Mother's Motion To Enforce Mediated Agreement Case Study

716 Words 3 Pages
“I am attaching herewith the proposed order denying the “Mother’s Motion to Enforce Mediated Agreement. I had to respectfully disagree with Ms. Granda’s wording of her proposed motion based on the fact that I never hear you using the wording she is using on this proposed order.
Since the mother is not asking for a change in the order and neither am I, then I see no reason in including wording that will potentially allow Ms. Granda to continue to frivolously litigate with the only objective to intentionally interfere with my vacation time [emphasis added], which is clearly granted within the four corners of the Mediated Agreement under §14 of this agreement (attached as a courtesy is corresponding §14.)
Despite my objection to the wording
…show more content…
On or about January 18, 2016, the mother’s attorney filed a motion for contempt of court. This was the first time that the father became aware of the existence of an order in regards to the motion heard on December 15, 2015.
This time the Father had to, once more, appear over the phone due to his hectic schedule at Law School where he was at the moment a 1L student. This motion was heard in another five (5) minute “Calendar Motion Hearing” the father tried to explain to the Honorable Judge what happen and even offer to present evidence if the Judge had considered this to be necessary. The judge told the father he had been clear about what dates take precedence, then the father told the Honorable Judge that he never heard this coming from the Judge while he was on the phone and the Judge admitted that it was possible that the Father had never heard this. Nevertheless, the Honorable Judge Bernstein found the Father in contempt of court, over the phone, in a non-evidentiary hearing, and ordered the father to pay attorney’s fees to the other
…show more content…
Nevertheless, it shows this kind of behavior from the mother. On April 30th, 2013 the lower tribunal entered order finding the mother in violation of Children 's and Respondent 's rights after finding that the mother had place the children in daycare facility without consulting with the father first as co-parenting guidelines stablishes. (R. 137). On November 5, 2013, the lower tribunal had to force the mother to remove the children from the daycare to this recommended by the Guardian and to set a fixed schedule to put the children on Skype. (R. 262). On April 1, 2014 the father had to file a Motion for Civil Contempt on April 1, 2014 for the failure of the mother to follow a direct order of the court for both parents to register for extended co-parenting classes. (R. 295). See also Family Court Service Report. (R. 292). On May 6, 2014 this matter was heard and the judge issue a new order giving the mother the opportunity to purge and register for co-parenting classes. (R.

Related Documents

Related Topics