CODES NEEDED for when a judge sits on his own recusal

What is the name of your state? California

Verbal CCP 170.6 issued on a judge today, he insulted it verbally, and refused to hear the 170.1(a)(6)(C)

What can be done when a juvenile judge outright refuses to heed it?

To top it off, he immediately denied the father the right to submit evidence and gave sole permanent custody to the mother (the person who molested the child and put her on drugs to start with, and was the reason the case was opened, and, in fact, has had two complaints to CPS against her for beating the child in the last month alone), no visitation to the father-AT ALL. Then he closed the case and seta review for January.

However, regardless of the outcome, the judge sat on his own recusal and retaliated on the party attempting the recusal by disallowing any visitation. Claimed it was on the grounds that the father's disability is harmful to the child. Even though the doctor appointed by the court to do a medical evaluation already determined that the father does NOT have the disability.

Law codes regarding the recusal being ignored or help of any sort please?

My response:

Had you filed a Peremptory Disqualification of a previous judge or arbitrator in this case?

Did you file the Peremptory Disqualification "within 10 days after notice of the all purpose assignment . . ." of the judge to your case?

IAAL

The trial was originally set to be this morning from 9 to 12 with a continuance to the next court date next week. However, the judge cleared his afternoon calender to finish the case.

The mother's side has had seven seperate trial days. The father was to start presenting his evidence this afternoon, though the judge said that this would be the final day and a determination of custody made by the end of the day. he's allowed the mother seven days prior to today, and was only going to allow the father this afternoon. The court date for next week was cancelled. That was the day the father was supposed to be starting to present his evidence. But being told at noon that the case would continue at 1:15 instead with a decision by the end of the day and next week cancelled, there was not sufficient time to even contact witnesses to have them there on time. A couple of them live more than 2 hours away and would have only a little over an hour to get there, assuming they could be reached immediately, which they could not.

We have known the judge to be biased (to start, he has already determined that the father has never harmed the child and that the mother has done so repeatedly via molestation, drugs, beatings, and mental abuse, but her attorney has sued the government before, and the judge allowed the counsel for CPS to represent the mother and her attorney before-they are supposed to be impartial as well). We have filed to take the case to the federal court in Sacramento for review. However, the full extent was not truly realized until today. We had hoped the judge would try to be at least someone unbiased until a determination by the federal court to take it or not.

So the decision to do a 170.6 did not allow enough time to go and type it up, then to copy it enough times to serve on all parties, hence the need for verbal. With a 75-minute notice that the trial would end that day, notice that came before the father had been allowed to present evidence, we did not have more time to do anything.

This is the situation that led to the 170.6 that the judge sat on and the 170.1(a)(6)(C) that he refused to even hear.

My response:

I'm sorry, but I didn't see where I had asked for all of this irrelevant information. I asked two, simple, yes or no questions - - and they were:

"Had you filed a Peremptory Disqualification of a previous judge or arbitrator in this case?"

"Did you file the Peremptory Disqualification "within 10 days after notice of the all purpose assignment . . ." of the judge to your case?"

IAAL

I apologize for rambling. I'm just very upset and scared for the child I love so much.

"Had you filed a Peremptory Disqualification of a previous judge or arbitrator in this case?"

No. This is the first one.


"Did you file the Peremptory Disqualification "within 10 days after notice of the all purpose assignment . . ." of the judge to your case?"

I don't know. I haven't found anything very clear on what an all-purpose assignment is. So I can't answer this one. If you'll please tell me, I can answer. I'm trying to learn.

CaliCat said:

I apologize for rambling. I'm just very upset and scared for the child I love so much.

"Had you filed a Peremptory Disqualification of a previous judge or arbitrator in this case?"

No. This is the first one.


"Did you file the Peremptory Disqualification "within 10 days after notice of the all purpose assignment . . ." of the judge to your case?"

I don't know. I haven't found anything very clear on what an all-purpose assignment is. So I can't answer this one. If you'll please tell me, I can answer. I'm trying to learn.

Click to expand...

My response:

Thank you for succinctly responding to my questions. I understand the emotion, but for the sake of this thread, all I need are actual facts.

An "all purpose assignment" of the judge is made by Notice. When a case is filed, the Clerk returns conformed copies of the filing to the Petitioner. In that package of returned pleadings, is the said "Notice". So, if the date of the Notice is more than 10 days after you made your initial CCP section 170.6 Motion for Peremptory Disqualification, then the judge was on "all fours" in denying the Motion.

This is one of the reasons why being a Pro Per litigant can't really hurt. Attorneys are trained to know not only the laws involved for a particular issue, but also the procedural laws and court rules.

Sorry, but if it's been more than 10 days, then your boyfriend is stuck with the judge.

IAAL

I apologize again tor my ignorance and embarassed difficulty in grasping this just now. To clarify, do you mean then that the court has to file a notice after the initial 170.6 when you say:

So, if the date of the Notice is more than 10 days after you made your initial CCP section 170.6 Motion for Peremptory Disqualification, then the judge was on "all fours" in denying the Motion.

Click to expand...

I'm picking up on the word "after" in the above, to say that the Notice is filed AFTER the initial 170.6.

However, the following:

An "all purpose assignment" of the judge is made by Notice. When a case is filed, the Clerk returns conformed copies of the filing to the Petitioner. In that package of returned pleadings, is the said "Notice".

Click to expand...

makes me believe that the Notice if filed at the very beginning. So I'm still idiotically confused.

Really, I'm normally not this stupid when my head is on right. It's just swimming right now.

Thanks, IAAL, for putting up with me right now. You are really a big help, and being very patient. I appreciate it.

My response:

I may have confused you, and I apologize if I have done so.

I'm sure he has a file jacket at home with all of his legal papers in it concerning this action. One of those papers is called a "Notice of Assignment" - - it's probably stapled to his conformed copies of his Petition.

On it is the name of the judge and department number, with instructions. That's the paper I'm talking about. There is also a date on that Notice. If more than 10 days have transpired since the date on that Notice, then it's all over. He had 10 days from the date of that Notice to file, and serve, a formal 170.6 Motion.

Any § 170.6 challenge to the assigned judge in such cases must be made "within 10 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 10 days after the appearance." [Ca Civ Pro § 170.6(2) (emphasis added); Grant v. Sup.Ct. (Jacobs) (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 518, 524, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 825, 829]

Such challenge may be filed with either the assigned judge or the presiding judge. [Ca Civ Pro § 170.6(2)]

Where the case is assigned at the outset to a single judge for "all purposes" (i.e., for pretrial motions and OSCs as well as trial), a peremptory challenge must be made (i) within 10 days after notice of the judge's all-purpose assignment, or (ii) if by a party who has not yet appeared in the action, within 10 days after that party's appearance. [Ca Civ Pro § 170.6(a)(2); and see Motion Picture & Television Fund Hosp. v. Super.Ct. (Lopez) (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 488, 493-494, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 872, 876 (comparable 15-day rule for "fast track" direct calendar assignments -- same rule applies where case reassigned to all-purpose judge after parties have appeared (statutory period runs from notice of reassignment)]

A party's "appearance" for purposes of this 10-day rule refers to his or her first general appearance; i.e., a party can specially appear to contest jurisdiction (motion to quash service of summons) without waiving the right to file a peremptory challenge thereafter. [School Dist. of Okaloosa County v. Super.Ct. (City of Orange) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1131-1132, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 612, 615 & fn. 3; see also La Seigneurie U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Super.Ct. (Clark) (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1506, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 175, 179]

IAAL

The above response was edited to add further information.

IAAL