Battered spouse / VAWA

[4now]

Wish I had a solution: the easiest one would have to been to agree to joint custody (which we have now, my signing the I-751 our rotating in and out of my house until she secured employment and a place to live
Gimme Shelter is appropriate for the situation

Oh ok.. I didnt miss a post about you gave her housing and she vandalized the house.

YOu offered her conditional solutions/ housing based on agreeing to joint custody. so in other words, b/c she wouldnt agree to joint custody, you basically told her.. l\" You are on your own, go fend for yourself, b/c you wont play my game."

I know you dont feel you are being manipulative, but really you are to get your own way and you really are looking at the end or in between results, you just stand on ceremony and say. it could have all been different for her if she just had played ball.

Her mistake... was being greedy. it will be her undoing in the end. Bad counsel/selfish motivation wanted full custody, when joint custody was in order.. and her retaining physical custody, or joint physical custody. That greed/selfishness will backfire. now there is misery. but you are punishing her for not playing ball. You could have still offered the housing. blah blah. it was not a genuine or sincere proposal for their well being. it was a ploy to get your way. and when she did not .... you pulled the plug and said... now you will suffer. She will easily win a waiver on abuse with uscis. when she marks that along with bonafide marriage. If she has smart lawyer, she will not wait for divorce, she will file abuse petiton right now. maybe she already has. and she will get her 10yrs card and not have to wait for the divorce that u think will be delayed for 2 years.


WHAT.... dont tell me you didnt know that

[klinus]

I am not punishing her; she did this all by herself.

The offer still stands in terms of rotation out of the house as long as there are guarantees on no more vandalism – no more broken doors, locks, destroyed computers, windows, burnt Persian carpets etc. Not sure that how that can be enforced, though just as I don't know how the Church is planning to get back the $7500 "loan"

It's possible that she applied for VAWA; then why has she not gotten herself a DL? Or a job? Or sharing her I-551 stamp with the Court (oops sorry I forgot, the Court has her passport)?

[klinus]

Originally posted by klinus:
I am not punishing her; she did this all by herself.

The offer still stands in terms of rotation out of the house as long as there are guarantees on no more vandalism – no more broken doors, locks, destroyed computers, windows, burnt Persian carpets etc. Not sure that how that can be enforced, just as I don't know how the Church is planning to get back the $7500 "loan"

It's possible that she applied for VAWA; then why has she not gotten herself a DL? Or a job? Or sharing her I-551 stamp with the Court (oops sorry I forgot, the Court has her passport)?

[4now]

who said anything about vawa?

[klinus]

I'm sorry I thought that if you were not filing as an abused spouse, then you would have to wait until the final divorce decree http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...iver041003.pdf. Having made a declaration to the Court that she was not abused to suddenly get the waiver would look at the least fishy.

What is relevant is what she can show by the end of the year, which is zip.

Here's the bottom line: as long as my son is not living in a shelter, has his own bedroom and does not have to trek hours to get to school AND is being only driven by licensed, insured drivers (it would be really nice if she had a license instead of insisting that a really good friend is driving him) I would be more than happy to share custody (the preview of the tasks involved in bringing up a child with speech disability and likely neurologically impaired shared with me by the psychologist looks like would certainly going to impact my business and personal life). But she has to let me take the leadership in working with the system to help solve his problems; I have the equity built up over the past 12 years that she simply does not.

BTW I am confident that she does not understand the magnitude of our son's problem, certainly not the neurological problem otherwise she would not insist on sole custody without the support system I have built up by living in my town for 12 years and in this country for 25.

My objective in taking him to the Psych was not to get brownie points with the Court but to learn from her experience. I am still recovering from the session and knowledge of what the future for him holds; the last thing that he needs is to be further traumatized by loonie twoonies by being schlepped from one roach motel to another and eventually to the streets. Irrespective of conventional wisdom, my son needs help over and beyond that a normal divorced child does and in this case the male is stepping up to the plate; I refuse to apologize for protecting him from his biggest enemy.

[Hudson]

Originally posted by ProudUSC:
I reread this thread in its entirety today - to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Klinus has stated that there was no finding of child abuse. Innocent until proven guilty - that is the basis of our judicial system, right?
Of course, we haven't heard his wife's side of the story, but I don't understand all of the posters here who are making accusatory remarks toward him. Clearly, he is very worried about his son. She is the one who took their baby to a shelter (without evidence of abuse). I can't for the life of me figure out why their child is still living at this shelter, even if it is on a part time basis - and why the courts are allowing it. The welfare of this child should come first!!!!!

The wife filed a Temporary Restraining Order based on child abuse. That order was denied. What Klinus and Davdah said that because the TRO was denied, then the claims must be false. The TRO, whether approved or not, does not determine guilt or innocence of said allegation. It is merely a legal device to restrain someone from entering and limiting the Constitutional guarantee of someone the right to assemble. Klinus also accused the wife of kidnapping the child; yet both have custody of the child. And Klinus also accused the wife for the son to have scabies even though it is not conclusive how the son got the bites. This is really a simple case of a contested divorce. Klinus filed divorce while she was still living at the home. What do you expect her to do? From her perspective, she had to leave. She has no trust in him and is fighting for what she believes is right. Whether the reasons are legitimate has yet to be determined for both him and her.

[Hudson]

Originally posted by Jasmin:
Like I said that I've personally seen at least 105 cases by my own eyes and they were all fraud. Even USCIS has acknowledged that 87% of VAWA cases are fraud but they don't have resources to investigate them. Almost every immigrant files self-petition under VAWA if his/her marriage fails for whatever reason. This law guarantees them to secure a permanent residency in this country, which is not the intention of Congress when they made this law.

You will hardly hear anyone getting denial if someone would file under VAWA unless they have missed out on procedural rules. Otherwise, everyone gets residency on this law. Just yesterday I got a news from a Jamaican woman who got green card based upon this law. She invoked this law, but truth was her husband politely told her that he doesn't want to be with her. Both mutually got separated and divorced. She didn't like the fact that she wasn't able to get green card thru him. Funny and strange part is that they never lived together, yet still she was approved under this law because all she did is scremed-ABUSE and went to psychotherepy to get only one piece of evidence which was a two lines letter. That's all.

Very few cases of USC controlling their immigrant spouse were there before. But I bet every immigrant files now under VAWA if their marriage fails. VAWA law also allows these immigrants to get public benefit and all kind of help on the expense of taxpayers like us while they are not even legal here.

Either govt. should repeal this law, or investigate each case carefully and with beyond the reasonable of doubt criteria of evidences; otherwise this law is a safe heaven and a sure way for all immigrants who marry to USC to secure right to remain in this country.

No Jasmine. USCIS does not have any studies to indicate the validity of VAWA claims. Since there is no statistical study, then any accusation on how many are fraudulent is, for the most part, ludicrous. What we do now for sure is that 15% of all violent crimes are domestic violence related. We also know that both men and women have committed domestic violence with men being in the minority. But judicial analyzes do not indicate immigration status of such victims. I also know of a UCLA compilation of studies and analyzes that suggest women are more physically agressive than women, but hospitalization records do not support such claims. But generally when accusations such as yours come around, they are generally supported by anti-immigration sites who tend to blame immigrants for all the problems that society has. So, you want to retry that argment again or continue with the fallacy from your onw mind?

Immigration can be used as a controlling mechanism. We have seen it with illegal immigrants, with legal immigrants, with minorities, and with the elderly and disabled. USC spouses will threaten their immigrant spouses with deportation, employers will threaten deportation to their immigrant employees if they don't comply with unreasonable requests, and so forth. The threatening of such actions which the immigrant is totally dependent on the USC creates that controlling situation. Unfortunately, that is the reality by some who take advantage of the situation.

[Hudson]

Originally posted by max-one:
Right now the power is totally in the hands of those who want to self petition. They have access to the USCIS, advocates to help them draw up their self petitions and a VAWA staff in Saint Albans VT that bends over backwards to grant the petitions and do it in record time. What does the USC have? "Access" through a two inch reenforced plate glass window to an USCIS employee who says to the stunned emotionally distraught USC victim, "Next time buy American" (actually quote) and then sends the withdrawel of support and all supporting documents into the wastepaper basket. Yes, there needs to be allot of reform.

The problem is if you allow evidence of the accused to defend himself/herself, will you allow only the validity of the abuse in question? Or will you allow any and all evidence? And if you allow both the alleged victim or accused to defend himself/herself, then criminal proceedings must be adhered to under the Constitution. Thus, it is no longer a civil or administrative issue. It is now a criminal issue with the state prosecuting and the person defending himself/herself. This will increase the cost to both the state and the defendant. Thus, you set yourself up for a dangerous trap.

If we keep the allegation of abuse solely on administrative or civil, then how do you propose to increase the legal requirements to prove an abusive spouse? If you increase the preponderance of evidence too high, then you ignore the more subtle physical or emotional abuse. If you limit the preponderance of the evidence to only physical abuse only, then you ignore the detriments of emotional abuse, which can be more harmful than physical in some situations.

So, do you think it is a trap either way? Or do you think there will ever be a compromise?

[Hudson]

Originally posted by davdah:
Its all about the case. The more of a victim she can appear the better her chances of getting what she wants. Its no more complicated than that. That and the CA court system is heavily biased against the father. It truely is a surprise he got any custody at all. 50/50 no less!

He did make the offer for housing which at one point was being utilized. She vandalized it while there and then chose to leave and go to the roach motel instead.

Why is no one asking the reason for her subjecting the child to those living conditions when other options are available? That should beg the question as to what her motives are. Where is her concern for the basic minimum concern of his health? If she was really destitute and wanted what was best for the child why not let the child be with the dad, in his house?

Instead of telling this guy to provide housing to her, why not ask, why isn't she for the child? That is what this is all about it, isn't it?

It is very rare for one parent to be totally innocent and the other parent totally guilty. It is more that both are guilty with more to this case than what Klinus is telling us. It would be very helpful if the wife was here to fill in the missing gaps and present her side of the story. Somehow, I don't think Klinus nor you want that to any degree.

With him offering a place to stay for the son and maybe her, it appears to be manipulative. If she allows the son to stay at his home, then he could take that situation and claim she abandoned him and therefore has no parental rights to the child. Or, he could poinson the child by continuing suggesting that the mother is bad, not good for him, etc. In the end, the son will need more counseling on this psychological drama. If she stays with him, he can use the situation to be more controlling than what he probably was during the marriage. And even his heart was in the right place, it will neither be wise nor prudent for the court to agree to this course of action for it would appear to be biased against her.

For her, she is in a disparate situation; hot because of the divorce, or the reasons for the divorce, but because she is alone. Her family is in Canada might as well be Malaysia or Antarctica right now. And she probably does not have access to the RRIF or RRSP for legal reasons. The shelter is her last refuge. She is obviously distraught by the divorce situation. From her perspective, she thought she married her prince charming, her best friend, her lifelong companion, but now all that is up in smoke. I do not believe you have the comprehension nor the life skills to truly understand her emotional state. I am not criticizing you, but pointing out an obvious lack of connection from your perspective. And on top of that, her immigration status is in limbo until this divorce mess is finalized. Right now, whoever fired the first shot is not important anymore, only the finalizing the divorce. Klinus is doing what he believes is in his best interest, she is doing the same. What is lost is the child's best interest. And instead of creating an unrealistic standard for her, perhaps we should let the courts decide what is best for the child. There is always the possibility that neither parent is good for the child and that foster care is the most logical course of action.

[Hudson]

The answer to that is probably easy. Some of these women use the children to punish the father for whatever reason and don't care if the child gets hurt. Yet they act protective like like a she-bear with her cub. There is allot of irrational emotions.
9 WORDS WOMEN USE

This is always a possibility, but unfortuneately, with his specific case, it is hard to determine because we don't have her side of the stody nor the actual court documents. I have also seen men do the same thing.

[klinus]

Originally posted by Hudson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
Its all about the case. The more of a victim she can appear the better her chances of getting what she wants. Its no more complicated than that. That and the CA court system is heavily biased against the father. It truely is a surprise he got any custody at all. 50/50 no less!

He did make the offer for housing which at one point was being utilized. She vandalized it while there and then chose to leave and go to the roach motel instead.

Why is no one asking the reason for her subjecting the child to those living conditions when other options are available? That should beg the question as to what her motives are. Where is her concern for the basic minimum concern of his health? If she was really destitute and wanted what was best for the child why not let the child be with the dad, in his house?

Instead of telling this guy to provide housing to her, why not ask, why isn't she for the child? That is what this is all about it, isn't it?

It is very rare for one parent to be totally innocent and the other parent totally guilty. It is more that both are guilty with more to this case than what Klinus is telling us. It would be very helpful if the wife was here to fill in the missing gaps and present her side of the story. Somehow, I don't think Klinus nor you want that to any degree.

With him offering a place to stay for the son and maybe her, it appears to be manipulative. If she allows the son to stay at his home, then he could take that situation and claim she abandoned him and therefore has no parental rights to the child. Or, he could poinson the child by continuing suggesting that the mother is bad, not good for him, etc. In the end, the son will need more counseling on this psychological drama. If she stays with him, he can use the situation to be more controlling than what he probably was during the marriage. And even his heart was in the right place, it will neither be wise nor prudent for the court to agree to this course of action for it would appear to be biased against her.
_____________________________________________
the compromise that I offered is a custody strategy employed by the Court, called Birds Nest, which has the child staying in the family home and the parents rotating in and out, with no prejudice toward either parent as far as custody is concerned.
________________________________________________
For her, she is in a disparate situation; hot because of the divorce, or the reasons for the divorce, but because she is alone. Her family is in Canada might as well be Malaysia or Antarctica right now. And she probably does not have access to the RRIF or RRSP for legal reasons. The shelter is her last refuge. She is obviously distraught by the divorce situation. From her perspective, she thought she married her prince charming, her best friend, her lifelong companion, but now all that is up in smoke. I do not believe you have the comprehension nor the life skills to truly understand her emotional state. I am not criticizing you, but pointing out an obvious lack of connection from your perspective. And on top of that, her immigration status is in limbo until this divorce mess is finalized. Right now, whoever fired the first shot is not important anymore, only the finalizing the divorce. Klinus is doing what he believes is in his best interest, she is doing the same. What is lost is the child's best interest. And instead of creating an unrealistic standard for her, perhaps we should let the courts decide what is best for the child. There is always the possibility that neither parent is good for the child and that foster care is the most logical course of action.
_________________________________________
With a budget that is as strained as it is, the only circumstances that the child will be placed in foster care is if neither parent can provide acceptable housing for the child and/or the child is in imminent danger at both parents's residences, which is already demonstrably the case at Dad's. The system does not have the resources or frankly the bandwidth to indulge in sanctimonius bulls**t; they have already decided that the child is not going to foster care, even if the out of state vultures decided that that may be the most logical route. Stop carping on foster care and psychological damage, Hudson, the Court recogzines (actually is being brought up to speed as I discover the extent of my son's problems) that this boy has special needs and foster care will exacerabte the problem; Dad has already demonstrated that he is willing and (more importantly) will use private funding to help alleviate the problem that if not addressed immedeatly will be a (his) lifelong problem for the State. The State cannot afford to get invoilved in useless and irresponsible pontification, the buck stops with them and there is a shortage of bucks to go around.
____________________________________________ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Hudson]

the compromise that I offered is a custody strategy employed by the court, called Birds Nest, which has the child staying in the family home and the parents rotating in and out, with no prejudice toward either parent as far as custody is concerned.

Again, this situaiton may not be viable. From what you have said, she has no valid CA DL. Thus, has no legal means for her to travel to and from, with relative ease, to the home. Thus, she will be more dependent on public transportation and/or friends, case workers, etc to travel from one "residence" to the other. It also comes with a price. Generally the other spouse must pay for the cost of living while the other parent is temporarily displaced from the home. Further, it provides you with the address of where she is staying. It will not prevent you from coming into your home (I don't think she has her name on the property) while she is there for you to put pressure onto her. Again, it will neither be prudent nor wise for her to accept this "gratitude." Furthermore, it will become easier for you to claim that "she continually" trashes the house when she is there.

With a budget that is as strained as it is, the only cirmucstances that the child will be placed in foster care is if neither parent can provide acceptable housing for the child. The system does not have the resources or frankly the bandwidth to indulge in sanctimonius bulls**t; they have already decided that the child is not going to foster care, even if the vultures decided that that may be the most logical route. Stop carping on foster care and psychological damage, Hudson, the Court recogzines that this boy has special needs and foster care will exacerabte the problem; Dad has already demonstrated that he is willing and (more importantly) will use private funding to help alleviate the problem that if not addressed immedeatly will be a lifelong problem for the State. The State cannot afford to get invoilved in useless and irresponsible pontification, the buck stops with them and there is a shortage of bucks to go around.

The whole point about the foster care option is that the state will use that option if they deem both parents unfit whether financially or psychosocially (harmful to the child to the point of abuse). Even though the courts have ruled that foster care is not the way to go, the court can still change their mind if additional evidence proves the necessity. But you make a valid point about the California foster care system though. However, it still does not grant you the option to be insipid or obtrusive in this manner. And I agree with 4now on his assessment of the situation.

As far as dad willing to pay for the medical expenses of the special needs child, no one is preventing you. However, I have my suspicion that you will only do this if the child stays with you. If the child has to stay with someone else, I don't think you will be willing to provide those expenses., would you?

[ProudUSC]

Originally posted by Hudson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
I reread this thread in its entirety today - to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Klinus has stated that there was no finding of child abuse. Innocent until proven guilty - that is the basis of our judicial system, right?
Of course, we haven't heard his wife's side of the story, but I don't understand all of the posters here who are making accusatory remarks toward him. Clearly, he is very worried about his son. She is the one who took their baby to a shelter (without evidence of abuse). I can't for the life of me figure out why their child is still living at this shelter, even if it is on a part time basis - and why the courts are allowing it. The welfare of this child should come first!!!!!

The wife filed a Temporary Restraining Order based on child abuse. That order was denied. What Klinus and Davdah said that because the TRO was denied, then the claims must be false. The TRO, whether approved or not, does not determine guilt or innocence of said allegation. It is merely a legal device to restrain someone from entering and limiting the Constitutional guarantee of someone the right to assemble. Klinus also accused the wife of kidnapping the child; yet both have custody of the child. And Klinus also accused the wife for the son to have scabies even though it is not conclusive how the son got the bites. This is really a simple case of a contested divorce. Klinus filed divorce while she was still living at the home. What do you expect her to do? From her perspective, she had to leave. She has no trust in him and is fighting for what she believes is right. Whether the reasons are legitimate has yet to be determined for both him and her. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand, Hudson. We don't have all the facts, but I just wanted to toss out that she may have run to the shelter to be able to substantiate her TRO filing. We don't know if she had another place to go, at least I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. It's also hard for me to believe that she had no idea he was filing for divorce. No advance warning? There are usually signs, but again, we don't know this part of the story.

[klinus]

Originally posted by Hudson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the compromise that I offered is a custody strategy employed by the court, called Birds Nest, which has the child staying in the family home and the parents rotating in and out, with no prejudice toward either parent as far as custody is concerned.

Again, this situaiton may not be viable. From what you have said, she has no valid CA DL. Thus, has no legal means for her to travel to and from, with relative ease, to the home. Thus, she will be more dependent on public transportation and/or friends, case workers, etc to travel from one "residence" to the other. It also comes with a price. Generally the other spouse must pay for the cost of living while the other parent is temporarily displaced from the home. Further, it provides you with the address of where she is staying. It will not prevent you from coming into your home (I don't think she has her name on the property) while she is there for you to put pressure onto her. Again, it will neither be prudent nor wise for her to accept this "gratitude." Furthermore, it will become easier for you to claim that "she continually" trashes the house when she is there.

With a budget that is as strained as it is, the only cirmucstances that the child will be placed in foster care is if neither parent can provide acceptable housing for the child. The system does not have the resources or frankly the bandwidth to indulge in sanctimonius bulls**t; they have already decided that the child is not going to foster care, even if the vultures decided that that may be the most logical route. Stop carping on foster care and psychological damage, Hudson, the Court recogzines that this boy has special needs and foster care will exacerabte the problem; Dad has already demonstrated that he is willing and (more importantly) will use private funding to help alleviate the problem that if not addressed immedeatly will be a lifelong problem for the State. The State cannot afford to get invoilved in useless and irresponsible pontification, the buck stops with them and there is a shortage of bucks to go around.

The whole point about the foster care option is that the state will use that option if they deem both parents unfit whether financially or psychosocially (harmful to the child to the point of abuse). Even though the courts have ruled that foster care is not the way to go, the court can still change their mind if additional evidence proves the necessity. But you make a valid point about the California foster care system though. However, it still does not grant you the option to be insipid or obtrusive in this manner. And I agree with 4now on his assessment of the situation.

As far as dad willing to pay for the medical expenses of the special needs child, no one is preventing you. However, I have my suspicion that you will only do this if the child stays with you. If the child has to stay with someone else, I don't think you will be willing to provide those expenses., would you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

________________________________________________

Since this is a hypothetical argument based on your complete lack of knowledge of the situation in California (which has the largest number of children in foster care in the US), here are the facts:http://www.childrenunitingnations.org/who-we-are/4/

Do me a favor - call one of the overworked, underpaid and underresourced staff working at one of our local departments of children and foster services and share your delusions about how foster care works with them to give them a laugh. Don't worry about their commiting you to an institution, which would happen if you made these claims here - you're safely in another state.

[4now]

Proud American you said the following

I understand, Hudson. We don't have all the facts, but I just wanted to toss out that she may have run to the shelter to be able to substantiate her TRO filing. We don't know if she had another place to go, at least I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. It's also hard for me to believe that she had no idea he was filing for divorce. No advance warning? There are usually signs, but again, we don't know this part of the story.

Of course we all know that it is a possibility that she used this just to get into the shelter.. We are not naive here,

But this is my response from page 4 on sept 30:

<span class="ev_code_RED">YOu said earlier that" she was all happy and everything until you filed for divorce. " and that You could not sign a joint 751 in good conscious." From these statements it sounds like you were planning this whole thing to sting her and she had no idea that you were going to file for divorce or that there was even anything wrong in the marriage. Im sure she was able to drive the cars up until you magically decided that .. oh not anymore "standing on ceremony" that she doesnt have CA drivers license and now cant get one b/c of her status. Cleverly planned and orchestrated. Even if she was a terrible wife, She must have been a good mother as I dont hear anything that concerned you about her... other than "she lives in a shelter" </span>



For the life of me... I cannot find the post that he inferred this about she had no idea the divorce was coming or that there was anything wrong. Which indicated to me that this situation was a calculated strategy. kinda scary for a relationship unless she was a horrible person which he has never indicated.

But in anyway, I cannot find the post. .. So he must have deleted it maybe?