The Riverside Superior Court has a number of cases which they prefer to cover up. These cases involve abuse and substance abuse. Some of these cases have an incorrect ruling for every custody order and the court insists on targeting a target parent to cover up the failure to protect and the failure to address long-term substance abuse. Any attorney is bound by client attorney privilege and may not reveal any information about their clients in any capacity. http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Current-Rules/Rule-3-100
These rulings for example ignore any domestic violence that exists including mandatory application of the CA family code section 3044 advisory notice which accompanies every mediation.
In some cases one parent had a sole legal and sole physical custody under a domestic violence as the existing custody order. The court fails to apply the rebuttable presumption according to CA family code section 3044 et seq., as it relates to the application of the rebuttable presumption for custody at the relevant mediation or the relevant hearing.
The court mediators refuse to adhere to the concept that parties who has a domestic violence restraining can request a separate mediation, without the parent who is and was restrained under a domestic violence restraining order. The court fails to address the settlement requirements contained in CA rules of court as it relates to settlement providers and mediators (CCRC, (http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_420).
Several of these cases have the track record. Flooding the court record with OSC cause for sanctions and other irrelevant statements against the parent who has been protected and is protected by several restraining order. The only purpose is to influence the state of mind of any court or any judicial officer who reviews the court file.
A tactic used by vindictive abusive ex-spouses is to portray the party protected under a domestic violence restraining order as mentally ill and crazy. Numerous studies confirm this tactic and it is used to evade the protection of a restraining order and its enforcement. The court also specialized in this tactic if a parent is resistant to the risk of exposure to domestic abuse by placing the children in contact with the restrained party.
Attorneys specialize in pressuring the protected party under a domestic violence restraining order to allow the restrained party to see the children protected under a domestic violence restraining order, without a supervision order, and without guaranteeing the safety of the children. The tactic is used to portray to the court that there is no danger if the protected parent complies. These attorneys then present to the court that the protected parent must be so delusional that they even imagined the holes punched in the wall. One such attorney is Palmer Riedel. The court relies on these statements without any evidence presented by a psychologist or a psychiatrist. As in the court’s mind these delusions must exist when they are expressed by an attorney.
This type of tactic occurs and continues to occur despite an attorney of a parent specifying to the court that the court file does not specify any issues relating to the mental health of a parent. In this instance the attorney was Timothy Ewanyshyn. The relevant mediation with Emelina McGinnis failed to address the existing domestic violence at that time and portrayed a parent as rigid for refusing to place children at risk. The mediator failed to apply the rebuttable presumption for custody which addresses any domestic violence restraining according to CA family code section 3044 and the relevant ca rules of court for mediation (http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_215). The court failed to do the same as it merely rubber stamped a mediator’s (CCRC) recommendation without addressing that both parents need to agree according to CA evidence section 1118 and CA evidence code section 1121.
The other parent, for example, has numerous issues including a drug manufacturing felony which the court is aware of and refuses to address in the context of custody, and prolonged substance abuse, impacting on the custody time with children. Usually any attorney would address the credibility of a witness including their testimony according to evidence code section 788(a-d) which specifies as follows:
788. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, it may be shown by the examination of the witness or by the record of the judgment that he has been convicted of a felony unless:
(a) A pardon based on his innocence has been granted to the witness by the jurisdiction in which he was convicted.
(b) A certificate of rehabilitation and pardon has been granted to the witness under the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3 of the Penal Code.
(c) The accusatory pleading against the witness has been dismissed under the provisions of Penal Code Section 1203.4, but this exception does not apply to any criminal trial where the witness is being prosecuted for a subsequent offense.
(d) The conviction was under the laws of another jurisdiction and the witness has been relieved of the penalties and disabilities arising from the conviction pursuant to a procedure substantially equivalent to that referred to in subdivision (b) or (c).
These cases escalate out of control as the court refuses to issue the correct rulings without four or five restraining orders that are issued over a specific time frame, demonstrating a track record of domestic violence, linked to the failure of the court to issue the court order from the beginning.
The relevant transcripts are listed below.