While waiting in the courtroom for my hearing to begin I was observing another case when a Quote by Judge Monica Bousman caught my attention. The hearing took place on June 28, 2011 at approximately 11:30 am. While addressing the attorneys and parties at the conclusion of a hearing… Judge Bousman referred to evidence that was submitted during the hearing whereby the respondent father in the case was found innocent of criminal charges in a separate action…
“Let me just say for the record, and I know you are all going to be mad at me but, just because you are found innocent of something, does not mean you did not do it!”
Judge Monica Bousman
Really? In my humble opinion, that seems to be the case under the Constitution…
What others have said…
“Complaints have been filed against this judge for violation of the judicial canon, but all complaints have failed to be investigated. Judge Bousman acted unprofessionally and was prone to banter in the court room. She has a conflict of interest in cases involving North Carolina Child protective services as she used to be employed by them.”
|Name||Judge Monica M. Bousman|
|Address||District Court Judge|
|P.O. Box 351|
|Fax||Not on file|
District Court Judge Monica Bousman, Tenth Judicial District
Defendant Judge Monica Bousman, District Court Judge being hereby named in both her individual and official capacities, is an individual and a resident of this jurisdictional district, is a District Court Judge in the Tenth Judicial District, Wake County in the State of North Carolina and was at all times material, pertinent and relevant hereto. Current mailing address is; c/o Wendy Kirwan, PO Box 351, Raleigh, NC 27602. The Defendant was in fact, acting under the authority or color of state law at the time these claims occurred in that while in her official capacity as the District Court Judge in case number 10JA xxx-xxx and 10CVD7386 her execution of, The Tenth Judicial District Family Court Rules for Domestic Court’s “customs” and/or “policies” were the moving force behind her unconstitutional acts, and that personally, her individual unconstitutional acts violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs of which a reasonable official would have known, Davis v. Scherer (1984). Her judicial immunity is defeated when, “though judicial in nature,” her acts were “taken in complete absence of jurisdiction,” Mireles v. Waco (1991). In addition, she did act under the authority or color of state law when she acted in concert with local officials, including but not limited to, WCHS social workers, their supervisors, county attorneys, court appointed attorneys and others, causing harm to the Plaintiffs in effecting the deprivation of rights, Dennis v. Sparks (1980).
COUNT I; VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT – Due Process Clause
Judge Monica Bousman is a District Court Judge assigned to case number 10JA172-178. The Judge has handled this case from a clearly biased perspective, equally matched by her Persian Bazaar approach to these proceedings from the start. There were definitely flashes of unbiased attention being paid to some of the legal aspects of this case from time to time, but only when in favor of the County and the Guardian ad Litem. From day one my wife and I have been subjected to a “guilty, to be proven innocent” strategy of the court. Only 7 days into the abduction of the children in a Non-Secure Custody Hearing (or so-called hearing) on June 30, 2010, Judge Bousman allowed evidence to be presented by the GAL and further allowed it to be admitted without exploring it’s validity and in fact, absent due process, the rules of evidence entirely and absolutely without any corroboration. There was no consideration for Due Process during this exchange and it seemed very clearly that Judge Bousman was conspiring with the County Attorney, GAL Attorney Advocate, WCHS and its agents, even each of the court appointed attorneys for the parents, Rick Croutharmel and Steve Combs, to suit WCHS’ and the County Court’s agenda of keeping the children from me and my wife. This evidence was in the form of a document which was a piece of paper littered with false, unsubstantiated allegations allegedly composed by my wife in May of 2010. Being questioned by the GAL Attorney Advocate Susan Vick, my wife repeatedly and adamantly denied the veracity of the document and its contents throughout her questioning. The Judge wasn’t having any of these denials as she proceeded to Judge from BIAS and with high emotion on more than one occasion. Judge Bousman continued to question my wife herself as my wife continued to deny the accuracy of the allegations. Judge Bousman went off on a tangent ranting about how she had decided that my wife was the “biggest” liar she had ever witnessed from the bench. She continued by expressing her biased opinion stating that the “heads shaking” back and forth (indicating disagreement with my wife’s responses to questions) in the front row (estranged family members present in support of WCHS and their agenda) were a clear indicator of her lies. By the way, two of our minor children (SRR just age 11 at the time and TRB age 15) were in the courtroom at the time and no request or attempt to remove them was made, not even by the so-called “advocates” Guardian ad Litem. The so-called “evidence” Judge Bousman so eloquently referred to when “grilling” my wife as to her “allegations” was simply taken at face value while “due process” and “rules of evidence” were ignored, at best. The document or its contents have not been corroborated nor substantiated to this day.
This hearing was on June 30, 2010 with adjudication set for August 26, 2010 however in assessing this attack by the Judge and court officers as to the existence of facts not in evidence one would think that adjudication hearing was well under way, absent the due process of law. As a result of this coercion and intimidation perpetrated by this court, my wife has since left the state of North Carolina in fear (this time in real fear) of never seeing her children again and has likewise cut off all communication with me, her husband of over 15 years focused on pleasing WCHS and of course hoping, and praying for the return of her children. Julie Riggins referred to a statement my wife made to her in the WCHS Court Report dated October 20, 2010; “Mrs. Reale continues to state that the allegations she made against Mr. Reale were false and she stated that she coached the children to lie about Mr. Reale because she wanted to get away from him because the couple was simply not happy in their marriage. She admits to doing the same type of thing before, in 2002… Mrs. Reale adamantly denies that anything she has said in the past against her spouse was true but says she will do whatever we ask her to do so she can get her children back. She reports that getting the children is her only focus and that she will worry about the marriage later.“ What about the truth? Where and when does the truth warrant consideration or come into play? Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality, 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972). State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights, Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
At another hearing in October Judge Bousman also commanded from the bench as she proceeded to give me what she called “advice” when she went on a tangent with regard to “child support arrearages” owed my wife and I from our son TRB’s sperm donor (so-called birth father) in excess of $100,000 which were being redirected by Wake County Human Services. It was once again a despicable display, lacking in self-control and speaking with little experience. To the point where she decided to bring the attorneys together the next morning for some sort of apology and directive not to include any of her statements with regard to “child support arrearages” in the final draft order.
I have had several motions pending before the court dating back to December 3, 2010. All motions have been filed properly, proper notice has been given to all parties, and all rules and civil procedures have been followed meeting or even exceeding expectations. As of January 31, 2010 I had not even been given a date for a single motion, but rather had been repeatedly given various excuses (the holiday schedule, vacation time, the court is waiting for a final draft of the GAL order from December 16, 2010 hearing, and a few others; we thought we had your correct email, and I can’t tell you how many times I have heard, “I’ll get some dates out to you this week,” still nothing). I was operating under the assumption that I have the right to be heard, but apparently I have the right to be ignored. As a UNITED STATES MARINE I fought to defend the very existence of the freedoms I am being deprived and more importantly as a UNITED STATES Citizen I am entitled by and through The Constitution of the United States of America. What’s more, I am asking to speak on behalf of the rights of my entire family whose rights have also been violated in a most egregious manner throughout this entire process. Ultimately, I prepared a letter addressed to judge Bousman on January 31, 2011, attaching 4 motions requesting dates on the calendar for each and also expressing my concerns for the court’s disregard for my Due Process Rights; lo and behold I received a selection of dates via email within 2 hours of hand-delivering the letter. For the four motions with an estimated 4-5 hours of needed time I was granted 1 hour. This is proof positive of a conspiracy between the Court, its officers, WCHS and its agents and the office of the GAL. This treatment is PAR for the course with regard to this case and my interaction with the court officials. Law and court procedures, that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
What this court seems to regard as “due diligence” from the opposing social workers and their attorneys and its own actions, seems to be better defined as; dereliction of duty to truth and justice and simply ignoring the facts. He is indignant with this process, or more properly described as; “lack of process.” It is appalling to say the least that my family and I have had to witness and be the victims of this court’s blatant disregard for our rights and to witness the detriment of legal system at its core. There are many documented examples of abuse of powers from county agencies and its representatives, court officers, and even this very court in this case and they will be presented at trial.
She may very well have a passion for children, but it seems her weakness lies in that she cannot easily come to correct injustices (mistakes). Or maybe this imperfect system is more to blame. She seems to be stuck in a forward motion without the ability to recognize when something needs to be addressed, like the TRUTH or the FACTS. And it’s the LAW that needs PASSION in this case. What about the rights of the accused? What about how our 7 minor children are being victimized in front of her very own eyes by Wake County Human Services? Did she even know they have been diagnosed with “Adjustment Disorder?” Not Post Traumatic Stress or Anxiety Disorder or any other disorder that might be classified as a “Major Disorder” but rather a “Residual Disorder.” A disorder that, if it truly exists, would have been caused by this entire spectacle of events and once again proves the inability of anyone to substantiate ANY abuse or neglect EVER occurred, in our family home, Period!
When I was informed of this diagnosis and further asked their so-called therapist (LPC) of any other diagnosis I was told, without hesitation, there is none. Their therapist went so far as to say that none of my children “talk bad about me.” She even responded to my questions about allegations of them describing “Fear” of me and having “nightmares” about me which have been reported in several court documents by stating; “I have not reported any such allegations, they are NOT experiencing nightmares anything more than what she would consider to be normal for all children.” This is what has kept them from visiting with me since they were abducted back in June, and now I’m being forced to pay “ransom” of $100 per hour to visit with my children after complying completely with the orders of this court. If I was to file a motion to raise this issue of “ransom” I would likely never be afforded the opportunity to make such an argument since the court continues to deprive me of time on the calendar. The Bar keeps moving!
Re: 10JA xxx-xxx
Dear Judge Bousman:
I have several motions pending before the court dating back to December 3, 2010 (all copies attached, originals filed with the clerk) and a few new motions (also attached). I feel I have waited long enough for a response to my request to be heard. I have not even been given a date, but rather have been repeatedly given various excuses (the holiday schedule, vacation time, the court is waiting for a final draft of the GAL order from December 16, 2010, and a few others; we thought we had your correct email, and I can’t tell you how many times I have heard, “I’ll get some dates out to you this week,” still nothing). I have the right to be heard. As a UNITED STATES MARINE I served to defend the very existence of the freedoms I am being deprived and more importantly as a UNITED STATES CITIZEN I am entitled by and through The Constitution of the United States of America. What’s more, I am asking to speak on behalf of the rights of my entire family whose rights have also been violated in a most egregious manner throughout this entire process. What this court seems to regard as “due diligence” from the opposing social workers and their attorneys, I simply call it what it is; dereliction of duty to truth and justice and simply ignoring the facts. I am indignant with this process, or more properly described as; “lack of process.”
It is appalling to say the least that my family and I have had to witness and be the victims of this court’s blatant disregard for my rights, the rights of my entire family, and for our legal system at its core. There are many documented examples of abuse of powers from county agencies and its representatives, court officers, and even this very court in this case. Even before this court became involved with my family I was personally subjected to false imprisonment and unlawful detention by another court (Judge Christian) in this very same district at the start of this fiasco. I was even forced to withdraw personal funds (every penny, in fact) from my personal bank account in the absence of any court order or any cause whatsoever requiring such. And that’s not to mention all of the egregious violations of Due Process that took place with regard to the issuance of what amounts to a void, unenforceable Domestic Violence Protective Order.
This particular court has judged from BIAS and with high emotion on more than one occasion. In a Non-Secure Custody hearing my family and I sat and listened to your ranting about how you had decided that my wife was the “biggest” liar you had ever witnessed from the bench. You continued by expressing that the “heads shaking” in the front row were a clear indicator of her lies. By the way, two of my minor children (SRR just 11 at the time) were in that front row. I wonder why he doesn’t want to visit with his dad NOW. The so-called evidence you so eloquently referred to when “grilling” my wife as to her “allegations” was a simple piece of paper that she admitted to having not only fabricated, but that she had also coached our children with. It was never “substantiated” nor even explored through proper evidentiary procedures and of course was never corroborated by WCHS, by any of the attorneys of record, or by you yourself. It was simply taken at face value while “due process” and “rules of evidence” were ignored, at best. The document or its contents have not been corroborated nor substantiated to this day. As a result of this coercion and intimidation perpetrated by this court, my wife has since left the state of North Carolina in fear (this time in real fear) of never seeing her children again. I could not protect her then, but I will continue to fight on her behalf and the behalf of my children today.
At another hearing in October you also commanded from the bench as you proceeded to give me what you called “advice” when you went on a tangent with regard to “child support arrears.” It was once again a despicable display, lacking in self-control and speaking with little experience. To the point where you decided to bring the attorneys together the next morning for some sort of apology and directive not to include any of your statements with regard to “child support arrearages” in the final draft order.
You clearly have a passion for children, but from my perspective, your weakness lies in that you cannot easily come to correct injustices (mistakes). Or maybe our imperfect system is more to blame. You seem to be stuck in a forward motion without the ability to recognize when something needs to be addressed, like the TRUTH or the FACTS. And it’s the LAW that needs PASSION in this case. What about the rights of the accused? What about how my children are being victimized in front of your very own eyes by Wake County Human Services? Did you know they have been diagnosed with “adjustment disorder?” A disorder that, if it truly exists, would have been caused by this entire spectacle of events and once again proves the inability of anyone to substantiate ANY abuse EVER occurred, in our home, Period! When I asked their therapist of any other diagnosis I was told there is none. Their therapist went so far as to say that none of my children “talk bad about me.” She even responded to my questions about allegations of them describing “Fear” of me and having “nightmares” about me which have been reported in several court documents by stating; “I have not reported any such allegations, they are NOT experiencing nightmares anything more than what she would consider to be normal for all children.” This is what has kept them from visiting with their father since they were abducted back in June, and now I’m being forced to pay “ransom” of $100 per hour to visit with my children after complying completely with the orders of this court by providing a copy of my psychological evaluation to all parties involved and providing my therapist’s contact information along with a release to contact him. If I was to file a motion to raise this issue of “ransom” I would likely never be afforded the opportunity to make such an argument since the court continues to deprive me of time on the calendar. The Bar keeps moving…
In the community I am, and always have been, an active member of my church, even joining a mission trip to Honduras to build a church some years back with 2 more scheduled for later this year. I have worked in the same industry as a leader for over 22 years; I have countless people who will stand up for my character in both environments. I served my country as a UNITED STATES MARINE for 8 years. I am currently a fulltime student (yes, even through all this). I have never done any type of drugs in my entire life. My wife and I (social drinkers at the time) decided back in 2001 to remove any alcohol from our home and to stop drinking entirely for the benefit of our children. I have never been arrested or charged with a crime. I haven’t been in as much as a fight or any type of physical altercation with another human being in well over 20 years, displaying zero violence in any way over that same period of time. My children have never been to the emergency room for any so-called “abuse” related injuries (very few visits in general, in fact). They have never even sustained injuries of any kind resulting from discipline or anything of the sort that could even be construed as abuse. The police have never been to our home for domestic violence or any other reason through 16 years of my wife and me living together and raising our family. I have absolutely never laid a hand on my wife in any way whatsoever, nor pondered a thought. Our children have always been well-behaved and respectful of each other, neighbors, members of our church family and our other friends and co-workers. What is wrong with this picture? I have submitted countless documents to support many of the above statements, all seemingly ignored.
I have been asked on many occasions by friends and supporters throughout this ordeal if I am angry. You bet! But my bible says in Eph 4:26-27; 26: Be ye angry, and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your wrath; 27: Neither give place to the Devil.
Whether you make a move, or sit still, I will most assuredly make my next move and most likely I already have. I just hope you can see through your BIAS and reign in your emotions long enough to make the right decision. I am simply asking that your decision be made in the best interest of justice and fairness for everyone involved, nothing more, and nothing less. I believe wholeheartedly that this is your absolute charge as Family Court Judge. I am simply asking for my day in court and for you to subsequently make your ruling(s) so that I may take the next steps as afforded me by law.
Regardless of your decision(s), I intend to forward this letter to any media, advocacy groups, other attorneys, higher courts (North Carolina Court of Appeals, North Carolina State Supreme Court, U.S. Eastern District Court, Etc.), and even the Judicial Standards Commission asking that all parties are held accountable for their actions, especially with regard to the effects on each member of my family and the toll it has taken on our entire family unit. I will continue my fight through Mandamus, Certiorari, and even Habeas Corpus (though maybe unconventional) if need be until my children are returned safely to me and my wife. In other words, I will not be deterred from finding justice. Although there seems to be no direct path to justice in this case, I will eventually find the way.
I am open to any meeting, conference call or other means involving all parties on the record either in chambers or in open court in the interest of making better use of the courts time with regard to these pending matters and various motions as per this court’s discretion.
NOW COMES Pro Se Respondent Father RONALD REALE and moves to Recuse Judge Monica Bousman from the above entitled matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, and Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980); “The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law.”
The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976); “State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.”
The authority of the Court exists so that judges can do the work of the Court that it is mandated to do under Law. If the Court isn’t doing its mandated work then the Court has no authority.
The authority of the Court comes from the United States Constitution and the Laws passed by the Legislature. These documents define the role and authority of the Juvenile Court and the duties of the Judges that serve there. It is the job of the Court to conduct hearings and to make an honest attempt at a fair and equitable judgment. It is the duty of the Court to correct a clear and obvious error when brought to the attention of the Court. And it is the responsibility of the Court to ensure that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner. North Carolina Judges take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution and are expected to abide by the Rules of North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. It absolutely not expected that Judges act as lawyers (taking sides) by vigorously claiming to “protect the interest” of either party exclusively.
North Carolina Judicial Code of Conduct, Canon 3 states in part;
A judge should perform the duties of her office impartially and diligently. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all her other activities. Her judicial duties include all the duties of her office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply.
- A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. She should be un-swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
- A judge should maintain order and decorum in proceedings before her.
- A judge should be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom she deals in her official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers and of her staff, court officials and others subject to her direction and control.
- A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither knowingly initiate nor knowingly consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending proceeding. A judge, however, may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before her.
- A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.
Judge Monica Bousman has in the past deliberately violated personal liberties of the Respondent Father and his six minor children and/or has wantonly refused to provide due process and equal protection to the Respondent Father and his six minor children and/or has behaved in a manner inconsistent with that which is needed for full, fair, impartial hearings.
The Respondent Father will remind the Court that just because he is representing himself Sui Juris doesn’t mean the Court has the right to deny him due process. The Respondent has the right to make post-adjudicatory motions and the Court has the duty and responsibility to rule on these motions. And that the Respondent Father expects the Judge to uphold the United States Constitution as she is sworn to do and to protect the fundamental right to due process of his entire family as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
As part of these proceedings in late 2010 the Respondent Father filed four post-adjudicatory motions; a motion and order to show cause for WCHS’ failure to produce his minor children for court ordered visits, a motion to set aside the Order on Adjudication and Disposition pursuant to Rule 60 (b) (4) the order is void, a motion to review visitation guidelines, and a motion for discovery.
The court deprived the Respondent Father of his right to due process as to his motions by stalling, delaying, ultimately not scheduling any of his motions to be heard until well past 70 days from the date of filing. Then granting a total of 1 hour for all four motions. The Respondent Father had no choice but to withdraw three of the four motions in order to focus on the motion to set aside. That hearing alone required well over two hours.
This compared to other post-adjudicatory motions filed by opposing attorneys throughout these proceedings which were promptly scheduled in as little as 12 days.
Judge Bousman has engaged in Ex-Parte communication with other parties in this case and specifically with other judges presiding over other matters directly related to this case. Judge Bousman admits on the record in a hearing held in March, 2011 that she has had inappropriate communication with Judge Lori Christian. The Respondent Father was seeking justice in the form of a motion to set aside a Domestic Violence Protective Order which was unlawfully entered by Judge Christian in May, 2010. The DVPO was the basis for the current matter before Judge Bousman which began as an alleged violation to the DVPO in June, 2010. The two judges have discussed the matter at length while both were faced with concurrent motions to set aside their respective orders as VOID.
These conversations were highly prejudicial in nature and a clear violation of Cannon 3 of the North Carolina Judicial Code of Conduct. Her individual unconstitutional acts violated the clearly established constitutional rights of the Respondent Father of which a reasonable official would have known, Davis v. Scherer (1984). Her judicial immunity is defeated when, “though judicial in nature,” her acts were “taken in complete absence of jurisdiction,” Mireles v. Waco (1991). She did act under the authority or color of state law when she acted in concert with Judge Christian, causing harm to the Respondent father and his family in effecting the deprivation of rights, Dennis v. Sparks (1980).
As a Judge in Juvenile Court it is Judge Bousman’s duty to do the work of a Juvenile Court Judge and only that. The law does not give the Judges of Juvenile Court the authority to deliberately destroy families and separate spouses. Such acts would be seen by a reasonable person as coercive, intimidating, and to be acts that are clearly outside all judicial authority. Clearly a Juvenile Court judge does not have the right under the Law to use her position and immunities to shield her from malicious acts that are clearly outside her scope of authority.
In a Juvenile Order dated May 16, 2011 Judge Bousman specifically ordered redactions of the Respondent Mother’s home address information pursuant to a request made by WCHS Social Worker Julie Riggins. This request was never made by the Respondent Mother or anyone else on her behalf. In Fact, this order of withholding such information does not reflect the wishes of the Respondent Mother whatsoever. Judge Bousman is clearly acting outside her judicial authority and has no jurisdiction with regard to such matters.
NOTE: My wife Debra sent an email to my mother (not her own mother) expressing, among other things, her desire to return to North Carolina and her regret for not being strong enough to fight back in August of 2010. Email.PDF
In her order following the permanency plan hearings Judge Bousman makes a finding that; “In the event that she (Mrs. Reale) reconciles with Mr. Reale, permanence will be delayed.” This is more coercion and intimidation; and exactly what the Respondent Father has been saying this court and WCHS represent from day one; and it has no place in this already corrupt process. Such statements attack directly to the heart of the Constitutional Rights of free men and their families. Once again, Judge Bousman is clearly acting outside her judicial authority and has no jurisdiction with regard to such matters. She has held over the Respondent Father and his entire family effecting the deprivation of rights by virtue of being a District Court Judge, respectively, of the State of North Carolina, with all the power and apparent authority of the color of state law.
Judge Bousman made various findings in an order at the conclusion of a permanency plan hearing held on April 12, 13, and 27, 2011. Many of these findings were from Bias and/or many absolutely did not conform to the evidenced produced from these hearings.
Judge Bousman refers to the Respondent Father’s completion of the court ordered ten week Anger Management Class stating in part; “Mr. Reale has Completed Anger management (however, he does not readily demonstrate any skills learned in his interactions in some of his interactions with professionals involved in this case.” Judge Bousman is clearly referring to her disdain for the Respondent Father’s continued efforts to “stand up” and respond to the repeated false allegations, frivolous petitions and motions filed against him, while these so-called “other professionals,” herself included, deliberately deprived him of any contact with his six minor children for well over 200 days; even in direct violation of the court’s own orders specific to the subject of visitation for a period of well over 90 days. Judge Bousman continues to conspire with WCHS in depriving the Respondent Father of any contact with his oldest son SRR (12 years old), without cause. Respondent father has not had any contact with his oldest son SRR for a period of well over 340 days. There are no words to describe this.
On the contrary, the evidence in the form of at least a dozen letters and statements presented by the Respondent Father at the permanency plan hearing demonstrates that the people in the community, his employer and even his own therapist have expressed sentiments of “dedication to his team and customers” as “a leader in the workplace”, “demonstrating a servants heart”, a “man of God”, an “all-around great guy”, “children look up to him” and they “absolutely adore him.” Each having personal knowledge, experience and direct contact with him for as many as 3+ years. Not even a hint of ANGER, let alone problems with regard to “anger management” or any other issues.
Judge Bousman further declares the following in her order; “Mr. Reale has not been cooperative with WCHS. A contentious relationship has developed between Mr. Reale and representatives of WCHS. He consistently refers to WCHS as “liars,” “deceitful,” and “kidnappers.” The social worker perceives that he is disrespectful and threatening toward her. He has readily stated that he “will not rest until each of you is held accountable:” First, there was also testimony by the Social Worker Julie Riggins that she NEVER reported to the court, law enforcement, or any one else that she EVER felt disrespected or threatened throughout these proceedings. It seems quite convenient to than testify to such feelings and emotions without even a shred of corroboration.
Not cooperative? The Court concedes in the permanency plan draft order that all items Ordered and Adjudged in the Order on Adjudication and Disposition have been completed by the Respondent Father. Completion of all the items ordered by the court absolutely required complete cooperation on the part of the Respondent Father. He attended 45 hours of classes on two separate days of each week for a consecutive ten weeks. He participated in all meetings and completed the required psychological evaluation. He attended all court dates on time (even early). Once visits commenced, he has not missed one nor been late (again always early) even ultimately agreeing under protest to the massive, unnecessary fees (amounting to ransom) in the amount of $100 per hour for the visits to even take place. It seems the facts in evidence prove he was nothing but cooperative.
Judge Bousman has ultimately denied the Respondent Father reunification with his six minor children yet she clearly states and freely admits on the record; “that she has not even read any of the mental health assessments with regard to ANY of the minor children.” She goes on to freely state that “she has no knowledge or understanding of the person described as the children’s therapist” and further acknowledges on the record; “but I probably should.” This gross negligence alone is proof that this judge has failed in her most important mandate with respect to understanding her responsibilities as a Juvenile Court Judge and how her uninformed decisions are impacting the minor children. Four of the six minor children have been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, yet the court has never received any documents in over eight months of so-called therapy from the therapist that might allege or even explain whether or not the Respondent Father has contributed to their symptoms leading to such a diagnosis.
Pursuant to the Child Welfare Act; “The Juvenile Court is to make “reasonable efforts” findings in each removal case indicating whether the state has, in fact, provided services to eliminate the need for removing the child from the parent.” It is the responsibility of the Court to hear the case and to bring it to a conclusion.
Pursuant to the Child Welfare Act; “The Juvenile Court must make certain that WCHS has provided services to prevent removal of children from parental custody and to reunite removed children with a parent or guardian. In addition, when the child is involuntarily removed from parental custody, the Juvenile Court must make a finding that continued placement of the child with the parent would be contrary to the child’s welfare.” On the contrary, Judge Bousman has ignored the evidence and the truth while conspiring with others at various times to assist in and to further condone the unlawful removal of the children and to further prevent the return of the children to their parents. Judge Bousman has ruled from BIAS and with high emotion on more than one occasion.
Pursuant to the Child Welfare Act; “The Juvenile Court must also determine whether the state has made “reasonable efforts” to enable removed children to be reunited with their family. The Juvenile Court must determine whether WCHS developed a case plan to ensure the children’s placement in the least restrictive, most family like setting available in close proximity to the parent’s home consistent with the best interest and needs of the children.” Since June, 2010 the six minor children have been placed by the court in Jacksonville, NC with a 24-year-old cousin who had never even met four of the six children (effectively a stranger, hardly a familial setting); a location that is well over 150 miles from the family home. The court further supported the requirement through written, oral, and implied agreements that the Respondent Mother relocate to California in August, 2010 (over 3,000 miles from her children) where she has since resided, having no substantive contact with her children in over 9 months.
Pursuant to the Child Welfare Act; “The Juvenile Court must review a foster child’s status at least once every six months. At each review the Court must determine the continuing need for and appropriateness of placement, the extent of compliance with the case plan and the progress which has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement in foster care.” During the permanency plan hearing in April, 2011 Judge Bousman was presented with verification of compliance of both the Respondent Mother and the Respondent Father to all requirements ordered and adjudged from the Order on Adjudication and Disposition. Ignoring all evidence Judge Bousman has determined the legal custody and placement authority will remain with WCHS and that the children shall remain in foster care until the next hearing in October, 2011. This determination is unlawful and absolutely unacceptable.
Judge Bousman has disregarded the testimony revealing that no one from WCHS or the Guardian ad Litem has ever observed the Respondent Father with his children since their abduction in June, 2010. Judge Bousman did however ignore and omit any mention of the observations made by the independent agency, Time Together, who is currently supervising the visits; submitted by the Respondent Father as part of his Parent’s Report. The summary of the visits were as follows; “All children have appeared comfortable with Mr. Reale and have appeared to openly engage in conversations during the visitation time. Upon entering the room all children have gone up and hugged Mr. Reale without prompting, expect JRR. JRR, during his first two visits instantly began playing with toys in the room but did show affection towards Mr. Reale later in the visits. Throughout the visits, Mr. Reale maintained appropriate conversations with all children. When ending the visits all children have hugged Mr. Reale and expressed their love for him. All children have stated their disappointment with the visits ending and have progressively become clingier with Mr. Reale at the end of the visits. During the last visit the children attempted to delay the ending of the visiting by continuing to hug Mr. Reale and expressing their desire not to leave. All children have expressed that they want to stay with Mr. Reale and are excited about the next visit. HMR, SMR, & MRR have even expressed disappointment with having to wait two weeks for the next visit to occur. The children’s desire to extend the visits has progressively increased with each additional visit. It should be noted that the children’s desire to extend the visit appears to be more out of love for Mr. Reale.”
It has clearly been pointed out to the Court in a manner that any reasonable person can understand; that the Court has made obvious errors. Judge Bousman continues to ignore her responsibility to be accountable for correcting such errors. In a draft order from the permanency plan hearings in April, 2011 Judge Bousman makes the following finding of fact; “Mr. Reale takes no responsibility for conditions that removed the children from his custody, despite the stipulations he voluntarily entered on August 26, 2010 and now adamantly denies that the stipulations are true.” Judge Bousman is well aware that the stipulations were based on a prior Domestic Violence Protective Order which, at that time, was considered to be in full force and effect, yet has since been vacated as of March 2011 as Void ab initio, a nullity, as though it never existed by the very same judge who issued the order back in May, 2010.
Judge Bousman also includes in her latest draft order; “Mr. Reale was asked to leave the DOSE program (for Domestic Offenders) when he denied that he was responsible for any acts which might constitute domestic abuse… but successful completion of an abuser treatment program is still required if he desires to reunify with his children.” Again, Judge Bousman is well aware that the Domestic Violence Protective Order entered prior to the start of these proceedings has since been set aside as void ab initio, a nullity, as though it had never been. In addition, the six minor children were adjudicated neglected as a result of the alleged violation of the DVPO in question, not abused. There is no other evidence of Domestic Violence having ever occurred in the family home. Judge Bousman is absolutely acting outside her judicial authority and has no jurisdiction with regard to such matters. This is a clear example of her exhorting and abusing her powers as a Juvenile Court Judge.
Judge Bousman makes other statements with regard to the Respondent Father’s individual therapy which can be classified as nothing more than conjecture and innuendo; “It does not appear that Mr. Reale has progressed enough in therapy to be able to benefit from an abuser treatment program.” There was no evidence presented to this effect. From where then was she able to draw this conclusion? In fact, there was evidence presented by the Respondent Father to demonstrate the contrary. This evidence was ignored and there was little or no mention of its existence in the draft order. The Respondent Father submitted two letters from his personal therapist (court ordered). These letters reflected a clear and convincing opinion that progress toward a desire for a more positive relationship with his wife and children exists; “To summarize my work with him in therapy, he is able to see and interpret these aspects of his personality: his belief he can fix anything, his being driven to succeed, his working excessively long hours, and as a result his not paying sufficient attention to his family relationships. I find this self-awareness to be a sign of a change that could lead him to develop a more engaged relationship to his family. He talks frequently about his wife, and although they have had their differences he has never criticized her. In this same session he said this about her: “I can’t imagine just how much pain she’s in being separated from her kids and not being in a place she wants to be. I guess I’m willing to accept all that but I still feel a strong desire to protect her and to provide for her emotionally and to support her emotionally.” Ron is able to explore his feelings and his behavior in a non-defensive way. He is able to talk about how he allowed himself to be so caught up in his work that he neglected family relationships. His descriptions of his interactions with his children and other people demonstrate an ability to empathize with others and to make an effort to see things as they do. These capacities for introspection and for empathy are characteristics I do not associate with a person who would abuse his children or his spouse. Once again, there was no mention of this evidence in the final order. It was simply ignored.
The Respondent Father commissioned and produced for the court an independent and complete psychological evaluation which was conducted by Kraft Psychological Services, PA. This is an agency certified to perform evaluations for individuals and has also completed evaluations for other county DSS agencies. The Licensed Psychological Associate who administered all testing and interviews is supervised by Dr. Jack Huber who has over 35 years of experience in the field and was the Department Head of Psychology at Meredith College for 30+ years. The summary of the evaluation is as follows; Ronald’s profile suggests he is a rule-follower who may have a tendency to minimize any problems he is experiencing. He may experience feelings of resentment when he does not express his true feelings. He is not likely to take risks for fear of making mistakes. He likely behaves in a consistent and socially acceptable manner. He is likely seen as sociable and easygoing by others. He may make a good first impression, but may have difficulty forming close relationships with others. However, he is likely viewed as outgoing and self-confident by others. He likely has marital problems and may be impatient. Ronald may not be easily overwhelmed by emotional turmoil. He does not appear to have a high potential for abuse. It should be noted that his score for the ego-strength scale indicates that he has the ability to maintain emotional stability. It should be noted that his Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF=80) score indicates that if symptoms are present, they are transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors. Ronald was pleasant and cooperative throughout the assessment process. He was alert and oriented in all spheres. His mood and effect were congruent. He appeared forthright when responding to questions. It is the opinion of this clinician that Ronald does not appear to have impairment in his parenting skills due to psychological symptoms. It should be noted that he does not appear likely to abuse his children.
The Juvenile Court is society’s designated check to make certain that children are not improperly removed, that parents are provided with due process and that families are fairly treated. The Court, unlike social services agencies, is more visible and accountable to the public in performing these functions. In this case however, this premise is clearly not sustained as Judge Bousman has clearly taken things into her own hands and proceeded in a manner that has little to do with the protections of the United States Constitution and more to do with her own personal emotions and desires.
In light of Judge Bousman’s behavior, the Respondent Father can only conclude that the she is on a mission that has nothing to do with the job the Law mandates her to perform. And if the Judge is not doing the work of the Court then the Judge doesn’t have the authority or immunities of the Court and her decisions are therefore defective and invalid. Because of the obvious errors in her decisions, it is the Respondent Father’s position that no decisions have been made.
Judge Bousman is acting individually and in her official capacity as a District Court Judge under color of state law to deprive and in conspiring to deprive the Respondent Father and his family of their civil rights. Because she is acting knowingly, recklessly and in disregard of well-established law, with no objectively reasonable basis for her actions, she does not have qualified immunity from damages under the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, or by United States District Court in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently protected parental rights, including it among those rights deemed fundamental. As a fundamental right, the liberties of the Respondent Father and his family are to be protected by the highest standard of review; the compelling interest test. As long as Judge Bousman is allowed to have an exaggerated view of her power and is allowed to exploit that power and abuse it against the Respondent Father and his family, they will be continually harmed. The constitution is there for two primary reasons, 1) to restrict the power of the government and 2) to protect the people from the government, not the government from the people. And the constitution is there to prohibit certain activity from government officials and that prohibition does not apply to one type or kind of official, but to any government official, including and especially from judges.
The United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment contains a recognized Right to Privacy. This fundamental Right to Privacy encompasses the Privacy Protected Zone of Parenting. The Respondent Father asserts that the North Carolina General Statutes, easily distorted by Judge Bousman, impermissibly infringes on the Federal Right to Privacy to the extent they mandate the Respondent Father to support his children beyond a standard to prevent harm to them. Judge Bousman substitutes her judgment for the Respondent Father’s judgment as to the best interest of his children.
Judge Bousman is not permitted and lacks jurisdiction to determine care and maintenance, i.e. spending, i.e. child discipline, decisions of the Respondent Father based on his income in an intact marriage other than to prevent harm to a child. Furthermore, Judge Bousman must not so mandate, absent a demonstration that the choice of support provided by the Respondent Father has resulted in harm to his children.
Consequently, Judge Bousman cannot use the “best interest of the child” standard to substitute her judgment for a fit parent and parroting that term is “legally insufficient” to use in the court to force the Respondent Father to follow some arbitrary standard, case plan. Judge Bousman cannot usurp the Respondent Father’s decision making related to his spending for his children, i.e. child support without either demonstrating the Respondent Father is unfit or there is proven harm to the children. In other words, Judge Bousman cannot impose a standard of living dealing with the rearing of children. When she violates this fundamental right, she is intruding on the life and liberty interest of the Respondent Father and his family.
The First Amendment bars such action because the rearing of children and the best interest of children is often based on one’s religious beliefs, i.e. the separation of church and state. By Judge Bousman imposing any standard of living or the rearing of children, she is putting forth a religious standard by her actions i.e. how you act, what to feed the child, how to dress the child, whether or not to home school and so on. Judge Bousman lacks jurisdiction on what goes on in the house even though she may disagree with the choices made by the Respondent Father. It’s none of Judge Bousman’s business on how the Respondent Father is to raise his children. In other words, Judge Bousman cannot falsely accuse the Respondent Father of abuse or neglect just because she disagrees with the method of child rearing or the standard in which the Respondent Father and his family live.
State Law provisions seem to mandate that the Courts invade the family, through the judiciary, to examine, evaluate, determine and conclude the terms and nature of the interpersonal relationships, spousal roles, spousal conduct, parental decision-making, parenting conduct, parental spending, economic standard of living, occupations, education, savings, assets, charitable contributions and most importantly the intimate emotional, psychological and physical details of the parties and family during their marriage; granting the judiciary a broad range of discretion to apply a property stripping statute with a standard of equity.
This is an abuse of the judicial power and the judicial system to intrude into the lives of the Respondent Father and his family and violates their privacy rights. It is not Judge Bousman’s right or jurisdiction to examine the day-to-day decisions and choices of the Respondent Father and his family and then sit there in judgment, and then force the Respondent Father to follow conflicting standards with threat of harm for noncompliance i.e. abduction of children and/or to threaten that they will not be returned or that “reunification will be delayed.” These are coercive statements and tactics of intimidation that have no place in our judicial system.
The United States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS. Therefore, Respondent Father respectfully demands Judge Bousman recuse herself in light of the aforementioned evidence detailing prior unethical and/or unlawful conduct or conduct which gives Respondent Father good reason to believe Judge Bousman cannot continue to hear the above case in a fair and impartial manner and should be disqualified from further proceedings in this matter.
A Judge who stands in the way of justice and the Law is acting outside of all judicial authority and thereby waives her rights to immunity from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of rights. Once again, her judicial immunity is defeated when, “though judicial in nature,” her acts were “taken in complete absence of jurisdiction,” Mireles v. Waco (1991). The 14th Amendment guarantees the fundamental rights of citizens to due process and equal protection and such rights require strict scrutiny of the Court. The Respondent Father therefore puts the Court on notice that he intends to defend his rights and to hold Judge Bousman liable for acts she takes against the Respondent Father and his family that are done in the absence of judicial authority.
The Respondent Father is currently writing a complaint against Judge Bousman to be filed with the Judicial Standards Commission relative to her violations of the North Carolina Judicial Code of Conduct. After filing said complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission, said complaint will be filed in the record of 10JA xxx-xxx and published on the internet in the interest of complete public disclosure.
WHEREFORE, in light of the fact that Judge Bousman is either unwilling or unable to perform her duties as mandated by the United States Constitution and the Laws of the State of North Carolina, has acted unlawfully and would act to protect her previous unlawful decisions, Respondent Father prays the Judge will recuse herself.
The Respondent Father requests that an order of reassignment of Judge Bousman for cause be issued, and this case be assigned to a judge who knows and complies with the law, who does not have a conflict of interest, and a judge who will act impartially.