IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY In re the Marriage of Frederick J. Shaddock and Oksana S. Shaddock Upon the Petition of ) FREDERICK J. SHADDOCK, g Case No. CDCV402064 Petitioner, g ) ANSWER TO ANSwer, Petition to Drop the Divorce Case based on REspondent's unemployment and Fnancial Dependence upon Husband ) OKSANA SHEMET SHADDOCK, g Respondent. g

The separation has been caused by the respondent going to Russia to live after her father passed away in December, and her mother needs daily medical care. This is no time (actually the worst time) to voluntarily add a 3rd depressing situation, divorce.

This is the 10th divorce action in the marriage of January 17, 2001 probably a world's record. Although starting a divorce is by either the husband or wife, the decision to dismiss the divorce is always by both parties. The couple has mutually agreed to stay married 9 times out of 9 so far. There an statistical probability and observable trend that this divorce attempt will also be the 10th to be dropped by both parties. When faced with the consequences of divorce, they always have backed off, even in prior attempts when they were in better health and attractiveness.

Respondent has not had a job since January 2025, even after a year of trying hard to apply for jobs in DC and in Fairfield, even selling pies at the Farmer's Market and some paintings. in over a year and would become a burden of her fellow tax payers and the State. A divorce and division of property only benefits her 2 greedy attorneys, in DC and Iowa who pray for a portion of the proceeds from property sales.

Divorce is not in her interest, nor the tax paying public. She would require Welfare for living expenses, and publicly funded emotional counseling. The stress of loneliness would probably lead to further decline in her medical condition, requiring public assistance for her medical expenses. Her husband is quite willing to provide these at no expense to the public.

She has no job, no marital prospects, and with no medical insurance. She has over $30000 in credit card debt This is the very time when she most needs her husband. This is a primary reason why the institution of marriage was invented to care "in sickness and in health, for long as you both shall live."

If the husband and wife were in their 20's or 30's then divorce would make more logical sense
They could each get married to other people and start a family.
but not when she is over 56 and he is over 70.
Who wants to marry them?  No one.

Respondent woulid be better off divorcing her attorneys who egg her on to be uncooperative
with the goal of causing marital disharmony and divorce. 
It would be better if they adviser her to simply cooperate with her husband.

She wastes money like crazy, then wants my financial support.
She pays for NationWide car insurance because attorneys advised her to keep her account separate
She could enjoy free car insurance with Progressive on both our Iowa and DC based Mercedes Benzes. 
She could pay just $37.50 per month for Verizon mobile phone service, but refuses to join my company plan, and pays over $50
She refuses to re-activate my DC condo fob which allows me to go to the gym and pool, to keep in good health.

Respondent's attorney alleges.
"2. Respondent joins Petitioner’s request to dissolve the marriage"
This is a lie and perjury before this honorable Court

Petitioner has already very clearly filed for a trial Legal Separation , and does NOT want a divorce
He has provided extensive exhibits about a Separation Schedule requiring no division of assets, just equitable sharing.
He has repeatedly stated that he does NOT want a divorce. It would be bad for both the husband and wife.

This comes on Respondent's 57th birthday.  Respondent called her husband on her birthday, and had a nice conversation.
But the gift is only for her greedy attorneys. 
She has no prospective husband
There is no well-thought-out plan, or any plan whatsoever about how she will support herself after marriage.
It is an emotional, not logical decision, devoid of any common sense. 
She should be able to show that he can support herself for 6 months, before granting a divorce.

Petition. has been in Russia taking care of her elderly mother, with no job for over a year.
She has no way to pay for the DC condo, and Petitioner pays all expenses for the Iowa house 
He is now supervising, renting, and paying for the DC condo, so Respondent can relax and take care of her mother, who cannot travel.

Respondent is also in declining health, aggravated by stress of her mother and father not being able to care for themselves.

This action only benefits the attorneys in DC and Iowa. 
They are not thinking about their client's best financial interests.  How is she going to survive after divorce with no husband? 
The attorneys will survive just fine, and take 1/3 of each marital property. 
They desperately want the divorce to happen so that they can recover their outstanding legal fees, which Respondent cannot pay. 
Grok is free and Petitioner has asked Petitioner to use Artificial Intelligence to save on legal costs, and get better, non-biased advice.

He betrays his true motive, not to help his client, by writing: "to equitably divide the property and debts of the parties." The parties include the attorney and this is self-serving on his part. He knows that she cannot pay his fees and instead of advising cooperating with her husband, who does have a job, that she fight him at every turn, even trying to lock him out of their marital properties. He cares nothing about how his client will continue her life, and enjoy her properties.

Without the Petitioner paying for the 2 homes, Respondent would be homeless and perhaps have to stay with her mother in Russia for the rest of her life. Or Respondent would have to go on Welfare and be a burden of her fellow citizens and the State of Iowa

Divorce from her husband, her supporter, should only be granted if she has a job and can prove that she can support herself financially without State assistance. "3. In further answer to Petitioner’s Petition, Respondent affirmatively prays for an order requiring Petitioner to pay Respondent’s attorney fees and the costs of this action." "4. In further answer to Petitioner’s Petition, Respondent prays for the court to restore her premarital name of Oksana Shemet." She uses this name on many documents and her paintings already and is not a problem. "WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays that the court dissolve the marriage "

Again he asks " that the court make an equitable division of the assets and liabilities of the parties; 
that the court award
Respondent her attomey fees and assess the costs of this action to Petitioner; 

Petitioner and Respondent are the world's most divorcing married couple
and have reconciled 10 court actions for divorce.  They go to the end of the 
divorce diving board, then back off, realizing they will drown in the dating pool.
No one wants to marry a 70 year old man or 56 year old woman.
This is only a Petition for Loneliness in Old Age.
We can reconcile this matter as we have 10 times in the past. 
"the court waive conciliation procedures in this cause; that the court restore