Jean -> Randy 01/27/2017
4:04 PM
Subject: Taxes
As you were not current with child support as of 12-31-2016, I
will be claiming Emma as a dependent for 2016. (refer page 20 Item 12.). I am
letting you know this so that we avoid accidentally both claiming her and
getting audited.
Please complete IRS form 8332 (Attached as f8332.pdf) and return it to me. This is not required for me to claim Emma, but I have been advised that it should decrease the likelihood of either of us getting audited.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Please complete IRS form 8332 (Attached as f8332.pdf) and return it to me. This is not required for me to claim Emma, but I have been advised that it should decrease the likelihood of either of us getting audited.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Randy -> Jean 02/01/17
11:45 AM
Subject: RE: Taxes
Below is the message which I had initially sent to Maxwell.
However, let me first respond to a comment made in Maxwell's message to both Jean
and me: "We need to practice being able to safely ask questions, offer
responses, and, if necessary, offer me an opportunity to intervene and
assist."
I do not feel safe asking questions directly of Jean. We have bad habits and a history to this point and I know that I actively avoid raising concerns if it is possible. I sincerely hope, in our working with Maxwell, that I can overcome this baggage and we can achieve the situation he described.
Here is the aforementioned message:
I am sharing this, not seeking guidance or intervention with financial concerns or child support. Instead, I offer this as an example of a communication issue we seem to have.
This was the first I was notified of any issues/concerns regarding child support payments.
Jean actually set up the wage garnishment through Minnesota Child Support Services initially. I have reached out to the case worker, to try to understand what happened and how the automatic payments fell short, but have, as yet, been able to reach them.
This matter-of-fact presentation of an issue, only after deadlines have already passed, is not helpful. In a similar fashion, she first notified me that Emma has been seeing a therapist, regarding struggles with homework, after she'd attended 6 sessions, and now I retroactively owe portions of the co-pay. That winds up feeling link a sudden "gotcha".
I'm not entirely sure what to do differently, but the current communication approach is problematic. I welcome suggestions.
I do not feel safe asking questions directly of Jean. We have bad habits and a history to this point and I know that I actively avoid raising concerns if it is possible. I sincerely hope, in our working with Maxwell, that I can overcome this baggage and we can achieve the situation he described.
Here is the aforementioned message:
I am sharing this, not seeking guidance or intervention with financial concerns or child support. Instead, I offer this as an example of a communication issue we seem to have.
This was the first I was notified of any issues/concerns regarding child support payments.
Jean actually set up the wage garnishment through Minnesota Child Support Services initially. I have reached out to the case worker, to try to understand what happened and how the automatic payments fell short, but have, as yet, been able to reach them.
This matter-of-fact presentation of an issue, only after deadlines have already passed, is not helpful. In a similar fashion, she first notified me that Emma has been seeing a therapist, regarding struggles with homework, after she'd attended 6 sessions, and now I retroactively owe portions of the co-pay. That winds up feeling link a sudden "gotcha".
I'm not entirely sure what to do differently, but the current communication approach is problematic. I welcome suggestions.
Randy
-> Jean 02/01/2017
2:26 PM
Subject:
RE: Taxes
I just got
a call back from Lisa D., the child support worker on our case. She explained
to me how things work in their system and that I am in good standing.
She welcomes you to call her to clear up any concerns.
Her number is: ###-###-####
Our case number is: ########## 01
She welcomes you to call her to clear up any concerns.
Her number is: ###-###-####
Our case number is: ########## 01
Jean -> Randy 02/01/2017
5:08 PM
Subject: RE: Taxes
Randy,
It is your responsibility to ensure the state collected payments will be sufficient to meet your support obligation by the end of the year (Dec 31). It is not my responsibility to check on your behalf.
On December 31, 2016 you were $431.96 behind on payments for 2016. Therefore, you may not claim Emma as a dependent for 2016. The fact that this amount has since been collected (on 1/23/2017) is not relevant.
This email was simply a courtesy to ensure that we do not both claim her and end up getting audited.
Further, this is not an issue that is in the scope of the authority of the Parenting Consultant.
Maxwell,
Please advise on how to end this thread.
It seems there are a lot of other issues below beyond the called out issue in the subject line, which is taxes. I have attempted to respond to the issue in the subject, but I am not sure if I am responding to the correct issue.
It is your responsibility to ensure the state collected payments will be sufficient to meet your support obligation by the end of the year (Dec 31). It is not my responsibility to check on your behalf.
On December 31, 2016 you were $431.96 behind on payments for 2016. Therefore, you may not claim Emma as a dependent for 2016. The fact that this amount has since been collected (on 1/23/2017) is not relevant.
This email was simply a courtesy to ensure that we do not both claim her and end up getting audited.
Further, this is not an issue that is in the scope of the authority of the Parenting Consultant.
Maxwell,
Please advise on how to end this thread.
It seems there are a lot of other issues below beyond the called out issue in the subject line, which is taxes. I have attempted to respond to the issue in the subject, but I am not sure if I am responding to the correct issue.
Maxwell -> Randy & Jean 02/07/2017
2:28 PM
Hello Jean and Randy -
This is a tricky issue to get started on as the content (taxes) is beyond the scope of my authority. That being said, Randy appears to be asking for something related to communication, not taxes.
For the most part, I do not see Randy's fundamental "ask" as being wrong-headed or inappropriate. He believes that you, Jean, had a certain set of facts before you - that he was behind in his child support payments - and that, as a result, you made unilateral pronouncements about what was going to happen, in part, based on the decree. I have reviewed the decree and it does state that you can each claim a child, provided that Randy is up to date on his payments by December 31 of the year. Jean was entitled to do this as the letter of the decree indicated as much.
Randy, I am guessing, would not argue that fundamental point. What he is saying, and asking for, is that he was not aware of any of this, was not asked about any of this, not offered any opportunity to remedy or respond, and, in the end, was left being told what to do about something he would have liked to have had some ability to remedy differently. It is, after all, possible that it was neither his fault nor his intention to not be up to date and would have been happy to have worked to make things better.
As noted previously, this is a bad example to discuss what Randy is looking for in that it's about money and the decree is clear in its language. I will, instead, take this conversation in a different direction.
We do not want to create a co-parenting relationship in which we are simply cataloging upsets, hurts, and failings related to our co-parent. That does not serve the children well. Not at all. If we have questions and concerns, they should be shared and, ideally, resolved. If we aren't doing that we are, by definition, potentially allowing "bad" things to continue with and for our children.
We have to find ways to establish some capacity to dialogue, ask questions, resolve issues. We have to find some way to build some kind of bridge between your two homes. The kids are still young enough for you to build new pathways of respectful communication so that, by the time they hit the teenage years, you have some capacity to let them know that you are united in caring for them. If you fail to do that, there is a strong chance that the children will expose the gaps to their own detriment.
Jean, I know this is hard for you. I know, respect, and recognize that establishing and maintaining boundaries is important. I am, however, saying that healthy boundaries is not the same as no communication. I am on board as your PC now so that if anyone is not respecting boundaries, not behaving, etc., I can intervene and hold them accountable. That should, I hope, allow people to build new pathways for meaningful and successful communication. The kids will be left in a less than ideal circumstance if you do not commit to doing this. They travel between two homes. If those two homes cannot learn to share and work together, even help one another be the best they can be (as in this case), then we are offering the children less than we should.
In this case, Jean, while it is not your "job" to have informed Randy of anything, it does seem as though having reached out, informed, and offered a chance to remedy, would have been a relatively low risk and positive co-parenting proposition. Better, after all, to have Randy fix it than just let it stay broken and then redeem whatever the court order offers in recompense. I ask you both to always take a minute and put yourselves in one another's shoes before doing anything else.
I hope that helps.
Thanks,
Maxwell
This is a tricky issue to get started on as the content (taxes) is beyond the scope of my authority. That being said, Randy appears to be asking for something related to communication, not taxes.
For the most part, I do not see Randy's fundamental "ask" as being wrong-headed or inappropriate. He believes that you, Jean, had a certain set of facts before you - that he was behind in his child support payments - and that, as a result, you made unilateral pronouncements about what was going to happen, in part, based on the decree. I have reviewed the decree and it does state that you can each claim a child, provided that Randy is up to date on his payments by December 31 of the year. Jean was entitled to do this as the letter of the decree indicated as much.
Randy, I am guessing, would not argue that fundamental point. What he is saying, and asking for, is that he was not aware of any of this, was not asked about any of this, not offered any opportunity to remedy or respond, and, in the end, was left being told what to do about something he would have liked to have had some ability to remedy differently. It is, after all, possible that it was neither his fault nor his intention to not be up to date and would have been happy to have worked to make things better.
As noted previously, this is a bad example to discuss what Randy is looking for in that it's about money and the decree is clear in its language. I will, instead, take this conversation in a different direction.
We do not want to create a co-parenting relationship in which we are simply cataloging upsets, hurts, and failings related to our co-parent. That does not serve the children well. Not at all. If we have questions and concerns, they should be shared and, ideally, resolved. If we aren't doing that we are, by definition, potentially allowing "bad" things to continue with and for our children.
We have to find ways to establish some capacity to dialogue, ask questions, resolve issues. We have to find some way to build some kind of bridge between your two homes. The kids are still young enough for you to build new pathways of respectful communication so that, by the time they hit the teenage years, you have some capacity to let them know that you are united in caring for them. If you fail to do that, there is a strong chance that the children will expose the gaps to their own detriment.
Jean, I know this is hard for you. I know, respect, and recognize that establishing and maintaining boundaries is important. I am, however, saying that healthy boundaries is not the same as no communication. I am on board as your PC now so that if anyone is not respecting boundaries, not behaving, etc., I can intervene and hold them accountable. That should, I hope, allow people to build new pathways for meaningful and successful communication. The kids will be left in a less than ideal circumstance if you do not commit to doing this. They travel between two homes. If those two homes cannot learn to share and work together, even help one another be the best they can be (as in this case), then we are offering the children less than we should.
In this case, Jean, while it is not your "job" to have informed Randy of anything, it does seem as though having reached out, informed, and offered a chance to remedy, would have been a relatively low risk and positive co-parenting proposition. Better, after all, to have Randy fix it than just let it stay broken and then redeem whatever the court order offers in recompense. I ask you both to always take a minute and put yourselves in one another's shoes before doing anything else.
I hope that helps.
Thanks,
Maxwell
Randy -> Jean 02/13/2017
12:40 PM
Subject: Child Support - 2017 and beyond
There appears to be some confusion around child support. I had
sent a message at 2:26 PM on 2/1/2017, which was first viewed at 3:49 PM,
wherein I extended Lisa's invitation for you to reach out to her. I am not sure
if you called her or not, but if you still have concerns, I would strongly
recommend contacting her.
I have pulled the payment information into an Excel spreadsheet. Unfortunately, [the website] seems to mangle the format. I have reached out to their support in the hopes of finding a way to share that file with you. However, they have not yet been able to provide a solution.
If you are unsatisfied with the current payment frequency or any lag in the system, I would entertain the possibility of bringing that to a close and taking on the responsibility of paying you directly. I would set up an automatic payment through my Credit Union on the first of each month for the entire amount due that month. This would ensure I am never behind and would actually remove any fees being charged by the state. That is completely up to you, and we'd definitely need to coordinate it, to be certain we didn't encounter any gaps.
I have pulled the payment information into an Excel spreadsheet. Unfortunately, [the website] seems to mangle the format. I have reached out to their support in the hopes of finding a way to share that file with you. However, they have not yet been able to provide a solution.
If you are unsatisfied with the current payment frequency or any lag in the system, I would entertain the possibility of bringing that to a close and taking on the responsibility of paying you directly. I would set up an automatic payment through my Credit Union on the first of each month for the entire amount due that month. This would ensure I am never behind and would actually remove any fees being charged by the state. That is completely up to you, and we'd definitely need to coordinate it, to be certain we didn't encounter any gaps.
Jean -> Randy 02/13/2017
3:09 PM
Subject: RE: Child Support - 2017 and beyond
You are able to make extra payments in December as needed to
ensure you are current at the end of the Year. I know you are aware of how to
do this as you did it in December of 2015.
This topic is closed. I will not be responding to any further communication on the topic of taxes and child support.
If you have any additional issues with taxes or childsupport, you can have your lawyer contact mine.
This topic is closed. I will not be responding to any further communication on the topic of taxes and child support.
If you have any additional issues with taxes or childsupport, you can have your lawyer contact mine.
Randy -> Jean 12/05/2017
7:47 PM
Subject: 2016 Taxes
I received a letter from the IRS informing me that they received a
tax return from a taxpayer claiming a dependent or qualifying child with the
same social security number as a dependent or qualifying child I claimed on my
tax return. The SSN in question is Emma’s.
I suspect you received a similar letter.
On February 15th, 2017, my attorney sent physical and electronic mail to your attorney which detailed why I would be claiming Emma. We received no objection. In fact, we received no response at all.
I ask that you fill out the 1040X Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, as detailed in the IRS letter, and notify me that you have done this.
I do not wish to draw my lawyer back into this conversation. If I am forced to do so, or if I incur expenses related to an audit that comes about by your failure to act, I will be requesting reimbursement, including the $375 that was already spent in having my attorney send that letter back in February.
I suspect you received a similar letter.
On February 15th, 2017, my attorney sent physical and electronic mail to your attorney which detailed why I would be claiming Emma. We received no objection. In fact, we received no response at all.
I ask that you fill out the 1040X Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, as detailed in the IRS letter, and notify me that you have done this.
I do not wish to draw my lawyer back into this conversation. If I am forced to do so, or if I incur expenses related to an audit that comes about by your failure to act, I will be requesting reimbursement, including the $375 that was already spent in having my attorney send that letter back in February.
Jean -> Randy 12/11/2017
8:53 AM
Subject: RE: 2016 Taxes
You were not entitled to claim the children in 2016. I was very
clear about this and I did not provide you the form. Tax law is very clear that
you may not claim Emma without this form. I did not provide the form and I
repeatedly stated that I would not.
You will have to amend your tax return.
You are always welcome to have your lawyer contact my lawyer at your own expense.
You will have to amend your tax return.
You are always welcome to have your lawyer contact my lawyer at your own expense.
Randy -> Jean 12/20/2017
3:18 PM
Subject: RE: 2016 Taxes
I tried to have my lawyer contact your lawyer (back in February).
Your lawyer never acknowledged the letter that was sent.
This shouldn't even have to involve lawyers in the first place, but, as that was your requested method of communication, the least I would have expected was a response.
I'm trying to determine where the communication breakdown is occurring:
From my lawyer to your lawyer,
from your lawyer to you,
from you back to your lawyer,
or from your lawyer back to my lawyer.
Can you please confirm whether or not you received communication from your lawyer regarding the letter sent on February 15th, 2017?
Your lawyer never acknowledged the letter that was sent.
This shouldn't even have to involve lawyers in the first place, but, as that was your requested method of communication, the least I would have expected was a response.
I'm trying to determine where the communication breakdown is occurring:
From my lawyer to your lawyer,
from your lawyer to you,
from you back to your lawyer,
or from your lawyer back to my lawyer.
Can you please confirm whether or not you received communication from your lawyer regarding the letter sent on February 15th, 2017?
Randy -> Jean,
Maxwell 02/13/2018
7:48 AM
Subject: Additional Communication Concerns
I don't want to distract from the
other topics currently in play, but I also don't want to further delay bringing
these up. (I am trying to prevent "storing up issues" and then
"dumping them all at once".)
I sent a message on 12/20/2017, which was first viewed on 12/29/2017.
I closed it with a simple question:
Can you please confirm whether or not you received communication from your lawyer regarding the letter sent on February 15th, 2017?
There has been no reply.
There has been a pattern of me sending messages, you viewing them, and then you ignoring them. This is not acceptable. We need to be able to communicate effectively and efficiently.
I sent a message on 12/20/2017, which was first viewed on 12/29/2017.
I closed it with a simple question:
Can you please confirm whether or not you received communication from your lawyer regarding the letter sent on February 15th, 2017?
There has been no reply.
There has been a pattern of me sending messages, you viewing them, and then you ignoring them. This is not acceptable. We need to be able to communicate effectively and efficiently.
Jean -> Randy, Maxwell 02/14/2018
6:31 AM
Subject: Additional Communication Concerns
I have stated multiple times that the
issue of 2017 taxes is closed and I will not be responding to any further
communications about it.
Maxwell -> Randy, Jean 02/15/2018
1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
Without getting in to assigning blame or pointing fingers, I want to assert that each of you should respond to questions asked by your co-parent in a timely manner. Neither one of you is entitled to pick and choose which questions are valid and which are not. If, as Randy states here, he asked a question about where an issue stood (apparently, he sent a letter through the attorney and was looking for a response), then that question deserved a response. Without one, nothing is learned or resolved. Timely and consistent responses to questions asked is important. Everything falls away without it.
Thanks,
Maxwell
Randy -> Jean, Maxwell 02/19/2018
9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
In light of Maxwell's clarification, I will repeat my
question:
1) Can you please confirm whether or not you received communication from your lawyer regarding the letter my lawyer sent on February 15th, 2017?
The follow up questions:
a) If you did receive communication, can you explain why I haven't received a response?
b) If you did not receive communication, can you confirm whether or not J. Roberts is still your lawyer?
Randy -> Jen, Maxwell 02/20/2018 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
Maxwell, I am speaking exclusively about an ongoing communication failure.
Jean announced that “something was wrong” (the specifics are irrelevant at this level of discussion).
I disagree with her claim. I told her this, but she has not acknowledged my objection.
She was unwilling to discuss it at all: she is right; there is nothing else to discuss. She told me to get my lawyer involved.
I did.
However, I received no response.
In this “black box” of communication, I can’t tell where the failure is occurring. Are my lawyer’s messages not reaching her lawyer? Is her lawyer unable to communicate with Jean? Is Jean not responding to her lawyer? Is her lawyer not getting back to my lawyer? I honestly don’t know, so I asked Jean.
She replied, “The issue is closed and she won’t respond.”
She’s not even willing to answer whether or not she heard anything.
She could have said, “I did get the message, but I’ve decided I’m right, so I’m done talking.” She could have said, “No, I didn’t get any messages, but even if I did, I wouldn’t reply because I know I am right.” I’d take issue with either of those replies, but, at the very least, it would be answering a simple question.
She does not get to unilaterally declare “how it will be” and close off any opportunity for discussion. She does not get to ignore me when it suits her wants. This contemptuous approach to correspondence is extremely frustrating and damaging to our ability to co-parent.
Randy -> Jean, Maxwell 02/23/2018 7:25 AM
Subject: Communication is broken
Communication is broken. Jean sent a message at 11:54 AM on Tuesday. I replied to this message 41 minutes later, at 12:35 PM. Maxwell replied at 3:22 PM. Jean has not even logged into the tool since she sent her message. She didn't log in on Tuesday. She didn't log in on Wednesday. She didn't log in on Thursday. It is now Friday.
We need to be able to communicate.
The current topic is her not responding to messages. This appears to have escalated to not even viewing messages.
Please help us.
Maxwell
I believe this issue is more properly titled the 2016 tax issue as it was about tax year 2016 although the issue came up in 2017 and has spanned that entire year and into 2018.
- This issue is closed because the 2016 tax season closed on April 15 2017.
- This issue is closed because it was a financial issue that was already ruled out of the scope of the powers of the parenting consultant on 2-7-2017 in an email from Maxwell with the subject RE: Taxes
- This issue is closed because I clearly stated my intent to hold Randy to the terms of the decree in two emails and in my actions of not providing the required form over a year ago.
- This issue is closed because I have consulted with my lawyer each time he has threatened me over this issue and she has advised me repeatedly that no further communication is necessary.
As I mentioned in the previous thread about the Christmas schedule, there is a recurring theme where I say no to something and Randy refuses to accept it and long drawn out communications occur in which I have to continually and repeatedly say no and in which I have to continually and repeatedly defend my right to say No.
So the shortest summary I can make of the issue here is this:
I said no.
Randy continues to refuse to accept it a full year later.
He wants to reframe this as a “communication issue” so that it is somehow “new” and now within the scope of parenting consultant powers. This way, he can continue to punish me financially by dragging on a no longer relevant conversation and racking up parenting consultant fees on a previously closed subject.
Since this issue was already closed a full year ago, I request that Randy assume all parenting consultant fees incurred related to this issue in 2018.
Randy -> Jean, Maxwell 02/23/2018 7:25 AM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
The issue has always been about communication. As stated in my original message, back on 2/1/2017:
"I am sharing this, not seeking guidance or intervention with financial concerns or child support. Instead, I offer this as an example of a communication issue we seem to have."
A large part of why this has taken so long is Jean's ongoing refusal to acknowledge my messages or to respond with an actual answer. I had raised objections, even going to the point of working with a lawyer, at her demand, and she refused to respond. That is a communication issue.
Jean is cleverly trying to distract us, by suggesting this is out-of-scope or that it's been going on too long, but the fact remains that she is not communicating through OFW in a reliable manner:
* Messages were sent on Tuesday. She didn't log in until Friday.
* I've asked her a simple question ("Did you get the message from my lawyer?") and she still hasn't technically answered me.
* You have at least 2 outstanding questions for her, and she hasn't replied.
She continues to demonstrate that she gets to choose if and when she wishes to respond to things. She is now trying to further punish and silence me by demanding that I pay for working with you.
For the good of the girls, we need to be able to set aside any baggage, and communicate effectively.
Maxwell -> Jean, Randy 02/26/2018 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Communication is broken
It is absolutely necessary that each of you log into the OFW and respond at least every 48 hours. You have children that travel between your two homes and timely communication is critically important. It is standard practice to insist that parties respond to messages within 24-48 hours. I am insisting that you both do that.
Thanks,
Maxwell
1) Can you please confirm whether or not you received communication from your lawyer regarding the letter my lawyer sent on February 15th, 2017?
The follow up questions:
a) If you did receive communication, can you explain why I haven't received a response?
b) If you did not receive communication, can you confirm whether or not J. Roberts is still your lawyer?
Jean -> Randy, Maxwell 02/20/2018
11:54 AM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
I have stated multiple times
that the issue of 2017 taxes is closed and I will not be responding to any
further communications about it.
Randy -> Jen, Maxwell 02/20/2018 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
Maxwell, I am speaking exclusively about an ongoing communication failure.
Jean announced that “something was wrong” (the specifics are irrelevant at this level of discussion).
I disagree with her claim. I told her this, but she has not acknowledged my objection.
She was unwilling to discuss it at all: she is right; there is nothing else to discuss. She told me to get my lawyer involved.
I did.
However, I received no response.
In this “black box” of communication, I can’t tell where the failure is occurring. Are my lawyer’s messages not reaching her lawyer? Is her lawyer unable to communicate with Jean? Is Jean not responding to her lawyer? Is her lawyer not getting back to my lawyer? I honestly don’t know, so I asked Jean.
She replied, “The issue is closed and she won’t respond.”
She’s not even willing to answer whether or not she heard anything.
She could have said, “I did get the message, but I’ve decided I’m right, so I’m done talking.” She could have said, “No, I didn’t get any messages, but even if I did, I wouldn’t reply because I know I am right.” I’d take issue with either of those replies, but, at the very least, it would be answering a simple question.
She does not get to unilaterally declare “how it will be” and close off any opportunity for discussion. She does not get to ignore me when it suits her wants. This contemptuous approach to correspondence is extremely frustrating and damaging to our ability to co-parent.
Maxwell -> Jean, Randy 02/20/2018 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
Hello -
Jennifer - I do not know what the 2017 taxes issue is, not really, but it seems clear that there is a question hanging out there that you are not answering. Are you unilaterally stating that the 2017 taxes issue is closed? What are you basing that on? Please know that you could be correct in your assertion that the matter is resolved, but without noting what that is based on, nothing is made clear - at least not to me.
Please, then, elaborate enough so that I can understand as I have been explicitly asked by Andy to further this conversation.
Thanks,
Matthew
Jennifer - I do not know what the 2017 taxes issue is, not really, but it seems clear that there is a question hanging out there that you are not answering. Are you unilaterally stating that the 2017 taxes issue is closed? What are you basing that on? Please know that you could be correct in your assertion that the matter is resolved, but without noting what that is based on, nothing is made clear - at least not to me.
Please, then, elaborate enough so that I can understand as I have been explicitly asked by Andy to further this conversation.
Thanks,
Matthew
Randy -> Jean, Maxwell 02/23/2018 7:25 AM
Subject: Communication is broken
Communication is broken. Jean sent a message at 11:54 AM on Tuesday. I replied to this message 41 minutes later, at 12:35 PM. Maxwell replied at 3:22 PM. Jean has not even logged into the tool since she sent her message. She didn't log in on Tuesday. She didn't log in on Wednesday. She didn't log in on Thursday. It is now Friday.
We need to be able to communicate.
The current topic is her not responding to messages. This appears to have escalated to not even viewing messages.
Please help us.
Jean -> Randy, Maxwell 02/23/2018 6:04 PM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
Maxwell
I believe this issue is more properly titled the 2016 tax issue as it was about tax year 2016 although the issue came up in 2017 and has spanned that entire year and into 2018.
- This issue is closed because the 2016 tax season closed on April 15 2017.
- This issue is closed because it was a financial issue that was already ruled out of the scope of the powers of the parenting consultant on 2-7-2017 in an email from Maxwell with the subject RE: Taxes
- This issue is closed because I clearly stated my intent to hold Randy to the terms of the decree in two emails and in my actions of not providing the required form over a year ago.
- This issue is closed because I have consulted with my lawyer each time he has threatened me over this issue and she has advised me repeatedly that no further communication is necessary.
As I mentioned in the previous thread about the Christmas schedule, there is a recurring theme where I say no to something and Randy refuses to accept it and long drawn out communications occur in which I have to continually and repeatedly say no and in which I have to continually and repeatedly defend my right to say No.
So the shortest summary I can make of the issue here is this:
I said no.
Randy continues to refuse to accept it a full year later.
He wants to reframe this as a “communication issue” so that it is somehow “new” and now within the scope of parenting consultant powers. This way, he can continue to punish me financially by dragging on a no longer relevant conversation and racking up parenting consultant fees on a previously closed subject.
Since this issue was already closed a full year ago, I request that Randy assume all parenting consultant fees incurred related to this issue in 2018.
Randy -> Jean, Maxwell 02/23/2018 7:25 AM
Subject: RE: Additional Communication Concerns
The issue has always been about communication. As stated in my original message, back on 2/1/2017:
"I am sharing this, not seeking guidance or intervention with financial concerns or child support. Instead, I offer this as an example of a communication issue we seem to have."
A large part of why this has taken so long is Jean's ongoing refusal to acknowledge my messages or to respond with an actual answer. I had raised objections, even going to the point of working with a lawyer, at her demand, and she refused to respond. That is a communication issue.
Jean is cleverly trying to distract us, by suggesting this is out-of-scope or that it's been going on too long, but the fact remains that she is not communicating through OFW in a reliable manner:
* Messages were sent on Tuesday. She didn't log in until Friday.
* I've asked her a simple question ("Did you get the message from my lawyer?") and she still hasn't technically answered me.
* You have at least 2 outstanding questions for her, and she hasn't replied.
She continues to demonstrate that she gets to choose if and when she wishes to respond to things. She is now trying to further punish and silence me by demanding that I pay for working with you.
For the good of the girls, we need to be able to set aside any baggage, and communicate effectively.
Maxwell -> Jean, Randy 02/26/2018 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Communication is broken
It is absolutely necessary that each of you log into the OFW and respond at least every 48 hours. You have children that travel between your two homes and timely communication is critically important. It is standard practice to insist that parties respond to messages within 24-48 hours. I am insisting that you both do that.
Thanks,
Maxwell
