Battered spouse / VAWA

[Hudson]

Originally posted by klinus:
AS Davidah pointed out, I am determined to protect my child.He is also right about how being the shelter allows her to be under the radar.

At this stage of the game, given what I have in terms of my son's custody, and, importantly that I know between when he with me or at the pre-school in my town that he is ok, and the upward trend, I am now indifferent to whether she goes or stays.

For those on the board who accuse me of being inconsistent, recognize that I went from being in legal limbo to where the Court has interceded and ensured that if she wanted to move back to Canada with our son she has nil chances, except of course over my dead body.

Candidly, her initial plan of 100% custody and the child support that comes with it is now history; ain't gonna happen. This would be a great time for her to negotiate. The first thing is that there is no need for him to be in the shelter, since his pre-school, doctor and speech therapy is in my town, 21 miles away from the shelter and she is driving illegally.

Our son IS going to stay in the US; that is not going to change unless I die. I am happy to have her share custody (my initial position)but she has to play by the rules. That means once she gets legal get a job, get a license and cooperate.

Our son has to come out of the shelter (as she will soon). She knows where I am; I don't. The ball is in her court.

Recognize that the nastiness was triggered by her; the shelter, the false child abuse claim, the denied TRO etc. I stayed calm and in the eyes of the Court was the stable parent, which is why I got half time.

The shelter is bad for him; if he is not out soon the nastiness will then start.

Klinus,
Having the child live within a reasonable distance is logical and consistent with the law. However, if you restrict her in staying in the same city or state, that may be unreasonable. SInce you live in Northern California, if the child lived in the state of Washington or Oregon, would you consider that? Or how about southern or central California? My guess you won't.

If she is given joint physical custody, there will still be child support involved to help with supporting the child. Your pretense of no child support, and/or no alimony, is vindictive to the core. Part of dissolution of marriage is financial as well. Furthermore, you can ask her to reasonably file self petitioning I-751 based on divorce for her to become legal so that she can get a job, go to school, and all the other stipulations you would ask, but probably not get.

Personally, I think the nastiness came way before she went to the shelter, Klinus. Not sure who and what started it all, but since you will not share those facts and she might if she was here, it is preposterous to state what you said.

The DV shelter may have infestations, but it is up to her to live where she wants. That means not with you. I believe you will state no place is good for him unless he stays with you. She could be living in the Governors masion with a good aslary, and yet you would still beieve that the place was bad for him. IMHO.

[klinus]

Hudson:

Which of the following applies to you (multiple choices allowed)
p***ywhipped
eunuch
ignorant
cretin

[lost in us]

Originally posted by klinus:
T
When I proposed a 50/50 split, I did not envisage a situation where my son would be living in a shelter, with used clothing and diapers too small for him and being driven around illegally.

I have no patience for the likes of you. Why would you want your son to wear too small diapers. Buy diapers for him. Even if it is supposed to be 50/50. Why is your son on your avatar...do you know who frequents this sits? Would you want a pedophile seeing your son?

[lost in us]

Originally posted by klinus:
Aaah the ignorant canidae from NOW howls:

Just the facts, ma'am:

1) Joint custody is the norm; however, joint 50/50 physical custody for a child 3 years has a probability of less than 5% in California. As an active, and feral member of NOW surely you must be aware of that. Also the rare cases where that happens is when clearly the mother does not have the best interests of the child (using him as a pawn?)
2) She decided to take him to a shelter, claiming false child abuse in the hope of gaining custody. The Court saw through this. The shelter has now figured out that her claim of child abuse is false and is likely counseling her out to make room for people with genuine abuse.
3) The Court order specifically states that our son has to be driven by California licensed and insured drivers. She chose not to get one, relying on her Canadian license despite our DMV requirement of being locally licensed within 10 days of taking up residence in the state (which is the reason why she does not have one of my cars – the impound fee for being caught is $200 + $1800 tow fee)
4) This violation of the court order and her false claim to legal residency, and the fact that there is no real reason to him be in a shelter where he has had multiple infestations will be addressed in the long cause motion, due before the end of the year, where the Court will have (unlike the short cause motions that have led to the interim orders) time to examine the issues and make a determination about which parent the child is better off with.
5) Contested custody divorces range in California from 18 months to 4 years, in part because our Court calendar takes at least 3 months to find a spot.

The interesting part of this is that rather than agreeing to an amicable solution, she took off to a shelter, hired an expensive immigration attorney ($400/hr) and now has an interim 50% timeshare with our son (which will go down since I represent stability, continuity, and, frankly, the likelihood of continuing Court jurisdiction over the minor child vs. the inherent flight risk and instability that she stands for).

My only interest in this is the welfare of my son; she has chosen a path that will require her to be out of status until the final divorce decree which could take a long time. Also, because of the anonymity inherent in the shelter, communication between us can only happen through the lawyers at $575/pop (her $400/hr and my $175/hr). Under the circumstances, time for her to get off her high horse.

When you cannot make custody decisions, the Court makes the decisions.

Dem's de facts, ma'am. "tis occasionally possible for the female of the species to be the bad guy

What makes no sense.
1.That she had no Californian license when she was married to yoou for 2 years.if you had filed for her and she had a conditional green card then she would h ave had the opportunity to have a license already. Why didn't she have one/
2. You divorced her before her 2 years. What dd you hope would happen? Were you hoping shed be deported and you would keep your son?
3. If you get joint custody and she is deported with the child...how do you presume you would see the child period.

[lost in us]

Originally posted by klinus:



The shelter is bad for him; if he is not out soon the nastiness will then start.

The Indian culture states that a child should live with the father after a divorce. A lot of men marry women for the sole purpose of having a child and then divorcing the woman and trying to grab the child.
That last quote seemed threatening.

[Hudson]

Anytime there is a divorce both people do things to orchestrate an outcome to their own benefit. So for anyone to point an accusing finger is rediculous.

Nice words of wisdom; however, you have stated the immigrant wife has lied by saying, "She lied to get where she is and in the process the child was damaged." A child psychologist would state that both may be at fault or that he may be at fault since he initiated the divorce.

Until a custody order is given neither parent can legally claim abduction. With her fleeing to the shelter and not responding Klinius was in a state of limbo from a legal point of view.
The shelter gives her the ability to deny him access to his son. Right Hudson? They can will bar him from any contact.

Well, the reverse can also be true. With his ability to move, change locations, and prohibit her from seeing the child, would you blame him or congradulate him if he did that? In this situation, there are no perfect answers. From her point of view, she believes Klinus as a child abuser. Whether it is true or not has yet to be determined. But what Klinus is doing is more manipulative than loving. Lets look at it, shall we.

First, he is enticing her into the trap of filing a joint I-751 with conditions. Second, if she decides to leave, he will undoubtedly send info that he committed immigration fraud. He too is using the child. Although he wants joint custody, he also wants the child to live with him and not her. He has blamed her for his son getting scabies. If you look at how scabies is transmitted, it is ridiculous to make that claim giving the situation she is in. It will be the equivalent of him blaming the mother if the son contracted diabetes. Additionally, he wants her, if she has the child, to live very close, like in the same city, and not allow her to move within a reasonable distance for her to live and move on. So, is he being honest or not?

One thing I'm curious about. Why is everyone so bent on him just giving up on his son?

No one is bent on him giving up his son. If they can work on joint physical custody, then that is fine. But there is more to this than just what Klinus is saying.

Hudson, I am really curious about something. It seems when it comes to this you are so far to the left of reason it makes me wonder. Why is it you volunteer in a domestic abuse shelter? Why do you assume all men must be guilty even if the court finds he's innocent? Is the work you do in the shelter mandated? Have you yourself been convicted of this? You don't have to answer and even if you did I wouldn't expect a truthful answer. Your line of thinking seems twisted in this one area compared with your apparent abilities in others. I would expect it from someone like Sprintgirl who was married to a nut case. And only for the reason it being so recent. No offense meant SprintGirl.

This is not a liberal or conservative viewpoint, Davdah. To answer your question, perhaps you should volunteer at the DV shelter. At least, it would enlighten you on some of your ignorance about shelters and Domestic violence in general.

I have not assumed all men are guilty Davdah, But answer me this, Why do you think men who married immigrant wives come here to blast them in the first place? Is it to beat there chests and cry, "Look at poor me and blame her for all my sins?" Or is it something more subtle, more mundane, and sublime? What would happen if your three ex wives came here on this board and blasted you from here to eternity, even using some logical arguments but also leaving out important facts? Would you be pissed? Or would you expect to hear the other side? I know there are two sides of every story and somewhere in the middle is the truth. What is apparently missing is her side, Davdah. But also look at what Klinus said from an outside looking in. A failed TRO does not indicate guilt or innocence on a child abuse claim. Yet, he believes the claim is false. That is understandable. And what is also understandable is her claim to child abuse from her perspective. Somewhere in the middle is the truth, but we don't have all the facts. But a denied TRO does not presume guilt or innocences to either side, just the probability that the accused party might violate her right to live peacefully. Since he does not know where she lives or works, no TRO will be granted on a permanent or temporary injunction, even if the claim may be valiedated.

She is obviously very distraught that she will not go back to him for any reason. Yet he offers "compromises" that will put her at more harm than she is now. So, why do you blame her or is it because she is an immigrant wife? But that does not mean she does not have the best interest of the child either. So why the hypocrisy, Davdah?

To also state it can come from Sprintgirl is a genderr bias argument, Davdah.

[Hudson]

Originally posted by klinus:
Hudson:

Which of the following applies to you (multiple choices allowed)
p***ywhipped
eunuch
ignorant
cretin

Didn't you mom ever tell you boy never bring a knife into a gun fight!

[4now]

quote:
Originally posted by klinus:
Hudson:

Which of the following applies to you (multiple choices allowed)
p***ywhipped
eunuch
ignorant
cretin



[quote]Originally posted by klinus:

soon the nastiness will then start

Yep... it sure did.

& I agree lost in.. This child's picture has been bothering me too with the amount of people and pedophiles out there. I think he wants someone to regcognize the child in the shelter.

How sad to put your child at risk like this espsecially when he's been spouting off about her financial business. Sad indeed

[klinus]

Maybe the new avatar is more representative...

[Sprint_girl07]

Klinus...I am sure that your wife would most likely be getting some counseling at the shelter, but whether she is or not, what is stopping you getting some?
This is for the benefit for you son.
I don't think its a good idea for a child of your son's age to go counseling with you or with your wife, you need to do it separately.
Its not healthy for a child to listen to a parent say disturbing things or anything negative about the other parent.
A child learns from their parents, so all the negative vibes he is getting can disturb him and most likely hurt his speech.
I am not blaming you, but both of you.
Instead of going on what she should be doing or what she is not doing, well practice what you preach or put words into action.
Don't need to wait for her to get counseling or seek any help regarding your son and his well being, you do it! For yourself and for your son.

[4now]

hmmm
new avatar.. See now you are getting it. Now you are protecting the little one.good job! except ...


What is it.. Is that a donut having an o r g a sim or is that what a magnified scabies looks like

[klinus]

Our first thermonuclear explosion test in the desert

[klinus]

Originally posted by Sprint_girl07:
Klinus...I am sure that your wife would most likely be getting some counseling at the shelter, but whether she is or not, what is stopping you getting some?
This is for the benefit for you son.
I don't think its a good idea for a child of your son's age to go counseling with you or with your wife, you need to do it separately.
Its not healthy for a child to listen to a parent say disturbing things or anything negative about the other parent.
A child learns from their parents, so all the negative vibes he is getting can disturb him and most likely hurt his speech.
I am not blaming you, but both of you.
Instead of going on what she should be doing or what she is not doing, well practice what you preach or put words into action.
Don't need to wait for her to get counseling or seek any help regarding your son and his well being, you do it! For yourself and for your son.

Sprint-girl:


Part of this is in response to your posting, The rest is for the whatevers...

Actually I have been to counseling for myself. The therapist strongly recommended that the child go into counseling with each of the parents, separately.

In California the first stage of a disputed custody case is to get in front of the Family and Children's bureau (FCS) who assigns a "mediator" (the quotation mark is because the judge rubber stamps the mediator's recommendation and as such she is not a mediator). Sometimes, the mediator recommends a child custody evaluation and a special master (both of whom are private practice Psychologists) for divorces with high conflict. For whatever reason, the mediator did not send us to an evaluation, but did recommend that because of the trauma of being taken to a shelter that we take him into counseling too. I talked to one of these evaluators, who has 20 years of child counseling experience, and who herself has an Autistic Spectrum child whose problems were long undiagnosed also recommended the same. Of course, since taking him to a therapist would indicate a problem that she created, she refused to do so and tried (unsuccessfully) to not to let me take him to the Psychologist.

Bottom line – the experts are saying do joint therapy. In a situation like this, I would rather salute the flag rather than argue. Besides, the bottom line is that he has been traumatized. He looks completely different from the picture that I have posted; he lost 20% if his weight and has scars on his face and most of his body. Also, not sure the people who visit this site, statistically are any more dangerous to him than the august transients at said shelter

Almost every time I get him, I have to take him in to see the doctor for the malady of the week. Scabies/fleas one week, insect bites the next, severe diarrhea, high fever etc. etc. Then there is speech therapy, potty training and mostly trying to communicate to him that I will be there for him. There is no time and honestly no need to brainwash or turn him against his mother. If there any "vibes" they are concern about him being able to recover from this experience, which very few divorced children have been through. And, candidly my insecurity about having to raise him without any cooperation from his mother

I do understand the concept of joint custody – don't interfere with the other parent unless the child is being endangered (exposed to unsafe and unsanitary conditions, being driven around without a license etc. (if she gets pulled over, the vehicle will be impounded and he will be taken by CPS until they can get hold of me, another traumatic experience)). The first part (sanitary conditions) is not the law, but the second part certainly is.

When I first posted on this site, my wife had just disappeared, taking our son and vanishing without a trace, not bothering to inform me or the law. The shelter that she went to informed the DA, but not before the giant machinery for recovering kidnapped children kicked in. I initially thought that she was going to use "battered spouse" to bypass the USCIS requirement for waiting till the final divorce decree to file the waiver. Then she filed a TRO; the TRO was denied by the judge, who was assured by Child Protection Services, (who arrived at that conclusion after talking to the local police, my son's pediatrician and his pre-school, all of whom are required by CAPTA to act if there is even a whiff of child abuse) that there was no abuse by the father. This BTW is for the benefit of those who mistakenly think that a child abuse TRO is not taken very very very seriously by the authorities. There were just too many people – the cops, his docs, his school, the DA's office, Family Court Services and the Court – who were sufficiently convinced about the falsity of the claim that they gave me an interim 50& time share with the child.

She really did want to have full custody and use that the concomitant child support to live here. She goofed; it was not the truth and she also underestimated my love for my son. Right now, however, by falling on her sword and choosing to hide behind the curtain of the shelter, the only way of communicating (expensively) is through the lawyers, with the concomitant week plus lag.

Do you think that my skin doesn't crawl when my son shows up at school with ill-fitting, unwashed used clothes and diapers that don't fit him? When the exchanges are done (at her request) at the local police station and where I cannot leave him with clean, unused (by anybody else) clothes and the right size pull-ups? Or that she drives him around in violation of the court order? Or that eventually when she gets thrown out of the shelter that she would rather have him homeless with her rather than in the house where he has lived all his life? Or applying for AFDC when by definition he is not eligible because of my income? Or that she doesn't give a **** about our society's rules and regulations?

I don't need to know where which shelter she is; the authorities are keeping track. This case has been unusual in that every court hearing has had 3 attorneys, hers, mine and the child protection DA's attorney. There is also somebody from the sheriff's office ensuring that she does not hit the road with our son (or at least beyond the 9 contiguous counties). I have to hand it to her; her approach is certainly different from the one that I took, 4 years of grad school, 6 years to get PR through labor cert and the interminable wait for the current date and another 5 years for Citizenship.

She's dug herself into a fairly deep hole and is digging in deeper by the day. I also realize that she must be scared, but what scares me is that she trying to use our son as a bargaining chip. The decision makers (the Court System) have no emotional ties; they somewhat mechanically and dispassionately make decisions that are "safe" (that don't come back and bite them in the b**t). Right now, dad is "safe" he's played by the rules etc.. For me this is no longer an immigration issue (this is past my involvement in that), it's what is best for our son. For his sake, I will cooperate to the extent that I can.

Two last notes for "If she has custody in this country, at least he will be able to visit his child and not far away" the current timeshare guarantees that this will not be a Burgess (http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/ca_art09), apart from her sworn declaration that she is a "legal PR". The second "The Indian culture states that a child should live with the father after a divorce. A lot of men marry women for the sole purpose of having a child and then divorcing the woman and trying to grab the child." Reminds me of Ahmadinejad explicitly calling the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a "myth". The realty is that custody in Indian Courts always goes to the mother.

[Hudson]

Klinus,
Nice recap and rationalization of your argument.

However, lets go over a few points which I believe do not coincide how the law is interpreted.
1) You state that the claim of child abuse has been determined false because of a denied TRO. This is hardly a case how a TRO, apporved or not, is interpreted. One must prove two items of contention when asking a judge to grant a TRO. First, to prove adequately that the alleged acts were committed and second that the person needs protection. There are four possibilities we can infer from the two main points: one can prove both the acts were committed and the person needs protection; none of the acts were committed and person does not need protection, acts were committed but the person does not need protection, and the acts were not committed, but the person needs protection. So, to say the claim is false ignores the two possiblities of why the TEO was denied. Hence, one cannot prove nor disprove the acts were committed beyond a reasonable doubt because a TRO has a lower threshold of affirmative or negative response.

2) First, i want to commend you for going to counseling. The child definitely needs counseling. But the child needs counseling simply because any divorce, irregardless of the reasons or who is at fault or not at fault. I have always believed a contested divorce is a no win scenario for everyone.

3* For any CPS, I have very little appreciation for the agency. Too many scandals, too many false claims, case workers are overworked and receive the brunt by both sets of parents. I would not expect CPS to get involved in any case even if child abuse was prominent by any party. That is how much distrust I have coming from personal experience.

4) You stated she is using the child as leverage. Well, you used immigration as leverage. My question is what is the difference? Both of you are using whatever arguments you want to prove your point, valid or not. Additionally, by using immigration as a leverage, you are presumed to be manipulative and controlling. Immigration is a very powerful tool to control someonw who is an immigrant, Klinus.

5) Family court is to make sure it is the best interest of the child. In rare circumstances, neither parent is fit and the child given to foster care. I know that you and maybe her do not want that, but it is always a remote possibility. By playing innocent, you attempt to have sympathy for you cause. Now you want to blame the famly court system and her for your trouble. But wasn't you who filed for divorce while your wife was still living with you? Do you expect her to just sit idly by while you attempt to railroad her. And you have stated, that you want sole physical custody of the child. What makes you think you can achieve this while she is being deineid the same chance? I am not saying she is right or you are right, but it works both ways.

6) You said she kidnapped the child. How can one kidnap or steal something that is already theirs to begin with? Again, I believe it proves that you want to interpret the law you think it should be instead of how the law is interpreted legally. You can use the argument in divorce, but I seriously doubt it won't work.

7( Her status is in limbo. She may be using the VAWA claim as a protective claim. But I believe you want the divorce to continue as long as possible so that she can leave the US and thus, not see the child. IMHO though.

Good luck to you Klinu. That does come from my heart.

[4now]

Nah


That's the sandworm from DUNE eating a cream donut.

You want nuclear...Now here's nuclear

B O OM






If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.


The Bhagavad-Gita