judge said after 9 months the proof will be in the pudding

[bus boy]

Last December xw and I had a settlement conference.  It was due for review back in august. The judge said she normally reviews after 6 months but she said 9 months will show how is telling the truth and who isn't. Xw stuck to the access part of the order but she was her usual unreasonable self for every other part of the order. My L couldn't understand  why the judge put a clause in the court order that stated, if we don't go back to settlement review, the old court order comes back into effect. My L said she has never heard of such a clause. Against the advice of her lawyer, xw was quick to go back to the old order that gave me such limited time with s10. It was a heart wrenching set back for me, I went into a bad depression but I didn't give up,I kept pushing. Than it came to me, the clause of going back to the old order, we hammered out a good settlement. The judge said, the proof will be in the pudding after 9 months, xw has the power to stay with the settlement order but she didn't.  In settlement xw said I wasn't involved in s10's life, I said access is being denied. Xw wife had the power in her hands to make this work. I was satisfied with the order. Xw had the power to stick with settlement order, she refused. That is the judges proof in the pudding. She put that clause in there for a reason, she said in plain English the lier will show its head after nine months and the proof will be in the pudding. S10 was doing fine, his school was actually improving.  That simple clause was the truth seeker in all of this and in the end the lier showed her self. The proof was in the pudding.