How can I prosecute Child Stealing / Custodial Interference (CALPC 278.5)

"JR" wrote in message
...
Hello,

Does anybody have access to Findlaw, or the ability to look up the
following case:

People v. Bormann, 6 Cal.App.3d 292.

I found a reference to it in an Oakland Police training document. This
case may provide a precedent I can use. I guess I could ask my attorney
to look it up, but it costs me $75 just to have him answer the phone.

Go to a law library.....either a law school or county court house ,


Jay R.

"JR" wrote in message
...
Hello,

Does anybody have access to Findlaw, or the ability to look up the
following case:

People v. Bormann, 6 Cal.App.3d 292.

I found a reference to it in an Oakland Police training document. This
case may provide a precedent I can use. I guess I could ask my attorney
to look it up, but it costs me $75 just to have him answer the phone.

Go to a law library.....either a law school or county court house ,


Jay R.

"JR" wrote in message
...
P.Fritz wrote:

Yes, it means up to 1 year of imprisonment when convicted.
BTW, before you whine any further, I have personally seen it be
applied....and just the threat of it deters parenting time
interference.

Right, that's what I'm hoping...she will stop interfering if she thinks
there's a possibility of serious consequences. It's the positive
behavior changes that the threat of these penalties should compel that
I'm looking for.

What if, as part of my contempt hearing, I submit a motion to modify our
custody orders to include an "enforcement clause". Like a note to the
police or to the DA, right in the order, saying something like "If there
is evidence of either parent interfering with custody, the police are
encouraged to pursue criminal penalties." ? Sounds extreme, but it
would probably go a long way toward putting the "fear of law" into
interfering mom.

I would not mix the two....and anything in the civil action wording would
be meaningless in a criminal action.


Oh, in response to an earlier post saying that the statutes usually
specify a time period. California's 278.5 does not specify any time
period.

You need to look at the letter of the law and follow the criterea to a 't'


Jay R.

"JR" wrote in message
...
P.Fritz wrote:

Yes, it means up to 1 year of imprisonment when convicted.
BTW, before you whine any further, I have personally seen it be
applied....and just the threat of it deters parenting time
interference.

Right, that's what I'm hoping...she will stop interfering if she thinks
there's a possibility of serious consequences. It's the positive
behavior changes that the threat of these penalties should compel that
I'm looking for.

What if, as part of my contempt hearing, I submit a motion to modify our
custody orders to include an "enforcement clause". Like a note to the
police or to the DA, right in the order, saying something like "If there
is evidence of either parent interfering with custody, the police are
encouraged to pursue criminal penalties." ? Sounds extreme, but it
would probably go a long way toward putting the "fear of law" into
interfering mom.

I would not mix the two....and anything in the civil action wording would
be meaningless in a criminal action.


Oh, in response to an earlier post saying that the statutes usually
specify a time period. California's 278.5 does not specify any time
period.

You need to look at the letter of the law and follow the criterea to a 't'


Jay R.

"JR" wrote in message
...
P.Fritz wrote:

Yes, it means up to 1 year of imprisonment when convicted.
BTW, before you whine any further, I have personally seen it be
applied....and just the threat of it deters parenting time
interference.

Right, that's what I'm hoping...she will stop interfering if she thinks
there's a possibility of serious consequences. It's the positive
behavior changes that the threat of these penalties should compel that
I'm looking for.

What if, as part of my contempt hearing, I submit a motion to modify our
custody orders to include an "enforcement clause". Like a note to the
police or to the DA, right in the order, saying something like "If there
is evidence of either parent interfering with custody, the police are
encouraged to pursue criminal penalties." ? Sounds extreme, but it
would probably go a long way toward putting the "fear of law" into
interfering mom.

I would not mix the two....and anything in the civil action wording would
be meaningless in a criminal action.


Oh, in response to an earlier post saying that the statutes usually
specify a time period. California's 278.5 does not specify any time
period.

You need to look at the letter of the law and follow the criterea to a 't'


Jay R.

You just have to know how, or have a lawyer who knows how and is willing
to rock the boat.


Yes, I'm less than happy with my attorney. He clearly is not
interested in being agressive or rocking the boat, as you say. I
retained him because my research indicated he'd done a lot of father's
rights work. But I've since spoken to some men at a local father's
group and they confirm that he used to be great, but is now burnt out.
I'm looking for somebody new. Mom's been through 9 attorneys in the
three locations she's moved to, which I find telling.

The FACT is that you have to look at your situation. If your lawyer is
an idiot, get out the Vaseline. (That applies to women as well as men.) The
wisest try to have as little involvement of lawyers as possible. It is
hilarious to me, sitting on the sidelines, watching a woman get a nasty
lawyer to fight over $20,000 equity in a house and wind up with a $40,000
legal bill. The lawyers get the house and you get bills on top of it. Oh
yeah those fights are good for business. MEDIATE!
Work it out between yourselves.

Mediation is excellent advice in most situations. We've been through
two mediators and mom makes it abundently clear by her actions that
her mediated agreements, filed and stamped into law by the court, mean
nothing her. At the end of the sessions, the mediator asks each
party, "Do you understand this agreement and do you agree to be bound
by it?" Mom says 'yes,' to the mediator and signs her name on the
paper, but she says 'no' to me soon afterward.

I tried to make sure my original post said that I've tried every
peaceful avenue before bringing my case back to court and to the
police. It's the 2nd to last thing I want to do (give up being the
last).

Jay R.

You just have to know how, or have a lawyer who knows how and is willing
to rock the boat.


Yes, I'm less than happy with my attorney. He clearly is not
interested in being agressive or rocking the boat, as you say. I
retained him because my research indicated he'd done a lot of father's
rights work. But I've since spoken to some men at a local father's
group and they confirm that he used to be great, but is now burnt out.
I'm looking for somebody new. Mom's been through 9 attorneys in the
three locations she's moved to, which I find telling.

The FACT is that you have to look at your situation. If your lawyer is
an idiot, get out the Vaseline. (That applies to women as well as men.) The
wisest try to have as little involvement of lawyers as possible. It is
hilarious to me, sitting on the sidelines, watching a woman get a nasty
lawyer to fight over $20,000 equity in a house and wind up with a $40,000
legal bill. The lawyers get the house and you get bills on top of it. Oh
yeah those fights are good for business. MEDIATE!
Work it out between yourselves.

Mediation is excellent advice in most situations. We've been through
two mediators and mom makes it abundently clear by her actions that
her mediated agreements, filed and stamped into law by the court, mean
nothing her. At the end of the sessions, the mediator asks each
party, "Do you understand this agreement and do you agree to be bound
by it?" Mom says 'yes,' to the mediator and signs her name on the
paper, but she says 'no' to me soon afterward.

I tried to make sure my original post said that I've tried every
peaceful avenue before bringing my case back to court and to the
police. It's the 2nd to last thing I want to do (give up being the
last).

Jay R.

You just have to know how, or have a lawyer who knows how and is willing
to rock the boat.


Yes, I'm less than happy with my attorney. He clearly is not
interested in being agressive or rocking the boat, as you say. I
retained him because my research indicated he'd done a lot of father's
rights work. But I've since spoken to some men at a local father's
group and they confirm that he used to be great, but is now burnt out.
I'm looking for somebody new. Mom's been through 9 attorneys in the
three locations she's moved to, which I find telling.

The FACT is that you have to look at your situation. If your lawyer is
an idiot, get out the Vaseline. (That applies to women as well as men.) The
wisest try to have as little involvement of lawyers as possible. It is
hilarious to me, sitting on the sidelines, watching a woman get a nasty
lawyer to fight over $20,000 equity in a house and wind up with a $40,000
legal bill. The lawyers get the house and you get bills on top of it. Oh
yeah those fights are good for business. MEDIATE!
Work it out between yourselves.

Mediation is excellent advice in most situations. We've been through
two mediators and mom makes it abundently clear by her actions that
her mediated agreements, filed and stamped into law by the court, mean
nothing her. At the end of the sessions, the mediator asks each
party, "Do you understand this agreement and do you agree to be bound
by it?" Mom says 'yes,' to the mediator and signs her name on the
paper, but she says 'no' to me soon afterward.

I tried to make sure my original post said that I've tried every
peaceful avenue before bringing my case back to court and to the
police. It's the 2nd to last thing I want to do (give up being the
last).

Jay R.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
big snippety

Cripes, what do you think a warrant for not paying CS is.

A warrant for contempt, which is criminal.
--------------------
A warrant for contempt can be civil or criminal. If it's criminal they
usually have to provide an atty if you can't afford one. A civil contempt
allows you to pay your way out of jail.

~AZ~


Courts don't 'mean' anything. It is a matter of how the law is written
in
the legislature. Taking (moving) a child across state lines while
denying a
specified parenting time......it has nothing to do with establishing
residence. Geesh.

The courts interpret. "Moving" may be interpreted as "establishing
residence." It may also be interpreted as motion. Denying a
non-custodial parent ordered visitation without cause (i.e. NCP
staggers to the door in a drunken stupor to pick up child) should be a
felony in and of itself WITHOUT a definition of "moving" although I
know it has not been. My opinion, when reading the law as it was
shared with us, is that lawmakers intended to keep CPs from changing
the child's residency across state lines in an effort to thwart
visitation. Hence, if CP wants to move from California to Oklahoma,
CP must ensure, and even pay for transportation, if necessary, that
visitation can commence as usual. I may be wrong... you may be taking
it too literally. Hopefully, we will find out.
You obviously are not an attorney because the advise you give is so
****
poor.

I never said I was an attorney. You are welcome to your opinion.

Telling someone to tape phone calls without nowing the state laws is
outrright negligent.

And I have told him to check his state laws.

As an aside, I have no beef with you and wonder why you seem so
hostile toward me. Why do you think you are so much the expert and
that what I have to say cannot possibly be of value?

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
big snippety

Cripes, what do you think a warrant for not paying CS is.

A warrant for contempt, which is criminal.
--------------------
A warrant for contempt can be civil or criminal. If it's criminal they
usually have to provide an atty if you can't afford one. A civil contempt
allows you to pay your way out of jail.

~AZ~


Courts don't 'mean' anything. It is a matter of how the law is written
in
the legislature. Taking (moving) a child across state lines while
denying a
specified parenting time......it has nothing to do with establishing
residence. Geesh.

The courts interpret. "Moving" may be interpreted as "establishing
residence." It may also be interpreted as motion. Denying a
non-custodial parent ordered visitation without cause (i.e. NCP
staggers to the door in a drunken stupor to pick up child) should be a
felony in and of itself WITHOUT a definition of "moving" although I
know it has not been. My opinion, when reading the law as it was
shared with us, is that lawmakers intended to keep CPs from changing
the child's residency across state lines in an effort to thwart
visitation. Hence, if CP wants to move from California to Oklahoma,
CP must ensure, and even pay for transportation, if necessary, that
visitation can commence as usual. I may be wrong... you may be taking
it too literally. Hopefully, we will find out.
You obviously are not an attorney because the advise you give is so
****
poor.

I never said I was an attorney. You are welcome to your opinion.

Telling someone to tape phone calls without nowing the state laws is
outrright negligent.

And I have told him to check his state laws.

As an aside, I have no beef with you and wonder why you seem so
hostile toward me. Why do you think you are so much the expert and
that what I have to say cannot possibly be of value?