# Ex-wife wants a "do-over."



## Scannerguard

New drama this week.

She doesn't like the terms of the divorce and she is complaining that on Wed. morning/Thurs morning when I return them I get credit for an overnight but if they are sick, then it's on her to call off of work.

I even wrote her a nice note saying I would definitely help her out in the morning and split the day with her if she could relieve me by 2 p.m., that I want to cooperate and help her with her career and she respects mine. She said no, she should help me, not the other way around and I should be the one responsible for finding people.

In review, I get the kids Mon. nite thru Wed. am. one week and Mon. nite thru Thurs a.m. the next week. I am off on Tuesdays so that's not an issue.

So she threatened to take me back to court and proclaim that she didn't understand the terms of the divorce and she would have never agreed to the settlement if she had known (she would have to get a new attorney? I can't imagine her own attorney representing himself as a dunderhead)

My attorney seemed unphased but it really chaps my ass as I am trying to provide for college for the kids she wants to just spend money on court.

Her motive: she wants more child support so she wants them returned Tues night instead of Wed/Thurs. If you recall, I was willing to do anything - even her attorney was confused the last day of negotiations - saying, "I thought you wanted me to make him parent more."

So, she's going to spend $3000-5000 to get another $100/week at the most?

I guess I am going to be like that guy on Hill Street Blues - Frank. . .I am going to have a *****y ex-wife the rest of my life.

Anyway, I thought I was pretty familiar with the legal system but I do have a question for anyone out there:

How realistic is it to win legal costs if my attorney can show a pattern of harrassment?


----------



## MEM2020

Does your attorney believe you can insist on keeping the status quo? 

If so I would nicely tell her that you are willing to revisit the terms of the agreement in the future but if she pushes it now you will fight it hard AND she will be out her own attorneys costs. 

The reason I would do that is you went to the table the first time being flexible and she was conflicted because she wanted more money than the formula calls for per day of custody. 

My guess is that your W is angry that you earn more than she does and is trying to share the pain with you. If I recall, she froze you out in bed and was generally not so nice during the tail end of your marriage. Perhaps her "expectations" regarding a mate are not realistic? 



Scannerguard said:


> New drama this week.
> 
> She doesn't like the terms of the divorce and she is complaining that on Wed. morning/Thurs morning when I return them I get credit for an overnight but if they are sick, then it's on her to call off of work.
> 
> I even wrote her a nice note saying I would definitely help her out in the morning and split the day with her if she could relieve me by 2 p.m., that I want to cooperate and help her with her career and she respects mine. She said no, she should help me, not the other way around and I should be the one responsible for finding people.
> 
> In review, I get the kids Mon. nite thru Wed. am. one week and Mon. nite thru Thurs a.m. the next week. I am off on Tuesdays so that's not an issue.
> 
> So she threatened to take me back to court and proclaim that she didn't understand the terms of the divorce and she would have never agreed to the settlement if she had known (she would have to get a new attorney? I can't imagine her own attorney representing himself as a dunderhead)
> 
> My attorney seemed unphased but it really chaps my ass as I am trying to provide for college for the kids she wants to just spend money on court.
> 
> Her motive: she wants more child support so she wants them returned Tues night instead of Wed/Thurs. If you recall, I was willing to do anything - even her attorney was confused the last day of negotiations - saying, "I thought you wanted me to make him parent more."
> 
> So, she's going to spend $3000-5000 to get another $100/week at the most?
> 
> I guess I am going to be like that guy on Hill Street Blues - Frank. . .I am going to have a *****y ex-wife the rest of my life.
> 
> Anyway, I thought I was pretty familiar with the legal system but I do have a question for anyone out there:
> 
> How realistic is it to win legal costs if my attorney can show a pattern of harrassment?


----------



## Scannerguard

No, her expectations regarding divorce aren't realistic. She thinks she shouldn't have to adjust her lifestyle downward.

Well, my attorney didnt' even speak to me because he was in court but this was so simplisitc the legal secretary (who's been with him for 30 years) fielded it:

"She's S.O.L."

It's done. Over. Kaput, she told me. She can go to court all she wants but a judge isn't going to be amused.

Of course I am willing to be flexible with the terms (uber-flexible) but you know what? Not right now. I think the terms are fair - 60/40 parenting time and parenting time that allows me to work. 

If she is that worried about the kids being sick and calling off of work, then she should have went with 50/50 parenting time (which would have resulted in a small child support check to me - no, she earns more than me, a little but probably not for long).

I am off on Tues/Thurs. . .I was going to take the kids Mon nite thru Thurs/Fri a.m. to have a true 50/50 plan. She would have not had to worry about the kids for 2/3 days every week if they were sick or summers or whatnot.

I suppose this will be our position if she takes us to court. . ."Babe. . .you can't seem to or want to be a primary parent. . .you seem wholly incapable of handling it. . .so your honor, we respectfully ask for 50/50 parenting time."

She's angry, she's bitter. . .but she's the one who wanted this. If child support was a factor, I had actually offered her no overnights and I just get an efficiency condo and I visit with the kids. But she wanted boyfriend time so I did overnights at her request, not mine. And frankly, I am glad it didn't end up that way because she thwarted visitation with the kids at times also.

The problem is she has to go backwards in lifestyle and as Chris Rock joked, "Women just can't do it. Can't do it." They just feel like they should never have to.

She's either going to have to spread her legs for her boyfriend and get him to shack up or sell the damn house. Or get her family to rescue her. 

So damn difficult. . .at one point, I had offered her 1.5X the child support amount maximum to support the house, if I only could just parent the kids in the house one damn weekend/month. She still denied.

Well, believe it or not, despite this rant, I am calmer today, lol. Whatever happens happens.


----------



## unbelievable

If the main object of dispute is $100 a week, what happens if you offer to split the difference and toss her an extra $50 a week? It'd amount to $200 a month, $2400 a year. Might shut her up and if it worked, it could divert $5K - $6K of your collective money going to lawyers. It wouldn't be court-ordered, so the only way she continues to get it is to play nice.


----------



## Scannerguard

Unbelievable,

Pay for some niceness? I may be open to that.

Here's the only problem with that scenario. . .it's called Placation and it doesn't always (maybe usually doesn't) work.

My attorney said it best once, "Stop feeding the bears. They only get hungrier."

And I tend to do that. . .feed the bears. Awwllll. . .she's just hurt and angry. Here's some fried chicken and some cheese from the picnic basket. That will make it better.

Only it won't.

The bear gets hungrier and then before you know it, it is jumping up and down on top of your car denting it.

Another analogy is the middle east nutjobs and Israel. You keep giving them land. You concede this. You concede that. They rest for awhile. . .then guess what? They are lobbing rockets at Israel again. They only want to play nice when it suits them but their ultimate goal is the entire destruction of Israel, which doesn't make sense because Israel is certainly reasonable in that you can worship Jew, Christian or Muslim within it's borders. But then again, it's not about being reasonable, right?

How about she plays nice first and then I pay her?


----------



## MEM2020

How about she plays nice first and you simply play nice back. You should not pay for peace - look up "tribute" it is an old custom. Basically it is extortion by the more powerful against the weak. 

The court has a formula stick with it. 





Scannerguard said:


> Unbelievable,
> 
> Pay for some niceness? I may be open to that.
> 
> Here's the only problem with that scenario. . .it's called Placation and it doesn't always (maybe usually doesn't) work.
> 
> My attorney said it best once, "Stop feeding the bears. They only get hungrier."
> 
> And I tend to do that. . .feed the bears. Awwllll. . .she's just hurt and angry. Here's some fried chicken and some cheese from the picnic basket. That will make it better.
> 
> Only it won't.
> 
> The bear gets hungrier and then before you know it, it is jumping up and down on top of your car denting it.
> 
> Another analogy is the middle east nutjobs and Israel. You keep giving them land. You concede this. You concede that. They rest for awhile. . .then guess what? They are lobbing rockets at Israel again. They only want to play nice when it suits them but their ultimate goal is the entire destruction of Israel, which doesn't make sense because Israel is certainly reasonable in that you can worship Jew, Christian or Muslim within it's borders. But then again, it's not about being reasonable, right?
> 
> How about she plays nice first and then I pay her?


----------



## unbelievable

I guess I don't see it as placation as much as wielding leverage over her. She can't ask for more (an unknown result) without certainly losing the extra she'd be getting. Someone with nothing to lose is more likely to initiate battle than those who have something to lose. Poor people in the Middle East blow themselves up but rarely do they leave a $150K a year job and drive to the bombing site in their new Mercedes. People who have something to lose tend to play nice. I tossed my ex (who is eat up with greed) an extra tiny bone of $50 or so a month for internet above my court ordered support. She never whispered a hint about wanting more money after that. It might work.


----------



## Scannerguard

IMHO, she does have something to lose.

If she takes me back to court to motion for more parenting time, I am going to instruct my attorney to present the reason why - that she can't handle the kids when they are sick.

Since I am off during the week, I am going to cross-motion for 50/50 parenting time, basically making the case she obviously can't handle parenting the kids during the week.

So, instead of getting more, she may get less. I will make this clear to her.

Like I said, she has to be nice first and nice consistently, and then I'll give to her.

IT's my own fault and my own dysfunction - I have fed the bears way too long and the bear is throwing a fit. She's sweet as pie when she is getting what she wants but nasty as a grizzly when she's not. I am not sure she even knows she's doing it. I bent over backwards for her when she had to travel away for 4 days to watch the kids and she was so nice and thankful. Within weeks she is nasty.

Her swings in moods was like living with a raging alcoholic.


----------



## Deejo

I used to work with a guy like your ex. No sh!t this is the phrase he used to describe himself:
"I'd rather fight, than win."


----------



## sirch

Scanner,

Here is a bit of what I haved learned from dealing with an ex nj

#1- Stop having converstions with her, keep everything to email or an occassional text. Keep all email you receive from here for future evidence in court if needed.

#2- If your nj will not cooperate learn this term and use it, and end communication. "I will be abiding by the parenting plan set forth by the courts"


----------

