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
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:
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-
Be a mother for heaven's sake Alice - you were the reason Ella was up there in court trying to get a RO based on nothing at all, and you can't support her because you are upset? 
