From DA, 9/18/22
Prob a t e Cou rt Vict im Support Group
It is true that there is trauma when you are a petitioner, respondent, defendant and/or plaintiff in Court. Your trauma is NOT unique, and you are NOT alone. We are here with you in the dark, on the phone, in your closet crying, in your bed unable to get out, we are here.
Do you have proof that your lawyer lied court appointed attorney lied to the Court, no matter
how big or small? You are not alone. Do you feel your rights have been violated? You are not alone. Attorneys appointed to your case work for the ward. When the appointed attorney
misrepresents to the Court that is punishable by the law. Report the attorney to the authorities as an upstanding citizen. Soon enough the authorities will investigate the lawless as they should.
Did you know that you have a right to have a fair and unbiased investigation in your case by the attorney appointed in your case?
Did you know that according to this law you have a right to due process? 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Right to Family – Due Process)
Did you know according to this law you have a right to parent your children. Glucksberg, 521 U.S.702 (1997), Prob. Code, §§ 1510, subd. (a), 1514, subds. (a), (b). In Vaughan: The trial court denied the [grandparents’] petition because the mother had not intended to abandon the children. [Vaughan, supra, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1055 at 1056, emphasis added]
Did you know according to this law you have a right to be a family? 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Right to Family – Equal Protection) Prob. Code, §§ 1510, subd. (a), 1514, subds. (a), (b). In Vaughan: The trial court denied the [grandparents’] petition because the mother had not intended to abandon the children. [Vaughan, supra, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1055 at 1056, emphasis added] this also covers elderly parent with an adult child Petitioning to be their caregiver.
Did you know the higher court has decided that state court has no authority to separate siblings without a medical professional opinion documenting the effects of that separation. [Williams supra, 88 Cal. App. 4th 808 at 809] In re Marriage of Williams, 88 Cal. App. 4th 808, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 923, 924 (2001) (“Williams”) and Guardianship of Vaughan, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1055, 1056, 144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216, 217 (2012) (“Vaughan”).
Let us begin with Williams, a case in which: [A]ppellant father appealed an order of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court (California) permitting two of four children to move out of the state with respondent mother. [Williams, supra, 88 Cal. App. 4th 808 at 809]
In Williams: The lower court ordered that the oldest child and the youngest child could move to Utah with appellant, while the middle children were to remain in California with respondent. Appellant argued that the lower court abused its discretion because it separated siblings from each other. Respondent argued that the lower court abused its discretion with respect to the middle children because there was no basis for distinguishing between them and their siblings.
The instant court concluded that the lower court abused its discretion because the record did
not show compelling circumstances warranting the separation of the siblings, as there was no evidence in the record of the impact that separation would have on these children. In the
absence of such evidence, the instant court could not affirm the lower court’s order even on the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Williams, supra, 88 Cal. App. 4th 808 at 809, emphasis added]
Williams reversed thus refusing to separate the children. The matter was remanded for
reconsideration in light of the new rule the court announced, i.e., that in the absence of
evidence regarding the effect of separation on the children, it is an abuse of discretion to
separate them. Turning to Vaughan, that case too is easily distinguishable from this case. In Vaughan, Appellants, two minor children, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Trinity County (California), which denied a petition by respondent grandparents for a probate guardianship over the children pursuant to Prob. Code, §§ 1510, subd. (a), 1514, subds. (a), (b). In Vaughan: The trial court denied the [grandparents’] petition because the mother had not intended to abandon the children. [Vaughan, supra, 207 Cal. App. 4th 1055 at 1056, emphasis added] In Vaughan, the Court had to balance between parental rights versus the children’s apparent preference to live with their grandparents. While the Court presumably considered the children’s wishes, it was parental rights that carried the day, as was appropriate. A parent’s right to the care and companionship of his or her child is a fundamental constitutional right. See e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
If you need someone to talk to and you feel alone. Text Donecia Augustus (310) 663-9527 – we have a group of parents and victims of Probate Court Abuse, if we can help you or support you, we will.
The Justice Channel – http://www.tjcla.com
The Ugly Judge – http://www.uglyjudge.com
Court Victims National Data Base – http://www.courtvictim.com
This flyer is not intended to be legal advice. We strongly recommend consulting with an attorney licensed in your state or area.
Reblogged this on Justice for Everyone Blog.