>Making the child choose between their parents >Asking the child to keep secrets from the other parent >Asking the child to spy on the other parent >Badmouthing the other parent >Changing the child’s name to remove the other parent’s association >Confiding in the child >Creating the impression that the other parent is dangerous >Forcing the child to reject the other parent >Limiting or interfering with communication with the other parent >Referring to a stepparent as “Mom” or “Dad” >Referring to the other parent by first name in front of the child >Telling the child that the other parent does not love them >Withholding love and approval >Withholding medical, social, or academic information from the other parent
Did the person who compiled this know my ex, Kathryn Stoker?…because every single item accurately describes her and more–now she’s using her wealth to do the same thing to the grandchildren after destroying our missing daughter, Selena Smith. Ask me about ANY of the line items and I will cite proof she has done it. Where was the Family Court in all of this? Kathryn Stoker weaponized it, as always. Abolish the Family Court and God speed Kathryn Stoker to the Hell she created.
Selena Smith has been missing 2.5 years. If you know if she’s still alive or her whereabouts/circumstances, PM me. She has only 1 good hand, her left. 6’2″ blue eyes. born 1976. Her 3 children were kidnapped by Kathryn Stoker via criminally orchestrated color of state law.
Selena Ursa Smith, mom under arrest for protecting her children
It looks like even Helen Keller, the famous advocate for the disabled and the first deaf-blind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree, had some pretty problematic views. I mean, arguing that deformed babies should be left to die because they might become criminals? That’s not just offensive; it’s downright dangerous.
It’s almost like she was trying to set back the cause of disability rights by a century. But you know what they say, even heroes have feet of clay. Or, in her case, feet of braille. It’s hard to overlook the bad and focus on the positives. Advocating for eugenics is not the way to win any popularity contests.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Well, isn’t that just peachy? It turns out that F Scott Fitzgerald, the author of “The Great Gatsby” and one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, was also a bit of a jerk. Plagiarizing your wife’s work and then locking her in the house when she asks for a divorce? That’s just low.
He was trying to write his own tragic novel, complete with a dysfunctional marriage and a bitter end. Or maybe he was just a victim of his own success and couldn’t handle the pressure of being a literary superstar. Either way, we can all agree that locking your wife in the house is never a good idea.
George Washington
Oh boy, it looks like we’ve got another problematic historical figure on our hands. George Washington, the “Father of Our Country” and the first president of the United States, was actually a slave owner who refused to free his many slaves. It’s just not the kind of news you want to hear.
But it’s a good reminder that nobody’s perfect, not even the guy on the dollar bill. Let’s focus less on idolizing these historical figures and more on understanding their flaws. Or we could just start putting pictures of puppies on our currency. After all, who doesn’t love a cute little puppy?
Frank Sinatra
There’s no doubt Frank Sinatra is one of the greatest figures in the history of American music, but this story surrounding Frank Sinatra’s connections to organized crime adds another layer of complexity to his larger-than-life persona. Sinatra’s affinity for the company of those connected to organized crime reveals shared interests and a blurred line between entertainment and the hidden world of illicit activities.
The convergence of their shared hobbies, such as gambling, women, and money, in casinos and nightclubs is something many fans may not have known. This untold side of Sinatra’s life sheds light on the complexities of fame and the choices individuals make within the shadowed realms of power and influence.
Florence Nightingale
Florence Nightingale is often held up as a hero in the nursing profession, but the truth is that her legacy is much more complicated than we might think. While it’s true that she made significant contributions to infection prevention and modern nursing, the fact that she held racist views and had some involvement in colonial atrocities is deeply troubling.
It’s important to remember that just because someone makes significant contributions to their field, it doesn’t excuse their problematic beliefs and actions. And while it’s commendable that Nightingale emphasized handwashing and infection prevention, it doesn’t negate the harm that she may have caused through her other actions.
Alexander Graham Bell
Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, may have revolutionized communication, but his views on Deaf people are definitely not something to phone home about. It’s troubling to think that someone who was so close with several Deaf individuals could hold such a prejudiced and harmful belief.
And let’s be real; we can still appreciate Bell’s contributions to communication technology while acknowledging that he had some messed up beliefs. It’s like admiring Picasso’s art while also acknowledging he was a womanizer. We don’t have to cancel Bell, but we do have to be critical of his beliefs.
Pablo Picasso
Sure, Pablo Picasso was a talented artist, but he was also a huge misogynist and abuser. I mean, who says “women are machines for suffering” and treats their lovers like garbage? Not cool. And don’t even get me started on the cheating and inability to stay faithful to a woman.
It’s not like we must erase his contributions to art, but we can’t just brush off his problematic behavior. It’s like trying to separate the art from the artist – sometimes, it’s just not possible. So next time you see a Picasso painting, take a moment to think about the women he hurt.
Abraham Lincoln
We all know him as the Great Emancipator, but did you know Abraham Lincoln ordered the public execution of 38 Dakota Indians? Yeah, that’s right. Hundreds of people watched them die as punishment for the Santee Sioux uprising. I mean, come on, Abe. What a hypocritical person he truly was.
You can’t preach about freedom and equality and then turn around and order a mass execution like it’s nothing. You can’t have it both ways, man. We need to acknowledge Lincoln’s problematic actions and hold him accountable for them, even if it means reevaluating our idea of him as a “hero.”
James Watson
Who let James Watson into the science club? This dude snubbed Rosalind Franklin, downplayed her role in his work, made terrible remarks about her character, and, let’s not forget, racism, sexism, and antisemitism. Oh, and he tried to use genetics to back up his claims that African Americans are less intelligent than whites.
Yikes. It’s like he took all the -isms and rolled them into one problematic burrito. I don’t care how smart you are; if you’re spewing hate and disrespecting your colleagues, you don’t deserve a place in the scientific community. It’s time to kick Watson to the curb and make room for scientists who don’t let their bigotry overshadow their work.
Oprah Winfrey
The story of Oprah Winfrey shoving a child out of the way at an airport is a stark reminder that our favorite celebrities may not always be who we think they are. While it’s easy to get caught up in the glitz and glamour of fame, the fact is that these individuals are human beings with flaws and shortcomings like the rest of us.
If this story is true, it’s disappointing to think that someone as beloved and influential as Oprah Winfrey could be so callous toward a child. Let’s not forget that kindness and compassion are not just acts to be put on for the cameras. True empathy and understanding require a genuine desire to connect with others and make the world a better place.
Walt Disney
Walt Disney is often held up as a visionary and pioneer in the world of animation, but the fact that he had a racist side is truly scary. While it’s important to acknowledge that Disney was a product of his time, it’s also essential to recognize that his actions had real-world consequences.
By perpetuating harmful stereotypes and using racist language, Disney contributed to a culture of discrimination and inequality that continues to affect marginalized communities to this day. It may be time to start calling out Disney for its problematic past and demand they do better in the future.
Roald Dahl
Oh boy, Roald Dahl, more like Roald the RottenI. It’s one thing to cheat on your spouse, but to do it with her best friend while she’s recovering from a freaking stroke? That’s just low. I mean, how do you even live with yourself after that? He took all the worst qualities a person can have and embodied them.
It’s hard to reconcile the man who wrote beloved children’s books with the man who was such a jerk to his wife. It’s like finding out your favorite ice cream flavor is made with rotten milk – it’s just not a good feeling. But that’s the thing about people – they’re complex and sometimes disappointing.
Queen Victoria
The fact that Victoria found babies ugly and experienced postnatal depression does not excuse the neglect and emotional distance she showed toward her children. It’s heartbreaking to think that her children may have grown up feeling unloved and unwanted, despite their status as heirs to the throne.
We shouldn’t be too surprised – ruling a kingdom is hard work. Pregnancy can definitely put a damper on that! But the way she treated her children is a different story. It’s like she forgot that being a parent is more than just giving birth – it’s about nurturing and caring for your kids. Let’s hope future rulers remember that being a parent is just as important as being a monarch.
Martin Luther King
Okay, okay, so let me get this straight. Martin Luther King, the supposed champion of civil rights, was a plagiarizer, a cheater, and a bystander to sexual assault. Talk about problematic! I mean, is it possible that any of our heroes were real heroes and didn’t have any major flaws?
However, it’s also important to recognize that King was a human being with flaws and imperfections like the rest of us. We can acknowledge his shortcomings while also recognizing the incredible impact he had on our society and the ongoing struggle for civil rights and equality.
Johnny Cash
You’re telling me that Johnny Cash, the man in black, not only started a massive fire but almost killed off a bunch of endangered birds? That’s a whole new level of problematic. I knew his music could be fiery, but I didn’t think he’d take this statement so very literally.
And to think he only paid $82,000 in damages. That’s like giving someone a pack of gum to make up for burning down their house. But hey, at least he tried to make things right. Maybe he should’ve written a song about it, like “I Walked the Line and Started a Fire.” Okay, maybe not.
Aristotle
Anyone who thinks that women are nothing more than baby-making machines is absolutely insane. That’s like saying a pencil is only good for erasing mistakes. I mean, come on. As if women weren’t already facing enough struggles, this dude had to go and make it worse – even if it was in ancient times.
I guess it just shows that even the smartest people can have some seriously dumb ideas. And we still study his works today. We should stick to reading his thoughts on physics or matters that don’t involve equality. Or, instead, we could focus on uplifting voices that respect all humans.
Chuck Berry
Oh, Chuck Berry, the rock ‘n’ roll pioneer, right? Well, let me tell you, he sure had a talent for pushing boundaries – and I’m not talking about just his music. Turns out, ol’ Chuck was playing his own twisted version of “Roll Over Beethoven” with some pretty darn questionable antics.
I mean, who knew that “Johnny B. Goode” was actually “Johnny B. Bad” behind closed doors? So, next time you’re jamming or dancing along to one of his tunes, just remember: there’s more to some of these historical figures than meets the eye – or the bathroom camera, for that matter.
Teddy Roosevelt
Ah, Teddy Roosevelt, the rough-ridin’, big stick-wieldin’ president. Turns out he was also the OG “Teddy White Nationalist Bear.” I mean, I knew he loved nature, but who knew he was so keen on eugenics? And sure, he opposed slavery, which was pretty revolutionary to do so during that time.
But let’s not forget he was all about that “Euro-descendant” superiority. So, next time you think of Teddy as just a rugged outdoorsman, remember he had some not-so-cuddly views. It’s a good thing his face is carved in stone because it’d be pretty awkward if Mount Rushmore was able to blush!
Frank Llyod
Well, well, well, Frank Lloyd Wright – the architectural legend! But it seems like he was also a master of being a hot mess. Talk about a blueprint for disaster, am I right? I mean, we all know his designs were groundbreaking, but who knew he was a real-life soap opera?
It’s a wonder he didn’t design a house just for his ego. So next time you marvel at a Frank Lloyd Wright creation, remember that behind those stunning lines and daring cantilevers, there’s a man who probably needed a few extra support beams in his own moral foundation. He wasn’t that nice!
Miles Davis
Oh, Miles Davis, the jazz icon! He had us all “Kind of Blue” with his melodies, but who knew he had a side that was more like “Kind of Cruel”? If you weren’t in his band of merry men, he’d give you a taste of his volcanic temper. And let’s not forget the ladies in his life.
Turns out, he wasn’t exactly serenading them with sweet trumpet solos. If you ever find yourself enjoying a sultry Miles Davis tune, remember that behind that smooth sound, there was a man who could’ve used a little more harmony in his personal life. Talk about hitting the wrong note, huh?
Joe Dimaggio
Ah, Joe DiMaggio – the baseball legend and, surprise, husband from hell! This guy had a real home run of marriage with Marilyn Monroe, didn’t he? More like a strikeout, if you ask me. He was all about that “till death do us part” vibe, but not in the right way.
It only applied if Marilyn agreed to trade the spotlight for an apron. Talk about being stuck in the wrong ballpark, Joe! Don’t think of DiMaggio as a hero of America’s favorite pastime; he was swinging for the fences in all the wrong ways. At least Marilyn was smart enough to call it “game over” on that one!
Patrick Henry
Well, Patrick Henry is the “Give me liberty or give me death” guy, right? Turns out he was also the “Give my wife the basement or give her a mental hospital” guy. Talk about taking DIY too far! Sure, those old-timey mental hospitals were grim, but chaining up your spouse in the basement?
That’s a whole new level of “home improvement.” It’s not hard to be inspired by Mr. Henry’s impassioned cries for freedom, but he might have had a little too much creative liberty when it came to his wife’s living quarters. Being locked up in your own house is hardly freedom.
King Edward the VIII
King Edward VIII, the royal with a thing for abdicating thrones and, oh, let’s not forget, a little Nazi sympathy on the side! Now, I’m all for making friends, but buddy, you really picked the wrong crowd to do so. Plotting with the Germans to reclaim the throne after a British invasion?
That’s like saying, “Sure, come on in, but save a seat for me, will ya?” So, the next time you think about the glamor of British royalty, remember that this king was playing a dangerous game of “musical chairs” with some seriously bad company. Long live the king, eh? Not so much!
Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson is a fascinating and complicated figure in American history. While he may be remembered as the “common man’s president,” his treatment of Native Americans is a stain on his legacy that cannot be ignored. Jackson’s policy of Indian removal resulted in the forced relocation of thousands of Native Americans, including the infamous Trail of Tears.
His brutal and inhumane policy demonstrates the deep-seated racism and prejudice that was prevalent in Jackson’s era. As we continue to grapple with issues of race and inequality in our society, it’s important to remember that history is complex and nuanced.
Lyndon Johnson
Lyndon Johnson is a presidential powerhouse and a master of personal space invasion! LBJ sure had an interesting way of measuring people’s feelings toward him. I mean, who needs a handshake when you can just whip out the ol’ cucumber and water the nearest Secret Service agent, right? Talk about making a splash in politics!
Whenever someone mentions Johnson’s Great Society, the only thing I’m going to remember now is his not-so-great social skills. I guess you could say he truly took “streaming” to a whole new level—way before Netflix made it cool! Either way – why did this guy let the President pee on him? Did he have no self-respect?
Every week a group of a dozen or so women gathers online to share information, support each other and help strategize for upcoming court hearings.
They’re all divorcees. Some are in the midst of an ongoing court battle with their ex-husbands over child custody and child support payments; others have already been through the system and have come out on the other side with experience and knowledge to share. They’re an off-shoot of a much larger group of women who number in the hundreds and meet for the same purpose.
These women – and other groups like them – were brought together following the murder of Jennifer Dulos by her husband, Fotis, during a bitter battle in Connecticut’s family court system, which saw more than 500 court filings in just two years.
The Dulos case, which garnered national attention when Jennifer went missing four years ago, was seen by these women as emblematic of the dangers women face when going through a divorce, particularly when their husbands have been abusive.
And, they say, Connecticut’s family court system is not only ignoring those abuse allegations – some substantiated by police and social workers, others not – but enabling it. They claim their exes use the court system to exert control over them and their children through its web of judges, attorneys, and guardians ad litem (GAL) who dismiss their safety concerns in a concerted push to side with fathers, even in cases when there is abuse against both the children and mother.
“What I’ve been experiencing with the family court system since around 2009 and on is favoritism,” said “KC” who says she was twice strangled by her ex-boyfriend with who she had a daughter. “I’ve noticed a huge shift starting around 2010, 2011 in our case where I was being completely ignored on the abuse my child and I have suffered from, told not to discuss it in court, judge hushing me, not allowing me to speak. Literally just focusing more on father’s needs, father’s rights and access, things of that nature.”
KC was forced to get a total of four restraining orders and a protection order over the years. She was awarded sole custody of their daughter in 2008, and in 2011 she changed her identity and relocated out of state with the help of a domestic violence agency after the father had repeatedly tracked them down.
“They walked me through everything and then they paid to have me relocated,” KC said. “It was supposed to be out of the country, but I was too afraid after the years of abuse I’d gone through, and I still believed in my country, I still believed they would protect me as long as I was telling the truth and that is not what happened.”
What happened instead was that five years after being awarded sole custody, the GAL – an attorney charged with representing the child in a custody battle – who had been assigned to her case contacted the State Police alleging KC had skipped out on court dates – which she disputes – never mentioning that KC had sole custody and essentially making the claim she had kidnapped her child, although no arrest warrants were filed.
A state trooper was able to track down her location, called her ex-boyfriend who was living in Hawaii, and gave him the information. Her ex then tracked down KC and her daughter. “He has constantly located us since that happened and that was 2013,” KC said. “He’s constantly stalking us and threatening us ever since, causing my daughter and I to move practically every year since. We moved a total of 18 times.”
Another woman, Lisa, is still in the midst of her divorce for going on nine years now. She’s racked up over $400,000 in attorney’s fees alone and has cycled through numerous attorneys who she says have all stuck by her even when she wasn’t able to pay. She also has a protective order against her ex-husband after he threatened to “bash my head in.”
Lisa says she’s owed roughly $200,000 in child support and alimony payments and despite orders from a judge, her ex continues to file motions, and file for payment modifications sending them both back to the drawing board again and again.
“It’s just been a nonstop situation of psychological abuse and harassment and from one attorney to the next,” Lisa said. “It’s hard to put into words because it’s gone on for so long and your motto is you tell the truth, you present the facts and what else is there because this is a court of law? I just wanted to be as amicable as possible in a divorce situation. I have three kids and I didn’t understand that someone was capable of pursuing all of this through the judicial system.”
Sue, whose case has seen roughly 500 motions filed, was threatened with jail if she didn’t get her 15-year-old son to visit his father, who has abused them both in the past. Her son, larger than she, refused and Sue told the court that she couldn’t force her son to go. Finally, the judge threatened her with jail time if her son did not visit his father.
“The judge put a gun to my head. Either I kick my son out and I get DCF called on me, or I go to jail. Either way, I don’t have a choice but to hand him over,” Sue said. “My son did it because he didn’t want me to go to jail, but my son is not going to able to last much longer.”
Sue says at least one visit with the father resulted in the police being called when her son told employees of a gym he attended that he wasn’t comfortable with the man. “He cannot stand his father,” she said. “He’s trying to keep his cool because he doesn’t want to start a fight.”
“What it comes down to is there’s no neutral people regulating the behavior of judges attorneys, GALs, it’s basically the wild west in our courtroom and the judge knows that he can say and do whatever he wants and there’s zero accountability and no ramifications for whatever they do,” said Jessica, a woman from Texas who now says she has been trapped in Connecticut for 8 years after she fled here with her son to escape her abusive ex.
“I had a thriving career, my family lives in Texas. Every time I try to move there, he files a motion to restrain, and the court keeps granting, forcing me to remain here against my will,” Jessica said. “I could tell you a million abusive things my ex has done to me, but the issue is the people who are enabling it. He’s still gonna be an abuser at the end of the day. If not me then somebody else, but it’s the people, the key players, that are enabling these abusers and enabling this to keep going on.”
Those women and their stories are just a few, but there are hundreds if not thousands more like them who say the family court system is rigged against women, particularly those who have suffered abuse by their exes and are now in long-standing court battles. Those court battles, they say, are used by their exes to maintain control over their lives and their children’s, threatening them not only financially, but also physically, emotionally and mentally.
Betsy Keller, a public relations professional who underwent her own extensive divorce battle in family court and helped push through Jennifer’s Law in 2021 – a redefinition of what constitutes domestic abuse spearheaded by former state senator Alex Kasser, D-Greenwich – says these kinds of “high conflict” divorce cases are different from a typical divorce.
“What happens in a normal divorce is it’s acrimonious, it’s adversarial, it doesn’t feel good. Rarely is it a mutual, good feelings for one another but you get through it,” Keller said. “They say that 95 percent of people, even though it’s adversarial, they figure it out. They end up signing the divorce decree, they mediate, they collaborate, and they get the hell out of there without spending, in Fairfield County, it could be a million dollars.”
“The 5 percent of cases that end up in a courtroom, in a trial, whether its finances or whether it’s the children, there’s a problem,” Keller said. She estimates, based on judicial statistics, that there are roughly 30,000 divorces in Connecticut each year, leaving roughly 1,500 cases that are high conflict, ending up in trial court. “It’s a red flag for an abuser, it’s a red flag for somebody who has a personality disorder. You can’t possibly be empathetic and not see that if you harm the mother, you harm the child.”
Following the Dulos case, Keller created CT Protective Moms and says she now has 400 mothers who are going through or been through acrimonious divorce cases.
“Five years ago, I founded Connecticut Protective Moms as I realized there was a need to reach out and support moms in family court and explain to them the chaos in their cases was not justice, but a industry built on the 5 percent of ‘high conflict’ cases which never end and are so lucrative to the appointed ‘professionals,’” Keller said. “What I found was none of the other mothers were talking to each other to lend support to lend information, not legal advice, but advice about how to deal with allegations of abuse. In my opinion from the thousand foot view, yes, the court is completely ignoring allegations of abuse and abuse in the past. It’s not physical harm in the present, but its coercive control and all the things that encompass that is being ignored.”
The mothers interviewed for this article also say abuse is being “swept under the rug,” in the court system and are often advised by attorneys to not even bring it up, even when there are arrests and substantiated cases of abuse because they’re afraid that they might actually lose their children if they “step out of line,” which keeps them silent as court proceedings continue for years on end.
Family court is a difficult topic to cover. Individual cases are rife with allegations on both sides, hundreds of court filings, and, generally, both parties feel they have been wronged – not just women, but men – and the truth is difficult to ascertain.
But the belief that Connecticut’s family court system is broken is shared widely among those who have been through it. When word got out through various groups in late 2022 that Connecticut Inside Investigator was looking into the systemic issues of family court, our editor was so inundated with emails, texts, and late-night phone calls that he had to change his voicemail and shut off notifications. Calls, texts, and emails have been received at our newsroom almost every day since. Further tips on this or any other topic relevant to the people of Connecticut can be submitted to tips@insideinvestgator.org.
The women from those groups interviewed, however, say they rarely talk to the media for fear of retaliation, fear of losing their custody battles.
“Many of these women in Connecticut, especially in the larger group, have already lost their children and they’re fighting desperately to get their children back. They’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars but they’re not going to come forward and jeopardize that one bit of hope,” one of the women said. “They’re not going to waste that and talk to any journalists. That’s why you’re not hearing from women, and you won’t until they’re out of the system. It’s the women that are out of the system that are helping the women in the system now.”
However, they do write letters to the governor, the attorney general, really, anyone who they think might listen and be able to enact some kind of change in the law. But they say they know the court system won’t change itself – there’s too much money at stake and too many personal associations.
“You can take all the time to file complaints against family service people, judges, attorneys – it all goes to the bar association and these people are heavily intertwined into the court system, some of them are even GALs,” Jessica said. “So, you’re going to complain about a judge to a GAL that’s supposed to hold these judges accountable when these judges are putting tens of thousands of dollars in their pockets? It’s never going to happen.”
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the family court system was skewed in the opposite direction – toward mothers. Known as the Tender Years Doctrine, the policy was a product of the 19th-century women’s rights push in Great Britain and was used by U.S. family court throughout most of the 20th century. It is probably the idea that most are familiar with when it comes to divorce: the mother gets the kids, especially if they are young, and the father has to pay.
But that doctrine has gradually fallen out of favor, with “best interest of the child,” now the main philosophy of the court system. Included in that transition away from the Tender Years doctrine, is the push by men’s rights groups with fathers who want to retain full or partial custody of their children.
For the most part, that is considered a positive development. Children tend to do better with both parents in their lives and actively engaged in their upbringing. However, that shift has had unintended consequences, according to these women, who say that push to keep fathers in the lives of their children at all costs is enabling their abusers to continue abusing them, albeit in different ways, and putting both them and their children at risk.
Connecticut established the Fatherhood Initiative in 1999 to “promote the positive involvement and interaction of fathers with their children,” according to the legislation. It was particularly focused on low-income families to encourage fathers, married or not, to remain active and engaged in the lives of their children – a noble idea, to be sure. The legislation was also tied to changes in how child support is determined and meted out in family court.
By 2003, it became the John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative, named after late state representative John Martinez, deputy speaker of the house, who passed away in 2002 and was an active member of the Fatherhood Advisory Council, according to the state’s website. That initiative became tied to federal funding in 2006 with a five-year, $5 million grant from the Department of Health and Human Services to promote responsible fatherhood in Connecticut. By 2009, legislation was enacted whereby the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services was to seek out federal and private funds to help support the state’s fatherhood initiative.
That shift toward promoting fathers in the lives of their children – again, not a bad thing in the majority of cases – was not limited to Connecticut, it was part of a broad federal push as well, particularly under President Barack Obama’s administration through the establishment of Fatherhood.gov, a website created by the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, funded by the Office of Family Assistance.
It is a “national resource for fathers, practitioners, programs/Federal grantees, states, and the public at-large who are serving or interested in supporting strong fathers and families,” according to their website.
In 2010, numerous Connecticut state agencies, including the Judicial Branch, signed onto a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to “continue to actively participate in efforts that further the objectives of the John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut, both within our respective agencies and as interagency partners,” according to the MOU. The MOU also involved actively seeking funding to promote the initiative.
The MOU encompasses a wide swath of Connecticut’s social agencies and their activities, including workforce training through the Department of Labor, assistance to incarcerated fathers through the Department of Corrections, education curricula through the State Department of Education, and to “provide Magistrate Court services for non-custodial parents, especially fathers, as it relates to access via the long established Federal Grant collaboration with the Department of Social Services,” among many other things.
So, there is clearly federal funding for Connecticut agencies tied to the fatherhood initiative, and the mothers who were in the family court system at the time of the MOU say they saw a dramatic shift in the years following: “It’s now become a bias and sexual discrimination problem,” one of the mothers said.
Danielle Pollack, policy manager for the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University, says that over the last 25 years, there has been a special emphasis on shared parenting and what’s called the “pro-contact culture,” but that doing so at all costs is not safe, particularly for children at the center of a custody case.
“Certainly, it’s a laudable goal to have healthy safe parents involved in kids’ lives whether the parents are divorced or separated or something in between,” Pollack said. “The problem is when you have domestic violence or family violence situations, and overwhelmingly the people who are perpetrating intentional and severe harms in family violence situations are predominantly male caregivers. That’s just a fact, there’s nothing ideological about it.”
“When parents can’t agree and they’re in court fighting about it, the majority of those cases have family violence allegations, whether it’s against adults or the child or a combination thereof,” Pollack said. “So, if you approach the idea that children should be equally shared amongst both parents and that should be the primary mission and the primary goal, rather than child safety and child well-being, you’re going to have some bad outcomes in those cases where children are in danger, if your primary goal is to ensure contact at all costs.”
Part of the philosophical shift in the family court system, both in Connecticut and nationally, has to do with parental alienation and reunification therapy.
Parental alienation is a term that originated from the late Dr. Richard Gardner and, according to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), is defined as “a collection of one parent’s behaviors aimed at causing the child to become alienated from the other parent.” Effectively saying that one parent is brainwashing the child against the other. However, proponents of parental alienation concept say the term does not include instances when the child is alienated from the other parent due to behavior such as abuse, addiction or abandonment.
Gardner’s work was largely self-published, lacking peer review and scientific rigor, but Pollack says it has taken hold in family courts throughout the country, particularly when there are allegations of abuse, and, as a legal strategy, it has been quite effective – part of the reason mothers now shy away from mentioning abuse in family court.
“In essence, it’s a concept that says that when moms allege abuse, they’re making it up or they’re hysterical or they’re mentally unstable or they’re vindictive and there’s not any abuse actually happening,” Pollack said. “That concept is still being used a lot in family courts everywhere when a parent, usually a father although there are exceptions, is accused of abusing the child and or the former partner. In response to that, the alleged abuser will claim the mother is alienating the child and that’s the reason the child is actually resisting contact, not that the child is actually at risk or has reasonable fears. It’s a very effective legal strategy.”
A study published by GW University and co-authored by Joan S. Meier who heads the National Family Violence Law Center, looked at 2,000 court opinions and found that courts are extremely skeptical of abuse allegations. When fathers make claims of parental alienation the courts frequently reject the abuse claims, and the mother often loses custody of the child.
“Analysis of over 2,000 court opinions confirms that courts are skeptical of mothers’ claims of abuse by fathers; this skepticism is greatest when mothers claim child abuse. The findings also confirm that fathers’ cross-claims of parental alienation increase (virtually doubling) courts’ rejection of these claims, and mothers’ losses of custody to the father accused of abuse,” the authors wrote, adding that the same did not hold true when the mother accused the father of parental alienation.
“Finally, the findings indicate that where Guardians Ad Litem or custody evaluators are appointed, outcomes show an intensification of courts’ skepticism toward mothers’ (but not fathers’) claims, and custody removals from mothers (but not fathers),” the study said. A similar finding was made in a report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, published in April 2023 and to be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council in July of 2023, which labeled parental alienation a “pseudo-concept,” by author Reem Alsalem.
“In the United States of America, data show that rates of custody losses between mothers and fathers differ significantly, depending on which parent alleges alienation,” Alsalem wrote. “When a father has alleged alienation by the mother, her custody rights have been removed 44 per cent of the time. When the situation was reversed, mothers gained custody from fathers only 28 per cent of the time. Thus, when alienation is accused, mothers were twice as likely to lose custody compared to fathers.” [Editor’s note: In an egregious attempt to conflate the anecdotal with the apocryphal, the author resorts to a statistical ‘phallacy’: e.g. Most convicted mass murderers are males, therefore if a woman is convicted, it’s likely she is innocent. The author does not say how many cases are relied on for his statistic–one could presume many or few. It may be true that twice as many women LOSE as men when trying the parental alienation strategy, BUT there’s only a 15% difference in how many women WIN when trying this court strategy compared to men by the author’s own numbers. There are likely other contributing factors at work as well. e.g. It’s widely accepted women are more often the victims of rape than men. It’s also the case more women falsely claim to have been raped than men. Some crimes and strategies are more common to one gender than the other. It may well be the case more mothers than fathers resort to parental alienation when embroiled in custody battles. The author’s statistics and anecdotal references do little to shed light on this assertion. Falsum in uno, falsum omnibus. If the author is going to resort to such statistical sophistry/fallacy, then none of his statistical arguments can be trusted.]
“The consequences of biased custody decisions can be catastrophic, resulting in specific incidents when contact has been awarded to fathers with a violent history, in the death of children and women and children being placed at gunpoint,” the report said. “In some cases, women have been imprisoned for violating custodial rights and protective restraining orders have been overturned.”
A 2011 study financed by the U.S. Justice Department found judges, attorneys, custody evaluators and other judicial employees believed that 26 percent of abuse allegations made by women were false, and 31 percent of abuse allegations made by fathers were false. Critics, however, say the actual percentage of false abuse allegations by women is significantly lower.
“Among custody evaluators, the belief that allegations of domestic violence (DV) by mothers are false was strongly related to four other beliefs: (1) DV survivors alienate children from the other parent; (2) DV is not an important factor in making custody decisions; (3) children are hurt when survivors are reluctant to co-parent, and (4) DV survivors falsely allege child abuse. Similar results were found among judges,” the study said.
The redress for parental alienation in the court system, even when there are confirmed instances of abuse against either the parent or the child is “reunification therapy,” a concept that Pollack says migrated from the family welfare system.
Essentially, when a child was removed from a parent and placed in state or foster custody, the state would attempt to reunify the child and parent to get the child out of foster care or a congregate living situation – a way to save money for the state and allow the child to rejoin their family and community for the best outcome.
But Pollack says such a system doesn’t translate well to private custody cases, where there isn’t the choice between state or foster care and an abusive parent, but rather a choice between an abusive parent and a protective parent.
In these situations, the child is required to attend this reunification therapy, even against their wishes, in order to bond with the supposedly alienated parent, something that can be damaging, coercive and troubling even in cases where there isn’t confirmed abuse.
“That’s a big business and it is also not supported by science and the purveyors of it are unregulated and they duck licensing requirements by saying that they’re ‘psychoeducational’ rather than real psychology or therapy,” Pollack said. “It’s something that has really become a cottage industry and they charge upwards of thirty or forty thousand for five days of treatment. It’s not treatment that’s valid or can be proven to be effective or beneficial for kids.”
ProPublica has documented several cases arising out of a reunification camp in Texas that children forced into those sessions said are abusive.
But the push of parental alienation and reunification therapy is deeply embedded in the court system, despite scientific misgivings.
For instance, retired Judge Lynda B. Munro previously served as the Chief Administrative Judge for Family Matters for five years in Connecticut. She developed the training process for GALs and was the Presiding Judge for the Family Division of the New Haven Superior Court.
She was also a founding board member of the Connecticut chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), a national trade association that provides services-for-hire to family courts through its members, which include judges, lawyers, mediators and custody evaluators. They also provide training for judicial employees, including in Connecticut.
AFCC has been instrumental in the push toward courts recognizing parental alienation and pushing for reunification therapy. The Connecticut chapter subsequently went defunct after it was revealed they had never registered as a business or nonprofit in the state and hadn’t made any tax filings.
Munro, after serving as the top judge in Connecticut’s family court system, continues to list her professional affiliation with AFCC and served on the Connecticut Bar Association’s Family Law Executive Committee. She then worked for Pullman & Comley, one of the largest law firms in Connecticut with deep ties to the capitol, in their Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), family and appellate law groups. She currently serves as a GAL in addition to her own legal practice.
Notably, Munro is listed as a team member for Overcoming Barriers (OCB), an organization out of Massachusetts that, up until the COVID-19 pandemic, ran reunification camps.
According to OCB’s website: “Both parents, including the favored parent and the resisted parent must attend Family Camp and other OCB programs, because each member of the family has a role to play in any solution to move the family forward. In our experience the problem is a shared and very complex issue.”
The organization now focuses on education for “clinicians, lawyers and judges who work with families in high-conflict divorces,” according to their website.
“It’s quite a business. A lot of times the courts will abdicate their decision-making power and give it to the reunification therapist,” Pollack said. “So, if the child and or the protective parent don’t meet their demands, it’s stipulated the child can never come back. In many cases, the child goes into this reunification treatment and it’s premised on a custody switch, so the child just remains in perpetuity with the alleged abusive parent.”
Casey is still embroiled in a divorce proceeding, even though it technically is over. After four years of a marriage that included escalating verbal altercations, he threatened to kill her. Shortly thereafter, he broke through a locked bathroom door and trapped her in the bathroom, physically not allowing her to leave as she screamed for help and taking away her phone so she couldn’t call the police. Casey says she thought he would kill her right then.
Casey says she managed to get out by throwing a glass bowl onto the floor “to create a distraction,” and was then able to get away. When she broke the glass bowl, her husband actually called the police. The responding officers let her stay at the house with the children and made her husband leave.
Pictures provided to CII show severe bruising on Casey’s legs following her restraint. Additionally, text messages show her husband apologizing for making the death threat.
Although no one was arrested at the time of the incident, Casey says she filed a complaint against one of the officers, at the encouragement of a Department of Children and Families (DCF) worker. The officer had made disparaging remarks about women in domestic abuse situations. Following the complaint, that officer filed an arrest warrant for both Casey and her husband. The charges against Casey were immediately dropped, but her husband was required to attend a domestic violence program.
Casey filed for a restraining order. DCF was involved because her two young children witnessed both the initial death threat and the incident in the bathroom. Casey’s husband then initiated the divorce proceeding by filing first. It was determined there should be a GAL for the children. Her husband’s attorney submitted a list of GALs to choose from, even though the court should have provided such a list. Her husband’s attorney pushed heavily for Adam Teller, an attorney with a law firm out of East Hartford.
“In no way did I want anybody they were recommending,” Casey said. “I had an attorney at the time who told me that I had no justifiable reason to say no to this person, and I was very new in my situation and abuse so, I was scared. I was scared having a male say to me you have no say, you can’t say no to this, there’s no reason to, so I was like okay, I have no choice.”
Casey says that although the GAL was assigned in July of 2020, he didn’t speak with her until March of 2022 outside an initial family demographic meeting. He never spoke to her oldest child and, to her knowledge, only once spoke to her youngest child. “To this day he has never spoken to any of the people I requested him to. There are records I have from therapists and providers that state they feel he is biased against me, and he is not there for the best interest of the children,” Casey said.
Teller immediately pushed for visitation, arranging between attorneys for all parties to arrive for a supervised visit. “Of course I’d like to speak to some of the third parties involved (therapist(s), DCF) and see the arrest warrant applications if that is possible before ramping up more access,” Teller wrote in an email. “That said, I consider an agreement for some kind of regular ongoing access with father (under whatever conditions) to be a VERY high priority and that should not wait for any specific item of information.”
The children were enrolled in therapy. Both were diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the oldest did not want to attend supervised visits with his father. The child was scared and had difficulty sleeping, according to DCF reports in Casey’s possession. According to those same reports, DCF had investigated and substantiated a child abuse allegation against the father. Although, the oldest child was refusing, the GAL continued to push for visitation.
The reports in Casey’s possession indicate the GAL did not communicate with Casey, did not acknowledge the abuse by her ex-husband and did not agree with DCF’s child abuse substantiation. Furthermore, it indicates the GAL never discussed trauma with the child, nor what the child wanted regarding visitation and continued to believe that visitation with the father was in the child’s best interest, despite the child’s fear and refusal to visit.
Teller went on to recommend to the court that his father get “full and unsupervised access starting immediately – Wednesdays, full weekends overnight, everything.”
Casey was also forced to put her children into reunification therapy, now moving on to their fourth attempt. “The first one was extremely unsuccessful,” Casey said. “The second one the judge tried to claim was successful, yet a few weeks later my ex hurt my oldest child and that landed a DCF substantiation of child abuse, so I fail to see how that’s successful.”
The third attempt was put on hold when the therapist said the child would need more time to be ready and willing for reunification, but the judge and the GAL forced the issue, saying the child now had to work with Bruce Freedman, a psychologist who also happened to be a former board member of the Connecticut chapter of AFCC.
Freedman, together with Lynda Munro and another attorney and psychologist, gave a presentation about parental alienation and child custody to the Connecticut Bar Association in June of 2019. According to Freedman’s notes, he references Gardner’s work directly and points out that parental alienation is an “active campaign, whether deliberate or unconscious, to damage a child’s relationship with the other parent.”
Freedman goes on to write: “Severe alienators may be unaware of their behavior and its effects on a child,” essentially making the argument that if you are unaware you are alienating your child from the other parent, then you may be the worst offender of all, something that leaves the parent unable to defend themselves against accusations of alienation.
Casey says Freedman’s involvement with the children was minimal and he has refused to communicate with their prior therapists. She also alleges that he was not following the judge’s orders. Representing herself, Casey filed motions to have both Freedman and Teller removed from her case. Neither were heard by the judge.
Casey then filed a complaint against Teller with the Standing Committee on Guardians ad Litem in December of 2022, which has the power to review complaints and remove GALs from their approved list. The grounds for removal is a fairly high bar. According to the 2019 Notice of Procedures, a GAL must show “an imminent risk of significant harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the public.”
Casey’s extensive complaint alleges numerous instances which she claims showed Teller’s bias toward the father, his refusal to listen to the children’s therapists, attempting to discredit DCF reports, and his continual push for extended unsupervised paternal visitation and reunification therapy. “He has put not just my life but my kids’ lives in a great deal of danger, by empowering and enabling our abuser,” Casey wrote.
Teller’s appointment as GAL was initially vacated by the judge but was then changed to “terminated” in her final decision, according to emails. Teller forwarded her a bill for $26,935 of which she is responsible to pay 30 percent – a little more than $8,000.
Although Casey filed her complaint and claims to have ample evidence, including audio recordings of the GAL speaking with her son and herself in her home which is outfitted with numerous nanny cameras, she did not hold out hope that much would be done by the GAL Committee.
Since December 2019, when the committee had finally created its process for removing a GAL based on a complaint, the committee has received 29 complaints and dismissed all of them following an executive session, according to a review of the committee’s meeting minutes.
Reached for comment via email, Teller says that he cannot comment on the matter of his representation of the children, but said he remains in good standing as a GAL.
“I can only tell you that there is no pending complaint against me with the Committee, and the Committee has never found probable cause to proceed on any complaint against me. I remain in good standing on the Committee’s list of GALs and have never been otherwise. [Casey’s] unsubstantiated claims are not news,” Teller wrote. “Neither the judge who tried her case on multiple court days over a period of 2 years, nor the Committee, nor any other objective observer, has found any reason to criticize my work as GAL.”
The complaint against Teller was dismissed during a March 2023 meeting of the committee.
“It is so hard to file for a GAL removal. I had to file my complaint myself because the attorney wouldn’t take the chance.” Casey said. “I think that attorney’s don’t want to muddy the waters with GALs they may face in future cases. They don’t want to get on their bad sides. Which makes sense in this current system.”
Although Casey still has to return to court, the final decision by the judge requires the children to continue attending reunification therapy with Dr. Freedman, and while there is joint legal custody shared between the two parents, the children remain living with Casey with no visitation orders until the completion of reunification therapy.
In her final decision the judge in Casey’s case, the judge writes that Casey “has had difficulty, if not an inability, to see beyond her history with the plaintiff. This is especially true regarding what she views as a relationship marked with intimate partner violence.” The judge goes on to write that Casey is not able to be objective and that “whether intentional or unintentional,” her feelings have spread to the children, souring their ability to visit with their father.
The judge acknowledges the fear and reluctance of the two children to visit with their father, including the father’s claim that Casey was attempting to alienate him, and goes on to praise Teller’s work as a GAL.
“The GAL has, in the court’s opinion, made Herculean efforts to meet with the parties and the children, to gather relevant information by third party providers, relatives, and DCF, and to review reports and documents to formulate an opinion as to the children’s best interests related to the custody dispute,” the judge wrote. “Most importantly, the GAL has provided guidance to the parties to assist in reunifying the children and the plaintiff.”
“From the stories I’ve heard, my case is not an outlier. When domestic abuse is involved, it seems a pretty common theme,” Casey said.
In 2021, the State of Connecticut passed Senate Bill 1091, also dubbed “Jennifer’s Law,” which expanded the definition of domestic abuse to include “coercive control.”
Coercive control doesn’t necessarily include physical violence but rather a pattern of control through intimidation, isolation, financial control, and threats. It would allow for coercive control allegations to be used in restraining orders, investigations and family court matters.
Part of the reason it was dubbed Jennifer’s Law is that Jennifer Dulos was denied a restraining order because she could not show physical abuse.
“Judge Heller, when she said no to Jennifer Dulos’s restraining order, she was following Connecticut state statute. It said imminent harm and physical danger, and the way her divorce was playing out there was emotional abuse, verbal abuse, litigation abuse,” Keller said. “Their case had 500 pleadings in only two years but none of those things counted when Judge Heller said no to a family court restraining order because coercive control was not defined in our law.”
Now, coercive control is part of Connecticut law, joining only a handful of other states, like Hawaii and Washington, in recognizing coercive control as a form of abuse that doesn’t result in physical injury and police interventions. Part of that definition of coercive control also includes “frivolous litigation.”
According to the bill analysis, “In any family relations matter, including restraining order actions involving domestic violence, if the court finds that a pattern of frivolous and intentionally fabricated pleadings or motions are filed by one party, then it must sanction the party in an appropriate manner that allows the matter to proceed without undue delay or obstruction.”
Of course, determining when filed motions are frivolous and intentionally fabricated in cases fraught with “he said/she said,” might prove difficult – and it also goes both ways. Mothers who may have had their children, rightly or wrongly, removed from their custody and are fighting to win them back could also find themselves sanctioned under the law.
The law also places new guidelines on GALs requiring them to consider “the effect of an abuser’s actions on the child, whether any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child, whether the child or his or her sibling has been abused or neglected, and the stability of the child’s existing or proposed residence.”
Although the law was seen as a massive win for women facing issues of coercive control and those critical of the family court system, Keller says the practical effects of Jennifer’s Law have not yet been seen.
“A lot of stuff ended up on the editing room floor,” Keller said, adding she believes there is resistance to the law by Connecticut judges and the Bar Association on financial grounds; “The more conflict you have, the more people get a bill.”
Liza Andrews, director of public policy and communications for the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV), says they agree that “the response of many systems, including family court, can pose challenges to survivors.” Andrews also serves on the GAL Committee.
“CCADV has in recent years worked on both legislation policy and administrative policy to strengthen that system,” Andrews said. “Some proposals have included increased judicial training, a comprehensive family court bench book focused on domestic violence, safe space in court houses for victims, and increased oversight of frivolous motions, among others. Some of these proposals have moved forward and others have not.”
CCADV offers free legal consultation and assistance in filing restraining orders for victims of domestic violence. “This is some of the work we have been focused on to help support survivors in family court,” Andrews said.
But Keller, and the other moms interviewed, say more needs to be done. That the family court system, not only in Connecticut but nationally, is still ignoring and enabling abuse, still under the sway of concepts like parental alienation, reunification, AFCC, and the ability to charge large sums of money for legal services and court-mandated interventions.
“Domestic violence has become a cash cow for a lot of people, for organizations, for the states, for people and attorneys,” one of the moms said.
Keller says, to that end, she and the other members of CT Protective Moms have been educating each other, going to court with each other for support and even representing themselves in their cases.
“We decided the best approach was to work with our moms as foot soldiers. So, I educate my moms, hundreds of them. We spend time speaking with them, going to court with them, we court watch with them, we send them materials,” Keller said. “When our team works with the mom, and we prepare them for court, they walk in and they’re having success. We have five cases where the mothers went pro se because they ran out of money and, in a way, good for them. They ran out of money and took charge of their own case instead of letting it continue and continue and create billable hours for the machine that family court is.”
While Keller referred to the family court system as a “machine,” the group of women interviewed had other words to describe it: Abusive; Corrupt; Enabling; The gateway to Hell when you walk in the door.
“It has nothing to do with kids and nothing to do with law and order,” one of them said.
Of course, such sentiments are not limited only to women and many women interviewed acknowledge that fathers are wronged by the system as well. But, they say, they want more accountability and oversight of a system they liken to the “wild west” – something that may benefit everyone involved, including men who aren’t abusive.
It is seen as a systemic logjam with few clear outlets. There is little reprieve when judges, attorneys, or GALs have made poor decisions, factual errors, failed to do their due diligence, been outwardly hostile toward one party, or even lied. And that is enabling abusers to continue inflicting emotional, psychological and financial damage.
It should be reiterated that this is not the vast majority of divorce cases, but rather the relatively few high conflict cases. Naturally, no one gets married to get divorced and it is always painful. But in these cases, there exists an elevated danger for the parties, particularly those who may find themselves in a judicial system swayed by questionable concepts and philosophies.
“The ways that state custody laws are constructed are based on ideology rather than research or science,” Pollack said.
“There’s something going on here and it’s not okay,” Sue said. “Every day, I walk around with mace in my hand, I’m still in court and the idea is to get you to the point that you give up and I’m sure I can speak for everyone here that you say is it worth it? I’ve sold everything that I have, my children and I have moved three times in the last four years. Everything we have is from tag sales. I know others have it a lot worse than me, but it doesn’t matter.”
“There needs to be a triage and a separate unit,” Sue said. “It’s not a ‘high conflict case,’ it’s something more and something needs to be done about it.”
BY: Marc E. Fitch Marc worked as an investigative reporter for Yankee Institute and was a 2014 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow. He previously worked in the field of mental health is the author of several books and novels, along with numerous freelance reporting jobs and publications. Marc has a Master of Fine Arts degree from Western Connecticut State University.
Thirteen SCOTUS Decisions on Parenting! by T. Matthew Phillips, Attorney-at-Law U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048
Meyer vs. Nebraska — (1923)
Meyer vs. Nebraska,262 U.S. 390 (1923): One hundred years ago, SCOTUS first recognized the right to parent as a “liberty” interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees. Mr. Meyer, a school-teacher, was convicted on a criminal statute for teaching the German language, in a parochial school, to a 10-year-old. SCOTUS held that the statute invaded the “liberty” interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees.
SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment, “denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” [Meyer vs. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); (bold italics added)].
“Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life,” [id. at 400]. “His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the Amendment,” [id. at 400].
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters – (1925)
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925): SCOTUS held that the 14th Amendment “liberty” interest excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children — by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.
“The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations,” [Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925); (bold italics added)].
Prince vs. Massachusetts – (1944)
Prince vs. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944): SCOTUS struck-down a state statute, which provided that no minor shall sell, in public places, any newspapers, magazines or periodicals.
“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 . . . And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,” [Prince vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); (bold italics added)].
Stanley vs. Illinois – (1972)
Stanley vs. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972): Under state law, children of unmarried fathers, upon the death of the mother, were declared wards of the state — with no hearing on the father’s fitness and no proof of child neglect by the father. The Illinois Supreme Court held that a father could be separated from his children upon mere proof that he and the dead mother were not married and they further held that father’s fitness was irrelevant. SCOTUS reversed, holding that unmarried fathers have a 14th Amendment liberty interest in raising their children.
“[T]he State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents,” [Stanley vs. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)].
“Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment petitioner was entitled to a hearing on his fitness as a parent before his children were taken from him,” [id. at 645; (bold italics added]. “Parental unfitness must be established on the basis of individualized proof,” [id. at 645].
“The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection,” [id., at 651]. “We think the Due Process Clause mandates a similar result here. The State’s interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father,” [id., at 658].
SCOTUS ruled that, under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, father was “entitled to ahearing on [his] fitness” as a parent before the state took his children and placed them in guardianships, [id., at 647–658; (bold italics added)].
Under the Due Process Clause, the state cannot “justify refusing a father a hearing when the issue at stake is the dismemberment of his family,” [id. at 658]. “[A]ll Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody,” [id., at 658; (bold italics added)].
Wisconsin vs. Yoder – (1972)
Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972): Members of the Amish community were convicted for violating the State’s compulsory school attendance law. SCOTUS reversed these convictions under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
“The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society,” [Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, at 213–214 (1972)]. “Even more markedly than in Prince, therefore, this case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children,” [id., at 232; (bold italics added)]. “This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition,” [id., at 232; (bold italics added)].
Moore vs. East Cleveland – (1977)
Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977): An Ohio housing ordinance limited occupancy of dwelling units to members of a single family; however, the ordinance defined “family” in such a way that one particular household — consisting of a mother, her son, and her two grandsons — did not qualify for occupancy, and in fact, constituted a crime. SCOTUS overturned the mother’s criminal conviction.
“Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’shistory and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural,” [Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, at 503–504 (1977); (bold italics added)].
Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families – (1977)
Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977): This case raised the novel question of whether foster homes are entitled to the same constitutional deference as biological families. SCOTUS ruled that, “[t]he liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in “this Nation’s history and tradition.” ” [Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 845 (1977), citing Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, at 503; (bold italics added)].
“If a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest, I should have little doubt that the State would have intruded impermissibly on “the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,” ” [Smith, supra, at 862-863, citing Prince vs. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944); (bold italics added)].
Quilloin vs. Walcott – (1978)
Quilloin vs. Walcott, 434U.S. 246 (1978): Georgia law required only the mother’s consent for the adoption of an illegitimate child. Here, an unmarried father tried to halt adoption of his illegitimate child. However, the father had taken no steps to support or legitimate the child over a period of 11 years; so too, the father had never been a member of the child’s family unit. As a result, SCOTUS upheld the adoption.
“We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected,” [Quilloin vs. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978); (bold italics added)]. “We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended, “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest,” ” [Quilloin, supra, at 255; citing Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 862-863 (1977); (bold italics added)].
Parham vs. J.R. – (1979)
Parham vs. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979): SCOTUS validated the State’s procedures for admitting children to state mental hospitals. “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children,” [Parham vs. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979); (bold italics added)].
“The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition,” [Parham vs. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979)]. “Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state,” [id., at 603]. “[W]e conclude that our precedents permit the parents to retain a substantial, if not the dominant, role in the decision, absent a finding of neglect or abuse, and that the traditional presumption that the parents act in the best interests of their child should apply,” [id. at 604; (bold italics added)].
Santosky vs. Kramer – (1982)
Santosky vs. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982): Under New York law, the state could terminate, over parental objection, the rights of parents in their children — upon a finding that the child is permanently neglected.
“The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State,” [Santosky vs. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); (bold italics added)]. “Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life,” [id., at 753].
“Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence,” [id., at 746; (bold italics added)]. “[U]ntil the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship,” [id., at 760); (bold italics added)].
“[T]he parens patriae interest favors preservation, not severance, of natural familial bonds,” [id., at 767–768); (bold italics added)]. “Nor is it clear that the State constitutionally could terminate a parent’s rights without showing parental unfitness,” [id., at footnote 10; (bold italics added)]. “Any parens patriae interest in terminating the natural parents’ rights arises only at the dispositional phase, after the parents have been found unfit,” [id., at footnote 17].
Rotary Int’l vs. Rotary Club of Duarte – (1987)
Rotary Int’l vs. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (1987): Rotary Int’l excluded women from membership, while Rotary Duarte admitted women; as a result, Rotary Int’l terminated Rotary Duarte’s membership in the international organization. By requiring Rotary Clubs in California to admit women, California’s anti-discrimination statute does not violate the First Amendment. So too, the statute did not unduly interfere with club members’ freedom of private association.
“We have emphasized that the First Amendment protects those relationships, including family relationships, that presuppose “deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs, but also distinctively personal aspects of one’s life.” ” [Rotary Int’l vs. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 545 (1987), citing, Roberts vs. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619-620 (1984); (bold italics added)].
Reno vs. Flores – (1993)
Reno vs. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993): Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation provided that alien juveniles — detained on suspicion of being deportable — may be released only to a parent, legal guardian, or other related adult. SCOTUS held that the regulation accords with the Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
SCOTUS held that the Due Process Clause provides heightened protection against government interference with fundamental rights and liberty interests, [Reno vs. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302 (1993)].
“ “The best interests of the child,” a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion — much less the sole constitutional criterion — for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others,” [Reno vs. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304 (1993)].
“ “[T]he best interests of the child” is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves,” [id., at 304; (bold italics added)].
Troxel vs. Granville – (2000)
Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000): The State of Washington had allowed “any person” to petition for visitation rights, and further allowed family courts to grant visitation where it served a child’s “best interests.” The grandparents, (the Troxels), successfully petitioned for visitation with the children of their deceased son. The mother, (Granville), objected to the amount of visitation ordered. The Washington Supreme Court held that state law unconstitutionally infringed on the mother’s fundamental right to parent. SCOTUS affirmed, holding that the Washington law, as applied, exceeded the bounds of the Due Process Clause. “First, the Troxels did not allege, and no court has found, that Granville was an unfit parent. There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests,” [Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, citing Parham vs. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602; (bold italics added)].
“[T]here is normally no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children,” [Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), citing Reno vs. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, at 304 (1993)].
According to the Washington Supreme Court, “the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child,” [id. at 57; (bold italics added)]. The state statute was too broad; it allowed “any person” to petition, with the only requirement being whether visitation served the child’s “best interests.” States may interfere with the right to parent only to prevent harm to a child. “[T]here is normally no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children,” [Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 58 (2000); (bold italics added)]. “[T]he State lacks a compelling interest in second-guessing a fit parent’s decision regarding visitation with third parties,” [id. at 58].
“The liberty interest at issue in this case — the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children — is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court,” [Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); (bold italics added)].
SCOTUS noted that “the Troxels did not allege, and no court has found, that Granville was an unfit parent. That aspect of the case is important, for there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children,” [id. at 68].
“In effect, the judge placed on Granville, the fit custodial parent, the burden of disproving that visitation would be in the best interest of her daughters,” [id. at 69]. “In that respect, the court’s presumption failed to provide any protection for Granville’s fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of her own daughters,” [id. at 69–70]. “Needless to say, however, our world is far from perfect, and in it the decision whether such an intergenerational relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make in the first instance. And, if a fit parent’s decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent’s own determination,” [id. at 70].
“The Washington Superior Court failed to accord the determination of Granville, a fit custodial parent, any material weight,” [id. at 72]. “As we have explained, the Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a ‘better’ decision could be made,” [id. at 72–73].
“We have long recognized that a parent’s interests in the nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” [id. at 77].
These Supreme Court case law citations form the basis of our proposed Parental Bill of Rights (click below!)
THE PARENTAL BILL of RIGHTS by T. Matthew Phillips, Attorney-at-Law U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048
A proposed BILL to ensure the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of PARENTS are honored and protected in the nation’s FAMILY COURTS.
The 14th Amendment guarantees “liberty,” which includes the People’s right to raise children; this fundamental right to parent includes the right to care, custody, and control of one’s children; so too, children enjoy an accompanying right, i.e., the right to be parented by their natural parents.
All parents are presumed fit. No court may restrict or terminate a parent’s custodial rights unless there is first a fitness trial — where the state proves child abuse or neglect by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., which can be objectively verified without resort to judicial discretion.
A properly noticed fitness trial must include: (i) notice to the accused parent concerning the factual allegations of child abuse or neglect, and (ii) an admonition that, if the accused parent is found unfit — based on clear and convincing evidence — the state may restrict or terminate that parent’s custodial rights.
Fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children; absent findings of unfitness, equal protection demands that two fit parents share equal and undivided custodial rights.
A child’s best interests reside with fit parents; absent findings of unfitness, the state may not enter the private family realm. No court has legal authority, (“jurisdiction”), to determine a child’s best interests — unless both parents are deemed unfit after a properly noticed fitness trial.
Unless there is actual harm to a child — meaning abuse or neglect as defined by black-letter law — a parent’s bad behavior or felonious misconduct provides no legal basis to restrict or terminate custodial rights. No court may restrict or terminate custodial rights as punishment for misconduct against any person, including the other parent.
All orders restricting or terminating custodial rights must include strict scrutiny analyses, i.e., was the custody order narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling gov’t interest?—and, did the court employ the least-restrictive means of effectuating that interest?
The First Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to familial association — including the right to private speech with one’s children. No court may impose time, place, or manner restrictions on a parent’s right to free speech with a child, (e.g., at supervised visits), unless that parent is found unfit.
All temporary custody orders must have expiration dates; temporary custody orders with no expiration dates are null and void. No temporary order restricting custodial rights shall remain in effect longer than 60 days, after which: (i) the order must expire, or (ii) a fitness trial must commence.
All parents in domestic proceedings are presumed innocent of criminal accusations unless or until the state, in a criminal proceeding, proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, pursuant to a criminal complaint, (“indictment”). No court may sua sponte conclude that a parent committed a crime.
E P I L O G U E
Our proposed bill declares rights that are both fundamental and well-established by the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal circuits.
“Stare decisis is not dead; it just smells funny.” T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
T. Matthew Phillips is a California attorney, musicologist, art historian, astronomer, Orwellian scholar, registered cinephile, and part-time particle physicist. TMP advocates the unconditional abolition of vaccines, GMOs, chemtrails, Tidepods, Lysol, Windex, Febreeze, glyphosate, fluoride, and mainstream science. BIO: TMP has no college degree, but he did win a spelling contest in the seventh grade. TMP is principally known, in academic circles, for his masterly translation, into Latin, of “The Wizard of Oz,” which remains, even today, the standard Latin version of that work.
Thoughts on “The Parental Bill of Rights”
KATHRINE THOMAS SO where is this at as of right now?
Theresa Sanzi Thank you for leading all the fathers in this direction. The fathers and some moms are in slavery along with their kids. This is no worse than the Slavery in the 1800s and also taking of the American Indian children. You are the strongest we have working for the American children. And their fathers. Your words have so much meaning and I hope you can demolish family court and give them some time before the kids have lost their childhood. Bless you for your gift and for working toward this.
5 08/25/2017 Petition for a Parenting Plan and or Child Support View Document Petition for a Parenting Plan and or Child Support
6 08/25/2017 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
7 08/25/2017 Declaration in Supp of Parenting Plan View Document Declaration in Supp of Parenting Plan
8 08/25/2017 Motion for Temporary Family Law Order and Restraining Order View Document Motion for Temporary Family Law Order and Restraining Order
9 08/25/2017 Affidavit of NonPayment of Public Assistance View Document Affidavit of NonPayment of Public Assistance
08/25/2017 Confidential Report in Sealed Envelope Comment copy of Birth Certificate
10 08/25/2017 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of HearingComment Temporary Parenting Plan
11 08/31/2017 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
12 09/08/2017 Temporary Parenting Plan View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
29 09/25/2017 Copy View Document Copy Comment TEXT CONVERSATION
30 09/25/2017 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration AffidavitComment ELMER LEWIS
31 09/26/2017 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
32 09/27/2017 Temporary Parenting Plan View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert DHearing Time 1:30 PMResult Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
33 09/27/2017 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Comment Temporary Parenting Plan
36 10/04/2017 Temporary Parenting Plan View Document 37 Mason Minutes View Document 38 Mason Minutes View Document 39 Mason Minutes View Document 40 Mason Minutes View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sheldon, Toni A. Hearing Time 1:30 PM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
41 10/04/2017 Order for Hearing View Document Order for Hearing
42 10/04/2017 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
43 10/10/2017 Notice of Intent to Withdraw View Document Notice of Intent to Withdraw
44 10/11/2017 Presentation of Order View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sheldon, Toni A. Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment Hearing on 10-4-17 on Courts Ruling Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
45 10/11/2017 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Comment TO 10-18-17 @ 8:30 AM
46 10/11/2017 Motion Hearing View Document 47 Mason Minutes View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Sheldon, Toni A.
10/18/2017 Presentation of Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Hearing Time 9:00 AM Comment @ 8:30 AM
48 10/18/2017 Order Appointing Parenting Evaluator Investigator View Document Order Appointing Parenting Evaluator Investigator Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment AND TEMPORARY ORDER
10/18/2017 Motion Hearing
49 11/01/2017 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration
50 11/01/2017 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
51 11/02/2017 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
53 11/09/2017 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 2:00 PM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
54 11/09/2017 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
55 11/09/2017 Order Modifying View Document Order ModifyingJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Comment Visitation Schedule
11/14/2017 Confidential Report in Sealed Envelope Comment Custody Investigator Report
57 12/01/2017 Temporary Order View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment Sonya Miles to call in at 10:30 a.m. 360-990-8677 Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN
58 12/01/2017 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
59 12/01/2017 Order Terminating View Document Order Terminating Comment Supervised Visitation
60 12/04/2017 Order Authorizing View Document Order Authorizing Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
12/04/2017 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
61 12/04/2017 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
62 01/22/2018 Certificate View Document Certificate Comment Consider the Children for Elmer Lewis
63 07/27/2018 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause
64 07/27/2018 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause
07/27/2018 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Finlay, Amber L
08/01/2018 Confidential Information Form Comment LES
65 08/03/2018 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause
66 08/03/2018 Declaration in Supp of Parenting Plan View Document Declaration in Supp of Parenting Plan
67 08/03/2018 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause
68 08/08/2018 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
69 08/10/2018 Restraining Order View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Stricken
70 08/10/2018 Hearing Stricken Not Confirmed and Not Heard View Document Mason Minutes
72 08/17/2018 Restraining Order View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties PresentPetitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
73 08/17/2018 Motion Hearing View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
74 08/17/2018 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance
75 08/27/2018 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
08/27/2018 Medical Report Comment Discharge Orders & Aftercare Plan
77 08/27/2018 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
78 08/29/2018 Declaration Affidavit View Document Declaration Affidavit Comment of Elmer Lewis
79 08/31/2018 Restraining Order View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
80 08/31/2018 Temporary Order View Document Temporary Order Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
81 08/31/2018 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
84 09/06/2018 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
85 09/07/2018 Review Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment Special Set @ 10Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
86 09/07/2018 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
87 09/07/2018 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
88 09/07/2018 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
95 09/20/2018 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
96 09/21/2018 Temporary Restraining Order View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Hayes, Lynn K Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
98 09/21/2018 Temporary Order View Document Temporary Order
99 10/01/2018 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration Comment FOR ORDER TO WAIVE MEDIATION, ADDRESS RESTRAINING ORDER AND SCHEDULE TRIAL DATE
100 10/01/2018 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment TEMPORARY ORDER
102 10/05/2018 Temporary Order View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AMResult Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
103 10/05/2018 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
104 10/05/2018 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
105 10/05/2018 Order View Document Order Comment Terminating Restraints
106 12/13/2018 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
107 05/17/2019 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause
108 05/17/2019 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause
05/17/2019 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
117 05/30/2019 Proposed Parenting Plan View Document Proposed Parenting Plan
118 05/30/2019 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message
119 05/30/2019 Copy View Document Copy Comment VISIT SUMMARY FROM ER
120 05/30/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
121 05/31/2019 Restraining Order View Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
05/31/2019 Temporary Parenting Plan Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM
122 05/31/2019 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
123 05/31/2019 Order View Document Order Comment TEMPORARY & TRIAL SETTING
124 06/19/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
125 06/19/2019 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration
126 06/19/2019 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing Comment SCHEDULED FOR MAY 28TH 2019
127 06/19/2019 Motion for Order to Show Cause View Document Motion for Order to Show Cause
132 06/21/2019 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
133 06/24/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
134 06/28/2019 Show Cause/Contempt View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
06/28/2019 Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM
135 06/28/2019 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
136 06/28/2019 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
139 07/10/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
140 07/10/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service Comment BY MARISSA CAVANAUGH
141 07/10/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service Comment BY ANGELICA ZAMBRANO
142 07/12/2019 Show Cause View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AMResult Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
143 07/12/2019 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
144 07/12/2019 Temporary Family Law Order View Document Temporary Family Law Order Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
145 07/12/2019 Temporary Family Law Order View Document Temporary Family Law Order Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
07/12/2019 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
146 07/15/2019 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of Mailing
147 07/17/2019 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration Comment FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA KATHY AUSETH
148 07/17/2019 Order Authorizing View Document Order Authorizing Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
07/17/2019 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
149 07/17/2019 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit 150 150 DeclarationView Document Subpoena Comment FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA BRITTANY PARTON
151 07/17/2019 Order Authorizing View Document Order AuthorizingJudicial Officer Goodell, Daniel LComment FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
152 07/17/2019 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit Declaration Comment FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA GAIL REED
07/17/2019 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
153 07/17/2019 Order Authorizing View Document Order AuthorizingJudicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L Comment FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
154 07/17/2019 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
08/13/2019 Non-Jury Trial Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Hearing Time 9:00 AM
165 08/13/2019 Exhibit List View Document Exhibit List
166 08/13/2019 Stipulation and Order for Return of Exhibits and or Unopen View Document Stipulation and Order for Return of Exhibits and or Unopen Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
167 08/13/2019 Witness List View Document Witness List
168 08/14/2019 Parenting Plan Final Order View Document Parenting Plan Final Order Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
169 08/14/2019 Child Support Worksheet View Document Child Support WorksheetJudicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
170 08/14/2019 Order for Support View Document Order for Support Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
171 08/14/2019 Judgment Final Ord and Findings for Par Plan or Support View Document Judgment Final Ord and Findings for Par Plan or Support Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
172 08/14/2019 Trial Minutes View Document Trial Minutes Comment 2 day trial 8/13/19 and 8/14/19
173 09/13/2019 Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeals View Document Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeals
174 09/13/2019 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
175 10/16/2019 Transmittal Letter Copy Filed View Document Transmittal Letter Copy Filed Comment COA
177 06/12/2020 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
178 06/12/2020 Case Information Cover Sheet View Document Case Information Cover Sheet
06/12/2020 Sealed Confidential Reports Cover Sheet Comment HEALTH
191 06/12/2020 Temporary Family Law Order View Document Temporary Family Law OrderJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
192 06/12/2020 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
193 06/15/2020 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
194 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB A
195 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB B
196 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB C
197 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB D
198 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB E
199 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB F
200 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB G
201 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB H
202 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB I
203 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB J
204 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB K
205 06/16/2020 Social Media Message View Document Social Media Message Comment TEXT MESSAGES EXB L
206 06/18/2020 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
207 06/22/2020 Show Cause View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment 1000A Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
208 06/22/2020 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
209 06/22/2020 Order of Continuance View Document Order of Continuance
221 07/09/2020 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
222 07/13/2020 Show Cause View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment 11:00a Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
223 07/13/2020 Motion Hearing View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D
224 07/13/2020 Order Re Adequate Cause Denied View Document Order Re Adequate Cause Denied Judicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert D Comment AND DENYING PETITION
225 07/13/2020 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
07/22/2020 Case Resolution Statistical Completion
226 02/26/2021 Correspondence View Document Correspondence Comment RE PT EXHIBITS
227 02/26/2021 Correspondence View Document Correspondence Comment RE RSP EXHIBITS
228 04/09/2021 Affidavit View Document Affidavit Comment OF DESTRUCTION
232 10/18/2021 Copy View Document Copy Comment SPD Call Log
233 10/18/2021 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
234 10/18/2021 Motion Hearing View Document Motion Hearing Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D Comment Ex Parte
235 10/18/2021 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
236 10/25/2021 Show Cause/Contempt Original Type Show Cause/Contempt View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Continued Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN
241 04/26/2022 Copy View Document Copy Comment Text Message 3.11.2022
242 04/26/2022 Copy View Document Copy Comment Text / Call Records 4.02.2022
243 04/26/2022 Copy View Document Copy Comment Text Messages
244 04/26/2022 Copy View Document Copy Comment Text Messages
245 04/26/2022 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show Cause Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
04/26/2022 Ex Parte Action With Order Judicial Officer Cobb, Monty D
246 05/02/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
247 05/09/2022 Show Cause/Contempt Original Type Show Cause/Contempt View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
255 05/16/2022 Show Cause/Contempt Original Type Show Cause/Contempt View Document Mason Minutes Judicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine Hearing Time 9:00 AM Result Held Comment Elmer Lewis called to confirm at 8:31 AM on 5/11/2022Parties Present Petitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN Respondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
08/17/2022 Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause View Document Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show CauseJudicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
08/17/2022 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show CauseJudicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, CadineComment NOTED ON DOC @ 231
08/17/2022 Motion Hearing
08/22/2022 Motion and Affidavit Declaration View Document Motion and Affidavit DeclarationComment for Order Amending Immediate Restraining Order
08/22/2022 Proposed Order Findings View Document Proposed Order Findings
08/22/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
08/22/2022 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion PetitionJudicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
08/22/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion HearingJudicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, CadineComment Ex Parte
08/26/2022 Report View Document ReportComment Mason County Sheriff
08/29/2022 Show Cause Judicial Officer Butler, Tirsa CHearing Time 9:00 AMCancel Reason Duplicate Hearing
08/29/2022 Adequate Cause Judicial Officer Butler, Tirsa CHearing Time 9:00 AMCancel Reason Duplicate Hearing
08/29/2022 Restraining Order Original Type Restraining OrderView Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa CHearing Time 9:00 AMResult HeldComment ADEQUATE CAUSE, TEMP RESTRAINING ORDER & SHOW CAUSE ORDER ** CONFIRMED via phone 8/23/2022 by Elmer Lewis. -BHParties PresentPetitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLENRespondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
08/29/2022 Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing Notice View Document Extension of Immediate Restraining Order and Hearing NoticeJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa C
08/29/2022 Order on Contempt View Document Order on ContemptJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa C
09/14/2022 Order to Show Cause View Document Order to Show CauseJudicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, Cadine
09/14/2022 Motion Hearing View Document Motion HearingJudicial Officer Ferguson-Brown, CadineComment Ex Parte
09/19/2022 Restraining Order Original Type Restraining OrderView Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa CHearing Time 9:00 AMResult HeldComment Elmer Lewis confirmed in person at the counter on 9/12/2022 at 9:09 AMParties PresentPetitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLENRespondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
09/19/2022 Restraining Order View Document Restraining OrderJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa C
09/19/2022 Order Re Adequate Cause Granted View Document Order Re Adequate Cause GrantedJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa C
09/19/2022 Parenting Plan Temporary View Document Parenting Plan TemporaryJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa C
09/20/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
09/23/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
09/26/2022 Show Cause/Contempt Original Type Show Cause/ContemptView Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa CHearing Time 9:00 AMResult HeldComment Received confirmation phone call on 9/21/22 @3:36 pm from Tera Reed – SLParties PresentPetitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLENRespondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANN
11/08/2022 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
11/08/2022 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
11/21/2022 Temporary Parenting Plan Original Type Temporary Parenting PlanView Document Mason MinutesJudicial Officer Butler, Tirsa CHearing Time 9:00 AMResult HeldComment ELMER CONF BY PHONE ON 11/15/22 AT 11:35AM HWParties PresentPetitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLEN
01/11/2023 Order Denying Motion Petition View Document Order Denying Motion PetitionJudicial Officer Goodell, Daniel L
04/04/2023 Notice of Appearance View Document Notice of Appearance
04/13/2023 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service
04/13/2023 Motion View Document MotionComment Motion and Declaration for order waving mediation requirement and scheduling trial date
04/13/2023 Notice of Hearing View Document Notice of Hearing
04/26/2023 Waive Mediation/Arbitration Original Type Waive Mediation/ArbitrationJudicial Officer Sauerlender, Robert DHearing Time 1:30 PMResult HeldComment and set trial date Elmer called to confirm 4/20/2023 @ 9:35am. HB Renee Stein (RStein Law) confirmed via email on 4.24.23 at 12:46pm AHParties PresentPetitioner (WIP): LEWIS, ELMER ALLENRespondent (WIP): REED, TERA ANNAttorney: Stein, Renee’ Elizabeth
04/26/2023 Declaration of Mailing View Document Declaration of MailingComment E-Mailed
04/26/2023 Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of Service View Document Affidavit Declaration Certificate Confirmation of ServiceComment Hand-Delivered
This article explains how divorce and family law trials work in Washington State, and it’s written with the expectation you might try representing yourself, sometimes called “pro se” representation. Despite skimming over many details, this explains what we think the typical family law litigant most needs to know. It’s divided into eight parts, which you can skip to by clicking these links:
Unless the parties settle beforehand, divorce and family law cases end in a “bench trial”. That means the final decision come from a judge. There is no jury.
People typically begin preparing for trial over a month in advance, and those preparations become rigorous the two weeks prior to trial.
During the preparation stage, each party usually drafts a trial notebook for submission to the court and the other parties. Each copy of a trial notebook should contain, at a minimum, the parties’ trial brief and intended exhibits.
The trial itself has four stages: 1) opening statements (optional), 2) presentation of live testimony and exhibits, 3) closing arguments, and 4) the judge’s decision.
Opening statements are an opportunity to explain the case to the judge. Petitioner goes first, followed by respondent, followed by other parties, if any.
After opening statements, petitioner has the opportunity to present testimony and exhibits. This is done by calling witnesses forward to sit in front of the judge and answer questions.
When a party calls a witness to testify, it’s referred to as direct examination, or simply direct. Upon completion of petitioner’s direct examination of a witness, respondent can cross examine the same witness, sometimes simply called cross. If there are other parties, they can take turns crossing the witness as well. Then petitioner can ask questions of that same witness again, called re-direct. Finally the other parties can once again cross examine the witness, called re-cross. Typically the parties finish examining a witness – direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross – before moving on to another witness. All petitioners witnesses go one after the other.
Respondent calls witnesses next. The process is essentially the same as when petitioner called witnesses. It begins with respondent’s direct examination of the witnesses, followed by petitioner and other parties cross examining the witness, followed by re-direct, and re-cross.
Once respondent has no more witnesses, other parties, if any, call theirs.
Parties introduce exhibits – usually documents – through the witnesses’ testimony. The witnesses have to provide foundation for the exhibits to come into evidence. Foundation means establishing basic information about an exhibit and the witness’s knowledge of it.
Parties sporadically object during presentation of witnesses and exhibits. For example, a party might say “Objection, hearsay”. The judge will then rule one whether the witnesses’ statement or the proffered exhibit should be allowed. The judge will usually give his or her decision by saying “sustained” or “denied”. These terms can be confusing even though we frequently see people use them on TV. “Sustained” means the court agrees with the objection, and the witness’s statement or exhibit is DISALLOWED. “Denied” means the court disagrees with the objection, and the witness’s statement or exhibit is “allowed in”. The phrase “allowed in” or “comes in” means the judge can consider the information when rendering his or her final decision in the case.
After each party has finished calling all his or her witnesses, the petitioner is allowed to call rebuttal witnesses. The process is the same – direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross. Respondent can then call rebuttal witnesses, followed by other parties’ rebuttal witnesses, if any.
Once all parties have “rested” (are finished calling witnesses), it’s time for closing arguments. Each party is allowed to orally explain why he or she should win. As usual, petitioner goes first, then respondent, followed by any other parties.
At last, the judge renders a decision.
II. Local Rules.
Each of Washington’s counties have their own applicable local rules in addition to what this article explains. You can find each counties’ local rules here. You might try at least reading the local civil rule on trial assignment (usually local civil rule 40) and any local rules for divorce and family law proceedings (try searching the local rules for the keywords “divorce”, “family law”, and “domestic”). You should also follow any scheduling order the county court issues in your case. Scheduling orders sometimes create unique procedural requirements, such as the need to disclose witnesses and evidence before trial. The county’s family law facilitator(s) can help you follow the county’s scheduling orders and local court rules. Meeting with a family law facilitator costs about $10 per session, and facilitators are typically located in the county’s superior court building.
Aside from the scheduling order and local rules, this guide probably explains the most essential aspect of your upcoming trial.
III. 35+ Days Before Trial.
Ideally you should start planning your trial at least 35 days in advance. The focus of this early preparation is identifying your intended exhibits and witnesses, if you haven’t already. No state-level rule requires you to disclose your exhibits or witnesses to the other party prior to trial, but disclosure might be necessary under local rules, a scheduling order, or a discovery request. Our firm has or will write a separate article on discovery.
You’ll want to determine your exhibits and witnesses promptly even if there is no early disclosure requirement applicable to you. As explained next, you’ll need to know your intended exhibits and witnesses to draft an ER 904 notice and arrange witness testimony.
1. ER 904 Notice. If at all possible, you should submit an ER 904 notice at least 30 days before trial. ER 904 stands for Washington Evidence Rule 904. In short, this evidence rule allows you to propose to the opposing party your intended exhibits at least 30 days in advance of trial. Any documents on the list become automatically admissible at trial unless the other side objects to them within 14 days of receiving the notice.
The idea is to make it faster and easier for undisputed, trustworthy documents to come in. Documents that commonly come into evidence this way include bank statements, credit card statements, bills and invoices, the parties’ family pictures, medical records, text messages, and police reports.
Getting documents in this way can greatly increase your odds of winning, especially if you don’t have an attorney. It’s common for unrepresented parties to have extreme difficulty getting documents admitted into evidence at trial otherwise. The evidence rules for trial are complex and often require you to introduce documents using the right words and witnesses. For example, business documents that don’t come in through ER 904 usually need to be “authenticated” at trial by the business’s “records custodian”. That’s a mess you should avoid if you can. You might consider offering all your intended exhibits through ER 904 if you’re pro se.
Our firm’s template ER 904 notice is available here. Of course remove any reference to our firm. Then fill out the template, number and attach each of your exhibits, make copies, and have an adult (other than you) deliver a set directly to the opposing party or drop off the set at opposing counsel’s office. Have the same person deliver identical sets to all parties in the case, such as the Guardian ad Litem and the state prosecutor’s office, if they’re involved in the case. Save a set for yourself. Then court file the notice WITHOUT the attached exhibits. Have the person who delivered the documents take note of the date deliveries occurred, and include him or her among your intended trial witnesses. You’ll need him or her to testify about submitting the ER 904 notice on time.
If you need to object to any documents an opposing party has offered under ER 904, here is our firm’s template. Fill it out, deliver copies to the parties or their attorneys, keep a copy for yourself, and court file the original. Don’t object to all the other side’s documents out of spite. The trial judge can sanction you for objecting without basis.
2. Subpoena/Notify Witnesses. Once you’ve figured who you intend to call as your witnesses, make arrangements for them to testify live at trial. Arranging for testimony often entails nothing more than asking witnesses to show up in-person. Telephonic testimony, video testimony, affidavits, and written declarations generally aren’t allowed. Judges will occasionally allow telephonic or video testimony, but only in extreme circumstances, such as during the COVID pandemic.
You probably shouldn’t arrange for your children to testify, especially if they’re minors and the children of the opposing party. Washington calls it “putting the children in the middle”, and it can lead to a presumption you’re a bad parent.
If a witness might not show up voluntarily, subpoena him or her. You can find our firm’s template subpoena by clicking here. Only fill out the relevant sections. The subpoena should be served upon the witness directly if possible, and the person effecting service should fill out a document proving service took place. The template for proof of service is here. A trial subpoena subjects witnesses to possible arrest if they don’t show up to testify.
Subpoenas cannot force a witness to travel long distances. You can find the geographic limitations of subpoenas in CR 45(e)(2).
Obtaining deposition testimony from uncooperative witnesses who live far away is possible but difficult and expensive. An explanation would exceed the scope of this article unfortunately.
IV. Two Weeks Before Trial (the most important part).
Preparation can make all the difference, so attorneys (or at least good attorneys) often dedicate themselves exclusively to trial-related work during the week or two in advance. You should do the same if you want to perform well.
This is where you essentially draft nearly everything you intend to say and do at trial. Unexpected events always occur, which means these plans cannot be rigid. But your preparations should be thorough. The most famous and successful trial attorneys have one thing in common – careful and complete preparation.
It is also advisable to have a theme, or story, that you weave throughout the trial. A theme might be something such as “the other party is highly abusive and controlling”, “the other party lies a lot”, or “I just need enough financial help to finish college”. A story might be a simple, easy-to-summarize plot that the judge can relate to. Weave that theme or story into everything you do to the extent possible. Otherwise the facts you present at trial will seem unconnected to the judge, and he or she will be less likely to remember them. With any theme or story for trial, repeat it. Emphasize the key points in the evidence you present. The judge should be reciting your theme/story in his or her sleep after the trial. To accomplish this, you should weave it into all your drafting preparations.
The following are typical preparations during the two-week homestretch.
1. Trial Confirmation. Depending on the court’s local rules, you might need to “confirm” around two weeks prior to your trial date. Confirmation signals to the court that you intend to go forward with the trial. If confirmation is required and no party does it, the court usually strikes the trial date. Sometimes failure to confirm results in a judge dismissing the case in its entirety, forcing you to start over again. Generally you’ll have received something in writing warning you of the need to confirm, if applicable. To be on the safe side, you might ask the county’s family law facilitator whether confirmation is necessary and how it’s done.
2. Exhibits. Print and number your anticipated exhibits.
3. Outlines. You should draft outlines of what you intend to say at trial. Those outlines typically include the following:
A. Opening Statement. Opening statement is an opportunity to orally convey what type of case it is, what you are asking for, and the facts of the case. You are not allowed to “argue”. In this context, argue means to construe the facts, mention the law, or explain why you should win. You can simply state what happened, without coloration. If you state the right facts in the right order, the listener often emotionally sides with you anyhow.
Given that there is no jury, opening statements tend to be redundant of what you will write to the court in your trial brief. Family law attorneys often agree ahead of time to waive opening statements in an effort to reduce preparation time.
If you do not waive your opening statement, you should expect to spend significant time on it. Create a bullet point outline, and practice, practice, practice. Don’t expect to read it to the judge. Reading an opening statement largely defeats the point and can even cause the judge annoyance. Instead rehearse enough that you can look the judge in the eye and speak with inflection.
B. Direct Examination Questions for Each Witness You Intend to Call. Direct examination is the term for asking questions of yourself and your own witnesses. You should outline the questions you intend to ask, often with a bullet point list or on some index cards. This ensures you don’t waste the court’s time thinking of what to say at trial. Wasting time makes judges grumpy.
Leading questions generally aren’t allowed on direct examination. A leading question is one that suggests the answer to the witness, essentially leading him or her to answer with the details you want. Yes or no questions are often leading, but not always. Typically a question is leading if it includes significant information that has not yet come into evidence. This is probably leading: “John got angry, start yelling, and then punch my son in the nose two weeks ago, correct?” This probably is not: “Has John hit my children?” Admittedly, the determination of whether a question is leading is a gray area.
Judges sometimes grant permission to ask leading questions on direct if your witness demonstrates evasiveness or hostility towards you. This might happen if you call one of the opposing party’s family members as a witness to a domestic violence incident. Ask the judge for “permission to treat the witness as hostile.” If the judge grants your request, leading questions are allowed.
Witnesses generally cannot testify about hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the statement. It’s a difficult and nuanced definition, but typically hearsay means relating someone else’s out-of-court communication. For example, “Sally said John hit her” is probably hearsay. The speaker doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of whether John hit Sally. The speaker is retelling what Sally said. You’d need someone who saw the event or the physical aftermath to explain what he or she saw. Organize your questions to avoid hearsay if possible.
There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, most of which are relatively rare. The most common exception is a statement by the other party, called “admission of a party opponent”. A witness can testify about what the other side communicated. For example, in a divorce you could say “My spouse said John hit Sally.”
Introduce all your intended exhibits through your own testimony or your witnesses, if possible. Introducing the exhibits through your witnesses is easier than trying to do it through the other side’s. Presumably your witnesses will want to cooperate; the other side’s might not.
Admission of ER 904 documents can often be done by agreement with the other side on the record. If not, you can call as witness the person who served the ER 904 notice. You just need to establish that the documents were served on time and the other side made no objection within the 14-day window. Then ask the court to admit the documents into evidence.
Introducing exhibits that don’t come in through ER 904 can be trickier, because you need to establish foundation. Generally the following script will work:
[You:] Your Honor, I am handing to the witness what I had pre-marked as document [#]. [Hand the document to the witness.] [You to the witness:] Do you recognize this document? [Witness:] Yes. [You to the witness:] What is it? [Witness says what the document is.] [You to the witness:] How do you know? [Witness explains how he or she knows about the document, such as if he or she drafted it, created, etc.] [You:] I move to admit this into evidence. [Judge rules on whether to admit.]
Usually written documents should be introduced through someone with first-hand knowledge of them, such as the person who drafted them, created them, or can verify circumstances suggesting the opposing party drafted or created them.
Practice with your witnesses so you know what they’ll answer to your questions. At trial, you should never ask a witness a question unless you know the answer.
C. Cross Examination of Opposing Party’s Anticipated Witnesses. Cross examination is when you pose questions to the other side and his or her witnesses. The main difference between direct and cross is you can ask leading questions. In fact, most questions on cross are leading. Done right, it’s almost as if you’re testifying and simply asking the other side to confirm. Never ask a question on cross unless you know the answer and can prove it with a reliable document. Otherwise the question is likely to lead to an answer that hurts your position. Take the following script as an example of effective cross:
[You to the opposing party:] Isn’t it true you punched our son in the head two weeks ago? [Opposing party:] No, that’s not true. [You:] Your Honor, I’m handing the witness Exhibit 10. [You hand the witness a police incident report.] [You:] What is this document? [Opposing party:] I dunno. [You:] Isn’t this the police incident report from two weeks ago? [Opposing party:] Maybe. [You:] Would you mind flipping to page two, lines 11-13? [Opposing party flips to the page.] [You:] Isn’t that your statement to the police? [Opposing party:] It might be. [You:] Isn’t that your name and signature at the bottom of the page? [Opposing party:] Maybe. [You:] On lines 11-13, doesn’t it say, quote “During the fight, I got so mad I punched him in the nose”? [Opposing party:] Maybe.
You aren’t supposed to harass or argue with a witness on cross. Questions can be deemed argumentative. Save argument for closing arguments, which is next.
D. Closing Argument. Closing argument is your last word to the judge before he or she renders a decision. In it, you can talk about the facts, the law, and why you think you should win. You cannot refer to facts that weren’t part of allowed oral testimony or in the admitted exhibits.
Some attorneys prefer drafting their closing arguments in advance, ensuring adequate time to write and rehearse. Others prefer waiting until the end of trial, so they can structure the argument according to what transpires. Like with opening statements, you should avoid reading to the judge if possible. Use an outline, try to look the judge in the eye, and speak with inflection. Speak slowly. Speaking slowly helps with your delivery and allows the judge to take notes. Judges often write their thoughts nonstop during closing arguments.
4. Trial Brief. Your trial brief is what you submit in writing to the judge (and other parties). It should tell the court your position, the most relevant facts, and any law you’d like to bring to the court’s attention. Click here for an example.
Along with your trial brief, you should provide your proposed parenting plan (if relevant), your proposed child support worksheets (if relevant), your financial declaration (if any financial issues are at stake), and an asset/debt spreadsheet (if dividing property). Click here for an example asset/debt spreadsheet. Include the parenting plan, proposed child support worksheets, financial declaration, and asset/debt spreadsheet as exhibits in addition to being trial brief attachments.
5. Motions in Limine. Motions in limine are motions at the beginning of trial. Usually they pertain to evidentiary issues, such as whether to allow witness to testify by phone. Those same issues can be addressed when they arise during the trial, but presenting them as motions in limine can be better for you and the court, because it provides an opportunity to fully brief the court on the issue. Click here for an example motion in limine. Self-represented parties rarely file motions in limine, but they should if they have the time.
6. Pocket Briefs. A pocket brief is like a motion in limine’s little brother. It’s an evidentiary brief you can use during the middle of the case if an anticipated evidentiary issue arises. Click here for an example. Pocket briefs are rare for both attorneys and self-represented parties, but they can provide a significant advantage. Our firm uses them regularly.
7. Trial Notebook. A trial notebook is an organized compilation of the documents you are supposed to provide to everyone at the beginning of trial. It typically consists of a table of contents, your trial brief (and attachments, if any), your motion(s) in limine, a numbered list of your intended exhibits, and each of your exhibits.
Usually you prepare four sets – one for the opposing party, a working copy for the judge, the original for the clerk (the official set), and one for yourself. If there are additional parties, such as a GAL or state prosecutor, you should prepare sets for them as well. Judges appreciate if you hole-punch each set, place each set in its own three-ring binder, and tab your exhibits with their numbers.
V. Pretrial (the day of trial).
Some counties assign cases to trial judges in advance of trial. In other counties, you show up for “trial call” on the morning of your trial date for assignment to a judge. Once you learn of your judge, you walk to his or her courtroom with all your documents.
Unless local rules say otherwise, you give the trial notebooks to their intended recipients when you reach your assigned judge’s courtroom. If local rules did not require advance notice of motions in limine, you should inform the clerk if you have any motions you want heard. Then you wait, often for several hours, while everyone reviews each other’s trial notebooks. The judge usually reviews them in an office behind the courtroom. Take this chance to review the other side’s motions in limine and exhibits. Make notes of what you intend to say in response to the motion(s) and any objections you intend to make to exhibits. You might want to speak with opposing counsel about agreeing to the admission of exhibits you don’t intend to object to.
In some counties, such as King County, much of this information will have been exchanged in advance of trial, and there will be no need to review trial notebooks. Trial begins immediately.
VI. Trial.
Honestly, most of the work is done by the time you get to this point. You’ve already prepared everything, and now you just put that preparation into play in the following order:
1. Opening Statements. As mentioned above, opening statements are optional. You can object to the opposing party’s opening statement if he or she goes beyond the scope of what is allowed. The objection is typically phased, “objection, argumentative.”
2. Motions in Limine. Each party is allowed to present his or her motions in limine, the other party is allowed to orally respond, and the court makes rulings.
3. Testimony and Evidence. After any motions in limine, petitioner is allowed to put on his or her case. As mentioned above, this means petitioner calls each of his or her witnesses for direct examination. After direct examination, there may be cross, re-direct, and re-cross. Re-direct is limited to asking questions that rebut cross examination, and re-direct is similarly limited to rebutting or clarifying the answers to re-direct. Re-direct and re-cross are rare. Often our firm’s attorneys don’t even cross, because we can usually get the same information in through our own witnesses, who are more cooperative.
There are countless objections at this stage in the case, but the most common are “hearsay” and “foundation”. As discussed above, hearsay typically means the witness has related what someone said rather than relating his or her first-hand knowledge. A party can also object to a document as hearsay if it contains an out-of-court statement. That’s yet another reason you hopefully got your documents in through ER 904, discussed in section III(1), above.
Foundation usually means the witness has not demonstrated he or she has sufficient knowledge to introduce an exhibit. If you encounter this objection, remember the script from section IV(3)(b), above. You can often cure an objection and still get the document or information. You do so by asking the witness the appropriate question(s) to overcome the basis for the objection.
4. Closing Arguments. Once all parties have rested, the court usually takes a short recess or adjourns for the parties to finalize their closing arguments. Once trial resumes, petitioner presents oral argument first, followed by respondent. Then the court typically gives petitioner the opportunity for a short rebuttal, called a reply.
5. Judge’s Decision. The judge usually adjourns to review exhibits and draft an oral or memorandum decision. The decision is usually ready several days or weeks later. Memorandum decisions are typically sent to the parties, so there is no need to return to the courtroom for the result. If the judge elects to render an oral decision, the parties return to the courtroom upon a date set by the judge. The parties take notes while the judge states or reads the oral decision. Don’t worry too much about getting all the information in your notes. A court reporter transcribes the oral decision, and either party can order the transcript.
VII. Entering Orders.
After the decision is rendered, the substantially prevailing party customarily drafts final orders for the court’s signature. You can usually find templates for the final orders on the state’s mandatory forms website. For example, a divorce trial would often end with entry of a decree, findings of fact, parenting plan, child support order, and child support worksheets, which you can find in this section of the state’s mandatory forms website. Once the prevailing party has drafted the orders, he or she sends them to the other party to review. Typically the other party requests changes. If the parties can agree to the wording of the final orders, they sign and submit them to the judge for entry. If they cannot agree, the judge or one of the parties sets a presentation hearing, where the judge resolves the drafting disputes and signs the orders into effect. If the court is entering a parenting plan, the parties must submit to a JIS background check so the judge can determine whether the child(ren) would be safe in each parties’ care. The court will typically walk a pro se party through the JIS process.
That’s it! We hope you found this article useful. We at Genesis believe in making high quality legal information freely available on the internet. You can find many more articles, guides, and videos by clicking our website’s resources tab.
Comment below to tell us and other readers about our article(s), how we can improve them, and additional topics you would like our article(s) to address.
Free legal research tools used to be a dream. High-quality legal research is a necessity for all law firms—after all, finding the right precedent or statute could give you the edge to win your case—but does it have to be expensive?
In the past, paid research platforms were the only choice, so we accepted legal research tools as a costly-but-necessary expense for law firms. Today, however, the landscape of the industry has changed dramatically, with numerous excellent free tools available online—making free legal research a viable option for law firms looking to allocate funds to other areas of their practice, without compromising the quality of their research.
The only catch? You have to know where to look.
Below, we’ve collected some of the best free legal research tools for law firms. Whether you want to add in new resources to your legal research portfolio or paid legal research is straining your firm’s budget, these free tools will help you present your best case—without the big financial investment.
7 Free legal search engines and databases
The combination of more legal resources being digitized and the development of new technologies means that there’s now an overwhelming amount of legal information that can be found online. The good news? Many of these legal research resources can be found online for free (If you want to really dive deep, browse this comprehensive resource for an in-depth listing of free legal research options.)
Below, we’ve curated seven of the best free search engines and databases help you sort through the information to find exactly what you need for your legal research:
1. Fastcase: For an online law library
As one of the largest online law libraries in the world, Fastcase provides online access to case law, statutes, regulations, constitutions, court rules, and law review articles—making legal research and analysis faster and easier.
And, thanks to an integration with Clio, using Fastcase makes it simple to accurately monitor the time you spend on legal research and keep your research well-ordered. Without ever having to leave Fastcase, the Clio integration allows you to:
Create Clio time entries for time spent on research
Save your results as case documents in Clio
Keep your research organized according to each case
While Fastcase offers a variety of paid desktop plans (you can try a free trial to test them out), their free mobile app is available for iOS, Android, and Windows Phone—and anyone with the app can access Fastcase’s comprehensive legal research database on the go, for free.
Fastcase also has the most member benefit deals with bar associations of any legal research provider. You may already have access through your bar dues.
Sponsored by the Non-Profit Free Law Project, CourtListener is a legal research website featuring millions of legal opinions from federal and state courts. Search CourtListener by case name, topic, or citation—the data is all free to access and updated daily.
3. Caselaw Access Project: For book-published case law
As part of a mission to make all published US court decisions freely available to publish online, the Caselaw Access Project (CAP) offers free access to all official, book-published US case law—every volume designated as an official report of decisions by a court within the United States through June 2018 (Fun fact: The earliest case available is from 1658.). The 360 years of United States case law data was digitized from the collection of the Harvard Law Library.
4. FindLaw: For searchable Supreme Court decisions
Designed to make the law more accessible to all, FindLaw’s FindLaw for Legal Professionals division offers free online legal content including case law from state and federal courts, case summaries, statutes, and legal news.
FindLaw also offers a browsable, searchable database of US Supreme Court decisions since 1760. Browse Supreme Court opinions by year and US Reports volume number, or search by party name, case title, citation, full text, and docket number. FindLaw also features an archive of Supreme Court opinion summaries since the year 2000.
5. Legal Information Institute: For US law online and a legal encyclopedia
Legal Information Institutes (LII) are a global resource that offers open access to law knowledge. There are over 46 LII associations around the world that publish source law through their own search engines, providing freely accessible case laws, regulations, and statutes unique to those countries.
The Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell Law School provides access to most US laws online for free, making it a good resource when you need to find a statute or regulation, while also providing online access to legal materials like the:
Technically, number six on this list isn’t free, but low-cost artificial intelligence-powered options for legal research can make a huge difference for your bottom line. Powered by AI to help you conduct legal research better and faster, Casetext’s search finds you cases and other authorities on the same facts, legal issues, and jurisdiction as your matter.
The process is simple: Drag and drop a brief or complaint, and Casetext’s artificial intelligence search, CARA, finds relevant cases—whether to enhance your research for your own drafts, or to check for missing or omitted cases within opposing council’s briefs and complaints. The practice is even smoother via Casetext’s Clio integration, which lets you send a document from Clio to CARA in a single click.
Casetext’s AI search is a paid-but-low-cost option for legal research—though you can try for free with a 14-day trial.
A paid subscription to ROSS Intelligence is another way to leverage AI to enhance your legal research. Ross’s AI-powered tool lets you focus your research by emphasizing the unique facts of your case, and helps you identify cases with the same procedural posture presented in your case, plus much more.
7. Justia: For the latest summaries sent straight to you
Research case law, codes, statutes, regulations, and articles related to federal and state cases with Justia’s extensive, free database.
And, for staying effortlessly well-informed on specific practice areas, Justia will send the latest straight to your inbox with an array of free newsletters ranging from daily summaries of opinions from all federal appellate courts and all 50 state supreme courts to weekly summaries of opinions in certain practice areas.
Beyond legal databases: Other free research resources
As valuable as legal databases are for your case research, there are also other alternative sources where you can find information and resources to support your legal research. Below, we offer a few free and cost-effective options for help build your case.
1. Primary sources: For going straight to the source
Sometimes, the easiest way to get the information you need is to be direct. You can find many case law and court documents online for free. Legislatures and courts are publishing their own materials, which are sometimes available online as downloadable PDFs—a convenience that until recently has never existed. However, keep in mind that some online versions are not considered “official” and can be refuted by the print version, even though they come from the same source.
Here are some resources you can access directly online:
Keep in mind, however, that while this information might be easy to access through primary sources, you’ll likely miss out on the advanced search functions or analysis features that you’d find with legal search engines and databases.
Also, older legal information may not be available online yet. In this situation, visiting a library may be helpful as you will be able to find archived legal information that is unavailable elsewhere. Also, you may find potential collaborators in your colleagues (and the librarians) who will be researching there as well. These collaborators will be a great source for information on what arguments worked in the past, and may help you find local knowledge you might not be able to uncover yourself.
If you are a member of a bar association, you should also make full use of the resources available to you through your member benefits, such as:
Courthouses
Law schools
Bar Association headquarters
2. Legal blogs: For keeping up-to-date
One of the best ways to become a more efficient legal researcher is to stay ahead of the game. The best way to do that? Maintain your subject matter competency by keeping up-to-date on the latest developments in your practice area by regularly reading legal journals and legal blogs.
A great place to find the best of the best when it comes to legal blogs is through the American Bar Association (ABA)’s annual list, which started in 2007 as the Blawg 100 list of blogs, and has evolved into the Web 100 list of favorite law blogs, podcasts, tweeters, and web tools—a.k.a. a list of the best free law-focused resources and people to follow.
LexBlog—an online network of over 22,000 legal bloggers—is a hub of the latest commentary on the law. Sorting blogs by channels, LexBlog makes it easy to find and subscribe to legal blogs that focus on your specific area of law.
The direct research benefit of staying in the loop? By maintaining subject-matter competency, you’ll already have certain cases and ideas in mind—so that when you’re presented with a case, you won’t be starting from scratch every time.
3. Google Scholar: For searching legal journals and published opinions
While not specifically tailored to legal research, Google Scholar allows you to broadly search and access scholarly literature—which means it’s an effective, free way to find legal documents like patents, legal opinions, legal journals, and articles.
Want the simplest way to search case law? On the Google Scholar main page, select the “Case Law” button under the search box to easily search case law, filtered by jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Conducting smart legal research that’s thorough, accurate, and time-effective makes a big difference to the success of your law firm—but it doesn’t have to be expensive.
Whether paid legal research platforms are out of the firm’s budget or you just want to find cost-effective ways to conduct thorough research for your cases, today’s free legal research resources help you be more efficient so you can serve your clients more effectively—and stay a step ahead of the competition.
How can I do legal research for free?
According to the American Bar Association (ABA), GovInfo offers free virtual access to congressional reports, official federal government publications, public laws, congressional records, hearings, and more. Do your research, as there are free and low-cost databases and tools available.
What software is used for legal research?
There are many legal research softwares available today, including Tracers, Casetext, and Fastcase. These programs integrate seamlessly with legal practice management software such as Clio.
(5) Form of Motion and Responsive Pleadings. (A) Notice of Court Date. A Notice of Court Date shall be filed with the motion. The Notice shall identify the moving party, the names and service addresses of all parties requiring notice, the title of the motion, the name of the hearing judge, the trial date, the date for hearing, and the time of the hearing if it is a motion for which oral argument will be held. A Notice of Court Date form is available from the clerk’s office and online: www.kingcounty.gov/courts/clerk/forms. (B) Form of Motions and of Responsive Pleadings. The motion shall be combined with the memorandum of authorities into a single document, and shall conform to the following format: (i) Relief Requested. The specific relief the court is requested to grant or deny. (ii) Statement of Facts. A succinct statement of the facts contended to be material. (iii) Statement of Issues. A concise statement of the issue or issues of law upon which the Court is requested to rule. (iv) Evidence Relied Upon. The evidence on which the motion or opposition is based must be specified with particularity. Deposition testimony, discovery pleadings, and documentary evidence relied upon must be quoted verbatim or a photocopy of relevant pages must be attached to a declaration identifying the documents. Parties should highlight those parts upon which they place substantial reliance. Copies of cases shall not be attached to original pleadings. Responsive pleadings shall conform to this format. (v) Authority. Any legal authority relied upon must be cited. Copies of all cited non-Washington authorities upon which parties place substantial reliance shall be provided to the hearing judicial officer and to counsel or parties, but shall not be filed with the clerk. See LCR 5(k). (vi) Word Limits. Absent prior authorization from the court, the initial motion and opposing memorandum shall not exceed 4,200 words; and reply memoranda shall not exceed 1,750 words. The word count includes all portions of the motion/memorandum, including headings and footnotes, except 1) the caption; 2) tables of contents and/or authorities, if any; and 3) the signature block. The signature block shall include the certification of the signer as to the number of words, substantially as follows: “I certify that this memorandum contains _____ words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules.” (vii) Consecutive Page Numbering for Attachments. Attachments or exhibits to any filed document, in excess of 25 pages, including motions, oppositions, replies, briefs, declarations, and affidavits, whether in paper or electronic form, shall be numbered consecutively on the bottom center or right-hand corner of each document to aid the court and the parties in navigating through the document. The number shall not restart for each attachment but shall run consecutively through all the attachments to the document. All motions, oppositions, replies, and briefs shall cite to these page numbers. A party may include other citation information, such as exhibit numbers, corresponding exhibit pages or paragraph numbers, in addition to the consecutive page cite. (C) Form of Proposed Orders; E-mail Addresses. The moving party and any party opposing the motion shall include with their submissions a proposed order. The original of each proposed order shall be submitted to the hearing judge along with any working copies. If the motion is to be considered without oral argument, the moving party shall at the time of filing the motion provide to the court e-mail addresses for the court’s use in providing courtesy copies of entered orders. Where working copies are provided via the clerk’s eWorking Copies application, the parties shall request courtesy copies of entered order(s) through the clerk’s application.
unitedstatesadvocateofamerica@gmail.com
