Mother’s Secret Adoption Plan Failed When Dad Demanded A DNA Test | The Coffee Pod

Añadido: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]This father is devastated.

[00:00:02]>> Drink the coffee, it'll make you feel better.

[00:00:03]>> Imagine being in the midst of a divorce and you find out your ex-wife, soon-to-be ex-wife, is pregnant. Might be your child, but it gets worse. She's given the child up for adoption. The process is almost final and the child is already living with the potential parents. You are trying to fight back and get a DNA test. How dare she do this without consulting you, without a DNA test to at least see if you are the father. Here he is now in court. The title of this video is Mom secretly puts newborn up for adoption behind dad's back. There's one of the child here in this situation.

[00:00:45]>> [music] >> The newborn is the largest concern right now. Currently, no more wasting time.

[00:00:51]Let's get it.

[00:00:52]Judge, there's a few moving pieces today and I'll I'll do my best to kind of summarize the reasons for which we're here.

[00:01:01]There was a previous order entered by the Chancery Court on February 5th, 2026, setting some temporary support.

[00:01:13]At that time, Mr. Thomas was represented by Jacob Mathis and Mr. Black represented Mrs. Thomas.

[00:01:21]A motion to to set support, temporary support, both spousal and child support was filed by Mrs. Thomas um and that notice was sent to counsel at the time for Mr. Thomas.

[00:01:36]At some point in between the filing of that motion and the hearing for that motion, there was a breakdown in communication between Mr. Thomas and his previous counsel.

[00:01:45]>> Either way, shout out to Court Watchers.

[00:01:47]Court Watchers, let's keep going.

[00:01:49]Um Mr. Mathis had filed a motion withdraw that was set for that same day as the temporary support hearing.

[00:01:57]Um Mr. Thomas, I believe if the court were to take some testimony today, would would state that he didn't have notice that this temporary support hearing was set for that day, and in consequence, he did not appear at that hearing, Judge.

[00:02:10]His attorney at the time was allowed to withdraw, and then the court proceeded with setting some temporary support, and I believe the court set temporary support in the amount of $1,500 per month.

[00:02:25]>> And that was a different judge than than me. It was Judge Wallace, Your Honor, I believe. And I wasn't here for that hearing, either.

[00:02:33]Um And ultimately, so so the first >> Was that that got a new lawyer? First motion I filed is a motion to reduce or set aside the temporary support order, and that's just I don't believe the court that day, I can't speak to what the court did or did not hear, I wasn't there, but based based on my understanding, the court set that support without inquiring into my client's ability to pay. And and that's all I'm I'm asking the court. This was a, believe a 17-month marriage before the parties separated.

[00:03:02]There was one child Boy, are these marriages getting shorter, shorter, and shorter?

[00:03:10]17-month marriage. pledged born during the marriage, presumed to be the father's. The father disputes, and we're going to get into the DNA issues here in a moment. There's one child born at the time that hearing took place, and another child that the mother was pregnant with when that hearing took place. So, there's two alleged children of this marriage. The court had ordered some DNA testing to occur. That happened >> Let me interrupt you and just simply say what My concern is is that Judge Wallace conducted an evidentiary hearing on the February 5th, 2026 date, and following [clears throat] that made findings of fact that that that served the findings of fact served as the basis for his making the order in the case.

[00:03:55]Now, for me to change that order would basically retry the entire uh temporary motion. And it seems to me that the the more appropriate matter would be to reset this in front of Judge Wallace who is here next month and would be able to consider your motion to set aside or to modify his prior order. And And if your honor's inclined to do that, I'd be okay with that. I just, you know, he didn't have No matter what Judge Wallace did or did not hear, we know Mr. Thomas was not present and there was no inquiry in regards to his his ability to pay [clears throat] at that time.

[00:04:33]>> Well, I'm just inclined to go behind what another judge has found and ruled upon because there may be some other factor that, you know, that wasn't made apparent to me. You had Judge Wallace's calendar.

[00:04:51]That judge sounds familiar.

[00:04:56]Salmon depositions.

[00:04:58]Looks like I'm available June 16th.

[00:05:00]Well, I think that's I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but it it clearly seems to me that that Judge Wallace needs to consider a motion to set aside or to uh m- to uh amend or change the order that he did after an evidentiary hearing. So, we'll reset you for June 16th.

[00:05:19]Uh Judge Wallace >> inclined to entertain the other motions Well, if you're going to go in front of him on any of them, I think you need to hear him he needs to hear them all. So, And there is an emergency motion we filed for Is Judge trying to get out of work?

[00:05:35]The coffee pot is backed by fathershaverights.com.

[00:05:38]One of the most shocking things an attorney revealed in our prenuptial agreement guide is that times are changing. More and more women are the ones demanding prenups. Yes, typically a man will be more hesitant, more afraid to bring up the conversation of a prenuptial agreement before marriage.

[00:05:56]However, women who are protecting their assets have no problem making it very clear that they will not get married without a prenuptial agreement, especially women who are the primary earners or came from a family with money or business. So, the idea that only men care about prenups is a myth. When women who plan to get married have something to protect, they protect it. So, my question to all future husbands is why shouldn't you? Well, the good news is it's not too late. If you need a prenup but don't know where to start, click the link pinned to the top of the comment section and take the first step in protecting your future marriage today.

[00:06:29]For for immediate relief, that that set for today, um mother has There was a child She was pregnant at the time of the last hearing. This child's since been born without any notice to father. This child has been removed from the mother, placed in an adoptive family in Colorado.

[00:06:47]>> Right. I did read that in the file.

[00:06:50]Father was served Friday with the petition for adoption. Father's got 35 days, according to that Colorado summons, to file documents in Colorado contesting the adoption. Well, let me ask this question. There was There was an order for DNA testing. Is that because there was some question whether he was the biological father? With respect to both children.

[00:07:10]>> And if he is the biological father of this child that's now being put up for adoption, obviously he has a vested interest in objecting to that.

[00:07:19]>> Um >> Of issue because I think there is an emergency basis.

[00:07:25]Um Why has there not been the DNA testing?

[00:07:30]And that's why we filed the motion to review DNA testing.

[00:07:32]>> Because we need DNA tests at birth, right? We need those laws changed fast, not slow.

[00:07:39]>> But again, Mr. Thomas was represented by previous counsel. They had agreed, entered an agreed order to participate in the DNA testing. The order required the testing to be scheduled by the father. There was some exchange between counsel about setting up the DNA testing. Mr. Thomas notified me he was going to any lab now. There is no specific place set forth in the the order to do the DNA testing. Mr. Thomas noticed me he was going to any lab now.

[00:08:05]I subsequently noticed opposing counsel.

[00:08:07]There was no objection made to that. The DNA testing was done and paid for by Mr. Thomas there. And then shortly thereafter, uh, mother stated that she wouldn't, I guess, not be able to do the DNA testing at any lab now and referred us to an email that was previously sent over saying, uh, I believe it was it was another lab DNA lab North America would be more convenient for her. So, it just seems like every time we get close to getting DNA testing done, mother is trying to to interfere with that. Now, we have a child in Colorado. I don't know how we do the DNA testing with the baby in Colorado. Mother has has voluntarily taken this child or let this child be taken. I believe she wrote relocated to West Virginia due to abuse allegations that were prior to my time.

[00:08:52]There was an agreed order I saw in the file entered between her previous Mr. Thomas's previous counsel, Mr. Black, allowing her to relocate.

[00:09:00]Um, the child, I believe, was born there in West Virginia and she subsequently has taken this child and placed the child in Colorado without any notice to the father. The first time he's heard of this child being in Colorado with with these pre-adoptive parents was Friday when he received service of this petition. Um, so we had filed the motion to review DNA testing today, um, because we're we're having an extreme difficulty in getting this done. This order was entered, I believe, two or three months ago, maybe even longer ago than that, and we still don't have DNA testing done. I don't know how we accomplish it now with a child that's in Colorado. Um, Parties are before this court and therefore [clears throat] uh, one option is that I simply order that the child, the mother, and the father all appear at a lab here in Tennessee, submit to the DNA samples being taken, and then we go from there.

[00:09:49]>> And that's what we were asking the court for today is enter a more clear order directing the parties regarding the DNA testing. Judge Why would she even try to do that considering that she's not 100% sure he's not the father?

[00:10:05]With respect to the emergency motion for immediate return of the the minor children, both of them again, there's an issue with paternity that should have been resolved. It's not. I hope we can get that resolved very quickly.

[00:10:18]Um but it but mother has taken this child and I would submit this the children are subject to this court's jurisdiction. I know the child wasn't born here and opposing counsel might make some UCCJAA arguments about it, but I believe this court has jurisdiction over the custody of these children. There's a pending divorce. This happened during the pendency of this divorce proceeding um and mother relocated voluntarily and is now attempting to to just go behind the father's back and have this child adopted. If if this is father's child, he absolutely asserts a right to custody. He wants to be the father.

[00:10:50]Mother surrendered and and voluntarily terminated her parental rights, that's fine. Then the court needs to enter a 3650 plan awarding custody to the father cuz he wants to be a father if he is indeed the biological father. Right.

[00:11:01]>> Um so so we're asking the court today for some immediate temporary relief and that brings us to the other minor child in mother's care custody and control. We don't know. There There's an order of protection that was entered and subsequently appealed by father that the court's reserved for final hearing. And where is that? Is that in this court or is that in a different court?

[00:11:20]>> It was in originally in general sessions. They had a hearing is my understanding and then that was entered and appealed. So there's still an order not allowing the Mr. Thomas to have contact and and and he cannot have contact with Scarlett Thomas, the I believe she's almost three, two or three years old now. But, but we're asking the court to return both of the children to father. We don't know what mother Mother has put a child up for adoption. We don't know where Scarlett's located. We don't know how she's doing. We don't know if mother's a fit and proper parent to have sole custody of Scarlett. She has given the other child up for adoption.

[00:11:57]And so, we're asking the court to to for more clear order regarding the DNA testing to order the parties to to have DNA testing completed within a specific amount of time. Um, and we're asking the court to enter an order to to have baby, uh, Thomas brought back from Colorado to Tennessee. And and to have Scarlett Thomas returned to the father. Um, I think it's a threat of irreparable harm that this child's outside of of not only this state, but in Colorado. Um, mother by the attachment with what father was served on Friday. It is clear mother has consented to the termination of her parental rights. Mhm.

[00:12:38]Without consideration of the father at all. It's really disgusting, honestly.

[00:12:42]So, so we're asking the court for that emergency relief today.

[00:12:49]Your Honor, I do have a response on on both of those. Would you like me to tackle the DNA testing or the emergency Let's start with the DNA testing. Your Honor, so the DNA testing, so my recollection recollection of events and what has happened is that there was an agreed order between, uh, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Mathis. So, uh, Mr. Thomas's prior attorney. That was the last year.

[00:13:12]Um, subsequently, Mr. Mathis withdrew.

[00:13:14]There was no contact between us. Um, had to hire a personal process server to actually serve Mr. Thomas some documents to try to find him.

[00:13:22]Um, at that time, uh, Ms. Thomas was absolutely willing to do DNA testing Uh, and there was just nothing until very recently there was a renewed push for the DNA testing which Ms. Thomas is willing to do.

[00:13:36]I will point out to the court that Ms. Thomas is in another state due to domestic violence. Uh, which Mr. Thomas was convicted of in General Sessions Court by plea of guilty. She is in another state due to violations of an order of protection for multiple house break-ins for following her to a medical facility and taking her vehicle.

[00:13:59]Uh, these are the reasons that Ms. Thomas is out of state. And so in an effort So so let's really think about this for a second right here.

[00:14:09]If you're the father here cuz you know, I'm not trying to say that DV isn't something that should be taken. I'm not trying to say that DV is something that should not be taken seriously. But put yourself in the father's shoes. Really try to think about what he's been going through. You know, you have the one child that they talked about those born um, in the marriage.

[00:14:31]And then you know that she's pregnant and she might be giving the child up for adoption. Maybe she said that as a threat. I mean, this is somebody who's dealing with a mom here who has zero to no regard of his feelings. This man here is going through it.

[00:14:50]Right? Not an excuse but overall um, this is a very very emotionally traumatic situation for a father to potentially lose a child to a family he has no idea who they are and he's not sure if he's the father or not. effort to preserve Ms. Thomas's undisclosed location, a essentially secret address. Um, we were trying to coordinate DNA testing that could occur both locally here and where she was located. And that is why I proposed LabCorp.

[00:15:27]My understanding is when I had proposed that, that is the testing location we were going to use, and then I received communication that that is not the testing center that was used. And then at this point we reached an impasse.

[00:15:39]>> saying that LabCorp is available to do the testing both for Mr. Thomas here as well as for your client wherever she may be living? So here as in Hendersonville, Your Honor, and where my client is living.

[00:15:52]That was our our proposition. I will say that while I have nothing to give the court at this exact moment, my understanding is that the newborn child of this marriage is located in Denver, Colorado, which I found out about, to make it clear to the court, found out about Thursday evening.

[00:16:09]Um And who is the father of that child?

[00:16:12]So Ms. Thomas is going to say it's Mr. Thomas. I believe Mr. Thomas wants the DNA testing.

[00:16:18]So we The order went down only as to Scarlet Thomas. And >> [clears throat] >> and there was a DNA request as to that child. And now we have another child born and Mrs. Thomas says that that is Mr. Thomas's child. Yes, sir. And she has placed that child for adoption?

[00:16:37]That is my understanding.

[00:16:39]I will say on Ms. Thomas's behalf that there appears to be some evidence that this was an understood plan between them when they found out that the child was going to be born. That actually, according to Ms. Thomas and perhaps some messages she would admit at hearing, Mr. Thomas has spoken to the adoptive parents before. That there was some dispute over whether they were going to raise this child or not. And at this point, Ms. Thomas can speak for herself.

[00:17:07]>> there is an after-born child that was born while this case has been pending, then this court has jurisdiction over that child regardless of what has been filed in in the state of Colorado. Well, your honor, I will say simply for the fact that I do not want to waive any jurisdictional issue and I've not had time since this was emergency order filed. I would like to file the detailed response.

[00:17:29]I will raise a jurisdiction issue just to preserve it under the UCCJEA.

[00:17:34]Uh it's not so clear which is the home state because the the newborn child I I if we parse them apart, right? The older child, absolutely concur with your honor. The youngest child, there may be some dispute over what is the home state. I've been informed that the state of Colorado has decided that they have jurisdiction and they are proceeding with this adoption proceeding.

[00:17:57]Again, I'm good in candor to the court.

[00:18:00]It's a complicated issue to me and I would need to file a brief and research that to give a response, but I do want to raise the objection that for the youngest child, may not be the home state.

[00:18:10]Uh But Colorado can't have jurisdiction until they finalize paternity in the state where they filed for divorce, I'm assuming.

[00:18:23]But besides those things, judge, I would also say You cannot divest this court of jurisdiction Understood.

[00:18:31]>> by sending a child that is one of the children of these parties where they pending divorce action where custody of one child is already at issue.

[00:18:40]And then send one of the one of the children that is alleged to be the biological child child of Mr. Thomas, you cannot then send that to another state, that child, and defeat the jurisdiction of this court to make a custody determination. Mhm. So, I just want to make that clear that this court's opinion is is that this court has jurisdiction uh over >> Still.

[00:19:03]both children if they are in fact the children that were born of these parties and that is what I'm told by both of you today.

[00:19:10]>> [clears throat] >> So, I'm of the opinion that Mr. Thomas needs to contest the adoption and if he does contest it Look look look at look at mom down there. She's pissed. I contest [clears throat] that adoption.

[00:19:23]I'm going to put an order down that's going to require all look at her both of the children to undergo DNA testing.

[00:19:31]How that is accomplished is going to be up to you and your client.

[00:19:35]That means that she's going to have to ensure that that child is coming back and is tested down there.

[00:19:41]We had a case not too long ago in this court where there was a woman who claimed to be a biological heir of a an estate and she lived in Washington State.

[00:19:50]There was a method by which she used a child a uh a laboratory in the state where she lived to obtain her DNA sample.

[00:20:02]Um then the that was compared to DNA samples that were tested here in Tennessee.

[00:20:07]It would seem to me that's what's going to have to happen here. You're going to have to obtain a DNA sample from this child in Colorado and a DNA sample from your clients and her child if she is wherever she is living and then a sample will be taken from Mr. Thomas here at LabCorp and all of those are going to have to be analyzed by LabCorp to determine the paternity issue. The order that this court puts down is is that this court maintains jurisdiction over the parties and the and both minor children who have been represented to this court by counsel to be the biological children of these parties. That Look how shocked she is.

[00:20:47]>> The adoptive court in Colorado may obviously this is going to be a an issue for the appellate courts if it goes through as a contested matter, but I think we got to first resolve this if this child in Colorado was Mr. Thomas's biological child. If it's not then there's no issue. If there is, then he has to take the steps to contest it there in Colorado. He cannot ignore the Colorado proceeding and rely upon this court's ruling because Colorado may say, you know, "We don't care what Tennessee does.

[00:21:22]We're holding that we have jurisdiction."

[00:21:24]I'm I'm ruling I don't care what Colorado says. I'm saying I have jurisdiction. So, Yes, sir, your honor.

[00:21:32]On the emergency uh petition essentially to return I guess both children to Miss She's not having a good day. to Thomas. Uh on Miss Thomas's behalf, I would also say that, you know, Well, there's an Excuse me for interrupting. I apologize.

[00:21:47]Is there an order of protection still in full force and effect? Yes, your honor, there is. There's also a pending contempt for those house break-ins.

[00:21:56]Uh that is also in effect.

[00:21:59]And under that original order of protection, what is provision What provision is made for the I don't have the order of protection in this file that I can >> I can provide it. Uh I believe Mr. Bellamy had said that Scarlett is listed under it, which is our oldest child. I did not did not see that, but I can provide it.

[00:22:19]Well, and I'm I'm My question, of course, is what if any provision is made in uh in that order of protection for Shell um the one child that's there >> [clears throat] >> that we know, Scarlett.

[00:22:33]>> So, I'm looking at the petition and um just looking at the petition, I do not see Scarlett listed on the petition, but it was the Looks like dad is about to get what he came to get here. Shout out to dad.

[00:22:57]Thank you.

[00:22:59]We love to see it.

[00:23:06]Trying to give away kids that could potentially belong to a father is diabolical.

[00:23:15]Plainly diabolical.

[00:23:17]>> This is the temporary order that I've been handed and then you're saying that there's already been a hearing on that temporary order of protection and then it was extended?

[00:23:26]>> Yes, your honor. And was that in circuit court or general sessions and then it was appealed?

[00:23:31]It was It was appealed and the appeal was not was not heard and by agreed order it was set off.

[00:23:39]It was reserved for final hearing by that previous counsel. So, it's by my understanding the order of protection that the that was entered by the general sessions court is still in effect and and Mr. Thomas has no contact with either the petitioner nor the minor children covered under the order.

[00:23:55]>> Well, I'm looking at the order that was entered in this court after the hearing on February the 5th and paragraph two of the findings of fact is the wife testified that she had been married to Mr. Michael Thomas, husband, since 2024.

[00:24:07]The wife testified the parties have a 10-month-old daughter born of the marriage, Scarlett Thomas, and that she was also pregnant with the marriage's second child, which is due in early March. So, and according to Judge Wallace's finding, you know, the that's the order that you're asking to be set set aside, he made a finding based on her testimony that that was in fact the child of the marriage that's now in Colorado was thought to be adopted.

[00:24:32]So, she did this on her own.

[00:24:34]>> It goes on to talk about these findings of fact.

[00:24:38]Nowhere in that order does it specifically order anything other than temporary spousal support.

[00:24:45]It doesn't put an order down regarding the temporary parenting plan or custody of the minor child.

[00:24:53]That's my understanding as well, your honor. Uh if I can say though, we would object to Mr. Thomas having the children and there's a lot of reasons to that that maybe perhaps Ms. Thomas could add with testimony, but she's been the primary caretaker. Um.

[00:25:09]Well, Mr. Thomas Well, she wants to give the baby away. Come on. Thomas filed for DNA testing. I'm not going to grant him custody of children that he has a question of whether or not Yes, in my sort of practice in law, that was a factor that that if a parent father requested DNA testing, that was a factor the court could consider in among all the other factors in determining whether or not he ought to have, you know, what type of visitation or custody or whatever.

[00:25:34]So, if he's questioning whether this is his child or not, then I'm not likely to say those children have to come back and live with him, especially in view of the fact that there are orders of protection in place.

[00:25:46]Um.

[00:25:47]I'm not any questions your honor. I've I've nothing else to add. This is a mess. I'm going to do one thing. I'm going to check with Judge Wallace.

[00:25:56]It may be better if I heard this case and through it's uh I don't really want to, but it may be better if I can do it. Are you We checked on on your availability on the 16th. Is that correct? Yes, your honor.

[00:26:07]I'm available. Well, what about the 15th?

[00:26:10]I can check. It was What did we say on the 16th? Anything for me? Yeah, I'm I can give you the 16th.

[00:26:17]16th works for me, your honor.

[00:26:19]I'd like to just check with Judge Wallace. If he doesn't have an objection to me hearing the motion that you filed, then I would suggest we hear everything on the 16th and if Ms. Thomas I think we need to get this DNA testing done as soon as possible. Understood.

[00:26:36]Judge, we're >> We're talking about June 16th to hear everything all of these motions and between now and then I want the DNA testing performed on both Scarlett and the child that's in Colorado.

[00:26:51]That DNA testing will be performed by Look how shocked mom is right there. a sample taken from Mr. Thomas at LabCorp here in Hendersonville, sample for Mrs. Thomas and the minor child Scarlett in state where she resides by LabCorp if there is one there, and by LabCorp in Colorado where this minor child is.

[00:27:13]It would be Mrs. Thomas' obligation to ensure that the child's sample is taken and the proof is obtained from Colorado of the validity of the identity of that child. In other words, I'll tell you this story that we had a well-known where ne'er-do-well down in Humphreys County who is a member of a famous music family down there, and he was he was hired or rather he was sued for child support back in that day, they [clears throat] uh you know, set you up with the father and the mother and the child all went to get the blood they uh blood tests done. So, came back negative, and the mother just was irate, could not believe it. Wow.

[00:27:55]And anyway, they took they they apparently took a picture of the father and the child and the mother. It wasn't the defendant, he had sent one of his buddies to go have sit in Look at her Look at her face.

[00:28:08]>> [laughter] >> instead, and of course it came back it wasn't. And later it was his child, so he they uh had to redo it.

[00:28:18]Um what I want is to make sure that that child is identified in the state of Colorado sufficiently by whatever means, photography or whatever, that that we can ensure that Mr. Thomas knows this child that is being tested in Colorado is in fact the same child that we're having questions.

[00:28:37]So, I think we do that DNA testing, and I'd like to have that done within the next 10 days on all parties, and then we reset it for June 16th, and hopefully we'll have the results of that at that time. So, it sounds like the judge here is telling a story of a paternity testing that went wrong. And so, he wants to make sure the DNA test here goes right, and he's setting things up so that there's less risk for some mistake happening here.

[00:29:07]So, it sounds like he's telling an old story where a test was negative and then came out positive. Now, I will check with Judge Wallace to see if he has any objections to me considering your motion to modify his order, and then we'll go from there. All the other motions I would think need to be heard on that same day. I realize it's an emergency type situation, and that's why I'm giving you the June date.

[00:29:31]I'm supposed to be in Humphreys County that month, so.

[00:29:34]Appreciate it, too. Anything else? If I If I may, Judge, and this kind of gets into temporary support. I don't want to do Well, he pays for his test. He pays for his test. She pays for her test, and he's the one who's requesting the testing, so he's going to Understand that I'll consider that at the follow at the next hearing, but he's going to have to bear the cost of the test itself. She will pay for the test for herself and the two children.

[00:29:58]He will pay for his test and the performance of the actual DNA testing.

[00:30:03]So, we'll go with an itemized list of what the charges are for the test, and she's responsible for herself.

[00:30:08]Understood, Your Honor.

[00:30:10]Other The other option you have is tote that child back from Colorado, bring it near, have a have all three of them I have all three your client and the two children tested at LabCorp in the state she lives in.

[00:30:24]Understood, Your Honor. And I'm going to ask just one more clarification and a request to this court. If those are determined to be Mr. Thomas's children, can Ms. Thomas be reimbursed for her cost of the test? If they are Mr. Thomas's children, Yes, sir.

[00:30:38]>> She can make application for reimbursement at that point.

[00:30:41]>> Understood.

[00:30:42]Normally, if someone contests that being their child and it turns out they are, then they requested DNA, they have to pay for it in the end result.

[00:30:51]But, as was pointed out, if he's incurring a great deal of expense to fight an adoption of a child he never consented to being adopted, then that may be a factor as well, sir.

[00:31:03]I understand. All right.

[00:31:04]I am uh Hey, she could be she could have been cheating, right? And that's not his child, which may also be what she is trying to hide.

[00:31:16]I'm of the opinion that we uh have it all heard on the 16th and we will sort it all out to the best of my ability at that time, sir.

[00:31:26]We'll stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you, Judge.

[00:31:29]As always, guys, curious to know what you think. Let's check out some of the comments and see what the people have to say. Top comment here says, "Mom looks so dumbfounded, like she doesn't understand her actions have consequences." Somebody who's replying back to that comment here and said, "I think she just has resting dumbfounded face." Next comment here says, "I have to say dad's investment into his attorney was well worth it. The guy is good." Another comment here says, "Mom's mouth hanging open for the entire video." Yeah, I knew everybody was going to notice that. Next comment here says, "DNA testing should be mandatory at birth, would have solved this problem quickly." Another comment here says, "She looks like she learned that humans can speak during the hearing." Another person who says, "Whoa, this is scary. I want to know how it ends." Another person here says, "Mom's thinking she's screwed if dad gets the baby. 18 years of child support she hadn't planned on paying." Right, right, right. If he does get the baby, then she would definitely be paying child support cuz she doesn't want the kid, right? She's shown probably given um all types of proof that she's not fit and wants to have the child adopted.

[00:32:39]Next commentary says, "And what this woman did is not fair to those parents that love their child as their own as their own." I think that's supposed to say, "And have been looking to adopt a child. This woman needs to go to jail." Of course, guys, I'm curious to know what do you think? Imagine divorcing your husband, and you get what you wanted, which was part of his retirement.

[00:33:04]Break the coffee. I'll make you feel bad. But, of course, there's an issue, right?

[00:33:08]It took too long. You're upset because it simply took too long, and you went through stress, and you feel like because you were going through some challenges of getting that money that you should be compensated for that stress.

[00:33:26]The title of this video is Mom received Dad's retirement money, but claims the funds don't make her whole. The noise in town. Let's get it. Ma'am, you've since received all the money you were supposed to receive pursuant to the terms of the judgment of divorce. Is that correct?

[00:33:44]>> I have received my funds, yes, but I have not been made whole. I want to be made whole. Okay.

[00:33:52]>> I had to go through whether I hired a lawyer or not. This is about gender discrimination.

[00:33:59]>> Oh. Mom received Dad's retirement funds from the QDRO. Let's get it. Is that attorney versus is Douglas Gerow? Court will note the appearance of Mr. Umloff on behalf of the defendant in this matter. Um this matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion to show cause.

[00:34:18]Ms. Gerow, uh I have read your pleadings as well as Mr. Umloff's response. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

[00:34:27]Uh yes, Your Honor, there is. Um in regards to uh under his motion and affidavit um number two um he denies as untrue.

[00:34:43]Um I I deny that. I was awarded 50% half um and under number three I deny that.

[00:34:53]Um it was abused in plain sight. And under number four, I deny that. It is not true. He received a letter from me in March and never responded.

[00:35:05]And Mr. Umloff could have asked the court for more time. And Ma'am, let's get to the meat of the issue and it sounds like you know, that based upon Mr. Umloff's response and I think you had repeatedly stated that uh the Newell Brands had in fact honored the request for the pension that you received those funds. Is that correct?

[00:35:31]That is correct, your honor, but that does not make me whole. I was whole when I left the marriage and was awarded 50%.

[00:35:41]Okay.

[00:35:41]>> And then having to go through all of this court battle with the court system, Newell Rubbermaid um all my costs involved Okay. Let me uh >> Let me ask you this, ma'am, and unfortunately, I'll tell you because you represented yourself, that is in fact an issue and a lot of what you went through is stuff that attorneys would be doing if they had represented you.

[00:36:11]And these matters, it's not unusual that companies will change, they'll merge, they'll be bought up, etc. And oftentimes, the attorneys have many issues to attempt to locate and uh, the correct uh entity that There's a caption there that says, "Mom should have hired an attorney, but it seems she is trying to recover fees as if she is an attorney herself." So, she wants to get paid for representing herself. Right? She wants the best of both worlds. I don't want to pay for an attorney, and also pay me because I didn't hire an attorney. She did a great job because she managed to receive the funds despite the complicated nature of QDROs.

[00:36:59]Let's talk about the sponsor of this channel, fathershaverights.com.

[00:37:03]Engaged and soon-to-be married men, a single pre-nup slip-up can cost you tens of thousands later. Waiting until the last minute or signing under pressure are the mistakes that sink most agreements. My step-by-step guide at fathershaverights.com, built with expert attorneys James Sexton and the lead attorney, shows you exactly how to avoid every costly pre-nup mistake, all for the price of a couple of dinner dates. Tap the link pinned to the top of the comment section to safeguard your future and join the hundreds of soon-to-be husbands protecting their marriages the right way. that it now handles and carries the insurance, so I know I'm insurance, I'm sorry, the retirement or pension, etc. So, it's not unusual what you went through to collect that when you're dealing with those particular entities as as opposed to what you do dealing with the defendant. So, the court is more concerned about what the, uh, involvement or what your relationship was and what happened with the defendant as opposed to a third party that he has no control over. So, what was there that you claim that he didn't do that he should have done as opposed to a third party. Let's hear it.

[00:38:20]>> He should have not withdrawn and depleted the account. I was awarded that amount.

[00:38:27]>> Okay, you received that amount though.

[00:38:29]Yes, I know, but after much Okay, you're saying that uh if I would have hired a lawyer, which I I had to help myself because I cannot afford a lawyer. I have not been able to work.

[00:38:44]>> I'm living off of my savings. Okay, ma'am, this is all extraneous. I just need to know what it relates to your particular motion.

[00:38:54]What it relates to is I was whole when I divorced.

[00:38:58]But you have not But ma'am, you've now said Ma'am, ma'am, you've since received all the money you were supposed to receive pursuant to the terms of the judgment of divorce, isn't that correct?

[00:39:10]Your Honor, I have received my funds, yes, but I have not been made whole. I want to be made whole. Okay.

[00:39:20]>> I had to go through, whether I hired a lawyer or not, this is about gender discrimination, okay? This happened to me because of gender discrimination, and I had a lot of suffering. I had to help myself, and now I'm being told because I helped myself >> The only person I'm sure suffered the most here is the husband and everybody else who has to deal with this. that and I've been paid funds, that all that my ex was allowed to do to me, that that was okay. Well, that was not. Now I need to be made whole again. I had to, whether I hired a lawyer or whether I did it myself, I had to go through so much more to get the 50% that was awarded me. And that's not right. You can't just destroy somebody's life and then go ha ha ha and commit a crime and say now you pay for it. It doesn't work that way your honor. Okay.

[00:40:24]Ma'am, what I was trying to highlight to you before when I started is that that happens in a lot of cases. It's not just your case.

[00:40:34]That often times when you're dealing with companies with pensions and retirement programs that is not unusual some of the things you experienced that you would experience though and that's the only reason I brought that up so you would know that wasn't anything unique or simply pertain to your case. So So here another caption says one of the most vexing issues in a divorce is how the couple will split up any retirement plan benefits without incurring adverse tax consequences. With that >> Your honor, I understand that and this problem is bigger than me. Okay? But I'm focused on just my case. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to let Mr. Amloff speak.

[00:41:19]Mr. Amloff, I have received your response. Anything else?

[00:41:24]Um I would note that um the allegations that criminal activity took place are simply are simply false.

[00:41:32]Um the August 16th letter shows that she was indeed made whole. What happened here is my client believed that everything was um in order and that the account had already been divided up when he took his lump sum payment and I believe it was 2015.

[00:41:49]Um it's unfortunate that that happened but again she has been made whole.

[00:41:56]Um and so for that reason and your honor certainly knows it's not unusual that even attorneys sometimes have trouble getting QDROs prepared and and getting them to conform with the with the specifications of each individual company and pension carrier.

[00:42:13]Um that can happen.

[00:42:15]Um but ultimately, my client did not do anything wrong. He did not do anything to harm her. He did not impede the process. It was the defendant's responsibility to prepare these QDROs and get that money.

[00:42:28]Um it took her much longer than ideal to do that, but it was not his responsibility to prepare them.

[00:42:35]Okay.

[00:42:35]>> Thank you. Thank you. She had hired an attorney.

[00:42:37]>> Anything else, uh Mr. Yes. I deny that.

[00:42:41]Um it was a court order that needed to be followed by law, and he knew what he was doing um when he withdrew all of the amount, and I did do nothing wrong. I turned in my QDRO. It is a court order that needs to be followed by the law, and for him to be able to reach out after the divorce to cause me harm does constitute a crime. A crime under Michigan law states that crimes caused by some type of action that can cause extreme harm psychologically are classified as a felony.

[00:43:26]The the This dude was suffering.

[00:43:28]Look at him.

[00:43:30]Defendant's statement by the attorneys and un- are unfounded claims under Michigan law is gender discrimination. As these types of cases are typically woman's issues that are not covered for what are truly for what they truly are, evil crimes. Although I have lumped um Well, ma'am, just just to clarify, I will tell you that in these over the years I've seen these instances, and again, they're not unique to the female gender that in fact when men have had uh received a QDRO of something they've had they've been in my court which I'm trying to get enforcement of that or had difficulties with the companies just as you experienced. So I'm not minimizing the fact that it may occur more with with women but we've had enough occasions where it's occurred as it relates to men getting QDROs entered and getting them paid etc. So I'm Your Honor I'm not saying that you are. I'm saying it is uh discrimination. Okay.

[00:44:43]>> Um and I'm saying that there is a court order and a court order must be followed by law and no one not Nuelle or Douglas Duroe have a right to not follow that court order. Okay.

[00:44:56]>> And that court order was not followed in plain sight by Mr. Duroe when he took out that money and he knew that. He was aware of his balances.

[00:45:07]He didn't need the money. Why would he have done something like that? Why would he have reached out after the divorce to cause me harm? You know, I left him to get out of that divorce. Ma'am ma'am again you're going into extraneous things that don't apply to this particular motion. So I just want you to confine your remarks >> I'm asking why. The burden of proof is on him. Okay.

[00:45:33]>> Why what happened to the other half of the money? He The pension laws are you have to be 55 and older before eligible.

[00:45:42]He withdrew money at that money at 52 and that was half. What happened to the other half before that? And how would you know, those are the issues Your Honor. Okay.

[00:45:54]>> They're in plain sight. Okay.

[00:45:57]Well, in this particular matter the court makes the following finding that in this case the plaintiff does acknowledge that she has and she acknowledged that in her pleadings as well as in court today that again there were some issues on the collection of her portion of the pension pursuant to the QDRO that the QDRO was delayed substantially for a period of time as she was preparing those particular uh pleadings that again the company Newell Brands subsequently did honor her request that she received all of the monies that she was supposed to receive in this uh particular matter although they were again delayed but again the court doesn't find that as being uh unreasonable Wow.

[00:46:45]>> It's unfortunate but it's not unreasonable that it does happen. As a result the court does not find any willful intentional conduct on the part of the defendant in this uh particular matter maybe he withdrew that maybe it was an error but it was subsequently remedied in this uh particular matter and she was paid the full amount that she was entitled to receive under the terms of the judgment of divorce the court does not find a basis for the show cause the court will deny the uh petition in this matter uh Mr. Ramoff I'll ask that you would prepare an order denying the uh motion and uh concluding this matter so thank you both I uh your excuse have a good day. All right. Thank you your honor. Thank you your honor.

[00:47:34]Okay, as always we're going to check out some of these comments. Let's see what the people have to say. Top comment here says I completely understand why he got the hell out. My goodness.

[00:47:44]Don't we all? Somebody else here says okay but she got out. So that means his prayers were finally answered. Next comment here reads husband is sitting there thanking his lucky stars that [snorts] they're divorced. Here's somebody else who added, "Leaving her was absolutely a blessing." Here's somebody else who says, "This woman is batshit crazy. I'm glad the dude got out."

[00:48:10]Another person here says, "A woman who feels like she is owed something is dangerous." Next person here added, "This guy got the biggest bang for his buck by by getting rid of this shrew. Worth every penny of it." Somebody else here added, "I think the only thing that would make this woman whole is to see her ex as miserable as she can make him."

[00:48:35]Um what a miserable woman, this commenter added. She got her money, but wants more and wants him to be charged with a felony. I'm sure he gladly paid that money to get rid of that crazy witch. Mhm. You know, videos like this typically reaffirm people's minds who maybe have been married before, don't want to get married again, or don't plan to get married ever.

[00:49:00]Or hopefully to men who still value marriage in our modern day, want a two-parent household if they plan to have a family, remind them that prenups exist, right? Of course, guys, I'm Christian, so what do you think? Leave your comments down below. Till next time. I'm out. Peace. Hey guys, as always, I appreciate you checking out yet another episode of Coffee Pot. To my currently engaged or soon-to-be-married men, if you need a prenup and would like a guide that shows you how to get a solid and legally binding prenuptial agreement, hit the link pinned to the top of the comment section and access your guide at fathershaverights.com today.