Change divorce decree

Because I was unable to pay the ex 1000.00 by the end of 2007 she is
now trying to get the divorce decree changed. She just fired her third
attorney. My attorney called to verify and he said that he was no
longer representing her because she is to difficult. She also quit her
job so I don't get to see my son (I have right of first priority).
From what her brother told me today after he called to insult me, is
that they want the decree changed. They want to take away right of
first refusal, joint legal, and when my son turns four, he is supposed
to stay w/me one day during the week overnight. She wants to chg all
of this. The divorce was barely finalized on Dec 18, 2007.

Her brothers quote "We got a new attorney and he is the best in the
state."

Not an attorney so you need to check your own state laws.

Child custody, support and paremting plans are separate issues than the
division of assets. Here in Michigan, division of asset conflicts after the
final divorce decree are done through civil court in the form of a lawsuit.

The child custody, support and parenting plans are the only thing that are
"changable" in the final divorce decree amd are done under the same
authority of the original judge presiding over the case.

"scaredfather" wrote in message
...
Because I was unable to pay the ex 1000.00 by the end of 2007 she is
now trying to get the divorce decree changed. She just fired her third
attorney. My attorney called to verify and he said that he was no
longer representing her because she is to difficult. She also quit her
job so I don't get to see my son (I have right of first priority).
From what her brother told me today after he called to insult me, is
that they want the decree changed. They want to take away right of
first refusal, joint legal, and when my son turns four, he is supposed
to stay w/me one day during the week overnight. She wants to chg all
of this. The divorce was barely finalized on Dec 18, 2007.

Her brothers quote "We got a new attorney and he is the best in the
state."

"scaredfather" wrote in message
...
Because I was unable to pay the ex 1000.00 by the end of 2007 she is
now trying to get the divorce decree changed. She just fired her third
attorney. My attorney called to verify and he said that he was no
longer representing her because she is to difficult. She also quit her
job so I don't get to see my son (I have right of first priority).
From what her brother told me today after he called to insult me, is
that they want the decree changed. They want to take away right of
first refusal, joint legal, and when my son turns four, he is supposed
to stay w/me one day during the week overnight. She wants to chg all
of this. The divorce was barely finalized on Dec 18, 2007.

Her brothers quote "We got a new attorney and he is the best in the
state."

===
The attorney, no matter how good he is, doesn't determine the law. That job
is
for the judge. The only thing she can do at this point is appeal the
order--and she
appears to be doing that--although you aren't very clear here--Was the
divorce finalized
in December or was the the case decided in December? I'm trying to figure
out if it is
still within the 30 days since the order was issued. If it is still
appealable, it will go
to an appellate court OR a family law judge if the prior decree is from an
administrative
official (whatever they may be called in your area). So, who heard the
initial case? And when was
it decided? Oh, yeah--and what is "right of first priority" and why can't
you have your son until he is four?
Are you in the US?

On Jan 8, 4:58 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"scaredfather" wrote in message

...

Because I was unable to pay the ex 1000.00 by the end of 2007 she is
now trying to get the divorce decree changed. She just fired her third
attorney. My attorney called to verify and he said that he was no
longer representing her because she is to difficult. She also quit her
job so I don't get to see my son (I have right of first priority).
From what her brother told me today after he called to insult me, is
that they want the decree changed. They want to take away right of
first refusal, joint legal, and when my son turns four, he is supposed
to stay w/me one day during the week overnight. She wants to chg all
of this. The divorce was barely finalized on Dec 18, 2007.

Her brothers quote "We got a new attorney and he is the best in the
state."

===
The attorney, no matter how good he is, doesn't determine the law. That job
is
for the judge. The only thing she can do at this point is appeal the
order--and she
appears to be doing that--although you aren't very clear here--Was the
divorce finalized
in December or was the the case decided in December? I'm trying to figure
out if it is
still within the 30 days since the order was issued. If it is still
appealable, it will go
to an appellate court OR a family law judge if the prior decree is from an
administrative
official (whatever they may be called in your area). So, who heard the
initial case? And when was
it decided? Oh, yeah--and what is "right of first priority" and why can't
you have your son until he is four?
Are you in the US?

I meant to say "right of first refusal". Whenever the ex works, she
has to call me first to see if I am available. The divorce was
finalized Dec 18. I am in Utah. Since Utah is very pro mothers, I did
not get "joint physical". The mother has veto power over anything she
doesn't like. The overnight stay when he turns four is something we
agreed to at the mediation session. We went to two of them. It never
got to a judge. My attorney said that it will probably not be changed
because her and I agreed to it. It only gets reversed if it is a judge
who decides the initial ruling. In my case, the ex and I agreed to the
divorce decree.

"scaredfather"wrote
"Gini" wrote:

===
So, who heard the
initial case? And when was
it decided? Oh, yeah--and what is "right of first priority" and why can't
you have your son until he is four?
Are you in the US?

I meant to say "right of first refusal". Whenever the ex works, she
has to call me first to see if I am available. The divorce was
finalized Dec 18. I am in Utah. Since Utah is very pro mothers, I did
not get "joint physical". The mother has veto power over anything she
doesn't like. The overnight stay when he turns four is something we
agreed to at the mediation session. We went to two of them. It never
got to a judge. My attorney said that it will probably not be changed
because her and I agreed to it. It only gets reversed if it is a judge
who decides the initial ruling. In my case, the ex and I agreed to the
divorce decree.
====
Well, that helps clarify things, somewhat. I am not familiar with Utah laws
but in
PA, if the case is heard by an administrator/mediator rather than a judge,
either party can have the decree tossed and have the whole case go before a
judge.
If the case is decided by a judge, the only recourse is a timely appeal, in
which case,
the court must determine if the judge abused his/her discretion (judicial
error). It does
not rule on new facts. All that said, your attorney knows the facts and
local law more
than anyone here (we have significant family law experience but are not
attys.)
and he appears to be saying that the deal is done and will not be changed
unless there are new facts to be considered--things that could not have been
anticipated
in the original ruling. From what you have said here, I do not see that
happening so, relax :-).
The fact that you could not pay the money does put you in contempt which may
result in additional
financial sanctions. Can you pay part of the money--courts love to see
effort.

On Jan 9, 12:26 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"scaredfather"wrote

"Gini" wrote:

===
So, who heard the
initial case? And when was
it decided? Oh, yeah--and what is "right of first priority" and why can't
you have your son until he is four?
Are you in the US?

I meant to say "right of first refusal". Whenever the ex works, she
has to call me first to see if I am available. The divorce was
finalized Dec 18. I am in Utah. Since Utah is very pro mothers, I did
not get "joint physical". The mother has veto power over anything she
doesn't like. The overnight stay when he turns four is something we
agreed to at the mediation session. We went to two of them. It never
got to a judge. My attorney said that it will probably not be changed
because her and I agreed to it. It only gets reversed if it is a judge
who decides the initial ruling. In my case, the ex and I agreed to the
divorce decree.

====
Well, that helps clarify things, somewhat. I am not familiar with Utah laws
but in
PA, if the case is heard by an administrator/mediator rather than a judge,
either party can have the decree tossed and have the whole case go before a
judge.
If the case is decided by a judge, the only recourse is a timely appeal, in
which case,
the court must determine if the judge abused his/her discretion (judicial
error). It does
not rule on new facts. All that said, your attorney knows the facts and
local law more
than anyone here (we have significant family law experience but are not
attys.)
and he appears to be saying that the deal is done and will not be changed
unless there are new facts to be considered--things that could not have been
anticipated
in the original ruling. From what you have said here, I do not see that
happening so, relax :-).
The fact that you could not pay the money does put you in contempt which may
result in additional
financial sanctions. Can you pay part of the money--courts love to see
effort.

Ex didn't give me time to pay. When I arrived from work on Mon, I ate,
grabbed some bills went out the house and the car was gone. Since the
decree mentioned that if I didn't pay she can repo the car, she did.
Now I am using a car rental. Now they are trying to say that I am
making threats. When I asked her for the police report, she said that
it was not that "kind" of threat. She is afraid of me is what she is
telling her attorney and family. When asked what are you afraid of?
Her response. He is manipulating me.

"A parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable
visitation rights unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that visitation
would endanger seriously the child's physical, mental, moral, or emotional
health." 750 ILCS 6/607(a)


With respect to the restriction of visitation, the endangerment standard is
an onerous one (In re Marriage of Hanson (1983), 112 Ill. App. 3d 564, 568;
In re Marriage of Neat (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 1048), and is more
stringent or exacting than the best-interest standard (In re Marriage of
Solomon (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 901, 907; Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 40, par.
607(c), Supplement to Historical and Practice Notes, at 27 (Smith-Hurd Supp.
1983); see In re Marriage of Neat (1981), 101 Ill. App. 3d 1046, 1048).
Where the custodial parent seeks to restrict visitation rights, he or she
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
existing visitation seriously endangers the child. (Griffiths v. Griffiths
(1984), 127 Ill. App. 3d 126, 129; In re Marriage of Neat (1981), 101 Ill.
App. 3d 1046, 1048.) In re Marriage of Anderson, 474 N.E.2d 911, 130 Ill.
App. 3d 684 (1985).


A restriction on visitation is action which limits, restrains, or confines
visitation within bounds. (In Re Marriage of Tisckos/ Stewart (1987), 161
Ill. App. 3d 302, 310,514 N.E.2d 523, 528.) A termination of visitation is a
restriction (In re Marriage of Dunn (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 247, 254, 508
N.E.2d 250, 255), as is a prohibition on overnight visitation. Likewise, a
requirement that visitation be supervised, occur in the home of the
custodial parent, or outside the home of the non custodial parent is a
restriction. (Tisckos / Stewart, 161 Ill. App. 3d at 310, 514 N.E.2d at
528.) In re the Marriage LaTour, 608 N.E.2d 1339, 241 Ill. App. 3d 500,
(1993)

More law is at http://www.fathersrights.org

"scaredfather" wrote in message
...
Because I was unable to pay the ex 1000.00 by the end of 2007 she is
now trying to get the divorce decree changed. She just fired her third
attorney. My attorney called to verify and he said that he was no
longer representing her because she is to difficult. She also quit her
job so I don't get to see my son (I have right of first priority).
From what her brother told me today after he called to insult me, is
that they want the decree changed. They want to take away right of
first refusal, joint legal, and when my son turns four, he is supposed
to stay w/me one day during the week overnight. She wants to chg all
of this. The divorce was barely finalized on Dec 18, 2007.

Her brothers quote "We got a new attorney and he is the best in the
state."

"scaredfather" wrote in

Ex didn't give me time to pay. When I arrived from work on Mon, I ate,
grabbed some bills went out the house and the car was gone. Since the
decree mentioned that if I didn't pay she can repo the car, she did.

You story has way too many lame excuses in it!

Should have just sent her a check for $1000 and be done with it!