Mom Threatens Dad After Claiming No Issue with His Partner | CONTENTIOUS HEARING
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 ноя 2024
- Custody hearing. Here's a summary of the key issues and the arguments presented:
Key Players:
The parties are in court discussing a geographic restriction issue as the mother has moved to Missouri for work, while the father wants jurisdiction back in Texas. The mother opposes this due to her federal employment in Missouri and the fact that she lives with her current partner who helps raise the child. Allegations of family violence have been made by both parties, but they have agreed to joint conservatorship and non-disclosure. The mother is seeking retroactive child support and has concerns about visitation due to the father's lack of involvement with the child. The court is gathering testimony to make a decision on the case.
Savannah Lara Mindy (Mom): Recently moved from Texas to Missouri for a new job with the VA after leaving the military (terminal leave). She has a new partner who is also stationed in Missouri.
Mr. Mendez (Dad): Lives in Texas and is seeking to maintain jurisdiction in Texas. He alleges a lack of communication and limited access to his son since the mother's move.
Mr. Walsh (Mom's Attorney): Highlights the mother's employment as a justification for the move and suggests a modified visitation schedule.
Mr. Lopez (Dad's Attorney): Argues for a geographic restriction to Texas due to the mother's sudden move and the father's limited access to his child. He also requests a 50/50 split of travel expenses if a geographic restriction isn't granted.
Key Issues:
Jurisdiction: The primary dispute is over the court's jurisdiction. The mother moved to Missouri, and the father wants the case to remain in Texas. The judge seems open to considering the mother's employment situation as a legitimate reason for the move.
Geographic Restriction: The father seeks a geographic restriction limiting the mother's residence to Texas. The mother opposes this due to her employment in Missouri. The judge indicates he will consider the mother's employment as a factor.
Visitation Schedule: Because the parties live in different states, a new visitation schedule is necessary. The mother suggests using her monthly trips to Texas for National Guard training as an opportunity for supervised visitation.
Travel Expenses: The father argues that he should not bear the full cost of travel to see his child and suggests a 50/50 split of travel expenses.
Past Allegations of Family Violence: The judge is informed of past allegations of family violence involving both parties. Although a joint managing conservatorship is agreed upon, the judge is aware of the history. This is relevant for the judge in determining the best interests of the child.
Retroactive Child Support: The mother is seeking retroactive child support, and an agreement has been reached on the amount and payment plan.
#familycourt #JUDGE #COURT #TRENDING
This is the first mother who seems to be truthful and a fair person.
Control is definitely an issue with this baby momma. I think she wants to say she’ll pay round trip tickets so she can be in control of when he comes & that only he comes without his wife.
Or maybe instead of that story you made up in your head, it could be related to the actual issue they both testified to, which was him not showing up to scheduled visits.
Think it through. You have a dad that already doesn't show up to visits when they live in the same area... You think that's gonna change now that she's moved? If it does, great, but he shouldn't get a reduction in child support based on traveling to visits when he has a demonstrated track record of NOT visiting. He shouldn't get a rebate for being a deadbeat father
Mr. Welch needs to write his statements down or take some English and speaking courses. That was painful.
It's soooo difficult listening to him speak.
Sooo... Mom is willing to buy round trip plane tickets every other month, but won't accept a reduction in child support so he can pay for his own..... WTF?? Sounds like she wants to keep control.
Don’t they all. And the damn judges always seem to agree with the mothers all the damn time.
Right?!? I agree with you both
Yup, she’s mostly the reason he hasnt seen his son much bc no ex wants to have to be in the rm w the hostile bm breathing down his neck watching his every move while he tries to have visitation w his child. Plus she has made it hostile arguing getting in his face while he’s there. Degrading him. They should have had someone else there for the visitation not her. Bc this mom(many moms) are the one who puts the gap between the father and child then dad(or don’t allow much time for a relationship to even start) has to jump through hoops of supervised visits bc he hasn’t had a chance to get to know his son. That rewards the mother for her petty bitter actions but it helps the child get to know dad so they can go unsupervised. Here in Tx at least they don’t make phased in visits a long drawn out ordeal(then its like punishment)for a yr+ like some states. Tx usually has a few 1/2day supervised then a few 1/2day unsupervised then the day then overnight and into standard. Idk why they couldn’t do one flight a month and when she comes to tx for that weekend a month he can see the son then too. That would let him have 2 weekends /mon. She gets her schedule a yr in advance so she can make plans for sister to go. And wont be the entire yr hewill be supervised , shes could drop him off w dad then go do her weekend for training. She wanted to sound supportive and encouraging leaving out all her chaos and drama. In reality he just didn’t want to be around her yelling and getting in his face…especially in front of the child. She asked at the end about someone else supervising “In case they aren’t getting along” that thought would have been nice 2yrs prior and court wouldnt have been needed to establish a relationship. It took a entire yr from dad filing this case to get to start court ordered visitation smh that’s the problem too. And then she moves a month before court. She told him in april she was going to move but didn’t tell him when bc she didn’t move til mid October. She’s going to continue to be this way. If she don’t hold up her end of the deal dad needs to bring her bk to court to reduce cs.
Y'all really can't see past the misogyny forest for the trees.. it's extremely practical and generous of her to pay ALL flights when they BOTH testified that he had consistently no showed scheduled visits. So if they reduce his CS based on travel, then he continues to flake on visits, he'd be getting financially rewarded for being a deadbeat.
Or maybe just maybe, it’s because she actually wants him to see his child. The whole point of a reduction would be solely based on his traveling expenses to see his kid. On one hand you could reduce the support just for the dad not to go visit, which would mean he wouldn’t be using that money for traveling expenses, and on the other hand if he decides not to visit then she just wouldn’t buy the ticket. Sounds like a significantly smarter decision that reduces the ability to take advantage of a ruling