Alice, we all know you are here with us.
Give us a sign. Knock twice so we can feel your presence.
Give us a sign. Knock twice so we can feel your presence.
This makes me incredibly sad for the girls and for him. As has been said by others, I can't see how the court could just pick up the pair of kids and drop them full time into I and B's care. Even 50:50 is going to be challenging, and we've still got months for Alice to continue her programme of alienation. Horrible situation, caused directly by a horrible woman not doing her best for her kids after the breakdown of her marriage.tbh it's well known that at a certain age removing children from the abusive parent and placing them with the estranged safe parent causes more harm than it ultimately solves it. In cases like this they often decide to neutralize the situation, i.e. placing them with a trusted third party and have them slowly rebuild with the parent (which in Ella's case may take until she is actually an adult). Sometimes they also just decide to leave them with the abusive parent and just enormously ramp up supportive intervention (like therapy).
These are all things the court typically doesnt decide on its own, that's why custody evaluations are useful.
I dont think - and I think I said this before - that Ioan wants a custody evaluation to increase his chances for custody. With California's 50-50 tendency, Alice's record and the DVRO the court would have granted joint and perhaps even sole custody if requested. He genuinely just wants the best. Alice doesnt, Alice just thinks she is by default the best.
(insert Eastenders drumbeat)-Part 2-
The judge asks what else needs to be discussed before setting the court dates. He asks what the time estimate is for Dr. Dupee’s evaluation, and if the parties are still thinking 3 days is a good estimate for the actual hearing itself. The judge states that he is going to hear from Anne Kiley first, then the other two lawyers, because he knows Anne did some research in terms of Dr. Dupee’s availability and how long the evaluation might take.
Anne agrees that the hearing should take 3 days or less, perhaps even 2 days, based on the stipulation that Dr. Dupee’s report will be received into evidence (see the Sanchez waiver above). Anne states that Dr. Dupee said that she could start the child custody evaluation in October and it could take approximately 3 months. Anne states that, out of an abundance of caution, they should look at trial dates at the end of February 2024 and she would agree to a 2-day trial if Bernal and Ms. Greenberg did as well.
Bernal agrees to a 2-day trial. Ms. Greenberg asks if a two-day hearing means that they stay with this department. The judge replies that “Two days means you're stuck with me. Three or more days means you get to find another judge, a lot more likely than not, to hear it because it's long cause. So this will be an incredibly interesting answer. My ears are veiled. I won't take offense one way or the other. I'm joking with you.”
Ms. Greenberg: “You know that I love you so this is more of a scheduling issue. So when would the Court have two days for custody trial available?”
The court clerk responds that the 2-day hearing would be broken into 4 afternoons because they cannot give a full day of arguments because of other court cases. The 4 afternoons would be on consecutive weeks at the end of February and early March 2024.
Ms. Greenberg asks Anne and Bernal if they are still okay with a 2-day trial, based on this information. Anne says yes and that she thinks there is a lot of efficiency in keeping the case in the same court. Bernal says that he agrees with Anne.
The court clerk says that they are going to set the 4 afternoons on that day, and 30 days prior, they will set a status conference on the evaluation to make sure everything is done and all parties have a copy of it.
Judge: “Okay. So you all belong to me. Meaning, I'm going to keep the hearing. And we're going to nail down four afternoons in late February early March. And we'll get those to you in just a few moments. And we'll also schedule a status conference as [the court clerk] said probably a month before that just to make sure we're all set. Again, I renew my offer, I'm happy to also have case management calls as we get a little bit closer to make sure that, you know, we have all the orders that we need for purposes of, you know, trial briefs, witness list, exhibit list, exchange. We can take care of all that, as we get a little bit closer but that would be my intent so that when we hit the ground running, we are really efficient. We've got a game plan and we've got a script. And all we have to do is then try the facts and apply them to the law and get you guys a decision.”
Bernal: “Your Honor, I don't mean to interrupt, but didn't we have a February 7th –"
Court Clerk: “Yeah, no.”
Bernal: “-- date.”
Court Clerk: “That's what I was going to ask you, so now that we're doing this evidentiary hearing, are we vacating the initial one afternoon for the February 7th date?”
Bernal: “Could we keep that as a trial readiness and then see about the status of the report from Dr. Dupee and see –"
Court Clerk: “Well, no. We can vacate the hearing itself. I don't mind setting the -- a status for that same date, that's fine. But, I mean, for what it's currently set for which is an afternoon on that hearing, do the parties stipulate to vacate it now that we're going to be setting the four afternoons?”
Ms. Greenberg asks to be heard, as does Anne Kiley. The judge agrees.
Anne states that she doesn’t have the authority to vacate a hearing on Ioan’s request for interim custody and visitation orders, since Ioan is not present in court. She is concerned that Ioan is not seeing the children due to these series of events, and would hope that they could get to a place where there would be an agreement for Ioan to see the children. But she is concerned about not having a date in order for the Court to make orders absent agreements. Anne would like to keep the date on calendar so they have “the opportunity for a court date absent the ability to reach an agreement to address this very difficult interim situation pending trial.”
The judge asks if the date should still be kept based on the fact that the trial will commence within 30 days from the February 7 date, and there is not a big likelihood of the court making orders on February 7th if the court knows it is going to make further orders in early March.
Anne says that they would not proceed on February 7, but things do happen and people get sick, “just like we were to be in trial in July and minor’s counsel came in and now it’s several months later. So…that’s my concern with not having a date before the court to address—and I want to be efficient. I’m very mindful of the cost of the proceedings as well.”
The judge says that the February 7 date is not to be vacated. “We keep it but we all have a mental note in our head that if things are going according to the schedule we anticipate, we're unlikely to do anything tectonic on February 7th. That's kind of what I think is the practical harmonization that preserves your client's concern, but we're also being practical in setting expectations.” Anne, Bernal, and Ms. Greenberg all agree to this.
The court clerk asks if that February 7 date should also be the status conference for Dr. Dupee’s report. Anne, Bernal, and Ms. Greenberg all agree.
Judge: “See Mr. Ojeda how smart you are. You floated an idea and by the time we got around to a decision, you had persuaded all of us that your suggestion was our suggestion, that was brilliant. Okay.”
The court clerk asks if someone can email the court a week before the February 7 date in order to confirm that there will be no substantive hearing on that date and that the date is just for the status conference on Dr. Dupee’s report. Anne says she will do that.
The clerk sets each afternoon on the court calendar after getting confirmation from Anne, Bernal, and Ms. Greenberg that each date works for their calendar.
First Afternoon – February 29, 2024
Second Afternoon – March 6, 2024
Third Afternoon – March 7, 2024
Fourth Afternoon – March 13, 2024
Anne, Bernal, and Ms. Greenberg all waive notice for those dates.
The judge asks Anne Kiley to prepare the court order with regard to the order for Dr. Dupee, the source of the payment being the blocked account, and the trial readiness conference on February 7, 2024, as well as the four trial dates, 2/29, 3/6, 3/7, and 3/13.
The judge states that he is not ending the hearing because there is something else he wants to discuss—the allegation that Alice changed Elsie’s school.
- End of Part 2 -
https://giphy.com/l2YWzxHmZ2w2sDtu0Alice, we all know you are here with us.
Give us a sign. Knock twice so we can feel your presence.
omg, I now picture Alice's friend turning up there to argue her case LMAOThe judge states that he would have to make findings. Anne states that there would have to be a noticed motion to seal the custody aspect, so the press has an opportunity to come and oppose the motion, if they desire to do so.
BIB - Malice straight on the phone to Bogoff-
The judge states that he would have to make findings. Anne states that there would have to be a noticed motion to seal the custody aspect, so the press has an opportunity to come and oppose the motion, if they desire to do so. The judge agrees.
The judge asks Ms. Greenberg to file an ex parte motion to seal the custody proceedings. The court will set it on shortened time so there will be a properly noticed hearing, and then anyone that wants to come in and argue why those aspects of the case should be sealed can do so.
l
Seal the custody hearing? Aww there goes Alice's DM article.- Part 3 -
Judge: “The only other thing on my agenda that I wanted to ask about is, I read, I believe, in dad's reply something to suggest that the -- that mom was alleged to have changed the grade school for the younger child despite the Court's orders in July, is that -- did I read that right?”
Anne: “I believe, your Honor, there were some issues about signing up for school. And that she did sign them both up for school in Beverly Hills. He had his concerns because he's got his concerns that she won't remain in the Beverly Hills school district, however, I know nothing more than what is in his reply. And I -- you know, I'm certainly aware that from respondent's standpoint, it's the closest school and she intends to stay in the area. His concern was for not staying in the area and I think that he would defer to whatever knowledge that minors' counsel has.”
Judge: “Okay. I thought I read a very clear statement that said notwithstanding the court's orders, mom changed school of the younger child but maybe I'm wrong. I thought I read that.”
Anne: “Well, the Court said that the minor child is to go to Third Street absent agreement of the parties. I think what he's saying is, I didn't expressly agree to her staying in Beverly Hills or going -- changing the Beverly Hills school because he had conditions upon it that were met in his opinion as it relates to her ability to remain within the district given that her apartment is up and he looked at her income and expense declaration and it made no sense based upon her state of expenses and income. So the Gruffudds remaining in Beverly Hills is of extreme concern to the Petitioner which is why it made sense to him that she would remain in the school she was in rather than perhaps having to move mid-year.”
The judge thanks Ms. Kiley for giving him context, and says that he has nothing else on his agenda, unless anyone has anything further.
Anne states that she and Bernal emailed back and forth that they were concerned about the media, and that there was a Daily Mail article that “essentially quoted from a lot of the custody issues.” She is concerned about that issue going forward, particularly with the custody evaluation. Anne asks the judge if the court would entertain an RFO for sealing the custody portion of the case, or if she needs to file an RFO to seal anything related to the custody case.
Judge: “My general philosophy, unless somebody is going to tell me that it's wrong, is that I don't like to make orders that aren't -- I call it on the "menu" in other words, fully noticed. But if everybody is bought in and fine with it, then I don't think we offend any kind of due process if people agree. And I'm happy to make orders that are consistent with stipulations. So that's my general philosophy, so I'm not hostile unless there's some sort of disagreement about that issue.”
Anne: “So, your Honor, not as Petitioner's counsel. Because petitioner does stipulate to and wishes to seal the proceedings, as it relates to custody -- the custody orders and the pleadings on custody. But as an officer of the court, I believe that the California Rules of Court are very clear that no aspect of any case can be sealed based upon stipulation of the parties.”
[EDITOR’S NOTE: All attorneys in California are considered ‘officers of the court’ and are held to high ethical standards.]
The judge states that he would have to make findings. Anne states that there would have to be a noticed motion to seal the custody aspect, so the press has an opportunity to come and oppose the motion, if they desire to do so. The judge agrees.
The judge asks Ms. Greenberg to file an ex parte motion to seal the custody proceedings. The court will set it on shortened time so there will be a properly noticed hearing, and then anyone that wants to come in and argue why those aspects of the case should be sealed can do so.
Anne states that she will work with the attorneys to make it a joint ex parte motion so that no one has to file extra pleadings and incur costs.
The judge asks if there is anything further. Nothing being heard, the judge adjourns the hearing at 9:51 a.m.
- End of Transcript Summary -
I think mAlice will want it sealed too so she can use her socks to spin it without us knowing what is really going on. While I understand the reasons, I am a bit disappointed that the custody hearing will basically be sealed, so it appears. We might never know what happens. Or if AE keeps the kids, on what grounds was she allowed to?? It's not because she's the best parent obviously.Malice straight on the phone to Bogoff
Yep, they can't undo it without upsetting Elsie by pulling her out of a school she is getting used to. AE did it deliberately to give the court the finger and to justify staying in BH.they know that Alice would use any attempt to punish her for this or to undo this to further the PA.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?