peace9274
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,574
- Reaction score
- 4,627
Thanks for sharing this story as it brings back a small (very small) bit of faith in the CT courts! Its too bad we didn't see proactive judging for JD as it sounds like FD was claiming that not only was he eating a single slice of bologna but not able to pay his attys or afford much of anything based on the lack/no cash flow of Fore Group.
FD by all accounts in the court documents was permitted to file motions for support and assistance WHILE NOT PROVIDING FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO THE COURTS. He did this WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES so far as I can tell in the court documents.
In your bologna story your ex went to jail for 2 weeks. In the case of FD he goes home to the Farmington house where he lives with MT and has stopped paying the mortgage. Is the concept of personal responsibility anyplace in the DNA of FD or MT? Doubtful. But worse in my mind is FD was not compelled to comply with the decisions of our legal system and I'm not sure we would be here today with this tragedy if compliance had been imposed in the same way your ex was tossed in jail for not telling the truth. MOO
I totally agree!
Fast forwarding to my 2nd CT divorce in 2000-2002. My then STBX was never enforced to comply with anything that he was ordered to do, even though I could prove he was lying and was constantly in contempt!
Despite the fact that I eventually lost a huge chunk in my monthly child support payments, my 1st CT divorce in 1983 was so much easier, much shorter, less stressful, and so much less expensive than my 2nd.