1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Petitioner‟s Dispute to the current Order dated 8/26/2011
Section 8.02 of the current order in effect in this case states: “ In the event of a dispute in regard to these orders, the court reserves jurisdiction, but directs the parties to address the issue to the family law department of origin rather than this trial court.”

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

1. I the Petitioner, Destiny A Conway, am the Mother of Tristan and Madison Conway. I am referenced as „mother‟ in the Order, as in this dispute. The Respondent, Mathew J Conway is the „father.‟ Essentially I am disputing the entirety of this order, dated 8/26/11. I hereby submit the following dispute to the courts for review. 2. I would also like to make notice of my concern as to whether this order holds validity, considering the possibility that there were procedural mistakes made in hearings prior to the Trial (namely the hearings taking place on April 25 & 26 2011 and also June 20 & 24 2011) that led to the Trial being put on calendar. I am unsure that the same would have been the case had no mistakes been made during those hearings. I have included a detailed account of those mistakes within the OSC accompanying this Ex Parte and Dispute. 3. The following is a list of the details I feel support my dispute, and offer the courts a substantial showing of evidence when considering the appropriate action to take regarding my dispute. a. The Fathers Exhibit and Witness lists are misleading and appear to suggest a significant amount of support regarding the accusations against the Mother. i. The Father has used tactics such as; using the same name or description for numerous items listed within documents. ii. Has skipped numbers of list suggesting more than actual witnesses and exhibits. iii. Describes the witness subpoena issued as if exhibits relating to the allegations made appearing as if there were more evidence also. iv. Includes use of unlawful documents and unverified and undetermined credibility of photos that were presented as evidence. b. The Father‟s „key witnesses‟ who claimed to have knowledge of the alleged „drug use‟ which had supposedly taken place 10 months prior, were not present in court, they never offered any testimony or any verification of their claims. c. The Father presented no showing of the Mothers „drug use‟, no medical records, legal or criminal records, no therapy verification, employer, school, family, CPS, or childcare provider cause for concern or record of ever voicing such at any time since the children were born. d. The Mother provided the courts with a copy of the drug screening results from the one screening that had been requested of her throughout the length of the matter being in the courts. This was dated April 25 2011, results collected on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
g. f. e.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28
i. h.

April 28 2011 and being negative or „clean‟ showing no drugs, alcohol, or Rx medications in her system. The courts took specific notice of the lack of support the Father had to the drug allegations he made. He explained that without evidence, witnesses, the mother having a documented history, and without a significant showing of outside concern, the issue was not going to be any further considered or addressed with the custody and visitation matter at hand. The idea that the Mother is unable to provide satisfactory care of her children is only explained by the courts in the statement of decision with use of an example, and a minute portion of the Mothers testimony (roughly 1- 1 ½ min.) taken from the combined total of nearly 4 hours that the mother was on the witness stand being questioned by the Father‟s attorney. The example that was used in the statement of decision to supposedly „verify or suggest‟ the courts conclusion that the Mother is unable to provide satisfactory care of her children was the issue of her oldest child having 11 days of the prior school year that were attended tardy of 30 minutes or more and were unexcused. This was also in comparison to the 30 excused absences that had also taken place due to the continuing problem with the child having lice infestations. The absences were not used as a negative display of the Mothers ability to care for her children. Nor was it elaborated on by the courts or the Father. The tardy days were used to suggest poor parenting, however the Mother willingly explained they had occurred due to late nights removing lice then oversleeping, a severe cold that the household had suffered and also a day or two when the child turned the alarm off before her Mother woke, and continued to watch tv with her brother and sister and future step siblings as they were not in school at that time. Though I mean no disrespect to the courts, and I am aware of the importance of a child‟s good attendance, 11 tardy days from school is not even close to being a sufficient showing of a parents ability or lack thereof, to be a good parent or to provide satisfactory care of their child. Furthermore, it is not in itself even close to being worthy of being used as the only explanation for making a ruling of supervised visitation 4 times a year to a mother who raised the same children for their entire lives despite the Father‟s residence outside of the state. The court‟s decision to specifically describe the tardy days of the Mother‟s oldest child as the reason for his ruling without any other additional concern can only mean one thing. That out of the entire 3 day Trial, all of the allegations made, evidence, witnesses, and testimonies involved, the 11 tardy days of the oldest child (still considering the lice problem and the 30 excused absences) was the most urgent and concerning issue that the court could find that would so much as attempt to support the idea that the mother was „unable.‟ The statement of decision includes no account or example of the „preponderance of evidence‟ that the court claimed to have had regarding the alleged „substance abuse issues‟ of the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
n. m. l. k. j.

17 18 19 20 21
o.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Mother. There was nothing further to provide the reason for the court‟s ability to reach this conclusion. The example given regarding the „Tardy Days‟ were in relation only to the oldest child of the Mother, and still considering the lack of explanation of the „substance issue,‟ the courts failed to provide any hint of the Mother being unable to care for Madison or Tristan as they were not yet enrolled in school, and had not been tardy to school. In addition to the lack of explanation or support for the courts conclusion, there had never been any record of ever having anyone concerned for the quality of the care of the children, nor for the possibility that the Mother had been abusive, neglectful, or under the influence of drugs by anyone except for the Father himself. Numerous welfare checks had been requested by the Father of the Clovis Police Dept and CPS, whom each conducted unexpected investigations in the Mother‟s home and each was closed being “unfounded” or “checks ok.” Essentially every detail of the order dated 8/26/2011 is in direct correlation to the idea that the Mother in fact suffers a „substance abuse issue‟ and lacks the ability to satisfactorily care for the children. There was no supporting evidence, history, documentation, nor any significant or considerable amount of concern for such allegation against the Mother raised to date. The court concluded the trial on July 7 2011 by taking the matters under submission. The court further stated that if the Parties would like to submit a Proposed Order, that order should be submitted by no later than July 20 2011 and a decision could be expected on July 25, 2011. The closing direction of the courts was rather unclear, and the Mother was under the impression that the Proposed Order was an optional submission. As the Mother was unsure of how to draft a proper Order, and didn‟t want to mistakenly include or exclude any detail, she did not submit a Proposed Order to the Courts. The Father did however, and failed to serve a copy upon the mother. It appears as though the current order was made as a default ruling by the courts due to the Mothers failure to submit a proposed order. Though at the time of the ruling the mother was still unaware of the details in the Father‟s proposal. After obtaining a copy from the clerk‟s office months later and after attempting to familiarize herself with the court process, she has become more aware of “the way things work” in the court room. The normal 30 day time period that usually must pass before a default ruling is made, coincidentally explains why the courts had named July 25 2011 the date a decision could be expected, yet the signature was not added to the order until Aug 26 2011. The details and sections of the order signed included the exact details that the Father proposed with only very few and very minimal changes to said details and sections.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

4. It would seem that there may have been some degree of an abuse of discussion displayed by the Trial Courts in this matter. There was absolute awareness of all parties involved that the Mother was not represented by an attorney, nor did she have any legal experience beyond the previous dates that had been regarding the custody and visitation of the children. The failure of the Mother to submit a proposal to the courts should have raised red flags as to the clarity of the directions given, as it was obviously a detrimental factor concerning the ruling. The court may have seen it appropriate to address the parties and assure that the directions were understood as well as the outcome that could result from a failure to submit. The very least the court could have done was to have drafted an order that was supported by the details of the 3 day trial rather than simply adopting an order that directly contradicted the entirety of the trial.

Due to the reasons described in this dispute, I kindly ask the Court to review the case file in this matter, to check the validity of the claims that I have made, and to grant my request to vacate the Order dated 8/26/2011 re: Child Custody and Visitation of Tristan and Madison Conway, whom have been removed from my care and have since been kept from me at all cost by their Father despite the lack of anything to warrant such drastic and devastating changes to the lives of our entire family.

__________________________________ Destiny A Conway 6/18/2012

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22
23 24 25 26 27 28

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful