Judge xxxxxxxx specifies that he will speak to children in chambers without the consent of the other parent and refuses to address violations of a restraining order.

On 6/11/2015 Judge xxxxxx held a proceeding without the other parent present and promised the appearing parent that he would speak to the children in chambers.

This case has a history of children being brainwashed and dragged into court which this appearing parent relies on. The children in this case are very aware of who the Riverside Superior Court as the other parent has continually brainwashed two young children that they will be appearing in court.

Emails were presented to the court that quite clearly violate the permanent restraining order in place, including a threat that children will be taken to court, and Judge xxxxxx only concern was to promise something without addressing the utterly devastating impact this will have on young children who are living with the parent who has a history of domestic abuse, coercion, and blackmail and that the children could appear in the case without any protection, from the utterly devastating and cruel impact of court proceedings and the brainwashing actions of the coercive and abusive parent.

At a proceeding on 12/15/2014 Judge xxxxxx categorically stated that he NEVER hears children in chambers, and that only the mediators may interview children.

Judge xxxxxx on the court’s own motion took the above mentioned hearing off calendar, and there are no further proceedings in this case. Judge xxxxxxx promised the parent with a domestic violence restraining order against him and who continually violates that restraining order that children could appear, instead of once again again addressing the facts of the case.

As a result the parent with the permanent restraining order which has a complete personal conduct order and a 100 yard stay away order sent the below email, once again violating the restraining order in place.

The “parent” below has all the relevant phone numbers and it’s the same behavior that has been going on for five years, where a psychopath fabricates material to use in court proceedings, after violating the permanent restraining order and keeps harassing another parent deliberately to interfere in that parent’s custodial time.

From: xxxxxx

To: xxxxxxxxx

Subject: FW: wake up!

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:23:04 -0500

I have no current contact number for you or the children…. this is a violation of the court order and you will face contempt…… please provide contact numbers…… for you and the children or I will take you to court….. The judge agreed to talk to the children so please make sure they are present for your next court date

The court has failed to address the rebuttal presumption to custody in its entirety and failed to apply the correct legal standard as all of Judge xxxxx cases have an order in place that a person who has a permanent restraining order in place needs to demonstrate that this person has to complete a 52 week batterers treatment program. The 52 week program is a mandatory requirement to combat the rebuttable presumption under CA family code 3044 (b). Just not in this case as this parent is protected by the Riverside Superior Court.

As a result and based on the promise of Judge xxxxx, children will be subjected to severe harassment and brainwashing, rather than addressing the domestic violence restraining order in place. Precedent published family law cases have stated that exposing children to court proceedings is a basis to grant a restraining order against the offending party, IN RE MARRIAGE OF HARTMANN, (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 1247

Family and juvenile courts routinely protect children from court exposure just not the Indio family law department. Mediators and evaluators are prohibited from pressuring children to state a custodial preference as it violates the California rules of court, California rules of Court 5.220 h (7), Not pressure children to state a custodial preference. The Riverside Superior Court has a a history of using mediators who ask children if they fear the other parent and to state a custodial preference and who misrepresent everything that is stated to conform to existing orders rather than addressing the facts of the case.

Interested parents would like to know how the court would like to accommodate the rampant desire of preferred parents who specialize in alienating their children from the other parent to drag children into court proceedings in a 10-15 minute hearing, with a judicial officer who has no training in child psychology and who will needlessly terrorize children.

Advertisements

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