Ex-wife designates record

I just got a copy of this:

A. It is requested that the following documents in the superior court file be included in the clerk's transcript:

1. Notice of appeal
2. Notice designating record on appeal (this document)
3. Judgment or order appealed from
4. Notice of entry of judgment (if any)
5. Notice of intention to move for new trial or motion to vacate the judgment, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for reconsideration of an appealed order (if any)
6. Ruling on item 5
7. Register of actions (if any)
8. Dr. Bret Johnson's (Evaluation) Status Report, signed by Dr. Johnson on November 3, 2004
9. Findings and Order After Hearing for the March 25, 2005 hearing
10. Minutes for the March 25, 2005 hearing
11. Petitioner's Status Report for Review Hearing re Safety Issues and Parenting Plan, filed June 27, 2005
12. Petitioner's Status Report for Review Hearing re Psychological Evaluation and Parenting Plan for the October 11, 2005 hearing, 8:30 a.m., in Dept: 4
13. Amended Petitioner's Status Report for Financial Issues (Child and Spousal Support) filed December 8, 2005
14. Human Resource Agency's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Response To Subpoena Duces Tecum and Subpoena (Testimony) for the January 4. 2008 hearing at 1:30 p.m., Dept. 4
15. Peitioner's Status Memo, filed January 2, 2008

B. It is requested that the following EXHIBITS admitted into evidence or marked
for identification be copied into clerk's transcript on appeal All Exhibits

Julie Travers, February 8, 2008

This is all routine except for item (14). Apparently CPS had a lawyer write some sort of memo to the court in connection with Sally Mitchell's testimony against me on Jan. 4. I never saw it or knew that it existed. I don't even know what it is about, as it was not mentioned in court.

If CPS lawyers had argued for some sort of confidentiality, then that memo would be the place to do it, I guess. If I had been served a copy, as they are supposed to do, then I could have addressed in court whatever issues were raised. I guess that I will find out when I get the appellate record.

It was not until Jan. 25 that Comm. Irwin H. Joseph ordered that Ms. Mitchell's transcript be kept confidential, and backdated his order to Jan. 11. Those from the public who were present on Jan. 4 in court had no notice that anything was confidential. I do not think that the lawyer memo would be confidential.

At this point, I just hope the appeals court gets all the facts, and nothing is covered up.