Dear Isabelle,
Court has been going for three years now and all the things or believes I have had in my life about the legal system have been destroyed.
I thought when people are arrested for a crime or assault they could no longer hurt the person they assaulted. However that is not even close to the truth. The law does not matter without money to pay for your rights under the law.
I have lost my son, I might loose my daughter and the man how admitted to beating me in front of them for year might receive custody of everything I love out of spite and anger. He actually after all the years I cared for the kids while he worked accused me falsely of abuse in order to harm my character more.
I cant imagine my life without my children, the darkness inside me takes over every day with the pain and possibilities of the lies being used as a false truth in a court of law. SO as you can read Isabelle the Law doesn't seem to work in all these years I am still be subjected to the harm of this system and below is what I plead to the court every day to return my children home.
The children and me their Mother has been the main care provider for our two children since birth up until our son moved to his father’s house in Oakland CA, in July 2017. Our daughter has proven developmental challenges since birth that mother has managed alone and helped her succeed at overcoming. She had several episodes of tonicclonic seizures and was treated with Phenobarbital. She was transferred from Alta Bates-Summit to Hospital to Children’s Hospital Oakland, where she remained in the NICU. Her medical history also includes diagnosis of global hypoxic-ischemic event. Her second brain MRI scan showed symmetrical bilateral focal cerebral edema associated with diffusion restriction as well as evidence suggestive of cortical laminar necrosis. On day one of life Her was noted to have right side tonic clonic jerking and other episodes involved with lower extremities as well as left neck tonic seizures lasting 30 to 60 seconds. CFM showed subclinical seizures bilaterally. MRI showed symmetric bilaterally local C Embro edema associated with diffusion restrictions and repeated patterns of cortical and subcorticol TI & T2, search suggesting cortical Laminar Nerosis. It has been advised by specialist that it would be detrimental for her to be out of my care at such the young age of three especially since her father will not acknowledge these challenges and has no experience in managing her needs. She has been in programs and with developmental specialists for years apart of the regional center, placer county education department and head of neurology at two major hospitals. Our son who now resides with his father is suffering and has declined since being in his care academically and emotionally after showing major progress his 2017 year at Sierra Hills in Placer County with Mother. (see attached Exhibit A Report Card for him) His current school has said he might even be repeating the 2ndgrade.
The parties have been in an ongoing custody battle since 2011 that was restarted after the Respondent was arrested for violent crimes including violation of restraining orders and assault in 2015. This case began with the respondent having a restraining order for five years issued against him in 2011. He has NOT changed since then and in 2015 was arrested and admitted to assaulting Petitioner in front of the children. The history of this case is long, convoluted and now creating too much stress on the parties son He/ him who is now 8 years old. Petitioner has previously and continually submitted clear and convincing evidence of these facts. Petitioner has shown her ability to compromise and move past this case history the entire length of proceedings and tried to help by offering to go to co-parenting counseling, or dropping a restraining order and more. Even after the state pressed charges and the respondent attempted to use He/ him as a witness in criminal court, the Petitioner asked the DA to stop proceedings so He/ him would not be used in this case by the respondent as a witness. Due to the fact He/ him is young it would cause psychological damage for any child to testify in these type of proceedings or be used against the other parent. He/ him truly doesn't understand the consequences of his own words and does not want either of his parents harmed.
Alameda County Family court services and other external therapists have previously recommend no contact with father in the past, I have had evidence submitted to all parties, the court and evaluator, and minors counsel showing that I am and have been in therapy regularly for years, dating back to 2008. That I have had He/ him in therapy since 2016 while in my care through the victims comp program of CA and never once asked his father to pay for any of it.
At the hearing in January 12, 2015 the Mediator dr. Ajaniku PHD from FCC who had been involved in this case since 2011 Recommended that there be no visitation to the Respondent As recommended by Dr. Ajaniku PHD, at Family Court Services of Alameda County who had been working on our case since 2011 when the first restraining order was issued against Matthew. See Transcripts and recommendation. Then in August 11ththe Second Family Court Services Mediator Recommended the children live with me full time and visit their father three weekends a month and talk to them every night if he wants. Her recommendation is available to the court again and a reasonable solution given the current situation.
This evidence and more shows the respondents request for full custody of both children is not logical. And shows his unwillingness to compromise in order to do what is best for the children. (see Exhibit B for Aug 11thRecommendation)
Petitioner was also granted custody of another child in the last few years through the state of CA foster care system. This is in addition to her older son Jacob and her two children with the Respondent. Her new daughter (Rosa) is thriving and the petitioner has had other social workers in her home regularly for years monitoring the children. Petitioner does not have any arrest reports and unlike the respondent who has violated restraining orders, admitted to assault and more the Petitioner does not have a history of violence or mental issues period.
The respondent has admitted to his crimes multiple times providing clear and convincing evidence of his violent acts in front of the children. Statements from respondent or his declarations admitting to striking or hitting petitioner in front of the children include but are not limited too. His own testimony admitting to hitting petitioner in the presence of their children or while she was holding their daughter with special needs.
In the his filed signed response from 4/28/2016the respondent stated on page 4 paragraph 22 Re: the police report or event November 29th, 2015 the defendant stated “In response without thinking, I slapped her”
IN his filed Signed response to my request for renewal of the RFO dated12/21/2015the respondent stated on page 5 Paragraph 10 and 11 “Mother was holding our daughter, Aurora, when ... As an instinctual response I slapped mother”.
At the hearing last year in person and in the transcripts:
Transcripts 2-22-2017
Police Statement Page 8 - Officer confirmed that HE admitted to hitting me.
Police Statement Page 21 – Officer confirmed marks from HE hitting petitioner
Page 132 Line 12 & 13 - HE admitted to slapping Petitioner
Transcripts 3-27-17
Pages 6 & 7 - MR. PORRINO: “Mr……., and my client, as well as the son, both, have stated that, in fact, he did hit her”
Page 12 – THE COURT: “and then he hit back.”
The trauma the parties son is suddenly experiencing is from being used as a witness by opposing counsel inappropriately, and being torn away from his siblings which include not only Her in the Petitioners home but two others older than him his half or adopted siblings Rosa and Jacob.
As of today the respondent and his counsel have refused to meet and confer as the Rules of the Superior Court of California, Alameda County require under Rule 5.45 and in Accordance with the Pre Trial Oder issued by the court on March 2, 2018. Opposing Counsel has NOT met and conferred with Petitioner, in order to stipulate a statement of facts, formulate specific stipulations regarding admissibility of evidence offered at trial, including, but not limited to the admission of any document for which preparation and service is required. Or through any written report or opinion of any witness. The only response that the Petitioner has received was an email on March 1, 2018 stating they will only agree to removing the Petitioners Parental Rights and giving the Respondent full custody of both children and limiting the access of the children to mother. This is an unreasonable outrageous request as the only means of settling this case out of court. It Is evidence in itself he should NOT be granted his request.
The current Issues before the court mainly revolve around custody, child support, visitation, and the evaluators report performed by Dr. Elizabeth Braunstein. The Respondent and his attorney have not met with the Petitioner as required and the other pending issues have not been discussed or decided. Petitioner sent another Letter to Meet and Confer to the court and Opposing Counsel on February 27, 2018. Further evidence of Petitioners efforts includes the fact that the petitioner has tried to ask the Respondent to attend co-parenting counseling and on Wednesday February 21st2018 they met at the offices of Carolyn Whear in Richmond CA, and she tried to discuss with Mr. Laycock for two hours to try and defuses the situation and talk about a parent plan again.
· The respondent refuses and responded with accusations and anger
· The Respondent Refuses Co-Parenting counseling, as previously recommended by the Family Court Services (Exhibit A)
· The only thing that can be agreed upon is that this trial and case needs to end now for the children sake and for the sake of everyone.
The bottom line is this case cannot continue anymore. Logan is clearly suffering The petitioner has not received further information in accordance with the Pretrial Order or in the appropriate amount of time and discovery has not been requested to the knowledge of the Petitioner. The only response that the Petitioner has received was an email on March 1, 2018 stating they will only agree to removing the Petitioners Parental Rights and giving the Respondent full custody of both children and limiting the access of the children to mother. Other witness may not be available for trial as well.
Petitioners Position
Petitioner is Certified by the State as a Foster Care Family Home and has a proven record of helping children with trauma. The State, and other social workers and DOJ have performed regular background checks to investigate her home with phyc evaluations, and more meeting the qualifications of the new standards for the state in order to certify her to foster or adopt any child in California. Petitioner has succeeded in cases with many children in her own home who have lost contact with their families and when the systems reunification programs fail. She has succeeded at reuniting them with family and repairing relationships between families while working with therapists, and social workers or probation offices etc. in multiple counties across California. Which is evidence in its self that the respondent is basically requesting that the Petitioner loose parental rights to their biological kids but I can go adopt or foster anyone else’s in the state of California. In fact, in cases like the one before the court with a proven record of violence the court must take it into consideration when determining custody Family Law Section 3111, 3040, 30203044.
(a) Upon a finding by the court that a party seeking custody of a child has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child or against the child or the child’s siblings within the previous five years, there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child, pursuant to Section 3011. In making an order granting custody to either parent, the court shall ALSO consider, among other factors, which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent, consistent with Sections 3011 and 3020. The court, in its discretion, may require the parents to submit to the court a plan for the implementation of the custody order.
The respondent has admitted to his crimes multiple times providing clear and convincing evidence of his violent acts in front of the children.
Thus the petitioner is asking the court to consider these admitted acts of violence by the respondent. That even the police have testified and confirmed in court on the record. The respondents own testimony and the testimony of police as noted dictates the the option for the Judge to treat this case as a domestic violence case if the court has decided that one parent committed domestic violence against the other parent or the children. If the judge otherwise, will decide based on all the evidence in the case and not decide based onlyon the conclusions or recommendations of Family Court Services staff or a child custody evaluator. Furthermore according to the laws cited custody cannot be given to the person who committed or admitted to acts of violence against the other parent. AND The only way To do so, the judge must consider if that parent:
· Completed a 52-week batterer’s program
· Complete an alcohol or drug abuse program or
· a parenting class
· Follow all terms of probation or parole or a
· protective or restraining order
· AND Violation of a protection order can be treated as a felony, misdemeanor, or contempt of court I filed an approved affidavit for contempt in
· That was NEVER heard and still pending showing evidence that the respondent violated restraining order in 2016 by his own admittance of doing so in May 2016.
The respondent has NOT completed any programs or anger management to the knowledge of the Petitioner at this time.
The petitioner believes that only reason this case has continued is because the respondent has some serious issues with anger towards her and will do anything to harm her, That he is even willing commit perjury, use their Son Logan in proceedings as a witness or break the law as he has done in the past in order to get his way by committing crimes, admittedly assaulting the Petitioner, and violating restraining orders to try and control her life since 2011. This case is NOT being settled or moving forward due to the actions, of Mr. Porrino and his client insist. Petitioner has numerous letters, emails and more proving her statements, are true and the court can debate this all day BUT in the end the evidence is on the Petitioners side.
Petitioner also does not have legal counsel and cannot afford an attorney because she is no longer employed. WHICH Has been proven. Petitioner is interviewing and hopes to start working from home again in the next few weeks to accommodate the children’s needs. This makes her the indignant parent since Respondent makes over $300K a year consistently since 2013. She has regularly have submitted evidence to the Court, Opposing Counsel, Minors Counsel and others showing she is interviewing for Jobs
Petitioner DOES NOT want to keep the children from their father. She does NOT want to remove his parental rights and will not agree to the removal of her parental rights. The petitioner has the time and skill set needed to care for ALL the children in her home and Logan. The petitioner would like all the siblings to be together with all their siblings in her home with a proven stable environment that has a proven track record of doing what is in all of their best interests.
· It is NOT in the children’s best interest to be removed from the Petitioners life
· The Petitioner is the parent promoting consistent and continues contact with the children and their father.
· The Petitioner is the parent showing support and neutrality with the children to ensure a nurturing relationship with their father.
· The Petitioner is NOT placing limitations on his access to them as the Respondent does and leaves that for the discretion for the court.
· The Petitioner is NOT interfering with the Respondents rights to be involved in their life, and leaves that for the discretion for the court.
The petitioner asks the court to make an order to end litigation and in the best for all these kids and allow them to have a relationship with all their siblings in her home. Make an order with the courts authority in their best interest today. By allowing Logan to come home and return to the positive environment he was thriving in and get the help he needs with the parent (the Petitioner) who does not work 12 hour days and can help him by giving him the attention he needs. Allow the petitioner to continue the incredible work she does with ALL her children all four of them and allow this family to heal without being in court all the time. That would be the Petitioners desire.
Then if the respondent and his attorney want to pursue the elimination of my parental rights and make claims against me, they can do it independently and provide me with proper notice of their intentions so I can then ask for an award of attorney’s fees and obtain counsel. I can no longer properly represent myself against the consist attacks anymore and I will not Condon the continuation of this case when it is obviously harming our son.
The petitioner has been on the defense for so long trying to figure out what to do without proper representation, while being bullied and knows that the reality and facts are so convoluted she cannot possibly defend herself at at trial. However she has provided clear and convincing evidence of her continued efforts to do what is in the nest interest of the children in accordance with the laws.
If the court wishes to proceed to a trial, a trail that is not needed, then the petitioner will need to get a job and an attorney to help defend herself. She will need to conduct discovery and need time to properly be allowed time to defend herself after being told on March 1, 2018 by the Opposing Counsel of their intentions to request the removal of her parental rights. She is NOT an authority of the court and cannot defend herself at this level. When facing the request for removal of parental rights it is in the courts and everyone’s best interest to protect her interests and the court can assign her an attorney, or can award attorney fees under Family Code section 3020, 3121 and 2030 which states the court shall make an order awarding attorney's fees and costs to A party who lacks the financial ability to hire an attorney. This request can be made in court anytime, as an InProPer litigant. That the court orders the party with the means to pay, which obviously the respondent does have the financial ability to pay a reasonable amount to allow the petitioner, the unrepresented party to retain an attorney in a timely manner before proceedings in the matter go any further or move forward.
Petitioner is unclear of what else if anything at this time can be done to help these kids. Petitioner is NOT an authority of the court, and does not have proper representation, and cannot afford to go to trial. However the evidence available today and that has already been submitted to the court, minors counsel, opposing counsel and others PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt the petitioner is NOT the parent that should be questioned. She is the Parent that has proven to be fit, without a history of violence and has a proven track record with the State of California to be able to provide a suitable household for all of these kids mine, his, ours, and any child in the state of California. I have shown this court that beyond a reasonable doubt I have tried to settle this, I have sacrificed the restraining order and more to try and settle this case. Petitioner employs the court to consider the evidence she is again presenting today including the respondents own testimony admitting to violence in front of the kids be considered and that these kids NOT be used as witnesses in court proceedings by the respondent.
SO as you can read Isabelle the Law doesn't seem to work in all these years I am still be subjected to the harm of this system and below is what I plead to the court every day to return my children home.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.