This page reveals exactly how it happened, every step, every omission, every abuse of process.
On Financial Deceit and Control
These quotes establish the judicial findings of his financial misconduct and bad faith.
“Petitioner incurred attorney’s fees and costs unnecessarily as a direct result of Respondent’s refusal to disclose his bank accounts and provide his bank statements…”
“Respondent earned significant income during this time period yet refused to pay regular child support to Petitioner.”
“The Court notes that Respondent was employed as a full-time mortgage professional… In 2010, Respondent’s adjusted gross income was $789,035… in 2012, Respondent’s adjusted gross income was $450,105.”
“The 2016 court judgment, issued after a multi-day trial, made the following findings of fact:”
“He has a ‘history of being verbally and physically abusive’.”
“His testimony was ‘lacking in credibility’.”
“He ‘refused to disclose’ his bank accounts.”
“He ‘refused to pay regular child support’.”
On Abuse and Safety
These direct quotes from the divorce decree establish the judicially-determined findings of abuse and the risk he posed.
“Respondent has history of being verbally and physically abusive to Petitioner.”
“Respondent violated the Ex Parte Order of Protection by installing a device on Petitioner’s vehicle to track her whereabouts. Respondent faced criminal charges as a result of this violation.”
“Mr. McKamie [Respondent’s own marriage counselor] testified that he was worried for Petitioner’s safety.”
“Parents will maintain a safe and appropriate environment… one that does not include domestic violence between any persons.”
On Credibility and Deceit (“Lacking in Credibility”)
These quotes establish that the Court officially found him to be deceitful and an uninvolved parent.
“The Court found the testimony of Respondent regarding his parenting of the children to be lacking in credibility.”
“The Court finds that… Respondent was minimally involved in caring for the children prior to the separation of the parties.”
“This testimony [Craig’s claim of being ‘very involved’] was contrary to that of Petitioner… Petitioner’s testimony was supported by the testimony of their live-in nanny, who testified that Respondent was rarely home and that when he was, he was rarely engaged with caring for the children.”