Mrs peel

I think many would argue that his intention to be there when Bryn was told about Dennis wasn't abuse or about harming B, but about being worried about how Dennis' death would be presented (see Cookie and instagram). For the Judge? It's one day, in an extreme situation (the death of someone close to one of her parents who she knew) that's not likely to be repeated on a regular basis. So not, in itself, a reason to change the custody arrangement. I have a suspicion that the evaluation suggested therapy for both parents. That the evaluator suggested it for Jason makes lots of sense considering the texts, criminal charges (though dropped or did he plead to lesser charges, I can't recall), and the need for the parents to communicate if they want to co-parent. The acknowledgement that Jason has started therapy makes sense in that context, his lawyers letting the Court know that he's appropriately responding to the report. Bethenny? I am guessing she's already in therapy, hopefully not with the idiot therapist who agreed to be on tv. Then, no need to mention it in court, as it's likely already noted in the report. I hadn't read that direct quote from the Court, but if the Judge seriously believes Jason is the only impediment to joint custody, then I bet there won't be joint custody. But of course there still hasn't been a hearing/trial on B's petition to change custody, and Jason's anger may be explained in a context that makes the Judge conclude that both parties need to grow up and act like adults.

My issue is her going to the cemetery. In my experience, many go to the funeral or memorial service, but the actual graveside service/prayer is for close family only. B may have been many things to Dennis, but she wasn't family. For the poster who thought the photo looked wonky, I agree with others that it just appears her left shoe is more in the grass, and she's compensating with her upper body so that she doesn't seem to be wholly skewed. You can't see others because they're mostly facing away from the camera, though it is odd that B has an umbrella holder. I've read the posts from others about the length of wakes/ services. I've certainly seen the difference over time; in my family as a child there were at least 2 days of a wake (Frank E Campbell in NYC!), then Mass, family to the cemetery and friends/family congregate at a family member's home after the burial. As a child I didn't really understand wakes, the conversations were about catching up with relatives you hadn't seen since the last funeral, or occasional fights about who was really closer to the deceased ("You feel free to out to dinner, I'll just stay here and mourn our mother" - words I have actually heard!). Now I realize there's a benefit to the family members seeing each other and telling stories. But cremation and changing views on death have changed much of that. My step-mother had a memorial service after my Dad's cremation, and there would have been no get-together after had I not insisted. I did a luncheon of sorts at the church after my mother's memorial service, but nothing at the house or a wake before (she was cremated). Cousins had NO service for their father (and yes, while discussing whether to cremate my mother I was privy to the dispute between my uncle and aunt on whether my aunt would be cremated. Families! PS - she outlived him so presumably she'll get to be buried not cremated). Not for us! Maybe for the family.

Well, now you’re getting into a political discussion of “activist” courts and whether the US Constitution is a “living” or dead” document. Courts sometimes “ignore” precedent by finding that the facts are just different enough that the prior case doesn’t apply, or the law has changed, or community standards have changed. But a lower court that ignores the US Supreme Court, for example, will find itself slapped down.

Thanks for that. FYI, the Court didn’t ask the evaluator to “decide” whether the custody order should be changed, that’s a decision for the Judge. He asked for an opinion from an expert. It’s likely the Court will give deference to the opinions in the evaluation, but he can decide something different.

Actually, they are. Now it’s incredibly rare that a custody case presents exactly the same facts as a prior case, but judges are not free to ignore the decisions of a higher court. They get overturned, IF the losing party has the ability to appeal.

Apparently NY doesn’t use the term “legal” custody. For decision making, it’s either sole or joint custody. In the first former, the parent with sole custody makes all the major decisions, the latter the parents must agree. For where the child lives, there can be a “primary residential” parent, where the other parent has visitation. Or the parents can split the residential time in a multitude of ways. Others have indicated that, at the moment, B and Jason split the time pretty evenly. B seems to be seeking sole custody, where she wouldn’t have to consult with Jason on decisions. She’s also likely seeking to change the visitation to limit him more. i do wonder what the Court would do about Bryn’s religious upbringing. The parents agreed she would be Catholic I believe, but B is not that. If she has sole custody, the court might well still require a Catholic upbringing.

That the evaluation probably doesn’t say there is any imminent danger to Bryan doesn’t mean the petition isn’t about her. I’m suspicious of B’s petition, but the evaluation is just a tool for the use of the Court. It could well be the evaluation indicates something pro or con about either parent and Bryn’s interactions with him or her. We won’t know until and unless the evaluation is entered into the record. bryn likely doesn’t know much about the actions in court. Even the evaluation, it’s not like she was told it was for a custody petition. Certainly neither parent should be informing her about the custody battle (not that it doesn’t happen, I’ve seen brainwashed children in court. It ain’t pretty and sometimes it backfires).

As Celia Rubenstein pointed out, I used hearing and trial interchangeably. I think March 2019 is the trial/hearing date for the parties to present witnesses and evidence for the court to make a ruling on B’s petition. if the evaluations showed danger to the child, one of the parties undoubtedly would have filed an emergency petition to change custody or the visitation schedule. And no the court wouldn’t encourage a settlement.

Sorry, I use trial and hearing interchangeably. Judges are human, and they sometimes let their personal bias interfere, but there is extensive case law to guide them in their decision-making. Judges actually have VERY limited ability to tell a litigant they can’t file a motion. Sorry, it’s extremely rare. I was shocked to read another poster say she knew of a case where a judge did it after 3 motions. The only case I know of in Cook acountybinvolved a litigant hpwho had filed dozens of baseless motions. Americans are entitled to access to the courts, it’s one of our basic rights. edited to add, in the Como County case, I believe the judge didn’t order the litigant to not file motions, he ordered the court clerk to not accept them. A subtle difference.

I don't practice in NY, but the first part of this isn't true. Unless the petition to change custody did NOT claim a substantial change in circumstances, the Court is actually obligated to hold a hearing. That's what's happening here. The court delayed things a bit by ordering the evaluations, etc., but unless B withdraws her petition, there will be a hearing. THAT'S when the court will decide whether her case has merit. Not before. Nothing that's happened so far is any indication of how the Court will decide. The only hint is that apparently the evaluation apparently suggested the Jason get therapy; and if he's getting it (as his lawyer claimed), then I would bet its unlikely to be a determining factor in any decision. Of course, we don't know what's in the evaluation, or what Bryn said about her situation (though under NY law apparently until she's 12 they won't formally take her opinion into account). Yeah, the court doesn't make money from the hearings, but it's not like they're working overtime (believe me, they don't work overtime!). The hearing is in March 2019 because that's the first available date from the August hearing. Which says the court has tons of cases. But they are limited in how they can limit the volume. The Judge here indicating the parties should talk settlement is one of the ways they try to limit the volume of hearings. Judges sometimes talk to the lawyers in chambers, with no court reporter so it's more informal, and provide "advice" about whether to settle, how to settle, etc. Sometimes that "advice" is good, sometimes it's bad. Sometimes the parties listen, sometimes they don't..... Nor do the lawyers technically make more money just because the case was scheduled for next March; these things often take time and have status/hearing dates months apart. It's possible (I'm guessing less with B than Jason) that the attorney doesn't work much on the case in between court dates. Of course, preparing for the custody hearing is an exception to that. On Jason and his parents - I don't care or think one way or the other about an only child seeing his parents every weekend or every other weekend. it's not good or bad to me. On Jason and Bryn seeing his parents every/every other weekend - I'm not sure we should extrapolate from what he said when she was a baby to what he thinks/does now. She's 8, she has friends and likely weekend events she wants to attend with those friends. I'd like to think both parents take that into consideration when planning her activities for the weekends. NO Jason, you shouldn't go to PA with Bryn if it's her best friend's birthday party or there's a school event (assuming there's not some major family event/wedding/funeral). NO B, you don't take Bryn to - wherever - if it's her best friend's birthday party or there's a school event (I'd say assuming its not some major family event but she doesn't have those). Both of these are of course hypothetical - I have no idea if either parent has failed to take Bryn's activities into account. On the news reports of the custody hearing - who knows? But if B wants to claim a limit to her involvement with Dennis, she should take off that honking large diamond on her left hand. Just sayin.....

Are we talking about Carole or B now? I’m confused. the Carole and Dorinda reminded me both dresses were too long. And I hate a dress where there is a v starting at or about the vagina.

I liked Ramona’s outfit too, oddly B’s was similar, though sadly the deep V opening was in the front and her implants just don’t look good when visible. I didn’t mind Carole’s dress, I didn’t notice the flaws you mention (but I didn’t look at any level of detail). I just thought she and Dorinda had a theme. I don’t like the deep V opening on Dorinda’s dress, and it looked like it was to tight (the seam in front was straining). She looks good with color. I thought the makeup, particularly the fake eyelashes, were over-done. They are getting into RHOC levels of “Smokey eye.” And that’s never a good thing. Ramona should keep her hair short. Not sure what I think of tinsleys braid, but it’s certainly better than the overdone curls.

Well, she accepted a completely free trip to London, where she used to live, and got a lot of camera time with. Carole. Not sure Carole needed to thank her for that. She has invited people to the Berkshires, where she gets camera time and being able to show off “lady of the manor” time (query, does Ramona not want to invite folks to her Hamptons home, or is it that multiple HW have homes there?), so again not sure massive applause is needed. the nutcracker and gowns? Yeah, B and Luann needed to thank her. I don’t really recall B thanking her, but my ears were hurting from the screeching so I could have missed it. Luann could have given a shoutout to the designer on stage, wonder if there was a program and a thank you there. but I doubt any level of appreciation would be enough for Doris.

Well, had B not sued for sole custody, it’s likely this would never have been brought up. But now the parties are in court, and the Judge is entitled to hear everything that’s changed. I don’t think he’s a monster, he’s trying to protect his rights with his daughter. B has no one to blame but herself.

I doubt that’s what happened. The Court can’t just read the documents and deny the parties a hearing. This was likely a status date,to make sure the reports were back before giving a hearing date. i don’t know if in NY legal and physical custody are different. But sole legal custody would mean B doesn’t need to consult with Brynn’s father on educational, medical issues.

She was totally going after the Las Vegas ad. Which I didn’t actually like, because Luann assaulted a police officer and got so drunk she likely has NO memory of the evening. The Vegas ad has a light-hearted feel, what Luann did was anything but that. Also true of what Tinsley did to get arrested too.

Why did Ramona demand the couches be flipped? And she’s incapable of taking her own water? Jeez. i liked Bs dress, but not on her, washed her out and the fake breasts didn’t look good. Apparently Sonja used interns for her hair, because they stopped and didn’t complete the back updo.

Though of course someone else wrote it (like for most people). She does need to take some singing lessons if she wants to keep doing this, just a small improvement (likely in how to “talk-sing”) would do wonders. tinsley should grow a pair, telling Doris was a horrible idea. And Doris can stop over-reacting; jeez, she tried to hide John for a long time. I couldn’t follow the back and forth of how Luann invited Scott but not John. But earth to Lu, a fake apology could have helped. Same with giving a shout out to Doris and her friend for the dresses, though I suspect in the moment she was too overwhelmed with what she needed to do to realize it. B should also learn the fake apology, that Ramona’s businesses haven’t been as successful as you decree doesn’t mean you don’t send her a text mentioning her night. And Ramona’s first business, selling overstock, seems to have been at least somewhat successful, so get over yourself. Jeez, how many of B’s products have really sold well? Its a shame B and Carole were interrupted, it seemed like they might have been getting onto the right track. Sonja, how embarrassing. Doris, how embarrassing.

To her credit, Ramona's business was different, in that she wasn't claiming the clothes were her designs. She bought overstock from dept stores and sold to the outlet stores like TJ Maxx and Marshall's. I wonder if she closed the business because the opportunities dried up. I was reading an article about outlet stores, and how the major stores now design and manufacture clothes and accessories specifically FOR their outlets. So most of what's at Nordstrom Rack was never in a main Nordstrom store. Vera Bradley (a particular favorite of mine) produces bags specifically for their outlet stores - the "tell" is that the inside is a solid color, not a coordinating pattern. Sonja of course is just lying again.

Except that at other times she claimed that she didn’t keep in touch during the marriage. At one point she said they stated dating in 2016, then said it was 4 years... I take the “that’s what she told me”to be “I’m not responsible if that’s a lie.” The mistress and wife need to get along a lot better for both to be mentioned. A mensch doesn’t compute with the law financing business. But then again, I was shocked to read comments about my cousins husband was such a great guy, when he had stolen lots from lots of people....

I just saw a Daily Mail article that said (we are talking Shields?) the Narcan wasn't in the house, but he asked his housekeeper to go to the drug store to pick it up. so he had a prescription he hadn't filled? Not sure. Did read on Wikepedia (don't judge!?) that the price in the US has skyrocketed in the last couple of years.

Did he really own a jet? Or was she asking him to hire a jet to get her home? Because of course she's incapable of making plane reservations herself (or having her minions do it for her).

Spencer Tracy and his wife didn’t divorce because she was Catholic and in that era Catholics were more than strongly discouraged from divorcing. I don’t see it as the same. Maybe Dennis and his wife had an arrangement, but we don’t know. And B has been all over the place about the relationship, claiming she didn’t run into him again until after the separation, then claiming they had been together “on and off for years” (seems like earlier than 2016 to me),so .....to me, that one daughter agreed to speak by phone at a reunion doesn’t mean his wife was ok with the affair. back in TWOP days, someone turned me onto Richard kirschenbsum (sp?), who writes an occasional. column about the q% for the New York Observer. One article was on “the new divorce is no divorce”, talking about how it’s cheaper to live separately (or in separate wings if you are that wealthy) than divorce.

Jeez Jill, you might have mentioned the pain to his wife and children. Guess she is trying to get back on the show by sucking up to B.

I agree that he had the Narcan because he thought he might need it (or someone around him thought he might need it). That doesn't mean B looked in every nook and cranny of his home to find the narcan. That she knows a lot about people (too much!), doesn't mean she realized he might have that on hand.