IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
         IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FAMILY DIVISION

IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF

JOLIE KANAT,

                Former Wife

vs.                                         CASE NO: 97-7327-FD-14

PETER ALEXANDER,

                Former Husband


               RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF HEARING
      FOR EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT OF
                        VISITATION




To: The Hon. Judge Jack St. Arnold
Pinellas County Courthouse
545 First Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Copy sent to: Luke Lirot, Atty
112 East Street, Suite B
Tampa, FL 33602                                September 13, 2004

The Bottom Line

In terms of my response to the motion is: All three of Peter 
Alexander’s children are un-conserved adults and he may see 
them at any time they wish to see him.

Background on the Divorce/Visitation History:

Peter Alexander and I were married for eighteen years and divorced 
in October 1997, and have three children from that marriage, 
whose ages are now 23, 20 and 18. In August of 1996, during an 
attempt at reconciliation, when the children were 14, 11, and 9, 
Peter and I bought a home in Northern California together, where 
I moved first, with the children. Peter began an extramarital 
affair back in Florida, approximately the twelfth of such affairs 
in the course of our marriage. He made no attempt to move to 
California, effectively abandoning the marriage. I filed for 
divorce and raised the children in California with only sporadic 
visitation with their father, in spite of wide-open visitation 
agreement.

During the course of the last eight years I have effectively raised
the children as a single mother, while working as a music teacher,
going to school to get my Master’s Degree, caring for all three
children, and putting two of the children through special education
programs, arranging for all their treatment, classes, nannies,
tuition, staffed housing, through college.

Background on the Child Support and Alimony:

Peter sued me for modification of support to approximately 
one-fifth of what we had agreed upon, just a few months earlier, 
after our agreement was settled for the divorce. During the lawsuit 
he stopped sending the support altogether until he was $160,000 
in arrears.

As part of a new agreement, I dropped those arrearages. Peter is
now approximately $38,000 in arrears in alimony and child support,
even on the modified agreement. When Peter was recently threatened
with loss of this driver’s license for support violation, I kindly
agreed to an interim agreement so that he would not lose his
license. While he has made minimal payments, he is now in violation
of even that interim agreement, with action pending.

Recently the Bank of America attempted to collect $25,000 of
Peter Alexander’s and his girlfriend’s business debt from my
bank account. The collection agency forced me to make a payment
of $333.00 against this debt by threat of ruining my credit.
After having promised to do so, Peter has not sent a repayment
to me. So, not only is he not sending his full support and
alimony amounts, I made a payment on his debt!

Background on the Custody and Visitation:

Regarding our visitation agreement, Peter saw all three kids
for about four weeks in summer for the first few years. For
all the years of the divorce, he missed every Spring break
and every Thanksgiving, and never saw the children for any
extra time such as weekends or special visits, even though
he had insisted upon those dates in the visitation agreement.
His older son, [deleted], and daughter, [deleted], eventually
no longer wished to see him due to his general antagonism and
his virulent attacks on the religion of their birth. His
youngest son, [deleted], however, did wish to see him. But
Peter has not arranged visitation with any of his children,
including [deleted], and has not seen him in more than a year,
effectively abandoning the agreement altogether.

There has never been any violation of any custody or visitation
agreement on my part, but there has been on Peter Alexander’s part.

Even within the last two years, when [deleted] was diagnosed as
severely mentally ill, and had great difficulty traveling, I
never violated any visitation agreement nor was in any contempt
of any law or statute. Quite the opposite. I was cooperative
with arrangements, and personally paid for an improved flight
that [deleted]could manage after his father had send a ticket
for an 11-hour flight with three stops in each direction.

Twice, over the last four or so years, after not having seen
her at all for any of the legally approved visits, and without
the legal notice required of our custody agreement, Peter,
attempted to take [deleted] from her school. The second time
it happened, [deleted]’s teacher called the county office for
the okay to do so. Peter then faxed an illegally altered custody
document, deleting the two-week notice paragraph, to [deleted],
the head of Special Education at the County Office. Unwittingly
putting the school in legal jeopardy, [deleted] gave the okay
to Peter, based upon the document. Peter then took [deleted]
out of school for about an hour. I do no know where they went
or what they did. After discovering the deception, [deleted]
called Child Protective Services who referred him to my lawyer.
My lawyer sent a copy of a restraining order to let Peter know
to cease and desist, but on my urging, did not file it. At
this point, Peter has managed to avoid his driver’s license
being taken, a report on file at CPS, a restraining order,
and litigation for arrears.

Background on [deleted]

Our daughter, [deleted] was born with Down Syndrome, a mental
disability that affects learning and development. She had an
especially difficult time comprehending her father’s active
attacks on the religion of her birth and simply refused to
see or visit with him. My lawyer sent documents outlining
legal procedure to Peter’s lawyer regarding an adolescent’s
right of refusal to see a parent after the age of 14.

Then most recently, within the last couple of months, Peter
contacted Pamela Lichtenwalner, a complete stranger and an
active opponent to our religion, to contact [deleted] at
her home. [deleted] refused, but Ms. Lichtenwalner attempted
a visit anyway. Both Peter Alexander and Ms. Lichtenwalner
also verbally harassed and threatened [deleted]’s lawyer,
[deleted]’s social worker with the Golden Gate Regional Center,
and the board member of the Golden Gate Regional Center (GGRC),
to the point where all their calls were referred only to the
GGRC’s Sacramento offices and a restraining order was filed
against Ms. Lichtenwalner under the auspices of office of the
Advocate for Client’s Rights for Marin County. The judge
ordered that while the harassment did not constitute a strictly
legal violation, that [deleted] being an un-conserved adult, Ms.
Lichtenwalner was not to see or contact [deleted], with or
without her father, as long as [deleted] refused to see her.

My suspicion is that a sudden desire to see his daughter (he
is so out of touch that he did not even know she had moved to
her own staff-supervised home) is not at the core of this legal
motion, since for more than a year he has also not seen his son,
[deleted], who has no qualms about seeing him. I suspect instead
that, having sent Ms. Lichtenwalner, an active anti-religion
activist, to see our daughter, that his intentions revolve
around attacking her religion instead, and perhaps around an
attempt to avoid support payments.

At age 20, [deleted] is an un-conserved adult in a wonderful
staffed and supervised home just a few minutes from my home.
She is able to make her own choices in terms of whom she wishes
to see or not see. Peter Alexander may be misusing the courts
as a platform for a personal vendetta, and to force a
relationship with his daughter that he has effectively dismantled
with his own actions.

I have been upset by, harassed by, hurt by, and taunted by Peter
Alexander’s ill-intended actions against myself and his children.
The time away from sleep, from peace of mind, from work, from
caring for the kids, has taken a toll he can never repay. This
vexatious filing is another example of unnecessary legal action
and harassment.

Again, the bottom line is that all of Peter Alexander’s children
are un-conserved adults and he may see them at any time they
wish to see him.

I certify that these statements are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and ability.

  

Jolie Kanat
September 13, 2004