1. My divorce went to court on Thursday, March 28, and I won decisively. My ex-wife was actually treated like a male, which was utterly amazing to me. I got sole custody of my son, and my ex-wife gets the pitiful visitation that men normally get, although it has never been my intention to keep my children and their mother apart. These events are discussed in greater detail in my first report to friends and family, written a few hours after the verdict was announced. There is follow up in my second message to family and friends, written two days after the trial.
Judge Dairmain ruled from the bench as follows:
We are divorced.
There is to be no award of attorneys fees in either direction (we hadn't asked for fees). [They had asked for $25,500 from me.]
I am awarded sole custody of Cameron commencing at 6 pm this evening. My appeal to regain custody of my daughter, Meredith, was denied on January 29, so none of Judge Dairman's rulings affected Meredith. Under Arizona law, I am not her father, and only biological parents have any rights to custody or visitation. One ancillary issue that has been deferred until May 1 is the issue of child support reimbursement from Meredith's biological father to me.
Cameron's mother is accorded visitation every other weekend from 6 pm Friday to 6 pm Sunday beginning 4/5. Ann is also accorded a weekly Wednesday night visit with Cameron from 4 pm to 7 pm beginning 4/3.
Child support from Cameron's mother to me is deferred to May 1.
No action on contempt of court for supposed arrears.
No action on contempt of court for supposed "harrassment" by the web page. The preliminary restraining order is now void (since we're divorced), so I doubt we'll hear any more about this ploy.
Sometime soon, I'll try to be more comprehensive, but this is what I have for now.
2. Many ancillary matters--property, debt, etc.--were deferred to May 1. Among those deferred was the motion to find me in contempt for publishing details of my divorce on my web page. The motion to find me in contempt of court was the source of the original "Use the Internet, go to jail" thread. This is all discussed in enormous detail at http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Censorship.html. The preliminary injunction cited in that motion is now void (since we're divorced), so I expect this facile ploy will never be seen or heard from again.
3. The Phoenix-area's alternative weekly, New Times, covered the censorship motion in a recent edition. You can see the virtual version of that article at http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/extra/swann.html.
I am disappointed that the censorship motion will (probably) not be heard, because I wanted it trounced severely, to put slimy divorce lawyers on notice that the principles upon which this country was founded are more important than their idiotic poses.
Likewise, the Arizona State Legislature still has not passed any new laws either changing the rules for establishing paternity in this state or establishing visitation rights for non-biological parents. Irrespective of what happens to me and to my children, I think the state of the law in this state is barbaric. If you agree, I would be very grateful if you would express your feelings to the legislature at:
Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee
of the Arizona State Legislature
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
I am very grateful to all the many people who involved themselves in this battle. It ain't over yet, but circumstances have changed enough that there is now at least the possibility of a reasonable resolution.
Very best,
Greg Swann