When Judges are Biased Against a Party??

Unfortunately, it does happen.  But never in 20+ years have we ever seen a case (until now) where a Judge simply ignores the evidence, and simply awards whatever the mediator says, despite an obvious breach of the local rules/or laws governing mediators and evidence.

A key part of due process, is to give the process that is due....essentially in Family Law mediation, there should be NO evidence submitted to mediator that is NOT also served upon the other party ahead of time, with a proof of service to all parties. Although we do not claim to know the family law in other states outside of California, it would seem quite prejudicial to (a) take evidence and then (b) never show it to opposing party, and then (3) throw out the evidence or give it back to the party who tendered it, and not have a record of the evidence--and THEN -- for Judge to use that evidence in awarding custody to the person who gave the evidence, by claiming the petitioning party did not overcome the presumption of joint custody?  This would be the case since Judge rubber stamped the recommendation, which obviously relied upon the evidence never shown to the non custodial parent, which also caused the mediator to not even interview the minor child.

At long cause,  judge ignored the argument of due process and ignoring the local rules. This was after custodial parent had caused the long cause hearing to drag on for months, because custodial claimed an attorney would be obtained but never got one; at each trial setting, custodial would choose a date that ended up being changed.

Nevertheless......the losing party then continued the vigil to gain custody notwithstanding the ridiculous ruling. Of course an appeal was out of the question because even if client wanted to engage an appeal, it would take so long that it would not be worth it.

Instead, client remained vigilant to actually follow the court's crummy order of several hours a week visitation, supervised.  In meantime, the custodial parent continued to mess up on whatever that parent was supposed to do. About 6mo later, with documented evidence, the custodial parent decided to give up and just abandon the kids to the party wronged by the last order.  Rather than attempting mediation again, and risking another bad mediator decision or biased Judge, the non custodial parent let the bad parent just hang her/himself. It was not surprising that the custodial parent had filed three TROs, none of which had stuck.

In our view, by allowing such a blatant evidentiary wrong to make a case for one parent, it was obvious that this was bias, as the non custodial parent even had a written letter from CPS stating that the children had been harmed by someone who was with the custodial parent and CPS was investigating (but not filing charges yet...)  And, that the custodial parent was engaging in sexual acts in hotels in front of the minor children. But judge said, that was old news?  WTH??!!  The police wanted non custodial to do an ex parte. Oh yes, that would have fallen on deaf ears if the judge won't even look at a CPS letter or all the withhold notices from the District Attorney.

This goes to show that every case is usually different, and what might work normally in one case is not necessarily going to work in all cases.
NOTE:  Attorney is very aware that 170.6 can be used, however this judge had heard the case prior to this attorney taking the case; judge taking testimony prior so essentially client was precluded from using that tactic. Attorney dropped out of case purposely to see if Judge would treat client differently; at the last motion, Judge actually ruled that CWS and an investigation would take place; it did take place and client was given 50/50 timeshare which he wanted.

Great Results in Case After CPS Snatches Kids

A new case found that CPS snatched both minor kids after one child was found to have ingested a substance turning out to be medical MJ in form of what appeared to be expensive dessert. Although it was accidental, CPS wrote scathing report against one parent and was not too kind to the other parent either.  In most cases, CPS turns over case over to the District Attorney, and prosecution for some crime will ensue.  Due to a procedural error, even before the first hearing,  it appeared one parent never even received a customary intake document to fill out, much less return it.... These documents are supposed to be used for the purpose of making an informed decision re the juveniles, plus they should realistically be done prior to any reports being filed with the court for purposes of keeping kids away from the parents. While social workers might dispute that, it is common sense that one does not have one parent fill out a standard intake, and the other does not, then a report is made before the parent even fills out the intake form.

It would seem that failure to even give one parent the form to fill out while still giving the court a report on the entire incident and more, is not due process, even if the form was used for simple facts since such facts can knowingly add to, or detract from the parent's background in toto.

Upon not even being able to have time to read the entire report because CPS did not hand it out until 10 minutes before court, where report should have been given out 2 days earlier,  attorney objected to moving forward based upon lack of time to review report, failure of CPS to have one parent fill out the intake document they use, and it was stated to judge,  to be prejudicial to client....Judge decided that it would be a contested hearing and set matter over for about six days.

Remarkably, the next day (big surprise)--- clients were informed that children were going to be returned to the home, at least one parent still living at home, and other parent only to be supervised by the in house parent.  That is about the best result one can get without even having gone to any other hearings at all, and considering how bad the report was written against one parent in particular, it sends the message that one should always:
(a)   take caution and not accept anything CPS throws out just because they wrote it;
(b)   the full disclosure documents should be given and returned prior to hearing, not after a hearing; (c)   reports which misconstrue or misstate facts should be objected to strenuously and by cross examination.
(d)   any reports, documents, evidence or anything related to the case that is in written form which is subject to some type of time limit (for example, should be received 2 days prior to hearing)--should be followed; and if not, objection should be lodged for cause and hearing pushed forward.  Judge is not going to necessarily know what date the parents or others involved, received the data.

Links to Interesting Issues Within Divorce

Mental Health Issues and Divorce in California | DivorceNet.com

www.divorcenet.com/resources/mental-health-issues-and-divorce-california.html

If you have additional questions about mental health and divorce in California after reading this article, you should consult a local family law attorney.

Understanding and Calculating Alimony in California | DivorceNet.com

www.divorcenet.com/.../divorce/...issues/understanding-and-calculating-alimony-c

When a married couple divorces after building a lifestyle together, a court may require the ... UnderCalifornia law the purpose of temporary spousal support is to ...

Research on FC Section 2640: (from Mr. Arnold) 

http://www.thurmanarnold.com/Family-Law-Blog/2010/December/What-Are-TRACINGS-In-California-DIVORCE-Proceedi.aspx

It is extremely common that a community property asset (acquired during marriage, possibly but not necessarily in joint names), or improvements to it, traces partly or 100% to a separate property source. Many parents 'gift' their child part or all of the downpayment for the couple's first home. Or, a separate property asset (acquired during marriage but titled in one spouse's name alone - usually seen with real estate) may be purchased using joint funds. In either event there is a tracing right of reimbursement per Family Code section 2640 to the respective community or separate property interests that bought it, in the event of a dissolution or legal separation. FC §2640 is in the top five of all California property division statutes and is critical for an understanding of what your legal interests are if either spouse has any colorable claims to separate property used during marriage. Many middle income and high asset property division cases are a puzzle map of assets that are not what they seem at first glance

Other California Family Law Issues | Bohm Wildish

www.cadivorce.com › California Divorce Guide

Military Divorce ... Due to this fact, there is a unique set of laws that are utilized when it comes to dissolving them. For instance, California family law created a set of procedures to handle situations that arise in registered domestic partnerships ...

Top 10 Divorce Myths in California | LawGives

https://www.lawgives.com/guide/.../Top-10-Divorce-Myths-in-California

Make sure you're prepared to handle any challenges a divorce may throw your way. ... One exception: California will recognize a "common law" marriage if a ...

New Laws 2016 Including Guns, Searches/Warrants on Phones, Social Media; and Restraining Orders

Searches--  The new year also requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a search warrant before looking at private emails, text messages and GPS data stored in smartphones, laptops and the cloud.

Restraining Orders-
Four months after a disturbed man killed six UC Santa Barbara students and wounded 13 others, Gov. Jerry Brown  signed legislation allowing the temporary seizure of guns from people determined by the courts to be a threat to themselves or others.

The Isla Vista massacre in May occurred even though the family of Elliot Rodger had sought help because of concerns about his strange behavior before the shootings.

The legislation approved by the governor allows law enforcement officers or family members to ask a court for a restraining order against a person believed to be a threat, barring his or her possession of firearms for 21 days.

The measure was opposed by groups including the National Rifle Assn. and Gun Owners of California. The groups objected that the gun owner would not get a hearing before the restraining order is issued. Under the new law, a hearing must be held within 21 days of the order being issued.

“Without a doubt, AB 1014 is one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties ever introduced in the California Legislature,” wrote Charles H. Cunningham, a director with the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

For family law cases--- a domestic violence TRO will cause weapons to be removed, HOWEVER, note that this law was put into place because there was no civil harassment or domestic violence with family, friends, live in girlfriend, boyfriend, etc. There may have been strange behavior (the defendant allegedly was suffering from Aspergers), see http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/detail_asperger.htm

In fact part of this young man's issue was that he could not get a girlfriend, as evidenced by his lengthy online ranting, and he was jealous of men with girls and even wanted to somehow torture them because he felt he was better and deserved to get a girlfriend; at least that is what was read/seen online which showed the young man's ranting online.

The parents should have probably sought help to file a restraining order based upon conduct which made them afraid by putting together the "strange" behavior which could then cause a potential psych eval to warrant no weapons. This was not done it appears, because the parents did not try and obtain or failed to obtain an order, and it appeared the parents did not think the adult son had weapons. It is common sense that almost anyone who has a brain dysfunction should probably not own or obtain guns, yet we know even if this is the case, most people can find an illegal gun to buy.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Below, a San Diego attorney talks about gun laws  and more

https://youtu.be/MDF1-dKZmjo

https://youtu.be/Pn9jBeKcsdY


Parents

• The vaccination law eliminates the ability of parents to waive immunization rules 
• for their children based on personal beliefs. Though the law takes effect on Jan. 1, it allows parents to
• delay the vaccinations until July 1 if they filled out a request before New Year’s Day. But almost all students will have to show proof of immunization shots for the start of the new school year this fall. Read more here and here.
• The state suspends for three years California's high school exit exam, which is normally a requirement for students to receive diplomas. The law also allows about 32,000 students who did not pass the exam, either since it became mandatory or during its early phase-in years, to receive diplomas so long as they have completed all other graduation requirements. Read more »
• Schools must provide places for students to breast feed or pump breast milk.
• High schools that mandate health courses must provide lessons aimed at preventing sexual violence and the concept that both parties must consent to sexual relations. Read more »
• Students are required to take sexual health classes unless their parents object — the classes are now voluntary — and the lessons must include the teaching to be inclusive of different sexual orientations.
• The state must make sure future history textbooks for public schools include a section on the 1930s deportation of more than 1 million U.S. citizens of Mexican descent. Read more »
• California community colleges can suspend or expel students accused of sexual assault off campus.Read more »
• The state will spend $40 million to provide health coverage under the Medi-Cal program to children under age 19 who are not in the country legally. Read more here and here.
• Children 13 and younger who are witnesses in violent crimes may testify by remote video hook-up.

For more, go to latimes.com/politics.

Autistic Child=Public Nuisance Lawsuit goes to Mediation in Santa Clara

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/suit_seeking_to_declare_autistic_boy_a_public_nuisance_goes_to_mediation

The parties in a suit contending an autistic boy is a public nuisance have agreed to participate in court-supervised mediation.

Judge Maureen Folan of Santa Clara County, California, on Tuesday urged the boys’ parents and the neighbors who sued to reach an agreement, theSan Jose Mercury News reports.

“The question I have for each and every one of you is: Do you want to be solution-oriented and a great role model for your kids?” Folan asked. “Or do you want to be the opposite of that, and be litigation-oriented?”

One of the plaintiffs, Robert Flowers, said the judge’s idea was “promising.” The boy’s father said he was also pleased, although a previous attempt at mediation had failed.

The suit claimed the boy who lived in Sunnyvale, California, was a public nuisance because of his attacks on their children that included kicking and slapping. Their suit, the neighbors said, was directed at the boys’ parents because they were not controlling his behavior.

A previous judge in the suit issued a preliminary injunction in July 2014 requiring the boy’s family to make sure he doesn’t strike or assault neighbors. The suit also seeks damages and argues the boy’s uncontrolled behavior put a damper on the marketability of the neighbors’ homes.

The boy and his parents moved in September 2014. They say their son’s bad behavior stopped after he took medication and participated in therapeutic classes.

Previous:
Ex-courthouse clerk charged with felony for throwing files in trash after being fired

Next:
Judge's injunction delays possible shutdown of Kansas courts

---

Filed under:

States | Alternative Dispute Resolution | Trials & Litigation | Tort Law |California | Disability Law

---

You might also like:

• Neighbors' suit contends boy with autism is a public nuisance
• Trial court should not have dismissed law student's disability complaint, 9th Circuit says
• 10 Questions: Has the ADA measured up?
• Lawyer's double-murder trial delayed over use of subpoena rather than warrant for cellphone search
• Lawsuit says 'financial slavery' service by dominatrix was elder exploitation

Another CPS Case-This One Might Have a Decent Outcome

Mediator had given recommendation to one parent by having heard a tape-recorded scenario, which was allegedly against the interest of client, but client was never allowed to hear the tape recording to even challenge the authenticity to begin with, or what was contained on the tape....

Weeks later, client-- who only was to have supervised visits, never got any visits because there was no availability at any agency.   In meantime, a trial date was finally set, but the custodial parent kept doing errant actions and failed to allow visits since there was no supervisor, and none could be obtained. In meantime, the client managed to improve the child's grades in school, establish that the mother's boyfriend was an alleged perpetrator, and had enough evidence against the other party to gain at least 50-50 custody.

During that time, it was eventually discovered that the kids were being neglected and police and CPS became involved to some extent, thus paving the way for the trial outcome hopefully in client's favor. 

Eventually, client actually got some help [sheriff] from out of county, and  finally got the mother's boyfriend where he could not be within 100 yards of the kids at all. This is normally not that difficult to do, BUT when false charges are made, and then the mediator ignores the facts and gives kids to wrong parent (who does not stop others from harming kids) there is a big problem.

Filing contempt charges and repeated court hearings is usually not recommended unless client has a lot of time and money, and Judges tend to not like repeated hearings, but having police and CPS properly investigate a case can be a plus when there is actual evidence, a witness, and third party verification.

If you only have second hand evidence and cannot get CPS to realistically help your case, which CPS does not always do, considering the CPS lawsuits out there, it will require diligent monitoring of what the errant parent is doing, and sometimes you will have to enlist the aid of other people to help you get to the bottom of it. It is usually never fast, nor easy. But if you can do it, and CPS gets a recommendation against the other party, you are more than 2/3 of the way there.  CPS finds many cases to be unsubstantiated, and too many of those can harm a case.

Is Parental Alienation Real? Yep....

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/therapy-soup/2011/09/parental-alienation-syndrome/

A twelve-year study by the Family Law section of the American Bar Association showed that Parental Alienation syndrome (PAS) abuse occurred to at least some extent in nearly 60 percent of divorces (the extent to which it occurred ranged from mild to extreme). Today, more and more mental health professionals recognize that this is a very real and tragic problem.

Although PAS abuse usually occurs during or after a divorce, some argue that it can happen during marriages as well. In these cases, the parent “dumps” their problems with the other parent on the child or sets up “gangs” within the family.

In any case, the victims are first and foremost children who don’t usually realize what’s happening to them (if they are older, and have a longer-term history with both parents, they may understand at some level what’s going on). These children live with the loss of a parent that’s as painful and stressful as a death, but are not allowed to grieve. They are taught to stuff those feelings of grief and to turn that pain and their natural love for their parent into hatred.

http://www.pasattorney.com/court-interventions/  [note: this link is from a Michigan attorney's site who is also registered in several others states, including CA but nonetheless, it sheds light on how serious the issue really is...]  and to read about how DNA evidence can be used in a criminal case, from defense side,  in overcoming juror's assumptions, see   http://www.lorandoslaw.com/False-Accusations-And-Criminal-Defense-Topics/If-DNA-Then-GuiltyStrategies-for-Overcoming-Juror-Assumptions-About-DNA-Evidence-In-Criminal-Trials.pdf