Saturday, July 18, 2009

Ex-wife wants to supress previous reports

I finally got my ex-wife's objections to the court-ordered child custody evaluation. She has just brought a motion to block the evaluator from seeing the reports that she does not like. Here is the meat of her brief:
There exist at least four documents that George has been describing as "Court ordered" that are in fact not Court ordered, Court solicited, or even Court order compliant. I believe that George intends to submit these documents to a child custody evaluator as "Court ordered". I respectfully assert that these documents should be excluded from consideration by a child custody evaluator. Not only do these documents fail to meet the description of "reports" as described in the current Court Order for a child custody evaluation, shown in Exhibit "C" of the Opposition to OSC, but the prejudicial effect of these documents outweighs their probative value. ...

The common factor of all four documents is that each was NOT solicited by the Court, NOT in compliance with any Court orders, and was written with only input provided directly and/or indirectly from George. Additionally, the documents build on each other. ...

The current Court never asked or ordered George to hire experts to determine his parenting style, parenting capacity, parenting perspectives, and to highlight the beauty of his parenting mannerisms. The Court had already made its determinations in 2005 and again in 2008. A child custody evaluation had already been performed and written (November 3, 2004), a trial held, (February and March of 2005), a CPS investigation undertaken and completed (November of 2007), and another trial held (January of 2008). ...

Simply put, Dr. Gxxxx, Ms. Nxxxxxxxxx, Dr. Fxxxxxx and Dr. Sxxxxxx were not appointed by the Court. Therefore, the assessor/evaluator does not have the authority to contact these people.

In conclusion, since these documents were generated independently of being solicited by the Court, their prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value, and they do not fall within the ambit of the current Court Order, I respectfully request that these documents be specifically excluded from consideration by a child custody evaluator.
This is so ridiculous that I should not have to even respond. She is saying that only those owned by the court should be able to express an opinion, because an outside opinion might disagree with what the court did. No kidding.

In other words, this case has been fixed, but George somehow got reports written by experts who were not in on the fix, and that cannot be permitted.

I thought that the purpose of the evaluation was to get an outside opinion, not to just rubber stamp a subset of the opinions that the court already collected. If the evaluator is going to be limited to my ex-wife's side of the story, what is the point?

Cmr. Irwin H. Joseph is going to hear this motion, and I have no confidence in him, but he is not this crooked.


Anonymous said...

"...but he's not that crooked".

Oh, yeah? Here's a guy who happily had an affair with a local family law atty and had an ex parte communication with your ex to squelch your blogsite. He will do whatever the local CPS wants and that seems to be keeping kids away from their fathers. With all due respect, George, you know this is a very messed up system we have here with all the little commissioners, counsellors, lawyers, CPS, DCSS, and all the other parasites and remoras in on the feeding frenzy here. Fueled by the insidious and pervasive influence of UCSC's Dept of Feminist Studies that preaches abd condones anger and hatred towards men. Don't kid yourself, if these people want to advance in the system, they toe the party line.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I missed it, but isn't her problem that you are (or intend to) claim that these "reports" are court ordered?

She's saying that you are misrepresenting the origin of the reports, not their validity.

George said...

If that were her only complaint, she would just tell the evaluator that the reports were not court-ordered. She will probably also claim that I misrepresented myself as a good father. No matter how many times she runs to the court, she cannot eliminate the possibility that I will say something that she regards as a misrepresentation.

But she is objectively wrong about the reports. Two of the four reports were court-ordered, and I have the transcripts to prove it. I posted an excerpt from one on the blog today.