Good morning, Desiree.
It's unfortunate that your knowledge of the law is so lacking. You know
me as Richard - you cannot deny that, it's in all the court
documents. Your written authorization does use that name, however,
since you clearly know me as that name, from a legal perspective your
authorization means that G***** is to be in the care of the person whom
you know as, and have consistently insisted is, Richard
(regardless of the actual legal name of that person). The death of the
person whose name I assumed 20 years ago is not relevant because you
never knew that person and no court is going to believe that your
intention was for G***** to travel 1500 miles and spend 2 weeks with a
person you've never met.
Moreover, the court knows me as Richard. I'm indifferent about
the names - it is the two governments which now refuse to allow me to
use the name Richard anymore.
Anyway, you're not fooling anybody - this was your plan all along and
both G***** and I know it. That is why you explicitly used the name
Richard in your authorization. So that you could try to pull this
now. But, I explained to G***** that that's just the way you are, and
we just need to accept people for who they are:). That's also why you
agreed to allow him to spend the entire break here, and didn't mind that
he wouldn't be with you during Christmas. Because you had no intention
of following through with it.
Now, since you've agreed in writing, and I purchased his plane tickets
based on that agreement, and nothing has changed on my end (you're the
one attempting to change the terms), just say the word and I'll file an
ex parte petition for G***** to be returned to my custody on the
grounds that you're actively interfering with his visitation. I'm 100%
confident the court will order you to honor the terms you agreed to in
writing on November 26, 2014; and 75% confident the court will agree
that you're using G***** to harm me and order you to return him to me.
On 12/15/2014 06:37 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> You will recall that In my consent, I expressly stated that G***** is
> to be in the sole custody of his father Richard and that any
> other personage would be considered kidnapping and not allowed. Those
> were the terms. You acknowledged receipt as well, but please read
> below to refresh your memory:
> "During this period of time he is to remain in the sole care of his
> father Richard, an no one else."
> Richard's untimely demise would seem to make adherence to this clause
> this impossible.
> Having G***** convey the message was wishful thinking on my behalf
> that it would be received and met with understanding rather than the
> venom and immediate rejection that I am frequently faced with. It was
> not meant as a form of manipulation, coercion, or whatever "message
> passing" that you may infer/interpret the intent to have been.
> All that being said, can we please just be adults here and have some
> normal issues? You are correct in stating that the only one hurt by
> this behavior is G*****.
> You can be whoever you want to be the rest of the time... James Dean,
> Marry Poppins, or even the Queen of England. I really don't care. It
> doesn't matter. Further, It doesn't matter if I believe whatever you
> are taking to be your present identity is factual.
> Where G***** is involved you need to suck it up and be Richard.
> Wether that be a made up or previously assumed identity. Richard
> is who is on all pertinent information pertaining to G*****.
> Work with me here.
> May you please confirm that during his time in Canada, G***** will be
> and remain in the sole custody of Richard?
> Thank You.
> On Sunday, December 14, 2014, Patrick > wrote:
> G***** mentioned earlier that you had told him to tell me that
> unless I can provide proof that I legally changed my name from
> Richard to Patrick then you would not allow him to visit
> me during his winter break.
> I remind you that the court expressly forbids using the child
> (G*****, in this case) to pass messages between the parents (us,
> in this case). I have informed G***** of such and will not
> accept any messages from him on your behalf.
> I further remind you you did clearly agree to the travel
> arrangements previously committed to by me with respect to
> G*****'s winter break; moreover, you may recall me insisting on
> receiving a clearly written authorization for G*****'s visitation
> plans for exactly this type of reason.
> With respect to your request for proof that I legally changed my
> name from Richard to Patrick, I cannot provide such
> proof because such name change never occurred. The name on my
> birth certificate is Patrick and the US and Canadian
> governments will only issue ID in the name that is on one's birth
> certificate. I'm sorry that you are only now accepting the
> reality that you married and had a child with someone who you
> clearly knew so little about (kinda tells you something about
> yourself, though, huh)? I guess I'm just that good...and you're not.
> You may also remember, in December 2011, I declared under oath, in
> open court, before you and the Judge, that my birth name was
> Patrick. That was 3 years ago. But all of a sudden now it's
> become an issue for you? So, is it an issue because you finally
> realize that I've been telling the truth the past 3 years and you
> look like an idiot and you're trying to save face? Has there been
> anything that you accused me of that actually turned out to be right?
> As for G*****'s visit: the only person who will be adversely
> affected by you not allowing him to visit according to the terms
> you already agreed to in writing, would be him (I am devoid of
> emotion so I would only be affected financially but I'm not going
> to lose any sleep over the few hundred dollars for the plane ticket).