The Trial

In my last post, I showed you the court order that resulted from a week long trial over custody of my children. I have to say that going to court is probably my least favorite thing in the world to do. I did learn a lot from that experience, and from all my subsequent court hearings, but if I had it to do all over again, I would have done things much differently.

First off, my attorney. I told you how he was not very quick to object to anything and pretty much seemed to be stumbling through everything. This is true, but if I had listened to him in the very beginning, things may have gone much differently for me with regards to custody.

When my Ex first took off and pretty much fell of the face of the earth, my attorney acted quickly and was successful in getting me emergency temporary custody of my children. He wanted to continue further and "really go after her" in terms of solidifying my having custody, but I said no. I wanted to hold off. I can't really explain why I wanted to do that. I think it was mostly that I was so naive about the whole process that I didn't think holding off would matter all that much.

Boy was I wrong!

If I had known then what I know now; that the 3 years after this first trial would be a living nightmare for me, even in trying to have my court ordered visitation, I would have gone forward with everything in the very beginning. It probably would have saved me tons of heartache, anxiety, anger, sadness, money, and overall disbelief at the state of the justice system.

During the trial, everything my Ex said was taken as gold. She offered no proof to any statements that she made in court, but she was believed regardless. She brought my 2 oldest children to court to testify against me, which really didn't work out for her at all. At least the judge talked to them in his chambers instead of in open court. They were traumatized enough by just having to do that.

Since the first few paragraphs of the order are just legal mumbo jumbo to state what the case is about, I will move forward to paragraph 8 under Findings of Fact to begin.

Everything in this paragraph is correct, including the fact that my Ex did all of the bookkeeping and banking responsibilities for my business. She did this sparingly because she was always off somewhere else. She hated the business and resented the fact that it took up so much of my time, so she spent as little time there as possible.

Paragraph 9 is correct to a degree. She testified in court that at the time of the trial she was working for a home care agency, but she would not say the name of it, and my lawyer did not press the issue. She said she worked about 30 hours a week and stated how much money she made per hour, but she offered no evidence to back up her claims in the form of wage stubs or the like. Again, this was let go by my attorney, and her word was taken at face value.

What isn't mentioned in the order, but was testified to at length, was the fact that I had to provide every single scrap of paper I had in my possession that outlined every single dollar I made and how I made it. I submitted bank statements, invoices, copies of bills, tax returns, and receipts. My business and personal information was not separate, so everything had to be taken into account to determine my income. I had to testify as to how much my house payment was, car payment, even how much I spent on groceries each week to support my children.

All of this information is very important when we get to the child support phase, and you are going to see judicial corruption at its finest.

Paragraph 10 is true. As I have already stated, I worked long hours to support my 5 children and my wife. I paid all the bills, including a huge mortgage payment on a house that we never should have gotten in the first place. But, more on that later.

Paragraph 11 is partly true. I did leave, as I already mentioned, after my Ex had her first affair; however, she knew exactly where I was living (at the church). Of course, I testified that she knew where I was during that time, but the order only states what she said and leaves out my testimony.

Paragraph 12 is also true. I don't think I mentioned this before, but I did leave her again due to more and more problems in our marriage. She was hiding things and lying to me, and I got fed up. I even found birth control pills hidden in the trunk of her car, along with skimpy clothes. We could not have anymore children at that time, so birth control was not necessary for her unless it was for medical reasons, but if that was the case, there was no reason for her to hide them. So, yeah, I left.

Paragraph 13 is true. I went back home and we began going to church together and attended counseling. One session, to be exact.

Paragraph 14 relates what she testified to; however, I never abused her. And, as the order says, she never contacted the police or got a restraining order or anything else. She could provide no evidence in court that she had ever been abused. Of course, I testified that I had never abused her, but again, my testimony is not in the order and was pretty much ignored.

Paragraph 15 is true. It relates to the incident where I kept her keys from her when she abandoned the children. That was considered an act of domestic violence, but again, there was no evidence that I had ever abused her in any way prior to that incident.

Paragraph 16 is true. I was away from home a lot. Again, I was working my rear end off trying to support my family. I had my shop that I conducted business out of, and I also had a retail store. I was stretched very thin and had to work almost constantly to keep up. I did hire an employee to work at the retail location (actually, my Ex hired her!) and since I build custom furniture, there is a lot that goes into the quote process. So, yes, sometimes she was at my shop after hours but we were always conducting business. The doors were locked because the shop was closed, and if my Ex had any suspicions, she could have simply come inside (she had a key). There was a time that we were sitting in her car talking, but it was about business and nothing more. Oh, and the dead end road that it was parked on? My shop is located at the top of a dead end road. She was trying to paint the picture that I was having an affair, but it never went anywhere, and I will tell you right now that I never, ever cheated on her.

Paragraph 17 has already been established. She left.

Paragraph 18 is a lie. She testified in court that the reason she left was to go and find a place for her and the kids to live. The first time she EVER said anything like that was on the witness stand in court. The entire time she was gone, she never once told me that she planned to get a place and have the kids live with her.

Paragraph 19 is correct, and I have already shown you the letter she signed.

Paragraph 20 is partially true. I have already told you how that day went down, but I never choked her. I love how there is just a little blurb at the end of that paragraph that says, "although he denies choking her" as if it's an afterthought. Great, huh?

Paragraph 21 is correct and has been established in this blog. What the order does not state is that she returned to North Carolina specifically to pick up her boyfriend (which she did testify to) and then left for Colorado.

Paragraph 22 is a bunch of hooey. She talked to the children whenever she would call as long as they were awake. As a matter of fact, I called her over and over and over again in order to let the kids talk to her, and she would never answer her phone. I did not ask her to come back because I could not take care of the kids; I asked her to come back to SEE her kids because they missed her and didn't understand why mommy wasn't coming home. She did not "offer evidence" that she went to a domestic violence agency in Colorado; she simply testified that she did. The only part of that paragraph that is true is that she never thought I would ever seek custody of the children.

Paragraph 23 is correct.

Paragraph 24 is only partially true. She did sign the parenting agreement that allowed her very strict visitation; however, she could have seen the children before that if she would have COME BACK to see them. Kinda hard to see your kids when you're clear across the country, isn't it?

Paragraph 25 is correct. I met a woman online and went out with her. I was looking for new friends and companions, as I really didn't have any friends around me. All of my family lives far away and I had never really established a network of friends because I worked so much, so I was pretty much alone and going through hell.

Paragraph 26 is correct. The woman that I met online became a great friend and was actually looking for a new place to live. After we had known each other a few weeks and she became familiar with my situation, we discussed her moving into my home to help me care for my home and children as a live-in nanny. The house I lived in had an apartment in the basement complete with a kitchen and bathroom and a separate entrance, so it was perfect for her. She had another job, but it was one that she could do from home, so it worked out great. She moved in and began helping me care for the kids. She did all the cleaning and cooking, and also began helping me through the court process. She began doing this before my Ex even returned, when I had custody of the kids. After my Ex got custody back, she spent nights and weekends there even when the kids were not there because she LIVED there. There was never a romantic relationship between us.

Paragraph 27 states that I testified that the nanny slept in the basement (she had her own furniture down there) and that we were not romantic. The judge interviewed my 2 oldest children in his chambers. Ninety percent of the questions asked to them were about the nanny. And yes, I did testify that if my oldest son said he saw us together romantically he was either mistaken or lying. My oldest has had a major problem with lying for most of his life. My Ex even agreed and testified on the stand that he lies a lot.

The nanny spent an entire week in court and was not called to the stand until the very last day. My lawyer tried to get the judge to excuse her from her subpoena after the second day because she was missing work at her other job. When the judge asked my Ex's lawyer if he planned on having the nanny testify, his response was "I haven't decided yet." It was all a game to him.

On the stand, the nanny was made to testify about the nature of her relationship with me and my children and what duties she performed in my home. Then the line of questioning turned very personal. My Ex's lawyer began questioning her about her other job and asked her income. My lawyer did object to that because it was really not relevant at all, but the judge made her answer the question anyway. He also questioned her at great length about a refrigerator that she sold on craigslist. It was her fridge and she didn't need it anymore, so she sold it. A huge deal was made about why she sold it and for how much and what she did with the money. I still to this day have no idea what that had to do with the price of tea in China, but whatever. She, of course, was also asked about any romantic relationship she may be involved in.

Funny how none of that stuff is mentioned at all, isn't it? Perhaps that is because they were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and when that didn't work, they just swept it under the rug like it never happened. You see, my Ex wife is an insanely jealous woman. During our marriage, I was kept in a box. I could not go anywhere or do anything without her permission. I was not allowed to join a gym because there would be women there. If we were watching television and a Victoria's Secret commercial would come on, she would actually put her hand up to cover my eyes. No, not in a joking manner, she actually would not allow me to look at the TV until after the commercial was over.

You know what else wasn't stated in the court order? I testified, and the nanny testified, that I was dating at the time. That's right...I was dating other women. Actually, at the time of the trial, I had a girlfriend. So much for that theory!

This nanny was so wonderful at a time that I really needed help, and my kids absolutely loved her. She made sure they were always well fed and clean, and my house had never been cleaner! But all my Ex saw was another woman...which apparently automatically meant I was sleeping with her.

The reason I have spent so much time talking about the nanny is because I never mentioned her before now. You are going to hear her mentioned a lot in this blog, so I wanted you to get the background story.

Moving on....

Paragraph 28 is partially true. She hadn't seen them in over a month, but it wasn't because I wouldn't let her. I'm pretty sure we've covered this several times now.

Paragraph 29 is true. When she moved back from Colorado, she moved into the house on her parent's property that we had formerly lived in as a family.

Paragraph 30 is completely false. I've told you about that house already, remember? It was 900 SF at best and only had 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. It's an old house that was pretty run down. I would not at all classify it as "a nice home with multiple bedrooms and bathrooms."

Paragraph 31 is confusing. Yes, I had had the children since July. I did testify that I was not working at night as much as I had before my Ex and I separated, but frankly I didn't have to. My retail store had been closed for some time, so I only had the one location to worry about, and since my Ex was gone, I didn't have to work as much to support her spending habits. Not trying to be mean here, but she spent money ALL the time, mostly $5 here and $10 there. All that adds up over time, and no matter how hard I tried to explain to her that she was nickel and diming me to death, she just kept spending. After the initial dent when she cleaned out both bank accounts, with the help of family, friends, and some strangers, money suddenly was not nearly as tight as it always had been, and I was able to be home more than I ever had been able to before. A tape recording was played in court where I apparently said that I was going to work almost every night, but I remember the tape was very garbled and I could not say for certain that it was my voice on the tape. However, I do believe the recording was made shortly after she left, and if it was me on the tape, it would have been true because right after she left, I was working at night all the time because I had no money and had no choice.

Paragraph 32: Ahhh, the teachers. I almost want to laugh out loud at the next few paragraphs because they are full of inaccuracies, and also because, again, it really didn't matter. These teachers were made to miss work for, I believe, 2 days to testify in court, under subpoena, and in the end, what they said really had no bearing on the case at all.

One teacher taught my middle son the year prior and now had my youngest daughter in her classroom. The other was only a teacher's assistant who worked in the classroom across the hall and never taught either one of those two children. All I can say about them claiming the kids were dirty is that that is a load of bull. All the kids were always clean and had their hair combed before school, and they all did their homework every single night. Again, no evidence was entered to corroborate that my daughter wasn't doing her homework (by the way, she was in kindergarten, so homework pretty much didn't exist for her). As far as her being tired all the time, there is actually a running joke that she can sleep anytime, anywhere, and fall asleep at the drop of a hat. I once found her in my kitchen lying across 2 stools, sound asleep. It was so funny that I even took a picture of it! What it doesn't say is that the teachers also said that my children weren't "in style". Huh? Ok, so a 5 and 7-year-old are apparently supposed to be in high fashion. I guess clothes from The Gap just aren't good enough. Who knew?

As to them being excited to see their mom, I'm sure they were! She had only been gone for 5 months and had barely seen them. What kids wouldn't be excited?

Paragraph 33 is more of the same. And yes, my Ex did a lot at the school before she took off, but she was a stay-at-home mom. Is it really a surprise that she would spend time in their classrooms? Oops! They mentioned in there that I actually went and ate lunch at the school with my kids several times. Who let that slip in there?

Paragraph 34 is again more of the same. They were trying to paint her in a "mother of the year" light to try and make me look like a terrible father and try to shift focus off of what she had done. Apparently it worked.

Paragraph 35 outlines testimony from a neighbor that we had several years before in another town. I don't really put much stock in her testimony at all and was confused as to why she was even there, except to again try to make it look like I could care less about my kids and was never around to care for them. All I can say is that this woman didn't live with us, and if she had that much knowledge about the goings-on at my home, perhaps I should have been concerned about a stalker. She certainly sounded in her testimony like she watched every move that I made.

Paragraph 36: Yes, she was the primary caregiver of the children because I worked and she didn't. Well, she was the primary caregiver until she abandoned them, but who's keeping score here? We're supposed to forget about that, remember?

Paragraph 37: "Best interest of the children". Yeah, ok. We'll see how that works out as this blog continues.

Paragraph 38: The puppies. Oh my word, the puppies. This was brought up in almost EVERY single court hearing. We had 2 Golden Retrievers that we bred on occasion and would sell the puppies for extra income. We had been doing this for quite some time before she left. Well, AFTER she left, my female went into heat and one of the kids opened the gate, and well, you can figure out the rest. I took the litter up north to sell them because, frankly, you can get more money up north for them. My Ex wanted that money. All $2400.00 of it (I guess the $2000 she took from the bank accounts just wasn't enough). My lawyer actually fought hard on this issue (for once) and stated that because the conception occurred after date of separation, my Ex had no claim to the proceeds from the sale of the puppies. The judge didn't know what to do (there was a brief discussion between the judge and 2 lawyers about crops and farms and some such that still makes no sense to me), so it just kept getting put off and put off. To this day a ruling has never been made regarding whether or not she had any rights to any of that money. The money was put aside in my lawyer's trust account...and you'll see what happens to it later.

So there you have it. We were granted joint legal custody of the children with her having primary placement. The judge declared that she have primary care because she had been the one to care for them most of their lives. What she did never mattered one bit. The fact that she would up and leave her children for another man and disappear for 5 months seemed to be no big deal to the judge.

You can see the visitation schedule that I am supposed to have outlined, and to this day it remains in effect except that we mutually agreed to change my Wednesday visitation to Thursday.

Tomorrow will mark 6 weeks since I have seen my kids.

I know this is a very long post, and I hope you were able to stick with me through it. Coming up, we will talk about child support, post-separation support, contempt of court charges, more restraining orders, and my children disappearing.

Buckle in, it's going to be a bumpy ride!