I just got a call from Raven Harris at CPS. She was returning my call about viewing the CPS file on me. Comm. Joseph advised me in court that I had a right to view the file. He used that as an excuse to postpone the hearing. I had told the Comm. Joseph that I had the CPS narrative report on me, and that there probably isn't much else in the file anyway. He said no, and that the report is probably only 10% of the file.
Ms. Harris now says that CPS cannot let me see the file now, because the Commissioner has requested the file. The file is now with the family court, and CPS does not have it. She also didn't see why I was so interested in seeing the file, since I had gotten a copy of the narrative report. I explained to her that I didn't expect to find anything interesting in the file either, but I was just trying to comply with the judge.
I asked her if the family court realizes that they are sitting on the only copy of the file. She assured me that the family court knows what it is doing, but there is no predicting what it will do with the file.
She said that she would have someone call me next week when and if the family court returns the file. I told her that I have a court hearing on Jan. 4, and that I was hoping to view it before then. At this point, she admitted that it was all on a computer, and that she could just print out another copy if necessary. I still would not get to keep a copy, but I could look at it.
Now I am wondering what Comm. Joseph is doing with the file. In a real court, the judge is not supposed to see any evidence unless the parties to the case first get copies. Usually, judges do not solicit any evidence directly; one party must try to get the evidence admitted, and the other party is allowed to object before the judge will even look at it.
Now I've got the problem that the judge or his clerk has probably read false allegations about me, and I don't even know what the allegations are. There could be raw bogus anonymous allegations in the file that no one has bothered to check. I really don't see any excuse for the court to bypass the regular rules of evidence. There are reasons for those rules that avoid prejudicing the judge with one side of the story, or with accusations that don't amount to any admissible evidence.