Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

He admitted it!!

Posted by on Dec. 21, 2017 at 4:58 PM
  • 10 Replies
My ex and I have been in court for the past 18 months over one sentence in our MSA: “If the father continuously and timely exercises yimesharing with the child for a period of 6 consecutive months, then he will be granted 50/50.” He took me to court alleging that it said and he understood it to say any period of 6 months, we argued that he hadn’t complied and it was the first 6 months. Waiting on an appellate ruling bc the circuit judge ruled that it could be any 6 months.

We’re at DS’s therapy appointment today and he straight told the therapist that he knew it was the first 6 months and that he had lied under oath to get his way!!! Therapist said “You do realize you just disclosed a crime to me and you’re not covered by privilege, right?”

Can’t reach my lawyer but I’m going to do something about this. Enough is enough.
by on Dec. 21, 2017 at 4:58 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
tottaxi
by Battle Weary on Dec. 21, 2017 at 9:12 PM

Holy sh*t!  That is awesome!

Do you think he was bragging because he thinks he has won the appeal?

Fayanne
by Bronze Member on Dec. 22, 2017 at 6:58 AM

wow..................

Valentina327
by on Dec. 22, 2017 at 7:04 AM
That language is ambiguous though. It doesn't state within the first 6 month time period after the order is in effect. I can see where the argument is.

I don't understand how he's not covered though. Wouldn't she not be able to discuss what came out in therapy under HIPPA?
Fayanne
by Bronze Member on Dec. 22, 2017 at 7:53 AM
1 mom liked this

protected health information is not protected if a crime is involved.

Quoting Valentina327: That language is ambiguous though. It doesn't state within the first 6 month time period after the order is in effect. I can see where the argument is. I don't understand how he's not covered though. Wouldn't she not be able to discuss what came out in therapy under HIPPA?


Valentina327
by on Dec. 22, 2017 at 8:13 AM
Ahhhhh...I thought the only breach allowed was harm to self or others.

Quoting Fayanne:

protected health information is not protected if a crime is involved.

Quoting Valentina327: That language is ambiguous though. It doesn't state within the first 6 month time period after the order is in effect. I can see where the argument is.

I don't understand how he's not covered though. Wouldn't she not be able to discuss what came out in therapy under HIPPA?

STBSingleMom
by Bronze Member on Dec. 22, 2017 at 8:37 AM
The sentence taken alone is ambiguous. However, in Florida you have to construe a contract so that it’s binding over being absurd, look at the principles of contract construction, and where there is an ambiguity, look to extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent.

So, on that:

1. Florida Supreme Court and appellate rulings have found that clauses like mine that can be triggered at a remote time without a date certain are unenforceable bc they remove the court’s obligation to review best interests of the child. The specific case is Arthur v Arthur.

2. Principles of construction say you look beyond a single sentence, and this sentence was part of a paragraph defining time sharing for the first 6 months. Where the sentence alone is ambiguous - the paragraph starts with “Upon execution of...the father will exercise timesharing per the attached schedule, the mother will have all other times. And if he doesn’t miss his time for a period of 6 consecutive months, then it’s 50/50.”

3. In my case, it was a Scrivener’s Error. The handwritten MSA has the same sentence but with the additional clause “from the date of execution of the MSA.” It was a long and clunky sentence and my lawyer felt it wasn’t necessary but our intent was clear. I have court filings that show we both knew it was the first 6 months. I have an email from him, dated AT the 6 month mark, saying “As you know, it’s been 6 months and 50/50 should kick in” to which I replied, “you didn’t comply.”

Most importantly - HE testified on the stand (in a slip up where his lawyer objected and cut him off) that “50/50 was supposed to kick in after THE 6 months that I wanted to have 70%.”

But now he admitted to the therapist (who is a well-known expert witness in the county) that he knowingly filed a false motion and that he lied to get his way. There should be consequences for perjury and filing a false motion.

Quoting Valentina327: That language is ambiguous though. It doesn't state within the first 6 month time period after the order is in effect. I can see where the argument is.

I don't understand how he's not covered though. Wouldn't she not be able to discuss what came out in therapy under HIPPA?
goldpandora
by Bronze Member on Dec. 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM
1 mom liked this

Perhaps he's not covered because it was his son's therapy session and not his?

Quoting Valentina327: That language is ambiguous though. It doesn't state within the first 6 month time period after the order is in effect. I can see where the argument is. I don't understand how he's not covered though. Wouldn't she not be able to discuss what came out in therapy under HIPPA?


STBSingleMom
by Bronze Member on Dec. 22, 2017 at 9:13 AM
1 mom liked this
It also only applies to the patient. My son is the patient. The dr meets with us at beginning or end of session to discuss issues and progress bc he’s young. So neither my ex nor I are covered, and he made that clear on day one.

Quoting Fayanne:

protected health information is not protected if a crime is involved.

Quoting Valentina327: That language is ambiguous though. It doesn't state within the first 6 month time period after the order is in effect. I can see where the argument is.

I don't understand how he's not covered though. Wouldn't she not be able to discuss what came out in therapy under HIPPA?

STBSingleMom
by Bronze Member on Dec. 22, 2017 at 9:14 AM
Exactly. Anything my ex or I state isn’t covered because we aren’t the patients. He cannot discuss what my son says except if a guardian ad litem is appointed and the court orders him to.

Quoting goldpandora:

Perhaps he's not covered because it was his son's therapy session and not his?

Quoting Valentina327: That language is ambiguous though. It doesn't state within the first 6 month time period after the order is in effect. I can see where the argument is.

I don't understand how he's not covered though. Wouldn't she not be able to discuss what came out in therapy under HIPPA?

Fayanne
by Bronze Member on Dec. 22, 2017 at 9:21 AM

ahh... even better!

Quoting STBSingleMom: It also only applies to the patient. My son is the patient. The dr meets with us at beginning or end of session to discuss issues and progress bc he’s young. So neither my ex nor I are covered, and he made that clear on day one.
Quoting Fayanne:

protected health information is not protected if a crime is involved.

Quoting Valentina327: That language is ambiguous though. It doesn't state within the first 6 month time period after the order is in effect. I can see where the argument is. I don't understand how he's not covered though. Wouldn't she not be able to discuss what came out in therapy under HIPPA?


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)