Un-holy ex-wife

[jeffd]

Long time no post. I realize that I haven't been to active in here lately....

Life has kept me pretty busy. I feel like that Mexican Cat Juggler in that movie "The Jerk". I'm gonna drop some kitties, others I'll catch, and I'm sure to get scratched up, but I promise it will be a heck of a show.

Now on to the crap that I am facing (one more cat in the air).

I have been divorced for 5 years. My wife opted to start a new relationship with her gym buddy instead of fixing our marriage of 12 years. I'm OK with that. She can live her life and I should be able to get on with mine. We have 3 boys and the court awarded a joint managerial conservatorship and a standard possession order where I get my 3 sons every Tues & Thur overnight as well as every 1st, 3rd, & 5th weekend through Monday AM. Nice and even. No feelings get hurt and there is an enforceable schedule. This has worked ok for the most part so far.

Recently, my 15 yr. old son took a spill while riding. I took him to the E/R to get checked out. Per the decree we are to split medical bills. I presented my ex-thing with the bill and she balked. She was refusing to pay stating that I had engaged the children in a "knowingly dangerous activity". I responded with the decree and pointed to the part that states that it is not up to her to decide.

Well, that musta really pissed her off.

She is a spiteful person and she has now served me with a court order seeking to alter the terms of the decree...

She wants to throw out the current possession order and effectively eliminate my rights to spend time with my kids. Read on...

Modification of Possession and Access ... the children who are the subject of this suit, are fifteen, fifteen, and nine years of age, respectively. The older children have expressed a strong desire to have some flexibility with regard to the existing possession and access Order which was designed in detail to accommodate the circumstances of the parties at the time of its entry. The ages and circumstances of the children have changed substantially, and they now, and will continue to participate in activities which conflict with the existing possession schedule. An adoption of the following provision is in the best interests of the children. Movant requests that the Court modify the existing Order to include:
a. Possession of Children at 15 years of age IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that when a minor child the subject of this suit reaches the age of fifteen (15) years, all of the possession rights set forth in this Order shall cease as mandatory rights and in lieu thereof, such child shall visit with each parent only at such times as are agreeable between the child and each Parent.

This is a bunch of crap because the current possession order guarantees my time with my kids. I get ~50% now, and if this change goes in, I can tell you she will not be a willing participant. My rights are effectively gone if this happens.

She hits lower. This next bit is just mean and below the belt. Salt on the wound so to speak. She KNOWS how much the kids and I love to ride. Look at this crap:


Modification of Rights, Duties, and Obligations Jason ... has been sent to the emergency room on two separate occasions as a result of the Respondent's activities with the children during his times of possession; namely riding four wheel vehicles and dirt motor bikes on uneven, and often dangerous terrain under conditions that are unsuitable for children. Although Movant does not request that the Court prohibit the Respondent from engaging in this activity with the children, she does request that the Court require the Respondent to obtain her approval regarding the time, place, and safety precautions utilized by the Respondent when he takes the children "four wheeling" and/or "dirt biking." She also requests that any medical treatment for injuries incurred by the children or any third party as a result of "four wheeling" and/or "dirt biking" while in the care, custody, or control of the Respondent, be paid for solely by the Respondent.


Let's see....
She has been openly vocal about her opposition so I know how this will work out. She refuses to make my life hell. If I defy her, she reports me to the courts and I get my kids taken away. Unholy soulless witch. So out of spite and just pure mean spirit she goes for the throat.

I am seeing an attorney Tuesday. $200 bucks just to consult. I am sweating just thinking about the retainer and the final bill that could skyrocket out of sight fighting this crap.

So will I ask that you pray for your brother.

However, before I deplete my savings, rack up a mountain of debt, and sell everything to fight this battle I would be very receptive to a legal sponsorship in this battle. Any good lawyers out there willing to help a brother out? I need a nut-cutter. All I want is a little peace, love, and happiness (sigh).

-=jeff

 

[robwbright]

I would represent you, but 2 problems - it's too far to Texas and I don't have a license there anyway. :(

I hope the following can be a bit of assistance and comfort to you - and I hope at least some of it is correct. ;)

[NOTE: Nothing in this post is to be construed as legal advice - it is merely for informative purposes and to give my opinion as to what MIGHT happen in your case. I am not licensed to practice law in Texas and have no intention of doing so.].

"a. Possession of Children at 15 years of age IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that when a minor child the subject of this suit reaches the age of fifteen (15) years, all of the possession rights set forth in this Order shall cease as mandatory rights and in lieu thereof, such child shall visit with each parent only at such times as are agreeable between the child and each Parent."

I read this a little differently from you. I know nothing of Texas law, but both of the states I work in have similar laws concerning teenagers. I think the above could actually end up being a good thing for you - assuming the children like you - and it sounds like they do.

Here in WV and Ohio, once the child gets to age 14/15, the court essentially lets the child who they want to live with.

Thus, I think the last two full lines are badly written, but actually mean that (if the Court were to order the above), the children age 15 and above would choose who they want to visit - as long as the parent they want to be with agrees to it.

I think that line is asking for the children to have more input in the decision because of their age. If it weren't, I would expect that section to refer to all the children regardless of age. That's what she'd ask for if she was wanting to rule the whole thing.

Maybe I'm wrong. Sounds like you don't have a very good relationship with the ex, but perhaps you should talk to her and ask her what she's trying to get.

"Modification of Rights, Duties, and Obligations Jason ... has been sent to the emergency room on two separate occasions as a result of the Respondent's activities with the children during his times of possession; namely riding four wheel vehicles and dirt motor bikes on uneven, and often dangerous terrain under conditions that are unsuitable for children. Although Movant does not request that the Court prohibit the Respondent from engaging in this activity with the children, she does request that the Court require the Respondent to obtain her approval regarding the time, place, and safety precautions utilized by the Respondent when he takes the children "four wheeling" and/or "dirt biking." She also requests that any medical treatment for injuries incurred by the children or any third party as a result of "four wheeling" and/or "dirt biking" while in the care, custody, or control of the Respondent, be paid for solely by the Respondent."

This section probably entirely depends on the Judge on the case. If the Judge is pro "dangerous activities", then she will likely lose. If the Judge is "maternal", the you might lose.

Were you taking the boys riding before your divorce/custody order? Was the riding mentioned in the final order/custody order or in Court?

If so on those questions, then I wouldn't be too worried (although anything can happen in these things - in many cases, family judges use too much "discretion").

The reason I say I wouldn't be too worried is the following - again, I don't know Texas law, but based on a couple websites I looked at, Texas appears to have the same standard for a change in a custody order.

From here:

http://www.texasfamilylawyers.com/Articles/custody-overview.html

MODIFICATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATORSHIP

The Family Code provides for modification of the terms and conditions of a joint managing conservatorship. Absent a written agreement approved by a court, Family Code section 156.202 provides that a court may modify the terms and conditions of a joint conservatorship order if:

•the circumstances of the child or of one or both of the joint managing conservators have materially and substantially changed since the rendition of the order and a modification of the terms and conditions of the order would be a positive improvement for and in the best interest of the child; or,

[If you were riding before the divorce - and especially if the Court was aware of that - then I don't see that there is any argument that the circumstances have changed. Thus, the Court cannot lawfully modify under the above section].

the order has become unworkable or inappropriate under existing circumstances and a modification of the terms and conditions of the order would be a positive improvement for and in the best interest of the child.

[I suppose this one is arguable, but in my estimation, that's a thin argument]

The trial court has discretion to modify a joint conservatorship, but only when both criteria are met. Wood v. O'Donnell, 894 S.W.2d 555, 556 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, no writ). If there is clear and unrefuted evidence of a material and substantial change in circumstances, and all the other grounds for modification have been met, it is error for a court to deny a motion to modify. See, In re A.D.H., 979 S.W.2d 445, 451 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, no writ).

MODIFICATION OF JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATORSHIP TO SOLE MANAGING CONSERVATORSHIP

Family Code section 156.203 provides that a court may replace a joint managing conservatorship with a sole managing conservatorship if:

the child's present living environment may endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development and the appointment of a sole managing conservator would be a positive improvement for and in the best interest of the child; or

[this one could hurt depending on the judge and whether the judge thinks dirt bikes are overly dangerous. If your or your attorney could find studies showing that dirt bikes are no more dangerous than football or soccer, then I would think it would be hard for a judge to change to a sole conservatorship under this statute]

there has been a substantial and unexcused violation of the terms and conditions established in the existing conservatorship order and the appointment of a sole managing conservator would be a positive improvement for and in the best interest of the child; or

[this only works for her if you were ordered not to take the boys riding]

the circumstances of the child or of one or both of the joint managing conservators have so materially and substantially changed since the rendition of the order that it has become unworkable or inappropriate under existing circumstances and the appointment of a sole managing conservator would be a positive improvement for and in the best interest of the child.

[this doesn't seem to be the case]

In In re Moss, 887 S.W.2d 186, 188 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, no writ), the court affirmed a modification from joint managing to sole managing conservatorship where the evidence showed that the child and father desired the change and that the change was in the best interest of the child.

GROUNDS FOR MODIFICATION OF POSSESSION OF CHILD

The Family Code sets out the grounds for modification of possession and access orders. Family Code section 156.301 states that a court may modify an order that sets the terms and conditions for possession of or access to a child or that prescribes the relative rights, privileges, duties, and powers of conservators if:

the circumstances of the child or a person affected by the order have materially and substantially changed since the date of the rendition of the order;

the order has become unworkable or inappropriate under existing circumstances;

the notice of change of a conservator's residence required by Chapter 153 was not given or there was a change in a conservator's residence to a place outside Texas;

a conservator has repeatedly failed to give notice of an inability to exercise possessory rights; or

a conservator of the child has had a significant history of alcohol or drug abuse since the date of the rendition of the order.

[none of the above seem to apply to you].

BTW, did she ask for a sole conservatorship? It is unlikely that she will get what she didn't ask for - generally, a Court cannot grant a motion that has not been made.

I hope this might have helped a bit. If you were up here, we'd probably charge $2500-$3500. However, a Doc we have as a client has spent about $40,000.00 - but then again, both he and his ex have LOTS of money and they just want to fight. That fight will probably continue for the next 13 years until the child is 18.

 

[mx547]

i feel for you. i spent my life's savings in my recent divorce and i got virtually nothing.

i devoted the last fifteen years of my life to my kids. i practically raised them myself as my ex wasn't really interested or didn't have time for them, yet she sued for custody and won. i have visitation but the kids are not required to partake in it. my oldest has not visited me a single time thanks to the brainwashing that goes on over there.

sorry, but i have nothing encouraging to say to you. maybe i just shouldn't have posted.

 

[jeffd]

This is the part that bothers me:

Possession of Children at 15 years of age IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that when a minor child the subject of this suit reaches the age of fifteen (15) years, all of the possession rights set forth in this Order shall cease as mandatory rights and in lieu thereof, such child shall visit with each parent only at such times as are agreeable between the child and each Parent.


Yes - the kids like me and even indicated that they would like to live with me. However the wording in this makes it appear that we ALL have to agree. The "each parent" part leaves too much room for interpretaion IMO. And seeing as how she is not too agreeable it makes me very nervous to think that the protection of the existing decree would be stripped away.

The seeking permission to ride stuff is just her way of getting back at me I guess. Pure spite. It sure would make life hard. If I did take them riding and I didn't say "Mother may I..." then she'd have legal grounds to put the screws to me. :yell:

To answer your question - yes, we were riding long before the divorce. The twins started when they were 8 or 9. My youngest was 4. They are 15 & 9 now.

Thanks for the info.

-=jeff

 

[robwbright]

This is the part that bothers me:

Possession of Children at 15 years of age IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED that when a minor child the subject of this suit reaches the age of fifteen (15) years, all of the possession rights set forth in this Order shall cease as mandatory rights and in lieu thereof, such child shall visit with each parent only at such times as are agreeable between the child and each Parent.

Yes - the kids like me and even indicated that they would like to live with me. However the wording in this makes it appear that we ALL have to agree. The "each parent" part leaves too much room for interpretaion IMO. And seeing as how she is not too agreeable it makes me very nervous to think that the protection of the existing decree would be stripped away.

I know that's the part that bothers you - and as I mentioned, I agree that it is badly written. However, there are a couple reasons I wouldn't be too worried about it.

1: I don't think any Court would order two parties who don't like each other to have visitation based on those parties agreement outside of Court - that would be stupid and would only lead to more litigation - which the Judge doesn't want as many Judges are, shall we say, lazy.

2: The general tenor of the law in every state I've ever heard of is to give more and more input to the children the older they get. Sometimes there's even a bright line test - in WV, when the child reaches age 14, the child gets to pick and the parents don't have any say unless there is abuse or drug use or something else.

3: The fact that the term "each parent" appears twice. This is why it is badly written. In the first instance, it is referring to "each parent" individually - "The child shall visit with each parent". In the second case, it may be interpreted either way - each individual parent agrees or both individual parents agree.

The fact is that if you are paying any ordered child support, you have a right to see your children. In a just court, your ex will not be given an order which interferes with that right. Of course, not all judges are just.

If she wins you can always appeal.

It's just a motion she made. People move Courts for a lot of things - many of which are not granted.

I just represented a client in a custody hearing where the parents had a week to week 50/50 split of the 4 year old. The child was about to start preschool and both parents asked that they be given primary custody of the child during the school year - both parents argued that the child needed to be with one parent during the school week for stability. The judge held that there was no reason to modify the order because the parents and the child had done fine with the prior order. Both motions were denied. There's only so much the attorneys can do in these cases. If there's not a basis for the motion, there's not a basis. I warned my client repeatedly that she would probably not be successful, but she wanted to spend the $2000.00 and try.

With motions has to be a basis for the motion in law, and the requested relief has to be reasonable and workable. If your ex is asking for what you think she is asking for, I would be shocked if the Court would grant it. You'd be back in Court a month later and the judge doesn't want that.

However, it is very likely that the Judge would order that a 15 y/o be allowed to go to visit "each parent" whenever that child and that parent desires.

To answer your question - yes, we were riding long before the divorce. The twins started when they were 8 or 9. My youngest was 4. They are 15 & 9 now.

That should help your case.

BTW, if you are really worried, you could offer her a settlement arrangement. She seems to be upset about medical expenses arising from the "very dangerous" activity that you do with the children and she does not.

You could offer to pay any meds arising out of the time that you have the children if she will pay all meds arising out of the time that she has the children. You could make that offer in exchange for her dropping all other requests.

Finally, I won't lie to you - the Courts generally favor the mother in spite of the fact that the law does not permit such favor. And frankly, if I were you, I'd pray that you get a male Judge. One attorney I know recently told me that the female judge he is often in front of rules in the woman's favor 95% of the time in divorce and custody cases.

 

[tx246]

jeff,

i feel for you man. i hate to say this but it sure smells of money either way. sounds like she wants to get out of the original agreement as the medical bills are something that she feels that wouldnt be there if the kids werent riding eventhough she allowed/tolerated it when you were married.

offer to pay all riding related medical and maybe it will go away. if she is really "concerned about the health risks", then it is a whole new ball game as the advice above stated.

sure seems that the 15yr olds should get to decide if they want to ride with or without permission from mom. heck, if they wanted to live with you full time, im sure the court would allow it.

either way, it sucks. women can be from another planet.

 

[Farmer John]

Jeff,

Good to see you post. I feel for you!!! 100%

FJ


ps

Twinspar finally got his sexual reassignment surgery. ;)

 

[KelvinKDX]

I agree w/ tx246 ... offer to pay all medical bills pertaining to any injuries from off-road riding. You have to choose your battles and to me it seems that visitation rights for the children is more important than the cost of the bills.

At 15 the kids should be starting to clearly see who is sane in the family ... hopefully it's you. ;)

 

[Tony Eeds]

Jeff:

I feel for you and agree that your fears are founded in a large morass of us that have been screwed over by the courts here in Texas and elsewhere. I wish I had some good advice, or better yet the name of a ruthless attorney that could squash your X like the slow moving bug she is.

Rob:

Thank you for jumping in with good insight into the thinking of the other side and how it might well actually be perceived by the judge. As you are no doubt aware, men have long taken it on the chin. Not to say there are not vindictive men on earth, but it would help a great deal if everyone could remember that childern are not toys to be fought over.

Jeff:

I have long been impressed by the effort that you put into your relationship with your children. As I have said to Jay and many others, keep it up at all costs. I can promise that you will be the winner long term. Unfortunately, because of the fact that the deck is stacked against us, you will lose many battles before winning the war. Grit your teeth, swallow and continue to tell the boys that you love them and support their personal growth.

 

[TwinSpar]

Damn Jeff.... Sorry to hear what she's doing to you... AGAIN! I'm not exactly a fountain of knowledge on this subject but let me know if you need help in any way.

ps

Twinspar finally got his sexual reassignment surgery. ;)

Yeah.... now I'm a trannie just like FJ. Freakin Kalifornia Nut Job! :coocoo: ;)

 

[jeffd]

Again, I can't thank you all enough for your words of support and insight in this matter.

My ex chooses to lash out at me, but she only hurts the children. It is beyond belief.

I spoke with an attorney and it is going to cost me $5,000 to start. I suspect it will only go up from there depending on how this thing pans out. He thinks that I have a shot at getting some things changed for the better. But, ya gotta pay to play....

Oh, one more thing - she also is trying to hit me up for her legal costs in this matter. This is a fight she started and she expects me to pay for her legal fees. I stand in awe.

 

[Okiewan]

I feel for ya Jeff. Best of luck with it bro.

 

[XRpredator]

Jeff, just watch out for the purple future monkeys

 

[CaptainObvious]

Hey Jeff, long time (too long) no hear.

It truly saddens me to hear what your Ex is putting you through. Keep us advised, and we'll keep you in our thoughts!

Still have the napkin from the Texas Embassy?

 

[jeffd]

Still have the napkin from the Texas Embassy?

Ah, SPODEWEAR! Good times bro... Ever coming to Tejas?

 

[jeffd]

Jeff, just watch out for the purple future monkeys

I need an army of them 'bout now to incite some riots!

 

[CaptainObvious]

Ever coming to Tejas?

I was in Kerrville just two weeks ago. If all goes well, I'll make more regular trips to North Mexico.

 

[the_monk]

Hey Jeff...

I watched (and testified) in my neighbors VERY messy divorce. He had a great lawyer. She systematically dismantled the huge case brought against my neighbor. I got to see a lot of it too. She was great. If you'd like her contact info, drop me a line at temp {a} x5000.com.

By the way--she rides dirtbikes when she has time.

 

[jeffd]

Update...

Well prayer DOES work as it would appear that my Ex's heart has been softened. She is dropping this motion and stopping all this crap.

She apologized to me and freely admitted that she acted on emotion and that this was not in the kid's best interest.

I bet you all could hear the sigh of relief last night. :cool:

It could not have come at a better time b/c my knuckleheaded son crashed again yesterday at Bowie MX. He is OK, just banged up, but the bike took a beating as he destroyed a Ti M4 silencer and bent his bars. Guess he will be riding with a stock pipe and some less expensive bars for a while.... Oh, & no more MX until he can get a handle on his enthusiasm and learn to keep it on 2 wheels. He will get a job this summer and then he will be on his own when it comes to buying parts. What an eye-opener that will be. :laugh:

Thanks to all who offered advice and words of encouragement.

-=jeffd

 

[BSWIFT]

:cool: Chaulk one up for the good guys!

 

[tx246]

jeff,

take em to the woods. trees and rocks will slow him down a bit. again, cool deal that she came to her senses and put the kids first.

 

[KelvinKDX]

Well prayer DOES work as it would appear that my Ex's heart has been softened...

-=jeffd

Great to hear it. Hope all continues to improve.

 

[Danman]

Sweet! Good to hear from you.

 

[jeffd]

jeff,

take em to the woods. trees and rocks will slow him down a bit. again, cool deal that she came to her senses and put the kids first.

You hit the nail on the head. We will be spending more time up at Muenster for sure. I love that place.

I will continue to go to Nocona on my off-weekends just to quell my MX hunger.