flying blind
Monday morning I couldn't find my horoscope, no internet access and the hotel newspaper didn't have it. Probably shouldn't be so dependent on such things but just wanted a sense of the energy of the day. I was in no state to be open to such things and being as pregnant as I am those senses are unpredicable at best.
At the initial "yes we are here, this is what we are doing" appearance we were rescheduled for later in the day (after some convincing on our attorney's part) while lots of other people got pushed back to later in the week. Their attorney invited us to come back to her office and use in the conference room in one of those double-edged hospitality gestures. So we sat in one room (which did have a nice view but also windows that faced the hallway so they could see us while they sat in a less nice but more private room and the attorneys would consult in the hallway as we tried to settle as many issues as possible before appearing before the actual judge.
Virtually everything was settled - mostly by meeting in the middle. And there was the occasional thing that went surprisingly in our favor so perhaps bluffing is useful.
We ended up with a few more days in the summer with kids, there are now strong incentives for neither party to move across the country, the pick up time for school nights was bumped up which cuts into our time but will be nice when it is also a school night for patrick, and child support went up - more than I would have liked but considerably less than it could have. It will make financial things tricky but still managable. They thankfully dropped asking for permanent child support and their argument that one of the children is "permanently disabled and will be unable to support himself" (which is beyond ridiculous and has much more to do with a particular person's issues than said child's asperger's syndrome). It also gives us time to set things us so he has the oppurtunity to show/experience for himself that yes he can be independent and no his entire life has not been dictated by a particular diagnosis or quirky social skills.
All that was left was the question of retroactive child support and attorney fees. They wanted us to pay the amount of agreed upon new support back to when the case was first opened a year ago and we obviously did not want to, with no compromise in sight and each of us being entirely too sure of ourselves. And of course we both wanted the other to pay our attorney fees.
So we went back to court, spent an extraordinarily long time getting the language of settlements as part of the public record (to the obvious boredom of the judge). And then the nastiness began. I know it is a lawyers job to twist the truth, try to provoke a witness into saying something they didn't want to, and make their case, but the actual mechanics (particularly when they are personal) is hard to watch. Essentially our argument is that by virtue of being responsible parents (paying regular child support, using all visitation, voluntarily increasing child support) and economic circumstances (their lifestyle vs. ours, number of children, frugal living on our part, financial burden said support would cause and its effect on the children) asking us to pay retroactive support was unreasonable and not in the best interest of the children.
While they tried to make it look as though we were irresponsible financially (by the number of children we have and the admission that yes we would like more children, secretly being in better financial shape than we appeared), had been cheating the other party by underpaying child support for years (yes we had been underpaying but all the extra money was going to debt repayments and the original decree had nothing about adjusting with income changes), and how the support would improve the children's lives.
I was impressed though, my husband maintained decent manners and did not lose his temper during the testifying bit despite a lot of rather personal provoking (comments about him caring more about his younger kids than older ones, twisting income amounts, accusing him of dragging out the case, using the desire for children as proof that we really are in better financial shape than we are). I did get in a bit of trouble for helping (with head shaking, nodding, and such) during financial questions. But I do all the money stuff and he was clueless. The other party frustratingly, repeatedly lying trashing most of our case and we didn't have the documentation to prove it.
I didn't have to testify. While I did have a much better grasp of the stuff they were discussing, I don't know what the stress would have done to the baby. Plus I might have frozen or paniced and said heaven knows what, none of which would have been helpful. So my role was more of a visual aid (complete with a flowery, warm toned dress that made me look simultaniously hugely pregnant, sweet and maternal).
The attorney fees part was a mess with a near catfight between the attorneys, the judge rolling his eyes and the court reporter nearly laughing. They each tried to prove how the other's incompetance had caused their client to incur unreasonable expenses. If we hadn't been paying a small fortune for it, it would have been funny.
I suspect one of the clearest indications of the fairness of a decision is the ability of both parties to be equally unhappy with the outcome. We were ordered to pay retroactive support for half the time in question (ie a bit less than half the amount they were asking for) and he said each client was responsible for the own attorney fees. Now all that has to be sorted out is a payment plan acceptable to everyone. After doing all the calculations the only ones who came out ahead were the attorneys.
At the initial "yes we are here, this is what we are doing" appearance we were rescheduled for later in the day (after some convincing on our attorney's part) while lots of other people got pushed back to later in the week. Their attorney invited us to come back to her office and use in the conference room in one of those double-edged hospitality gestures. So we sat in one room (which did have a nice view but also windows that faced the hallway so they could see us while they sat in a less nice but more private room and the attorneys would consult in the hallway as we tried to settle as many issues as possible before appearing before the actual judge.
Virtually everything was settled - mostly by meeting in the middle. And there was the occasional thing that went surprisingly in our favor so perhaps bluffing is useful.
We ended up with a few more days in the summer with kids, there are now strong incentives for neither party to move across the country, the pick up time for school nights was bumped up which cuts into our time but will be nice when it is also a school night for patrick, and child support went up - more than I would have liked but considerably less than it could have. It will make financial things tricky but still managable. They thankfully dropped asking for permanent child support and their argument that one of the children is "permanently disabled and will be unable to support himself" (which is beyond ridiculous and has much more to do with a particular person's issues than said child's asperger's syndrome). It also gives us time to set things us so he has the oppurtunity to show/experience for himself that yes he can be independent and no his entire life has not been dictated by a particular diagnosis or quirky social skills.
All that was left was the question of retroactive child support and attorney fees. They wanted us to pay the amount of agreed upon new support back to when the case was first opened a year ago and we obviously did not want to, with no compromise in sight and each of us being entirely too sure of ourselves. And of course we both wanted the other to pay our attorney fees.
So we went back to court, spent an extraordinarily long time getting the language of settlements as part of the public record (to the obvious boredom of the judge). And then the nastiness began. I know it is a lawyers job to twist the truth, try to provoke a witness into saying something they didn't want to, and make their case, but the actual mechanics (particularly when they are personal) is hard to watch. Essentially our argument is that by virtue of being responsible parents (paying regular child support, using all visitation, voluntarily increasing child support) and economic circumstances (their lifestyle vs. ours, number of children, frugal living on our part, financial burden said support would cause and its effect on the children) asking us to pay retroactive support was unreasonable and not in the best interest of the children.
While they tried to make it look as though we were irresponsible financially (by the number of children we have and the admission that yes we would like more children, secretly being in better financial shape than we appeared), had been cheating the other party by underpaying child support for years (yes we had been underpaying but all the extra money was going to debt repayments and the original decree had nothing about adjusting with income changes), and how the support would improve the children's lives.
I was impressed though, my husband maintained decent manners and did not lose his temper during the testifying bit despite a lot of rather personal provoking (comments about him caring more about his younger kids than older ones, twisting income amounts, accusing him of dragging out the case, using the desire for children as proof that we really are in better financial shape than we are). I did get in a bit of trouble for helping (with head shaking, nodding, and such) during financial questions. But I do all the money stuff and he was clueless. The other party frustratingly, repeatedly lying trashing most of our case and we didn't have the documentation to prove it.
I didn't have to testify. While I did have a much better grasp of the stuff they were discussing, I don't know what the stress would have done to the baby. Plus I might have frozen or paniced and said heaven knows what, none of which would have been helpful. So my role was more of a visual aid (complete with a flowery, warm toned dress that made me look simultaniously hugely pregnant, sweet and maternal).
The attorney fees part was a mess with a near catfight between the attorneys, the judge rolling his eyes and the court reporter nearly laughing. They each tried to prove how the other's incompetance had caused their client to incur unreasonable expenses. If we hadn't been paying a small fortune for it, it would have been funny.
I suspect one of the clearest indications of the fairness of a decision is the ability of both parties to be equally unhappy with the outcome. We were ordered to pay retroactive support for half the time in question (ie a bit less than half the amount they were asking for) and he said each client was responsible for the own attorney fees. Now all that has to be sorted out is a payment plan acceptable to everyone. After doing all the calculations the only ones who came out ahead were the attorneys.