confidentiality clause

[loving_dad]

My ex is asking me to sign a provision in order to allow our daughter to go on a trip with me. She is concerned that I am going to use this as a way to vary another order....which I could care less about at this point. I am supposed to leave on Sunday to take my daughter and step daughter to Disney but it's all in jeopardy.

She has proposed the following language:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <woNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <wontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <wontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <wontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> “Furthermore, loving_dad shall not refer to X whatsoever in any proceedings or in any Matters whatsoever following the Order of Justice A dated DDMMYYYY”

My concern is the "in any matters". What happens if a judge or OCL asks me about X directly or indirectly and I've signed it. Am I left only with an option to breach or perjure?


She and her lawyer claim only my lawyer or her lawyer could ask the question. My lawyer says it relates to any party conceivably. If I have any kind of criminal record, my career is finished.


Any suggestions/comments? Who is right here?

[OrleansLawyer]

She would stop your daughter from going on a trip with you for fear that you would use the trip together in support of a claim for custody, or joint custody?

Has your lawyer expressed their opinion on this?

If she has otherwise consented to the trip, have you considered threatening an emergency motion to dispense with your ex's signature on the travel consent letter, with a threat for costs, if she does not sign so your daughter can have a vacation?

[loving_dad]

It's more complex than that. I've had supervised overnight access for two years and lost a motion to have it removed. They have filed a motion to vary where they want to reduce the numbers of overnights until I have a more consistent track record of supervised overnights. Note my daytime access is unsupervised.

The judge in the interim motion eliminated all overnights and made it an issue for trial. This is all due to mental health issues. No one including professionals are alledging that supervision is actually needed but rather it would help build trust with mom. I signed the original order for supervision on consent (perhaps my real mistake).

The trip would be fully supervised with my current common law partner.

Hence...she is saying she doesn't want to change the court order unless I consent to language in the variation for the trip with the language in question.

She fully consented to the trip. She doesn't want me to be able to say she consented to overnight access now for this trip. If I agree to the language...what happens if a judge at trial asks me "have you had any overnights"?

[FightingForFamily]

I don't really understand how someone can get into such a mess that daytime is not supervised but overnight is, but the judge temporarily suspends overnights, but your ex wants you to take her overnight, but doesn't want a judge to find out you had her overnight...

IMO either she wants her daughter to go to Disney with you, or not. It's not rocket science.

She seems to want the child to go to Disney but make herself look good in the process and continue making you look the bad guy (who needs supervision to look after a sleeping child).

[loving_dad]

Unfortunately, I got myself into this mess in the first place...getting divorced was part of the way out but for a long time I was a "bad guy".

Your last paragraph is exactly the issue. Trust me....I've not been without blemishes in my past but am doing as much as I can to clean up my side of the street.

I just need a way I can get my kid to Disney with her stepmom and stepsister and not open myself up to liability or worse.

[mom2three]

That's nasty.

She will consent to the trip so long as you do not make mention of it at trial that you have had overnight access?

But she will not consent if you have the 'possibility' of mentioning to the courts that she consented to overnights?

I am curious....did she consent to the trip PRIOR to the motion where access was curtailed, or did she consent AFTER?

[loving_dad]

She consented to the trip in December. I lost my motion to enforce last week. Now she will only consent as long as I cannot make mention that I have "possibility".

I know....sounds crazy....and it's made me crazy....in part.

[dinkyface]

What exactly is it that she doesn't want you to mention - that you went on a drip to Disneyland, or that she agreed to overnights for the trip?

It could be amusing in court if it were the latter.

Judge - so, you went to disneyland, presumably with the mother's consent. You : Yes
Judge - did you have any overnights. You: I am bound by a gag order not to speak of this.

I'd sign it - it's meaningless down the road.

[mom2three]

I have been thinking about this. While you may be under an agreement to not SAY anything, what would compel your spouse to not make mention of it at a later date: she is not being asked to sign it.

I would get into contact with your lawyer pronto and ask him the same thing. I would think, like Dinkyface, that it is totally meaningless in the grand scheme and sign it so that you and your daughter can enjoy your vacation.

But you need to understand the implications of signing such a preposterous agreement. Preposterous in the sense that she will agree to travel IF you are gagged, but not if you speak of it.

[loving_dad]

It's more like this...

Judge- Did you and your family go to Disneyland
Me- Yes
Judge - Did you have mother's consent?
Me- I am bound by a gag order
Judge - Did you have overnights?
Me - I am bound by a gag order

The silliness is my common law partner is going with me and could answer to this anyways. Unfortunately if I get nailed with some sort of contempt or criminal charge, I lose my ability to work in my industry. Double bind.

[mom2three]

Unfortunately if I get nailed with some sort of contempt or criminal charge, I lose my ability to work in my industry. Double bind.

There is no double bind. You are surmising something that is VERY UNLIKELY (impossible, really) to happen. Contempt for what? And what possible criminal charge do you imagine will happen?

[OrleansLawyer]

Judge- Did you and your family go to Disneyland
Me- Yes
Judge - Did you have mother's consent?
Me- I am bound by a gag order
Judge - Did you have overnights?
Me - I am bound by a gag order

A signed agreement is not an Order. Only a judge or master may make an Order.

If your partner is not signing the confidentiality agreement then they would be able to swear affidavits or give oral evidence attesting to the trip, in any event.

[hadenough]

I still don't get why you'd have unsupervised daytime access, but 'supervised' overnights.

[arabian]

Maybe the OP is a sleepwalker?

Whole thing sounds like blackmail. Hate those "without prejudice" notations on the top of the lawyer's letter. Essentially lets the lawyers get away with this sort of garbage. Now if there is no notation of "without prejudice" on the letter from the lawyer .....

[limer]

Have you thought of this.....

You agree to sign the "gag order". It doesn't mean your new partner or whoever else goes is bound to it!!

oops.... sorry see Orleans already mentioned.