[samyeagar]

Wow. Is the judge related to your ex? That is some incredibly egregious ruling! She has zero right to make plans for the kids on your weekend.

I guess I've been fortunate with both attorneys AND both judges. The second round ex was accusing me of all sorts of things and one of them was a lesbian relationship, implying that my friend temporarily living with me was my 'lovah'. The judge addressed a few of his complaints (being reasonable) and upon reaching that one said sexuality has no basis on custody. My attorney later told me the judge is gay.

I'm sorry things haven't gone your way. I hate it when people get screwed by the system. It worked for me so I'm a little Pollyanna that it should work for everyone.

She tried something similar early on. Filed to try and stop me from bringing my youngest to my STBW's house on moral grounds the she and I slept in the same bed and were not married...I guess she forgot about her boyfriend...but the judge didn't and told her that was not grounds for blocking visitations...
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[frusdil]

Great update Sam!! I'm so happy and relieved for you

Just a shame you had to go through all that stress beforehand...I bet you feel awesome that you stuck up for yourself.

Go you!!!

 

[BURNT KEP]

She tried something similar early on. Filed to try and stop me from bringing my youngest to my STBW's house on moral grounds the she and I slept in the same bed and were not married...I guess she forgot about her boyfriend...but the judge didn't and told her that was not grounds for blocking visitations...
Posted via Mobile Device

Just a quick question how does she get all this money for lawyers?
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[frusdil]

Just a quick question how does she get all this money for lawyers?
Posted via Mobile Device

I think Sam has to pay for it! I hope I'm wrong though...he pays for everything else!

 

[Wolfman1968]

I also strongly disagree with your assertion that a SAHM contributes nothing to the marital assets. That is just not true. I'm a SAHM and find that view very offensive.

Don't take it out of context. Look at the whole paragraph, and the whole post. It was a refutation of the previous poster's assertion that the husband essentially "owed" the SAHM his career. It was to point out that the husband's work brought home economic benefit, which she enjoyed without having to go outside the home to obtain--essentially her "compensation".

At no point do I say that the SAHMs efforts do not merit 1/2 the marital assets. I do, however, say that they do not merit ongoing compensation going forward, without having to expend additional effort.

For the situation of the orignal poster, the ex-wife is draining him without any further contribution on her part, nor any apparent effort to make herself self-supporting.

 

[Wolfman1968]

You can enforce visitation and should have all along. And when a sullen 17y/o boy comes you should remind him that he can thank you for his home, food, water he bathes with, soap he uses, clothes he wears and so forth and, yes, the law requires you to but you also WANTED to, but he seems to take that for granted. Now that he's working he knows what is required to bring in that money and he should show some appreciation for it. He needs a reality check. But he probably assume you don't give a rat's ass because you haven't made an effort to assert your parental rights for a year.

No, you are not correct. He can't enforce visitation. He already posted that the judge agreed with the older two children in their petition not to visit any more....said they were old enough to deicide for themselves.

 

[EnjoliWoman]

No, you are not correct. He can't enforce visitation. He already posted that the judge agreed with the older two children in their petition not to visit any more....said they were old enough to decide for themselves.

I had missed (or forgotten about that when I posted that. I agree - he can't drag them kicking and screaming, although thinking more about it, he could pull up outside telling him "let's go" and when he says where, say "This would normally my weekend to visit with you guys and I really want to see you. You don't have to come but I'm your Dad and I miss you and it would mean a lot to me if we could hang out today". No guarantees they'll go but it shows the kids he WANTS to spend time with them.

Alienation is hard to defeat but constant assertion of rights (whether they cooperate or not) is important. It sends the message "I'm your father and spending time together is important and I deserve that".

This judge of OPs stymies me. This is a horror story for the books. What judge thinks it's OK to tell kids they don't have to spend time with a parent who loves them and wants to spend time with them? (Sans abuse, obviously.)

I'm curious tho - what activities would visitation interfere with? Sports? I'd go as a spectator.

And now that the oldest is legally an adult, I'd copy the motions (or maybe summarize the dates, motions and outcomes) etc. and send them to him so he knows his Dad has tried to spend more time with them and all he gets is stonewalled; meanwhile Mom keeps trying to suck more money out of Dad and get by with whatever she can.

 

[MaritimeGuy]

I can see where parental alienation is such a difficult subject. Obviously it's tragic when it happens however I can imagine there are probably lot's of people "crying wolf" with it in a sense.

It really upsets me when I hear of people trying to use children to hurt their ex's. Some people just really need to pull their heads out of their own asses. Kids are a treasure to be nurtured not a tool to inflict pain. Arrrghhh!

 

[EnjoliWoman]

I can see where parental alienation is such a difficult subject. Obviously it's tragic when it happens however I can imagine there are probably lot's of people "crying wolf" with it in a sense.

It really upsets me when I hear of people trying to use children to hurt their ex's. Some people just really need to pull their heads out of their own asses. Kids are a treasure to be nurtured not a tool to inflict pain. Arrrghhh!

Yes, crying wolf and no official diagnosis code previously hindered courts' recognition of it. BUT now we know a lot more. The two main factors that differ real alienation from one parent just 'bashing' the other in front of the kids:

1) the alienating parent has a personality disorder. Most parents without a PD do not hate their spouse more than they love their child. PDs will do whatever they have to when seeking revenge of the target parent, including using the kids.

2) the target parent has never done anything to alienate the children - i.e. no abuse, neglect, etc. has been found or reported by the child or anyone BESIDES the alienating parent (who usually does accuse the target of one of these).

OPs wife obviously has, even to a layperson as myself, a personality disorder which changes this from a generic, overly used "alienation" term, to the real thing.

If it is not severe, often they CAN be reasoned with and minimal damage is done to the child's relationship with the target parent. On the extreme end of PDs, a child's relationship is permanently damaged AND they grow up just as dysfunctional as the parent who dominates them.

Therefore the diagnosis code that is generated is based on:
1. Attachment system suppression (child suppresses normal attachements to target parent)
2. Personality disorder systems (the child displays symptoms of a PD because they "mimic" the PD parent - the PD parent "enmeshes" their personalities)
3. Delusional belief systems (implanted by PD parent they child now is deluded to believe the target parent is bad/evil/worthy of rebuff aka "brainwashed")

These three symptoms together represent the presence of pathogenic parenting which results in DSM-5 Diagnosis of:
309.4 Adjustment Disorder (with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct)
V61.20 Parent-Child Relational Problem
V61.29 Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress
V99.51 Child Psychological Abuse

(c) Dr. Craig Childress, Psy.D. The Office of Dr. Craig Childress

It MUST be properly diagnosed by a professional - every kid who says they hate Dad or Mom for cheating, divorcing, leaving, etc. is not necessarily being alienated. It is ALWAYS specifically tied to a parent with a personality disorder. This was a huge omission (and created quite a setback in being recognized) by Dr. Garrison back in the 60s. He 'found' it, and recognized PA but lost credibility by not including that very key component because his critics felt by acknowledging alienation it opened the door for REAL abusive parents who alienated their children by very real abusive actions, would put the legal motions in place to force kids to spend time with their abusers.

 

[samyeagar]

Just a minor update...as many of you know, I got married over the weekend.

Late last night I got a text message from my oldest son saying Congrats. First contact in nearly a year.

Also, earlier in the day, I got a text from my youngest saying that he'd like to come spend this upcoming weekend with me if it was alright with me. I told him I'd have to check with his mother because that weekend is his mothers weekend. I told him that my wife and I were moving to a new house, and he'd get to pick his own bedroom, but he'd have to help move

 

[murphy5]

well that's positive news. 17...hey I could not get my 17 year olds to visit me...and they lived here in the same house!! Not surprised about that. Maybe plan some fun stuff, fishing, mini vacations to the beach, etc, so they have interesting stuff to DO with you. Maybe they would start looking forward to it, asking for it more.

 

[renascent]

It seems to me he prefers complaining about it vs. doing anything about it. No, in the US the person paying support never has to give up 75% of his income. There is a maximum support calculation but it's up to a certain percentage of the payer's income. He is focused on the 6K so let him.

He has given every reason why he can't instead of listening to the things he can do. And he doesn't even have the balls to press for a relationship with his kids. I think there is a lot of missing info here.

You are totally incorrect. Actually, 75% of a man's income is far from the worst possible case scenario. Many men in this great country of ours or ordered to pay more than 100% of their salaries for child support and/or alimony.

You are totally out of line as well for callously claiming that he "doesn't have the balls" to press for a relationship with the kids when he has explicitly and repeatedly stated otherwise.

 

[tom67]

You are totally incorrect. Actually, 75% of a man's income is far from the worst possible case scenario. Many men in this great country of ours or ordered to pay more than 100% of their salaries for child support and/or alimony.

You are totally out of line as well for callously claiming that he "doesn't have the balls" to press for a relationship with the kids when he has explicitly and repeatedly stated otherwise.

Watch the movie divorcecorp online it gets to you, well at least me.

 

[renascent]

Just a minor update...as many of you know, I got married over the weekend.

Late last night I got a text message from my oldest son saying Congrats. First contact in nearly a year.

Also, earlier in the day, I got a text from my youngest saying that he'd like to come spend this upcoming weekend with me if it was alright with me. I told him I'd have to check with his mother because that weekend is his mothers weekend. I told him that my wife and I were moving to a new house, and he'd get to pick his own bedroom, but he'd have to help move

That's awesome. I'll pray for the relationship of you and your children.