novemberbride
Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
We went to trial on Wed and Thurs of last week. On Wednesday, Dad had a hard time deciding if he wanted to continue because the judge explained to him that a) Dad's evidence was based on hearsay statements based on what our daughter told dad, and the judge said he never conciders statements made by any child under the age of 18. and b) Dad hadn't established a change in circumstance to require a change in custody, based on what Dad submitted to the court in his trial brief.
Judge went on the explain to dad that if he chooses to go forward, he will not be allowed to submit his evidence. He also explained that based on my evidence, and circumstances that occured since our last mediation (June) that I could file an OSC to go back into mediation. Judge told dad that he would not be allowed to discuss matters prior to June because they had been heard in mediation already.
So, dad had 2 choices, go forward with trial or go back to mediation. Dad chose to go forward.
Dad called his two witnesses which were the owner of daughter's current preschool, and her former daycare provider. When they both got up to the stand, both explained that dad had not paid their witness fees. Judge asked dad if he was prepared to pay them, and dad said no. So, the judge only allowed his witnesses to authenticate documents. When preschool owner authenticated the enrollment form I filled out with dad listed on both the enrollment form, and emergency contact information, Dad said he didn't believe it was real. Judge had to explain to him that it was his witness, who he subponead, and just because it's not what he thought it was going to be doesn't mean he could refute it. Judge explained to him he was satisfied with the forms as being true documents.
Dad went on to talk about how his prescool is better because it's a state run program, and if I call, no one there will deny me any information. Dad went on and on about how rude the owner of daughter's preschool was to him, and that's why he thinks he should have custody. Judge explained to dad that I am not responsible for the actions or inactions of a third party.
Dad talked about his suspended driver's license and how it's not suspended, it's restricted, but he's allowed to "go to important things". My attorney asked him how he got to court that day, and dad had a little fit. Got all upset about self incrimination and stuff, and went on and on about how he is suing the California DMV for suspending his license.
On Day 2, Dad back tracked a little bit, and explained to the judge that his license is restricted. My attorney asked him about that, and dad explained he had a restricted license which allows him to go to and from work. So, my attorney asked where he worked. And dad said that he has a private benifactor, and he is self employed. So my attorney asked him what he does. Dad said "My job is to fight for my rights, I have to sue a bunch of people". He then went on to explain that the officer who arrested him for having a loaded gun in his car and driving with no insurance and on a suspended license did so out of spite. He then stated that the criminal court convicted him out of spite as well. Judge opened a little envelope which had dad's criminal conviction. Judge explained to dad that he was being charged with one felony and 2 misdermeanors. And, explained to dad that he took a plea to a lessor charge and was sentanced and is now on probation. So, in essence, Dad realized he broke the law. Dad went on to explain that he will be suing the criminal court to have his conviction dismissed. And, had he known it was going to be brought up in family court, he would have fought it, rather than taking a plea. He told the judge that he believes he has a good chance of having it dismissed.
Judge stated that he didn't think he would weigh too heavely on Dad's criminal conviction.
When I testified, I spoke about the bizarre behavior and dad's talk of conspiracy theories againt him. I talked about dad telling our daughter to not kiss or hug me during custody exchanges. Dad never denied this, and actually elaborated on these topics.
Dad got back on the stand and spoke of these conspiracy theories against him, and how every Irish person hates him. He talked about our mediator and the only reason dad hasn't been awarded sole custody is because the mediator is Irish, and views dad as a British person. He talked for about 10 minutes about the IRA and Irish mafia's being out after him, and how the courts have pitted us against eachother because of our nationalities. He then stated he felt this way because of a documentary he seen on tv.
He admitted on the stand that he has instructed our daughter to not kiss me, or any of my family members because he has seen huge gaping open wounds on our lips, which were leaking "gooey stuff". He specifically spoke about my mother in law, who he described as always having these gooey sores on her face. He then stated that our daughter has "caught things" by kissing me, and my family members.
At the end of the day, Judge explained how he would make his determination and the items he will be concidering. He told us that he will be concidering the note's from prior mediations, prior orders and filings, testimony from both of us, and the evidence I presented. He then said that he decided that he will be taking dad's gun conviction into concideration. Judge said he will have his ruling in two weeks.
Waiting is the hardest part.
We went to trial on Wed and Thurs of last week. On Wednesday, Dad had a hard time deciding if he wanted to continue because the judge explained to him that a) Dad's evidence was based on hearsay statements based on what our daughter told dad, and the judge said he never conciders statements made by any child under the age of 18. and b) Dad hadn't established a change in circumstance to require a change in custody, based on what Dad submitted to the court in his trial brief.
Judge went on the explain to dad that if he chooses to go forward, he will not be allowed to submit his evidence. He also explained that based on my evidence, and circumstances that occured since our last mediation (June) that I could file an OSC to go back into mediation. Judge told dad that he would not be allowed to discuss matters prior to June because they had been heard in mediation already.
So, dad had 2 choices, go forward with trial or go back to mediation. Dad chose to go forward.
Dad called his two witnesses which were the owner of daughter's current preschool, and her former daycare provider. When they both got up to the stand, both explained that dad had not paid their witness fees. Judge asked dad if he was prepared to pay them, and dad said no. So, the judge only allowed his witnesses to authenticate documents. When preschool owner authenticated the enrollment form I filled out with dad listed on both the enrollment form, and emergency contact information, Dad said he didn't believe it was real. Judge had to explain to him that it was his witness, who he subponead, and just because it's not what he thought it was going to be doesn't mean he could refute it. Judge explained to him he was satisfied with the forms as being true documents.
Dad went on to talk about how his prescool is better because it's a state run program, and if I call, no one there will deny me any information. Dad went on and on about how rude the owner of daughter's preschool was to him, and that's why he thinks he should have custody. Judge explained to dad that I am not responsible for the actions or inactions of a third party.
Dad talked about his suspended driver's license and how it's not suspended, it's restricted, but he's allowed to "go to important things". My attorney asked him how he got to court that day, and dad had a little fit. Got all upset about self incrimination and stuff, and went on and on about how he is suing the California DMV for suspending his license.
On Day 2, Dad back tracked a little bit, and explained to the judge that his license is restricted. My attorney asked him about that, and dad explained he had a restricted license which allows him to go to and from work. So, my attorney asked where he worked. And dad said that he has a private benifactor, and he is self employed. So my attorney asked him what he does. Dad said "My job is to fight for my rights, I have to sue a bunch of people". He then went on to explain that the officer who arrested him for having a loaded gun in his car and driving with no insurance and on a suspended license did so out of spite. He then stated that the criminal court convicted him out of spite as well. Judge opened a little envelope which had dad's criminal conviction. Judge explained to dad that he was being charged with one felony and 2 misdermeanors. And, explained to dad that he took a plea to a lessor charge and was sentanced and is now on probation. So, in essence, Dad realized he broke the law. Dad went on to explain that he will be suing the criminal court to have his conviction dismissed. And, had he known it was going to be brought up in family court, he would have fought it, rather than taking a plea. He told the judge that he believes he has a good chance of having it dismissed.
Judge stated that he didn't think he would weigh too heavely on Dad's criminal conviction.
When I testified, I spoke about the bizarre behavior and dad's talk of conspiracy theories againt him. I talked about dad telling our daughter to not kiss or hug me during custody exchanges. Dad never denied this, and actually elaborated on these topics.
Dad got back on the stand and spoke of these conspiracy theories against him, and how every Irish person hates him. He talked about our mediator and the only reason dad hasn't been awarded sole custody is because the mediator is Irish, and views dad as a British person. He talked for about 10 minutes about the IRA and Irish mafia's being out after him, and how the courts have pitted us against eachother because of our nationalities. He then stated he felt this way because of a documentary he seen on tv.
He admitted on the stand that he has instructed our daughter to not kiss me, or any of my family members because he has seen huge gaping open wounds on our lips, which were leaking "gooey stuff". He specifically spoke about my mother in law, who he described as always having these gooey sores on her face. He then stated that our daughter has "caught things" by kissing me, and my family members.
At the end of the day, Judge explained how he would make his determination and the items he will be concidering. He told us that he will be concidering the note's from prior mediations, prior orders and filings, testimony from both of us, and the evidence I presented. He then said that he decided that he will be taking dad's gun conviction into concideration. Judge said he will have his ruling in two weeks.
Waiting is the hardest part.
