Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

Nixlondon

VIP Member
Her job status is not really considered, not the way you explain it at any rate. Maybe it's that way in NY state, but not California.

This law firm gives a really good explanation:

---

They haven't gotten to custody yet so no, none of the evidence affecting custody has been provided. And it's possible that what is going to be provided won't be made public - that doesn't mean it wasn't submitted and considered. And he's provided a fair amount of sworn testimony speaking to these issues. You're jumping the gun.
Note the caveats
If economic circumstances warrant; In determining whether and how to apportion the community property interest in the retirement and pension benefits of the injured spouse, the court shall consider all of the following factors:
The misdemeanor domestic violence conviction........including, but not limited to, consideration of emotional distress resulting from domestic violence.(Bad for Alice)
The duration of the marriage and when......incidents of domestic violence....occurred (Good for Alice - I lost my mind, isolated episode/s, no previous issues, etc)
The extent to which the convicted spouse's present or future earning capacity is impaired by periods of unemployment that were incurred during the marriage to permit the convicted spouse to devote time to domestic duties (good for Alice - primary care giver with little work)
The extent to which the convicted spouse contributed to the attainment of an education, training, a career position, or a license by the injured spouse (good for Alice - supported Ioan as primary caregiver for decades)
The balance of the hardships to each party (good for Alice)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Nixlondon

VIP Member
She's such an unreliable narrator that it's hard to read into that statement too much. She could be outright lying, or just misrepresenting something massively. Like when she berated Ioan for teaching the girls to say thank you.

Losing the plot in this instance could be Ioan reminding the youngest to brush her teeth before bed while on a facetime call that Alice was listening to through a gla
I hear you - but the crux is the California court is driven by the best interest of the children - not of the parents.
And if there is even the slightest evidence of neglect, abuse, substance issues...not good.
The burden of proof is on Ioan to provide evidence of long standing or clear patterns of abuse/neglect of children - and we have all agreed the evidence does not warrant the CPS standard.
Agree, the burden of proof is on Alice. Given those rebuttal categories she has some arguments. Please let's look at what could actually be submitted by Alice logically against each of these categories and not by what we know, think or wish.
I think Ioan will respond strongly. In my friend's opinion he feels the judgment will all be about how Ioan responds to her rebuttal and what solid evidence he provides. But his clarification was "All States in America look to best interest of children even if it seems unfair to parent who may be alienated. They need to take all aspects into evidence"
---
While it is in his interest to provide such information, the burden of proof is on Alice. As per the California government:

A judge CAN give joint or sole custody to the parent who committed domestic violence if the parent who was abusive:
  • Proves to the court that giving joint or sole custody of the children to him or her is in the best interest of the children;
  • Has successfully completed a 52-week batterer intervention program;
  • Has successfully completed substance abuse counseling if the court ordered it;
  • Has successfully completed a parenting class if the court ordered it;
  • Is on probation or parole and has complied with the terms of probation or parole;
  • Has a restraining order against him or her and has followed the orders; and
  • Has NOT committed any further domestic violence.
One aspect of the whole - you are not taking all elements into consideration as a court would do - the above are guidelines to be interpreted by Judge against a wider picture
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

Nixlondon

VIP Member
the CPS standard in Cali is veeeery different to what decides custody (although it's true that it's hard to get in Cali anything other than 50-50, which will piss off Alice way more than Ioan, and this is before convictions), but again, the burden of proof is on her. If Ioan can provide more on top of it the better

Also best interest of the kids does not mean "what the kids are used to" or even "what they want". in fact the argument you brough up earlier that Alice is not working works against her in term of maintaining a certain lifestyle. Then the conviction, then the various bits of abuse, neglect, etc...

obviously the caveat of this story is that the case is a bit unique. Usually the convicted parent is not the primarey caretaker, so the case is very straight forward usually. I do expect the judge to award 50-50 because that's what Ioan asked for, but if he asks for more or if the judge goes strictly by the law he may get full custody (well, at least formally)
OK it's clear you, @ButterTart and I are talking cross purposes. 1 is the DVRO. Alice is likely to get a misdemeanour felony. 2 is how it affects custody. 1 is a given. 2 is not given that she will lose custody or even all her spousal support based on the clearly set out caveats the Judge needs to examine.
 

SusanC

VIP Member
Don’t forget the sentient green blob that lives on the roof of the house. Blobby Green is way more mature than Alice.
View attachment 1973200
(NB: Photo via Daily Mail article, so Alice doesn’t think we are sending up drones to spy on her.)
Yeah what is that? Has the pool scum turned out a large photosynthetic progeny organism?
Oh it's not still there.
1676861679890.png