|
In regards to my ex-husband's reasons for his request for custody, I do not have mental health issues that are of concern. Further, I in no way have a negative attitude towards men. My estrangements within my family do not negatively affect my parenting my children. Being introverted is a personality trait that does not indicate unhealthy parenting. Our older daughter shares this personality trait, and there is nothing wrong with that. Our younger daughter is more outgoing, and both girls have opportunities to be involved in activities outside of the home and are encouraged to do so. My ex-husband's expressing his concern that I might possibly leave the area is completely unfounded and untrue. He himself stated in his Affidavit to the court that was part of the Temporary Order hearing that he himself has felt tempted to take the children and run. I personally have had no such inclination, nor have I expressed such to anyone.
My ex-husband's statement that he participated in the girls' daily routine when possible is a complete lie. My ex-husband rarely took any responsibility for helping to take care of the girls in any way. In fact, he would frequently respond with irritation when asked to help out, so in time I quit asking.
Apparently Karen was not listening attentively enough to things our younger daughter shared with her. Most of the chores listed as our younger daughter supposedly having at my house, are not chores she has ever had responsibility for here. Our younger daughter is responsible for taking her dishes to the sink after meals, for picking up her dirty laundry, for putting away her toys, and for working with her sister to feed and water their puppies.
In regard to involvement with school, my previous lack of reliable transportation had prevented me from being more involved with their school. I did, however, attend all of their school events.
While the girls do not receive an allowance, as it is my belief that children should take personal responsibility around the home without expecting to be paid to do so, the girls do have savings accounts that I make deposits into on a monthly basis. They were informed that their savings is to help buy a car when they're 16 or to help with college expenses in the future. I am baffled by Karen's inclusion in her report of our younger daughter having said she saves money to pay taxes with--this is completely not true.
Our younger daughter has indicated to me many times that she does not feel comfortable talking with anyone except me about our family, her feelings, etc. There are times in recent months when she begged me to not make her talk with others about our family. Thus, it is not surprising that she would seem uncomfortable in her interactions with Karen.
Our older daughter is not typically overly open talking with anyone. I assume that both girls are concerned about comments they make affecting custody one way or another, and they have expressed to me concern about hurting each parents' feelings should their comments get back to us.
Our older daughter does in fact have responsibilities in my home, although she shared to the contrary. Her responsibilities are the same as our younger daughter's.
OUr older daughter's anger issues have improved substantially since My ex-husband's departure. I assume this is in relation to the overall lessening of tension in our home that has subsequently occurred.
Our older daughter told me that she specifically did in fact share with Karen regarding my ex-husband putting his fingers inside her bikini top. Yet, this is not reflected in Karen's report.
Any statements that I supposedly paid our older daughter money to remove cassette tapes from my ex-husband's house are complete lies - such an event never occurred.
After Karen's interview alone with the girls while in my home, both girls stated to me that Karen had asked them which parent they preferred to live with and both stated to me that they had told Karen that they want to live with their mother. Yet, this is not reflected in Karen's report.
No comment, other than to state that obviously I have primarily been the one to take care of the children, having been the one to spend the most time with them.
No comment, other than to state that obviously my relationship with the girls would be closer, having been the one to spend the most time with them.
Karen's statement in regards to my comments regarding the girls spending time with my ex-husband's family is misleading - my point was that my ex-husband is emphasizing his family over mine - himself requesting a substantial number of days for the girls to spend with his family, which has not been the norm in terms of visits with our extended families. The girls do not like to travel and are not well behaved in terms of traveling - I have been respectful of that and have not insisted on their traveling extensively in order to spend time with my extended family. I believe my ex-husband has been unreasonable in expecting the girls to travel so frequently. Out of consideration for my children's best interests, when we travel to visit my family in Missouri, we will plan on flying. It is not feasible for the girls and I to travel at this time, in relation to finances and in relation to the health condition of one of our pets.
In Karen's report, she inaccurately gives credit to both parents for the phone calls with our older daughter's teacher. In actuality, I spoke with our older daughter's teacher, Jeff Poppema, on at least two occasions by phone regarding our older daughter's poor attitude and academic performance. In these phone conversations, I sought Mr. Poppema's advice regarding how best to help our older daughter. I then put his advice into action in my approach with our older daughter regarding these issues. I am not aware of my ex-husband visiting with Mr. Poppema at all in regards to these matters and am not aware of my ex-husband in any way addressing these issues himself with our older daughter. Although my ex-husband did attend some of our older daughter's functions this past school year, he did not attend the Spelling Bee she participated in in January '03 nor did he attend her Science Fair in April. I have always attended all school events for both girls.
No Comment.
I am actively seeking employment in order to be able to better provide for my daughters and myself, and this is evidenced in a listing of employer contacts that I have made. I have had several interviews and am confident that now that the job market seems to be improving, that I will secure suitable employment in the near future.
This home is in fact a 3-bedroom, not 2-bedroom home. The third bedroom is downstairs and is currently being used as a playroom. My ex-husband and I had slept in separate bedrooms for a couple of years prior to the separation, and my bed continues to be located where I had slept during that time (the larger room is less humid).
Karen's having characterized our home as "cluttered" is strictly a matter of personal opinion. Our home does indeed look "lived in," which I believe gives it a homey and welcoming appearance. I have been in homes that were so neat and tidy, that I felt very uncomfortable. I do not know what was meant by the statement that "there was evidence of animals everywhere." We do in fact have animals living in the home and they are very much a part of our family--this is true in many homes.
The girls do indeed have many possessions in relation to the size of their rooms. I am the only one in my extended family who has children, so my extended family has contributed significantly to my children's possessions as they have regularly given them gifts throughout their lives.
Karen having stated that I said I "made about $1,200 last year" is inaccurate; rather, I stated to her that since having the books published I have made about $1,200, mostly during 2000.
Karen's indication that I have supposedly used poor judgment in relation to joining the YMCA and traveling to purchase puppies is a matter of opinion. First of all, I have arthritis in one of my hips that is relieved only by using weights (previously I have been a member at America's for the past 3 1/2 years), otherwise I can hardly sleep from the pain. Further, the purchase of the puppies is in part due to the failing health of our elderly and diabetic dog. When he passes away, it will be a hard loss and will hopefully be lessened by establishing relationships with the new puppies. This is a personal matter that has nothing to do with determining custody. Collie type breeds make excellent family dogs, and it has been my intent for many years to ultimately have a collie dog for the children. The Shelties will more than pay for themselves within one year when they have their first litter of pups. The monies will then be used to help pay for the girls' education, as they are well aware and are helping to take responsibility in that way. Further, having the pups to care for is an excellent way to teach responsibility, much like raising livestock was when I myself was a kid in 4-H.
In relation to my ability to support myself, it should be taken into consideration that my ex-husband's retail career hampered my ability to complete a college degree. I had been accepted and was actively making plans to attend William Jewell College in a suburb of Kansas City beginning Fall of '93 in pursuit of a degree in Psychology, when my ex-husband's job relocated us to Duluth, MN. In '94 we lived in 4 different towns in 3 different states. All the excessive moving around was not conducive to my completing a degree nor holding down any job of any consequence. My having been out of the work force for 9 1/2 years, although enjoyable and rewarding to have been caring for my children, is hampering my ability to secure employment now. One contact at the Work Force Center specifically told me that an employer was more likely to hire someone fresh out of college, rather than to hire me with my lapse in employment and previous 12 years experience doing office work.
In relation to counseling our older daughter received for her anger, it should be indicated that I sought counseling help for our older daughter by expressing concern to our pastor, who then obtained a referral name for me to contact. In relation to my supposedly self-reporting that I explode at our older daughter's demonstrated anger behavior, more accurately stated I spoke with Diana Bofencamp in regards to seeking advice for how best to handle our older daughter's angry outbursts. I told her that I did not like my responses, but that I did not know how best to respond. I was seeking help for both our older daughter and for myself because I value our relationship and wanted to see it improve. My ex-husband himself has stated to me in the past that he did not understand nor know how best to handle our older daughter during these episodes either. My ex-husband himself also would explode in response to our older daughter's angry outbursts, and I would intervene due to concerns that he was going to physically harm her. Many times he slapped her hard enough across her face to leave the imprint of his hand, and he would leave bruises on her legs from spanking her too hard.
Again, in relation to the counseling sessions with Mike Fischer in 1998, these were per my initiative also and were not supported by the girls' father. I had discussed family concerns with my family doctor, Dr. Mary Amon, who then referred me to Mike Fischer. After several visits with Mr. Fischer, counseling was ended due to my ex-husband stating that the sessions were a "waste of time and money."
Karen's statement that both parents made efforts to resolve this issue with our older daughter is not true--in both instances where counseling was initiated, I was the one who initiated it.
Karen inaccurately states that I have been seeing Cheryl Hansen for counseling for two years. In fact, I began seeing Cheryl in June of '02. Cheryl is well aware of the PMS connection with the depression, in addition to situational depression. I discussed Karen's statement in regards to this with Cheryl recently, and she continued to acknowledge the PMS connection. Cheryl denies stating that I would start and stop medication on my own--such a statement is misleading. Cheryl is well aware that I had quit taking the Zoloft for awhile last fall as it is so expensive, that I felt guilty for always having to charge it on a credit card. Cheryl is also well aware that I resumed taking the Zoloft in March, and am currently financially able to do so due to qualifying for MA.
I assume that there is a typo in this document to have indicated I saw Dr. "Taiwanese"--in fact, it was Dr. Tinius. Further, the date was July 8th, not the 6th.
Concerns about me that Karen indicates she shared with Dr. Tinius in regards to boundary issues are unfounded--the Christmas newsletter and divorce log web site were both private communications solely with close family and friends and should never have been entered into considerations of this case. I do not have explosive anger, and to say that I do would be based solely on hearsay, presumably by my ex-husband. In truth both my ex-husband and I were tense and angry during the last couple years of our cohabitation. The stress and tension has lessened significantly since my ex-husband's departure. In regards to the Clinical Depression, I am clearly in treatment for this by seeing a counselor regularly and by being on Zoloft--this is in no way an issue.
In regards to Karen's statements regarding my ex-husband supposedly being passively reactive to anger, this is completely not true and is apparently based on her believing statements my ex-husband made to her. Since 1996 my ex-husband has primarily been the angry one in our home. I was myself passively responsive to his angry
outbursts, until Fall '99 when frankly I had had enough. After that time we were both angry with each other most of the time.
There are an extreme number of inaccuracies in Dr. Tinius' report, as addressed in my response to them. Karen's statement that Dr. Tinius characterized me as over exaggerating issues is completely not true; rather, I was completely open and honest in expressing my concerns about my ex-husband's perverted behaviors. It is indeed logical for my ex-husband to lie regarding these matters--why would he be truthful about them? Unfortunately everything I shared was true and not exaggerated, and those who believe his lies in regards to this case are doing my daughters a gross injustice.
In meeting with my family doctor last week, she specifically stated that she in no way believes that I am delusional. Further, in meeting with my counselor a couple of weeks ago, she said that you can only get a feel for how someone truly is by meeting with them one-on-one for an extended period of time--not from interpreting test results that have questionable validity. Often times there is no clear cut answer to the questions that are asked on such tests; thus, inaccurate conclusions may result.
I do not know where the idea of my having "overly religious beliefs" plays into anything. I had been told many years ago that anyone who shares spiritual experiences with anyone in the psychological field, is labeled "delusional," but never did I think such an experience would happen to me. I do not deserve to be discriminated against based on my religious beliefs. Having spiritual experiences is not indicative of a loss of touch with reality. There are many people in this world who have had spiritual experiences who in no way have any psychological problems. Clearly Dr. Tinius is a non-believer, and it is not appropriate for him to label me as "delusional" based on my spiritual experiences. Dr. Tinius' correlating my being supposedly delusional with my supposedly having "angry outbursts, irritability and tendency to believe numerous accusations" is absurd - he did not personally observe any of these behaviors in me and thus has based their occurrence solely on hearsay. This is unfair.
Had the guardian and custody evaluator not fed negatively into the interactions with Dr. Tinius, it is unlikely that he would have drawn the conclusions that he did. I believe that the independent psych. evaluation I recently had conducted will prove that.
Again, in relation to Karen's interview with Perry Wieland, he stated to me recently that he had made a balance of positive and negative comments in regards to my parenting and that he had in fact shared concerns regarding my ex-husband's inappropriateness with the girls. Yet again, these sharings are not included in Karen's report.
I have never EVER referred to my children as "possessions," nor have I ever in any way viewed them as such. I am protective of my children and have always looked out for their safety and well being. In conversations with Perry Wieland in the past, he has told me that he believes I view my children as "possessions," but in fact his view on this matter is incorrect.
In relation to Dr. Thurber having supposedly stated that one parent is "indulgent" and the other is "reluctant to discipline at this time," I'd be curious upon what he bases these statements (he only had extremely limited contact with the parents). If he is in fact characterizing me as "indulgent," this certainly is not true. My ex-husband and I have never parented well together, my ex-husband is much more stringent in his rules than I am regarding inconsequential matters. I have found that irritating, as I have viewed him as nit-picking at the children.
In regards to visits with our family physician, on all occasions I have been the one to take the girls to the doctor. On some occasions my ex-husband would show up at the appointments, but by no means would he "frequently" be present.
In regards to prescriptions my ex-husband takes, my ex-husband does have a prescription pain medication that he was taking on occasion due to severe arthritic pain in his injured arm.
No Comment.
No Comment.
I do not know whether I shared with Karen regarding the abuse I sustained from [MY EX-HUSBAND] during the last three years of our cohabitation, but it certainly did occur.
In actuality, Family Services never investigated all of the allegations the children shared about their father. There was no investigation conducted in April when our older daughter, accompanied by my friend Vickie Radel, shared with an intake worker at Family Services in regards to such instances as her father having put his fingers down the front of her bikini top. I was not present during this interview, but the sharings that occurred were related to me by my friend Vickie Radel, as well as by our older daughter] herself. The investigation conducted in November '02 was only in relation to a few events shared with them by my counselor, Cheryl Hansen--by no means in regards to the many inappropriate behaviors our older daughter has exhibited with the girls over the past few years. I attempted to gain access to the investigation files, but found that it will be cost-prohibitive for me to do so. A few months ago I contacted Charlotte Hand and left a message requesting to be able to come in and view the file, but she never returned my phone call.
Karen told me from day one of meeting with her that she would not listen to one parent badmouthing the other parent. Thus, I was not sure what she
would or would not be willing to listen to, regardless of the validity, and was thus conservative in my sharings with her.
In regards to the mysterious revised visitation schedule, Karen fails to mention that I, too, received a copy of this schedule, although a few days after my ex-husband did in that mine was sent to my P.O. box, which I do not check every day. I do not see the correlation between this schedule and Karen's statement that it "places the children in the middle." It would be nice, however, to learn the origin of such a schedule since it seems to have created such a stir.
In relation to Karen stating that I supposedly said that my ex-husband "was not involved in the kids' life before and why should he be now," the reality is that in regards to who should be granted primary custody, it is indeed logical for the kids to continue to reside with the parent who has been their primary caretaker, rather than for primary custody to be awarded to the parent who had little to do with taking care of them. In regards to the bus stop change, this was done in consideration for my ex-husband's expressed irritation in his Affidavit to the court for the Temporary Order hearing in which he stated that the girls were distracting his employees. Truck Transport is a common and regular drop off and pick up location for children in the Willmar area who attend CMCS, and many children and parents use this location as their regular bus stop.
In regards to collateral contacts having contacted the Guardian ad Litem office and making statements that were not true, quite awhile after they had been sent, I became aware of the complaints that my older sister and parents had sent to the Guardian ad Litem office and some of the inaccuracies they contained. Had I been aware of these communications
prior to their having been sent, I would certainly have informed them of the inaccuracies or have discouraged them to have sent them at all.
Physical Custody -
Karen makes many statements in regards to the divorce web site that are completely untrue and unsubstantiated. First of all, the web site was never made available to the public at large and would never have become part of these proceedings had someone who had presumably been my friend not chosen to share the web site address with the guardian. Karen has made the assumption that the hits counter was exclusively for the divorce log web site, while in fact there are six web sites connected with that counter (I use this stats company for statistical purposes, not to keep track of number of hits). The main site connected with this site tracker is my Author web site, which has been hooked into the counter for at least the past two years (almost all the hits have been to this web site, NOT to the divorce log web site).
I am appalled at the statement regarding my supposedly dressing my child in a sexually provocative way. If our older daughter's shirts are skin tight, it's because she has large breasts that fill out her shirts. This in no way is my attempt to set her up for sexual abuse, but rather is simply a consequence of her physical structuring.
I have consistently characterized my ex-husband]'s involvement with the children in an accurate way. I have only referred to my ex-husband as a "sperm donor" with select family and friends. I expressed concerns in regards to my ex-husband being granted additional time with the girls in relation to his perverted behaviors. I in no way have viewed the access schedule that was put into place as "normal," according to my understanding of typical visitation granted to non-custodial parents. It is very reasonable for me to have been resistant to visitation scheduling that would in my view subject my children to potentially more perverted and inappropriate behaviors with their father.
Karen states that I have bad-mouthed my ex-husband in front of the girls in the community as well as at church--this is completely a lie--if anyone states I have bad-mouthed my ex-husband in front of the girls, they are lying--no one has witnessed such and I'd be curious as to who would have shared such untrue statements. Presumably Karen is basing this solely on hearsay, and it is not true.
For my ex-husband to have stated that it was "several" years ago when he viewed internet porn is misstated - my ex-husband viewed internet porn regularly and consistently throughout the entire year of 2000--that was not "several" years ago. I believe that my ex-husband is lying to state the girls were never in the room, since both girls on more than one occasion asked me why daddy was viewing naked women on the computer - in fact, their having asked me is how I came to learn of his habit initially. I have no clue who would have supposedly accused me of misusing the internet, but whoever said it was lying. I'm increasingly coming to learn that some who've said they were my friends, have proven to be lousy friends in regards to this custody battle by sharing things that did not need to be shared, by misstating events to be different than how they really are, and even to have made false accusations against me.
I do not have emotional needs that will interfere with my ability to parent my children full-time. There is no sound basis for me supposedly being emotionally unstable. I have parented my children full-time with few problems for 9 1/2 years now. No parent is perfect, and my ex-husband is by no means a better parent than I am.
It is inaccurate for Karen to state that I have supposedly "not made realistic choices to get on with her life and plan for the future." I have continued to actively seek employment, but have had many factors working against me in that regard. While I do continue to actively market my music and my books, I am not exclusively pursuing these avenues as a base for financial support. Karen would not have accurate knowledge of my financial pursuits and is simply making inaccurate assumptions.
Her statement that my ex-husband has been "an active parent while maintaining a full time job" is not true and is likely primarily based on statements my ex-husband would have made to her himself. In fact, he has had very little to do with the upbringing of these children.
In terms of Karen's mention of possibly seizing the hard drives of both computers, there is in fact nothing inappropriate to find on mine--I have nothing to hide. In terms of my ex-husband's computer, the hard drive was replaced on it a couple of months before he moved out, so the damaging evidence that was contained on its hard drive is no longer accessible.
I am extremely opposed to Karen's recommendation for Murlene Gruis to "remain on the case for an additional six months to help resolve any issues that might come up and arrange for a reasonable transfer of physical custody." Ms. Gruis has consistently shown gross favoritism to my ex-husband from day one, while contributing herself to the negative relation that evolved between herself and me. I am not able to work with this woman and do not believe that she has been fair up to this point, nor would she show fairness in the future. It is imperative that such a recommendation not be honored in the best interests of the majority involved.
|
