The Psycho Ex Wife

Have your own psycho ex? Get a FREE Report on "Why Co-Parenting Doesn't Work", or learn how to win child custody with a custody coach.

It’s hard for me to convey just how exasperating it is when something that should be so simple can be blown up for the most specious of reasons.  It’s hard for me to justify on behalf of the court why things cannot simply be kept simple.

Here’s a summary of what should have happened and what actually did happen.

The Facts as We Know Them:

PEW and I now make fairly close to the same income.  The disparity is so slight that the income “equalizes” at approximately $130.00, which is how much money I have to pay in order for both households to have the same income, which is what sometimes happens when the custody arrangement is 50/50.  Due to this reality, the burden for all of the other necessary expenses (childcare and healthcare) are shared equally.

There is no disputing this.

Regarding childcare for the school year, now that I have an actual total for the actual costs for the school year from the provider, we are in agreement that the figure is what I presented to the court.

There is no disputing this.

Regarding health insurance for the children, we disagree on which health insurance should cover the children.  However, we are in agreement as to the costs associated with the state’s health insurance plan and my employment health insurance plan.  I know that the plan offered by the job is far superior to the plan offered by the state, not that the state plan isn’t wonderful when you have no other opportunities to obtain insurance at reasonable cost.

While we disagree on the cost/benefit associated with each plan, there is no disputing the costs for one or the other.

That’s all that needs to be considered.  Armed with this information, here are what should have been the possible outcomes:

OPTION 1: This was what I intended to request of the court for reasons that will be summarized after…

1. $130.00 dollars flows from me to PEW due to the income difference.
2. I am given responsibility for paying the childcare provider.  Half of the cost flows from PEW to me.
3. I cover the children with my excellent work plan.  Half of the cost flows from PEW to me.

With Item 1, there is no issue.  With item 2, the issue is that she has been in arrears for fully 2 years, sometimes quite substantially - we’re talking many months behind.  I believe I can keep current with the provider and eliminate any risks that childcare will no longer be offered because PEW won’t pay.  With Item 3, it’s a simple dispute.  My plan offers superior coverage, but comes at a cost that is approximately $200/month more than the state plan.  The end result is that PEW would pay me some form of “child support” in the form of her half of the costs of the childcare and health insurance less the amount above for the difference in income.  For the sake of round figures, that amount would be approximately $125/month.

Pretty sound reasoning.  If the court disagreed with my reasoning, then…

OPTION 2:

(more…)

It is no secret that some of the most downtrodden of fathers in our family court system come from the military. While off in other lands fighting wars on behalf of the freedom of others - on the home front, they’re not often given any protection when their spouse chooses to file for divorce in his absence. Oftentimes, that divorce is granted. Oftentimes, he doesn’t even know about it until he comes home from combat to find:

• He’s lost his family.
• He’s lost his children.
• He’s lost his home and all of his other assets.
• He’s a fugitive from justice for failure to pay child support while in combat.
• He’s credit is destroyed.
• That those he volunteered to help defend with his life, couldn’t give a rat’s ass about his predicament.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act provides that - if a parent moves with a child(ren) to a new state, that new state becomes the child’s presumptive residence after six months. Unfortunately, the grim reality for military personnel is that deployments for war are often much longer than 6-months. In effect, a military spouse can move to another state while her spouse is deployed, divorce him, and then be almost guaranteed to gain custody of the child(ren) through the divorce proceedings in the new state. All of this is done in his absence. All of this is done while he is in no position to fight it. All of this is done with the help and because of the greed of our Family Court System.

There is almost nothing an enlisted man can do to stop it, either. Though the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act affords military personnel some small measures of protection while they are deployed (unavailable prior to 2003), the devastating impact on such circumstances is resulting in ever-increasing numbers of suicides by military personnel who are left homeless, without their children, with unreasonable child support orders, and in poverty because a wife decided to cut & run with the children, the money, the assets - everything - while he was deployed during war.

I urge you to spend the 5-1/2 minutes to watch this very powerful video - a tribute to a fallen hero, a decorated soldier and Purple-Heart Award recipient.

Thanks to SDDAD who brought this to our attention and offered the following commentary:

I work as a police dispatcher for mid size community in So Cal. I see and hear all sorts of things that usually just flow over me with very little reaction. It is a coping mech that helps us deal with the heartache and pain we deal with on a daily basis. Being a military town, one of the things that comes through our phones every now and then is the service member that comes home from deployment to find his (or her) spouse has left with the children. It is heart breaking. Somebody sent me this video the other day and it actually brought me to tears.

Warning, this is a very moving and sad clip. It is not graphic in any sense other than that message it projects. But should you watch it…when you are done, please pay tribute to those that serve their country. Everything we have is due to their service and sacrifice.

To the men and women serving in our armed forces…THANK YOU!

It brought tears to my eyes, too.  We really appreciate you sharing this.  I recently sat down and spoke at length with an enlisted man about this site and what we try to do in helping others through tough times.  This occurred about 2-weeks ago.  I promised him that I would do some posts to bring light to the special suffering that is brought upon “many of my friends in the military” (his words) who are going through just such situations and need help.

SDDAD gave us a powerful way to start.

Thanks again to the men and women who serve in our armed forces. You endure enough with your work and should not have to be treated so awfully when you return.  Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

The following story is offered with the understanding that I have not checked the facts in the story.  I don’t know the names of those involved in the story.  It is simply another to toss on the growing pile of stories that can best be described as “horror stories.” I choose to post it because it’s all too believable.

Andem4, a reader, writes:

Not sure if I mentioned this story before, but a former close friend of mine was married to a guy with a serious PEG (Psycho Ex-Girlfriend).  The PEG was a drug addict, worked for cash under the table, collected all kinds of state assistance, plus a huge amount in child support.  They were in Canada.

My friend had 2 children with her husband.  They managed to buy a small house, and his PEG saw dollar signs.  She filed for a support increase, including back payments.  Since the government was paying her all kinds of benefits since she was “poor single mom,” they jumped on the bandwagon of making the father pay it all.  They not only calculated support based on his “household income” (both his and my friend’s), but they looked at all assets he had (the house) and granted her 33%.

She had alienated the child against my friend (step-mom) from the start, and when the kid hit teen years, the alienation extended to the father.

When the final appeal failed, they were forced to sell their house and move in with my friend’s mother.  My friend had asked the judge in the case about how her children were expected to be taken care of when their household income was going to the PEG.  The response from the judge was, “He shouldn’t have had anymore children. The first born child always comes first.”

So they were broke, homeless, and facing a huge bill of about $30,000 in arrears for the years of backpayment.  At the time, my friend made a little more than $30k/yr, while her DH made $50k as mechanic.  The small amount of equity from the sale of the house all went to PEG.  The worst part was that the child was the product of a one-night-stand the guy had when he was 20, and she told him she was on birth control (a lie).  He tried to make a go of it with her, but did not marry her.  He left when the child was about 3, and met my friend when the child was 5.

The final straw was when a man they knew going through a similar issue killed himself.  He could not face putting his family through anymore of the nightmare, so he ended it. That was actually the second suicide in the area of this type.  My friend asks to meet me at a shopping mall.  There she tells me they are leaving the country and going into hiding.  She said she couldn’t tell me where, nor would she be able to contact me once gone.  All ties with family were going to be cut so no one would be able to find them.  Shortly after that, they were gone.

I did hear from her about a year later.  They established themselves in a place that would not enforce extraditing him for the child support.  They had a VERY hard life there, but at least they could feed their kids and were able to go day to day without the nightmare.  She also told me some of the family had been hounded by the PEG, but she somehow managed to keep her lifestyle without collecting the $30,000.  I guess the government continued to take care of her and her heroin addiction.

I haven’t heard from her in over 4 years, and I have no way to reach her.  I hope they have managed to get a decent life for themselves, PEG free.

Given the sheer volume of stories like this I see, both privately (via internet contact) and even in the media - this isn’t hard to believe.

My observations:

• I’m fairly familiar with the reality that in some countries, fathers have it even worse than here in terms of child support, child custody, and spousal support (alimony).  Canada is certainly one of those places.
• Men are more than 4-times more likely to commit suicide than women.  It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that a sizeable chunk of those victims did so out of the stress and hopelessness associated with trying to obtain reasonable custody of their children and pay a reasonable child support figure.
• Sadly, this guy was another foolish victim of the “I’m on the pill” gags and lead with his penis rather than his brain on the night in question.  For that, he and that child will be burdened for the rest of their lives.
• I firmly believe that if you want to have an effective deterrent to teenage sexual activity or any irresponsible sexual activity - these are the types of stories that would go a long way towards scaring the shit out of kids today.

And the saga continues… from our previous installment: “You’ve Been Served”

Let me start by saying that sometimes, attorneys just completely surprise you.  I spent nearly an hour consulting with my attorney about the current circumstances and the experience at the support conference.  In addition to some positive information, the consultation ended with her telling me, “Nope, no payment.  Free of charge.  Have a great day!” My attorney, who we’ll call D-Mac, made my day.  Not bad for not having seen her for the better part of the last 2-years.  Also, it’s moments like these where I’m glad I didn’t just tell her that her services were no longer needed back then.  So, despite all of my pro-se appearances in the last few years, she remains my attorney of record at my request.

Long story short… she was confounded by the actions and comments from the officer and can’t understand why no recommendation was made regardless of what we assume to be her beliefs.  Bottom line, we’re correct with a few open questions that I hope to get resolved today.  If not, they’ll be resolved at the hearing.

I laid out all of the details regarding the current situation.  The lay-off, the ongoing job-hunt, the unemployment compensation, the current garnishment at the old order’s rate, the 50/50 custody arrangement, and my understanding of the state statutes.  Armed with that information, she ran the numbers through the software with and without the childcare/healthcare expenses included, and the figures came out of the PC and matched our hand-calculations TO THE DOLLAR! No misunderstanding there.  Her and I are in agreement on what the next iteration of the child support order is to be.  Also, keep in mind that these are calculations that do not included the assumed approximate income that PEW is getting in rent from Psycho-SIL.  We discussed that issue briefly and D-Mac said, “If that exists, you go for it.  It’s obvious that if the shoe were on the other foot, she would do the same.  It’s income.”

The only open-ended issue here was how the court will treat my petition for a child support modification.  D-Mac prefaced her words (unfortunately) with, “I understand what the statutes say, but that won’t necessarily be how the courts do it here.  Your petition may be treated as a request to vacate the current order.” Rather than waste time debating what the statutes say…

Without regard to which parent initiated the support action, when the children spend equal time with both parents, the Part II formula cannot be applied unless the payor is the parent with the higher income. In no event shall an order be entered requiring the parent with the lower income to pay basic child support to the parent with the higher income.

(and)

Because the parties share custody equally, Mother cannot be the payee for purposes of the Part II calculation because she has the higher income of the two parents. In these circumstances, although Mother initiated the support action, she would become the payor even if Father has not filed for support.

…we moved on.  She said that it shouldn’t stop me from arguing that the current request for modification should be treated as you claim, but in an effort to keep all bases covered, I should file separately a petition requesting child support.  My situation is justified for doing so.

In addition, she strongly recommended that I go up to the court house and meet with the “Officer of the Day.”  Her only caveat, “Make sure the Officer of the Day isn’t Lacey.” (She has a sense of humor, too.)  The OOD is there to discuss matters pertaining to support matters outside of a formal conference.  D-Mac suggested to explain the predicament, claim I don’t know what to do, and find out what the OOD suggests in terms of the correct course of action based upon your understanding of the statutes.

I may not get any help, but the suggestion to see the OOD is a good one.  Just another potential bit of information that will help or otherwise guide how I approach things at the hearing.  I may just file a separate action today anyway, because we’re assuming if that’s the proper way to go about it, that means the support action will only be retroactive to today.

So, I received confirmation that my understanding of the statutes and how the order should calculate are correct.  Our numbers and the attorney’s calculations matched exactly.  The question now becomes, how will the court handle it?  That, as I’ve said before, could be a crap-shoot - we’ll soon see.

Now, I leave for the courthouse.  Good day to you all.

Next installment:  The Officer of the Day

You didn’t really think I was going to come back to the blog after the Child Support Conference and post that everything went as it I believe it should have, did you? Well, the conference was yesterday and today is the continuation from our last installment: Job Loss/Child Support Update: 4/3/2009.  An excerpt:

Long-story short, barring a change on the job front, PEW will have to pay child support to me for the time being. This assumes that neither the conference officer or subsequently the judge (if it comes to a hearing) deviates from the state statutes - always a possibility.

Or perhaps they may not even know that the hell the statutes are.  That’s how it appeared from today’s experience, but there is always a chance that I am wrong.

The conference started normally enough, with each of us entering the conference room representing our own interests.  I learned fairly soon after incredible expense that taking an attorney to sit and await being called into a conference where one party will object and schedule a hearing was a tremendous waste of money.  I wonder if it’s a coincidence that, without representation, we typically are seen within 30-minutes of our arrival?  Not so when I’ve been there with a lawyer.  When you check-in, they ask, “Do you have an attorney with you today?” Hmmm…   Another observation: Anytime PEW and I have been there with attorneys, they are called in without us and conference for a while, then we are called.  I think I’m onto something here.  Don’t you?  But, back to the topic at hand…

We go through the normal process of turning in our paystubs, W-2s, other mindless paperwork that serves no apparent useful purpose in the process.  She asks the usual questions… Are you actively seeking employment?  Do you have any other sources of income?  Any rental income? Nothing too earth-shattering.  Yes, I am actively seeking employment.  No, I don’t have any other sources of income.  PEW has her, well, “PEW face” on.  That red-faced, obstinent, indignant look of utter disgust that always precipitates a meltdown.  I’m stoic and just looking at the Support Master, who we’ll refer to as Lacey.  For the record, of the combined net income, my unemployment is approximately 45% and PEW’s 55%.

• Assumption bias #1: At no time did she ask PEW if she had any other sources of income.  At no time did she ask PEW if she had any rental income… or any of the other items that escape my mind at the moment.  Lacey only asked me.

Lacey runs the numbers through her program and out it spits the data.  She turns to us and says, “Mister-M, your child support is actually going to go up.  To $600/month.” (Rounded to make typing easier).  I look at her and say, calmly, “Lacey, how is that even possible?  She is making more money that I am at the moment and we’re in a shared custody situation - 50/50.  That simply can’t be correct.”

• Assumption bias #2 - She didn’t ask who had custody.  I could have been the primary custodial parent.  It could be a 50/50 situation.  Nope, she just plugged the data in as if I were the classic non-custodial parent in a mom-as-primary custody situation, the norm in this country.

Surprised, she exclaims, “Oh!  You guys are doing 50/50?  I didn’t know that!  Let me make some adjustments here.”

I temporarily breathe a sigh of relief, but PEW already starts to chirp, “Are you thinking that *I* am going to have pay *YOU* child support?  You’re joking, right?” I ignore her.  I know you can hear her tone and see the smug look on her face, so I’ll dispense with writing a description.

After making the appropriate adjustment, Lacey turns to us and, to my amazement, says, “Mister-M, the child support figure will go down to $100.”

This is where the mini-fireworks display starts.  No, I didn’t lose my cool.  PEW did.  A couple of times, without losing her composure, Lacey seemed to contribute in a couple of weird ways.  I light the fuse by saying calmly, “Lacey, I don’t understand.  We’re in a 50/50 custody situation, I’m currently making less money than her, and I’m not sure I understand how I should be paying anything under the circumstances.  Can you help me understand?”

PEW interrupts with a similar comment as before, “Are you expecting me to pay you child support?  No way.  That will never happen!” In addition, she started to go into one of her mindless rants, which included comments as follows, in no particular order, but still one after the other:

• Why are you doing this to us?
• You have other hidden income that I already know about and I have an attorney that is going to investigate you fully for me and do it for free!
• I’ve already faced foreclosure once and it’s not fair that I could be facing that again because you can’t keep a job.
• You should just move back to [home-state] and I’ll take care of the kids.  My house is better than your 2-room apartment anyway.  You can just pay your child support and I’ll let you see them anytime you want.
• More…

My only reply to PEW was, “None of that stuff is relevant.  Must you always go through such an embarrassing display when we have to come to events like this?” She replied in the affirmative, like a petulant child.  Lacey chimes in and the rest of the discussion goes something like this…

“Mister-M, you’re not seriously expecting that PEW is going to pay you child support, are you?  Because that’s not going to happen.”

• Assumption Bias #3: How dare a father expect a mother to pay child support!  The woman will never have to pay child support and my mere implication that a woman may actually have to pay garnered a reaction as if I had just spontaneously grown another head right there in the room.

Mister-M: “Lacey, I’m not an attorney and I’m not fully versed on the exact language of the statutes, but I’ve read them very closely and that is simply not my understanding of how things work in a 50/50 custody arrangement.  In fact, I’m pretty convinced that the statutes expressly state that under no circumstances in a 50/50 shared custody arrangement will the lower wage earner ever pay the higher wage earner child support.”

Lacey: “Mister-M, that’s not correct.  PEW will not ever pay you child support.  That’s not the way it works.  Are you expecting her to pay child support?  I mean, this figure of $100 isn’t even child support, it would just be your percentage of the childcare.

Mister-M: “Lacey, I’m expecting nothing more right now than to understand the child support guidelines and statutes for a 50/50 shared custody arrangement.  If I’m misunderstanding the language of the statutes, I would greatly appreciate you setting me straight on what the rules are in such a situation where one parent is making less money than the other.”

I will take a time-out here to share with you some of the language in our statutes so that you can see what I have studied with inconsequential sections removed:

(D) Reduced Income.

(2) Involuntary Reduction of Income. Appropriate adjustments will be made for substantial continuing involuntary decreases in income, including but not limited to the example 1, example 2, lay-off, termination, job elimination or other employment situation over which the party has no control.

That covers the situation I am currently in with regard to the involuntary job loss. However, there is more…

(more…)