Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Desiree Capuano & James Pendleton
250 E. Placita Lago Del Mago
Sahuarita, AZ     85629
Tel: 520-288-8200
Back to Mailbox Back to mailbox
Newer Message Newer message
Older Message Older message
Re: G*****'s travel plans
From: Patrick <>
To: Desiree Capuano <>
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2014 8:51:40 am
I might also point out that you stated, not only Richard, but also 
"his father".  There is no uncertainty that I am G*****'s biological 
father.  Therefore, again, your argument about naming is not really 
significant, is it?


On 2014-12-15 6:37 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Patrick,
> 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.
> ~Desiree
> On Sunday, December 14, 2014, Patrick  > wrote:
>     Desiree:
>     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).
>     Patrick