Get documents about "ORDER january 2007
Document Sample
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTICT, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS
DIVISION FOUR
IN THE MATTER OF )
HALLECK G. RICHARDSON, )
AND; ) Case No. 96D-217
)
CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI )
__________________________________ )
Pursuant to K.S.A. CHAPTER 60
ORDER
NOW on this day______ of ________, 2007 the above styled matter MOTION to RESTORE
PARENTING TIME and other relief filed by respondent, November 1, 2006 has matured, and
There have been no objections from any of the parties involved.
THEREUPON, The Court after hearing no objections to the Motion finds as follows:
1 . There was one child born of this marriage whose name and age is as follows:
Rikki Dombrowski XX-XX-1994
2. The Respondent‟s parenting time shall be restored, in accordance with Kansas
Statutes and shall follow with the Shawnee County Guidelines (2006 version).
3. The Court rescinds the appointment of the GAL- Jill Dykes.
4. The Petitioner is to relinquish his status as payee of minor child, including any
back pay that is currently being deducted from the respondents Social Security
Disability Benefits, shall cease. Respondent will remain the payee of all said
benefits of her Social Security- Disability.
5. Petitioner is to cooperate with the Social Security Office in the transfer of said
Benefits, and will be responsible for paying the benefits back to respondent
beginning February 1, 2007.
6. benefits of Respondent to Benefits Disabilty a benefit of
Respondents SSA Disability t care for any dependent children.
Respondent‟s benefits for the assistance in caring for her dependent child as the
benfits ar
.
to the MOTION TO RESTORE PARENTING TIME and Claudine Dombrowski,
respondent, with out counsel, and respectfully moves
this Court to Rescind the current ex-parte‟ Order February, 3, 2004 of supervised visits
currently imposed upon mother and daughter, and restore parenting time under Federal Law,
KSA Statues and Shawnee County Guidelines. The SSA Disability benefits of the mother be
returned to her. The GAL be removed from the case effective immediately.
IN SUPPORT of this Motion, Respondent states and alleges as follows:
1. The September 27th, 2006 Order of the Court has matured.
a) Mother‟s website has been shut down.
b) Requested evaluation at Family Service and Guidance Center is not obtainable.
Exhibit A (See attached letter sent to the courts from Family Service and
Guidance Center.)
c) Respondent has in good faith made all efforts to comply with all orders of the
Court. And in fact has gone above and beyond to satisfy the demands of the
Courts.
2
2. Respondent has never had „due process‟ of an evidentiary hearing to refute the
allegations that caused the current ex-parte‟ order of February 3, 2004 of supervised
visits that the mother and daughter are currently imposed under. See exhibit B. Filed
on the Courts on February 12, 2004 by Counsel for the Respondent. Written
objection and request for evidentiary hearing” pertaining to the ex-parte‟ order of
Feb 3, 2004.
3. Jill Dykes, the Guardian Ad Litem, servicing as an officer of the court, has
intentionally falsified information and misled the Courts in further denying and
abusing the constitutional rights to both the child and the mother. Ms. Dykes has
never appropriately advocated for the child and has become an advocate for Petitioner
and Petitioners counsel. Her actions or failure to act have caused great damage to the
minor child by maliciously denying the child access to her mother and maternal
family members.
4. That there are supporting psychiatric evaluations, parenting assessments, home
studies, psychological records and evidence in the Courts records (resubmitted again
on September 27, 2006) that mother is not nor ever has been a threat or harm nor has
been alleged to be a harm to her daughter. Contrary to that of the Petitioner‟s well-
documented propensity to violence, threat and danger.
5. KSA 60-1616 (a). Clearly says that both parents are to be allowed complete access to
their children unless AFTER a Hearing, a clear and present danger exists to the child
from that said parent.
a) Exhibit C. Judge Bruns August 26, 2004 Order states:
3
“It should be noted once again that the Court rarely views supervised
parenting time to be a long- term solution.” As such, the Court continues to
presume that both parents are capable of caring for their child.”
See Troxille v. Granville, 530 U.S 50, 147 L.ED. 2nd 49, 210 S.Ct. 2054 (2000);
In re Osborne, 21 Kan. App. 2nd 374, 901 P.2d 12 (1995); K.S.A. 60-1616 (a)
(3)-(5); and K.S.A 60-1616(a).
b) Judge Bruns further states in the same Order:
“Thus the case manager and GAL should focus on getting a permanent parenting
plan in place which is in the best interest of the child.”
6. That as a direct result of the supervised visitation requirement imposed by the ex-parte
order of February 3, 2004, Petitioner and his Counsel have been able to take
approximately $600.00 per month out of respondents SSA disability Benefits for the
respondent to use to care for her child.
a) Under the current ex-parte order requiring supervised visits, the respondent does
not need a home during her parenting time with her daughter, as no parenting
time exists outside the extreme structure of supervised visits.
b) This has caused extreme hardship to respondent leaving only $500.00 a month
of her SSA Disability Benefits. Mother will be soon be rendered homeless. This
is a reflective of a continued desire of the Petitioner and his counsel to
undermine Mother‟s ability to survive economically. It is clearly not in the best
interests of the minor child for her mother to be rendered homeless.
WHERFORE, Respondent prays the Court to enter an order restoring unsupervised
parenting time, returning mothers SSA disability Benefits and recusing the GAL.
4
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________
Claudine Dombrowski
Respondent/Mother
P.O Box 4974
Topeka, KS 66604
Facsimile (775) 806-3730
Telephone (785) 845-3417
Attachments: Exhibit "A"- 10/02/06, Letter to Courts from Family Service and Guidance
Center- (1pg)
Exhibit "B"- 02/12/04, Motion 'Written Objection to February 2004
Recommendation of Case Manager' (4 pgs)
Exhibit "C"- 08/26/04 Order Judge Bruns (2pgs)
Verified Affidavit to support 'Motion to Restore Parenting Time' of
Mother/Respondent (3pgs)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOLLOWS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
MOTION TO RESTORE PARENTING TIME
I, the undersigned hereby certify that on the 1st day of November, 2006, a true and
correct copy of the above and foregoing Motion to Restore Parenting Time was deposited
in the United States mail, 1st class postage prepaid, addressed to the following:
Chamber Copy:
Honorable Judge Joe Johnson- [Hand Delivered]
District Court Judge-Division 4
Shawnee County Courthouse
200 SE 7th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66603
Clerk of the District Court: - [Hand Delivered]
Shawnee County Courthouse
200 SE 7th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66603
and copies to:
Don Hoffman Jill Dykes
112 W 7th Street 1243 SW Topeka Blvd.
Topeka, Kansas 66603 Topeka, Kansas 66603
____________________
Claudine Dombrowski
P.O.Box 4974
Topeka, KS 66604
Facsimile: (775) 806-3730
Phone: (7850 845-3417
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO RESTORE PARENTING TIME
CASE NO. 96D000217
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF;
HALLLECK RICHARDSON
AND;
CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
§
AFFIDAVIT
THE STATE OF KANSAS
COUNTY OF SHAWNEE
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared; Claudine
Dombrowski, who swore or affirmed to tell truth, and stated as follows:
My name is Claudine Dombrowski. I am of sound mind and capable of making this
sworn statement. I have personal knowledge of the facts written in this statement. I
understand that if I lie in this statement I may be held criminally responsible. This
statement is true.
I, Claudine Dombrowski under penalty of perjury do herby state as follows:
1. Per the Court order of 09/27/2006 to obtain a „Parenting Psychological Evaluation":
a. I contacted Family Service and Guidance Center on 9/28/06 and spoke with
Anthony Bryan.
b. I presented the court order to Anthony Bryan, Risk Management, seeking to fully
comply with the courts order. He stated that Family Service and Guidance Center
(hereinafter also referred to as FSGC) cannot comply with the court order as they do not
provide that service. They work only with children and their families.
c. Anthony Bryan promptly called Honorable Judge Johnson in my presence,
leaving a voice mail message stating that FSGC is unable to comply with the court order
of 9/27/06, as they do not provide such services.
2. On 09/28/06, 9/29/06 via two phone messages and 10/02/06 via letter (attached),
FSGC documented and communicated to the courts that they cannot comply with the
9/27/06 Order of the Court, that I wanted to fulfill the order of the court, and that they do
not provide the requested service of „Parenting Psychological Evaluation" or any other
service of another name that would qualify as a parenting psychological evaluation.
3. Attached is the letter from the Family Service and Guidance Center sent to the
Honorable Judge Johnson dated 10/02/06.
4. On 10/02/06, in my good faith attempt to try to fulfill the court order of 9/27/06,
I called The Family Resource Center, as referenced in the Family Service and Guidance
Center‟s letter dated 10/02/06, to Judge Johnson.
a. On 10/02/06, The Family Resource Center stated that their center is unable to
perform the court ordered evaluation, however referred me to Michelle McCormick at
(785) 357-4763. I was informed that Michelle sub-contracts "home studies" under court
order through the Shawnee County Court Services Office.
b. On 10/18/06, Michelle stated that through a court order from Judge Johnson, that
„Court Services‟ could provide an evaluation/ home study and parenting assessment.
Court Services would then sub-contract with Michelle for her services to provide a home
study that would include a parenting assessment, which is used most often in new and
pending divorce and custody cases.
c. I was informed by Michelle that the parenting assessment is not similar to
a “Parenting Psychological Evaluation" which the court order I was seeking to comply is
requesting.
5. On 9/28/06, 10/02/06, 10/13/06 and 10/16/06 I called Rose Marie Smith, Judge
Johnson‟s Court Administrator, seeking guidance as to how I may obey and fulfill in
good faith the court order of 9/27/06.I left messages on voice mail on 9/28/06 and
10/02/06. The following two calls on 10/13/06 and 10/16/06 Rose Marie stated that she
would get with the judge to obtain what was needed so that I could further proceed and
maintain compliance with the courts order of 9/27/06. On the last call of 10/16/06 Rose
Marie took my phone number and stated that she would call me with any further
directions, related to the evaluation and where the judge would have me go to obtain this.
6. Because FSGC and FRC can not comply with the current court order for courts order
for “Parenting Psychological Evaluation", in good faith to obey and fulfill the courts
order, I respectfully submit 3 names of Psychologists; 1. Bud Dale 2. Judith Corkum 3.
Cynthia Turnbull in the area that is willing to perform a Psychiatric Evaluation only after
they are in receipt of an order from the Honorable Judge Johnson specifying:
a. The name of the person who is to perform the evaluation
b. Specifically what items should be addressed in the evaluation
c. Plus any other information that must be included within the new court ordered
psychiatric evaluation.
_______________________________________ (Date)
Claudine Dombrowski
State of KANSAS.
County of SHAWNEE.
SWORN to and SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority, on
the 1st day of __November, 2006 year,
by ________________________________________________.
[PRINT the first and last names of the person who is signing this affidavit.]
________________________________________
Notary Public, State of Kansas [Notary‟s signature.]
[Notary‟s seal must be included.]
