You are here

Mixed Blessings ...

Mocha2001's picture

Well, mixed blessings result from the hearing, and I can thank my DH for pointing out what I had missed. We didn’t get what we wanted, but we didn’t lose anything either. The judge didn’t even let BB say one word.

BB was barely on time as usual, wearing her frumpy clothes, a suit that didn’t fit right and looked like she slept in it. Her hair looked ratty and she didn’t have any make up on. She once again sat in the back of the courtroom, pursing her lips, while she sat there obviously uncomfortable, while we laughed and joked with our attorney.

After waiting for an eternity, we were the last to be called forward. Our attorney gave his opening argument, which lasted quite some time, pointing out all the problems of how BB doesn’t do this, that, or the other thing (you all know the story), and pointing out that she is neglecting SS. The judge did not allow BB the opportunity to refute anything our attorney said. When BB did try to say something, the judge held her finger up. BB tried to say something again, and the judge said “NO” in a very stern manner – like when you are telling a dog not to jump up on you. The judge didn’t even look up from her paperwork to address BB.

The judge then starts denying our motions, but made it perfectly clear that she understood DH’s concerns, and that there was no legal recourse – this went on for at least 10 minutes. There was no statutory authority to authorize her to grant our motions. She did point out, very clearly, that BB did need to communicate with DH, and that this was clearly a high conflict case, and email communication is the only way for them to communicate. She upheld the 48-hour response time, telling BB that, that is what the parenting plan says, and it needs to be followed.

Simply put, BB said she was going to “call DH out in court once again.” We had a perfect stranger talk smack about BB for 10 minutes, in court, on the record, pointing out how she is neglecting our son, and when BB tried to defend herself she was put in HER place. She directly addressed DH, and didn’t even look BB in the eye. The best thing was what the commissioner said to DH, “I understand your frustration, and I understand what you are trying to do here, but there is nothing I can do.” Did we lose, or did we win? Depends on how you look at it. Actually, SS lost because he is the one who wants to spend more time with his daddy … he is the one who sees daddy’s house as “home” (when he only spends 6-nights per month here), he is the one who says, “I want to stay with you forever daddy, and never see mommy again.”

You would think, since we didn’t get more time with SS, and BB gets to put him in private school, that she would have been on cloud 9 when she left. She was so pissed that she didn’t get to say anything, I don’t think she realized what happened. She didn’t hang out and gloat, like she did last time when technically she lost, I wonder if it’s sunk in yet? Probably not – she’s not the brightest crayon in the box.

BB may think she won because SS will go to private pre-school, BUT … she can’t afford it (we barely can), she will now have to pack his lunch every day, the pre-school doesn’t give the kids naps, and she is a stickler about SS getting his nap – he can be quite whiney when doesn’t get his nap. HE HE HE HE, she is the one who will have to deal with it … she let her stubbornness, and her desire to hurt DH, override her common sense (if she has any), and in the end, the only one who loses is SS.

Our one mistake may have cost us what we were asking for … local court rules have page limits, and the way the commissioner interpreted them is NOT the way attorney or I interpreted them. So, the commissioner didn’t read our Reply. Our attorney said night before the hearing, that our Reply strongly spun the case in our direction … unfortunately, commissioner didn’t read it. Lesson learned …

We will follow the parenting plan to the letter of the law, and expect her to do the same. As we have learned from our fellow SP’s with older SKs … the kids always figure out the truth in the end.

~ Katrina

Comments

Chocoholic's picture

It seems to me things went pretty well... I hope the comissioner's words did not fall on deaf ears.... I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything but don't get your hopes up about bb heeding the commissioner's blatant warnings.... my son's stepmom has been outright yelled out in court (numerous times) regarding her conduct.... she may have straightened up for a few weeks, but nothing long term.
The system really sucks sometimes.... The court may know very well that your bb is doing wrong by your ss, but if there is no law allowing the comissioner to do anything about it... your stuck.
You really hit the nail on the head when you said:
"She let her stubborness, and her desire to hurt DH, overide her common sense (if she has any) and in the end, the only one who loses is SS."
That is exactly like our bm.... you just want to shake them and make them see what they are doing....
Also, the kids DO always figure out the truth in the end.... Your SS is very lucky to have you... if you and your dh ever part ways for some reason.... let me introduce you to my son's dad! You're a great mom!

Mocha2001's picture

Thanks Choco ... hey, I was thinking, if you end up going the CASA route, let me know who you guys got and I'll see what I can find out about him/her.

~ Katrina

Sebbie's picture

De inimico non loquaris sed cogities.
So I am not understanding why the judge would say that there was no statutory authority for her to allow the modifications, especially if she was understanding to the reason for them being sought to begin with? Did your attorney not know or realize that there was a page limit? It would seem to me the motions that were being sought could have been summerized and thus met the page limit requirement.I am sorry to hear that everything you and dh were seeking was not granted, and I unfortunatly agree with chocoholic in that it is doubtful this is going to make bm straighten her butt out...at least not for long. In the end it is ss that is hurt by this and your right Mocha, our kids do grow up and they see things for they way they really are. The time WILL come when he is of an age where he can tell the courts, (with all the evidence and prior cases to court) that he wants to live with his father. Continue being the strong, supportive and loving s.mother you are and ss will know always where his home truly is.

Mocha2001's picture

Judge understanding, but no statutory authority … statute says modification can occur if there has been a substantial change in circumstances and it is in the child’s best interests. Well, of course it’s in a child’s best interests to spend time with a fit parent. The substantial change in circumstances would have been when they got divorced DH was living in barracks – not a place for a kid. Since they were divorced, we got a house, and got married = substantial change in circumstances. Well, we went to mediation in December 2006, and changes were made to add clarification to the parenting plan and we did get one more over night with SS. Judge said that is the last parenting plan, so the substantial change in circumstances would have had to occur since February 2007 when new PP was entered, not when first PP was entered – so the law screwed us. I re-read the statute, and she properly applied it. (We were asking for 50/50 in the summertime – only adding 3 weeks.)

Page limit … both attorney and I knew of the page limit … here is what the rule says. “Length. A brief in support or opposition to a dispositive motion shall not exceed 25 pages. A reply brief to a dispositive motion shall not exceed 10 pages in length. A brief in support or opposition to a non-dispositive motion shall not exceed 15 pages. A reply brief to a non-dispositive motion shall not exceed 8 pages in length. For good cause, the court may grant a motion to file an over length brief. Motions for over length briefs shall be timely filed to allow a decision before the date the brief is due.” So the way we (attorney and I) interpreted it is original declaration supporting motion not to exceed 25 pages (mine was 27 – no big deal). Responding party’s response not to exceed 10 pages. Moving party gets last word and that reply is not to exceed 15 pages. Judge said in court 25 pages total for each party is all that is allowed. Thus, I think I’m going to be writing a letter to the clerk of the court, because that is NOT how the rule reads, so if that was their intent then the law needs to be re-written. If it was NOT their intent, and it is as we interpret, then the judge needs to be educated. I can’t write the letter too soon though as this judge is smart and will remember the case.

Other things ... we were asking for make up time for weekend lost when DH had surgery (no law requiring make up time), we asked that she be forced to take SS to DDS (he hasn't been in 2.5 years, and has an appointment on fhte 18th), she had to reimburse for overpayment of child support, the fact we can't really afford the Montessori school (she for sure can't afford it), and the communication issue.

Thanks for the uplifting comments … patience is not a virtue God bestowed on me. Btu on my other list serve someone posted a great quote today … “Let things happen naturally and do not try to force a certain outcome. That which is not natural will not be right” Lao Zi. This is going to become my moto with regard to SS.

~ Katrina