Mom dropped a Bomb Shell in Family Court

this is the matter of rubella versus Sango Wazza d-18 five seven two four eight to see the parties or president count to your appearances for the record good morning your honor Sean title one one six four zero I'm Nicholas or developers president good morning everybody have a seat we were just here on Wednesday let me give a procedural history since Wednesday and then I'm gonna ask before we get into any of the substantive issues if anyone has any objections to moving forward today we were here on Wednesday at that time I made a minute to the visitation order there was already scheduled pursuant to my previous order a 1 o'clock p.m. exchange of the child scheduled that afternoon evening mr. Lydell wrote a letter to the court copying counsel for the defendant that the exchange did not happen on Wednesday I I'm gonna go over the procedural history briefly and then I'm gonna allow anybody to make objections that they need to make okay so let me make sure everybody's on the same page about what's happened since Wednesday okay and then you can tell me what you need to tell me on Wednesday mr. Lydell sent the letter to the court and to counsel for the defendant indicating that the exchange did not happen that the police were called on Thursday morning counsel filed a motion for a pick up order served the same on counsel for the defendant on the same day counsel for the defendant at 11:58 filed a notice of withdraw as attorney later on I set I granted the motion and granted the order shortening time I didn't create the motion I granted the order shortening time and set the motion on I'm gonna tell you the exact time at 12:30 - on it January 31st is when the clerk's office created that hearing at 1:28 the defendant filed an affidavit requesting the refusal of the court the rule requires that that affidavit seeking disqualification happened three days before the next hearing so I know a lot has happened in the last three days so tell me what your objections are what you request is before we even get into what's going on about the administrative procedural process at this point go ahead [Music] now subject to the claim that a letter was sent to my attorney because you didn't mention a letter yeah and I also object to I don't understand I need to understand how it was even possible within hours for all this hey anything else so what's your request specifically about how we proceed that today the canceled what later date would allow you enough time to bow in opposition get a lawyer those things that you were concerned about at least one month 30 days 30 to 60 days all right anything else you want to tell me mom council so we're here in the motion for a pickup order what gave rise to the motion for a pickup order was not only a violation of the orders made in court on Wednesday but frankly a violation of orders that were made months ago subject to a parenting plan has been entered into this case that all happened before there was on the Java Council before there was any affidavit suggesting impropriety oh all of that occurred months ago with that schedule so in terms of him because he didn't interrupt you once he's done speaking I'll give you another opportunity to talk but just don't interrupt him go ahead the pickup order needs to be entered today on the basis of the fact that even before we came into court on Wednesday morning there was an exchange scheduled at one o'clock the defendant prevented that exchange from occurring we still don't even know where the child is there's a there's a safety concern there that was my next and I should say again there is a do we don't we don't know where the baby no we've had no responses from there have been efforts by my clients to get in touch with her through talking parent again as we discussed on Wednesday morning no responses to those so the court hasn't here contempt enforcement powers even if I don't file option and there was a contempt on Wednesday at 1:00 o'clock you can call it a contempt of the order you entered Wednesday morning or you can call it a contempt of the parenting agreement that she signed off on two months previous to that hearing but either way there was a clear contempt on the on Wednesday afternoon and that was before that was while she still had counsel of record that's why she before she had filed any any documents suggesting that there were that was bias or prejudice on the court so that the courts in here contempt powers I think warrant in this case that you could issue a pick up word on that basis alone but either way I think we need to get this child to the plaintiff today then what happens beyond that is subject to further orders of the court but but I think right now we have we have a clear contempt and we have some serious safety concerns about the child and I think the best way to remedy that is again it's a it's a pickup word it's temporary subject to change but I think for the short term she can have as much time as she wants frankly to to respond but while she's figuring that out I think we need to make sure that Julian is safe and sound with mr. Ravel all right so my first objection is this claim of a schedule happening months ago I don't even know what he's talking about you changed the schedule just two days ago so for him to be referring to months ago that's that doesn't even make any sense and then on top of that too I object to him claiming because I arrived late to my house because I had to go pick up my baby from where he was with my mom feed him and make sure he's full before he goes anywhere and then take him home so he could be picked up the plaintiff didn't stay I mean III don't know what kept him from staying there because I arrived shortly after 2:30 ice I know it's late but had to make sure my child was good but an hour and a half late yeah traffic I was I already live 45 minutes and then I'm talking about - well I don't know what stopped him from staying I don't know what stopped him from even coming to pick up the baby yesterday great it's a recurring thing where he just doesn't show up without even word I mean look at today well can I ask you something then yes um let me interrupt you so that you can respond what counsel was speaking of is the original agreement that you entered into about visitation required a one o'clock pickup on Wednesday that that was all that was already in existence week you for months and months we've always been doing a one o'clock pickup on Wednesday so that's that's what he was that was what he was talking about so you're saying we were at court till after 12:00 on Wednesday so you couldn't get there till 1:00 o'clock okay let me ask you this it sounds like you don't have any objection then - right now an exchange today and picking up on the same schedule that was on Wednesday I I do have an objection to that I my ejection is that I provided substantial evidence to the court and under [Music] three-one-seven NRS 432 B 330 it says here that a child in need of protection of the person a child may be needed a need of protection of the person responsible for the welfare of the child fails although the person is financially able to do so or has been offered financial or other means to do so to provide for the following needs of a child food clothing shelter necessary for the child's health or safety and I came to court and I provided my evidence that my child was being starved and you had you asked me the question do I really think that he's starving my baby I've taken him to the emergency room the doctors have confirmed that my child is hungry he's not being fed for long periods of time my child needs protection I mean it definitely needs to be a supervised visitation because I'm not gonna allow my child to go I'm not gonna make like to my child and neglect my life my constitutional rights my child's constitutional rights and let him to go and suffer when his dad is blatantly and in evidence that proved that I provided writing out that he's going to starve the baby and you you overlooked it and questioned me as if asking me if I really believe that he's gonna start my fate I know my rights I know my child's rights it stated right here in Nevada State Constitution anything else for now counsel anything I just wanted to point out as a factual matter and we attach this to the letter which we also attached the motion the contact card that the officer filled out is it is that 2:30 p.m. so I mean even by 2:30 when she said she arrived he was still there officers I could not find anybody there so I I don't know when she showed up once once he spoke to the police and they told him there was essentially nothing they could do I was done with my other earring and I advised him just you know just get out of there and we'll figure out what we can do but there was no again there was no there was no contact I mean this is this is what we talked about a Wednesday morning if she was legitimately held up in traffic or something and then happened to my client this morning but he texted me okay I mean that's what you do when you're running late and that didn't happen here as far as this evidence of starvation I think the court have seen videos and pictures of this child he's not missing any meals who's quite big her stage those those concerns are completely unfounded and again we've got here a clear content of a pre-existing order not just your on Wednesday but your order incorporating the parenting plan two months prior so I think the pick up order in this case is appropriate again I don't have any faith that if we walk out of here today which just says I'm not going to allow them to take this child she just told you essentially that I'm willing to do whatever it takes including being in contempt of this court's orders to make sure that my son is not around pointing that's what she just told you and I think the only way to do that unfortunately to get involved at this time and and then again we can have a full hearing on whatever issue she wants to raise once the child is safe and sound with the window in conclusion may have anything else yes I do so I object to what he said he I mean he has the nerve to say my child is quite big for his age as if he knows my child so justifying that it's okay for my child to go hungry when he's with his dad it's okay for him not to be fed and he also just lied just now saying that I said I don't want him to be around my child I just want a supervised visitation my child can see his father I just want somebody to be able to be there at the Donna's house center and make sure that my child is being taken care of because my child is nine months and um right over here Nevada Revised Statutes number 201 point zero nine zero says neglected child is defined that the child who is deprived of the necessary necessities of life - or her parents and has no means of obtaining such Ness of necessities my child is nine months he can't speak for himself I his mother I have to be the one to observe him take care of him and speak for him I mean this is a child that we're talking about we're not talking about a teenager who who can say okay my dad's not buying me something about my mom gave me some money you go to the store and get some food my child doesn't have anybody nobody to advocate for him other than me and I just want the visitation to be supervised until the plaintiff can take a class took a necessary class because the one that you took is for zero to six months my child is nine months old he doesn't know anything about feeding the baby not a new doesn't he doesn't have that knowledge even when I told him to feed the baby doesn't respond to the messages on the talking parents have not provided this he it's just he needs the proper knowledge of taking care of my baby there's nobody else over there at that house who's gonna be taking care of my baby or speaking up for him so I just want that visitation to be supervised you can see this dad I mean a weekend mornings you know trying to see if somebody can bring him during the week or something like that whenever I just need the visitations to be supervised because my child isn't mine if he can't speak for himself and I really think that after the after we were in court here it should have prompted you to to investigate um and immediately changed the supervision but instead you used do you change the super the schedule to a two-third schedule where my child would be away from his breastfeeding mother for five days at a were he breastfeeds for five days at a time right here in Nevada Revised Statutes 21.2 32 it says clear as day that breastfeeding a baby until two offers health benefits to both baby and mom unless medically an advisable it also provides significant benefits that help with the mother including protection of breast against breast cancer talks about the World Health Organization this is in the Constitution itself and then sense here the social constraints of modern against the choice of breastfeeding and lead new mothers with demanding time schedules to opt for caramel feeding to avoid embarrassment social ostracism or criminal prosecution you can't take away my constitutional rights under the state of Nevada under the the United States to breastfeed my child until whatever age I choose to breastfeed him I mean I I provided medical documents where I've taken my child to the doctor's office and the doctors talked about a formula I can't talk about a formula that my child is having if I don't give my child formula you know I know that he's having a reaction to a formula and yes your opinion definitely matters about you know how you might know about the effect how eczema can occur how eczema can occur even if it's not a formula issue but I've taken my child multiple times to see the doctor provided the medical records and it's definitely the formula that he's being given I told Dad before visitation even started you need to go see a pediatrician before you give the child formula because he's only given the breast milk and he refused I provided the text messages where he refused it what he just doesn't doesn't even consider it as if I didn't say anything like that and it takes for you to tell him that he can take the baby to whatever pediatrician he decides to choose I mean he could my child to suffer I gave it three my I gave this visitation schedule that you did three months I gave it time he went to see his dad but each time it's disheartening to see my child come home starving not changed and on the matter of not being changed to you I didn't want to get into substantive issues and I've given you some time but we're way into substantive issues we're talking about procedural things I'm not reconsidering any decision I'm not making a decision about custody today what's on today's the pickup order and I'm asking for your administrative procedural objections because there's some strange events that happened so I'm asking for those objections whether we're gonna go forward with that hearing today or whether I'm gonna continue it so I don't want I don't want you to waste too much of your time getting back into revisiting these visitation issues remember at the outset when I said up we were gonna talk about procedural issues first procedural means the way things kind of happened in this case a lot has happened in tours last two or three days so before I even hear that motion for a pick up order what I wanted to hear from you is your objections you asked me for 30 to 60 more days you indicated that you don't want to conduct an exchange now that you're not going to conduct the exchange now I'm not making those kind of orders today I'm asking I'm asking what you want to do you it said you wanted 30 to 60 days anything else you want to tell me about that procedural or administrative issues right I would rather just go back to the old schedule okay so the procedural or administrative issues not about the visitation schedule whether we're gonna have this hearing today okay or whether you want 30 to 60 days to respond and how you want to work what you wanna do a witch hearing motion for pickup you requested 30 or 60 days for nut to it be heard on another date okay all right in this case is that all you have anything else oh yes I do in the mean time I do want to do a paternity test to make sure that needs out there because just given the timeline um I today we're not gonna bring up any other issues if you like that you could file motion I'm going to direct you to that yellow piece of paper it has a lot of information a list of resources places you can go to get more information and requesting and putting those requests on calendar ok anything else all right this is an interesting course of events over the last three days the affidavit for disqualification was filed one hour after I set the hearing in this case I am concerned because at the very same time mom's counsel withdraws from representing her mom indicates she didn't receive a copy of the motion certainly her counsel did but she indicates he did it he didn't give that to her today she refuses to conduct the exchange as ordered indicates that her preference is not to do an exchange the court is divested from jurisdiction which that affidavit seeking disqualification of Judge is filed unfortunately in this case it was untimely it was filed after this date had been scheduled the courts extraordinarily concerned about the safety of Julian Julian was supposed to be exchanged on Wednesday he was not I'm concerned I'm worried and I have to balance his safety concerns with the administrative and procedural rules of court in this case mom's requested 30 to 60 days to respond to a motion which is well outside of her are the time limits we have for responding to emotion at most a party has approximately two to three weeks to respond - emotion and a date upset um this is difficult I am NOT all my previous orders stand I feel as though I cannot make an order today that the affadavit divest me of jurisdiction I am unwilling to issue without a hearing contempt proceedings and I'm unwilling to issue a pickup order at this time although I'm gravely concerned about the safety of your son and so I can't set another date for this hearing until the affidavit is ruled on by the chief judge as I'm looking in the system with this things are happening so quickly there's not even a date for hearing for the affidavit at this point and so I caution everybody I'm real worried real worried there is an opportunity to fix this today and we can't do that and so we await the chief judge's order unfortunately thank you

Channel: Veterans In Politics

Views: 600,382

Rating: 3.9640901 out of 5

Keywords: Linda Marquis, clark county, family court, judge, las vegas, nevada

Id: QrdhA0YBW_o

Length: 23min 51sec (1431 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 11 2019