Tell us about your Family Court Judge… attorneys… others (CPS, GAL, etc.)…
Please identify your Judge with at least the following information if possible…
- Full Name
- State
- County
- Assigned Courtroom
Use the “Leave a Reply - comment” window at the very bottom of this page to tell us your story… You may also comment on any of the posted responses below by clicking on “reply” at the end of the desired post. Thanks for ExposingTheRecord.
or, email your story to admin@exposingtherecord.org
Isa 10: 1-2 1 Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, 2 to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless.
My Testimony
Judge Lori Christian
Wake County Family Court (usually 8C)
Raleigh
North Carolina
Judge Christian…
My experience with this Judge is simple… In my opinion and in my own personal experience, she is a tyrant in her courtroom. Actually not “her” courtroom, but the people’s! Don’t try to tell her that, and you wouldn’t know it by her actions. She literally screams at you! With RAGE! REALLY? A JUDGE? In my humble opinion, she is an absolute bully!
She entered a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) against me (on behalf of my wife at a temporary custody hearing) and one was not even requested…
After 10 months of fighting back; filing a Writ of Mandamus with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, even a descretionary review with the North Carolina Supreme Court, and finally a Rule 60 (b) (4) motion – the order is void, she had no choice but to ADMIT that she NEVER had the authority to do such a thing…
Ultimately she ADMITS that she had no Subject Matter Jurisdiction and no Personal Jurisdiction over me and was therefore a trespasser of the law!
However, she was not done violating my constitutional rights; After presenting my Rule 60 motion she decided to wait 2 weeks “to render her decision.” With the LAW right in front of her face and indisputable evidence, she simply decides to delay her decision for two more weeks. Tyranny!
Definition of TYRANT
1a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
1b : a usurper of sovereignty
2a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
2b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
After the hearing on March 16, 2011 ( my Motion to set aside the Domestic Violence Protective Order), Judge Christian finally set aside her VOID Order on March 29, 2011. Not even a simple apology for her egregious violation of my constitutional rights… Nothing! I will seek one in Federal Court along with damages and other injunctive relief.
During the unlawful DVPO hearing in question she handcuffed me and had me escorted to the bank to withdraw every penny (but $1) by threat of 30 days in JAIL; without cause or Due Process…
During the same hearing she unlawfully kept me in handcuffs and then in a DETENTION CELL in the basement of the courthouse for 6 hours with nothing to eat or drink for no reason. I am a diabetic, with no access to food, water or my medication for a total of 10 hours. Again, without cause or Due Process… No charges ever brought against me and no contempt order…
Absent Jurisdiction, courts across this country have held that Judges who commit such acts are indeed “Trespassers of the LAW!”
A judge acting without subject-matter jurisdiction is acting without judicial authority; Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution” he “comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” [Emphasis supplied in original].
Pingback: KANGAROO COURTS TARGET “CHILDREN” | ExposingTheRecord.org
Judge Lori Christian, in support of her fellow colleagues, brought my then 15 year old home from whence he should never have been taken from me, and was done so under the most heinous, despicable, felony crimes you could never imagine by the powers that were supposed to protect us, and then, after being aware of my ex lying in court to her, his positive drug test, and my refusal to cooperate with Child Protective Services to put my child in a state mental health facility, to raise funds for Wake County and the state when there was nothing wrong with my son, as evidenced by Dr. Gualitiri, the best neuropsychiatrist in the state, she forced my son to return to his drug addicted, abusive, alcoholic, and perjurous ex husband. Now Klacey J. Smith is writing our story, and the first of three books is due to be released in August/September. All the crimes against us will be revealed in these three books. I can’t write that story because, Judge Lori Christian threatened me that if I tell of the last two cases that she presided over, she would put me in prison. So, now we have an author to write the story for me! Ha, take that byatch! See and subscribe to the sites below in support against Judge Lori Christian and others just like her.
batteredlifestormyweather.com
klaceycastle view on You Tube
Join Klacey J Smith on Facebook Fan Page and Twitter
For book signings email Klacey J. Smith at:
klaceyjsmith@gmail.com
919-610-5838 for private or commerical book signings
Thank you,
Linda.
It’s a scam and multimillion $ business in Canada too. It is called Emergency Protection Order Program, the orders are frivolously granted against fathers upon request from a woman. No evidence is needed and fathers are not even aware that their property and children are being torn away from them in their absence and without due process. After the order is granted ex-wife enters into business arrangements with her attorneys to split his property between her and them. In order promote the conflict, initial payments and services are provided for free until his property can be liquified and spoils divided. The results of programs like this are horrible – 7 fathers a day in divorce situation commit suicide in Canada, 60- 70 % of women are single because it doesn’t make any sense for men with property to commit to a woman. They are killing families in Canada and US under false pretense of protecting women and children. In my opinion, the system is not reformable and needs to fall and be replaced by new system based on common sense and reality.
OMG!! That is terrible. Everyday I’m reading stories like this. And I just can’t beleive it. Something needs to be done.
My granddaughter’s father starting abusing her right after he lost his cash aid for non-compliance. He was living with me and I intervened when I could. The police were called and dozens of calls to CPS. No one bothered to come and interview my granddaughter. It was always the same lame reason “We don’t have the staff”. Budget cuts. blah blah blah. Now he has violated a court order and taken her out of the state.
The judge has never made him accountable for violating 4 court orders. Why bother putting pen to paper to make these orders if there is not going to be any consequences for violating them?
The story of my grandaughter
http://www.wix.com/rbngage/mattieleegirl
http://www.youtube.com/mattieleegirl
http://mattieleegirl.livejournal.com/
Facebook Group “Fighting for Mattie”
PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN CARLUCCIO
The following is an outline of the malicious actions and impact of Judge Carolyn Carluccio.
Since the case began, and was reassigned and addressed by 8 judges, there has not been a judge who went more willingly into the corruption, ethics violations and conspiracy than Judge Carluccio.
Judge Carluccio embraced her role and acted with an enthusiasm and malice completely devoid of the trust placed in her by the people of Montgomery County.
There has been no justice, no respect and no law in her courtroom.
December 2010
1. Judge Carluccio is assigned the case in early December, one month after the Recusal of Judge Stephen Barrett.
2. There are several petitions awaiting hearings. (Docket #210, #211, #214, #226, #227, #240, #241, #261)
3. Judge Carluccio receives an inappropriate ex parte communication from Angst & Angst.
4. Judge Carluccio, when presented with the lawyers ethical violation, failed to act in accordance with the Code of Judicial Ethics and becomes a party to the ethical violation.
5. Defendant petitioned the court for the ex parte document. (Docket #272) Filed as an Emergency, Judge Carluccio promptly denied the petition without explanation. (Docket #273) THERE WAS NO HEARING ON THE MATTER.
6. Defendant also petition for the ex parte documents which were exchanged with the prior judges in this matter. (Docket #271) THERE WAS NO HEARING ON THE MATTER.
January 2011
7. Judge Carluccio, during her January Short List, refuses to permit the Defendant any opportunity to address the petitions he had filed. Judge Carluccio, indicates she has no time on her schedule for hearings, and Orders hearings for June 1-2, 2011. (Docket #282 regarding #210, #211, #214, #226, #227, #240, #261) Omitted, without explanation, from the scheduling Order is #241 which is regarding ex parte communication between Angst & Angst and Judge Emanuel Bertin.
This was an intentional six month delay in the resolution of the financial and health matters, but the Judge is in control of her schedule.
This scheduling tactic had been played out so many times by the Masters and Judges that it was becoming insulting that they would continue the delaying game as if the Defendant actually believed their statements. Defendant could do nothing about the Courts schedule. Every Judge has played this feigned “sorry, there are no openings any sooner’ scheduling game.
February 2011
8. Angst & Angst file an Emergency Petition. (Docket #283)
Strangely, it is not filed electronically. All petitions filed by Angst & Angst since 2008 have been filed electronically.
9. The EMERGENCY Petition is mailed to the Prothonotary and received by the Prothonotary on February 24, 2011.
March 2011
10. The EMERGENCY Petition is not processed by the Prothonotary until March 1, 2011. A delay of one week processing an EMERGENCY Petition.
11. The corresponding Certificate of Service is filed ELECTRONICALLY on March 2, 2011. (Docket #284)
12. On March 3, 2011, Judge Carluccio grants the EMERGENCY and schedules a hearing on March 9, 2011. (Docket #285)
13. Defendant received the Petition on March 4, 2011, and the Scheduling Order on March 5, 2011.
14. This did not permit a great amount of time to prepare and file a response. That was the intent.
It is worth noting that the quick scheduling of the Petition was intentional. Angst & Angst had not filed any petition to which the Defendant could respond with a counterpetition since December 2009.
Judge Bertin had ordered a Response and Counterpetition separated in August 2009.
In December 2009, Judge Bertin heard the testimony and evidence regarding the petition (the re-filed counter). Judge Bertin ruled that the issues were ‘not cognizable’, offered no explanation as he could not ethically provide legal advice.
Judge Bertin dismissed the petition and ordered the Defendant to pay sanctions.
NOT COGNIZABLE indicated that since the issues were not directly relating to Family Court issues, the Family Court could not address them.
IF HOWEVER, the counterpetition had not be re-filed as ordered by Judge Bertin, it would have been cognizable because it was connected to a Family Court Issue.
The Defendant had been anticipating the opportunity to respond and counterpetition might arise again. The Defendant was able to assemble a Response and Counterpetition and file it on March 8, 2011.
15. The Defendant filed the Response and Counterpetition on March 8, 2011. (Docket #286)
16. The Response and Counterpetition documented the injustices of the Court since August 2007. The document was organized, clearly written, and included a Table Of Contents listing the major issues to be presented. It was also not a complete listing, there were more issues to be documented, however, time did not permit everything to be filed before the Emergency Hearing on March 9, 2011.
17. On March 9, 2011, Judge Carluccio was demonstrating a level of corruption, malice and fraud which could not be ignored.
18. The Hearing did not take place because as soon as Judge Carluccio was caught in several lies and intimidation tactics, she ended the proceeding and indicated it would be continued.
19. Judge Carluccio issued an Order which had nothing to do with the EMERGENCY issues before her. (Docket #287)
20. On March 10, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued an Order which wrongly paraphrased and completely misrepresented the proceeding from the day prior.
21. Judge Carluccio ordered an Equitable Distribution Hearing for March 29, 2011.
Equitable Distribution is not supposed to occur until all other petitions have been resolved. Scheduling the ED Hearing before all of the others would make them difficult to pursue. I believe this was their intent.
22. On March 16, 2011, the Defendant filed a Petition for Judge Carluccio to Recuse herself from the case. The title of the document sums the request up succinctly. PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN TORNETTA CARLUCCIO FOR CONSPIRACY, CORRUPTION, FRAUD, INTIMIDATION, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS / PROCEDURE AND DENIAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS. (Docket #289)
23. On March 29, 2011, Judge Carluccio denied the petition without any hearing. Judge Carluccio did not recuse or distribute an Order indicating her denial.
24. On March 29, 2011, Defendant began by asking the Court to address the issue of the June 1-2, 2011 protracted hearings.
25. The hearings had been removed from the schedule on the court website without any notice.
26. Emails/Praecipes to Court Administration had been issued and not distributed to the parties. The secret praecipes had rescheduled the hearings for March 29, 2011.
27. Judge Carluccio indicated that scheduling issue was an error.
28. Judge Carluccio reaffirmed the purpose of the March 29th proceeding was Equitable Distribution and NOT the outstanding petitions.
29. Over the course of the Equitable Distribution hearing, Defendant raised the issues relating to the outstanding petitions and was repeatedly reassured by Judge Carluccio that those hearings would occur.
30. At the end of the day, Defendant reminded Judge Carluccio about the unscheduling of the hearings where upon Judge Carluccio issued an Order scheduling the Protracted Hearings for May 5, 2011. (Docket #291)
It is interesting to note that these proceedings had been rescheduled so frequently and for multiple days.
Judge Carluccio had no time on her schedule for these matters on January 10 when she pushed them out for six months.
Time has been wasted on multiple proceedings where nothing has been heard or resolved.
Judge Carluccio orders the 2 days of protracted hearings originally set for June 1-2, 2011 to be held in 1/2 day on May 5, 2011.
April 2011
31. On April 14, 2011, Judge Carluccio issues her next Order (Docket #294) without any proceeding, incorrectly renaming the petitions she is addressing, and ‘disposing’ of the petitions. The Order includes a footnote attributing the listing of misnamed petitions to the response/counterpetition from March 8, 2011.
32. Judge Carluccio refers to her having conducted a lengthy review of the docket, but the Divorce Clerk records indicate the judge did not have the file from the Prothonotary at the time.
33. The file being promptly returned to the Prothonotary on March 30, 2011.
34. At this point in time the docket had almost 300 entries, a review of the docket without the printed copies would have been EXTREMELY time consuming.
35. Defendant also had repeatedly indicated that the hearings had not taken place and the issues were outstanding.
Yes, the defendant does understand. THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THESE HEARINGS. Any hearing on the matters would permit the introduction of evidence of the injustices, extrinsic fraud and the corruption of the judiciary assigned to the matter.
Judge Carluccio is revealing her active participation in the obstruction of justice.
36. Bear in mind, the Defendant has no choice but to continue to seek justice from a Court which is determined to act in an improper, unethical and corrupt manner. If the defendant fails to point out these ‘indiscretions’, Defendant might not be permitted to present them to a higher court when the time comes. The Court has acted with intent to prevent any order from being appealed. THE COURT HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY TIMELY DECISIONS RELATING TO THE CASE.
37. On April 26, 2011, Defendant again petitions for the hearings to be scheduled. (Docket #295)
38. On April 29, 2011, Judge Carluccio DENIED that petition without any proceeding further basing her Order on an additional review of the docket. (Docket #296)
May 2011
39. On May 3, 2011, as the Judge’s April 14th order did not correctly title the petitions which she was ‘disposing’ of, Defendant stopped at the courthouse to check with Court Administration regarding the schedule for Thursday May 5, 2011. Interestingly, the court web site was still listing the hearings as scheduled. The renaming issue also could have created further confusion.
40. Court Administration contacted the Judge who indicated there were no hearings scheduled. When asked by Court Admin, the Judge refused to issue any order confirming the cancellation.
41. Defendant had the impression that the goal was for him to not show up at the hearing. The Judge would legitimately dismiss the petition for a no-show. Once Equitable Distribution has been heard, it is too late to introduce any new petitions, so the petitions could not procedurally be re-filed.
42. On May 4, 2011, Defendant received a copy of a letter from Angst & Angst to Judge Carluccio asking about the schedule for May 5, 2011. Angst & Angst had faxed it to Judge Carluccio on May 3.
That evening, Defendant checked the court web site and there was an Order issued by the Judge on May 3rd, but not docketed until May 4th. Defendant did not have a copy of this order and had not been contacted regarding the schedule.
If Defendant didn’t show up, the petitions could all be cancelled.
If Defendant showed up and everyone was there for hearing(s), the tactic would be revealed.
Defendant needed to be ready for nine potential hearings.
If Defendant showed up and no one was there for the hearing(s), then Angst & Angst had information which Defendant did not receive.
Defendant had no choice but to prepare and go to the scheduled hearing, and the Defendant did.
43. On May 5, 2011, Defendant arrived at the Courtroom 5 minutes before the time scheduled.
44. No one was there.
45. Defendant was advised by the Judge’s assistant that the hearing had been cancelled by an order on May 3rd. Defendant was then given a copy of the Order, and left.
46. On the way out of the courthouse Defendant stopped at Court Administration to update them on the last minute Cancellation Order.
47. Defendant and his mother were then surrounded by seven deputies and asked to leave the courthouse. They further indicated that ‘If I did not have business in the courthouse, I should not be there.’
48. When Defendant showed the deputies the scheduling order, they were confused at why they were mislead.
49. Court Admin confirmed the Defendant’s information to the deputies.
50. Deputies indicated they were responding to a false report from the judge that the Defendant threatened her.
The deputies have a job to do. The Defendant understands and respects that.
The deputies also know the Defendant because he has been coming into the courthouse regularly since 2007.
The deputies know the Defendant is not violent – Defendant is also half their size.
The deputies knew they had been given bad information, however they have a job to do.
At the Defendant’s suggestion, an agreement was reached. Defendant would stop and request a deputy escort me whenever he had any business in the courthouse.Deputies agreed.
That is what has occurred ever since. While it is completely unnecessary, it permits the deputies to do their job responsibilities without compromising their careers.
The deputies have to respond to false reports.
51. On May 9, 2011, Defendant had to return to the Prothonotary to provide a document which needed to be re-scanned. The Defendant stopped to visit the divorce file, and was informed that the sign-out sheet was no longer available and now considered an “Internal Use Only” Document.
The sign-out sheet indicates that Judge Carluccio did not have the files or any of the documents during her “lengthy” and “additional review” of the docket to which she refers in her Orders of April 14, 2011 and April 29, 2011.
52. On May 9, 2011, Defendant also docketed several documents which pertain to the case but somehow have not been docketed or have been removed from the docket.
53. On May 9, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued an Order granting a divorce to parties who had neglected to request a divorce, and ordering a malicious and cruel equitable distribution.
54. The errors in the Order prevent it being appealed on a timely basis, and would return it to Judge Carluccio’s courtroom.
55. The Defendant found the errors and petitioned for them to be resolved.
June 2011
56. Judge Carluccio delayed for months while her order made the Defendant homeless, without medical or dental benefits, and permitted the Plaintiff to vandalise and destroy the Defendant’s home (and bill the Defendant for her actions).
July 2011
57. JUDGE CARLUCCIO HAS REFUSED TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE MATTERS.
58. At a Short List Hearing on July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio further revealed her malice and cruelty.
59. Judge Carluccio also said out loud and on the record that the Order was indeed her Final Order, and that she no longer had jurisdiction in the case. She then went on to schedule another hearing to punish the defendant for petitioning her court to enforce court orders.
60. Judge Carluccio is currently sitting on the appeal paperwork and preventing the Appeal from being filed.
61. There is 5 years permitted for the Appeal.
62. Judge Carluccio is delaying to permit the sale of Defendant’s home which was ordered on a defective order and after committing considerable extrinsic fraud.
63. Judge Carluccio’s malice and cruelty is boundless.
SUMMARY
64. This is not the case of a sad divorcee. This is the case of a terroristic divorce.
65. A case gone horribly awry because the Plaintiff’s lawyer told her client to commit a federal crime.
66. Once discovered the case became more about the Defendant’s survival, as the lawyer manipulated everyone in a position to help into wrongful actions.
67. Then the lawyer exposed the wrongdoing, and the actions were covered up by the judiciary.
68. Judge Carolyn Carluccio has fallen into the trap which has affected the other judges.
69. Judge Carluccio has acted with clear malice and cruelty to the victim of 6 years of injustice.
70. Judge Carluccio is above the law. The judge can do whatever the judge wants.
71. That is not the justice that the US is fighting for worldwide.
72. Bring the troops home. The justice system is under attack from the very ones who have been trusted to ensure “liberty and justice for all.”
73. Through Judge Carluccio’s own words and actions she has been exposed.
74. She has disgraced the judiciary.
75. The Defendant has also asked that the following JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD Complaints be re-opened and re-investigated as they are directly related.
JCB Complaint# 2009-099 Judge Tilson
JCB Complaint # 2010-447 Judge Daniele
JCB Complaint # 2010-448 Judge Bertin
JCB Complaint # 2010-449 Judge Tilson
JCB Complaint # 2010-450 Judge Del Ricci
76. The actions of Judge Carolyn Carluccio are intended to destroy the Defendant and prevent any further reports of the injustices committed against him.
77. Since becoming a victim of Judge Rhonda Daniele’s secret order, there has been a clearly unjust ruling on EVERY petition filed.
78. As the petitions were seeking enforcement of existing Court Orders, there is no other place to turn than to the court.
79. The victim of the injustice is forced to return to a corrupt court to seek justice.
A HEARING IS REQUESTED.
Respectfully,
Terance Healy
Yes…
I have personally witnessed Mr. Healy’s troubles with these Montgomery County Officials. And they are “NO BETTER” than High School Bullies in the way honest citezens are treated in this Commonwealth court system.
My Own personal battle has been ongoing for almost (6) years…
(4) Superior Court Appeals,(2) Supreme Court Appeals, and Now a Federal Lawsuit for Civil Rights Violations by these Officials.
Montgomery Pa. Court Of Common Pleas Case # 2007-00380
Former Montgomery County Judge Sharron L. Rex v. John W. Kulesa Jr.
A (5) MONTH MARRIAGE, Now Almost (6) Years in litigation.
Judge Nina Wight Padilla
Phila Co.
Phila
Court Rm 8.
Shes sided with my ex mother n laws attorny n he says in open court “You know me ur honor” I was denied a urine test. Nothing was proven or investigated Now being denied my son. I had no clue
Judge John Phillips
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
15th Judicial Court
Below is a letter I wrote to Chief Judge Kathleen Kroll (Who apparently is no longer Chief Judge) and the Judicial Qualifications commission after my two children were taken away from me and put in the hands of their abusive father and violent step mother.
12/18/2011
Dear Judge Kroll,
I am writing this letter in hopes of having my case removed from Judge John Phillips court, and am asking that a neutral and detached Judge or Magistrate examine the facts. There is a conflict of interest of the highest proportions that are placing my children in peril, and an unhealthy environment which is clearly not in their best interest.
The real injustice is that the children’s step mother, of whom I’ve had a restraining order against in the past for her violent behavior is a Guardian Ad Litem in the 15th Judicial Court, the same district as Judge John Phillips. Judge Phillips has named her associate J Q, the children’s Guardian Ad Litem, when she was appointed after my ex-husband lost custody due to abuse. Ms Q’s recent decisions clearly reflect a close relationship she has with the step mother and John Phillips. The relationship between these parties cast a cloud of partiality throughout the proceedings.
My name is Tammy R. I am the mother of two children, T M born on 01/06/98 and JM born 10/10/01. Both of my children have been victims of substantial abuse for several years by my ex-husband and step mother in Palm Beach Gardens (see exhibit). During the period in which I was raising the children, I intended to move to Virginia after coming to the conclusion that my severed marriage was ending. I consulted with my ex-husband and we jointly and mutually agreed to a relocation agreement. One of the caveats’ being that I give up child support and follow the standard out of state “time sharing” schedule.
The proposal was more than fair since my ex-husband was only allowed supervised visits just prior to the move. Unfortunately my ex-husband’s inappropriate behavior continued when he came for his visitation in Virginia. The children were frightened and horrified at times by his violent behavior. The police were called. I voluntarily had them interview the children and the police agreed they could be in danger.
I was then offered a job in North Carolina where the cost of living was lower. This was beneficial to a single parent raising two children with no support. I did notify my ex-husband and his attorney and presumed they had no objection. I now realize perhaps I should have consulted with an attorney but was turned down legal representation because it was an “out of state” case and I couldn’t afford an attorney.
I enrolled my children in counseling and therapy and tried to work with him to build a relationship. We agreed that my children and the step mother would take them to Florida during the spring break visitation. The children came back from that visitation even more disturbed than the prior visitation. I called my ex-husband to discuss what the children had told me. He threatened my life.
In order to protect my family I called the Kernersville N.C. A protective order was granted by the judge after she spoke to the children herself in private chambers and listened to the threatening message.
At the same time my mother in Canton, Ohio had a serious medical emergency and was placed in ICU. I felt obligated to move back to Canton. Again, perhaps I should have consulted an attorney. I consulted with Social Services in North Carolina and they advised to go and protect the children. The judge in North Carolina also knew I was moving to Ohio to take care of my mother. I told her at the hearing in case I couldn’t make it back for the “final” hearing. Unfortunately, I was not able to make it back to North Carolina to the hearing so the matter was dismissed, even though I did consult with an attorney at Legal Aid in Stark County.
Two days later two Canton officers appeared at my home and removed the children against their will and transported them back to my ex-husband and step mother. Judge Phillips latest order restricts me from seeing or even contacting my children in any manner. All these orders came from Judge Phillips whom has never even spoken to me or my children. He has not examined the evidence that supports the reports of abuse (pictures, police reports, therapist reports, protective order, calendar of symptoms, teacher reports etc.) It’s obvious these relationships are behind the fact that I have been ordered to not see or have any communication with my children whatsoever.
All I’m asking is that an unbiased Guardian Ad Litem, Judge or magistrate be appointed in this case. After speaking with a local lawyer, I then realized I may not have followed all the notice requirements, nevertheless I am an excellent mother who has raised these children in a loving home and was simply looking for peace in our lives.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I think we all agree that what needs to be done is what’s in the best interest of the children. We just need someone to give the children a voice.
Respectfully,
Tammy R
Response:
We have received a copy of your letter, with enclosure dated December 18, 2011 addressed to Judge Kroll concerning your domestic case in Palm Beach County. although the commission can appreciate the situation in which you find yourself, I regret that there is nothing it can do to be of assistance to you. Our only authority and jurisdiction is to investigate and handle complaints against judges charging them with judicial misconduct or a violation of the code of Judicial conduct. The commission has no right or authority to inject it’s view into any pleading litigation, or to suggest to a judge how a particular case should be handled or what ruling should be made. these matters are wholly outside the scope of our responsibilities under the law.
Sincerely yours,
Brooke S. Kennerly
Executive Director
BROWARD COUNTY 17TH DISTRICT FAMILY JUDGE ARTHUR BIRKEN NEEDS TO PINK SLIPPED OFF THE BENCH…KEEPING A FAMILY CASE IN FAMILY COURT FOR 16 YEARS….NICE $$$$ IN HIS POCKET…..GAL’S ATTORNEYS AND CHILD SUPPORT TITLE IV-D ABUSE AS WELL.
If you have time please go to http://www.kangaroocourtwatch.org and rate the JUDGE! Click on the Big Square that says “COURT WATCH – Tell us about your Judge” to the right. Thanks for the feedback. Spread the word…
Case Information
Case Number: 41 2002 DR 003254 File Date: 6/18/2002
Case Type: Dissolution Case Status: Reopen – Other
Case Action Code: DISSOLUTION MARRIAGE Judge: MARC B GILNER
Parties
Party Type Name Gender Race DOB
1 Wife GIBELLINA, CONNIE
ATTORNEY: SASSO, MICHAEL P
ATTORNEY: TOBAYGO, ANGELA D
08/13/1963
2 Husband GIBELLINA, GLEN
HOME ADDRESS: 2473 TWIN DR SARASOTA FL 34234
ATTORNEY: PROPER, PERSON
ATTORNEY: LOMBARDO, PETER
12/10/1951
Dockets
Legend: Viewable Viewable on Request© Confidential
Image Date Description
1 06/18/2002 MINOR CHILD QUESTIONNAIRE (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
2 06/18/2002 FILING FEE ASSESSED-DISSOLUTION Receipt: 31096839 Date: 06/18/2002
3 06/18/2002 CIVIL COVER SHEET
4 06/18/2002 PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER RELIEF
5 06/18/2002 SUMMONS ISSUED WIFE
6 06/28/2002 ORDER TO ATTEND SEMINAR FOR PARENT EDUCATION AND FAMILY STABILIZATION AND ORDER SETTING TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION
7 06/28/2002 SUMMONS SERVED CONNIE GIBELLINA 6-26-02
8 07/08/2002 COPY OF ORDER TO ATTEND SEMINAR FOR PARENT EDUCATION AND FAMILY STABLIZATION TO GLEN GIBELLINA RETURNED
9 07/19/2002 WIFES ANSWER TO HUSBANDS PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER RLIEF AND WIFES COUNTER PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE (CONNIE GIBELLINA)
10 07/31/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING (8-26-02 @ 1:30PM)
11 07/31/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING ( 8-26-02 @ 3:30PM)
12 08/28/2002 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING (8-26-02 @ 3:30PM)
13 08/28/2002 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING (8-26-02 @ 1:30PM)
14 09/30/2002 MANDATORY DISCLOSURE
15 09/30/2002 WIFES FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
16 09/30/2002 WIFES NOTICE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
17 10/04/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING (10-23-02 @ 10:00AM)
18 10/04/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING (11-8-02 @ 10:00AM)
19 10/18/2002 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT-GLEN GIBELLINA
20 10/18/2002 NOTICE OF FILING HUSBANDS FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
21 10/24/2002 CROSS NOTICE OF HEARING (11-8-02 @ 10:00AM)
22 10/24/2002 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING RETURNED-2
23 10/24/2002 WIFES AMENDED FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
24 11/12/2002 UNMARKED EXHIBIT- RECEIVED BY JUDGE
25 11/13/2002 NOTICE OF HEARING (1-23-02 @ 3:00PM)
26 11/14/2002 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER AND ORDER FOR TEMPORARY CHILD SUPPORT
27 11/20/2002 PREPARATION SHEET FOR NEW CASE IN CHILD SUPPORT DEPOSITORY
28 11/22/2002 MEMORANDUM TO CLERK
29 12/10/2002 AGREEMENT FOR CREDIT FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS
30 12/11/2002 SEMINAR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE – HUSBAND
31 01/23/2003 FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE – RECORDED
32 01/23/2003 MARITAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A
33 01/23/2003 CIRCUIT COPY FEE (CASE RECEIPT) Receipt: 31115672 Date: 01/23/2003
34 02/10/2003 FEE FOR FILING FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE Receipt: 31117206 Date: 02/10/2003
35 02/10/2003 HRS FORM DH 513 TO BE COMPLETED AND MAILED AT END OF MONTH TO THE BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS
36 02/10/2003 SEMINAR COMPLETION CERTIFICATE – WIFE
37 04/02/2003 UPDATE/AUDIT SHEET FROM CHILD SUPPORT DEPOSITORY
38 06/20/2003 NOTICE OF HEARING JULY 24,2003 @1:30
39 07/29/2003 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING
40 09/25/2003 ADDRESS CHANGE FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT – GLEN GIBELLINA
41 02/05/2004 REDIRECTION OF SUPPORT PAYMENTS FROM CONNIE EAVES TO DOR
42 09/26/2005 AGREEMENT FOR CREDIT FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS
43 12/05/2005 CERTIFICATION FOR CIRCUIT COURT DOCUMENTS Receipt: 31215714 Date: 12/05/2005
44 12/05/2005 CIRCUIT COPY FEE (CASE RECEIPT) Receipt: 31215714 Date: 12/05/2005
45 01/10/2006 ADDRESS CHANGE FOR CUSTODIAL PARENT
46 01/12/2006 AGREEMENT FOR CREDIT FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS
47 03/16/2006 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE Receipt: 31226443 Date: 03/16/2006
48 03/16/2006 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
49 03/16/2006 NOTICE OF HEARING
50 03/22/2006 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING RETURNED-1
51 05/12/2006 CERTIFICATE OF INDIGENCY BY CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
52 05/12/2006 CIRCUIT COPY FEE (CASE RECEIPT) Receipt: 31232965 Date: 05/12/2006
53 05/12/2006 CERTIFICATION FOR CIRCUIT COURT DOCUMENTS Receipt: 31232965 Date: 05/12/2006
54 05/12/2006 FORMER WIFE’S VERIFIED PRO SE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING
55 05/12/2006 CIRCUIT COPY FEE (CASE RECEIPT) Receipt: 31232967 Date: 05/12/2006
56 05/12/2006 APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF CIVIL INDIGENT STATUS – GRANTED
57 05/15/2006 ORDER SETTING HEARING MAY 18 2006 @ 2:00 PM
58 05/15/2006 CIRCUIT CIVIL FEES ASSESSED FOR JUDGMENT FOR PAYMENT OF COURT FEES AND COSTS
59 05/15/2006 AGREEMENT AND ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PAYMENT OF COURT FEES AND COSTS – RECORDED
60 08/29/2006 NOTICE OF HEARING
61 08/29/2006 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (MICHAEL FOSTER ESQ OBO GLENN GIBELLINA)
62 08/30/2006 FORMER HUSBAND’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY
63 08/30/2006 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER HUSBANDS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY)
64 09/12/2006 PRO SE PETITION TO CONTEST DRIVERS LICENSE SUSPENSION
65 11/21/2006 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Receipt: X Date: 11/21/2006
66 11/21/2006 FORMER HUSBAND’S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF THE MINOR CHILD
67 11/21/2006 SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS ISSUED CONNIE GIBELLINA-HANDED TO LEGAL ASSISTANT
68 11/29/2006 SUMMONS SERVED 11/22/06 ON CONNIE GIBELLINA
69 12/22/2006 MOTION FOR DEFAULT
70 12/22/2006 NOTICE OF HEARING 01/03/07 AT 10:15 AM
71 01/02/2007 COPY OF NOTICE OF HEARING -RETURNED
72 01/12/2007 ANSWER (CONNIE GIBELLINA
73 01/18/2007 ORDER REGARDING FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR DEFAULT
74 01/24/2007 CERTIFICATION FOR CIRCUIT COURT DOCUMENTS Receipt: 31258842 Date: 01/24/2007
75 01/24/2007 CIRCUIT COPY FEE (CASE RECEIPT) Receipt: 31258842 Date: 01/24/2007
76 01/25/2007 NOTICE CASE IS AT ISSUE AND READY FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
77 01/29/2007 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO CIRCUIT FAMILY MEDIATION PROGRAM
78 01/29/2007 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
79 02/21/2007 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT
80 02/22/2007 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
81 02/22/2007 ORDER SETTING NON-JURY TRIAL DATE AND TIME CERTAIN 04/10/07 AT 9:00 AM
82 02/22/2007 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO CIRCUIT FAMILY MEDIATION PROGRAM
83 04/09/2007 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF THE MINOR CHILD
84 04/12/2007 MAGISTRATE’S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER TO DISMISS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD
85 04/23/2007 MOTION TO WITHDRAW
86 04/23/2007 NOTICE OF HEARING 05/07/07 AT 10:00 AM
87 04/26/2007 ORDER/JUDGMENT ENTRY
88 05/07/2007 ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
89 08/07/2007 STATE IF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE’S MOTION TO ESTABLISH ARREARS AND PAYMENTS THEREON
90 08/07/2007 NOTICE OF HEARING (09/06/2007 @ 10:15)
91 08/14/2007 PRO SE PETITION TO CONTEST DRIVERS LICENSE SUSPENSION (COPY SENT TO CSE)
92 08/14/2007 CIRCUIT COPY FEE (CASE RECEIPT) Receipt: 31283239 Date: 08/14/2007
93 09/06/2007 MEMORANDUM TO CLERK FILED IN OPEN COURT
94 09/10/2007 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT
95 09/12/2007 ORDER TO CONTINUE – OCTOBER 9, 2007 @3:15PM
96 10/09/2007 RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT #C FILED IN OPEN COURT AND RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE – LETTER FROM MICHELLE THOMAS
97 10/09/2007 RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT #B FILED IN OPEN COURT AND RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE – BILL FOR INN SRS SARASOTA AIRPORT
98 10/09/2007 MEMORANDUM TO CLERK FILED IN OPEN COURT
99 10/09/2007 RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT #A FILED IN OPEN COURT AND RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE – LETTER FROM CONNIE GIBELLINA
100 10/10/2007 NOTICE OF HEARING OCTOBER 16 2007 @ 9:45 AM
101 10/10/2007 MR JOSEPH W FANELLI’S – MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD
102 10/12/2007 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT
103 10/15/2007 INCOME DEDUCTION ORDER
104 10/15/2007 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER AND ORDER AND JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS -RECORDED
105 10/16/2007 ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW JOSEPH W FANELLI, ESQ
106 10/29/2007 UPDATE/AUDIT SHEET FROM CHILD SUPPORT DEPOSITORY
107 11/21/2007 AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER AND ORDER AND JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS-RECORDED
108 12/26/2007 FORMER HUSBAND’S – SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF THE MINOR CHILD
109 12/26/2007 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Receipt: 31297779 Date: 12/26/2007
110 12/27/2007 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Receipt: 31298012 Date: 12/27/2007
111 12/27/2007 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
112 01/03/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
113 01/14/2008 LETTER FROM CASE MANAGER
114 01/14/2008 NOTICE OF CLARIFICATION
115 01/15/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
116 01/15/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT / LETTER TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES FROM GELN GIBELLINA DATED JANUARY 14 2008
117 01/17/2008 NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY
118 01/22/2008 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
119 01/22/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
120 02/01/2008 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER TO CIRCUIT COURT UPON PAYMENT OF APPLICABLE FEES (CASES 2007-SC-6297 AND 2007-SC-6199 ARE CONSOLIDATED INTO THIS CASE – VERBAL CONFIRMATION FROM JUDGE)
121 02/14/2008 TRANSFER CASE NO 2007 SC 6297 AND CASE NO 2007 SC 6199 TO CIRCUIT COURT DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION ( REQUEST FOR HEARING)
122 02/14/2008 JUDGMENT/CERTIFICATE OF DELINQUENCY – RECORDED
123 02/20/2008 FORMER WIFES SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
124 02/20/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED DEFENDANT GLEN GIBELLINA HANDED TO RUNNER
125 02/20/2008 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Receipt: 31304774 Date: 02/20/2008
126 02/20/2008 UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT AFFIDAVIT
127 02/20/2008 NOTICE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER – WIFE
128 02/20/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
129 02/21/2008 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MOTION AND NOTICE OF CONTEMPT HEARING 2/20/2008 RETURNED
130 02/21/2008 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT
131 02/21/2008 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
132 02/25/2008 LETTER FROM CASE MANAGER
133 02/25/2008 SUMMONS SERVED 2/20/2008 GLEN GIBELLINA
134 02/26/2008 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF THE MINOR CHILD SUMMONS ISSUED WIFE (CONNIE SUE GIBELUNA) AND HANDED TO HUSBAND
135 02/26/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
136 02/28/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT / CHARGE SUMMARIES
137 02/28/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORECEMENT
138 03/04/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
139 03/05/2008 SUMMONS ON SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION SERVED 3-04-08 CONNIE SUE GIBELLINA
140 03/06/2008 LETTER TO CECILIA FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
141 03/06/2008 TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FAMILY DIVISION RULES OF COURTROOM ETIQUETTE
142 03/06/2008 NOTICE OF LIMITATION OF SERVICES PROVIDED (DISCLAIMER) – HUSBAND
143 03/06/2008 ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION (CONNIE GIBELLINA )
144 03/06/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
145 03/11/2008 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
146 03/12/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE (COPY OF PETITION)
147 03/12/2008 ANSWER TO WIFES SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION AND COUNTERPETITION (GLEN GIBELLINA)
148 03/12/2008 TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FAMILY DIVISION RULES OF COURTROOM ETIQUETTE
149 03/12/2008 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT
150 03/14/2008 INCOME DEDUCTION ORDER
151 03/14/2008 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR PAY OR APPEAR AND JOB SEARCH/ ORDER AND JUDGMENT- RECORDED
152 03/19/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING 4/10/2008 10AM
153 03/20/2008 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
154 03/27/2008 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING
155 03/27/2008 OBJECTION TO ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
156 03/31/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
157 03/31/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
158 03/31/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
159 03/31/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT / CALENDAR
160 03/31/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT / LETTER TO CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
161 04/02/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
162 04/02/2008 NOTICE FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
163 04/11/2008 ORDER TO VACATE
164 04/14/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY CUSTODY OR VISITATION AND OTHER RELIEF
165 04/14/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
166 04/14/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
167 04/14/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY CUSTODY OR VISITATION AND OTHER RELIEF
168 04/14/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT- ATTACHMENT
169 04/14/2008 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER HUSBANDS REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY CUSTODY OR VISITATION)
170 04/14/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
171 04/16/2008 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY CUSTODY OR VISITATION
172 04/16/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY CUSTODY OR VISITATION AND OTHER RELIEF
173 04/16/2008 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER HUSBANDS REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY CUSTODY OR VISITATION AND OTHER RELIEF)
174 04/16/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY CUSTODY OR VISITATION AND OTHER RELIEF ATTACHMENT
175 04/17/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT / UNMARKED EXHIBITS
176 04/17/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
177 04/21/2008 REQUEST FOR CURRENT ADDRESS/SCHOOL INFORMATION
178 04/24/2008 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
179 05/01/2008 COPY OF ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE RETURNED MAIL
180 05/02/2008 LETTER TO CONNIE FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
181 05/21/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
182 05/21/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
183 05/21/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
184 06/05/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
185 06/05/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
186 06/10/2008 LETTER TO CONNIE FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
187 06/10/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
188 06/10/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
189 06/13/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
190 06/13/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
191 06/18/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
192 06/18/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
193 06/18/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
194 06/18/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
195 06/18/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
196 06/19/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
197 06/19/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
198 06/19/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 6/25/2008 10:30AM
199 06/23/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
200 06/23/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
201 06/23/2008 COPY OF LETTER TO CECILIA A EATON ESQ FROM GLEN GIBELLINA DATED JUNE 22 2008 -ATTACHED TO THE MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
202 06/23/2008 ORDER SETTING NON-JURY TRIAL JULY 31 2008 @ 8:30 AM
203 06/23/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
204 06/24/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
205 06/24/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
206 06/26/2008 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
207 06/26/2008 ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
208 06/30/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING 7/7/2008 9:30AM
209 07/08/2008 FORMER WIFE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR REHEARING OF PRIOR ORDERS
210 07/08/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR REHEARING / COPIES OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ORDER
211 07/09/2008 ORDER ON FORMER WIFE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON CONTEMPT MOTION
212 07/10/2008 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
213 07/10/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING 7/21/2008 4AM
214 07/16/2008 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (PETER LOMBARDO ESQ OBO GLEN GIBELLINA )
215 07/18/2008 FORMER WIFE’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
216 07/18/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING (JULY 21 2008 @ 4 PM)
217 07/18/2008 FORMER’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
218 07/22/2008 ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE
219 07/24/2008 SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM RETURNED
220 07/24/2008 SUBPOENA RETURNED
221 07/24/2008 SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM RETURNED
222 07/24/2008 SUBPOENA RETURNED
223 07/24/2008 SUBPOENA RETURNED
224 07/30/2008 SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM RETURNED
225 07/30/2008 SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM RETURNED
226 07/31/2008 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM FILED IN OPEN COURT
227 07/31/2008 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD FILED IN OPEN COURT
228 07/31/2008 RESPONDENT’S (FORMER HUSBAND’S) MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED IN OPEN COURT
229 07/31/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT #1 RECEIVED AS EVIDENCE- COPY OF PETITION FOR AJUDICATION OF DEPENDENCY FILED IN OPEN COURT
230 07/31/2008 RESPONDENT’S (FORMER WIFE’S) MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED IN OPEN COURT
231 07/31/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT #2 RECEIVED AS EVIDENCE- COPY OF MANATEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS SECTION FILED IN OPEN COURT
232 08/01/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT #3 RECEIVED AS EVIDENCE- 6 COLOR COPIES OF HOME NOTE ON CAR WINDOW AND DECK FILED IN OPEN COURT
233 08/01/2008 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD FILED IN OPEN COURT
234 08/01/2008 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN OPEN COURT
235 08/20/2008 NOTICE FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
236 08/21/2008 ORDER
237 08/22/2008 ORDER APPOINTING CUSTODY MONITOR TO CONDUCT SOCIAL INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERIM CONTACT PLAN AND SETTING JUDICIAL REVIEW
238 08/25/2008 AMENDED ORDER
239 09/15/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT/CHILD SUPPORT AND TO VACATE PRIOR ESTABLISHED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE
240 09/15/2008 APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF CIVIL INDIGENT STATUS – GRANTED
241 09/15/2008 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Receipt: 31338486 Date: 10/29/2008 Receipt: 31347495 Date: 01/13/2009
242 09/17/2008 NOTICE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER – HUSBAND
243 09/17/2008 NOTICE OF FILING CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES WORKSHEET
244 09/17/2008 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT – HUSBAND
245 09/18/2008 ORDER SETTING HEARING
246 09/18/2008 AGREEMENT/ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF COURT FEES AND COSTS Receipt: 31335484 Date: 10/07/2008
247 09/18/2008 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MOTION AND NOTICE OF CONTEMPT HEARING 10/2/2008
248 09/22/2008 NOTICE FOR TRIAL
249 09/22/2008 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
250 09/23/2008 COPY OF LETTER TO JANE FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
251 09/23/2008 LETTER FROM FORMER WIFE
252 09/23/2008 ORDER
253 09/23/2008 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE PAY OR APPEAR PROVISIONS/ ORDER ON MOTION TO SUSPEND THE PAY OR APPEAR PROVISIONS
254 09/26/2008 NOTICE OF HEARING – 11/03/2008 @ 2:00 PM
255 09/26/2008 RESPONSE TO FORMER HUSBANDS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT/CHILD SUUPORT AND TO VACATE PRIOR ESTABLISHED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE
256 09/26/2008 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE – MICHAEL SASSO ATTORNEY FOR WIFE
257 09/29/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
258 09/29/2008 NOTICE FOR TRIAL
259 09/29/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT / COPY OF ORDER AND OFFENSE INCIDENT REPORT
260 09/29/2008 COURT EVENT Event: CIRCUIT COURT HEARING – CIVIL/FAMILY/PROBATE Date: 10/02/2008 Time: 8:45 am Judge: HOFFMAN, ROBERT Location: HEARING ROOM #3 – 3RD FLOOR
261 09/30/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
262 09/30/2008 NOTICE FOR TRIAL
263 10/02/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’SMOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
264 10/02/2008 MEMORANDUM TO CLERK FILED IN OPEN COURT
265 10/02/2008 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT
266 10/03/2008 ORDER TO CONTINUE
267 10/07/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR VISITATION OF MINOR CHILD / UNMARKED EXHIBITS
268 10/07/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF VISITATION OF THE MINOR CHILD
269 10/07/2008 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ( FORMER HUSBANDS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF VISITATION OF THE MINOR CHILD)
270 10/07/2008 NOTICE FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
271 10/08/2008 LETTER FROM JANE GREEN CSW BCD
272 10/08/2008 ORDER GRANTING CUSTODY MONITORS MOTION TO WITHDRAW
273 10/13/2008 ORDER TO CONTINUE
274 10/16/2008 ORDER CANCELLING TRIAL
275 10/22/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
276 10/22/2008 ORDER SETTING HEARING NOVEMBER 3 2008 @ 2:00 PM
277 10/23/2008 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO PRO SE PETITION TO CONTEST DRIVERS LICENSE SUSPENSION/ COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
278 10/23/2008 PRO SE PETITION TO CONTEST DRIVERS LICENSE SUSPENSION FS 61 13016
279 10/27/2008 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
280 10/27/2008 PETITIONERS NOTICE OF FILING LIST OF EXHIBITS 1-3
281 10/29/2008 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER WIFES MOTION TO APPOINT PARENTING COORDINATOR)
282 10/29/2008 FORMER WIFE’S MOTION TO APPOINT PARENTING COORDINATOR
283 10/29/2008 FORMER HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR REOPENING ORDER APPOINTING CUSTODY MONITOR TO CONDUCT SOCIAL INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERM CONTACT PLAN AND SETTING JUDICIAL REVIEWS
284 10/29/2008 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMERS HUSBANDS REQUEST FOR REOPENING ORDER APPOINTING CUSTODY MONITOR TO CONDUCT SOCIAL INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERM CONTACT PLAN AND SETTING JUDICIAL REVIEWS)
285 11/03/2008 MEMORANDUM TO CLERK FILED IN OPEN COURT
286 11/03/2008 COURT EVENT Event: MOTION HEARING Date: 11/03/2008 Time: 2:00 pm Judge: HOFFMAN, ROBERT Location: HEARING ROOM #3 – 3RD FLOOR
287 11/04/2008 FINAL JUDGMENT-RECORDED(SMALL CLAIMS CONSOLIDATED)
288 11/05/2008 ORDER TO CONTINUE
289 11/06/2008 ORDER APPOINTING A PARENTING COORDINATOR
290 11/13/2008 COURT EVENT Event: MOTION HEARING Date: 11/21/2008 Time: 1:15 pm Judge: HOFFMAN, ROBERT Location: HEARING ROOM #3 – 3RD FLOOR
291 11/13/2008 LETTER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
292 11/19/2008 JOINT STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
293 11/19/2008 FORMER WIFES ANSWER TO SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF VISITATION OF THE MINOR CHILD
294 11/19/2008 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (ANGELA D TOBAYGO OBO CONNIE GIBELLINA)
295 11/21/2008 MEMORANDUM TO CLERK FILED IN OPEN COURT
296 11/21/2008 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT
297 11/24/2008 ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
298 11/24/2008 JOINT STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
299 12/02/2008 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER AND ORDER ON RESPONDENTS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT /CHILD SUPPORT AND TO VACATE PRIOR ESTABLISHED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE ORDER ON PETITIONERS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ORDER ON RESPONDENTS PETITION TO CONTEST DRIVERS LICENSE SUSPENSION- RECORDED
300 12/08/2008 RESPONDENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS
301 12/12/2008 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MOTION FOR REHEARING
302 12/17/2008 AMENDED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER AND ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT/CHILD SUPPORT AND TO VACATE PRIOR ESTABLISHED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE, ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S PETITION TO CONTEST DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION AND ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REHEARING- RECORDED
303 12/19/2008 HEARING OFFICER ASSISTANTS NOTICE OF FILING
304 12/30/2008 UPDATE/AUDIT SHEET FROM CHILD SUPPORT DEPOSITORY
305 01/13/2009 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION TO REINSTATE THE PAY OR APPEAR PROVISIONS/ COPY OF MOTION TO SUSPEND/ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CORRESPONDENCE AND PROPOSED STIPULATION
306 01/13/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION TO REINSTATE THE PAY OR APPEAR PROVISIONS
307 01/20/2009 RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION AND TO SUBPOENA PARENTING COORDINATOR AND OTHER RELIEF
308 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 3- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
309 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 2 G- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
310 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 12 A-D – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
311 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 11 – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
312 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 9A – 9 B- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
313 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 2 A MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – PICTURES AND LETTER
314 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 15 – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
315 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 2 H- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
316 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 2 F- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
317 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 16 – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
318 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 1 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
319 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 2 C- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
320 01/23/2009 RESPONDENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS
321 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 20 – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
322 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 19 A- C – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
323 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 2 E- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
324 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 6- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
325 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 7- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
326 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 14 – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
327 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 13 – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
328 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 8- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
329 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 18 A- D – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
330 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 4- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
331 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 17 – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
332 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 2 D- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
333 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 10 – MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
334 01/23/2009 EXHIBIT 5- MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION – LETTER
335 02/04/2009 OBJECTION TO RESPONDENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND REMOVE FROM COURT FILE
336 02/04/2009 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER WIFES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION AND TO SUBPOENA PARENTING COORDINATOR TO TESTIFY AND OTHER RELIEF)
337 02/04/2009 FORMER WIFES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SUPERVISED VISTATION AND TO SUBPOENA PARENTING COORDINATOR TO TESTIFY AND OTHER RELIEF
338 02/11/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
339 02/11/2009 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION)
340 02/11/2009 PETITIONERS EXHIBIT LIST
341 02/17/2009 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TIME
342 02/17/2009 PETITIONERS MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
343 02/17/2009 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO LIST OF EXHIBITS AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND REMOVE FROM COURT FILE
344 03/13/2009 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
345 03/24/2009 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED ORDER ON RESPONDENTS PRO SE MOTION TO REINSTATE THE PAY OR APPEAR PROVISIONS
346 04/09/2009 REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
347 04/09/2009 ORDER SETTING HEARING APRIL 13 2009 @ 9:30 AM
348 04/20/2009 ORDER RATIFYING PARTIES JOINT STIPULATION
349 04/20/2009 STIPULATION
350 05/20/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE GENERAL MAGISTRATE
351 06/11/2009 REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
352 06/12/2009 REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
353 06/16/2009 LETTER TO JUDGE FROM PAMELA GERSBACH DATED JUNE 9 2009 WITH ATTACHMENTS
354 06/19/2009 RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE GENERAL MAGISTRATE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF TIME ALLOTED AND MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME
355 06/24/2009 BASIC PARENTING PLAN- FILED MISSING PAGE 12
356 06/24/2009 NOTICE OF FILING
357 07/07/2009 LETTER FROM PAMELA GERSBACH MSW
358 07/07/2009 SUPERVISED VISITATION INTERACTION CHECKLIST
359 07/23/2009 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER HUSBANDS EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERVISED VISITATION AND IMPLEMENT SUBMITTED PARENTING PLAN WITH EXHIBITS)
360 07/23/2009 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ( FORMER HUSBANDS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT / CHILD SUPPORT AND TO VACATE ESTABLISHED CHILD SUPPORT FOR 54 DAYS)
361 07/23/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
362 07/23/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
363 07/23/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT/CHILD SUPPORT AND TO VACATE ESTABLISHED CHILD SUPPORT FOR 54 DAYS
364 07/23/2009 FORMER HUSBANDS EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERVISED VISITATION AND IMPLEMENT SUBMITTED PARENTING PLAN WITH EXHIBITS
365 07/24/2009 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
366 07/27/2009 ADDRESS CHANGE FOR NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT
367 07/28/2009 ORDER SETTING NON-JURY TRIAL
368 08/04/2009 NOTICE OF CASE ACTION
369 08/05/2009 ORDER/ JUDGMENT ENTRY
370 08/05/2009 MAGISTRATE’S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER
371 08/07/2009 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION TO DISMISS MAGISTRATES DECISION AND RECOMMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER
372 08/07/2009 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION TO DISMISS ORDER/JUDGEMENT
373 08/07/2009 FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION TO DISMISS NOTICE OF CASE ACTION
374 08/21/2009 MAGISTRATE’S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER ON FORMER HUSBANDS MOTIONS TO DISMISS
375 08/21/2009 WITNESS LIST
376 08/21/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERVISED VISITATION
377 08/21/2009 WITNESS LIST
378 08/21/2009 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERVISED VISITATION – COPY OF DRIVERS LICENSE CHECK
379 08/21/2009 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER HUSBANDS EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERVISED VISITATION )
380 08/24/2009 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
381 08/24/2009 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TIME
382 08/28/2009 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
383 08/31/2009 SUPERVISED VISITATION INTERACTION CHECKLIST
384 08/31/2009 LETTER FROM FAMILY RESOURCES
385 09/04/2009 ORDER /JUDGMENT ENTRY
386 09/16/2009 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OBO GLEN GIBELLINA
387 09/16/2009 ADDRESS CHANGE FOR CUSTODIAL PARENT
388 10/01/2009 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING RETURNED
389 10/01/2009 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING RETURNED
390 10/01/2009 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING RETURNED
391 10/01/2009 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING RETURNED
392 10/01/2009 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING RETURNED
393 10/02/2009 COURT PROCEEDING: TRIAL FORMER HUSBAND PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY: PETER LOMBARDO, ESQUIRE FORMER WIFE PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY: ANGELA TOBAYGO, ESQUIRE FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBITS # 1 COURT REMOVES SUPERVISION COURT ORDERS VISITS EVERY WEDNESDAY UNTIL 430 PM (CHILD TO BE RETURNED @ SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT) COURT ORDERS ALTERNATE WEEKENDS COURT ORDERS NO ALCOHOL BY EITHER PARTY WHEN CHILD IS IN THEIR CARE ANGELA TOBAYGO TO PREPARE ORDER MAGISTRATE SUSAN MAULLUCCI
394 10/02/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING
395 10/02/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT #1-COPY OF NURTURING DADS CERTIFICATE FILED IN OPEN COURT MARKED AND RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE
396 10/07/2009 LETTER- EMAIL FROM ANGELA TOBAYGO TO MELISSA KIEFFER
397 10/07/2009 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER ON FORMER HUSBANDS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR MODIFICATION FOR VISITATION OF THE MINOR CHILD,EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERVISED VISITATION AND IMPLEMENT SUBMITTED PARENTING PLAN AND MOTIONS FOR CONTEMPT FROM JUNE 2008 TO THE PRESENT
398 10/27/2009 ORDER/JUDGMENT ENTRY
399 10/28/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION TO SUSPEND PARENTING COORDINATOR
400 10/28/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION TO ENFORCE FINDING OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER
401 10/28/2009 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION TO SUSPEND PARENTING COORDINATOR / COPY OF FEES FOR PARENTING COORDINATOR
402 10/28/2009 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE ( FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION TO SUSPEND PARENTING COORDINATOR )
403 10/28/2009 PETITIONER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
404 10/28/2009 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
405 11/03/2009 HEARING CANCELLED MOTION HEARING Scheduled on 11/06/2009 at 09:30 has been Cancelled
406 11/03/2009 HEARING CANCELLED MOTION HEARING Scheduled on 11/06/2009 at 09:00 has been Cancelled
407 11/06/2009 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING
408 11/06/2009 REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
409 11/06/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE GENERAL MAGISTRATE
410 11/10/2009 LETTER FROM FAMILY RESOURCES
411 11/10/2009 LETTER FROM FAMILY RESOURCES
412 11/16/2009 PARENTING COORDINATOR – STATUS CONFERENCE -REPORT TO THE COURT
413 11/16/2009 LETTER FROM SARA KING LCSW
414 11/17/2009 MAGISTRATES ASSISTANTS NOTICE OF FILING EX PARTE COMMUNICATION- ATTACHED COMMUNICATION
415 11/18/2009 COPY OF ORDER SETTING HEARING BEFORE GENERAL MAGISITRATE RETURNED
416 12/02/2009 LETTER FROM LAW GROUP TO MAGISTRATE
417 12/03/2009 FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER ON PARENTING COORDINATORS REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE GENERAL
418 12/11/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING BEOFORE GENERAL MASTER
419 12/11/2009 PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION EXHIBITS 1-8
420 12/11/2009 RESPONSE TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION OF HEARING OFFICER ON PARENTING COORDINATORS REQUEST FOR ATATUS CONFERENCE
421 12/29/2009 ORDER/JUDGMENT ENTRY ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER ON PARENTING COORDINATORS REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
422 01/21/2010 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE – EXHIBITS 1-3 – COPIES OF ARTICLES
423 01/21/2010 PETITIONERS MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
424 01/22/2010 MEMORANDUM TO CLERK FILED IN OPEN COURT
425 01/22/2010 ARREARAGE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN OPEN COURT
426 02/10/2010 ADDRESS CHANGE FOR CUSTODIAL PARENT
427 02/19/2010 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER AND ORDER ON REVIEW HEARING ON TEMPORARY MODIFICATION
428 02/22/2010 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE(GLEN GIBELLINA)
429 02/22/2010 NOTICE FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
430 02/22/2010 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
431 03/04/2010 FORMER WIFES MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF FORMER HUSBAND GLEN GIBELLINA
432 03/04/2010 RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
433 03/04/2010 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE
434 03/19/2010 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR PHYSCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OBO GLEN GIBELLINA
435 03/19/2010 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE OBO GLEN GIBELLINA
436 03/25/2010 MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT – PARAGRAPH 2
437 03/25/2010 MOTION TO STRIKE SCANDALOUS AND IMPERTINENT REFERENCE – PARAGRAPH 3
438 03/25/2010 ANSWER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA AND MOTION FRO PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
439 03/25/2010 MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT – PARAGRAPH 5
440 03/26/2010 MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT – PARAGRAPH 4
441 03/30/2010 NOTICE OF HEARING BEFORE GENERAL MAGISTRATE
442 04/13/2010 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
443 04/19/2010 LETTER FROM GLEN &STORMIE GIBELLINA
444 04/26/2010 OBJECTION TO ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE
445 04/26/2010 NOTICE FOR TRIAL
446 04/28/2010 THERAPIST PROGRESS REPORT
447 04/28/2010 NOTICE OF FILING
448 05/07/2010 LETTER FROM GLEN & STORMIE GIBELLINA
449 05/07/2010 MAGISTRATE’S ORDER ON OBJECTION TO REFERRAL
450 05/07/2010 LETTER FROM GLEN & STORMIE GIBELLINA
451 05/20/2010 ORDER ON FATHERS EMERGENCY MOTION TO PROHIBIT MOTHER FROM RELOCATING OUT OF STATE
452 05/20/2010 MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF MAY 17 2010
453 05/24/2010 ORDER RESETTING HEARING
454 06/02/2010 MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY REHEARING JUNE 9 2010
455 06/02/2010 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Receipt: 31439846 Date: 09/13/2010
456 06/02/2010 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE
457 06/02/2010 FEE FOR OATH, ADMINISTERING, ATTESTING, SEALING F.S. 28.24(13) Receipt: 31425653 Date: 06/02/2010
458 06/02/2010 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO MODIFY PARENTING PLAN TIME SHARING SCHEDULE AND OTHER RELIEF
459 06/02/2010 APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF CIVIL INDIGENT STATUS – GRANTED
460 06/02/2010 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY REHEARING JUNE 9 2010
461 06/02/2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
462 06/02/2010 FORM A EMAIL TO CASE MANAGER
463 06/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OBO GLEN GIBELLINA
464 06/09/2010 ORDER ON FORMER WIFES MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF MAY 17 2010
465 06/09/2010 PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBIT – EXHIBITS 1-11
466 06/09/2010 FEE FOR OATH, ADMINISTERING, ATTESTING, SEALING F.S. 28.24(13) Receipt: 31426603 Date: 06/09/2010
467 07/06/2010 FORM A- GLEN GIBELLINA EMAILED TO CASE MANAGER
468 07/06/2010 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Receipt: 31430244 Date: 07/06/2010
469 07/06/2010 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
470 07/06/2010 VERIFICATION OF MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT
471 07/06/2010 FEE FOR OATH, ADMINISTERING, ATTESTING, SEALING F.S. 28.24(13) Receipt: 31430244 Date: 07/06/2010
472 07/06/2010 NOTICE FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
473 07/06/2010 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
474 07/06/2010 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT – FORMER HUSBAND
475 07/15/2010 ORDER SETTING HEARING
476 07/15/2010 LETTER FROM JUDGES JA TO MR.GIBELLINA
477 08/01/2010 OBJECTION TO THE FORMER HUSBANDS INTERROGATOIES REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND MOTION BY THE FORMER WIFE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO STRIKE PLEADINGS
478 08/11/2010 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO THE FORMER HUSBANDS INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND MOTION BY THE POWER WIFE FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO STRIKE PLEADINGS
479 08/17/2010 LETTER FROM GLEN AND STORMIE GIBIELLINA
480 09/13/2010 FEE FOR VERIFYING AN INSTRUMENT PRESENTED F.S. 28.24(4)
481 09/13/2010 RESPONDENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS
482 09/13/2010 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT LIST – EXHIBITS 1-8
483 09/14/2010 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO EMERGENCY MOTION – EXHIBITS A- G
484 09/14/2010 LETTER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
485 09/14/2010 MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING FOR TEMPORARY CUSTODY
486 09/14/2010 LETTER TO JUDICIAL ASSISTANT
487 09/14/2010 ORDER ON EX-HUSBANDS MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
488 09/15/2010 ORDER DENYING FORMER WIFES MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
489 10/12/2010 NOTICE FOR TRIAL
490 10/13/2010 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
491 10/13/2010 MOTION TO COMPEL FOR REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
492 10/14/2010 NOTICE FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
493 12/08/2010 2ND REQUEST NOTICE FOR TRIAL
494 12/10/2010 LETTER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
495 12/10/2010 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
496 12/10/2010 LETTER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA WITH ATTACHMENTS
497 12/20/2010 REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT OF SHARED PATENTING PLAN VISITATION AND OTHER RELIEF
498 12/20/2010 MOTION FORWARDED TO JUDGE
499 12/21/2010 MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING FOR HOLIDAY SPECIFIC TIME
500 12/21/2010 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING FOR HOLIDAY SPECIFIC TIME
501 12/21/2010 MOTION FORWARDED TO JUDGE
502 12/27/2010 NOTICE FOR TRIAL
503 12/27/2010 MOTION TO HOME SCHOOL MINOR CHILD
504 12/28/2010 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TIME
505 12/28/2010 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TIME
506 01/04/2011 MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY AD LITEM FOR MINOR CHILD
507 01/04/2011 EXHIBIT A
508 01/04/2011 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
509 01/04/2011 EXHIBIT A
510 01/04/2011 MOTION TO STRIKE AND TO ABATE
511 01/11/2011 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
512 01/11/2011 RESPONSE TO MOTION STRIKE AND TO ABATE – HUSBAND
513 01/11/2011 RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT MOTION TO DISMISS – HUSBAND
514 01/11/2011 MOTION TO DISMISS APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY AD LITEM FOR MINOR CHILD – HUSBAND
515 01/12/2011 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
516 01/18/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO LETTER TO SHERIFF STEUBE- EXHIBIT -1 -COPY OF REPORT CARD
517 01/18/2011 COPY OF LETTER TO SHERIFF STEUBE DATED JANUARY 11 2011
518 02/02/2011 MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT FRAUD UPON THE COURTS
519 02/02/2011 FILING FEE FOR ANY MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Receipt: 31458495 Date: 02/02/2011
520 02/02/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND ENFORCEMENT FRAUD UPON THE COURTS
521 02/02/2011 FORM A
522 02/07/2011 LETTER OF GIBELLINA CASE MANAGMENT LIST OF PENDING MOTION AND MATTERS – FILED IN OPEN COURT
523 02/07/2011 CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING: ATTORNEY ANGELA TOBAYGO, ESQ GLEN GIBELLINA PRESENT COURT REPORTER: TIFFANI MONRADT CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT 3-7-2011 @ 9AM JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN
524 02/11/2011 REQUEST PERMITTING WITNESS TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE
525 02/11/2011 OBJECTION TO ORDER OF REFERRAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE – HUSBAND
526 02/11/2011 ORDER RE-SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
527 02/11/2011 REQUEST PERMITTING WITNESS TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE
528 02/16/2011 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE
529 02/17/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO OBJECTION TO HEARING – PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS
530 02/17/2011 OBJECTION TO HEARING TO BE HEARD ON MARCH 1 2011
531 02/17/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO OBJECTION TO HEARING – PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS
532 02/17/2011 OBJECTION TO HEARING TO BE HEARD ON MARCH 1 2011
533 02/17/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING
534 02/17/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING
535 02/17/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING
536 02/18/2011 LETTER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
537 02/18/2011 LETTER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
538 02/18/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING
539 02/18/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING
540 02/21/2011 COURT EVENT Event: MOTION HEARING Date: 03/01/2011 Time: 2:00 PM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
541 02/21/2011 COURT EVENT Event: MOTION HEARING Date: 03/01/2011 Time: 1:30 PM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
542 02/21/2011 COURT EVENT Event: MOTION HEARING Date: 03/01/2011 Time: 3:30 PM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
543 02/21/2011 COURT EVENT Event: MOTION HEARING Date: 03/01/2011 Time: 2:30 PM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
544 02/21/2011 COURT EVENT Event: MOTION HEARING Date: 03/01/2011 Time: 3:00 PM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
545 02/24/2011 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF STANDARD FAMILY LAW INTERROGATORIES
546 02/28/2011 WITNESS LIST – FILED BY FORMER HUSBAND
547 02/28/2011 MOTION FOR DEFAULT
548 02/28/2011 DEFAULT CANNOT BE ENTERED AGAINST CONNIE GIBELLINA AS SIGNED PLEADING HAS BEEN FILED
549 03/01/2011 FORMER WIFE’S EXHIBIT – # A – COPY OF NOTES WRITTEN -ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE- FILED IN OPEN COURT
550 03/01/2011 FORMER WIFE’S EXHIBIT – # B – COPY OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS -ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE- FILED IN OPEN COURT
551 03/01/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 3 – COPY OF EMAIL 12-31-09 TO CONNIE -ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE- FILED IN OPEN COURT
552 03/01/2011 COURT APPEARANCE RECORD FILED IN OPEN COURT
553 03/01/2011 FORMER HUBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 2 – COPY OF CERTIFIED MAIL -ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE- FILED IN OPEN COURT
554 03/01/2011 COPY OF 2008 FLORIDA STATUTES 68.093 – FILED IN OPEN COURT
555 03/01/2011 COPY OF CASE LAW – SCOTT CHARLTON VS. RALPH B. TENNANT AND GORDON SHIRAH- FILED IN OPEN COURT
556 03/01/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 1 – CERTIFIED LETTER TO CONNIE 1-7-10 -ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE- FILED IN OPEN COURT
557 03/01/2011 MOTION FOR DEFAULT – FILED IN OPEN COURT
558 03/02/2011 MOTION TO DISMISS – CONNIE GIBELLINA
559 03/07/2011 CASE MANAGEMENT: ATTORNEY ANGELA TOBAYGO ESQ: PRESENT HUSBAND GLEN GIBELLINA: PRESENT TRIAL SET: HEARING MARCH 29 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY AD LITEM APRIL 25 -CANCELLED, APRIL 26 – HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN
560 03/08/2011 FORM A
561 03/08/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING MONDAY JUNE 7, 2011 AT 1:30PM
562 03/08/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING MONDAY JUNE 13, 2011 AT 9:00AM
563 03/08/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING TUESDAY APRIL 26, 2011 AT 1:30PM
564 03/08/2011 UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT AFFIDAVIT
565 03/08/2011 AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO MODIFY PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY VISITATION OR PARENTING PLAN/TIME-SHARING SCHEDULE AND OTHER RELIEF
566 03/08/2011 REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
567 03/09/2011 REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
568 03/11/2011 ORDER CANCELING HEARINGS
569 03/11/2011 NOTICE FOR TRIAL
570 03/15/2011 ORDER OF FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED FEBRUARY 22 2010
571 03/15/2011 ORDER ON FORMER WIFES OBJECTION TO FORMER HUSBANDS INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER / STRIKE PLEADINGS
572 03/15/2011 ORDER ON FORMER WIFES MOTION TO STRIKE AND TO ABATE
573 03/15/2011 ORDER ON FORMER HUSBANDS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO MODIFY PARENTING PLAN TIME SHARING SCHEDULE AND OTHER RELIEF FILED JUNE 2 2010
574 03/16/2011 LETTER TO JUDGE FROM GLEN GIBELLIN WITH ATTACHMENTS (OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ORDERS)
575 03/17/2011 LETTER FROM MARCIA KRAL TO MR GIBELLINA
576 03/17/2011 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ORDER ON FORMER WIFES MOTION TO STRIKE AND TO ABATE
577 03/17/2011 ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS
578 03/17/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ORDER ON FORMER WIFES OBJECTION TO FORMER HUSBANDS INTERROGATORIES REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS/ STRIKE PLEADINGS- UNMARKED EXHIBITS
579 03/17/2011 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ORDER ON FORMER WIFES OBJECTION TO FORMER HUSBANDS INTERROGATORIES REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS/ STRIKE PLEADINGS
580 03/17/2011 OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ORDER ON FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED FEBRUARY 22 2010
581 03/17/2011 LETTER TO ANGELA D TOBAYGO ESQ FROM GLEN GIBELLINA DATED MARCH 8 2011
582 03/23/2011 ANSWER TO FORMER HUSBANDS AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO MODIFY PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY VISITATION OR PARENTING PLAN/TIME-SHARING SCHEDULE AND OTHER RELIEF (SIC)
583 03/23/2011 EXHIBIT A ORDER/JUDGMENT ENTRY ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARING OFFICER ON PARENTING COORDINATORS REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
584 06/03/2011 LETTER TO CASE MANAGER WITH CERTIFICATE WITH ATTACHED FORM A FROM MARCH 8 2011
585 06/03/2011 FAMILY FORM A
586 06/03/2011 ORDER SETTING HEARING
587 06/22/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING
588 07/01/2011 FORM A
589 07/01/2011 LETTER (GLEN GIBELLINA)
590 07/01/2011 LETTER (GLEN GIBELLINA)
591 07/01/2011 FORM A
592 07/01/2011 FORM A
593 07/01/2011 NOTICE FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
594 07/01/2011 FORM A EMAIL TO CASE MANAGER AND WAS TOLD ABOUT THE OTHER FORM A’S
595 07/04/2011 COURT EVENT Event: JACS-UNLISTED MOTION Date: 07/12/2011 Time: 10:45 AM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
596 07/08/2011 REQUEST FOR PARENTING COORDINATOR
597 07/08/2011 FORM A EMAIL TO CASE MANAGER
598 07/08/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST FOR PARENTING COORDINATOR
599 07/08/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST FOR SECOND EVALUATION BY LCSW
600 07/08/2011 REQUEST FOR SECOND EVALUATION BY LCSW
601 07/08/2011 FORM A EMAIL TO CASE MANAGER
602 07/11/2011 AMENDED ORDER SETTING HEARING
603 07/12/2011 REQUEST FOR PARENTING COORDINATOR – FILED IN OPEN COURT
604 07/12/2011 MOTION HEARING: WIFE REPRESENTED BY CONNIE GIBELLINA, ESQ: PRESENT HUSBAND PRESENT PRO SE MOTION TO APPOINT ATTORNEY AD LITEM: GRANTED SUSAN CHAPMAN H MOTION TO PARENTING COORDINATOR: DENIED ATTORNEY CONNIE GIBELLINA TO PREPARE THE ORDER JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN
605 07/21/2011 ORDER ON FORMER WIFES MOTION TO APPOINT ATTORNEY AD LITEM
606 07/21/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR REHEARING – COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR GIBELLINA
607 07/21/2011 MOTION FOR REHEARING TO APPOINT ATTORNEY AD LITEM
608 07/21/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION FOR REHEARING TO APPOINT ATTORNEY AD LITEM – COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE
609 07/21/2011 MOTION FOR REHEARING FOR PARENTING COORDINATOR
610 07/21/2011 ORDER ON FORMER HUSBANDS REQUEST FOR PARENTING COORDINATOR
611 07/22/2011 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING ON MOTION FOR PARENTING COORDINATOR
612 07/22/2011 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING TO APPOINT ATTORNEY AD LITEM
613 08/02/2011 STIPULATION TO AN ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PRO BONO ATTORNEY AD LITEM
614 08/02/2011 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PRO BONO ATTORNEY AD LITEM
615 08/02/2011 NOTICE OF HEARING 8-4-11 AT 930 AM
616 08/02/2011 COURT EVENT Event: JACS-WITHDRAW Date: 08/04/2011 Time: 09:30 AM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
617 08/04/2011 STIPULATION TO AN ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PRO BONO ATTORNEY AD LITEM – FILED IN OPEN COURT
618 08/04/2011 MOTION HEARING: FORMER HUSBAND REPRESENTED BY SUSAN CHAPMAN, ESQ: PRESENT FORMER WIFE REPRESENTED BY ANGELA TOBAYGO, ESQ: PRESENT BY TELEPHONE MOTION TO WITHDRAW (ATTORNEY AD LITEM): GRANTED APPOINTED JANELLE LEIBOVITZ ORDER SIGNED JUGDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN
619 08/04/2011 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AD LITEM- FILED IN OPEN COURT
620 08/04/2011 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS PRO BONO ATTORNEY AD LITEM
621 08/14/2011 COURT EVENT Event: JACS-MULTIPLE MOTIONS Date: 08/22/2011 Time: 1:30 PM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
622 08/15/2011 COURT EVENT Event: JACS-MULTIPLE MOTIONS Date: 08/23/2011 Time: 1:30 PM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
623 08/16/2011 COVER SHEET FOR FAMILY COURT CASES
624 08/16/2011 PETITONER’S TRIAL BRIEF
625 08/18/2011 MOTION TO CONTINUE
626 08/18/2011 LETTER FROM CHRISTINA MCCUTCHAN DATED 8/14/11
627 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS PJ-1- PJ-3 EXCERPTS OF DEPOSITIONS AND VERIFIED STATEMENTS
628 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS SB-1 – SB-10- COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
629 08/22/2011 AMENDED ORDER ON FORMER WIFE’S MOTION TO APPOINT ATTORNEY AD LITEM – FILED IN OPEN COURT
630 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS DV-1 -DV-5- COPIES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDERS
631 08/22/2011 FORM A EMAILED TO CASE MANAGER
632 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS BB-0- BB -21-COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
633 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS LE-1- LE-2- PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS
634 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS AT-1 / 8C/ AT-3 -AT11- COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE AND EMAILS
635 08/22/2011 WITNESS LIST
636 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 8 -LETTER TO SHEPARD’S CHRISTIAN SCHOOL- ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
637 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS SK-1 – SK 25- COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
638 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS A-18 – A36- COPIES OF PREVIOUSLY FILED PLEADINGS
639 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # PS2 – REPORT CARD 2009-2010 – NOT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
640 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 1 – NURTURING DADS INITIATIVE – ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
641 08/22/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE CONTINUED – EXHIBITS JN6- JN8 Q-1 JN-9
642 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS A-1 – A17- COPIES OF PREVIOUSLY FILED PLEADINGS
643 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 5 – REPORT CARD 2010-2011 – ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
644 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS E-1-E4 / AA-1 -AA-2 -R-1 COPY OF MAIL RECEIPTS AND COURT DOCKETS / CORRESPONDENCE
645 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS A-37- A51- COPIES OF PREVIOUSLY FILED PLEADINGS
646 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS AB-1- AB-2 COPIES OF AFFIDAVIT AND INVOICE
647 08/22/2011 PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
648 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS JG-1 -JG-16- COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
649 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS PR-1 – PR-5- COPIES OF ARREST AFFIDAVITS
650 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 2 – LETTER 8-22-2011 – ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
651 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS P-1 P-2 COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE
652 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS BS-1- BS-2 / PS-1-PS-2/KE-1/SBE-1-SBE-4/SS-1-SS-2/ OR-1/ HS-17/HS-2-HS-5/ COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE/ REPORT CARDS
653 08/22/2011 EXHIBITS MF-1 MF-4 – COPY OF EXCERPT OF DEPOSITION AND PICTURES
654 08/22/2011 EXHIBIT 0-1 – COPY OF VISITATION CALENDAR
655 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 4 – FLORIDA PREPAID COLLEGE BOARD – ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
656 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 6 – MINUTES – ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
657 08/22/2011 EXHIBIT J-1- COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE
658 08/22/2011 EXHIBIT ND-1 – ND-3 -COPY NURTURING DAD CLASS AND CORRESPONDENCE
659 08/22/2011 PETITIONERS RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS MOTION TO CONTINUE
660 08/22/2011 PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS
661 08/22/2011 MOTION HEARING: FORMER HUSBAND PRESENT FORMER WIFE REPRESENTED BY ANGELA TOBAYGO, ESQ: PRESENT COURT REPORTER: PENNY ZUNKER FW MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL ON SUPPLEMENTAL PET TO MODIFY: GRANTED MOTION TO CONTINUE HOME SCHOOL: DENIED FH MOTION TO HOME SCHOOL: DENIED (FH EMOTION FOR CUSTODY) FH ORAL MOTION TO REINSTATE PARENTAL RIGHTS: DENIED ATTORNEY ANGELA TOBAYGO TO PREPARE THE ORDER JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN
662 08/22/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE – WITH EXHIBITS JN 1- JN-5
663 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 7 – MINUTES – ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
664 08/22/2011 FORMER HUSBAND’S EXHIBIT – # 3 – PHOTOS – NOT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
665 08/22/2011 PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
666 08/23/2011 MOTION TO CONTINUE – FILED IN OPEN COURT
667 08/23/2011 COPY OF CASE LAW – FILED IN OPEN COURT
668 08/23/2011 MOTION TO CONTINUE
669 08/23/2011 MOTION HEARING: FH PRESENT FW REPRESENTED BY ANGELA TOBAYGO, ESQ: PRESENT FH MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: DENIED FH ORAL MOTION TO STRIKE: DENIED FH MOTION FOR CONTEMPT: RESPONDENT ABONDAND PARAGRAPH 1-3 (DISMISSED – # 4, # 10, #11, # 12, # 13, # 14) FH MOTION TO DISMISS FW MOTION FOR CONTEMPT: DENIED FW CONTEMPT: GRANTED – WILLFULLY KNOWING – FH SHALL NOT TELEPHONE FW PERIOD/SHALL NOT TELEPHONE FW HUSBAND, EMPLOYMENT, OR TEXT/PHOTOS TO THE FW, HER HUSBAND OR EXTENDED FAMILY FH IS NOT TO HAVE ANY CONTACT WILLFULLY HIS DAUGHTER-BY TELEPHONE / TEXT / OR PHOTOS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT FINDING FH ATTEMPTS TO HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH MINOR CHILD IS NOT IN THE CHILDS BEST INTEREST UNTIL FH COMPLY WITH THE 8/2009 ORDER AND WILL NOT HEAR ANY MORE MOTION UNTIL THE FH HAS COMPLIED WITH THIS ORDER FH NOTICE FOR TRIAL (FRAUD): DENIED (FH FAIL TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD) NO ADDITION THERAPY FOR THE MINOR CHILD ATTORNEY ANGELA TOBAYGO TO PREPARE THE ORDER JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN
670 09/12/2011 THIRD REQUEST FOR SECOND EVALUATION BY LCSW
671 09/12/2011 REQUEST FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
672 09/12/2011 COPY OF LETTER TO ATTORNEY FROM MR GIBELLINA DATED SEPTEMBER 12 2011
673 09/12/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
674 09/12/2011 NOTICE FOR TRIAL (COPY TO JUDGES OFFICE)
675 09/14/2011 NOTICE OF EXPERT WITNESS LIST AND FOR DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES
676 09/15/2011 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EVALUATION BY LCSW
677 09/15/2011 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
678 09/19/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
679 09/19/2011 LETTER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA TO JUDGES ASSISTANT
680 09/19/2011 PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDERS MAILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
681 09/20/2011 LETTER FROM GLEN GIBELLINA
682 09/20/2011 LETTER TO COURT FROM SARA KING LCSW DATED 9/20/11
683 09/20/2011 MOTION TO BE REMOVED FROM CASE
684 09/20/2011 NOTICE OF EXPERT WITNESS LIST AND FOR DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES
685 09/20/2011 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
686 09/22/2011 MOTION TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CASE
687 09/23/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
688 09/23/2011 UNMARKED EXHIBITS -COPY OF LETTER TO ANGELA D TOBYGO ESQ DATED SEPTEMBER 12 2011 – COPIES OF TEXT MESSAGES AND TRIAL DATES
689 09/27/2011 ORDER STRIKING FORMER HUSBANDS NOTICE FOR TRIAL
690 09/28/2011 MOTION TO BE HEARD TELEPHONICALLY
691 09/30/2011 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE
692 09/30/2011 LETTER FROM JANE GREEN LCSW BCD
693 10/05/2011 ORDER ON FORMER WIFES MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED JANUARY 4 2011
694 10/06/2011 ORDER ON FORMER HUSBANDS FRAUD UPON THE COURTS FILED FEBRUARY 2 2011 -DENIED
695 10/06/2011 ORDER ON FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION TO CONTINUE -DENIED
696 10/06/2011 ORDER ON FORMER WIFES MOTION TO CONTINUE -DENIED
697 10/06/2011 ORDER ON FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION TO HOME SCHOOL MINOR CHILD-DENIED
698 10/06/2011 ORDER ON FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR CONTEMPT FILED JULY 6 2010 – DENIED
699 10/07/2011 AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFICATION OF PETITIONER/FORMER HUSBAND GLEN GIBELLINA PURSUANT TO RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.330
700 10/07/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO MOTION TO RESTORE TIMESHARING RIGHTS- EXHIBITS 1-21
701 10/07/2011 PETITIONERS MOTIONS TO RESTORE TIMESHARING RIGHTS AND FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FLA R CIV P 1 540 FROM ORDERS LIMITING AND SUSPENDING TIME SHARING RIGHT RESULTING FROM STATUS CONFERENCE NOT NOTICED AS TIMESHARING MODIFICATION HEARINGS AND FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF HON JUDGE DUNNIGAN PURSUANT TO RJA 2 33(d) BECAUSE PETITIONER FEARS HE WILL NOT RECEIVE A FAIR HEARING ON THESE MOTIONS BECAUSE OF SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PREJUDICE OR BIAS OF JUDGE DUNNIGAN
702 10/07/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
703 10/09/2011 COURT EVENT Event: JACS-PROTECTIVE ORDER Date: 10/17/2011 Time: 10:00 AM Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
704 10/10/2011 HEARING CANCELLED The following event: JACS-PROTECTIVE ORDER scheduled for 10/17/2011 at 10:00 AM has been resulted as follows: Result: CANCELLED Judge: JUDGE JANETTE DUNNIGAN Location: COURTROOM 3-E
705 10/11/2011 ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS MOTIONS
706 10/11/2011 LETTER TO JUDICIAL ASSISTANT MARCIA KRAL FROM HUSBAND GLEN GIBELLINA
707 10/27/2011 CIVIL ATTACHMENT TO PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CLARIFICATION AND APPEAL TO 12TH CIRCUIT CHIEF JUDGE HON ANDREW S OWENS JR INCLUDING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HON JANETTE DUNNIGAN – LETTER TO JUDGE
708 10/27/2011 PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CLARIFICATION AND APPEAL TO 12TH CIRCUIT CHIEF JUDGE HON ANDREW S OWENS JR INCLUDING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HON JANETTE DUNNIGAN
709 10/27/2011 NOTIFIED PETITIONER OF RE-OPEN FEE
710 10/27/2011 FILING FEE TO REOPEN / ENFORCE EXCLUDING MODIFICATION ON ANY FAMILY LAW CASE
711 10/27/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
712 11/01/2011 ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CLARIFICATION AND APPEAL TO 12TH CIRCUIT CHIEF JUDGE HON ANDREW D OWENS JR OF ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS MOTIONS INCLUDING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HON JANETTE DUNNIGAN
713 11/03/2011 ORDER (PETITIONER/FORMER HUSBANDS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CLARIFICATION AND APPEAL -DENIED)
714 11/08/2011 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF NON-FINAL ORDER AND DENIAL OF RECONSIDERATION THEREOF – RECORDED
715 11/08/2011 REQUEST FOR RECONCIDERATION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
716 11/08/2011 COVER SHEET FOR FAMILY COURT CASES
717 11/08/2011 CIRCUIT CIVIL APPEAL FILED: Receipt: 31492501 Date: 11/08/2011
718 11/08/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
719 11/14/2011 NOTICE OF FILING PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS AUGUST 23 2011 CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT MOTION CONTEMPT OF COURT MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION FRAUD UPON THE COURT (TRANSCRIPT ATTACHED)
720 11/14/2011 NOTICE OF FILING PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS AUGUST 22 2011 CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT AMENDED ORDER MOTION TO APPOINT ATTORNEY AD LITEM MOTION TO HOMESCHOOL (TRANSCRIPT ATTACHED)
721 11/14/2011 NOTICE OF FILING PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS JULY 12 2011 CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT MOTION APPOINTMENT AD LITEM (TRANSCRIPT ATTACHED)
722 11/14/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
723 11/14/2011 PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS SEPTEMBER 13 2010 CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS
724 11/14/2011 NOTICE OF FILING PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS AUGUST 22 2011 CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT MOTION TO CONTINUE FRAUD UPON THE COURTS (TRANSCRIPT ATTACHED)
725 11/16/2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE FROM DISTRICT COURT WITH APPEAL NO. 2D11-5632
726 11/16/2011 TRUE COPY ORDER FROM DISTRICT COURT (NOTICE OF APPEAL IS A NONFINAL APPEAL)
727 12/08/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
728 12/08/2011 PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS APPELLANTS INITAL BRIEF FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SND DCA CASE NO 2D1-5632 FILED NOVEMBER 30 2011
729 12/09/2011 PETITIONERS LIST OF EXHIBITS
730 12/09/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
731 12/30/2011 2ND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
732 12/30/2011 CIVIL/FAMILY COVER SHEET
733 01/09/2012 ORDER DENYING 2ND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT-DENIED
734 01/12/2012 TRUE COPY ORDER FROM DISTRICT COURT
735 02/03/2012 TRUE COPY ORDER FROM DISTRICT COURT
Time to reform the broken 12th Circuit Family Court
In a recent court decision by the Honorable Jannett Dunnigan of the 12th Circuit Family Court, a college-educated father was denied permission to home school his 10-year-old daughter after the daughter missed 44 days of school under the care and custody of the former wife. Judge Dunnigan also stated, “I am finding, sir, that you have failed to show that you either have the capability of home schooling, or that home schooling would be in the child’s best interest.”
Put the child back into the school system, though the school district can neither account for the 44 missed days nor did they trigger any investigation for excess absences or truancy reports as required by law and the Florida statutes. The failure of the school system has caused my daughter not to meet the attendance requirement.
I believe every parent has the God-given right to raise their children with the least amount of government interference, as protected by our Constitution.
Family court is broken beyond repair. It’s time to dismantle the current draconian system that encourages high-conflict attorneys for both sides, and if one side cannot afford an attorney, well you see the result it has on pro se litigants.
Where’s the “Family” in the 12th Circuit Family Courts, because I don’t see it.
Follow the money.
Glen Gibellina
Sarasota
Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/04/06/3983665/time-to-reform-the-broken-12th.html#storylink=cpy
In reference to Mr. Wojtowitz, Yes it is big business. It is called felony child trafficking and government extortion under the Social Security Act. We recently went through hell in Franklin County, Virginia after Franklin County, yes the same Franklin County that was all over the news a while back. Very corrupt place to live.We had a few of our children” kidnapped” by those same deputies and a CPS worker from Rocky Mount , Virginia CPS office. We did record it which makes for a great lawsuit. We went before Judge Sarah Rice appointed to the bench , not elected. This Judge is the former CPS attorney right there in Franklin County. Does anyone see a problem with this? Attempted to recuse her. We had witnesses. She did not recuse. We filed a judicial review. Now we will file a federal lawsuit and get the media involved, even if we don’t win against her we will expose her corruption. We most definitely will win against the deputies and CPS worker. We got our children back after the cases dismissed unfounded but Judge Sarah Rice slapped protective orders on our little six and nine year old to allegedly protect the children from each other and within the realms of the protective order she ordered all children to reside at different houses in order to enforce no contact order of all the children against each other, she listed the petitioner of the order in court records as a relative but the relative is not the petitioner , Judge Rice is the petitioner nonjudicially representing Franklin County CPS her former employee. Judge Rice had no jurisdiction to define where any of our children live as they had no custody petitions for the children and the cases had already dismissed unfounded eight months prior. We moved after the cases dismissed to another county. Now eight months later she is still trying to drag us over an hour or more away to her court again. We really don’t know if CPS and the J&DR courts can be fixed. They need it be eliminated as they are corrupt and waste taxpayers money for unneeded services for children that are not abused or neglected. The government is broke. Why are they throwing this money away needlessly?
are actually just done so they can force unneeded services and maximize their government funds under the Social Security Act. A lot of the time the J&DR court is the biggest benefactor of the extorted funds. You think the Inspector General office would look into this extortion. Complaints have been made. We can only pray. The system is answerable to no one , any agency unchecked will become corrupt. Don’t come to Franklin County with your children. They will be in great danger. God Bless
LEGAL TERRORISM
Fighting war against terrorists in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan is a diversion to keep the citizens of the United States distracted about the terrorist psychopaths in the American Legal System.
I have discovered that there is no access to the United States legal system for the middle class and poor of the United States. I came to these courts asking for justice and I left further …injured. When I asked the legislature and the administrative system that is set up to oversee the legal system, I was sent a curt response that no laws or ethics had been violated. These administrative personnel have condoned the use of terror in our court system. The administrative personnel and/ or pathology personalities have colluded with the crooks of the system and have become supporters of terror (tools of the psychopath). Our courts have become tools for the wealthy to oppress the poor.
I have recently discovered that there are administrative laws on the books of each state. Although these laws are not available to the public, you must have access to the legal search engines to find these laws. You will need to go to a law library and use the legal search engines to find the laws of your state.
This is another aspect of terrorism, keep the rules secret, and run by a secret organization that is not monitored by public citizens.
I am not an attorney and after I have seen what attorneys do, I would never become a part of this terrorist organization which support techniques of abuse used by pathological personalities. You must adhere to the rules of the crime boss to continue to practice law and if you decide to “spill the beans to the public”, you will fear physical and financial death.
The terror system that I faced was family court. This court claims to assist families in the state break the state contract of marriage. They actually post the motto: “Helping the families of Florida”. While in reality, they are torturing and committing Florida families to a life of torture and grave danger; financially, physically and emotionally.
I am unable to afford an attorney and the system wants me to go away and accept the crimes they have committed. This court system has caused complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, an injury that many terrorist organizations skillfully employ to damage and keep the victim lifeless and quiet.
The same occurs all over the nation. Our system of justice plays favorites; you are a favorite until the money runs out or if you have more money than the other spouse. Divorce to a personality disorder is war and there are disordered attorneys who also have no conscience. I hope that one day we will all be able to heal and join together to stop the legal torture of vulnerable citizens.
Without a dispassionate and objective justice system based directly on the Constitution there can be no justice. Individuals must know they can have justice despite income or condition. Without these conditions being met no free market is possible. We provide tools for the accomplishment of this, the true justice, enacted by the people.
As always: FOLLOW THE MONEY
CORRUPT FAMILY COURTS
STILL GAVE HER FULL CUSTODY AFTER HEARING THE RECORDING WITH A NO CONTACT ORDER NOT TO SEE MY CHILD BY THE LOWER COURT
THIS IS MY APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant has been prevented by a December 22, 2009 order of the Manatee County Circuit Court from seeing or contacting his 10-year-old daughter in over two years.
Appellant and appellee divorced in 2003 and agreed to joint custody of their minor child with primary residence with the appellee mother with liberal visitation to the appellant father.
The parents’ relationship became high conflict in 2006 after the minor child was left in the physical care of appellant for six months. Appellee summarily re-took physical custody of the minor child in early 2007, and appellant thereafter has filed, pro se, several petitions for relief, and to return the child to his actual physical custody.
Appellant now prosecutes an outstanding petition for modification of custody and other relief to be reunited with his daughter that was filed March 3, 2011. Trial was set for August 22, 2011, but was adjourned on the day of trial by the trial judge.
Appellant then moved the court orally to restore his time-sharing rights, but was told he had to file a written motion and notice it for hearing.
Appellant filed that written motion on October 7, 2011, and requested that the trial judge disqualify herself from hearing the motion because he justifiably feared that he would not receive a fair hearing on his motions to restore his time-sharing rights, and for relief from void orders pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5) because of the prejudice or bias of the trial judge, and moved to disqualify her pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(d)(1). Appellant filed a separate sworn affidavit averring the truth of the assertions and certifying the motion was made in good faith, and that there were no previous motions to disqualify filed or granted under Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330.
The trial judge immediately issued an order on October 10, 2011 declaring all of Appellant’s motions “legally insufficient”. Appellant filed a request for reconsideration and clarification, as the trial judge’s blanket response left Appellant without direction as to how or if his main substantive motions, the Motion to Restore His Time-Sharing Rights, and his Motion For Relief Pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5)—could be heard.
The Appellant directed the motion for reconsideration to the chief judge of the circuit for decision, as the Motion To Disqualify appears to be legally sufficient on its face, and Appellant feared further repercussions for filing the motion. 12th Circuit Chief Judge Andrew D. Owens, Jr. directed Appellant to file the appropriate appeal in an order not entered in the court’s docket, but provided to the trial judge. That trial judge entered another order that same day, October 31, 2011, finding the motion for reconsideration and clarification to again be “legally insufficient”.
This is an appeal from a non-final order rendered October 10, 2011, entitled “Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions”, and the non-final order denying reconsideration and clarification thereof rendered October 31, 2011, on Appellant’s October 7, 2011 written motions to (1) restore his time-sharing rights with his minor child Stormie, dob 7/19/01 that have been suspended and denied since November 13, 2009 by a succession of magistrate recommendations and orders of the Manatee County Circuit Court, (2) to declare orders dated April 20, 2009 Order, October 26, 2009 Order, and December 22, 2009 Order previously entered in the Manatee County Circuit Court void, discharged, satisfied, and/or inequitable to apply prospectively pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, and (3) to disqualify Hon. Janette Dunnigan for bias and prejudice against Appellant’s cause.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This matter ultimately emanates from a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered herein on January 23, 2003. At that time, the parties reached a Marital Settlement Agreement incorporated into the Final Judgment that, inter alia, provided for Shared Parenting of the minor child of the parties, Stormie Brooke Samantha Gibellina, born 7/19/2001, age 1 ½ years at the time of the entry of the Judgment of Dissolution.
The agreed-upon Shared Parenting arrangement in the January 23, 2003 Judgment provided for the Sharing of Parental Responsibility in which both parents retained full parental rights and responsibilities, and a Flexible Parental Schedule based upon Primary Physical Residence of the then infant-toddler being with the mother/Appellee with father/Appellant enjoying liberal visitation considering the schedules of the parties and the child. The parties specifically agreed that visitation would be every other Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m., and every Wednesday from 4:00 pm to 8:00 p.m. Additional visitation would be also be liberal, as the parties might otherwise agree. The Appellant agreed to pick up the minor child to begin any visitation, and the Appellee agreed that she would retrieve the child at the end of any visitation. If a parent was to be away from the child for more than 4 hours, that parent was to give the other parent the opportunity to watch the child before engaging the services of a babysitter. The parties also agreed to equal Entitlement to School Information, agreed to keep the other Informed as to the Whereabouts of the child upon request of the other parent, and to reasonable Telephonic Contact. (Manatee Circuit Court Docket entry, January 23, 2003 Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, Exhibit A Marital Settlement Agreement, pp 1-3.) (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 1)
On May 30, 2006 (Manatee Circuit Court Docket entry Docket entry, Exhibit A, Received into Evidence October 9, 2007, Letter from Connie Gibellina), Appellee agreed to let the minor child stay with Appellant for 1 week beginning May 30, 2006. Appellee never came back. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 2)
Appellee had become addicted to crack cocaine. She had no fixed residence, but rather moved from motel to motel in Manatee County (Docket entry, see Exhibit B, Received into Evidence October 9, 2007, motel receipt for Appellee and Megan Freeman paid by Appellant) in areas which were well-known for prostitution and drugs—Best Westerns of State Roads 64 and 75, a series of Days Inns, Suburban Inn, Deluxe Inn and Budget Motel. She prostituted herself in order to support her drug habit, and, in the process, had her other biological child, pre-teen Megan Freeman, removed from her custody by the Department of Child and Family Services. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 2)
Appellant was faced with the responsibility of caring for the 5-year-old minor child and seeing that the legal system’s court records reflected that reality, as Respondent essentially abandoned the minor child. Appellee made little or no effort to see or visit her minor child. Appellant enrolled the minor child in preschool for the summer (Docket entry, see Exhibit C, Received into Evidence October 9, 2007, Letter from Preschool Director), and placed her in kindergarten when the school year began in September of 2006. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 2)
In order to get the custodial arrangement properly memorialized, and to facilitate school enrollment, Appellant filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody on August 30, 2006, and filed on November 21, 2006 filed a Supplemental Petition For Modification of Primary Residence of the Minor Child, alleging, inter alia, that Appellee had abandoned the minor child, that the child had been living with Appellant since June of 2006, and that Appellee was a drug addict involved in and living in places of prostitution, with no fixed residence, and had her other biological child removed from her custody on account thereof by the Department of Child and Family Services. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 2)
On January 23, 2007, Appellee, having moved into an someone’s mobile home as a roommate due to the remission to her of a tax refund based upon credits issued to her because of custody of two minor children that had, in actuality, not been in her custody at all, appeared without notice at the minor child’s child kindergarten class, declared that she had custody of the minor child by showing the principal the Final Judgment of Dissolution, and yanked the minor child out of the class at Kinnan Elementary that the minor child had been in since August of 2006, against the minor child’s will. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 3)
Appellant had to discharge counsel as a Magistrate’s hearing scheduled for April 10, 2007 approached, and Appellant could not appear for trial, and Appellant had his new counsel file a Voluntary Notice of Dismissal on April 9, 2007; however, the Magistrate admonished Appellant’s counsel for lack of concern for proper trial practice, struck Appellant’s Notice of Dismissal, and then proceeded to dismiss the Supplemental Petition herself. Despite the serious allegations contained within the Supplemental Petition itself, no findings were made with respect to the safety, health, education, or welfare of the 5-year-old minor child. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 5)
Having limited financial resources, Appellant decided to plod on pro se, and on December 26, 2007, he filed another Supplemental Petition For Modification of the 2003 Final Judgment of Dissolution, this time alleging in addition to what had been alleged in the prior filings that Respondent was engaged in a program of alienating the six-year-old minor child from Petitioner/father to the point where the child was developing Parent Alienation Syndrome. Appellant alleged in the petition, and in a series of contempt motions filed against the Appellee, that Appellee was intentionally interfering with contact with the child, and with visitation. Appellant proposed an arrangement wherein he would have the minor child during the school week, and Appellee would have the child during weekends, and extra time when school was not is session. Appellant also filed a October 6, 2008 Supplemental Petition For Modification For Visitation of the Minor Child seeking to be allowed to take the minor child to and from school, and that Appellee cooperate and add Appellant to the school “pick up” list. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 6)
Appellant filed a Motion for Contempt arising out repeated visitation denials, and out of a February 18, 2008 school holiday for the minor child wherein the Appellee went to work, and rather have Appellant spend time with the minor child, Appellee left the minor child in the care of Appellee’s other 13-year-old minor child. Child Protective Services was called, and an investigation for possible child neglect was begun. Appellee’s reaction, through counsel, was to file a Supplemental Petition for Modification on February 20, 2008 alleging a substantial change in circumstances since 2003, and requesting sole custody, with supervised visitation for Appellant, all on account of alcohol consumption. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 7)
Trial was held on July 31, 2008 before Hon. Peter Dubensky. The judge held Appellee in contempt for willful non-compliance with visitation provisions, and ordered 54 days of make-up visitation for Appellant. Judge Dubensky also found the assertion of willful alienation to be insufficient grounds for a change of custody. The Court also denied Appellee’s motion for sole custody, citing insufficient grounds to establish a substantial change in circumstances. Judge Dubensky specifically continued shared parental responsibility. The Court also cited the close and continuing relationship that the minor child had with her sibling Megan Freeman, and that relationship should not be disturbed. He also found the parties unable to communicate in regards to issues concerning the minor child, and indicated the Court would enter and order appointing a parenting coordinator (‘PC’)for 90 days to aid and assist establishing and adhering to contact, visitation, communication and any other matters needed to prevent further issues. (Docket Entry, Amended Order of August 25, 2008) (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 8)
On August 22, 2008, a custody monitor was appointed for a period a 90 days, with a direction to submit a report to the court after a social investigation no later than 80 days hence. Appellant applied for, and was granted, indigent status by the court on September 15, 2008. After the monitor withdrew in a dispute over payment of fees, Judge Dubensky again signed an Order Appointing a PC, but this time the appointment was open-ended as to duration. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 9)
Appellee on January 15, 2009, made a false claim of domestic violence against Appellant resulting from a visitation exchange. Although a misdemeanor charge was issued, and an injunction was applied for, both cases were dismissed. The PC arranged for subsequent exchanges to take place at the Sarasota Police Department. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 10)
On or about April 3, 2009, Appellant was found to have consumed alcohol prior to attempting to pick up the minor child at the Sarasota Police Department. The Department of Child and Families services was called, and the department contacted the PC Jane Green. The PC requested an urgent status conference on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 (Exhibit 1 to 10/7/2011 motion), and the Court issued on April 8, 2009 a Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 2 to 10/7/2011 motion) for Monday, April 13, 2009 on no issue other than “Status Conference”, and Appellant thus attended the hearing without counsel. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 11)
Appellant was given no warning that his time-sharing rights were at stake, he appeared unrepresented by counsel, and was unprepared to rebut unfavorable evidence proffered to the Court by the PC, who appeared at the hearing with a three-page stipulation (Exhibit 3 to 10/7/2011 motion) that temporarily limited Appellant’s time-sharing rights on account of the incident on April 3, 2009 to supervised visitation, no overnights, with school lunches. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 12)
The unrepresented Appellant felt pressured by the PC to enter into the prepared stipulation or face more severe summary suspension of his time-sharing rights by the Court, and a remorseful Appellant entered into the stipulation designed and prepared by the PC on April 13, 2009 to attend AA meetings and achieve continuous sobriety, and to have his time-sharing privileges limited to supervised visits and school lunches. The stipulation was not voluntary and freely entered into. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 13)
The stipulation, approved by Court order on April 20, 2009 (Exhibit 4 to 10/7/2011 motion), inter alia provided the PC’s office-suite mate, Sarah King, LCSW, would render therapy and treatment on the minor child not less than twice a month because of the high level of conflict between the parents and because of Appellant’s drinking, that an appointment for the minor child had already been made, that Appellant would “remain in supervised visitation for up to six months time or more; dependent upon the father’s demonstrated and reported ability to be free of alcohol during visitation with the minor child,” and that “When supervised visitation for Mr. Gibellina is deemed by the Honorable Peter Dubensky (the Court) to be no longer appropriate; visitation as outlined in the current settlement agreement (the 2003 Marital Settlement Agreement) will resume (emphasis added).” (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 14)
A PC under Florida law is designed to be an impartial third person whose role is to assist the parents in successfully creating or implementing a parenting plan. Fla. Stat. §61.125(4) When Appellant made a mistake in judgment and appeared for a visitation pickup on April 3, 2009 after he had been drinking, the PC requested a Status Conference where she proposed a stipulated agreement severely limiting Appellant’s rights to see his daughter. She had clearly become an advocate for Appellee. The PC engineered a program of day-time only, supervised visitation for six months, during which the Appellant initiated an abstinence-from-alcohol lifestyle, which he has maintained for 2 ½ years. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 15)
Supervised visitation took place pursuant to the order, and glowing reports of the visitation were provided to the Court by the Visitation Supervisor (Exhibit 5 to 10/7/2011 motion, June 16, 2009 and July 7, 2009 letters with notes from Pamela Gersbach, MSW) (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 16)
On July 24, 2009, Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss Supervised Visitation and Implement Submitted Parenting Plan because Appellee had been arrested on July 4, 2009 in the wee hours of the morning for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, she had been out driving intoxicated at a time in the early morning hours that is normally associated with a search for drugs, and was now without a driver’s license. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 17)
A hearing on the motion was held on October 2, 2009, and General Magistrate Maulucci, despite the ordered stipulation that visitation was to return to normal after 6 months, dependent upon Appellant’s abstinence from alcohol, when the Appellant moved to have visitation so restored, the PC opposed it in testimony. The Magistrate’s October 7, 2009 Recommended Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law (Exhibit 6 to 10/7/2011 motion), adopted by Court order dated October 26, 2009 (Exhibit 7, attached hereto) are hardly more than a wholesale adoption of the PC’s illegal stipulation and gratuitous narration of April 13, 2009, but with one important exception. Faced with the glowing Supervised Visitation Reports, and with the evidence the Appellant was serious about maintaining a life of abstinence and recovery from the use of alcohol, Magistrate Maulucci removed the supervised visitation restriction, yet she failed, in violation of the April 20, 2009 Circuit Court order, to re-institute visitation as outlined in the marital settlement agreement upon termination of supervised visitation. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 18)
Appellant wrote the PC on October 5, 2009 that he was terminating her services, and he filed a motion to have the PC removed on October 28, 2009, the response to which was a Request for Status Conference filed by PC Jane Green that same day. The PC requested a status conference (Exhibit 9 to 10/7/2011 motion), for which a Notice of Hearing was issued by the Court (Exhibit 10 to 10/7/2011 motion) that noticed the only issue to be decided as “Parent Coordinator’s Request For Status Conference”. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 21)
The PC prepared a November 12, 2009 Status Conference Report to the Court (Exhibit 11 to 10/7/2011 motion) that is fraught with illegal confidential disclosures, illegal recommendations concerning the resolution of substantive disputes between the parties, and downright falsehoods. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 22)
Appellant was given no warning that his time-sharing rights were at stake, he appeared unrepresented by counsel, and was unprepared to rebut unfavorable evidence proffered to the Court by the PC, who appeared at the hearing with the November 12, 2009 Status Conference Report to the Court (Exhibit 11 to 10/7/2011 motion, Exhibit 11a ex parte letter to court). (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 23)
The PC’s report was given to the parties for the first time in court on November 13, 2009, and General Magistrate Maulucci adopted it wholesale, without sworn testimony, without an application made for the PC to give testimony, and without the opportunity for cross-examination. The PC’s remarks in her November 12, 2009 report, precipitated only by a legitimate request to have her removed from the case, resulted in the permanent, open-ended suspension of Appellant’s visitation privileges with his daughter. (December 2, 2009 Findings of Facts and Recommendations of Hearing Officer on Parenting Coordinator’s Request for Status Conference, Exhibit 12 to October 7, 2011 motion). (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 24)
Appellant filed objections to the December 2, 2009 Findings of Fact and Recommendations of Hearing Officer on Parenting Coordinator’s Request for Status Conference on December 11, 2009. They were ignored. A circuit court order adopting what had been scheduled as a status conference but without notice transformed into a court proceeding was entered December 22, 2009. (Exhibit 13 to 10/7/2011 motion) (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 25)
The December 22, 2009 order suspends Appellant’s parental rights until he “commence individual counseling with a licensed mental health counselor” to “determine and gain insight” why he files motions/pleadings to see his daughter, and although the Wife and the court system have controlled Appellant’s life and relationship with his daughter through exclusion, he is to, by the terms of the Court order, determine “why he is trying to control the Wife and the minor child through the court system.” (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 27)
The December 22, 2009 order also suspends Appellant’s parental rights until he “shall participate in the child’s counseling sessions with her therapist, Sara King.” Appellant met with Ms. King, the minor child’s therapist, three times. She told Appellant that it may take “years” for him to establish visitation with his daughter that was not severely limited by the Court and the former Wife, and that she the therapist would be the judge of when normal visitation could take place. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 29)
Appellant participated in sessions with Sara King, and he commenced counseling sessions with David Preston of Good Samaritan counseling agency, licensed mental health counselor, pursuant to the December 22, 2009 order of the Court. Sara King now refuses as of September of 2011 to allow participation by Appellant, and refuses to allow input from David Preston. The Court refuses another evaluation of the situation by David Preston. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 30, paragraph 49)
Appellee clearly continues to drink and drug in the presence of the minor child, as evidenced by a August 12, 2010, 1:45 a.m. videographically recorded conversation (a copy of a written transcript of which is Exhibit 8 of 10/7/2011 motion, and the video for which can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JFcN1Xe2I4&feature=colike) between the minor child and her half-sister, Meghan, who Appellee had sent to live with her natural father in Alabama. Appellee, having left the minor child at home alone without supervision for a night of drinking with her boyfriend, and having returned clearly severely intoxicated, threatens to send the minor child to live with her father the next day, profanely scolds the minor child for criticizing her drinking, and tells the minor child that the Appellee chooses her life with her boyfriend rather than her daughter. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 31)
The Appellee’s own witness, Ashley Daymon, the minor child’s fourth grade teacher for the 2010-2011 school year at Blackburn Elementary, at the August 23, 2011 hearing in front of Judge Dunnigan termed the video referred to above as “disturbing” (Penny A. Zunker Transcript of August 23, 2011 hearing, pp 57-58). The trial Court’s virtual complete disregard of Appellant’s continuous sobriety since April 3, 2009, and the hypocrisy of Appellant having time-sharing rights supervised and suspended owing to alcohol use at a time when he continues to demonstrate one-day-at-a-time abstinence in the face of the active alcoholism of the custodial parent, is well-documented. Appellee’s active alcoholism is corroborated by her July of 2009 drunk driving arrest and conviction, and by the August of 2010 early morning treatment of the minor child while in a drunken stupor that the Court and the social investigators largely ignore, and by her marriage to a patron of the Moose Lodge she met while doing her community service for drunk driving at that bar. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 32)
Appellant had filed an Amended Supplemental Petition for change of custody and other relief in March of 2011 and was, on June 2, 2011, given a trial date by Hon. Janette Dunnigan of August 22 and August 23, 2011. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 33)
Counsel for Appellee had filed a Motion for the Appointment of Attorney Ad Litem for Minor Child on January 4, 2011, and she cited the progression, outlined in paragraphs 11 through 27 of the October 7, 2011 Motion, of the suspension of Appellant’s visitation rights in 2009 by PC Green and General Magistrate Maulucci in support of the need for an Attorney Ad Litem. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 34)
The need for the appointment of an Attorney Ad Litem did not even merit counsel for Appellee’s time to even set it for a motion hearing until six months after counsel filed the motion, until the Court set the Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify for trial on June 2, 2011. Only then did this nonsensical need for an Attorney Ad Litem become important enough to set the motion for hearing. This additional layer of government intrusion into the father/daughter relationship clearly was requested only for the purposes of delaying the trial. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 35)
When the Court convened a hearing on the motion on July 12, 2011, counsel for Appellee represented the need for an Attorney ad Litem in the Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify, set for trial in six weeks, as follows:
THE COURT: All right. You may begin.
MS. TOBAYGO: Thank you, Your Honor.
I filed a motion for the appointment of an attorney ad litem back in January. As the Court may recall, this case has been open in a post-dissolution setting for quite some time. There is one child who’s subject to the proceeding. She’s almost ten. She’ll be ten next week.
The parties have gone through a number of different professionals, one of which being a parenting coordinator and different things, and the ongoing issue seems to be issues with visitation.
I filed this after much deliberation and discussion with my client because it seems that much of the litigation seems to be pointed at issues between the parents. I think actually the issues point to the relationship and the situation between the child and the father, and I think the Court record will reflect that.
The benefit of the attorney ad litem is that it’s a resource that, while not used very often in our system, it’s based on the volunteer list of professionals in our community who are familiar with the family law system and whose only role would be to represent the interest of the child.
I think that’s the one component that’s missing and that is really — would really be helpful to the Court, helpful to the child, especially in determining what is in the best interest because the setting is continually putting the parties against each other and I don’t know that that’s really ever going to get us to where the Court fully understands what’s in the child’s best interest.
We bring the request in good faith. I do have a list of attorneys who are willing to be attorney ad litems. I haven’t spoken to any of them nor would I, you know, pending the hearing. But I have that for the Court if the Court doesn’t have it already. I’d ask that the Court appoint an attorney ad litem.
We do have a number of hearings set on the August 22nd and 23rd, the afternoons of those dates. I think that there’s probably sufficient time for someone to be appointed to be involved to meet with the child and to do whatever they feel is necessary to speak on the child’s behalf at those hearings.
(Tiffani K Manrodt Transcript of July 12, 2011 hearing, pp 2-3) (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 37)
Appellant has not, because he has been precluded by the courts, seen his daughter since November of 2009; whatever care, custody, and control of the minor child has been exercised is owing to the Appellee, and if the minor child needs a Attorney Ad Litem, it would only be for protection from Appellee, and the her program of severing all ties between father and daughter. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 36)
On August 18, 2011, counsel for Appellee filed a Motion To Continue the trial for 30 days so that a court-appointed Attorney Ad Litem would have an opportunity to properly address the best interests of the child. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 41)
On August 22, 2011, the day Judge Dunnigan granted Appellee’s request for a 30-day continuance filed by attorney for Appellee one business day before the trial, counsel for Appellee represented to the Court as follows:
MS. TOBAYGO: I understand Your Honor was out of town. I did file a Motion to Continue based on generally the following: We are set for a number of things this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon. I’m not seeking to continue everything. I think we can hear a number of the things that are set, but specifically I think as it relates to Mr. Gibellina’s Motion For Home School of the Minor Child in his Supplemental Petition, I think Miss Leibovitz’ involvement with the child in her independent input and analysis as to those things are very important, and given not only the time frame that we’ve been dealing with over the last two weeks given her appointment, which was reflected in the docket on line but certainly not an order entered, she has not had sufficient time to really delve into the matter sufficiently.
So I filed the Motion to Continue on that premise. I did let Mr. Gibellina know, I conferenced with him, he certainly disagrees and I respect that. It’s not intentional, it’s not in an effort to delay these proceedings any further. I would be simply looking for a 30-day continuance (emphasis added) of those two pleadings of his so that we could have her input. She’s also unavailable today, she’s in mediation, she is available by phone; she’s available tomorrow.
But that being said, she still hasn’t had an opportunity to really fully delve into the issues at hand, fully understand the pleadings. I don’t know that she’s met with Mr. Gibellina, or any collaterals. She just met with the child on Friday.
(Penny A. Zunker Transcript of August 22, 2011 hearing, pp 6-7) (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 42)
Judge Dunnigan easily could have heard Appellant’s witness’ testimony on the issue of custody, and adjourned the hearing to hear from the Attorney ad Litem at a later date without compromising the “independent legal interests” of the minor child. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 44)
When Judge Dunnigan agreed to adjourn the trial, Appellant orally moved to have his parental and visitation rights restored (Penny A. Zunker Transcript of August 22, 2011 hearing, pp 22, 83); however, the Court either deflected the motion (p 22), or ruled that Petitioner had not properly prepared and noticed a written motion (p 83). (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 48)
On August 23, 2011, the Court held Petitioner in contempt of court for visiting his daughter’s school on September 13, 2010, and for sending text messages to the Respondent to be relayed to his daughter in the nature of “I love you”. In so holding, and denying an oral motion to have the minor child participate with Petitioner’s therapist David Preston, Judge Dunnigan declared, “The Court will not hear any motions, any additional motions until such time there has been compliance with the 2009 order. When you do that, you may ask for additional relief.” (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 49)
Appellant, as he did back in 2009-2010, again in August and September of 2011 attempted to comply with the illegal and hopelessly outdated order by contacting Sara King for an appointment. Ms. King as of September of 2011 refuses to allow Appellant to participate in therapy sessions pursuant to the 2009 order. She has filed a “Motion to be Removed from the Case”, though she desires to continue as the therapist for the minor child, a position she has held for two years and one-half years. She is either not making any professional progress whatsoever, or is milking the system for fees. (see Petitioner’s email attempting to set appointment, Exhibit 20, to 10/7/2011 motion) (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 50)
Judge Dunnigan, in a September 26, 2011 order called “Order Striking Former Husband’s Notice For Trial” (Exhibit 19 to 10/7/2011 motion) turned Appellee’s request for a 30-day adjournment into an indefinite adjournment. Appellant, having not received an order or a proposed order from the August hearings, had filed a request that the case be set for trial and a case management conference. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 51)
Judge Dunnigan in her September 26, 2011 response made findings not at issue in the August of 2011 hearings, without taking proofs on the issue of whether Petitioner had complied with the December of 22, 2009 order, and declared most disconcertingly, that “At the hearing on August 23, 2011, this Court ordered the Former Husband to comply with the General Magistrate’s Order and instructed him that until he complies with same, no further action shall be taken upon his Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify”, and the Court ordered on September 26, 2011 (received by Appellant on September 28, 2011) that Appellant had 12 months to comply with the December of 2009 Order, or the Court would dismiss Petitioner’s Amended Supplemental Petition. That is a false statement of what happened at the August 23, 2011 hearing. Judge Dunnigan declared that no further motions could be filed, in and of itself a questionable legal declaration, not that the custody trial would not be reset for hearing. Judge Dunnigan has denied Petitioner a fair trial, indeed any trial whatsoever on his Petition directly owing to her bias and prejudice against Appellant. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 52)
Appellant justifiably feared that he would not receive a fair hearing on his motions to restore his time-sharing rights, and for relief from void orders pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5) because of the prejudice or bias of Judge Dunnigan specifically described hereinabove, and moved to disqualify Judge Dunnigan pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(d)(1). A separate sworn affidavit averring the truth of his assertions and certifying the motion was made in good faith and was submitted herewith, and there were no previous motions to disqualify filed or granted under Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 57)
Appellant has been continuously sober since April of 2009, and the Court has denied him the right to see his daughter since November of 2009 without a finding of parental unfitness. (October 7, 2011 Motion to Restore Timesharing Rights, For Relief from Orders, and to Disqualify, paragraph 53)
Appellant appeals the failure to disqualify; the denial of relief pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540 to declare the April 20, 2009 Order, the October 26, 2009 Order, and the December 22, 2009 Order void, discharged, satisfied, and/or inequitable to apply prospectively; and the failure to restore his time-sharing rights. When Appellant asks to have the Court consider the opinion of his licensed mental health counselor about his fitness, whom the Court ordered him to see, he is told at the hearing that he cannot file any further motions until he complies with a December of 2009 order that he see a licensed mental health counselor.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I. Appellant’s October 7, 2011 motion to disqualify was legally sufficient on its face. Appellant has not seen his daughter in two years. He is fighting an order which suspends his parenting privileges because he sought full restoration of those privileges after he appeared for a visitation with alcohol on his breath. He decides to get sober, and stay sober, and does so for 2 and ½ years and counting.
Appellant’s October 7, 2011 motion to disqualify was legally sufficient on its face. Appellant has been held in contempt by Judge Dunnigan for visiting his daughter’s school on September 13, 2010, and for sending text messages to the Appellee to be relayed to his daughter in the nature of “I love you”. He has been instructed by Judge Dunnigan not to file any further motions, ostensibly in violation of his due process right to see his daughter and Judge Dunnigan’s duty to be a jurist.
Appellant was given a trial date on a petition for relief, and then saw that trial date washed away by the trial judge on the morning of trial with his witnesses assembled because of some claimed critical need to have the independent legal interests of his child protected by an attorney ad litem in light of his request to have custody of and see his child. Even further, the Court writes in its September 26, 2011 order that not only can Appellant file no further motions, because the Court finds he has not complied with a December of 2009 order which was not at issue at the hearing and upon which no proofs were taken, he will not have a trial.
A party seeking to disqualify a judge need only show a well-grounded fear that he [or she] will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. It is not a question of how the judge feels; it is a question of what feeling resides in the affiant’s mind and the basis for such feeling.
II. The Orders of April 20, 2009, October 26, 2009 , and December 22, 2009 are violative of Due Process of Law, and are on their face either void, discharged, satisfied, and/or inequitable to apply prospectively.
The April 20, 2009 and the December 22, 2009 orders constituted the entry of orders modifying time-sharing when the notice of hearing did not include that issue in violation of Maras v Still, 927 So 2d 192 (Fla 4th DCA 2006); Foerster v Foerster, 885 So 2d 927 (Fla 2d DCA 2004); Gelato v Basch, 658 So 2d 664 (Fla 4th DCA 1995); Owen v Owen, 633 So 2d 1156 (Fla 5th DCA 1994), and in violation of Appellant’s parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.
Even if the April 20, 2009 order could withstand due process scrutiny, the October 26, 2009 Order of the Magistrate’s October 7, 2009 Recommended Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, as described hereinabove, removed supervised visitation restrictions, and the October 26, 2009 Order is based upon and attempts to soften the Order of April 20, 2009, which cannot be softened in steps because the Order of April 20, 2009 specifically provides that “when the supervised visitation provision is removed, visitation as outlined in the current marital settlement agreement shall be re-instituted upon termination of supervised visitation”; and the October 26, 2009 Order is also therefore void, discharged, satisfied, and/or it is inequitable to continue to it apply prospectively pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5).
III. Appellant’s time-sharing rights should be restored, and their continued suspension is a violation of Appellant’s Due Process right to have a relationship with his daughter, and the same is patent from the face of Appellant’s October 7, 2011 motion.
The United States Supreme Court has held that a natural father, absent a finding that he is unfit, has a due process right to maintain a parental relationship with his children. Ouilloin v Walcott, 434 US 246, 255 (1978); Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645, 649 (1972).
The State of Florida has similarly recognized that legal maxim. In Johnston v Boram, 386 So 2d 1230 (Fla 5th DCA 1980), the court stated “[t]he noncustodial parent should be granted reasonable visitation with a child unless there is proof of extreme circumstances, or the trial court finds that the visitation will adversely affect the welfare of the child.” Id at 1230; see also Kent v Burdick, 573 So 2d 61, 63 (Fla 1st DCA 1990) (noting that absent a finding from the trial court that a parent is unfit, the parent has a due process right to maintain a parental relationship with the child).
Appellant has been found to be unfit by no court of law. He made a serious error in judgment by appearing for a visitation with alcohol on his breath; however, he has more than made amends to a family court system that continues to stand between him and his daughter, to whom he has also made amends by devoting himself to a life of continuous sobriety for over two and ½ years now since that incident. He went through a period of supervised visitation with great success over two years ago.
The real reason is this—“Please, understand, sir, I don’t wish to have the final result be that you not ever be able to contact your daughter again, but it is important for the Court to make sure that you understand that you must abide by the Court’s Order, whether you agree with them or not. You must respect the order of the Court, follow the orders.” This case is not about reunification, it is about punishment, both from the Appellee and from the trial court.
Following court orders is certainly important or we have chaos; however, insistence on the following of court orders issued in violation of Due Process of Law, and without any objective standards as to compliance with the terms of the order, is simply not right, and it is a denial of Appellant’s Due Process right to have a relationship with his daughter.
ARGUMENT
I. Appellant’s October 7, 2011 motion to disqualify was
legally sufficient on its face.
Standard of review
Whether Appellant’s October 7, 2011 motion to disqualify was legally sufficient on its face is a question of law for which the standard of review is de novo. Southern Baptist Hosp. of Florida, Inc. v Welker, 908 So 2d 317 (FLA 2005).
The Supreme Court of Florida reversed an order denying recusal on facts similar to the present in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978). There, it held:
Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification was legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have repeatedly held, that a judge who is presented with a motion for his disqualification shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification. When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification. Our disqualification rule, which limits the trial judge to a bare determination of legal sufficiency, was expressly designed to prevent what occurred in this case–the creation of an intolerable adversary atmosphere between the trial judge and the litigant.
Though she does not do pass on the truth of the facts in form, Judge Dunnigan does so in substance—she rules that “the motion” (unspecified by the judge) is “legally insufficient”, then she enters an order entitled “Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions”, which purports to deny all of the motions. Judge Dunnigan is a jurist of some subtlety, and she is clearly thorough and wise enough to have entered an order entitled “Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify”, but she chose not to do so. Appellant’s Motion to Disqualify is patently legally sufficient on its face; Judge Dunnigan’s response leaves Appellant without direction as to how to have his other motions, the Motion to Restore His Time-Sharing Rights, and his Motion For Relief Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5)—heard.
Appellant has been held in contempt by Judge Dunnigan for visiting his daughter’s school on September 13, 2010, and for sending text messages to the Appellee to be relayed to his daughter in the nature of “I love you”. He has been instructed by Judge Dunnigan not to file any further motions, ostensibly in violation of his right to see his daughter and Judge Dunnigan’s duty to be a jurist.
Appellant was given a trial date, and then saw that trial date washed away by the trial judge on the morning of trial with his witnesses assembled because of some claimed critical need to have the independent legal interests of his child protected in light of his request to have custody of and see his child. Never mind that the Court and the Appellee have ensured that he has not seen his daughter in two years; the Court posits some overriding need why he cannot present evidence of his fitness for custody and to visit like any other divorced parent until the Court has heard from a pro bono independent attorney for the minor child Appellant has not seen in two years.
Further, when he asks to have the Court consider the opinion of his licensed mental health counselor about his fitness, whom the Court ordered him to see, he is told at the hearing that he cannot file any further motions until he complies with a December of 2009 order that he see a licensed mental health counselor, and until he sees the child’s therapist whom he has already seen, and who refuses to see him further. Further, the December of 2009 order violates due process of law.
Even further, the Court writes in its September 26, 2011 order that not only can Appellant file no further motions, because the Court finds he has not complied with a December of 2009 order which was not at issue at the hearing and upon which no proofs were taken, he will not have a trial. He cannot have another trial date set owing to a 30-day day-of-trial adjournment until he demonstrates he has complied with the December of 2009 order.
Even if the Appellant had not complied with the court’s prior order, and Appellant maintains he has done all he can do, the Court’s posture, and its order of September 26, 2011, is in direct contravention to the law, namely, that a party’s previous failure to comply with the court’s order does not justify prohibiting that party from presenting evidence at a hearing on modification. Rose v Ford, 861 So 2d 490 (Fla 4th DCA 2003); Andrews v Andrews, 624 So 2d 391 (Fla 2d DCA 2003).
What is any reasonable person to think? Appellant is fighting an order which suspends his parenting privileges because he sought full restoration of those privileges after he appeared for a visitation with alcohol on his breath. He decides to get sober, and stay sober, and does so for 2 and ½ years and counting. The custodial parent mother, Appellee, continues to drink, racks up a drunk driving conviction, and then is recorded coming home drunk and obscenely threatens to send away the minor child for reporting her drinking. Nobody seems to care enough to even view the recording, but a stone-cold sober Appellant continues to be denied the right to visit his daughter.
Judge Dunnigan appointed an Attorney Ad Litem at the request of the Appellee mother for no apparent reason. If anything, the minor child needs protection from the custodial Appellee mother, who has alienated the minor child from the Appellant father and fights his efforts to see the minor child. Judge Dunnigan, on the day of trial, adjourns a trial for 30 days at which she could have given Appellant some relief from his government-enforced separation from his daughter. The judge tells Appellant he can file no further motions until he complies with a December of 2009 order that he sees a therapist who refuses to see him, and until he sees a licensed mental health counselor that he has already seen who is to provide him with insight as to why he files motions to see his daughter, and who he has told the judge he has seen (Transcript of August 23, 2011 hearing, p 86-87). When her written order comes out, the judge has adjourned the trial indefinitely, and orders no further trial date set until Appellant has complied with the hopelessly outdated and illegally issued December of 2009 order. What is any reasonable person to think?
Appellant filed a legitimate motion for relief from the hopelessly outdated and illegal orders, and to restore his time-sharing privileges in the hopes that someone is going to be able to see the forest for the trees—that Appellant’s rights were restricted for a temporary period for alcohol use, and that he drinks alcohol no more. It is eminently reasonable to believe Judge Dunnigan is biased and prejudiced against Appellant, who is doing his best pro se to simply see his daughter again after 2 and ½ years of insanity. Will Judge Dunnigan stop it? Appellant has every reason to believe she will not, and that she is prejudiced against him.
Appellant is justly apprehensive that if he files further motions before Judge Dunnigan, he will be jailed by her, precisely what the Florida disqualification rule, which limits the trial judge to a bare determination of legal sufficiency, was expressly designed to prevent—the creation of an intolerable adversary atmosphere between the trial judge and the litigant.
The inquiry is supposed to focus on the reasonableness of the litigant’s belief that he or she will not receive a fair hearing:
[A] party seeking to disqualify a judge need only show a well-grounded fear that he [or she] will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. It is not a question of how the judge feels; it is a question of what feeling resides in the affiant’s mind and the basis for such feeling. The question of disqualification focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge’s impartiality rather than the judge’s perception of his ability to act fairly and impartially….
Facts alleged in the motion need only show that the party making it has a well grounded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. If the attested facts supporting the suggestion are reasonably sufficient to create such a fear, it is not for the trial judge to say that it is not there…
The ultimate inquiry is “whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Id. This determination must be based solely on the alleged facts–the presiding judge “shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification.”
Rogers v. State of Florida, 630 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1993); Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1983).
Judge Dunnigan, under the Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(d)(1) should have disqualified herself before denying Appellant’s motions for relief from orders and that have prevented him from visiting his daughter in 2 years.
II. The Orders of April 20, 2009, October 26, 2009 , and December 22, 2009 are violative of Due Process of Law, and are
on their face either void, discharged, satisfied, and/or
inequitable to apply prospectively, and Appellant’s
October 7, 2011 motion was legally sufficient on its face.
Standard of review
Whether the October 7, 2011 motion for relief from Orders of April 20, 2009, October 26, 2009 , and December 22, 2009 in that they are violative of Due Process of Law, and are on their face either void, discharged, satisfied, and/or inequitable to apply prospectively, was legally sufficient on its face is a question of law for which the standard of review is de novo. Southern Baptist Hosp. of Florida, Inc. v Welker, 908 So 2d 317 (FLA 2005).
As described hereinabove, the April 20, 2009 order approving the April 13, 2009 stipulation is void, and Appellant sought a declaration thereof in the trial court and relief therefrom pursuant to Fla R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5) in that the order constituted the entry of an order modifying time-sharing when the notice of hearing did not include that issue in violation of Maras v Still, 927 So 2d 192 (Fla 4th DCA 2006); Foerster v Foerster, 885 So 2d 927 (Fla 2d DCA 2004); Gelato v Basch, 658 So 2d 664 (Fla 4th DCA 1995); Owen v Owen, 633 So 2d 1156 (Fla 5th DCA 1994), and in violation of Appellant’s parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.
Notice of a hearing on modification of parental responsibility must meet the requirements of Fla R.Civ.P. 1.080, and the opposing party must be given a reasonable time to prepare. Walker v Segro, 848 so 2d 464 (Fla 4th DCA 2003).
Even if the April 20, 2009 order could withstand due process scrutiny, the October 26, 2009 Order of the Magistrate’s October 7, 2009 Recommended Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, as described hereinabove, removed the supervised visitation restrictions, and the October 26, 2009 Order is based upon and attempts to soften the Order of April 20, 2009, which cannot be softened in steps because the Order of April 20, 2009 specifically provides that “when the supervised visitation provision is removed, visitation as outlined in the current marital settlement agreement shall be re-instituted upon termination of supervised visitation”; and the October 26, 2009 Order is also therefore void, discharged, satisfied, and/or it is inequitable to continue to it apply prospectively pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5). The trial court can hardly expect Appellant, indeed all litigants before it, to follow its orders if it refuses and neglects to follow its own orders itself.
This entry of the order was largely due to the negative testimony provided by PC Green in relation to Appellant on October 2, 2009. She, though she did so illegally, held a carrot out to Appellant on April 13, 2009, and beat him with the stick on October 2, 2009. Her job was to “coordinate parenting”. She had worked at it for one year. Her only contribution to the dispute resolution between the parties had nothing to do with the coordination of any parenting, she only operated in the sphere of the limitation of parenting. She did not fill out page one of any alternative parenting plan. The PC was clearly Appellee’s advocate, on account of issues that are clearly personal to the PC.
With respect to the November 13, 2011 status conference, Appellant was given no notice or warning that his time-sharing rights were at stake, he appeared unrepresented by counsel, and was unprepared to rebut unfavorable evidence proffered to the Court by the PC, who appeared at the hearing with the November 12, 2009 Status Conference Report to the Court (Exhibit 11 to 10/7/2011 motion, Exhibit 11a ex parte letter to court). The PC’s report was given to the parties for the first time in court on November 13, 2009, and General Magistrate Maulucci adopted it wholesale, without sworn testimony, without an application made for the PC to give testimony, and without the opportunity for cross-examination. The PC’s remarks in her November 12, 2009 report, occasioned only by a legitimate request to have her removed from the case, resulted in the permanent, open-ended suspension of Appellant’s visitation privileges with his daughter, and were precipitated only by the PC’s vindictiveness and anger at being asked off the case. In any case, Magistrate Maulucci’s suspension of Appellant’s parental rights without due process, indeed, without any process, renders the Order of December 22, 2009 approving her recommendations void on its face.
The entry of the order modifying time-sharing when the notice of hearing did not include that issue in violation of Maras v Still, 927 So 2d 192 (Fla 4th DCA 2006); Foerster v Foerster, 885 So 2d 927 (Fla 2d DCA 2004); Gelato v Basch, 658 So 2d 664 (Fla 4th DCA 1995); Owen v Owen, 633 So 2d 1156 (Fla 5th DCA 1994), is in violation of Appellant’s parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.
The December 22, 2009 order suspends Appellant’s parental rights until he “commence individual counseling with a licensed mental health counselor” to “determine and gain insight” why he files motions/pleadings to see his daughter, and although the Wife and the court system have controlled Appellant’s life and relationship with his daughter through exclusion, he is to, by the terms of the Court order, determine “why he is trying to control the Wife and the minor child through the court system.” The December 22, 2009 order also suspends Appellant’s parental rights until he “shall participate in the child’s counseling sessions with her therapist, Sara King.” Appellant met with Ms. King, the minor child’s therapist, three times. She told Appellant that it may take “years” for him to establish visitation with his daughter that was not severely limited by the Court and the former Wife, and that she the therapist would be the judge of when normal visitation could take place.
Appellant has been upbraided by the trial court for filing motions, and it has been suggested and ordered that he not do so. Appellant can either contest the Appellee and her counsel’s efforts to illegally limit and cut off his right to have a relationship with his daughter, or simply give up and accept that the Appellee has successfully alienated him from his child, and the courts have allowed it to happen. For the Appellee, her counsel, and indeed to some extent the trial court, to suggest and insist that Appellant has no right to contest this matter in the courts is a denial of due process of law.
The December 22, 2009 Order approving the December 2, 2009 Findings of Facts and Recommendations of Hearing Officer on Parenting Coordinator’s Request for Status Conference is nothing less than downright “Kafkaesque”—he is to “determine and gain insight” why he files motions/pleadings to see his daughter, and although the Wife and the court system have controlled Appellant’s life and relationship with his daughter through exclusion, and he would submit illegally so, from his daughter’s life, he is to determine “why he is trying to control the Wife and the minor child through the court system.” The answer that should be obvious and acceptable to all is that he is trying to see his daughter, and have a relationship with her. Further, the law says that he can, and should, do so.
The Orders of April 20, 2009, October 26, 2009, and December 22, 2009, on their face, are void, discharged, satisfied, and it is no longer equitable to apply them prospectively, and this Court should declare them so pursuant to Fla R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5).
III. Appellant’s time-sharing rights should be restored,
and their continued suspension is a violation of
Appellant’s Due Process right to have a relationship
with his daughter, and the same is legally sufficent from
the face of Appellant’s October 7, 2011 motion.
Standard of review
Whether the October 7, 2011 motion to restore time-sharing rights in that their continued suspension is a violation of Appellant’s Due Process right to have a relationship with his daughter, was legally sufficient on its face is a question of law for which the standard of review is de novo. Southern Baptist Hosp. of Florida, Inc. v Welker, 908 So 2d 317 (FLA 2005).
The United States Supreme Court has held that a natural father, absent a finding that he is unfit, has a due process right to maintain a parental relationship with his children. Ouilloin v Walcott, 434 US 246, 255 (1978); Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645, 649 (1972). “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” Prince v Massachusetts, 321 US 158, 166 (1944). And it is now firmly established that “freedom of personal choice in matters of . . . family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-640 (1974).
The State of Florida has similarly recognized that legal maxim. In Johnston v Boram, 386 So 2d 1230 (Fla 5th DCA 1980), the court stated “[t]he noncustodial parent should be granted reasonable visitation with a child unless there is proof of extreme circumstances, or the trial court finds that the visitation will adversely affect the welfare of the child.” Id at 1230; see also Kent v Burdick, 573 So 2d 61, 63 (Fla 1st DCA 1990) (noting that absent a finding from the trial court that a parent is unfit, the parent has a due process right to maintain a parental relationship with the child).
A review of the facts patent of the face of the motion denied by the trial court, and of the history of the case leading thereto, reflects an unwarranted government intrusion into the father-daughter relationship that should be ended forthwith.
Appellant has been found to be unfit by no court of law. He made a serious error in judgment by appearing for a visitation with alcohol on his breath; however, he has more than made amends to a family court system that continues to stand between him and his daughter, to whom he has also made amends by devoting himself to a life of continuous sobriety for over two and ½ years now since that incident. He went through a period of supervised visitation with great success OVER TWO YEARS AGO.
Owing to the actions of a Parenting Coordinator who, when requested to be removed from the case for not facilitating any paren
Would you please call me asap ! I am getting ready to go very public on case that will gather much media and public attention. I know you are busy but I can say honestly you wouldn’t regret the short time you spend on the phone with me. This child’s sad story has so much meat on the bone it will rock the world and will even breakthrough to a worldwide public awareness and in a short time, mainstream-media. This one exposes the highest levels of it all, and this time their all caught in own massive and endless mistakes. Their all so caught in this one they don’t even don’t want to release the simple public records on this child’s case. THIS CHILD’S CASE CAN HELP BRING SO MUCH LIGHT TO WERE IT ALL NEEDS TO BE AND HELP STOP THE MASSIVE GOVERNMENTAL ABUSE TO CHILDREN. SKYLAR’S CASE REACHES EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE AND EXPOSED TO A WORLDWIDE PUBLIC-AWARENESS.
AGAIN, PLEASE CALL ME, Thank You !
Brian Folken, 402-546-9857
childrensvoices1@gmail.com
The white man trying to take my kids. I should be able to do what ever I want to my kids. I feed them almost every day!!!! OCS dont have no business what I drink or do in my house. You guys are right. We shoukld have no dam OCS or lawyers.