Have you ever watched a horror movie where people are being cut and chopped, sliced and diced, and then one of the few remaining characters hears a noise in the basement and says, "I'm going to go check and see what that noise is." The music mounts dramatically, the basement door creaks open, and the heroine goes slowly step by step down the stairs waving a completely inadequate flashlight, and you the audience are screaming the whole time, "Don't go down there! Don't go down there!" But inevitably the lady goes down there gets her head chopped off or something like that, and you're like, "I knew it!" Of course, we know it.
The same goes for getting a divorce from an abuser. Every bone in our body tells you when you are filing for divorce from an abuser, don't do it, don't do it, but do we listen to ourselves? No. And then we get hit with the eternal lawsuit where our lives and reputations get dragged through the court, let alone the muck and mud, for years to come.
The ultimate wisdom is that you should never get a divorce from an abuser. Now, of course, I know all you feminists are shrieking "How could you possibly say that!" But see it from our perspective. Before the divorce, we just have our abuser torturing and controlling us, but once the divorce has been filed, we now have the entire family court system, their mental health cronys, and DCF torturing and controlling us, so what do YOU think is best? Right. The answer is, "Don't go down there!" same way as any self respecting, smart character in a horror flick, if there are any, wouldn't go down into the basement like you told them to.
This is pretty much what seems to be going on in Buggy v. Buggy. The plaintiff, Sandra Buggy filed for a dissolution of marriage from the defendant, Glenn Buggy on July 1, 2005. The Parties have two children J. born on August 23, 1997 and K. on April 6, 2000. Then, on August 3, 2006 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint requesting a legal separation which was granted on August 11, 2006. Their separation agreement was incorporated into the judgment of legal separation.
Two years later, the Parties decided to go ahead with the dissolution of their marriage. In preparation for the trial, which was held from June 7, 2010 to June 25, 2010, the Defendant, Glenn Buggy submitted a Motion for Modification proposing that he be given sole custody of the children and residential custody of the children. In other words, Glenn Buggy wished to take custody from a good mother who had always been primary caretaker of the children. Why? You guessed it, Parental Alienation, again!
Multiple paragraphs of the motion to change the custody state variations on "The defendant's relationship with his children has been adversely affected by the actions of the plaintiff such that a transfer of custody from the plaintiff to the defendant is in the best interest of the minor children." Right. And who is involved in encouraging this change in custody? You guessed it, our old friend Dr. Kenneth Robson! If you are not familiar with Dr. Robson, this is a custody evaluator who specializes in taking children away from their mothers making bogus diagnoses such as parental alienation. See "A Life Sentence" by Keith Harmon Snow at the following link:
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/05/a-life-sentence-family-courts-sacrificing-mothers-and-children-in-america/
Then, Mr. Buggy also wished to reduce his financial obligations, including the amount of educational expenses he owed. Now, I can understand wanting to cut back on child support and alimony, but money for your children's college education? Money for your children's future success? You want to cut back on that AND get custody. Right.
So, can that be done? At the time of dissolution, can you change the agreements made in a separation agreement? In general, the answer would be "no", and sorting that question out could have been quite a challenge to the trial court in this case. But again, in general, whatever might not be possible ordinarily can actually happen if you as the parties in the matter agree to it.
And that is what took place in this particular case. The parties agreed to allow modification of the separation agreement, or as the memo states, "Subsequently, on June 10, the parties agreed that the following provisions of the separation agreement were modifiable: Article II (custody and visitation), Article III (unallocated alimony and child support) except 3.10 (debt of $78,450.46 owed by the defendant to the plaintiff), 3.11 (amount of $2,000 borrowed from the minor children's account by the defendant) and 3.12 (payment of 1/2 of the moving expenses of the plaintiff by the defendant) The parties further agreed that Articles IV, VIII through XVIII were nonmodifiable. Article V was not mentioned." Article V had to do with college expenses.
Now, as I am reading through the list, I'm like shame on you Mr. Buggy for "borrowing" from the minor children's account. How many times do you I have to hear about so called borrowing from children's accounts during a divorce. That is a shame and a disgrace, I don't care how small the amount is. Don't take things from your kids, please.
Furthermore, Mr. Buggy complained that there had been a "significant decrease in his earning" which meant that he could not meet the financial obligations he had agreed to. Seriously, folks, there should be a law about either party deliberately reducing their income just around the time of divorce and complaining they have no money. I'd like to see a statistical analysis of how many litigants do this because I hear it so, so often. What is it about divorce that leads the more financially responsible party to become suddenly brain dead and unemployable? Beats me!
Clearly, just reviewing the Memorandum of Decision in the Buggy case, the question of changing the separation agreement is the source of considerable legal head scratching and convoluted reasoning.
The bottom line is that it was not in Sandra Buggy's interest for the the separation agreement to be changed. Were it me I would have fought that question out before the trial court and made it as hard as possible to change the separation agreement. Instead, Ms. Buggy agreed, which saved the trial court considerable trouble because it could then shift responsibility off their shoulders and say, "Well, she agreed to change the separation agreement to a stipulation."
That's where I would say, were it me, or were I Ms. Buggy's attorney, I'd have been saying, "Don't go down into the basement!"
Of course, maybe there is something I don't know, but I see this happening, how many times? Often. I've been told by my attorney, the court, or someone, go and sign this stipulation, which, as it turns out, will cause me nothing but harm. Then the trial court justifies the harm by saying, "But you agreed to it." which is what the judge in the Buggy decision did at the end of the discussion.
Trust me, if you feel uncomfortable, if it doesn't feel right, if you see everyone in the room all prepared to break out into happy grins, don't sign it. Think it over. Put off the decision for another day. Do anything, but don't go down there!
To be continued. . .
