You are here

BMs lawyers response

LittleBoPeep's picture

DH heard back from BMs lawyer. BM rejected both of DHs settlement offers (to calculate child support based on no daycare costs for either party or calculate BMs at a reasonable rate for before school care instead of $150 per week). 

She counter offered for child support to remain the same ($550 per month) instead of it increasing to $640 for month. DH is not going to accept that proposal. 

BMs lawyer didn’t really respond to most of the points made in the letter, expect to emphasize that BM and GBM have a notarized contract dated a month before BM filed her court responses and the fact that she left daycare expenses off of two court documents under oath was simply an oversight.

above is the letter from DHs lawyer since I deleted previous post  

So to court they go. Court date is beginning of November. Can’t wait. 


SteppedOut's picture

She's full of it. I hope the judge sees through this nonsense . Nothing surprises me when it comes to child support, unfortunately. Seems like lots of liars get away with it.

LittleBoPeep's picture

I hope the judge sees through it too. By the time this is over I’m going to have a stomach ulcer. 

SonOfABrisketMaker's picture

who notarized it? Would it be someone willing to perjure themselves for BM's lie? Maybe subpoena the notary's log?

LittleBoPeep's picture

It was notarized by a friend/coworker of GBM. Yes, I’m thinking the log should be subpoenaed. 

justmakingthebest's picture

All a notary does is verify that the people that are signing a document are who they say they are, not that the information is correct. The notary isn't responsible for that.

LittleBoPeep's picture

Yea, DHs lawyer wrote a great letter, I was very impressed with it.  The response from BMs was basically my client rejects the offer, She is incurring $150 a week in child care expenses and she produced a notarized contract stating the same.  She didn't even address the fact that the cost is exhorbitent or that there are other daycare providers in the area charging much less.

Willow2010's picture

Subpoena the log for sure. 

Also…GBM must claim the “day care” money on taxes.  I wonder if they know this.  She is going to have to pay taxes on anything she says she is charging BM.  I would want proof of that at the end of the year.  (Not sure that would be possible or not)

SteppedOut's picture

And if gma us collecting social security, disability,  etc it would affect that as well... 

ProbablyAlreadyInsane's picture

I could walk into a bank and notorize a contract with the local homeless man to bring poptarts daily for the next year. My point being. You can notorize anything, and if you leave it off in court, then you clearly didn't need the extra CS before.

Good luck in court! She sounds full of s***.

LittleBoPeep's picture

Right??? Her lawyer is acting like the fact that this contract is notarized is the end all be all.  Granted, I don't know a lot about notarization but to me it sounds like it is used as proof that the two people who are signing a contract are actually the ones who signed it in case something goes wrong between the two parties.  It doesn't seem to mean much more than that. 

futurobrillante99's picture

BM lied in court saying she had no childcare costs and now she has a back dated letter saying she did at a time she said she didn’t.

LittleBoPeep's picture

Pretty much.  BM filled out a financial statement stating no child care expenses and also had her lawyer file an answer to DHs motion that stated that she admitted SD was no longer enrolled in daycare.

Here is the financial form:

Not sure how someone could forget to fill in the work related child care expenses, or how a lawyer could also mean to write that she has $150 a week in child care expenses but actually write that the defendant admits she doesn't have child care expenses.  BM is grasping for straws and I really hope the judge will see that.

hereiam's picture

A notarized contract between BM and her mother? Big whoop! I don't believe for a minute that she's paying her mother a dime.

I used to be a notary, all it means is that the people signing are who they say they are, the notary has verified this, and has witnessed the signatures on the document. That's it. The content of what is being notarized, and if it's true or not, is not the concern of a notary.

I sincerely hope a judge would see through this "contract". What a joke.

LittleBoPeep's picture

That's what I thought as well.  I guess we will see come November 5th.  If a judge buys this I will lose all faith in our court system.

ndc's picture

The DATE is an issue, though.  Based on what BM has said in court and in writing, she had no daycare expenses on and even after that date.  It sounds like the notary/friend may have backdated the notarization - something for which she can get in trouble.  You can have something notarized after the fact - you can date a document as of the date you want it to be effective (documents are backdated all the time), and then acknowledge to the notary on a later date that the signature on the document is yours.  In that case the notarization date will be the date it was notarized, not the date of the contract, and the notary hasn't done a thing wrong.  Have you seen the actual contract?

ProbablyAlreadyInsane's picture

"Per Week/Day/Hour" Seems to me like a suspiciously form type paper that they neglected to finish filling out... 

When was she served with paperwork? It's possible she signed this like Psycho did her lease and marriage contract. As the "look good for court." Personally I call it "deathbed actions."

LittleBoPeep's picture

So my husband filed paperwork to reduce child support 7/2.  She sent him a text on 7/11 stating it was funny that he wanted to reduce child support when he was still 2k in arrears.  Her response was filed on 7/20 from her lawyer which stated that she admitted the minor child was no longer enrolled in daycare. 

ProbablyAlreadyInsane's picture

So this paper wasn't even signed until a month after?! I really hope the judge sees right through that crap!!! That's ridiculous!!!

LittleBoPeep's picture

Yes! Her lawyer is stating that BM leaving the daycare costs off of her sworn financial statement and her answer to DHs motion to modify child support was "simply an oversight".  It is crazy!

notarelative's picture

The rules may be different, but here both parties must appear before the notary and sign in their presence.

As to whether the log would reflect the actual date, it may depend on how often the notary notarizes. My first husband was the back up notary at work. He only notarized a few times each year. Depending on the last time he notarized at work, it may have been possible to add a backdated entry to the log (which he never would).

I love dogs's picture

Grr! BM's lawyer is an idiot but it sounds like she'd rather be paid than do the right thing. I have no doubt that GBM's friend would forge a date on this notarized document. I sure hope you have a good judge. These idiot BMs will stop at nothing to get a few extra dollars. Common sense says BM is lying so I can't wait until the hearing and I hope BM shot herself in the foot with the form she filled out in July!

LittleBoPeep's picture

I am so anxious for the outcome of this.  BM is desperate to keep her child support money.  Funny thing, as soon as the $550 per month that DH was paying no longer had to go to the preschool SD was going to, BM showed up with a new SUV.  I'm 100% sure she needs this money for her car payment.

I love dogs's picture

Oh absolutely! The funny thing is she's not trying to decrease his parenting time. Do they alternate claiming SD on taxes?

LittleBoPeep's picture

They have alternated, but honestly DH should claim her every year.  If the parents have 50/50 custody the one with the higher AGI is supposed to claim them.  There is nothing in their order about taxes at all. 

BM makes 25k a year, according to her most recent paystub she has paid about $200 total in taxes (state and federal) and each year she gets $10k back in taxes.  She will prob get $15k back when she claims her oldest, SD, and the new baby next year.  It makes me want to puke.  She is a serial breeder and works the system and it is so gross.

Ispofacto's picture

If this works for her it is a slippery slope.  What's to stop her from claiming GBM is getting $1000/week?  All GUBM's in your county would jump on that bandwagon.

This can't work, it's outlandish.


LittleBoPeep's picture

I am hoping this section on the financial statement will help our case:

Child Care Expenses: Actual child care expenses incurred on behalf of a child due to employment or job search of either parent with amount to be determined by actual experience or the level required to provide quality care from a licensed source.


advice.only2's picture

Courts don't care they will go with what she has provided regardless.

Meth mouth claimed DH didn't pay her for alimony for the two years he owed her. Meth mouth got married the same month their divorce was finalized. DH had to provide a copy of her marraige certificate (provided by her other ex) to the courts, if he hadn't had that the courts were willing to accept exactly what she was telling them.

When DH provided the marriage certificate all the judge said was "you must have been confused on your dates" and meth mouth just batted her eyelashes and cried and went into some sob story about PTSD from her second marriage.

Sorry I hate to be Debbie Downer but I have had too many years of being screwed financially and emotionally by the family court system to believe that anything reasonable or good will come out of this.

LittleBoPeep's picture

I am trying to be optimistic for the time being but I'm not going to lie, I am definitely worried. 

ndc's picture

It is ludicrous that the contract calls for child care all day every day when the child is in school for most of the day, your DH has after care covered (if I understand that correctly) and the BM doesn't even work full time.  I already know that the family court system is majorly screwed up, but if a judge doesn't see through this then it's more screwed up than I think.

Also, unless it's under the part that you blacked out, I don't even see a notarial acknowledgement.  The notary affixed her seal and I assume signed the document, but I see no acknowledgement that the parties actually appeared before her and signed the document.  Weird.  You might scare the notary into telling the truth if your lawyer subpoenas her log.  But ultimately, does it matter when the contract was signed?  If BM has legitimate child care expenses, she's entitled to get something from your DH, right?  I hope she screws herself by being so greedy.


LittleBoPeep's picture

Yes, DH has after care covered at the licensed daycare center that is located at SDs elementary school.  In March of this year, DH sent a text to BM asking what her plan was for before and after care because he was going to need it, and told her two of the options that he had found and the prices.  She responded that she was good with not needing before and after care (DH still has this text).  He also has many texts from her where she tells him that she only works when SD is at our house, her mom doesn't watch SD, etc.

She even sent DH a text on August 24th that says "I told you I work when you have her" and then DH questioned her and asked "so you're off when you have her?" and she said "stop with the questions I don't have a set schedule, my schedule varies".  It's like she can't keep her lies straight.

I did black out a large part of the notarization because you could see her name and signature.


hereiam's picture

Never mind, my question was answered above. I didn't see where the notary signed and dated it but you said that she did.

But, if it was dated 6/18 and in July, she claimed there was no day care.... Pretty sketchy, just like the "contract", itself.

notarelative's picture

I get giving your mom money when she does regular day care. There are extra expenses when you have a child regularly. But, I don’t get having your mom sign a contract. Why would you have a contract between you and your mom?

The contract doesn’t pass the small test.