July 17 09 - Access Order Fight

I'm trying to appologise for everything in a public forum, her facebook wall, so people will see that I'm trying and she's the one being a B".

This is ONE of her resposnes:
"Especially since you are the one who is always begging me to stop using
facebook I am a little surprised at the willingness to share some (what was
supposed to be private) info. But I will follow suit by replying.
I did NOT nor am I now saying that anyone's thoughts and feelings are INVALID I stated that as a "we" comment earlier.
Hmmm, I suspected you would again throw the PAST years of living a prison relationship in my face. I have finally put my foot down & set boundaries. Neither one of us are used to this & it pisses you off when you doesn't get your way. You're not used to your demands & expectations not being met. (asking to see my kids) Just because I felt it acceptable before does NOT mean I have to accept it now.
And I hit the nail on the head ... consequences of your actions include being separated from the girls. I am not 'keeping' the girls as a form of punishment.
You can interpret the papers however you want, I did not say new memories can't be made."

So what's different now? I am a stronger person & do not have an obligation to bring the girls into prison just because that's where their Daddy is. In fact, it's frowned upon by social services. I am NOT saying that it won't happen and I DID NOT say that I don't want them to see each other at all. If you want to really cut your chances completely by removing me from the visitor's list then those would be YOUR actions. It's not a challenge nor a request, it's a fact.
My suggestion is to read the court papers again because it asked me if I
disagreed & why ... not if I agreed & why. So please stop twisting the words.

The girls are not confused by calling you Daddy ... that's a cop out & you
knows it. Regardless of what THEIR perspective is of the relationship the girls know you as Daddy. They know he doesn't live here & that's why they talk on the phone.
Yes, I'm sure reading the words that I wrote are hurtful, but again please stop twisting them. My words were NOT written to to hurt anyone.

They were written as a reply to the access order and are true and valid. The reply I submitted was to the application placed by your mother and was in fact in the court files. So my dear ..... the ball was rolling already. I also told you when you called for our daughters birthday that I was still going thru with my reply because I don't hold a lot of credit to what you say.
As for the divorce .... I guess all 3 of us will be waiting a long time.

Your Mom is always boasting that she will help if asked and seeing as she helped with the first divorce, I don't see why she wouldn't want to help with this one.

Frankly, I would much rather keep this situation amicable & I am trying, but please remember that just like you .... and everyone else .... I have
a right to defend myself."

then later came this note:
Mother - July 18 09
OK, I made a technical error I guess. The document reads, "... Filed by: Jason Steven Black". I guess I was confused because it has your mom's address on it.
The focus in the document was around seeing the girls on your terms and that is not going to happen hence my reply.

Dredging up the past, hey? That's rich considering there was a call placed to MCFD accusing me of "prostituting in the home". BTW, MCFD doesn't really like false accusations being made. Funny, the call was placed the same week I was served with the access order.

Anyway, I'm really not wanting to exchange belligerent comments - or 'sling mud'. I'm being a bit defensive because I feel you are attacking me right now, but I'm dropping it.

Yes, what's been said has been said, but let's not mistake that for a reason to stop being amicable. As time goes by things will be said & done where the other party won't like it for whatever reason. Like you always tell me: if you don't know what to do then who does?"