Trying to wrap my head around this one...

[kmich91262]

but how can a judge possible surmise that one parent not getting a child to school is a vandetta by the other parent if brought to court for a custody issue? Can anybody explain this?

[Fatheroffour]

Maybe one parent has given a bad impression to the judge or framed the argument poorly.

[lohe]

I know that a lot of shrinks saw my frustration with my NJ's inability to properly care for and protect our children as anger issues. It's hard to tell how you come off to people..

[Bubba Seal]

Timing and presentation is all I can say to that.

[kmich91262]

Haven't been to court yet but my new attorney advised that a judge in these type of cases could think it is a vandetta. Seems strange to me. I could understand if one parent was poisoning the kid to not go to school (or insert whatever) but that is not the case here. I certainly want S8 to go to school regardless who he is with even if both NJ and I were no longer walking this earth.

The other thing that I found odd is the attorney feels by adding a motion to compel (for the tax issue) to the mix, it maybe viewed that this is all about money. I'm of the opinion that it is best to combine all things and go from there. Maybe I'm wrong but by doing two separate motions, this creates more revenue for the lawyer. Am I wrong? Suggestions.

[jumbledone]

I think you've been asked to look in a mirror by this community for a while. I think your atty is now doing the same thing. You can pound the atty into the sand and request that additional things be added, but if your atty thinks that separating things and waiting (or not bringing them at all) to improve how you look to the court is wise, search deep and see if there might be a kernal of truth in there somewhere.

[kmich91262]

I think you've been asked to look in a mirror by this community for a while. I think your atty is now doing the same thing. You can pound the atty into the sand and request that additional things be added, but if your atty thinks that separating things and waiting (or not bringing them at all) to improve how you look to the court is wise, search deep and see if there might be a kernal of truth in there somewhere.

I get what you are saying Jumble and have done so for a while. My attorney was mentioning during our meeting that the way the laws are written in this not so forward thinking state, a judge may think that this is one parent's vandetta against another even based on the circumstances of the NJ simply being lazy and caving into S8's wishes of not wanting to go to school (documentated via the school and counselors). It was explained that the legislature does not want to have divorced parents revisit the custody issue just because (i.e. one parent is p-ssed off at the other).

I'm trying to understand your how I look statement? I'm not the one having extreme issues getting S8 to school or having the cops/crisis team called to my residence to deal with an eight year old.

The board preaches about having multiple issues when going to court to make it worth while and asking for the moon when having to go to the court. Humor me on why it wouldn't be prudent to combine both issues and ask the court for as many things as possible (such as legal fees, reimbursement of possible school fees since it is a private school, ect)? IMO it makes sense to do all items at the same time. If it is a draw on the school issue, the tax issue is a slam dunk because of what the IRS (a federal agency) requires.

[jumbledone]

Yes, the board does say gather all evidence and proceed with multiple issues as a best practice. But best practices don't always fit the situation. Everything is situational. You and your attorney need to read the situation and react/proact as best as possible.

You noted before that it seems that you are always on the bottom of the pile when things come to S8, including what seems like a fairly open/shut case when Child Services/Crisis Team is called. But you don't prevail 100%. Why?

I think your atty is telling you why: You are so gung-ho about changing the situation, that you are appearing to be piling on and causing the problem to get worse. You may appear to be spiteful, like the guy who posted yesterday wanting 100% of his STBX's earnings. Whether that is the truth or not, only you know. But from a casual outside observer, while what you want for your son is central to you, you are alienating the people that can help you acheive it: ie court and family officials.

So, think about pulling back. Listen to your attorney. Your previous strategies are not working, it might be time to change them up.

[Bubba Seal]

K, Ive read a lot of your post and to me you just seem to want to bury your ex, I dont know if that is percieved as the best thing for your child or not.

To me its best to focus on what you do positive for your child instead of trying to prove over and over again what the stbx is doing wrong.

I may be way off base in the way I see what you are saying, but I would really listen to my attorney, they know you way better than what you show on the board.

Good Luck

[minuette]

When it comes to piling on issues, that has to be done in CONTEXT.

Custody/parenting time-related issues should be piled together (education neglect, medical neglect, custody evaluation in your favor)

Money issues should be piled together (income imputation, CS reduction, tax issues, reimbursement issues)

Custody and money issues should not be piled together, because custody/parenting time will typically impact/influence monetary calculations, but monetary calculations SHOULD NOT impact or influence custody/parenting time. Do you see the difference?

Listen to your new attorney. Is this attorney #2 or #3?