**Colorado cut short**

The best laid plans sometimes are not to be. I am back home. The two week trip to Colorado lasted three days. Strained relations. Withdrawal. A cycle with which I am well acquainted. Shame it truncated the longest break I will have for some time. All I can say for now.

But the trip to Colorado involved more than vacation. I had round two in court. I mentioned round one in November. Didn't really talk about it though. But the end is nearing and I am astounded how far things have gone. The entire hearing was about an settlement agreement signed 10 years ago where a promise was made to divide, equally, all college costs. A cap to the contribution was set at the cost of a college state college or university education for up to five year of schooling. Currently that obligation is capped about about $7,500/year, per child for each of us. With the kids scholarships, it will cost about that much for each of us for both kids each year.

Silly me. I took this obligation seriously. I saved. Tucked away equity in homes when I sold them. I inherited some money from the sale of my grandparents home and stuck it in the college fund. With the generous scholarships my kids have managed to secure, I actually had saved enough to meet my obligation for each kid.

Then the "ex" petitions to relieve himself of this obligation. Says he doesn't make enough money. I should have seen the writing on the wall when three years ago he said, during a discussion about my daughter's college plans, that he had not saved anything. It didn't concern him over the years apparently because, as he said to me, "I just figured your mother would pay for the kids' college."

In most other states, a settlement agreement is a legal contract. But I had the stupid "luck" of divorcing in a state where the settlement agreement becomes an order of the court and is subject to modification. Complicate things by throwing in a recent court decision (the successful outcome of father's rights groups lobbying and a perfect test case) that eviscerates parental obligations - even pre-existing ones - and I was looking at a mess.

Here is the summary of the Colorado Supreme Court decision that is fucking with my life (Click here for the full opinion if you like reading this kind of stuff):

Petitioner Nancy Shapiro seeks review of the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the trial court’s order obligating respondent James H. Chalat to pay his daughter’s full post-secondary education expenses pursuant to a 1984 decree of dissolution. The Supreme Court affirms in part and reverses in part.

Respondent’s agreement to pay his daughter’s college expenses is not enforceable as a contract term. Rather, respondent’s agreement was adopted by the trial court and incorporated into the court’s decree of dissolution. As a result, the trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to modify its orders concerning the daughter, including respondent’s post-secondary education support obligation. The child support guidelines statute does not divest the trial court of this authority. Respondent, however, may only invoke the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction upon a showing of substantial and continuing changed circumstances. Excluding a few specifically delineated situations that are inapplicable to the present case, nothing in the statutory plain language alters this clear, unambiguous requirement. Amendments to the post-secondary education support scheme alone do not automatically trigger a court’s continuing jurisdiction to modify child support orders. Accordingly, the Supreme Court holds that while the trial court retains continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act to modify its 1984 support order obligating respondent to pay his daughter’s post-secondary education costs, respondent must show a continuing and substantial change of circumstances to invoke this jurisdiction and thereby seek modification.

Given this opinion came down a couple month before the hearing it dramatically complicates things and makes it much more messy.

An expensive mess as it turns out.

Last October's hearing involved the "ex" testifying, since he brought the petition before the court. He basically said he had no money because he couldn't find work. This is a person who has never held a job for more than two years since we split. Never fired. Just kept quitting. The last job he had teaching in Europe he actually did hold for two years. Then he apparently took a teaching position in the Caribbean. After a couple weeks, he left that job and the country... rather abruptly. While the details are blurry, the parting was not good apparently and as I learned in court recently, he is basically blackballed from teaching in the country where he currently resides. So he works packing flowers for less per hour than the minimum wage on the U.S. west coast. My attorney asked him if he was committed to helping his kids with college. He said he would do what he could. My attorney asked him if he would return to the states and teach (Where he could make 35-40K). He said no. Liked the country he lived in too much. Except that he was willing to try the Caribbean. By the end of the October hearing, I began to wonder if he was right in the head. He was easily confused. Stoned, drugged, just plain stupid? I don't know. But it almost worried me. Then I remembered. He is not my problem. Phew.

This more recent hearing did not require his appearance. He listened in by phone. I took the stand. I mostly expressed my amazement that my ex had spent over 10K trying to avoid about 8K in back expenses and, at most, another 20K over the next couple of years. He also has forced me to spend 15K in attorney's fees so far. The second hearing got us through my testimony. The attorneys must submit written closing arguments. We won't hear the magistrate's decision until March sometime. I am reasonable optimistic because she seemed even-handed and willing to grapple with the complexities. This was a big change from the dufus that heard my ex's last petition about 10 years ago.

The irony is that even if she is reasonable fair about this, it is not likely the amount will surpass what I had to spend defending my kids' interest. With hindsight, it may have been best not to proceed. Just let him walk away from his obligation. But you never know beforehand that a halfday hearing would end up taking multiple hearings and that all offers of settlement would be rejected.

The whole thing, while intellectually interesting, completely sucked. I will have nothing left when this is over. I will probably have to take a second mortgage on the house, assuming I have enough equity. Or sell it. It is true what they say about these things. The winners are the attorneys. What the hell was my ex thinking?

The highlights of an otherwise sobering trip, both legally and personally: It snowed (I miss snow so much) and I managed to run by Annie's Cafe for a quart of green chili to go. Ate half of it at the airport waiting for my flight. The rest was gone within 24 hours of my return.