The Domestic violence standard of the Riverside Superior Court.

Most of the litigants that experience this court are aware that the Court routinely fails to protect from valid acts that fall under the domestic violence act for certain select litigants.  However, let’s consider what this court DOES consider domestic VIOLENCE for certain select litigants that unlawfully in the court’s eyes deserve to be punished.

A parent marches in court and claims that he is being harassed when the mother phones her children according to a court order that was put in place, The restraining order was granted on his statements that a mother phones her children  on his phone as he refused to make any other phone available to her. Testimony was presented that there was obscene verbal abuse by the father in these phone calls against the mother as the father does everything he can to prevent any and all contact with their mother including repeatedly picking up and hanging up. Witness declarations were presented that specified what the father does during the court -ordered phone contact.  The court decided to grant a permanent restraining order for the father against the mother based on phone calls that the mother made exclusively to  her children.  There were no harassing or annoying phone calls made in accordance with penal code 653 m to the father. Instead the father could not tolerate that the mother had ANY contact with her children and tried to do everything he could do to destroy that relationship including inflating the number of alleged phone calls when he refused to make any other phone available.  The court maliciously left the phone contact order in place at the restraining order hearing in order to allow the father to proceed with contempt of court.

True to form the father marches to a police station to attempt to institute a 592 contempt of court charge against the mother using the same insane unsubstantiated allegations that he made in a court of law, which every trained professional would recognize as an attempt to irreparably harm a mother child bond.  The police declined to consider the information that was provided to them as a violation of a restraining order in their police report which specified that a mother is attempting to speak to her children.  No one has bothered to question the obvious attempt and annihilation of parent child bond as demonstrated by the parent in this case who will NOT refrain from harming the parent child bond. No one has bothered to ask what this parent is actually doing to FACILITATE a healthy parent child relationship, the operative word being healthy that does not involve the presence of that parent and the constant abusive actions designed to harm a parent child bond.  Any normal parent is capable of putting aside their issues with the other parent for the sake of children, just not the parent who will never stop attempting to destroy the bond that exists and refuses to acknowledge that the other parent is in fact a parent. Those are the actions fostered by the Riverside Superior Court to the detriment of any child involved in this type of scenario.

An appeal was filed where the fourth district division two appellate court partially reversed the restraining order. However, the partial reversal was in error as it  contained several mistakes in the opinion, including citing evidence that did not exist and was never presented, i.e. inventing fictitious phone calls not substantiated by phone records.   When this was pointed out to Justice Ramirez at oral argument he specified that the appellate court would take another look at their “opinion”. Instead Justice McKinster who coined the opinion fixated on his invented phone calls that were never made and that are not supported by the record in order to uphold his opinion rather than doing the right thing and completely reversing the restraining order. https://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/4th-district-division-two-appeals-court-invents-evidence-in-an-unpublished-opinion/

restr1

 

rest2

Image

Image

Advertisements

4 comments on “The Domestic violence standard of the Riverside Superior Court.

  1. In order to accumulate allegedly “harassing” phone calls made by a mother to her children in the court-allocated time, this individual repeatedly picked up the phone and hung up or answered the phone braying like a donkey and hung up.
    In contrast, documented evidence of his harassment and stalking, the vilest obscenities and even threats to beat her to death left on her phone which meet the criteria of domestic violence, were dismissed and excused by the court as “an expression of frustration”.

  2. Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse and commented:

    An appeal was filed where the fourth district division two appellate court partially reversed the restraining order. However, the partial reversal was in error as it contained several mistakes in the opinion, including citing evidence that did not exist and was never presented, i.e. inventing fictitious phone calls not substantiated by phone records. When this was pointed out to Justice Ramirez at oral argument he specified that the appellate court would take another look at their “opinion”. Instead Justice McKinster who coined the opinion fixated on his invented phone calls that were never made and that are not supported by the record in order to uphold his opinion rather than doing the right thing and completely reversing the restraining order.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s