Friday, October 31, 2008

Response to a reader

A reader commented:
Perhaps all of the experts might know more about what is best for the children than you. ... You need to take a long, hard look at your life and ask yourself why would the courts rule against you again and again. These people have years or training and education ...
We have been to about ten experts in connection with this divorce case, and not one of them ever suggested that I should be separated from my kids. Only Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph has ever said that.

They did not all have training and education either. CPS social worker Sally Mitchell did not testify that she had any special training or education. She never went to college, as far as I know. Bret K. Johnson did have some sort of education as a psychologist, but his only expertise was in talking to gay men about getting out of the closet. Neither of them presented any credentials when they testified.

I would tell you exactly what Sally Mitchell said, but Cmr. Joseph and Julie Travers made an out-of-court deal to prosecute me if I did. I will tell you when the appellate court reverses Cmr. Joseph's orders.

My writ petition

Here is an excerpt from my petition, filed yesterday:
I respectfully petition this Court for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. I have been convicted of contempt by the Santa Cruz family court, and I await sentencing. A gag order has imposed a prior restraint on my free speech. I have also been denied access to my kids for nearly a year.

I believe that I am the first person in the entire history of the United States to be convicted for copying evidence that was publicly presented against me in open court. I also believe that I have been denied access to my kids for the most trivial reasons in history.

The evidence at issue was the Jan. 4, 2008, testimony of Santa Cruz County (CPS) social worker Sally Mitchell who admitted during cross-examination that I had not committed any single act of abuse, that my kids were not subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and that the worst thing I ever did to my kids was to reset the alarm clock for 7:00 so that they may get ready for school. She also testified that she disapproved of the “sum total” of my parenting practices. This testimony was used to take my kids away from me, and I have not seen them since. (I am not quoting full sentences out of fear that I could get punished with an extra five days in jail.)

My petition is based on my Santa Cruz family court. Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph issued child custody, confidentiality, and child support orders in Jan. 2008. I have contested the legality of those orders before the California 6th Appellate District. The case has been fully briefed and is awaiting oral argument.

While I continue to maintain that those Jan. 2008 orders were illegal for all the reasons stated in my appeal, this petition is not primarily concerned with that. This petition concerns my attempts to obey those Jan. 2008 orders, and how the lower court has reneged on them, and even punished me and my kids for obeying them.
I don't see how Cmr. Joseph and my ex-wife can possibly justify what they have done.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Petitioned for writ

I just filed a petition for a writ with the California appeals court. The process is similar to an appeal. Basically, it is a complaint to a higher court that a trial court did something wrong.

In this case, my complaint is that Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph has denied my free speech rights, and denied my right to see my kids. It is a complaint against Cmr. Joseph, rather than my ex-wife.

I am not sure what happens next. If the appeals court takes my petition seriously, then I think it will ask for more written or oral arguments. The court is supposed to consider my petition, and act on it quickly if appropriate. It sometimes acts in a week or so. I hope it is faster than the appeal I filed in January, because I am still waiting on oral arguments for that.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Censoring this blog

I am purging this blog of all text that was censored by Cmr. Joseph's order on Friday. If I understand him correctly, it just affects the postings on Dec. 3 and June 29.

My ex-wife also complained about these pictures and the postings on Dec. 13, Jan. 8, Jan. 9, Jan. 27, Feb. 7, Feb. 25, July 30, Aug. 8, and Aug. 24. Cmr. Joseph said that I do not have to remove these.

Julie, please let me know if I have made any mistakes.

Cmr. Joseph himself says that he is not allowed to view my blog, but he has admitted that he has an employee who has reported to him about it. So whoever you are, please tell me directly if you think that I have failed to censor anything that your boss wants censored.

Also on Friday, this blog and other Blogger blogs were banned in Turkey by a Turkish judge. No relation to Cmr. Joseph, as far as I know.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Elkins Task Force

I have commented before that the Elkins task force has the potential to recommend some useful reforms to the family court. Someone just forwarded this to me:
As part of the statewide Elkins Family Law Task Force the Santa Cruz Superior Court has been asked to participate in two Family Law Focus groups, one in English and one in Spanish to take place at the Watsonville Public Library the first week of November during the noon hour. The litigants participating can be represented or self represented litigants. Litigants will be asked about their overall experience with family law proceedings therefore the focus groups need litigants who are at least half way through their court process (for instance a divorce). The only family law case types that can not participate are DV only cases and adoptions. Each litigant will received a $75 gift card. Attached are brochures regarding this project, English and Spanish.

If you have any clients interested please have them contact the focus group consultant directly, e-mail is preferable. The consultant will screen for eligibility and give the specific dates of the focus group. Her name and contact information is:

Christine Kalinowski
(310) 339 3969
This appears to be an opportunity for public input.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Found in contempt and awaiting sentencing

I am now the first person in American history to be found in contempt for disclosing the evidence that was presented against me publicly in open court.

Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph seemed to regret that he let Tuesday's trial get out of control, and today he just wanted my ex-wife to testify that she downloaded the CPS testimony from my website, and to interrogate me under oath.

After confirming that the case against me had finished being presented, I made a motion to dismiss the charges. I gave a list of facts that were not under dispute, and then explained how there is no way to convict me under those facts.

I got into a little argument with Cmr. Joseph over whether I had to testify. At first, he refused to rule on my motion until I committed myself to telling him whether I was going to testify. If I was going to testify, then he did not want to rule on my motion until I finished testifying. I told him that I was undecided on whether to testify, and I would tell him after he rules on my motion. He eventually relented, and ruled against my motion.

I then declined to testify, and he found me guilty of one count of contempt of court.

I expected him to sentence right then to five days in jail, but he announced that he was supposed to wait a minimum of six hours and a maximum of five days before sentencing. We already had court appearances scheduled for Nov. 5 and 10 on other matters, but those were not within the allowable time frame. So we would have to make an extra trip into court for sentencing, unless I waived the time limits. I asked him whether he would have the bailiff immediately handcuff me and throw me in jail if I waived the time limits, and he said no, that only happens in the movies.

So I waived the time limits. Cmr. Joseph then indicated that he was in no hurry to sentence me, and may not sentence me for months. In the meantime, I have to purge this blog of quotes from the CPS agent.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Judge wants to redo the trial

I just got a call from Cmr. Joseph's office at 8:05 this morning. The caller identified herself as Janet, and she was calling to see if I can come into court tomorrow! She would only say that it was to continue the contempt hearing.

I thought that the trial was over. I thought that Cmr. Joseph said that he collected all the evidence he needed, and he would issue a ruling based on some legal research. I thought that the US Constitution said that I cannot be put in double jeopardy for the same offense.

I said that I could show up tomorrow. Janet said that she had to confirm a time with my ex-wife, and called back a few minutes later to say that we were scheduled for 10:30 in Watsonville.

I don't know what is going on. My best guess is that Cmr. Joseph realizes that he screwed up the trial and wants to do it over again. Or maybe it is just a trick to get me into court so he can handcuff and jail me. I don't know.

Meanwhile, here is an amusing case where a suburban mayor was just put in double jeopardy:
Suburban NYC cop tickets his own mayor - twice

MAMARONECK, N.Y. - Can you beat City Hall?

The question is pending for a police officer who ticketed his mayor.

In March, Officer Michael Petrillo pulled over Mayor Kathleen Savolt in the bedroom community of Mamaroneck, just outside of New York City, for using her cellphone while driving.

The mayor argued the incoming call was an emergency and she was in an area where she couldn't pull over.

A judge agreed and dismissed the case Sept. 15, but Petrillo wasn't done.

That night, he rang Savolt's doorbell and issued a second ticket, saying he thought the judge's decision was wrong.

"He said to me, 'I think the ticket was unfairly dismissed, so I'm issuing a duplicate ticket,"' Savolt said Tuesday. "So then, once I was issued a second ticket, clearly in some people's minds it's not a legal ticket because the case had been closed."

Savolt's next court date had not yet been scheduled.

Police Chief Steven Anderson wouldn't comment.
Now there is a cop with a lot of nerve. I suggest transferring him to New York City where they have some real crimes, and let him channel some of that aggression against gangsters and drug dealers.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

I could still get jail

Three people attended my contempt trial yesterday. Two were friends of mine, and one was a reporter whom I had never met before. Cmr. Joseph confronted the reporter about having an audio recording device, and she identified herself as a reporter and admitted having a recording device. Cmr. Joseph mumbled something about her not having notified the court about recording. I don't know whether she recorded the hearing or not.

To my surprise, the three attendees were of the opinion that I would be sentenced to jail when Cmr. Joseph issues his opinion next week. I did not get an opportunity to present my case; the judge objected to most of my questions; I spent most of my time arguing with the judge; the judge said that my legal arguments were wrong; the evidence is on the website; and the judge had his mind made up. Or so they said. I thought that I argued for my innocence as best as I could.

The reporter even went so far as to say that I did a terrible job, and that I should hire a lawyer.

We will see. I could not deny what was posted to the website, and Cmr. Joseph was already committed to the position that I was in contempt of court for posting it. I did explain that it was entirely legal to do what I did. I expected to get sentenced to ten days in jail yesterday.

Now, I don't think so. Cmr. Joseph wanted to aggressively teach me a lesson, but he lost his nerve. At the end of the trial, he sheepishly declared that the matter hinged on a technical legal dispute that would require some further research.

I am not a lawyer. Is he really going to send me to jail for not knowing some legal fine point that he does not even know himself? I don't think so. That is not the purpose of contempt penalties. He can only find me in contempt of court if I intentionally violate some valid court order. He has now admitted that he does not even know whether his order was valid. And because he wasted most of the trial arguing with me, he does not have any evidence on the record that I violated the order anyway.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Commissioner Joseph blinks

Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph has spent the last three months trying to build a case of contempt of court against me for this blog. He wrote letters, threatened me with ten days in jail, and bragged that no facts were in dispute. Today was the trial.

I disputed the facts. I denied that I violated any law or court order. Cmr. Joseph seemed completely bewildered that I was not willing to admit my guilt. He told me that I had a constitutional right to remain silent, but forced me to be sworn in, and repeatedly asked me questions in violation of those Fifth Amendment rights.

Eventually Julie Travers had to take the witness stand to present some actual evidence, and I insisted on the right to cross-examine her. I asked her some direct questions about her evidence, but Cmr. Joseph kept interrupting and claiming that her testimony was irrelevant if I would only confess.

For each of my questions, he launched into an argument about the question being irrelevant. I think she only answered 6 or 8 questions. The rest of the hour was spent arguing.

I kept telling Cmr. Joseph that I would be happy to testify, and tell my whole story, but I need to first find out what the charges against me are. He said that I have no such right.

In the end, Cmr. Joseph had no firm evidence of me doing anything contrary to his orders, and he claimed that the dispute boiling down to a legal disagreement about whether a parent can publish the evidence against him without violating section 827 of the Welfare Code. I vehemently disagreed, but he said that he would research the matter and rule within a week.

So I am still a free man. I guess he could still rule against me, but he has no evidence and it is hard to see how he can blame me for not understanding sect. 827 when he does not understand it himself.

I am really surprised that he did not rule against me anyway today. It is true that I gave legal rebuttals to all his arguments, but I've done that before, and that only seemed to increase his threats to put me in jail. I think that he has now lost his nerve. I will not be going to jail.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Welcome Commissioner Joseph

Tomorrow I go on trial before Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph for info posted on this blog. He says that he is prohibited from looking at the blog until we are in open court and I am on trial. If he is telling the truth, then he will see this blog for the first time tomorrow.

Cmr. Joseph has also threatened me with ten days in jail, and said that I am not entitled to any depositions because there are no facts in dispute. His mind is made up. So I guess that he will jail me, unless he loses his nerve.

I will post the outcome tomorrow, if I am not in jail.

Friday, October 17, 2008

I have a right to discuss my trial

Next Tuesday, I go on trial for reporting on this blog the evidence that was presented against me publicly in open court. Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph has already said that there are no facts in my defense, and that he intends to sentence me to ten days in jail.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the appellate court decided a similar issue. A newspaper was a defendant in a civil trial, and the trial court judge ordered it not to report on the testimony of witnesses in the case. The order was overruled:
Like all gag orders, the trial court’s order restricting The Register’s ability to report on the upcoming trial is presumptively invalid. A prior restraint is the “most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Such an order is a “most extraordinary remedy” that may be used “only in ‘exceptional cases’ ... where the evil that would result from the reportage is both great and certain and cannot be militated by less intrusive measures.”

The United States Supreme Court has offered two examples of the sort of “exceptional” situations in which a prior restraint might be justified: to prevent the dissemination of information about troop movements during wartime or to “suppress[] information that would set in motion a nuclear holocaust.”

The same result obtains under the California Constitution, which “provides an even broader guarantee of the right of free speech and the press than does the First Amendment.” Because we conclude the order preventing The Register from reporting on trial testimony is unconstitutional under both the United States and California Constitutions, it must immediately fall. “[E]very moment’s continuance of [a prior restraint] amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment.” [citations omitted]
All I did here was to report on the witness against me, CPS agent Sally Mitchell, who testified that the worst thing that I ever did was to set the alarm clock for 7:00 so that my kids could wake up in time for school.

For that, Cmr. Joseph and Julie Travers want to jail me. If they win, then the USA will have three exceptions to free speech: troop movements during wartime, triggers for a nuclear holocaust, and alarm clocks for school attendance.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Why it is hard to settle divorce cases

Someone suggest that I settle my divorce case. He gave an abstract argument about how all litigants are better off settling than going to trial. Better than going to jail, he said.

I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Family court issues cannot be settled. Every single issue between my ex-wife and me has already been settled at least once. But apparently the settlements are not binding. The law even forbids binding settlements of child custody, visitation, and support issues. That is the way family court works.

My ex-wife is a lawyer with a lot of free time on her hands. Maybe she thinks that filing legal motions is good practice for her. Maybe this is how she deals with unresolved guilt and bitterness. Maybe she is just crazy. Regardless, she has peppered the court with complaints about me for five years, and no end is in sight. As long as the family court permits her to renege on settlements, there is no possibility of settling.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Judge lets ex-wife seal evidence

I had to show up in court today to oppose my ex-wife's motion to seal CPS testimony. I argued that if the testimony is subject to the confidentiality requirement of the Welfare Code, then an order of the juvenile court is required. Otherwise, he must comply with Rule 2.550.

He refused to comply with Rule 2.550, and refused to accept the necessity of the juvenile court either. In the end, he said that the motion was unnecessary because he can seal whatever testimony he feels like sealing anyway.

Cmr Joseph said that he was taking the latest psych report out of the public file, and putting it in one of the confidential manila envelopes. I complained that the clerk does not let me see the contents of those manila envelopes. He said that he previously gave me permission. I guess he never told the clerk about it. He said that next time the clerk will let me see the confidential envelopes. I guess that he put some sort of marking on the file indicating his permission. He explained that sometimes those envelopes will have the street address of a parent, and the other parent may not be allowed to see that.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Just served with more papers

A process server just delivered some more legal papers from my ex-wife. There appears to be no end to her demands.

Meanwhile, I have to appear in family court tomorrow morning. Here is what I filed with the court:
Opposition to sealing records

I oppose Julie’s motion to seal the Sally Mitchell testimony, for all the reasons that were stated in my brief for the Oct. 8 hearing, as well as in my currently pending appeal.

If this court considers sealing the records, then I request a hearing under California Rule 2.550 in order to comply with that rule, to make the necessary factual determinations, and to determine which pages must be included in the public file.

If confidentiality of the records is already required by WI §827, as Julie claims, then it is under the authority of the juvenile court. Julie should be required to produce whatever order from the juvenile court allowed her to file these records with the family court, and demonstrate whatever restrictions came with that other. This court has no jurisdiction over that matter.
This relates to my trial next week. I guess she has to get the records sealed before I can be jailed for disclosing them.

Local lawyers fear Cmr Joseph

I tried contacting some lawyers for my upcoming trial before Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph, and I've now had two lawyers tell me that defending me would be a bad career move. They said that Cmr Joseph is known for being vindictive, and that he retaliates against lawyers who challenge him in court.

One of the lawyers seemed to know all about my case. He said, "I don't know what you did to piss him off, but he is out to destroy you now. I have other clients to worry about. He won't like it if I take your case. I suggest that you get a lawyer from another county."

It is amazing how Cmr Joseph has bullied these lawyers into submission. A lawyer is supposed to be a vigorous advocate for his client. And a lawyer certainly should not have to worry that defending one client will damage the interests of other clients.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Math Skills Suffer in U.S.

The NY Times reports:
The United States is failing to develop the math skills of both girls and boys, especially among those who could excel at the highest levels, a new study asserts, and girls who do succeed in the field are almost all immigrants or the daughters of immigrants from countries where mathematics is more highly valued.

The study suggests that while many girls have exceptional talent in math — the talent to become top math researchers, scientists and engineers — they are rarely identified in the United States. A major reason, according to the study, is that American culture does not highly value talent in math, and so discourages girls — and boys, for that matter — from excelling in the field.
You might think that this is crazy, and that no one really discourages girls in math. Unfortunately, it happens.

When CPS social worker Sally Mitchell investigated me, one of her main complaints
was that I was teaching math to my daughters. When Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph took my girls away from me in January, he ruled that it was abuse for me to enter my daughter in a county math contest that was above her grade level. He said that this abuse must stop, and I haven't been able to see my kids since.

The article mentions a bunch of girls who have excelled in math. They all entered in contests at above grade level.

Now Cmr Joseph does not want anyone to hear this story. He has threatened to jail me for ten days just for disclosing Ms. Mitchell's testimony. I go on trial at 11:00
on Oct. 21.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

My appeal brief

My appeal case is now fully briefed, and I am waiting for the appeal court to schedule oral arguments.

Meanwhile, it looks as if I might have to file another appeal. Commissioner Irwin Joseph is refusing to abide by his own order and let me see my kids.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Bad day in court

I just got out of Cmr Irwin H. Joseph's court. Usually he handles the more routine cases first, but this time he called us first. My ex-wife and I identified ourselves, the he asked the clerk to swear us in. I asked about the subject matter of the testimony, and Cmr Joseph angrily said that he was swearing us in so that he can ask us questions under oath later, and not be bothered to swear us in later. He said that we had no choice about it.

After being sworn in, the first thing that Cmr Joseph said was that I was being charged with contempt of court, and that I had a right to remain silent! I thought that the right to remain silent meant that I did not have to testify under oath.

Cmr Joseph scheduled Oct. 21, 11am, for a trial on the contempt charges, and he said that I could face 5 days in jail for each count. I asked how many counts there are against me, and he looked confused and asked me if I had seen the paperwork. I had, but it did not say how many counts. After asking several times, he finally said that there were two counts against me.

He asked me if I understood the charges against me. I said that I wasn't sure, and then asked him whether I am accused of violating the Welfare Code or a Rule 2.550 order. He refused to answer, and repeatedly asked me whether I understand the charges. Eventually I had to say that no, I did not understand the charges. He suggested that I get an attorney to explain them to me.

I asked about deposing witnesses. He said that was unnecessary, because there could not possibly be any testimony in my favor. I said that it was my contention that there were some facts under dispute, and that I was entitled to cross-examine witness. He declared that there are no facts under dispute, and refused to discuss the matter any further.

Then we moved on to my motion to force my ex-wife to accept the psychologist's recommendation. Cmr Joseph first complained that the report was confidential but the clerk had put it in the public file. Then he complained that the psychologist did not do some of the things that he had expected to be done.

I pointed out that his Jan. written order did not include any of those things. Furthermore, when I complained about the difficulties getting a psychologist in May, he said that the psychologist only had to do what is in the written order. The actual psychologist report did all the things in his written order.

I explained that his Jan. 11 order said that I was to get visitation of my kids, but that I had not seen my kids since then. I had complied with all the court orders, but my ex-wife had not, and she has not let me see the kids.

Then Cmr Joseph threw a little tantrum about the psychologist report, and declared that the psychologist was unethical to do the report. He claimed that it was somehow my own fault that I had not seen my kids. I tried to tell him that I had done everything I could to comply with his orders, but he would not listen, and he kicked us out of court.

We still have a scheduled court appeared for Wed. of next week, for my ex-wife's motion to seal the CPS testimony. I really don't see why that is necessary. If the testimony is not confidential already, then why am I being found guilty of disclosing it? It makes no sense to me.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Ex-wife files ex-parte motion against me

Last week my ex-wife asked for an expedited hearing on support payments that she says I was supposed to pay her 3-4 years ago. She wanted the motion to be heard this Wednesday. I was not present in court when she made this request, so I don't know exactly what was said. But the court calendar shows Nov. 5 being reserved for this motion, so I guess the commissioner told her that she has to wait until then. He probably figured that if she can wait four years, then she can wait another month.

That still leaves two big issues before Cmr Irwin H. Joseph on Wed. Oct. 8:

1. Whether she has to obey the psychologist's recommendation to allow me to visit our kids.
2. Whether I should be held in contempt of court for describing my court situation on this blog.

She argues:
I have sole physical and legal custody of the minors. Mr. AngryDad does not have any percentage of physical and/or legal custody of the minors, despite his statement on page 2, second paragraph.
It is true that she has the kids 100% of the time now, but that is only because she is not complying with the recommendations of the court psychologist. Officially, we still have joint physical and legal custody based on a 2005 custody trial, and nothing has changed that.

Saturday, October 04, 2008

The abuse myth

Carey Roberts reports:
In the great majority of cases, women at abuse shelters have suffered no physical injury or harm.

A former worker at the YWCA Emergency Shelter in Enid, Okla. reveals, "In all the time that I volunteered there, I saw one woman who showed signs of physical abuse." Likewise, the former director of a mid-Atlantic shelter reports, "only about one in 10 women had experienced any kind of physical injury."

Recently, researchers at Florida State University interviewed persons residing at abuse shelters in the state. "Medical/health" needs were mentioned only 9% of the time, and these were mostly women who needed to catch up on overdue dental and medical checks.

And the Hawaii Department of Human Services reports only 8% of persons at shelters require emergency medical attention — and emergency care can include non-abuse related problems like getting an abscessed tooth removed.
Usually the main abuse is drug and alcohol abuse that they have done to themselves.

Baldwin's book gets good review

The NY Times reviews the new book by Alex Baldwin, actor and angry dad:
As brilliant an actor as Baldwin can be, his comic acuity may be so keen partly because we associate him in real life with a darker, more dolorous personality. His new book, “A Promise to Ourselves,” is a treatise on how the family law system in America is broken, and why it should be changed. It is a serious book, masquerading as a manifesto but eventually turning into a desperately sad memoir, layered beneath the polemic, about the failure of Baldwin’s marriage and his estrangement from his only child. ...

Baldwin barrels forward, arguing that American family law is a system of lawyers and judges working in cooperation to drain the wallets of divorcing couples — an industry that preys on the vulnerabilities of the already vulnerable. “To be pulled into the American family law system in most states is like being tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged down a gravel road late at night,” he writes. “No one can hear your cries and complaints, and it is not over until they say it is over.”
As the review says, Baldwin is funny in this video. The review ends:
For all its faults, its creakinesses and almost codger-like crankiness, its occasionally sludgy prose, this book has a point. Divorce is hell. Lawyers are vultures. Children get lost. Baldwin bravely set out to illuminate and change the way divorce is conducted in this country; he also, wittingly or not, offers a candid, unhappy portrait of a marriage gone desperately sour.
I think the reviewer might be missing the point. Baldwin is not trying to tell the story of a marriage gone sour, or to say that divorce is hell. His divorce is a small part of the story. This is a book about the evils of the family court.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Official list of visitation supervisors

I got this from the court. I am posting it so that it might be useful to others.

Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance
Weekdays, weekends, evenings
Sliding scale
Bilingual/bicultural staff available
Therapeutic visits available
Supervised exchange services

Ruth Britany Insight
Evenings during the week, some weekends
Approximately $50/hr

Geoffa Gainsburg
Some weekday evenings, alternate weekends
Approximately $50/hr

Jackie Hunt

Rebecca Hughes
Call for availability
$100 per hour/possible sliding scale

Joan Murrin
831-438-4012 Call for availability and fees.

TLC Kids
Possibility of Santa Cruz County visits up to eight hours in length
$50-$95/hour depending on number of children.
Out of area surcharge of $85

San Benito County:
Chamberlain's Mental Health Services
Hollister and Gilroy sites 408-848-6511
Registration fee ($25 as of 6/07)
Hourly fee is $10 to $70 sliding scale
Therapeutic visits are $85/hour

Monterey County
Community Human Services
Seaside Location, call 831-394-4622
Salinas Location, call 757-7915
$40 application fee, sliding scare hourly rate available.

Santa Clara County
Visit and Exchange Solutions
Morgan Hill
Service in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties
$50 registration fee; $55/hour for two children
Fees increase with additional supervisor
I have heard that others have tried to get on the official list, but the court likes to keep a small number of visitation supervisors that it can tightly control. If there were more on the list, then they would not be able to charge $50 per hour for what is really just some easy babysitting.