I would like to point out that by refusing to keep me informed of the
precise location (meaning the address), where you are holding G*****,
YOU are effectively absconding with G***** - exactly the thing you
falsely claimed I did for those 9 years that you were out of his life.
Of course, it's moot at this point because I've already proven that I DO
know where you live and where you are keeping G*****. However, IF as
you poorly attempted to suggest, the address I have, in Sahuarita is not
the address you are holding G***** at, and that you have deliberately
taken steps to cause me to believe he is residing at that address when,
in fact, you are holding him at a different location - as you suggest in
your email, then that shows a deliberate attempt to "hide" his
whereabouts from me. And THAT would constitute absconding which would
be legal grounds for you to immediately lose all custody. Do you really
know absolutely nothing about family law?
So, do you wish to revise your position?
P.S. I am using the term "holding" intentionally because you are, in
fact, "holding" G***** against his will. He has already expressed that
he does not want to live with you. The only reason he IS with you is
because of a court order. Given the legal authority to make his own
determination, you know that he would be on the next plane out of
there. Therefore, you are "holding" him, just as a prisoner is held.
On 07/18/2015 10:23 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
Have you stopped to consider that if what you have were the real
address, and not just an intentional misdirection, that you would
be endangering G*****'s safety and privacy with your amateur
website? Publishing an address your son would potentially
be residing at?! Good job. Classy... real classy.
On Saturday, July 18, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
Isn't it amusing that your reason for refusing to provide me the
address where G***** will be residing while in your case was that
I continue to put your so-called "personal information" on a
public website...but, the one piece of "personal information" I
had never put on a public website was your address...but, now,
even though you'd refused to provide the address, I've put your
current address on your public website. Ah, the irony.
On 07/07/2015 06:28 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
As long as Patrick continues to put my personal information
on a public website, it will not be provided. Richard does
not have visitation within the United States as he has been
forcibly deported so having a physical address serves no
purpose. A mailing address has been provided for the purpose of
communication which is all I am required to provide. If G*****
is not returned, Richard will be in direct violation of the
court order governing G***** and immediate action will be
taken. I expect to see my son on the 12th of July, 2015.
On Tuesday, July 7, 2015, Patrick > wrote:
So I told G***** about your refusal to provide the address
where he will be residing upon his return and that if you do
not provide the address I have the legal right to refuse to
allow him to return - because a parent, regardless of custody
orders, cannot legally be compelled to knowingly put their
child in harms way, and given your well documented history of
refusing to cooperate, and taking up with drug users,
criminals, and violent people you hardly know...well.
Do you think he was upset about that? No. Not at all.
according to Google maps that address is a US Post Office.
You are legally required to provide me the address where
G***** will be physically residing. A post office box does
not meet that requirement.
If you fail or refuse to provide me the address where G*****
will be physically residing, prior to his time of departure
on July 12 I will have the legal grounds to refuse to allow
him to return because, as far as I know, you're homeless and
unable to provide his shelter. Particularly since you also
refuse to provide any information about whether you even have