Date: 11-30--0001

Case Style: In re the marriage of TDS v. JJS

Case Number: CF-2013-****

Judge: Lynne McGuire

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jacob Rowe

Defendant's Attorney: Stasha McBride Martin and Stephen M. Pike

Description: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, OK - TDS sued JJS seeking a divorce claiming that their relationship as husband and wife was irretrievably broken and seeking a determination of child support and custody of the couples minor children.

MOTION TO MODIFY DECREE OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

COMES NOW, Petitioner TDS, by and through her attorney of record, Jacob L. Rowe, and hereby moves this Court to modify the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage entered in this mailer as more fully set forth below. In support of her request, Petitioner states as follows:
1. This motion requests modification of certain child visitation and child support orders contained within the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage (“Decree”) entered in this matter on * * * 2014 regarding the minor child, GGS, born in December 2002. The Decree has not been modified.
2. This Court is possessed ofjurisdiction over this matter as:
A. This Court remains the home state of the child and state of the parties’ domicile.
B. This Court retains continuing jurisdiction to modify its previous orders related to the minor child in this matter.
C. No other jurisdiction has continuing jurisdiction to modify orders related to the parties’ minor child.
D. Other than this matter, Petitioner has no knowledge of any other jurisdiction wherein the custody or visitation of the minor child has been at issue and has not participated in any such litigation.
E. Petitioner has no knowledge of any person other than the parties herein which have any claim to custody or visitation as regards the minor child here.
F. Since the entry of the Decree in this matter, the minor child has resided in the homes of the parties.
3. Neither the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act, nor the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act apply to this proceeding.
4. Since the entry of the Decree in this matter, there has been a permanent, material and substantial change of conditions which necessitates the modification of the terms of the Decree.
A. The Decree in this matter sets forth a visitation schedule that divides custodial time between the parties in approximately equal proportion. Since the entry of the Decree in this matter, Petitioner has exercised physical custody of the minor child approximately sixty-three percent (63%) of the time. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court modilS’ the Decree in this matter to reflect the course of the parties’ conduct.
B. The award of child support entered in this matter is based upon the approximately equal division of time between the parties and upon the incomes of the parties at the time of the entry of the decree. Since that time, Petitioner has suffered a significant decrease in income due to the elimination of overtime. Additionally, as set forth above Respondent has not exercised approximately equal custodial tie with the minor child. Petitioner requests that this Court modilS’ the award of child support to reflect both the change in her income and the number of overnight visits actually exercised by the parties.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner prays this Court enter an Order:
(i) modifying visitation in this matter to conform with the actions of the parties; (2) modifying child support to conform with the action actions of the parties and utilizing Petitioner’s new income; and () awarding Petitioner all other relief to which she maybe entitled.

APPLICATION FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT CITATION

COMES NOW Petitioner TDS, by and through her attorney of record Jacob L. Rowe, and for her Application for Indirect Contempt Citation against Respondent JJS, states:
1. On January 21, 2014 this Court entered its Decree of Dissolution of Marriage which included an attached Joint Custody Plan which was entered as an Order of this Court.
2. Paragraph Fourteen (14) of the Joint Custody Plan indicates:
“Neither parent shall speak negatively or otherwise “put down” he other parent in the presence of the minor child, nor allow third parties to do so...”
3. Paragraph Fifteen (15) of the Joint Custody Plan indicates:
“Neither parent shall use the minor child to carry messages between them, nor shall they involve the minor child in any financial conflicts between them, including, but not limited to , the issue of payment or non-payment of child support.”
4. Neither the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, nor the Joint Custody Plan have been modified.
5. Respondent has made derogatory statements to the parties’ minor child regarding Petitioner and the state of Petitioner’s finances such that, on numerous occasions, the parties’ minor child has returned to Petitioner’s home from visitation periods with Respondent and informed her that, “You need to get a better job,” and “You need to make more money.” The minor child only makes these statements during the time immediately following visitation with Respondent.
6. Respondent’s actions constitute a willful violation violation of this Court’s Orders.
Wherefore, Petitioner prays this Court issue an Indirect Contempt Citation against Respondent, set this matter for a hearing on its merits, and award Petitioner any and all attorney’s fees and costs associated with this action.


INDIRECT CONTEMPT CITATION
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA TO:

JJS

It appearing from Petitioner’s verified Application for Indirect Contempt that you have willfully
disobeyed the Orders of this Court. You are, therefore, commanded to appear before Judge Lynne
McGuire in the Ollahoma County Courthouse, 321 Park Avenue, Room 105, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73102, on the 29th October, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. o’clock for arraignment on Petitioner’s
Application for Indirect Contempt Citation.

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOUR INTERESTS. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO AFFORD AN ATTORNEY YOU CAN MAKE APPLICATION AT THAT TIME FOR THE COURT TO APPOINT YOU AN ATTORNEY.
YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN A BENCH WARRANT BEING ISSUED FOR YOUR ARREST. FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW!

RESPONDEN’TS RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO MODIFY

Comes now Respondent, JJS, (“Father”) by and through his counsel of record, Stasha McBride Martin, and hereby submits the following Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Modify filed by Petitioner, TDS (“Mother”) on September 22, 2014.
1. HISTORY: The parties are the parents of one male child, G.G.S., born
December 10, 2002, (hereinafter, the “minor child”). The parties entered
into a Decree of Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage by agreement, which
was entered by this Court on January 16, 2014 (filed January 21, 2014). The
parties also entered an agreed Joint Custody Plan, which provided for
substantially equal time with the minor child. Father’s base child support
obligation under the agreed Decree was $7.31 per month; however, the
parties agreed to deviate to $50.00 per month in base child support payable to
Mother, and an equal division of any “jointly agreed-to extra-curricular
expenses and any jointly agreed-to education related expenses on behalf of the child.” (See Paragraph 6 of the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage and Paragraph 9 of the Joint Custody Plan). In addition, by agreement Father has been paying one-half of the child’s cell phone bill, $45.00 per month.
2. JURISDICTION: Father agrees jurisdiction is proper in this Court.
4. RESPONSE TO MOTHER’S MODIFICATION REQUEST: Father denies there has been a permanent, material and substantial change of condition necessitating a modification of the Decree. The parties’ divorce has been finalized only nine (9) months- Father admits there have been some variations to the “week on/week off’ schedule, but denies this has ever been discussed or considered a permanent change. No permanent change in the equal, week on/week off schedule is warranted. Due to the financial aftermath of the parties’ divorce, Father resided on a short-term basis with his parents, where he and the child shared a room. During this time period, Father worked with Mother and the child’s reasonable requests to spend an additional overnight with Mother on occasion. Father has relocated to a two bedroom apartment, so the living arrangements for Father and the child have changed. Further, Father has the minor child, age eleven, to have “sleepovers” with friends, which on occasion have been at Mother’s residence. Father’s legitimate attempts to honor requested overnights to accommodate a short-term difficult living arrangement and the child’s peer relationships should not be twisted by Mother in her attempts to modi& the schedule on a permanent basis.
5. In addition, Father denies child support should be recalculated. If Mother has lost overtime income, as she claims, Father asserts the loss of that overtime income was temporary only, and Mother remains fully capable of earning that overtime income as she has on a consistent basis in past years.
6. Mother is currently residing full-time with her boyfriend. Although Father acknowledges the income of this live-in relationship is not relevant for the actual computation of Mother’s available income, it is important for the Court to note the reduction in monthly expenses Mother has achieved through gifts (from family) and support from her live-in boyfriend.
7. Mother’s Motion to Modify the current visitation schedule and child support orders should be denied..

WHEREFORE, Respondent, JEREMY SOLOMON, prays this Honorable Court for the relief requested herein; for his costs and attorney’s fees in pursuing this action; and for all other just and equitable relief.


RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR
CONTEMPT CITATION AGAINST PETITIONER
Comes now Respondent, JJS, (“Respondent”), by and through his counsel of record, Stasha McBride Martin, and charges and accuses Petitioner, TDS, (“Petitioner”), of having knowingly, contumaciously and contemptuously disobeyed and violated this Court’s Orders, and in support of this present Application, Father states as follows:
1. The parties entered into an Agreed Decree of Dissolution of Marriage on January 16, 2014 (filed January 21, 2014).
2. Respondent asserts that Petitioner is in violation of the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, as set forth herein:
COUNT 1: CREDIT CARD/DEBT BALANCE
a. By this Court’s Order, Petitioner was ordered as follows:
“Each party is hereby ordered to transfer the credit card balance(s) awarded to each of them to remove the other party’s name from the obligation, or otherwise pay in full the credit card debt awarded to them, within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree of Dissolution of Marriage. Proof of said compliance shall be exchanged promptly upon the removal of the appropriate person from said credit card obligation.”
b. Petitioner was ordered to assume responsibility the Visa card, ending 2489, pursuant to the parties Decree of Dissolution of Marriage.
c. Wife has failed to comply with the terms of the Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, as she has failed to transfer or remove Husband’s name from this credit card debt, and Wife has not paid this obligation in full. Husband’s name remains associated with this debt awarded to Wife, in violation of the Orders of this Court.
d. Mother wrongfully refuses to follow the Orders of this Court
3. Both parties remain fully knowledgeable of the rights and responsibilities set forth in this Court’s Orders. Respondent has done nothing directly or indirectly whatsoever that would waive any rights he may have pursuant to this Court’s Orders, nor have the referenced provisions been modified by this Court.
4. Respondent reserves the right to amend this Application for Contempt Citation until the date of hearing scheduled for this contempt proceeding, or alternatively submit additional exhibits showing Petitioner’s further violation of this Court’s Order.
5. Because of Petitioner’s failure to obey the orders of this Court, the authority of this Court and the respect therefore has been impaired, and
Respondent has suffered economic detriment.
WHEREFORE, Respondent, Jeremy Solomon, by and through his counsel of record, Stasha McBride Martin, prays this Court for the following relief:
• Issue a Citation for Contempt;
• That Ten Denita Solomon be adjudged guilty of indirect contempt of court and punished by fine and/or imprisonment separately for each Count raised herein;
• For the full recovery of his reasonable costs and attorneys fees for bringing this action, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, and proper.

JJS pleaded not guilty when arraigned on the charged of indirect civil contempt.

Outcome: Decree of dissolution entered by the Court.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: