Mail

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Desiree Capuano & James Pendleton
250 E. Placita Lago Del Mago
Sahuarita, AZ     85629
Tel: 520-288-8200
desiree.capuano@gmail.com
japendletonjr@gmail.com
Back to Mailbox Back to mailbox
Newer Message Newer message
Older Message Older message
Re: G*****'s travel plans
From: Desiree Capuano <desiree.capuano@gmail.com>
To: Patrick <patrick@desireecapuano.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 15 2014 1:25:47 pm
Patrick,

There is no need for dramatics, threats, or liable.  My request and
requirement for visitation are and have always been quite simple.

There is no formal documented association between G***** and a
Patrick with regard to paternity.

>From your previous e-mail you state that I have only known you as Richard.
That seems to be a loose affirmation of my previous requirement.
May you please confirm that you are in fact the person G***** and I know
as Richard?

Thank You

~Desiree

On Monday, December 15, 2014, Patrick  wrote:

>  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?
>
> Patrick
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>