Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Ex-wife demands a new plan

My ex-wife has submitted this to the court:
I propose the following plan to put a definitive end to most of these court hearings:

Visitation Supervisors:
1. I choose the visitation supervisor out of the recommended Court list. If that visitation supervisor refuses to perform visitation monitoring due to George's behavior and "sabotaging" efforts, then George forfeits his right to have visitation.

2. I choose the time, date, location and frequency of the visits. I have no problem with George seeing Mary and Jenny frequently (several times a week), but it must be under supervision and it must not continue to interrupt their lives. If George doesn't like my choices, then he can choose not to participate.

3. George pays for the chosen supervisor at the chosen time and date 2 weeks in advance, unless the visit is arranged within the 2 week span of time. If he does not pay, then he foregoes the visit. If the visit is arranged within the 2 week span then it is up to the supervisor to choose the deadline for payment. If George does not pay by the deadline, then he foregoes the visit.

4. The visitation supervisor is paid to write up a summary of the visit, as per the custom for supervisors. George pays in advance for this service, with the same rules applying for the payment for the visit date.

5. The visitation supervisor is permitted to read Dr. Perlmutter's report and whatever information I choose to give to the visitation supervisor. There is to be no exchange of documents/web site information between the visitation supervisor and George. If George wants to give the visitation supervisor information, then he must give it to me first, and I will decide if it is to be seen by the visitation supervisor. If George does not follow this rule, then George foregoes his right to have this supervisor perform visitation monitoring. This rule is intended to keep George from tainting the process.

6. The visitation supervisor is to strictly perform supervision and not to give George suggestions about how to parent. This rule is to avoid George's pattern of getting a professional from identifying with him and becoming invested in his "progress", while George only pretends to "try". Ultimately the write-ups become distorted if the visitation supervisor has too much of a vested interest in the progress of the one he/she is supervising.

Family Therapy
7. If George wants to go to family therapy with Mary and Jenny, I will pick the family therapist. This can occur between 1 and 4 times a month. George will pay the family therapist for their time, in advance, just as with the visitation supervisor of 3 above. If George does not like my choice of a family therapist, then he foregoes the opportunity to participate in family therapy.

Therapeutic Visitation Supervision
8. If George wants to have therapeutic supervised visitation, I choose the therapeutic visitation supervisor, the time/date/location/frequency of the visits. George pays for the visits and the write-up. The same rules apply for payment of therapeutic visitation supervisors as for visitation supervisors.
Wow, this is really extreme. Item 6 is particularly ridiculous.

16 comments:

LK said...

Someone's on a power trip.

Anonymous said...

I think I see a pattern:

I choose ...
I choose ...
If George doesn't like my choices ...
George pays in advance ...
whatever information I choose to give ...
he must give it to me first, and I will decide ...
George only pretends to "try"...
I will pick the family therapist ...
George will pay the family therapist ...
If George does not like my choice of a family therapist, then he foregoes the opportunity ...
I choose the therapeutic visitation supervisor, the time/date/location/frequency of the visits. George pays ...

I guess you don't have "the right to choose" George, only pay. Choice apparently is only for ex-wives. You just need to learn to "take it like a man i.e., bend over.

Anonymous said...

She doesn't deserve to be a parent.

Anonymous said...

You know you're in exactly the same position a guy knew about. And after so much crap and brainwashing of the kids, he said, "forget it - you win!" As a result he never saw the kids again and also offered a lump-sum settlement which she quickly accepted. It was a tough decision for him but he realized that he was in a lose-lose situation that he could not win.

But whatever makes people happy... I guess.

Anonymous said...

let's see, you've got a judge who seems to think she's qualified to make clinical psychological diagnoses on Asperberger's, including such pronouncements of "physically incapable of understanding a ruling" (funny, I always thought understanding a concept was an intellectual exercise but then I'm not omniscient like the judge, obviously). Then you have an ex who's a patent attorney acting like Mussolini-as-family-law-attorney w/a large dollop of narcissism. And it all takes place in Santa Cruz County, one of the most male-hating communities in this country (thanks to the oldest and largest feminist studies depts in any US university). I wish you much luck, I admire your fortitude.

Anonymous said...

Ditto.

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. I have never heard of such a control-freak in my life, and an attorney to boot. I feel so badly for your situation and wish there was something I could do to help, but alas, I am neither qualified nor wealthy enough to do anything. My prayers go with you and your girls, always.

Anonymous said...

I've seen this judge in action. She is EXTREMELY bent toward rewarding the father for not hitting anyone (since his conviction, of course)by giving him MORE TIME with the children - regardless of the best interest of safety of the children. If you are on her bad side, then you are probably a miscreant who deserves her ruling.
I have NEVER seen her just side with the mom because she is the mom. Morse takes more risks with children than any other judge (out of 4) whom I have seen in action.livi

Anonymous said...

hmmm, hey George, guess your ex is posting here. Or maybe just one of the local family court synchophants/employees/parasites. Ah, the joy of internet anonymity and trolling.

George said...

According to the Anonymous comment, if I am on the judge's bad side, I must be a miscreant, but if a mom is on her bad side, then the judge is taking a risk.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I think I see why the judge hates you. You twist everything into some sort of narcissistic platform....and she is probably not willing to take a risk with you.

Anonymous said...

AngryMom, aka Anonymous seems to be very familiar with your judge.

“you are on her bad side”
“Actually, I think I see why the judge hates you.”
“I have NEVER seen her just side with the mom . . . “
“she is probably not willing to take a risk with you.”

Of all people, judges should set the example of how to follow the law and not take sides, hate defendants or take risks with the lives of children. If what she says is true, I wonder what it would take to have the judge removed from position?

I wonder if your ex would take a lump-sum settlement to never see her kids again? She seems to be a cold heartless beotch.

I think she should have her parental rights terminated and be jailed for deliberately causing the mental and emotional harm to her children.

She definitely seems to be unfit to raise human children. Maybe she could get a job at a circus training fleas?

Anonymous said...

how is defending the right to see one's kids and exposing the evil and corruption in the family law system narcissistic? I guess AngryMom is trolling again.

George said...

The anonymous commenter equates the child being with the dad as taking a risk. But kids being raised by moms are at greater risk, according to every study that has been done on the subject. Kids who see their dads are safer.

Anonymous said...

agreed. How about that case that's in the news right now of the toddler killed by his mom up in New Hampshire? Dads can and do provide a reality check. Seems the current hyperfeminist thinking is they simply provide a check.....

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the mom that recently attempted to kill her daughters and herself by slitting theirs and her own throat. Why'd she do it? The May 21st rapture of course... she didn't want them to have to endure it. Turns out there was no rapture, instead it was a beautiful sunny day. Way to go mom. Well, at least she failed and the kids are okay.