2
   

Child Custody

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2004 08:39 pm
Hi zacksmom, I've just been reading along, first hoping that your son would come home safely and then haven't had more to add to the great advice you've been getting.

You have already been told this, but to emphasize, you need to control what you say and how you say it; it's not as simple as being honest. You need to filter that honesty, make sure that you DON'T say or do things that would hurt your case even if they come from an honest place.

Good luck!
0 Replies
 
zacksmom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 08:34 am
sozobe,
Thanks. :-) The thing is, I do't want to leave things out that might help me. I will just tell my lawyer everything, and then she will say what needs to be said, and leave out what should be left out. That's the only way I can do it. Because if I leave something out, that could sway the judge perhaps, I would be kicking myself in the ass later on. I am not saying I am perfect, but I have been the one to take care of Zack since he was born. Joe hasn't had anything to do with him until I got a boyfriend. And that is the honest truth. He's just trying to put a wrench in my plans by all of a sudden being interested in Zack and what he does. He's had 4 years to try to be a father, and he didn't. I am not saying he shouldn't see him, but I have been trying to get Joe to do things with him, and spend time with him for 4 years. and he wasn't having it. So why shoud I be so forgiving again, and let him run my life? I can't do it anymore.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 08:39 am
Oh, definitely be honest with your lawyer, in private. And definitely follow whatever your lawyer has to say. But your honest and even justified feelings about Joe not deserving to see Zack could really hurt you if uttered in court. Vent here, tell all to your lawyer, but be careful in court.
0 Replies
 
zacksmom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 08:50 am
Oh. Yes I would never say that in court that I didn't want him to see Zack. I said that here, in a bit of anger, but I don't really feel that he should never see him. He took off with him, and was being very vindictive towards me. I do want him to have a relationship with his father, but I want it to be for the right reasons on Joe's part. Not to hurt me, not to try to control my life, but to be a father to his son. And I will tell my lawyer everything, vent here, but I won't say anything in court. LOL I wouldn't do that. hehe
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 09:01 am
Oh, OK, I was worried about this:

zacksmom wrote:
Because if I leave something out, that could sway the judge perhaps, I would be kicking myself in the ass later on.


I see now that you meant that you meant if you left out anything when you were talking with the lawyer, that the lawyer could use to sway the judge...

Keep us posted, and good luck again.
0 Replies
 
zacksmom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 09:08 am
oh yes, I wouldn't go in there saying things that could potentially hurt my case. I want to win, but I am not stupid. LOL I thank you again. :-)
BUt yes I will be letting the lawyer talk for me. hehehe
I will keep everything posted. :-)
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 10:46 am
Sozobe is showing excellent sense in a tactful way.

You have hired a lawyer. Only a fool keeps a dog and then barks herself.

Remember, you want to come across to the judge--and to the mediator--as a mature, dignified, patient, understanding woman who is able to forgive and forget.
0 Replies
 
zacksmom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 02:18 pm
I got a letter in the mail today, we go for mediation wednesday morning, July 7th. So we will see what happens.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:32 pm
Noddy24 wrote:
Only a fool keeps a dog and then barks herself.

I'm writing that one down.

And when I use it, I'll say that I came up with it myself.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:48 pm
Joe--

That chestnut is at least a hundred years old and probably even more venerable.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 12:47 pm
I did some Googling for "Why keep a dog and bark yourself?" Ad agencies seem very fond of the thought.

Originally the thought was French--and English usage dates back to the late 16th century: Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth and all that.
0 Replies
 
zacksmom
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 01:28 pm
I went to give my lawyer copies of my papers, and she happened to be in the office. She said try the mediation, and see how it goes. Then she said the judge I have is big on joint custody and equal time between the parents. Then I said I was going to be moving, my mother was like she's trying to start her life new, and everything. She's like she can move out of amsterdam, I said it's about an hour away. She said I would be responsible for all the transportation of Zackery, back and forth. i don't see how that's fair. Debra, do you know anything about that, or possiby could you fine out anything from NY laws about that??? That really sucks, and I don't think it's fair at all.
Thanks.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 03:39 pm
Noddy: As God is my witness, I had never heard that phrase before. Nevertheless, despite knowing its venerable lineage, I will still claim that I came up with it first.

And, by the way, I also was the first person to say "you da' man!" and "apropos of nothing" and "it's snack-tastic!" Oh, and "compassionate conservatism" -- that was mine too. Bush totally ripped me off.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 03:40 pm
Wow. I don't either.
But life isn't fair.
You could get a new lawyer, in which case you may get a new date with a different judge, as well.
0 Replies
 
zacksmom
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 05:06 pm
well I have until sept 22, that's the new court date. if nothing comes about in mediation. I am thinking of getting a new lawyer though. I don't want to waste money on someone who isnt' even going to fight for me.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 07:30 pm
Zacksmom--

Another aphorism: The man (or woman) who represents himself (herself) in a court of law has a fool for a client.

Do you want a lawyer full of empty promises....or a lawyer who understands how the system works?

What you personally want is not necessarily what the judge will decide to give you. Please be careful. You do not want to alienate the judge--and making the move and refusing to be responsible for transporting Zack could alienate the judge.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 09:11 pm
I disagree.
I don't know where you live, Zacksmom, but your lawyer doesn't sound very optimistic. It seems that she will accept whatever the court decides without a fight, so what do you need her for? I would definetly get another one.
I went through something similar and my lawyer told the judge pretty much everything I told her, and I got everything I needed for my kids.
I also wrote a letter to the judge telling him specifically why I was requesting certain things, and my lawyer gave that to the judge.
I didn't have any of this other boyfriend/girlfriend/ moving business in the scenario, though, and maybe that's what made the difference, but my lawyer and I were able to impart to the judge exactly what the situation was and why it was important and best for my children that their needs come first. The judge agreed and continued to uphold the agreement without amendment for years. It didn't hurt that their father showed his true colors in the courtroom, I suppose. That allowed the judge to see for herself that what I alleged was indeed the truth.
You don't want a lawyer who makes pie-in-the-sky promises she can't keep, but you also don't need one like the one you've got. If I were you I would call around. I am just speaking from my own experience, but unless you are not giving the full story and not truly considering what is best for Zack, I'd say your lawyer is not the one for you.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2004 09:44 pm
suzy, do you mind if I ask when you had that experience? My understanding (which would need to be bolstered by someone much more knowledgeable in this field than I) is that things have changed within a fairly recent time frame (10-15 years) in terms of how courts view mother's vs. father's parenting rights. As in, mother's rights used to be favored a lot more than they are now.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 06:39 am
1990, in Boston.
But I don't believe I had an advantage simply because I was the mother. I'm pretty sure it's because I knew what was best for my kids and was able to convince the judge of that. But again, the circumstances may have been different. My kids emotional health and futures were at stake, and I was in a position, both through professional training and life experience, to show just how they had been and would be affected. And you know, it was the right thing. I'm pretty sure that even their father realizes that. We all get along great now. A cycle was broken that, if I had a lawyer who was more interested in what was "fair" for the parents, would have continued for generations.
If everything that Zacksmom claims is true, that boy has a father who is intentionally messing with the kids head, because he thinks what he feels is more important than what Zack feels and learns.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2004 10:12 am
Every jurisdiction is different. I can only speak for where I am. The parent who is considering a move (if they are given the permission to move - there is a very specific distance limit above which the judge will decide if it is allowed at all), is responsible for all transportation costs incurred as a result of the move.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Child Custody
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 05:10:56