Police reports are only "heresay"? How do you prove?

[Ohiogal]

Step by step

I know I may sound completely ignorant to some, but that's because I'm not a lawyer and simply don't know these things. We don't know what to do that will actually work in court. We hear a lot of different advice, which we take, but none of it ever seems to matter. That's why I'm came here to this site and are asking all of you. If you're not an attorney, the procedures and jargon are very confusing.

And that is why you NEED to hire an attorney. When your husband had an attorney he won. Pure and simple. Pro se he is EXPECTED to know what he is doing. He is expected to know the procedures and jargon and everything else. he is held to the same standard as represented individuals are.

When the ex brings up the phoney child support issues, I call the DCSS and they mail us a payment record. They also verbally verify that hubby has a flawless payment history and doesn't owe anything to her. They ask what the ex's problem is and think she's nuts. The court just ignores it all though, so she keeps mailing demand letters to our home every few months.

Does hubby get printouts of his payment history that are certified as being true and accurate by DCSS? Is child support served on every issue that ex brings into court. His ex can keep mailing demand letters. IGNORE THEM! Keep copies of course but no one says your hubby has to respond to them.

You're right, my husband DOESN'T know how to catch her in her lies, and many of her lies that are in her letter are made-up things that there's no way to prove, and she knows it. She obviously also knows that she can throw all the fits she wants to in the mediators office, because they don't even let the judge know what she's doing and how difficult she's being. My husband said that when ex is looking away, even the mediators look at him, shaking their head in disbelief at what a spoiled insane child she behaves like.


Mediators are PROHIBITED from testifying in court about what goes on in mediation. Anything that is stated in mediation is NOT admissible evidence (unless it involves out and out threats that fall under a clear and IMMEDIATE danger). Mediation is negotation and under the rules of evidence negotiation is NOT admissible.

Until your post just now, I wasn't aware that we could even request a transcript of what was said in court.

And that is a problem because requesting a transcript is BASIC. It will cost money but most hearings are taped. If they weren't, hubby should request that EVERY hearing from now on is on the record.

My husband wasn't hostile in his testimony or to her - the judge was doing all the talking. All hubby said was "Yes maam" or "No maam" to the questions the judge asked him and that was IT, plus his attorney was there speaking for him on everything else. The judge was the one who told ex that she couldn't speak any further because she's made her decision, and that she should be thankful towards husband for providing all the transportation up until then. That's when she started bawling and that's when we left immediately with our attorney.


So what? she is acting like a child. That is not illegal.

However, when she happens to get away with something in court, she follows us out into the hallway, laughs and makes mocking facial gestures at us, and makes sure she gets in the same elevator as us so she can keep laughing in our faces. We've brought that up to the court's attention as well, but they don't care and didn't say anything to her.


Why should they? the court is NOT there to referee childish antics by adults. That is NOT the purpose of the hearings. Let ex be immature.


My husband ALWAYS shows up to get his son when he's supposed to, and yes he did get another police report which was submitted with all the rest when we brought her to court for contempt. But as always, it was meaningless.


No. The way it was introduced was meaningless -- completely and totally. The police report can be useful if your husband knows the proper way and use for it. He doesn't. HENCE he NEEDS an attorney.

We have no idea how to get the police officer to court to testify. Do we have to subpoena him? The officer had written in several that "she clearly violated the court order" in his opinion - geez you'd think that would be proof enough.


The officer's opinion MEANS NOTHING. he is not a court and he does not have the capacity to make decisions regarding whether court orders are violated for contempt purposes. The court is the only one who can do that. Hubby can subpoena him if there is an open case in which his testimony is necessary. But an officer's opinion IS NOT proof because the officer is not in a position to interpret a court order and make that decision. The judge's opinion is what matters. A police office can testify to what he observed and, if he can be shown to be an expert, to what his opinion in the areas of his expertise are. Court orders for custody are NOT an area of expertise for police officers.

Husband can't question her on anything . . . she hangs up on him all the time and makes sure she's not home when he arrives to pick up his son.

Then he keeps track of when he can't get his son but that he showed up and was granted the time to see his son and hires an attorney to fight it for him.

She even refuses to discuss school issues regarding the son - she doesn't want to hear anything.

So then HUBBY calls the school and requests the school send him copies of any all information regarding son to him. And he can talk to the school about issues regarding his son.

The only way she communicates anything is by sending her insane letters, and then demands that husband is not allowed to send a written response back to her unless he "handwrites it in 5 words or less". (We even got ANOTHER crazy letter last night, again stating that she's filing suit against US for harassment). When they go mediation, she throws a fit and demands separate rooms (which the judge denied), yet she states that my husband is the one who "refuses to communicate" WTF??

So what? She is acting like a child. Get over it. Ignore her childish antics. And when she tells the judge that, your husband should express all the ways in which he does try to communicate. As for mediation, she is allowed to request separate rooms.


Regardless of what is thought of me here, I truly appreciate and am noting all of your comments. Thank you so much.

Your hubby needs an attorney. They are the pros when dealing with the law. Without it he is not going to get anywhere. And you truthfully need to back off a bit. You are far too involved in what is going on.

 

[NITM]

You're right, he used to have a lawyer but couldn't afford to keep him any longer as the ex won't stop with one thing after another. It wiped hubby out. Even the lawyer said since she's the litigation addict type, we were basically wasting our money and should do it pro se, otherwise he'd be in court having to charge us by the hour every day.

I was afraid to hear that hubby either has to go broke or we just have to put up with it for another 2.5 years until the entire visitation/child support nightmare is over with. Then he can tell the ex to kiss his @$$ without fear of not being able to see his son. Until then, we need to do the best we know how on our own. I'll be back with more questions I'm sure, once we're served with the papers she claims to be filing.

Thanks

 

[casa]

I don't know where you got that idea, but in CA, police reports are 'evidence'...I've used them and seen them used many, many, many times. Why would a police report be "hearsay"? The officer's report & notation that the X wasn't there is credible. Is a judge or attorney actually telling you that police reports are not evidence?????

 

[casa]

Mediators are PROHIBITED from testifying in court about what goes on in mediation. Anything that is stated in mediation is NOT admissible evidence (unless it involves out and out threats that fall under a clear and IMMEDIATE danger). Mediation is negotation and under the rules of evidence negotiation is NOT admissible.

Ohiogal~ In CA contested custody goes to mediation. The Mediatior contacts collateral sources, reviews the court file & evidence, then writes a report with their Custody recommendations to the court...a copy of the mediator's report & recommendations is provided to all parties & the judge prior to the hearing. Courts side heavily with mediator's recommendations. So that statement is not true at all for California, though I realize it is the case with many other states.

 

[Ohiogal]

I don't know where you got that idea, but in CA, police reports are 'evidence'...I've used them and seen them used many, many, many times. Why would a police report be "hearsay"? The officer's report & notation that the X wasn't there is credible. Is a judge or attorney actually telling you that police reports are not evidence?????

Police reports are legitimately not evidence according to the rules of evidence and they can easily be thrown out. That is taught in evidence class in law school. The reason being is a party has a right to cross-examine someone testifying against them. They cannot cross-examine a police report.

 

[casa]

Police reports are legitimately not evidence according to the rules of evidence and they can easily be thrown out. That is taught in evidence class in law school. The reason being is a party has a right to cross-examine someone testifying against them. They cannot cross-examine a police report.

They are evidence...and yes, the other party has a right to cross-examine anyone who provides testimony/documentation/evidence...however, I can't tell you the last time I saw a cop yanked into court over a police report for a custody/visitation hearing~ Unless it went all the way to trial, in which case everyone is usually subpoena anyway. And prior to any of that, this case will see mediation~ and the mediator's office will certainly accept the police reports as long as they are properly filed prior to mediation. The mediator will adress those reports in their report to the court...if the X wants to fight that, fine- but good luck with it.

 

[Ohiogal]

They are evidence...and yes, the other party has a right to cross-examine anyone who provides testimony/documentation/evidence...however, I can't tell you the last time I saw a cop yanked into court over a police report for a custody/visitation hearing~ Unless it went all the way to trial, in which case everyone is usually subpoena anyway. And prior to any of that, this case will see mediation~ and the mediator's office will certainly accept the police reports as long as they are properly filed prior to mediation. The mediator will adress those reports in their report to the court...if the X wants to fight that, fine- but good luck with it.

First of all mediation is NOT trial. Mediators in california do not follow the guidelines set by the national organizations on mediation then which is a shame.

 

[casa]

First of all mediation is NOT trial. Mediators in california do not follow the guidelines set by the national organizations on mediation then which is a shame.

Exactly my point...gearing up for a 'trial' at this point is jumping way ahead of the gun...this case will see mediation before trial. Police reports can be filed as evidence/documentation and will be considered by the mediator. If the OP's X disputes the officer's account of the police report~ THEN they can take the steps necessary to subpoena the officer to testify at a hearing...or if it goes that far, at trial. And ithen the X or their attorney can subpoena &/or depose the officer. What they expect to get out of that, I'm not sure...and I'd say Good Luck with trying to prove a nuetral 3rd party (a law enforcement officer at that) lied on an official police report.

The reason the X in this case isn't being cited isn't that the police reports haven't been accepted as evidence (that's already happened)...it's that courts tend to 'warn' parents first, then order to enforce, then fine them, etc. etc. Some parents will scream denial when the other parent is 10 mins late...and every situation in between. Courts want to see a pattern of denials by a parent before they start handing out stiffer consequences.

Different states have different requirements for Mediators...which depend on many factors (court-appointed, private, attorney-mediators, etc. not to mention different guidelines depending on their qualifications, ie; Social Worker, MFCC, etc, etc.) National Organizations on mediation simply explain the various mediation orgs. and guidelines throughout the different states.

 

[Ohiogal]

Exactly my point...gearing up for a 'trial' at this point is jumping way ahead of the gun...this case will see mediation before trial. Police reports can be filed as evidence/documentation and will be considered by the mediator. If the OP's X disputes the officer's account of the police report~ THEN they can take the steps necessary to subpoena the officer to testify at a hearing...or if it goes that far, at trial. And ithen the X or their attorney can subpoena &/or depose the officer. What they expect to get out of that, I'm not sure...and I'd say Good Luck with trying to prove a nuetral 3rd party (a law enforcement officer at that) lied on an official police report.

The reason the X in this case isn't being cited isn't that the police reports haven't been accepted as evidence (that's already happened)...it's that courts tend to 'warn' parents first, then order to enforce, then fine them, etc. etc. Some parents will scream denial when the other parent is 10 mins late...and every situation in between. Courts want to see a pattern of denials by a parent before they start handing out stiffer consequences.

Different states have different requirements for Mediators...which depend on many factors (court-appointed, private, attorney-mediators, etc. not to mention different guidelines depending on their qualifications, ie; Social Worker, MFCC, etc, etc.) National Organizations on mediation simply explain the various mediation orgs. and guidelines throughout the different states.

There is a definitive definition of a mediator and Ca's isn't it. Their mediators are more like faciliators. Because mediators have a code of ethics to abide by just like an attorney or a social worker in which they are to be NEUTRAL THIRD PARTIES -- what they are doing is not neutral. I really hate the way CA is set up with their "mediators". But I will defer to your knowledge of that screwed up system

 

[casa]

There is a definitive definition of a mediator and Ca's isn't it. Their mediators are more like faciliators. Because mediators have a code of ethics to abide by just like an attorney or a social worker in which they are to be NEUTRAL THIRD PARTIES -- what they are doing is not neutral. I really hate the way CA is set up with their "mediators". But I will defer to your knowledge of that screwed up system

I agree our system needs much reform! Unfortunately due to budget among other things...we are forced to utilize a system that works with this large population. And this system DOES work, and cuts down on a huge amount of time/cost/litigation in our state. The courts actual verbiage is "mediation" but some refer to it as "conciliation". And the courts which facilitate mediation are called "Family Law Facilitator's Office"...so the facilitation aspect you mention is obviously common to their goal/name. Some parties choose to pay thousands for a private mediator or even an attorney-mediator bc they feel it helps ensure some of their privacy....but even then one party can subpoena the private mediator &/or their records. The majority of cases are resolved in mediation or at the hearing after mediation where a judge accepts parts/all of the recommendations and makes a ruling. I have seen judges not rule according to mediator's reports- but that is the exception to the rule (IMO)

Our court-appointed mediators ARE nuetral parties. They meet with both parents and review any/all documentation/evidence in the case file from both/all parties. They contact schools/counselors/doctors or other significant collateral contacts before they make their 'recommendation'/report to the court. And they do have ethics/guidelines, just not the same as every other state. Most of which seems to focus primarily on their degree/education/experience.

I'd be curious to know what county OP is in...bc then I could give more exact direction (Yes, the mediation process can even be different from county to county)

 

[NITM]

The nightmare always takes place in Orange County.

I'm enjoying reading all of your posts - very interesting and informative!

Usually the ex will always call my husband a half hour before she denies a visitation (when he's already almost to her house) and tells him that he can't have the kid. It's always done as "punishment" when she's angry or jealous about something, and she'll leave a message and say that kid needs a haircut so he can't see him tonight or lie that he's ill so she's taking him to his grandmother's house (30 miles away), etc. And she'll lie and dispute the police reports saying husband "said it was ok", etc. Always has to throw that seed of doubt in the court's mind. Husband even drove to the grandmother's home before when she pulled the "sick" story on kids birthday. She wouldn't even let him see or speak to his son, not even to wish him a happy birthday, much less take him for his visitation. She's a malicious, evil person all around.

Someone said in an earlier post that I'm way too involved. This is true, and I would prefer not to have anything to do with the entire mess. Husband is in construction, doesn't know anything about the law, how to type, how to use a computer, etc. and begs me to help him, so I type his correspondence for him. Personally, I could care less whether we have my stepson over or not . . . I've got my own grown son to worry about and having minor children around isn't exactly my favorite thing - I just feel bad that husband has to go through this crap all the time. We know that the reason ex is always trying to eliminate husband's visitations is so she can run to DCSS for more child support. She's done that before, actually quibbling over 1/2 hour increments trying to get more $$! One time husband had to work out of town for a couple of weeks and let her know weeks in advance that he would have to forfeit his midweek visits during that time. The next time they were in court, she had in her declaration that husband "has ceased all his midweek visits with no notification" like he never showed up and never called! He would never do that. This is another reason why he documents everything in writing since then. She always tries to plant the seeds to make him sound like a deadbeat, when he's anything but.

 

[casa]

The nightmare always takes place in Orange County.

I'm enjoying reading all of your posts - very interesting and informative!

Usually the ex will always call my husband a half hour before she denies a visitation (when he's already almost to her house) and tells him that he can't have the kid. It's always done as "punishment" when she's angry or jealous about something, and she'll leave a message and say that kid needs a haircut so he can't see him tonight or lie that he's ill so she's taking him to his grandmother's house (30 miles away), etc. And she'll lie and dispute the police reports saying husband "said it was ok", etc. Always has to throw that seed of doubt in the court's mind. Husband even drove to the grandmother's home before when she pulled the "sick" story on kids birthday. She wouldn't even let him see or speak to his son, not even to wish him a happy birthday, much less take him for his visitation. She's a malicious, evil person all around.

Someone said in an earlier post that I'm way too involved. This is true, and I would prefer not to have anything to do with the entire mess. Husband is in construction, doesn't know anything about the law, how to type, how to use a computer, etc. and begs me to help him, so I type his correspondence for him. Personally, I could care less whether we have my stepson over or not . . . I've got my own grown son to worry about and having minor children around isn't exactly my favorite thing - I just feel bad that husband has to go through this crap all the time. We know that the reason ex is always trying to eliminate husband's visitations is so she can run to DCSS for more child support. She's done that before, actually quibbling over 1/2 hour increments trying to get more $$! One time husband had to work out of town for a couple of weeks and let her know weeks in advance that he would have to forfeit his midweek visits during that time. The next time they were in court, she had in her declaration that husband "has ceased all his midweek visits with no notification" like he never showed up and never called! He would never do that. This is another reason why he documents everything in writing since then. She always tries to plant the seeds to make him sound like a deadbeat, when he's anything but.

Then mediation will go the way I earlier stated. I certainly hope that your husband is SAVING these voicemails bc that is also proof of her denials in her own words.