appelcourtmuppetA person would be hard pressed to invent the escapades and shenanigans of the court of appeal. In the latest saga Justice Richli denied a perfectly valid appeal citing the “alleged” incidences of the former husband in a similar appeal where supposedly “alleged” instances are cited.  That appeal has been pending for over TWO years in contrast to another case where the record on appeal was filed in 2 months.


Her alleged merit standard is once again based on pure fiction as according to CCP 917.7:

The perfecting of an appeal shall not stay proceedings as to
those provisions of a judgment or order which award, change, or
otherwise affect the custody, including the right of visitation, of a
minor child in any civil action, in an action filed under the
Juvenile Court Law, or in a special proceeding, or the provisions of
a judgment or order for the temporary exclusion of a party from a
dwelling, as provided in the Family Code. However, the trial court
may in its discretion stay execution of these provisions pending
review on appeal or for any other period or periods that it may deem
appropriate. Further, in the absence of a writ or order of a
reviewing court providing otherwise, the provisions of the judgment
or order allowing, or eliminating restrictions against, removal of
the minor child from the state are stayed by operation of law for a
period of seven calendar days from the entry of the judgment or order
by a juvenile court in a dependency hearing, or for a period of 30
calendar days from the entry of judgment or order by any other trial

In addition a litigant has the statutory right to seek protection under CA family code section 6200 to prevent new incidents of domestic violence, especially since an ex-spouse and children have been exposed to years of abusive conduct, all considered incidences of domestic violence by this very same appeal court. Contrary to the “alleged” opinion of Justice Richli who is not exposed to this behavior on a constant behavior a notice of appeal does not STAY the actions of the abusive parent.

The “alleged” incidences that Justice Richli comments on are based on evidence presented that consisted of a threat of physical harm to beat a parent to death and the obscene verbal abuse that children witness and are a party to and the harassing and obscene emails and text messages that a parent is peppered with as the other parent is frustrated that this parent is still alive.

Justice Richi of course declined to comment on the fact that the restraining order also contained an abduction risk prevention order as the other parent has abducted the children out of state and is an abduction risk as this parent has repeatedly withheld the children and concealed them from the other parent. This of course is not cited in Justice Richli’s alleged subjective merit standard which does not comply with the holding mandated in In re Marriage of Flaherty, (1982) 646 P. 2d 179, or in In re Sade C., (1996) 13 Cal. 4Th 952 as the other parent is a U.S. citizen. CA family code 3064 specifies that the court shall refrain from instituting an exparte unless there is an immediate risk that the children will be taken out of state. In this case the children were included in a change of custody order in the domestic restraining order citing the abuse they are involved in and witness and evidence was presented that the children were taken out of State. It was mandatory that the court address it pursuant to CA family code 3048.

Needless to say every parent has been given free license to abduct their children out of state and to engage in abuse involving their ex spouses where children are the preferred target of abuse as Justice Richli said they could do so. Everyone just needs to point to the Fourth District Court of Appeal as their excuse and justification to abduct children and to engage in domestic violence and NO ONE will hold them accountable. This is what the state of family law justice in this country looks like. The writ petition was denied based on the exact same wording as specified in Justice Richli’s epistle above where the writ is referenced as an appeal.

order deniedrestrainig order 12262013a


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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