You be the judge

Great Debates
1

Something completely screwed up the prior incarnation of this thread, started by Mikeylikesit. It added a blank message as the OP, with a blank subject, etc. I had to delete the whole thing. I saved the posts though. Here they are, all crammed into one:

MikeylikesIT posted 01-10-2000 01:15 PM CT (US)

I was reading a piece of legal work this morning about a case currently in the California court system, and I want you opinions. Some of the summarized details are as follows:

Jeff and his Wife Joni, dated for 3 years before their marriage in 95. They then had their first child in 97, second in 98. Joni stayed at home and was a “country club mommy” so to say a big spender and gossip, but never about the house, nor very domestic.
At any given time that Jeff would try to reach her, she was never available even by pager and cell phone. Soon she complained that jeffs income of 82,000 annualy wasnt enough, and that he should either work harder or ask for a raise. He was puzzled, as aside from their vehicles and home they had nothing to show for the substantial income he made. Thus he hired a PI to see where she went and where his money went.

Turns out Joni was leading a double life, in which she was “dating” her high school sweetheart, of modest means, for the past 6 years. She had bought a home with him and lived with him from 9am to 6pm. His name was Arnold. At Arnolds, she cooked and cleaned daily, and often Arnold took days off to come home and have sex with her. He even believed he was the father of both children. Arnold thought she had a night job that went from 8Pm to 5Am and that she worked at a local restaurant as the night chef.

Jeff became enraged by this information and moved her out while she was out one day. He also filed for a divorce, based on her infidelity and breach of his trust.

She counterfiled and said he drove her to it, and that she is owed support and spousal payment, as she helped him attain all he had in life.

During the first days of trial the children were brought in, and asked to identify their parents and undergo counseling. They identified Arnold as their father (Paternity tests show Jeff to be really the father), and Jeff as their “babysitter”. They also mentioned that their mother has maligned and fed bad stories about Jeff from the time they could understand her. After hearing this, Jeff filed a petition, to owe no support of any kind at any time in the future or now, as he feels betrayed and the children dont even recognize him. He states that the usurping Arnold can now foot the bill for his deeds.

Jeffs attorney claims that Joni entered into a legally binding contract (marriage) under false pretenses, and misled purposely, and also redirected (stole) money from him to fund her other life and other husband.

Jonis Attorney says she was driven to this, despite evidence that her affair lasted longer and was started before her marriage. He says his client was never given attention or lovve, and that she was getting even with Jeff, for his suspected adultery. Adultery no one can substantiate.

Say you are the judge, what do you do and why?

PeeQueue posted 01-10-2000 01:22 PM CT (US)

Well, it seems that if Jeff was really just there to provide money to the adulteress and her boyfriend. I say just remove him from the equation since there is no reason he should continue to support them. If the kids recognize the other guy as the father, and Jeff agrees to let them go; they should live with them as well. If the boyfriend makes a reasonable salary, there is no need for child suport even.

I’m sure there may be more to this story, but based on those facts, that’s what I think.

PeeQueue

Navigator posted 01-10-2000 01:26 PM CT (US)

Divorce granted.
full custody wife.
no child support or alimony.
but I ain’t no vip… errrrr attorney…

† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13

Mullinator posted 01-10-2000 01:28 PM CT (US)

Wow, it’s amazing what happens in real life.
My ruling
Give him the divorce
She takes the kids
No support of any kind
And Jeff is left with a wide open lawsuit to try and get some of his hard-earned money back.

You can feel free to call me Mr. Tied for 26th place on the favorite poster’s list.

cher3 posted 01-10-2000 01:31 PM CT (US)

Life imitates bad made-for-TV movies.
Well, I suppose, since they were married in California, half of everything was hers anyway, so she can’t be accused of “stealing” the money. (I’m not saying this is fair, just my understanding of community property.) I’m thinking that any half-way decent lawyer could make sure that she doesn’t get much in the way of support after the divorce, though. It’s going to be an interesting custody battle for the kids.

MikeylikesIT posted 01-10-2000 01:41 PM CT (US)

So far I agree with all of you, no support, get rid of her, and sadly he loses his kids.
As far as more details, thats basically it, nothing more, nothing less, i gave em all.

So no one out there will defend her in any way?? NOW says she had the right to do this, as men arent the only ones who can behave in this “manner”, and that this liberated woman, was only watching out for “numero uno”. They also feel she should get full support until such time she is educated at a level that can sustain the lifestyle she has become accustomed to.

Any thoughts?

ChrisCTP posted 01-10-2000 01:52 PM CT (US)

I agree on all points but one: regardless who they think is their father, there is no goddamn way in hell I would allow that woman to raise those kids. This woman is not a good influence, she’s clearly very selfish and a liar and a thief to boot. Not the kind of person who should be given the responsibility of two children. Their real father, whom they at least KNOW, even if they don’t realize that he’s their dad, should be given full custody with child support.

Course, I’m not the law, but if I were king of the world, that’s the way it’d be done.

“Fester, fester, fester…rot, rot, rot.”

ChrisCTP posted 01-10-2000 02:01 PM CT (US)

I’m assuming that “They” are the woman and her attorney, and not the court. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, please.

Ok, “the lifestyle she has become accustomed to”?? Nuh-uh. No. From the OP, it seems that the lifestyle she is accustomed to is that of a philaderer and a corrupter of children. In no way, shape or form does she deserve any monetary support from him. That includes their home and it’s contents (aside from things that she brought into the marriage), vehicles…I’d even go so far as to say that their bank accounts and any investments should be off-limits to her unless she can prove that she contributed to such purchases and investments.

I’m curious, where does Arnold stand on all this?

“Fester, fester, fester…rot, rot, rot.”

Libertarian posted 01-10-2000 02:04 PM CT (US)

From the Court of Libertaria:
Divorce granted to Jeff.

Jeff gets the kids.

Joni goes to prison.

“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

Arnold Winkelried posted 01-10-2000 02:13 PM CT (US)

Before you notice that my username is Arnold, and that I live in California, let me say “Don’t jump to any conclusions!”
My verdict:
Jeff gets the kids.
Joni gets the minimum that she is entitled to by law.

But based on your description above, it seems that Jeff doesn’t want to have anything to do with his kids? I feel sorry for the kids. It sounds like both of their parents are jerks.

P.S. How can a person be that ignorant of their S.O.'s life anyway? I have gone to visit my girlfriend at work, met her for

2

So on we go, and thank you DAVIDB. :slight_smile:

3

this seems too crazy not to be on the net somewhere. can someone provide a link please??

so you found a girl who thinks really deep thoughts. what’s so amazing about really deep thoughts? Tori Amos

4

The case was just opened a week ago, and the only reason i know of it is because the DA is my neighbor. We were talking over the back fence, right before we were distracted by our other neighbors lewd acts with household items. I love that woman, she makes us laugh so hard. anyways , sorry :slight_smile:

5

Damn the man, lost my first reply.

Oh well.

If I’d my druthers…
Arnold gets disappointed and maybe a new life.

Joni goes to prison and starts paying Jeff back for all the money she stole from him.

Jeff gets his money (eventually) and starts his love life over.

The kids go to counseling, find out that a)Their mother was a pretty sick bigamist, b) their ‘father’ wasn’t, c) their ‘babysitter’ was, and go to a healthy, happy, foster home.

Of course, Joni will probably get the kids, marry Albert, start doing drugs, kill the kids, and go to a mental institution five years from now.

It’s a soap opera made real. How sick.

6

And so that’s a reason to justify condemning the kids to live a life of poverty, mmm? To allow Jeff to walk away from any responsibility to these children that he fathered. Wow.

Where the hell was he while these kids were being raised? How old are they? They thought he was “the babysitter,” eh? So how much time did he spend with them, how much involvement did he have in their lives? So much that he’s now willing to throw them away, apparently. But nah, he’s just the innocent dupe in all this.

Sure, the mom is scum. That doesn’t justify the man being scum to his own kids, too.

-Melin

7

I have GOT to read about this. Where is it happening? The local paper surely will have court coverage. If not the AP…

Felice

“Everything, once understood, is trivial.” -WES

8

Mikey, is your neighbor the actual District Attorney, or an assistant DA?

And if an assistant, is he/she the one handling the case?

  • Rick
9

My judgement:

  1. Divorce granted.
  2. Joni and Arnold deserve each other, and nothing more.
  3. Children remanded to the custody of the mother (who, unlike the father, apparently wants them - scumbag though she seems to be).
  4. Child support awarded, commensurate with the father’s (Arnold’s) income; the money to be placed in escrow and used only for tuition at accredited educational institutions and on school supplies until the kiddies are eighteen, at which point any remaining funds pass to the control of the children and the support obligation ends.
  5. All parties involved to be whacked on the back of the head with a week-old haddock. Two whacks for Joni.
  6. Free beer for all court officers, at the state’s expense, for having to deal with this foolishness.
10

sigh

Given the way courts normally divide up property after a divorce, I wouldn’t be surprised if Joni winds up with everything Jeff currently owns, plus child support, plus alimony payments to keep her in the lifestyle to which she’d become accustomed.

And then she can force Arnold to pay the same amount in a Palimony suit.

Not that I’m bitter.

11

Y’know, the more I read the OP, the more skeptical I get. First off, it states that the kids were born in 1997 and 1998, but that they were “brought in” and asked who their father was, and that they made these remarkably coherent statements about who daddy was and the bad things that were said about Jeff.

Yeah, right. The first kid is not quite three, and the second kid is not two, and we’re supposed to believe this? I believe that paternity blood or DNA tests were done, but I doubt IN THE EXTREME that anybody in the court system asked these kids who their daddy was.

-Melin

12

To continue in the vein that Melin raises and support Cecil’s proud tradition of skepticism:
MikeyLikesIT says:

and

Well, which is it, Mikey? Is it a documented legal document you were reading, is it a bit of gossip you heard from your neighbor, or are you pulling our leg entirely?

Felice

“Everything, once understood, is trivial.” -WES

13

Whoops, I’ve been working for the Department of Redundancy Department too long. I meant ‘a documented legal case’.

14

They also feel she should get full support until such time she is educated at a level that can sustain the lifestyle she has become accustomed to.

Seems to me she already knows how to support the lifestyle she is accustomed to, although the negative publicity might make it difficult for her to find another well-to-do man to screw.

Besides, if she did get child support, she’d probably just spend much of it on herself, being the thieveng scumbag that she is.

Where the hell was he while these kids were being raised? How old are they? They thought he was “the babysitter,” eh? So how much time did he spend with them, how much involvement did he have in their lives? So much that he’s now willing to throw them away, apparently. But nah, he’s just the innocent dupe in all this.

Weren’t you paying attention? The OP stated that she lived at Arnold’s place from 9 to 6 (presumably the time Jeff was at work), and it’s a safe assumption that she probably took the kids with her. There’s also the matter of her filling their heads with bullshit about their father as soon as they were old enough to understand.

Now, there is a serious dilemma about what to do with the kids. The mother is a low-down, lying, selfish, two-timing bitch who couldn’t possibly be a good influence, but thanks to Joni, the kids see Jeff as nothing more than a babysitter, and for that matter one they have no respect for. The best thing I can hope for is that after counseling, the kids learn to see Jeff as their father, and as a result he decides to take them.

Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

15

I think the only bullshit around here is in the OP.

So let’s assume that the “facts” set forth there are correct. If she lived at Arnold’s from 9 to 6 or whatever, that means she (and the kids) were at Jeff’s the other times. Was he playing with them, feeding them, giving them baths, being “daddy” to them? And how could he not know that they allegedly were being given bad ideas about him if he spent any significant time with them?

And who, pray tell, if both these guys thought they were the daddy, was at the hospital when the kids were born, and who brought her and the babies home to which house? And while she was busy having baby number 2, where was baby number 1, and with whom.

More holes in this story than Swiss cheese.

-Melin

16

Melin- I like you.

17

Hey, Melin’s right! Haddock-whacks for everyone!
I should have been a judge.

18

[python]And Now, the Fish-Slapping Dance![/python]

19

Since the kids are so small, it would be fairly easy to get them to say whatever “mom” wanted if she had them pretty much to herself in the time it took for the case to get to court.
My vote:
Real dad gets kids.
Dad gets counseling and has to spend LOTS more time with kids.
Mom gets put in jail for bigamy OR she has to go to work and pay child support–hey, to be nice she can choose.
Arnold gets a brain transplant.
ALL prohibited from going on talk shows!

20

Was he playing with them, feeding them, giving them baths, being “daddy” to them?

Even if he was trying to be a good father, the kids would have been spending much more time with Arnold than with Jeff.

And how could he not know that they allegedly were being given bad ideas about him if he spent any significant time with them?

Well, from the OP, it seems that when Mom’s brainwashing caused the kids to lose all respect for their father, he noticed.

Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.