Wednesday, April 22, 2009

My main appeal issue

Here is the issue that I am presenting to the California Supreme Court:
Where the trial court has determined that both parents should share equal custody of their child, may the court later remove the child from one parent’s physical custody in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of abuse, as is required in juvenile dependency court?
The point here is that California has a bunch of laws that apply to removing kids from abuse or neglect in their homes. There are laws requiring teachers and nurses to report suspected abuse, laws requiring CPS to investigate reports, and laws for action to be taken in juvenile dependency court. These laws define abuse, and that clear and convincing evidence of such abuse be proved to take a child, even temporarily. Taking a child must be a last resort.

But Cmr. Irwin H. Joseph refused to follow any of that. There was no evidence of abuse according to the definition in the law, so he just made up his own definition. And he said that he does not need clear and convincing evidence.

I appeal to a higher court in order to force the family court to follow the law. But appeal judges Mihara, Bamattre-Manoukian, and Duffy refused to do anything. Now I am asking the California Supreme Court.

The court takes very few cases. It does accept letters urging it to take a particular case. If the court thinks that I am facing an injustice that is also faced by other parents, then it is more likely to hear the case. If you know anyone who is interested in writing a letter to the court, let me know and I will tell you what to do.


BoB said...

You sir are again mistaken.

You are fighting for the custody of you kids. You are in the family court. They have different rules than that of dependency court.

In a dependency law court. The Court has custody of the kid and the parents are about to lose all of their parental rights. In that setting, the standard is clear and convincing showing of abuse in order to strip the parental rights from child's natural parent.

In a family law court. Since one of the parents still has custody of the kid and your parenting rights are not being stripped. You are still the kid's legal parents sense even though you might be prohibited from seeing them.

I hope you can see that an appeal will not produce the desired results. It will be a waste of your time and your money.

I wish you best of luck.

George said...

No, your description of juvenile dependency law is not correct. Dependency court is not just about stripping parents of all their rights. Many kids are taken away temporarily in dependency court, and returned later. The legal standard is that clear and convincing evidence of WI 300 abuse is required to be shown before the kids can even be taken away temporarily.

BoB said...

I think your description is exactly same as i said above. During a dependency trial, the court has custody of kids and there is a determination whether the parents can have custody of the kids. Some kids will be returned and some not.

Again, your case is different. The Court is taking away kids away from you and given them to your wife. The court is not taking the custody of your kids. This is family court case and juvenile dependency law does not govern no matter how much you want it to.

George said...

No, your description is not the same as mine, and you continue to misstate what happens in juvenile dependency court. The court does not necessarily have custody of the kids during a dependency trial. Sometimes the kids are with the parents, and sometimes the kids are with a relative.

Yes, my case was in family court. I don't agree with what happened, and that is why I am asking for higher court review. You are welcome to your own opinions, of course.