Opening Statement 2

Below is the opening statement of Dee’s lawyer (Mr. B) from the temporary relief hearing on July 27, 2018:

THE COURT: So, Ms. D, good morning. Where would you
like to start, and what would you like to tell me?
MS. D: Good morning, Your Honor. I
would like to just go ahead and counter point by
point what was already discussed.
THE COURT: I’m okay with that. I prefer you
start with yours, and then you can counter what he
had to say.
MS. D: No problem. Absolutely. The
only things that we were in here to decide, of
course, was our time-sharing. When we were before
you a month or so ago, we had gone ahead and we
had put together a very, very detailed
time-sharing agreement that would allow for
tradeoffs can happen at a certain location, for
Amber to attend camp — that was very, very
important to her — times, so on and so forth, due
to the needs of the child.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. D: Amber does have issues with
problems in continuity. She does need a scheduled
structure. She’s about to start fourth grade.
And she’s also attending this camp as part of
the social interactive needs of, say, somebody
entering fourth grade —
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. D: — designed to help her make
friends, become more outgoing, so on and so forth.
When Your Honor had made the ruling and we
had supplied the order and it was signed off on,
we had discussed very specifically certain terms
of which the petitioner has not abided by thus
far.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. D: So in that regard, we’re going to
need to look for something with, I guess, more
specificity. I am not sure if you recall, but you
have a good memory.
THE COURT: I recall — I guess what I
remember the most is the gate key access. That’s
kind of what brought me back to you guys. I mean,
everything kind of came back from there. I know
we haven’t talked about that yet.
MS. D: We had talked about the summer
camp. Then Liv had gone ahead and signed
Amber up for it. This is something that she had
to sign up for in April.
The summer camp is designed to take kids on
outings on certain days of the week. One of those
days is Tuesday.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. D: The outings include things like
the aquarium, a baseball game, doing things where
she actually gets to sit on a bus and interact
with other kids, which of course is paramount to
her development.
We had discussed the time that camp ends, and
you had said specifically in your ruling that the
petitioner is well within his rights to, when camp
is over, go and pick her up, and Tuesday evenings
would be her day. That has not been what’s
occurring.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. D: He has been picking her up at
8:30 every morning as soon as Liv drops her
off, meaning now Liv has been paying for a
summer camp that she can’t get her money back for.
THE COURT: Right.
MS. D: And Amber is missing out on the
developmental aspects of the summer camp for which
the whole thing was designed.
So as though that portion was not enough, in
your case, just like in every other family case,
we always have a temporary standing order, how
things should, you know, go down. In the
temporary — I’m sorry, sir.
THE COURT: Would you like a bottle of water?
MS. D: Oh, my gosh, that would be
amazing.
(A very brief break was taken at 9:55 a.m.)
MS. D: Going back to the standing
temporary order in all family law cases, in that,
of course, it’s basically, in broad strokes —
THE COURT: I’m kind of familiar with it.
Unfortunately, I don’t know if — so there’s an
issue. I don’t think one has been filed in this
case, not that I know of.
MS. D: There was. There was. It was
brought to my attention in the initial —
THE COURT: And it’s maybe a notice too; it’s
not really an order. That’s what the issue has
been about it.
MS. D: That absolutely makes sense.
However, at the onset of this case —
THE COURT: Right.
MS. D: — I had reached out to opposing
counsel, not this gentleman —
THE COURT: I remember there was a female
here.
MS. D: Well, and it was actually I think
the head of the firm.
THE COURT: No, it wasn’t Mr. K. It
was —
MS. D: Well, he was on there —
THE COURT: Oh, I got what you’re saying.
MS. D: — at the inception of the case.
And I reached out only to negotiate things like
the car insurance, you know, things of that nature
so we didn’t have to actually come in here and
litigate, you know, how Amber was going to have
her braces paid for —
MR. B: Your Honor, I would object to
discussion of any settlement negotiations between
the parties.
THE COURT: Well, I think it’s just temporary
issues they’re trying to discuss. You kind of
brought up this whole — again, this payment of
car insurance, I believe.
I don’t really view it as a settlement, not
to impute any type of liability to any party. So
I’m going to allow her to just kind of tell me,
again, the relevancy as to what’s happened in the
past and how we get to the future.
MS. D: I promise I’ll circle back.
The relevance of which — I was attempting to
just negotiate to make peace so things —
THE COURT: I understand.
MS. D: — could be smooth. At that
time, I was told by opposing counsel that, due to
the standing order, as it was explained to me —
and of course I haven’t looked at it —
MR. B: Your Honor, I’m going to object
on how this is relevant.
THE COURT: Well, again, I don’t — so I’m
going to allow her — this is her presentation as
to where we’re kind of at. But I would kind of
mention I don’t believe that there is a standing
order in this case.
MS. D: That’s true. I absolutely agree.
That’s why I’m —
THE COURT: I understand.
MS. D: — kind of shocked by that —
THE COURT: Right.
MS. D: — statement.
THE COURT: There may be. Again, I haven’t
signed anything, and I don’t — and that is kind
of — I only bring it up because it’s kind of a
point of contention between the judges as to what
is going out and what is not, so —
MS. D: Well, the rationale behind it was
to maintain continuity —
THE COURT: Right.
MS. D: — no matter what. At that point
in time, Liv had car insurance for both herself
and the petitioner, and it came due time for
renewal for the car insurance.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. D: And we had made a phone call
attempting to resolve some of these issues, at
which time I was told there is no negotiation of
the car insurance; everything was to stay the same
way. Absolutely fine.
But when we filed our motion for temporary
relief, it was not for a back payment necessarily
of the car insurance. It was merely: Could you
please get your own car insurance?
So —
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. D: — I just wanted to make sure
that we clarified that. If we would like to talk
about debts later on, we can go ahead and do that.
Also on that note, in regard to things such
as alimony, I have not had time to read through
all of these cases. However, I saw very notably
on the bottom of the Duncan case under the keynote
for divorce: “A grant of” — again, I haven’t
read the whole thing — “A grant of exclusive
possession of property to one of the parties in a
final judgment in a dissolution proceeding must
serve a special purpose.”
When we were here the last time, we discussed
the special purpose as maintaining the continuity
in the best interest of the child. This is where
she grew up, this is where she goes to school,
this is upon the recommendation of her healthcare
professionals that she needs to go and see.
And I don’t want to say that there’s
necessarily a waiver issue, but one party
voluntarily leaves and doesn’t want to come back
and says that they didn’t want to. And it was
almost like it was amicable at that point in time.
And the special purpose in our case is
maintaining the continuity for Amber. It’s close
to her school, it’s close to the few friends that
she does have, it’s close to her doctors, and it
allows her to have social interaction with her
peer group, which again is paramount to the
developmental needs of a fourth-grader.
Next, onto the idea of the — oh, I’m sorry.
The temporary child support from Liv to the
petitioner. To date, there has not been any child
support paid by the petitioner whatsoever, no
money for braces, no money for camp, none
whatsoever.
And whether or not there’s an order or a
notice or any sort of court document, everybody
would like to keep the best interest of the child
and keep the child in the lifestyle to which
they’ve become accustomed.
I understand you were stating that in regard
to alimony, but both parents should pitch in as
much as they can, even if it’s a dollar here, a
dollar there.
And also, going back to the idea of child
support and alimony, when you review the financial
affidavits, the very first portion of the
petitioner’s financial affidavit is pretty much
blank in regard to what efforts you are doing to
get employment, what type of employment you were
looking for.
And then at the end, it shows that he had a
surplus of $859. On the opposite end, Liv had
a deficit in the amount of $560. So two of the
requirements in order to get alimony, one of which
is the ability to be able to pay alimony.
I would also like to bring up that the length
of the marriage, the duration, was a year. So in
terms of length, I’m not really sure where that
would fall under the statute, but I definitely
don’t see that being a long-term marriage or even
a kind of long-term marriage. Maybe in Vegas.
And the award of attorney’s fees — of
course, it is absolutely essential that all
parties in any sort of judicial action have equal
access to competent counsel so they are on equal
footing. I would have to say at this point in
time it appears to me as though we are on equal
footing.
If Dee has the ability to work and earn
money, then he has the ability to work and earn
money and pay for an attorney.
One of the reasons that Liv is at our
firm, TLA, to come and see me is
because she did get a different billable hourly
rate, due to the former partner that retired
before I took over doing it, from — I can’t
remember what discount it was. I think like
LegalZoom or something like that. So in that
regard, I’m already taking a smaller amount.
And then last, on the financial affidavit
aspect, the petitioner, when we were here last,
did offer that — or testified that he owned and
started a company. I can’t remember if it was an
S corporation or an LLC. However, if he has more
than 30 percent of that company or LLC, which he
did, then we should have some sort of financials
in regard to that, which we do not.
THE COURT: Okay. But one of the things I’d
like to hear from you —
MS. D: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: — is your request for temporary
time-sharing as to what type of —
MS. D: On that note —
THE COURT: If you could be specific.
MS. D: Absolutely, absolutely. On that
note, may I let Ms. Liv go ahead and elaborate
what plan she would like?
THE COURT: Okay. Sure.
Liv: So I really appreciate you
making this time schedule. I mean, it’s made
things more consistent. We know where we need to
meet, what time. Communication is through Talking
Parents now. It’s very much more consistent, so
thank you.
THE COURT: Okay.
Liv: It’s not always followed,
as she already talked about.
MR. B: Your Honor, I’m going to object
to testifying without the ability to cross-examine
on — and I would also object to anything —
THE COURT: I will sustain your objection.
MR. B: — relating to contempt, being not before this Court.
THE COURT: There are no issues of contempt.
So, ma’am, I guess at this point all I really
want to hear is just, “Hey, this is the time
schedule that I would like to have.” Okay?
Liv: Okay. I think we can
continue on with the schedule that we have now —
THE COURT: If you could just state that for
me.
Liv: — which is Tuesdays and
Thursdays after camp or school until 7:30, and
then Sundays from 1:00 to 7:30, meeting at Walmart
in every instance.
THE COURT: Sunday was 1:00 to 7:30?
Liv: Yes.
MS. D: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Were you guys getting into
earlier that Shelby goes to church?
Liv: Yes, she goes to church.
THE COURT: That’s what I thought. Sundays
to 7:30. Okay.

Okay. All right. Well, I think we’re — I
think the Court has got a little bit of — I’ve
got an idea of where we’re at.
It’s 10 o’clock now. We have until 11:30.

I’m going to go ahead and start with Mr. B and
some of the information that he has.
Mr. B, I have not had an opportunity to
fully read over your memorandum of law, so if I’m
kind of looking down and reading as I’m listening
as well, that’s just because I want to try to do
both in the time that we have.