Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Only final judicial determination

The court just informed me that my ex-wife's motion to avoid evaluation will be heard before Cmr. Irwin H. Joseph on Dec. 10. She claims that it would be burdensome to her to be psychologically evaluated again, and she sees no need for it since the kids live with her. I doubt that Cmr. Joseph will accept that silly argument.

Meanwhile, I have a separate motion to enforce existing custody orders. It includes:
The 2005 order was the only final judicial determination
There has only been one final judicial determination of child custody in this case, and that was Judge Kelly’s 2005 trial ruling. For that trial, the court did two court-ordered psychologist evaluations (by Melissa Berrenge and Bret Johnson), addressed hundreds of pages of filings from Julie, heard many hours of testimony from live witness, and made a ruling. The ruling was not appealed or challenged. For roughly two years (all of 2006 and nearly all of 2007), Julie and I shared 50-50 joint child custody without any complaints to the court.

This case has already been to the Sixth District on appeal, and that court said this:
Here, the issue involves a child custody dispute in family court, and is governed by the standard articulated by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Brown and Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947: “Once the trial court has entered a final or permanent custody order reflecting that a particular custodial arrangement is in the best interest of the child, the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements — and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker — weigh heavily in favor of maintaining that custody arrangement. …”
While the Sixth District did not grant me the relief that I requested, it did accept that there had been a final and permanent custody order after the 2005 trial. Such an order has great legal significance, as explained by the California Supreme Court.

No comments: