Some people are idiots

[domino43]

Namely,my (soon-to-be-ex)S-I-L.

I guess I should start at the...beginning. I don't remember if I mentioned anything before, but Neal's wife Kim filed for divorce. They've been separated for a while now and both have dated others. Anyway, at the end of November she filed the papers. Neal has no problem with that. In fact, he was hoping she would so he wouldn't have to spend out the money. Her mom/mom's family hates him so much (for no real reason) they payed for it. Anyway, like I said, he has NO problem with that. But before she did that, or rather, before she told him about that, she went and got a restraining order against him. For her and their daughter. Right before Thanksgiving. She called the cops and told them that he had threatened to take Catilena and go to Michigan and never bring her back. Okay, he said that, once, in the heat of an argument, like a few weeks or months prior. She knows he says things he doesn't mean when he's mad. It's a condition of his brain damage. But she decided to get to him by keeping him from seeing his daughter. Not smart. Even though this old threat was an empty threat, her family backed her up. They had a court appearance on Dec. 1st about it. She tried to tell the judge that she had never meant for Catilena to be on the restraining order. Except she had specifically told him and our cousin (while I was there) that she did. Anyway, they wanted her to get full custody. The judge didn't go for it, since there was no reason and they're still married. But Neal said he didn't care if she had temporary custody as long as he had visitations. The judge agreed. Then they wanted to do the exchanges of her at the police station, trying to make him seem like some horrible monster. She just made herself look bad, since the police station has no parking lot and the only parking spots are on a busy street. The judge told her how stupid it was. Neal suggested the Kroger parking lot. The judge said that was fine. Kim and her family were not happy because nothing went their way. The judge gave him every Wednesday and every other weekend. Not that's actually legal, since they aren't divorced yet. But, whatever.

Anyway, now that you know the backstory... Neal is supposed the have Catilena from Christmas Day until Jan. 4th. Only he doesn't have anywhere to stay with her. He could stay at our house, but we have no heat. We're supposed to, but the heater kind of broke. OH, yeah. Our electric got turned on and we got a tank of propane, but the heater suddenly won't work. The flame and pilot light keep going out. Dad thinks there may be a little water in the tubing. He needs to look at it. So, hopefully soon I'll be able to go home... Back to the story. Neal is supposed to have her for 9 days, but has no where to sleep with her. He tried to be responsible and tell Kim that he can't care for her properly right now, can he keep her for a couple days until he figures out something. She refuses. She is making her daughter be homeless for a week and a half because she doesn't want the inconvenience. Also, apparently her new boyfriend is gone and she's sleeping with some other guy. And letting Catilena see her go into the bedroom with him. Luckily she's only three and confused him for the boyfriend, but still... She's so stupid. She keeps INSISTING that the visitation thing says he HAS to take/keep her when it's his time. She just doesn't get that what it says is that if it's his time, she has to let him see her. So even though her daughter has no place to stay, she's making him keep her. Just because she doesn't feel like taking care of her.

IDK, it's just irritating.

Comments

[gutentag1.livejournal.com]

It's unfortunate that he doesn't have a place to stay with her, because if he doesn't take her, it can (and sounds like it more than likely will) be used against him in court. If he puts up much of a fight about it and refuses to take her, his ex will probably make it seem as though she is forcing him to see the daughter... read to judge: he doesn't want to see this child and isn't willing to make adequate living arrangements to care for the child, therefore, an unfit father. Even if his heart is in the right place by not wanting to keep the child in an unsafe environment (ie: freezing), the judge will claim that he should've made arrangements to stay at a hotel or something during her visits, despite his ability or inability to pay for the hotel room. Courts consider this as "being a responsible parent" and "taking responsibility" for the child he/she brought into the world.

I hate to say it, but your brother really needs to watch his back and do everything in his power to abide by the court order, taking the child on the days that he is assigned, so he's not looked at as though he is ignoring the court order for temporary visitation rights. It totally affects the permanent order that will be issued in the divorce decree. It's not fair, but it's the way it is, and men are looked down on worse than women in the same situation. He has to find a warm place to stay with her and take her on his assigned days, or it really will come back to bite him in the butt.

[domino43.livejournal.com]

He's not refusing to take or keep her, he just wants her safe. Her sister is watching her for a couple days til he gets his situation figured out. He'll probably get her tomorrow or the next day. Plus our cousin offered for them to stay there while he has her, so he'll probably do that.

And luckily, the judge they saw already thinks she's an idiot because of her ridiculous demands. Also, I guess they're both supposed to keep a log of times when they meet to exchange her and she doesn't do it, but he does. And he's got LOTS of evidence of her being irresponsible. And if she tries to pull anything with custody, he won't hesitate to use it. That's one thing I can say for him, as much as we don't get along, nothing keeps him from his daughter or messes with her.

[gutentag1.livejournal.com]

Oh, I wasn't saying that he WAS refusing to take her. I was just saying SHE could twist it around to make it sound as if he was refusing to take her.

But also keep in mind, it's not always the same judge that sees the same families over and over again. Judges don't write, "She was an idiot" on their dockets. He could just stock it up to she was nervous and flustered, which happens a lot in courts, but no record is kept of that, so each new court date is a fresh start unless the same judge has repeatedly seen the same family (like hundreds of times), or only if that family has left a strong and lasting impression on him or her... something like pulling a gun in court, they'd remember that!

Remember, they see hundreds or even thousands of people. Unless they specifically know either side of the family (and then they excuse themselves from the case), they don't know the individual situation. They can't emotionally invest themselves in knowing each and every person that comes before their bench, so they forget them at the end of the day. Everyone becomes a blurr to them.

He said/she said doesn't amount to much, but the logs and recorded entries are admissible. That's probably why she wanted to exchange the child at the police station. Many people exchange kids at police stations for that reason. The police logs and times are admissible, and they don't have to lift a finger to a pencil to keep accurate records. They just request a copy of them from the police.

Generally, people who keep their own records don't bother to put the reason down as to why a parent didn't come pick up a child (though they should), and the police can't keep track of when every child exchange for every child in the city is to take place. She could have easily showed up, told the police an exchange was to take place, and then have them log that he didn't show up... trust me, I've seen it done on both sides. The other person would show up the next day to pick up the child and claim an exchange was supposed to happen on that day, then have the police log that the other parent didn't produce the child. It can get nasty and vindictive, but the police just log the time and who it was, not the reason for not showing up, and they don't look at the custody papers each time to ensure the date... it's the parent's responsibility to be there at the right time and date. Still, the records are admissible in court and either side can claim that any early or late exchange was a verbal agreement between the two parties, which can't be proven without both sides agreeing in court that it was a verbal agreement.

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter how much of an idiot she was at the last hearing. The judge isn't going to remember her or her stupidity. He had no solid proof to go on for her accusations, and for all he knows, she could be right or she could be wrong. The only way for him to determine which it was, was to give him a chance to prove himself. Without any police records of him ever doing any physical harm to the child or taking off with the child without permission, the judge had no other choice but to give your brother a chance. It wasn't that he saw through her actions or lies... he just had no proof either way. The theory behind "innocent until proven guilty" has to be applied in family court, too, though no conviction is at stake. Many families go through the exact same thing, so her actions are actually not unusual as far as what judges have seen and dealt with. It's strange to you and your family because you aren't used to seeing it, but not at all strange to judges. It's normal in what they see on a daily basis, so it won't make a strong or lasting impression on him or her, so the judge isn't going to remember it.

I wish all of you good luck through all of this, and I hope what I've said helps or at least puts it all in perspective (meaning you have to look from the outside of your family in, not from the inside out, because that's how judges see it- make sense?) Anyway, good luck! {{{HUGS}}}

[urgayleswoman.livejournal.com]

Yeah that is pretty bad. Sorry : (