Dead.
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:
I have literally had the most frantic 20 mins. The transcript landed and I got LOGGED OFF tattle. I couldn't remember my burner email, my passwords, anything. And I was watching GBBO. But I'm back. Hallelujah. That was more stressful than running to catch a flight
This is how I read it tooMyunprofessional opinion is that Ioan thinks Alice is mentally ill so he wants the evaluator to be qualified to make that judgement when considering custody.
”She be cray cray your honour”
Hmmmm, I suppose I mean that he’s confident it won’t go in Alice’s favour. I appreciate that he’s unlikely to be awarded full custody - I was more thinking along the lines of the court recognising that Alice has fucked the kids up and measures should be put in place to bring the kids and Yo back together. I wasn’t clear at all in my post though.
-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 -
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 -
I get the feeling we'll be on thread #218 before 4 am UK time when Tone gets up and starts tweeting again...
And so is Ioan, that's why they need someone who can assess AE's mental capacity to look after children. She is the cause of this tit show after all. The kids were doing ok when IG was in the house (despite AE's abuse as I think IG shielded them from it as much as he could). Now they aren't protected in any way and are acting out.
Dupee is going to earn her money with Alice (sad that we won't be able to see her report).
So glad they brought up the change in Elsie' school.
---
No one has fucked up Alice's life more than Alice.
---
No one has fucked up Alice's life more than Alice.
What a cliffhanger!
Is Judge Josh going to get a rave thread?
Tone’s already up and about. He’s not tweeted but has logged in to like a post.
Yes. Yes we do
OMG PART 3. The allegation that Alice changed Elsie's school.
I'm really struggling to follow what has been said, it is me being dumb, not Hireath's transcribing.
Please summarise really quick @Hiraeth .It's my bedtime and I have a 5am alarm
Alice won’t have listened to anything Bernal explained to her about the last hearing; seeing it on here she’s going to flip her switch.
Grand job @Hiraeth. Your keyboard must be on fire over there
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 or a 24 hour nanny).
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.
Judge Josh seems like a jolly fellow
- Status