It appears that Judge Wells has a vendetta against puppies. There is a case in his court room where the father allegedly promised his 5 year old daughter a puppy and took her out of school. Mind you it appears at the time that the father had 50/50 custody.
So the mother’s attorney decided to file an exparte claiming that the father “stole the child” for promising his 5 year old daughter a puppy and taking her out of school. Now Judge Wells routinely as everyone knows denies expartes, as to him there is no emergency unless there is “blood on the floor”.
In this case he actually decided to grant THE Puppy exparte and issued a temporary sanctions order granting the mother sole legal and sole physical custody because of a PUPPY. A five year old child was dragged to mediation merely to confirm: “yes daddy promised me a puppy”.
Now if the father had indeed violated any court order, which is highly debatable considering Judge Wells interpretation of the law, there would be the appropriate legal remedies which would involve contempt proceedings or CCP 177.5 sanctions or family code 271 sanctions. But once again folks the law does not matter in Judge Wells’ court room. He sanctioned a father with his own daughter for a prolonged period of time because of a PUPPY.
Now this father is not a substance abuser, he has not abused his child, he merely as a daddy promised his child a puppy. At the hearing the father’s attorney did point out to Judge Wells that he could not have issued the temporary orders. Rather than acknowledging the fact that Judge Wells as a matter of law cannot issue puppy exparte’s sanctioning a father with his own daughter Judge Wells stated that the father would not repeat his puppy stunt, attempting to justify his puppy exparte.
Judge Wells in fact insisted he could, as the father’s paternity had not been determined, notwithstanding the fact that there was a 50/50 custody arrangement prior to Judge Wells temporary sanctioning order. So Judge Wells at that particular hearing made a big deal out of establishing paternity, recognizing that the child had a father, although that was not the basis of the puppy exparte, merely to disguise the fact that he had sanctioned a father with his 5 year old daughter.
Of course our relevant court of appeal would not have problems with puppy expartes as substantive and procedural due process in family law matters and the court of appeal does not exist, and puppy expartes have procedural priority over all other matters.