For everyone who is wondering we did go to trial this week. This is what happened:
We showed up for trial and were told that a judge intervened and decided we should do "pretrial" first. This means that she reviewed our file (minimal at best) and decided that there was no reason to go to trial as the issues SHOULD be resolved between the parties. The judge then went on to assist in giving her recommendations on how to resolve the issues at hand. I will put each item under a heading for easier reading.
Child Support
Judge asked dad: Is this about money? Dad said no. So she said great, continue paying full CS despite always having been being over the 40%. We agreed to this without any issue. Note: CS was in excess of 1400 already and it went up just over another $100 as a result.
Access
Judge said that dad was being self serving in asking for a mere extension of access from 8 pm through the next morning. The judge did not see any logic in allowing the children to have a natural transition through the school but the next morning. Nor did she see any benefit to allowing the kids a normal routine at dad's on his shorter access days. But then the judge went on to contradict herself when she recommended that the children have only overnight access and no more short visits. All this to say, it didn't make sense in whole. But of course you don't question the judge.
The judge also had other bizarre statements. Like that dad was a bad parent because he mentioned that extra curricular activities with one child are not always possible given a child's medical issue that often requires a trip to emergency. We realize that the judge used many cookie cutter statements and likely hadn't read a dang thing in our Trial Record. She actually said "dad that is bad parenting, the team needs him". I guess breathing and doctor's recommendations don't go far when an 11 year old is on a house team sport lol.
So we went into negotiations with mom and her TWO lawyers and her partner for a few hours. Dad was self rep with me present (his partner) with him. We hammered out about a ten page comprehensive minutes of settlement. It took much prodding to get mom to agree to many things which I will outline in a separate post below. We went back into the court room to read it to the judge and then the parties were to sign. It was read in full to the judge and the judge was quite pleased that we had taken her recommendations and the parties were to sign. As the lawyer handed the docs to dad to sign, mom stood up and said "I can't do this". Her lawyers stood there like a deer in the headlights while mom left the courtroom in tears. Her partner and lawyers followed her out of the room.
Most interesting is that I stood up to leave the courtroom to use the bathroom. The court room we were in was VERY small given it is rural. And I had to pass directly behind dad who was still sitting where the lawyers normally sit. The judge was still in the courtroom but court was not in session. I went to put my hand on dad's back as I know he was shocked at what just happened and the judge yelled at me to sit down. I point this out as it was obvious throughout the day that while the judge wasn't particularly pleased with mom she afforded her every opportunity to confer with her two lawyers and her partner, but dad was not permitted to speak to his partner and there were no lawyers or duty counsel for him to speak with.
When mom and her lawyers came back into the room some time later her lawyers said that mom cannot sign what she just negotiated for all morning. He said "she just can't". The judge had smoke coming out of her ears and was very upset. She asked mom "what exactly is the issue with the minutes of settlement that were crafted?" (they were about 8-10 pages in length I believe). And mom said it was over two days in a month. Mom said that dad could Skype the kids but she could not agree to an overnight as "I have given up too much". I'm not sure why Skyping would be appropriate given we live a few minutes from each other, but it goes to show how odd things were at this point.
Mom them offered that Dad could register them in an extra curricular on those two nights but again, he could not take them to his home. Nothing made sense. Especially given that each child is already involved in 3 extra curricular activities and that dad takes them to the majority of these activities already.
***this is where things went wrong***
The judge blasted mom for her issue. She told mom to sign off on everything else and go to trial tomorrow for the two nights/over nights that she "can't do". The judge said: "because you WILL lose the trial". Mom's lawyers then instructed mom to not sign anything because it would be better/less risky to go to trial for everything than just the two nights in a month she contests.
After much arguing and tears, we were able to come to a settlement. Dad had to give up those nights and we have a rather complicated four week schedule rotation that is rather bizarre. But we have continuous time with the children and no back and forth to mom's just for them to go to bed as the transitions are through the school bus except for Christmas and summer time.
Section 7/Extraordinary Costs
Given the amount of support paid there are really no section 7 or extraordinary costs. However, we continue to pay the majority of these costs on top of the guideline amount of CS, and despite having now 46-49% access to the children (the difference is due to March break rotating between each parent from year to year).
And, we stipulated that mom will pick up the costs for her own needs. Meaning that if she needs some meds, she pays the copay, if any, herself. Similarly, if she wants pizza day at school, she pays herself. This was essential as mom has taken to obtaining huge supplies of meds for the kids despite not needing a six month supply at a time. When we would go to purchase meds for the kids (puffers, etc.) our insurance was exhausted and we would have to pay full pin. And we don't have to communicate with her on these matters moving forward (well we shouldn't have to, but mom is HCP and continues to email us on these issues even as of today).
We showed up for trial and were told that a judge intervened and decided we should do "pretrial" first. This means that she reviewed our file (minimal at best) and decided that there was no reason to go to trial as the issues SHOULD be resolved between the parties. The judge then went on to assist in giving her recommendations on how to resolve the issues at hand. I will put each item under a heading for easier reading.
Child Support
Judge asked dad: Is this about money? Dad said no. So she said great, continue paying full CS despite always having been being over the 40%. We agreed to this without any issue. Note: CS was in excess of 1400 already and it went up just over another $100 as a result.
Access
Judge said that dad was being self serving in asking for a mere extension of access from 8 pm through the next morning. The judge did not see any logic in allowing the children to have a natural transition through the school but the next morning. Nor did she see any benefit to allowing the kids a normal routine at dad's on his shorter access days. But then the judge went on to contradict herself when she recommended that the children have only overnight access and no more short visits. All this to say, it didn't make sense in whole. But of course you don't question the judge.
The judge also had other bizarre statements. Like that dad was a bad parent because he mentioned that extra curricular activities with one child are not always possible given a child's medical issue that often requires a trip to emergency. We realize that the judge used many cookie cutter statements and likely hadn't read a dang thing in our Trial Record. She actually said "dad that is bad parenting, the team needs him". I guess breathing and doctor's recommendations don't go far when an 11 year old is on a house team sport lol.
So we went into negotiations with mom and her TWO lawyers and her partner for a few hours. Dad was self rep with me present (his partner) with him. We hammered out about a ten page comprehensive minutes of settlement. It took much prodding to get mom to agree to many things which I will outline in a separate post below. We went back into the court room to read it to the judge and then the parties were to sign. It was read in full to the judge and the judge was quite pleased that we had taken her recommendations and the parties were to sign. As the lawyer handed the docs to dad to sign, mom stood up and said "I can't do this". Her lawyers stood there like a deer in the headlights while mom left the courtroom in tears. Her partner and lawyers followed her out of the room.
Most interesting is that I stood up to leave the courtroom to use the bathroom. The court room we were in was VERY small given it is rural. And I had to pass directly behind dad who was still sitting where the lawyers normally sit. The judge was still in the courtroom but court was not in session. I went to put my hand on dad's back as I know he was shocked at what just happened and the judge yelled at me to sit down. I point this out as it was obvious throughout the day that while the judge wasn't particularly pleased with mom she afforded her every opportunity to confer with her two lawyers and her partner, but dad was not permitted to speak to his partner and there were no lawyers or duty counsel for him to speak with.
When mom and her lawyers came back into the room some time later her lawyers said that mom cannot sign what she just negotiated for all morning. He said "she just can't". The judge had smoke coming out of her ears and was very upset. She asked mom "what exactly is the issue with the minutes of settlement that were crafted?" (they were about 8-10 pages in length I believe). And mom said it was over two days in a month. Mom said that dad could Skype the kids but she could not agree to an overnight as "I have given up too much". I'm not sure why Skyping would be appropriate given we live a few minutes from each other, but it goes to show how odd things were at this point.
Mom them offered that Dad could register them in an extra curricular on those two nights but again, he could not take them to his home. Nothing made sense. Especially given that each child is already involved in 3 extra curricular activities and that dad takes them to the majority of these activities already.
***this is where things went wrong***
The judge blasted mom for her issue. She told mom to sign off on everything else and go to trial tomorrow for the two nights/over nights that she "can't do". The judge said: "because you WILL lose the trial". Mom's lawyers then instructed mom to not sign anything because it would be better/less risky to go to trial for everything than just the two nights in a month she contests.
After much arguing and tears, we were able to come to a settlement. Dad had to give up those nights and we have a rather complicated four week schedule rotation that is rather bizarre. But we have continuous time with the children and no back and forth to mom's just for them to go to bed as the transitions are through the school bus except for Christmas and summer time.
Section 7/Extraordinary Costs
Given the amount of support paid there are really no section 7 or extraordinary costs. However, we continue to pay the majority of these costs on top of the guideline amount of CS, and despite having now 46-49% access to the children (the difference is due to March break rotating between each parent from year to year).
And, we stipulated that mom will pick up the costs for her own needs. Meaning that if she needs some meds, she pays the copay, if any, herself. Similarly, if she wants pizza day at school, she pays herself. This was essential as mom has taken to obtaining huge supplies of meds for the kids despite not needing a six month supply at a time. When we would go to purchase meds for the kids (puffers, etc.) our insurance was exhausted and we would have to pay full pin. And we don't have to communicate with her on these matters moving forward (well we shouldn't have to, but mom is HCP and continues to email us on these issues even as of today).
Comment