FAMILY COURT 246 PLAN THE JUDICIAL KIDNAPPING OF A 10 YEAR OLD CHILD.

Remember a past blog regarding a 246 court judge granting an injunction then 3 days later staging a nab with a mother and attorney to kid nap like a 10 year old? Well here is the rest of the story. An associate judge for court 246 could have wanted to favor a mother in a case, so she after refusing a respondent motion to modify a temporary injunction agreed suddenly to grant the motion using default when the Petitioner who was the father was out of State.

 When the judge realize the respondent had filed a motion to set aside and also to modify she decided to place a band aid to temporarily resolve the issue. When the Attorney General Offices contended there would be paper work associated with the band aid the judge seem to change her mind resetting the hearing.

At the reset the respondent was testifying of violence to children by respondent who was the mother. That's not what the judge wanted to hear so she scheduled an interview with both children 10 and 16 years.

 On the day of the trial she had another change of mind; she will only interview the 16 year old even if both children were in the court. It never occurred to me what her motive could have been until we were reviewing the case last Saturday and brain storming as to what her motive would be. The judge knew the 16 year old was living with the mother, while the 10 year old was living with the father for prolong periods even after the default judgment.

The plan seem to be avoid the 10 year at all cost. but work towards getting both children to the favored mother. This default judgment was hot and had to be resolved at all cost. Then the judge gave the father the 10 year old as a result of a TRO but not for long.

 The judge entertained a motion from the respondent to again get possession of the child. Remember the 10 year old have to be joined to the mother as per the objective of the court. Now the child had resisted efforts from the mother and the police to return her to the mother. so the only option left to the judge to achieve the reunion is to schedule another hearing ordering the child be brought again to the court

 The 246 court associate scheduled the hearing for 10 am. The petitioner and the child arrived at 10 am as per the court. Strangely the mother and attorney were standing next to the elevator. I advise the child to go say hello to the mother, while I checked to verify the Judge was in the court. I then return to look for the child but she was no where to be found.

The child had vanishedd along with the mother and attorney, using the elevator and out of the 17 floor building. I returned to the court and inquired as to what had happened.

The associate judge court 246 Houston informed me that the mother and attorney showed up at 9 am so she simply held the hearing giving them the child. I reminded the judge that I had called the court confirming I was on my way to court confirming the 10 o clock docket and she replied they were there so I had the hearing.

 Another example of court 246 simply ignoring due process and granting orders without hearings. Similar to granting default judgments service has to be made consistent with US laws and a hearing must be held. Judges cannot be allowed to confiscate property and nab children to suit their purpose.

 If allowed our country would become a mess and the court would parallel that of kangaroo justice, Now a reasonable person can conclude as we did that the court had no interest hearing from the 10 year old while in possession of the father. yet the court was happy interviewing the 16 year old who lived with the mother.

All that was left was for the court to bring children and mother under the same roof removing the father from the house.

Without hearing the motion to modify all the court had to do is keep denying the motion pending final trial when all temporary orders would be canceled. Then the default judgment would be taken care of, the court would have achieved its objective and live goes on. Or would it?