adhd

does the court listen to 12+ year old children's wishes in case of divorce ?

37 posts in this topic

As someone who grew up with a crazy Thai mother please try to get full custody. I don't know much about legal stuff so I'm not sure if it'll help but if you can, try to get some statements of people who know the two of you to demonstrate that her character would be a dangerous influence on the children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-4-12 at 5:22 PM, Awk said:

 

Thank you.  As I have understood it from my lawyer, the mediator (usually a retired judge I'm told) would have power to help issue a temporary ruling that could remain valid until the divorce is complete.  So if HP is now preventing me from seeing my children, the mediator could, if he so wishes, issue an order that the children are to e.g. stay with me some days of the week.  In this regard, he may (or may not) be interested in seeing a video of HP refusing to let me enter the house, kicking and punching me, while the children cry and try to keep the door open for me.

 

I now however understand it quite unlikely to happen that the mediator/judge will issue such an order in the negotiation phase. :-/

 

Only if the mediator feels there is no way whatsoever that the two parties will reach any mutual understanding will the negotiation phase finish and we will progress to the next step, with a "real" judge who will evaluate evidence and make a ruling.   Normally, there will be several negotiation meetings, so after the first meeting, we will meet again in a month or two, and then again after that perhaps, before the mediator gives up and sends the case up to the "real" judge.

 

 

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

 

The negotiation session can also be handled by a court officer (normally a lawyer attached to the court), doesn't have to be a judge at all. A Thai friend of mine (Thai Thai case) had a court officer who took down mummy directly when she came in demanding 20,000 baht per month and child (not married, shouldn't matter). He must have disliked her style quite a bit. He set the standard 100 baht per day and child and it stuck all the way to the court order (mutual agreement), this was 6-7 years ago or so

 

One thing I noticed was that the pain is higher when expectations are too high and the disappointment comes, I am therefore a bit blunt almost but I think it is better than hoping for something that is so unlikely to happen. 

 

It won't happen, there will be no temporary court order, the chance is minuscule. My advice is to get the fundamentals in, mother is using violence to stop you from seeing the children, mummy tells the children to not go to daddy, not like Daddy (want to see video evidence?), there will be no agreement until you already have 50% time with the kids, this is about the kids future so education must be part of any court order / deal and only daddy has been interested in that in the past or whatever is suitable for your situation, you will be an active father always being there for the kids so no more than minimum money is necessary and you will help and fill up the refrigerator every week (1 second show the receipts then on), you will pay when mummy brings kids to see her grand parents anyway (just shoot back Why? if that is challenged). That you will be an active always present father is an important fundamental. 

 

-- Only if the mediator feels there is no way whatsoever that the two parties will reach any mutual understanding will the negotiation phase finish and we will progress to the next step

No, It will progress regardless, the "rule", run by feeling and ear of course, is if there is no quick solution possible then on to the real court session. Negotiation often continues but it's all up to the judges and mainly the head judge. There are different styles, some accept haggle to death and will go down the path of pushing (forcing almost) the non favoured part to accept a negotiated agreement (this is what I call The wind of the Court, it is very important in Thailand), some order faster

 

Was just thinking - Think in terms of: OK, what's the alternative then? The court is fundamentally fair, it really is. You wrote: Court will not accept the debt of the house because it is in a foreign bank, true, if they do that then everything abroad will also have to be included and they don't want that

 

But: The court is still fundamentally fair. What does that mean? Mummy has an asset in Thailand (assuming that title is in her name) and it will still have to be split 50/50 (have to because you demand that), it will be included in the "assets section" and the question is only: What should it be? How can the court make this fair? Ask the court. The default is that it is sold and split 50/50, if they can't advice anything better then that is what it will be. Don't be fooled by lawyers (and court) saying that mummy and Daddy can't make an agreement after court order about - OK, let's not sell even though the court order says so. The point is: No one will punish anyone  

 

Have you thought of solving this by putting the house in the kids name? Mummy will refuse of course, court likes if you say - There is nothing that a father wants more than to secure the future for the kids => makes mummy look bad. Can't give debt to child, true, so transfer cannot be made until debt is paid off but Juvenile courts in Thailand have pushed for mutual agreement that asset with debt registered at the back of the Chanote shall be transferred to child before. Land department and the bank couldn't implement it but that's a totally different matter and so what? Point is 1) Still good for the child, once it's is in the court order, then you can easily make it a criminal offence if mummy sells 2) fair split of assets in the divorce

 

If the back of the Chanote is blank (as you guarantee the debt abroad) then it's an absolutely perfect solution. Note that the court cannot order  (well they can do anything of course but they will not) order leaving out a house in the wife's name in a divorce. A Thai citizen is allowed to own land full stop. That's the main dominant rule. Court disregards debt because it is foreign. Are they going to include some foreign things but not others now? I'll send you  a copy of Idea's Chanote and a copy of her Swedish passport to you after Songkran. That was done in Huaykwang in Bangkok 2002

 

I do think that you should leave this out of the negotiating session though. Fundamental 50/50 and house must be sold is enough (especially for mummy), further distraction is just diluting the message at this stage. Transfer to children is definitely a viable solution for the main court case, no need to offer solution to that in the negotiating session. No need to worry about that you want mummy to have a nice environment to bring up the kids in now, plenty of time to change that later 

 

Leaving out the house is simply not an option regardless of what the court threatens with. I don't know where you go to court (it matters), if it's Pattaya / Chonburi then you may be a bit disadvantaged but doesn't matter either, you'll be in the Appeals court within a year and it's a different matter there. House is safe until  

 

Michael

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-4-12 at 8:59 PM, Awk said:

 

Thank you for the information.  I cannot imagine HP would offer me anything more than the children staying with me half the time, and even that only if her lawyer convinces her that is what I will get as a minimum when the judge rules anyway.  

In that case I am starting to wonder whether, unless HP should, after a year of terror, suddenly get a change of heart and want to maintain a normal, polite, relationship with her children's father, a ruling by the judge would be in both the children's and my own best interest then.  Extra money/assets I would otherwise have to offer HP,  to support HP and her own daughter in exchange for a mutual agreement I could then instead save for my own children.  


My lawyer has warned me that a ruling from the judge would not be good for anyone. There would be no room for HP and me to adapt it to what we felt would be better for both of us, and that more worrying, in cases where there are two children, the judge will often rule that one child will stay with each parent.  The latter would be horrible for the children, and I was very surprised and saddened to hear that.  I am not sure if that is true or not however.  Hopefully not.

 

I'm wondering what the risk would be that the judge would not rule that the children will stay with me (a normal man with a respectable job and no adverse history/record of any kind) at least half the week?  Before I thought that I may risk ending up with just visitation rights (horrible),  or with just one of my daughters "all" of the time, and depend on HP for seeing my other daughter even just sometimes, but perhaps my fear is unfounded?

 

-- Thank you for the information.  I cannot imagine HP would offer me anything more than the children staying with me half the time, and even that only if her lawyer convinces her that is what I will get as a minimum when the judge rules anyway.  

That can happen. The judges can convince too, 50/50

 

You will get 50/50 and minimum 3/4 access, don't worry about that. You describe mummy as hard, you must be hard too or you get disadvantaged. Support mummy and her own daughter is just if you get something in return, otherwise zero. Don't see it as "extra that I'd have to offer in exchange for mutual agreement". Note what the lawyer said about letting the court order - Everybody wants mutual agreement regardless of if you support ummy and her own daughter too. Don't forget that

 

-- My lawyer has warned me that a ruling from the judge would not be good for anyone

Especially not for him. Lawyers are politicians. What he didn't say is that the mutual agreement could be worse for you in the long run. Don't buy it

 

-- There would be no room for HP and me to adapt it to what we felt would be better for both of us

Why? Not correct at all. No one will punish either of you two for doing something that is better for the child. You can still adapt any way both of you want, just get what you and mummy agree on down on a paper, date sign and witness it and you have a legal agreement that legal guardians have the right to make that supersede the court order for that specific thing. Be careful what you put in!

 

If the layer refuse to accept. Are you saying that mummy and Daddy must take that to Juvenile and get a mutual agreement there on what is better for the child? OK, that's so easy, why didn't you say so? Parents can always open up a case in Juvenile and they are always assessed from what is the best for the child according to the current circumstances. Something must have changed, then better for the child, that's all. I'd advise - Brush his scare tactics off   

 

 -- in cases where there are two children, the judge will often rule that one child will stay with each parent

True in many cases in Thailand, but remember that it is only for a year, then you'll be in the Appeals court. Mummy will be without money by the end of the court case, just wait another couple of months when she can't care for her other daughter, then go

 

-- one child will stay with each parent.  The latter would be horrible for the children, and I was very surprised and saddened to hear that

Bad yes but not horrible and not forever

 

-- I'm wondering what the risk would be that the judge would not rule that the children will stay with me (a normal man with a respectable job and no adverse history/record of any kind) at least half the week?  

Split is quite possible if order, don't see it as all negative, that ensure 50/50 to you (which you practically may not get regardless of what a mutual court agreement says) and sets you up nicely for having more when they become teenagers anyway. Both kids with mummy more than 4/3? Small, very small

 

-- Before I thought that I may risk ending up with just visitation rights (horrible)

Visitation rights only would be very unlikely 


-- with just one of my daughters "all" of the time,

one of my daughters all the time (without quotation marks) could be possible. Mummy will probably get the 4 year old and you the 8 year old. Expect mummy to alienate the older and then it gets more difficult for the court, they don't really want to order a 9 year old to be with someone "they don't want to be with"

 

-- Depend on depend on HP for seeing my other daughter even just sometimes

I would take that for granted actually but it should wear off with time. I have said it before and some disagreed but I'll say it again anyway: Mothers are more for revenge, men get on with what is best for the child faster, women are usually harder than men and they benefit from it 

 

Michael

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 29   Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, MikeyIdea said:

 

...  Sorry

Edited by MikeyIdea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 30   Posted (edited)

On 2017-4-12 at 5:42 PM, Awk said:

 

In the text

 

-- At the moment her financial status is quite good I think, due to her (illegally?) refinancing the car, which is part of our shared property.  

Yes it is indeed illegally and you can even push criminal charges (at a later stage after Juvenile court case is finished). I think that you should get your lawyer to send a short registered letter to the mother letting her know that you have stopped paying as she has done this behind your back and while you fulfil requirements for child support, nothing else. Wake up mummy, requirements for child support doesn't include car

 

-- My lawyer says she will be forced to pay me back half of the money she got at the end of the case,  but I doubt that will happen in practice

Yes, she will and she won't pay. Controls so that doesn't happen? Difficult, the money is probably lost but your possibility to bend the mother because of what she did is not. Fundamentals say that it is shared property. Both cases court order and mutual agreement should be 50/50 excluding what she refinanced. Tell your lawyer to try to get it worded so that car value to be split is excluding her refinancing without mentioning that she did it and it could be considered perjury when she signs it. Perjury is a non-compoundable offence and easiest way to go to jail in Thailand. Tell your lawyer to appeal any asset split not considering what she did behind your back and he will help to get amount minus refinancing in. 

 

-- I hope the judge/mediator can help me

Unlikely,  worth a try in the real session

 

-- At the moment I pay 3,000 per week, transferred to her account.  

My opinion: Too much, I would reduce to 2,000 and fill up the rest of the money with food = still pay the same at the end of the day. Nothing saying that you have to pay weekly, can just as well be monthly if you think that it can benefit you if she runs out of money in the middle of the month and need you to put in 300 baht in the tank of the car, - only if I get the kids this weekend and I would not pay if I don't

 

-- Now HP no longer "allows" me to pick up the children however, so I no longer do that, though sometimes I have to join her to buy food and things for the children at the cheaper Thai markets where no receipt is usually given.  

It's likely to get worse when her life gets tougher, keeping the kids from you is her weapon. Throwing money on her will only escalate though so not an option either 

 

-- That does not happen after she secured her horde of cash via the refinancing almost two months ago however.

Money disappears quickly without income, 300,000 is gone in less than a year also without lawyers fees

 

-- Unfortunately the debt on the house is in farangland (a neighbouring country of yours, as it happens), so my lawyer tells me it will not be of any interest to the judges here in Thailand.  It is mine alone. Michael - OK, the debt yes, but not the house and the land

Does this mean that Chanote is free of debt? => Childrens name, no other way, otherwise must still be sold. If Chanote is free, then she will refinance anyway otherwise or kill you slowly economically over time. If she threatens with refinance the house, then get lawyer to send recorded delivery letter stating that it is marital asset, you do not allow it and you fulfil support duties as per law (8,000 + 4,000 non money is enough for her too). You can get a criminal offence on her it she still proceeds

 

-- If the final verdict is that the children are to stay with HP half the week, I would for the children's sake prefer they stay at the house I bought, to be safe and have a pleasant environment to live in.  

Pleasant environment is way overstated. Many Thais and Thai kids are much happier in their shacks then they ever would be in a nice apartment. I don't agree because I live in a bit of a shack and my daughter is very happy and where would that lead you? She's in a power situation forever. That can only work if she turns around and truly shows a pleasant attitude to you two sharing the kids

 

-- More pleasant than I can offer with my apartment unfortunately  (though that is also decent enough), but if the children stay with me on weekdays mostly, they will be in school and kindergarten most of the day anyway.

Do you work and live decently close to where the house is? You say that you drive around for hours trying to see the kids. Would skip the apartment and move into the house permanently be possible for 7 - 12 months, until court case is over? Commuting time could be the same as you waste driving around. She will perhaps not accept but will she deny you or move with the kids? Just brain storming

 

A few things: Your plans and your future working here the next 10 years? Your financial situation OK to take the fight? Do you have your own interpretor or do you understand Thai?  Super important

 

The car: I have been driving motor cycle in Thailand for 26 years, I have a car (again :laugh: after I paid off the loan that mummy took behind my back and forced her to accept transferring it to my name, I deducted every single baht I paid from her allowance). We as in I and Idea still use the motor cycle all the time, I have taken her to school every morning since kindergarten on it and she loves it. We're going swimming now and she wants us to take the bike. I see nothing wrong in mummy having to take your kids to school on a bike after they repossess the car, I really don't

 

Off Swimming with Idea, on Schompoo, a pink Honda Scoopy

 

Talk to you later

Michael

 

Edited by MikeyIdea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-4-12 at 9:59 AM, Awk said:

 


 

 

I know you are not a lawyer, but is that your experience too?   In the initial request for divorce, police reports were submitted, but no videos, and while I still have a favourable impression of my lawyer, I have become a little concerned with his willingness to do enough.  Perhaps this is partly due to our financial agreement, where he gave me a fixed price for the work up to the first negotiation (half paid when he started, half to be paid after the first negotiation).
 

My lawyer advised me to prepare the video regardless of that however, in case the negotiator would become curious and want to see it.  "Who knows?", as he said.
 

I think the videos, as well as recordings of HP shouting/screaming at my children for going with me, will give a correct impression of how things are now.  I am thinking a lot on how to increase the chance that the negotiator/judge will want to see them at the first negotiation.
 

> - we would be able to ask for the judge to make a temporary ruling, saying I must be able to see the children, or even that the children are to stay with me some days every weeks
> Ask for it but don't expect it. More likely that you won't get time with the children until court case is over which leads to the question: Is the mother going to follow the court order then even? Build in safety rules if mutual agreement and don't accept if you can't - It is pretty useless to try to appeal a mutual agreement

 

I asked my lawyer before what I could do if the judge made a temporary ruling, but HP did not adhere to it.  My lawyer however did not answer anything except something along the lines of HP having to adhere to it, or the judge will not like it and things will become worse for her in the final ruling, which at the time made sense to me.  But if there is no interest from the court in "punishing" HP for doing bad things, including not adhering to the ruling, perhaps my lawyer was wrong.

 

I did not consider that HP would not adhere to the final ruling however, which would of course be even worse.  Can you think of any safety rules that could help discourage her from that?


Money seems the most obvious, but while HP likes to occasionally scream that she wants nothing from me; no money, no house, no land -  I can have it all, just I stay away from "her children", she does not mean that of course.  She knows I cannot let my children starve, go without clothes, school, etc.  

 

Currently HP, while not working, has recently managed to  refinance the car I bought in her name on down payment, getting a considerable amount of cash in exchange for increasing the car loan which I had almost paid of.
 

HP does not know that I know this and have evidence of it.  I want to  show it to the court at the coming meeting.  The result is however that HP has enough cash to pay her lawyer (presumably more expensive than my lawyer, since her lawyer is arriving by air), and school for her daughter - from a previous relationship -

 for the time being.  So at the moment, while pleading poverty and hunger (since she does not know I know she got the cash from the car finance company), she probably has plenty of money.
 

HP does have a child from before however (three years older than your daughter), which I have provided for financially (but not emotionally) for 10 years, and which has lived with us in Thailand.  She receives no money or support from her father who, as far as I know, is doing quite well financially.
 

After HP started to become violent and physically try to prevent me from seeing my children about half a year ago, I told her I would no longer pay for her daughter (and explained this to her daughter too, who while no longer doing much to stop HP from attacking me in front of my children, perhaps due having given up on her mother in this regard,  also seems to think HP is an idiot for doing what she does) unless HP stopped behaving like that.
 

I can not however prevent HP from spending the money I transfer her every week equally on her daughter, herself, and on my daughters, even if the money is intended for my children.  I cannot blame HP for this either I guess,  as this daughter of her is of course just as much her daughter as the children we share.
 

Not sure if I can somehow to use this - financial support of HP's daughter, or HP herself - to make HP stop delaying the final verdict, and then adhering to the final verdict.   Surely I would have to offer to continue to pay for her daughter (which I, when I still had hopes of parting on good terms, told HP I would be happy to do) before I could use threat of not paying for anything.  

 

Since the judge will not rule that I have to support HP or her daughter in any way, perhaps there's some way I can use this during the negotiations? Offer to pay school for HP's daughter during negotiations, and continue to pay for extra-curricular activities for HP's daughter if they are activities where my own children also participate?  (E.g., music and art lessons, as now).

 

If HP can be made to understand that this is an offer she receives from me now during negotiations, but which she will for sure not receive if the judge will have to order things, perhaps it can make HP more interested in agreeing to a negotiated agreement?

 

> - However, we did not have any chance to ask for anything, and the hearing was immediately postponed
> Normal. Good too in this case, use time to get violent behavior on video
 

 

Thank you.  Unfortunately I already have many videos and several police reports too, but did record both a new video and police report using the extra time now. 


> - I have many recordings of HP's behaviour
> Leave out only screaming if you have enough violent behavior on video and push violent. I believe in taking the opportunity if it is given to you. If the judge wants to see, then make it short and show violence and when she physically stops you from seeing the children - Impression doesn't get much stronger because it is much longer
 

Thank you.  I will then concentrate on the video where HP does exactly that.

 

> - big problem with the lack of any witnesses
> It will still matter IF she is favoured. Juvenile doesn't really see it like you do. Their goal is mutual agreement that both parties like that also is good for the kids, nothing more = punishment is not in their mind
>  
> - where only my children were witnesses
> The judges will ask the children but alienation is strong. I don't know the kids age
 

About four years younger and 8 years younger than your Idea.  HP has told them the judge wants to put mommy in jail, and probably other things too.
 

> - Even mutual friends who strongly disagree with HP's behaviour are unwilling to serve as witness for me.
> Thais will normally never witness because it is bad to get involved in private business regardless here
>  
> I'd swap point 1 and point 2 around
> - 2) Try to describe how it will be better for the children to stay with their father, who is better suited to help them with school/homework, and who is the only one with a job
> ------  who is the only one with a job ------ 
> No, who will support the mother after you stop doing it? Both will work, right? :) You tell them your plan for who will take care of children when you work, who will the mother have when she works? Relatives advantage. You have nice house / apartment, what living will the mother offer the kids? You don't pay for that, only for the kids part. Better suited to help with homework yes, better suited to provide schooling yes. I don't know how old the kids are. 
 

While I rent a decent apartment now (partly due to my children), it cannot compare to the house I bought for HP half a year back, where she and my children stay.  The house has a superfice in my name, though not sure if/when that will become relevant.  So perhaps this will not be a strong point for me, assuming HP will get the house?

 Perhaps I will get a separate piece of land,  also bought during marriage and which has no superfice, but which I cannot do much with except sell to help pay for loan I've taken out (in farangland) on the house.
 

If I were to get the house and live there with my children on the days the children are with me, I'm sure  HP would just keep waltzing in to the house as before, pretending she is my wife, and refuse to leave.  Also if the children are to be with HP part of the week, probably alone and without a man to protect them, at least initially,  I would like them to stay in a safe and nice place, where HP already knows everyone.   That is the main reason I bought the house (we rented in the same moo baan before); it's in a safe and nice place, and was the best I could afford (though I had to borrow all the money).

 

> Getting weekdays is a good way to truly and honestly win the childrens heart over time. Mummy can't keep up with that with only weekends in the long run. I don't know how old the kids are - the power of playing with them every day is very strong bonding until nearly teenager
>  
> Always give mummy access and your hard work trying to be a good father will persevere, close her out and the children will miss what they can't have. Important to tell the court how you want to help the mother to see the kids, the mother won't (not going to be in the court agreement but keep it anyway)

 

 

Thank you.  I plan to do that and do not want to deprive the children of contact with their mother.
 

I saw in another post you mentioned being briefed by your lawyer on how to act in court.  I asked my lawyer about this before, but he said to just relax and dress nicely.  He said things will not be so formal at the negotiations, but mostly informal talking.  Perhaps he feels my demeanor is so calm, polite, and appropriate for court that there is nothing to improve on, but I'm not absolutely sure about that.

 

Many thanks you for your advice. 

 

With kind regards, Awk.

-- What can I do to make HP's lawyer, and then presumably HP herself too, feel that it is not in her best interest to keep postponing things as long as they can?  Or if I cannot make her feel that, is there anything I can do that may reduce her opportunity for delaying things?
I don't think there is anything you can do. Try to keep contact with the kids as much as possible, that is all. I am also leaning toward - Make mummy spend all her money and need you more = also makes what extra you offer worth more. If you get judges who really wants negotiated agreement, then that could matter a lot

 

You get judges who strongly wants negotiated agreement and it probably won't be ready until early next year, you're in a good position to get 4/3 for that -- always remember that when they all try to push for a negotiated agreement with less. Get judges who orders quickly and much more uncertain but it's hardly going to be worse than one child each, all marital assets sold, and 8,000 baht per month and child. Difficult for judges to order assets anything others than sold and split 50/50 

 

-- Can you please clarify what you mean by refusing any deal regardless of whether they accept to look at it or not?

Both mummy (at the end of the day) and Daddy will accept a negotiated agreement with 50/50 time, if mummy doesn't then you don't bend and pressure simply goes over to the mother. If you can't get more than that in a mutual agreement where you accept to give up some of the things that by default are shared (education) or more than 4-5,000 baht per child and month, then just refuse it, don't sign. There can only be a mutual agreement if you (both parties) accept to sign and it is not as bad as the lawyer says at all if they order, just a year to the Appeals court and it is not the end. The kids are 4 and 8, perhaps 5 and 9 in 6 months time when the order comes. There are 13 and 9 years left, long time to give away parts of because the lawyer threatens with that judges ordering can be worse or children can be split. If it is so bad, won't mummy want that changed in the Appeals court too? It can be changed 

 

Why easier with evidence of violence? This court can choose to ignore, next court or the Supreme Court will not, that is all. It's the judges in this courts choice, nothing more. Only understandable and nothing else if Daddy refuses because court ignores mummy's violence

 

-- I know you are not a lawyer, but is that your experience too?   In the initial request for divorce, police reports were submitted, but no videos, and while I still have a favourable impression of my lawyer, I have become a little concerned with his willingness to do enough.  

Yes, absolutely. He probably thinks that you getting 50% time by giving away more than necessary of your money (education of course, staying in the house for free forever perhaps) and what default is shared, then he is probably satisfied. He gets the important thing in his mind and that is time with the kids

 

-- Perhaps this is partly due to our financial agreement, where he gave me a fixed price for the work up to the first negotiation (half paid when he started, half to be paid after the first negotiation).

He would probably think this way anyway

 

I am finally off :)

 

Michael

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 32   Posted (edited)

Back again

 

It's just good luck that the negotiating session hasn't started yet in my eyes. I think your lawyer would have gone into it giving half away already (as you also give away some that you shouldn't at this stage). I would want to start over from scratch with your lawyer

 

I would make sure my lawyer went in to the negotiating session with all assets shared and sold = no, house, no car, no extra money for mummy, nothing for her own child including education, shared education and hospital costs 50/50 and less than 4,000 baht per child and month. These are all default values anyway so no one can challenge that you do wrong going in with them, also leaving the negotiating session with them is acceptable. 

 

Let's see what mummy says about that? She will not accept. Negotiating session so I wouldn't give away house and car at this stage. Accept to increase money a bit. 4/3 for 10,000 baht per month for both, perhaps 12,000, this as mummy never cared much for education and can't help them with their homework when they get older anyway. She'll still hate that. No? OK, what does the mother want? How about mummy and daddy share education if they cannot agree and Daddy only pays all if he gets to decide school in Thailand? No, gap is way too big, we can just as well break off the negotiating session and go to court then - House and car is still a no-go = mummy wants a deal in court too, she will just be tougher

 

On the house loan complication: House and car should still be sold by default. Where the loan is doesn't change that. Yes, it will be taken out later, the negotiating session is not the place to do it though. And you should not do it freely, let them do it. Explain to your lawyer: OK, you have explained and I have set expectations, good, Now leave house as net value for negotiations and I will not be disappointed when the judges later tell me that it is out. Explain to your lawyer that st exctation to you is one thing but he still starts much higher up

 

You asked about: What can make the mother and her lawyer change her mind? Well, everything that they absolutely don't want, no house, no car,  would be the the first disappointments and you should really get that through.  

 

Michael

Edited by MikeyIdea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Idea is still asleep so I'll write a bit

 

--I asked my lawyer before what I could do if the judge made a temporary ruling, but HP did not adhere to it.  My lawyer however did not answer anything except something along the lines of HP having to adhere to it, or the judge will not like it and things will become worse for her in the final ruling, which at the time made sense to me.  But if there is no interest from the court in "punishing" HP for doing bad things, including not adhering to the ruling, perhaps my lawyer was wrong.

What I mean is that they will not change their mindset in regards to taking a decision in the best interest of the child, things getting worse for the final hearing is not "OK, let's give the father 4/3 instead because we told the mother so many times to give him access and she didn't". It will matter in the sense that the judges know you are the one who wants the kids to have 2 parents and the mother does not

 

-- I did not consider that HP would not adhere to the final ruling however, which would of course be even worse.  Can you think of any safety rules that could help discourage her from that?

It is quite common in Thailand. Giving her a court ruling where you give her a free house for life, you pay education and enough money to not need you would increase the risks of that happening. You can't use she doesn't allow me to see the kids as reason to not let her live in the house if it's already in the court order

 

There are safety rules that can be put in but it is up to the judges to allow it and mummy to accept to sign. If they really want a negotiated agreement, then you can just refuse if they won't help you to push for it and I would ask the judges to help. They fundamentally want something that is good for the kids

 

Mutual agreements can include (don't know if judges order): If either party does not comply with sections this and that, then the other party gets 100% physical custody = both keep parental power but the right to physically take care of them goes over to the other party. Puts pressure on the mother but means little to nothing practically until you have the enforcement court order. Ministry of Education and the police are unlikely to act as mother still have parental power and court order is not enforced anyway = you do't have it formally yet.

 

Before you get that enforcement expect: Mother will appeal to the appeals court and then to the supreme court to delay things. Both will go straight through both in less than 2 years, they are highly unlikely to touch a mutual agreement,  then back to Juvenile for enforcement. This is exactly what happened to Scott1999. mutual agreement specifically spelled out that child should be with father school days and she decides herself who to be with other days and both the police and Ministry of Education wouldn't act because mummy still had parental power and court order wasn't enforced


-- Money seems the most obvious, but while HP likes to occasionally scream that she wants nothing from me; no money, no house, no land -  I can have it all, just I stay away from "her children", she does not mean that of course.  She knows I cannot let my children starve, go without clothes, school, etc.  

They will not starve or be without clothes because you don't give money at all. But you need power to control her or she can keep you away from "her" children. Do you think yourself that she will do that? How long? Will she stop after a favourable court order for her?

 

This is what I would do: Little money (max 4,000 baht per child and month) until court order doesn't look convincing but I'd prove that I also provide clothes and food and always talk about the total 12,000 or more total and it doesn't look bad. If court request me to increase money before court order, then I'd have told my lawyer to respond: OK, father will increase the extra and leave money the same. Father will see the child every day anyway, if mother doesn't allow me to see our children, then can the court help please. Increasing money because mummy doesn't allow father to see the kids will never be accepted. Turn it around to make the mother look bad. Fill up the refrigerator but mummy won't touch it because she wants money so it just rots and it needs to be thrown away. Oh, looks bad for the mother to not accept father to help. I'll continue to do it regardless

 

-- Currently HP, while not working, has recently managed to  refinance the car I bought in her name on down payment, getting a considerable amount of cash in exchange for increasing the car loan which I had almost paid of.
When will she run out of money? Mummy will be strong until she does. You benefit from delay in this sense. She'll be vulnerable and not as tough when she doesn't have money for the car any longer and no money for appeals

 

I see a problem coming up in May when school starts. If she changes school and pays herself then you would be a stranger in the new school. This is quite common. Don't know how to do but if it's not on paper, then it never happened if you are the un-favoured. I'd go to the school and explain to the principal that it is my intention to let the kids continue to study here and I want to pay but is is possible that mummy will move the kids to another school so I can't see them because we are in the middle of a divorce = I have shared custody by law of course. Can you advise? I want to pay but I don't think it can be until I know that they go here. Can I pay on the first day of school after I see that the kids really are here. I am happy to pay extra fee for delayed payment of course 

 

-- HP does not know that I know this and have evidence of it.  I want to  show it to the court at the coming meeting.  The result is however that HP has enough cash to pay her lawyer (presumably more expensive than my lawyer, since her lawyer is arriving by air), and school for her daughter - from a previous relationship -  for the time being.  So at the moment, while pleading poverty and hunger (since she does not know I know she got the cash from the car finance company), she probably has plenty of money.
Wow, more possible that she will move the kids school then, it would be interesting to know where this is. When will she run out? Is she a person who is decently in control of expenses and thinks OK?

 

-- HP does have a child from before however (three years older than your daughter), which I have provided for financially (but not emotionally) for 10 years, and which has lived with us in Thailand.  She receives no money or support from her father who, as far as I know, is doing quite well financially.

What you do and have done for her is not part of this court case, I would just stop and tell mummy that she has to pay for her for the next 7 years now (if she can't then the kid won't get a University degree). If I had money and stability until my kids finish university, then I would also say that I can help you more if you stop being my enemy and accept what is best for the kids.

 

Very messy writing from me :) It takes time to get so much thinking down on paper so I have totally skipped structure. What a mess

 

Michael

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 34   Posted (edited)

On 4/15/2017 at 11:07 AM, MikeyIdea said:

 

I came to think of this during the night: School payments are up in May if it is a Thai or bilingual school, August if international. Two totally different schools of thought about who pays, so to speak 

 

I bet your lawyer would take the "common sense" more simple approach that Thai's have (in his mind as you always have paid in the past and is the only one who has the money anyway (not true as she mortgaged the car behind your back)), farang pays school fees is so easy for him to give away 

 

I would instead instruct my lawyer to do this: Without any embarrassment whatsoever tell court openly that school fees now when we divorce are shared, full stop. The father is happy to discuss guaranteeing education until children finish university but then father must of course have the right to decide which schools, in Thailand of course. Mummy's side will not accept of course and that is fine, just say OK, shared and move on. OK, court knows that education including university can be guaranteed, one of their main goals, but father wants something in return, that's fair. 

 

I live in a Thai world since 17 years back, I clearly see the difference when a westerner is involved, it's easier, they should in the Thai mind pay because the Thai part can't by default, "of course". This is not deliberate ripping off thinking, it's just the way it is and Thai's have more practical thinking in this sense than westerners have anyway, westerners bring in principles and other useless stuff :) Jokingly, Westerners with their "principle thinking" are so childish sometimes :) Hmmm, I have perhaps been here too long? Half my life and I am 53. No, I wish it was longer

 

It's not that way in a divorce, not in a Thai Thai divorce, school and hospital fees are responsibilities that by default are shared between parents but it is of course still the same in the sense that the richer Thai father needs to pay education for the childs best as the mother can't. It would look bad if wasn't and it will happen. It doesn't have to start with it as a given for sure. 

 

I'd like to shock mummy a bit during the negotiation phase. She clearly sees her dream, herself living in the house with a car to take the kids to school every day with not having to work and she probably expects it and thinks it is fair that she gets it. I'd like to break all three of those dreams in the negotiating session, sure, daddy is open for "some" of them with (only the house in my mind) - always open for negotiation, but always back to her main golden egg, the house dream shattered - house sold if not give in some. It would be very unlikely that court would order assets not sold, house sold if agreement is not possible. It's a divorce asset. I would myself go straight back to the lawyer and say that I have changed my mind totally about the house, I want it sold. I have no worries, mummy will want it back in. 

 

On another note: Giving house to children is beautiful to the heart. At least some (no idea how many or if all) Chiang Mai land offices refuse to transfer land to child with dual citizenship and I have heard that they have even said must divorce too. That is two interpretations of two totally different laws (or perhaps just something weaker like rule that control of land must stay Thai). The only law applicable for this court case in Juvenile is that a Thai child has the right to own land.

 

- It happens quite often that land is transferred to child in Thai divorces   - OK, never mind, then house is split = sold

- It happens that court accepts or even pushes for agreement that mother and father agree to give land to child regardless of if there is a debt registered at the back of the Chanote. They know that it cannot be done - at that time - it is still good for the child, that is what they care about. 

- I would myself not hide to the court that mummy has said that she wants both the kids, house and car and money enough to live without working forever and that I expect her to mortgage the house to fulfil that dream as long as possible, It is my responsibility as a father to ensure that does not happen so if you say you can't support the deal that mother and father agree to give house to children, then only option left is house is split = sold

- I would myself not hide to the court that the reason I want it in a court agreement is that I will proceed with criminal charges against the mother if she still mortgages or sells the house - If it still can't be done, OK, never mind, then house is split = sold. Money will be used for education

- If court refuses, then I would ask the court what they want to achieve? It's not a rude question, I'm the father and I care for my children so I want to know. The main reason I ask is because I would openly tell the court know that I will appeal to get it sold or transferred anyway and I will be in the Appeals court within a year. It's a marriage asset so it will be split and sold anyway 

 

By the way, My thinking is that money in mummy's hand is power to mummy, I transfer and power stays with me. I'd advise: Never ever pay school fees to the mother, always transfer directly to school, applies to all bills

 

By the way again: Negotiation <removed>. There is still enough time to transfer 2,000 baht and put in stuff for another 1,000 one time, it's enough and it's only a change close to the negotiation hearing one time, final session will be anywhere between 4 to 11-12 months away, and it will be normal by then. 

 

Preparing myself (yourself) mentally for for that time line is very important, preparing my lawyer that I expect that and faster by giving away anything is simply not important at all, only thing important is the next 13 years, 2-3 years doesn't matter either 

 

Make a habit of looking the lawyer in the eyes when you break news that makes his life more difficult or not as good for the kids in the short term to benefit them long term (like selling the house), you'll learn to see how willing he will be to support it. I have seen a Thai lawyer say yes but face shows not interested go straight in to a court room and ignore it totally - because it was not what the judges wanted = difficult for him, he "lose face" sort of, and made his life more difficult  

 

My part of the money will be used to pay education long term anyway, much better spent than if mummy sits at home not working spending the money. That house was bought for the kids

 

I think in terms of what I myself would do considering what I have seen in court. Sorry that I write direct  

 

Take care

Michael

 

Edited by ubonjoe
posters request
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing: Do you have your own interpretor? You need one also if the lawyer speaks good English. He can't translate while he is talking to the court and you need to know what he says. Super important point

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MikeyIdea said:

house sold if agreement is not possible

Error, house not sold if court order is not possible, it's a marriage asset

 

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:07 AM, MikeyIdea said:

I'd go to the school and explain to the principal that it is my intention to let the kids continue to study here and I want to pay but is is possible that mummy will move the kids to another school so I can't see them because we are in the middle of a divorce = I have shared custody by law of course. Can you advise? I want to pay but I don't think it can be until I know that they go here. Can I pay on the first day of school after I see that the kids really are here. I am happy to pay extra fee for delayed payment of course

If child is moved (small risk in this case, house and the only benefit would be that father would be a stranger in the new school):

 

There is a form called T.B.1 that the guardian must/should request from the old school when they move their other children to another school, it's a form where the important information is name of student, old school and new school, purpose is for new school to have evidence that child studied at a certain level. Maybe one copy is sent to the MoE (Ministry of Ed), I don't know

 

It's not followed very strictly (as most things in Thailand) but principals will ask for it when they admit a new child (and will allow entry also without it). The old principal can't know where the child is if the parent simply doesn't come back so it's not her fault if she didn't write one, but she would still have some responsibility. It should be enough to friendly ask her to call a number and ask which school the child is "for the records" 

 

For others to read more, shouldn't happen to you as the house is a fixed point

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID: 37   Posted (edited)

MikeyIdea, many thanks for your thoughts and realism.  Especially about trying hard to get in writing some way to guarantee that any final ruling will be adhered to by HP.

Admittedly, you have now shattered all my hope of a quick improvement to the current, horrible, day to day life situation, but it is better to expect the worst.

 

Based on what you say, especially about not boring the judge/mediator with stories on HP's behaviour, I then think my best course of action might be to concentrate on how the children suffer now.  How terrible the living environment for them is, living in constant worry that that their mother will start screaming and attacking their father.  How will seeing all this violence affect my children?

Mention I have recordings of this on my phone, here, now, in the faint hope the mediator will ask to see it.


Mention shortly how I alone have supported HP and her daughter from a previous relationship for 10 years, up until recently, and then talk about how much I have cared about my own children regarding education and upbringing.  That their mother is now doing her best to prevent the children from spending time with their father, and give some examples of this.  Mention I have recordings of this too.

 

Talk about the children's education needs.  How it's only their father (sans an external tutor) who can help them with school and homework. That it is better for the children to stay with their father, at least for half the week.  That the children have both a father and mother,  and need to spend time with both of them without having to worry one parent will start screaming or attacking the other parent.

 

Go in with the mindset initially that all assets must be sold and shared equally.  That I am willing to continue to pay alone for a good school for my children as long as I am the one who decides what school they will go to.  The cost of HP and her own daughter is fully on HP, though HP must share with me the other costs of bringing up our mutual children, except the school fees.  Pay for her own apartment/house, whatever.  

My worry about this is that she will say something like "fine, but then she will move to her rural family village and send the children to a temple school there.", as she has threatened to do before.  Will need a way to prevent that.  If I am the one who decides where the children will go to school, and somehow that can be enforced, she cannot do that I guess, but not sure how to make that the reality.


And yes, based on what you've written I will attend with my own interpreter.

 

Unfortunately my own lawyer just now, after I informed him HP's own lawyer seems to have told HP I do not have grounds for divorce, says my chance of divorce is only fifty-fifty due to the lack of witnesses willing to testify.  According to Thai law, he says, my own video recordings of violence are only of some, but limited, interest, and can not compare with an eye witness.  I was much shocked and saddened to hear that.

 

With kind regards, Awk.

Edited by Awk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 27 April 2017 06:27
Sponsors
  • Popular Now