Oh mama. I’ll put the kettle on!
🫖
Ioan Gruffudd & Alice Evans #217 Digging out your minging old rags isn't vintage, it's just manky.
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Alice Evans Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
🫖
Strap in people
Court Transcript Summary
In re The Matter of: Ioan Gruffudd v. Alice Evans (Case No. 21STFL2019)
Ex Parte Hearing on Stipulation and Order for Appointment and Payment for Child Custody Evaluation
August 17, 2023 – Los Angeles County Superior Court
Hon. Josh Freeman Stinn, Superior Court Judge
Appearances:In re The Matter of: Ioan Gruffudd v. Alice Evans (Case No. 21STFL2019)
Ex Parte Hearing on Stipulation and Order for Appointment and Payment for Child Custody Evaluation
August 17, 2023 – Los Angeles County Superior Court
Hon. Josh Freeman Stinn, Superior Court Judge
Anne Kiley (“Anne”), representing Petitioner Ioan Gruffudd (“Ioan”)
Bernal Ojeda (“Bernal”) representing Respondent Alice Evans (“Alice”)
Elise Greenberg (“Ms. Greenberg”), representing minor children of the marriage: Ella Evans Griffith (“Ella”) and Elsie Evans Griffith (“Elsie”)
***
The judge, Hon. Josh Freeman Stinn, calls the case and the hearing begins. The attorneys make their appearances. The attorneys are the only ones present; Ioan, Alice, Ella, and Elsie are not present in court.
The judge states that there are two items on the agenda that day: (i) to deal with Ioan’s request for a custody evaluation; and (ii) to see if the request for a custody evaluation changes the previously set date of February 7, 2024 for the oral argument on the RFO (request for order) that was pending for interim visits to the children by Ioan pending trial. The judge said that dates will be set for the three-day bifurcated trial on this day as well.
Judge: “Let’s start with the big enchilada, which is the custody evaluation.” The judge states that he has read through all the court filings, but that he wants to allow Anne the opportunity to argue on behalf of Ioan, Bernal the opportunity to respond on behalf of Alice, and Ms. Greenberg the opportunity to advocate on behalf of the minor children.
Anne Kiley begins, stating that she will keep her argument brief and not repeat anything that is already in the filed court papers. She says that while the children have an individual therapist as well as a conjoint therapist in place, neither of them have the ability to make custody or visitation recommendations to the Court.
Anne: “Mr. Gruffudd loves his children very, very much. Does not know what is in their best interest in this extremely complicated situation. And he is seeking the recommendation, the analysis assessment of a mental health professional and the recommendation as to the best interest of the children, taking into consideration some of the most complex facts and family dynamic situations that I’ve certainly ever seen in a custody case.”
Anne states that they are seeking the appointment of Dr. Dupee as child custody evaluator because she is a psychiatrist and has the ability to make psychiatric assessments. One of the children’s therapists previously recommended a psychiatric assessment of Ella. Ioan believes that there are complications with Alice that will be assisted by having a psychiatrist as the child custody evaluator. Further, there are not a lot of people doing child custody evaluations, and those that are, are booked up. Dr. Dupee is available to start in October if she is appointed now. Anne is concerned that Ms. Greenberg’s suggestion to “wait a week and submit names” is going to further delay the process of finding an evaluator, and she doesn’t know anyone that can start sooner than Dr. Dupee. Anne states that Dr. Dupee is experienced, and excellent in that her psychiatric background would be of assistance in this particular matter. With that, Anne ends her argument.
The judge turns to Bernal Ojeda to make his argument.
Bernal states that Alice believed that “with a little bit more time and the children now with their therapist that it might be prudent to wait on child custody evaluation. It is expensive. It’s going to take a long time. If there is a concern of serious emotional harm to the children, I think that will be borne out fairly quickly.” Bernal asks that he be able to provide to the court a list of at least 3 names of potential child custody evaluators by Monday. With that, Bernal ends his statement to the court.
The judge says his understanding is that Bernal originally recommended Dr. Dupee for one of the children, and asks Bernal, “what is the hangup or the objection to Dr. Dupee being the evaluator. If I’m correct in my understanding that at one point, you were advocating for Dr. Dupee for, I believe, either conjoint or individual therapy but not for the custody evaluation so I guess where’s the line here? Why would she be qualified for task A but not for task B?”
Bernal states: “Well, your Honor, I think that my client was okay in terms of therapy. But for whatever reason—and I don’t know whether she’s done some research on Dr. Dupee and now she doesn’t feel comfortable that Dr. Dupee be the custody evaluator.”
Judge: “Okay. Fair enough. So I gleaned from your two emerging arguments: number one, mom, Respondent, does not think the custody evaluation is warranted. But if an evaluation is to take place for whatever reason, which has not been articulated to the Court, she's not particularly fond of the idea of it being Dr. Dupee. Is that the two takeaways?” Bernal answers in the affirmative.
The judge turns to Elise Greenberg.
Ms. Greenberg states that, unless the Court has changed its positive inclination to order the evaluation in general, that she won’t speak to that point since she doesn’t want to waste anyone’s time.
The judge states that the parties are to assume for the sake of argument that the Court is positively inclined toward having an evaluation done. He asks them: what, if anything, do they want him to know about who ought to do it and, if so, why and what the process ought to be?
Anne Kiley states that her concern is that if there’s not some sort of participation or suggestion by Alice and her attorney that there won’t be a buy-in. “There might not be a buy-in anyway.” And on behalf of Ioan, she thought it would be helpful if there would be 48 hours by which a name of a child custody evaluator could be supplied as well as their availability, so narrowing it down to evaluators who could start by October or sooner, if the court is inclined to give a few more days for some names of child custody evaluators to be provided.
The judge directs a question to Ms. Greenberg (but states that Anne or Bernal can weigh in as well): If Alice “is resistant to an evaluation being done, period, I don’t understand how we’re going to necessarily get more “buy-in” with the selection of three different names.” The judge states that if Alice provided a name, that there may be perhaps less resistance, but the bigger hurdle is that if Alice doesn’t want an evaluation, his sense is that the person opposed to an evaluation would oppose it no matter what, and that more delay or the selection of 3 names doesn’t give a lot better information and it doesn’t really solve the problem, which is that “mom, fundamentally, doesn’t believe an evaluation is necessary.”
Ms. Greenberg states that she is comfortable with the judge making a decision on the child custody evaluator that day. Ms. Greenberg states that “my concern is that we get something done because the therapists, who haven't started really working in earnest with this family yet, will not be able to make recommendations, will not be able to give an analysis and provide an expert opinion. Unlike other cases, where there's tons of people involved who can provide that evidence, that doesn't exist in this case. So I urge the Court to order the evaluation and let's get it done.”
The judge asks if Anne Kiley has anything further. She says no.
The judge rules. “So what the Court is going to do, the Court does believe that this case does warrant the appointment of a custody evaluator. The Court is clearly familiar with the case, clearly familiar with the allegations. It is apparent, abundantly, for whatever reason in part of the -- I believe, the analysis to help inform the Court as to what has happened, you know, most importantly through the -- you know, the perspective of the girls to cause this estrangement. We need to -- we need to get to the bottom of it, so that ultimately when we do make orders in the long run, that they are informed. These girls are clearly estranged from dad. Again, I'm not prepared to say exactly why or what the emanating source is. You know, the least of which or the most recent of which example is the eldest of the two children seeking a domestic violence restraining order against her father, which, again, foretells estrangement. It doesn't mean, you know, that it was, you know, bad faith or anything like that. It just means that there's clearly a deep rupture in the relationship and we need to figure out what the source of that is and most importantly figure out how we can make informed custody orders going forward.”
“So the Court does believe that there is enough allegations of estrangement, enough allegations of alienation that we need to have a more wholesome understanding. So I am going to order the appointment of Dr. Dupee. I don't believe in letting the perfect be the -- I mean, the good being the enemy of the perfect or however you say it correctly. I want progress and I want it to start sooner rather than later. If Dr. Dupee is available, I think that that makes a lot of sense. I am going to order the fees paid from the blocked account that we have been discussing in earlier hearings subject to reallocation.” The judge states that these orders are being made pursuant to Family Code 3111, Evidence Code 730, and California Rules of Court 5.220.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Family Code 3111 refers to the authority granted under the law to courts to order a custody evaluation if it believes that doing so is in the best interests of the minor child. Evidence Code 730 refers to the court’s authority to appoint an expert to give an unbiased, objective evaluation of a matter for which an expert opinion will help the Court. This allows the court to appoint an expert to investigate, report, and testify about issues relevant to the case. California Rule of Court 5.220 refers to the rules and regulations surrounding the job of a child custody evaluator and what he or she is expected to do.]
The judge asks for a Sanchez waiver and Anne, Bernal, and Ms. Greenberg agree.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: A Sanchez waiver means that the parties all agree that the child custody evaluator’s reports may be admitted into evidence without foundation (establishing qualifications of a witness or authenticity of evidence) and without objection, subject to cross-examination of the child custody evaluator.]
The judge then turns to the next issue.
-End of Part 1-
Alice is absolutely fucked.
Well.
I have wine.
I'm not Alice though. No ambien in sight.
Sorry sober October's.
Transcript nighttttt
I have wine.
I'm not Alice though. No ambien in sight.
Sorry sober October's.
Transcript nighttttt
Winning.
another Alice's eBay purchase - bandana/scarf (chosen color unknown)
<I post these when I see that feedback has been given.>
if coupled with earlier fringed heeled boots is possibly for pirate costume?purchase date unknown - feedback just received from seller
eBay item number: 295833896879 link to bandana/scarf
View attachment 2489345
That's Alice's grand plan to make money? To join the Bloods?
(Or the Crips, depending on which colour she bought)
Suck on that Alice. The judge sees through you like a window.
" I don't believe in letting the perfect be the -- I mean, the good being the enemy of the perfect or however you say it correctly. I want progress and I want it to start sooner rather than later. " Judge Josh is everything.... swoon.
ETA @Hiraeth is everything, and so is Judge J. Thank you @Hiraeth you star!
ETA @Hiraeth is everything, and so is Judge J. Thank you @Hiraeth you star!
Me too! Going to start calling him "The Big Enchilada"
Interesting when seasoned attorneys say something like this:
are Alice and her lawyer ever talking to each other
I believe Anne although it's in her interest to say this, but Elise's statement is very interesting. She is basically implying isolation/neglect here
It’s early but I feel like this is the next thread title, taken from @Hiraeth precis above.
Mr. Gruffudd loves his children very, very much
Mr. Gruffudd loves his children very, very much
This reminds me a bit of that biblical story about the mothers fighting over the baby, and then when the judge says he will give each half the (real) mother steps down. Ioan CLEARLY loves the girls so much
so sad.F.U.C.K.E.D
Judge Josh has got the measure of her. Well and truly.
Yes, that's heartbreaking. He's basically saying that if it's in the girls' best interests psychologically he will step away. I don't think anyone will think it's in their best interest, thankfully.This reminds me a bit of that biblical story about the mothers fighting over the baby, and then when the judge says he will give each half the (real) mother steps down. Ioan CLEARLY loves the girls so much
Those kids are so isolated from everything and everyone by Al. They have no interaction with anyone. Poor kids.
- Status