Family court 246 used a number of questionable rulings to provide a respondent with unbelievable decisions in a divorce trial. Some of the most devious outrages were associated with the trial. The debacle began with the court, assisted by an attorney befitting the reputation obtained a default judgement and quickly moved to return a mother of opportunity to a home she had abandoned more than two years prior leaving two children to the care of the mother.
Then it was off to the races for family court , scheduling hearings then refusing to hear them maybe because the court simply would not like the results. The court therefore took a home from its rightful owner, replace the only parent the children had, and taxed the father 25% of his salary to pay for the social debt of credit cards in the thousands.
The court continued to deny due process granting injunctions without service and producing paper work stating the petitioner had waived service in words or by signature. Nothing further from the truth. This case has to be reviewed by the Attorney General's office. This level of misconduct is unheard of in America judicial process of any kind.
Now the respondent is openly refusing to provide children for visitation implying the judge is aware of her decision. Can it be the judge has had a secret meting with the respondent or her attorney and they were advised to with hold visitation? This would be consistent with the court openly refusing to provide due process to litigants not of their choosing. At a scheduled hearing on the 28 of February the judge seem to be protective of the respondent who was present in the court not introducing her to the hearing, instead insisting she was not served. At that time the judge had no knowledge she was not served via certified mail or other forms of service.
That this court seem to go out of its way to accommodate one party of a case ignoring the other is not consistent with expectations of any branch of the judicial system.
If it is the case that family court 246 is making special secret accommodation with legal implications with a respondent and or her attorney, would be a concern with legal implications.
The attach text from the respondent implies clearly the court has given a house to the respondent which is clearly not the case. The court has also evaded the question of the authority under which the respondent is claiming property including vehicles confiscated prior to any conclusion by the courts.
Family court 246 has to adhere to laws and cannot be left unchallenged to violate any law or right especially due process guarantee by the constitution, it seems does not apply to it.
The court has to demand respondent make children available for visitation or provide a fitness hearing to document the court decision. The court has to provide documentation giving authority to respondent for various items in dispute with the court.
Family court 246 has to stop the apparent effort of denying due process to litigants it concluded does not deserve such process.
No comments:
Post a Comment