The quote was a brief account of how Julie lied to the court in order to gain sole legal custody of our two kids. She argued in court that the quote was personally embarrassing to her, even tho I had altered it to use a pseudonym instead of her real name.
You can still read the sworn testimony of Ken Perlmutter, where he describes Julie falsely claiming that she had sole legal custody, how he failed to get it right even after I showed him the court orders proving that Julie was lying, and how they both refused to correct their false statements even after being shown to them.
My custom has been to avoid using my ex-wife's name on this blog. However Julie Travers has
- made a false and unfounded complaint of emotional abuse to CPS.
- used that as a pretext for gaining temporary sole custody of our kids.
- lied to the court psychologist about her custody situation.
- used the court to extinguish my parental rights.
- threatened me with jail in order to censor the proof of her lies.
There were not even any allegations of domestic violence, physical abuse, sexual abuse, child neglect, alcohol use, drug use, anger issues, or anything like that. The court psychologist who was appointed to investigate the emotional abuse allegation said that there was no such abuse and that I am just as good a parent as Julie. None of the many court evaluators and witnesses ever recommended any change to the court's final 2005 determination of 50-50 child custody, or ever gave any example of how I could have done anything better than what I did.
And yet I have no custody or visitation rights. Visitation is entirely at Julie's discretion. Judge Heather D. Morse said on Friday that Julie can restrict my visits to being supervised in order to prevent the possibility of me telling the kids what the court has done.
12 comments:
Let me get this straight. Your ex. Julie Travers, complained that you altered her quote by NOT using her actual name ?
Do you think the court has the ability to censor the comments in your blog ?
No. The quote was from Ken Perlmutter, the court psychologist, and it describes how Julie misled him about the legal custody. I altered it by changing "Julie" to "Jill". The complaint is about the quote, not the alteration.
I don't think that the court can censor the comments, but I didn't think that the court could censor the blog either.
Are you familiar with what's going on with the electronics divorce attorney blog, .. the morelli case, involving censorship, first amend. and, divorce, and custody?
No. Go ahead and post a link.
http://www.californiadivorcelawyerblog.com/2011/08/pennsylvania_fathers_psycho_ex.html
August 12, 2011 by Gary D. Sparks
Pennsylvania Father's "Psycho Ex-Wife" Blog Ordered Shut Down by Court
A Pennsylvania judge has created a First Amendment uproar by ordering a father to take down his "Psycho Ex-Wife" blog in which he railed against and blasted his former spouse, and sometimes speaks unflatteringly about his children.
Appearing on the Today show, Anthony Morelli said that although he took down the blog as ordered, he is appealing the order on the grounds that it violates his First Amendment rights. Judge Diane Gibbons ordered the blog to be taken down, citing the emotional damage it was capable of inflicting on the parties' children. Morelli claims that the blog is therapeutic in nature, and that the children can be protected by the content provided that the parents exercise control of the children's computer viewing habits. The question facing the appellate court is whether Morelli's right to free speech outweighs the potential harmful effect of his inflammatory comments on the children.
I happen to be a big defender of First Amendment rights, and of free speech in particular. For the most part, provided that the speech does not incite violence, I will almost always stand up for the rights of individuals to say and express what is on their minds. And although I am torn by a case like this, I still ultimately come down on Morelli's right to say and express his feelings, regardless of how distasteful they may be. However, I clearly am not the appellate court in this matter.
At the same time, and although I would defend Morelli's free speech rights, I would also advocate that the family court judge who adjudicates custody in the case should consider Morelli's actions in determining what is in the best interests of his children. Although it may be legal (or should be) for him to post the comments, I believe the family court would be well-within its discretion to determine he is not exercising sound judgment and make the corresponding custodial orders.
I'm not aware of a case in California (yet) involving any such court order. In fact, in my experience, family court judges frequently refuse to grant restrictions on speech in divorce cases. At the same time, we frequently see orders whereby the parties are compelled not to make disparaging remarks about the other parent within the children's earshot, or prohibitions on discussing the adult litigation matters with the children other than in a cursory, age-appropriate manner (and without the gory details). Whether such an order would eventually include the censorship of an inflammatory blog has yet to be determined.
http://www.californiadivorcelawyerblog.com/2011/08/pennsylvania_fathers_psycho_ex.html
A Pennsylvania judge has created a First Amendment uproar by ordering a father to take down his "Psycho Ex-Wife" blog in which he railed against and blasted his former spouse, and sometimes speaks unflatteringly about his children.
Appearing on the Today show, Anthony Morelli said that although he took down the blog as ordered, he is appealing the order on the grounds that it violates his First Amendment rights. Judge Diane Gibbons ordered the blog to be taken down, citing the emotional damage it was capable of inflicting on the parties' children. Morelli claims that the blog is therapeutic in nature, and that the children can be protected by the content provided that the parents exercise control of the children's computer viewing habits. The question facing the appellate court is whether Morelli's right to free speech outweighs the potential harmful effect of his inflammatory comments on the children.
I happen to be a big defender of First Amendment rights, and of free speech in particular. For the most part, provided that the speech does not incite violence, I will almost always stand up for the rights of individuals to say and express what is on their minds. And although I am torn by a case like this, I still ultimately come down on Morelli's right to say and express his feelings, regardless of how distasteful they may be. However, I clearly am not the appellate court in this matter.
At the same time, and although I would defend Morelli's free speech rights, I would also advocate that the family court judge who adjudicates custody in the case should consider Morelli's actions in determining what is in the best interests of his children. Although it may be legal (or should be) for him to post the comments, I believe the family court would be well-within its discretion to determine he is not exercising sound judgment and make the corresponding custodial orders.
I'm not aware of a case in California (yet) involving any such court order. In fact, in my experience, family court judges frequently refuse to grant restrictions on speech in divorce cases. At the same time, we frequently see orders whereby the parties are compelled not to make disparaging remarks about the other parent within the children's earshot, or prohibitions on discussing the adult litigation matters with the children other than in a cursory, age-appropriate manner (and without the gory details). Whether such an order would eventually include the censorship of an inflammatory blog has yet to be determined.
Once again Judge Morse puts the truth to the saying about the Santa Cruz Family Court: 'Unlike other Family Courts in other counties such as Santa Clara, where judges get involved in the cases and actually make their own
decisions, Santa Cruz Family Law judges sit on their hands and let others such as lawyers and psychologists call the shots, making the decisions that
the judge needs only sign off on.' And in your case, the decision maker is an ex-wife who lies. Just why is it we even need judges? In my case, Dr. Gay made the decision for Judge Morse, basing his 'decision' on the ex-wife's
lies and letting her have full legal custody of 2 children, even tho' she drinks, has a live in alcoholic boyfriend, and keeps her boy on an antipsychotic which causes him serious side effects, a woman who tells lies about me. It was she who made the decision for Morse to keep me from being with my grandchildren for 2 years. I can't even go to my son's house when the children are there. Oh, I might just say something bad about their mother! But it's okay for her to tell the children lies about me! Does Morse know what her job is? Does the Governor know how these appointees operate? The lying ex-wives think that everyone lies like them. They think that in visitation fathers and grandmothers have nothing better to do than talk about them. There is nothing further from the truth, for these are incredibly boring women whom no one would even bother with. Because they lie, everyone lies. Morse should go!
Regardless of facts and circumstances, the parent with the greater income and or assets, will end up with the short end of the stick, along with the kids.
This inequity in the system provides the greatest financial rewards for the court players.
They can't squeeze blood out of raddish. Wonder if there's statistics on how much a parent spends on attorneys and evaluators in a custody case relative to their income, or assets ?
Me, i figure that bus drivers and garbage collectors are equally as good of fathers as doctors and lawyers, but, they end up spending a lot less time and money in a custody or divorce case.
Dear grandmother commentor above, are you aware that it serves the mother's and court's interest for you to be alienated by your ex. daughter in law, as it might make you most inclined to help your son with attorney's fees and child support, perhaps ? I don't know if it's true in your case, but the practice has been written about a lot.
Sorry for your, your son's and the kids predicament.
so at least your blog isn't being shut down, that's a relief.
As I read this, the judge went against all the court mandated shrinks and their reports and just let Julie have the kids 100% because she sniveled enough in court. And quite possibly because she doesn't like you because you put up such a fight w/logic and reasoning. Correct? Geez, and I'm going to be seeing Morse next week for my custody fight. I'm not sure why I should even bother showing up.
So now what do you do?
"Regardless of facts and circumstances, the parent with the greater income and or assets, will end up with the short end of the stick, along with the kids."
This is not necessarily true. The person who winds up "with the short end of the stick" is the person who chooses to be most honest. In my case, that is me. I was unemployed last year while my ex made over six figures. I was treated like a criminal and he was treated like royalty because he is a high status person -- despite the fact that he has a history of an admitted substance abuse disorder and has harrassed me and and my child while under the influence.
I've seen so much dishonesty in court it makes my head spin. Vicki Parry is a master at it. When she teamed up with my ex, who is a habitual liar, it seemed as though the dishonesty increased exponentially.
The writers are correct when they write about the judges not showing judicial leadership. Judge Morse is who we've been dealing with and I'm totally appalled by her lack of fairness in my case. She has literally done whatever the other side wants and has turned away my evidence when it needed to be heard. Twice now she never even looked at evidence I had prepared to go into court. It was legally admissible and directly related to the case! Because Santa Cruz puts a low value on justice, there aren't any court reporters, so there is little evidence of the lies that are told in court. However, based on her behavior, it would seem that the judge totally bases her decisions on innuendo from her favorite attorneys.
I am working everyday at not letting anger from this injustice consume my heart and mind, but it is really difficult when you see such gross injustice happening before your eyes and hurting your family.
Thanks for hosting, Angry Dad. I'm sorry about your situation and I can tell you that it's not only dads that should be angry in Santa Cruz County.
Yeah, you're right.
Maybe it's the parent or parent who's attorney has the greatest influence in the court that ends up with the long end of the stick ?
You're right about Parry and what she can do to a mother. Check out Breitenstein v. Parry, and the story of Catherine Breitenstein, of S.C.
Sorry for what you and your kids are being put through.
Post a Comment