An incompetent mediation was conducted in the Riverside Superior Court. Pierre Simpson who is employed in the Riverside Superior Court conducted the mediation. Some of the statements that he alleged occurred during mediation are presented below for concerned parents.
Once again a mediator committed fraud and blatantly perjured himself. The parent in this case never said that passports would not be handed to the other parent because they are invalidated. The father never stated that this statement is true. The mother in this case pointed out that she does not have the passports and that they were reported lost and stolen to the relevant agency that handles that concept and that are therefore invalidated and cannot be used for travel in any capacity. The mother also pointed out that the father took the original passports and left her in the belief they were stolen. Pierre Simpson during mediation even pointed out that since both sets of passports are invalidated that they cannot be used for travel.
The minor children were dragged to mediation. Since Pierre Simpson blatantly lied about the parents statements, it is safe to assume that he did the same with the children. He claimed their statements were credible.
So let’s analyze what was asked:
The children were asked with whom they wanted to live and the children were asked if they “feared” the other parent. That question was asked as presented for one parent. Not the other parent. SO the mediator wanted to deliberately instigate and incite fear in children against one parent.
One 5 year said that one parent yells at people to get away from them and sues everyone in Yucaipa. Now that parent only sees the children in the presence of the other parent, so that could not have happened and a 5 year old child does not know what being sued means so this either implies severe coaching or that the mediator misstated what the children said.
Both children allegedly state that one parent tried to take them to their airport. What relevance this has no one knows. The children have never been taken to an AIRPORT. No reference to time and date was provided or where this allegedly was supposed to have occurred. If one even gave this ludicrous statement credence, the fact that no travel occurred or that the children flew away would show the terrorizing nature of that statement, designed to fabricate a non existent event. However, during the custody trial held in this case the father admitted to instilling fear in children during court proceedings specifically relating to his constant fabricated allegations.
What this mediation exercise confirms is that two children are being terrorized and manipulated by a cruel and inhumane system and tortured against the CA rules of Court which defines the ethical conduct of mediation for children as follows:
Mediation must be conducted in an atmosphere that encourages trust in the process and a perception of fairness. To that end, mediators must:
(1)Meet the practice and ethical standards of the Code of Ethics for the Court Employees of California and of related law;
(2)Maintain objectivity, provide and gather balanced information for both parties, and control for bias;
(3)Protect the confidentiality of the parties and the child in making any collateral contacts and not release information about the case to any individual except as authorized by the court or statute;
(4)Not offer any recommendations about a party unless that party has been evaluated directly or in consultation with another qualified neutral professional;
(5)Consider the health, safety, welfare, and best interest of the child in all phases of the process, including interviews with parents, extended family members, counsel for the child, and other interested parties or collateral contacts;
(6)Strive to maintain the confidential relationship between the child who is the subject of an evaluation and his or her treating psychotherapist;
(7)Operate within the limits of his or her training and experience and disclose any limitations or bias that would affect his or her ability to conduct the mediation;
(8)Not require children to state a custodial preference;
(9)Not disclose any recommendations to the parties, their attorneys, or the attorney for the child before having gathered the information necessary to support the conclusion;
(10)Disclose to the court, parties, attorneys for the parties, and attorney for the child conflicts of interest or dual relationships and not accept any appointment except by court order or the parties’ stipulation;
(11)Be sensitive to the parties’ socioeconomic status, gender, race, ethnicity, cultural values, religion, family structures, and developmental characteristics; and
(12)Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In the event of a conflict of interest, the mediator must suspend mediation and meet and confer in an effort to resolve the conflict of interest to the satisfaction of all parties or according to local court rules. The court may order mediation to continue with another mediator or offer the parties alternatives. The mediator cannot continue unless the parties agree in writing to continue mediation despite the disclosed conflict of interest.
The end result of this heinous fabricated stunt is that the Court made an order that mediation can no longer be done in this case without an order from the court.
|ON COURT’S OWN MOTION:|
|ON THE COURTS OWN MOTION; NO FURTHER CHILD CUSTODY RECOMMENDING COUNSELING APPOINTMENTS|
|SHALL BE SCHEDULED IN THIS CASE EXCEPT AS ORDERED BY THE COURT|