Posted by: itioachild | 2009 12 11

D denied his father now for 8 months

H continues to prevent D from contacting his father or father’s family. The pain of it is immense.

We have now heard from Jay, H’s boyfriend who testified he would do anything for H, that H thinks I am evil, and that he would be a good replacement father, though don’t take me word for that, read his testimony here Sadly his comments are blind of D’s feelings, aggressive towards me, and lacking of compassion or empathy, so he brings no hope of a better world for D. We also learn from his comments of another insult to D, Jay says D was forced to apologize for “lying” when he wrote an essay that H kicked his dog.

So much damage has been done to D in the name of ‘get dad’, emotionally and financially for his future. In the name of hatred he is being denied so many gifts only his father can give him. In the name of hatred he is being saddled with issues that will haunt him for a lifetime.

Christmas is coming and it appears D will not experience paternal love or have the experience of visiting Grandma and Grandpa.

Everyone knows the divorce courts are flawed, H can not hide behind them. They never gave H anything she didn’t ask for – and ask for while spending lots of money, manipulating people, and lying. She couldn’t buy his love, but she bought this instead.

Posted in I Love you D*, I Miss You D*, In The Interest Of a Child, So Sad

«
»

Responses

  1. We sent D to see Grandpa and Grandma last Christmas and then had to spend 6 months and 80 thousand dollars finding and retrieving him. We can’t afford to make the same mistake. The direct consequence of the international abduction is that Tom’s visitation rights are now limited by the custody order to supervised visits in Georgetown. H will obey the court directions, just has she has previously. Tom needs to simply follow the custody orders if he wants to visit his son.

    H doesn’t read this website. She has many more important things to do helping D keep up with his classes and keeping up with her own work. Contrary to what Tom has stated, she has never been obsessed with “get dad”. She simply does not have the time for the kind of hate campaign that Tom demonstrates with this website. She expected him to follow the custody order to the letter, just as she has, so that D’s visit transitions could be smooth. Instead, Tom ran from the country with D. So the consequence is that there is a new custody order which will enforce the custody with all the safeguards we asked for … supervised, and requiring Tom to post a bond that would be forfeited in the case of a repeat abduction. All Tom’s statements about plane tickets and sending D to Lausanne or to visit his grandparents are simply some fantasy that denies the reality that he could not be entrusted to follow the custody order.

    By: jay on 2009 12 12
    at 5:02 pm

    Reply

    • D and I took our Christmas vacation, we had a snag getting him back, and H played it to the max. It appears she told the police that we were out of contact when in fact the reason was she didn’t answer her phone or cell phone. Instead of helping she tried to use it as an opportunity to ‘get dad’, again. Note for example, look at the quoted message from D* “We called a bunch of times and no one answered”. That is exactly what happened both to the cell phone and to the house. See also for a number of lies that were used.

      Note also Jay’s testimony on H thinking dad is evil and his own answers to being a replacement father Talk about having the ex _from hell_.

      She did have time however, to bother the court to ask for money. See the comments under the “no contact over Christmas” post on this blog. According to Jay she expects dad to pay her $150,000.

      The court has never given H anything she didn’t ask for, and ask for while lying, manipulating, and paying a lot of money, to get.

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 9:18 pm

      Reply

  2. Here is some constructive advice for you.

    I am sure all the family and friends who signed the petition giving you access to the passport now feel betrayed. We contacted many of them during the abduction, searching for D.

    It is apparent you think you can gain something through your friends or through men’s rights organizations by telling bigger and bigger lies about abuse, breaking dogs legs, unanswered telephone calls, plots by lawyers and judges, needles in candy. We’ve dealt with all the accusations in 18 months of custody modification hearings that you initiated in 2006, and they all fall apart with any scrutiny. Anyone getting worked up about these issues is going to again find themselves feeling betrayed when they’ve wasted time and energy based on your lies.

    If you’ve managed to convince yourself of all these lies, then you need to get some psychological help. I’m not the only person to have suggested this, as you quoted your lawyer as saying you needed psyhcological help in your book.

    H doesn’t have a hate Tom website. She moved on immediately. You need to ask yourself seriously why you have done this, and get some help since you still can’t get out of this mode after 8 years.

    By: jay on 2009 12 12
    at 8:21 pm

    Reply

  3. Let’s again try some truth:

    H did not put D in a psychiatric hospital. He was put there by the Geneva police after he ran away from the initial foster home they put him in. The reason he was in Geneva was because you took him there. The reason he was taken from you and put in a foster home is because you had run from the U.S. with him, in violation of the custody orders, and so the judge had issued temporary custody orders removing all your visitation, as well as a writ of attachment telling the police to physically take custody of him. This was all a direct consequence of the abduction. D was in the hospital only for observation, not for any treatment, and had to choose to leave voluntarily with H. He had no option to leave with you because of the civil court orders, which Geneva honors. He has never been in a psychiatric ward before or since, although he was transfered directly from Geneva to an Austin hospital for one night as a further condition of the release. He doesn’t take any medications other than his dairy enzymes and occassionally an allergy pill. He has had two court appointed psychologists, neither of whom have used drugs or hypnosis in his therapy. Tom participated in the selection process of his current psychologist.

    By: jay on 2009 12 12
    at 8:34 pm

    Reply

    • Oh, H is very much responsible for this. She hired a local attorney and made sure that D* did not get out. Due to this D* was allowed to leave with his mother any time but told he had to stay indefinitely if he wanted his father – he had no medical diagnosis apart from H*’s “brainwashing”. When D refused to go with her and wanted his dad, she had him held even longer to be worked on. And while D was screaming for help _from his father_ she had time to tell me she knew he loved me for real (it was a fraud) and then asked me to set up a fund for her, er, me, er Dimitris. See recording and transcript under point 5 . Note how cute and sweet her voice is. Keep in mind at this very moment D was locked up and being worked on because she would not let him out while he asked for his father. Also note Jay’s comments that H is expecting payments of $150,000 under the blog entry for “no contact even over Christmas”.

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 9:32 pm

      Reply

  4. D is in no way locked up here. He spent many days in the summer riding his bicycle around with his friends and going to the swimming pool. His friends come over to play, and sometimes (like last night) he goes over and spends the night at their houses.

    He is in an advanced program at his middle school, and so he has an enormous amount of homework (relative to what I had at that age). It is typical for H to spend several hours each evening working with him on homework, and then work on her own work until after midnight. She has very little unscheduled time.

    By: jay on 2009 12 12
    at 9:18 pm

    Reply

  5. Your comment “H continues to prevent…” really means nothing. We completed the civil court hearing in October, and now you have your new rules for seeing D. You just have to follow the rules. When she receives the written notice that you have arranged for the visit, and notice that you have posted the bond, she will take D to the meeting place for the visit.

    The only things H does on a daily basis is work and cart D around to various activities and help him with his homework. She doesn’t have the time or energy to worry about all the garbage you post here.

    By: jay on 2009 12 12
    at 11:27 pm

    Reply

    • NO, You and I both know that you are free, indeed, obligated to co-operate with me as a parent. Indeed the rules are of H’s own making. The court has never given H anything she didn’t ask for, and ask for while lying, manipulating, and paying a lot of money, to get. Indeed she has broken the “rules” a number of times when it is in her favor destroying our vacations not letting us talk on the phone etc. See for non-exclusive list of times she denied him access to his father .
      If raising D is such a burden as you say, send him to his dad. I have never found him to be a burden and would be glad to lighten her load.

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 7:57 pm

      Reply

  6. Let’s try some more truth here:

    We sent D to visit Tom last Dec 19 at Tom’s mother’s in AZ. Tom immediately cut off all phone contact with D, as he usually does. On Dec 26 we began getting different messages from attempts to call Tom, and the Round Rock police later affirmed that Tom’s cellphone service had been cut off.

    By: jay on 2009 12 13
    at 10:30 pm

    Reply

    • Truth is not your strong suit Jay. H didn’t send D. Instead she insisted that I buy three round trip plane tickets and rent a car in order to go sailing with my son. She (and apparently you) wanted me to fly from my place to pick D up “AT STARBUCKS ON FARWEST” and no where else! fly him to where we were going sailing, then fly him and I back again so I could drop him off at “STARBUCKS”. That is what you requested. The “truth” here Jay is that you and H have been asses giving me difficulty and expense at every possible opportunity. You have never even lifted a pinky finger to help D have access to his father – quite the opposite you have fought it even declaring emergency service to destroy our holidays. See for a list of when H blocked D from access to this father . The rest of this is all smoke. You don’t know squat.

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 7:59 pm

      Reply

  7. Let’s try some more truth:

    Tom left Austin with D in the summer of 2008, without any notice that he was leaving town, in violation of the custody order. We had no idea where D was until we got a call three weeks later from the Virgin Islands. Even then Tom would not provide an address. Tom ended up keeping D for 7 days beyond the scheduled summer custody on that trip. He refused to return D to the exchange point in Austin, as is his duty per the custody order.

    Tom finally did provide a Virgin Island address after D’s return, but we found later that Tom had evacuated that address a week before the date he provided it. He has not provided H or the court a valid residence address since April of 2008, which is a requirement of the custody order.

    Tom has made several accusations that H did not send D to the Virgin Islands between July and Dec of 2008. The custody orders require D to be exchanged in Austin at a specific location, yet Tom simply ignored this responsibility. The custody order did not require H to take him to an airport or pick him up there, and it stated specifically that Tom would pay for the transportation. Tom never sent a plane ticket for D to fly to the Virgin Islands, yet he continues to accuse H of interfering with his custody for not sending D there, and even used this to justify the December abduction to his relatives and others.

    The truth is that Tom could have visited D at any of his scheduled times if he would have followed the custody order and met D at the exchange point. He simply would have had to buy a plane ticket to Austin, which is no different than buying a plane ticket for D to the Virgin Islands.

    Tom probably wasn’t in the Virgin Islands anyway. The apartment manager in the Virgin Island said Tom had given his mother’s address as a forwarding address when he vacated the apartment in June. When we got the request from Tom for D’s passport in November, the letter inside was from Tom, but it came addressed by Tom’s mother, and with an Arizona mail stamp, though she put Tom’s false Virgin Island address as the return address on the envelope.

    On Dec 28, when the Maricopa police took Tom’s mother’s statements, she again gave the false Virgin Island address as Tom’s address.

    In October of 2008 a hurricane had gone close to St Thomas, and we told D to call and check on his dad. D told us that he knew his dad wasn’t on the island.

    So many stories Tom tells, and they will all unravel under any scrutiny.

    By: jay on 2009 12 13
    at 11:42 pm

    Reply

  8. Lets try some more truth.

    Tom now quotes D as saying his mom broke the Dog’s leg in summer of 2004. If you look at previous tape conversations, Tom asks D if the dog was hurt, and he says he doesn’t know.

    I asked D in 2006 where the stories were coming from about kicking dogs, and he said it was before I got here. I’ve lived with him since Feb of 2004, and I’ve never seen H harm the dog in any way. The dog had a house on a cool, shaded porch, and would sleep in the garage in the winter.

    At Christmas of 2004, H and I were leaving for dinner and we saw Tom’s car parked in front of her house. When we returned the fence was open and the dog was gone. Tom brought the dog to the exchange point the following Monday, and he had D lie and tell a story about finding the dog running around his school. We immediately confronted Tom and D on this, and D sheepishly admitted having taken the dog from the yard and told the lie when we were home. Tom went ahead and printed the lie story in his book.

    Tom took the dog a second time, apparently returning to H’s house after picking up D at school. D certainly did not take the dog to school. This time Tom did not return the dog. The dog was involved in some biting incident at Tom’s appartment, in which D says some kids hit the dog with a skateboard. About this time Tom also was changing his residence to a boat in Galveston. H asked again for D and Tom to return the dog here, but instead Tom had the dog put to sleep. He never notified H he had done this. We had to find out several weeks later from D.

    H did call the police and report the dog taken by Tom the second time. The police contacted Tom. He refused to admit that he had it, but at the same time claimed H had not kept its shots up to date, and also claimed that the dog belonged to him. We invited the officer in and showed him the vet records disproving Tom’s claims.

    We could not immediately prove ownership, although H had raised the dog for 7 years, and Tom had been off in California and various other places. Later we did discover that Tom’s bankruptcy records indicate that he had given the dog to H in 2001, in the list of items where he has to list any transfers of property immediately prior to the bankruptcy. So this disproves Tom’s claim of ownership.

    D has apologized to his mom about lying, saying she had broken the dog’s leg, while he was in the Geneva hospital. It seems Tom’s influence is to have D tell lies about H to accomplish whatever plan they have made, but D has a conscience after all. This is a cruel thing to do to a kid.

    All of Tom’s stories fall apart under any scrutiny.

    By: jay on 2009 12 14
    at 12:58 am

    Reply

  9. Let’s try some more truth:

    When we got to Geneva, Tom had already given the hospital his ITIO book, and told them stories about his evil Korean ex-wife and her rich family that was buying decisions in the civil courts in Austin.

    I’ve met H’s family, and they are all very sweet. Her mom and dad live with her brother in Korea. No one is after them for any crimes. Her father had a business failure at a time when businesses were failing all over asia, and in her country all such business failures are investigated for fraud. H’s family has settled all the claims against her parents long ago.

    H does not worry her parents over Tom’s antics. We have paid all the costs of fighting Tom’s false accusations and the costs of finding and retrieving D ourselves. The courts can easily see the injustice to H of having to deal with Tom, as Tom’s stories fall apart under any scrutiny. The court has awarded H legal fees and other costs now probably exceeding 130 thousand dollars.

    Tom has hidden any assets he had remaining, using off-shore accounts, and moving assets out of the country now. We really have no way of collecting, and Tom apparently has no intention of paying any of these debts. We did manage to freeze a couple of thousand dollars that he had left in his old bank account, but the legal fees to accomplish that pretty much used that up.

    H and I both have good jobs, and we can take care of D. Still, Tom has effectively robbed us of several years of savings that could have gone towards D’s education.

    In addition Tom stopped paying child support after March of 2008. There is a judgement now of over 18 thousand dollars that he will have to deal with if he comes before the civil court in Texas. I don’t think the courts treat such contempt lightly. Tom says he has a good job in Lausanne, working for EPFL. H has always placed the child support money straight into D’s college fund account. You’d think Tom would want to support his son’s future.

    The abduction robbed D of the whole spring semester of his last year in elementary school. We had D tested in a placement exam when he returned, and we had to put him in private tutoring all summer and through the fall, at great expense, to make up for the missed education. He simply could not have kept up otherwise, and would have had to be dropped from the advanced program in which he had been in previous grades.

    D is doing well in math as a result of the tutoring and a lot of work with H. His language skills are still relatively poor, and so we will continue the tutoring for that through one more semester.

    H and I had planned to move to a different neighborhood with a higher rated middle school program this year, but the expenses of searching for D directly prevented us from doing so. Still, his current middle-school has an enthusiastic music director, and D is doing well in that program, and was readmitted to the advanced programs for the other classes, so we are not too disappointed in the outcome of the situation. His middle school is only about two blocks away, and the high school is a similar distance, so we will fix up this house and stay here. He also has close friends here from elementary school, so that is good for him.

    Tom states he hadn’t considered home schooling, but he did not put D in any schools during the 6 months of abduction. Tom claims to have had him take some GED exam, but D had very poor basic skills for his grade level when he returned as a result of the missed school.

    Tom had also always claimed he would have put D in music and group sports training if he were given custody, yet he did none of that during the six month abduction. I’m sure D had a fun time goofing off while his friends were all in class, but that was a very selfish neglect of D’s development by Tom.

    By: jay on 2009 12 14
    at 2:05 am

    Reply

    • The first thing a reader should notice about this post is the accusation of hidden assets. Sorry Jay, no hidden assets you all have already wiped me clean. See the “no contact even over Christmas” post on this website where Jay says they want $150,000 from me. H and I were divorced 8 years ago and she got most all the marriage estate even then.

      Another thing, while D was locked in the psychiatric hospital being worked for three weeks Jay and H came for just for a couple of days and left when D said he would not go with her. She had him held for more treatment and asked me to set up a fund, then left. see point 5 . I was there every day trying to help him. I suffered with him. We are both in pain over this to this day.

      As far as ‘accusations’ of fraud etc. My attorney presented some documents in the original divorce hearing see the embassy letter and bank statement links at the top of the page and I have not made any legal issue of it up to this day. To my knowledge those documents were incidental to the divorce even in 2001. The thing that caused H to lose all custody was her own testimony . If H has spent a lot of money defending against the fraud documents it isn’t due to me. Though I do suspect your blaming me for this, as above, may be why you are using D to hurt me (and hurting him while doing it) – which is why I have them on the website. I also think it is very ignoble what was done.

      To my knowledge the hospital never looked at “ITIO a Child”. They did respond to H*’s attorney who insisted for H that D be held in a psychiatric ward though there was nothing wrong with him. H didn’t want him to have a voice. He would have gotten one if he had not been locked up. That is why I put this website up – to give D a voice, and as it turns out as a side effect to let people see how obsessed with suppressing his voice and of denying D access to his father you all are.

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 8:31 pm

      Reply

  10. lets try some more truth:
    H never gave an interview to any newspapers, including the one in Geneva. Her lawyer had been called for comment on a story in the paper, apparently being provided by your lawyer in Geneva. H learned of the story only after it was out. You have placed comments to that article claiming that H was responsible in some way for the photo with that article misrepresenting his age. H did not provide any photos for that article. I’ll have to assume that came from you or your lawyer, as did the instigation of the story, along with its false allegations of child abuse. This provides very good evidence of the way you tell lies to make H look bad when you are fully aware that she has nothing to do with it. In fact she informed you in the train station in Geneva that she had nothing to do with the comments in that story, yet you persist in telling the lie, perhaps to gain more sympathy from your family and friends.

    H does, however, consider your effects on D to be a form of severe parental alienation, as did D’s original psychologist who was responsible for the cps action against you based on her observations of D. There is no other way to explain the actions of a child who leaves at Christmas hugging and kissing his mother, then returns from his visits with you shouting insults at her.

    D mouths your complaints about the judge and court and about me as well, and I see your mother chiming in as well, though she has never met me or the judge. I can see your effect on your family is the same. Your constant lies turn what might be a civil family into your ugly chorus. I’m a bit shocked at you even sinking to biggoted comments about H and her family, but perhaps that is how your family raised you, or perhaps you now run in that circle of friends.

    By: jay on 2009 12 14
    at 3:48 am

    Reply

    • The article speaks for itself. H has not rescinded nor denied any of it including up to this day. She says D was being held in a psychiatric ward because he was brainwashed and wanted him treated. D had no medical diagnosis and would have been released if his mother H had not insisted that he be held. H has taken no suit against the paper nor the hospital, nor has she even made a complaint.

      I find it very interesting that the boyfriend puts so much effort into spinning everything. How convenient that you do this as a third party. Why don’t we get to hear H’s own words? She may say things very different than you Jay. Why should I take the time to reply to anything you might make up?

      It is unfortunate, as you say, that H thinks that I am evil . It is sick that the person who uses every opportunity to make it difficult for D to see his father accuses dad of, as you say, “[she] considers your effects on D to be a form of severe parental alienation”. I have done a lot of work to help D love his mother, even when D explained to me that she told him that she didn’t love him.

      I have not stopped paying child support. I have reduced the support. The current amount is over my gross income – but they press me to pay everything I have anyway. This makes it very difficult to hire attorneys to reply to these folks. The EPFL work was killed by H’s accusations. They did not want to be “embarrassed.” This is far from the first time H has chased me out of work, among the other examples the time she took all my business files

      Far from robbing D of anything, the extra time that D had with his father because H did not answer her phone to work out his return afforded us time to study economics, math, foreign languages and culture. In one month I put him two years ahead in math at his Round Rock School. You will note in Jay’s comment he hit the math next. Jay tells you he is behind, but then tells you he is ahead. If H was so good at turtoring him, why is that he only jumps ahead after being with dad? Why is that dad insisted on putting him in TAG (talented and gifted) while H fought it. Note the school principal’s testimony.

      Four your last complaint here that D mouths complaints. Yes he does. And they are genuine. It shows your illness that you will not listen to him. I have only encouraged D to communicate and tell the truth – I have *never* told him what to say.

      Readers, please notice, we need help, these people are obsessed with “get dad” and are hurting this child D so badly just to make sure dad suffers. As you see in Jays post here, D has a lot to say. You can see some of it at http://www.itioachild.com. Please help him and know that he is being punished for telling the truth.

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 8:35 pm

      Reply

  11. Let’s try some more truth:

    I’ve been with H since Feb of 2004, and I am very aware of everything that has happened with you since then, and have read all the records before then. In every case where you have claimed H has denied you access, I can say you had absolutely no custodial right to access. You simply demand unspecified rights, then declare that you have been denied something when she refuses to change the rules.

    And on the issue of the 2002 christmas abduction … it is very clear to anyone who read your book that you did knowingly and contemptuously abduct D. You stated your fears about fbi agents on the train and amber alerts, and rushing out of town to avoid getting stuck in court. In fact, you took D at the end of the first trimester of the school he was enrolled in rather than waiting to their Christmas break in the second trimester, so you were not even following the schedule of the school he was in, as you claim. In any case, H’s lawyer had never agree to change any of the schedule, and you presented her only response in the book, which was emphatically that the court order would be followed to the letter. I’m sure you thought you could get away with it again in Dec 2008, as you did in July of 2008, but H is now a more assertive person, and you truly crossed the line by repeatedly refusing to provide an address or phone number. She suffered greatly during the 6 months, not knowing where her son was, and so whatever consequences are the results of your actions you will have to endure without her sympathy.

    By: jay on 2009 12 14
    at 4:10 am

    Reply

    • this link has the original dated attorney letters about how H insisted on using a Round Rock school district schedule though D was in a private school in Austin, and made complaints when the Round Rock School district schedule was not followed. It made our holiday breaks very stressful. It is just part of a long pattern of making things difficult for us. more of it is here.

      How can you just blurt out things you have no knowledge of and contradict the so called “records” that you say you read while doing it? How could anyone be so deluded and put so much energy into being deluded? This is very very damaging to D. Why should I entertain you in this manner? All you are doing is piling things high and deep to create the appearance of a he said / she said where there isn’t one.

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 8:39 pm

      Reply

  12. Let’s try some more truth:

    For a while you had a collage picture of D on your landing page of the website … behind a glass door holding up written messages. You commented that someone had questioned D’s age in that picture. For some reason in your response you were unable to admit that the photo was from back when D was 3, and in fact was the photo from the front of your D and Dad essay. So why the deception? I think this is another good example of you doing things that you then accuse H of doing (i.e. your accusations that she provided younger pictures of D to the police and newspaper for some kind of sympathy). Could you not just admit the truth? Everyone else knows it was a lie … surely you can see that. As we told you in the train station, you need to get some psychological help for this.

    By: jay on 2009 12 14
    at 4:19 am

    Reply

    • The original landing page had a depiction of an incredible real event; that of 11 year old D putting up a sign in the window at the psychiatric ward asking for his father. No such thing was said at the train station.

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 8:47 pm

      Reply

  13. Let’s try some more truth:

    Your needles in candy story is right out of the halloween urban legends. Your description in the book of running into someone at a bookstore who began relating some parallel existance to you is bizarre in itself. Never mind that H has never been in an accident that involved running a red light. Your story that followed makes it perfectly clear that D had no idea what to say to please you, and so you repeated until he was frustrated. You molded his babling into your own story of D being fed needles in candy. Our lawyer almost laughed when you claimed he had actually ate the needles, but had not figured out a response to “what happened then?”. Obviously if he ate needles he must have gone to the hospital, or there must be some needles poking though his stomach. This was all your fabrication, and it is now the origin is obvious after reading the sick description in your book. We confronted you directly about this in the train station in Geneva, and rather than admitting your lie, you tried to further evolve the story to say that D had stepped on needles in the carpet. We immediately challenged you on that as well, since that was story from the fantasy woman of your needles in candy story. You’re telling so many lies, that you can’t even tell anymore when you are ridiculous. Get some help.

    By: jay on 2009 12 14
    at 4:32 am

    Reply

  14. Let’s try some more truth:

    Tom made accusations during the custody modification hearings that H had destroyed all his photographs, and that D had salvaged some from the trash and was hiding them under his bed. The truth is that H as ten albums of photographs on her bookshelf that have been there at least since 2004. The photos include pictures of Tom from even back when H was pregnant with D on their trip to Korea. D has a photo of Tom and H on the shelf right across from his bed that has also been there since I’ve been living here (Feb 2004). There has never been anything hidden under D’s bed, and no need to hide anything. His bed has a folded matress beneath it that we get out occassionally when his friends come over to spend the night. H and I both work together to get it out, so we both know well there is nothing hidden under his bed.

    When Tom made these accusations, we asked D about them, and took him to the bookshelf and showed him the photos, and took him to his room and pointed at his photo and we asked him why Tom was saying they were destroyed. He had no explanation, but apparently the story had been repeated to him as well and he believed they had been destroyed. We raised the bed and asked why Tom was saying there were photos hidden there. He could not explain. It was as if someone was awakening him from a dream that he still thought was real. This is another example of false memories being drilled into D by Tom for his own purposes of demonizing H. There can be no other explanation.

    By: jay on 2009 12 14
    at 4:45 pm

    Reply

    • Apparently this is a twisted version of D complaining about his mother taking down all pictures with his dad in them. According to D, as I recall, he perceived that she intended on throwing them away. He complained and was allowed to keep them in his room. I recounted what D said and asked for duplicates, and was denied. I was given few of the family photos when we divorced.

      ** Jay, may we have duplicates of these photos? **

      [as of Jan 10, 2010, Jay has not offered duplicates, should he do so I will update this comment – itioachild@gmail.com]

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 8:57 pm

      Reply

  15. Let’s try some more truth:
    Tom sued H again in March of 2008, swearing that H was preventing him from talking with D on the phone. As proof, Tom presented his phone call log which showed a bunch of short calls to D’s phone number. What Tom didn’t say was that on almost every night that he called, D called him right back on his phone. D’s phone is in his room, and by the time he could tear himself away from the tv, or homework, he would have to call back. What Tom didn’t know was that because of similar accusations in 2006, we had replaced D’s phone with one that had the ability to store a log of all call times. So when the accusations came in 2008, we simply provided the log of D’s calls to the judge. Tom did not appear for the hearing, but it made no difference. All Tom’s accusations fall apart under any scrutiny.

    Prior to that hearing, Tom apparently did intend to appear, and he hurridly made up 3 months of unpaid child support, which proved that he could have been making payments if he had wanted. After that March hearing, he immediatedly stopped making payments again.

    We continued to keep records of D’s phone log. He talked frequently with his father. Tom was in no way hindered from communicating with his son, all per the court order rights.

    By: jay on 2009 12 14
    at 10:02 pm

    Reply

    • The recordings on the website are accurate and there were no return calls afterward. There was a short period of time after a judge ordered H to answer the phone when D did return calls from his room. He was not allowed to talk to dad on the regular phone rather they had some sort of computer setup where he had to call back through we were sometimes cut off — i.e. the calls were monitored. This grace period was a result of the hearing where the evidence on the website was used. At times the phone goes unanswered for months at a time. I have had no contact with D whatsoever, phone or otherwise, since May. H has not answered her phone since June 11. There have been no return phone calls. H has often obstructed visits.

      **Lets see those phone logs, and the ones going back to December.**

      [ as of Jan 09 still no phone logs. — itioachild@gmail.com]

      By: itioachild on 2009 12 21
      at 9:38 pm

      Reply

  16. Even though Jay is H’s boyfriend, so much of what he says is not direct information, it appears he is anxious to spin things, and it is difficult to hold him accountable – I have answered each one of his statements backing most up with documents. If there is anything someone thinks I have missed let me know and I will address it.

    Please note the manipulative technique of “piled high and deep” . According to this technique a person with something to hide randomly makes up things and often changes the subject with the objective of causing the conversation to go on so long that people give up trying to figure it out. I have attempted to counter this by putting documents in my replies. Note you can click on the red text.

    Really there are only two things you need to examine to have a good knowledge of what is going on as not much has changed over the years:

    1) H’s testimony it is in her own words so that takes away any possible ‘he said she said’ affect. The pattern she describes in her testimony continues to this day. The details vary but the general nature of her actions is the same.

    2) The first comment under the “no contact since Christmas” blog on this site – where Jay says he believes H is asking dad for $150,000.

    There are many documents on the website http://www.itioachild.com that taken as a whole show the pattern of the maltreatment of D, damaging actions and ‘get dad’ continues unabated over the years.

    — ITIOaChild@gmail.com

    By: itioachild on 2010 01 09
    at 9:37 pm

    Reply


Leave a comment

Categories