Way Too Late Pt 3

[1313]

It sounds like you had a mediation with the Ls and then presented an agreement to the judge? Been through this a few times so I know the routine. But - did the judge rule on the house and the dog? I find it odd that a judge would let her get away with that?

Painter, I think part of the explanation is above to CWOL.

The dog is not part of any agreement we could come to. Both of the L's (especially the W's) don't get this. I'm fine with sharing. It's equitable, and it's good for the dog. The W isn't going to budge. So - it's a fight.

What got settled yesterday was alimony (such as it is), access to the house, legal fees and that's about it. The trust is being contested, we're doing a trace on the funds and how they've been used. I have to pay for lawyers fees and those may or may not be paid back to me.

The W is going to try to say that the dog is a service dog and she has panic attacks - we got the certificate when the dog's sister died, and the W didn't want to not be able to take her everywhere. So, it's a BS thing. A friend who's a semi-famous psychiatrist wrote the note, but I have lots of documentation regarding timing - as well as the W never mentioning anything about "needing" the dog. She had better be able to come up with something - I know she can't.

I have texts with her asking things about what food to feed her and where to buy it, when to give her meds, all going back months and months. I just have to pull this all together in a cohesive manner for the L to use. I even have a text from the W saying she wants to share the dog, and would never go to court for her. Uh-huh.

Here's hoping the W and the OM have an argument on the trip they're going on today.

I really kind of hope that we present all the crazy things the W has done showing a lack of good faith over the past 2 months. Added up it looks pretty bad, I would think a judge might assume she's not telling the truth about anything. The W's L seems to becoming aware of it.