Do I have to pay for my kids astrologer?
March 14, 2006 8:53 PM Subscribe
My ex wife is asking me to pay for half of homeopathy for our children and I don't want to.
I'm a divorced dad in California. When I was married to the mother of my children, she was studying to be a homeopathic practitioner. As her partner, I enthusiastically supported her in this endeavor.
Now we're divorced. We each maintain a fine healthcare plan for our twins.
I'm also no longer a supporter of homeopathy. It's failed every scientific test it's undergone, performing no better than taking placebo.
It's unlicensed, and unregulated.
(For the record, and this is a whole 'nother thread, I believe that homeopathy works on the 'placebo effect' level-- I further believe that the 'placebo effect' and how our brains affect our physical health, might just be the major medical breakthrough of the next 100 years. )
I was paying for half of the homeopathy, as per a mediation agreement.
In fact, that was the only thing I paid for half of; I paid for 100% of everything for the first 2 years of our divorce. To the tune of nearly 30k/year. Because I make more money.
Until she took me to court for child support, and now I pay her a tidy sum, and half of everything to do with the kids. The new custody/support agreement from court trumps the previous mediation agreement (which she breached signifigant portions of) and states clearly that parents who want alternative health care that's not approved by the other parent must bear the cost themselves.
She's taking me back to court to pay for 1/2 of all the homeopathy costs, citing the fact that I paid for it before.
I might add that I pay over 25k a year in child support, my kids attend a great public school. The homeopathy costs we're talking about are approximately 300 bucks a year to me. Why fight you ask?
It's the principle of the thing. You'll just have to take my word for it. (I'd prefer if you took my side, but that's up to you).
What I want to know is (and I'm sorry for the shaggy dog story that got us here) is there any precedent for a divorced parent being forced to pay for an unlicensed treatment simply because they used to pay it when they were married.
I'm a divorced dad in California. When I was married to the mother of my children, she was studying to be a homeopathic practitioner. As her partner, I enthusiastically supported her in this endeavor.
Now we're divorced. We each maintain a fine healthcare plan for our twins.
I'm also no longer a supporter of homeopathy. It's failed every scientific test it's undergone, performing no better than taking placebo.
It's unlicensed, and unregulated.
(For the record, and this is a whole 'nother thread, I believe that homeopathy works on the 'placebo effect' level-- I further believe that the 'placebo effect' and how our brains affect our physical health, might just be the major medical breakthrough of the next 100 years. )
I was paying for half of the homeopathy, as per a mediation agreement.
In fact, that was the only thing I paid for half of; I paid for 100% of everything for the first 2 years of our divorce. To the tune of nearly 30k/year. Because I make more money.
Until she took me to court for child support, and now I pay her a tidy sum, and half of everything to do with the kids. The new custody/support agreement from court trumps the previous mediation agreement (which she breached signifigant portions of) and states clearly that parents who want alternative health care that's not approved by the other parent must bear the cost themselves.
She's taking me back to court to pay for 1/2 of all the homeopathy costs, citing the fact that I paid for it before.
I might add that I pay over 25k a year in child support, my kids attend a great public school. The homeopathy costs we're talking about are approximately 300 bucks a year to me. Why fight you ask?
It's the principle of the thing. You'll just have to take my word for it. (I'd prefer if you took my side, but that's up to you).
What I want to know is (and I'm sorry for the shaggy dog story that got us here) is there any precedent for a divorced parent being forced to pay for an unlicensed treatment simply because they used to pay it when they were married.
You could tell her that if she proceeds with this, you'll find an expert to testify that homepathy is a form of neglect and you'll have her judged to be an unsuitable parent.
posted by krisjohn at 9:34 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by krisjohn at 9:34 PM on March 14, 2006
There's never going to be anyone who matters going to tell you that you should pay for something experimental and un-proven for your kids, much less something proven ineffective. I'd be really surprised to find any counterexamples.
posted by shanevsevil at 9:35 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by shanevsevil at 9:35 PM on March 14, 2006
Yikes. I hear so many stories about people getting royally screwed over in the name of child support. Sorry you're getting hit with this.
I'd say "ask a lawyer." Seriously. If she's already taking you back to court and this time it's about some bullshit home remedy, then lawyer up and fight it.
"The new custody/support agreement from court trumps the previous mediation agreement (which she breached signifigant portions of) and states clearly that parents who want alternative health care that's not approved by the other parent must bear the cost themselves."
.. says it all. If she wants the 'alternative health care' then she should pay it, not try to stick you for it. Sounds like a greedy mom soaking her ex for excessive child support. (Yes, it happens. A lot.)
Talk to a lawyer. Fight back.
posted by drstein at 9:38 PM on March 14, 2006
I'd say "ask a lawyer." Seriously. If she's already taking you back to court and this time it's about some bullshit home remedy, then lawyer up and fight it.
"The new custody/support agreement from court trumps the previous mediation agreement (which she breached signifigant portions of) and states clearly that parents who want alternative health care that's not approved by the other parent must bear the cost themselves."
.. says it all. If she wants the 'alternative health care' then she should pay it, not try to stick you for it. Sounds like a greedy mom soaking her ex for excessive child support. (Yes, it happens. A lot.)
Talk to a lawyer. Fight back.
posted by drstein at 9:38 PM on March 14, 2006
Wait, she's paying a lawyer to screw you out of 300 bucks? An amount which she could easily cover with an hour of the lawyer's time? A bill which she specifically agreed not to seek payment for?
Am I missing something?
posted by SuperNova at 10:08 PM on March 14, 2006
Am I missing something?
posted by SuperNova at 10:08 PM on March 14, 2006
Speaking from personal experience, I was once completely in the right over a $250 dispute with my ex-wife. We had a signed settlement that said that a certain expense was her responsibility, and further said that any loser in any disputes over a contract had to pay the other's attorney's fees. She hired a lawyer to demand that I pay the $250, I refused, she proceeded to make my life miserable for nine months, including serving me with papers at my office on my birthday for a court hearing the day after Christmas. It cost me $35,000 in attorney fees because she filed so much paperwork that my attorney had to deal with, plus X number of unnecessary court appearances where the lawyer billed me six hours because in California they schedule hearings at 9 am and hold them at 2:30. The court eventually ruled that I didn't have to pay the $250, but decided that I shouldn't have spent so much on attorney fees, so didn't award it to me. Didn't even bother to determine whose fault it was that it cost so much.
I don't blame you for being pissed at the quackery of your wife, and your description of the new support agreement makes it sound like you're in the right legally (though a lawyer might read the agreement differently--all we have is your description of it). And I certainly think you're in the right scientifically. But decide in advance how much you really want to spend on your principles; in the long run, it's a wealth-transfer from your kids to you and your ex-wife's attorneys.
And, recalling my own days as an angry ex-husband, it really does sound to me that the real principle here is trying to humiliate your ex-wife by having a court call her a quack, and you're likely to be dissatisfied with that goal even if you win; the court just cares about the enforcement of the court order and whether the best interests of the child justify a change, and isn't going to hold the 21st-century version of the Scopes Monkey Trial over a $300 homeopathy charge. Most lawyers are scientifically illiterate, and for all you know, your judge is going to be a creationist with a copper arthritis bracelet whose eyes are going to glaze over when you start talking about why Avogadro's law refutes the entire notion of homeopathy.
If this is an issue that will be solved by a few hundred dollars a year, discretion is the better part of valor; if giving in here means she'll demand more she doesn't deserve somewhere else, you may have to unhappily fight. But do a real cost-benefit analysis first.
posted by commander_cool at 10:19 PM on March 14, 2006
I don't blame you for being pissed at the quackery of your wife, and your description of the new support agreement makes it sound like you're in the right legally (though a lawyer might read the agreement differently--all we have is your description of it). And I certainly think you're in the right scientifically. But decide in advance how much you really want to spend on your principles; in the long run, it's a wealth-transfer from your kids to you and your ex-wife's attorneys.
And, recalling my own days as an angry ex-husband, it really does sound to me that the real principle here is trying to humiliate your ex-wife by having a court call her a quack, and you're likely to be dissatisfied with that goal even if you win; the court just cares about the enforcement of the court order and whether the best interests of the child justify a change, and isn't going to hold the 21st-century version of the Scopes Monkey Trial over a $300 homeopathy charge. Most lawyers are scientifically illiterate, and for all you know, your judge is going to be a creationist with a copper arthritis bracelet whose eyes are going to glaze over when you start talking about why Avogadro's law refutes the entire notion of homeopathy.
If this is an issue that will be solved by a few hundred dollars a year, discretion is the better part of valor; if giving in here means she'll demand more she doesn't deserve somewhere else, you may have to unhappily fight. But do a real cost-benefit analysis first.
posted by commander_cool at 10:19 PM on March 14, 2006
IANAL, but I would encourage you (for the sake of how it will look in the courtroom and in the proceedings) to approach this as more of a concern for your children's welfare than about the money. I'm not at all implying you value one over the other, of course, but I would encourage you to _visibly_ stress your concern for their welfare before even mentioning money.
krisjohn writes "You could tell her that if she proceeds with this, you'll find an expert to testify that homepathy is a form of neglect and you'll have her judged to be an unsuitable parent."
I think this is a good first step. Anything that can avoid more legal proceedings is a good thing. Good luck with it all.
posted by apple scruff at 11:45 PM on March 14, 2006
krisjohn writes "You could tell her that if she proceeds with this, you'll find an expert to testify that homepathy is a form of neglect and you'll have her judged to be an unsuitable parent."
I think this is a good first step. Anything that can avoid more legal proceedings is a good thing. Good luck with it all.
posted by apple scruff at 11:45 PM on March 14, 2006
You could tell her that if she proceeds with this, you'll find an expert to testify that homepathy is a form of neglect and you'll have her judged to be an unsuitable parent.
And then the cycle will continue and you'll both be poorer and the lawyers richer. But that's not the worst part. The worst is that your children will have two stressed parents that won't stop fighting. Either pay up or talk to your ex-wife and get to an agreement, but stop being petty. It is not in the best interest of your kids.
My parents divorced 20 years ago and they still fight about money. You don't want to be like that. Believe me, your kids will resent you.
posted by clearlydemon at 12:20 AM on March 15, 2006
And then the cycle will continue and you'll both be poorer and the lawyers richer. But that's not the worst part. The worst is that your children will have two stressed parents that won't stop fighting. Either pay up or talk to your ex-wife and get to an agreement, but stop being petty. It is not in the best interest of your kids.
My parents divorced 20 years ago and they still fight about money. You don't want to be like that. Believe me, your kids will resent you.
posted by clearlydemon at 12:20 AM on March 15, 2006
Any thinking person knows homeopathy is BS, and what she's doing is stupid, but probably not abusive unless it is at the expense of giving them proper healthcare. It is truly amazing what people are willing to believe in. Does she expect you to pay for her offering at church too?
posted by fourcheesemac at 12:24 AM on March 15, 2006
posted by fourcheesemac at 12:24 AM on March 15, 2006
what she's doing is stupid, but probably not abusive unless it is at the expense of giving them proper healthcare.This is a fair point. What's the situation on this?
posted by krisjohn at 12:29 AM on March 15, 2006
, but probably not abusive
she's giving them little water vials to drink -- not medicine, but not abuse either. unless she becomes a Christian Scientist and tries to deny actual medical treatment to the kids, well, there's not much you can do.
also, what commander_cool said
posted by matteo at 12:50 AM on March 15, 2006
she's giving them little water vials to drink -- not medicine, but not abuse either. unless she becomes a Christian Scientist and tries to deny actual medical treatment to the kids, well, there's not much you can do.
also, what commander_cool said
posted by matteo at 12:50 AM on March 15, 2006
What commander_cool said very loud & clear - Please let the $300 go & stop making the lawyers richer 'for the principal of it'
posted by growabrain at 2:21 AM on March 15, 2006
posted by growabrain at 2:21 AM on March 15, 2006
If it were me, I would pay the $300 bucks, contingent on her signing a statement that she understands you're paying under protest, to avoid the greater cost of fighting it in court.
My personal experience says: pick your battles, and be as detached as you possibly can. Try to do what appears reasonable at all times. If it does wind up in court later, the party that seemed to be trying to avoid being there (by being reasonable) usually wins over the shit-stirrer. Judges do not appreciate being made to decide trivial matters. They get annoyed when people do not try to resolve those things outside court, and if you've tried to do that, it's not you the judge will be annoyed with.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:20 AM on March 15, 2006
My personal experience says: pick your battles, and be as detached as you possibly can. Try to do what appears reasonable at all times. If it does wind up in court later, the party that seemed to be trying to avoid being there (by being reasonable) usually wins over the shit-stirrer. Judges do not appreciate being made to decide trivial matters. They get annoyed when people do not try to resolve those things outside court, and if you've tried to do that, it's not you the judge will be annoyed with.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:20 AM on March 15, 2006
"What I want to know is (and I'm sorry for the shaggy dog story that got us here) is there any precedent for a divorced parent being forced to pay for an unlicensed treatment simply because they used to pay it when they were married."
IANAL, but in my experience as a divorced dad, family courts generally aren't forums for big precedent arguments. A lot of family court and juvenile court cases are sealed to the public record, and unless the issue you are contesting is one of civil or criminal law, there may not be relevant precedent to consider. IME, the overwhelming consideration in deciding any support or custody issue is "the welfare of the minor child."
If you have reason to believe that your ex-wife is trying to substitute homeopathy for legitimate medical care for your children, or is applying homeopathic methods or remedies in conjunction with normal medical procedures in a way which delays the normal treatments, or reduces their effectiveness, then, on behalf of your children, you have a moral duty to do what you can to get the children on a "normal" standard of care. On the other hand, if the level of homeopathic lifestyle the children are being tasked with is something like being constrained to a tasteless, uncool macrobiotic diet of brown rice, tofu, and bean sprouts, with no fast food ever, then, I think you've got a little grayer problem.
The kids may not like being made to eat organic vegetarian, and being kept away from fast food hang outs may put them in conflict with the social norms of their peer groups, but unless you can show that being uncool is seriously detrimental to their social development, you're probably not going to prevail.
So, I think you've got to be guided by how your kids are reacting to your wife's ministrations, as a primary deciding factor. It may now appear loony to you to "treat" colds with poultices and aromatic herb tea infusions, but unless your wife is including nightshade in those concoctions, or your kids are complaining of other problems, and don't see doctors in timely fashion, you may not have much recourse legally.
I'm certainly not against arguments on principle. IME, one of the traits that people who subscribe to homeopathy evidence is a greater than normal reliance on testimonial evidence in decision making. The mindset that make homeopathy seem like a valid choice makes for fairly bad decision making in other areas. If your ex is becoming a big homeopathic "practitioner" through "study" herself, I'd suspect you can eventually expect from her additional signs of tilted, non-rational thinking and decision making in other areas, and you may want to get on the record as objecting to same early on, so as to build a record of disagreements about how her mindset is affecting the kids, should contesting more egregious behaviors later prove necessary.
But I'd advise you to try to be as reasonable as you can be in coming to strategy decisions, now and in the future. Being as level headed and dispassionate as you can be, what, really, is in the best interests of your kids?
posted by paulsc at 5:05 AM on March 15, 2006
IANAL, but in my experience as a divorced dad, family courts generally aren't forums for big precedent arguments. A lot of family court and juvenile court cases are sealed to the public record, and unless the issue you are contesting is one of civil or criminal law, there may not be relevant precedent to consider. IME, the overwhelming consideration in deciding any support or custody issue is "the welfare of the minor child."
If you have reason to believe that your ex-wife is trying to substitute homeopathy for legitimate medical care for your children, or is applying homeopathic methods or remedies in conjunction with normal medical procedures in a way which delays the normal treatments, or reduces their effectiveness, then, on behalf of your children, you have a moral duty to do what you can to get the children on a "normal" standard of care. On the other hand, if the level of homeopathic lifestyle the children are being tasked with is something like being constrained to a tasteless, uncool macrobiotic diet of brown rice, tofu, and bean sprouts, with no fast food ever, then, I think you've got a little grayer problem.
The kids may not like being made to eat organic vegetarian, and being kept away from fast food hang outs may put them in conflict with the social norms of their peer groups, but unless you can show that being uncool is seriously detrimental to their social development, you're probably not going to prevail.
So, I think you've got to be guided by how your kids are reacting to your wife's ministrations, as a primary deciding factor. It may now appear loony to you to "treat" colds with poultices and aromatic herb tea infusions, but unless your wife is including nightshade in those concoctions, or your kids are complaining of other problems, and don't see doctors in timely fashion, you may not have much recourse legally.
I'm certainly not against arguments on principle. IME, one of the traits that people who subscribe to homeopathy evidence is a greater than normal reliance on testimonial evidence in decision making. The mindset that make homeopathy seem like a valid choice makes for fairly bad decision making in other areas. If your ex is becoming a big homeopathic "practitioner" through "study" herself, I'd suspect you can eventually expect from her additional signs of tilted, non-rational thinking and decision making in other areas, and you may want to get on the record as objecting to same early on, so as to build a record of disagreements about how her mindset is affecting the kids, should contesting more egregious behaviors later prove necessary.
But I'd advise you to try to be as reasonable as you can be in coming to strategy decisions, now and in the future. Being as level headed and dispassionate as you can be, what, really, is in the best interests of your kids?
posted by paulsc at 5:05 AM on March 15, 2006
300 bucks is not worth it ... if you're convinced that your children are suffering serious effects from not being given traditional medical care ... (and i don't mean the flu or a cold, but something they would have to go to a hospital for) ... then, and only then, is it worth your time
do not get involved with a legal fight over 300 bucks ... it's not only going to make you seem petty at the court hearing, but could damage your standing in any other proceedings if it was brought to the judge's attention ... which your ex will be certain to do
i sense there's a bit of resentment and anger between the two of you ... you can't do anything about hers, but please try to do something about yours for the sake of your kids
posted by pyramid termite at 6:40 AM on March 15, 2006
do not get involved with a legal fight over 300 bucks ... it's not only going to make you seem petty at the court hearing, but could damage your standing in any other proceedings if it was brought to the judge's attention ... which your ex will be certain to do
i sense there's a bit of resentment and anger between the two of you ... you can't do anything about hers, but please try to do something about yours for the sake of your kids
posted by pyramid termite at 6:40 AM on March 15, 2006
One of the best friends I've ever had was the focus of a lawsuit filed by her dad to prove a point. It dragged on for years. She was semi-famous at a very young age. The Dad won the case. Proved his point. Was right all along. Is uniformly despised by his now-grown children.
Medical science does not need you to sue your wife for it to overcome witchcraft. You may feel free to consider your obligation to defend it at the cost of your kids waived.
This $300 per year has nothing to do with homeopathy, it has to do with your ex-wife exercising power over you. Power granted to her by virtue of her posession of your kids. I bet that this is the root cause of some of your "principle". It would be for me.
There are no societally acceptable ways for you to fight this that won't risk screwing up your relationship with your kids.
I don't know how old your kids are now, or how long you're going to have to wait for this to end (when they become adults), but I assure that in retrospect, it will seem like it happened pretty quickly.
When they become adults, you will have a chance for many of these complications to fall away and no longer affect your relationship with them. You will be able to friends with them as adults for thirty or forty years.
Don't fuck that up over $300. Because if you do, you'll never forgive yourself.
If you really are an anti-homeopathy partisan, perhaps you can assuage your conscience by matching this bill with a contribution to CSICOP.
Vaya con dios.
posted by popechunk at 6:57 AM on March 15, 2006
Medical science does not need you to sue your wife for it to overcome witchcraft. You may feel free to consider your obligation to defend it at the cost of your kids waived.
This $300 per year has nothing to do with homeopathy, it has to do with your ex-wife exercising power over you. Power granted to her by virtue of her posession of your kids. I bet that this is the root cause of some of your "principle". It would be for me.
There are no societally acceptable ways for you to fight this that won't risk screwing up your relationship with your kids.
I don't know how old your kids are now, or how long you're going to have to wait for this to end (when they become adults), but I assure that in retrospect, it will seem like it happened pretty quickly.
When they become adults, you will have a chance for many of these complications to fall away and no longer affect your relationship with them. You will be able to friends with them as adults for thirty or forty years.
Don't fuck that up over $300. Because if you do, you'll never forgive yourself.
If you really are an anti-homeopathy partisan, perhaps you can assuage your conscience by matching this bill with a contribution to CSICOP.
Vaya con dios.
posted by popechunk at 6:57 AM on March 15, 2006
It's $300. Yes, it's annoying. But really, it's not worth it. Pay it. But I agree, you should have a statement notarized that says you are paying in protest just to graciously avoid litigation.
posted by visual mechanic at 8:39 AM on March 15, 2006
posted by visual mechanic at 8:39 AM on March 15, 2006
I'd go with Kirth Gerson's point. I think you need to make sure that if you just pay the $300 that you make it clear to her that it's done under protest and that you won't do it in the future.
posted by drezdn at 9:29 AM on March 15, 2006
posted by drezdn at 9:29 AM on March 15, 2006
Since it is only a matter of principle, offer to put the $300 aside for college education funds with her paying the homeopathic treatments.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:49 AM on March 15, 2006
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:49 AM on March 15, 2006
It sounds like she will have to take you to court to collect. You risk losing and having to pay the $300 plus costs. If she wins, she's maybe more likely to take you to court for more trivial stuff. If you win, you might or might not get your costs covered.
A judge will make a decision based on what's in the best interests of the children. So, focus all your own attention on that. It sounds like she's still focused on fighting with you. That's bad for the kids. More legal battles are really bad for the kids, because it creates a lot more negative energy. Good luck.
posted by theora55 at 11:01 AM on March 15, 2006
A judge will make a decision based on what's in the best interests of the children. So, focus all your own attention on that. It sounds like she's still focused on fighting with you. That's bad for the kids. More legal battles are really bad for the kids, because it creates a lot more negative energy. Good luck.
posted by theora55 at 11:01 AM on March 15, 2006
I was a divorce lawyer (in England) for 15 years. Clients like you and your ex-wife were my bread & butter. If you were my client, I'd suggest you pay up, both from the point of view of how much it will cost to fight, as well as the pragmatic view - would you rather be happy or right?
If you didn't take my advice, meh, I'd give it my best shot representing you, making sure you paid me up front, of course, so you couldn't stiff me on the costs after you (inevitably) lost. I'd also make sure I'd written a 'cover my back' letter to let you know you were acting like a dickhead and on your own head be it so you couldn't blame me when it all went pear-shaped.
Sensible clients were a pain in the arse, they were always willing to settle on reasonable terms, and I'd then have to make my costs targets from dealing with people who were happy to spend thousands arguing over who should have the Rod Stewart CDs.
posted by essexjan at 11:16 AM on March 15, 2006
If you didn't take my advice, meh, I'd give it my best shot representing you, making sure you paid me up front, of course, so you couldn't stiff me on the costs after you (inevitably) lost. I'd also make sure I'd written a 'cover my back' letter to let you know you were acting like a dickhead and on your own head be it so you couldn't blame me when it all went pear-shaped.
Sensible clients were a pain in the arse, they were always willing to settle on reasonable terms, and I'd then have to make my costs targets from dealing with people who were happy to spend thousands arguing over who should have the Rod Stewart CDs.
posted by essexjan at 11:16 AM on March 15, 2006
Hang on a second.
If you were once paying $30K in homeopathy costs, and then got an agreement that says you don't have to pay for alternative care you don't believe in, you may want to give this a second look.
Sure, this year's homeopathy bill is $300.
Next year, after your ex has evidence in hand that you've agreed to pay for homeopathy, what's to stop her from billing you for $30K again?
I hate to send people to lawyers, but the fact that people go ape about large sums of money and broken relationships is really why we have lawyers to protect us from ourselves. This one looks like it might be for a lawyer.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:37 PM on March 15, 2006
If you were once paying $30K in homeopathy costs, and then got an agreement that says you don't have to pay for alternative care you don't believe in, you may want to give this a second look.
Sure, this year's homeopathy bill is $300.
Next year, after your ex has evidence in hand that you've agreed to pay for homeopathy, what's to stop her from billing you for $30K again?
I hate to send people to lawyers, but the fact that people go ape about large sums of money and broken relationships is really why we have lawyers to protect us from ourselves. This one looks like it might be for a lawyer.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:37 PM on March 15, 2006
If she's taking you back to court to pay 1/2 of the homeopathy costs, and you're already paying her money for other expenses per a court order that "states clearly that parents who want alternative health care that's not approved by the other parent must bear the cost themselves," then it sounds like your lawyer will have something good to work with to help you win.
If you end up going lawyer-shopping because you don't want the same lawyer as the one from the child support case, bring along the original agreement and all the subsequent judgments so your potential new counsel can have a look at it and give you some good feedback. I'm surprised that your ex thinks she can win that one, but then again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about California law.
posted by Sprout the Vulgarian at 6:44 PM on March 15, 2006
If you end up going lawyer-shopping because you don't want the same lawyer as the one from the child support case, bring along the original agreement and all the subsequent judgments so your potential new counsel can have a look at it and give you some good feedback. I'm surprised that your ex thinks she can win that one, but then again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know anything about California law.
posted by Sprout the Vulgarian at 6:44 PM on March 15, 2006
I know nothing about these situations and such, but it seems like a lot of people are reading this as Anonymous taking his ex to court, when according to the post, "She's taking me back to court".
I don't know if that affects the "just pay it" comments or not, but it sounds to me like she's the one instigating the trivial lawsuit, not him.
posted by cCranium at 5:02 AM on March 16, 2006
I don't know if that affects the "just pay it" comments or not, but it sounds to me like she's the one instigating the trivial lawsuit, not him.
posted by cCranium at 5:02 AM on March 16, 2006
I think you’re being petty and ridiculous and selfish and are thinking way too much about how to be right and way too little about the things that really matter – such as the wellbeing of your children. (I feel so strongly about this, in fact, that I became a member of metafilter just so I could tell you so.)
I am 20-something child of divorced parents who were in this same situation. Growing up, my mom took my brother and I primarily to an osteopath, who gave us homeopathic “remedies” for our illnesses, as well as getting us physicals at “real” doctors ever few years, taking us to a “real” doctor when we were severely ill, etc. My father (probably rightly so, but that’s totally beside the point) thought homeopathy and osteopathy were complete horseshit and refused to pay for any of our “treatments” at the osteopaths. He and my mom constantly fought over it for years, it was brought up in numerous court and custody battles, and, after seeing how much the fighting was harming my brother and I, my mom eventually decided it wasn’t worth the trauma and did the better thing and stopped asking my dad to pay.
So, years of fighting and taking each other to court and bashing each other and insisting the other was wrong really got them nowhere. My mom wasn’t convinced homeopathy was witchcraft (and neither were my brother and I), my dad wasn’t convinced it was medicine, no judge could convince him to pay for it no matter what, and we kept on going. And, in the end, it just caused my brother and I years of pain and discomfort and caused us to resent our father for not being supportive and choosing to fight with our mom about petty crap rather than get over himself.
My advice to you: Make sure your kids have a good pediatrician. Take them there if they’re sick. Stop badmouthing their other “doctors” and “medicines.” Get over yourself and pay the frickin bills and shut up about it so your kids feel like they’re worth more than your check book.
posted by samsarah at 2:03 PM on March 16, 2006
I am 20-something child of divorced parents who were in this same situation. Growing up, my mom took my brother and I primarily to an osteopath, who gave us homeopathic “remedies” for our illnesses, as well as getting us physicals at “real” doctors ever few years, taking us to a “real” doctor when we were severely ill, etc. My father (probably rightly so, but that’s totally beside the point) thought homeopathy and osteopathy were complete horseshit and refused to pay for any of our “treatments” at the osteopaths. He and my mom constantly fought over it for years, it was brought up in numerous court and custody battles, and, after seeing how much the fighting was harming my brother and I, my mom eventually decided it wasn’t worth the trauma and did the better thing and stopped asking my dad to pay.
So, years of fighting and taking each other to court and bashing each other and insisting the other was wrong really got them nowhere. My mom wasn’t convinced homeopathy was witchcraft (and neither were my brother and I), my dad wasn’t convinced it was medicine, no judge could convince him to pay for it no matter what, and we kept on going. And, in the end, it just caused my brother and I years of pain and discomfort and caused us to resent our father for not being supportive and choosing to fight with our mom about petty crap rather than get over himself.
My advice to you: Make sure your kids have a good pediatrician. Take them there if they’re sick. Stop badmouthing their other “doctors” and “medicines.” Get over yourself and pay the frickin bills and shut up about it so your kids feel like they’re worth more than your check book.
posted by samsarah at 2:03 PM on March 16, 2006
samsarah, I am sorry to hear of your being used as a pawn in your parents' disputes, but I don't see the things you talk about happening here. There's no indication that Anon is bad-mouthing his ex or the alternative medicine where the kids can hear it.
Also, no judge could convince him to pay for it no matter what.
The implication in your statement is that one or more judges ordered your father to pay for the homeopathy, and he refused. did that actually happen? Judges are not known for ignoring that kind of stuff.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:17 PM on March 17, 2006
Also, no judge could convince him to pay for it no matter what.
The implication in your statement is that one or more judges ordered your father to pay for the homeopathy, and he refused. did that actually happen? Judges are not known for ignoring that kind of stuff.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:17 PM on March 17, 2006
I am sorry to hear of your being used as a pawn in your parents' disputes, but I don't see the things you talk about happening here
I don’t think I was being used as a “pawn.” My parents were not using my brother and I and our medical heath to get back at one another. They just both knew they were right and the other was wrong and let that become what was important in the situation instead of focusing on what was really important, namely the heath and happiness of their children.
The implication in your statement is that one or more judges ordered your father to pay for the homeopathy, and he refused. did that actually happen?
More or less, yes. Hence the repetitive trips to the courthouse and my mom eventually giving up. My dad decided not to pay for a lot of things he was legally obligated to pay for (such as education) and my mom finally decided that it was more important to just pay it and stop fighting than to keep trying and failing and making my brother and I resent our father, and her.
I apologize for suggesting that Anon is badmouthing his wife and her medicinal choices in front of his children. He did not, as you say, give any indication that that is the case. However, I’m sure his children are aware of the legal battles and probably know what they are about. Just knowing that your parents are fighting (and in court) about your bills is enough to have a profound and negative mental effect.
I was, sadly, harsh and too critical in my previous post. I simply wanted to point out that it might be better for Anon to pay the bills and find a way to reconcile himself to this by also making sure that his children have the medical care they need. He could then focus on fostering a supportive relationship with his ex-wife that would benefit his children to no end. I know that this is not easy, and that it takes two, and it sounds like this may not be what she is after. But, I know that if my father had just decided to keep his criticisms of my mother and her choices to himself (as she eventually did of him) and be supportive of and kind to her in front of my brother and I, we would be much closer to our father than we are today. It’s clear that he cares about his kids, so shouldn’t a healthy relationship with them be his main goal?
posted by samsarah at 9:31 AM on March 18, 2006
I don’t think I was being used as a “pawn.” My parents were not using my brother and I and our medical heath to get back at one another. They just both knew they were right and the other was wrong and let that become what was important in the situation instead of focusing on what was really important, namely the heath and happiness of their children.
The implication in your statement is that one or more judges ordered your father to pay for the homeopathy, and he refused. did that actually happen?
More or less, yes. Hence the repetitive trips to the courthouse and my mom eventually giving up. My dad decided not to pay for a lot of things he was legally obligated to pay for (such as education) and my mom finally decided that it was more important to just pay it and stop fighting than to keep trying and failing and making my brother and I resent our father, and her.
I apologize for suggesting that Anon is badmouthing his wife and her medicinal choices in front of his children. He did not, as you say, give any indication that that is the case. However, I’m sure his children are aware of the legal battles and probably know what they are about. Just knowing that your parents are fighting (and in court) about your bills is enough to have a profound and negative mental effect.
I was, sadly, harsh and too critical in my previous post. I simply wanted to point out that it might be better for Anon to pay the bills and find a way to reconcile himself to this by also making sure that his children have the medical care they need. He could then focus on fostering a supportive relationship with his ex-wife that would benefit his children to no end. I know that this is not easy, and that it takes two, and it sounds like this may not be what she is after. But, I know that if my father had just decided to keep his criticisms of my mother and her choices to himself (as she eventually did of him) and be supportive of and kind to her in front of my brother and I, we would be much closer to our father than we are today. It’s clear that he cares about his kids, so shouldn’t a healthy relationship with them be his main goal?
posted by samsarah at 9:31 AM on March 18, 2006
I'm with Samsarah on this one. My parents were extremely bitter toward each other after their divorce. So bitter, in fact, that neither me or my brother talk to either parent now. We were pawns used by both of them for most of our childhood. We were baggage caught between two warring constantly sniping parents. Neither parent could let anything go.
I hope they both comfort themselves with their "principles of the thing" now, because that's all they have left. Believe me, your children are aware of your court battles and you can decide right here and now if you value a future relationship with them, or if that $300 really matters. Your choice.
posted by 45moore45 at 1:05 PM on March 18, 2006
I hope they both comfort themselves with their "principles of the thing" now, because that's all they have left. Believe me, your children are aware of your court battles and you can decide right here and now if you value a future relationship with them, or if that $300 really matters. Your choice.
posted by 45moore45 at 1:05 PM on March 18, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
Yes, although the fact that you continued to pay for it as part of the mediation agreement is probably going to be more of a factor.
The court could easily take the view that since you were once willing to pay for it, you thought it was a valid treatment for your kids. Be prepared to show why you changed your mind.
As for the $300/yr ... I've never heard of a family court judge being impressed with this sort of thing. You'd best have a very compelling story ready to go.
posted by tkolar at 9:33 PM on March 14, 2006