Some parents have the “honor” of being labeled vexatious. The pattern in the Riverside Superior Court is to label those parents vexatious who attempt to correct court atrocities and who rigorously object to their children being held hostage by a court system.
The common denominator in all cases involving vexatious parents are atrocious rulings that are against the law and where children have been placed in an impossible situation against the best interest of the child. The Court attempts to shut down and muzzle that parent who objects to the inhumane treatment of parent and child.
The term vexatious is usually misused to allocate harassment or malice towards the other parent, which in almost every case is far from the truth. Some parents have no other choice but to go through a court, as the other parent is unreasonable, rigid, inflexible and uses children as weapons to torture the other parent.
Some attorneys who have represented themselves have also been labelled vexatious, and have not been able to file any motion, even when represented by another attorney who was deemed vexatious by association. It is an abuse of process to cover up court atrocities and prevent their first amendment right to governmental redress.
However, even if you are “deemed” vexatious that does not end litigation, It merely means that there are extra hoops to jump through as the presiding judge has to subjectively approve the merit of litigation according to CCP 391.7 (b) which specifies that the presiding judge shall permit the filing of litigation only if it appears to have merit. A presiding judge cannot adjudicate the case but can only approve a filing if it has merit.
The term merit signifies that the pleading is justified and has legal significance, although of course some judicial officers want to debate the concept of merit at actual hearings and deny that a presiding judge approved a filing because of merit. A dictionary might be extremely helpful in those instances.