THINGS THAT MAKE ME FEEL BAD

I was at the doctor's office yesterday and, talking about things that make me feel bad, I just want you guys to know that I weigh altogether too much.  Ever since my divorce broke out years ago, I have gained approximately 45 pounds of pure flubber.  The reason why is because every time I have trouble thinking through a legal problem in one of my motions, I have a bad habit of opening up a bar of chocolate just to help me in my thought processes, so to speak.  So now I've had to buy a whole new wardrobe in 1X, luckily on sale, but still, that's expensive, so that makes me feel bad as well. 

The other thing that gets me down is that look on my doctor's face when I told her my divorce was still going on.  Some people, she says looking at me meaningfully, figure out that they should just cut their losses and move on!  If only I could.  What is it you are fighting about now?  She asks.  My mind goes over the last few years and quickly touches upon all the areas of litigation that are currently open.  My heart sinks.

I looked at her dismayed guinea pig face with that earnest look enveloping it and wondered, does she have the rest of the day to listen to what is going on now?  I mean seriously?  Honestly?  Concluding quickly that she did not have the time I cut my description of my case really short and said something vague like,  "Well, he keeps on taking me to court."  And also, "There are just quite a few ongoing proceedings in the case." 

"But you are divorced, aren't you?" asked the good doctor.  That's the thing that puzzles so many people.  But you are divorced--right?  What possible legal action could take place after you are  divorced?  And the implication goes further, "Unless you are chasing after your poor old ex and trying to hurt him, you mean old bitchy ex wife?" 

It is unspoken, but definitely there.  Why else would you keep litigating in Trial Court with your ex for so long.  There has to be something the matter with you.  This, my dears, is one of the things that make me feel bad more than anything else.  I hate that look, the once over with the eyes, the judgment, the condemnation which leaves me spluttering with some kind of defensive comment on the level of, "I really am a good person.  I really, really am.  I know you don't think so, but I actually am not responsible for what has gone on." 

But that usually incoherent conglomeration of rolling explanations usually goes unnoticed because people who have made up their minds about you have made up their minds, and nothing you say, nothing about how well you dress or how well you speak or how clean and well scrubbed your children are will make any difference. 

The worst of it is, ok, here is my confession, don't hate me too much, the bottom line is that I'm not in court about the children any more, I am in court about money.  Yes, money, filthy lucre, you are correct.  I won the child custody thing a long time ago, but then this thing about unreported bank accounts showed up and I was off and running. 

Now, if I knew how the courts would turn the financial issue into the most ridiculous example of the court and attorneys churning a case for all the money it is worth, I wouldn't have touched litigation with a ten foot pole.  But at the time I had no clue, and now I'm stuck with it.  Because if I stop, I have a mountain of debt that will fall onto me and my children that is so great that we will be impoverished for the rest of our lives.  

So there you have it folks, I am not nobly seeking the custody of my children, I'm just trying to hold off debt and grab hold of money.  Talking about things that make me feel bad.  That certainly makes me feel bad. 

Somehow there is something squalid and ignoble about insisting on your fair share of the money in a divorce.   You should just walk away with nothing, hold your head up high and let him be the rich scumbag and be satisfied with that.  Of course, it is hard to feed and clothe and house young children when your only coin is pride. 

It's like the people who judge me about insisting on litigating over money don't see that a victory in custody when you are living in a dump without any food and no hope for the future because you can't pay for it really isn't much of a victory.  Plus, if you don't have any money, even if you have the children in the custody arrangement, if you can't afford to provide a roof over their heads or pay their basic expenses, you won't be holding onto the kids for very long.  None of that computes for all the people who try to made me feel bad, who indeed succeed in making me feel bad about fighting for the money. 

I have enemies.  No, seriously, I actually do.  One of them called me the other day and in so many words asked me why I'm not on the street by now considering the length and complexity of the litigation I've undergone.  And I'll tell you why I'm not on the street.  It's because I worked my butt off.  Because I did the intellectual equivalent of lifting up a car with my bare hands, all for my children. 

But still, when I try to explain that to strangers, to acquaintances who don't know me well, to people who actually think our judicial system actually acts judicially, and I see the judgment in their faces, I'll tell you guys, I feel really bad, disheartened, unworthy.  I feel that way even though I shouldn't, because I tell you, money is essential to the happiness and wellbeing of my children. 

What would I do without money for their medicines, for soap, toothpaste, the cost of which I tell you, adds up. Without money, these kids wouldn't be anywhere, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a gosh darned liar, in my opinion.  Not that we can't live reduced life styles, but live without shelter, food, or clothing, live without gas to put in your car, or even without a car--not in your life, baby. 

Ok, but even if, I grant you, I wasn't fighting for the basics, but instead I was fighting so my daughter could have the same birthday party celebration her best friend had, or so that my other daughter can plan on going to the same kind of college her girlfriends are planning on going to, or if I was fighting so that my girls could go to that educational summer camp that will give them a boost in their CMT scores, or if I was fighting for the horseback riding lessons my youngest daughter always wanted, would that be so awful.  Would you condemn me?  Would you want to use that information to make me feel bad about myself?  Because, yes, sometimes I've been fighting to get money for just those kinds of things.  I'll admit it.

Finally, I always imagined that if I divorced, my divorce would be amicable.  I hoped that I would impress people with how simple it would be, and how quickly my ex and I would come to agreement, and then I thought people would be impressed with how maturely I handled the situation. Unfortunately, with a psychopath and a manipulator who drags litigation out in each and every technical detail, a situation that will never happen.  

By now years have gone by, the legal issues have become very complex and hard to explain.  And it is easy for people to jump to the conclusion that I'm just the evil ex wife.  And  when I try to explain to people that my ex lied and cheated, that he deceived me for years, that he is able to manipulate within the legal system on an ongoing basis and get away with murder to the point where I am trapped in a cycle of litigation I can't get out of, they simply don't believe me.

They think that I must be doing something wrong to be in the position I am in.  And that truly makes me feel bad.  I wish I lived in a different world, a world where it isn't OK to abuse women and children within the legal system, where it isn't OK to stand back and watch people like me suffer and do nothing, a world where psychopaths don't have the freedom to abuse as they please within the judicial system. But that is not the world that I live in.  And yes, that makes me feel very bad. 

But I hold onto my conviction that I am doing the very best for  my children, and that one day they will understand the principles that drove me to take the actions that I did.  How much I loved them, how much I have always loved them, that I would do anything for them. It is a small hope, but it is an inspiring one.  So when my children return from visitation, and make critical and mocking remarks that make me feel bad, and tell me, "Why don't you just leave Dad alone and stop causing him trouble in court." I take comfort in the fact that the work I do fighting for my rights in court, working as an advocate and writing this blog will make a difference in the lives of other people who are going through the same things that I am going through, and that one day my children will see that.

So what is it that makes you feel bad?  Let us know so we can examine the issue and see what we can do about it!

THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM AND FAMILY COURT

As a litigant, when you walk into Family Court, the official story is that you are walking into a system that is operating according to what is known as the Adversarial System.  I don't think it is necessarily the first thing most litigants think about, but they should think about it, because the nature of the system has everything to do with the outcome of the cases they bring to Family Court. 

According to Wikipedia, the Adversarial System is a legal system where two advocates, each representing either the Plaintiff or the Defendant, faceoff and represent their parties' position before an impartial judge or jury and the intention is to determine the truth of the case. 

The Adversarial Process has its origins in the medieval mode of trial by combat where certain litigants, particularly women, were allowed a champion to represent them.  Think of Heath Ledger in "A Knight's Tale"! 

The idea behind the Adversarial Process is that two equally skilled advocates who argue their cases before an impartial judge can arrive at the truth.  Fundamental to this process is the concept of the examination and cross examination of witnesses and the presentation of reliable and relevant evidence, thus the development of the rules of evidence.  The attorneys are there to argue the case, determine which evidence and witnesses should be presented to the judge and/or jury, and the judge plays the role of neutral observor who makes sure that both sides adhere to proper Court procedures.  In the end, the judge could be the one to determine what is the verdict or else it could be a jury.  

The Adversarial System presents a contrast to the Inquisitorial System in which a judge or a group of judges work together to investigate a case.

In the Adversarial System, once a Defendant admits to a crime, the process is over, since you know who is guilty.  This means that the Adversarial System allows for opportunities for negotiations, agreements, and plea bargaining, and often many cases don't even end up going to trial. 

In contrast, when it comes to the Inquisitorial System, the fact that a Defendant has admitted to a crime means nothing and the proceedings will still continue, so there is little if any room for the Parties to work things out independent of a trial under that system.   

So, do we really have an Adversarial System in the Family Court System in Connecticut?  That's the big question, because a lot of us are saying that it appears to us as though Attorneys for both sides get together in a back room, make up their minds regarding how the divorce is going to go, and then play the rest of it all off as show.  And while they are at it, they cash in on as much money as they can get from the litigants.

What others are experiencing is a situation where they can't get an attorney to represent their position, and are left in the stigmatizing and compromised situation of having to represent themselves.  Some of these people have interviewed dozens of attorneys, but have been unable to get an attorney to represent them.  And this may not be simply a matter of lack of agreement with what a litigant is asking them to do, but also a fear of ostracism within the profession.  No attorney wants to take on a case that their peers have decided is not worthy of representation, a decision that is often based upon discriminatory attitudes regarding race, gender, or disability as well as other misplaced social and cultural values.  Then, to get you to shut up and go away, these lawyers will lie to you and tell you that you have no case based upon the law. when in fact you do.  So, nothing adversarial going on here.

This is a denial of citizens' access to justice by the denial of any access to attorney representation.

Granting the whole thing isn't a sham, which I suspect it is, in my experience of participating in Family Court Trials, there appears to be a mixture of both The Adversarial System and the Inquisitorial System going on in Family Court, particularly during the hearings on issues brought before the Short Calendar which usually take around 15 to 20 minutes.  In these hearings, the Trial Court Judge isn't simply a neutral, impartial factfinder, sitting back sagely while the attorneys present their cases, and only commenting to make a determination.  On the contrary, these judges play a significant role in asking questions, examining and cross examining litigants and witnesses in ways that ordinarily only an attorney would do, as well as explaining Court Procedures to litigants who are often self represented.  Judges will sometimes express opinions or draw conclusions about the evidence presented to the Court, a role which would ordinarily be left to expert witnesses, were they there to provide testimony. 

This can lead judges into a situation where they make memorable remarks, some of them sharply derogatory of litigants, which can lead to lasting bitterness and anger.  It can also lead judges to intrude into the process in a way that calls into question their neutrality and their willingness to adhere to the law.  In these circumstances, in family court, the so called adversarial process, if there is one, breaks down entirely.

So  does it make sense to have the Adversarial System or some modified version of the Adversarial System in Family Court?  Some people believe that this system is the only way to ferret out the truth and to hold the Court to a high standard of accountability when it comes to applying the law to the evidence.  However, as this discussion shows, in family court, this doesn't seem to be working.

What is more, there are problems unique to family court which make the adversarial system detrimental for the litigants.  Specifically, this is a system in which you have only two Parties, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and only one can be the Victor which pretty much leaves the other as the Loser.  If the children are sucked into the proceedings in a dispute over custody, they often end up as pawns in the battle.  Even when everything is done to protect them from the harm that can result from a custody battle, they can end up injured simply because their relationship with either one parent or the other is under dispute. 

Futhermore, in Family Court such considerable sums of money are often spent on legal fees, much of it out of college funds for the children or from financial resources intended the secure the family's future, that the financial damage occurring as the result of a divorce action can end up lasting for years, and the litigants may never even be able to recover. 

In situations like this, and there are many of them, no matter that the Plaintiff or the Defendant may end up on paper as the Victor, ultimately both sides lose.

Not only that, one of the unique aspects of divorce, as opposed to criminal or civil law, is that after the trial or the settlement of the case, a good majority of the time both sides can't simply just walk off and never see each other again.  Whether they won or lost, they will be required to work together for the best interests of their children for years subsequent to their Court Case.  They will have to consult regarding the childrens' academic achievements, regarding summer and holiday vacations, regarding medical and religious decisions, and eventually participate in weddings and baptisms of grandchildren. 

If a legal divorce proceeding is all about how to destroy the other side and grind the other side into smithereens, how can the litigants then be expected to work together jointly on behalf of their children after all that damage has been done?  And if they do so much damage that the other side is too crippled to proceed further in living a productive life, what is the consequence of that other than harm and destruction to the children of the marriage?  

I don't have any quick solutions to this problem.  However, I do think that vast numbers of litigants have already recognized this problem and are revolutionizing the Family Court System by choosing to represent themselves.  At this point, up to 80% of litigants in Family Court are self represented.  This is an extraordinary vote of no confidence in the attorneys here in the field of family law in the State of Connecticut.     

Finally, what is my solution?  I'd like to propose that we ask our representatives to pass legislation that would limit the amount of money that attorneys, GALs, and mental health professionals are able to earn in any divorce.  Once it is no longer possible to profiteer on the suffering brought on by divorce, and once there is no longer a benefit to be had by inciting litigants into lengthy and expensive legal proceedings, then we will see the development of more sensible and reasonable approaches to divorce.

TAKING THE LONG WALK!

As you know, I have been dealing with Appellate Court for most of 2011 and the experience is beginning to wear away at me.  Today I received three orders of the Appellate Court denying my motions.  I'm like, what is this? I'm cute, I'm good looking, I have a compelling argument--how could you possibly deny me? 

Along with this more recent annoyance, I have also begun to suspect that I'm been played with by some of the Appellate Clerks.  More specifically, I have had Court Clerks refuse to accept motions I submitted stating that they were not in the right format when I know very well that the opposing attorney submitted motions using the exact same format which were accepted. 

The first and second time I confronted them on this issue, the clerks stated that they had not received any such documents from the opposing attorney.   What is more, they said, since the format was incorrect, they wouldn't accept any such documents and that they were not in the Court File. I came in twice and on two occasions the clerks assured me of this. 

Then I came in another time and--low and behold!!!--they found out that they had the documents all along and that they had accepted them despite the so called improper format. As a result, I missed the opportunity to respond to these motions because I wrongly believed they had not been officially submitted to the Court. 

When I then challenged the Clerks about accepting the opposing attorney's documents even though they said they were in an incorrect format and wouldn't accept them, all of a sudden they had an excuse saying it was OK with the particular document she had submitted.  So I then submitted my motions which were exactly the same as the opposing attorney's motions, using the same format as the opposing attorney in my case, and they again insisted the format was wrong and that I couldn't hand it in. 

I'm like, didn't you just tell me it is ok and didn't you just show me how you accepted the exact same format in motions submitted by the opposing attorney.  Oh, no, they said, you have to have this prescribed format no matter what. 

So I said, well you didn't ask the opposing attorney to do that.  So, I'm like, what is this, I'm getting nonsense every time I come down here.  I need fresh air.  I need a new crew of people.  I need the Federal Court--right now--today! 

To effectuate this change, I called my Case Manager at Appellate Court whom I will call Mr. Joe Schmoe.  Mr. Schmoe, I say, I would like to transfer my case to Federal Court, so what is the procedure for doing that?  Can I transfer it now or do I have to wait until the Appellate Court arrives at a decision?  Well, says Mr. Schmoe, I truly have no idea about that.  You would have to go to Federal Court and ask a Federal Court Clerk that question. 

This is where my reference to "taking the long walk" comes in.  The Federal Court in this area is somewhat of a hike from the Family, Civil, Criminal, Appellate and Supreme Courts so you have to take a bit of a long walk to get there.  So I took that walk.  And, of course, symbolically it is a long walk, a walk, supposedly into a more cosmopolitan, and legally sophisticated level of jurisprudence.  Or at least you hope!

I was met at the door by Men in Black Suits who provided building security.  This was in considerable contrast to the blue workmen uniforms of security guards in the State of Connecticut Courthouses.  Already, I felt like I was taking a step up. 

I obtained directions to the Federal Clerk's Office which is downstairs in the basement of the building. 

The Clerk's Office was a very large room with the service counter at a considerable distance from the clerk's desks.  There was an old fashioned silver bell there for me to ring for service, but I was not happy with the idea of ringing it; it seemed so 1920s.  There were no other customers in the office, which gave me the impression that not many people come in there. 

Eventually, a nice lady came up to me and asked me whether she could help me.  I was like, Yes, I want to transfer my Appellate Court case from State Court over to Federal Court, so how would I do that?  The clerk answered, I am really not sure.  I think you would have to ask at the Appellate Court to get an answer to that question. 

But Appellate Court told me to come down here and ask you, I responded. 

I can't say anything about that, says the clerk, but you would have to ask an Appellate Court clerk for an answer to the question. 

I responded, but you ought to know how this works.  Isn't this your business? 

No, we are not allowed to give out legal advice, answers the clerk. 

But this isn't legal advice, I said, this is simply a request regarding your procedures.  I would like to know what are the procedures involved in getting a case moved over here. 

When the clerk realized that I intended to stand there stubbornly continuing to ask questions, she said why don't I check with my supervisor and ask what she thinks. 

Then off the Clerk went and disappeared in the maze of desks where I knew people must be hidden, but couldn't see anyone.  Eventually, the clerk came back and said, you really need to ask Appellate Court. 

So I responded, don't you have anything that you can show me in the Federal Practice Book that provides guidelines, or do you have any book that gives you information on how to proceed? 

Let me just check, she says, goes back to her desk and returns with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and after around ten minutes she gets to the page about removing a case from State Court to Federal Court.  The first thing she lets me know is that most of the time it is Defendants that come to Federal Court and not Plaintiffs. 

Already, I was feeling bad since I am a Plantiff. 

She also told me that most of the time litigants come directly to Federal Court from Superior Court.  And again, I am not feeling so good because I left Superior Court a while back and I'm now in Appellate Court. 

Does being a litigant already in Appellate Court preclude you from transferring your case to Federal Court, I asked?  I don't know, answered the clerk, you would have to ask the Appellate Court whether that is the case.  Honestly, I answered, you have all these litigants coming to file cases here in Federal Court and you have never dealt with the case like mine?  Not you or anyone else in this office?  Are you for real about that?  Yes, she says, I simply don't know.  I have never dealt with a situation like this. 

Then just as if it is an afterthought, the Clerk says, we do have a Handbook for Self Represented Litigants in Federal Court.  Would you like a copy of it?  I'm like Praise the Lord--of course I would. And I took a moment to congratulate myself that I'm one of those people who keeps on hanging around asking questions no matter how many times I'm told "no".  Because If I'd accepted this Clerk's first response that I should check with Appellate Court, and if I had just picked myself up and left, I never would have found out about that Handbook!  Being persistent and annoying works!

So we get out the Handbook of Federal Procedure for Self Represented parties and looked up removal of cases.  What it said is that a Plaintiff has to file a complaint with Federal Court in order to remove a case to Federal Court while a Defendant has to file a Notice of Removal. 

I pointed out that it looks as though the Plaintiff only has to file a complaint, forget the Notice of Removal.  But the clerk disagreed with me.  She asked, how will the court know you have left their jurisdiction if you don't file a Notice of Removal?  I'm like, I don't know, because they'd get a copy of the complaint?  Still, the wording seemed a little iffy to me, so I continued to feel that I didn't have enough information.  And at that point it became clear that I'd milked the Clerk for all she could give me.  So I left.

On the way back to my car, I got on my cell phone and called Appellate Court.  I explained my problem to the Appellate Court Clerk.  How can I transfer my case from the Appellate Court to Federal Court.  What is the procedure?  Do I have to wait for a ruling in Appellate Court before transferring or can I just skip the whole thing and move on to Federal Court? 

Again, I got my answer.  You would have to speak to a Federal Court Clerk about that because we do not have that information.  Well, I said, I just spoke to a Federal Clerk and she said that I would have to get the answer from an Appellate Court Clerk.  Well, says the Clerk, I don't have that information.  And I'm not allowed to give you legal advice.  This isn't legal advice, I said.  I am simply asking you a question about procedure.  Well, says the Clerk, I really don't have the answer to that. 

Does that mean you have never been asked this question before, I asked?  Nobody has ever gone to Federal Court from Appellate Court before?  No, says the clerk, I just simply don't know.  So how would I get that information, I asked.  You would have to speak to the Case Manager, says the Clerk. 

Ok, I say, could you transfer me to Mr. Schmoe?  No, Mr. Schmoe isn't in right now, says the Clerk.  Oh, he isn't, I said, so where is he?  I don't know, says the Clerk.  Is he in today?  I ask.  Well, yes, he is, says the Clerk, but I don't know where he is.  Is he in Court I ask?  We are not paid to keep track of where our Case Managers are, says the Clerk.  Well, is he in Court or at his desk? I asked, (Seeing as I'm getting the runaround feeling and I've had too much of the runaround feeling today, and along with the I'm beginning to feel a little bit jokey, now.  I'm beginning to toy with the guy a bit, I admit, but still I am well within my rights to know the answers to my questions--honestly!) 

How can I get to speak to Mr. Schmoe, I ask.  Ok, Mrs. Sloper, says the clerk,  (just beginning to figure out what a comedian I am) I've done as much as I can today.  I've told you as much as I can, his voice fading away indicating he's ready to move on.  But, I say quickly, could you connect me first to Mr. Schmoe's voice mail?  But the Clerk has already hung up. 

So I called back and some other Clerk answers.  Could you connect me to Mr. Joe Schmoe's voice mail I say, and I leave the message including my detailed question. 

Will I hear back from Mr. Schmoe?  Well, it's several hours later and the work day is coming to a close and I still haven't heard from him.  Will I be able to get a straight answer from him about the procedure for transferring a case to Federal Court?  I doubt it.  By rights, I should get one, but the likelihood is still very low.

The big question is, the question I walk away with, is, why do they give people such a runaround.  Why do they make it so difficult for citizens in the State of Connecticut to find their way to Federal Court so they can gain access to their civil rights?  It's a good question.  Going to Federal Court shouldn't be such a tough job. 

JAC PATRISSI AND LUNDY BANCROFTS NEW BOOK: SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO!

LETTERS FROM THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY

It is a lovely Sunday afternoon, the sun is shining, the birds are singing and...oh heck.  Guys, I have a problem. 

I've had a problem for a week now.  I'll tell you what it is.  I have two letters sitting on my desk from the opposing attorney in my case. 

Let me take a look at them.  Oh, they are thick.  What do you think?  Should I open them and ruin my lovely day?

That's the question. 

As soon as I open these two letters and read the contents I will be pissed off. Why?  Because I am always pissed off at what the opposing attorney has to say.  That's why.  Remember how your Mom told you, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say it at all."  Well, the opposing attorney wasn't there for that lesson. 

So there I'll be having a nice day, similar to the one I've described in my opening line and then I will receive one of those darned letters from the opposing attorney and my day is ruined, sometimes not even my one day but several days.  Not only is my day ruined but my relationships with others also, my ability to think straight, literally everything.  That is how bad it is. 

Ok people.  I'm touching these two envelopes, two fat plump envelopes that sink into my fingertips.  What do you say?  Should I just get it over with, or just wait another day and at least have today to enjoy.  I'm just not sure. 

Earlier in the week I didn't open the letters because I had a few legal papers I needed to get submitted to court and I wanted to be able to get them done without interference.  That was my excuse for not opening these letters.  Now the legal work is done I don't have any more excuses, but still I haven't opened them.

Do I need to be pissed off?  Do I need to be annoyed? Wouldn't I prefer to play yahtzee with my daughter?  Yes, actually, yes, is actually the answer to that question. 

Now, you, gentle readers, must now be thinking to yourselves, does she do this EVERY TIME a letter comes in from the opposing attorney.  Yes, actually, again, yes, is actually the answer to that question. 

I walk around with letters from the opposing attorney unopened; I stick them on kitchen counters, and next to bathroom sinks.  I bring them into the bathroom with me and turn them over while I'm on the toilet.  I put them inbetween the pages of my notebooks, I stuff them down my pants and throw my shirt over them to prevent my partner from seeing them.  I dump them on the floor of my car.  I blank out about them, forget they exist and leave them on the garage stairs.  You mention it, I've done it to those letters. 

Why?  Because they are nothing but trouble.  Years ago, when my divorce was new, and I still had a few remaining drops of adrenaline in my body, I would get churning feelings in my stomach at the sight of these letters.  The veins on my forehead would throb and my teeth would clench. I would even open the letters quickly because I was so angry about the situation, I wanted to respond right away with a volley of letters all my own. 

Now I'm like, nope, I'm fine, thank you very much.  You can just stay there right where you are on my dresser underneath the bottles of perfume.  My body feels dead, silent, disinterested, indifferent. 

Still, not opening the letters is a torture unto itself.  Everywhere I go I have this naggy feeling of incompleteness in my head, the needling irritation that arises from a task left undone that must inevitably be done.  People who work with me on the case, who have learned to keep their mouths shut about my irrational letter related behavior, still have the courage to shoot me meaningful looks and raise their eyebrows in the direction of my office and deny they have done so when I call them on it. 

Of course, there are deadlines, and I only have so much time to respond to the opposing attorney.  So, I do have to open the letters some time.  But when. When?  That is the question.  The tearing sound of paper, the rip, rip, rip.  Oh, it's awful.  I can't bear it.  I'm not going to do it.  Not now.  Of course, there are risks to this kind of constant evasiveness, like opening the letters and realizing I had to respond to them yesterday and the opportunity has been lost.  Yes, the deadlines, the deadlines, which I just mentioned.  They don't go away no matter how much you wish them away. 

I look outside my window.  The sun is shining.  The neighbor's poodle is chasing falling leaves around the driveway.  How I wish I were the poodle and not this person that I am, the person who has to open these two envelopes. 

Maybe I should just put them down for now, take a walk, breath deeply, put the evil moment off, for just this minute, this hour, whatever it takes to make me strong enough.  But I will never be strong enough.  Ultimately, I just have to do what I am able to do, the very best that I can.  And that is all anyone can ask of me. 

And I keep in mind that things do get better.  I used to be so terrified of the opposing attorney I couldn't even speak to him or call his secretary on the phone.  Now if I have something to say, I just speak up or get on the phone.  There comes a point where you just don't care any more. 

In the end, nothing, nothing is as horrifying and as intimidating as the opposing attorney in a high conflict divorce, particularly when you are on the losing side.  But once you get over that fear, nothing will ever frighten you again.  And there is something very liberating, very freeing, about that. 

So now, here I go. I have one of the letters in my hand and its time to follow through.  Wish me luck. And I wish you luck when you open your letters.  Go get the bastards!

RICK GREEN MAKES US LAUGH WITH SHOUT OUT TO LAWYERS ASKING THEM TO ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE!

Mr. Rick Green, a commentator for The Hartford Courant published an editorial on Friday, September 30, 2011 challenging attorneys, particularly large legal firms to step in and "aid the poor".  Isn't that hilarious!?!  A reporter actually believes that attorneys give a hoot about the poor.

What is this guys problem?  Is he mental or something?  Hasn't he heard the running jokes about attorneys such as the following: 

Question:  What do sperm and attorneys have in common?  Answer:  One in a million becomes a human being!

Question: How do you know an attorney is lying?  Answer:  His lips are moving. 

Question:  You are trapped in an elevator with a tiger, a rattlesnake and a lawyer. Your gun only has two bullets.  What should you do?  Answer:  Shoot the lawyer twice to make sure he is dead. 

Question:  What's wrong with lawyer jokes?  Answer:  Lawyers don't think they are funny and nobody else thinks they are jokes!  

Seriously, what's the problem with this guy Rick.  Where has he been?  Lost on a desert island somewhere?  Ok, ok, I'll stop cracking the jokes.  Let me get serious about this problem here. 

Apparently, according to Mr. Green, in divorce, domestic abuse, eviction, and foreclosure cases more and more folks are representing themselves which results in a a situation in which the Court is not as "fair" as it ought to be. 

Fair?  Fair?  Ok, I'm laughing so much my sides ache.  Ricky actually thinks the courts ought to be fair?  Really?  Boy, from my experience of the Court, and that of so many other people, particularly protective mothers, I would never have known that the courts were supposed to be fair.  What's going on doesn't look fair to me.  I wonder--has this guy Rick actually been in Court so that he would know what's going on, because I think any one of us could share with him--hello, the Courts are not fair.  And if you don't like it, too bad for you, because the Court couldn't care less. 

Ok, this is interesting--apparently, it looks as though around 85% of all family court cases have an least one self represented party.  That is definitely an increase from when I last looked the numbers up when I heard around 70% of family cases had a self-represented party. 

Apparently, in Rockville Court almost all of the cases have a self-represented party.  And God bless them too, because at least that way when these self-represented parties speak, they know that they are getting to ask for what they want to ask for and make the statements about their cases that they want made instead of having some dick lawyer shut them up.  They may not win, but at least they can get what they have to say on record. 

And let's get real, there isn't really a problem with self representation; the problem is that judges are so prejudiced against self represented parties that they routinely rule against them.  Then, since this prejudiced kind of ruling often results in injustice, self-represented parties simply file appeals or file additional motions to rectify the wrongs done to them which leads to what Ricky tells us is a court system that is "clogged." 

That sure is correct.  Repeated and unrelenting cases of Injustice sure do clog the good old system. He got it right there.  

And Ricky has it right as well that it is the poor representing themselves that causes the problem, or rather the newly poor.  Because, you see, these self-represented parties might have started out with a little nest egg for themselves, they may have had retirement plans, maybe a little real estate after many years of backbreaking hard work, but then they hired your average family attorney in Connecticut, and you see, after that attorney sucked these self represented parties dry of every dime they had, they then became poor and needy of "help" from the same kind of attorney that exploited them in the first place. 

Do you want to know how much it should actually cost to get a divorce in Connecticut it is such a simply matter--maybe $500.00. 

How then do cases start vacuuming up multiple thousands of dollars in legal fees?  I'll tell you how, from the vicious and exploitative practices of these very attorneys Ricky thinks should offer up their assistance for "free". 

Judge William Bright is worried that self represented parties don't know what they are doing?  Is he kidding?  If you go to any court service center all the forms you need in order to obtain a divorce along with explanatory material is freely available along with the assistance of a law clerk who will spoon feed you through it.  If you don't know what you are doing as a self-represented party, you should be ashamed of yourself.  And that is without bothering to google all the information you need or go to the library where the librarian will show you all the reference material you need in order to get your legal matter completed. 

No, no, no, what Judge Bright really doesn't like are the litigants who are not represented by attorneys who will stab their clients in the back and manipulate them into agreements that are not in their best interests, get them out of the court system, and back onto the street minus all their money, their children, and whatever self respect they might have had.  Litigants who are represented by attorneys are far more easily manipulated into shutting up and doing what they are told.  This is the real need this article seeks to meet, the need for attorneys who will make deals with other attorneys and with judges in back rooms and screw their clients. 

That way the Court, judges, and attorneys can eliminate that pesky issue of "fairness"  and justice and the constitutional rights of American citizens, concepts that are violated and ignored daily and hourly in our broken judicial system. 

Make no mistake.  Our legal system is corrupt, our legal system is evil, our legal system is harmful to the most vulnerable, to the strong, the weak, the average honest citizen, to us all.  In fact, legal rights are an illusion to all but the elite few who are wealthy enough and well connected enough to obtain them. 

So don't be fooled.  This editorial isn't about helping the poor and the less fortunate.  It's about continuing to shut up people who are self represented, who have investigated how the law is supposed to work, i.e. with fairness and justice, and who demand their legal rights.  Yes, of course they have no idea what they are doing, because if they did they would know that the last place on earth to expect fairness and justice would be in a Connecticut Courtroom. 

The legal profession should be ashamed, and not only the legal profession, but also journalists such as Mr. Rick Green who fail to dig deeper and investigate fully, and then tell fake stories fed to them by corrupt court insiders, ones that gloss over what is really going on and allow the corruption of the court system, particularly the family court system, to continue on without any scrutiny or accountability.  

THE DEVIL'S HANDSHAKE

Let me tell you about the first time time I received the devil's handshake.  I was in a lawyer's office--this was several years before I even considered divorce--and my X and I were going over our wills. 

The lawyer who, as I learned later on was very gender biased, called into question my prenuptial.  Clearly, from his remarks, he thought the document was far too generous towards me.  There were many reasons why it was this way, and when he challenged it, I told him what those reasons were in no uncertain terms.  On the way out of his office, after our business was over, he took pains to shake my hand.

His handshake is a special handshake that you get when a lawyer has acted like a complete jerk, but wants to convey a message of "well played, my friend." or "that was a good fighting bout" or something of that kind. Since then, I've received the devil's handshake on a few other occasions as well. 

A few years ago, I had an attorney start a collections action against me in court. I responded with a suit for malpractice and we continued on through the entire process and onto trial.  The trial lasted two days and was extremely difficult for me, although  I did get the opposing attorney to conceed a few points. Naturally, it was the first time I'd ever conducted a trial and so how well was I going to do really?  My blood pressure skyrocketed and half the time I was so nervous and afraid, I wasn't even sure what page I was on! 

What this attorney did was despicable.  Essentially, after he had withdrawn from my case, he still ratcheted up thousands and thousands of dollars in unauthorized attorney's fees which he was now demanding I pay.  I fought back as well as I could, and once it was all over, as we walked out of the court room, he reached out and shook my hand, and then his entire team of attorneys followed suit and shook my hand as well. 

Those were a whole bunch of devil's handshakes one after another. 

The point I am making is, as laypersons, we take the whole of family court seriously.  When the opposing attorney makes false accusations, or spins the story of a marriage in a way that is totally false, most of us become terribly indignant.  I have heard friends of mine say, how could this bad attorney allow my ex husband to lie, steal money, or obtain custody of my children even though it is clear the children and everyone will be harmed as a result. 

Most women, in particular, take it all to heart and literally believe that the opposing attorney is evil, or that the opposing attorney really likes the ex husband.  And perhaps they are right sometimes.  But my general experience is that most attorneys view a lawsuit as a more evolved kind of game, like chess for instance.  They don't necessarily like or dislike their client.  As they see it, the courtroom is simply a playing field with the judge as chief umpire. 

It's all about what kinds of plays can win you the game, and for many attorneys it is just that--a game.  It's like two gladiators who fight it out in the arena, and then wait for Caesar to seal their fate with a thumbs up or a thumbs down.  They do their best for the person they are representing, not because they care about that person or his cause, although it's nice to believe in what you are advocating, though not required, but simply because that is the job they are paid to do and trained to do. 

Right or wrong is not the question.  The question is what can they do to win.  And at their fingertips they have an entire arsenal of strategies--lunging, feinting, dipping, diving, jumping, ducking, giving a limb up for the game, and then rising up to win.  It's not about the people involved, about the family, or the children who are hurt and harmed by the outcome of a lawsuit; it is about the buzz you get when you fight it out in and out of the courtroom.  It's about drinking the blood of your enemies when the lawsuit is over and you win. 

If there is anything most litigants fail to understand then, it is this.  Your lawyer does not hate the opposing attorney.  Your lawyer is not personally involved with the relationships.  You attorney is on the pursuit of a win, regardless of anyone's feelings, and regardless of the impact that it has on anyone or anything.  And if they lose, so what?  The game starts again the next day with another client. 

So, if you play their game in any way, by inserting yourself into the process, or standing up to them and refusing to go along with their tactics, they start thinking you are part of the game as well.  So at the end of their interaction with you, they will offer you, what they offer one another at the end of each bloodbath--oops, I mean game a.k.a. lawsuit, i.e. the devil's handshake.  And God forbid you refuse it. 

I did refuse one, at one point.  I was at an attorney's office where the attorney was rude and insulting, and then, as I was leaving, he offered to take my hand, and I simply refused.  I could see in his face that by doing so I had confirmed every bad thought he had about me.  And this is the thing, he was an evil son of a gun (I meant to say worse) but he had given me crucial information on how to succeed in my case. 

What he gave me was a lawyer's form of tough love, in a sense, sort of like he was saying, if you are going to get into our game, expect a few bloody noses, and let me give you a few while you are sitting here, and, by the way, try this excellent strategy the next time you are in the ring, so you can avoid a few more of them. 

I suppose he thought he was doing me a favor.  And in another lifetime, I'd understand the tough love thing.  But when it gets down to it, I do not approve.  Lawyers need to stop thinking of this as a game, in my opinion.  They need to feel the pain, not just of the battle, but the pain of the people whose lives are twisted apart by these lawsuits.  These people are not just pieces in a chess game; they are living, breathing human beings, whose lives are crippled, twisted, and distorted by the brokenness of family court. 

Overall, when I refused to shake this guy's hand, I was saying, that's enough.  Take your silly handshake and stick it where the sun never shines. We could all do with a little less of the devil and his hand shakes, and look instead for ways in which we can protect the most vulnerable in family court, most particularly, the children.

WHEN WAS MY LAST APPOINTMENT? BEATS ME!

I went to the dentist's office today for a teeth cleaning which I thought about all day until the appointment time arrived. Why did I think so much about it?  Because I keep on missing these things.  It's part of the whole divorce experience--constantly missing, forgetting, or having to endlessly reschedule appointments I have made for my own medical or dental care. 

Pretty much the first thing to go when you file for divorce are any appointments you have for medical or dental care.  That filing for divorce is probably the starting point for the slow, steady, spiraling downward curve of your physical and dental health, let alone your mental health. 

Five or six years ago when I myself filed, I went to a dentist to have two crowns put on two teeth in my lower jaw.  But because I was already compromised by my ex's constant harassment and bullying, instead of looking carefully for a qualified individual, I ended up at a chain dental service at a local mall. 

The dentist there immediately proceeded to botch the operation by installing two crowns that were much too large in my mouth and then he overcharged me $2,000.00 for the privilege.  When he saw that the crowns were too big, instead of pulling them out and starting over, he took a chisel and sanded down the teeth in the upper jaw. 

I put up with that the first time he did it, but when he wished to chisel the teeth some more on my second visit, I was out of there.  After that I continued to have nothing but trouble from the teeth with the crowns--they caused me ongoing pain and constantly attracted food particles. 

But since I was embroiled in divorce proceedings I wasn't able to get the care that I so desperately needed.  I'd set up an appointment and then miss it because I would end up having a hearing on that day, or else I'd get an emergency call that my ex hadn't shown up and I needed to pick up one of the children, or the GAL was coming to dinner and I was expected to provide a home cooked dinner. And, of course, the bottom line was that even if I did make it to an appointment, I was unlikely to be able to afford the cost. 

Another big reason for missing appointments was that I was so preoccupied with my troubles that I'd plain old forget.  On the scale of things, when considering that I might end up homeless or end up without my children, remembering to go to a dental appointment was the last thing on my mind. 

The same thing applied to my medical issues.  Immediately prior to filing for divorce it turned out that I was in need of major surgery, but since it was for a condition I could keep on limping along with for a while longer, I was always extending that while longer until five years later I still hadn't had the surgery.  I just couldn't conceive of putting myself out of commission for the required three month recovery period when I was still in the middle of negotiations and hearings and meetings, etc. etc. 

So then I gained weight because I wasn't able to exercise, and then my blood pressure climbed because I was on edge constantly, and so one thing led to another and I was simply run down physically. 

Still, finding a way to get to the doctor was very difficult.  To this day, I haven't had medical testing done that is a standard for a person my age.  I kept on missing the appointments for the mammograms, and then for the colonoscopy I kept on misplacing the directions that tell you how to prepare and then I arrived at the facility for the procedure without having done what I was supposed to do. 

In the atmosphere of constant emergencies, constant threat from my ex husband's attorney, the days where I opened my door only to find another marshall there holding another frightening motion, I was much too exhausted to keep track. 

The end result is that in the past five years, I have aged substantially and my health, which was once my best asset, has deteriorated a great deal.  I now consider myself old in a way I never would have before.  All that adrenaline pumping through my system has taken its toll.  I am sure that this divorce has taken years off my life. 

Today when I walked in for my long anticipated dental appointment, the hygienist asked me, "When was your last dental appointment?"  I was stumped.  When had it been? It's bad when you walk into a dentist's office and they ask you when your last appointment for a teeth cleaning was and you simply can't remember. 

For the future, I am going to do what I can to see that doesn't happen again. I am going to make sure I have the surgeries and get those procedures done.  However, I am only able to do so because many years later, even though the litigation continues, I have been able to develop some breathing room within which to take care of myself. 

But it is important to note that the serious consequences of high conflict divorce do not just show themselves financially, they also show themselves medically in the lives of women, such as ourselves, who are called to protect their children and their lives, and often end up doing so at the cost of putting their own health at risk.

SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING WRITTEN...OOPS!

As you can see, I am a writer.  Give me an excuse and I'll be off writing.  It is almost a compulsion.  Sort of an OCD thing.  I'm sure many of the folks reading my blog are writers also.  And the question for me and for you people that write is, what happens to writers during the course of a high conflict divorce? 

The answer is, you get trashed!  Again, let's go back to the original premise of my blog, which is that men who are abusive are ordinarily narcissistic.  It is standard for men like this to begin planning for a divorce years in advance of when they actually follow up by filing for one.  So what does this mean concretely? 

This means that, over the years, while you were married to your ex, if you were putting down on paper any creative work that could be compromising to you in family court, he has probably been collecting it in a file and will use it later on in the custody evaluation or at trial. 

Sources of written material could be anywhere.  They could be comments you posted on social websites such as twitter, myspace, and facebook, etc.  If your ex ever had passwords to your accounts, he could have been printing them out and storing them for years. 

They could come from email.  If you were doing what I often did, printing out my emails immediately after I wrote them and putting them in a file, your ex could have raided that file and obtained copies of those documents as well, all of which could be used against you in trial.  Your ex could also get a copy of the hard drive of your computer when you are out going grocery shopping or something.  My ex repeatedly demanded copies of the hard drive of my computer in discovery requests, not only in motions, but in demands he made to the judge.

 

 

Other sources your ex could raid are your notebooks or loose papers where you put your story ideas or investigation of possible phrases and words you might have wished to use at a later time.  Journal entries in notebooks, or your morning pages.  You might also have material that could be copied from old fashioned floppy disks or flashdrives.  

If you are one of these verbal types you might have tape recorded yourself telling a story or pretending to be a character in one of your books, or just reflecting on life in general.  

 

 

You may have written personal letters to friends, acquaintences, your therapist, mentors, family members and then kept copies or your ex was able to make copies before you sent them.  If you are like me, you might put greeting cards on display and some of those cards can have content that your ex might consider using against you.  

Now, before you say something like that isn't possible, or anything I have written is perfectly harmless, or why would anyone take an interest in my useless ramblings, think more deeply.  

Have you ever written anything, anything at all, for example, talking about the conflict you have between your creative work versus parenting you children?  Well, if the custody evaluator read it, could he conceivably conclude you are dissatisfied with being a mother?  

Have you ever written in the first person when describing the thoughts and feelings of a character in a novel of yours who fell into the dark depths of despair, perhaps this character even considered suicide?  Be prepared to have an excerpt of that presented to the judge at trial as an example of your own personal reflections about your own life.  

Take a look at any number of phrases or paragraphs or ruminations you've dumped onto the page over the years and imagine them recontextualized in order to prove you are a bad mother and a terrible citizen.  The jokes, the off color remarks, the wild imaginings, the iconoclastic positions you've taken, the antiestablishment manifestos--all of that can and will be used against you in a court of law.  

Yes, I know you have been brought up with ideas about your constitutional right to the freedom of the press and you have marinated in concepts such as the right to freedom of expression since birth, at least if you live in the State of CT.  But what you have to keep in mind is that all those rights go completely out of the window as soon as you enter family court.  And by completely, I mean COMPLETELY.  

As a fellow writer, I sympathize with how confused and upset this blog about writing must make you.  I personally felt raped and violated when I found out that my ex was using my writing against me, that the custody evaluator in my case was quoting it out of context.  It was probably the worst single thing that happened to me in my entire divorce.  But do not allow yourself to be a victim in this situation.  

As soon as possible, take steps to safeguard all of your written work. I am not going to tell you where to go or what to do, but locate a place where you can store all of your written work and make sure that no one, most specifically your abuser knows where it is.  

Place all of your downloaded writing, all floppy disks and flashdrives, tape recordings and everything in this hidden location.  

Do all of your computer work on a computer in a public library, and participate in social networking on the computer using a fake name.  

Conceal, conceal and conceal again.  

In fact, don't even let your ex know you write.  Go out of the house and out of his sight when you do your written work.  For us compulsives, I know that is hard.  But if you want to survive and you want your children to survive, this is what you have got to do.

If, despite everything you have done to protect yourself, you get caught with some compromising writing in the wrong hands then deny, deny, deny.  Just keep on repeating, "it's all my creative imagination."  I ended up repudiating a good deal of my social commentary and attributed it to my youth and lack of experience.  

For a writer, a situation like that is just like having to repudiate your own children.  I still live with the pain and the shame that were the result of that repudiation.  Like Rachel, I weep for these children, and cannot be comforted.  If I had protected myself early, if I had been cautioned of this danger, as I caution you now, I would not have had to go through this.  

So be warned.  

HOW DO YOU DEFINE IT? ABUSE OR SIMPLE ANNOYANCE?

As you know this is the season when students who have been accepted to prep schools and students who have been accepted to colleges visit campuses around the country to obtain information necessary to make informed decisions.  It is a very difficult but exciting time when children and parents join together in making vital decisions that will affect the lives of students for years to come.  


I have a friend who told me this story about what happened with her when she took her daughter across country to look at a college campus.  Tell me what you think.  Is what happened to her abuse or simple annoyance?  


In this situation, my friend, Wendy, has joint custody with her X.  Quite recently, Wendy and her daughter, Susie (18), travelled to another state at quite a distance in order to visit a college campus where her daughter Susie had been admitted.  Susie was in the enviable position of having to choose between three colleges that had very fine reputations and she wanted to visit each campus to make the very best choice.  


Now Susie has two younger siblings, Johnny (12) and Peter (14) who love to play baseball.  During the baseball season, Wendy and her X have an agreement that they will do everything they can to make sure that the boys make baseball games despite the fact that the X lives three hours away.  This means that on every other weekend during the baseball season the X only takes part of his visitation or travels to Wendy's to see the children at their home.  Not actually in their home, but he will stay at a hotel nearby. 


On the weekend Wendy and Susan were leaving on their trip, it was not a weekend for the X's visitation.  However, when Wendy's X found out that Wendy and Susie were leaving to take a look at a college, he decided that he wanted to have the boys come and visit him.  He insisted that it was not appropriate for Wendy's partner to take charge of the boys while she and Susie were away.  


Not wanting to create a problem, Wendy agreed that on Friday night her partner would bring the boys to the agreed upon drop off point at 7:00 pm, their usual time, with the understanding that her X would bring the boys back for a baseball game at noon on Sunday.  With that agreement in place, Wendy left on her trip Thursday evening intending to return on Sunday night.  


Then during the day on Friday, Wendy received a text from her son, Peter, saying that he just received an email that he was invited by his coach to participate in an extra three hours of pitching and batting practice and he asked if he could stay at home and not go to visitation that weekend.  Wendy said she would check with his Dad and to wait for an answer until Dad could respond.  Wendy then texted her X and also left a message on his voice mail stating what was going on.  


Then Wendy continued on with the tour of the college campus.  She didn't hear anything until 5:00pm when she received a short text from her X stating it was OK.  Wendy then called her son, Peter, and said it was OK for him to stay at home and that he did not need to go on the visitation.  It would have been better if coach had given more advanced notice, but unfortunately that didn't happen.  Wendy then continued on assuming everything was going fine.  


Later on at 5:15pm Wendy received a phone call from her partner saying that her X was demanding that Peter go along to visitation.  Wendy assured her partner that she had a text indicating her X had agreed Peter could stay at home.  Despite his skepticism, Wendy's partner agreed to just take the younger child, Johnny, to the meeting point.  Then at 7:00pm Wendy received several phone calls from her X demanding why she had allowed Peter to stay at home, and insisting he had never agreed to have the child stay back.  He insisted that he wanted both children for visitation and that Peter would have to miss the special baseball practice session.  


When Wendy reminded her X of his text indicating he'd agreed to the arrangement, he denied he had ever sent it saying, "You're crazy, why would I ever agree to such a thing!"  Then Wendy's X insisted that he was going to go to Wendy's house personally in order to pick Peter up, and he then made two phone calls to Peter insisting the child pack his bags and be ready.  Then Peter called up his Mom and asked what was going on, saying to her  "Didn't Dad agree to have me stay?  Were you lying when you said I could stay" Peter then went on to express his disappointment that he would have to leave town because he was eager to participate in the special practice.  


Meanwhile, Wendy was in a panic that if her X was going to her house to pick Peter up personally, he might go inside the house and take her belongings without permission, something he had done several times in the past.  So then, despite her misgivings, she had to tell her son, "If your Dad does come to the door, even if he knocks and calls your name and says he knows you are in there, and asks you to open the door, you are to stay in your room, and do not answer the door.  Are all the doors locked?  If they are not locked, lock them now.  Do not do anything unless my partner arrives and tells you what to do."  


As it turned out, it was all a false alarm, because even while Wendy's X was threatening to go right to Wendy's house to pick up Peter he was on his way to his own home with Johnny, making his threats on his cell phone all the way there.  


Meanwhile, Wendy was trying to reach her partner on his cell phone, trying to talk down her X, and speak to Peter right in the middle of her tours of the campus so she and her daughter were surrounded by strangers even as she was having these conversations.  This meant that the people around her were hearing her private business and also she missed a good deal of what was said during the tours so she lost important information that would have been helpful for her to know.  Plus, of course, there was all this stress of trying to manage a situation from several states away. 


The next day, Saturday, Wendy received another email from her X saying that Johnny had decided he didn't want to go to the baseball game Sunday after all and that he would miss the game.  In response, Wendy left a text and a message on her X's phone stating that Johnny was a pitcher in the Sunday game and the team would be let down if he didn't show up.  Also, when Peter heard of the idea Wendy's X had not to bring Johnny back from the game, he also called up his Dad and said that Johnny was irreplaceable to the team and that was important he be there for the game.  (Both Wendy and Peter assumed that the idea Johnny didn't want to go was nonsense, and when they later checked that point with Johnny, it turned out they would right.)


This led to a situation where Wendy's X called up the coach and argued about whether he ought to bring Johnny back for the game on Sunday or not.  Meanwhile, hearing the plans his Dad had not to allow him home for the Sunday game, Johnny became very upset and called his Mom and his Mom's partner crying.  Finally, Wendy's X did return Johnny home so that he could play in his game, but he was late dropping Johnny off which was really disruptive to the team because the coach didn't know for sure if Johnny would be there until pretty much when Johnny arrived.  


Again, all Sunday morning there were informational meetings Wendy and Susie had to go to, all of which were interrupted by phone calls and texts as a consequence of Wendy's X's grandstanding.  Meanwhile, this was a weekend when the X didn't even have visitation and Wendy was just trying to be flexible and courteous in allowing her X to have the children.  


So what do you think, guys, is this abuse or is it simply annoyance?  How would you characterize this?  Should Wendy have handled the situation differently?  


What about situations where you want to be fair, but the children have more activities, naturally, in their home town with their residential parent, and the non custodial parent will end up being short changed in some ways inevitably unless he is willing to be flexible.  So, how can you deal with that?  


And does the fact that a non custodial parent will sometimes be short changed justify the kind of behavior Wendy's X got up to?