Good.
Let's take a look at the law:Quoting GMFWoodchuck
The court is obligated to act only upon remarriage. The court has the discretion to revisit the amount based upon habitual cohabitation. The court exercised its discretion by ruling against you. You have chosen not to share with us the court's rationale, but it is generally difficult to prove an abuse of discretion by a court. If you want to try, discuss the record and the court's findings with a local lawyer in relation to a possible appeal.Quoting NY Dom Rel, Sec. 248. Modification of judgment or order in action for divorce or annulment.
I'm not sure why you believe that your ex- would have to prove that she paid her share of the bills. That wasn't the issue before the court. If you proved you paid your share, that would resolve the claim.Quoting GMFWoodchuck
And the judge heard the evidence and ruled.... you didn't tell us. I guess we're to infer that you lost, but you again haven't shared the judge's rationale with us.Quoting GMFWoodchuck
In terms of denying your motion to modify alimony, the judge can rule as she did because the statute explicitly authorizes her to do so.Quoting GMFWoodchuck
In terms of payment for medical care, assuming the court found your documentation lacking, it would be because the court found your documentation lacking. Beyond that, you would have to tell us.
In terms of payment for child care, presumably the court found that your ex's payments were consistent with its existing order and that, while perhaps sympathetic to the possibility of a motion to amend, it was not your place to ignore the order and define the amount you would pay in defiance of the order. But we can only guess - again, you need to tell us.
I've seen lawyers do a great job in court only to get hit by an irrational or seemingly capricious ruling, so performance isn't everything. But... every time I've seen a transcript from a pro se litigant who assured me, "I did a great job in court," I have found that the record tells a different story. Pro se litigants tend to confuse argument with evidence, tend to focus on what may be a mistaken interpretation of the law and not recognize when the court is trying to correct (and even help) them. They tend to focus on the facts instead of the law, without understanding the need to relate the facts to the legal issues the court is being asked to decide. They frequently don't understand the burden of proof (either what it is, or who has it) or the standard of review. They often make weak or frivolous objections, or try to build their case on inadmissible evidence, and confuse argument with evidence....Quoting GMFWoodchuck
No.Quoting GMFWoodchuck
So... if we are to try to guess what happened in court, the court had ordered you to reimburse your ex- for certain medical expenditures, you went to court attempting to prove that you had paid a portion of the bills directly to the doctors, and the court was not in a situation to audit the various bills and payments you describe so she instead asserted, "My order was that this money be paid to your ex-, not to third parties"? Perhaps the judge's ruling was colored by your disregard of her order on child care costs - the court expects you to follow its orders, not to do your own thing (set your own child care amount because you disapprove of the mother's child care arrangement, pay the doctors directly rather than reimbursing mom because you don't trust mom with the money, etc.). If you don't believe a court's order is appropriate you can bring a motion to modify the order, but until it's modified the court will expect you to follow the existing order.Quoting GMFWoodchuck
When you talk to your lawyer, and you should do so as quickly as possible after the court's decision because deadlines come quickly, you can discuss whether you should seek reconsideration of any portion of the order. If in fact the issue is that you were ordered to reimburse your spouse but instead paid the children's medical care providers, for example, you may be able to argue that you and your ex- had always followed that practice and thus her present objection should not be held against you, or that even if you violated the order it was not intentional, the payments you made represented your 75%, and even if paid to the doctor and not to her you should get credit, with supporting documentation. If the court decided, based on the facts, to treat your direct payments as voluntary and not relevant to her order, the issues become more complex, but we're shooting in the dark here - you haven't told us anything about the ruling other than the bare outcome.Quoting GMFWoodchuck
If an appeal is necessary, your lawyer can also try to ensure that there is an adequate record for appeal. Again, you don't want to delay.

