Monday, November 16, 2009

Shawnee County Court LIVES of Battered Mothers and their Children Continue to be Destroyed

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.

Permalink

[I went ahead and hyperlinked for our ease and access to a site I DO NOT have access to. (For this VERY reason) albeit I must have provided much of the info as they are my case….. so be it then.

My review to be in compliance (again) of Contempt is the Nov. 20th, 2009  then, ….IF …..I am a GOOD little GIRL… maybe I wont go to jail and maybe, they MIGHT give me SV (again like last ten year cycle) hrg tentatively set Dec. 16th 2009. For SV maybe…]

[17 years in 3 easy documents… my legacy?.]

[hope all are well; never give up never give in, not ever!]

c

FW: Case,  KS Appellate Law, request for documents and 4 attachments. (also hyperlinked below)

From: AngelFury@AngelFury.org [mailto:AngelFury@Ange lFury.org]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1:09 PM
To: 'TuckDuncan
Subject: Case, KS Appellate Law, request for documents and 4 attachments.
Importance: High

I have already eliminated the alleged images of Jason’s 11th hour motion. I have also disposed of all accounts and given away the blogs I have had access to posting to. Weather another picks them up or not is not up to me.

I also want you to be aware of 2003 Appellate court ruling which DIRECTLY relates to what Judge Debenham JUST ordered by suspending my parenting time ..again… without due process and against the law and against the 2003 Court of Appeals ruling below.

I have also attached four documents (to do with as you wish) that I have preserved in relinquishing any online storage that I have any control of and how incredibly this case cries for justice.

1.) 1997 Brief of Appellant (Dombrowski)

2.) 2000 Illegal Custody switch (Anderson)

3.) Inter-American Commission Human Rights (my part) that leads suit Known as (Dombrowski et el v US 2007)

4.) Kimbrell et Kimbrell Appellate Word.docx http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2005/20050916/93450.htm

Please advise, and again thank you. I will attempt to get a more accurate SSADI of MY gross income. My gross does NOT include what dad gets for my child on behalf of MY Dependent minor child.

You had asked once, “what would I do had I not had a child?’ en re SSADI et my dependent care child I have not held un ten + years…

Answer:

I would not be in the situation I am in now Tuck… depleted by court and batterer as the hold my ‘child’ hostage.

“I would still be a nurse with the state of Kansas and I would never had beaten several times half to death and almost death had it not been for the fact that I was blessed with what I learn to be the only true love in this hateful world- and that is the birth of my innocent child- one that I gave life to… only to have it be like this the first 18 years of her life.”

I request  to see the odyssey reports. Submitted to court gossip file. I also want to see the GAL reports and any and all other Reports entered since April 2009- (my last access to the Courts Gossip file.) Again, I will not make it, without some reprieve financially. This is not in the BEST INTER$EST of the child (following that to broad open ended rule)

Thank you again..

Claudine

 

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2005/20050916/93450.htm

[further reading of this decision ALSO state that parenting time CAN NOT BE CONDITIONED upon the parents condition of  therapy as this violate constitutional rights via 3rd party ]

No. 93,450

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Matter of the Marriage of

JANET BOULEY, f/k/a KIMBRELL,

Appellee,

and

WILLIAM DAVID KIMBRELL,

Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

 

1. Under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time unless the trial court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.

K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a parent is entitled to reasonable parenting time and visitation. This presumption may be rebutted if, after a hearing, the trial court finds that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral, or emotional health.

2. The fundamental rule of statutory construction to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed rather than determine what the law should or should not be.

3. Orders which condition parenting time and visitation upon a minor child's desires to see a parent give a minor child the authority to determine parenting time and can have the effect of denying parenting time altogether.

4. Among the factors that must be considered when determining the issue of child custody, residency, and parenting time under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1610(a)(3)(B) and K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a), the trial court must look at the desires of a minor child as to the child's custody or residency. The child's wishes as to custody, residency, and parenting time and visitation cannot be the exclusive factor relied upon by the trial court in determining parenting time.

Appeal from Douglas District Court; JEAN F. SHEPHERD, judge. Opinion filed September 16, 2005. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

GREEN, J.: William David Kimbrell (David) appeals the trial court's decision regarding parenting time with his 16-year-old son Evan Kimbrell.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court can condition a noncustodial parent's right to parenting time with his or her minor child upon the desires of the child. We determine that this cannot be done. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 60-1616(a) makes it clear that a parent has a right to reasonable parenting time with his or her minor child "unless the court finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of parenting time would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health." Conditioning parenting time on the wishes of a minor child improperly gives the child the authority to determine a noncustodial parent's rights to parenting time and visitation and can have the effect of completely denying the noncustodial parent's rights to parenting time.

Under the facts of this case, we determine that in the absence of a finding that parenting time "would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health," the trial court must set a reasonable and specific schedule for David's parenting time with Evan. Accordingly, we reverse in part and remand to the trial court with directions to either determine an appropriate and reasonable parenting time and visitation schedule or make the required statutory finding that the exercise of parenting time in this case would seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral, or emotional health

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.

Permalink

Posted by Unknown at 1:18 PM