I'm unclear - your "previous correspondence" stated that G*****
traveling to California was contingent on your express notice and
consent. But you now seem to be saying that it is pre-authorized by you
and that you just require "full itinerary including flight and contact
information". May you please try to be a little more clear and
consistent in your communication?
I will speak with the relevant parties in Los Angeles and get back to
you with confirmations.
Responses to your statements:
1. You are correct that you are not required, not legally anyway, to
justify your decisions to me. However, your refusal to provide a
rationale for your decisions is evidence that such decisions are
arbitrary and NOT based on rationale or on what is in G*****'s best
interests. And child rearing (or leading, in general) arbitrarily, as
opposed to by rational consideration and democratic processes is fascist
and dictatorial. I have been, and I believe I have now, proven that
that is your approach to raising children (if not your approach to life,
In the past, when I have attempted to implement a rule, I have always
allowed G***** the opportunity to question it's rationale and, on more
than one occasion he has pointed out that there was no logical basis for
it. In such cases I have conceded that he was correct and the rule was
either abandoned or modified appropriately. THAT is my approach to
raising children - and to life in general. That is why I am a better
person than you and why G***** will always respect me, while he fears
you. Personally, I'd rather have someone's earned respect than to have
their fear. But that's just me.
2. I am not "failing to comply", as you put it. I am proposing
alternatives to what you have mandated, in order to make more cost
effective travel arrangements. Alternatives which would not affect you
in any way whatsoever because you are not the one traveling. You are
proving that you are completely unwilling to have ANY flexibility in
this matter - even though it does not affect you in any way at all. Is
there ANY reason you can provide why G***** should not be permitted to
travel on May 28, 2015 rather than on May 24, 2015? You're adamant
refusal to provide such indicates there is not.
As for me being the one hurting G*****, I don't see how you come to
that conclusion. You're the one being completely inflexible on his
travel dates and only allowing him to travel on the dates that the
flights cost over $500. How exactly am I the one hurting him?
I include G***** in correspondence because I believe in being
transparent and honest with him. You're approach is to say one thing to
me (or to the court), then to provide G***** your fairy tale perception
of the situation - wherein you usually portray yourself as the noble,
honorable, victim. But the way you portray things to G***** only works
if I'm never able to rebut your stories - if I never hear about what
you've told him. Do you honestly believe that G***** and I keep
secrets from each other?
Either list, specifically, what "inflammatory and defamatory lies"
you're referring to, or stop making such vague generalizations. You see
how I am specific when make claims about you? That's why everyone
believes me, and ignores you.
3. What childish tantrums? How am I being childish? And what behavior
qualifies as a tantrum?
4. The purpose of this communication was directly and exclusively
related to G*****'s visitation. You are the one that started being
belligerent. Why do you keep doing that? What is wrong with you?
On 04/26/2015 11:02 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Ricky Steve (so you aren't confused),
> That is acceptable per my previous correspondence. As a side note, I
> am not required to justify my decisions to you for any reason at any
> point. I have told you the terms. You may comply or not. That is
> your decision. Your failure to comply in this instance only hurts
> G*****. As does your continuing to include G***** on correspondence
> where you make unfounded inflammatory, and defamatory lies despite
> both he and I requesting that you do not do so.
> Again, cease and desist in your childish tantrums and obsessive
> stalking behavior. There is no reason(or desire) for us to interact
> directly other than where it concerns G*****'s travel. On that
> note, I await G*****'s full itinerary per previous stipulation. That
> means his travel to California as well as Vancouver.
> - Desiree
> On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
> May G***** be permitted to fly from Phoenix, AZ to Los Angeles,
> CA on May 24, 2015, then to Vancouver, BC on May 28, 2015? If
> not, then please provide your reasoning as to why not.
> On 04/26/2015 09:17 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>> May 27th, 2015 will not work. G***** may travel on 05/23/15 or
>> 05/24/15. If not either of those days, the next permissible time
>> is the following weekend. Those dates being 05/30/15 or
>> 05/31/15. You will need to find a weekend that works for G*****
>> to travel out. Keep in mind that his return date to Arizona is
>> still to be July 12th, 2015 regardless of the date he leaves to
>> visit. That means the further you push out the date, the less
>> time you two get together.
>> On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Patrick
>> > <_e>> wrote:
>> May you confirm whether May 24, 2015 is the only date you
>> will permit G***** to travel from Phoenix, AZ to Vancouver,
>> BC? I would like him to travel on May 27, 2015. Will he be
>> permitted to do so?
>> On 04/20/2015 10:32 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>> G***** has stated that for his summer vacation, he would
>>> like to visit with you in Canada from May 24th to July
>>> 12th. May you please confirm that you will pick G***** up
>>> from the airport on May 24th, and return him to the airport
>>> on July 12th? During this time he is to remain in the care
>>> of his father Richard Steve Riess in Canada, and is not
>>> permitted to be flown to other sites such as California
>>> without my notification and express written consent. To
>>> that end, G***** has also expressed a desire to travel to
>>> California during this time, for which I will need a full
>>> itinerary including flight and contact information. Please
>>> provide this information as soon as possible so that there
>>> is no delay in his summer visitation.
>>> Any deviation from the above stated shall be deemed
>>> kidnapping and a violation of the terms of reasonable