Our Vision

Every day we work to provide an extraordinary place where smiles and laughter lead to wonderful memories with family members, friends, and caregivers. We want Morgan’s Wonderland to be a place where the common element of play creates an atmosphere of inclusion for those with and without disabilities while encouraging everyone to gain a greater understanding of one another.

Morgan’s Wonderland is just like any other theme park except for a culture and environment that assures 100 percent enjoyment by every person entering the Welcome Center. Unfortunately, countless children and adults with special needs do not have access to facilities that enable them to enjoy outdoor recreation fully. Morgan’s Wonderland is changing that every day.

The Inspiration

Call her a catalyst, a spark, an inspiration. Morgan Hartman doesn’t realize it, but her ability to smile through physical and cognitive special needs spurred her parents – Gordon and Maggie Hartman – to do things never before accomplished for individuals with special needs and their families. Morgan inspired the creation of a one-of-a-kind theme park and other initiatives benefiting the inclusive community.

The tipping point occurred in 2006 when Gordon observed Morgan wanting to play with other vacationing kids at a hotel swimming pool, but the kids were leery of Morgan and didn’t want to interact with her. Then and there, Gordon and Maggie resolved to create opportunities and places where those with and without disabilities can come together for fun and better understand one another. That led to the construction of Morgan’s Wonderland in an abandoned quarry in Northeast San Antonio. It’s apropos that the butterfly is the symbol of this unique theme park; soaring to one success after another is now commonplace.

When it celebrated its grand opening on April 10, 2010, Morgan’s Wonderland became the world’s first theme park designed with individuals with special needs in mind and built for everyone’s enjoyment. The completely wheelchair-accessible park features more than 25 elements, including rides, playgrounds, and other colorful attractions. From the very beginning, anyone with a special need has been admitted free of charge, no questions asked.

It is Morgan’s sincere hope that everyone with a special need – young and older, healthy or ailing, introspective, or outgoing – will be touched extraordinarily by Morgan’s Wonderland: a shrine of inclusion, an oasis of friendship, an unforgettable wonderland…Morgan’s Wonderland!

The Visionary

Native San Antonian Gordon V. Hartman sold his highly-successful homebuilding business in 2005 to pursue his and wife Maggie’s dream of helping children and adults with special needs. He proceeded to build nonprofit Morgan’s Wonderland, still the world’s first and only Ultra-Accessible, fully-inclusive theme park.

The phenomenal success of Morgan’s Wonderland – almost 3 million guests from all 50 states and over 120 other countries through park visitation and special events – encouraged Gordon to add award-winning Morgan’s Inspiration Island splash park, Morgan’s Sports complex, year-round Morgan’s Camp and Morgan’s MAC (Multi-Assistance Center). This latest venture involves more than 30 community-based organizations that provide both medical and non-medical services to children and adults with special needs. Morgan’s MAC sets a new standard for delivering coordinated care in an inclusive atmosphere through the guidance and follow-through of specially-educated team members known as Navigators.

All of Gordon’s innovations – and more to come – comprise Morgan’s, the umbrella organization that strategically coordinates planning, fundraising, marketing and communications for all its “family” members. In every endeavor, Gordon emphasizes the importance of inclusion, bringing together those with and without special needs and disabilities for interaction and a better understanding of one another. In addition to his many accomplishments through Morgan’s, Gordon has worked closely with governmental and community leaders on improvements that further add to San Antonio’s growing reputation as “Inclusion City, USA.”

The inspiration for all that Gordon has accomplished is his 30-year-old daughter Morgan, who’s dealt with physical and cognitive special needs since birth. In the beginning, Gordon’s guiding motto was: “Together, we CAN make a difference!” As a result of many successes and lots more to come, that motto now is: “Together, we ARE making a difference!”

Click here to read the full bio.

source

Frank C Brito – An American Hero, A Family Hero and one of the Teddy Roosevelt’s RoughRiders

An American Hero, an American Indian, an American Patriot and local Hero from Las Cruces New Mexico

Frank C Brito in the 1940 Census

---

 

Frank C. Brito Santa Fé, Territory of New Mexico

On our Military Regiments page, Frank C. Brito is listed as serving in Troop I. The document below is his Enlistment in the United States Military. He enlisted with his brother Jose.

Source: History of New Mexico, Its Resources and People, Volume I, Pacific States Publishing Co., 1907.

©New Mexico American History and Genealogy Project 2011 – 2023 Created 1996 by Charles Barnum & 2016 by Judy White

Rough Rider Frank Brito one ‘Tough Hombre’

On July 16, 1972, Art Leibson told the story of Frank Brito who, at the time, was one of three surviving members of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders:

Frank Brito who admits what his record proves — that he is one tough hombre — underwent major surgery last week in a local hospital and expects to be fully recovered by Aug. 24 when he will be 95 years old. And he expects to go right on living alone and liking it.

Brito’s spirit indomitable

Brito has the distinction of being one of three survivors of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders who stormed Kettle Hill in the battle for San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. When Dale walker, who combines folklore research with his publicity duties at the University of Texas at El Paso, discovered Brito living in Las Cruces, N.M., he wrote an article on the old soldier saying there was only one other Rough Rider still living. Since then he learned that a Dr. George Hammer, living in Florida and 99 last May, also rode with Roosevelt.

His eyes are dim, his hearing almost gone, but Brito’s spirit is indomitable. He lived alone in Las Cruces, right up to the time he entered the hospital for surgery, ignoring the please of his children to live with them. He did most of his own cooking, in a small adobe home, his only recreation being his radio. He largely ignored a TV set because of his eyesight.

A daughter, Mrs. Ramon Mendoza, of El Paso, is hopeful that her father will finally admit he can use help and move in with her when he eves the hospital.

Brito is the son of a Yaqui Indian prospector an as born in 1877 at Pinos Altos, N.M., then a mining boomtown. As Walker pointed out in his account of his career, he was born the year following Custer’s Last stand at Little Big Horn. Rutherford B. Hayes was President. source

Spanish American War Regiments

New Mexico in the Spanish American War, 1898

New Mexico’s part in the Civil war, when the Territory was very young and its citizens and its interests less thoroughly American than now, is only dimmed by the lustre shed on her military annals by the performance of her sons in the war with Spain. The deeds of the famous regiment of “Rough Riders.” to which New Mexico furnished a large share of volunteers, will be a cherished heritage to the Southwest as long as men are stirred to enthusiasm by the exploits of war.

At the opening of the Spanish-American war, in 1898, Congress authorized the raising of three cavalry regiments from among the rough riders and riflemen of the Rockies and the Great Plains. The command popularly known as the “Rough Riders” the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, was recruited principally from these western states, and the mustering places for the regiment were appointed in New Mexico, Arizona. Oklahoma and Indian Territory. Before the detailed work of organization was begun. Dr. Leonard Wood was commissioned colonel, and Theodore Roosevelt, then assistant secretary of war, lieutenant-colonel of the regiment.

Within a day or two after it was announced that such a unique command was to be organized, the commanding officers were deluged with applications from every part of the country. While the only organized Bodies they were at liberty to accept were those from the four territories, the raising of the original allotment of seven hundred and eighty to one thousand men allowed them to enroll the names of individual applicants from various other sources, from universities, aristocratic social clubs and from men in whose veins flowed some of the most ancient blood in America.

The regiment gathered and was organized at San Antonio, Texas. The bulk of the regiment was made up of men who came from New Mexico, Arizona. Oklahoma and Indian Territory. “They were a splendid set of men, these southwesterners,” wrote Colonel Roosevelt, “tall and sinewy, with resolute, weather-beaten faces, and eyes that looked a man straight in the face without flinching. They included in their ranks men of every occupation: but the three types were those of the cowboy, the hunter and the mining prospector, the man who wandered hither and thither, killing game for a living, and spending his life in the quest for metal wealth. In all the world there could be no better material for soldiers than that afforded by these grim hunters of the mountains, these wild rough riders of the plains. They were accustomed to handling wild and savage horses; they were accustomed to following the chase with the rifle, both for sport and as a means of livelihood. Varied though their occupations had been, almost all had, at one time or another, herded cattle and hunted big game. They were hardened to life in the open, and to shifting for themselves under adverse circumstances. They were used, for all their lawless freedom, to the rough discipline of the round-up and the mining company. Some of them came from the small frontier towns; but most were from the wilderness, having left their lonely hunters’ cabins and shifting cow-camps to seek new and more stirring adventures beyond the sea.

“They had their natural leaders, the men who had shown they could master other men, and could more than hold their own in the eager, driving life of the new settlements.

“The captains and lieutenants were sometimes men who had campaigned in the regular army against Apache, Ute and Cheyenne, and who, on completing their service, had shown their energy by settling in the new communities and growing up to be men of mark. In other cases they were sheriffs, marshals, deputy sheriffs and deputy marshals, men who had fought Indians, and still more often had fought relentless war upon the lands of white desperadoes.” There was Captain Llewellyn, of New Mexico, a good citizen, a political leader, and one of the most noted peace officers of the country; he had been shot four times in pitched fights with red marauders and white outlaws. There was Lieutenant Ballard, who had broken up the Black-jack gang of ill-omened notoriety, and his captain, Curry, another New Mexican sheriff of fame. All easterners and westerners, northerners and southerners, officers and men, cowboys and college graduates, wherever they came from, and whatever their social position, possessed in common the traits of hardihood and a thirst for adventure. They were to a man born adventurers, in the old sense of the word.”

On Sunday, May 29, the regiment broke camp and proceeded by rail to Tampa, Fla., the trip consuming four days. On the morning of June 14 the troops proceeded, on board the transport Yucatan, for Cuba. For six days the thirty or more transports which had left Tampa steamed steadily southwestward, under the escort of battleships, cruisers and torpedo boats. On the morning of June 22 the troops began disembarking at Daiquiri, a small port near Santiago de Cuba, after this and other nearby points had been shelled to dislodge any Spaniards who might be lurking in the vicinity.

Before leaving Tampa the Rough Riders had been brigaded with the First (white) and Tenth (colored) Regular Cavalry under Brigadier-General S. B. M. Young, as the Second Brigade, which, with the First Brigade, formed a cavalry division placed in command of Major-General Joseph Wheeler. The afternoon following their landing they were ordered forward through the narrow, hilly jungle trail, arriving after nightfall at Siboney.

Before the tired soldiers (men who had been accustomed to traveling on horseback all their lives, for the most part, but now compelled to proceed on foot) could recuperate, the order to proceed against the Spanish position was given, and the first actual fighting was on. This was on Tune 24. During the advance against the Spanish outposts Henry J. Haefner, of Troop G., fell, mortally wounded. This was the first casualty in action. Haefner enlisted from Gallup, New Mexico. He fell without uttering a sound, and two of his companions dragged him behind a tree. Here he propped himself up and asked for his canteen and his rifle, which Colonel Roosevelt handed to him. He then began loading and firing, which he continued until the line moved forward. After the fight he was found dead.

After driving the enemy from their position at the American right a temporary hill followed. Fighting between the Spanish outposts and the American line was soon resumed, however. A perfect hail of bullets swept over the advancing line, but most of them went high. After a quick charge the enemy abandoned their main position in the skirmish line. The loss to the Rough Riders was eight men killed and thirty-four wounded; the First Cavalry lost seven men killed and eight wounded; the Tenth Cavalry lost one man killed and ten wounded. The Spaniards were under General Rubin. This fight, the first on Cuban soil, is officially known as the Battle of Las Guasimas.

On the afternoon of June 25 the regiment moved forward about two miles and camped for several days. In the meantime General Young was stricken with the fever. Colonel Wood then took command of the brigade, leaving Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt in command of the regiment. On June 30 orders were received to be prepared to march against Santiago. It was not until the middle of the afternoon that the regiment took its position in the marching army, and eight o’clock that night when they halted on El Paso hill. Word ^vent forth that the main fighting was to be done by Lawton’s infantry, which was to take El Caney, several miles to the right, while the Rough Riders were simply to make a diversion with the artillery.

About six o’clock the next morning, July 1, the fighting began at El Caney. As throughout the entire campaign, the enemy used smokeless powder, which rendered the detection of their location well-nigh impossible. Soon after the beginning of the artillery engagement. Colonel Roosevelt was ordered to march his command to the right and connect with Lawton, an order impossible to obey. A captive balloon was in the air at the time. As the men started to cross a ford, the balloon, to the horror of everybody, began to settle at the exact front of fording. It was a special target for the enemy’s fire, but the regiment crossed before it reached the ground. There it partly collapsed and remained, causing severe loss of life, as it indicated the exact point at which other troops were crossing.

The heat was intense, and many of the men began to show signs of exhaustion early in the day. The Mauser bullets drove in sheets through the trees and jungle grass. The bulk of the Spanish fire appeared to be practically un-aimed, but the enemy swept the entire field of battle. Though the troopers were scattered out far apart, taking advantage of every scrap of cover, man after man fell dead or wounded. Soon the order came to move forward and support the regulars in the assault on the hills in front. Waving his hat aloft. Colonel Roosevelt shouted the command to charge the hill on the right front. At about the same moment the other officers gave similar orders, and the exciting rush up ‘Kettle hill” began. The first guidons planted on the summit of the hill, according to Roosevelt’s account, were those of Troops G, E and F of his regiment, under their captains, Llewellyn, Luna and Muller.

No sooner were the Americans on the crest of the hill than the Spaniards, from their strong entrenchments on the hills in front, opened a heavy fire, with rifles and artillery. Our troops then began volley firing against the San Juan block-house and the surrounding trenches. As the regulars advanced in their final assault and the enemy began running from the rifle pits, the Rough Riders were ordered to cease firing and charge the next line of trenches, on the hills in front, from which they had been undergoing severe punishment. Thinking that his men naturally would follow. Colonel Roosevelt jumped over the wire fence in front and started rapidly up the hill. But the troopers were so excited that they did not hear or heed him. After leading on about a hundred yards with but five men, he returned and chided his men for having failed to follow him.

“We did not hear you. Colonel,” cried some of the men. “We didn’t see you go. Lead on, now; we’ll sure follow you.”

The other regiments joined the Rough Riders in the historic charge which followed. But long before they could reach the Spaniards the latter ran, excepting a few who either surrendered or were shot down. When the attacking force reached the trenches they found them filled with dead bodies. There were few wounded. Most of the fallen had bullet holes in their heads which told of the accurate aim of the American sharpshooters. “There was great confusion at this time,” writes Colonel Roosevelt, “the different regiments being completely intermingled, white regulars, colored regulars, and Rough Riders. We were still under a heavy fire and I got together a mixed lot of men and pushed on from the trenches and ranch houses which we had just taken, driving the Spaniards through a line of palm trees, and over the crest of a chain of hills. When we reached these crests we found ourselves overlooking Santiago.”

Here Colonel Roosevelt was ordered to advance no further, but to hold the hill at all hazards. With his own command were all the fragments of the other five cavalry regiments at the extreme right. The Spaniards had fallen back upon their supports, and our troops were still under a very heavy fire from rifles and artillery. Our artillery made one or two efforts to come into action on the infantry firing line, but their black powder rendered each attempt fruitless. In the course of the afternoon the Spaniards made an unsuccessful attempt to retake the hill. A few seconds’ firing stopped their advance and drove them into cover of the trenches.

The troops slept that night on the hill-top, being attacked but once before daybreak, about 3 A. M. and then for a short time only. At dawn the attack was renewed in earnest. The Spaniards fought more stubbornly than at Las Guasimas, but their ranks broke when the Americans charged home.

In the attack on the San Juan hills our forces numbered about sixty-six hundred. The Spanish force numbered about forty-five hundred. Our total loss in killed and wounded was one thousand and seventy-one.

The fighting continued July 2, but most of the Spanish firing proved harmless. During the day our force in the trenches was increased to about eleven thousand, and the Spaniards in Santiago to upwards of nine thousand. As the day wore on the fight, though raging fitfully at intervals, gradually died away. The Spanish guerrillas caused our troops much trouble, however. They were located, usually, in the tops of trees, and as they used smokeless powder it was almost impossible to locate and dislodge them. These guerrillas showed not only courage, but great cruelty and barbarity. They seemed to prefer for their victims the unarmed attendants, the surgeons, the chaplains and hospital stewards. They fired at the men who were bearing off the wounded in litters, at the doctors who came to the front and at the chaplains who held burial service.

The firing was energetically resumed on the morning of the 3rd, but during the day the only loss to the Rough Riders was one man wounded. At noon the order to stop tiring was given, and a flag of truce was sent in to demand the surrender of the city. For a week following peace negotiations dragged along. Failing of success, fighting was resumed shortly after noon of the loth, but it soon became evident that the Spaniards did not have much heart in their work. About the only Rough Riders who had a chance for active work were the men with the Colt automatic guns and twenty picked sharpshooters who were on the watch for guerrillas. At noon, on the nth, the Rough Riders, with one of the Gatlings, were sent over to the right to guard the Caney road. But no fighting was necessary, for the last straggling shot had been fired by the time they arrived.

On the 17th the city formally surrendered. Two days later the entire division was marched back to the foothills west of El Caney, where it went into camp with the artillery. Here many of the officers and men became ill, and as a rule less than fifty present were fit for any kind of work. All clothing was in rags; even the officers had neither socks nor underwear. The authorities at Washington, misled by reports received from some of their military and medical advisers at the front, became panic-stricken and hesitated to bring the army home, lest it might import yellow fever into the United States. The real foe, however, was not yellow fever, but malarial fever. The awful conditions surrounding the army finally led to the writing of the historic “round robin,” in which the leading officers in Cuba showed that to keep the army in Santiago meant its complete and objectless ruin. The result was immediate. Within three days orders came to put the army in readiness to sail for home. August 6 the order came to embark, and the next morning the Rough Riders sailed on the transport Miami which reached Montauk point, the east end of Long Island, New York, on the afternoon of the 14th. The following day the troops disembarked and went into camp at Camp Wyckoff. The regiment remained here until September 15, when its members received their discharges and returned to civil life.

Teddy Roosevelt & The Rough Riders of 1898

The last two surviving veterans of the regiment were Frank C. Brito and Jesse Langdon. Brito, from Las Cruces, New Mexico, whose father was a Yaqui Indian

source 1 source 2

The names of the Rough Riders from New Mexico, as obtained from the muster-out roll, are as follows:

Troop A

Troop B

Troop D

Troop C

Troopers

Troop E

Troopers

First Sergeant William E. Dame, Cerrillos, discharged per O. reg. commands, August 10, 1898
Sergeant, Frederick C. Wesley, Santa Fe, wounded July 1, 2 or 3, 1898, and discharged on account of disability August 26, 1898.

Troop F

Troopers***

Troop H

Troopers

Troop I

Troopers

Troop K
First-sergeant, Frederick K. Lee, Organ

Troopers

source: History of New Mexico

Frank Brito of the Rough Riders

1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, Troop I

(1877 – 1973) By Frank Brito (Grandson)

One April 1898 morning found Frank C. Brito out tending cattle with his older brother Jose for the Circle Bar Ranch near Silver City, New Mexico.  He was making $1 a day working as a 20-year-old cowboy.  He and Jose received a message from their father to return home immediately to Pinos Altos, a small mining town at the edge of the Gila Wilderness in southwestern New Mexico.  Their father was Santiago Brito, a Yaqui Indian mine owner and stage coach operator originally from Janos, Mexico.

Frank was born on August 24, 1877 in Pinos Altos, still a killing ground between citizens and the bands of Apaches under Geronimo, Victorio, Juh and Nana.  He studied at the local grammar school and became a printer’s apprentice, then a miner.  The average employee made no more than $30 a month and worked long hours, usually at hard labor in the mines, ore mills or outdoors.

After a long ride home and listening to their father, Frank and Jose did as they were told and were enlisted as volunteer privates at Santa Fé, New Mexico on May 6, 1898.  Frank was three months short of age 21 and his occupation listed as “miner.”  Lt. Col. Theodore Roosevelt and Col. Leonard Wood, as commander, formed the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, also known as the “Rough Riders,” to fight in the Spanish-American War.  They chose cowboys, miners and college athletes as their soldiers of choice.  The Brito brothers were assigned to Troop H captained by George Curry, a future New Mexico territorial governor.  Curry and Frank Brito were to remain lifelong friends.  Shortly thereafter they were transferred to Troop I captained by Schuyler McGinnis.  Here, Frank had as his bunkmate, Numa Frenger, later a District Judge in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

They were shipped to San Antonio, Texas where the men were drilled in cavalry basics until the end of May.  On the 29th, they were shipped to Tampa, Florida.  Because he was bilingual in speaking, reading, and writing in Spanish, Frank was placed in charge of the stockade established to deal with the potential Spanish prisoners of war. To his pleasure, he met Theodore Roosevelt and was nicknamed “Monte” by him, short for “Montezuma.”

The men had some time for enjoyment during the seemingly endless preparations for war. Frank Brito, described an event that occurred in a shooting gallery in Ybor City, Florida while the men were seeking some sort of entertainment to break up the monotony of camp life. The shooting gallery was quite popular among the many troops stationed nearby. Frank Brito stated:

“I went in one time with Tom Darnell [a Sergeant in H Troop from Denver, Colorado who was later killed, according to Mr. Brito, while trying to shoot up the town of Central City, near Santa Rita, New Mexico] and some other troopers and we paid 25 cents to get in. There were bales of cotton behind the moving targets to catch the .22 caliber bullets and the whole place was surrounded with a fence of chicken wire. We told the man we would use our own six-shooters instead of the .22’s and when we all started shooting, it scared hell out of everybody and people started jumping over that chicken wire fence. Somebody called the 10th Georgia Cavalry to quiet us down but we took the pins off our hats and nobody knew for a while that we were Rough Riders. The Colonel found out but by then it had all blown over. “

The revolvers used by the Rough Riders were Colt single action artillery models with a 5 ½” barrel and shot the powerful .45 Colt cartridge. The noise would have been deafening!

Unfortunately, Frank never made it to Cuba, remaining in Tampa with the stockade, most of the horses, the men of his troop and three other troops. The reason that Frank did not go to Cuba was that, because of a shortage of space aboard the transport ships, only eight of the regiment’s twelve troops were permitted to board for Cuba. Also, because of the space shortage, those that did go to Cuba went without their horses, which were left behind for Frank’s I Troop, joined by C, H, and M Troops, to care for.

The orders splitting the regiment met with protest. Roosevelt noted that “the four [Troops] left behind feel fearfully.” Later he added “To the great bulk of them I think it will be a life-long sorrow. I saw more than one, both among the officers and privates, burst into tears…”

Partially to assuage them, those remaining behind were told by Colonel Wood that they would shortly be taken to Cuba also. Brito commented “We were too angry to hear him, and if we had, I doubt we would have believed him. We had come a long way together and being left out at the last minute was not something any of us had counted on.”

At the war’s end, all the Rough Riders were reunited at Camp Wikoff, Montauk Point on Long Island, New York to recover from their wounds and tropical diseases.  Frank spent time in a New Jersey hospital recovering from malaria and dysentery prevalent in the Tampa area.

Frank was discharged from the Rough Riders on September 15, 1898.  His brother remained in the service, joining another military unit after the  Rough Riders were disbanded and was listed as “missing” in the Philippines during the latter phase of the Philippine-American War.  Jose never returned and was presumed dead.

Frank returned to mining in Pinos Altos and was involved in a tragedy in September 1900.  He returned home during the day and mistakenly killed his wife’s sister.  He was sentenced to the territorial prison for ten years but served only five.  Territorial Governor Miguel Otero granted him a full pardon.  In prison, he learned the emerging technology of electricity in operating dynamos and motors.  During this time, he was divorced from his first wife.

He worked as a hoisting engineer at various mines, which required a high degree of skill, lowering equipment and men into deep shafts.  Leaving Silver City, he moved to Las Cruces and was married a second time.  He was also an electrician for the city of Las Cruces after his mining days were over.  He later became a deputy sheriff, town constable, city jailor and game warden.  Frank C. Brito was praised for a long and useful law enforcement career.

In his first days in Las Cruces, Frank held a part-time job as bartender at various saloons.  He worked for John Barncastle’s saloon and Dan Read’s Cowboy Saloon.  At the Cowboy Saloon, he met and became friends with Pat Garrett, the law officer who tracked and killed Billy-the Kid.  Frank’s seven children went to school with several of Garrett’s children.

There were numerous reunions of the Rough Riders, the first taking place at Prescott, Arizona.  There is a statue of Bucky O’Neill in the city park with a plaque listing all the Rough Riders.  Frank’s name is not on this plaque, however, his brother’s name is on the plaque.  It was probably thought Frank and Jose Brito were the same person.  Both brothers’ names are listed on all the original regiment records so there is an opportunity for the City of Prescott to correct this oversight.  The later reunions were held at Las Vegas, New Mexico.  The Rough Rider Museum was established in Las Vegas to commemorate this patriotic group.  Las Vegas is not far from Santa Fé and this museum is worth visiting as it houses many artifacts dealing with this period.

Frank retired and spent his later life enjoying his family, friends, televised baseball, and stray cats.  He enjoyed talking about his Spanish American War year and was interviewed many times by magazines, newspapers and historians.  He was appointed as a Colonel and Aide-de-Camp to New Mexico Governor David F. Cargo on July 8, 1968 for his longevity as the sole remaining New Mexico Rough Rider and for many years of public service.

Frank C. Brito died on April 22, 1973, the penultimate Rough Rider to endure. He was 96 years old.

Bibliography: Brito Family – Information from Santiago and Frank Brito.

Jones, Virgil Carrington, Roosevelt’s Rough Riders. (New York: Doubleday, 1971) 57-58, 287.

Walker, Dale L., “The Last Rough Riders,” Rough Writings: Perspectives on Buckey O’Neill, Pauline O’Neill and Roosevelt’s Rough Riders. (Prescott, AZ: Sharlot Hall Museum Press, 1998) 13

Walker, Dale L., “The Next to the Last Man: Rough Rider Frank Brito,” Nova (a publication of the University of Texas at El Paso). February – April 1971 edition, vol.6, no.2.

source

http://www.donaanacountyhistsoc.org/HistoricalReview/2019/Review%202019%20WEB%20VER.pdf

The Rough Riders was a nickname given to the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry, one of three such regiments raised in 1898 for the Spanish–American War and the only one of the three to see action. The United States Army was small and understaffed in comparison to its status during the American Civil War roughly thirty years prior. As a measure towards rectifying this situation President William McKinley called upon 1,250 volunteers to assist in the war efforts. The regiment was also called “Wood’s Weary Walkers” in honor of its first commander, Colonel Leonard Wood. This nickname served to acknowledge that despite being a cavalry unit they ended up fighting on foot as infantry.

The rough riders by Theodore Roosevelt full audiobook

Formation and early history

The volunteers were gathered in four areas: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. They were gathered mainly from the southwest because the hot climate region that the men were used to was similar to that of Cuba where they would be fighting. “The difficulty in organizing was not in selecting, but in rejecting men.” The allowed limit set for the volunteer cavalry men was promptly met. They gathered a diverse bunch of men consisting of cowboys, gold or mining prospectors, hunters, gamblers, Native Americans and college boys — all of whom were able-bodied and capable on horseback and in shooting. Among these men were also police officers and military veterans who wished to see action again, most of which had previously retired. Men who had served in the regular army during campaigns against Native Americans or served in the Civil War had been gathered to serve as higher ranking officers in the cavalry. In this regard they possessed the knowledge and experience to lead and train the men well. As a whole, the unit would not be entirely inexperienced. Leonard Wood, a doctor who served as the medical adviser for both the President and Secretary of War, was appointed the position of Colonel of The Rough Riders with Roosevelt serving as Lieutenant-Colonel. One particularly famous spot where volunteers were gathered was in San Antonio, Texas, at the Menger Hotel Bar. The bar is still open and serves as a tribute to the Rough Riders, containing much of their, and Theodore Roosevelt‘s, uniforms and memorabilia.

Equipment

Before training began, Lieutenant Colonel Roosevelt used his political influence gained as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to ensure that his volunteer cavalry regiment would be properly equipped to serve as any regular unit of the U.S. Army. For private soldiers and non-commissioned officers, this meant the M1892/98 Springfield (Krag) bolt-action rifle in .30 Army (.30-40) caliber: “They succeeded in getting their cartridges, revolvers (Colt .45), clothing, shelter-tents, and horse gear … and in getting the regiment armed with the Krag–Jørgensen carbine used by the regular cavalry.” Officers of the regiment each received a new lever-action M1895 Winchester rifle, also in .30 Army. The Rough Riders also used Bowie Hunter knives. A last-minute gift from a wealthy donor were a pair of modern tripod mounted, gas-operated M1895 Colt–Browning machine guns in 7mm Mauser caliber.

In contrast, the uniforms of the regiment were designed to set the unit apart: “The Rough Rider uniform was a slouch hat, blue flannel shirt, brown trousers, leggings, and boots, with handkerchiefs knotted loosely around their necks. They looked exactly as a body of cowboy cavalry should look.” This “rough and tumble” appearance contributed to earning them the title of “The Rough Riders.”

Training

Training was very standard, even for a cavalry unit. They worked on basic military drills, protocol, and habits involving conduct, obedience and etiquette. The men proved eager to learn what was necessary, and the training went smoothly. It was decided that the men would not be trained to use the saber as other cavalries often used, because they had no prior experience with that combat skill. Instead, they chose to have the men stick to the use of their carbines and revolvers as primary and secondary weapons. Although the men, for the most part, were already experienced horsemen, the officers refined their techniques in riding, shooting from horseback, and practicing in formations and in skirmishes. Along with these practices, the high-ranking men heavily studied books filled with tactics and drills to better themselves in leading the others. During times which physical drills could not be run, either because of confinement on board the train, ship, or during times where space was inadequate, there were some books that were read further as to leave no time wasted in preparation for war. The competent training that the volunteer men received prepared them best as possible for their duty. They were not simply handed weapons and given vague directions to engage in a disorderly brawl.

On May 29, 1898, 1060 Rough Riders and 1258 of their horses and mules made their way to the Southern Pacific railroad to travel to Tampa, Florida where they would set off for Cuba. The lot awaited orders for departure from Major General William Rufus Shafter. Under heavy prompting from Washington D.C., General Shafter gave the order to dispatch the troops early before sufficient traveling storage was available. Due to this problem, only eight of the twelve companies of The Rough Riders were permitted to leave Tampa to engage in the war, and many of the horses and mules were left behind. Aside from Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt’s first hand mention of deep, heartfelt sorrow from the men left behind, this situation resulted in a premature weakening of the men. Approximately one fourth of them who received training had already been lost, most dying of malaria and yellow fever. This sent the remaining troops into Cuba with a significant loss in men and morale.

Upon arrival on Cuban shores on June 23, 1898, the men promptly unloaded themselves and the small amount of equipment they carried with them. Camp was set up nearby and the men were to remain there until further orders had been given to advance. Further supplies were unloaded from the ships over the next day including the very few horses that were allowed on the journey. “The great shortcoming throughout the campaign was the utterly inadequate transportation. If they had been allowed to take our mule-train, they could have kept the whole cavalry division supplied.” Each man was only able to carry a few days worth of food which had to last them longer and fuel their bodies for rigorous tasks. Even after only seventy-five percent of the total number of cavalry men was allowed to embark into Cuba they were still without most of the horses they had so heavily been trained and accustomed to using. They were not trained as infantry and were not conditioned to doing heavy marching, especially long distance in hot, humid, and dense jungle conditions. This ultimately served as a severe disadvantage to the men who had yet to see combat.

Battle of Las Guasimas

Within another day of camp being established, men were sent forward into the jungle for reconnaissance purposes, and before too long they returned with news of a Spanish outpost, Las Guasimas. By afternoon, The Rough Riders were given the command to begin marching towards Las Guasimas, to eliminate opposition and secure the area which stood in the path of further military advance. Upon arrival at their relative destination, the men slept through the night in a crude encampment nearby the Spanish outpost they would attack early the next morning.

The Spanish held an advantage over the Americans by knowing their way through the complicated trails in the area of combat. They predicted where the Americans would be traveling on foot and exactly what positions to fire on. They also were able to utilize the land and cover in such a way that they were difficult to spot. Along with this, their guns used smokeless powder which did not give away their immediate position upon firing as other gunpowders would have. This increased the difficulty of finding the opposition for the U.S. soldiers. In some locations the jungle was too thick to see very far.

General Young, who was in command of the regulars and cavalry, began the attack in the early morning. Using long-range, large-caliber Hotchkiss guns he fired at the opposition, who were reportedly concealed along trenches, roads, ridges, and jungle cover. Colonel Wood’s men, accompanied by Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt, were not yet in the same vicinity as the other men at the start of the battle. They had a more difficult path to travel around the time the battle began, and at first they had to make their way up a very steep hill. “Many of the men, footsore and weary from their march of the preceding day, found the pace up this hill too hard, and either dropped their bundles or fell out of line, with the result that we went into action with less than five hundred men.” Lieutenant-Colonel Roosevelt became aware that there were countless opportunities for any man to fall out of formation and resign from battle without notice as the jungle was often too thick in places to see through. This was yet another event that left the group with fewer men than they had at the start.

Regardless, The Rough Riders pushed forward toward the outpost along with the regulars. Using careful observation, the officers were able to locate where the opposition was hidden in the brush and entrenchments and they were able to target their men properly to overcome them. Toward the end of the battle, Edward Marshall, a newspaper writer, was inspired by the men around him in the heat of battle to pick up a rifle and begin fighting alongside them. When he suffered a gunshot wound in the spine from one of the Spaniards another soldier mistook him as Colonel Wood from afar and ran back from the front line to report his death. Due to this misconception, Roosevelt temporarily took command as Colonel and gathered the troops together with his leadership charisma. The battle lasted an hour and a half from beginning to end with The Rough Riders suffering only 8 dead and 31 wounded, including Captain Allyn K. Capron, Jr. Roosevelt came across Colonel Wood in full health after the battle finished and stepped down from his position to Lieutenant-Colonel.

The United States had full control of this Spanish outpost on the road to Santiago by the end of the battle. General Shafter had the men hold position for six days while additional supplies were brought ashore. During this time The Rough Riders ate, slept, cared for the wounded, and buried the dead from both sides. During the six day encampment, some men died from fever. Among those stricken by illness was General Joseph Wheeler. Brigadier General Samuel Sumner assumed command of the cavalry and Wood took the second brigade as Brigadier General. This left Roosevelt as Colonel of The Rough Riders.

The order was given for the men to march the eight miles along the road to Santiago from the outpost they had been holding. Originally, Colonel Roosevelt had no specific orders for himself and his men. They were simply to march to San Juan Heights where over one thousand Spanish soldiers held the area and hold position. It was decided that Brigadier General Henry Lawton’s division would be the main fighters in the battle while taking El Caney, a Spanish stronghold, a few miles away. The cavalry was to simply serve as a distraction while artillery and battery struck the Spanish from afar. Lawton’s infantry would begin the battle and The Rough Riders were to march and meet with them mid-battle. In this way, The Rough Riders were not seen as a critical tool to the United States Army in this battle.

San Juan Hill and another hill were separated by a small valley and pond; the river ran near the foot of both. Together, this geography formed San Juan Heights. Colonel Roosevelt and The Rough Riders made their way to the foot of what was dubbed Kettle Hill because of the old sugar refinement cauldrons that lay along it. The battle of San Juan Heights began with the firing of the artillery and battery at the Spanish location. Soon after battery-fire was returned and The Rough Riders, standing at the position of the friendly artillery, had to promptly move to avoid shells. The men moved down from their position and began making their way through and along the San Juan River towards the base of Kettle Hill. There they took cover along the riverbank and in the tall grass to avoid sniper and artillery fire that was being directed towards their position, however they were left vulnerable and pinned down. The Spanish rifles were able to discharge eight rounds in the twenty seconds it took for the United States rifles to reload. In this way they had a strong advantage over the Americans. The rounds they fired were 7mm Mauser bullets which moved at a high velocity and inflicted small, clean wounds. Some of the men were hit, but few were mortally wounded or killed. Theodore Roosevelt, deeply dissatisfied with General Shafter’s inaction with sending men out for reconnaissance and failure to issue more direct orders, became uneasy with the idea of leaving himself and his men sitting in the line of fire. He sent messengers to seek out one of the generals to try to coax orders from them to advance from their position. Finally, the Rough Riders received orders to assist the regulars in their assault on the hill’s front. Roosevelt, riding on horseback, got his men onto their feet and into position to begin making their way up the hill. He claimed that he wished to fight on foot as he did at Las Guasimas; however he would have found it difficult to move up and down the hill to supervise his men in a quick and efficient manner on foot. He also recognized that he could see his men better from the elevated horseback, and they could see him better as well. Roosevelt chided his own men to not leave him alone in a charge up the hill, and drawing his sidearm promised nearby black soldiers separated from their own units that he would fire at them if they turned back, warning them he kept his promises. His Rough Riders chanted (likely in jest) “Oh he always does, he always does!” The soldiers, laughing, fell in with the volunteers to prepare for the assault.

As the troops of the various units began slowly creeping up the hill, firing their rifles at the opposition as they climbed, Roosevelt went to the captain of the platoons in back and had a word with him. He stated that it was his opinion that they could not effectively take the hill due to an insufficient ability to effectively return fire, and that the solution was to charge it full-on. The captain reiterated his colonel’s orders to hold position. Roosevelt, recognizing the absence of the other Colonel, declared himself the ranking officer and ordered a charge up Kettle Hill. The captain stood hesitant, and Colonel Roosevelt rode off on his horse, Texas, leading his own men uphill while waving his hat in the air and cheering. The Rough Riders followed him with enthusiasm and obedience without hesitation. By then, the other men from the different units on the hill became stirred by this event and began bolting up the hill alongside their countrymen. The ‘charge’ was actually a series of short rushes by mixed groups of regulars and Rough Riders. Within twenty minutes Kettle Hill was taken, though casualties were heavy. The rest of San Juan Heights was taken within the hour following.

The Rough Riders’ charge on Kettle Hill was facilitated by a hail of covering fire from three Gatling Guns commanded by Lt. John M*A*S*H. Parker, which fired some 18,000 .30 Army rounds into the Spanish trenches atop the crest of both hills. Col. Roosevelt noted that the hammering sound of the Gatling guns visibly raised the spirits of his men:

“There suddenly smote on our ears a peculiar drumming sound. One or two of the men cried out, “The Spanish machine guns!” but, after listening a moment, I leaped to my feet and called, “It’s the Gatlings, men! Our Gatlings!” Immediately the troopers began to cheer lustily, for the sound was most inspiring.”

Trooper Jesse D. Langdon of the 1st Volunteer Infantry, who accompanied Col. Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders in their assault on Kettle Hill, reported:

“We were exposed to the Spanish fire, but there was very little because just before we started, why, the Gatling guns opened up at the bottom of the hill, and everybody yelled, “The Gatlings! The Gatlings!” and away we went. The Gatlings just enfiladed the top of those trenches. We’d never have been able to take Kettle Hill if it hadn’t been for Parker’s Gatling guns.”

A Spanish counterattack on Kettle Hill by some 600 infantry was quickly devastated by one of Lt. Parker’s Gatling guns recently emplaced on the summit of San Juan Hill, which killed all but forty of the attackers before they had closed to within 250 yards of the Americans on Kettle Hill. Col. Roosevelt was so impressed by the actions of Lt. Parker and his men that he placed his regiment’s two 7mm Colt–Browning machine guns and the volunteers manning them under Parker, who immediately emplaced them—along with 10,000 rounds of captured 7mm Mauser ammunition—at tactical firing points in the American line.

Colonel Roosevelt gave a large share of the credit for the successful charge to Lt. Parker and his Gatling Gun Detachment:

“I think Parker deserved rather more credit than any other one man in the entire campaign…he had the rare good judgment and foresight to see the possibilities of the machine-guns..He then, by his own exertions, got it to the front and proved that it could do invaluable work on the field of battle, as much in attack as in defence.”

Siege of Santiago

Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders played a key role in the outcome of the Spanish–American War by assisting the American forces in forming a constricting ring around the city of Santiago de Cuba. The ultimate goal of the Americans in capturing the San Juan Heights (also known as Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill) was to attain a strategic position from which to move downhill and attack Santiago, a strong point for the Spanish military. The Spanish had a fleet of cruisers in port. The United States drove the Spanish cruisers out of their port by taking areas around Santiago and subsequently moving in on the city from multiple directions. Two days after the battle on San Juan Heights, the US navy destroyed Spain’s Caribbean cruiser fleet at Santiago Bay. This took a tremendous toll on the Spanish military due to their widespread empire and heavy reliance upon naval capabilities.

However, the sinking of the Spanish cruisers did not mean the end of the war. Battles continued in and around Santiago. By July 17, 1898, the Spanish forces in Santiago surrendered to General Shafter and the United States military. Various battles in the region continued on and the United States was continuously victorious. On August 12, 1898, the Spanish Government surrendered to the United States and agreed to an armistice that relinquished their control of Cuba. The armistice also gained the United States the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. This large acquisition of land elevated the United States to the level of an imperial power. The Spanish–American War also began a trend of United States intervention in foreign affairs which has lasted to the present day.

Return home

On August 14, the Rough Riders landed at Montauk Point on Long Island, New York. There, they met up with the other four companies that had been left behind in Tampa. Colonel Roosevelt made note of how very many of the men who were left behind felt guilty for not serving in Cuba with the others. However, he also stated that “those who stayed had done their duty precisely as did those who went, for the question of glory was not to be considered in comparison to the faithful performance of whatever was ordered.” During the first portion of the month that the men stayed in Montauk they received hospital care. Many of the men were stricken with Malarial fever (described at the time as “Cuban fever“) and died in Cuba, while some were brought back to the United States on board the ship in makeshift quarantine. “One of the distressing features of the Malaria which had been ravaging the troops was that it was recurrent and persistent. Some of the men died after reaching home, and many were very sick.” Aside from malaria, there were cases of yellow fever, dysentery and other illnesses. Many of the men suffered from general exhaustion and were in poor condition upon returning home, some twenty pounds lighter. Everyone received fresh food and most were nourished back to their normal health.

The rest of the month in Montauk, New York was spent in celebration of victory among the troops. The regiment was presented with three different mascots that represented the Rough Riders: a mountain lion by the name of Josephine that was brought to Tampa by some troops from Arizona, a war eagle named in Colonel Roosevelt’s honor brought in by some New Mexican troops, and lastly a small dog by the name of Cuba who had been brought along on the journey overseas. Accompanying the presented mascots was a young boy who had stowed away on the ship before it embarked to Cuba. He was discovered with a rifle and boxes of ammunition and was, of course, sent ashore before departure from the United States. He was taken in by the regiment that was left behind, given a small Rough Riders uniform, and made an honorary member. The men also made sure to honor their colonel in return for his stellar leadership and service. They presented him with a small bronze statue of Remington’s “Bronco Buster” which portrayed a cowboy riding a violently bucking horse. “There could have been no more appropriate gift from such a regiment … most of them looked upon the bronze with the critical eyes of professionals. I doubt if there was any regiment in the world which contained so large a number of men able to ride the wildest and most dangerous horses.” After the turning over of their gift, each and every man in the regiment walked by and shook Colonel Roosevelt’s hand and bid him a good-bye.

Disbandment

On the morning of September 15, 1898, the regimental property including all equipment, firearms and horses were turned back over to the United States government. The soldiers said one last good-bye to each other and the United States First Volunteer Cavalry, Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, was disbanded at last. Before they all returned to their respective homes across the country, Colonel Roosevelt gave them a short speech that commended their efforts in the war, expressed his profound pride and reminded them that, although heroes, they would have to integrate back into normal society and work as hard as everyone else. Many of the men were unable to gain their jobs back from when they lost them before leaving for war. Some, due to illness or injury, were unable to work for a long time. Money was donated by a number of wealthier supporters of the regiment and used to supplement the well being of the needy veterans, many of whom were too proud to accept the help.

A first reunion of the Rough Riders was held in the Plaza Hotel in Las Vegas, New Mexico in 1899. Roosevelt, then Governor of New York, attended this event. In 1948, fifty years after the Rough Riders disbandment, the U.S. Post office issued a commemorative stamp in their honor and memory. The stamp depicts Captain William Owen “Bucky” O’Neill, who was killed in action while leading troop A at the Battle of San Juan Hill, July 1, 1898. The Rough Riders continued to have annual reunions in Las Vegas until 1967, when the sole veteran to attend was Jesse Langdon. He died in 1975.

Last survivors

The last two surviving veterans of the regiment were Frank C. Brito and Jesse Langdon. Brito, from Las Cruces, New Mexico, whose father was a Yaqui Indian stagecoach operator, was 21 when he enlisted with his brother in May 1898. He never made it to Cuba, having been a member of H Troop, one of the four left behind in Tampa. He later became a mining engineer and lawman. He died April 22, 1973, at the age of 96.

Langdon, born 1881 in what is now North Dakota, “hoboed” his way to Washington, D.C., and called on Roosevelt at the Navy Department, reminding him that his father, a veterinarian, had treated Roosevelt’s cattle at his Dakota ranch during his ranching days. Roosevelt arranged a railroad ticket for him to San Antonio, where Langdon enlisted in the Rough Riders at age 16. He was the last surviving member of the regiment and the only one to attend the final two reunions, in 1967 and 1968. He died June 29, 1975 at the age of 94, twenty-six months after Brito.

World War I

Just after the United States entered the war against the Central Powers, the U.S. Congress gave Roosevelt the authority to raise up to four divisions similar to the Rough Riders. Roosevelt immediately selected eighteen officers (including: Seth Bullock, Frederick Russell Burnham, and James Rudolph Garfield) to raise a volunteer infantry division, and began corresponding with Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War. After several months, many more men joined Roosevelt’s World War I volunteers, but Baker refused to offer any assistance or guidance to the new unit. Frustrated, Roosevelt telegraphed President Woodrow Wilson requesting his assistance; however, as Commander-in-chief, Wilson refused to make use of the volunteers and Roosevelt disbanded the unit.

Muster roll

• Mustered In:

Officers: 56Enlisted Men: 994

• Mustered Out:

Officers: 76Enlisted Men: 1,090

• Total Number Accounted for on Muster Out Roll:

Officers: 52Enlisted Men: 1,185

• Losses While in Service:
• Officers:

Promoted or Transferred: 0Resigned or Discharged: 2Dismissed: 0Killed in Action: 2Died of Wounds: 0Died of Disease: 1Died of Accident: 0Drowned: 0Suicide: 0Murdered: 0Total Officer losses: 5

• Enlisted Men:

Transferred: 0Discharged for Disability: 9Discharged by General Court Martial: 0Discharged by Order: 31Killed in Action: 21Died of Wounds Received in Action: 3Died of Disease: 19Died of Accident: 0Drowned: 0Suicide: 14Murdered or Homicide: 0Deserted: 12Total enlisted Losses: 95

• Wounded:

Officers: 7Enlisted Men: 97

• (Source: The Adjutant General’s Office, Statistical Exhibit of Strength of Volunteer Forces Called Into Service During the War With Spain; with Losses From All Causes. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899) As presented in an Electronic Edition by the US Army Center of Military History)

Theatrical productions

Colonel Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders were popularly portrayed in Wild West Shows such as Buffalo Bill’s Wild West and Congress of Rough Riders of the World and in Minstrel shows such as William H. West’s Big Minstrel Jubilee. Roosevelt himself had a hand in popularizing the legends of the Rough Riders, recruiting Mason Mitchell, a fellow Rough Rider with theatrical talent, to perform for the Republican State Committee of New York. More than anyone else, William Frederick Cody, better known as Buffalo Bill, can be credited with helping to create and preserve the dramatic myth of the Rough Riders and the American Old West. His extravaganzas glamorized it into an appealing show for Eastern American audiences and helped permanently preserve the legends.

source

The American Civil Liberties Union, along with 12 ACLU state affiliates, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union, along with 12 ACLU state affiliates, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) — which establishes basic requirements to protect Native American children from continued forced removal from their families, tribes, and tribal culture — is slated to be reviewed by the Supreme Court this fall via Brackeen v. Haaland.

The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed by Congress in 1978 to address the nationwide epidemic of American Indian children being forcibly removed from their homes by child welfare agencies and placed into non-Native homes at disproportionate rates. Throughout history, federal and state governments have sought to undermine and threaten the existence of tribes via the forced separation and assimilation of Native children. ICWA requires state courts to make active efforts to keep Native families together. The law aims to prioritize the placement of Native children within their extended families or tribal communities, where their cultural identities will be understood and celebrated. If the Supreme Court overturns ICWA, states would once again be allowed to indiscriminately remove Native children from their families and culture while simultaneously depriving tribes of future generations — putting the very existence of tribes in jeopardy.

“Throughout history, the United States government has enacted countless policies to steal Indigenous children from their homes and to erase their identities,” said Theodora Simon (Navajo), Indigenous Justice Advocate with the ACLU of Northern California. “The explicit goal of these policies was, and continues to be, the complete erasure of Indigenous people. If the Indian Child Welfare Act is overturned, tribes will again be stripped of their right to keep their families together. This is a tragedy as we know that having connection to our cultures, languages, and identities is in the best interest of Native children.”

Tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves and make decisions on issues that affect their people — including Native children. The ACLU’s brief argues the Indian Child Welfare Act is constitutional and urges the Supreme Court to uphold the centuries-long legal precedent upholding tribal sovereignty — including tribes’ right and ability to preserve their unique cultural identities, raise their own children and govern themselves.

“Separating children from their families and communities remains one of the most tragic and traumatizing vestiges of colonialism in Alaska,” said ACLU of Alaska Executive Director Mara Kimmel. “We join this litigation to honor our constitutional promise of tribal self-determination and to ensure Alaska’s children and cultures thrive into the future.”

The brief was filed by the ACLU, ACLU of NorCal, ACLU of Alaska, ACLU of Arizona, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Montana, ACLU of Nebraska, ACLU of New Mexico, ACLU of Oklahoma, ACLU of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming chapter, ACLU of Texas, ACLU of Utah, and ACLU of Washington. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brackeen v Haaland on November 9, 2022.

This release can be found online here: 

A blog about the case can be found here: 

source 

MORE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: learn more….

• Supreme Court upholds Indian Child Welfare Act – read here PROTECTING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT AT THE federal LEVEL
• Click Here for Indian Child Court Forms
• DOCKET NO. No. B314238 in L. A. Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. D.P. (In re Daphne G.) California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

• In re N.G. The Court also concluded that DPSS had to be ordered to further investigate N.G.’s paternal lineal ancestry

• L. A. Cnty. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Sandra C. (In re Ezra C.)

  • In Antoinette S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th 1401,Both California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A) and section 224.3 indicate that the ICWA notice requirement is triggered when a person who has an interest in the child “provides information suggesting that the child” is an Indian child. (Italics added.) Mother provided both a specific tribe and a specific family member from whom the ancestry followed. “The Indian status of the child need not be certain to invoke the notice requirement.” (Desiree F., supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at p. 471.) “The determination of a child’s Indian status is up to the tribe; therefore, the [dependency] court needs only a suggestion of Indian ancestry to trigger the notice requirement.” (Nikki R., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 848.)

• • In In re Alice M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1189 (Alice M.),
    the court held that notice was required after the mother submitted an ICWA-020 indicating that the child may be eligible for membership in an Apache or Navajo tribe. The appellate court held that the information provided on the ICWA-020 “gave the court reason to know [the child] may be an Indian child… The ambiguity in the form and the omission of more detailed information, such as specific tribal affiliation or tribal roll number, do not negate appellant’s stated belief that [the child] may be a member of a tribe or eligible for membership.” (Id. at p. 1198.)

• • (In re J.T. (1997) 166 Vt. 173, 182-83 [693 A.2d 283, 289]),
    Section 224.3 requires notice to the tribe when there is information provided by “[a] person having an interest in the child… suggesting the child is a member of a tribe or eligible for membership in a tribe or [that] one or more of the child’s biological parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents are or were a member of a tribe.” (§ 224.3, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) California Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A) also specifies that “[t]he circumstances that may provide reason to know the child is an Indian child include…. [¶] [t]he child or a person having an interest in the child, … informs or otherwise provides information suggesting that the child is an Indian child to the court [or] the county welfare agency….” (Italics added.) “The determination of a child’s Indian status is up to the tribe; therefore, the [dependency] court needs only a suggestion of Indian ancestry to trigger the notice requirement.” (In re Nikki R. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 844, 848 (Nikki R.), italics added.)Determining whether enough information has been provided to trigger the ICWA notice provisions requires a fact-sensitive analysis. As noted in In re Pedro N. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 183, 186, “[t]he requisite notice to the tribe or [Bureau] serves a twofold purpose. First, it enables the tribe or [Bureau] to investigate and determine whether the minor is an ‘Indian child.’… [Citations.] Secondly, it advises the tribe or [Bureau] of the proceedings and the tribe’s right to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter or at least intervene in the proceedings. [Citations.]” (Fn. omitted.) Given these purposes “‘it is preferable to err on the side of giving notice and examining thoroughly whether the juvenile is an Indian child.’” (Dwayne P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 257, citing In re M.C.P. (1989) 153 Vt. 275, 289 [571 A.2d 627, 634-635].)

    The information required to trigger the ICWA notice provisions is minimal in comparison to the showing required “to establish a child is an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA.” (In re Miguel E. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 521, 549; see also Dwayne P., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 258 [the party initiating the dependency proceeding must “distinguish between a showing that may establish a child is an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA and the minimal showing required to trigger the statutory notice provisions”].) While eligibility to enroll and enrollment are central to a finding that the child is an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA, a lack of such information does not waive the court’s affirmative duty to provide notice when the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved. (§ 224.3; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.481(a)(5)(A).)

2023 California Rules of Court

Rule 5.487. Petition to invalidate orders

• (a) Who may petition
  Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster-care placement, guardianship or conservatorship placement, custody placement under Family Code section 3041, declaration freeing a child from the custody and control of one or both parents, preadoptive placement, adoptive placement, or termination of parental rights; any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed; and the Indian child’s tribe may petition the court to invalidate the action on a showing that the action violated the Indian Child Welfare Act.
  (Subd (a) was amended effective January 1, 2020.)
• (b) Court of competent jurisdiction
  If the Indian child is a dependent child or ward of the juvenile court or the subject of a pending petition, the juvenile court is a court of competent jurisdiction with the authority to hear the request to invalidate the foster placement or termination of parental rights.
• (c) Request to return custody of the Indian child
  • If a final decree of adoption is vacated or set aside, or if the adoptive parents voluntarily consent to the termination of their parental rights, a biological parent or prior Indian custodian may request a return of custody of the Indian child.
    • (1)  The court must reinstate jurisdiction.
    • (2)  In a juvenile case, the juvenile court must hold a new disposition hearing in accordance with 25 United States Code section 1901 et seq. where the court may consider all placement options as stated in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 361.31(b), (c), (d), and (h).
    • (3)  The court may consider placement with a biological parent or prior Indian custodian if the biological parent or prior Indian custodian can show that placement with him or her is not detrimental to the child and that the placement is in the best interests of the child.
    • (4)  The hearing on the request to return custody of an Indian child must be conducted in accordance with statutory requirements and the relevant sections of this rule.

Rule 5.487 renumbered and amended effective January 1, 2020; adopted as rule 5.486 effective January 1, 2008; previously amended effective January 1, 2013

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed by Congress in 1978 to protect American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and families. Before ICWA, as many as one-third of all AI/AN children were removed from their homes by state child welfare and private adoption agencies, and the vast majority of these children were placed outside of their families and communities. This mass family separation resulted in devastating losses of language, culture, and identity for individuals, families, and entire Tribes. ICWA was created to address this history and prevent further generational trauma.

ICWA was ahead of its time in recognizing core values and principles of child welfare best practice by requiring active efforts to keep children safely in their homes and connected to their families, communities, and culture. This law does not affect all children — its provisions apply only in child welfare cases involving members of federally recognized Tribes, and the Tribes, per their sovereignty, have the ability to define membership. However, the values and spirit embedded in ICWA are critical to the well-being of AI/AN children, youth, and families and should form the basis of child welfare practice for all.

This brief describes four key principles inherent in ICWA, provides examples of these principles in practice, and offers questions for consideration to help agencies further explore how they should apply these principles to support the permanency and well-being of both Native and non-Native children, youth, and families.^1,2

Principle 1: Children’s right to their families and communities

ICWA specifically promotes children’s right to be connected to their extended family, elders, community, and culture. Sheldon Spotted Elk, program director of tribal justice relations at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, describes these connections as concentric circles. When children are situated within these circles, they naturally build resilience. Awareness of connectedness to family, community, and environment has been found to be a protective factor for American Indian and Alaska Native youth.³

In recognition of the importance of these connections, ICWA has a higher standard to prevent removal of an Indian child from their families than other child welfare statutes — including a requirement that children may not be removed without the testimony of a culturally qualified expert witness, except in emergencies (narrowly defined as when a child is in danger of imminent harm). ICWA also governs placement decisions. When children must be removed from their homes, the law dictates that agencies and courts first consider placement with relatives or, if that is not possible, with other families within their Tribal community where they can remain connected to their culture and identity.

For Adams County (Colo.) Children and Family Services, this sometimes means putting extra supports in place or working with a family member to resolve barriers to placement approval. In one case, when a close family friend could take some but not all of a sibling group of four, the agency was able to license a second friend and neighbor to keep the siblings connected. As in this instance, tribal definitions of family relationships should be acknowledged in placement decisions whenever possible. 

The Native Village of Barrow (Alaska) lñupiat Traditional Government Children’s Code explicitly recognizes children’s right to family, extended family, and identity:

A child has the right to learn about and preserve his identity throughout his life, including the right to maintain ties to his birth parents, his extended family and his village. A child has the right to learn about and benefit from tribal history, culture, language, spiritual traditions, and philosophy.

The responsibility to support a child’s identity in these ways is assigned to parents, extended family members, and the Tribe as a whole. When separation from birth parents is necessary, the code specifies that the preferred placement is lñuguq, or placement with an extended family member. The word Iñuguq “refers to a traditional Inupiat adoption process in which a child gains, but does not lose, a parent.”  

Implementation of ICWA requirements currently falls far short of achieving the statute’s goal. AI/AN children are still three times more likely to be removed by state child welfare systems than non-Native children. While recognizing the particular urgency for AI/AN children, child welfare agencies also can act on the knowledge that all children fare best when they can remain safely with their own families, and that when they must be removed from their homes, placement with relatives produces the best outcomes. 

Questions to consider:

• In what ways do your agency’s policies assert and protect all children’s rights to their families, communities, and culture?
• How could your jurisdiction reassess removal criteria and keep more families safely together with in-home support? 
• How can your agency apply an equity lens to understanding and addressing the root causes of a family’s involvement with the agency?
• In what ways do your agency’s placement priorities and resource family approval policies align with ICWA by prioritizing placement for all children within their extended families and communities?
• How does your agency honor the definition of relatives as determined by the family, clan, and Tribe?

Principle 2: “Active efforts” to preserve and reunify families

ICWA’s requirement of “active efforts” is a higher standard of engagement than the Title IV-E program’s “reasonable efforts” requirement. Active efforts are defined in regulation as “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely” efforts by the agency to maintain or reunify children with their families.⁴ They are intended to help parents complete their case plans and access or develop resources necessary to keep or bring their child safely home. Examples include helping parents overcome barriers to services (such as making phone calls together rather than handing a parent a list of phone numbers), helping parents access supportive community resources (including housing, financial, and mental health support), and facilitating transportation to ensure parents and their children can attend appointments or visits.

Adams County acknowledges that providing active efforts can be time intensive. The county supports these efforts in ICWA cases by having a dedicated ICWA caseworker who is knowledgeable about the requirements. The county strives to keep that dedicated caseload low, when the agency’s workflow allows, to support spending extra time on each case. The ICWA caseworker also serves as an expert and resource throughout the agency, providing assistance to other caseworkers who may have ICWA cases.

ICWA requires that active efforts be provided in a culturally competent manner, and “in partnership with the Indian child and the Indian child’s parents, extended family members, Indian custodians, and tribe.” Regulations describe engaging with the child’s Tribe early to determine what types of services would be most culturally appropriate and what cultural resources or programs are available within the Tribe. It also includes ensuring all services are trauma-informed and follow best practices in addressing historical and intergenerational trauma. Being trauma-informed means that agencies must be skillful and patient in building trusting relationships with families and communities that may have significant personal and historical reasons to mistrust state and county government systems.

Questions to consider:

• What active efforts do your agency’s caseworkers regularly make to safely preserve and reunify all families? Do they equal the efforts everyone would want for their own families?
• What additional steps could help ensure that your agency’s efforts on behalf of all children and families are not just “reasonable” but “active”?
• In what ways does your agency consider children and parents’ culture when creating case plans and providing services? How could your agency better partner with families and their communities to ensure programs and services are culturally appropriate, and to ensure active efforts are successful? 
• In what ways could your agency’s services be more trauma-informed, particularly in addressing historical and intergenerational trauma? 
• How can your agency provide training and ongoing coaching and support to caseworkers to build relationships with families that are centered on trust and cultural humility? 

Principle 3: Valuing inclusive and diverse cultural practices

ICWA was created to address harm inflicted on AI/AN communities due to the imposition of dominant cultural values, including assimilation. Therefore, the law requires jurisdictions to view child welfare matters from a different cultural perspective — that of the family’s own tribal community. ICWA regulations state that jurisdictions are to “conduct Indian child-custody proceedings in a way that reflects the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families.” 

One way this is done is requiring a qualified expert witness to testify from a social and cultural perspective as to whether children are at risk of serious emotional or physical harm, prior to removal. Jurisdictions with ICWA courts also have found that cultural training by local Tribes can greatly increase understanding and appreciation of a Tribe’s traditional child-rearing practices and cultural values. 

This change in approach requires cultural humility. In particular, child welfare professionals may need to critically analyze long-held assumptions about which family structures or communities can best support child well-being. For example, courts sometimes have required children in ICWA cases to be moved from unrelated foster homes to relatives’ homes, even after the children have bonded with the foster family. While this may contradict western ideas about the best interests of children, it is important to understand and honor Tribal values that prioritize long-term, multigenerational connections among family, Tribe, and culture over children’s short-term connections to one specific nuclear family. “The relationships that we develop with our tribal partners, and our understanding of their values, are so critical,” emphasizes District Judge Katherine R. Delgado, Adams County, Colo., ICWA Court, “I would encourage other judges and child welfare leaders to go visit some of their local Tribes, develop those relationships, and be open to understanding the issues that our Native Nations face.”

Questions to consider:

• What cultures are present among the children and families your agency serves? How can your agency learn more about the range of childrearing practices and values that exist in different cultures and communities?
• In what ways do dominant cultural assumptions influence agency decisions about the best interests of children? Is it possible that more children could remain safely with their families if these assumptions were reconsidered? What traditions and values are important to the family? 
• Are there language and literacy barriers to be mindful of? What kind of community support is needed for the family and caseworker to have a meaningful dialogue? 
• How could the concept of a culturally qualified expert witness be applied to non-ICWA child welfare cases?
• How might your agency work with local cultural resource providers to support greater cultural competence of services to families?
• How could your agency work alongside families and communities to better support healing for the generational and historical trauma experienced by children, youth, and families of color?

Principle 4: Authentic engagement with Tribes

ICWA provides for a Tribe to be included in child welfare cases concerning member children. Although the Tribe’s perspective does not always prevail, the law guarantees Tribes the right to participate fully in the case, be heard by the court, provide expert witnesses, and define placement preferences for their children. 

ICWA specialty courts make a particular effort to include Tribe leaders and representatives in all cases involving their children, something that COVID-era virtual hearings have made a little easier. This also can be facilitated by scheduling ICWA cases at a consistent date and time that is convenient for the Tribe so that representatives are present even at early shelter hearings that offer limited opportunities for advance notice. There is emerging evidence that when a Tribe representative is present at a child’s first hearing, permanency occurs four months faster on average and reunification occurs seven months faster. “I see big differences in how caseworkers are working with the Tribes, the response back from the Tribes, and their efforts to work together toward reunification,” notes Judge Kathleen Quigley, Pima County, Ariz., ICWA court, “Without the Tribe’s participation, our ICWA court would not be where it is.”

Some ICWA courts incorporate cultural art, Tribal flags, and Native practices such as smudging in the courtroom. Other jurisdictions have found that creating ICWA units with dedicated caseworkers, supervisors, and attorneys facilitates relationship-building and collaboration between the state, Tribe social workers, and any local culturally appropriate service providers. Family group conferences can offer another opportunity to invite Tribe representation and relinquish agency control of the process.

On a systems level, power-sharing might look like creating workgroups comprised of equal numbers of state representatives and Tribe members. For example, Washington’s Tribal State Workgroup is a joint effort to review and update the Department of Children, Youth, and Families’ ICWA policies and procedures.

Meeting Tribes and families where they are, beyond the walls of child welfare agency offices, demonstrates respect and can help build cross-cultural understanding. Judge Delgado of Adams County recalls the impact of a trip she took to visit several nearby tribal nations and meet with tribal judges: “That trip really cemented my passion for not only the black-letter law of ICWA, but the spirit of the law.” In Yellowstone County, Mont., members of the Yellowstone ICWA Court Team traveled more than 100 miles to meet with the Tribe’s Human Services Department to staff cases and to introduce themselves to new executive branch officials and Tribal Council members. During COVID, the State and the Tribe continue to collaborate on these cases through monthly zoom calls. This and other relationship-building efforts have resulted in increased kinship placements and fewer terminations of parental rights. 

Questions to consider:

• In what ways does your agency share power with families and communities by meeting them where they are? 
• How could community leaders and representatives have a greater voice in your agency’s services and decision-making (for example, by ensuring they are included in all family group conferences)? 
• How can your agency embrace and incorporate tribal culture and Native practices in its engagement with Native families both inside and outside the courtroom? 
• How can your agency incorporate culturally sensitive practices for any family it works with? 

1 Content of this brief was informed by consultation with members of the Knowledge Management Lived Experience Advisory Team on Oct. 5 and 21, 2021. This team includes youth, parents, kinship caregivers, and foster parents with lived experience of the child welfare system who serve as strategic partners with Family Voices United, a collaboration between FosterClub, Generations United, the Children’s Trust Fund Alliance, and Casey Family Programs. Members who contributed to this brief include Dee Bonnick, Sonya Begay, Aleks Talsky, Gloria Torma, and Jeremiah Donier.
2 Content of this brief was informed by interviews with Judge Kathleen Quigley, Pima County, Ariz., on Aug. 17, 2021; District Judge Katherine R. Delgado, Adams County, Colo., on Aug. 17, 2021; Judge Sally Tarnowski, St. Louis County, Minn., on Aug. 10, 2021; Sheldon Spotted Elk, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, on July 9, 2021; Shana King, ICWA Law Center, on July 13, 2021; Angela Cuellar and Peter Pace, Adams County (Colo.) Children and Family Services, on Sept. 7, 2021.
3 Saniguz Ullrich, J. (2019). For the love of our children: an Indigenous connectedness framework. AlterNative, 15(2), 121-130.
4 In determining whether active efforts have been met, the courts have discretion to consider the facts and circumstances.
5 source

The Supreme Court honored tribal nations with their decision

Indian welfare act

read a web version on a government site here

Passed House amended (10/14/1978)

(Measure passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 12533)

Indian Child Welfare Act – =Title I: Child Custody Proceedings= – Declares that it is the policy of Congress to establish minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families (extended families) and for the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect Indian culture.

Grants an Indian tribe jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over custody proceedings involving an Indian child who resides within the reservation of such tribe or is a ward of a tribal court except where jurisdiction is vested in the State by existing Federal law.

Allows the Indian tribe of a child to intervene at any point in a State Court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child.

Stipulates that, upon application by an Indian individual who has reached age 18 and who was the subject of an adoptive placement, the court which entered the final placement decree shall inform such individual of the tribal affiliation, if any, of his or her biological parents, and provide such other information as may be necessary to protect any rights flowing from his or her tribal relationship.

Allows any Indian tribe which became subject to State jurisdiction pursuant to Federal law to reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings upon approval of a petition by the Secretary of the Interior.

Provides for emergency removal of an Indian child, who is a resident of or domiciled on a reservation but temporarily located off the reservation, from the parent or Indian custodian and the emergency placement of such child under applicable State law, in order to prevent harm to such child. Stipulates that such removal or placement must be terminated immediately when no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical harm to such child.

=Title II: Indian Child and Family Programs= – Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to Indian tribes and organizations for the establishment and operation of Indian child and family service programs on or near reservations and for the preparation and implementation of child welfare codes. States that the objective of every Indian child and family service programs shall be to prevent the breakup of Indian families.

Authorizes every Indian tribe to operate and maintain facilities for: (1) the counseling or treatment of Indian families or individuals; (2) the temporary custody of Indian children; and (3) legal representation and advice to Indian families involved in tribal, State, or Federal child custody proceedings.

Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to Indian organizations to establish and operate off-reservation Indian child and family service programs.

=Title III: Recordkeeping, Information Availability, and Timetables= – Directs the Secretary to collect and maintain records of all Indian child placements which are affected under the date of this Act. Requires the Secretary to insure that the confidentiality of such information be maintained where the court records contain an affidavit that the identity of the biological parents remain confidential.

Directs the Secretary to promulgate, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

=Title IV: Miscellaneous= – Directs the Secretary to prepare, in consultation with appropriate agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, a report on the feasibility of providing Indian children with schools located near their homes, and to submit such report to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. source

tHANKS for readings

Indian Child Court Forms

Opinion

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules: Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Hon Julie A. Palafox

341 The City Dr S, Orange, CA 92868

The Honorable Julie A. Palafox
Orange County Superior Court, Department L73
CA Bar #: 111122 (December 1983)
Appointed By: Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Biography = loser

The Hon. Julie A. Palafox should know…….

Being a firm believer in family rights the judges she rules over and oversees should be aware of her position and the US Constitution regarding the rights of parents, which is often overlooked in family courts!

That said all of the judges she oversees should study the 2 informational pages to learn more about the oath to the US Constitution they took and are clearly breaking

• 9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

• Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights Amdt 5.4.5.6.2 Parental and Children’s Rights – Fifth Amendment

• Malicious Use of Vexatious Litigant – Civil Right$ Violation Check – Vexatious Litigant Order Reversed

• California’s Vexatious Litigant Law

• Are CA family courts declaring pro se parents Vexatious Litigants to force them to hire a lawyer?

• Marco Gonzalez – Petitioner, vs. Panda Restaurant Group Inc.
  Respondent On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Supreme Court

Even though I was illegally declared a Vexatious litigant. Maybe because Hon. Julie A. Palafox has a heart, she also is a competent judge who preside over the others beneath her that keep cheating me of fairness. Hon. Julie A. Palafox understands the law, and the case that I presented the three contempt against the mother of my son, had complete and 100% merit. Eventually after it being excepted the court case was in transferred to the judge, who declared me a vexatious litigant, upon showing up to his quart room. All three contempt cases that had complete and 100% merit and allowed in by Miss Palafox is proof that not only is the judge biased. He’s been vindictive , malicious, and in violation of my civil rights afforded to me in the US CONSTITUTION that I am afforded and protect me from men like judge   Thomas McConville

The head Judge over the family law circuit The Hon. Julie A. Palafox, allowed the case to continue, but the actual Judge dislikes me, and is completely malicious and out of his jurisdiction! He through my case out and still, my son is around they wanted fugitive sex offender. He never gave me due process for the restraining order either!

Here  The Hon. Julie A. Palafox allows my case with merit! But in court but McConville cons me out of my own rights and cancels my case once it appears in his lap!

• Case # 17FL000138 – Envelope # 9949749

• Case # 17FL000138 Envelope # 9949870

• Case # 17FL000138 – Envelope # 9950272

• Case # 17FL000138 – Envelope # 11677828
  
  Israel Claustro denies a legitimate complaint about the predjudice bias judge Thomas McConville I think Judge Israel Claustro is also prejudice and not capable of reading law or finding out if there was a wrongdoing

  Further, even when a plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant, the statute does not preclude a plaintiff from filing subsequent lawsuits, so long as those lawsuits have merit. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7; see Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal. App. 4th 43, 60 (1997)

  The court was required to assess the merits of the petition before refusing to file it under the prefiling order, we direct the trial court to file the petition and evaluate it in accordance with habeas corpus procedure. (People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 474-479.)

   

  Israel Claustro failed to actually look into the issue. Israel Claustro lack of care and due diligence has caused me substantial emotional and psychological harm as he is assisting in the violation of my Civil Rights afforded to me via the US Constitution.

Click Image Below to ENLARGE to CLEARLY READ

The Hon. Julie A. Palafox allows my cases with merit in, only to have a subordinate male bias judge reject the very paperwork his superior let in, as it was a very valid cases with merit and the The Hon. Julie A. Palafox knows the law and wanted to protect me but she may be unaware of the bias and prejudice of her subordinate Thomas McConville the con !

In the midst of a successful career as a civil litigator, the Honorable Judge Julie A. Palafox made an altruistic pivot that ultimately led her to becoming a judicial officer and Family Law Supervising Judge. While Judge Palafox described her eight years as a family law judge as the “best job ever,” Judge Palafox has found that greater attention must be given to the ever-increasing demands placed on the family court and that the greater bar and court system do not recognize the importance of the family court’s work.

Judge Palafox recalled one hearing as particularly impactful. In a custody case that involved a parent overcoming severe substance abuse issues, Judge Palafox recognized the angst felt between the parties and sense of betrayal.The emotions permeated the courtroom. Understanding that the parent had started a multi-step program requiring an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, Judge Palafox poignantly asked the parent whether there was any other person in the courtroom that the parent wanted to address.The parent turned to the other and accepted responsibility by apologizing for the betrayal. On another occasion, where Judge Palafox issued multiple restraining orders against a parent with a substance abuse issue that led to a child abduction, after thirty hearings over the course of five years, there was a pivotal moment which led to a full recovery and tearful forgiveness from the abused family.These heartfelt moments diffuse the litigiousness in the courtroom and are starting points for those involved and for others to observe that rebuilding trust for the fractured families is possible.

While these dramatic scenes may only happen from time-to-time, the intensity of emotions and the importance of the work is a constant. Unfortunately, even after Elkins, family law judicial resources are strained. Judges, clerks, and administrators work tirelessly, but Judge Palafox emphasizes that “more must be done” and repeats the California Supreme Court’s finding: “The same judicial resources and safeguards should be committed to a family law trial as are committed to other civil proceedings.” Elkins, 41 Cal. 4th at 1368. Family law courts have significant volume and while streamlining does help, family law litigants are entitled “to resolve their disputes in the usual adversary trial proceeding governed by the rules of evidence established by statute.” Id.

Beyond those two best practices, Judge Palafox offered some advice to newer attorneys. “Consider looking into family law because there is so much court time” and “you can get into the arena” more quickly than in almost any other practice. Unlike civil law and motion practice, family law courts hold evidentiary hearings for temporary issues such as custody, support, and attorneys’ fees, and routinely bifurcate trial issues to have multiple trials over extended periods of time. For these new attorneys, Judge Palafox stressed the importance of learning evidence and how to present evidence in a persuasive manner.

Attorneys who have appeared before Judge Palafox recognize her efforts to help heal families, think prospectively and practically, and have clarity in her rulings. “Judge Palafox applies common sense to her rulings and makes orders that actually work for the parties and their children. A judge who makes clear orders prevents future problems,” said Jason Blonska of The Blonska Firm. Jason Schwartz of Stegmeier, Gelbart, Schwartz, and Benavente echoed those comments:

Judge Palafox makes a great effort to understand the nuances of each case and encourage the litigants to reach a fair resolution of their matter before trial. However, she is not afraid to make the tough call at trial. Win or lose, Judge Palafox makes sure you understand the reasoning for her decision. It is helpful for us as attorneys to explain what went right or wrong to our clients because of the detail she includes in her rulings.

Michael A. Morris of Minyard Morris summed it up most succinctly, “Good judge. Great understanding of family law. Wonderful to try a case in front of.”

After five years on the bench, in the midst of the pandemic, Judge Palafox ascended to her current role as Supervising Judge where she still maintains her full case load. As both a judicial officer and Supervising Judge, she works every weekend. She still volunteers and undertakes often thankless projects to streamline existing court procedures or create new ones to help litigants. However, the Supervising Judge functions within a large court system filled with longtime courthouse staff with immense institutional know-how and experience. Judge Palafox had to coordinate between the clerk’s office, the administration offices, the Orange County Sheriff for courtroom deputies, and navigate judicial calendars following elections, appointments, and reassignments.

Judge Palafox treated the institutional complexities as one of her motivations to improve the court system. Judge Palafox steadfastly promised herself to “leave the court in a better place” than when she arrived. She has spearheaded programs to clear the backlog caused by the pandemic and to facilitate settlement for future cases such as working on a pilot program for early mediation for self-represented parties and continuing to support the Family Law Voluntary Settlement Program launched by Judge Silbar and the Family Law bar during the pandemic. In doing all of this, Judge Palafox feels that she “made a difference for the better and considers this last chapter [her] best chapter.”

Today, there is good and bad news to report. The good news is the family law backlog from COVID-19 is much improved and, in some cases, nonexistent, and courtrooms are again processing cases both in-person and remotely. Even short-staffed, the family law court now processes orders and judgments more quickly than before. In family law, especially with child custody, “people need timely orders” and any delay can harm families according to Judge Palafox. The bad news is, while the world and court are recovering, filings are ticking up again and, in some cases, such as domestic violence, are even greater than pre-pandemic filings. This is proving challenging with the limited availability of judicial officers which, in turn, limits in-person hearings and justice for litigants on an already constrained family law court system. The family court has about four fewer judicial officers on the bench than just a few years ago.

In an effort to increase visibility for the benefit of the family law court, Judge Palafox has reluctantly stepped outside her judicial comfort zone and into the legal community. She has hosted the Annual Judge’s Barbeque on behalf of the Orange County Hispanic Bar Association. Judge Palafox presented at the most recent American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Annual Conference in San Diego. She has now made regular appearances at the Orange County Bar Association’s Judges’ Night.

Judge Palafox emphasizes that she “enjoys” her role as Supervising Judge, but before she leaves the court, Judge Palafox hopes to develop a five-year plan, with the assistance of the presiding judges, the court executives, the family law bench, and bar to re-examine Elkins’ recommendations and put Orange County at the forefront of family courts in California.

Judge Palafox still finds time to enjoy Orange County and spend time with her musically talented husband. When not working, Judge Palafox attends her husband’s local gigs or they play golf together. She and her long-time friends also take full advantage of the local hiking trails. Judge Palafox “loves Orange County.” Having lived in both Los Angeles and Orange County she reasons Orange County “is not Los Angeles, but has the best of Los Angeles.” Judge Palafox noted Orange County has less traffic than Los Angeles but still has a myriad of diverse ethnic communities, subcultures, restaurant options, and outdoor activities from hiking to the beach. Orange County offers all of this while having perfect weather, a far cry from South Bend’s winters and El Paso’s dry scorching summers.

Alexander C. Payne is a partner at Minyard Morris, practicing family law.

Attorneys who have appeared before Judge Palafox recognize her efforts to help heal families, think prospectively and practically, and have clarity in her rulings. source

Employers Beware: La Supreme Court Opens Line for Direct Negligence Claims from Negligent Employee Actions

read case Martin v. Thomas et al. 2022 – Opens Line for Direct Negligence Claims from Employee Actions

NO IMMUNITY  – “Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.” Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.” Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990

• • [a] “Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud.” Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994
  • Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. As found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509.
  • “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.
  • “Fraud vitiates everything” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210
  • “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.” U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61
  • When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S.196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee’s estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared:
    “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his prop erty by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country,it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.”
  • Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison,5 US (1Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) “… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”, this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. “In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank”. “All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID”. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”, this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY: See also, 42 USC 1983 – Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges.

Note: Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen’s constitutional rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion – he is then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act. Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States” and “No state shall… grant any Title of Nobility.” Most of us are certain that Congress itself doesn’t understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges. Article III, Sec. 1, “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.”

Both the US Constitution and Californian Constitution has

• 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
  

  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

• California Civil Code Section 52.1
  

  Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) forbids anyone from interfering by force or by threat of violence with your federal or state constitutional or statutory rights. The acts forbidden by these civil laws may also be criminal acts, and can expose violators to criminal penalties. California Civil Code Section 52.1 – Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the juvenile court denying Father’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his petition filed under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 388 to reinstate reunification services with Minor, holding that, under the circumstances, it was error to deny Father’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 petition.

A few days after Minor’s birth, the Alameda County Social Services Agency filed a petition on his behalf under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 300. The juvenile court terminated the reunification services of Father, who had been incarcerated since before Minor was born, and set a Cal. Well. & Inst. Code 366.26 hearing. The day before the hearing, Father filed his section 388 petition, stating that he had not been provided with services despite the court’s orders. The court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the juvenile court erred in denying Father’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 petition.

PRIMARY HOLDING

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the juvenile court denying Father his request for an evidentiary hearing on his petition filed under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 388 to reinstate reunification services with Minor, holding that, under the circumstances, it was error to deny Father’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 petition. source

Filing a Welfare & Instructions Code Section 388 Petition In Juvenile Dependency Court

A 388 petition is typically brought to request a hearing to modify, change, or set aside a previous court order, or to terminate juvenile court jurisdiction, on the ground that there are changed circumstances or new evidence. Any change or modification of a previous order may be sought by a 388 petition. From the commencement of the juvenile dependency case to its completion, parents and other interested persons have the continuing ability to petition the court under this section. Even after reunification services are terminated, a 388 petition permits parents to force the court to consider the reunification issue with the additional new information. A petition under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code may also be brought to assert a relationship as a sibling related by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent to a dependent child or a child who is the subject of a dependency petition, and to request visitation, placement with or near that child, or consideration when determining or implementing the child’s case or permanent plan, or to request any other order that is in that child’s best interests. Documentation should be submitted with a §388 petition as an “offer of proof,” to meet the requirement of a prima facie showing necessary to trigger a hearing. A prima facie showing refers to those facts which will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner is credited. Usually, a party attaches documents which indicate to the court that, were the motion to be granted, the petitioner would be offering in evidence of live testimony along with the attached documentation. The attachments indicate the availability of admissible evidence to support the allegation of changed circumstances. To be entitled to a hearing on his petition, the petitioner only has to make a showing of probable cause; he is not required to establish a probability of prevailing on the petition. The 388 Petition should elaborate on the substantial change in circumstance or the new evidence. For example changing conditions in the family unit or the child’s life, will demonstrate to the court the need for the new court order. The petition should also address how the new court order will be in the children’s best interest. In evaluating whether the proposed modification is in the best interest of the child, the juvenile court will look at the following factors: (1) the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of the relative bonds between the child and her parents and caretakers, and (3) the degree to which the problem which led to the dependency may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been. A 388 petition is a useful tool at all stages of the juvenile dependency case. source

This is not legal advice. You may want to consult a lawyer about this question.

Malicious Use (LEARN HOW) of the Vexatious (LEARN WHAT) litigant law by Judge Thomas McConville, This is acutually a DARK WELL KNOWN TACTIC THESE PUNK JUDGES USES (LEARN MORE HERE). His Failure to let me have my due process rights during TRO hearings and custody hearings!

Maybe the Judge forgot he is still an Attorney, he must have forgot The Attorney’s Sworn Oath glad this jerk was removed, he refused to see his bias and had to be re-assigned by his SUPERIOR. He was so biased he couldn’t see his vindictivness and I had to point it out to his Superior The Honorable Julie A. Palafox she is apparently well know for her Using Her Role on the Bench to Help Families  Judge Julie Palafox seems to be more fair it appears, (read here).

If the system forgets there is always a way (learn more) for the people to secure their rights if your read up and know your constitution well.  I went to fine schools who properly educated me with knowledge that I would use in my future. I actually wrote such a thorough essay as a 3rd grader, that I beat all my older peers in school and won the 1st place prize in history which was a baby US Constitution!

“one word thorough, ma’am, your son is beyond bright, you son is highly gifted!”

(Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves)

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case​

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRUTH CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

Lawyers, upon being licensed and admitted to the practice of law are under oath and have a duty to be truthful with the Court in all pleadings, appearances and interactions in their role as a lawyer with the Court.

20-659 Thompson v. Clark (04-04-2022) 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officials can be sued personally for money damages for on-the-job conduct that violates the Constitution.
 Cases in which federal employees face personal liability cut across everything the government does in all three branches of government.
 Whether they are engaging in every-day law enforcement, protecting our borders, addressing national security, or implementing other critical government policies and functions, federal employees of every rank face the specter of personal liability.

DIRECT VIOLATION OF California Civil Code Section 52.1 AND THE US CONSTITUTION THE OC DA OFFICE HAS LIMITED OR TAKEN MY FREEDOMS BY BOOKING ME WITH FALSE FELONY CRIMES BY A LYING HOSTILE WITNESS THAT HAS COMMITED PERJURY IN OPEN COURT MULTIPLE TIMES,
THEIR STAR HOSTILE WITNESS HAS MISLEAD/MANIPULATED THE COURT OVER 20 TIMES, AND LIES DIRECTLY IN POLICE REPORTS WITH FACTS THE DA DID NOT CHECK :)
AND THEIR POLICE CAUGHT ON TAPE LYING... AND THEY FILE FALSE CHARGES THAT ARE PROVABLE!

PLEASE MAKE PEACE WITH YOU

(harassment by law for failure of them to uphold laws to protect my son) aka vindictive malicious prosecutionary misconduct with gross negligence and failure to protect a child by ignoring his orders completely and siding with a 22 wanted fugitive sex offender and his momma. call them in good faith to help and they refuse so you call them a few 1st amendment legal names and they book you. never once do they tell me to stop and how can they ? i am a citizen needing their help with a good faith phone call!)

Identifying Abuse of Process

As distinguished from extortion, abuse of process is the actual filing of a lawsuit or the taking of other legal action, to achieve a purpose unrelated to the substance or merits of the legal action. To prove an abuse of process, a plaintiff must show that the defendant entertained an ulterior motive in using the legal process, and committed a willful act in a wrongful manner. See Coleman v. Gulf Insurance Group (1986) 41 Cal.3d 782, 792. “The gist of the tort is the misuse of the power of the court: It is an act done under the authority of the court for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice, i.e., a perversion of the judicial process to the accomplishment of an improper purpose. Younger v. Solomon (1974), 38 Cal.App.3d 289, 297.

He knows he has NO 401 CASE …..but he still keeps them  401 charges on AGAINST HIS OWN WORDS on and adds the CHARGES he said he was going to add so he is compelled to add more 653(M) to violate my constitutional rights even more to become even more malicious by adding charges BUT ..NOT CORRECT HIS MALICIOUS PRESEUCTION OF 401pc LIKE HE SAID HERE IT IS

He abuses the process as well by requiring I pay for a bail warrant on crimes he admits he has to drop!

IMAGINE I AM A LEGAL TAX PAYING BUSINESS OWNER AND THEY USE MY TAX DOLLARS TO FRAME MY UP AND NOT EVEN FIX THEIR MISTAKES TRUE DOUCHE BAG IS A CRIMINAL NOT ME…. The PROSECUTOR, is the ignorant law violating DAMN CRIMINAL! He is not a prosecutor of criminals he is a criminal prosecuting innocent tax paying fathers seeking help for the sex offender this SHIT BAG OFFICE LEAVES with my son!! AGAINST A JUDGES ORDER AND THEY DONT DO THEIR JOB TO ENFORCE THE JUDGES ORDER OR PICKUP THIS WANTED SEX OFFENDER WITH 2 WARRANTS FOR SEX CRIMES LIVING AT MY SONS HOUSE AGAINST COURT ORDERS. WAY TO HELP OUT CAITLYN HARRINGTON AFTER SHE FAILED TO DUE HER JOB, YOU THEN HELP HER “FIX ME” FOR COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DUMB CUNTS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF LAW AND INTEGRITY TO THE CASE!

Zamos v. Stroud

California Supreme Court, 2004
32 Cal.4th 958, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 87 P.3d 802

The tort of malicious prosecution includes continuing to prosecute a lawsuit discovered to lack probable cause. (This decision expands the tort, which previously was limited to commencing an action without probable cause.) Evidence to this effect is sufficient to defeat a special motion to strike a complaint for malicious prosecution.

learn about how NOT TO violate your employers rights, after all civil servants work for the people, the tax payer. Got it DA  Federal Civil Right$ $tatute$

424 F.2d 1021 US v.  Horton R. PRUDDEN,No. 28140. . United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.April 1970 Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977) Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct… If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.

Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”

Introducing the DA’s & Cops TEXTs & EMAIL as Digital Evidence

California Supreme Court Rules: Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines Subject to Open Records Requests

City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government  Employees

Employer$ Beware: La $upreme Court Open$ Line for Direct Negligence Claim$ from Employee Action$​

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling Makes it easier to Sue PROSECUTORS & POLICE

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations

Information On Prosecutorial Discretion

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

The Hon. Julie A. Palafox should know…….

Being a firm believer in family rights the judges she rules over and oversees should be aware of her position and the US Constitution regarding the rights of parents, which is often overlooked in family courts!

That said all of the judges she oversees should study the 2 informational pages to learn more about the oath to the US Constitution they took and are clearly breaking

• 9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

• Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights Amdt 5.4.5.6.2 Parental and Children’s Rights – Fifth Amendment

• Malicious Use of Vexatious Litigant – Civil Right$ Violation Check – Vexatious Litigant Order Reversed

• California’s Vexatious Litigant Law

• Are CA family courts declaring pro se parents Vexatious Litigants to force them to hire a lawyer?

• Marco Gonzalez – Petitioner, vs. Panda Restaurant Group Inc.
  Respondent On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Supreme Court

Further, even when a plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant, the statute does not preclude a plaintiff from filing subsequent lawsuits, so long as those lawsuits have merit. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7; see Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 Cal. App. 4th 43, 60 (1997)

The court was required to assess the merits of the petition before refusing to file it under the prefiling order, we direct the trial court to file the petition and evaluate it in accordance with habeas corpus procedure. (People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 474-479.)

Israel Claustro failed to actually look into the issue. Israel Claustro lack of care and due diligence has caused me substantial emotional and psychological harm as he is assisting in the violation of my Civil Rights afforded to me via the US Constitution.

The Hon. Julie A. Palafox allows my cases with merit in, only to have a subordinate male bias judge reject the very paperwork his superior let in, as it was a very valid cases with merit and the The Hon. Julie A. Palafox knows the law and wanted to protect me but she may be unaware of the bias and prejudice of her subordinate Judge Israel Claustro !

Judge Palafox is a great judge so we learn, but oversight over the vindictive personalities beneath her must be stepped up to find justice for children and their best interests which is 2 parents!

In the midst of a successful career as a civil litigator, the Honorable Judge Julie A. Palafox made an altruistic pivot that ultimately led her to becoming a judicial officer and Family Law Supervising Judge. While Judge Palafox described her eight years as a family law judge as the “best job ever,” Judge Palafox has found that greater attention must be given to the ever-increasing demands placed on the family court and that the greater bar and court system do not recognize the importance of the family court’s work.

Judge Palafox recalled one hearing as particularly impactful. In a custody case that involved a parent overcoming severe substance abuse issues, Judge Palafox recognized the angst felt between the parties and sense of betrayal.The emotions permeated the courtroom. Understanding that the parent had started a multi-step program requiring an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, Judge Palafox poignantly asked the parent whether there was any other person in the courtroom that the parent wanted to address.The parent turned to the other and accepted responsibility by apologizing for the betrayal. On another occasion, where Judge Palafox issued multiple restraining orders against a parent with a substance abuse issue that led to a child abduction, after thirty hearings over the course of five years, there was a pivotal moment which led to a full recovery and tearful forgiveness from the abused family.These heartfelt moments diffuse the litigiousness in the courtroom and are starting points for those involved and for others to observe that rebuilding trust for the fractured families is possible.

While these dramatic scenes may only happen from time-to-time, the intensity of emotions and the importance of the work is a constant. Unfortunately, even after Elkins, family law judicial resources are strained. Judges, clerks, and administrators work tirelessly, but Judge Palafox emphasizes that “more must be done” and repeats the California Supreme Court’s finding: “The same judicial resources and safeguards should be committed to a family law trial as are committed to other civil proceedings.” Elkins, 41 Cal. 4th at 1368. Family law courts have significant volume and while streamlining does help, family law litigants are entitled “to resolve their disputes in the usual adversary trial proceeding governed by the rules of evidence established by statute.” Id.

Beyond those two best practices, Judge Palafox offered some advice to newer attorneys. “Consider looking into family law because there is so much court time” and “you can get into the arena” more quickly than in almost any other practice. Unlike civil law and motion practice, family law courts hold evidentiary hearings for temporary issues such as custody, support, and attorneys’ fees, and routinely bifurcate trial issues to have multiple trials over extended periods of time. For these new attorneys, Judge Palafox stressed the importance of learning evidence and how to present evidence in a persuasive manner.

Attorneys who have appeared before Judge Palafox recognize her efforts to help heal families, think prospectively and practically, and have clarity in her rulings. “Judge Palafox applies common sense to her rulings and makes orders that actually work for the parties and their children. A judge who makes clear orders prevents future problems,” said Jason Blonska of The Blonska Firm. Jason Schwartz of Stegmeier, Gelbart, Schwartz, and Benavente echoed those comments:

Judge Palafox makes a great effort to understand the nuances of each case and encourage the litigants to reach a fair resolution of their matter before trial. However, she is not afraid to make the tough call at trial. Win or lose, Judge Palafox makes sure you understand the reasoning for her decision. It is helpful for us as attorneys to explain what went right or wrong to our clients because of the detail she includes in her rulings.

Michael A. Morris of Minyard Morris summed it up most succinctly, “Good judge. Great understanding of family law. Wonderful to try a case in front of.”

After five years on the bench, in the midst of the pandemic, Judge Palafox ascended to her current role as Supervising Judge where she still maintains her full case load. As both a judicial officer and Supervising Judge, she works every weekend. She still volunteers and undertakes often thankless projects to streamline existing court procedures or create new ones to help litigants. However, the Supervising Judge functions within a large court system filled with longtime courthouse staff with immense institutional know-how and experience. Judge Palafox had to coordinate between the clerk’s office, the administration offices, the Orange County Sheriff for courtroom deputies, and navigate judicial calendars following elections, appointments, and reassignments.

Judge Palafox treated the institutional complexities as one of her motivations to improve the court system. Judge Palafox steadfastly promised herself to “leave the court in a better place” than when she arrived. She has spearheaded programs to clear the backlog caused by the pandemic and to facilitate settlement for future cases such as working on a pilot program for early mediation for self-represented parties and continuing to support the Family Law Voluntary Settlement Program launched by Judge Silbar and the Family Law bar during the pandemic. In doing all of this, Judge Palafox feels that she “made a difference for the better and considers this last chapter [her] best chapter.”

Today, there is good and bad news to report. The good news is the family law backlog from COVID-19 is much improved and, in some cases, nonexistent, and courtrooms are again processing cases both in-person and remotely. Even short-staffed, the family law court now processes orders and judgments more quickly than before. In family law, especially with child custody, “people need timely orders” and any delay can harm families according to Judge Palafox. The bad news is, while the world and court are recovering, filings are ticking up again and, in some cases, such as domestic violence, are even greater than pre-pandemic filings. This is proving challenging with the limited availability of judicial officers which, in turn, limits in-person hearings and justice for litigants on an already constrained family law court system. The family court has about four fewer judicial officers on the bench than just a few years ago.

In an effort to increase visibility for the benefit of the family law court, Judge Palafox has reluctantly stepped outside her judicial comfort zone and into the legal community. She has hosted the Annual Judge’s Barbeque on behalf of the Orange County Hispanic Bar Association. Judge Palafox presented at the most recent American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Annual Conference in San Diego. She has now made regular appearances at the Orange County Bar Association’s Judges’ Night.

Judge Palafox emphasizes that she “enjoys” her role as Supervising Judge, but before she leaves the court, Judge Palafox hopes to develop a five-year plan, with the assistance of the presiding judges, the court executives, the family law bench, and bar to re-examine Elkins’ recommendations and put Orange County at the forefront of family courts in California.

Judge Palafox still finds time to enjoy Orange County and spend time with her musically talented husband. When not working, Judge Palafox attends her husband’s local gigs or they play golf together. She and her long-time friends also take full advantage of the local hiking trails. Judge Palafox “loves Orange County.” Having lived in both Los Angeles and Orange County she reasons Orange County “is not Los Angeles, but has the best of Los Angeles.” Judge Palafox noted Orange County has less traffic than Los Angeles but still has a myriad of diverse ethnic communities, subcultures, restaurant options, and outdoor activities from hiking to the beach. Orange County offers all of this while having perfect weather, a far cry from South Bend’s winters and El Paso’s dry scorching summers.

source

Employers Beware: La Supreme Court Opens Line for Direct Negligence Claims from Negligent Employee Actions

read case Martin v. Thomas et al. 2022 – Opens Line for Direct Negligence Claims from Employee Actions

NO IMMUNITY  – “Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.” Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.” Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990

• • [a] “Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud.” Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994
  • Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. As found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509.
  • “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.
  • “Fraud vitiates everything” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210
  • “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments.” U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61
  • When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S.196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee’s estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared:
    “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. “Shall it be said… that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his prop erty by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country,it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.”
  • Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison,5 US (1Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) “… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”, this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. “In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank”. “All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID”. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”, this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY: See also, 42 USC 1983 – Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges.

Note: Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen’s constitutional rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion – he is then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act. Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States” and “No state shall… grant any Title of Nobility.” Most of us are certain that Congress itself doesn’t understand the inherent lack of immunity for judges. Article III, Sec. 1, “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.”

Both the US Constitution and Californian Constitution has

• 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
  

  Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

• California Civil Code Section 52.1
  

  Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) forbids anyone from interfering by force or by threat of violence with your federal or state constitutional or statutory rights. The acts forbidden by these civil laws may also be criminal acts, and can expose violators to criminal penalties. California Civil Code Section 52.1 – Interference by threat, intimidation or coercion with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights.

 

Maybe the Judge did not understand his oath or get the new message from the WHITE HOUSE to all judges, prosecutors and police

click here

Grandparent’s Suffer – Grandson Suffers 

Daddy Son Suffer

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship​

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

​

​

https://youtu.be/HitYoovJrBk

​​

Download a good PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

DISTRICT ATTORNEY & PAUL TOEPEL PLAY THESE VIDEOS

Rule 1.1 – Competence (DA REPRESENTS THE STATE)

Rule 1.2 – Assisting in a Crime

Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims & Contentions

Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Council

PAUL TOEPEL PLAY THE NEXT VIDEO REMEMBER SUGGESTING ME TO BE MADE A VEXATIOUS LITAGANT YOU PUNK FUCK

Model Rule 3.8 pt.2 – Special Duties of Prosecutors

Learn More: ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Model Rule 4.1 – Truthfulness in Statements to Others

PAUL TOEPEL PLAY THE NEXT VIDEO

Model Rule 4.4 – Respect for the Rights of Others

PAUL & Mathew TOEPEL LISTEN TO THE NEXT VIDEO

Model Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer

Model Rule 5.2 Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer

Model Rule 8.1 Bar Admission & Disciplinary Matters

Model Rule 8.2 – Judicial & Legal Officials

Model Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct

Model Rule 8.4 pt.1 – Lawyer Misconduct

PAUL TOEPEL LISTEN TO THE NEXT VIDEO

ABA Formal Op. 493 pt.1 – Rule 8.4(g): Purpose, Scope & Application

Model Rule 8.4 pt.2 – Discrimination & Harassment

ECONOMIC STATUS ATTACKS!

Learn more about the Sigma Males …..

Alpha vs Sigma: The Dominant Sigma Male

What Sigma Men Hate! – The Ultimate Guide to Sigma Males

How To Become A High Value Man

Why is a sigma male so irresistible to women?

The Sigma Male Explained: Understanding the Lone Wolf

Sigma Males Destroy Controlling and Manipulative People

Why Are Sigma Males So Confident its Intimidating?

Learn More About on Stoicism – The Stoic Man An Unstoppable Force to Reckon With…..

Want An Unconquerable Mind? Try Stoic Philosophy

What is Stoicism? A Definition & Stoic Exercises To Get You Started

9 Principles of Stoicism which will Improve your Life

A Complete Guide to Stoicism: How You Can Use this Ancient Philosophy to Live a Better Life

Stoicism, Virtue, and Mental Health

The Stoic Man – Indifference is a power – Stoicism 101

What is Stoicism and How Can it Turn your Life to Solid Gold?

Stoic Quotes on Control – The Absolute Man

Other Men’s Health Topics Below

Good Habits That Will Help You Become Rich

How To Become A High Value Man

What every woman loves in a man?

In family law appeals, it is important that your appellate attorney knows more than appellate law: they must also know family law.  Attorney Andrew J. Botros of Bickford Blado & Botros is an experienced appellate attorney and a Certified Family Law Specialist, certified by the State Bar of California’s Board of Legal Specialization. He has ably and successfully represented clients in family law appeals. His published appellate cases include Lief v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 868, In re Marriage of Kent (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 487, and Menezes v. McDaniel (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 340.

Some family law litigants (and even some attorneys) may think an appeal is just a “do-over” of what happened at the trial level. However, trials and appeals are two very different proceedings

Trial courts ask: “What are the Facts?”

It is not unheard of for a family law trial to last several days, or even several weeks. However, the oral argument on an appeal of a week-long trial will almost never exceed 30 minutes and usually doesn’t impact a case. So, why is that?

The reason why a trial can last so long is because the parties are offering their different versions of the facts. The parties are usually examined by both sides, other witnesses (sometimes expert witnesses with a lot to say) are also examined, and exhibits are introduced into evidence. In most cases, the witness’ credibility is a critical issue for the Court.  Accordingly, a lot of time and effort is devoted to either bolstering or attacking the credibility of witnesses. At the end of a case, the trial judge has to determine what laws to apply and how to apply them, but he or she must also determine what happened and who was telling the truth.

Appeals court: How does the law apply to the facts determined by the Trial Court?

On appeal, the factual findings made by the trial judge are given extraordinary deference and are extremely difficult to challenge. For instance, the determination of credibility is the exclusive province of the trial court. For example, consider the following: a trial court believed a raging murderer’s testimony that he saw the Pope steal candy from a candy store. 100 religious clerics from every denomination testified they were watching him the whole time and that there was no theft. Believe it or not, if the trial judge finds the murderer’s testimony more credible, that factual finding that the Pope stole the candy cannot be disturbed on appeal.

Basically, as long as any evidence in the record would support the Court’s finding, the factual findings won’t be disturbed on appeal. Unlike at trial, the Court of Appeal does not take witness testimony, and (except for extremely limited exceptions) it doesn’t review or admit new exhibits. As such, most of the litigation during an appeal occurs in the written appellate briefs. In fact, by the time the lawyers walk into the Court of Appeal to argue their cases, the judge’s already have a tentative opinion drafted.

What’s exactly is a Writ?

So when do you file a writ and when do you file an appeal?

First, let us address the practical differences between an appeal and a writ. Think of appeals as non-emergency cases and writs as emergency cases. Appeals can take a long time because the appellate courts are so busy. In California a party can reasonably expect the appellate court to rule on the appeal in about one year from the date the notice of appeal is filed. Also, in California, the judges are required to issue a written opinion in every case explaining their reasoning for either affirming or reversing the judgment. This is one reason why appeals take so long.

Writs allow a party, for lack of a better term, to “cut in line.” You can get a decision from the appeals court in as little as a few hours if the situation requires it. Writ relief is one hundred percent discretionary and, unlike in appeals, the Court of Appeals won’t explain its reasoning for denying relief it doesn’t want to.

The most prominent question (but not the only question) in determining whether an appeal or a writ request should be filed is determining if the order made by the trial judge is considered “final.” Final orders are described in Code of Civil Procedure section 904 through 904.5 Here are example of family law orders that are final:

• Any judgment where issues are not bifurcated (bifurcated judgments have their own complicated appellate procedures to determine if they are final).
• Any child support order, regardless if it is made before or after trial.
• Any spousal support order, regardless if it is made before or after trial.
• An order on a post-judgment RFO that requires no further action by the trial court.
• Domestic Violence Restraining Orders.
• A need and ability based attorney fee award made before or after a trial.

Final orders need to proceed by appeal absent extraordinary circumstances that make appellate relief impractical. A good example of a situation requiring writ relief in a final order was in Alan S. v. Superior Court. In that case, an attorney fee award was being challenged and if it wasn’t resolved immediately, the losing party could not retain their attorney and it would thus gravely affect the rest of the case. The losing party could not wait for an appeal, thus emergency writ relief was appropriate.

What family law orders must proceed by writ relief?

Here is a list of the most common orders that must proceed by writ:

• A prejudgment order on child custody or visitation made either ex parte, or at a Request for Order hearing.
• An order for exclusive use and possession made before judgment.
• Hearings on discovery motions.
• A hearing denying a continuance.
• An order denying a motion to quash a case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Appellate litigation can be difficult and complex and it is vitally important that you understand your rights. That is why it is essential that you contact a qualified family law attorney who handles writs and appeals to discuss your case. source

Can a family court decision be appealed?

California family court appeals

It is part of the complex nature of family law that family courts don’t always reach the conclusions that the participants seek. There are times when a losing party in a divorce or custody trial will have to accept the results of the case, whether they like it or not. There are other times, however, when they can question the decision and launch an appeal with the help of a California family court appeals lawyer. California law allows the appeal of most family court matters, and an unjust ruling can certainly be overturned.

Appealing an unfavorable decision in California

If you have endured the emotional and financial costs of a family law trial only to find that the court rules against you, even though you believe you had a strong case, you still have options. You can appeal the decision and continue to press your case. In answering the following three common questions, we will provide you with the essential information you need to launch a successful appeal.

How do you appeal a California Family Court decision?

You begin your appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal, which lets the court and the other parties know that you intend to challenge the initial ruling. The notice can be filed as soon as the order or judgment from the original case is signed by the judge and stamped “Filed.” Once this paperwork, known as the entry of judgment, has been completed your legal team can immediately file the Notice of Appeal.

The paperwork is the easy part, however. In order to launch an appeal, you must have a strong legal basis for it (i.e., you must show that the law was misapplied to your case or that factual errors misdirected the judgment). You must also base your appeal on issues you have already raised in court during the initial trial. You can’t raise matters in the appeals court that have not already been contested in the trial court.

How long do custody appeals take?

The appeals process can be time consuming. You have 60-180 days from the date the judgment is handed down to file your appeal. The appeals court can then either hear your verbal argument or they can reach a decision on the basis of briefs received from yourself and the other party. Either way, the court date is typically several weeks after your filing. After that, it may take several months before you get a final decision.

What is the average cost of an appeal?

There is no one predictable cost for an appeal. It will depend on your lawyer’s rates, the complexity of the case, and the size of the record. Some cases may end up totaling $10,000. Your specific circumstances would have to be considered to estimate costs.

Working with the courts of appeals 

When your case goes from a trial court to an appellate court the processes, handling, and application are significantly different from the original trial, and your expectations should be too.

Is the appellate court’s decision a final?

The decision that the appellate court reaches after considering your appeal will become final 30 days after the court hands down its judgment. Within those 30 days, you can still object and submit a petition against the ruling. If none of the parties involved in the case submits a petition within that 30-day window, the decision is final and can no longer be appealed.

Will the court of appeals accept the case?

Appellate courts are quite limited in terms of what appeals they can and can’t consider. An appellate does not so much act as a provider of a ”second opinion” in your case, but instead considers the legal process by which the trial court reached the decision. Therefore, in order for the appeals court to review your case, you must be able to show that California law was misapplied, that there was too little evidence to support the ruling, or that the trial court somehow abused its discretion.

What can the court of appeals do?

Appeals courts each consist of a panel of three justices, who review decisions made by trial courts to determine whether they were reached in accordance with a proper application of the law. An appeals court does not conduct a new trial but instead reviews the record in the court case to see if there were any legal or factual errors that led to the outcome. The justices of the appeals court can either uphold the decision made by the trial court judge, or remand the case, thus sending it back to the trial court.

The process to appeal a family law court order

The process of appealing a California family court order is relatively simple, which isn’t to say that it is easy or quick. If you feel you have good reason to appeal a trial court decision, you and your legal counsel must first file your Notice of Appeal. After that, the procedure rolls out over the course of a few months.

More information on how we approach appeals

An important question to ask yourself before appealing a California family court decision is whether you should even bother to do so in the first place. You and your legal support must weigh the costs involved and the strength of your appeal in terms of evidence showing legal errors or abuse of discretion. Your family lawyer may well advise you not to appeal as it isn’t always worth the trouble and expense. If the case is strong enough, then the key to lodging the appeal is in the Notice of Appeal itself.

Deadline to file the Notice of Appeal

The notice must be filed in a timely manner. The deadlines are strictly enforced because they are jurisdictional. If you fail to file your appeal in time, the court will not have jurisdiction to consider your appeal.

Contents of the Notice of Appeal

The Notice of Appeal itself is a short form that is easily and quickly filled in without any major preparations needed. It contains the name, state bar number and contact details of the lawyer, the names of the plaintiff and respondent, and indicates what type of judgment is being appealed. The real work is in the brief that is presented to the justices for deliberation. This document must contain the necessary evidence of the errors made in the California family court ruling, presented in a clear, concise and convincing manner.

Why family law appeals are so infrequent 

The important thing to remember about appealing a family court decision is that it is a last resort to be considered only if the family court case shows clear signs of error or misapplication of the law. What you really want to do is get your case right in the family court in the first place. Family law appeals are rare for a number of reasons. They are seldom successful as it is difficult to establish meritorious legal grounds for appealing. They involve considerable costs, not only for the appeal but for a retrial if the case is remanded to the California family court. Simply put, if you are going to appeal, you had better have excellent reasons. You must also have the financial and emotional wherewithal to pursue the appeal and the possible retrial and be convinced that the eventual gains of a successful appeal outweigh the costs.

Time limit for filing an Appeal

For a family law case in California, you have between 60 and 180 days to file your appeal (60 days after receiving notification that judgment has been filed in your case, or 180 days after the entry of judgment). This time limit is strict and non-negotiable. If you miss the deadline, you miss your chance to appeal, which is another reason why many people do not appeal family court cases.

Grounds for Filing an Appeal

If you do not have strong grounds for your appeal and your legal counsel cannot present this evidence clearly and convincingly, there is no point filing for an appeal. The grounds for an appeal are very specific: you must be able to prove that legal errors were made in your case and that these errors – not the particulars of your case – resulted in an adverse judgment against you.

How to file the Notice of Appeal 

As we’ve already mentioned, filing the Notice of Appeal is a relatively easy part of the appeals process, requiring the following four steps:

1. Prepare the Notice of Appeal

Your lawyer will prepare the Notice of Appeal and all supporting paperwork.

2. Make at least two copies of your Notice of Appeal

The original Notice is filed with the court. Before filing, two copies are made, with one being for you and the other being served to the opposing party.

3. Serve your Notice of Appeal on the other side

One copy is then served to the opposing party, either in person or by mail. Proof of service must be obtained to show that the other party has received the notification.

4. File your Notice of Appeal and Proof of Service with the court clerk

Before your appeal deadline, your lawyer will hand the original notice and the proof of service, together with the filing fee, to the court clerk.   

After you file your Notice of Appeal

Once you have filed your Notice of Appeal, the real work starts. You and your lawyer need to prepare your case and write a strong brief for the appellate court justices. Here are some matters to consider as you are preparing – or even before you file.

Know the child custody laws about appeal eligibility in your state

If your family court case involves child custody law, make sure to consult your state’s statutes for more information about the specific rules.

Types of child custody orders that cannot be appealed 

There are some child custody orders that are not eligible for appeal. For example, some courts may issue temporary or non-final orders (also called interlocutory orders). In this case, the parent who wishes to make an appeal must wait until the court has issued its final ruling. Only then can you appeal.

How parents can appeal a child custody order

Once the order is final, you can then file the appeal. Your lawyer will compile a brief explaining the reasons for your appeal. The court will then consider the brief, as well as transcripts of the original hearing, and decide whether to uphold or overturn the decision.

Limitations in overturning a child custody order

In an appeal, you are not permitted to present new evidence that was not presented in the original hearing. The appellate court considers the same evidence used in the original California family court case. The higher court will base its decision on the same principles used by the lower court.

Why you need an lawyer with appellate experience

The appeals process is a specialized one with a very order-specific set of practices and expectations. In order to navigate it effectively, you need the help of a lawyer who has experience with it. The right person for the job may not be the same lawyer who worked on your case originally. Look for an attorney who has successfully brought cases to the appellate courts.

How to find a family lawyer

When searching for a good family lawyer, remember that you don’t only want someone with high levels of expertise in their field, but also someone you can work with personally. You are dealing with personal matters that are very close to your heart. Make sure you find someone who understands and respects that and with whom you see eye to eye.

How to choose a family lawyer

Aside from the usual Google searches for lawyers in your area, ask friends and family for recommendations. This kind of word-of-mouth recommendation is often the best way to find an attorney that you connect with as well as one who can handle the legal and technical aspects of your particular case.

What do judges look for in child custody cases?

The guiding principle for a judge in a child custody case is the best interests of the child. The court will always focus on the child’s needs, not those of either of the parents. They will consider questions such as:

• Where will the child be safest?
• Where will the child receive their basic needs such as food and clothing?
• Will the child receive proper supervision?
• Will the child be emotionally supported?
• Which parent has been the primary caregiver up to this point?
• Is there abuse involved? If so, what are the best steps to remove the child from the abusive environment?

source

Grandparent’s Suffer – Grandson Suffers

MY SON CALLS HIS GRANDMA MOM. HE DID NOT KNOW WHO HIS MOM WAS AT THIS TIME 
AT THIS TIME HE LIVED FULL TIME WITH DAD. LOOK AT THE VIDEO BELOW AND LISTEN!

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW 

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Read some Healthy Christian Quotes Below!

Those Who Harm Children, What Does the Bible Say?

The Steadfast and Diligent. What Does the Bible Say?

Good Words of Wisdom for Christians and God Fearing People

Blurred Lines of Right and Wrong: Hold Fast To Good; Abstain From Evil

10 Bible Verses on Clarity of Vision

The Virtuous Woman Affirmation

The Honorable Man Affirmation

What Makes God Angry?