So, now that the deadbeat in question no longer has a job, the Florida Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Department of Revenue that oversees them, in their infinite stupidity have finally gotten the father of my kids served. Of course, now that I'm remarried, with a new life and he has no job, they'll get an 'order.' An order which they'll never collect a dime from, and if by some miracle they do, 9 cents of will go to them for covering their administrative costs and maybe a whole penny of it will go to my kids.
Had they done their job RIGHT three and a half years ago, they would have served both my husband and the boys father at the same time, let them both take the paternity test, and prove fatherhood then and there. But no, some IDIOT at the Child Support Enforcment Agency instead chose to give me 'legal advice' and tell me to get a divorce first. That took months, and when it was finally done, then told me that the wording of the divorce papers wasn't good enough and that my now ex-husband and I would have to go back to court to get it changed and exclude as both the bio father AND the legal father (since the papers only excluded him as the bio dad.) After the next two months of attempting to accomplish that (and trying to get a non-bullshit, non-evasive answer from the morons at CSE and DOR as to why they didn't tell me what they wanted it to say when they told me to get the divorce and being told "we can't give you legal advice", then asking "well what exactly did you think you were doing when you told me to get the divorce?) the idiots finally start the process of pursuing bio.
Next line of Florida Department of Child Support and Department of Revenue BULLSHIT... they can't find him!
He's in the MILITARY. He's the easiest son of a bitch on the planet to find! But these morons can't manage it.
A raving call to the DOR threateing to issue a Press Release to the National AP results in the 'investigator' (probably for the DOR's attorney... since I don't have an attorney and this useless jack wad doesn't work for me so I can't communicate with him or write a letter to the bar about him) finally getting off his own incompetent ass and in 48 hours, bio was served.
Only now, the useless little prick is under orders to go to Iraq so he can invoke the "SCRA." The Servicemens Civil Relief Act that bascially protects men from things like paternity cases.
Sure, while he was IN the military and there was an income to collect on, Florida Child Support Enforcement and The Department of Revenue found every way out of going after him.
Now, that he's home, and probably unemployed. I heard he just got remarried... poor girl, they'll serve him, and you know what will happen?
NOTHING.
The court will issue the order. And he won't pay.
All these idiots are doing are paying for HIM to get paternity established so HE can exercise his rights to not pay, and then, to be a part of the child's rights now that someone else has footed the bill for him to establish that paternity.
I want to close the case, but we have no medical coverage right now and I need it for the kids.
I'm backed into a corner by these useless idiots. I'm sure there's something I can do, but they'll never tell me what it is. I hate these people.
Showing posts with label deadbeat dads in the military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deadbeat dads in the military. Show all posts
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Look What The Deadbeat Dad Stalker Has To Say
Sharon, Rich's ex, and also fighting for YEARS of back child support and a victim of Rich and Kelly's 'game', has been eamailing Rich asking about child support. He's refused to answerk, but instead, writes things like you're about to see. He's the one in BOLD.
Sharon has repeatedly e-mailed Rich asking him when he plans on paying his child support. He refuses to respond in writing, just keeps trying to get her to 'call' him on the phone. She knows that it will be the same redirect on the phone, accusations and misdirection, and still no ANSWERS as is his standard MO, and so she won't bother. Every email she sends to him he replies with accusations about her and 'her friend' (me), accuses us of all sorts of things from having bad marriages, to using drugs, to being 'nuts.' But the thing is, WE are not the ones refusing to answer questions and playing 'games' to avoid the questions.
He claims he won't answer her question in an email because she will 'pervert' the answers with 'cut and paste.' I've sent her the screen shots of the yahoo status messages that he puts out to threaten to call cops on me, call me names, and so on, and guess what... THEY'RE SHOTS OF THE ACTUAL SCREEN! They can't be "cut and paste."
This is his last email to her. It's WHOLE. I just 'interrupted' to answer each sentence individually.
So, these are MY retorts to what this asshole has to say, and the question still remains:
RICH: WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO PAY YOUR CHILD SUPPORT?
Now, on to his e-mail. His psychotic redirect is in BOLD, my responses aren't.
Ok, THIS is 'cut and paste,' Asshole.
Rich: I never metioned Steven's conditions. I commented on your new friend who refuses treatment, as a result lives in her own world with friends like you.
1.)The treatment for the depression I suffered from, was to get the abusive people who were causing the depression out of my life.The 'treatment' along with meds for 'situational depression' (the situation being you and your loser brother, combined with PPD) was prescribed by a THERAPIST AND A DR in July 2007.
2.)Most people who are in a state of depression aren't able to accept it, since that seems like it will make matters worse. No one 'refuses' it. But it can be hard to accept. Especially when 'family' is the cause of it, and you have no way to get rid of them.
3.)Cymbalta, too harsh. Prozac, got pregnant. Lexapro,after Daniel was born, on for about 4 months. Dr took me off. Without scumbags around, ripping me off and talking shit about me behind my back while using me for a place to stay, the depression lifted. Imagine that. You sorry ass piece of SHIT.
Rich: I dont have to take up anything with her, shes nuts. Shes your friend you deal with her and her lies. Shes your problem and my brothers.
Then why do YOU seem to think you're 'in charge' of child support, and why are you the one sending the harassing and threatening status messages, calling her disgusting names. If you truly believed she was mentally ill, you would have 'sympathy' for someone in so much turmoil. The fact that you use it to hurt her, shows that you're a SICK FUCK.
Rich: I can tell you I live and work without a worry of you or a nut job like her.The both of you have poor relationships with everyone because you spend more time on the internet than living your own life.
oh, I've got a couple hundred screen shots that say otherswise. You send your status messages to us all day long, all night long.
Rich: I work at my life , thats whyI have a real marraige not someone who sleeps in another room or in your friends case married by a Notary
You got married in LAS VEGAS! How tacky. At least my wedding was COOL, and something no one else has ever done. I sleep in the same room and bed with my husband. You slept in separate COUNTRIES for over a year. And we both sleep in the same room and bed, with our husbands.
Rich: My wife and I work hard for what we have and we have what we want. We dont blame others for our lives, we dont come home from work and lock ourself in our room and smoke pot like others.
You live off others, paying no rent, letting them foot the bills, buy your cigarettes, put gas in their car that they let you drive to a job where you collect a paycheck and then spend on pills. And I know I don't smoke pot. Sharon? Do you smoke pot? No, you couldn't. You wouldn't have insomnia if you did.
Rich: We work at our life without dwelling on others and spending our life on the internet wasting time on others instead of ourselves.
Again... couple hundred screen shots that say otherwise
Rich: My life is not cut and paste. I can form independant thought without the use of a mouse.
Really? Let's see your so-called site/blog. You can't 'cut and paste' SCREEN SHOTS you NIMROD.
Rich: I dont have to use quotes from others or the movies, right or wrong i can think all by myself.
Then why are the questions you're asked in regard to child support the same mantra that all other deadbeat dad sperm donors like you spout off at the mouth about?
Rich: I dont hide behind a blog or a website, maybe i shoul like you and you friend.
No, You hide behind fake names (Gary Demko) on Yahoo, you psychotic stalker.
Rich:I may not hide behind a web site but Kelly and I have one, unlike you and Vanessa MINE WORKS for something other than bad advice or attempting to bash someone.
Oh yeah, Catch The Gator. What a piece of shit that site was. Which last I checked, doesn't work. And that other piece of shit, the “Traffic A La Carte WSO”.... EPIC FAIL.
While you and Vanessa spend time writing junk about others I spend my time working hard For Rachel and Kelly and they benifit and appreciiate it.
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! NOT ONE MENTION OF WORKING FOR THE TWO KIDS HE LEFT IN CALIFORNIA AND HAS REFUSED TO EVEN PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR! HE WORKS FOR HIS SECOND WIFE AND KID, WITH NO REGARD FOR THE FACT THAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR ALL HIS KIDS.
What a pathetic excuse for a man, father, and human being.
Sharon has repeatedly e-mailed Rich asking him when he plans on paying his child support. He refuses to respond in writing, just keeps trying to get her to 'call' him on the phone. She knows that it will be the same redirect on the phone, accusations and misdirection, and still no ANSWERS as is his standard MO, and so she won't bother. Every email she sends to him he replies with accusations about her and 'her friend' (me), accuses us of all sorts of things from having bad marriages, to using drugs, to being 'nuts.' But the thing is, WE are not the ones refusing to answer questions and playing 'games' to avoid the questions.
He claims he won't answer her question in an email because she will 'pervert' the answers with 'cut and paste.' I've sent her the screen shots of the yahoo status messages that he puts out to threaten to call cops on me, call me names, and so on, and guess what... THEY'RE SHOTS OF THE ACTUAL SCREEN! They can't be "cut and paste."
This is his last email to her. It's WHOLE. I just 'interrupted' to answer each sentence individually.
So, these are MY retorts to what this asshole has to say, and the question still remains:
RICH: WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO PAY YOUR CHILD SUPPORT?
Now, on to his e-mail. His psychotic redirect is in BOLD, my responses aren't.
Ok, THIS is 'cut and paste,' Asshole.
Rich: I never metioned Steven's conditions. I commented on your new friend who refuses treatment, as a result lives in her own world with friends like you.
1.)The treatment for the depression I suffered from, was to get the abusive people who were causing the depression out of my life.The 'treatment' along with meds for 'situational depression' (the situation being you and your loser brother, combined with PPD) was prescribed by a THERAPIST AND A DR in July 2007.
2.)Most people who are in a state of depression aren't able to accept it, since that seems like it will make matters worse. No one 'refuses' it. But it can be hard to accept. Especially when 'family' is the cause of it, and you have no way to get rid of them.
3.)Cymbalta, too harsh. Prozac, got pregnant. Lexapro,after Daniel was born, on for about 4 months. Dr took me off. Without scumbags around, ripping me off and talking shit about me behind my back while using me for a place to stay, the depression lifted. Imagine that. You sorry ass piece of SHIT.
Rich: I dont have to take up anything with her, shes nuts. Shes your friend you deal with her and her lies. Shes your problem and my brothers.
Then why do YOU seem to think you're 'in charge' of child support, and why are you the one sending the harassing and threatening status messages, calling her disgusting names. If you truly believed she was mentally ill, you would have 'sympathy' for someone in so much turmoil. The fact that you use it to hurt her, shows that you're a SICK FUCK.
Rich: I can tell you I live and work without a worry of you or a nut job like her.The both of you have poor relationships with everyone because you spend more time on the internet than living your own life.
oh, I've got a couple hundred screen shots that say otherswise. You send your status messages to us all day long, all night long.
Rich: I work at my life , thats whyI have a real marraige not someone who sleeps in another room or in your friends case married by a Notary
You got married in LAS VEGAS! How tacky. At least my wedding was COOL, and something no one else has ever done. I sleep in the same room and bed with my husband. You slept in separate COUNTRIES for over a year. And we both sleep in the same room and bed, with our husbands.
Rich: My wife and I work hard for what we have and we have what we want. We dont blame others for our lives, we dont come home from work and lock ourself in our room and smoke pot like others.
You live off others, paying no rent, letting them foot the bills, buy your cigarettes, put gas in their car that they let you drive to a job where you collect a paycheck and then spend on pills. And I know I don't smoke pot. Sharon? Do you smoke pot? No, you couldn't. You wouldn't have insomnia if you did.
Rich: We work at our life without dwelling on others and spending our life on the internet wasting time on others instead of ourselves.
Again... couple hundred screen shots that say otherwise
Rich: My life is not cut and paste. I can form independant thought without the use of a mouse.
Really? Let's see your so-called site/blog. You can't 'cut and paste' SCREEN SHOTS you NIMROD.
Rich: I dont have to use quotes from others or the movies, right or wrong i can think all by myself.
Then why are the questions you're asked in regard to child support the same mantra that all other deadbeat dad sperm donors like you spout off at the mouth about?
Rich: I dont hide behind a blog or a website, maybe i shoul like you and you friend.
No, You hide behind fake names (Gary Demko) on Yahoo, you psychotic stalker.
Rich:I may not hide behind a web site but Kelly and I have one, unlike you and Vanessa MINE WORKS for something other than bad advice or attempting to bash someone.
Oh yeah, Catch The Gator. What a piece of shit that site was. Which last I checked, doesn't work. And that other piece of shit, the “Traffic A La Carte WSO”.... EPIC FAIL.
While you and Vanessa spend time writing junk about others I spend my time working hard For Rachel and Kelly and they benifit and appreciiate it.
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! NOT ONE MENTION OF WORKING FOR THE TWO KIDS HE LEFT IN CALIFORNIA AND HAS REFUSED TO EVEN PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR! HE WORKS FOR HIS SECOND WIFE AND KID, WITH NO REGARD FOR THE FACT THAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR ALL HIS KIDS.
What a pathetic excuse for a man, father, and human being.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
DCF- The Destruction of Children and Families
oh boy. Well, here we go again. Mike's and his brother motivated only by their desire to hurt me, have once again put my kids and myself in harm's way.
And my beef now, is totally with DCF.
This man abandoned his child and unborn child to a home without electricity. I had to call DCF for state assistance, which didn't get the power back on anyway, and they in turn forced me to file a Domestic Violence Injunction. Then they told ME that I had to get 'counseling' for it, to find out why I 'allowed' it. They didn't tell HIM that HE had to get counseling for it. Oh no, of course not. He has a penis, it gives him the RIGHT to be a scumbag. I forgot.
Over the next two years, his brother harassed me and stalked me on the Internet. His brother even interfered with my ability to make a living by outing a pen name I was using to score ghostwriting jobs to feed the kids. Did DCF, or the USELESS Pasco County Sheriff's Department Care, about the stalking or about a man TRYING to make his child and unborn child STARVE TO DEATH? NOPE. They didn't give a DAMN! He has a penis, a right to be a scumbag.
When the USELESS Child support enforcement people FINALLY got him SERVED, he invoked, the SCRA- The Servicemens Civil Relief Act- a bunch of crap that allows deadbeats to escape many civil cases, including a paternity test.
He offered child support of $150 a week, after almost TWO YEARS of not paying a DIME, (and, as I discovered from the saved text file of the Yahoo instant message between him and his mother on his mother's computer, it was only because he believed it would absolve him of the responsibility for BACK child support for the previous two years) yet made it condidtional on me sending my kids to his mothers for a weekend (blackmail and not allowed), and refused to put anything in writing, which DCF told me on three separate occasions, when I tried to report the income, was REQUIRED for me to get for them.
When I told DCF that he refused to put anything in writing and that he was using child support as 'blackmail', did they do anything about it? Again.. NOPE!
They told me I needed to call child support enforcement. Did child support enforcement pursue this at all? NOPE. I got the same, robotic, pre-programmed responses from they cybernetic organisms that I always do. A bunch of BULLSHIT about how they 'understood' and 'know how frustrating it is...' but NEVER ONCE did they utter the words, 'let's see what we CAN do'.... because they are not there to solve the problem. They are there for a government paycheck...
When this deadbeat dad came home on Iraq from leave, he DEMANDED the children, threatened to withhold child support if I didn't comply, and then filed that FALSE POLICE REPORT about me threatening to commit suicide with a gun that had been stolen 2 months prior (unbeknownst to the moron when he made his report).. and did the Pasco County Sheriff's Office do anything about the FELONY of him making a "FALSE REPORT TO A LEO".... NOPE... AGAIN.. NOT A DAMN THING! He has a penis, he's allowed to be a scumbag. I do not have a penis, if I made a false report about him, I would be facing felony charges.
When his little phone call to the Pasco County Sheriff's Department didn't get him the desired result of having me Baker Acted, he then turned around and called in an "anonymous tip' to the DCF abuse hotline. It may have been 'anonymous' but the report MIRRORED the outlandish claims in the police report, with ONE 'addition.' That my fiancee "hits" my older boy.
I had proof that they threatened to make this 'report' before they even did it. Did DCF even LOOK at the proof? NOPE.
BUT THEN... They took ANOTHER 'anonymous tip' that I was committing 'welfare fraud' and now I get a letter from a DCF Investigator by the name of Kristina Vaz, that says they have DETERMINED... (funny how they DETERMINED anything based on a phone call and without talking to ME first) that I had
***Unreported people living in my house (I can only assume they meant my fiancee who does not live with us)
***Have been self employed and not reported my income. (This was based on a post on my myspace page where I wrote for 'who I'd like to meet' "Tampa Bay Area Business Owneres Who Want To Build Online Businesses." Just because I want to meet them, doesn't mean I have or made money off of it. The fact of the matter is that before the scumbag took me for everything that I had, I was learning Intenret Marketing and most of what I posted anywhere were exercises in trying to hone those skills and hopefully, eventually, with a full time job, a MAN with a SECOND income, and possibly the child support I am OWED, I could actually go back to trying to build a business. In October, I found a job that I could do at home, but I had to start my own corporation for it. So I did. I went through a month of unpaid training to discover that their apps were conflicting with my system, and that made me miss so much time, that I was now not eligible to work again until Feb. 6.
*** Am not living at the address on my application, from August. In August, I was living there. My son needed surgery, and I had to live out of a motel up near Mike's mom while we arranged all of the doctors appointments and care. I also had a huge power bill and had the power to the house cut off at the time, AND when I did return from that trip, found my house DESTROYED.. UNINHABITABLE (this is when the gun was stolen). A friend let me stay at a house she owns while I tried to clean the other house up.
Now, while informing 'Tim Duggan' (Kristina Vaz's supervisor who I had to speak with as she was not returning my call) of all this, he refused to let me finish a sentence, had absolutely NO INTEREST in the fact that it was a FALSE CLAIM and only wanted to know what he could possibly 'discover' as an excuse to end my state assistance...
AND... this P.O.S. had the nerve to act as though my concerns about the 'child support blackmail' were something that I had no right to. He had the STUPIDITY to tell me, 'sometimes it's takes YEARS to get money out of someone's pocket.'
Well, let's see, you let him get away with all he's done, you then decided to disqauliify me for assistance, knowing that he's backed me into corners with his behavior for two years, and now, now.. that he's FINALLY PAYING child support, you support his ability to use it as blackmail, AND you take away the bare necessities that I have to make sure my kids EAT in the event that this scumbag does decide not to pay child support anymore, I now have NOTHING.
And before anyone goes and gets all up in arms about how now that I have a boyfriend, I shouldn't be on state assistance, let me tell you that 1.) until they MAKE pay the child support, I have no guarantee that I will get it each month, and
2.) what I recieved in assistance was $525.oo a month in food stamps, and medical coverage for my kids. That's it. I don't get Section 8 housing, I don't get Cash Assistance, and I sure as Hell don't get any 'support services' from Career Central.
So now, what they have done is once again, allowed Mike to try to 'starve out' my children.
Yes, I'll be ok. I did it without his child support and without food stamps for 2 months when he first walked out. I will do it again. I'm not really upset about losing food stamps. I'm upset that DCF, CSE, the DOR, and the Pasco County Sheriff's Department have all turned a blind eye to what this man has done to my kids and I. Now that I've lost food stamps, if he were to stop paying the child support again, (and if I don't let my kids go to his mothers for a weekend so she can 'program' my son to make more accusations about my fiancee, he will) I could end up right back at square one where I can't afford to feed my kids. This is the life that this despicable scumbag is subjecting his children to. And DCF, CSE, the DOR, and the Pasco County Sheriff's Office don't give a DAMN!
WHO THE HELL DOES?!
And my beef now, is totally with DCF.
This man abandoned his child and unborn child to a home without electricity. I had to call DCF for state assistance, which didn't get the power back on anyway, and they in turn forced me to file a Domestic Violence Injunction. Then they told ME that I had to get 'counseling' for it, to find out why I 'allowed' it. They didn't tell HIM that HE had to get counseling for it. Oh no, of course not. He has a penis, it gives him the RIGHT to be a scumbag. I forgot.
Over the next two years, his brother harassed me and stalked me on the Internet. His brother even interfered with my ability to make a living by outing a pen name I was using to score ghostwriting jobs to feed the kids. Did DCF, or the USELESS Pasco County Sheriff's Department Care, about the stalking or about a man TRYING to make his child and unborn child STARVE TO DEATH? NOPE. They didn't give a DAMN! He has a penis, a right to be a scumbag.
When the USELESS Child support enforcement people FINALLY got him SERVED, he invoked, the SCRA- The Servicemens Civil Relief Act- a bunch of crap that allows deadbeats to escape many civil cases, including a paternity test.
He offered child support of $150 a week, after almost TWO YEARS of not paying a DIME, (and, as I discovered from the saved text file of the Yahoo instant message between him and his mother on his mother's computer, it was only because he believed it would absolve him of the responsibility for BACK child support for the previous two years) yet made it condidtional on me sending my kids to his mothers for a weekend (blackmail and not allowed), and refused to put anything in writing, which DCF told me on three separate occasions, when I tried to report the income, was REQUIRED for me to get for them.
When I told DCF that he refused to put anything in writing and that he was using child support as 'blackmail', did they do anything about it? Again.. NOPE!
They told me I needed to call child support enforcement. Did child support enforcement pursue this at all? NOPE. I got the same, robotic, pre-programmed responses from they cybernetic organisms that I always do. A bunch of BULLSHIT about how they 'understood' and 'know how frustrating it is...' but NEVER ONCE did they utter the words, 'let's see what we CAN do'.... because they are not there to solve the problem. They are there for a government paycheck...
When this deadbeat dad came home on Iraq from leave, he DEMANDED the children, threatened to withhold child support if I didn't comply, and then filed that FALSE POLICE REPORT about me threatening to commit suicide with a gun that had been stolen 2 months prior (unbeknownst to the moron when he made his report).. and did the Pasco County Sheriff's Office do anything about the FELONY of him making a "FALSE REPORT TO A LEO".... NOPE... AGAIN.. NOT A DAMN THING! He has a penis, he's allowed to be a scumbag. I do not have a penis, if I made a false report about him, I would be facing felony charges.
When his little phone call to the Pasco County Sheriff's Department didn't get him the desired result of having me Baker Acted, he then turned around and called in an "anonymous tip' to the DCF abuse hotline. It may have been 'anonymous' but the report MIRRORED the outlandish claims in the police report, with ONE 'addition.' That my fiancee "hits" my older boy.
I had proof that they threatened to make this 'report' before they even did it. Did DCF even LOOK at the proof? NOPE.
BUT THEN... They took ANOTHER 'anonymous tip' that I was committing 'welfare fraud' and now I get a letter from a DCF Investigator by the name of Kristina Vaz, that says they have DETERMINED... (funny how they DETERMINED anything based on a phone call and without talking to ME first) that I had
***Unreported people living in my house (I can only assume they meant my fiancee who does not live with us)
***Have been self employed and not reported my income. (This was based on a post on my myspace page where I wrote for 'who I'd like to meet' "Tampa Bay Area Business Owneres Who Want To Build Online Businesses." Just because I want to meet them, doesn't mean I have or made money off of it. The fact of the matter is that before the scumbag took me for everything that I had, I was learning Intenret Marketing and most of what I posted anywhere were exercises in trying to hone those skills and hopefully, eventually, with a full time job, a MAN with a SECOND income, and possibly the child support I am OWED, I could actually go back to trying to build a business. In October, I found a job that I could do at home, but I had to start my own corporation for it. So I did. I went through a month of unpaid training to discover that their apps were conflicting with my system, and that made me miss so much time, that I was now not eligible to work again until Feb. 6.
*** Am not living at the address on my application, from August. In August, I was living there. My son needed surgery, and I had to live out of a motel up near Mike's mom while we arranged all of the doctors appointments and care. I also had a huge power bill and had the power to the house cut off at the time, AND when I did return from that trip, found my house DESTROYED.. UNINHABITABLE (this is when the gun was stolen). A friend let me stay at a house she owns while I tried to clean the other house up.
Now, while informing 'Tim Duggan' (Kristina Vaz's supervisor who I had to speak with as she was not returning my call) of all this, he refused to let me finish a sentence, had absolutely NO INTEREST in the fact that it was a FALSE CLAIM and only wanted to know what he could possibly 'discover' as an excuse to end my state assistance...
AND... this P.O.S. had the nerve to act as though my concerns about the 'child support blackmail' were something that I had no right to. He had the STUPIDITY to tell me, 'sometimes it's takes YEARS to get money out of someone's pocket.'
Well, let's see, you let him get away with all he's done, you then decided to disqauliify me for assistance, knowing that he's backed me into corners with his behavior for two years, and now, now.. that he's FINALLY PAYING child support, you support his ability to use it as blackmail, AND you take away the bare necessities that I have to make sure my kids EAT in the event that this scumbag does decide not to pay child support anymore, I now have NOTHING.
And before anyone goes and gets all up in arms about how now that I have a boyfriend, I shouldn't be on state assistance, let me tell you that 1.) until they MAKE pay the child support, I have no guarantee that I will get it each month, and
2.) what I recieved in assistance was $525.oo a month in food stamps, and medical coverage for my kids. That's it. I don't get Section 8 housing, I don't get Cash Assistance, and I sure as Hell don't get any 'support services' from Career Central.
So now, what they have done is once again, allowed Mike to try to 'starve out' my children.
Yes, I'll be ok. I did it without his child support and without food stamps for 2 months when he first walked out. I will do it again. I'm not really upset about losing food stamps. I'm upset that DCF, CSE, the DOR, and the Pasco County Sheriff's Department have all turned a blind eye to what this man has done to my kids and I. Now that I've lost food stamps, if he were to stop paying the child support again, (and if I don't let my kids go to his mothers for a weekend so she can 'program' my son to make more accusations about my fiancee, he will) I could end up right back at square one where I can't afford to feed my kids. This is the life that this despicable scumbag is subjecting his children to. And DCF, CSE, the DOR, and the Pasco County Sheriff's Office don't give a DAMN!
WHO THE HELL DOES?!
Saturday, December 26, 2009
BALLS! NERVE! UNBELIEVABLE!
So the 'genetic template' showed up on December 14, 1 day before the child support payment was due, with no advance notice that he would be home on leave, and demanded the children or he would not pay the child support. Although I was pissed that he is still allowed to treat us this way, at his beck and call, I allowed the children to go. I took them to meet him, and video recorded the entire meeting, where we discussed his and his family's behavior and I made it crystal clear that if I had any bullshit calls from the Sheriff's Office about me being 'suicidal' that I was going to take the kids back.
Lo and behold, the 2nd night he has the boys, the deputies are knocking on my door at 8pm. The claim? "She is very depressed. She's on pills and she has a 9mm in the house and is threatening to kill herself."
#1: My significant other is an EMT! If I was on 'pills', I think he would know.
#2: The 'gun' was stolen in October and I have the police report and the name of the deputy who took it to prove it.
#3: His brother's status message back in November specifically stated: "The state investigator will have a nice Christmas gift for her."
Interestingly enough, although the Sheriff's Office and Child Protective Services have determined that this is all obvious harassment, they still are doing nothing to prosecute these idiots or put a stop to all this nonsense.
Mike's latest lie: When I left there was lights and water in that house. Everything was on and running. (I have video that PROVES he said this.) You can see it here:
These are the facts:
In October of 2007, Mike, our son, the unborn child I was carrying, and myself, lived in a house. His brother and sister in law were also staying with us and the electric was on in Mike's name.
Because I owed a previous bill, the power company would not allow the power to stay on even though it was in a new name and at the end of October, they cut the power to the house. They didn't boot the meter correctly and so we had 'leakage.' The house was in a rolling brownout. We had some power to some parts of the house. Enough for maybe a lamp or two and a tv. Not nearly enough to power the stove, hot water heat or the central heat and air.
He left knowing this and knowing that the power company would correct the problem and we would have no power at all.
For the next two years, he refused to pay 'child support.' Yes, he did give me 'some' money ' here and there' as is accounted for in this blog, but he refused to sign the acknowledgement of paternity to make it 'legal.'
The state of Floridal, child support enforcement and the Department of Revenue (who oversee child support enforcement) in their infinite STUPIDITY, were not doing anything to have him served with a paternity suit.
I was still married to Leo.
He was considered the 'legal father' and CSE would hear absolutely nothing of the biological father until that matter was resolved either by a DNA test or with divorce papers that exclude the children from the marriage.
I told them I we would be getting our divorce as soon as possilbe, BUT
At that time, was NOT told that they would use that as an excuse not to serve him, and I was also not told that the papers had to exclude him as both the biological and legal father.
After a year, when I brought them the divorce papers, and was told that the wording wasn't good enough, I asked two questions.
#1: "Why didn't you tell me what wording you wanted?"
The answer: We can't give you legal advice. (I'd like to know what they thought they were doing when they told me to get the divorce.)
#2: "Why have you not just served my ex-husband, let him take the DNA test and be done with it so that we can move on to going after the real father?"
The answer: "Well, if we 'heard' that you 'might' be getting a divorce, then we won't do anything. We'll just wait."
Heard I 'might' be getting a divorce? They ADVISED me to get the divorce.
Finally, after 18 months of runaround from these incompetent bureaucrats, and phone calls to the executive honchos at the Department of Revenue, the biological father was served. And then he invoked the SCRA. The "Servicemen's Civil Relief Act." The outdated Act from 1949 that protects soldiers and sailors from paternity tests. And off to Iraq, Mike went.
In August of 2009, he offered me $150.00 a week in child support on the condition that I let his mother see the boys. I let her see them, and she did truly seem to be trying to have a relationship with me and them.
Sadly, it was all a lie. An act.
Because she came to visit to get my address, and as soon as Mike was home, and he and or his brother, made their latest falsfied police report she gave them the address (had it wrong though, but my car isn't exactly 'inconspicuous'- little red Mercedes is a bit flashy)
His biggest mistake was making the accusation about me saying I was suicidal and that I had a gun in the house and was threatening to kill myself.
Since the gun was stolen two months ago, I certainly wouldn't have made such a threat. If they lied about that, it would stand to reason, to any REASONABLE person,that the rest was a LIE too.
The biggest problem with these people, is that they have no capacity for REASON.
It has taken two years, but finally, someone came along who wants to be husband to me and father to the two most wonderful boys on the planet and Mike is now losing control. He has two options right now and he doesn't want to do either one.
His first, he can step up, acknowledge paternity, and have to deal with supporting his kids and paying 1/3 of his income, even when he gets home from Iraq and doesn't have a job.
The second, give up all rights to the kids.
Either way, he cannot control me with threats to withhold child support anymore. And when control freaks lose control, they get sloppy. And they make mistakes. They made a HUGE mistake when they told the SO that I was threatening to kill myself with a gun that (they didn't know) was stolen 2 months before they made the call. Now the SO knows they are LIARS and it will all come crumbling down very soon.
Victory is but a moment away. Finally!
Lo and behold, the 2nd night he has the boys, the deputies are knocking on my door at 8pm. The claim? "She is very depressed. She's on pills and she has a 9mm in the house and is threatening to kill herself."
#1: My significant other is an EMT! If I was on 'pills', I think he would know.
#2: The 'gun' was stolen in October and I have the police report and the name of the deputy who took it to prove it.
#3: His brother's status message back in November specifically stated: "The state investigator will have a nice Christmas gift for her."
Interestingly enough, although the Sheriff's Office and Child Protective Services have determined that this is all obvious harassment, they still are doing nothing to prosecute these idiots or put a stop to all this nonsense.
Mike's latest lie: When I left there was lights and water in that house. Everything was on and running. (I have video that PROVES he said this.) You can see it here:
These are the facts:
In October of 2007, Mike, our son, the unborn child I was carrying, and myself, lived in a house. His brother and sister in law were also staying with us and the electric was on in Mike's name.
Because I owed a previous bill, the power company would not allow the power to stay on even though it was in a new name and at the end of October, they cut the power to the house. They didn't boot the meter correctly and so we had 'leakage.' The house was in a rolling brownout. We had some power to some parts of the house. Enough for maybe a lamp or two and a tv. Not nearly enough to power the stove, hot water heat or the central heat and air.
He left knowing this and knowing that the power company would correct the problem and we would have no power at all.
For the next two years, he refused to pay 'child support.' Yes, he did give me 'some' money ' here and there' as is accounted for in this blog, but he refused to sign the acknowledgement of paternity to make it 'legal.'
The state of Floridal, child support enforcement and the Department of Revenue (who oversee child support enforcement) in their infinite STUPIDITY, were not doing anything to have him served with a paternity suit.
I was still married to Leo.
He was considered the 'legal father' and CSE would hear absolutely nothing of the biological father until that matter was resolved either by a DNA test or with divorce papers that exclude the children from the marriage.
I told them I we would be getting our divorce as soon as possilbe, BUT
At that time, was NOT told that they would use that as an excuse not to serve him, and I was also not told that the papers had to exclude him as both the biological and legal father.
After a year, when I brought them the divorce papers, and was told that the wording wasn't good enough, I asked two questions.
#1: "Why didn't you tell me what wording you wanted?"
The answer: We can't give you legal advice. (I'd like to know what they thought they were doing when they told me to get the divorce.)
#2: "Why have you not just served my ex-husband, let him take the DNA test and be done with it so that we can move on to going after the real father?"
The answer: "Well, if we 'heard' that you 'might' be getting a divorce, then we won't do anything. We'll just wait."
Heard I 'might' be getting a divorce? They ADVISED me to get the divorce.
Finally, after 18 months of runaround from these incompetent bureaucrats, and phone calls to the executive honchos at the Department of Revenue, the biological father was served. And then he invoked the SCRA. The "Servicemen's Civil Relief Act." The outdated Act from 1949 that protects soldiers and sailors from paternity tests. And off to Iraq, Mike went.
In August of 2009, he offered me $150.00 a week in child support on the condition that I let his mother see the boys. I let her see them, and she did truly seem to be trying to have a relationship with me and them.
Sadly, it was all a lie. An act.
Because she came to visit to get my address, and as soon as Mike was home, and he and or his brother, made their latest falsfied police report she gave them the address (had it wrong though, but my car isn't exactly 'inconspicuous'- little red Mercedes is a bit flashy)
His biggest mistake was making the accusation about me saying I was suicidal and that I had a gun in the house and was threatening to kill myself.
Since the gun was stolen two months ago, I certainly wouldn't have made such a threat. If they lied about that, it would stand to reason, to any REASONABLE person,that the rest was a LIE too.
The biggest problem with these people, is that they have no capacity for REASON.
It has taken two years, but finally, someone came along who wants to be husband to me and father to the two most wonderful boys on the planet and Mike is now losing control. He has two options right now and he doesn't want to do either one.
His first, he can step up, acknowledge paternity, and have to deal with supporting his kids and paying 1/3 of his income, even when he gets home from Iraq and doesn't have a job.
The second, give up all rights to the kids.
Either way, he cannot control me with threats to withhold child support anymore. And when control freaks lose control, they get sloppy. And they make mistakes. They made a HUGE mistake when they told the SO that I was threatening to kill myself with a gun that (they didn't know) was stolen 2 months before they made the call. Now the SO knows they are LIARS and it will all come crumbling down very soon.
Victory is but a moment away. Finally!
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Watch The Video Below
*He admits that he went scuba diving before he even called to see his kids.
*He claims that there was "lights" and running water in the house the day he walked out on us.
[A week earlier, when the electric company cut the power, he called and told them that our house was like a rolling brown out. They told us that their tech had booted the meter wrong and we were getting 'leakage.' He knew it was only a matter of time before they corrected the problem.]
*Watch how his mother constantly interrupts so that the actual discussion can never be resolved.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3131382
*He admits that he went scuba diving before he even called to see his kids.
*He claims that there was "lights" and running water in the house the day he walked out on us.
[A week earlier, when the electric company cut the power, he called and told them that our house was like a rolling brown out. They told us that their tech had booted the meter wrong and we were getting 'leakage.' He knew it was only a matter of time before they corrected the problem.]
*Watch how his mother constantly interrupts so that the actual discussion can never be resolved.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3131382
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Who Is More Afraid Of A Thief Than A Thief?
I almost don't even want to tell the story. Beyond the anger, is an inherent sadness that has left me feeling depleted. If you've followed this blog, and know my story, you know that my kids' 'sperm seller' was the love of my life. When I first met him, his mother adored me, but when I ran out of money, things changed. She now supported his decision to abandon our family. She knew that my son and I had no electricity in our house and that I was broke and pregnant. She also knew that both of her sons were stealing from me.
Now, after about a month of spending time with her, and having her watch the boys for me every day, the time for my older boys' surgery has been scheduled. It is 6 days from now, and I've run out of money to keep paying for this motel I've been staying at in order to be close to her until this surgery is over. My roommate has been here with me, and though I have my issues with her work ethic and attitude, she never stole from me, and she was there the day my second baby was born. She was the very first person to have ever held that baby and she has taken care of him since that day.
I told Dianne, Mike's mother, that we found a place to stay and that we have to leave Monday. She asked me then, who was going to take care of the baby when the older boy has his surgery. I told her that I would ask a friend to watch the dog for a couple of days, and that my roommate, the kids, and I would stay with her and my roommate could watch the baby while we took the older boy for his surgery.
Dianne said she didn't want my roommate staying at her house alone. Now, this is the woman who HARBORED, hid, and lied about, MY STOLEN PROPERTY. My property that her sons STOLE from me, and she is worried about my roommate being alone in HER house? Is she afraid my roommate will steal back all MY stolen items?
I really thought that she was making an effort to be a 'family' to my kids, but I can see now, this is an act. I haven't specified what the 'ulterior motive' is here yet, but I have my ideas, and I'm sure that no good will come of her actions as of late. It still makes me angry, but I think my grieving process is now turning to despair. Despair for the fact that things will never change.
Now, after about a month of spending time with her, and having her watch the boys for me every day, the time for my older boys' surgery has been scheduled. It is 6 days from now, and I've run out of money to keep paying for this motel I've been staying at in order to be close to her until this surgery is over. My roommate has been here with me, and though I have my issues with her work ethic and attitude, she never stole from me, and she was there the day my second baby was born. She was the very first person to have ever held that baby and she has taken care of him since that day.
I told Dianne, Mike's mother, that we found a place to stay and that we have to leave Monday. She asked me then, who was going to take care of the baby when the older boy has his surgery. I told her that I would ask a friend to watch the dog for a couple of days, and that my roommate, the kids, and I would stay with her and my roommate could watch the baby while we took the older boy for his surgery.
Dianne said she didn't want my roommate staying at her house alone. Now, this is the woman who HARBORED, hid, and lied about, MY STOLEN PROPERTY. My property that her sons STOLE from me, and she is worried about my roommate being alone in HER house? Is she afraid my roommate will steal back all MY stolen items?
I really thought that she was making an effort to be a 'family' to my kids, but I can see now, this is an act. I haven't specified what the 'ulterior motive' is here yet, but I have my ideas, and I'm sure that no good will come of her actions as of late. It still makes me angry, but I think my grieving process is now turning to despair. Despair for the fact that things will never change.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
She can't see the forest because there are too many trees in the way
In a previous post, I talked about the woman I took in who wound up causing me 10 days of grief and other issues I am still dealing with today. I took her in because she was the 'friend' of the roommate I already had, who was a major cause of the problems with the new one. You see, for over a year, roommate #1, lived with me and refused to work. We would get writing jobs online, and getting her to do them was like pulling teeth. She wound up doing a couple, here and there, but for the most part, she spent her time on wannabe detective forums, twitter and Facebook.
When we couldn't pay our electric bill last month, we rented a motel room and for $200 a week, had all the utilities and Internet access to do our job.
We talked about moving to another area and even looked at a few houses, but the fact is, my house is in foreclosure. Right now, I'm living rent free and we're both about to start a new job that will pay each of us almost $500 a week and can be done from home. If we move, we'll be adding another $1,000 a month onto our BILLS, and if we STAY, we'll save $1,000 a month. And in 3-4 months, have not only the money to move, but be established in the job long enough to know we're secure and that our paychecks are secure too.
Although, economically, this makes the most sense, she refuses to respond to LOGIC and simply DEMANDS that she will not move back into MY house.
Look, the fact is, the woman is 50 years old. Getting a 'job' at her age is going to be hard to do. Add to that that she has a piss poor demeanor that comes across in her body language and in the way she talks, and no one is going to hire her.
Every time things got tight with the bills, I would remind her that we needed to buckle down and get some work done. God forbid, however, that I interrupt her twittering and Facebook time to remind her we have deadlines. If I do that, I'm trying to 'control' her. She will say she doesn't want to do 'this kind of work' yet will do nothing else to earn an income either.
Now, after two years of being a struggling single mom, barely keeping the bills paid from freelance work on the Internet, the Deadbeat Dad is finally paying child support, and I am going to have a steady job, that I can work at home, with a steady PAYCHECK, and she wants to throw away the one last opportunity we have to bank some cash so that we will have a cushion and never have to be in this position again, over a couple more months of living in a house where we don't have to pay rent.
And as an added thought: She has had no problem sticking me with 100% of the BILLS of MY house with NO RENT, and now, I'm supposed to risk getting stuck with another $1,000 a month in rent that she may stick me with. I suppose she thinks that since we'll be 'renting' from a 'landlord' she shouldn't have to pay him or her rent either, because after all, it's THEIR house.
GRRR.... I tried to explain it 'logically' but all I get in response to 'logic' is "I'm not going back to that house. I'm NOT. I would rather go live on the streets than go back to YOUR house."
When we couldn't pay our electric bill last month, we rented a motel room and for $200 a week, had all the utilities and Internet access to do our job.
We talked about moving to another area and even looked at a few houses, but the fact is, my house is in foreclosure. Right now, I'm living rent free and we're both about to start a new job that will pay each of us almost $500 a week and can be done from home. If we move, we'll be adding another $1,000 a month onto our BILLS, and if we STAY, we'll save $1,000 a month. And in 3-4 months, have not only the money to move, but be established in the job long enough to know we're secure and that our paychecks are secure too.
Although, economically, this makes the most sense, she refuses to respond to LOGIC and simply DEMANDS that she will not move back into MY house.
Look, the fact is, the woman is 50 years old. Getting a 'job' at her age is going to be hard to do. Add to that that she has a piss poor demeanor that comes across in her body language and in the way she talks, and no one is going to hire her.
Every time things got tight with the bills, I would remind her that we needed to buckle down and get some work done. God forbid, however, that I interrupt her twittering and Facebook time to remind her we have deadlines. If I do that, I'm trying to 'control' her. She will say she doesn't want to do 'this kind of work' yet will do nothing else to earn an income either.
Now, after two years of being a struggling single mom, barely keeping the bills paid from freelance work on the Internet, the Deadbeat Dad is finally paying child support, and I am going to have a steady job, that I can work at home, with a steady PAYCHECK, and she wants to throw away the one last opportunity we have to bank some cash so that we will have a cushion and never have to be in this position again, over a couple more months of living in a house where we don't have to pay rent.
And as an added thought: She has had no problem sticking me with 100% of the BILLS of MY house with NO RENT, and now, I'm supposed to risk getting stuck with another $1,000 a month in rent that she may stick me with. I suppose she thinks that since we'll be 'renting' from a 'landlord' she shouldn't have to pay him or her rent either, because after all, it's THEIR house.
GRRR.... I tried to explain it 'logically' but all I get in response to 'logic' is "I'm not going back to that house. I'm NOT. I would rather go live on the streets than go back to YOUR house."
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The smell of the scheme is getting stronger
Well, here it is, folks. The "Deadbeat Dad" in question, now is offering $150.00 a week in child support, plus, he conveniently has $2,498.00 just 'lying around' to pay for our sons dental care. Now, I have medical coverage that will cover the baby's dental work, but he doesn't want our son to have a 'welfare' doctor, and of course, it's going to cut into the child support he's agreed to give me by $150.00 this month.
And of course, the mother who thought it was ok for him to leave me, thinks I should somehow be 'grateful' that he's willing to do this since she seems to think that I should be responsible for 50% of the cost of his dental work, despite the fact that I have insurance.
Rather than let me use my insurance and actually pay ME the money he has owed me for two years in child support (and that's not counting paying me back for all the money he and his brother stole from me) he will pay it to a dentist and have an excuse not to pay the chid support he just agreed to.
Want to really add insult to injury? First, he still has put NOTHING in writing saying that he is 'agreeing' to pay child support, and second, he refuses to discuss the situation with ME. He seems to think it's acceptable that I allow his mother to be the 'mediator.'
The mother who raised one son to steal from the other's girlfriend, and her second son to leave his girlfriend over the fact that she refused to let the brother keep doing it. Oh yeah.. she's a great one to be 'impartial' here, right?
This dentist can't put our son under a general anastesia. Only a twilight. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, but Daddy Dearest has said (through his Mommy of course) that he will not help with the bill if I don't go to THIS doctor, and that he will not pay child support unless I do it HIS way.
Does anyone besides me wonder if his refusal to communicate WITH ME is because he doesn't want me to have a written record of his bullying?
Obama needs to make a grant for single mom's to have real lawyers for deadbeat dads. Instead of the useless child support enforcement agencies that have let him get away with it for TWO YEARS!
And of course, the mother who thought it was ok for him to leave me, thinks I should somehow be 'grateful' that he's willing to do this since she seems to think that I should be responsible for 50% of the cost of his dental work, despite the fact that I have insurance.
Rather than let me use my insurance and actually pay ME the money he has owed me for two years in child support (and that's not counting paying me back for all the money he and his brother stole from me) he will pay it to a dentist and have an excuse not to pay the chid support he just agreed to.
Want to really add insult to injury? First, he still has put NOTHING in writing saying that he is 'agreeing' to pay child support, and second, he refuses to discuss the situation with ME. He seems to think it's acceptable that I allow his mother to be the 'mediator.'
The mother who raised one son to steal from the other's girlfriend, and her second son to leave his girlfriend over the fact that she refused to let the brother keep doing it. Oh yeah.. she's a great one to be 'impartial' here, right?
This dentist can't put our son under a general anastesia. Only a twilight. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, but Daddy Dearest has said (through his Mommy of course) that he will not help with the bill if I don't go to THIS doctor, and that he will not pay child support unless I do it HIS way.
Does anyone besides me wonder if his refusal to communicate WITH ME is because he doesn't want me to have a written record of his bullying?
Obama needs to make a grant for single mom's to have real lawyers for deadbeat dads. Instead of the useless child support enforcement agencies that have let him get away with it for TWO YEARS!
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
And so...
Strange things are afoot. The boys fathers mother has kept his word to pay child support and now says he is going to pay me $150.00 a week and give the kids medical coverage. This is wonderful for me, if I knew what he was up to. Let's face it, we're talking about a family where the brother ripped me off for over $3,000, he left me homeless while carrying our second and caring for our first, stole my truck so I couldn't make a living and stole everything else I owned as well.
I brought the kids to her house for a visit, and lo and behold, the stereo that I reported in the police report I made about the 'burglary' to my house, is sitting right in his mother's living room. She claims she has no idea where it came from. "Michael brought it home," she lies.
As far as him communicating with me, he never has, and only today was I told, by his mother, that, he thinks it's better this way, with he and I communicating through her because we fight. Awww... too damn bad. When we fight, this is why:
Vanessa: Mike, when are you going to put your name on the kids birth certificates?
Mike: When I have a job
Vanessa: Why?
Mike: Because I don't want to get served with papers to pay child support when I don't have a job
Vanessa: Do you think your kids only need to eat when you have a job?
Mike: F**K YOU! YOU F**KING B**CH... (CLICK, Hangs up.)
Now, Dianne has excused Mike's abandonment of our family by saying that the baby didn't need to see us fighting. She's never stopped to tell Mike that he needed to stop fighting, that he shouldn't have allowed his brother to do the things that were causing the fights, that he needed to get a job and take care of his family. Nope. She has never once acknowledged the 'cause' of the fighting or how it should be solved. She's very typical of any irresponsible adult, run away from the symptom and ignore the cause. To her, it's ok to abandon your responsibilities to escape the symptom, and you never have to face the cause.
That type of belief system is the reason my kids don't have a "Daddy." Of course I'm glad he's now paying support and giving them medical coverage. But even with them, I am still 100% responsible for the daily care of those children and 90% financially responsible for those children. Plus, I am owed almost 2 years in back child support, and I am owed more respect than these games he plays.
He abandoned his family. I'm still here.
I brought the kids to her house for a visit, and lo and behold, the stereo that I reported in the police report I made about the 'burglary' to my house, is sitting right in his mother's living room. She claims she has no idea where it came from. "Michael brought it home," she lies.
As far as him communicating with me, he never has, and only today was I told, by his mother, that, he thinks it's better this way, with he and I communicating through her because we fight. Awww... too damn bad. When we fight, this is why:
Vanessa: Mike, when are you going to put your name on the kids birth certificates?
Mike: When I have a job
Vanessa: Why?
Mike: Because I don't want to get served with papers to pay child support when I don't have a job
Vanessa: Do you think your kids only need to eat when you have a job?
Mike: F**K YOU! YOU F**KING B**CH... (CLICK, Hangs up.)
Now, Dianne has excused Mike's abandonment of our family by saying that the baby didn't need to see us fighting. She's never stopped to tell Mike that he needed to stop fighting, that he shouldn't have allowed his brother to do the things that were causing the fights, that he needed to get a job and take care of his family. Nope. She has never once acknowledged the 'cause' of the fighting or how it should be solved. She's very typical of any irresponsible adult, run away from the symptom and ignore the cause. To her, it's ok to abandon your responsibilities to escape the symptom, and you never have to face the cause.
That type of belief system is the reason my kids don't have a "Daddy." Of course I'm glad he's now paying support and giving them medical coverage. But even with them, I am still 100% responsible for the daily care of those children and 90% financially responsible for those children. Plus, I am owed almost 2 years in back child support, and I am owed more respect than these games he plays.
He abandoned his family. I'm still here.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
An Open Letter To The Mother Of My Deadbeat Dad
I've had some conversations with the sperm donors mother over the past two days, and what it comes down to is this.
Here's the letter:
Dianne,
Some of the things you have said to me have caused me to stay up all night, thinking of questions I have to put to you.
How dare you say that I am 'too spoiled and selfish' to have children?
Let me clue you in, I am not the one who was so selfish as to abandon them when they needed me the most, to provide food and shelter. I believe the truly 'spoiled and selfish' has taken that trophy. When Mike couldn't provide, I did. When I couldn't he walked out, and he didn't just leave... he tried to kill me in every way possible.
He took MY TRUCK so I couldn't make a living.
He ROBBED MY HOUSE when I wasn't here.
He helped RUIN the only way I could make a living by outing me on the one place I was still making money...
You stood idly by and let all of this happen,even ENCOURAGED it for God's sake, and you have the nerve to talk about what MY FAMILY does to me...
TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK at what YOUR FAMILY... did to me.
Do you want to know the truth finally about why I didn't want to have a child? It was because I never believed that Mike wasn't too spoiled to walk out if the going got tough. Guess what. I was right.
It was because I knew by the example you set, that Mike has no sense of responsibility.
You condemn my family for the way they treat me, yet, the way your family treated me was horrific. You have your say about my family and I let you say it, but when you are done, and I come back at you with the things your family did to me, you interrupt me with "I'm not going to talk about it."
HOW DARE YOU!
How dare you have the nerve to condemn ANYONE for the way they treat people when you treated YOUR GRANDCHILDREN to the most grandiose drama to have ever graced the stage of parental alienation...
You were a conductor in the orchestrated plot to destroy my family.
You behaved like white trash, with your attacks on me and mine and then 'shutting down' with "I'm not going to talk about that' when faced with the mirror images of your own DISGUSTING behavior.
You speak with a forked tongue. Telling Mike how wonderful I am when I take you on a cruise, and then spitting venom about me behind my back when the money ran out, starting stupid fights about an imaginary 'haircut' so you could set a stage for him to leave because even Mommy doesn't like me now.
You talk about how my mother wouldn't come to see her grandhcild. Let's talk about how you told your son it was ok to leave when that same child had no home to live in. Let's talk about how you shouted from your Yahoo messenger pulpit the PRIDE you took in your son not doing one single thing to support his children. Oh, you don't want to talk about THAT!
Poor you, you got upset.
Poor kids, they have no Father, thanks in large part to you.
You cannot understand how my family could not see the baby?
I cannot understand how you can just make a blanket statement like "you two are not compatible' and 'the baby didn't need to see you two fighting' without ever having uttered the words to your son that he needed to be a real man and a real father and put me and the kids before his brother, and HE needed to make sacrifices for his family. Without ever having uttered the words to him, "Michael, you are a father, you wanted those kids. You two are having problems. Go see a counselor."
No, just like you do with your bills, you decide you don't want to be responsible for your obligations, so you walk away. You find some reason to 'blame' something why you do it, but you just walk away. Just what you taught your children to do with their responsibilities.
You 'created' the 'you two aren't compatible, the baby doesn't need to see you fight excuse' because you couldn't fathom the idea of your precious son taking any responsibilities for his family and getting some counseling. God forbid he actually he had to do something to try to take care of HIS family... because then, he wouldn't be taking care of you.
I cannot understand how you think it was ok for me to have sacrificed myself to give him children, how I sacrificed MY money, to give him TWO businesses, and cars, and boats, and cruises... but when it came time for him to make a sacrifice, you didn't think he had to and you thought I just had to 'accept' his running off and leaving me to raise kids I had because he promised me he would be there to raise them WITH ME?!
The 'spoiled selfish' one who doesn't deserve these kids is actually your son, who you trained to believe that he had the right to just do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.
You trained him in this belief by 'agreeing' with everything your husband did, and burying yourself in a bottle so you didn't 'fight' with him about anything, up to and including his cheating on you.
It is pretty clear to everyone in the world that you and your family used me for my money. Mike's time in 'theater' served him well. He definitely pulled the wool over my eyes with his fake romance and adoration. But when the gravy train started to run dry and there was nothing left for him, you and his brother to suck on anymore, I faced the most devastating blow of my life, and you all lined up to KICK me when I was down, going out of your way to make things even worse for me, sending me spiraling into a pit of despair so you could then say, "he had to leave her. She was crazy. All they did was fight and that wasn't any good for the baby." And your plan hatched, and not one of you ever gave a shit how much MY CHILDREN SUFFERED because of the hatred you encouraged to cover up the truth...
You were all just using me for what you could get, and when the party was over, I was the one left holding the bag.
I hope you are all very happy. After all, I've seen the bullshit excuses you all made for Rich not supporting his children, and I've seen firsthand Mike tells those exact same lies and bullshit to a woman he wanted to 'date' thinking that women are going to be dumb enough to believe it. He actually told this woman that he DOES pay child support! HA! He won't even admit they are his kids.
I think it's time that you, Rich, Kelly and Angie left my family alone. Take a good hard look Dianne, Rich's kids in California hate his guts. My kids will feel no differently. Children aren't stupid. If you want to kid yourself into believing that ANYONE falls for the bullshit excuses you all made for Rich not supporting his kids,
- She talks bad about my family, and how they treat me, but when I bring up how HER family treated me and my kids, I get "I'm not going to talk about it."
- She talks about how my ex and I were always fighting and how it wasn't good for the baby to see, but when I bring up the question, "what we were fighting about?" (his brother and the way his brother 'influenced him to make bad decisions that affected OUR financial well-being because his brother is a MORON)... I get, "I'm not going to talk about it."
- She had the NERVE, the GALL, the CAJONES to say that I was too spoiled and selfish to have had a child! When I replied with, "He was the one who selfishly abandoned this family" I got.. YOU GUESSED IT..... "I'm not going to talk about it."
Here's the letter:
Dianne,
Some of the things you have said to me have caused me to stay up all night, thinking of questions I have to put to you.
How dare you say that I am 'too spoiled and selfish' to have children?
Let me clue you in, I am not the one who was so selfish as to abandon them when they needed me the most, to provide food and shelter. I believe the truly 'spoiled and selfish' has taken that trophy. When Mike couldn't provide, I did. When I couldn't he walked out, and he didn't just leave... he tried to kill me in every way possible.
He took MY TRUCK so I couldn't make a living.
He ROBBED MY HOUSE when I wasn't here.
He helped RUIN the only way I could make a living by outing me on the one place I was still making money...
You stood idly by and let all of this happen,even ENCOURAGED it for God's sake, and you have the nerve to talk about what MY FAMILY does to me...
TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK at what YOUR FAMILY... did to me.
Do you want to know the truth finally about why I didn't want to have a child? It was because I never believed that Mike wasn't too spoiled to walk out if the going got tough. Guess what. I was right.
It was because I knew by the example you set, that Mike has no sense of responsibility.
You condemn my family for the way they treat me, yet, the way your family treated me was horrific. You have your say about my family and I let you say it, but when you are done, and I come back at you with the things your family did to me, you interrupt me with "I'm not going to talk about it."
HOW DARE YOU!
How dare you have the nerve to condemn ANYONE for the way they treat people when you treated YOUR GRANDCHILDREN to the most grandiose drama to have ever graced the stage of parental alienation...
You were a conductor in the orchestrated plot to destroy my family.
You behaved like white trash, with your attacks on me and mine and then 'shutting down' with "I'm not going to talk about that' when faced with the mirror images of your own DISGUSTING behavior.
You speak with a forked tongue. Telling Mike how wonderful I am when I take you on a cruise, and then spitting venom about me behind my back when the money ran out, starting stupid fights about an imaginary 'haircut' so you could set a stage for him to leave because even Mommy doesn't like me now.
You talk about how my mother wouldn't come to see her grandhcild. Let's talk about how you told your son it was ok to leave when that same child had no home to live in. Let's talk about how you shouted from your Yahoo messenger pulpit the PRIDE you took in your son not doing one single thing to support his children. Oh, you don't want to talk about THAT!
Poor you, you got upset.
Poor kids, they have no Father, thanks in large part to you.
You cannot understand how my family could not see the baby?
I cannot understand how you can just make a blanket statement like "you two are not compatible' and 'the baby didn't need to see you two fighting' without ever having uttered the words to your son that he needed to be a real man and a real father and put me and the kids before his brother, and HE needed to make sacrifices for his family. Without ever having uttered the words to him, "Michael, you are a father, you wanted those kids. You two are having problems. Go see a counselor."
No, just like you do with your bills, you decide you don't want to be responsible for your obligations, so you walk away. You find some reason to 'blame' something why you do it, but you just walk away. Just what you taught your children to do with their responsibilities.
You 'created' the 'you two aren't compatible, the baby doesn't need to see you fight excuse' because you couldn't fathom the idea of your precious son taking any responsibilities for his family and getting some counseling. God forbid he actually he had to do something to try to take care of HIS family... because then, he wouldn't be taking care of you.
I cannot understand how you think it was ok for me to have sacrificed myself to give him children, how I sacrificed MY money, to give him TWO businesses, and cars, and boats, and cruises... but when it came time for him to make a sacrifice, you didn't think he had to and you thought I just had to 'accept' his running off and leaving me to raise kids I had because he promised me he would be there to raise them WITH ME?!
The 'spoiled selfish' one who doesn't deserve these kids is actually your son, who you trained to believe that he had the right to just do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.
You trained him in this belief by 'agreeing' with everything your husband did, and burying yourself in a bottle so you didn't 'fight' with him about anything, up to and including his cheating on you.
It is pretty clear to everyone in the world that you and your family used me for my money. Mike's time in 'theater' served him well. He definitely pulled the wool over my eyes with his fake romance and adoration. But when the gravy train started to run dry and there was nothing left for him, you and his brother to suck on anymore, I faced the most devastating blow of my life, and you all lined up to KICK me when I was down, going out of your way to make things even worse for me, sending me spiraling into a pit of despair so you could then say, "he had to leave her. She was crazy. All they did was fight and that wasn't any good for the baby." And your plan hatched, and not one of you ever gave a shit how much MY CHILDREN SUFFERED because of the hatred you encouraged to cover up the truth...
You were all just using me for what you could get, and when the party was over, I was the one left holding the bag.
I hope you are all very happy. After all, I've seen the bullshit excuses you all made for Rich not supporting his children, and I've seen firsthand Mike tells those exact same lies and bullshit to a woman he wanted to 'date' thinking that women are going to be dumb enough to believe it. He actually told this woman that he DOES pay child support! HA! He won't even admit they are his kids.
I think it's time that you, Rich, Kelly and Angie left my family alone. Take a good hard look Dianne, Rich's kids in California hate his guts. My kids will feel no differently. Children aren't stupid. If you want to kid yourself into believing that ANYONE falls for the bullshit excuses you all made for Rich not supporting his kids,
I leave you with this... I have been through marriage counseling, and the one thing I learned there was that if you loved each other to get together and create a family in the first place, that love can be found again. You just have to want to want it. Even if you think you don't want it, you owe it to yourselves and your children to open your mind and your heart to getting past the anger that makes you feel that way, so you can start the process of healing and finding love again. It just takes work, and a little guidance to learn how to find it again. Anyone who won't let you finish that sentence, or who tries to argue against, does not have the interest of 'real family' at heart, and you should not be surrounding yourself with anyone who would say this.
###
It is my inherent belief that no matter what happens, a family is stronger together! Emotionally, financially, and even socially. Love, marriage, family, relationships.... it isn't all fun and games and Hallmark cards and good times... sometimes it's hard, sometimes it's damn hard work! And A LOT of self-sacrifice. You became a parent. Self-sacrifice is no longer an 'option' it's now a RESPONSIBILITY. Your children deserve for you to get past the anger immediately, even if it needs to be forced upon you to do so. You have no right to let your anger cause the grief that anger causes to innocent children.
Friday, July 31, 2009
***Update*** On The Deadbeat Dad, Another one for the Deadbeat Dad's List
So our older boy is pretty sick and here's another one for the Deadbeat Dad's list. A friend of mine told the sperm donor that the boy is sick and because of my crappy Medicaid medical coverage, he's not getting very good care from the doctors. Suddenly, the message from the sperm donor's mother- He wants to talk to me about medical coverage for the boys and a few other things that I will be pleased about.
Doubtful. The level of distrust is so deep here, that when she asked for my email address, I refused because I don't so much as want him having my IP address. He's not to be trusted at all.
This all came down yesterday on July 30, 2009. I told her to have him instant message me, but so far, he hasn't.
Fancy that, eh?
Doubtful. The level of distrust is so deep here, that when she asked for my email address, I refused because I don't so much as want him having my IP address. He's not to be trusted at all.
This all came down yesterday on July 30, 2009. I told her to have him instant message me, but so far, he hasn't.
Fancy that, eh?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
My ex pointed a loaded gun at my face, slapped me across the face, dragged me across a room by my hair, and tried to run me over with a car (running over both my feet) while I was pregnant. As is the case with many women in abusive relationships, I chose to believe his apologies and promises that it would never happen again, up until he tried to run me over with the car. When I did finally get up the nerve to make a police report, they refused to arrest him based on the three weeks it took me to finally make the report.
The military has done nothing to assist me in holding this man responsible for abandoning his children, and now, my biggest fear is that because he has been permitted to get away with so much, that I could be the next victim of a crime like the one in this video.
Watch this at Tampa Bay Online
More Information On The SCRA
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18506417/page/2/print/1/displaymode/1098/
Some family court judges say that determining what’s best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/speeches/wjk_article.php
If you would like to discuss SCRA issues with attorneys at Department of Justice, please contact Steven H. Rosenbaum, chief of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, at 202-514-4713 or Elizabeth A. Singer, director of the U.S. Attorneys’ Fair Housing Program, at 202-514-6164.
Some family court judges say that determining what’s best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/speeches/wjk_article.php
If you would like to discuss SCRA issues with attorneys at Department of Justice, please contact Steven H. Rosenbaum, chief of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, at 202-514-4713 or Elizabeth A. Singer, director of the U.S. Attorneys’ Fair Housing Program, at 202-514-6164.
Supporting Cases
Here are two cases where the courts have denied a stay in cases involving the SCRA
Reference url:
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/2006/20060714/95727.htm
Reference url:
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/2006/20060714/95727.htm
.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
No. 95,727
In the Matter of the Marriage of
LEVI BRADLEY,
Appellant,
and
AMBER BRADLEY,
Appellee.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. The stated purpose of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 501 et seq. (2003), is to "strengthen, and expedite the national defense" by enabling servicemembers of the United States "to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation."
2. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. Additionally, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 501 et seq. (2003), is to be liberally construed to prevent the civil rights of a servicemember from being adversely affected while serving in the military.
3. To entitle a servicemember to a mandatory stay pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 522(b)(1) (2003), the servicemember must comply with the two conditions set out in § 522(b)(2).
4. Where a servicemember fails to satisfy the two conditions set out in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 522(b)(2) (2003), the granting of a stay is within the discretion of the district court.
5. Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.
Appeal from Franklin district court; JAMES J. SMITH, judge. Opinion filed July 14, 2006. Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
Jean Ann Uvodich, of Olathe, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Amy L. Durkin, of Eudora, argued the cause, and Lowell C. Paul, of Kansas Legal Services, was with her on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ALLEGRUCCI, J.: This is an interlocutory appeal in a divorce proceeding. Petitioner, Levi Bradley, is serving in the military. He seeks a ruling on application of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (Act), 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 501 et seq. (2003). When respondent filed a motion to modify the temporary custody order, Levi sought a stay of the proceedings pursuant to the Act. The district court concluded that the Act did not apply to the temporary order. At the request of the petitioner, the district court certified its ruling for interlocutory appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2102(c). The sole issue on appeal is whether the Act applies in the circumstances. The Court of Appeals granted leave to docket the appeal. This court transferred the case from the Court of Appeals pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018(c).
Levi and Amber Bradley were married on February 27, 2003. On September 8, 2003, their son, Tyler, was born. Levi went to boot camp in June 2003 and then was away in the military. They resided with Levi's mother, Starleen Bradley, from the date of their marriage until April 27, 2005.
Levi Bradley filed the present divorce action on May 19, 2005. In his petition, Levi prayed for sole custody of Tyler, with residential placement with his mother, and he contemporaneously filed a motion for temporary orders. In the motion for temporary orders, Levi alleged that Amber had moved in with her boyfriend on April 27 and was not properly caring for Tyler.
After the divorce action was filed, Amber traveled to North Carolina where Levi was stationed. They were going to try to make their marriage work. Amber agreed to leave Tyler in Starleen Bradley's custody. On June 8, 2005, an agreed order and parenting plan, signed by Amber, Levi's counsel, and the trial judge, was filed. It recites that the order is in response to "the Verified Petition for Divorce and Request for Temporary Orders." The order provides:
"1. The Petitioner is hereby granted sole legal custody of the minor child Tyler Allen Bradley with residential custody of the minor child being with the Paternal Grandmother Starleen Bradley subject to Respondent's reasonable and liberal parent time precluding overnight visitations.
"2. Petitioner's mother, Starleen Bradley, has full authority to obtain medical attention for the minor child."
On September 26, 2005, Amber filed a motion to modify the order granting sole legal custody to Levi. She alleged that she did not have counsel at the time she signed the order and did not fully understand what she was agreeing to. She further stated:
"Since the court only has the authority to place the child with anyone other than a parent by agreement, or with a child in need of care referral, the temporary order should be set aside and residential placement of the minor child should be with the respondent. The court has had no opportunity to hear any evidence that would indicate that a child in need of care case is appropriate in this situation."
Petitioner's response was an application for stay of proceedings pursuant to the Act. Levi stated that he had been deployed to Iraq, was scheduled to return to the United States by March 31, 2006, and sought a stay of the proceedings "until such time as he is available to testify." At a hearing on November 8, 2005, the district court expressed the view
"that temporary orders in this matter are [not] stayed by the Servicemen's Civil Relief Act. I believe this Court has a continuing obligation to consider what's in the best interest of the child. I do believe that judgments against a petitioner husband are precluded thereby but not what is in the best interest of this child and I believe the Court has the authority and will take up the Motion to Modify Temporary Orders."
At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court filed the following order:
"1. Custody of the parties' minor child, Tyler Allen Bradley, is awarded to the parties as joint custody with primary residence of the minor child awarded to respondent, Amber Bradley.
"2. Custody of the minor child shall be transferred to respondent on this 8th day of November, 2005, on or before 5:00 PM."
Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider and amend the order. Levi again requested the district court to stay proceedings while he is deployed in Iraq, to certify the question for interlocutory appeal, and to allow him to present evidence that "the situation for the minor child while in the care of Respondent does rise to the level necessary to establish probable cause of a child in need of care." Following a hearing on December 6, 2005, the district court reiterated its earlier ruling that the Act did not apply, denied Levi's motion for a stay of the proceedings, and declined to reconsider placement of the child. The district court did certify the question for an immediate appeal. Levi Bradley has returned from service in Iraq as scheduled and was present at oral argument before this court.
DISCUSSION
50 U.S.C.A. App. § 502 (2003) provides that the purposes of the Act are
"(1) to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense through protection extended by this Act to servicemembers of the United States to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation; and
"(2) to provide for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of service-members during their military service."
The Act applies to "any judicial or administrative proceeding commenced in any court or agency in any jurisdiction subject to this Act. This Act does not apply to criminal proceedings." 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 512(b). The protections extended by the Act are far-ranging and include forgiveness of certain interest, protection from eviction, termination of leases, and prohibition against financial retaliation by lenders and creditors. See Pottorff, The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act: A Modern Replacement for the SSCRA [Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act], 74 J.K.B.A. 20 (Oct. 2005). In addition, a servicemember is protected when he or she cannot or does not appear to defend or pursue civil proceedings. 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 522(a) (2003) provides that the section "applies to any civil action or proceeding in which the plaintiff or defendant at the time of filing an application under this section–(1) is in military service or is within 90 days after termination of or release from military service; and (2) has received notice of the action or proceeding." 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 522 (b) provides:
"(b) Stay of proceedings
(1) Authority for stay
At any stage before final judgment in a civil action or proceeding in which a servicemember described in subsection (a) is a party, the court may on its own motion and shall, upon application by the servicemember, stay the action for a period of not less than 90 days, if the conditions in paragraph (2) are met.
(2) Conditions for stay
An application for a stay under paragraph (a) shall include the following:
(A) A letter or other communication setting forth facts stating the manner in which current military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember's ability to appear and stating a date when the servicemember will be available to appear.
(B) A letter or other communication from the servicemember's commanding officer stating that the servicemember's current military duty prevents appearance and that military leave is not authorized for the servicemember at the time of the letter."
Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. Cooper v. Werholtz, 277 Kan. 250, 252, 83 P.3d 1212 (2004). Additionally, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 501 et seq. (2003), is to be liberally construed to prevent the civil rights of a servicemember from being adversely affected while serving in the military. Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575, 87 L. Ed. 1587, 63 S. Ct. 1223 (1943); Lenser v. McGowan, 358 Ark. 423, 429, 2004 WL 2064892 (2004).
Levi's brief is not helpful. He does not mention the conditions for a stay that are set out in § 522(b)(2). He cites only two cases, both for a proposition not at issue–that the Act applies in child custody proceedings–and, by Levi's own account, neither applying the current version of the Act.
Amber's position is that the conditions set out in § 522(b)(2) must be satisfied in order for the servicemember to have a right to a mandatory stay of proceedings. She contends that Levi did not comply with the statutory conditions. The first condition is that "[a] letter or other communication setting forth facts stating the manner in which current military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember's ability to appear and stating a date when the servicemember will be available to appear." § 522(b)(2)(A). Levi attached to his application for stay a photocopy of what he refers to as "orders issued on July 11, 2005," deploying him "to Iraq to defend his country." As Amber points out, however, the document does not bear petitioner's name. The phrase, "see attached roster," appears in the name space, but the roster was not provided to the court.
The Act expressly provides for a mandatory stay of proceedings on a servicemember's motion if the motion includes (1) a statement as to how his current military duties materially affect his ability to appear and when he will be available to appear and (2) a statement from his commanding officer stating that the servicemember's current military duty prevents his appearance and military leave is not authorized for him at the time of the statement. In this case, Levi failed to provide either. The photocopy Levi provided, presumably as a statement of his current military duties, does not name the petitioner or state when he will be available to appear. And there is no statement from his commanding officer. Hence there is no statement that Levi's current military duty prevents his appearance and no statement that he has no military leave presently authorized.
Among the cases cited by Amber is King v. Irvin, 273 Ga. App. 64, 614 S.E.2d 190 (2005). King sued Irvin for personal injuries relating to an automobile collision. The case was placed on the trial calendar for the week of February 23, 2004. King, a naval reservist, sought a continuance on the ground that he had received military orders to report to duty on February 23. King's motion stated that his military orders were attached, but they were not. The trial court continued the case to April 19. At the April 19 calendar call, King's counsel asked for a continuance without any supporting documents. When the trial court denied a further continuance, King's counsel "'professed an inability to move forward,'" and the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution. 273 Ga. App. at 65. On appeal, King argued that the trial court should have granted a continuance pursuant to the Act. Noting the statutory procedure and conditions for a stay, the Georgia Court of Appeals stated:
"King has not shown that he actually applied for a stay under the Act. And even if he did apply, the record contains no evidence that he included the necessary information with his application. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for continuance on this ground." 273 Ga. App. at 67.
As in King, Levi has failed to furnish the supporting documents required for a stay of proceedings at the application of the servicemember. A stay of proceedings is mandatory upon a properly supported application by the servicemember, but not so if the statutory conditions are not met. It also appears from the language of § 522(b)(1) that a court's discretion to grant a stay on its own motion depends on satisfaction of the statutory conditions–"the court may on its own motion . . . stay the action for a period of not less than 90 days, if the conditions in paragraph (2) are met." But § 522 (b)(1) does not address what standard is to be applied by a trial court in considering whether to stay an action upon a servicemembers' application that does not meet the statutory conditions. In the absence of governance by the federal statute, we turn to the law of the courts of this state where it is established that "the question of staying an action is largely discretionary with the court and is governed by the same law applicable to continuances." Henry, Administrator v. Stewart, 203 Kan. 289, 293, 454 P.2d 7 (1969). Thus, where there is a failure to satisfy the conditions of the Act, then the granting of a stay is within the discretion of the trial court. Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.
Since Levi failed to satisfy those conditions, we review the district court's denial of a stay under an abuse of discretion standard. Here, the minor child was 2 years old, residing with Levi's mother pursuant to an agreement signed by Amber, who was not represented by counsel, and absent such agreement, as Tyler's mother, Amber's claim to custody is clearly superior to Levi's mother. Under the circumstances in the present case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Levi a stay and temporarily granting Amber custody of Tyler.
We do not reach the question of whether the trial court could not have entered the temporary order changing the custody of Tyler if Levi had complied with § 522(b)(2).
Although based on different reasoning, the decision of the district court denying the stay is nevertheless correct and is affirmed on the ground that Levi failed to meet the conditions of § 522(b)(2). If a trial court reaches the right result, its decision will be upheld even though the trial court relied upon the wrong ground. Hall v. Kansas Farm Bureau, 274 Kan. 263, 273, 50 P.3d 495 (2002). The decision of the district court is affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
An Open Letter To Florida Child Support Enforcement, The DOR, and the Attorney
To Whom It May Concern,
The ineptitude and blatant disregard for legal protection for my children in my Child Support Enforcement Case has gone on for 18 months now, and I am issuing this letter to make clear that I have thoroughly researched what would be proper procedure for a private attorney to take to finally bring closure to this debacle that CSE, the DOR, and attorney, David Earl have made of my child support case. This letter will serve as notice that my rights have already been violated by the CSE, the DOR, and attorney David Earl for over a year and a half, and that at this point, no further grace shall be permitted on my behalf. Child Support Enforcement first caused me great harm by dispensing legal advice to me when adivising me to get a divorce from my first husband, the man the state considers my children's 'legal father.' This caused an eight month delay in having the state take any action against the children's 'natural father' at which point, another 6-8 month delay was caused because CSE was not satisfied with the 'wording.'
Through several free consultations with several attorneys, I discovered that the simplest solution to my problem was to just serve both men at the same time. I was 'dismissed' when I mentioned this to the caseworker at Child Support Enforcement and simply told 'we don't do that.' When I questioned the caseworker as to why they had not served my husband in the first 8 months while we were getting our divorce, she told me that if they heard I might be getting a divorce, then they wouldn't do anything, they would just wait and see what happens. Finally, I asked her why they had not advised me of the exact wording they wanted in my divorce papers instead of just telling me to get divorced. She clearly stated that they do not give legal advice. I'm still unclear as to exactly what she thought she was doing the day she told me to get a divorce.
I have had to make numerous phone calls to CSE and finally to the Florida Department of Revenue to track down someone who would answer for this fiasco and I was eventually contacted by Karen. On my last call to CSE on May 19, 2009, I was informed that they had 'attempted' to call the Sargeant of my children's Army enlisted father, on May 4, 2009 to locate his whereabouts to serve him. I had provided CSE with this man's actual address at his mother's house, yet they claimed they could not get the post office to verify that he lived there.
Oddly, though this 'Sargeant' never returned phone calls to the CSE, on May 14,2009, the children's father himself had called CSE directly and stated that he would be leaving for Iraq the following week. The update I received was: "Your case has been sent back to the attorney for review."
It was at this point, on May 19, 2009 that I started calling the DOR demanding to know who was responsible for contracting this attorney who chose to use every means possible to avoid filing suit for the past 18 months and demanding that the caseworker who advised me to get divorced be reprimanded for giving me the 'legal advice' to get a divorce whilst that advice was insufficient and innaccurate and did in fact, prolong the case even further.
On May 20, 2009, when Karen returned my phone call, she advised that the attorney had filed the papers with the courts and had finally gotten an address for the base at which to serve my children's father. On Friday, May 22, 2009, he was served. Karen called to notify me, and though I already know that proper legal procedure is to wait out his 20 day response time and then file a motion for a hearing based on his response, when I pressed her to divulge to me what this 'attorneys' next step would be, she was vague in telling me that we will just have to see what happens.
Since I expect him to invoke the SCRA, I am DEMANDING that a hearing be set to counter the invocation of the SCRA. I have done the research already, and I am aware that the SCRA does state that the courts do not have to grant a stay if the proceedings do not require the presence of the respondent. I expect that the attorney will finally act as an 'attorney' and use all legal avenues necessary to expedite this matter.
CSE had no right to dispense legal advice advising me to get divorced which is the starting point of this case having dragged on for a year and a half. The 'procedure' set forth for dealing with a case such as man where I was married to, but separated from, a man who is not the children's biological father seems non-existent, however, it is not part of their 'procedure' to serve both men at once in order to expedite a child support case in a timely fashion, therefore, CSE will simply dispense innaccurate and insufficient legal advice advising women in this situation to get a divorce, only to tell them once it's final that the wording is insufficient for their attorney and telling them to now go and pay more money to a lawyer to get it changed.
The most disturbing aspect of this case is that when I pushed Karen to explain to me why both men were not served at the same time, she informed me that they would need the 'cooperation' of the other legal parent. First of all, this is untrue, but more importantly, had ANYONE at CSE, the DOR, or attorney David Earl bothered to COMMUNICATE with ME, they would have known that my now ex-husband would have easily agreed to this. But CSE is an agency of bureaucrats who have no interest in trying to 'resolve' cases that have problems by working WITH the custodial parents. CSE and the DOR serve as a buffer between the client and the attorney so that the attorney does not have to answer for his or her substandard legal practice in obtaining child support.
My children's father is in the military. This makes him one of the easiest fathers to find and to collect child support from, yet this CSE agency and Attorney David Earl have managed to let him slip through the system for over a year because of their incompetence, their lack of communication with me, and what seems to be sheer laziness on both their parts.
This letter will serve as a demand for communication from now on,with CSE, DOR and the attorney handling the case. I will not tolerate any further lack of communication on this case nor will I tolerate any more subpar legal representation. If Attorney David Earl does not begin to treat this case with the necessary litigation procedures that would be carried out by any private attorney, I will have no choice but to pursue legal action against the CSE for giving me legal advice, file a complaint to the Florida Bar in regards to David Earl's representation.
I am willing to assist in any way I can to bring closure to this case. I have researched the SCRA and many cases and their outcomes when it has been invoked by Service Members. I know for a fact that when the respondents 20 days are up, we need to file a motion based on what those responses are. If he does indeed invoke the SCRA, we can make a case asking the judge not to order the stay based on several factors, the main one being that he does not need to be present for the proceedings because the military already has his dna on file and we can just subpeona it from the JAG office. I expect that from here on out, strategy will be not only used in my case, but will also be discussed with me in advance.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Blais
The ineptitude and blatant disregard for legal protection for my children in my Child Support Enforcement Case has gone on for 18 months now, and I am issuing this letter to make clear that I have thoroughly researched what would be proper procedure for a private attorney to take to finally bring closure to this debacle that CSE, the DOR, and attorney, David Earl have made of my child support case. This letter will serve as notice that my rights have already been violated by the CSE, the DOR, and attorney David Earl for over a year and a half, and that at this point, no further grace shall be permitted on my behalf. Child Support Enforcement first caused me great harm by dispensing legal advice to me when adivising me to get a divorce from my first husband, the man the state considers my children's 'legal father.' This caused an eight month delay in having the state take any action against the children's 'natural father' at which point, another 6-8 month delay was caused because CSE was not satisfied with the 'wording.'
Through several free consultations with several attorneys, I discovered that the simplest solution to my problem was to just serve both men at the same time. I was 'dismissed' when I mentioned this to the caseworker at Child Support Enforcement and simply told 'we don't do that.' When I questioned the caseworker as to why they had not served my husband in the first 8 months while we were getting our divorce, she told me that if they heard I might be getting a divorce, then they wouldn't do anything, they would just wait and see what happens. Finally, I asked her why they had not advised me of the exact wording they wanted in my divorce papers instead of just telling me to get divorced. She clearly stated that they do not give legal advice. I'm still unclear as to exactly what she thought she was doing the day she told me to get a divorce.
I have had to make numerous phone calls to CSE and finally to the Florida Department of Revenue to track down someone who would answer for this fiasco and I was eventually contacted by Karen. On my last call to CSE on May 19, 2009, I was informed that they had 'attempted' to call the Sargeant of my children's Army enlisted father, on May 4, 2009 to locate his whereabouts to serve him. I had provided CSE with this man's actual address at his mother's house, yet they claimed they could not get the post office to verify that he lived there.
Oddly, though this 'Sargeant' never returned phone calls to the CSE, on May 14,2009, the children's father himself had called CSE directly and stated that he would be leaving for Iraq the following week. The update I received was: "Your case has been sent back to the attorney for review."
It was at this point, on May 19, 2009 that I started calling the DOR demanding to know who was responsible for contracting this attorney who chose to use every means possible to avoid filing suit for the past 18 months and demanding that the caseworker who advised me to get divorced be reprimanded for giving me the 'legal advice' to get a divorce whilst that advice was insufficient and innaccurate and did in fact, prolong the case even further.
On May 20, 2009, when Karen returned my phone call, she advised that the attorney had filed the papers with the courts and had finally gotten an address for the base at which to serve my children's father. On Friday, May 22, 2009, he was served. Karen called to notify me, and though I already know that proper legal procedure is to wait out his 20 day response time and then file a motion for a hearing based on his response, when I pressed her to divulge to me what this 'attorneys' next step would be, she was vague in telling me that we will just have to see what happens.
Since I expect him to invoke the SCRA, I am DEMANDING that a hearing be set to counter the invocation of the SCRA. I have done the research already, and I am aware that the SCRA does state that the courts do not have to grant a stay if the proceedings do not require the presence of the respondent. I expect that the attorney will finally act as an 'attorney' and use all legal avenues necessary to expedite this matter.
CSE had no right to dispense legal advice advising me to get divorced which is the starting point of this case having dragged on for a year and a half. The 'procedure' set forth for dealing with a case such as man where I was married to, but separated from, a man who is not the children's biological father seems non-existent, however, it is not part of their 'procedure' to serve both men at once in order to expedite a child support case in a timely fashion, therefore, CSE will simply dispense innaccurate and insufficient legal advice advising women in this situation to get a divorce, only to tell them once it's final that the wording is insufficient for their attorney and telling them to now go and pay more money to a lawyer to get it changed.
The most disturbing aspect of this case is that when I pushed Karen to explain to me why both men were not served at the same time, she informed me that they would need the 'cooperation' of the other legal parent. First of all, this is untrue, but more importantly, had ANYONE at CSE, the DOR, or attorney David Earl bothered to COMMUNICATE with ME, they would have known that my now ex-husband would have easily agreed to this. But CSE is an agency of bureaucrats who have no interest in trying to 'resolve' cases that have problems by working WITH the custodial parents. CSE and the DOR serve as a buffer between the client and the attorney so that the attorney does not have to answer for his or her substandard legal practice in obtaining child support.
My children's father is in the military. This makes him one of the easiest fathers to find and to collect child support from, yet this CSE agency and Attorney David Earl have managed to let him slip through the system for over a year because of their incompetence, their lack of communication with me, and what seems to be sheer laziness on both their parts.
This letter will serve as a demand for communication from now on,with CSE, DOR and the attorney handling the case. I will not tolerate any further lack of communication on this case nor will I tolerate any more subpar legal representation. If Attorney David Earl does not begin to treat this case with the necessary litigation procedures that would be carried out by any private attorney, I will have no choice but to pursue legal action against the CSE for giving me legal advice, file a complaint to the Florida Bar in regards to David Earl's representation.
I am willing to assist in any way I can to bring closure to this case. I have researched the SCRA and many cases and their outcomes when it has been invoked by Service Members. I know for a fact that when the respondents 20 days are up, we need to file a motion based on what those responses are. If he does indeed invoke the SCRA, we can make a case asking the judge not to order the stay based on several factors, the main one being that he does not need to be present for the proceedings because the military already has his dna on file and we can just subpeona it from the JAG office. I expect that from here on out, strategy will be not only used in my case, but will also be discussed with me in advance.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Blais
Monday, May 25, 2009
Financial Help For Single Moms Starts With Help For Deadbeat Dads
Read on a Yahoo blog:
Ok, I don't agree with ALL of this, because studies have shown that female judges are actually more even-handed whereas male judges tend to side with the mother (probably has a lot to do with fathers who don't want their daughters dating because they know what boys are actually like...), but the part I do agree with it that it is 'More adversarial than inquisitive' (yes, I corrected the spelling, apologies to the author).
Why do you think that DCF and attorneys immediately advise one party to file a domestic violence injunction the moment said person makes any inquiry for help during the beginning stages of a break up, when emotions are still high and rationality has taken a back seat?
The more animosity that is created, the better the chance of profiteering by agencies such as DCF, CSE and the 'divorce attorney's.'
I understand that most cases are cases of the woman wanting out and not the man, so of course I can understand a man's resentment.
Let me state for the record, I am the woman who WAS LEFT, and also that HE WANTED the children, PUSHED for the children, and I was the breadwinner,so I am not a case of a woman who wanted his 'child support paycheck.'
I have had to defend my position on 'mandated family counseling' to every single woman I know who did take the initiative in the split. One friend even told me that she would have 'resented' being told that she had to try to save her marriage because she couldn't stand her husband because he was 'needy.' It did not occur to her that that issue could have been worked through with a good marriage counselor, nor was she willing to concede that it COULD have.
I have been the married woman withouth children who wanted a divorce, and who did go through marriage counseling. I know that most 'break-ups' stem from 'unresolved arguements because couples are not equipped to resolve arguments without help.
I also know that many relationship problems are the direct result of financial pressures or other types of crisis that making coping a difficult task and in which the relationship suffers.
Some of the things I learned in marriage counseling was that there was something you loved about each other to begin with, and to make the marriage/relationshiop work, you needed to learn to remember those things and nurture them to keep the love alive.
Because I did not have children, I still felt that my marriage was not salvagable and we chose to end it. Luckily, that marriage counseling helped us to be 'amicable' and we to this day remain friendly. And it is because of my decision to end the marriage and the decisions I made to have children with another man, and without the protection of marriage, that I have become anti-divorce, and and advocate for mandated family counseling any time there are children involved, with or without marriage.
In the relationship where my children were conceived, I did not have the protection of marriage. There were 'isolated incidents' of abuse. Verbal and mental definitely. Physcial, yes, but not to the dramatic point of Farrah Fawcetts 'The Burning Bed." He slapped me, yes. But he didn't PUMMMEL me. Some of the things he DID do would seem reprehensible, but no one but I was there. I know that these behaviors were not ALWAYS present. They were 'triggered' by events in our lives like the appearance of a drug using brother who bullied him mercilessly and emasculated him. His anger and resentment at not being able to stand up for himself were misdirected at me. He began to accuse ME of being the one controlling him, though he was making decisons about OUR business (backed with my credit) based on what his brother would tell him to do. There was no regard for me or my credit or money in these decisions. I was once the 'partner' who was respected, and now suddenly I was just 'some dumb female that didn't know anything about business or how to deal with guys in trades.' When the decisions went bad, and cost us clients, his brother would plant an idea in his head that I somehow 'plotted' to lose the clients. When asked why I would put my own money or credit on the line and cost myself and my family a major portion of our income, the answer his brother has programmed him to respond with is 'who knows why you do what you do, talk to a shrink.'
When our relationship began to be affected by this man's ridiculous psychosis, I was merely 'the bitch trying to drive a wedge between him and his brother.' His insecurity allowed this to fester and escalate. Friends saw the changes and mentioned them to me, but no one mentioned it to him. Hence, I remained 'the bitch trying get between him and his brother.'
When his he decided to leave me, his brother helped him 'plan it.' Our financial situation was in distress and I asked him to get a job. He went to see his brother, who told him to joint the National Guard Reserves. There was a lot of lip service for a few months there about how he was doing it for our family, etc, etc, in order to quash my protests. It turns out, that as long as he is 'Active Duty' he can't be called for a paternity test. So he got to leave, and not pay child support.
When I had to apply for assistance ffom the state, I made the mistake of telling them what happened between us, and I was advised to file a Domestic Violence Injunction. There was no mediator to try to bring us together to talk. All the advice I got was to make one adversarial move after another, which just incited more anger.
After 18 months of longing for intervention, either to reunify our family or at least get him to take responsibility for the boys, he's shipping off to Iraq tomorrow and I'm left feeling sad and angry. Sad that I cannot support him, angry that I want to though he cares nothing at all for me our our children.
And in cases where the woman is abused, or neglected by the man, there is no way for her to get him counseling to stop the abuse and try to build the family unit to be strong and happy. There are no 'domestic violent interventions' as there are 'drugs and alchohol' abusers.
We have seen an alarming increase in the number of 'domestic violence' cases in recent years. Many of these cases are real, and there is no choice but to separate because there is no way to make the abuser get help to solve the problem that's causing the issue. The law views 'domestic' violence as a 'civil' matter and therefore does not make provisions for ordering the 'rehabilitation' that a drug or alchohol offender would be ordered to participate in. So there is no hope of ending the abuse and the separation or divorce is imminent. This gives these lawyers and DCF, CSE and more, incentive to exploit this opportunity to use it to CREATE the 'adversarial' stances that are certain to enusre the destruction of the relationship and the family unit.
I am a proponent of mandated family counseling and family crisis intervention programs as a check and balance system to keep the profiteering lawyers, CSE, and DCF out of the family unit situation until every effort to reunify the family is explored.
| "something needs to be done for the children"... You know how many times you will hear that at the family court? It has no bearing on anything, the system assumes every bloke is a violent creep, and every woman is mother Theresa doing it tough. I dunno what the answer is, but I'd say 2 fundamentals of our modified westminster legal system work completely against any reasonable outcome. Firstly, it is adversarial rather than inquisative. This means two sides throw as much mud at each other, and delve into as much animosity as possible, then some high and mighty (female) judge decides whats best based on who looks worse (male). Then theres the rule of precedents, where the (female) judge will factor setting a precedent into the equation and opt for following previous precedents (giving everything to the female), rather than setting a new precedent such as a fair go. |
Ok, I don't agree with ALL of this, because studies have shown that female judges are actually more even-handed whereas male judges tend to side with the mother (probably has a lot to do with fathers who don't want their daughters dating because they know what boys are actually like...), but the part I do agree with it that it is 'More adversarial than inquisitive' (yes, I corrected the spelling, apologies to the author).
Why do you think that DCF and attorneys immediately advise one party to file a domestic violence injunction the moment said person makes any inquiry for help during the beginning stages of a break up, when emotions are still high and rationality has taken a back seat?
The more animosity that is created, the better the chance of profiteering by agencies such as DCF, CSE and the 'divorce attorney's.'
I understand that most cases are cases of the woman wanting out and not the man, so of course I can understand a man's resentment.
Let me state for the record, I am the woman who WAS LEFT, and also that HE WANTED the children, PUSHED for the children, and I was the breadwinner,so I am not a case of a woman who wanted his 'child support paycheck.'
I have had to defend my position on 'mandated family counseling' to every single woman I know who did take the initiative in the split. One friend even told me that she would have 'resented' being told that she had to try to save her marriage because she couldn't stand her husband because he was 'needy.' It did not occur to her that that issue could have been worked through with a good marriage counselor, nor was she willing to concede that it COULD have.
I have been the married woman withouth children who wanted a divorce, and who did go through marriage counseling. I know that most 'break-ups' stem from 'unresolved arguements because couples are not equipped to resolve arguments without help.
I also know that many relationship problems are the direct result of financial pressures or other types of crisis that making coping a difficult task and in which the relationship suffers.
Some of the things I learned in marriage counseling was that there was something you loved about each other to begin with, and to make the marriage/relationshiop work, you needed to learn to remember those things and nurture them to keep the love alive.
Because I did not have children, I still felt that my marriage was not salvagable and we chose to end it. Luckily, that marriage counseling helped us to be 'amicable' and we to this day remain friendly. And it is because of my decision to end the marriage and the decisions I made to have children with another man, and without the protection of marriage, that I have become anti-divorce, and and advocate for mandated family counseling any time there are children involved, with or without marriage.
In the relationship where my children were conceived, I did not have the protection of marriage. There were 'isolated incidents' of abuse. Verbal and mental definitely. Physcial, yes, but not to the dramatic point of Farrah Fawcetts 'The Burning Bed." He slapped me, yes. But he didn't PUMMMEL me. Some of the things he DID do would seem reprehensible, but no one but I was there. I know that these behaviors were not ALWAYS present. They were 'triggered' by events in our lives like the appearance of a drug using brother who bullied him mercilessly and emasculated him. His anger and resentment at not being able to stand up for himself were misdirected at me. He began to accuse ME of being the one controlling him, though he was making decisons about OUR business (backed with my credit) based on what his brother would tell him to do. There was no regard for me or my credit or money in these decisions. I was once the 'partner' who was respected, and now suddenly I was just 'some dumb female that didn't know anything about business or how to deal with guys in trades.' When the decisions went bad, and cost us clients, his brother would plant an idea in his head that I somehow 'plotted' to lose the clients. When asked why I would put my own money or credit on the line and cost myself and my family a major portion of our income, the answer his brother has programmed him to respond with is 'who knows why you do what you do, talk to a shrink.'
When our relationship began to be affected by this man's ridiculous psychosis, I was merely 'the bitch trying to drive a wedge between him and his brother.' His insecurity allowed this to fester and escalate. Friends saw the changes and mentioned them to me, but no one mentioned it to him. Hence, I remained 'the bitch trying get between him and his brother.'
When his he decided to leave me, his brother helped him 'plan it.' Our financial situation was in distress and I asked him to get a job. He went to see his brother, who told him to joint the National Guard Reserves. There was a lot of lip service for a few months there about how he was doing it for our family, etc, etc, in order to quash my protests. It turns out, that as long as he is 'Active Duty' he can't be called for a paternity test. So he got to leave, and not pay child support.
When I had to apply for assistance ffom the state, I made the mistake of telling them what happened between us, and I was advised to file a Domestic Violence Injunction. There was no mediator to try to bring us together to talk. All the advice I got was to make one adversarial move after another, which just incited more anger.
After 18 months of longing for intervention, either to reunify our family or at least get him to take responsibility for the boys, he's shipping off to Iraq tomorrow and I'm left feeling sad and angry. Sad that I cannot support him, angry that I want to though he cares nothing at all for me our our children.
And in cases where the woman is abused, or neglected by the man, there is no way for her to get him counseling to stop the abuse and try to build the family unit to be strong and happy. There are no 'domestic violent interventions' as there are 'drugs and alchohol' abusers.
We have seen an alarming increase in the number of 'domestic violence' cases in recent years. Many of these cases are real, and there is no choice but to separate because there is no way to make the abuser get help to solve the problem that's causing the issue. The law views 'domestic' violence as a 'civil' matter and therefore does not make provisions for ordering the 'rehabilitation' that a drug or alchohol offender would be ordered to participate in. So there is no hope of ending the abuse and the separation or divorce is imminent. This gives these lawyers and DCF, CSE and more, incentive to exploit this opportunity to use it to CREATE the 'adversarial' stances that are certain to enusre the destruction of the relationship and the family unit.
I am a proponent of mandated family counseling and family crisis intervention programs as a check and balance system to keep the profiteering lawyers, CSE, and DCF out of the family unit situation until every effort to reunify the family is explored.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Song
The Song..
Now this here's a story bout a Private named Santerre
A deadbeat Dad in the Army that doesn't care
With two little boys at home he's goin off to war
And the two little boys
are standing at the door
Deadbeat, Dad that is.
A nice little act that the military passed
Let's him leave his son's behind
And all his money stashed
Without an order for support
Sargeant says he cannot help
But Sargeant covers up
and helps him hide his happy self.
Deadbead, Dad that is.
An Active duty man
Is exempt from dna
Go Active!
Volunteer! they say
Deadbeat, Military that is.
His kids dont' need to eat
For the year he's in Iraq
So I guess the government
Can Pick up the slack...
Food Stamps. Welfare that is.
When his year is up
IF he survives
Re-up! They say
Your kids don't need to thrive
Poor little Private
Wants sympathy for him
Cause he's goin off to war
And Daddy is now "Jim"
Though. Shit that is.
He wasn't drafted
He made the choice
And he hid from his kids
Who don't have a voice.
The Military says it won't put up with deadbeat dads
But then they pass a law
That says he isn't Dad
Now this here's a story bout a Private named Santerre
A deadbeat Dad in the Army that doesn't care
With two little boys at home he's goin off to war
And the two little boys
are standing at the door
Deadbeat, Dad that is.
A nice little act that the military passed
Let's him leave his son's behind
And all his money stashed
Without an order for support
Sargeant says he cannot help
But Sargeant covers up
and helps him hide his happy self.
Deadbead, Dad that is.
An Active duty man
Is exempt from dna
Go Active!
Volunteer! they say
Deadbeat, Military that is.
His kids dont' need to eat
For the year he's in Iraq
So I guess the government
Can Pick up the slack...
Food Stamps. Welfare that is.
When his year is up
IF he survives
Re-up! They say
Your kids don't need to thrive
Poor little Private
Wants sympathy for him
Cause he's goin off to war
And Daddy is now "Jim"
Though. Shit that is.
He wasn't drafted
He made the choice
And he hid from his kids
Who don't have a voice.
The Military says it won't put up with deadbeat dads
But then they pass a law
That says he isn't Dad
Friday, May 22, 2009
Florida National Guard Gets Black Eye- Protecting A Deadbeat Dad
For 18 months I have battled Child Support Enforcement in the state of Florida to serve my children's father with child support papers. They have hemmed and hawed, and stalled, and given me innaccurate and incomplete advice and in the end, I had to be the one to solve THEIR problem before they would file.
Three months ago, when I finally did get their problem solved for them, they were now free to serve him. On May 19, after three months of waiting to hear, I called for a status update. It turns out that they called his Sargeant to get an address to serve him on May 4,2009. As of May 19, 2009, the "Sargeant" had not returned their phone calls.
Here's where it gets weird. On May 14th, 2009, the ex himself called Child Support Enforcement and told them he was leaving for Iraq in a week. This also turned out to b a lie. Did his Sargeant call him and advise him to call CSE and say he is going to Iraq to avoid returning the call and providing an address to serve him at? It certainly would appear so to me.
If the Sargeant had time to call the soldier, and advise him of the call, shouldn't that time have been spent calling Child Support Enforcement back to give an address?
Finally, On May 21, 2009, the attorney for Child Support Enforcement filed the papers and on Friday morning, the "Deadbeat Dad" got served.
Most women would be ecstatic. It would seem like the end was near. Oops. Foul ball. Ready for the kicker?
The son of a bitch leaves for Iraq on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. Not enough time to get a hearing set. Wasn't it just wonderful of his Sargeant to not call CSE back?
And here's the cherry on the cake that has been my life with this man. The "Servicemen's Civil Relief Act," formerly known as the SSCRA, protects soldiers and sailors from certain civil suits during any time of "Active Duty."
The act also says that if he has leave available, he has to use it to appear in court.
The act goes on to say that if it is a proceeding where the soldiers and sailors presence is not required, then there will be no stay granted.
Furthermore, the act states that it may not be used to escape obligations that the soldier or sailor flouted in civilian life.
1.) He is only leaving NOW... he'll have 'leave time' within the next year.
2.) His DNA is ON FILE with the military. In all reality he doesn't need to be here for the proceedings.
3.) He abandoned his children and thier mother, penniless, destitute and homeless. I would say he's been 'flouting his obligations' since the day he did that. It's time the 'flouting' STOPPED.
Of course, I have the 'wanna-be' attorney contracted by Child Support Enforcement and The Florida Department of Revenue, so this moron will probably ignore the 'loopholes' as he did with my 'marital status' problem and just 'wait' like they did for that, to resolve itself.
Deadbeat Dad has 20 days to respond to the petition. If he doesn't respond at all, there's a chance we may not even get a default becuase he's 'at war.'
If he does respond, it may be to cite the act and try to escape for yet another year.
Now my next order of business is to make certain that a 'hearing' IS set to argue against the use of the SSCRA- that is, IF he doens't just 'cowboy up' and do the right thing for once in his life.
If that doesn't work, I'll have to play my trump card and it's a big risk if I do it, but we'll see what happens.
Meanwhile, women, if you have a child with a man and you even think that there might be a possibility, no matter how remote, that he is going to go into the military, you better put his command on notice that he has children, you better establish paternity, and if you live in Florida, you better get the legal education about child support quick. The law is not on your side, and Child Support Enforcement is a joke.
Three months ago, when I finally did get their problem solved for them, they were now free to serve him. On May 19, after three months of waiting to hear, I called for a status update. It turns out that they called his Sargeant to get an address to serve him on May 4,2009. As of May 19, 2009, the "Sargeant" had not returned their phone calls.
Here's where it gets weird. On May 14th, 2009, the ex himself called Child Support Enforcement and told them he was leaving for Iraq in a week. This also turned out to b a lie. Did his Sargeant call him and advise him to call CSE and say he is going to Iraq to avoid returning the call and providing an address to serve him at? It certainly would appear so to me.
If the Sargeant had time to call the soldier, and advise him of the call, shouldn't that time have been spent calling Child Support Enforcement back to give an address?
Finally, On May 21, 2009, the attorney for Child Support Enforcement filed the papers and on Friday morning, the "Deadbeat Dad" got served.
Most women would be ecstatic. It would seem like the end was near. Oops. Foul ball. Ready for the kicker?
The son of a bitch leaves for Iraq on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. Not enough time to get a hearing set. Wasn't it just wonderful of his Sargeant to not call CSE back?
And here's the cherry on the cake that has been my life with this man. The "Servicemen's Civil Relief Act," formerly known as the SSCRA, protects soldiers and sailors from certain civil suits during any time of "Active Duty."
The act also says that if he has leave available, he has to use it to appear in court.
The act goes on to say that if it is a proceeding where the soldiers and sailors presence is not required, then there will be no stay granted.
Furthermore, the act states that it may not be used to escape obligations that the soldier or sailor flouted in civilian life.
1.) He is only leaving NOW... he'll have 'leave time' within the next year.
2.) His DNA is ON FILE with the military. In all reality he doesn't need to be here for the proceedings.
3.) He abandoned his children and thier mother, penniless, destitute and homeless. I would say he's been 'flouting his obligations' since the day he did that. It's time the 'flouting' STOPPED.
Of course, I have the 'wanna-be' attorney contracted by Child Support Enforcement and The Florida Department of Revenue, so this moron will probably ignore the 'loopholes' as he did with my 'marital status' problem and just 'wait' like they did for that, to resolve itself.
Deadbeat Dad has 20 days to respond to the petition. If he doesn't respond at all, there's a chance we may not even get a default becuase he's 'at war.'
If he does respond, it may be to cite the act and try to escape for yet another year.
Now my next order of business is to make certain that a 'hearing' IS set to argue against the use of the SSCRA- that is, IF he doens't just 'cowboy up' and do the right thing for once in his life.
If that doesn't work, I'll have to play my trump card and it's a big risk if I do it, but we'll see what happens.
Meanwhile, women, if you have a child with a man and you even think that there might be a possibility, no matter how remote, that he is going to go into the military, you better put his command on notice that he has children, you better establish paternity, and if you live in Florida, you better get the legal education about child support quick. The law is not on your side, and Child Support Enforcement is a joke.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Does The Florida Army National Guard Protect Deadbeat Dads?
If you've been following this blog, you know that my name is Vanessa Blais and I am a single mom fighting for child support for my children, among other family issues, such as 'Family Crisis Intervention" and "Mandated Family Counseling Even Without Marriage", however, this article is about to expose a serious cover-up by the Florida National Guard to protect Deadbeat Dads.
My particular case was probably one for the law books had it been handled by private attorney's instead of the joke of a law firm that is contracted by CSE and the DOR to handle support cases. A law dating back to the 1800's prevented me from suiing my children's father for child support because I was 'legally married' to someone else. During the time that I spent fighting this particular circumstance, the childrens father attended Boot Camp, AIT, and Jump School during which the boys and I, as his 'dependents' would have been entitled to an 'alottment.' However, because a child support order would include a judgement for all of the 'back child support owed' between the time he left and the time it went to court, the 'Deadbeat Dad' in question, refused to sign either of our children's birth certificates because that judgement could have been used to gonoshier that bonus.
When our second child was born, the "Deadbeat Dad" in question requested leave time from AIT to come home to see his son, thus acknowledging to the military that he is the father. However, he still refused to sign their birth certificates to provide for us, and I was still not divorced from my 'now' ex-husband. When the "deadbeat dad" in question finished his training, he returned home and said, in front of a witness, that he would not sign their birth certificates because he "didn't want (me) serving him with child support papers while he doesn't have a job."
In March of 2009, the divorce, with the wording that CSE demands, was final and it was time to serve the Deadbeat Dad in question. On May 19, 2009, after not having heard back from CSE, I called for an update. I discovered that on May 4,2009, a 'message' was left for the Deadbeat Dads Sargeant to call CSE to provide an address for service on said Deadbeat Dad. As of May 19, 2009, said Sargeant had not bothered to return CSE's phone calls.
Here's where this gets weird. On May 14, 2009, the Deadbeat Dad HIMSELF, placed a call to CSE to inform them that he would be leaving for Iraq the following week. It would seem that 'said' Sargeant not only informed the Deadbeat Dad about the phone call, but even advised the Deadbeat to call CSE himself and try to 'brush them off' with the "Iraq story." Which, as of today, looks to be untrue.
The last time I spoke with said "Deadbeat Dad" in early May, he told me that he was going to 'mobilization' and that he would be leaving for Iraq in June. Said "Deadbeats" mother, has 'implied' that he is already IN Iraq, and today, CSE informed me, that from what they have been able to ascertain, he will be leaving for Iraq, 'next week.'
I have been promised a new update as of tomorrow, May 21,2009, but as of right now, I'm still in the same limbo I have been living in for the past year and a half. But at least I am beginning to see what the "military" does about "Deadbeat Dads." It helps them BE "Deadbeat Dads."
My particular case was probably one for the law books had it been handled by private attorney's instead of the joke of a law firm that is contracted by CSE and the DOR to handle support cases. A law dating back to the 1800's prevented me from suiing my children's father for child support because I was 'legally married' to someone else. During the time that I spent fighting this particular circumstance, the childrens father attended Boot Camp, AIT, and Jump School during which the boys and I, as his 'dependents' would have been entitled to an 'alottment.' However, because a child support order would include a judgement for all of the 'back child support owed' between the time he left and the time it went to court, the 'Deadbeat Dad' in question, refused to sign either of our children's birth certificates because that judgement could have been used to gonoshier that bonus.
When our second child was born, the "Deadbeat Dad" in question requested leave time from AIT to come home to see his son, thus acknowledging to the military that he is the father. However, he still refused to sign their birth certificates to provide for us, and I was still not divorced from my 'now' ex-husband. When the "deadbeat dad" in question finished his training, he returned home and said, in front of a witness, that he would not sign their birth certificates because he "didn't want (me) serving him with child support papers while he doesn't have a job."
In March of 2009, the divorce, with the wording that CSE demands, was final and it was time to serve the Deadbeat Dad in question. On May 19, 2009, after not having heard back from CSE, I called for an update. I discovered that on May 4,2009, a 'message' was left for the Deadbeat Dads Sargeant to call CSE to provide an address for service on said Deadbeat Dad. As of May 19, 2009, said Sargeant had not bothered to return CSE's phone calls.
Here's where this gets weird. On May 14, 2009, the Deadbeat Dad HIMSELF, placed a call to CSE to inform them that he would be leaving for Iraq the following week. It would seem that 'said' Sargeant not only informed the Deadbeat Dad about the phone call, but even advised the Deadbeat to call CSE himself and try to 'brush them off' with the "Iraq story." Which, as of today, looks to be untrue.
The last time I spoke with said "Deadbeat Dad" in early May, he told me that he was going to 'mobilization' and that he would be leaving for Iraq in June. Said "Deadbeats" mother, has 'implied' that he is already IN Iraq, and today, CSE informed me, that from what they have been able to ascertain, he will be leaving for Iraq, 'next week.'
I have been promised a new update as of tomorrow, May 21,2009, but as of right now, I'm still in the same limbo I have been living in for the past year and a half. But at least I am beginning to see what the "military" does about "Deadbeat Dads." It helps them BE "Deadbeat Dads."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)