REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE TERMS OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERI am not preying on any ambiguity. I have just been asking psychologists to do the evaluation as in the written order.
In this motion, Petitioner Julie AngryMom (referred to hereinafter in the first person, "I") requests the Court to clarify the terms of the Appointment Order of January 11,
20092008 to remove any imaginable ambiguity that exists upon which George preys. (See attached FOAH, partial transcript and Appointment Order for January 11, 20092008 hearing.) I request this because Respondent George AngryDad (hereinafter, "George") continues to interpret and represent the terms of the Appointment Order to evaluators as requiring a "full custody or visitation evaluation" even though the box for such an evaluation is not marked. George explains that Commissioner Joseph must have forgotten to mark that particular checkbox. However, George will not make a motion to the Court to modify the terms of the Appointment Order to reflect his interpretation. George believes that since the Appointment Order is asking for recommendations regarding custody and visitation, then a full custody or visitation evaluation must have been intended.
I point out to evaluators that the Appointment Order specifically does not mark the box for a "full custody or visitation evaluation" and the Appointment Order and its scope is consistent with the history of our case. See the attached FOAH and partial transcript (page 2010, line 26) for the January 11, 2008 court hearing. Additionally, this Appointment Order has been challenged and affirmed at the Appellate Court level and has been the subject of many a trial court status conferences, without changes being made. I believe that it is unlikely that Commissioner Joseph just forgot to checkmark a box.
However, somehow George convinces the evaluators that indeed, Commissioner Joseph forgot to checkmark a box and that he meant that a full custody or visitation evaluation be performed. Unreasonably so, George wants me to stipulate to undergo a full custody or visitation evaluation, and claims that my refusal to do so is a lack of cooperation in finding an evaluator. Additionally, and as I've pointed out to George, I don't have the authority to change an order of the Court by merely stipulating to a change. The Appointment Order was not mine or George's idea to begin with. Neither one of us has the authority to decide how we are going to change the terms of the Appointment Order.
We have already had a full custody or visitation evaluation (2004) in which it was recommended that I be the primary custodian pending George attending counseling, etc. We both have also undergone psychological evaluations (2005). In November of 2007, CPS substantiated emotional abuse towards the children by George. In January of 2008, the trial found George's behavior towards the children to be emotionally abusive. The California Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's decision.
A Full Custody or Visitation Evaluation Two Years After the Fact Would be Unreasonable and Unjustifiable
It has been two years since George was found to be abusive. He has visited with Mary and Jenny approximately 4 times in the last two years. He has had self-imposed minimum phone contact with Mary and Jenny. The subject and some of the contents of George's abusive behavior described in the court papers and that were the subject of the 2007 CPS investigation and 2008 court trial rest in the mind of a then six and eight year old, who are now ten and twelve years old. I do not believe that the intent of the Appointment Order was to dredge up incidents from a child's mind's eye that are four years old and to re examine them. I believe that the intent of the Appointment Order was to try to discover what is making George "tick" and to try to affect a modification in his behavior so that he may at some time in the future enjoy a healthy relationship with Mary and Jenny.
I respectfully assert that the intent behind the Appointment Order was to focus on George's behavior and mental health and methods of modifying his behavior. Given George's in-court and out-of-court documented misbehavior, it seems untenable and entirely unreasonable that I would have to undergo a psychological evaluation as well as be the focus of a full child custody evaluation and assessment. The stress and emotional strain that would be put upon myself and Mary and Jenny, who are healing, in undergoing yet another "full custody or visitation evaluation" is unjustifiable, given the circumstances.
George has created confusion amongst evaluators willing to take on the case as to the terms of the Appointment Order. George ignores the history of the case and proceeds on the basis that this is a "full custody or visitation evaluation" in which he gets to retry his case once again before an evaluator, and then ultimately undergo another trial before yet a third presiding judge. I do not want to keep being brought back to court for trial after trial. How many times does one get to retry the same issues? Again, I respectfully request the Court to, at the very least, clarify the Appointment Order to remove any imaginable ambiguity that exists upon which George preys.
She complains that I have not made a motion to change the order. I guess that she realizes that she looks bad by bringing silly motions to change the order.
I do agree with her that we have had too many evaluations and trials. It has been going on for six years already, and there is no end in sight. However, she is the one who is refusing to obey the court orders and refusing to let me see my kids. The court actions will continue until she complies.
Update: I got the above document in the mail from a process server, but my ex-wife now tells that it was not filed with court. She says that she will send me a corrected version. I guess that she is going to attempt to clarify her motion to clarify. Maybe she was influenced by the comments here that her motion was incoherent.I am glad she told me, as I was about to send a response to the court.