Morphex's blogologue (Life, technology, music, politics, business, mental health and more)

This is the blog of Morten W. Petersen, aka. morphex in various places. I blog about my life, and what I find interesting and/or important. This is a personal blog without any editor or a lot of oversight so treat it as such. :)

My email is morphex@gmail.com.

An OGG/Vorbis player, implemented in Javascript.

My Kiva bragging page
My shared (open source) code on GitHub

Morphex's Blogodex

News
Slashdot

Zope hosting by Nidelven IT

Morten Petersen on Linkedin

Morten Petersen on Facebook

Morten Petersen on SoundCloud

Morten Petersen on MixCloud

Blogologue on Twitter



Older entries



Atom - Subscribe - Categories

Facebook icon Share on Facebook Google+ icon Share on Google+ Twitter icon Share on Twitter LinkedIn icon Share on LinkedIn

Got a letter from the county governors office

So I was a trial to get to see my kids with supervision (partly to keep the kids mom at bay), and to get mental health professionals to review the kids mom, as I've seen quite a bit of negative behaviour from her, ranging from not signing an agreement about seeing the kids so that it wasn't legally binding, to manipulation and agressive acts.

I have it documented that we did agree on me seeing the kids 3 days every 2 weeks.

However, and this is my side of the story, after I rejected the kids mom when she still wanted to be in some sort of intimate relationship, it became difficult to see the kids.

So in this letter I got, which rejects my appeal on getting financial support to cover the kids moms court costs, there are a couple of things that don't seem right to me.

Because I've been sick, I'm now on a support plan from the state which doesn't give me much income, and because of that, it will be difficult for me to pay the court costs from the trial that was.

And because it will be difficult to cover the court costs, I might not get another change to go to court for some years, to get more time with the kids and another review of the kids mom.

In the trial that was, there were mental health professionals that reviewed the kids mom, and they found no narcissistic or sociopathic traits. And this was repeated in court when the judge asked the appointed mental health professionals, that this was the case. And this had been a subject before the trial. After discussing this online and with mental health professionals, my understanding is that it is unlikely that a person doesn't have at least one trait in either the sociopathic or narcissistic category. And I don't think they're incompetent, so it is likely that they lied.

So I'm now in a situation where I get to see my kids 4 hours every 6 weeks, and this is depressing and difficult. You can say what you want about a life with or without kids, but once you get attached to them it is heartbreaking to not be able to spend time with them. And because it is heartbreaking and depressing, it affects my well-being.

The letter states that I have and will have enough income for things like a place to live, food, necessities and this is true. But it also says that I'm already planning a new trial, and they can't put me in a position where I get myself in further debt. So basically, they won't cover my existing court costs because they assume that I will put myself in further debt with a new court case.

I find that as a bit of a strange argumentation, and the whole paragraph that states this convoluted.

Now, they also say in this letter that they understand that the situation can affect my mental health, and this is also true, but they have not taken into account that I am winding down on anti-psychotics, and that this medicine over a longer time perspective can have side effects such as diabetes and heart problems. So in fact, this whole situation is having a direct impact on my physical health.

I find it interesting that the letter also states that there wasn't found anything wrong with the kids moms ability to take care of the kids, when documentation about her lack of response to several emails regarding seeing the kids more and sharing the costs for my travels to see the kids were attached to the case.

If I put a cynical and negative look at what they're saying, they're basically saying that it doesn't matter if the kids mom screwed you over, she can take care of the kids. But not letting your kids see their other parent when they express that they want to see the other parent, and not cooperating around such a simple thing as costs that have arised from travelling to see the kids, when the law states that these costs should be shared between parents according to income, shows that the kids mom doesn't do what's best for the kids, and therefore is neglecting the kids!

It should be added that my lawyer has applied to get the court costs covered, and I think that was at the county govenors office as well, but I have not received any feedback regarding whether that was accepted or not. Which is strange.

[Permalink] [By morphex] [Health (Atom feed)] [12 Aug 01:36 Europe/Oslo]