![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Irrationality
Aug. 15th, 2005 10:22 pmSo it seems as if sis #3's (ex)hubby's behavior could really make this whole visitation issue much easier for sis in the long run. He called the sheriff *again* Friday night when sis #3 went to stay at the hotel - doing the whole "kidnapping/taking my child from me" deal and they told him *again* that she was perfectly within her rights and that they would actually recommend that once divorce papers had been served that the two parties NOT remain in the same house and that *he* really should have been the one to go to a hotel.
Sis #3 went out of her way to make sure he could spend 4 hours each day over the weekend with the baby (with the neighbors keeping an eye out in case (ex)hubby got unpleasant). (Ex)hubby said that if they could work visitation stuff out with their lawyers Tuesday (when his lawyer returns from vacation) that he'd be willing to leave the house Wednesday so she and the baby could come back in till she moves to the condo at the end of the month. Then today he and his lawyer's assistant send papers to sis #3's lawyer saying that unless sis #3 agrees to the original visitation rights and discloses exactly where she is staying that there will br an ex parte hearing this Wednesday at which (ex) hubby will request primary custody until such time as sis #3 *does* agree to his demands. (And threw in a bunch of stuff about how sis #3 only let him have two short - 4 hours a piece - visits with the baby over the weekend and how *she* had the gall to determine where and when they were held.)
At which her lawyer laughed. And then cited chapter and verse of the appropriate state statute regarding said hearings, which apparently are only held if the child is believed to be in imminent physical danger or if there is an imminent threat to take the child out of state. Neither of which apply. She (he? Let's just say she for now, it occurs to me I don't know which it is) reiterated their stand on visitation and the reasoning thereof, pointed out that it was more than generous and actually more than the standard visitation granted in the state for such things, and more or less concluded by saying that she thought it extremely unlikely that they would be granted an ex parte hearing, but should they manage that she would be requesting the court that he and his lawyer be responsible for her fees when their motion was dismissed.
And told sis #3 not to worry, that they didn't have a leg to stand on.
I keep picturing his lawyer getting back tomorrow and seeing this and going "What the hell did you *DO* while I was away?!?!"
Hopefully, this will all go the way her lawyer believes. Which given her lawyer's board certification in Family Law and 30+ years experience in the field as opposed to his lawyer's almost 9 years experience, and no specialization in Family Law... (and the fact that half of this nonsense is the lawyer's *assistant*'s doing...)
Anyhow, keeping my fingers crossed.
Sis #3 went out of her way to make sure he could spend 4 hours each day over the weekend with the baby (with the neighbors keeping an eye out in case (ex)hubby got unpleasant). (Ex)hubby said that if they could work visitation stuff out with their lawyers Tuesday (when his lawyer returns from vacation) that he'd be willing to leave the house Wednesday so she and the baby could come back in till she moves to the condo at the end of the month. Then today he and his lawyer's assistant send papers to sis #3's lawyer saying that unless sis #3 agrees to the original visitation rights and discloses exactly where she is staying that there will br an ex parte hearing this Wednesday at which (ex) hubby will request primary custody until such time as sis #3 *does* agree to his demands. (And threw in a bunch of stuff about how sis #3 only let him have two short - 4 hours a piece - visits with the baby over the weekend and how *she* had the gall to determine where and when they were held.)
At which her lawyer laughed. And then cited chapter and verse of the appropriate state statute regarding said hearings, which apparently are only held if the child is believed to be in imminent physical danger or if there is an imminent threat to take the child out of state. Neither of which apply. She (he? Let's just say she for now, it occurs to me I don't know which it is) reiterated their stand on visitation and the reasoning thereof, pointed out that it was more than generous and actually more than the standard visitation granted in the state for such things, and more or less concluded by saying that she thought it extremely unlikely that they would be granted an ex parte hearing, but should they manage that she would be requesting the court that he and his lawyer be responsible for her fees when their motion was dismissed.
And told sis #3 not to worry, that they didn't have a leg to stand on.
I keep picturing his lawyer getting back tomorrow and seeing this and going "What the hell did you *DO* while I was away?!?!"
Hopefully, this will all go the way her lawyer believes. Which given her lawyer's board certification in Family Law and 30+ years experience in the field as opposed to his lawyer's almost 9 years experience, and no specialization in Family Law... (and the fact that half of this nonsense is the lawyer's *assistant*'s doing...)
Anyhow, keeping my fingers crossed.