Gabriel's iPod, and Sage's calls

Desiree:

1. It is not necessary for us to agree on a definition for "necessity"
because it is already clearly defined and generally accepted in a legal
context.  Check any dictionary and you will find something like the
following: "something that is absolutely needed, or required".  There
are three basic necessities for human existence: food, shelter, and
clothing.  And for children, there are two more which the parents are
responsible for: education and medical care.

Ah, forget it, I'm tired of having to teach you the law.  All of these
stupid games you're playing are going to show the court what you really
are come September.  Are you really going to try to convince that court
that you don't consider clothing a basic necessity for your child?
You're such a fucking idiot.  Oh, I'm sorry - that's my opinion.

2. Regarding the payment for the medical care: again, you're proving to
the court the kind of parent you really are.  Your obligation is to pay
the percentage of the medical expenses proportionate to our respective
incomes.  Right now I have no income and you have almost $60K.  That
means that you are required to pay for the entire cost of that trip to
the hospital.  The 50% thing was me being reasonable.  But fuck being
reasonable anymore, if you're going to continue with these incredibly
ill-advised games and tactics then to hell with you - I'm fed up with
trying to be reasonable then having to deal with this kind of stupidity.
Anyway, I've sent you a copy of the bill and you refuse to pay anything
toward it.  It doesn't matter if you think I'm going to use the money
for myself or pay the bill - the court is going to see your actions as a
blatant refusal to accept your responsibilities.  See, if you sent me
the money and I used on it myself and didn't pay the bill then you could
complain to the court, however, you cannot just refuse to pay your part
based on an unfounded claim that I'm going to use the money for myself.
Again, that's not how the law works.  Where do you get your legal advise
from?  I bet if you told an attorney what you are doing he would tell
you to immediately stop.  But go ahead and keep playing your games.
You're doing an excellent job of shooting yourself in the foot. 

Please try to limit your response to point which are relevant.

Fox
		

Desiree:

In response to your declaration that you have not refused to contribute
to anything when Gabriel is not with you because you have complied with
every request for monetary assistance: I hereby submit to you a written,
formal request for financial assistance for Gabriel's well being,
medical care and education.  Based on your income of $58,000 a year and
Gabriel's current and upcoming expenses I believe that $500 a month is
more than reasonable.  This is an all inclusive amount and cover's his
food, clothing, shelter, tuition, transportation, et cetera.  You can
accept this amount or refuse it, but in the long run it will be a hell
of a lot lower than what you will have to pay when you factor in his
private school tuition, university tuition (that's only 7 years away),
the cost of his portion of rent when I move back to Redondo Beach or
Marina del Rey (or where ever I move to).  As it stands at this moment
the court is going to order you to pay about $713 a month until I start
working.  That's more than $200 a month higher than what I'm requesting.

And you can forget about your unfounded and ridiculous claims that you
don't trust me and you believe I'm going to use the money for myself.
First, you have no basis for that claim.  You can show no history of me
doing anything like that.  Second, I have always made sure that Gabriel
has been provided for, even when I haven't had enough for myself.  No
one can point to one time I put myself before Gabriel, to his detriment.
Third, the amount that you pay, or will be ordered by the court to pay,
is deemed to be an average.  If you pay $500 a month I am not required
to spend that entire $500 each month.  Some expenses come up every 6
months or 12 months and that monthly payment is also supposed to cover
those.  Whatever doesn't get spent stays in his savings account until it
is required.  Fourth, I am smart enough to keep receipts for everything
that the money is used for so that when you make your ridiculous and
unfounded claims that I am using the money for myself I can show exactly
where every cent has gone.  Of course, I would expect that you would do
the same.

You also suggest, [above], that you will not have the $2.50 it would cost
to send Gabriel his iPod until you receive your next paycheck.  Are you
serious?  I figured you were living paycheck to paycheck (it's the WT
way, after all), but am I to believe that you've been working,
full-time, for the same huge company, for 4 years, receiving the highest
raises possible each year (that's your own boast, by the way) yet you
have been unable to save a single penny?  And you have the audacity to
try insult me because of my current financial hardship?  At least I have
an excuse - I've been in custody for 4 years and have an unexplainable
hole in my resume.  What could possibly be your excuse.  Sorry, I'm not
trying to insult you, I'm just a little shocked that at $58k, with the
Phoenix cost of living, that you have been unable to accumulate ANY
savings over a 4 year period.

And, I was going to inform you that there is no connection between a
parent's obligation to provide financial support for their child and
that parent's right to visit or spend time with the child...but I'm
tired of trying to teach you the law.  Go look it up yourself.  The two
are completely separate issues before the court and one does not affect
the other.  Many parents figure they'll stop paying their child support
because the other parent is making it difficult to see the child.  You
know what happens?  The parent that stops paying support goes to jail
for up to 6 months for contempt of court.  I have not done a single
thing to interfere with your contact with Gabriel (once again, I am the
one responsible for putting you two in contact).  My petition to require
supervised visitation is based on your drug use, and now on the very
credible belief that you are a bad parent - based on the details of
yours and Kristopher's arrests.  Contrary to your claims that you keep
your drugs in a safe, secure place where the children cannot get at
them, the police report states the drugs were in the vanity in your room
- not locked up.  If they were locked up then the police wouldn't have
been able to find them, would they?  Do you disagree with my concerns?
If the situation were reversed and I was doing something that you
believed put Gabriel in danger would you take no action?  You
consistently tell the court that I'm putting Gabriel in danger because I
can be arrested at any time and deported (meanwhile, you and Kristopher
are the one's getting arrest - nice job).  Nevertheless, as I've said,
if you quit using drugs and could show that you were not keeping drugs
anywhere that Gabriel could come in contact with them, and that your are
not engaging in activities which could result in you being arrested (or
Kristopher being arrested while Gabriel is with him) then I would have
no problem with his visitation schedule.


Fox