Here is the official transcript:
Q. (By Mr. AngryDad) So as far as you know, there areSince I did not answer his question in court, I answer it here.
no examples in which [AngryMom] and I did not cooperate on
anything?
A. I think I just --
Q. In that four years of joint custody?
A. I just testified to two things. One is that [AngryMom]
indicated to me that there were several things that you
and she did not agree to, did not cooperate on during that
period.
And number two --
Q. Okay --
A. -- and number two is that I did not assess that. I
merely listened to it.
Q. Okay. But I'm asking you about your knowledge here.
I mean, you did do a $28,000 of work on this case.
A. And you know what? You've said that many times, and
I'm going to answer that. How does the amount of money
that was spent on this evaluation have anything to do with
anything you're asking me about at this point in time?
THE COURT: Okay. So the witness doesn't get to
ask the lawyer questions, but --
THE WITNESS: I understand. But this is
something that has gone on and on and on. And I want it
as part of the record.
MR. AngryDad: Well --
THE WITNESS: So it is now part of the record
unless you strike it. But I will apologize for stating
that and we'll move on.
THE COURT: I don't think you have to apologize
for that, but you don't have to answer it. And let us go
ahead and move on.
Q. (By Mr. AngryDad) Okay. I'd like -- you -- you just
said that you thought there were a couple of examples that
[AngryMom] alleged of noncooperation. Could you tell us one
today?
A. To the best of my recollection, [AngryMom] was concerned
about your feeding of the kids, about your facilitating
their extracurricular activities, and about some of your
disciplinary techniques. That's my recollection.
Q. Is that all you can do? I mean, I don't --
A. That's all I can do.
And I didn't take it as a fact that she was correct.
I'm telling you that I took it as a sign that you and she
were in disagreement during that period of time. I didn't
assume that what she was telling me was the truth.
Q. And that's all you're going to tell me?
A. That's all I'm going to tell you.
Ken Perlmutter did a $28,000 evaluation and wrote an order depriving me of all legal and physical custody of my kids. He justified it, in part, by saying that my ex-wife are not able to cooperate. I do believe that if he is going to accept that kind of money, and take that sort of action, then he should be able to back up what he says with some sort of example. He could not. We should not have had to pay him $28,000 to learn that my ex-wife has some vague and unsubstantiated allegations.
4 comments:
Well..You or he now, put the right guy on trial, Perlmutter. He took $28k to tell the court you're not seeing your kids because you don't agree with your ex., not that you did anything wrong.
His vague references about food activities, and discipline...sounds like he's been reading the previous eval.s about the broccoli, costco food,the math contest, and the alarm clock, issues, to me. That's about all you've ever been accused of, right ? Doesn't appear like he dug up anything new against you.
Good job George, we're all rooting for you !
George,
Call me suspicious, but notice how Perlmutter is defensive about the $28k in fees, but not when he's going to all the trouble to point out that Julie paid $8,550.00 of it ? Isn't the $28k kinda high by about 8000-9000 ? Julie ever had to pay any or this kind of money for any of the previous evaluations ? Think by any chance..maybe Julie's 8550. ever got returned to her ?
If by chance, you prove Perlmutter is incompetent, any chance you'll need another evaluator, and Julie may be able to say that if so, she shouldn't have to pay the next time, because you want another, and you're the one who's determined that he's incompetent, not Julie nor the judge ?
The judge..isn't she rolling her eyes at perlmutter's statements as if he might be incompetent, but the record shows that he said something about attachment theory so he's somehow qualified ?
I don't know ?
George, this is what was going on with the evaluations 6 years ago as you wrote in 2009..
She also complains that I paid to have these reports done.
Judge Thomas Kelly ordered one of these evaluations in Mar. 25, 2005, Here is what he said, referring to that list of five professionals:
These are really skilled people. They're not there to snitch to the Court for returning fees. These people are really good. That's why they're on the list and they will have a sense of you that they can communicate back to me that might give Mother, give me the assurance that we can go right to D and get you guys back on a fifty fifty time line here.
So, these people are really good. that's why they're on the list. they're purpose is not returning fees, it's to give Mother and the judge assurance and go back on fifty fifty time line.
Perlmutter is on the list. He's not returning fees for snitching. his job is just to get a "sense of you" to communicate back.
Perlmutter is doing what he's supposed to do for $28k, and what judges want him to do.
You, nor no one asked if there was snitching, or fee returning, but we know it's not happening because the judge said so.
So, here's my question for Perlmutter. It doesn't matter
what you and Mom disagreed about, nor if it's true. It just matters that she TOLD Perlmutter that you disagreed with her. She also told him that SHE disagreed with you at the same time.
Now, if you lose 50% of your custody for disagreeing with mom, shouldn't mom lose 50% of her custody for disagreeing with you ?
Remember, he does 2 things.
1.He LISTENS to indications from mom that you and mom did not agree to and cooperate. Remember, he says "YOU and SHE ".
2.He does not assess, he merely listens.
you get 50 % because mom indicated that you do exactly as she does, and nothing else needs to be assessed.
Post a Comment