Her crazy arguments to stall the evaluation

My ex-wife's last minute court filing was a gigantic ad hominem attack on me, with her own gripes about having to respond to me. This paragraph is typical:

This is the third OSC that George has filed against me within a year’s time. All three are based upon and filled almost entirely with misrepresentations of events, which can be easily fact-checked through transcripts, court orders, and documented emails. With every OSC that George has filed, I have been forced to spend many hours amassing the legal documents and communications that show George to be misrepresenting the case’s history. I have spent about 56 hours alone answering George’s October 2009 OSC.

56 hours?! I believe it. Her filing was about 200 pages, and was obviously a lot of work. But it served no purpose except to stall and delay the court-ordered evaluation. She could have spent that 56 hours doing the evaluation.

Her main argument is that it is all my fault somehow:

George’s accusations that it is I who is refusing to cooperate with the evaluation ordered by the court is absurd. Especially since it is I who has been contacting, engaging, and working with psychologists to try to get a child custody evaluator appointed, a psychological evaluation performed, and the ordered recommendations made. (See Section II, list of psychologists contacted below.) In contrast, it is George who has been sabotaging these efforts through various intimidation tactics and his communication of misleading information. Just as George submits deliberately misleading information to the Court with such boldness as to make one think that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”, so too does he communicate his off-base and restructured version of reality to any potential evaluator.

The proof of my uncooperativeness is supposedly contained in emails. In particular, I tried to persuade one evaluator to accept the case even tho he had some minor quibbles with the wording of the court order. I wrote:

Ken, I agree with you. The order is flawed. I have repeatedly complained about it in the family court, and the appeal court. I got nowhere. I don’t even know who made up the form, or if Cmr. Joseph understands it, or if he has any authority to fix it. He certainly does not have any desire to fix it, and I doubt that the current family court judge does either. The form is used by the Santa Cruz court, and the local psychologists do not complain about it.

My ex-wife also quotes this email from me, as if it also incriminates me somehow:

Ken, you seem to be puzzled about the purpose and scope of the evaluation. The California court rules require that the order specify the purpose and scope of the evaluation. You can read it yourself here:…I have argued, in the family and appeal courts, that the order is deficient in this respect. I lost. The position of the court is that the ‘purpose and scope’ are specified in the order, and that no additional clarification will be given… I can give you my opinion, and Julie can give you hers, but our opinions will not help and there will be no court clarification. You need to look at that order, and decide whether or not you can help us. If you can, then we are ready to start the evaluation. If not, then we will look for someone else. We have asked 50 psychologists already. I don’t expect this case to make any sense to you. I think that you will find that the case is a lot simpler than it appears, once you learn some basic facts. But you may never figure out the court’s purpose to your satisfaction, no matter how many emails or documents you read. You just have to decide whether to accept this task, and hope that you make sense out of it later.

I don't even see what point she was trying to make. I was just trying to persuade the psychologist to accept the order as written, and to do the evaluation. In other words, I am just trying to comply with the court. She was the one who was telling the psychologist that the order was mistaken and that she was bringing a motion to the court to change it.

She is free to bring a motion to the court to change the order, but it was just obstructionist of her to tell the psychologist that we had a disagreement about the order's interpretation, and telling him that the court is likely to issue some sort of clarifying order.