PART I
Case # BF033423
Date: 04-21-08
Dept: CE27
Honorable Michael J. Convey, Judge Pro Tem
[Editor’s note: At the time the case started, Michael J. Convey was a Commissioner, not a judge. A few years later, he was appointed by The Arnold and ran unopposed in 2012. He is now a Judge and his next election will be in 2019. As of February 2015, he is located at Department B, 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys 91401.]
B. Schrantz, Deputy Sheriff
P. Ontiveros, Deputy Clerk
K. Hong, Court Assistant
L. Lyman, CSR # 4166, Court Reporter
8:30 AM
BF033423
Steve Oglesby vs. Harold Abramowitz
Counselor for Petitioner: In Pro Per
Counsel for Respondent: Charles Ver Hoeve (Wisconsin?)
Nature of Proceedings: PETITIONER'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHILD CUSTODY; VISITATION; GENETIC TESTING (FILED 2-8-08)
It is stipulated that Commissioner Michael J. Convey may hear the case as Judge Pro Tempore for today's hearing and all future hearings including post judgment.
The matter is called for hearing and parties are sworn and testify.
The Court makes its orders as recited in open court and as fully reflected in the notes of the official court reporter.
Attorney Robbert F. De Klerk, Esq., not present in court, is appointed as counsel for the minor child Harriet Bernard born 2-12-98. Costs associated with the appointment of minor's counsel shall be incurred by the County of Los Angeles, at the rate of $125.00 per hour, payable through the PACE department, subject to re-allocation. The Court determines the parties in this action are not capable of paying the costs for minor's counsel.
Minor's counsel is directed to interview Steve Oglesby, Harold Abramowitz, Mira Lani Abramowitz and the minor child.
All three of the above named adults are ordered to cooperate with minor's counsel fully during the scheduling and process of the interviews.
The Order to Show Cause regarding custody and/or visitation is continued to June 9, 2008, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 27. This continuance is to allow the parties to determine and complete the process of Mira-Lani Abramowitz is to join in [sic] the Paternity action [sic].
At the next hearing the Court shall determine if all parties are properly before the Court. If the appointment of a Guardian ad litem[,] if necessary[,] for the minor child Theodore born 3-17-02
or if separate minor's counsel is to be appointment [sic].
or if separate minor's counsel is to be appointment [sic].
All other orders are to remain in full force and effect. All orders are effective forthwith.
The Respondent is to give notice.
CLERKS [sic] CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled Court, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the case herein, and that this date I served the above minute order of April 21, 2008, upon the parties named below by depositing in the United States mail at the Stanley Mosk courthouse in Los Angeles, California, one (1) copy of the original herein in a separate, sealed envelope for each, addressed as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid.
Dated: 04-21-08
John A. Clarke Executive Officer/Clerk
Peter Ontiveros
Robbert J F De Klerk
Carlson de Klerk & Sherman
15233 Ventura Blvd, #1100
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
PART II
05-02-08
Honorable Michael J. Convey, Judge Pro Tem
B. Schrantz, Deputy Sheriff
P. Ontiveros, Deputy Clerk
K. Hong, Court Assistant
NONE, Court Reporter [Lynda Lyman, CSR #4166 is not present.]
Nature of Proceedings:
NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE APPOINTMENT OF MINOR'S COUNSEL
NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE APPOINTMENT OF MINOR'S COUNSEL
Steve Oglesby (N/A)
vs.
Harold Abramowitz (N/A)
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: NO APPEARANCES
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: NO APPEARANCES
[Editor’s Note: What this means is that no one was there except Commissioner Convey, not even a Court Reporter.]
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE APPOINTMENT OF MINOR’S COUNSEL
[Editor’s Note: Robbert J.F. De Klerk was appointed minor’s counsel for the Abramowitz children on December 14th, 2007, almost five months previously.
(insert link)]
The Court is informed by the Law offices of Carlson de Klerk & Sherman of the newly appointed minor’s counsel Robbert J.F. De Klerk's decision--to leave the practice of law. Upon discovery of this the Court orders the appointment of Robbert J.F. De Klerk as minor’s counsel on case number BF033423 terminated forthwith and without further notice or order of the court.
Attorney John Carlson Esq., not present in court, is appointed as counsel for the minor child Harriet Bernard born 02-12-98. Costs associated with the appointment of minor’s counsel shall be incurred by the County of Los Angeles, at the rate of $125.00 per hour, payable through the PACE department, subject to re-allocation. An Order appointing counsel for a child is signed and filed this date.
Minor’s counsel is directed to interview Steve Oglesby, Harold Abramowitz, Mira Lani Abramowitz and the minor child.
All three of the above named adults are ordered to cooperate with minor’s counsel fully during the scheduling and process of the interviews.
At the next hearing the Court shall determine if all parties are properly before the Court, [sic] If the appointment of a Guardian ad litem if necessary [sic] for the minor child Theodore born 3-17-02 or if separate minor’s counsel is to be appointment [sic].
Minor’s counsel is to prepare the appointment of minor’s counsel judicial council form number FL -323 and submit it to court.
[Editor’s Note: According to Peter Ontiveros, Deputy Clerk, the above document was mailed to John Carlson of Carlson de Klerk & Sherman, to Charles A Ver Hoeve, attorney for Respondent Harold Abramowitz and to Petitioner Steve Oglesby, but not to Mira-Lani Abramowitz, although she is mentioned in the ‘proceedings.’]
PART III
Linda Lyman, CSR #4166
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT CE 27
Hon. Michael J. Convey, Commissioner
Steve Oglesby, PETITIONER
vs.
HAROLD ABRAMOWITZ, RESPONDENT
CASE NO. BF033423
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
JUNE 9, 2009
FOR THE PETITIONER, STEVE OGLESBY: BY: DARREN YOUNG, ESQ.
FOR THE RESPONDENT, HAROLD ABRAMOWITZ: BY: CHARLES VER HOEVE, ESQ.
FOR THE RESPONDENT, MIRA-LANI ABRAMOWITZ: PRO PER
[Editor’s Note: This is the first mention of Mira-Lani Abramowitz as a Respondent in this case.]
LINDA LYMAN, CSR #4166
OFFICIAL REPORTER
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Two and 12, Oglesby and Abramowitz. Can I have Abramowitz, Abramowitz and Oglesby all remain standing and raise your right hands to be sworn?
Peter Ontiveros, Deputy Clerk
Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony that you are about to give in the cause now pending before this court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mrs. Abramowitz
I do.
Mr. Abramowitz
Yes.
Peter Ontiveros, Deputy Clerk
Sir?
Mr. Oglesby
Yes.
Peter Ontiveros, Deputy Clerk
Thank you.
Commissioner Michael J. Convery
Would you please state your name, sir, on the far left?
Mr. Oglesby
Steve Oglesby
Commissioner Michael J. Convery
Thank you.
And your counsel next to you?
Mr. Darren Young
Yes. Good afternoon, your honor. Darren Young representing the petitioner on the BF case.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you.
Mr. Carlson, state your appearance again.
Mr. John Carlson
John Carlson on behalf of the minor, Harriet.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And, Ma’am, state your name, please.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Mira-Lani.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you.
And, sir, on the right -hand side?
Mr. Abramowitz
Harold Abramowitz.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And, counsel, your appearance?
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
Charles Ver Hoeve for Mr. Abramowitz, the Petitioner in the BD case and the Respondent in the BF case.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you.
Everyone please be seated.
Thank you so much for you [sic] patience.
There is a chair right there, sir. Have a seat.
Thank you very much for your patience waiting through the lunch hour.
I wanted to take your case when I had a little bit of time. I want to take as much time as we need for it. Calling it complicated is quite an understatement, I believe. And I am here to advise you that I have whatever energy it takes to try to figure all of these things out. All right?
So I am not quite sure how to handle this piece of business first.
Mr. Carlson, you represent both children?
Mr. John Carlson
Your Honor, initially Robbert de Klerk, who was my partner, was appointed to represent both children.
The order that I have seen indicates that I am to represent Harriet alone. As I believe the court is aware, Mr. de Klerk is no longer practicing so--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I understand.
Let me go back to my order first. That is the first piece of business. And I will tell you why that is important in just a second.
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
Your Honor, if I could interject at this time? I believe as far as the paternity proceedings are concerned, this is a confidential matter, and I would ask that anyone who is not a party or counsel in the paternity action be asked to leave the courtroom including relatives. I believe there are potential witnesses here.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
There are potential witnesses here?
Mr. John Carlson
Yes, there are, your honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. Everyone who is in the courtroom, we are going to ask you all to step outside. We are going to close the courtroom for these proceedings as my discretion allows in a paternity case.
Thank you, Deputy.
When did Judge Goldstein appoint Mr. De Klerk? She appointed him for both children?
Mr. John Carlson
That’s correct.
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
That is correct, your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Then our order is in error, and you do represent both children. And I will charge you with one responsibility, Mr. Carlson, which is to--and so our order needs to be clarified. Mr Carlson is the attorney for both minor children forthwith and retroactive to the date of appointment which was by the reappointment, I will call it May 2, 2008.
Mr. John Carlson
Just so the Court understands, I did interview the minor, Theodore, and spoke to the therapist. He shares a therapist with Harriet.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you.
And that’s where I am going with this and why I am going in that direction first.
The Court received two pieces of mail, one from Dr. Suzanne Duppe, S-U-Z-A-N-N-E, last name Duppe, D-U-P-P-E. [sic]
[Editor’s Note: The name is actually Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee, D-U-P-E-E.]
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
(continuing)
She is a medical doctor and a psychiatrist. And it is addressed to Judge Goldstein. And it was received by the Court first on May--First on April 30 and then again on May 2 regarding the child custody evaluation and testing portion of same.
This, I believe, was copied to Mr. Ver Hoeve and Ms. Abramowitz, but no one else.
So, Mr. Carlson, I will ask you--I will invite you to inspect that letter while we’re here.
[Editor’s Note: Here follows the letter: (Insert Dr. Dupee’s letter here.)
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
(continuing)
In addition to that and perhaps more troubling than that is a letter addressed to the Court in Department 27 dated May 29, 2008 from Sandra Arroyo, A-R-R-O-Y-O. And there is no indication that it was copied to anyone else. It is an Ex Parte communication to the Court which was opened and presented to me. I read it to make sure that there was no immediate, life-threatening danger to a child or anyone else, but I now share that with you, to Mr. Carlson first.
[Editor’s Note: Insert Dr. Arroyo’s letter here.]
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
(continuing)
And then if you need us to make any copies of these, please tell us and we will do that. Return the originals to me and I will place them in a confidential envelope in the Court file.
And, Mr. Carlson, I want you in the best interests of the children to review these first so that if you determine that there is some reason why other people should not see these letters, I will hear that part of it first. Okay?
I will do this while we are off the record. And you can all stay right there. And then I will come back when you are ready for us to resume.
If you determine, Mr. Carlson, that you believe that it doesn’t harm the children’s best interests to have other persons seated at the table look at those documents, you may share them with the other parties during this break. That is why I keep you all here.
If you choose to exercise a prerogative on behalf of the children to not have those items shared, then hold them until I come back after this short break and we will take up that question. All right?
Linda Lyman, CSR #4166
A brief recess was taken.
Commissioner Michael J Convey
We are back on the record now.
And resuming then, Mr. Carlson, you have had a chance to review those letters. And I understand from staff that you have shared them with everybody; is that correct?
Mr. John Carlson
Your honor, I shared Dr. Arroyo’s letter with everybody because I believe Dr. Duppe’s [sic] letter has to do with the Abramowitz versus Abramowitz case only. I didn’t think that it was appropriate for me to make the decision to give that to Mr. Oglesby and his attorney.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. Thank you.
Do you have enough copies? Do you need copies?
Mr. John Carlson
I don’t need copies now. Maybe by the time I leave.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Let’s get those now so we don’t lose them.
All right. The other thing I wanted Mr. De Klerk and now you--and I appreciate you coming in like this on behalf of Mr. De Klerk--is in a case like this the court needs to assess whether or not one or both of the children need to have--I guess, actually the older child need [sic] to have a Guardian ad Litem. There may be a divergence of interest in that regard. There may also be a divergence of interest between the children themselves.
In your work, first of all, have you determined whether there needs to be separate, independent counsel for each of the two children or can you continue ethically to represent both of them?
In your work, first of all, have you determined whether there needs to be separate, independent counsel for each of the two children or can you continue ethically to represent both of them?
[Editor’s Note: Remember, Mr. Carlson will be paid $150/hour by the PACE Program, despite the fact that his firm ignored their appointment from December 2007 until May 2008.]
Mr. John Carlson
I can continue at this point to represent them both, your honor. There is no ethical problem. They do have different--They have articulated different wishes, but I can present those both to the Court.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. If that becomes an issue, it is no mark against you. I will say to everybody here if Mr. Carlson comes in later and says, ‘There is a conflict of interest between these two children,’ and if he is placed in that conflict of interest situation, he has an obligation to tell us. And if he does tell us that, then I have an obligation, I believe, to appoint a separate attorney for each child, but I don’t think that at this point I do.
What about the Guardian ad Litem question?
Mr. John Carlson
Your Honor, I don’t believe at this point that a Guardian ad Litem is necessary. The child is getting counseling. The child is in school. I believe that I can represent to the Court the child’s wishes. I don’t really perceive a need for a separate Guardian ad Litem.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I am trying to use my words carefully and cautiously and keeping with Mr. Carlson having the floor.
The next question appears to be whether or not--and I am not sure if it is continuing to be raised. I am not sure why it is continuing to be raised whether Mr. Oglesby has what is called standing to bring these proceedings. And his attorney filed points and authorities to this effect today on this legal point. I don’t know that it is really for you to answer that question either, but it is a question out there.
Do you wish to say anything about that first before I start to hear from other parties?
Mr. John Carlson
I do have a position on that, your Honor.
At this point I believe Mr. Oglesby is only an alleged father. I discussed with both counsel--I did not particularly discuss this with Ms. Abramowitz. But the code doesn’t specifically say when a father needs to bring the child into his home and declare to the world that the child is his. However, the case law does seem to say that it has to be done within a reasonable period of time.
And we have a very long delay before Mr. Oglesby did do that with the understanding that that was probably his child, at least biologically. And he was allowing the child to be in the home of Mr. Abramowitz and in effect raised by Mr. Abramowitz and Ms. Abramowitz.
So unless there is some genetic testing which would perhaps at that point perhaps raise the issue as to whether he then meets some type of presumption--and I am not--I have my doubts whether that would even be the case. But until that happens, he is only an alleged father and he is not a presumed father because he doesn’t seem to fall within any of the other categories.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I completely agree with you that he is an alleged father.
I think the standing question is whether he can bring a claim to this court for presumed father status.
I think the answer to that is yes, he has a right to bring this action.
Mr. John Carlson
Right.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I want to make sure that that is understood.
Am I completely off base here?
Mr. John Carlson
No. I think he has standing to bring the action. The question is whether he will rise to the level of presumed father.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay. Let me hear from Mr. Oglesby’s attorney first because I think that is a question we have to decide, not only for purposes of the bigger picture of going forward for life, but also for purposes of the evaluation in progress because it does create different standards, if you will.
Let me hear from you about that because you presented a points and authorities. I am not sure--and I will hear from Mr. Ver Hoeve in moment [sic]. I am not sure if Mr. Ver Hoeve is asking me to rule on that or not. But if the question is whether or not Mr. Oglesby may bring this case to determine whether he is a presumed father under 7611 of the Family Code, I think he has the right to bring that action.
Mr. Darren Young
Right.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And I am in no way answering that question or telling the parties or persons here how that question should ultimately be answered because I think that that is the next step. So let’s take care of that first step first.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
And I would like to begin, I am very new to this case, and that is why I filed a points and authorities along with the Substitution of Attorney this morning.
I did the Memorandum of Points and Authorities because I thought that that was the first issue before we even go forward as the Court is suggesting, whether or not he can bring, Mr. Oglesby can bring the petition to establish paternity and whether he can be heard on the merits.
I agree with Mr. Carlson that as of right now basked on the facts as I know them that Mr. Oglesby is an Alleged Father, but I also believe under the code, under 7611 (D) it states that a party can bring the action if he can allege facts that bring him within the statutory language of that subdivision.
And I think in his petition that Mr. Oglesby did in Pro Per, and some of the facts that have come out in this case, there is enough to at least address that issue as to whether or not he rebuts the presumption and raise the presumption on his own that he is the presumed father. And that is where we are now.
And I believe perhaps an order by the Court for genetic testing will clear up some issues as well.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Well, I think the request for genetic testing is not timely. There is a specific time period for that.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Genetic Testing, I don’t think that I have the ability to order it at this juncture.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay. I am not sure.
I know under 7551 the Court--and I guess I can read that to the Court but--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Paternity--I don’t think paternity is an issue here. Are we understanding each other or are we not understanding each other?
Mr. Darren Young
That--that paternity--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
There is a difference between saying paternity is an issue and presumed father status is an issue. There is a difference in the law between those two things. Paternity--
Let me look at-- You said 7551?
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, I believe that is the Code Section.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Doesn’t 7541 put a limit on this of two years?
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
Your Honor, I see a question there as to whether this Code Section would apply to Harriet. I see how it would apply to Theodore. And it limits the persons that can bring an action for genetic testing to the mother, the husband of the marriage and the presumed father. I think we have already established that Mr. Oglesby is an Alleged Father, not the Presumed Father of Harriet.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Let me approach this question another way. Is there opposition to an order or a stipulation that there be genetic testing? The parties are certainly free to do that.
But then, again, we also have to hear from Mr. Carlson as to the effect of these types of decisions along with many of the other decisions that have been referenced in these papers by these adults over the years that have been made without regard for what is best for these children. I will say that in a blanket way for everybody here.
I am very concerned about where we are going here.
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
Yes, your honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Let’s control the process.
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
I agree that is the overarching issue is [sic] what is in the best interests of these two children.
My client, Mr. Abramowitz, is opposed to any genetic testing. In fact, he would--his request would be for Mr. Oglesby’s action to be dismissed. The reason being, if he is alleging that he should be allowed to bring a case and establish that he is a presumed father of Harriet under Section 7630, there is a requirement that he do so only if the action is brought within a reasonable time after obtaining knowledge of the relevant facts.
Now, by his own admission and his own declaration he knows that Harriet was born on February 12, 1997--
Mrs. Abramowitz
1998.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
1998.
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
I apologize. --1998; that he knows that Mr. Abramowitz and Mira Lani Abramowitz married on January 14, 2000 which makes Mr. Abramowitz--plus Mr. Abramowitz’s name does [sic--appear] on the birth certificate [sic] of both children, those facts combined make him a Presumed Father, although it is a rebuttable presumption, of Harriet.
Mr. Oglesby also acknowledges that Mr. Abramowitz and --Harold and Mira Lani lived together from ‘99 to 2005.
Mrs. Abramowitz
No.
Mr. Abramowitz
No.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Stop that.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Sorry.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Don’t do that. Don’t do that. Don’t do that. You’ve watched enough cases to know that you can’t do that, so please don’t.
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
If I am misstating Mr. Oglesby’s declaration, he can respond at his time.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
He will have a chance.
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
And he also states that he withheld taking any action because he didn’t want to interfere with the parental relationship of Harold and Mira Lani with the two children. So he is saying that he doesn’t want to negatively impact the children by imposing himself on the parental relationship that Harold and Mira Lani had already established.
He further states that he basically accepts the children into his home after the date of separation, 2006.
[Editor’s Note: The actual date of the Abramowitz separation was July 2005. (cite sources)]
I think he says in his declaration 2007, but it may very well be in 2006. The action here that he brings to establish a parental relationship between himself and Harriet and Theodore was filed four days before Harriet’s tenth birthday.
I think it is--as I identified in my brief, I believe that there is a violation of Mr. Abramowitz’s substantive due process rights for him to have to defend himself from an action contesting paternity of the child he has brought up as his daughter.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You keep using those terms interchangeably, and the Court does not. A parent/child relationship is not the same thing as paternity.
When you ask for genetic testing, you are asking for genetic confirmation or nonconfirmation of paternity, as I call it here.
When you wish to establish or not establish a parent/child relationship, it is another type of relationship.
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
I understood. I apologize if I misspoke.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Let me be very candid about my concern. I have a feeling that if the information is released in this case, it will be presented to the children in an inappropriate manner based upon everything that has been presented to me in these papers so far about the way these adults, all three discuss this case, discuss this process with the children and give these children way more information than they are old enough to handle. And that might not be in their best interests.
Do you have anything else to say about your ongoing request here to have this matter dismissed, the paternity case?
Mr. Charles Ver Hoeve
Well, okay. Your honor, in addressing Dr. Duppe’s [sic--Dr. Dupee] in which she has been asked to do a psychological evaluation of the parties involved in this case and to make recommendation regarding a custody and visitation order, she indicates in her letter that she cannot make such recommendations because Mrs. Abramowitz, Mira Lani, refuses to participate in that action.
I feel that Mr. Oglesby’s action is similarly detrimental to the children in this case in the sense that he gives an indication that he is acting as a surrogate for the mother. He talks about how he is asking to have the children removed from respondent’s home when every report from my--
[Editor’s Note: ‘My’ what? My expert? (i.e. Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee)]
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
(continuing)
well, from--that has been indicated to the court prior to today has indicated that Mr. Abramowitz has done an excellent job in basically reorienting these children into a more normal and stable home environment, going to school and having a more appropriate parental/child relationship.
I would be--an overarching concern would be if Mr. Oglesby were to be included into this global picture that his impact would be detrimental to the progress of the children.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Is the issue of biology here in dispute?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
My client has an opinion as to the biology. I think as a legal matter I believe both sides are of the opinion that biology is not determinative of the parent/child relationship. It is not controlling.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
So do we or do we not need an order for genetic testing?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
We do not wish to have any order for genetic testing. We don’t think it is necessary or appropriate.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay.
Mr. John Carlson
May I--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Carlson?
Mr. John Carlson
--I add a few things, your Honor? [sic]
First off, I want to make sure that Harriet’s wishes are known to the Court. I explained to Harriet my role as a person--her spokesperson in the Court. And I also explained that even though that is her position, I also had to represent what the best interest of the child was to the Court, and I think she understood that. We had a conversation about that.
And I told her that I would tell the Court what her wishes are. And she did say that she wishes that Steve was her father. She does not--in my conversation it appeared that she was not aware of the dispute regarding the biology, that she has no idea that Steve Oglesby may be her biological father. She just said that she wanted him to be her father because he was nice to her.
That is not my recommendation to the Court. I am just articulating what the child’s wishes were. She is 10 [ten] years old.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Do you have a position or opinion in the best interests of the child about the need or lack of need for genetic testing here?
Mr. John Carlson
I think that bringing in Mr. Oglesby into this equation at this time especially considering where both children are--and this is a sibling group here. These children are very closely connected.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Yes.
Mr. John Carlson
And where each child is in their therapy and in effect rebonding with Mr. Abramowitz, I think putting Mr. Oglesby in the equation at this time would be very confusing to both children. I think it would be extremely confusing and it would cause problems with the relationship between Mr. Abramowitz and Harriet.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Ms. Abramowitz, we haven’t had you address the Court, but you are representing yourself. And you have every right to address the Court. So let me hear your position about all of this, whatever you want to say.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I think that if we are going to continue with litigation that I need to have representation. And I don’t--I know enough to know that I am not qualified to represent myself.
My desire is to go to mediation and not have litigation. I think that I am in agreement with the idea that the father who parents is the father.
However, with regard to the paternity question, I think that--well, I won’t say--I will tell you, when I signed Harriet’s paternity declaration--the paternity declaration and the birth certificate and when Harold signed the paternity declaration and the birth certificate, it happened three months after Harriet’s birth. I was not married to either of these men. I was single. I had no medical insurance. And I had started the pregnancy at a midwife who then whisked me in an ambulance to Cedars Sinai and after Harriet was born I was informed that I owed more than $30,000 in uninsured hospital bills.
When I got home from the hospital with Harriet, I lived alone. Harold never stayed in that apartment. There are witnesses, the Russian ladies who live there who will tell you that I never had an overnight guest. Harriet and I lived alone for the first two years of her life.
During those first few months I spent several hours every week on the telephone with Cedars Sinai Billing and different--the ambulance company, et cetera, about how to negotiate my bill down since I didn’t have the means to pay all--the whole bill from the birth. And nobody--I was alone financially.
What happened was Cedars Sinai, early in May, called me and said, ‘If you want us to work out the billing’--Oh, what happened--I am sorry. I am sorry. When I was still in the hospital the day after I had Harriet, I went to the Medi-Cal office and I said, ‘Can you help me?’ and they said, ‘We cannot help you unless you will identify a father so that the District Attorney can go after the father for child support.’ And I said I would not do that.
And then, three months later, when I was trying to negotiate the bills with Cedars Sinai, they said, ‘Unless you come right away’--it was May 15th--’ and fill out the birth certificate, we will no longer negotiate the bills with you. We won’t bring the bills down through this process for low-income or lower-income people.’
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay.
Mrs. Abramowitz
At that time I asked Harold to put his name on the paternity declaration, but he did so and withheld his Social Security number so that he would not have to take financial responsibility for Harriet. And so I felt like--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We are not going to hear the--
Mrs. Abramowitz
I committed perjury.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We are not going to hear the whole case today. We are just trying to set the stage.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I don’t understand why Harold is lying about Harriet’s paternity. I understand that he has been acting as her father but--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Let me ask you about that.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Is biology a question for you?
Mrs. Abramowitz
Steve is absolutely the biological father. I know it for a fact.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
How much time do you need to get legal counsel?
Mrs. Abramowitz
I don’t know. I don’t have any money. So I will have to appeal to the marital fund for funding for the counsel.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay. Well, the Court doesn’t pay for your attorney in these proceedings. This is a Family Law proceeding.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Right.
So isn’t there--I was told that the marital estate, or, I don’t know--that there might be some help for me in that way.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
As I understand it--and correct me here if I am misunderstanding--Judge Goldstein ordered the evaluation back on September 18, 2007.
Do we know what the current status of that is? Is it still in a holding pattern?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Well, it is completed with respect to Mr. Abramowitz. It is in a holding pattern to the extent that Mira Lani Abramowitz refuses to participate.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Has a report been issued?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
No report has been issued other than the letter that was sent to the Court to my knowledge.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
That is what I want you to address next, Ms. Abramowitz.
Why haven’t you participated in the evaluation because I read the same thing in Dr. Duppe’s letter? [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee]
Mrs. Abramowitz
Yes. I also received a copy of that report from Dr. Duppe. [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee]
All right. I have to say I am sorry, but I need to backtrack just a little bit so that you can understand the process. Is that all right? I told--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Well, it is a quite simple response. You were ordered to participate and you haven’t.
Mrs. Abramowitz
My due process had already been terribly violated at that time.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
If you disagree with a Court’s order and believe that a Court’s order violates your due process, you and your attorney, at that time Mr. Malak, M-A-L-A-K, you have legal rights to pursue that. And to ignore a Court order places you technically in contempt of court, meaning you can be fined or go to jail--
Mrs. Abramowitz
That is what I thought would happen, but instead they took the children.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--or, if you will let me finish my sentence, if you don’t cooperate with parenting [sic], the Court can adjust the parenting orders.
So when you are ordered to participate in an evaluation, you are obligated and required to do it.
Mrs. Abramowitz
May I speak about that?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Yes.
Mrs. Abramowitz
All right. What happened on September--what happened on august 15th was that Mr. Malak and I, although he is not a Family Law attorney, he was a colleague at a college where I was teaching and the best person whom I could find to help me at the time, we went to the Mediation appointment. And I had called the Mediation Office and--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Don’t tell me about the mediation process.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Well, it kind of leads up to what happened.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
No, because it is confidential.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I will go to September 18.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you. It is confidential. I cannot know about what happens at Mediation.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Well, it wasn’t what happened at Mediation. I never was able to have Mediation because Charles left. Mr. Ver Hoeve left, so I never got to Mediation because there was a rush on his part to get us into Court.
And then apparently what happened, although I couldn’t ever get a straight answer from Mr. Malak, who has some problems, mental problems apparently, is that on August 2oth, Charles had an Ex Parte hearing with Dr. Goldstein--I mean, with Judge Goldstein, Honorable Judge Goldstein, and there was no Court Reporter’s record of it and there was no electronic record of it.
But, apparently, at that hearing Charles got permission to have the September 18th hearing happen in chambers, so I never got to hear what happened--what was said by Charles, Michael Malak and Honorable Donna Goldstein because it was not on the record that Charles asked for it. But for some reason--and I guess it was that August 20th Ex Parte hearing that Charles had, where it was decided that the case would be heard in chambers, so I didn’t get to hear my own case.
So when Judge Goldstein came out of the chambers and talked about how Harold needs to have the weekly visitation with the children, I was--I understood that and I cooperated with that right away.
I understood that I had to turn in my Income and Expenses before October 24th so that they could determine who would pay for the custody evaluation, which I did, and Harold and Charles did not.
So I--and Michael Malak was no longer in touch with me and he wouldn’t give me my case file, so I couldn’t look for a new attorney.
So when October 24th came, I didn’t know that--I was confused about who was supposed to bring the children, and when, because I still wanted Mediation. And Charles’s petition for Harold was what had asked for the full custody evaluation.
On September 18th, when they came out of Chambers, I was familiar with Harold’s petition. And basically the Judge awarded him every single thing on his petition, saying my home school was no good, and that Harold had to visit even though the children didn’t want him to.
She told me what I should say to the children and I did exactly that. But I didn’t get the notice.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I appreciate all of your timing, but you have not yet answered my question.
Why haven’t you participated in the evaluation?
Mrs. Abramowitz
Because I could not provide informed consent. I couldn’t get anything in writing explaining to me the scope of the evaluation, what it would entail, how much it would cost.
And then on December 6--well, then on November 13th, I wasn’t even there. And the police--Harold came with the police and they took the children. They didn’t even call me. I would have brought the children. They could have called me on the phone, but instead they sent the police.
Then I wasn’t ready for a psychological evaluation. Then I was scared.
Then on December 6th the Custody Evaluation Office filed a note saying they weren’t going to do the case. And then Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee]--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mrs. Abramowitz
And then Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] on the 14th--the children had never spoken to a minor’s counsel, to Mr. de Klerk or Mr. Carlson or anyone from their firm. And Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] interviewed them without them having the benefit of that.
And she wouldn’t talk to Veronica Calderon. She wouldn’t talk to any of the collaterals even though she had already talked to Harold’s sister and testified to that on November 20th.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Ms. Abramowitz, the time to bring all of that problem up is at the time of the hearing.
Mrs. Abramowitz
She wouldn’t let me. The judge would not let me.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
If you disagree with the Judge’s order, the process is to ask for reconsideration or appellate review, not to ignore and not follow the order.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I am happy to have--I just--Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] did not follow procedure.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Listen, listen.
You are ordered and I am going to order you again today to participate with the evaluation. If you don’t believe or agree with the findings and the recommendations of the evaluation, you still keep your right to present that evidence in front of me.
Mrs. Abramowitz
What I didn’t know at the time was that I had a--that I think I had the right to have a peremptory objection against that particular evaluator.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Again, you will have to talk with--you have to look at their procedures in their office in Room 228.
Mrs. Abramowitz
She was private. She was private.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Then it was ordered by--
Mrs. Abramowitz
They hired her.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Then it was appointed by the Court.
Mrs. Abramowitz
So I have to deal with her even though she wasn’t following procedure?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Yes.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I can’t do that. I must object.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Yes. Yes, you will do it.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I can’t because she doesn’t follow procedure.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Then we will change custody.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Okay.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Do you see? It is that simple.
Mrs. Abramowitz
But she is not--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
If you don’t cooperate with Court orders, you can go to jail.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Can I get a different evaluator?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
No. You are going participate [sic] with Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee]. And Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee], who is a professional, is going to give her recommendations. The Court doesn’t necessarily have to follow her recommendations.
You have a right to present other evidence and have the Court follow a different path. But Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] was appointed by the Court, and the time to challenge that decision has long passed. That decision stands. It is a Court order. I am under a constitutional duty to make sure that that order gets carried out.
And if Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] has an opinion or recommendations or a conclusion that you disagree with, you have every right to bring evidence, testimony, hearings, another doctor, other experts.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I can’t afford to do that.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You have a right to do all of those things.
Mrs. Abramowitz
But I can’t afford that right--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
But to choose not to follow what the Court has already ordered is not the path to take.
Mrs. Abramowitz
But what--may I just ask?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
It is not an option.
Mrs. Abramowitz
But let me just ask you something. If I had an attorney--I mean I know I don’t. But, for instance, the AFCC [Association of Family and Conciliation Court] guidelines and the APA [American Psychological Association] guidelines and in the Court Rules, the Los Angeles Superior Court Court Rules, it says that whoever is performing the evaluation is obligated to provide me with an opportunity to form informed consent even along with an order, and that was what I could never get, and also that there is supposed to be a concurrence, that the evaluation of both parents is supposed to occur at the same--very close in time.
But she already had a relationship with Charles. And she told us she was going out to lunch with the Judge, etcetera. So there were lots of things that seemed wrong. Not that the Judge’s order was wrong, but the way it was being handled--I never got a piece of--it said--everything I have read about the evaluation says the person who is being evaluated is supposed to be able to read through the information and provide informed consent. And that was the opportunity I never had and was never given to me in time.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
If that, in fact, occurred--and I am not saying that I agree it occurred or didn’t occur. It doesn’t matter to me. If you have a question, a problem with that process--
Mrs. Abramowitz
I wrote to Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] about that.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Your obligation is for you and then your attorney or on your own to file a motion with the Court to have the Court make an order about all of that, but you didn’t do that. You just didn’t participate. You weren’t even here last time when--
Mrs. Abramowitz
I was here.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
No, you weren’t.
Mrs. Abramowitz
On November 20th?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
No, you weren’t.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Oh, here? I didn’t know I was supposed to be here.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We are here now. We are all here. We are setting the stage for your case.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I think that Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] has committed malpractice against my children and me. And I don’t want her to be the evaluator. And if I have to lose custody over that, then, unfortunately, I will.
I would rather mediate. I would rather talk to the children’s therapist. but the way that this was handled is not right and it is not fair to women.
Michael J. Convey
The relationship that the children have with their therapist as is the relationship they have with their attorney, Mr. Carlson, is confidential. And it is why those people are here, so that your children have a safe and confidential place to talk about all of these things and whatever concerns them.
And if it concerns them to say something bad about you or something bad about Mr. Abramowitz or something bad about Mr. Ver Hoeve or bad about the Judge, it is a confidential place. No one is going to ask them what is said in that process.
And if you invade that process--
Mrs. Abramowitz
No. No. Dr Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee]is not their therapist. She is the evaluator. Dr. Arroyo is their therapist that Harold hired.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Do you have anything else you want to say?
Mrs. Abramowitz
Yes. On November 20th Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] testified without ever having talked to me or provided me with informed consent after talking to people in Harold’s family, etcetera.
I know she wasn’t conducting the custody evaluation according to the law, and I think that that should mean something.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. Thank you.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Thank you.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. -- I am sorry. Mr. Young?
Mr. Young
Young.
Well, just to go back to, I guess, why the reason I am here [sic], and that is the petition to establish parental relations, the paternity action that Mr. Oglesby has filed, I know there is the issue of standing. And I don’t know if we are still on that issue, but before we go forward on Mr. Oglesby’s case, I assume the Court has to--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
What is your position with respect to the biology of this case and the need or the non-need for genetic testing?
Mr. Darren Young
Well, I understand that there is the issue of Mr. Oglesby being the presumed father and the facts that support or don’t support that finding, and I am not going to change those facts.
Mr. Oglesby would like to have genetic testing. I believe there is an issue regarding the paternity of the minor child, Harriet.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. Anything else?
Mr. Darren Young
No. And, you know, I guess the only issue is whether or not he has standing to bring that and--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Does anybody else have anything to say before I make the final orders on the only matter pending before the Court which is the Respondent’s Order to Show Cause?
Mr. Carlson
Is this with respect to the paternity genetic testing?
Michael J. Convey
I am sorry. It is the Petitioner’s Order to Show cause in the BF case. Sorry.
Mr. Carlson
That is the genetic testing issue?
Michael J. Convey
Correct. And it says child custody, visitation. I am sorry. It is Petitioner’s, Mr. Oglesby’s, Order to Show Cause.
Any other questions, comments, concerns before I make my final order?
Mr. Charles A Ver Hoeve
Just to reiterate, your Honor, I don’t believe there is a statutory basis for Mr. Oglesby to request genetic paternity testing at this time.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you.
The matter is now submitted for decision by the Court. The Court finds that the applicant, Steven Oglesby [sic] has not met the burden of showing the need for genetic testing at this time pursuant to Section 7551 of the Family Code. The Court denies without prejudice his request for genetic testing.
The timing, that is, the Without Prejudice Denial means that the Court may take another look at this question. I am not sure that these parties are prepared to deal with that information in a mature, logical and appropriate manner that is child-centered no matter what the outcome.
I do find, however, that Mr. Oglesby does have standing under the Uniform Parentage Act to bring his paternity case. That does not make him a father. That does not establish that he is a father. It simply says that he has the right to bring this action.
He has the burden of proving his claimed status of quote ‘presumed father’ under the Code and the case law that interprets the Code. And it is an ever changing, ever evolving process.
The Court finds it is in the best interests of these children to settle this question as expeditiously as possible, as soon as possible. And I am inclined to make a further order today and need your input here further on bifurcating the issue of this Presumed Father Status because if the Court denies it, then Mr. Oglesby’s case will be dismissed because that is the only basis under which the Court would grant him any such status, and then we would move forward with the rest of the Dissolution Case.
But, also, we are in this process of having a Child Custody Evaluation that it is clear to me that Ms. Abramowitz, the mother, who is the Respondent [sic: ‘a’; the other Respondent in the BD Case is Harold Abramowitz, who is the Petitioner in ‘Abramowitz vs. Abramowitz.’] in the BD Case is not cooperating. And that order will be repeated today that she is ordered to cooperate with the Child Custody Evaluation as previously ordered by Judge Goldstein with no appeal or no reconsideration. It remains the order of this Court in full force and effect.
The orders of the Court carry with them the poer of contempt of court. If a party doesn’t follow Court Orders, he or she can be fined, go to jail or both under the Court’s contempt powers. And if it concerns non-cooperation in parenting, the Court may consider that as a factor in adjusting the Parenting Plan.
The Court further notes, from a review of Judge Goldstein’s Minute Orders,that she did make a finding at one time specifically--I will give you the date--I am sorry. I have to apologize.
So I will make the finding on my own. If a party doesn’t participate in the Orders of the Court that concern parenting, the Court may take that into account in considering a future parenting plan.
You are ordered to follow the Orders of the Court, all of them, including participating in the Child Custody Evaluation, including the psychological testing.
And Judge Goldstein did order that there be protocols followed specifically by Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee].
The issues raised by the Respondent, Ms. Abramowitz today, for example, when I look back at Dr.--at Judge Goldstein’s orders, she did order on March 18, 2008 that Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] under Local Rule 14:21 (E) (2) © provide a letter describing the procedures under the Code to each party. And she was also directed to provide a letter to the Court stating whether or not the Respondent was cooperating with the Evaluation.
Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] is cooperating and has conducted herself entirely in an appropriate manner. And Judge Goldstein’s orders were based on the Child Interview Report that Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] made before this [sic: that] Court.
She has also reported, Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee], that the Respondent, Mira Lani Abramowitz is not cooperating with the evaluation.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Your Honor--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You are interrupting.
You are ordered to cooperate with the evaluation. That is all there is to it.
And I need to set a return date and I need to--
Mrs. Abramowitz
Your Honor, may I please say one thing?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
No, you may not. You had your chance.
Mrs. Abramowitz
I asked for that Local Court Rule that Judge Goldstein put on March 18th. I had to ask for that.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
The Deputy will escort you out of the Courtroom at this time. Thank you.
Mrs. Abramowitz
Thank you. I am so sorry.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Now that we don’t have the mother participating directly in this process because she continued to disobey this Court’s orders and interrupt me after my warnings that she not do that, I have had the Deputy remove her from the Courtroom and she voluntarily removed herself as well, with her apologies, but we need to move forward. And I mean to move this case forward.
So, Mr. Carlson, may I have your suggestions first as to how we bring this all together so we have the adults participating in a mature, responsible manner rather than continually interrupting the Bench Officer and continually trying to have a word even when they disagree with Orders that have been in existence for about a year now?
Mr. John Carlson
Your Honor, I will contact Ms. Abramowitz and I will try to prevail upon her the importance of her relationship with her children and--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
How often are the children seeing her at this time?
Mr. John Carlson
Once a week on Sundays.
There is a problem with monitoring. The monitors are starting to become tired of it. Maybe not tired. They are not as available as they were previously and it has been a burden on them.
I think it is really important the kids see their mom.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
May I ask a question, perhaps from Left Field? Has there been involvement from Child Protective Services in the case?
Mr. John Carlson
No, not that I’m aware of.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I seem to be getting a lot of indication that all of the adults in one way or at one other time are not conducting themselves appropriately. And I am very concerned about the health and welfare of these children.
Mr. John Carlson
I have spoken to the therapist and I can say that Mr. Abramowitz is following the Court’s orders. He is taking the kids to therapy every week. He is participating in therapy and he is, according to the therapist, making strides.
The relationship between Theodore and Mr. Abramowitz has improved dramatically since the child was placed.
Harriet, it has improved somewhat. Harriet is very guarded. This is a child that is very parentified. And despite that, though, there has been progress.
And according to the therapist, Mr. Abramowitz has been appropriate.
I have heard from other witnesses that there has been shouting in front of the children and during the exchanges.
But beyond that, I had a discussion because this is a child that went on-line [sic] -- Harriet went on-line [sic] to look up Foster Care Custody. She was reading these things on the computer, which is totally inappropriate. I had to calm her down about the whole idea of Foster Care and explain to her that Foster Care only comes in certain situations when children are abused and parents are using drugs, things like that. So that is a concern of hers. And I certainly--that would be my least favorable solution.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We are not at that stage of the case, are we?
Mr. John Carlson
don’t believe at this point we are, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. Do any other orders need to be changed or modified at this point until we come back?
I want Ms. Abramowitz to get a lawyer. I want her to have somebody speaking for her because she is disruptive. She is delaying the process that this Court has ordered on several occasions and she is being obstructive to that process. And the Court wants to hear what she has to say, but it has to be presented through the filters of counsel or her own filters. And if she chooses to continue to be unfiltered like that, she won’t get a chance to appear in this Court.
She has to follow the rules and she can’t just bring up points that--the appeal time has passed. The review time has passed for what Judge Goldstein ordered.
This is the process we have in place. We have to run it through its conclusion.
Mr. John Carlson
I will continue to communicate with her on that, Your Honor, and try to prevail upon her to take part in this evaluation. I have also talked to her about contacting the Minor’s [sic] therapist who had attempted to contact her and was met with the same resistance that Dr. Duppe [sic: Dr. Suzanne Maree Dupee] reported.
[Editor’s Note: Insert link to Dr. Arroyo and Mrs. Abramowitz’s correspondence to show that Mr. Carlson is misinforming the Court. So that he can take (false) success in the following exchange.]
Mr. John Carlson
(continuing)
In my conversation with her today she indicated that she was willing to participate with the minors’ [sic] therapist. I think that that is critical. There is a lot of behavior that has been detrimental to the child.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
When do you think we should come back next time?
Mr. John Carlson
I think we need at least two months, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Counsel for Respondent first, when should we come back because you are the other party on the Disso [sic] case, which is in my book the Lead Case here?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Your Honor, to identify where we are in this, what is going to be accomplished between this date and our time coming back in two months?
Before I ask the Court to respond, I just want to interject. I think Mr. Abramowitz has done his utmost to do what is in the best interests of these children. And he did make above and beyond the call of duty, I think, a good-faith effort to deal with Mira Lani Abramowitz, the mother in regard to these issues.
He delayed over six months in filing an Order to Show Cause to ask that the court address these matters of custody. He tried on two prior occasions to go through Conciliation Court and Mediation with her. When that--no--when Ms. Abramowitz refused to show up at those two, he filed an Order to Show Cause along with setting up a third mediation appointment. I don’t need to go into the details.
I don’t believe that that was essentially misrepresentations made about what happened in regard to that mediation. Mediation is for the parties. I happen to have been in the Courthouse at the time of MR. Abramowitz’s mediation. I went up to him and I said hello. And I found out from Ms. Abramowitz’s attorney at the time that he had continued our ORder to Show Cause without any consultation with me.
I went up to Department 63, spoke directly to the Clerk to get our hearing back on calendar for the August hearing date that we had instead of having it continued out to October. And it is that hearing that got this matter under progress.
Ms. Abramowitz was present when the Court ordered for the child interview. What we are trying to say is that we would emphasize that Ms. Abramowitz needs to participate in the Evaluation Process and she needs to get some kind of assistance.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Hold on one second. I think some people want to come in with papers. That’s okay.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yeah.
She needs to have some kind of sounseling to guide her into her being involved in this process.
Mr. Abramowitz realizes that the children need to have their mother in their lives, if that is appropriate. However, the kind of relationship that the mother is having with the children and has had with the children for several years prior to the commencement of this case is detrimental to the children. Not just not in their best interests, it has been harming the children.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
That is why I asked about D.C.F.S.
[Editor’s Note: Department of Children and Family Services]
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
If the issue of the monitors, if they are not--if we can’t have a private monitor, Mr. Abramowitz has not insisted that the parties proceed through the S.A.F.E. Program which would cost money to Ms. Abramowitz that she may or may not have to expend. So he has, again, worked as best as he could to agree to the people she has put forth to act as monitors. If they can’t act as monitors--if they can’t continue on to serve as monitors for Mrs. Abramowitz [sic: At this point ‘Ms. Abramowitz’ becomes ‘Mrs. Abramowitz.’], I think we would ask that the therapist, Dr. ARroyo, would be available to act as a monitor for Mrs. Abramowitz to have some kind of visitation or contact with the children through those--through those counseling or therapy sessions.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You would have to clear that with the therapist. I am not going to order that.
Question. Question. Question. I appreciate more than all of you understand and Ms. Abramowitz, as well, the moving target, if you will, that this case is and has been. [sic] And I hope I will--maybe I am not successful at this. This case needs to get under control and the BF Case needs to get under control.
Have you ever been served with that petition? Because I don’t see a response. I mean, to bifurcate the issue of Presumed Father Status and disposition that so that [sic] we either move on with a case in which Mr. Oglesby is in as a related party.
And part of the reason I wanted Ms. Abramowitz here today is that she hasn’t been joined in that paternity case. I think she has to be joined to that paternity case, which was a question that I had for everybody today, but I couldn’t even get to the very fundamentals here because everybody wants me to decide their life questions the moment they come in here. We are not doing that yet. We are trying to set the agenda. We are trying to set the stage so that we can bring some order to these adults’ and these children’s lives that hasn’t been there for at least 10 years. I can’t do that unless I engage a formal process with everybody.
So, have you been served with the petition? Have you filed an answer?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
No, I haven’t filed an answer.
The only documents I have been served with, Your Honor, is the Order to Show Cause filed on February 8th.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you.
Mr. Oglesby, or Counsel for Mr. Oglesby, the petition itself hasn’t been served as far as I can tell in your paternity case.
Mr. Darren Young
I do have a copy. Mr. Oglesby has stated that he did or did not mail a copy--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Personal service of the petition to establish parental relationship, that document that gives you legal standing to even be in front of the court, because if you don’t serve it, then it will be dismissed.
Mr. Darren Young
Right.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You have got to do that first. IT is like a complaint. It is like a charging document in a criminal case. You have got to do that first.
Have you done that first?
Mr. Oglesby
Is that the first--the suing stuff?
Mr. Darren Young
That was before I was retained, Your Honor, so I am not sure if it was personally served or not by Mr. Oglesby in Pro Per.
Mr. Oglesby
Yeah. I mean like--I mean like--Harold--Harold, because I didn’t know that Harold had an attorney, was served by the Sheriff.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Do you have the Proof of Service?
Mr. Oglesby
Yes.
And they had it for a long time and they just--this is--this is their response back from it.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
That is a response to an O.S.C. [Order to Show Cause]?
Mr. Oglesby
No.
Mr. Darren Young
Correct. This is the responsive declaration.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
There is another paper that you filed, Mr. Oglesby. This is the very first paper you filed on February 8th.
Mr. Oglesby
Right. This right here?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Counsel, can I have you check with your client--
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--on this very fundamental question?
And let’s pick a date for a status conference. And I will give Ms. Abramowitz some time to get legal counsel in here because what I want to do is find out the at issue status of the BF Case so that I can bifurcate it and set it for trial as soon as possible on the question of PResumed Father Status and have an order or judgment on that paternity case, as it may have an impact on the BD Case and the ongoing evaluation.
The Evaluator is going to be in a difficult position to even conduct this evaluation and make recommendations without determining who the parents of these children are.
(to the Court Clerk) Peter, Status Conference?
Mr. Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
August 21st.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
August 21.
Mr. John Carlson
I have a matter.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Pick another date.
Mr. Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
Twenty two.
Mr. John Carlson
That is fine.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Twenty two, August, Friday. Good for everybody?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
August 22nd or not? If it is not good, tell me.
Mr. Darren Young
No, it is not good for me, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Pick another date.
Mr. Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
August 26.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Twenty six, August, Tuesday. Good?
Mr. John Carlson
Yes.
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
I don’t think that’s good for me.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Nest?
Mr. Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
Twenty eight.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Twenty eight?
Mr. Charles A Ver Hoeve
Good.
Mr. Darren Young
That is fine, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Don’t say it, Mr. Carlson.
Mr. John Carlson
I have another matter in another Court in this courthouse.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
In this building?
Mr. John Carlson
A trial.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We will keep you on second call or try to give you priority and get you out of here. If it is Judge Goldstein, tell her it is because you are here on this case.
Mr. Carlson, would you please give notice, notice of the Status Conference?
Mr. Young, you are preparing the order from today’s remaining bit of the O.S.C. business that I have--your client, his request for genetic testing is denied without prejudice at this time. And he does have standing, I so find, to pursue his BF case, but he does have to get it served.
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And you may call Mr. Ver Hoeve and deal with that formality in an informal way.
Mr. Darren Young
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Get that case at issue because then I can separate that issue out and have a trial on it before the rest of the case so that we know, and the evaluator knows, how he or she should be interviewing every parent, every person, because people who are not parents have a right to have visitation under certain parts of the law as well.
Mr. Oglesby
Right.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
But there needs to be parents established by these cases, and those issues are in dispute.
And I will, again, take into account--and I have thrown out there--this issue of genetic testing, that it might be appropriate. I don’t know that it gets us anywhere other than making a biological finding. I don’t think we should put that first because that will, as we have seen the dynamic here, make things a lot worse, because I am reasonably assured that that information will be in the hands of the children in an inappropriate manner in this case, and I don’t think that they are ready for that. You really, really need to be careful about that.
The parents--Ms. Abramowitz is ordered even in her absence and, Mr. Abramowitz, you are ordered here present and, Mr. Oglesby, you are ordered in my presence, not to discuss this case with the children under any circumstances. They have an attorney, Mr. Carlson, if they have concerns or questions. You each have attorneys.
Ms. Abramowitz is ordered further not to discuss this case with the children. If it happens in the presence of the monitor, visitations may terminate, because it is inappropriate as to what has been happening. I don’t want this case in front of the children. I want this case in front of the Court and I need your help to do that. Okay?
We will see you next time, August 28.
Mr. Oglesby
So--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We are not done. This case is not--this case is not amenable to quick resolutions. I hope I have made that clear. This is very delicate information. Children can be harmed irreparably if we move too quickly.
Mr. Oglesby
I understand.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We need to have all of the parties here properly presenting their case to the Court. We don’t need outbursts anymore. We don’t need unilateral or single-minded decisions to do one thing that is against what Courts have ordered to do.
Follow the advice of your Counsel. As your questions to him and he will tell you about this process.
Mr. Oglesby
Am I still barred from seeing the kids?
Mr. Darren Young
Well, I know the Court did not make any orders on custody and visitation. OUr concern is obtaining some temporary visitation orders for Mr. Oglesby prior to him going before the Court.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
The Court cannot do that--
Mr. Darren Young
Correct.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--until I establish a Presumed Father Status, if I even establish a Presumed Father Status, unless the parents both agree, ‘the parents’ being used with quotes around it as well.
You have to put your case at issue. That is why I asked you if you had served the petition yet. When I have the ability to make a finding of paternity, I will do it as quickly as I can one way or the other, but I can’t do that unless I have the parties properly before the Court which gives me the jurisdiction or power to do that. Fundamental things here first, folks. Okay?
Slow progress, and we will get there one way or the other.
Thank you. We will see you next time.
Mr. Darren Young
Thank you.
Mr. John Carlson
Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Thank you.
Linda Lyman, C.S.R. #4166
I, Linda Lyman, C.S.R. #4166, Official REporter of The Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1 through 45, inclusive, comprise a full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings held in the above-entitled matter on June 9, 2008.
PART IV
Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles
Department CE27 Hon. Michael J. Convey, Commissioner
Steve Oglesby, Petitioner,
vs.
Harold Abramowitz, Respondent
Case No. BF033423
Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings
August 28, 2008
For the Petitioner, Steve Oglesby: Darren Young, ESQ.
For the Respondent, Harold Abramowitz: Charles Ver Hoeve, Esq.
For the Respondent, Mira Lani Abramowitz: No Appearance
For the Minors: John Carlson, Esq.
Linda Lyman, CSR #4166
Official Reporter
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, August 28, 2008.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
May I have everybody on Number Seven, Abramowitz?
May I have appearances starting at this side of the table, please?
Mr. Darren Young
Good morning, your honor. Darren Young representing petitioner, who is present.
Mr. John Carlson
John Carlson on behalf of the minors.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Good morning, your honor. Charles Ver Hoeve on behalf of respondent, Mr. Abramowitz, who is present.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you. Please be seated.
Thank you for waiting and thank you for your patience this morning.
I note that Mira Lani Abramowitz, the Respondent in the Dissolution Case is not present. Do you know why she is not here? I tried to wait as much as I could in case she showed up. Do we know why she is not here?
Mr. Darren Young
No, your honor.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
No, your honor.
Mr. John Carlson
No.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I heard your request for a Chambers Conference. And I apologize that I cannot entertain that without that party being present.
There are also some other things that disturb me, if you will, since our last time together. I am ordering that these loose papers all be put in a Confidential Envelope and that when we receive things like therapist’s reports and things like that that they go immediately in a Confidential Envelope.
Since our last time together, the Court has received on August 22, 2008, two letters. I don’t know if you even have these, but I saw that they were communications from Mental Health Professionals or Monitors or something. And I--just as soon as I read that, I stopped reading it because it is an Ex Parte communication unless you have all seen it first. The first letter is from Barbara Romain, R-O-M-A-I-N. The second is from Roland, R-O-L-A-N-D, Starkey, S-T-A-R-K-E-Y, unsigned August 21, 2008. I did not read these and I will not read them until the parties have had a chance to read them.
And please instruct people, including Mental Health Professionals, not to communicate directly with the Court. That is an Ex Parte communication that is not allowed.
So, I don’t know if you have read those.
Mr. John Carlson
No.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Your honor, for the Court’s information, I have not seen those letters. Mr. Abramowitz indicates that, based upon the names that you recited, that those are people who have served as Monitors for Mira Lani’s visitations. We have not seen those.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. I am going to have Mr. Carlson read this stuff first and then it is going to go into a Confidential Envelope.
If you say it’s okay in the best interests of these children that this information may be released to everybody, then they can share it with you. But if there is some reason--and I have not read these things, so I don’t even know what they say. If there is some reason that I should not, or that the parties should not, have that information to protect the health, safety and welfare of these children, then I will order them disposed of--or placed accordingly in the file, not disposed of.
There are several concerns that I still have about this case, and I will start with Mr. Oglesby. I am not quite sure the posture of the case [sic], having read your most recent declaration and the amending petition. Let me make this clear. If Mr. Oglesby is seeking to have some form of parentage established, he needs to join all of the proper parties. That includes both parents. And that has not been done yet as far as I can tell. He has joined the other parent, Harold Abramowitz, but I don’t see that Mira Lani Abramowitz was joined to that action.
Mr. Darren Young
No. We--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Standing by on that question for just a moment, having read the most recent filing from him, the August 13, 2008 declaration, I am not sure that he is asking for that.
Is he asking for Visitation Orders? If so, that is a different kind of case than a parentage case. That is a Non-Parent Visitation Request kind of case and that is different. And the reason I say this, and why it is so vitally important, is that the issue of parentage, if it is an issue, must be established first before any Visitation is permitted or assessed by a Child Custody Evaluator, because the Best Interest Test is what is going to be applied by the Evaluator, and the Evaluator won’t do that unless they know who the parents are and who the other persons are seeking to have visitation rights [sic].
If we need to deal with that question of parentage first, then we will because it is a legal question that will affect the rest of this case. So that is what I need to know.
And then I note there is also a Child Support O.S.C. set for September 8th.
So, Mr. Young, I am kind of confused even--well, not more confused, but at least the issues are lined up for me a little bit better than they were last time. I just need to know what path we are going down here. Let me hear from you first.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay. Let me first address that we did go ahead and file a Stipulation Order for Joining the other parent--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay.
Mr. Darren Young
-- today, so she will be joined to the BF Case.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
But she hasn’t yet been joined?
Mr. Darren Young
No, no.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay.
Mr. Darren Young
So I don’t think we are going to address the parentage issue today anyway.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Is your client seeking a Parentage ORder under the Uniform Parentage Act or Case Law interpreting that act, or is he merely seeking to have Non-Parent Visitation Rights? There is a distinction that is hugely important in the law.
Mr. Darren Young
He is seeking Visitation Rights with the two minor children.
How we were proceeding is, in order to get to that issue, he was--and he did this in Pro Per. He filed a Petition to Establish Parental Relations, a Paternity Action. And how we were going to proceed is to put before the Court facts and arguments as to why Mr. Oglesby is the Presumed Parent in order to get to the Visitation.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
But they can be two separate and distinct causes of action.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
In other words, for example, a Non-Parent Visitation Case is a Grandparent asking the Court to enforce a Visitation Order. There is Case Law and Statutory Law that governs that. The Supreme Court of the United States has even addressed this issue of so-called Grandparent or Non-Parent Visitation.
But if a person seeks--if any proper person under the Family Code seeks to have his or her Parentage established, then that is a different matter--
Mr. Darren Young
Right.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--and that is a determination that has to happen as a legal question first. And the Court can, as an adjunct to that if Parentage is established, make orders for Visitation and Custody.
But establishing Parentage includes a whole bundle of rights, including Child Support and Child Care and Medical Insurance and things like that. And I am not sure having read Mr. Abramowitz’s O.S.C. paperwork that they are in agreement with that. So, again, we have a case of so-called ‘Competing Fathers’ here.
Mr. Darren Young
Right.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And I believe the law says there can only be one father, as that person is determined to be the Father for purposes of Custody, Visitation and Child Support. So that is why my question to you, because when I read your client’s most recent declaration, it seemed like he was hedging. If you will, that issue and was not sure whether he was seeking a Parentage Order or whether he was merely seeking a Non-Parent Visitation Order. And that is a huge, huge difference. Because if Parentage is established, it is established forever and it can’t be changed.
A Visitation Order, however, can be modified, if you will, over time, as can any Visitation Order in a Parentage Case.
Mr. Darren Young
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
These are the kinds of distinctions I was trying to talk about with you the last time we were here. You cannot have everybody who wants to be a parent just say, ‘I want to be a parent.’
Other people may be permitted to apply to the Court for Visitation as well, if it is in the best interests of the children.
This case needs a lot of intervention by Mental Health Professionals as well, and I am intending to do that at some juncture. But if this initial legal question hasn’t been resolved, the Evaluators who [sic] I am intending to put on this case won’t do any work until they know who the parents are and who the other persons are, the collateral people, if you will, that have contact with these children.
Your client’s Declaration that he recently filed said that he first came to know these children in the year 2005. Is that correct?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Is your client still in a relationship with Ms. Abramowitz?
Mr. Darren Young
No. They talk occasionally, but they do not have a close relationship.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Does my series of questions help outline for you the issues of this case?
And I am treading very carefully because this is a currently evolving part of the law.
Mr. Darren Young
Right.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And while the Statute is broad enough to say that any person can assert the claim, it just doesn’t happen when it is asserted--
Mr. Darren Young
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--and it hasn’t been established yet.
Children born during the marriage with names of Father, Mr. Abramowitz on the Birth Certificates, there are conclusive presumptions under the law that only under the most extraordinary of circumstances can be undone. And that is what I am trying to get you all to think about. That is why I am trying to get you all to join in the proper parties on these issues so the Court can make orders and judgements that are binding on everyone concerned upon proper notice.
Mr. Darren Young
I understand. Thank you, Your Honor.
And the objective of the Petitioner as it is stated in his declaration is to seek some visitation with the children. And I know it goes back to--well, I guess I would have to confer more with my client.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You need to answer that first question first because if it is a parentage case, then I will set up the procedures in this Court to accommodate the parties and counsel and have the trial of that issue bifurcated--
Mr. Darren Young
Right.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--and determined because if there is a determination of Parentage, it changes the entire complexion of the related case. If there is a determination of Non-Parentage, it is then what the other choice is, a request for visitation by a person who is not a parent.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, I do. I do, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay. That is not just a little question to answer. It is not just a procedural question because if your client is a parent and I so find, then he is on the hook for Child Support--
Mr. Oglesby
Uh-huh.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Forever.
Mr. Oglesby
Yeah.
Mr. Darren Young
Right.
Mr. Oglesby
I understand that. I understood it from the beginning.
Mr. Darren Young
And that is a little bit difficult and complex in this case because there is a question of paternity on one of the minor children, but maybe not the other.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
As I said last time, that is no longer--
Mr. Darren Young
I understand.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--capable of being adjudicated because of the passage of time. Unless you can all cite to me other authority, there are conclusive presumptions that have been established by the passage of time, by birth certificates, by the age of these children and the inactivity to request Paternity Testing.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Has your client fully been advised of all of this and fully responded to this inquiry?
Mr. Oglesby
Yes.
Mr. Darren Young
Yes. And we discussed going both ways, including--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You can’t.
Mr. Darren Young
No. I understand that. I understand that.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
That is the point I am trying to make. You have to tell me all where this case is going first. [sic] I am trying to get you to have that dialogue. I tried last time unsuccessful. [sic] I’m trying again, and I’m not sure that I am getting through.
Mr. Darren Young
But my understanding on how we are proceeding is--and maybe it wasn’t clear in the Declaration--but not as a Non-Parent Visitation Order, but actually asking the Court to make an Order on Presumed Parenthood stating that Mr. Oglesby is the parent of these two children and then we can get to the Visitation and Custody Orders.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. Hold for just a moment.
Mr. Ver Hoeve, let me hear from you next. It seems to me that I have to bifurcate that issue, try it, conclude it because all other issues flow from that determination.
Mr. Carlson, you will have a chance in just a second.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
The way I understand the argument that is being put forth by the Petitioner in the Paternity Action, Mr. Oglesby, is that he is claiming there is parentage with respect to the minor child, Harriet, however, there is not much argument with respect to the younger child, Theodore, because there is a conclusive presumption with respect to Theodore that Mr. Harold Abramowitz is the father, a child born during the marriage and the child is now six years old.
It is--our contention is that Mr. Abramowitz is also Presumed Father of Harriet under Family Code 7611(C)(1).
The issue as to whether Mr. Oglesby should have any kind of visitation with Harriet, we think raises more problems than would be offset by any potential benefit from that contact even if that contact was monitored.
There is questions about [sic], is Mr. Oglesby going to present himself as Harriet’s father thereby confusing Harriet in regard to her relationship to Mr. Abramowitz?
I think there is a dynamic between treating Harriet different than Theodore. I think it is in the best interests of both children together that they be treated as a--these are the children of the marriage. Harold is the father. Mira Lani is the mother.
I think under the Heath Case and The Williams Case to separate--and we are not talking about separating the children physically. I know the Petitioner is not asserting that custody should be changed, at least at this point. But I think even treating the children differently psychologically, you know raises problems. And I think it is in the children’s best interests that, from my client’s position that, at this point in time there be no contact with Mr. Oglesby.
Our back-up position, if the Court were inclined to think that Mr. Oglesby should have some contact, and it is our position that it is contrary, but if Mr. Oglesby should have some contact in the Court’s position, if that were determined, we would absolutely want Mr. Oglesby to undergo the same kind of psychological evaluation that Mr. Abramowitz did and that Mira Lani Abramowitz has refused to participate in before any visitation occurs.
Michael J. Convey
Let me hear from Mr. Carlson, who is here as the advocate for the children, unless and until we engage some kind of a process that might require me to appoint a Guardian for ;them in addition to you. And I was making that inquiry last time, as well, in addition to telling us what the children need, want and what is in their best interests.
Go ahead.
Mr. John Carlson
Your Honor, I think the way I initially understood the Court’s question is, where are we procedurally? And if we are at--if we are proceeding on a Paternity Action, I think that that issue needs to be resolved before we start to make any orders with respect to visitation with the children.
There were problems and concerns that Ms. Arroyo [sic], the children’s therapist has in relation to Mr. Oglesby and his relationship with the children. And if we are even going to start to go down that road as to what type of contact and re-introducing him back into the children’s lives, I think we need to resolve the paternity action.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. As to those letters, Mr. Carlson, may I read them?
Mr. John Carlson
Your Honor, I don’t think it is appropriate to read the Monitors’ letters. I don’t think Counsel would approve of the Court reading--they are clearly hearsay letters.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Please return all of that to the Court and we will put it in a confidential envelope. I will not read it.
Mr. John Carlson
The other letters are from therapists, which I believe last time we addressed that the Court was going to put in an envelope, a confidential envelope.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Yes. And I order it again, so let’s do that. Let’s put all of that in an envelope right now.
Mr. Young, tell me how long it will take for you to be ready for trial on the separate bifurcated issue of your Client’s petition to establish parental relationship.
[Check Local Court Rules about whether this can be real.]
Mr. Darren Young
As soon as the Court has available, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
So you are ready now?
Mr. Darren Young
Today now?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
That means all of your discovery is done, all of your witnesses are lined up, you are ready to go and just need to give notice when to be here because we will have a bifurcated trial on that issue.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay. Then, no. We would like to proceed with some discovery, so at least maybe 30 or 45 days out.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Ver Hoeve, how long until you are ready to go on that question?
And you do both need to have Ms. Mira Lani Abramowitz joined to the action because the judgment needs to be binding on all parties.
Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Your Honor, I apologize. I didn’t mention previously that I did draft a stipulation which everyone that is here today has signed.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Did she sign it?
Mr. John Carlson
No.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
No. She’s--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay. You can stipulate all you want, but I think you are going to have to have some kind of amendment to the petition. If you stipulate to amend the petition to add a party, great.
Again, procedurally, the law says you have to have all concerned parties given notice and an opportunity to present their case. She may choose not to do anything. She may choose not to show up, but she has to be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
How long until you are ready to go on the bifurcated issue of parentage?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
About the same time, Your Honor. Maybe approximately 45 days.
Mr. John Carlson
I don’t think the facts are in dispute, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Pardon me?
Mr. John Carlson
I don’t think the facts are really that much in dispute.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Well, I anticipate hearing from at least Mr. Abramowitz and Mr. Oglesby as witnesses, possibly Ms. Abramowitz as a witness.
Are there other people that are anticipated to be brought here?
Mr. Oglesby
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
How many? How long should we set aside for you?
Mr. Darren Young
Well, I received a few letters, at least three or four.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
How long should we set aside for a trial on this bifurcated issue?
Mr. John Carlson
Probably two afternoons, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Agreed?
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, I agree. Probably two days.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
(to the Court Clerk)
Peter, we can break this up, if we have to. This has highest priority. Give me the first available 1:30 and we will pick three afternoons. They won’t necessarily be consecutive because you have such high priority on the calendar. This is that important to the Court.
Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
November 10, 17 of November and 24th of November.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Ten, 17 and 24 November, three successive Mondays in the afternoon. Does that work?
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. John Carlson
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Carlson, do you think it is in the children’s best interests that we appoint a Guardian ad Litem for these children?
Mr. John Carlson
At this time, Your Honor, I do not believe so.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Do the children still have a unified purpose--
Mr. John Carlson
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--with your representation? Thre is no conflict as far as you can tell?
Mr. John Carlson
There is not.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Ver Hoeve?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. The first date, November 10th, is a conflict for my client.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
What is the conflict? Is it one that can be resolved?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
It is a work conflict that he indicates cannot be resolved.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. Do we have another day?
Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
December 1st, the following Monday.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
So I can go 17, 24, and then December 1.
Mr. John Carlson
That works.
Mr. Darren Young
I am sorry, Your Honor?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
November 17, November 24, December 1, three successive Mondays.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
That works, Your Honor.
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, Your Honor, that is fine.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey.
That is the date then. Those are the dates. See Ms. Mira Lani Abramowitz properly joined and given an opportunity to appear. Whether she appears or not remains to be seen, but proper joinder, proper service, passage of appropriate of time. If necessary, the Court can enter a default for her non-appearance on these proceedings as to those bifurcated issues.
The Court bifurcates the issue of the competing parentage claims of Steve Oglesby and Harold Abramowitz in the related case, BF033423 and sets them for trial on November 17, 24 and December 1, all at 1:30 each day. All parties, all counsel are ordered to be personally present. There will be no continuances of this trial date. It has the highest priority.
In the event the legal theory changes and you are not going to be pursuing this legal theory, please get the other attorneys and Ms. Abramowitz on the phone and have a conference call or set it on my calendar to have a conference because then we are only in a Best Interests world.
We don’t know what world we are in until we resolve who the parents are. And it is a claim. And you are entitled to make the claim as I found last time. Whether it succeeds of not remains to be seen based on the evidence and the law and how it is applied.
Be advised of all of the ramifications of those decisions on both side [sic] of the issue, including attorney’s fees and costs, including any detriment to these children by having such procedures.
In the meantime, all parties to these two actions are ordered not to discuss this case, these cases with the minor children, not to discuss the issue of parentage with the minor children, not to discuss who is Dad, who is not Dad with the minor children.
Mr. Carlson, please work with your clients--and I know you have been--on how to address those questions or concerns that they do have in their therapeutic setting.
And it is of grave importance to the Court that they not be pulled and torn in the different directions that they have been pulled and torn so far. Put the legal question to the Court and we will solve the legal question here, so you can go forward with a unified set of appropriate orders. Okay?
Mr. John Carlson
Thank you.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Young, you are going to give Notice of Trial because Ms. Abramowitz is not here.
Mr. Darren Young
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We are going to keep our date of September 8 on calendar because it is appropriate for me to enter interim support orders without prejudice.
Mr. John Carlson
I will not be present at that, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Carlson, you are excused from September 8.
Mr. Darren Young
And there is no reason for my client to be present at that hearing?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Pardon me?
Mr. Darren Young
There is no reason for me or my client to be present at that hearing?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
If you are served--
Mr. Darren Young
We have been.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--and choose to appear, so be it.
(to Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve)
Do you want to keep that one on calendar?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
We do want to keep it on calendar, Your Honor.
Unfortunately, when I set the date I wasn’t aware Mr. Abramowitz has the same problem on September 8th as he has on November 10.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Has that O.S.C. been served yet?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
It has been served on Mrs. Abramowitz.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
If you are going to choose a new date, confer and set it and reset it if you have to. You are entitled to a continuance.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay? Thank you.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Darren Young
Thank you.
Mr. Oglesby
Thank you, Your Honor.
Linda Lyman, C.S.R. #4166
I, Linda Lyman, C.S.R. #4166, Official Reporter of the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1 through 19, inclusive, comprise a full, true and correct transcript ofthe proceedings held in the above-entitled matter on August 28, 2008.
Dated this 3rd day of September, 2008.
PART V
Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles
Department CE 27
Hon. Michael J. Convey, Commissioner
Harold Abramowitz, Petitioner,
vs.
Mira Lani Abramowitz, Respondent.
Case No. BD458534
[Editor’s Note: Notice that the Case #, BF033423, has been changed to Case # BD458534.]
Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings
November 17, 2008
For the Petitioner: Charles Ver Hoeve, Esq.
For the Respondent: No Appearance
For the Minors: John Carlson, Esq.
For the Petitioner in the BF Case: Darren Young, Esq.
Linda Lyman, CSR #4166
Official Reporter
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, November 17, 2008.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Oglesby and Abramowitz. These are numbers 17 and 18 on the afternoon calendar.
Mr. Darren Young
Good afternoon, Your Honor. Darren Young representing Petitioner in the BF Case.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Good afternoon, Your HOnor. Charles Ver Hoeve representing Harold Abramowitz, the Respondent in the BF Case and the Petitioner in the BD case, who is not present.
Mr. John Carlson
John Carlson on behalf of the minors.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you.
The Court notes that the Respondent in the dissolution case, Mira Lani Abramowitz is not present.
Is she here?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
No.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
It came to our attention last week from messages from counsel related to me that there was a request--I am not sure where it was initiated from--to put this matter over, some more work needs to be done.
And I appreciate the heads up last week, but I did want to do this on the record as I anticipate and anticipated today that the Respondent is not here, and I want a record of everything we do outside of her presence.
So what happened and what are we doing?
Mr. Darren Young
Okay. Well, as I brought to the Court’s attention last week--and I had an opportunity to meet and confer with Mr. Ver Hoeve on this issue--I would be requesting on behalf of Petitioner for a continuance of today’s trial. And I have reasons for that. And I understand the Court would be inclined to--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Quiet in the audience, please.
I am sorry?
Mr. Darren Young
--hear my reasons for my request.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Go ahead.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay. A few issues. One, as the Court noted, Mira Lani, the other parent in the BD Case is not present and to this date has not been Joined.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
To the Paternity Case filed by your client?
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, Your Honor.
And I can give reasons or an explanation as to why not, but, regardless, she has not been Joined. And I think that that needs to be done before we proceed on this matter.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Is there a problem getting her served or named?
First of all, has the petition been amended accordingly?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
No, I don’t believe so, Your Honor.
Mr. Darren Young
I filed an amended Summons and Petition when I was first retained.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Did it name Mira Lani Abramowitz?
Mr. Darren Young
As other parent?
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Correct.
Mr. Darren Young
No.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Upon whom these orders might be binding. I think the petition calls for that kind of designation.
Mr. Darren Young
I have a copy of the petition that I did serve on Mr. Ver Hoeve back in August, I believe it was.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
At any rate, what is the difficulty?
Mr. Darren Young
Well, there is some confusion, and perhaps I can explain. The last time we were in Court, a few months ago, Mira Lani was present. And Mr. Ver Hoeve did present both my client and myself a Stipulation and Order regarding Joinder of Mira Lani. However, she did not sign that document.
And there was an issue after court that day. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that that was amended, since I had already signed it, my client had already signed it, that that was going to be Mr. Ver Hoeve since he had access to Mira Lani, or I assumed that he had better access to Mira Lani to have her sign an amended request for Joinder, and that was going to be filed with the Court.
It wasn’t until a few weeks ago that I realized that she was not Joined. I met and conferred with Opposing Counsel about, you know, what to do. Opposing Counsel informed me that he was having some trouble personally serving or getting Mira Lani to sign it. And that’s where we are on the issue of the Joinder.
And I would, from this point forward, do what I can do to--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I understand, and I may give you direction in that regard.
Mr. Ver Hoeve, any updated information?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
After speaking with Mr. Young, I again sent Ms. Abramowitz, Mira Lani Abramowitz, a letter and another copy of the proposed Stipulation regarding Joinder. I haven’t received any response back from her. I have not attempted to serve her personally. We have attempted to serve her personally through the Sheriff’s Department with the Restraining Order that was issued previously, but they were not successful in doing that. That was on October 24th.
I would ask that, if we could, to have the Restraining Order reissued. I would have been here on Friday. It was my understanding this was set for hearing on Friday. I was informed to come in on Monday. And Mr. Young and I were conferring about what to do regarding these trial dates.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You need to--your part of the case first. We will reissue a DV-125 today here. The Court will on its own motion restore the Restraining Order to the calendar. So you will need to do the DV-125 and attach the full DV-110 consisting of five pages that was dated October 24, 2008. And I want you to write on the DV-125 ‘The Court reinstates the Orders of October 24, 2008 in full force and effect.’ I will date it and sign it myself today so that the Restraining Orders go back on the system. Okay?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yes, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And I will put it over for-- I have to put that over for three weeks because that is the statutory time.
I am intending to vacate the Trial Dates at this point that are on for today.
Mr. Carlson, anything else?
Mr. John Carlson
No, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I think what you have to do, Mr. Young, if you don’t get cooperation in Amending the Petition or Joining the party, file a motion to do it.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And so let’s keep the trial of that matter off the calendar. But the Restraining Order is a separate in the case hearing [sic] that has to happen within three weeks unless otherwise continued by agreement of the parties. And since we don’t have the restrained person, Ms. Abramowitz’s consent, I cannot really continue it more than three weeks. So that is the date I need to have.
I will vacate the trial dates. I will keep this case on the Domestic Violence Calendar for three weeks from today, November 24--no--I am sorry--December 9 on the Court’s own motion as this Court will be dark on December 8. December 9 at 8:30 for the hearing on the Domestic Violence Application.
I would like to reasonably set out into the future a Status Conference to keep track of the bifurcated issue of Presumed Father, Presumed Parent Status, that is being asserted by the related BF Case.
So how long, Mr. Young, until you anticipate you will have the motion done? Or should I just let you file that motion and start tracking it when you do that?
Mr. Darren Young
Well, aside from that, there is some further Discovery that we were not able to complete, but I would request at least until February 2.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Let me do this then. I will let your setting of process in this Court on the issue of Joining all Necessary Parties--
Mr. Darren Young
Okay.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
--control the timeline of those events.
We are off of the Trial Track now and we are on the D.V. Track and this other track and they will come together again at a later date.
However, let me also caution Parties because I have had this happen as well. This is the kind of a hearing that [sic] this Court will not take a Stipulation. It is not the kind of Right that you can stipulate to. I think the law is clear that there has to be an evidentiary hearing because the Court has to set up the Parental Relationship. And I don’t think you can just do that by Stipulation. So keep that in mind as you--if you get some level of cooperation from Ms. Abramowitz. It doesn’t work that way and I won’t sign that Stipulation if you present it to me. It has to be a hearing with evidence.
Mr. Darren Young
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And the Court has to have a basis for making such an Order.
All right. Please be courteous to Mr. Carlson and give him notice of these proceedings by U.S. Mail and Notice to Ms. Abramowitz at her last known address, also by mail, and Personal Service as it concerns the Motion and the DV-125.
Mr. Darren Young
Okay.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Okay. Anything else?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
No.
Mr. Oglesby
The children are not being represented by anybody right now.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Yes. Mr. Carlson represents the children.
Mr. Oglesby
No. He hasn’t [sic: seen them] since the first time he saw them a long time ago.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Young is your attorney, correct?
Mr. Oglesby
Okay. But Mr. Young says that I can’t--
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
He is your attorney?
Mr. Darren Young
Yes, Your Honor.
Mr. Oglesby
I can’t-- Mr. Young said I can’t watch out for my [sic] children because--because I am only the Presumed Father.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
You are not even that yet, Sir. You are a litigant in a Court Case. We have to get the mother involved in these proceedings because the Court must make an order that affects the whole case. All potential claimants must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The children are represented by Mr. Carlson. If you have concerns, he will listen to you, he will listen to your attorney. This is why he is here. This is why he is being paid.
Mr. Darren Young
Thank you, Your Honor.
Linda Lyman, C.S.R. #4166
I, Linda Lyman, C.S.R. #4166, Official Reporter of the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages one through seven, inclusive, comprise a full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings held in the above-entitled matter on November 17, 2008.
PART VI
Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles
Department CE27
Hon. Michael J. Convey, Commissioner
Harold Abramowitz, Petitioner
vs.
Mira-Lani Abramowitz, Respondent
Case No. BD458534
Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings
December 9, 2008
For the Petitioner: Charles Ver Hoeve, Esq.
For the Respondent: No Appearance
For the Minors: John Carlson, Esq.
Linda Lyman, CSR #4166
Official Reporter
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Number 10, Abramowitz.
Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
Your Honor, Mr. Carlson is engaged on Court Call.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
We are waiting to receive the e-mail confirmation from Court Call for Mr. Carlson’s engagement, so we will keep you on Second Call. As soon as we are aware of his presence, we’ll--
Linda Lyman, CSR #4166
A discussion was held off the record.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
This is Commissioner Convey and we are calling now, for the record, Number 10 on our calendar, Abramowitz.
On the Court Call, please state your appearance.
Mr. John Carlson
John Carlson on behalf of the minors.
Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
In the Courtroom, please state your appearance.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Good morning, Your Honor. Charles Ver Hoeve on behalf of the Petitioner, Harold Abramowitz, who is present.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you. Please be seated there.
This is on calendar today on the Petitioner’s request for Restraining Orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
The Court notes that the application was filed on October 24, 2008; that the application has been served personally on the Respondent, Mira Lani Abramowitz.
And , Mr. Ver Hoeve, is your client still going forward with that Request for Orders?
Mr. Charles A Ver Hoeve
Yes, he is, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. A couple of housekeeping matters and, while we still have Mr. Carlson, the Court received the proposed Order after Hearing from October 21, 2008.
Did you get that, Mr. Carlson?
Mr. John Carlson
I believe so, Your Honor.
Michael J. Convey
Did you sign off on it or not?
Mr. John Carlson
I don’t recall signing off on it. I believe it was fine, though.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. In the absence of signatures from the attorney for Mr. Oglesby, the other party to this case, and Mr. Carlson and Ms. Abramowitz representing herself, the Court will now sign that order after hearing with a note to Mr. Ver Hoeve’s office. Please, my middle initial is J. from now on and not V. as it is in these pleadings.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
I apologize, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I have signed that order.
The Court also notes as a housekeeping matter that(,) since our last appearance(,) there has been more correspondence received by the Court. It appears to be from someone named Mary Parker, age 10. I did not read that document. It is dated November 20, 2008.
The Court also has a letter dated June 8, 2008 signed by Mira Lani, received here November 26. I did not read that as well.
November 21, 2008, the Court received a letter from someone named Kristina Erickson [sic] consisting of one page. The Court did not read that document either.
There is an accumulating stack of Ex Parte communications to this Court. And unless we are all here and present when I read it, I won’t read these items.
Mr. Carlson, are you aware of these communications to the Court?
Mr. John Carlson
Your Honor, I have received some of those communications. I have not received all of them though. They are mainly letters--the letters I have received have been from the people who at one point were acting as monitors.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Ver Hoeve, have you received these documents?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yes, I have, Your Honor. I believe I have received all of the ones you have mentioned.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
I am going to instruct the Clerk to take all of these documents and place them in a Confidential Envelope in the Court File. I won’t read anything until I am assured that everybody is here and everybody watches me read these documents.
There are also some envelopes in the file. I want the Clerk to inspect these. If they are appropriate also to be made confidential, I will instruct that that be done just so that we don’t inadvertently cause the Court to read something or a member of the public to inadvertently pick up the Dissolution File and find these otherwise confidential documents or communications of minor children to this Court, which, unless there is a presentation by Mr. Carlson, this Court will not consider.
Before we go to the Domestic Violence Application, Mr. Carlson, is there any other business to be taken up with you?
Mr. John Carlson
Your Honor, it is my understanding that the Mother is not visiting presently. The telephone calls continue. But the Father is monitoring those telephone calls.
The Mother has moved in, essentially, across the street from the Father. The Father reports that in the morning she will come outside sometimes and she will play her guitar [sic: balalaika] so the children can see her, but otherwise she has not been visiting.
[insert link to appropriate Dr. Arroyo/Dr. Bortell/Mrs. Abramowitz correspondence]
Mr. John Carlson
(continuing)
I recently visited the children at the Father’s residence and their behavior and demeanor has improved significantly since the last time that I saw them, especially the minor, Harriet, so I am encouraged by that.
I also learned, however, that the father has removed them from their counseling. He cited an insurance, a financial issue. I directed him to get the kids back into counseling because I think it is extremely appropriate.
It is also also [sic] my understanding that Mother is not cooperating with the evaluation.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And do you take any position with respect to the Domestic Violence Application before we hear from Counsel for the Petitioner?
Mr. John Carlson
The only request I would have, Your Honor, is that any condition allow the Mother to have her continued Monitored Visitation as long as we have appropriate Monitors monitoring her visits.
[Editor’s Note: California Code of Civil Procedure Section 374:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=372-376]
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. So, Mr. Ver Hoeve, let me have you address the Court next. Are we going right to the Domestic Violence Hearing, which will be very short as a Default Hearing since there is no Appearance or no Response?
What happens next?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yes, Your Honor.
Just one preliminary matter first. With regard to the issue of the children being in counseling, there was a conflict with Dr. Arroyo, who was the first Counselor/Therapist for the Minor Children.
At the request of Mr. Carlson, Mr. Abramowitz has--and in consultation with Dr. Arroyo--found a new therapist for the children. The first meeting with that therapist, Dr. Bortel, B as in Boy o-R, T as in Tom, E, L as in Larry--L as in Larry I believe. [sic: Dr. Linda Bortell]
If I have additional contact information, I will provide that to Mr. Carlson. That first meeting is today at 3:00 p.m., so that is getting back on track.
Mr. Abramowitz does report to me that the children are doing better. They are catching up in school from where they started from. There has been tremendous improvement. And the children are also doing well socially with their peers. So they seem to be progressing and improving under Mr. Abramowitz’s care.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All right. And then, Mr. Ver Hoeve, is it your intention to proceed with the Domestic Violence Hearing?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Yes, Your Honor. And it is not--make it very clear. It is is not Mr. Abramowitz’s intention to restrict contact with the children from Ms. Abramowitz. But given that there have been issues that have been raised by this Court, and the prior Judicial Officer Hearing in this case, that there are issues concerning perhaps psychological and mental health issues. Those need to be addressed.
We want there to be kind of a stable environment in which the children are to have interaction with Ms. Abramowitz. She has indicated on a number of instances [sic] a desire to go outside of the Court System to see the children, and that is not having a good effect on the children.
The purpose of the Restraining Order is simply to prevent Ms. Abramowitz from walking across the street and engaging or seeking to engage in--the children outside of the monitored environment. [sic]
Mr. Abramowitz reports that when they go over--when she goes over--that the children are in a position of where [sic] they feel like they have to ignore her, which isn’t good.
We want Ms. Abramowitz to be involved in the children’s lives. We want her to do so by following the Court’s orders, by going to see Dr. Dupee, getting the Evaluation done and following whatever course is recommended by Dr. Dupee and this Court regarding--in regard to her reestablishment of her position as the Mother of these children. But if she is going to refuse to do that and go outside of the Court System and disrupt these children’s lives, then this is the Restraining Order that we need.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Abramowitz, would you please stand and face the Clerk and raise your right hand to be sworn?
Mr. Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
Do you solemnly state the testimony you are about to give in the matter now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
Mr. Abramowitz
I do.
Mr. Peter Ontiveros, Court Clerk
Thank you.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Please state your name again for the Record.
Mr. Abramowitz
Harold Abramowitz.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you. Please be seated.
Mr. Abramowitz, you are the Petitioner in this case and the Moving Party on an Application for Restraining Orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, which you filed on October 24, 2008. Is that correct?
Mr. Abramowitz
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Is everything you stated in your petition, that is--that you filed on October 24, 2008 true and correct under Penalty of Perjury?
Mr. Abramowitz
Yes.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Do you have any new or additional information to add-- developments, contacts or other information--since the application was filed that you need to place on the Record in the presence of the Court?
Mr. Abramowitz
Subsequent to this there was one more incident where the South Pasadena Police were called.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Please speak a little louder because Mr. Carlson is on the phone.
Mr. Abramowitz
I am sorry.
Since this Restraining Order was filed there was one other incident where the South Pasadena Police had to be called. [link?] And there are frequent--intermittent, but frequent phone calls from--from Mira-Lani.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
And what is the substance or nature of those phone calls?
Mr. Abramowitz
It depends. They’re really--they are kind of strange, harassing phone calls usually directed to me and directed to my--my either not allowing her--or her accusing me of not allowing her to see the children or personal things or whatever.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Do the children hear the phone calls? Are they involved in that process?
Mr. Abramowitz
Occasionally she will leave the phone call--she will call and there will be an open answering machine that she will speak into, which I will turn off when I find out that she is calling.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Anything else, Mr. Abramowitz?
Mr. Abramowitz
Yeah. She will call frequently during these times. She will call 10, 12 times in a row and also on my cell phone.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Anything else you want the Court to be aware of?
Mr. Abramowitz
No. Thank you.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you. Mr. Ver Hoeve, anything else?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Nothing further, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
On the basis of the Application presented by Petitioner and his Declaration, which the Court has in evidence under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act filed on October 24, 2008, the testimony of the Petitioner, the Court finds there is substantial evidence of threatened and actual abuse perpetrated by the Respondent, Mira Lani Abramowitz, warranting the existence of Restraining Orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The Court, therefore, grants the Petitioner’s Application.
The Orders will be in place for a period of three years from today’s date through December 9, 2011 at midnight on the terms and conditions requested in the Application of October 24, 2008, along with the Orders that there are no changes to the existing Custody and Visitation Orders in this case. They remain in full force and effect, which is an order for Monitored Visitation as described in the Form DV-150 attached to the Restraining Order after Hearing presented to the Court today. Correction. The Court does not need the DV-170, so that is moot.
Therefore, the Court has signed the DV-130 Order after Hearing, the DV-140 Orders Re. Child Custody and Visitation, and the DV-150 Supervised Visitation Order.
Mr. Ver Hoeve, stay here to get copies of that conformed [sic].
What is our next upcoming date here?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Your Honor, I don’t believe we have a further hearing date on Calendar in this matter.
Mr. John Carlson
(on the telephone)
No, Your Honor. As long as she isn’t cooperating with the Evaluation, I don’t see a reason for doing that.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Ver Hoeve?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
I think that that [sic] would be appropriate, Your Honor.
We would urge Ms. Abramowitz if she--if she has a representative in Court today, or if she obtains a transcript, that she does follow the existing Court Orders and get involved in this matter.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
All Orders remain in Full Force and Effect.
We had previously taken a Trial of a Bifurcated Issue of Presumed Father Status off Calendar and the parties were going to set up a Status Conference to put the case back on Calendar after they have concluded that Discovery, so those Orders will stand.
It appears to me satisfactorily [sic] that the children will be re-enrolled in counseling and that Counsel for Petitioner will continue to advise Mr. Carlson, the children’s attorney, of the re-enrollment and the progress so that we will have a Review Date next time the parties set this matter for a Status Conference. And so there will be no further new dates.
Mr. Carlson, anything else on the phone?
Mr. John Carlson
No, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Mr. Ver Hoeve, anything else in the Courtroom?
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
No, Your Honor. Thank you.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Stay here and get the Orders. Make sure you serve those personally on Ms. Abramowitz, cause them to be served personally and copied by U.S. Mail to Mr. Oglesby’s Counsel and to Mr. Carlson by U.S. Mail, as well. All right?
Mr. Charles A Ver Hoeve
Yes, Your Honor.
Commissioner Michael J. Convey
Thank you.
Mr. John Carlson
(on the phone)
Thank you.
Mr. Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Thank you.
Mr. Abramowitz
Thank you.
Linda Lyman, C.S.R. #4166
I, Linda Lyman, C.S.R. #4166, Official Reporter of the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1 through 11, inclusive, comprise a full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings held in the above-entitled matter on December 9, 2008.
Dated this 31st day of December, 2008.
