In Wednesday's hearing, my ex-wife complained to the judge that I had filed a complaint against the court psychologist, and that the state had asked for a copy of his report. She said that she would have not even known about it, except that all the info was posted on this blog. She said that I needed the permission of the court to comply with the California Dept. of Consumer Affairs request. Judge Morse indicated that she might issue a stay on release of the report until I could bring a motion for permission.
I replied that there is no law or obligation to get court permission for this. The judge conceded the point, and then suggested that my ex-wife bring an ex-parte motion to block me from cooperating with the state agency.
This is a new one for me. Normally a court proceeding requires the judge and jury to only hear issues with all parties present and giving their evidence and arguments. An ex-parte motion is a rare exception when one party has to make some sort of emergency temporary motion, and it is impossible for the court to hear both sides.
But here we were, both parties to the case, in court and willing to present our arguments. Instead of listening, the judge tells one party to bring an ex-parte motion! It was the legal equivalent of the judge saying, "George, I don't want to hear your side of the story. So please step outside of the courtroom while I rule against you."
My readers may say that they have also been backstabbed by the court, and in worse ways. I don't doubt it. I think that it is much worse that the court had a secret unrecorded interview with my kids a couple of weeks ago. But this is the first time I have heard of a judge suggesting an ex-parte motion while the other party was standing right there in the courtroom.
Well, is there much doubt now about how your ex., and the judge feel about what Perlmutter said, wrote and did.
What's your ex. got against the state affirming that what Perlmutter did was, or was not, in the best interests of your kids ?
Why shouldn't the judge want the same, too ?
They're blocking an investigation ?
Why ? They're not being investigated, Perlmutter is. Are they afraid of how this might reflect on the judge, too ?
Ex-Parte.... emergency situation ? The emergency is preventing the state from receiving the details of what Perlmutter and the court have done.
Yeah, I don't even understand what the arguments would be in favor of an ex-parte motion. There is still no motion, so I guess that it is not likely to happen.
That's really incredible how ...well, bad your situation is. That's putting it lightly, actually. I'm amazed that a judge would be so callous towards you, I think in Europe you'd have the equivalent of some kind of human rights law you could appeal to but in the U.S i don't really know how that functions or if there's any higher agency you can go to.
On the upside, once they hit 18 - well - they can do what the hell they want, right?
Post a Comment