Eh_macaroni
Member
Suddenly I think I understand why it was little E comforting Ella in the pap pics and not mummy who they love more than anything in the world. Dread to imagine what happened when they all got home from court that day.
- Notice
Hiraeth
VIP Member
PART 2
Ella nods affirmatively.
Judge: “Okay. And then, the flipside of that, of course, is that I would presume that we have to resolve this issue—that is, was there domestic violence or not, before we can have the custody hearing. Is that not right or wrong? I think that’s right.”
Anne Kiley states that she would also oppose a continuance and that there are complicated issues in the dissolution proceeding, which Ella is not part of, such as the influence and “the problems in the case and why she’s here.” Anne Kiley states that “there are serious issues that need to be dealt with in the dissolution proceeding. Frankly, there are reasons that this case should be in dependency court, not because Ms. Wallace or Mr. Gruffudd are child abusers, but because we believe that Ella and her sister are victims of abuse by their mom. So we’re—”
Alice again interrupts the court.
Alice: “Oh my God!”
Anne Kiley: “We want—”
Judge: “Please. Please. I’m going to ask everybody to refrain.”
Alice: “No. It—it—”
Judge: “No. No. No. There’s no “No.” Please just—everybody keep your composure. Go ahead, counsel.”
Anne Kiley: “Family Code 3044 applies as it relates to Ms. Evans, because we have a restraining order against her, and the situation is so horrible for the family—”
Alice interrupts again but her words are unintelligible to the court reporter because she is speaking at the same time as Anne Kiley.
Anne Kiley: “—that we want it heard today. And we oppose the continuance.”
Gregory Jessner: “Your Honor, if I may. I agree with what Ms. Kiley said. I should add, my client, unfortunately, does suffer from a very serious medical condition. She has M.S. and the stress of this proceeding is debilitating for her, and she needs to get this past so she can reclaim her health, your Honor. So I do, for that reason, very strongly oppose a continuance to the extent that one is requested.”
The Judge states that he will read the case over a little closer and asks Ella if she is asking the court for a continuance and, if so, if she intends to hire a lawyer. Ella responds, “I’d like to hire a lawyer. Yeah.” The Judge inquires whether Ella has the ability to get counsel. Ella responds, “I think so, yeah.”
The Judge states that Anne Kiley makes a good point, that this is a well-noticed hearing, that Ella or someone on her behalf put together a fairly comprehensive pleading, and that he has to weigh Ella’s interest in getting her case effectively tried against Bianca’s interest in getting some finality in light of her medical condition and the hardship a delay would cause her.
Ella: “Could I also add, my mom also has a medical condition?”
Alice interrupts the court again.
Alice: “Thank you.”
Ella: “My mom also has a medical condition that’s like—it’s hard for her as well.”
Judge: “Right. Except your mom—I don’t mean to sound insensitive, okay, but your mom isn’t a party—”
Ella: “Okay. I’m sorry.”
Judge: “—to the two cases that we’re dealing with today. Okay?”
Alice: “We tried. I tried to, but she’s over—she’s over 12.”
Ella: “My mom—”
Judge (to Alice): “I just—I can’t hear from you. You don’t have standing right now, ma’am.”
Alice: “Go ahead.”
Ella: “All I knew was that I had to file it because I was over the age of 12. But I didn’t—like, anything I was supposed to do. So like, I didn’t know I was supposed to get an attorney or anything.”
Judge: “You don’t have to get an attorney.”
Ella: “Okay.”
Judge: “I want to be clear with you. I just want to make sure—you’re a child in the midst of a highly contentious divorce between your parents, and I want to make sure that what you’re doing here today, whether it happens today or it happens at a later date, I want to make sure that what’s happening is in your best interests and that you really want it.”
Ella: “Okay. Thank you.”
Judge: “And that this isn’t a subtext to something else. That’s my concern.”
Ella: “Okay.”
The Judge asks if there is anything else the parties wish to discuss before breaking for lunch and then diving deeper into the two issues after lunch. Hearing nothing, the court adjourns for lunch.
~Noon Recess~
-END OF PART 2-
Ella nods affirmatively.
Judge: “Okay. And then, the flipside of that, of course, is that I would presume that we have to resolve this issue—that is, was there domestic violence or not, before we can have the custody hearing. Is that not right or wrong? I think that’s right.”
Anne Kiley states that she would also oppose a continuance and that there are complicated issues in the dissolution proceeding, which Ella is not part of, such as the influence and “the problems in the case and why she’s here.” Anne Kiley states that “there are serious issues that need to be dealt with in the dissolution proceeding. Frankly, there are reasons that this case should be in dependency court, not because Ms. Wallace or Mr. Gruffudd are child abusers, but because we believe that Ella and her sister are victims of abuse by their mom. So we’re—”
Alice again interrupts the court.
Alice: “Oh my God!”
Anne Kiley: “We want—”
Judge: “Please. Please. I’m going to ask everybody to refrain.”
Alice: “No. It—it—”
Judge: “No. No. No. There’s no “No.” Please just—everybody keep your composure. Go ahead, counsel.”
Anne Kiley: “Family Code 3044 applies as it relates to Ms. Evans, because we have a restraining order against her, and the situation is so horrible for the family—”
Alice interrupts again but her words are unintelligible to the court reporter because she is speaking at the same time as Anne Kiley.
Anne Kiley: “—that we want it heard today. And we oppose the continuance.”
Gregory Jessner: “Your Honor, if I may. I agree with what Ms. Kiley said. I should add, my client, unfortunately, does suffer from a very serious medical condition. She has M.S. and the stress of this proceeding is debilitating for her, and she needs to get this past so she can reclaim her health, your Honor. So I do, for that reason, very strongly oppose a continuance to the extent that one is requested.”
The Judge states that he will read the case over a little closer and asks Ella if she is asking the court for a continuance and, if so, if she intends to hire a lawyer. Ella responds, “I’d like to hire a lawyer. Yeah.” The Judge inquires whether Ella has the ability to get counsel. Ella responds, “I think so, yeah.”
The Judge states that Anne Kiley makes a good point, that this is a well-noticed hearing, that Ella or someone on her behalf put together a fairly comprehensive pleading, and that he has to weigh Ella’s interest in getting her case effectively tried against Bianca’s interest in getting some finality in light of her medical condition and the hardship a delay would cause her.
Ella: “Could I also add, my mom also has a medical condition?”
Alice interrupts the court again.
Alice: “Thank you.”
Ella: “My mom also has a medical condition that’s like—it’s hard for her as well.”
Judge: “Right. Except your mom—I don’t mean to sound insensitive, okay, but your mom isn’t a party—”
Ella: “Okay. I’m sorry.”
Judge: “—to the two cases that we’re dealing with today. Okay?”
Alice: “We tried. I tried to, but she’s over—she’s over 12.”
Ella: “My mom—”
Judge (to Alice): “I just—I can’t hear from you. You don’t have standing right now, ma’am.”
Alice: “Go ahead.”
Ella: “All I knew was that I had to file it because I was over the age of 12. But I didn’t—like, anything I was supposed to do. So like, I didn’t know I was supposed to get an attorney or anything.”
Judge: “You don’t have to get an attorney.”
Ella: “Okay.”
Judge: “I want to be clear with you. I just want to make sure—you’re a child in the midst of a highly contentious divorce between your parents, and I want to make sure that what you’re doing here today, whether it happens today or it happens at a later date, I want to make sure that what’s happening is in your best interests and that you really want it.”
Ella: “Okay. Thank you.”
Judge: “And that this isn’t a subtext to something else. That’s my concern.”
Ella: “Okay.”
The Judge asks if there is anything else the parties wish to discuss before breaking for lunch and then diving deeper into the two issues after lunch. Hearing nothing, the court adjourns for lunch.
~Noon Recess~
-END OF PART 2-
Hiraeth
VIP Member
-PART 3-
Ella then stated that she was okay with not showing the video.
The Judge asked if there was anything else Ella wanted to present. Ella said no. Bianca’s lawyer asked the Judge to make sure Ella was agreeing to have the evidence that was filed in the matter be the only evidence that the Judge would consider. The Judge asked Ella if she had read Bianca’s declaration. Ella said she had not. The Judge asked Ella to read Bianca’s declaration and let him know if she objected to it being used as evidence. He explained that an objection was not whether she agreed with what the declaration said, but whether she objected to whether it could be used as evidence. Ella said “Okay” and read the declaration.
The Judge then asked for Ella to be shown Ioan’s declaration. Bianca’s attorney Gregory Jessner stated that they were only wanting to use the part of the declaration that addressed the events of May 26, since the rest of Ioan’s declaration contained other items that pertained to the DVRO request against him. The Judge agreed and asked that Ella be shown the entirety of Ioan’s declaration, but that the only part of the declaration he would consider that day was the part about May 26. Bianca’s attorney showed Ella the declaration and Ella read it. The Judge then asked for Bianca’s attorney to show Ella the doctor’s declaration. Ella read it. Ella was then shown Ms. Braydon’s declaration. Ella read it. The Judge asked Ella whether it was okay if he treated the declarations as those individuals’ testimony. Ella said “yes.”
The Judge asked Bianca’s attorney and Ella whether there was anything else they wanted him to know about or think about. Both said no.
The Judge told Ella that what he decided that day was not a reflection on her character, or who she was, or what he thinks about her—it was whether or not what is alleged qualifies as civil harassment. So the results today, he said, aren’t reflective of what he thinks of Ella as a person. Ella said she understood.
The Judge told Ella that May 26 was a really unfortunate day. He said that when parents are getting a divorce, that is really hard on kids, and “it’s really hard when you have two people that you love so much and they’re not getting along well, and for you to have to figure out how to navigate that is not easy.” The Judge said that the impression he got was that Ella and her sister were not really on board with meeting Bianca and they “had some big feelings about that.” He said he was trying to acknowledge Ella and Elsie’s feelings, and the question for him was, “did Dad and Ms. Wallace’s reactions to that, did it cross the line?”
The Judge said that it sounded to him like Ella and Elsie were not at all thrilled to go to their Dad’s house, and that they probably felt like the visit was being imposed on them. He said to Ella, “And then, I don’t think you even dispute that your reaction to that was maybe less than productive; right? Talking to your friend on the phone, and maybe saying things that weren’t so nice and getting the milk and pouring it on the bed, and the mustard around the kitchen, and things like that.”
The Judge said, “But you tell me. For instance, in your declaration…you tell me in your declaration that…’the respondent and my dad were calling me manipulative, abusive and narcissistic.’ I think they dispute that.
Ella: “What does that mean?”
Judge: “So remember what I said kind of that 50/50 deal, right?...And so, what I also am thinking to myself what if that were true? What if someone had come into their house and was pouring milk around and spraying mustard around and talking on the phone and being disrespectful? Would a reaction to that, in saying, ‘You’re being abusive, you’re being narcissistic, you’re being manipulative,’ would that be abuse or would that be a reasonable reaction to somebody spraying mustard around your kitchen and pouring milk on your bed? I think it would be a reasonable reaction.”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “I really do.”
Ella: “I agree.”
Judge: “I’m just being really honest with you. So, then, we pivot to the whole door incident.”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “Okay. And it sounds like Ms. Wallace is at the door and at that point you were, like, I’m done, I’m out of here, this is not good, I’m leaving. And as I understand it, you kind of darted out the door and the door closed on your arm, according to you; correct?”
Ella: “It closed on my arm and hit my head.”
Judge: “Closed on your arm and hit your head. So then—then the question becomes, did—if that is true, did Ms. Wallace do that—was there a legitimate purpose. Let’s take a step back and think about that. She’s an adult. She’s dating dad. You and your sister are at dad’s house. I get it you don’t want to be there. I totally understand that, and we live in a major metropolitan area and you’re upset and you’re dysregulated and you’re about to run out and if she tried to close the door and it caught you. That’s very different than kind of waiting for you to go by and then slamming it to hurt you. And given how I read the papers and how I—using my own common sense and my own reason, it seems to me that if the door hit you—and let’s assume it did, if the door hit you—your arm and your head, did she do it to hurt you or to harm you or to threaten you or did she—was a legitimate reason. Like, I don’t think it’s a good idea for a 13-year-old—and your sister’s, what, 9?”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “—a 9-year-old to run out in a dysregulated state. Like, my job is to make sure she’s safe, right? And I don’t think she did it to hurt you. I mean, this is somebody who wants to cook with me. I’m not saying that you have to cook with her, okay. This is somebody who wants to introduce the dog to you. I’m not saying I didn’t know the dog; right? This is somebody that is with Dad, whether you like it or not, that’s just happening; right? And so, I’m just thinking, would a person want to do that to another person’s child on the first time out of the box meeting you.”
Judge: “I don’t think that was what was happening. I think at best she was just trying to close the door to keep everybody safe, that’s my strong belief, and I believe when I read her testimony there’s no indication that she tried to do it maliciously. I think you’re saying that that was the effect when you were trying to leave, that the door hit you. But I don’t think you accuse her of purposely slamming; is that right? Is that fair?”
Ella: “Yeah, I’m not saying that she did. I don’t know myself.”
-END OF PART 3-
Ella then stated that she was okay with not showing the video.
The Judge asked if there was anything else Ella wanted to present. Ella said no. Bianca’s lawyer asked the Judge to make sure Ella was agreeing to have the evidence that was filed in the matter be the only evidence that the Judge would consider. The Judge asked Ella if she had read Bianca’s declaration. Ella said she had not. The Judge asked Ella to read Bianca’s declaration and let him know if she objected to it being used as evidence. He explained that an objection was not whether she agreed with what the declaration said, but whether she objected to whether it could be used as evidence. Ella said “Okay” and read the declaration.
The Judge then asked for Ella to be shown Ioan’s declaration. Bianca’s attorney Gregory Jessner stated that they were only wanting to use the part of the declaration that addressed the events of May 26, since the rest of Ioan’s declaration contained other items that pertained to the DVRO request against him. The Judge agreed and asked that Ella be shown the entirety of Ioan’s declaration, but that the only part of the declaration he would consider that day was the part about May 26. Bianca’s attorney showed Ella the declaration and Ella read it. The Judge then asked for Bianca’s attorney to show Ella the doctor’s declaration. Ella read it. Ella was then shown Ms. Braydon’s declaration. Ella read it. The Judge asked Ella whether it was okay if he treated the declarations as those individuals’ testimony. Ella said “yes.”
The Judge asked Bianca’s attorney and Ella whether there was anything else they wanted him to know about or think about. Both said no.
The Judge told Ella that what he decided that day was not a reflection on her character, or who she was, or what he thinks about her—it was whether or not what is alleged qualifies as civil harassment. So the results today, he said, aren’t reflective of what he thinks of Ella as a person. Ella said she understood.
The Judge told Ella that May 26 was a really unfortunate day. He said that when parents are getting a divorce, that is really hard on kids, and “it’s really hard when you have two people that you love so much and they’re not getting along well, and for you to have to figure out how to navigate that is not easy.” The Judge said that the impression he got was that Ella and her sister were not really on board with meeting Bianca and they “had some big feelings about that.” He said he was trying to acknowledge Ella and Elsie’s feelings, and the question for him was, “did Dad and Ms. Wallace’s reactions to that, did it cross the line?”
The Judge said that it sounded to him like Ella and Elsie were not at all thrilled to go to their Dad’s house, and that they probably felt like the visit was being imposed on them. He said to Ella, “And then, I don’t think you even dispute that your reaction to that was maybe less than productive; right? Talking to your friend on the phone, and maybe saying things that weren’t so nice and getting the milk and pouring it on the bed, and the mustard around the kitchen, and things like that.”
The Judge said, “But you tell me. For instance, in your declaration…you tell me in your declaration that…’the respondent and my dad were calling me manipulative, abusive and narcissistic.’ I think they dispute that.
Ella: “What does that mean?”
Judge: “So remember what I said kind of that 50/50 deal, right?...And so, what I also am thinking to myself what if that were true? What if someone had come into their house and was pouring milk around and spraying mustard around and talking on the phone and being disrespectful? Would a reaction to that, in saying, ‘You’re being abusive, you’re being narcissistic, you’re being manipulative,’ would that be abuse or would that be a reasonable reaction to somebody spraying mustard around your kitchen and pouring milk on your bed? I think it would be a reasonable reaction.”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “I really do.”
Ella: “I agree.”
Judge: “I’m just being really honest with you. So, then, we pivot to the whole door incident.”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “Okay. And it sounds like Ms. Wallace is at the door and at that point you were, like, I’m done, I’m out of here, this is not good, I’m leaving. And as I understand it, you kind of darted out the door and the door closed on your arm, according to you; correct?”
Ella: “It closed on my arm and hit my head.”
Judge: “Closed on your arm and hit your head. So then—then the question becomes, did—if that is true, did Ms. Wallace do that—was there a legitimate purpose. Let’s take a step back and think about that. She’s an adult. She’s dating dad. You and your sister are at dad’s house. I get it you don’t want to be there. I totally understand that, and we live in a major metropolitan area and you’re upset and you’re dysregulated and you’re about to run out and if she tried to close the door and it caught you. That’s very different than kind of waiting for you to go by and then slamming it to hurt you. And given how I read the papers and how I—using my own common sense and my own reason, it seems to me that if the door hit you—and let’s assume it did, if the door hit you—your arm and your head, did she do it to hurt you or to harm you or to threaten you or did she—was a legitimate reason. Like, I don’t think it’s a good idea for a 13-year-old—and your sister’s, what, 9?”
Ella: “Yes.”
Judge: “—a 9-year-old to run out in a dysregulated state. Like, my job is to make sure she’s safe, right? And I don’t think she did it to hurt you. I mean, this is somebody who wants to cook with me. I’m not saying that you have to cook with her, okay. This is somebody who wants to introduce the dog to you. I’m not saying I didn’t know the dog; right? This is somebody that is with Dad, whether you like it or not, that’s just happening; right? And so, I’m just thinking, would a person want to do that to another person’s child on the first time out of the box meeting you.”
Judge: “I don’t think that was what was happening. I think at best she was just trying to close the door to keep everybody safe, that’s my strong belief, and I believe when I read her testimony there’s no indication that she tried to do it maliciously. I think you’re saying that that was the effect when you were trying to leave, that the door hit you. But I don’t think you accuse her of purposely slamming; is that right? Is that fair?”
Ella: “Yeah, I’m not saying that she did. I don’t know myself.”
-END OF PART 3-
marjorytrashheap
VIP Member
“Yeah, I’m not saying that she did. I don’t know myself.” - she's so lost and confused. This is cruel. And the judge is being as kind as can be.
The Unfresh Princess of Beverly Hills
Now, this is a story all about how
My life got flipped-turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit there and chill
I'll tell you how I became the unfresh princess of Beverly Hills
In West Hollywood in a drunken haze
On my kingsize bed was where I spent most of my days
Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin', all cool
And arguing on Twitter just like a fool
When my husband was away filming for TV
I made him come back quick and acted so beastly
I got in yet another fight and he now had enough
He said, “I’m movin' out and you’ll no longer be Gruff”
I threatened and pleaded with him day after day
But he packed his suitcase and went on his way
I drank lots of wine and all I did was eat
I jumped on my laptop and said, “I might as well tweet”
I didn’t have a job and said I had no money
I made a fake Gofundme which I thought was so funny
If questioned I could say my husband didn’t pay my bills
Then I thought “Next step is to move to Bev Hills”
I pulled up to the house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the pap, "Yo holmes, call ya later"
I looked at my $6.5k/month rental
I could finally chill
To sit on my throne as the unfresh princess of Beverly Hills
Now, this is a story all about how
My life got flipped-turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit there and chill
I'll tell you how I became the unfresh princess of Beverly Hills
In West Hollywood in a drunken haze
On my kingsize bed was where I spent most of my days
Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin', all cool
And arguing on Twitter just like a fool
When my husband was away filming for TV
I made him come back quick and acted so beastly
I got in yet another fight and he now had enough
He said, “I’m movin' out and you’ll no longer be Gruff”
I threatened and pleaded with him day after day
But he packed his suitcase and went on his way
I drank lots of wine and all I did was eat
I jumped on my laptop and said, “I might as well tweet”
I didn’t have a job and said I had no money
I made a fake Gofundme which I thought was so funny
If questioned I could say my husband didn’t pay my bills
Then I thought “Next step is to move to Bev Hills”
I pulled up to the house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the pap, "Yo holmes, call ya later"
I looked at my $6.5k/month rental
I could finally chill
To sit on my throne as the unfresh princess of Beverly Hills
Hiraeth
VIP Member
Last portion!
-PART 5-
The court was called back to order after the recess. The Judge said he was trying to harmonize the continuation of the DVRO request against Ioan by Ella with the scheduling of the hearing on custody. The Judge stated that he was inclined to appoint minor’s counsel for the children and was intending to appoint Elise Greenberg as minor’s counsel. The Judge asked Alice to come up and participate in the discussion.
Anne Kiley said she had no objection, but requested that Elise Greenberg be the minor’s counsel for both Ella and Elsie. The Judge said that made a lot of sense since the children’s interests were aligned.
Alice interrupts the court. “Yes.”
Judge: “Okay. Do you agree with that, Mom?”
Alice: “Wonderful.”
Court Reporter: “Can I get your name?”
Alice: “My name is Alice Evans.”
Anne Kiley then asked the court for a child custody evaluation, and stated that there was money from the sale of the house that would be available to pay the minor’s counsel and the evaluator. Anne Kiley said that in this case, a child custody evaluation would be extremely helpful, given what had gone on that day.
Alice: “He just—”
Judge: “So why don’t we—hold on. Let’s take—let’s everybody just take a deep breath.”
Alice interrupts the judge.
Alice: “—didn’t even say hello to his children. I’m sorry.”
Judge: “Hold on.”
Alice: (keeps speaking simultaneously) “—feel let down.”
Judge: “Okay. Just—just—”
Alice: (keeps speaking simultaneously) “—by the states, by everybody.”
Judge: “Just do me a favor.”
Alice: “I’m sorry.”
Judge: “That’s okay. When I’m talking, I would like everybody to not talk so that you can hear me.”
The judge then said they would start with the appointment of minor’s counsel. He stated that they would reach out to Elise Greenberg to see if she would accept the appointment. And, if so, Elise Greenberg would need a while to get up to speed—so the court would not be ready for a custody and visitation trial on July 13 and July 28. If Elise Greenberg was available, they would reach out to Ioan’s attorney and to Alice (since she was unrepresented) to reschedule the hearing to sometime in the fall.
The judge also stated that he would deal with the custody evaluator issue if someone petitioned for it, and he would deal with it at that time. He said the custody evaluator petition might come from Ioan’s counsel, or Alice, or the minor’s counsel, and he would deal with it at that time. He then stated that he wanted the parties to discuss when they were available for the new trial date.
Alice said yes.
Anne Kiley then asked the judge about Ioan’s request for order that he filed in the fall of 2022 that was to be heard in January before Alice sought a continuance to July 13. The judge asked whether that was the bifurcation hearing and Anne Kiley said no, it was Ioan’s Request for Order (RFO).
Alice: “We all know that. He’s just explained.”
Judge: “One thing at a time, Ms. Evans.”
Anne Kiley: “So while I agree, the court putting the trial over, we have an RFO. The urgency of hearing the RFO in particular has to do for therapy for these children; that they’re not getting to their therapy.”
Alice: “The therapist is—”
Judge: “Ms. Evans, you cannot interrupt people.”
Alice: “Okay.”
Anne Kiley stated that Ioan was gravely concerned for his children, and requested that the RFOs be kept on calendar, especially as it relates to therapy for the children, and the children being with their Dad in a safe setting, so things like the May 26 incident don’t occur again. Her concern was that if it was continued to September, the situation with the girls would continue.
Alice again interrupts (unintelligible)
Judge: “Ms. Evans, I promise you you’re going to have a chance to talk and I’m not going to let them interrupt you. Let her finish her thought.”
Alice: Okay.
Anne Kiley stated that the weekly therapy for each child was imperative, and asked if the court would agree to hear a request for a custody evaluator on shortened time so they could get it done.
The Judge explained to Alice that what Anne Kiley was saying was that they can’t wait until the fall to deal with Ioan’s request for therapy for the children. So the proposal was to keep the portion regarding therapy on July 13, and Alice and/or Elise Greenberg could then either support or oppose it on that date. The Judge asked Alice if she had an objection to leaving the therapy issue on for July 13.
Alice: “Which piece, the therapy?”
Judge: “Sounds like that’s the part of the request.”
Alice: “I do, because we’ve had three therapists. Every time, the therapist turns around and says they shouldn’t be seeing their father because they’re terrified of him. And they also don’t want—this woman, Iris Braydon, is with them. Every time the therapist turns around and says that, they change the therapist to be on his side. And after the incident, I received an email from Barbara Wilford, who’s the person communicating between us, saying, your honor has called the therapist and explained what happened. Well, that just says to me that there’s a cahoots thing going on with the therapists. And also, my younger child told the therapist she would rather kill herself than go with this woman, Iris, again. And the therapist did not tell me.
Judge: “Okay.”
Alice: “I’m very, very worried about the therapist.”
The Judge said that he thought those arguments were important, but they would have to be taken up on July 13. The Judge stated that he would leave July 13 the way it is on the calendar, and there would not be a custody and visitation trial on that date.
Anne Kiley stated that the court order for regular therapy hasn’t been followed.
Anne Kiley: “So the RFO has to do with the regular therapy. The children have been with three therapists, all of whom Respondent thinks were great. So there’s been a variety of reasons that the first two therapists stopped working. And there’s this current therapist. The children are not getting to their appointments. It is true that the Respondent did not talk to the children because he was advised not to, rather than being accused of interfering with a witness. So today he was advised by—”
Alice interrupts again (unintelligible).
Judge: “You guys, I cannot help you if you’re going to argue. I’m just trying to do—not the substance. I’m just trying to deal with scheduling, okay, not the substance.”
Alice: “I think we should do what you said initially and wait—”
The Judge said that the point they were trying to make is that it might be prejudicial to wait until the fall for therapy.
Anne Kiley confirmed that and stated that she requests to keep it on July 13 and on July 13 they could figure out new trial dates. Anne Kiley reminded the court that the bifurcation hearing was July 3.
The Judge agreed that the RFO would be left on calendar for July 13.
Alice interrupted the court again (unintelligible)
Judge: “Hold on, Ms. Evans. I’m not saying I’m deciding things that day. I’m just saying I’m just leaving it on so that we can deal with what to do.”
The Judge stated that he wanted to get the minor’s counsel on the case so that hopefully by July 13 she would give the judge some advice as to what she would advocate for the children.
Anne Kiley agreed.
The Judge noted that Ella was not in the room, and stated that he was going to continue her request for a DVRO against Ioan to July 13. The Judge explained to Alice that today he denied Ella’s civil harassment restraining order, granted Ella’s request to continue the DVRO request against Ioan, and appointed minor’s counsel.
Anne Kiley asked the court to order that the parties cooperate to pay the minor’s counsel fees from the joint blocked account that contains the remaining proceeds from the sale of the house, without prejudice and subject to allocation at the time of trial.
The Judge asked what was in the account. Anne Kiley responded that there was $703,000 left in that account. The Judge said he would order that the minor’s counsel be paid from that account, subject to reallocation. He asked Anne Kiley to prepare the order to that effect. Anne agreed.
Judge: “Am I understanding, Ms. Evans, you’re self-represented; is that correct?”
Alice: “That’s not going to stay that way.”
Judge: “Okay. Good to know. No problem. Okay. So that’s where we are today, believe it or not. I have one more case to get to.”
Alice: “Oh my God.”
Judge: “I know. Good luck, everybody.”
Alice: “Thank you.”
Judge: “Stay safe, stay calm.”
Alice: “Okay.”
Judge: “Be good.”
Alice: “Thank you. Bye-bye.”
Judge: Thank you.
~Court proceedings concluded at 3:28 p.m.~
-END OF SUMMARY-
-PART 5-
The court was called back to order after the recess. The Judge said he was trying to harmonize the continuation of the DVRO request against Ioan by Ella with the scheduling of the hearing on custody. The Judge stated that he was inclined to appoint minor’s counsel for the children and was intending to appoint Elise Greenberg as minor’s counsel. The Judge asked Alice to come up and participate in the discussion.
Anne Kiley said she had no objection, but requested that Elise Greenberg be the minor’s counsel for both Ella and Elsie. The Judge said that made a lot of sense since the children’s interests were aligned.
Alice interrupts the court. “Yes.”
Judge: “Okay. Do you agree with that, Mom?”
Alice: “Wonderful.”
Court Reporter: “Can I get your name?”
Alice: “My name is Alice Evans.”
Anne Kiley then asked the court for a child custody evaluation, and stated that there was money from the sale of the house that would be available to pay the minor’s counsel and the evaluator. Anne Kiley said that in this case, a child custody evaluation would be extremely helpful, given what had gone on that day.
Alice: “He just—”
Judge: “So why don’t we—hold on. Let’s take—let’s everybody just take a deep breath.”
Alice interrupts the judge.
Alice: “—didn’t even say hello to his children. I’m sorry.”
Judge: “Hold on.”
Alice: (keeps speaking simultaneously) “—feel let down.”
Judge: “Okay. Just—just—”
Alice: (keeps speaking simultaneously) “—by the states, by everybody.”
Judge: “Just do me a favor.”
Alice: “I’m sorry.”
Judge: “That’s okay. When I’m talking, I would like everybody to not talk so that you can hear me.”
The judge then said they would start with the appointment of minor’s counsel. He stated that they would reach out to Elise Greenberg to see if she would accept the appointment. And, if so, Elise Greenberg would need a while to get up to speed—so the court would not be ready for a custody and visitation trial on July 13 and July 28. If Elise Greenberg was available, they would reach out to Ioan’s attorney and to Alice (since she was unrepresented) to reschedule the hearing to sometime in the fall.
The judge also stated that he would deal with the custody evaluator issue if someone petitioned for it, and he would deal with it at that time. He said the custody evaluator petition might come from Ioan’s counsel, or Alice, or the minor’s counsel, and he would deal with it at that time. He then stated that he wanted the parties to discuss when they were available for the new trial date.
Alice said yes.
Anne Kiley then asked the judge about Ioan’s request for order that he filed in the fall of 2022 that was to be heard in January before Alice sought a continuance to July 13. The judge asked whether that was the bifurcation hearing and Anne Kiley said no, it was Ioan’s Request for Order (RFO).
Alice: “We all know that. He’s just explained.”
Judge: “One thing at a time, Ms. Evans.”
Anne Kiley: “So while I agree, the court putting the trial over, we have an RFO. The urgency of hearing the RFO in particular has to do for therapy for these children; that they’re not getting to their therapy.”
Alice: “The therapist is—”
Judge: “Ms. Evans, you cannot interrupt people.”
Alice: “Okay.”
Anne Kiley stated that Ioan was gravely concerned for his children, and requested that the RFOs be kept on calendar, especially as it relates to therapy for the children, and the children being with their Dad in a safe setting, so things like the May 26 incident don’t occur again. Her concern was that if it was continued to September, the situation with the girls would continue.
Alice again interrupts (unintelligible)
Judge: “Ms. Evans, I promise you you’re going to have a chance to talk and I’m not going to let them interrupt you. Let her finish her thought.”
Alice: Okay.
Anne Kiley stated that the weekly therapy for each child was imperative, and asked if the court would agree to hear a request for a custody evaluator on shortened time so they could get it done.
The Judge explained to Alice that what Anne Kiley was saying was that they can’t wait until the fall to deal with Ioan’s request for therapy for the children. So the proposal was to keep the portion regarding therapy on July 13, and Alice and/or Elise Greenberg could then either support or oppose it on that date. The Judge asked Alice if she had an objection to leaving the therapy issue on for July 13.
Alice: “Which piece, the therapy?”
Judge: “Sounds like that’s the part of the request.”
Alice: “I do, because we’ve had three therapists. Every time, the therapist turns around and says they shouldn’t be seeing their father because they’re terrified of him. And they also don’t want—this woman, Iris Braydon, is with them. Every time the therapist turns around and says that, they change the therapist to be on his side. And after the incident, I received an email from Barbara Wilford, who’s the person communicating between us, saying, your honor has called the therapist and explained what happened. Well, that just says to me that there’s a cahoots thing going on with the therapists. And also, my younger child told the therapist she would rather kill herself than go with this woman, Iris, again. And the therapist did not tell me.
Judge: “Okay.”
Alice: “I’m very, very worried about the therapist.”
The Judge said that he thought those arguments were important, but they would have to be taken up on July 13. The Judge stated that he would leave July 13 the way it is on the calendar, and there would not be a custody and visitation trial on that date.
Anne Kiley stated that the court order for regular therapy hasn’t been followed.
Anne Kiley: “So the RFO has to do with the regular therapy. The children have been with three therapists, all of whom Respondent thinks were great. So there’s been a variety of reasons that the first two therapists stopped working. And there’s this current therapist. The children are not getting to their appointments. It is true that the Respondent did not talk to the children because he was advised not to, rather than being accused of interfering with a witness. So today he was advised by—”
Alice interrupts again (unintelligible).
Judge: “You guys, I cannot help you if you’re going to argue. I’m just trying to do—not the substance. I’m just trying to deal with scheduling, okay, not the substance.”
Alice: “I think we should do what you said initially and wait—”
The Judge said that the point they were trying to make is that it might be prejudicial to wait until the fall for therapy.
Anne Kiley confirmed that and stated that she requests to keep it on July 13 and on July 13 they could figure out new trial dates. Anne Kiley reminded the court that the bifurcation hearing was July 3.
The Judge agreed that the RFO would be left on calendar for July 13.
Alice interrupted the court again (unintelligible)
Judge: “Hold on, Ms. Evans. I’m not saying I’m deciding things that day. I’m just saying I’m just leaving it on so that we can deal with what to do.”
The Judge stated that he wanted to get the minor’s counsel on the case so that hopefully by July 13 she would give the judge some advice as to what she would advocate for the children.
Anne Kiley agreed.
The Judge noted that Ella was not in the room, and stated that he was going to continue her request for a DVRO against Ioan to July 13. The Judge explained to Alice that today he denied Ella’s civil harassment restraining order, granted Ella’s request to continue the DVRO request against Ioan, and appointed minor’s counsel.
Anne Kiley asked the court to order that the parties cooperate to pay the minor’s counsel fees from the joint blocked account that contains the remaining proceeds from the sale of the house, without prejudice and subject to allocation at the time of trial.
The Judge asked what was in the account. Anne Kiley responded that there was $703,000 left in that account. The Judge said he would order that the minor’s counsel be paid from that account, subject to reallocation. He asked Anne Kiley to prepare the order to that effect. Anne agreed.
Judge: “Am I understanding, Ms. Evans, you’re self-represented; is that correct?”
Alice: “That’s not going to stay that way.”
Judge: “Okay. Good to know. No problem. Okay. So that’s where we are today, believe it or not. I have one more case to get to.”
Alice: “Oh my God.”
Judge: “I know. Good luck, everybody.”
Alice: “Thank you.”
Judge: “Stay safe, stay calm.”
Alice: “Okay.”
Judge: “Be good.”
Alice: “Thank you. Bye-bye.”
Judge: Thank you.
~Court proceedings concluded at 3:28 p.m.~
-END OF SUMMARY-
Periwinkleblue
Active member
This judge is such a brilliant human being. He speaks to Ella with such compassion.
Hiraeth
VIP Member
I just purchased the court transcript. I'll summarize it as soon as I've received it.
(As a reminder, court transcripts are copyrighted and publishing them not only violates copyright but also deprives the court reporter of their income for their hard work, so I can only post a summary rather than the entire document. It will be a detailed summary, however!)
(As a reminder, court transcripts are copyrighted and publishing them not only violates copyright but also deprives the court reporter of their income for their hard work, so I can only post a summary rather than the entire document. It will be a detailed summary, however!)
klarakluckbag
VIP Member
Can we just take a moment to consider how awful that day must have been for Bianca too? She had to appear in court, accused of harming her partner's daughter, after witnessing the child vandalising her home and abusing both her and Ioan. She had to face Alice, against whom she has a restraining order. She had to hire a lawyer. She had to give a statement. She had to clean up her apartment. And yet she was still gracious enough and kind enough to ensure that her accuser was not cross-examined in court. She, and the judge, showed more empathy, compassion and understanding towards Ella on that day, than Alice has done in her whole life.
AnneinHever
VIP Member
I love that judge and the way he treated this child.
Hiraeth
VIP Member
Okay, I'm still summarizing this thing but here is part 1. At the end there will be a link to the entire summary for the Wiki, so if you'd rather wait for that, it's on its way.
PART 1
Ella B. Evans (“Ella”), Petitioner, representing herself
Ioan Gruffudd (“Ioan”), Respondent, represented by Anne Kiley (also present)
Bianca Wallace (“Bianca”), Respondent, represented by Gregory Jessner and Kyle McGuire (also present)
Also Present:
Alice Evans (“Alice”), representing herself
The hearing begins. The Judge greets Ella and introduces himself to her. The Judge asks Alice if she is Ella’s mother and she responds that she is. Anne Kiley introduces herself as Ioan’s attorney and states that Alice is a party in the dissolution case, not the Domestic Violence Restraining Order (“DVRO”) or Civil Harassment Restraining Order (“CHRO”) request. Anne Kiley states that Alice is not only a party but a potential witness. The Judge notes that Alice may be there as “a support person” for Ella. Gregory Jessner introduces himself and Kyle McGuire as Bianca’s attorneys, and states that the CHRO proceeding is related to the DVRO proceeding against Ioan by Ella. The judge acknowledges this and states that he is going to use the court time before lunch to get everyone “calibrated” and that the main issues probably won’t come up until after lunchtime.
The Judge states that there is an upcoming contested evidentiary hearing on custody on July 13 and July 20, that there is a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against Alice, and that there is Family Code 3044 “lurking in the background.”
(Note: Family Code 3044 is a California law that states that if a party seeking custody of a child has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child or against the child or the child’s siblings within the previous 5 years, there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child.)
The Judge states that he has read through the DVRO request Ella filed against Ioan and the CHRO request that Ella filed against Bianca, and the responses and supportive declarations. He also read Ioan’s response to the DVRO request that morning. The Judge states that his concern is, though Ella has a prerogative and a right to try to bring a domestic violence and civil harassment restraining order case, but that she is 13 years old, and because there is a custody hearing coming up, he wants to make sure that Ella has someone neutral advocating for her. His inclination was to appoint minor’s counsel for Ella and continue the CHRO and DVRO hearings since they all arise out of the same alleged facts that occurred on May 23, 2023. However, he understands that everyone wants to go forward that day.
Alice interrupts the Judge and says “No, not me. I would love for her to have her, your Honor.”
Judge: “Huh?”
Alice: “I would love – she wants a minor’s counsel.”
Judge: “So with – with so much respect, because today you don’t have standing. Okay? You’re not a guardian ad litem—”
Alice: “Yeah. Okay.”
Judge: “And you’re not a party in either of the actions before me.”
Alice: “Oh.”
Judge: “So I really—I can’t hear from you—”
Alice: “Sure.”
Judge: “—in that capacity. Okay?”
Alice: “Sure.”
The Judge addresses the audience and asks if Ella, Ioan, and Bianca want to go forward. Bianca’s attorney agrees. Ioan’s attorney brings up the Family Code as well as a case decided in April of 2023 (A.F. v. Jeffrey F.) which held that the court cannot appoint minor’s counsel in an action seeking relief under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The judge states that he hasn’t read that case, but will read it closely over lunch, and that the cases here are so intertwined that it’s difficult to separate them with regard to appointing a minor’s counsel. The judge acknowledges that the court cannot appoint a minor’s counsel in a CHRO proceeding but wants to make sure someone is advocating for Ella.
Anne Kiley states that Ella had every opportunity to have someone represent her; that Ella and her mother prepared the papers with someone’s help; and that Ella brought the request for the restraining order and appeared to seek the restraining order. She could have hired an attorney and she hasn’t.
Alice interrupts the court.
Alice: “Her wants to—sorry. Can you please—”
Judge: “Yes, ma’am?”
Ella: “I’m confused. Like, I don’t know what’s going on.”
The Judge explains to Ella that in a family law case, the court has the authority to appoint minor’s counsel, whereas in a domestic violence proceeding, the court doesn’t have the authority to appoint minor’s counsel. So, the Judge explained that he was trying to see if there was an argument to distinguish Ella’s case from others and appoint minor’s counsel for her. He said, “My instinct is that we go forward after lunch and we don’t have minor’s counsel. And I assume you’re fine with that, because I haven’t heard you ask for an attorney, I haven’t heard you—you certainly didn’t prepare any of your documents and—you know, you’re representing yourself; correct?”
Ella: “I don’t really know. I thought—like I hoped to get one.”
Judge: “Well, I don’t have the authority to appoint one. If you wanted to go out on your own and hire one, I think you have the prerogative to do that.
Ella: “Okay.”
Judge: “But you didn’t do that. And so, I suppose if you wanted to do that, you could.”
Ella: “Okay.”
Judge: “That’s up to you.”
Ella: “Could I—”
Gregory Jessner states that he would oppose a continuance of the matter. The Judge inquires further of Ella.
Judge: “Ella, do you feel like you want to go forward today if you didn’t have a lawyer? Do you know what you want to do?”
Ella: “No. I don’t want to push it if I don’t have—”
Judge: “Okay. You understand that the court doesn’t have the authority to—I don’t believe, have—to appoint one for you. And so, that would mean that if I were to entertain a continuance, you would have to go out and get your own lawyer. Do you understand that?
Ella nods affirmatively.
-END OF PART 1-
PART 1
Court Transcript Summary
In re The Matter of: Ella B. Evans v. Ioan Gruffudd (Case No. 23SMRO00218) and Ella B. Evans v. Bianca Wallace (Case No. 23STRO03504)
June 23, 2023 – Los Angeles County Superior Court
Hon. Josh Freeman Stinn, Superior Court Judge
Appearances:In re The Matter of: Ella B. Evans v. Ioan Gruffudd (Case No. 23SMRO00218) and Ella B. Evans v. Bianca Wallace (Case No. 23STRO03504)
June 23, 2023 – Los Angeles County Superior Court
Hon. Josh Freeman Stinn, Superior Court Judge
Ella B. Evans (“Ella”), Petitioner, representing herself
Ioan Gruffudd (“Ioan”), Respondent, represented by Anne Kiley (also present)
Bianca Wallace (“Bianca”), Respondent, represented by Gregory Jessner and Kyle McGuire (also present)
Also Present:
Alice Evans (“Alice”), representing herself
The hearing begins. The Judge greets Ella and introduces himself to her. The Judge asks Alice if she is Ella’s mother and she responds that she is. Anne Kiley introduces herself as Ioan’s attorney and states that Alice is a party in the dissolution case, not the Domestic Violence Restraining Order (“DVRO”) or Civil Harassment Restraining Order (“CHRO”) request. Anne Kiley states that Alice is not only a party but a potential witness. The Judge notes that Alice may be there as “a support person” for Ella. Gregory Jessner introduces himself and Kyle McGuire as Bianca’s attorneys, and states that the CHRO proceeding is related to the DVRO proceeding against Ioan by Ella. The judge acknowledges this and states that he is going to use the court time before lunch to get everyone “calibrated” and that the main issues probably won’t come up until after lunchtime.
The Judge states that there is an upcoming contested evidentiary hearing on custody on July 13 and July 20, that there is a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against Alice, and that there is Family Code 3044 “lurking in the background.”
(Note: Family Code 3044 is a California law that states that if a party seeking custody of a child has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child or against the child or the child’s siblings within the previous 5 years, there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child.)
The Judge states that he has read through the DVRO request Ella filed against Ioan and the CHRO request that Ella filed against Bianca, and the responses and supportive declarations. He also read Ioan’s response to the DVRO request that morning. The Judge states that his concern is, though Ella has a prerogative and a right to try to bring a domestic violence and civil harassment restraining order case, but that she is 13 years old, and because there is a custody hearing coming up, he wants to make sure that Ella has someone neutral advocating for her. His inclination was to appoint minor’s counsel for Ella and continue the CHRO and DVRO hearings since they all arise out of the same alleged facts that occurred on May 23, 2023. However, he understands that everyone wants to go forward that day.
Alice interrupts the Judge and says “No, not me. I would love for her to have her, your Honor.”
Judge: “Huh?”
Alice: “I would love – she wants a minor’s counsel.”
Judge: “So with – with so much respect, because today you don’t have standing. Okay? You’re not a guardian ad litem—”
Alice: “Yeah. Okay.”
Judge: “And you’re not a party in either of the actions before me.”
Alice: “Oh.”
Judge: “So I really—I can’t hear from you—”
Alice: “Sure.”
Judge: “—in that capacity. Okay?”
Alice: “Sure.”
The Judge addresses the audience and asks if Ella, Ioan, and Bianca want to go forward. Bianca’s attorney agrees. Ioan’s attorney brings up the Family Code as well as a case decided in April of 2023 (A.F. v. Jeffrey F.) which held that the court cannot appoint minor’s counsel in an action seeking relief under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The judge states that he hasn’t read that case, but will read it closely over lunch, and that the cases here are so intertwined that it’s difficult to separate them with regard to appointing a minor’s counsel. The judge acknowledges that the court cannot appoint a minor’s counsel in a CHRO proceeding but wants to make sure someone is advocating for Ella.
Anne Kiley states that Ella had every opportunity to have someone represent her; that Ella and her mother prepared the papers with someone’s help; and that Ella brought the request for the restraining order and appeared to seek the restraining order. She could have hired an attorney and she hasn’t.
Alice interrupts the court.
Alice: “Her wants to—sorry. Can you please—”
Judge: “Yes, ma’am?”
Ella: “I’m confused. Like, I don’t know what’s going on.”
The Judge explains to Ella that in a family law case, the court has the authority to appoint minor’s counsel, whereas in a domestic violence proceeding, the court doesn’t have the authority to appoint minor’s counsel. So, the Judge explained that he was trying to see if there was an argument to distinguish Ella’s case from others and appoint minor’s counsel for her. He said, “My instinct is that we go forward after lunch and we don’t have minor’s counsel. And I assume you’re fine with that, because I haven’t heard you ask for an attorney, I haven’t heard you—you certainly didn’t prepare any of your documents and—you know, you’re representing yourself; correct?”
Ella: “I don’t really know. I thought—like I hoped to get one.”
Judge: “Well, I don’t have the authority to appoint one. If you wanted to go out on your own and hire one, I think you have the prerogative to do that.
Ella: “Okay.”
Judge: “But you didn’t do that. And so, I suppose if you wanted to do that, you could.”
Ella: “Okay.”
Judge: “That’s up to you.”
Ella: “Could I—”
Gregory Jessner states that he would oppose a continuance of the matter. The Judge inquires further of Ella.
Judge: “Ella, do you feel like you want to go forward today if you didn’t have a lawyer? Do you know what you want to do?”
Ella: “No. I don’t want to push it if I don’t have—”
Judge: “Okay. You understand that the court doesn’t have the authority to—I don’t believe, have—to appoint one for you. And so, that would mean that if I were to entertain a continuance, you would have to go out and get your own lawyer. Do you understand that?
Ella nods affirmatively.
-END OF PART 1-
Hiraeth
VIP Member
That's so sweet, all of you. Our Turd family is the best.
I can only speak for myself, but I'd prefer in lieu of contributions for people to donate to an MS charity if they feel so inclined.
Hiraeth
VIP Member
I'm going to upload it in parts because the transcript is 63 pages long. Many thanks to our wonderful @ButterTart who greatly helped defray the cost.
Mad Betty
VIP Member
She didn't even bother to hire a lawyer for Ella, despite clearly encouraging her to do this and helping fill out all the paperwork for the RO request. It was one court appearance. She had access to money. She could have easily gotten Ella a lawyer.
JFC, she threw that child under the bus. And then tried to publicly blame IG for it?
There is no bottom.
MOO.
JFC, she threw that child under the bus. And then tried to publicly blame IG for it?
There is no bottom.
MOO.