t1cjsu0e

The speaker argues that the situation is a family matter, not an emergency, questioning the need for a protective order. They highlight the father's desire for visitation with his children, emphasizing his willingness to participate in their lives. The speaker challenges the evidence of abuse, focusing on the lack of physical harm or sexual abuse, and argues against a protective order, suggesting that the father's actions do not warrant such extreme measures. The discussion also touches on the dysfunctional family dynamics and the need to address the children's well-being. This is not an emergency, this is not what this law was intended for, this is a family matter. He doesn't have any access to his kids, he just wants visitation, there's no grounds for a permanent protective order whatsoever. We motion that you deny the final protective order and leave the visitation as is. Well, why hasn't he been exercising his visitation rights? Well, I think he's... No, raise your hand, sir, we're in an argument, you have a lawyer. Go ahead. I am not a family law attorney, but I believe he's been trying to, and they are dysfunctional, they've been having some issues. There's obviously some pylons going, protective orders going back and forth. He very much wants to maintain visitation with Schuyler and all three of his kids. He can't make them visit him, but he's very much open, he wants to participate in their lives. He needs this visitation, he thinks, for their safety, for Schuyler's safety. I can't order that he has visitation. There's a court order in place. Yes, that's... He can file a motion to, in the family case, of course, for contempt because she's not giving him access, or to enforce the existing custody order, or both. He can do that. He hasn't done it. He filed a motion to modify custody, I don't know what that's about, but he hasn't done anything with it. It was filed in May. Everything seems to have stopped after May. He filed it in May, he's never gotten service on it, and it's just sitting there. Instead, what we're doing is, we're litigating custody issues in a TB case, which is not the appropriate place to be doing that. That's just not what the statute, these domestic violence laws, were intended to do. It was to protect people, right? Whether it's an adult, whether it's a minor child, it's for protection. The issue, Mr. Blumenfeld, is straightforward. There's a definition of abuse, and for a child, it's in Family Law Code, Section 5-701, and it defines abuse. It says, abuse means, one, the physical or mental injury of a child under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed, or at substantial risk of being harmed by a parent. There are other possibilities, but the one that's applicable here is by a parent. That's what applies. There's also sexual abuse of a child. There's no evidence that's been presented that the child was sexually abused by this person, or by anyone else for that matter, or labor trafficking of a child. That obviously doesn't apply here. And then it says, abuse does not include physical injury of a child by accidental means, and that's not really an issue here. What we have is the first part of this. Whether he has caused physical or mental injury to Skyler, or the other children, and the other children, under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed, or at substantial risk of being harmed. That's the issue. So, address that, if you would. Mr. Atker has made some mistakes. He's doing some things. I do not think that his conduct rises to that level. He's looking at the totality of it. He is in desperation mode with Skyler. He's legitimately concerned for her life. He's doing everything he can to be a part of their lives when not having custody of them. He just wants to participate. And I don't think that a couple instances of being a bad parent warrants preclusion from their life, particularly because they're in such dire circumstances. And it just doesn't meet the burden. It's not egregious enough. And he is interested in participating in counseling. He's very much interested in helping these kids and working with his ex. And for those reasons, I would ask that the court do not permit a protective order against Mr. Atker. Sure, Your Honor. Under 5701, it is, you know, potential abuse caused by a parent. And it's the physical or mental injury of the child. So there's, for Skyler, there's taking her to nightclubs or having, being in front of a champagne bottle. Yeah, it could be apple juice, but there's also a champagne bottle in the background wearing the same ripped jeans. He's testifying about she has all these problems. You know, you take her to nightclubs and she's drinking alcohol. She's getting in. There's no evidence that she's drinking alcohol. Okay, there's evidence that she cheers in with a champagne glass in front of a bottle of champagne wearing the same ripped jeans she's wearing with the girlfriend in the other picture. There's evidence that it's the same distinctive jeans holding something that may or may not be alcohol, but there's a bottle of alcohol immediately behind that picture cheering. You take her to these nightclubs out, even though he says, oh, she's so troubled, it's so terrible, despite the fact that, you know, oh, he wants to keep her safe, but he's still taking her there. We're talking about him saying, oh, she's texting, she's contacting older men, but he also got Skyler, the court reads the text messages, he gave Skyler her own phone that her mother couldn't access so that she could use it and she couldn't, and she couldn't post things to the internet. She couldn't say, oh, I'm so worried about her texting, but then he's giving her the ability to do so without getting able to, without her mother being able to check the call or do anything. Her mother's checking her phone, has a special app recommended by a home person to make sure Skyler's not posting these things. When did she install the app? Before or after May when you learned about this happening? After May. After May. Yeah. Okay. Put your hand down, sir. So... So she's trying to take steps to keep this. I'm sorry, ma'am, I don't know why you're standing up. I know I'm not particularly tall, but... So she's trying to take steps to keep her safe. We have that he's cursing out the middle son, he's telling him he's fucking with her, he's telling him he should rot in hell, telling him mental injuries with other children. We have that he's with all the children in the car, he's pulling open the door, he's screaming at her in front of them, cursing them out, he's putting them, making them feel unsafe. He's a bad parent. Let's say you've proven that. Sure. Is that enough? I mean, under the... It's a preponderance of evidence to prove that physical or mental injury of a child is... What's the physical injury? Was there a physical injury to any of the children? I mean, underage drinking of alcohol would be it. You haven't proven that. Is there a physical injury to any one of these children? Beyond violating laws I take into account... Physical injury to any of the children? No, Your Honor. There is mental injury. What's the mental injury to these children? False. That he caused? Sure. Causing your son the dumbest mother fucker ever. Do you... This isn't your first... No, Your Honor. I have, unfortunately, cases all the time where parents say that and worse. They'll call their daughter and use the C word, which is about the most offensive thing that I can think of. I won't even... That word won't come out of my mouth ever. Fair enough, Your Honor. Because it's so offensive. And I have parents that'll... Fathers and mothers that'll use that word with their daughter. It's awful. So, the question is whether this has caused mental injury, any of this, that you suggested. She testified he pulled his bed into her room. He's crying. He's insoluble. He's damaged by his father saying that. She did testify. It's the last part I have issue with, by his father saying that. Sure. Because he called him... What did you say? He called what she testified... What's in the textbook. ...that he said. Right? That's proven. That's the evidence. But let's assume all that's there. How do we know, given the dysfunction in this group, that it's what he did, as opposed to anything else, that caused him to move his bed into her room or whatever it is that he did? What's the next affair? Sure. She testified when he came home. Right? And they have that visit with the father, that last one in May, where he then returns them. They're late. And her son is melted down because this is the same time this text message exchange happens. I want to know if she tried to send him to jail. You can match the dates of the text messages. It's all like May 26th, Your Honor. This all happens when you're asking... She did not try to send him to jail. Really? Did she? Was that the evidence? I mean, because taking a troubled daughter to nightclubs is a great outlet. What are you doing when you have a troubled daughter? She's exposed to all of this stuff by both parents. That's my... She's not taking her to a nightclub. You're threatening to call the police on him, to bring him into court. This is a dysfunctional family. If I've ever seen one, this is a dysfunctional family. You've got four children that are stuck in the midst of their chaos. And what I want you to tell me is how you've proven that he...