There are two types of people involved in this case: one that is influenced by Respondent’s stories who then automatically decides to ignore the testimony of me AND Lily, and one who is willing to allow a person regardless of age to speak for their self when they clearly can.

For over a year, the judge has offered me absolutely nothing I’ve pleaded for and demonstrated I deserve. Why would he expect that I should be contented with that?

Ventura County Superior Court Judges …improper interpretation of law?

  • Family Code § 4320(i) states “Documented evidence, including a plea of nolo contendere, of any history of domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211, between the parties or perpetrated by either party against either party’s child, including, but not limited to, consideration of emotional distress resulting from domestic violence perpetrated against the supported party by the supporting party, and consideration of any history of violence against the supporting party by the supported party.”
  • FC § 3042(f) “To assist the court in determining whether the child wishes to express his or her preference or to provide other input regarding custody or visitation to the court, a minor s counsel, an evaluator, an investigator, or a mediator who provides recommendations to the judge pursuant to Section 3183 shall indicate to the judge that the child wishes to address the court, or the judge may make that inquiry in the absence of that request. A party or a party’s attorney may also indicate to the judge that the child wishes to address the court or judge.”
  • 2016 California Rules of Court, Rule 5.250: “Children’s participation and testimony in family court proceedings”
    • (a) Children’s participation
      This rule is intended to implement Family Code section 3042. Children’s participation in family law matters must be considered on a case-by-case basis. No statutory mandate, rule, or practice requires children to participate in court or prohibits them from doing so. When a child wishes to participate, the court should find a balance between protecting the child, the statutory duty to consider the wishes of and input from the child, and the probative value of the child’s input while ensuring all parties’ due process rights to challenge evidence relied upon by the court in making custody decisions.
    • (b) Determining if the child wishes to address the court
      • (1) The following persons must inform the court if they have information indicating that a child in a custody or visitation (parenting time) matter wishes to address the court:
        • (A) A minor’s counsel;
        • (B) An evaluator;
        • (C) An investigator; and
        • (D) A child custody recommending counselor who provides recommendations to the judge under Family Code section 3183.
      • (2) The following persons may inform the court if they have information indicating that a child wishes to address the court:
        • (A) A party; and
          • (B) A party’s attorney.
      • (3) In the absence of information indicating a child wishes to address the court, the judicial officer may inquire whether the child wishes to do so.

Judge’s improper summary to me, paraphrased: I don’t believe you’ve been wronged, even though you’ve proved it, so go get a job and pay your abusive ex wife because “the law”.

Respondent’s actions against me show premeditation based on her mental instability, however her actions to cover up any evidence of her mental instability shows that she *is* cognizant of her illegal actions.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This