Sunday, September 19, 2010

Mystery solved: Court date set for Nov. 30 regarding custody

So that's why Kate has been so rabid about Jon for the past few weeks. The Reading Eagle is reporting that the Gosselins have another court date in family law court on November 30. http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=248729

Jon has been pretty quiet the past several months. Then all of a sudden, seemingly out of the blue, Kate started talking negatively about him again in the public. Perhaps she is upset that Jon is bringing her back to court.

What we would do?:
1. Get a court order that forbids Kate from speaking negatively about Jon to either the children or the public
2. get a court order the parents are not to discuss the case at all, in public or in front of the children
3. get a court order that the children should be transacted in a peaceful, private, neutral location. Get that location in writing. The end of the driveway is not a neutral location.
4. get a court order that the children are to be with Jon when Kate is out of town, not with nannies.


The following is a transcript of some of the lies that Kate told Kelly Ripa and Anderson Cooper on 9/10/10:


Kelly: Do you think Kate, knowing what she knows now, would go back and do it all again? Or would you not choose to have the cameras in your life and in your house?
KATE: I look at it still as a huge blessing. I'm solely providing for eight kids and I can do that because of the opportunities, because of the way life turned out for me. So I still, when I go back and think in my mind, because I'm asked that a lot ... This change of career that has allowed me to provide for them. I mean, I'm providing still solely for them. I'm able to do that. I'm very grateful to to be able to have this job that they can be beside me while I'm working and they're playing.
Anderson Cooper: So you're saying Jon's not providing for them at all?
KATE: Um, I'm doing it, like I said by myself. Since our divorce, it's me....I don't need to worry about anybody else. For them, life has stayed the same.
Anderson: Is your relationship with Jon as contentious as some media makes it out to be?
KATE: Um, it's, you know.
Anderson: I'll take that as a yes.
KATE: It depends on the day. Um, I just know that, it's, you know, my focus is the kids and doing the best for them. [Admin: Are you saying Jon's focus isn't the children's best interest?] You know, Jon and I are divorced obviously, but he's still their father so I do try to keep it as peaceful as possible. I speak for myself.
Anderson: When the kids spend time with him what do you do?
KATE: Um, I basically wait for the phone call, um, for how many of them want to come home.
Kelly: No kidding!
KATE: Yeah. I do. I mean, I don't really have any exciting plans. Unless I'm working or traveling.
Kelly: If they want to come home what happens? I mean, are they allowed to?
KATE: It's a weird thing, that whole law. It's hard to explain it to your kids who want to be at home playing with their toys and sleeping in their bed and spending time with me, so. Um, as much as that is allowed I'm there for them and I bring them home.
Kelly: Wow.
Anderson: So you're saying basically that they don't enjoy being with him?
KATE: Um, you know some of them do. Different days different times they don't mind, some of them. It's a difficult situation. It's not home, it doesn't feel like home to them....This is very new to us, we've only been doing this for about three months that he's been actually spending time with them and taking them so it's very new.

93 sediments (sic) from readers:

Anonymous said...

How does this happen?....How is she allowed to have a forum where she just lies and lies...Why isn't there someone in her face confronting her about everything she says....We all know she's lying...how come they don't?.....

mommyinca said...

I didn't see the interview but as I'm reading this transcript, my jaw is hitting the floor like an Acme anvil!

Midnight Madness said...

Admin: "get a court order that the children should be transacted in a peaceful, private, neutral location."

Do you mean "transacted?" The kids aren't a business (well, maybe in Kate's eyes they are!) or a sale. Should this be "transferred?" as from one car to another? Not a criticism, just asking! It sounds a bit awkward.

Administrator said...

Transacted the children is usually the terms we use in family law court in regards to when kids change hands. I suppose it does sound cold, but it is was it is. They are the ones who caused this for the kids.

A Pink Straight Jacket For Kate said...

Lies & deception
Lies & deception
Lies & deception
Lies & deception
Lies & deception
Lies & deception
Lies & deception
and more
Lies & deception...

I HOPE that the judge yells at her for being so vague when answering questions.

Bones said...

Team Jon, all the way.

Don't give up, Jon. And don't give in to that witch and TLC. Those are your kids, too, and you have as much right to them as she does.

And make her tell you where she is taking the kids from now on. Don't allow her to get away with that crap. You have a right to know where those kids are as much as she does.

( And get a job, puhleeeeze. Be the parent who sets a good example for the kids. Their mother sure as heck isn't. )

MickeyMcKean said...

Kudos to you Admin - you were right in the other thread that Kate was obviously LIVID about SOMETHING!

Now according to the local paper, this is a court TRIAL, not just a hearing.

I'm willing to bet THAT video of the kids screaming, the Rough Ride episode where the kids are covered in vomit (I have not watched it since I don't consider kids vomiting "TV entertainment"), in addition to the recent Regis & Kelly episode where there is straight up evidence of parental alienation, and anything else Jon has that bloggers do not know about, will be shown to the Judge.

Kate just loves the camera ... I knew that if given enough rope she would hang herself ... but would Jon ever take advantage of all her actions or was he unable to due anything due to his contract with TLC? Well it looks like he is going forward!

Karma is a bitch!

I hope and pray that finally the judicial system will order therapy for each child, as well as their own guardian ad litem until each and every one of them reach the age of 18.

JMO

Lynn said...

Just an aside, the house that they paid $1.3 million for in 2008 is now worth just $790,000 according to Zillow.com. Someone is upside down in the house as it was recorded that their mortage was 900,000 at the time. What goes around comes around!!! Snuff.

Ronda said...

Wow is Kate ever sneaky.
I never watched this interview, or saw clips, so I am kind of in shock to read this transcript.

She throws the father of her children under the boss by inferring things, lying by omission, etc. Very sneaky. And it honestly makes her look TERRIBLE. People see through this, right? She is trying to make him sound bad without using any facts to damn herself. Very passive agressive, very deceitful.

What a shame she is so negative.

Gimme Gimme said...

Jon when you go to court please take this transcript with you and have her stop telling people that she is the sole provider and that the kids don't want to be with you. She should not be allowed to speak bad about the father of her kids on national TV and lie at that. Also a subpeona for all money she has spent on nannies when the kids could have been with you. And it should be split custody where each provides for the kids and one cannot make a decision without the other. And what she is doing with the money she gets from you if it indeed goes to the kids and if she is putting out an equal amt as she gets so much for free. And a child advocate on set for your children, a mandatory reporter that is not on either her payroll or TLC but is paid by an independent regulator. We have seen things on these shows that should not have taken place - the long hours - the endangerment - making them sick - all for entertainment purpose. Please dear God I hope you have a good lawyer this time.

Anonymous said...

I wish Jon could hire Gloria Alred or someone like her. He needs a very strong presence in the courtroom so that Kate can be exposed for the fraud she is. I loathe this woman and her entire brand!- sharon

Lorrie said...

Pressi's site is reporting there's a hearing set for Thursday. Admin, do you know anything about that?

NT said...

I hope he has a decent lawyer this time!!! Can't wait for jon to take her down a peg or two!!

Marie France said...

Question: Why is it referred to as a "custody trial" as opposed to a custody hearing, which is normally the term used. Does this "trial" mean that Jon is suing her for FULL custody? God knows there is MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE to prove she is unfit. Do you think witnesses will be called?

Administrator said...

They did call it a trial but I'm not sure if it is one. It is more likely a "hearing" to try to work out issues and then if they can't a backup trial would be set.

OR it could be a backup trial date since it's so far in advance, and they're trying to work things out in the meantime.

Hard to say but I'm not confident it's a real trial yet.

Administrator said...

Hearing Thursday, is that the Murt hearing? That's separate.

Lauren said...

Wow, great news.

Good luck to you Jon.

If this hearing is about Kate's absenteeism and/or parental alienation, I hope Jon takes advantage of all the evidence in the tabloid media.

Kate really shot herself in the foot by trashing Jon on Regis and Kelly.
I don't know how her high priced lawyers can help her now.

Judy said...

I hope the truth will come out in this trial.
There IS someone out there smarter than Kate and TLC...and I think Ms. Famewhore will be introduced to them on Nov.30th.
Since this is a trial and not a hearing, I believe that Jon's attorney has all his or her ducks in a roll.And I believe there will be many witnesses involved.
This is one performance that Katie Krider had better not tell her lies.
It's called "The thruth and nothing but the truth."
Good luck to Jon and good for him for remaining silent and not making a fool of himself like his ex does on a daily basis.

Put a sock in it said...

Kate has proven herself so untrustworthy and so malicious that I think she should have a gag order so that she may not say ANYTHING, good or bad, about Jon.

In addition, she shouldn't be allowed to speak on behalf of her kids publicly. (They love filming, they missed the crew, the don't feel at home at Jon's). Everything that comes out of that smelly mouth of hers is for her own self-promotion. She couldn't care less how her bullshit hurts the kids.

Midnight Madness said...

Admin said: "Transacted the children is usually the terms we use in family law court in regards to when kids change hands. I suppose it does sound cold, but it is was it is. They are the ones who caused this for the kids."

----------------------

Got it. It does sound cold, but in view of the fact that these kids are a commodity, a business, moneymakers, then 'transacted' is an applicable term!

"get a court order the parents are not to discuss the case at all, in public or in front of the children"

-----------------------

If she is bad-mouthing Jon to the kids in the privacy of their own home, who would know? Certainly the children aren't going to do or say anything to get their mother in trouble. If it would become a court order, then how is this enforced? Can it be enforced?

Lorrie said...

Ah, now I've got it! Thanks, Admin!

Lorrie said...

Anonymous said... I wish Jon could hire Gloria Alred or someone like her. He needs a very strong presence in the courtroom so that Kate can be exposed for the fraud she is. I loathe this woman and her entire brand!- sharon

********************************

Jon didn't even have to go to the trouble of hiring Gloria Allred. If I remember correctly, Paul Petersen volunteered her services a looong time ago. (I believe she's AMC's attorney of record).

Anonymous said...

I'm confused on this custody hearing/trial in November.

What about that May 25 court hearing? Wasn't that canceled because both parties had reached an agreement? According to FOXNews.com, they had. (click http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/07/27/jon-kate-gosselin-reach-custody-agreement-kate-gears-new/).

Is this new hearing, a new custody battle?

Weren't they supposed to take some mandatory parental courses on children and divorces?

Great, more of the kids' money wasted on lawyer fees, etc. because Kate and Jon cannot work together to arrange equal custody with their kids. They should have used that money towards family therapy so everyone could move past the divorce and work towards happiness for the entire family.

A Pink Straight Jacket For Kate said...

Interesting reading- thanks to P.J. Gagne at "4-8 Please Boycott Kate Plus 8 on TLC:

Balloon Boy Plus Ei8ht? Children and Reality Television

http://contexts.org/articles/spring-2010/balloon-boy-plus-ei8ht-children-and-reality-television/

Anon 1 said...

Admin, before I forget, I believe in the last thread someone mentioned the Murt/DOL hearing is this Thursday? Is that correct? I really would love to see a thread devoted to that also. I think that too may well have Katie all rankled. She knows she can't take anymore trips, people are sick of it, yet she doesn't want to stay in PA, esp. if some of these proposals go through.

Anon 1 said...

I have to wonder if the outcome of this hearing on Thurs. will have any effect on the custody hearing? Would that be possible Admin? Clearly a judge in the area is well aware of the Murt hearings.

But I agree, I hope Jon has a shark for a lawyer.

Anon 1 said...

There is a hearing this Thurs., see bottom pic on Murt's web site.

http://www.repmurt.com/

PA Mom ALSO said...

Just an aside, the house that they paid $1.3 million for in 2008 is now worth just $790,000 according to Zillow.com.

-------------------------

I don't put too much stock in Zillow. I've found so many mistakes on that site. A house is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I posted on another thread that there's a home in the same area with less square footage on 13 acres (it's gorgeous property, both inside and out), that's listed for $990,000. A realistic price would be $875,000 to $899,000. Kate's house is a comp...should be in that range, or slightly above.

PJ's momma said...

Both sides will come out. She was on national TV for DWTS and was gone many days of the week for over a month (including prep time beforehand) - and they were not with their dad. Most of the time when she's been 'working', the kids are left with a crew of caretakers instead of their own father because SHE controls custody right now. She is too stupid to realize that keeping quiet is the best option, because there is plenty of crap on her too, right on tape!

Heide said...

Admin,

Are the twins old enough to be interviewed by the Judge - or to be able to give their opinion who they want to live with?

Anonymous said...

Administrator said...
Hearing Thursday, is that the Murt hearing? That's separate.


Yes, Admin, the only hearing mentioned at Pressi's for Thursday is the Murt hearing.

Administrator said...

-----------------------

If she is bad-mouthing Jon to the kids in the privacy of their own home, who would know? Certainly the children aren't going to do or say anything to get their mother in trouble.
&&&&&
You're talking to someone who deals with this kind of thing on a daily basis. It's easier than you think to find out about it. Kids DO blab, usually unintentionally. They will say something like Mommy said we can't get shoes because you won't pay your child support. Daddy runs to his lawyer and says my ex was discussing child support with the kids. Lawyer runs to the judge to report this. Kids are interviewed, the info is verified. Busted.

If no discussion of the other parent is a court order, you can be held in contempt (i.e. fines), and you also can be punished by less visitation time. Kate is playing with fire. But many sources have reported she thinks she's above the law. I know the judges I'm in front of absolutely hate when the case is discussed with the kids and never forget it. You're DONE in most courts if you keep violating that order.

Hippie Chick said...

Um, I can't, like, um, so, um, like, believe, um, like, how, um, stupid, she, like, um, sounds.

AuntieAnn said...

I think it's a good sign that Jon has been fairly silent lately and keeping a low profile. Do we dare be cautiously optimistic that Kate is going to get some kind of a spanking? I'd sure like to see it but that woman seems to have a horseshoe up her ass when it comes to getting away with 'rule breaking'. She can lie like a thief and cry like a baby in a second. And I hope the judge doesn't fall all over her because of her 'celebrity'. The kids need someone to intervene soon to rescue them from this calamity - if it's not already too late.

LisaNH said...

I hate to sound pessimistic, but I really do not think anything will come out of this custoday hearing. I mean over and over again we see Kate come out looking like a Rose in a sea of thorns, why will this be any different? No matter what she does or says, it always results in Kate being rewarded in some way or another whether it's a freebie trip somewhere, a fancy dinner, more free products, whatever.

I hope I'm wrong, but my predicition is that nothing will change. Kate will not have to vacate the McMansion and Jon won't move in. Jon won't be the primary custodian of these children and Kate will never, ever pay Jon child support. This whole "custody hearing" will be a waste of the court's time and the taxpayers money.

Sorry to sound so grim, but so much that has happened in the last few years makes me feel like anything for these kids will change for the better until they are out and on their own.

gotyournumberKate said...

I hope too that Jon has a decent lawyer this time. I also hope that Jon quits allowing Kate to intimidate him. He's allowed her it seems to call all the shots so far just like when they were married. He needs to finally stand up to her and do what's right for the kids rather than let her PW him. (old saying, I hope it's allowed) :) Where I come from that's what we call men like him. PW'd.

I have been posting here with my real name, Tanya but I see on some of the other sites someone else is using that name too and I don't want to be confused with them so I changed my name.

Anonymous said...

My opinion only, I believe the nanny's have permission to strike these children at thier discretion. Of one particular nanny....they are in total fear of what awaits them at home. Oh, I have been there.

NH said...

Jon






There is a verey good reaon why Jon G. rented a one bedroom. He has a plan.

Michelle said...

Wonder what Kate will wear to court? Perhaps that's one time she will tone it down a bit.

I hope the court orders Kate to undergo a psychological exam. My cousin's ex-wife is a loon. He finally took her back to court for 50/50 custody and requested a psychological exam of her. She of course requested a psychological exam back. Both were ordered to undergo them and her exam came back "inconclusive" which apparently meant she was trying to fool the expert and it didn't work. He now has 50/50 custody and the kids are thrilled!

I really hope Jon has woken up from his mistakes of 2009 and the kids' welfare is his #1 priority.

Administrator said...

I just love how Kate had to bring up Jon first. When I first heard about this I was thinking well Kelly and Anderson shouldn't be asking her about Jon. But Kate BEGGED for the questions by saying over and over again she provides. So the natural followup question is so are you saying Jon doesn't? Then that led to more Jon questions.

She was FISHING to dish about Jon. What a desperate pathetic person. Good luck Nov 30th!

AuntieAnn said...

Anonymous said..."My opinion only, I believe the nanny's have permission to strike these children at thier discretion. Of one particular nanny....they are in total fear of what awaits them at home. Oh, I have been there."
============

Wow that's sounds cryptic. Do you mean you've been "there" as in the G house or there as in a similar situation?

LisaNH said...

Admin, since you are a legal professional, what was your take on Jon's previour lawyer? The one that said he was a friend of Jon's father and that Jon's father asked him to watch out for him? He was there and then before too long Jon disowned this guy. What are your thoughts on this attorney?

LisaNH said...

Sorry, my spelling is terrible tonight. Must be all the fumes from the Nascar Race we had today LOL.

Midnight Madness said...

"Daddy runs to his lawyer and says my ex was discussing child support with the kids. Lawyer runs to the judge to report this. Kids are interviewed, the info is verified. Busted."

---------------------

That's just what these kids need -- being played against their mother and father and interviewed in a court of law, made to pit one parent against another, and then if one parent is busted, the kids have the guilt of knowing that they are the ones who did it.
That's just what they need in their young lives at this point. They're under enough emotional turmoil...why not add the straw that breaks the camel's back?

"They should have used that money towards family therapy so everyone could move past the divorce and work towards happiness for the entire family."

---------------------

Kate go to family therapy? In your dreams! There's nothing wrong with her, remember? A narcissist is perfect. She has no faults. She doesn't need therapy.

Weren't they supposed to take some mandatory parental courses on children and divorces?

--------------------

No. It was ONE video they were supposed to watch, either separately or together.

Administrator said...

I HOPE that the judge yells at her for being so vague when answering questions.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I hope the judge yells at her for answering any questions at all about her private custody battle. For that matter, she brought it up first on Regis and Kelly. Huge no-no.

Forget a court order, Kate needs to understand how damaging it is to the children to continue this kind of thing in the court of public opinion. She needs to get over Jon and move on and stop talking about it obsessively.

silimom said...

I don't think this is going to be the Kate Smackdown that everyone is hoping for. Jon made it pretty clear last spring what he wanted - more equitable time with his children, to have the children be with him when Kate is out of town "working" and to have his child support order modified to reflect his current financial circumstances.

People keep speaking about the McMansion. The marital assets, including the house, were already divided back in December. If Kate was awarded the house (although I'm sure she had to pay Jon his share of the equity), then the house is off the table. After all, "It's hers...all hers...as far as the eye can see!".

As far as Jon's case goes, Admin can probably give a more informed opinion, as she works in child custody cases with the court, as to what his chances are, based on the few facts we really have about his current situation.

I suspect he will be awarded more equal custody and the children will be placed with him when Kate is away for work. I also suspect that his support may be modified, but that remains to be seen. My understanding is that one of the factors the court bases it's support order on is the parent's earning potential. That means that someone who was making $100,000 can't just suddenly up and quit their job and take a $9.00 an hour job so they can spite their ex. However, it is unlikely he can find work in the entertainment industry after last fall's hijinks and his earning potential in IT is only probably $50-60,000 a year at best.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Administrator said...

I think he could get 50-50, easily. He's not abusive. The kids are screaming for him, not Kate.

NancyB said...

How about a court order that the kids will no longer be filmed because it is no longer in their best interest to do so.

PA Mom ALSO said...

"I suspect he will be awarded more equal custody and the children will be placed with him when Kate is away for work. I also suspect that his support may be modified, but that remains to be seen."

Admin is in CA, where quite possibly things are more predictable. This is PA. Nothing would surprise me. It seems that here the mother is the reigning queen, and the father is the court jester.
For the sake of those precious children, I just hope and pray that the tide turns in Jon's favor. Lord know that he deserves it.

Daisy Girl said...

I would think to get 50/50 custody and to be with the kids when she is away, he would need to get a place with 3-4 bedrooms. If he has them, he can't have them sleeping on the floor and doing homework. Who would rent to someone who was going to have 9 people in a 3 bedroom. Shared walls with other apts would not be too happy. He needs a house.

just wondering said...

How possible is it that TLC paid People for this cover and story? Is that ever done? It sure makes the most sense to me.

I do think the judge will put an end to the driveway handoffs if he gets to see the circus around it.

Good luck Jon.. I still think you are an idiot most of the time, but you are the only hope for these kids. Fingers & toes will stay crossed for you!

Administrator said...

Jon doesn't need a certain number of bedrooms. You can't discriminate against a parent based on housing alone. It's unconstitutional. A right to your child is a fundamental constitutional right and courts can give 50-50 custody to a father who is homeless as long as he has a safe place to go every night such as a shelter. It's about safety, not bedrooms. Naturally of course when someone is homeless social workers would get involved to try to get them more stable.

I think it's really shitty the situation. If he spent all his money on a three bedroom apartment he'd go absolutely broke. Plus the original agreement was he can go over to the house, that the house was the children's. So he lived within his means and is trying to do what Kate wants, except now Kate blabs to anyone who will listen who awful it is the children sleep in sleeping bags.

I think the first thing he needs to do is get an order he can go stay at that house on visitation days. If he is a danger to the kids he would have monitored visits now. It's BS he did anything, you know Kate would have him back in court so fast. Nothing happened except Kate wants to screw him in the ass.

PA Mom Knows said...

I think it's really shitty the situation. If he spent all his money on a three bedroom apartment he'd go absolutely broke.

You're thinking CA prices again! He could get a wonderful three-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment here for $1,200 to $1,500 a month. Heck, he could rent a three-bedroom house in the area for the same price! Since the market is so soft, and property isn't selling, more and more homeowners are renting their property rather than listing it.

Administrator said...

I'm not thinking CA prices "again." Other than off the backs of his kids, how is Jon supposed to make a $1500 a month payment? On an IT's salary where he was making, what, 52k? $1500 is cutting it very close not to mention supporting the kids on that and making child support.

He tried to do a Superbowl commercial which probably could have set him up for the better part of the year. Oh yeah TLC stopped that. TLC won't let this guy do even a few projects that would set him up financially for several months, meanwhile Kate is permitted to go on DWTS, ET, People and roll in the dough.

It's shitty and he needs to get out from under TLC's iron fist. He needs to live within what his means are NOW, which is a 1-bedroom, while he gets back on his feet and re-enters the workforce. It's the worst time to be out of work and the worst time to try to break back into the workforce when everyone is holding onto their jobs like crazy. For all we know Jon is sending out a dozen applications a day but is not getting any bites.

Administrator said...

Just a thought, maybe Jon wants to be sure HE HIMSELF can afford a 3 bedroom before he gets one. In other words, instead of dipping into the money the CHILDREN made. There is no doubt in my mind the children have purchased the bulk of this family's toys. By toys I mean the house, cars.

just wondering said...

I'm still not going to hold my breath on this. Jon has repeatedly shown that he is more than willing to let the kids film as long as he gets a cut of the action. He has spent the last 6 years making deals off of the "marketability" (his word) of his children. Has he changed? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I'm hoping for the best and I'm praying that he has actually grown a spine, but I'm not going to be placing any bets on him just yet. Prove me wrong, Jon.. PLEASE prove me wrong!

MickeyMcKean said...

I hope and pray that before November 30th the fate of Kate+8 will be known, as well as whether or not there is a Twist of Kate show.

In my opinion Kate has no talent whatsoever, she is truly ITLESS per Hollywood standards. So if there is no show(s), what will Kate do income wise? Will she downsize and live off the interest?

Or the $64 question: does Kate really want to be around her kids 24/7/365 if there are no more cameras around?

If no, will Kate let Jon have custody or does her hate for Jon run that deep?

Obviously there will be lots happening in the next several weeks...

JMO

Tamara said...

Honestly, I imagine Jon's little 1 bedroom apartment probably feels more like a home to the kids than the orphanage. With Jon, they are not passed off to the nanny or helpers. I don't think kids in general care one bit about the type of house they live in, they just want a stable environment with loving, attentive parents.

2exhausted2name said...

I'm pulling for Jon. Those kids need someone to step up and BE a parent and even taking his 2009 antics into account he's been that parent. He was the one at home with them 24/7 for two years while Kate traveled the country. He's the one who actively tried to get both himself and the children off the tv show, and I'm hoping he's still trying to win that one for the kids. He's the one who invited back in some of the extended family Kate froze out.

I also hope he has a damn good lawyer. One who is able to point out to the judge the sticky fingers of TLC all over Kate's side of the courtroom. There is NO need for any company of any kind to have any sway in a custody fight. Especially one that has benefitted financially from their illegal child labor.

I'd also love to see episodes of the tv show and Kate's interviews brought into evidence. Like Kate's numerous statements that the house belongs to the KIDS, or her crying to Meredith Viera & The View about Jon stealing money, or the most recent Regis & Kelly.

And there should be a true accounting done of all the monies made since the very first documentary. Even if it was arbitrated during the divorce there's something fishy going on there. Kate gets the house, the money (which she spends like it's going out of style), the kids and Jon gets a $20G/month bill? Where's the money Jon made for five seasons of the show? With her claiming ownership of the house she should be paying HIM for his half (unless that's where the 20G is coming from).

Andrea, long time lurker said...

Admin I have a question regarding the trial. If the judge rules that Jon has to get a job, any job, and Jon somehow gets a "job" in the entertainment industry would that trump TLC's gag order on him?

Kelly said...

Perhaps the only thing that will come out of this hearing is for the court to reconsider Jon's support payments. Jon has temporarily impoverished himself by not finding gainful employment and please don't use the excuse that TLC has forbidden him to find work.

Jon is not TLC's slave and with his experience in the I.T. world, surely he could have secured something in the last year. Jon was barred from finding work on any network or media outlet while still under contract to TLC. Now that it appears the end of the contract/ show is in sight, Jon may be free to do whatever he wants at this point to earn money. Not that he has any talent. I mean, the only talent Jon had was the ability to do the one eyed chinese rollback into a petry dish while Kate's only talent was having a clown car uterus. Other than that, there isn't anything else these two clowns can do.

Hippie Chick said...

Here's hoping Jon's not sitting back, letting all the Kate crap happen all over again. All the hate she spewed about him, etc. I hope he's not just being lazy, and loving this arrangement. Hopefully, he has a damn good lawyer who will present all this evidence about what Kate has done over the past several months to her kids, to Jon. I hope he doesn't roll over and let his kids get taken advantage of AGAIN because he is too damn lazy to do anything about it. I'm sorry, but I think that is what might happen.

And if the judge reprimands Kate for all the stupid antics, I honestly hope she sits there like she did on DWTS, rolling her eyes, like she's the cats ass, and the judge lectures her about her moral ethics, and sorry, there is no camera crew here for your cutesy little act. I hope the judge reams her a new one. She needs it.

PS I just woke up, I hope this makes sense. :)

Tucker's Mom said...

Raise your hand if you can see the next Great BooHoo Tour coming!
Let's see-"I'm a single mom, the ONLY one who supports my children and Jon is trying to take that away from me. From US!
Get your pity-poor-Kate-face on Merideth. Kate's a'comin to NYC.
Gawd, I wish the Today show would have Matt interview her for once.

Tucker's Mom said...

OM.....G!
I'm watching the final part of "Rough Ride" on the boat (youtube) and I'll be dammed. Kate (interview couch) actually pats herself on the back for "holding it together" while most of her children puked their guts up, were soaked in their own vomit, and lay passed out on the boat benches for the remainder of the trip.
Un-frickin'-believable.
Your just sooooooo amazing Kate. What mother would think that 6-6 year olds would want to be on a rocking boat for 4-6 hours rather than filling buckets with sand, making sand castles and splashing in the waves?
6 is too young for most kids to go deep sea fishing. But oh yes, we must maintain the story arc here. Can-Do-Kate catches her dinner, provides for those kids, ALL ON HER OWN.
What? Was she going to gut and scale the fish, then filet them and saute it up with a little butter and lemon?
Bullshit. It's all for the story arc.
I hope, really, really hope that Jon uses this footage in court.
Kate-if your going to drag your children hither, tither and yon (which you've done for years now)- BE PREPARED!
Dramamine and a change of clothes. Who wouldn't think of that before going out on the ocean?

Administrator said...

Andrea, long time lurker said... Admin I have a question regarding the trial. If the judge rules that Jon has to get a job, any job, and Jon somehow gets a "job" in the entertainment industry would that trump TLC's gag order on him?
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I'm not sure. They are both civil courts, technically they are on the same playing field. One judge is supposed to respect another judge's order. Probably the best way to handle it is for the family law judge to call up the judge who made the gag order. This is done all the time when there are conflicting orders.

Usually we have problems with conflicting criminal court orders but that's easy, criminal court comes first.

PA Mom ALSO said...

"It's shitty and he needs to get out from under TLC's iron fist. He needs to live within what his means are NOW, which is a 1-bedroom"

===============

How much do you think he's paying NOW for a one-bedroom? A one-bedroom in an upscale apartment is many times equal to or more than a two or three-bedroom in a moderate apartment complex. I know he could rent a three-bedroom house in the area for the same cost as he's paying for an apartment because my niece's newly-married friend is doing just that, and the property is absolutely gorgeous. A CEO owned it, he was transferred, the house didn't sell, so they decided to rent it out. Those places are out there.

You're right, though. No need for him to make sudden changes in living now...not until all his ducks are in a row in regards to custody and child support. I just don't feel good about PA courts when it comes to child custody issues. I've seen too many men get dumped on.

disgusted in PA said...

I wish Jon could get a job that would allow him to support his kids (without TLC), but I dunno how much he would make as an IT guy. The job market in PA is pretty bad (yes, I know--all over). That's what's hard about this situation--TLC likely gave him a deal he couldn't refuse financially. Not excusing Jon--but he's kind of painted himself into a corner. He should have never quit his gov. job in the first place, IMO.

As far as Kate's R&K appearance--she should shut up about Jon and the kid's relationships. Sorry, you do not have the right to speak for your kids and their feelings re: their dad. The childrens' feelings about their father are THEIR OWN and have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, KATE.
Her bill will come due one day with her children--reminds me of the movie "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood"--the mother's "bill came due" with the Sandra Bullock character for her narcissistic behavior.

Anonymous said...

Admin, How do we know it's Jon taking Kate to court and not Kate taking Jon to court? I'm just confused. I thought Jon withdrew his petition in April or May?
-Finster

Anon 1 said...

I hope Jon's living in NYC for 9 mos. or so, isn't a strike against him. Why DID he do that? Oh, right, that's where the 'jobs' are, i.e. in the entertainment industry.

Kaitlyn said...

I hope Jon has a very good lawyer who can work with him instead of against him.

BeDoneNow said...

I know we all want to see Kate get that legal spanking, but is that really what is best for the children? The decision for a judge or magistrate to interview (by then) 10 year olds and make them chose between their parents isnt entered into lightly at all. Unless there is tons of legal stuff already going on that we dont know about, the Gosselin process is no where near that point. Jon is not at all set up to take on full time parenting of the children.

We are eager here to always remember that Jon is their daddy and no matter what the public thinks, they love him very much. Well, Kate is their mommy and at 6 and 9 years old, they are unlikely to be at the point where they want to wash their hands of their mommy. Yet.

In many states, the first serious move would be for the court to appoint a guardian ad-litem for the children, while the court investigates and tries to come to a determination based on what is best for the children. Being removed from their mother's home, or changing the physical custody would be considered quite drastic and would not be done lightly. And it doesnt sound to us bystanders as if that is what Jon is after anyway.

My hunch is that he wants Kate to stop working the kids, and when she is away 'on business' (hahahaha!) that he have physical custody of the kids instead of hired help. Just my meager opinions. :))

SAHM said...

Heide said...

Admin,

Are the twins old enough to be interviewed by the Judge - or to be able to give their opinion who they want to live with?
September 19, 2010 6:11 PM
************************************************

Found this in re: to your ?. I know in Florida its 12yo.

http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/pa/pacustody.htm#Child%20Preference

Anonymous said...

Administrator said...

Jon doesn't need a certain number of bedrooms. You can't discriminate against a parent based on housing alone. It's unconstitutional. A right to your child is a fundamental constitutional right and courts can give 50-50 custody to a father who is homeless as long as he has a safe place to go every night such as a shelter. It's about safety, not bedrooms.

*******

Spoken like a lawyer whose job is to win custody for a parent client rather than consider the best interests of the children. A shelter is not a stable, safe environment for a child. If you're talking about a long-term housing situation for families that some shelters offer, that's one thing. That's not what you seem to be talking about though, since you say "as long as he has a safe place to go every night, such as a shelter." Would you want your child spending the night in a Skid Row shelter? I would hope that a parent roaming from shelter to shelter would recognize what is in the best interest of their child and not demand joint physical custody. Doesn't mean that the person shouldn't have regular visitation with their child, but if you have the option to allow your child to sleep in her bed in a stable home with her other parent and you choose to take her to a shelter, you are an incredibly selfish parent.

Bubbles said...

I realize it's commonly accepted information that Jon has a 1 BR apt and the kids sleep on the floor in sleeping bags at his house, but how is this information known? Is there proof of it anywhere?

NT said...

Just saw Kate at INF picking up the kids at the bus stop and she's really pouring it on thick. There is actually a pic of her kissing one of them. A little too late Kate.

Kelly said...

Forgot to ask, is this Kart's night on television? I've been watching DWTS. It's pretty lame but not as lame as watching Kate herd the kids. Hope you all didn't watch.

Administrator said...

A shelter is not a stable, safe environment for a child. If you're talking about a long-term housing situation for families that some shelters offer, that's one thing. That's not what you seem to be talking about though, since you say "as long as he has a safe place to go every night, such as a shelter." Would you want your child spending the night in a Skid Row shelter? I would hope that a parent roaming from shelter to shelter would recognize what is in the best interest of their child and not demand joint physical custody. Doesn't mean that the person shouldn't have regular visitation with their child, but if you have the option to allow your child to sleep in her bed in a stable home with her other parent and you choose to take her to a shelter, you are an incredibly selfish parent.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
This is the state of the law whether folks agree or not. I was explaining the state of the law because people were asking if Jon was going to be looked down upon on for only having one bedroom. My answer was, by law, he shouldn't. Does that mean in the back of his/her mind the judge isn't thinking about a person's housing situation? Naturally they are. But they are not supposed to keep children from their parents based on housing alone, as long as it is safe.

Personally, I don't want to live in a country where if you lose everything financially and have to go into a shelter, you risk losing your children too either to foster care or having to turn them over to your ex. Do we really want to be the kind of place where children can be taken for these reasons? Do we want to be the kind of placie judging whether 400 square feet is adequate to have your children or 900 square feet or 3000 square feet? Do we want to be the kind of place where if you have a clean, safe, warm place to sleep in a shelter, that's not acceptable to the courts?

My first ever internship in law was at a legal aid clinic at a large homeless shelter in a large city. Some of the best parents I ever met were there and certainly some of the most inspiring people. Not all homeless people are lazy drifters, if you listen to each of their stories you would be humbled. Had life dealt me the same cards who is to say I would not be homeless? There are many stable homeless shelters. This particular shelter people would stay for quite a long time, you weren't roaming from shelter to shelter. It was perfectly SAFE. It was hard to get a bed there because people found themselves staying forever having a hard time in this economy. And most people had their children with them. They went to school, had after school activities just like normal kids. If they were in danger social workers could take them--they didn't.

Jon is not in a shelter. Jon is in an apartment. A luxury apartment at that. How many square feet is acceptable to people before they are satisfied eight kids will be happy? He is seen taking them to the pool, out to arcades, etc., it doesn't sound like he is keeping them in a tiny apartment all day anyway. I just don't think a child's happiness is based on square feet nor do I think it's selfish to want to have your children with you even though your digs aren't as big as your spouse's. What I find selfish is for Kate to spend the children's money on a huge mansion that she has no business affording. Now that's selfish. Even if he did get a 3 bedroom, that's still FOUR KIDS to a room. The kids are getting older now, so it would probably be FIVE GIRLS to one room, that is crowded any which way you slice it. So supersizing really doesn't do much. It's a big family, and what comes with big families is not always being comfortable. But you make the best of it.

The simple solution is to allow Jon to visit the kids at their home, but this couple is no where near mature enough for something like that apparently.

Anonymous said...

If Jon is leasing a one or two bedroom apartment, then there would be a limitation as to how many adults and children are allowed to legally occupy the apartment.

Midnight Madness said...

The simple solution is to allow Jon to visit the kids at their home, but this couple is no where near mature enough for something like that apparently.
----------------

Another solution would be for each of them to purchase a four/five bedroom home with a finished basement for $$350,000 to $400,000 and sell the big house (market -- realistically, $900,000), with money left over.

How do you know Jon is in a "luxury" apartment? Define "luxury."

Age Of Aquarius said...

If Jon is leasing a one or two bedroom apartment, then there would be a limitation as to how many adults and children are allowed to legally occupy the apartment.
+++

Yes, if they were permanent residents. They aren't living there permanently. They are visiting, and visitors' permits are available for guests of a tenant. When a lease is signed, the people living there need to be identified on the lease. Since he doesn't have permanent custody of eight children, he is not required to put their names on the lease.

Anonymous said...

So Jon's children only visit him? It is too bad if Jon gave up his parental rights and doesn't have legal custody of his children. I thought they had joint custody, with Kate being the primary parent. I wonder what happened.

NH said...

Anonymous said... So Jon's children only visit him? It is too bad if Jon gave up his parental rights and doesn't have legal custody of his children. I thought they had joint custody, with Kate being the primary parent. I wonder what happened?

Jon has never given up parental rights. However, the witch mother has done everything in her power
to destroy, undermine and besmirch those rights.

Unsuccesfully. I see her as an abusive, uncaring Mother.

I used to drive school bus on trips for whalewathing in Newburyport, MA.
When a child or parent became seasick it was a sorry sight to behold. Talk about suffering and only wanting to lie down with a paper cup to puke in. Whan the trip was over these poor people had to be helped off the boat.
Kate made happy drama over her childrens suffering for a TV program. She has no shame,she has no heart, she has no soul.

Anonymous said...

Admin-

I have only posted her once before, and not coming down on you for being a lawyer, but every state differs with custody and cs. In my state you have to have adequate housing for children to have overnight visits. Fire codes dictate this. Like having so many head count in a bar, same reason, safty. I thought Jon had on his twitter that he dropped the custody case and the only issue was cs. I don't think this will be a huge issue, he is not able to pay what has been ordered so it will be modified but he sure can't stand in front of a judge and say I don't have a job. He could have taken a job, any job, outside of the media business, many parents work at jobs that they don't like but it does pay the bills. Jon has had a problem in the past, 5 women in a year, spending thousands on them, which I understand was his share of the money, but did he think of his kids then? I hope the filming is over for the kids, Kate can move on, and Jon is finally ordered to get a job. Now as an attorney, you should be telling what the responsibilities of both parents are, both working!!! Jon did have it all, he wanted to be free, so maybe this is what he will always have, 8 kids, no great job, and saying poor me for the rest of his life. Some guys are like this!!

Administrator said...

I'd like to see the exact language of your law. How do they define "adequate"? It's a federal law you cannot deny someone their children based on homelessness, this is in the Constitution under the Equal Protection clause fleshed out in case law. State laws are, in theory, supposed to follow federal laws. I'm guessing this law was written quite carefully so as not to be unconstitutional.

I imagine the law is written more such that you must have a SAFE place to be, not that you cannot be homeless. There's a difference between dragging a child along with you while you visit various places where crack whores hang out, and making sure your child is enrolled in school and that you pick them up every day and take them to the shelter where you stay.

Has anyone seen The Pursuit of Happyness? It's a true story of a perfectly decent father who happened to go through a time when he and his son had to stay in homeless shelters. No one took his kid away or said the kid should be with his mother.

I'm not saying being homeless is a good thing, it's very tragic and one hopes that bad situation will continue for long. But I am saying the government should be very careful when legislating what kind of housing makes for a "good" home, and whether it's okay to deny a child time with a parent for anything other than safety concerns.

An apartment however can limit the number of people who can live there, that's a separate issue.

Administrator said...

Oh and for the spelling police lurking here because they have no other arguments left in support of Kate, that's how "Happyness" is spelled in the movie title. I know how to spell it. Bam!

BerksPa said...

Are we sure that Jon's apartment is only 1 bedroom. I do know that at that complex they have very nice 3 bedroom apartments. We were looking there right after it was built before we decided to purchase a home.

We can't be sure what size his apartment is. A 3 bed/2 bath apartment there is 1750sq feet. That's not too shabby IMHO...a far cry from the Mc Mansion, but still very nice.

NH said...

Anonymous said... So Jon's children only visit him? It is too bad if Jon gave up his parental rights and doesn't have legal custody of his children. I thought they had joint custody, with Kate being the primary parent. I wonder what happened?

Jon has never given up parental rights. However, the witch mother has done everything in her power
to destroy, undermine and besmirch those rights.

Unsuccesfully. I see her as an abusive, uncaring Mother.

I used to drive school bus on trips for whalewathing in Newburyport, MA.
When a child or parent became seasick it was a sorry sight to behold. Talk about suffering and only wanting to lie down with a paper cup to puke in. Whan the trip was over these poor people had to be helped off the boat.
Kate made happy drama over her childrens suffering for a TV program. She has no shame,she has no heart, she has no soul.

Administrator said...

I'd like to see the exact language of your law. How do they define "adequate"? It's a federal law you cannot deny someone their children based on homelessness, this is in the Constitution under the Equal Protection clause fleshed out in case law. State laws are, in theory, supposed to follow federal laws. I'm guessing this law was written quite carefully so as not to be unconstitutional.

I imagine the law is written more such that you must have a SAFE place to be, not that you cannot be homeless. There's a difference between dragging a child along with you while you visit various places where crack whores hang out, and making sure your child is enrolled in school and that you pick them up every day and take them to the shelter where you stay.

Has anyone seen The Pursuit of Happyness? It's a true story of a perfectly decent father who happened to go through a time when he and his son had to stay in homeless shelters. No one took his kid away or said the kid should be with his mother.

I'm not saying being homeless is a good thing, it's very tragic and one hopes that bad situation will continue for long. But I am saying the government should be very careful when legislating what kind of housing makes for a "good" home, and whether it's okay to deny a child time with a parent for anything other than safety concerns.

An apartment however can limit the number of people who can live there, that's a separate issue.

Anonymous said...

Admin, How do we know it's Jon taking Kate to court and not Kate taking Jon to court? I'm just confused. I thought Jon withdrew his petition in April or May?
-Finster

Anon 1 said...

I hope Jon's living in NYC for 9 mos. or so, isn't a strike against him. Why DID he do that? Oh, right, that's where the 'jobs' are, i.e. in the entertainment industry.

Heide said...

Admin,

Are the twins old enough to be interviewed by the Judge - or to be able to give their opinion who they want to live with?

Anon 1 said...

Admin, before I forget, I believe in the last thread someone mentioned the Murt/DOL hearing is this Thursday? Is that correct? I really would love to see a thread devoted to that also. I think that too may well have Katie all rankled. She knows she can't take anymore trips, people are sick of it, yet she doesn't want to stay in PA, esp. if some of these proposals go through.

Judy said...

I hope the truth will come out in this trial.
There IS someone out there smarter than Kate and TLC...and I think Ms. Famewhore will be introduced to them on Nov.30th.
Since this is a trial and not a hearing, I believe that Jon's attorney has all his or her ducks in a roll.And I believe there will be many witnesses involved.
This is one performance that Katie Krider had better not tell her lies.
It's called "The thruth and nothing but the truth."
Good luck to Jon and good for him for remaining silent and not making a fool of himself like his ex does on a daily basis.

Post a Comment

Want to see your comment published? Follow a few simple rules:

1. Do not use Anonymous. Pick a name (click Name/URL to type in a name) and stick to the same name.
2. Anonymous insider stories should be emailed to us directly (in confidence). They will not be posted here unless we can verify the validity, such as with photos. This is not to discourage legitimate insiders from speaking out, but to guard against all the fake stories out there.
3. No insulting other posters or picking fights, refusing to let things go and move on. Stop with the snotty comments--they will be rejected. Treat people here like how you would talk to the person you most respect in your life, it's just pleasant that way.
4. No trash talking other blogs/bloggers here.