!  

If she's just contacting you, you may want to document it in a daily calendar: 

8/11 
9am Text on phone angry about school
10am 4 texts in a row because I didn't reply
noon Calls at work to scream (recorded)
5pm Waiting at the house to scream (recorded)

Then give that to your attorney and go for contempt.


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

nice777guy said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what was the basis for the $2k in spousal support? Is this a temporary agreement?
> 
> She won't have the kids to support, so is she ordered to pay child support?


[THREADJACK]

NiceGuy I realize you're asking LIL but I can tell you the answer to this one and it's fairly easy. 

When determining spousal support a judge considers HIS education and ability to earn and past earnings... and HER education and ability to earn and past earnings. Thus, if she was a SAHM who put him through doctor school  she doesn't have an education, she doesn't have as much ability to earn, and her past earnings are $0 or piddly. By contrast, he has a doctor's degree and license, has the ability to continue being a doctor, and his past earnings were $Xk per month. 

Then he figures something like: "Okay the doc pays her $x per month and for a college loan to get her on her feet, for X years, and after that it's up to her." Get it? 

Obviously different states have different formulas but that's the gist. If she also has a degree or license, also has the ability to work, and also has past earnings...he may order less or none. If she has the degree and earnings but like in your case lost part of her ability to work, he may order a low, maintaining amount for X years and then it's up to her. It is VERY RARELY a lifetime thing, but rather takes into consideration the length of the marriage and stuff so that a SAHM who's been married 30 years gets a whole different deal than a mid-thirty's career gal who's been married 5 years.

[/THREADJACK]


----------



## dblkman (Jul 14, 2010)

nice777guy said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what was the basis for the $2k in spousal support? Is this a temporary agreement?
> 
> She won't have the kids to support, so is she ordered to pay child support?
> 
> Thanks and congrats.


I was thinking the exact same thing


----------



## dblkman (Jul 14, 2010)

Affaircare said:


> [THREADJACK]
> 
> Thus, if she was a SAHM who put him through doctor school
> [/THREADJACK]


I agree with everything you are saying with exception to this comment above. If she was a SAHM she could not have put him through school.


----------



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

*I do realize you rarely if ever listen to my advice or take it seriously but as I understand it, when you were awarded custody of the children, you were also given a Temporary Restraining Order forbidding either one of you from basically interrupting the other ones "peace"*

For what it's worth I actually value your advice, and I think you and your spouse are a great asset to TAM. As for the temp against both parties, I don't believe any such animal was ever in existence. You probably don't remember, but she kicked off this whole great big slumber party with a bogus RO against me. I believe that superseded the need for any mutual TRO's. 

LIL


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

dblkman said:


> I agree with everything you are saying with exception to this comment above. If she was a SAHM she could not have put him through school.


[mini-threadjack]

Actually I meant the scenario that is somewhat typical when a young couple first marries: they meet in college, marry, he finishes his degree while she ends or slows her college, does a little secretary job to pay some bills and small apartment, they struggle; then he gets the degree/career job and she becomes a SAHM thus alleviating the need for child care costs but she never does finish college...

[/mini-threadjack]


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

lastinline said:


> ... As for the temp against both parties, I don't believe any such animal was ever in existence. You probably don't remember, but she kicked off this whole great big slumber party with a bogus RO against me. I believe that superseded the need for any mutual TRO's.


Okay I'm mildly confused. I do remember she started with a bogus TRO--but that would eventually expire. I *thought* that it did expire or something, but did I miss it? Did that become a permanent RO? If so, then she would be equally restrained from contacting you. 

Anyway, assuming it had expired, in my temporary divorce orders was a restraining order specifically stating that we couldn't sell off assets, and that we couldn't disturb each other (basically). I can look up the exact wording but the gist was "KNOCK IT OFF! Leave each other alone, and that means both of you." I thought chances were good that type of wording would be in your temporary orders and thus, Voi La! RO violation aka "contempt."


----------



## Help239 (Oct 20, 2009)

Sent you a PM....


----------



## Atholk (Jul 25, 2009)

Well the system is slow but it slowly seems to be working to the correct conclusion in this case.


----------



## lastinline (Jul 21, 2009)

*Well the system is slow but it slowly seems to be working to the correct conclusion in this case. *

Thanks for your continued support and advice throughout this whole entire process Atholk. Someday I will visit this New Zealand of yours to see if it is possible that an entire island of sensible people actually exists.

LIL


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

LIL,

Congratulations for fighting the fight and having the outcome you wanted.

You won.

Be careful. If you feel she is an imminent threat, watch your back.


----------

