10/06/2020 at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Riff, Lawrence P., Presiding
Ex Parte Hearing - Denied - Without Prejudice
They had another ex parte hearing in Deptartment 2 which may have been another attempt at getting authorization from Judge Riff. Their home court is Dept. 27. There is still no indication if the neutral judge has made a decision on the matter of Judge Ouderkirk's disqualification.
DOCUMENTS FILED
10/02/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (Per Family Code Section 3042 )
01/20/2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order - Other
01/20/2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order - Other
01/20/2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order - Other
01/25/2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order Hearing
All matters that impact the imminent hearing (Bley contends that it should just be called a hearing and not an evidentiary hearing but she also previously referred to it as a trial. Judge Riff still refers to it as an evidentiary hearing in his Order.) were filed ex parte and heard and decided by the court immediately. Ex parte applications are used in situations when there is not enough time for a standard motion, which typically take about four weeks, 16 court days minimum. The RFOs filed 10/02 and 10/06 were filed as standard motions and will only be heard by the regular court on 01/20 and 01/25 next year -- 3 1/2 months from now. The hearing dates are far beyond the 16 court days/ 4 weeks and after the presumptive 11/16 start of the evidentiary hearing.
There is a large team of mental health professionals who are set to give testimony about their work with the family and their interactions with Dr. Katz. All of them including Dr. Katz will testify as scheduled when the hearing is held. Dr. Katz's testimony will be consistent with his depositions taken in March, August and September this year so they already know what he will say. All the testimonies presented during the hearing including from the parties, family assistants and other non-experts will be considered by the Judge in making his decision. Presumably, they all support the conclusion that the children have sufficiently recovered and want to live again with Brad.
Other previously listed filings for Oct. 2:
PROCEEDINGS HELD
10/02/2020 at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Riff, Lawrence P., Presiding
Ex Parte Hearing - Denied
10/02/2020 at 8:30 AM in Department 27, Weiner, Timothy M., Presiding
Ex Parte Hearing - Transfer - Different Department- This Hearing Only<
10/02/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (Per Family Code Section 3042 )
Filed by Petitioner
10/02/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (to Remone PPc Stanley J. Katz )
Filed by Petitioner
10/02/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (Re: Motion in Limine )
Filed by Petitioner
10/06/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (Motion in Limine No. 2: To Exclude Evidence and Testimony of Robin Deutsch, PH.D for Failure to Adhere to Legal, Ethical and Procedural Requirements [Filed Under Seal] )
Filed by Petitioner
FUTURE HEARINGS
10/02/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (to Remone PPc Stanley J. Katz )
Filed by Petitioner
10/02/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (Re: Motion in Limine )
Filed by Petitioner
10/06/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (Motion in Limine No. 2: To Exclude Evidence and Testimony of Robin Deutsch, PH.D for Failure to Adhere to Legal, Ethical and Procedural Requirements [Filed Under Seal] )
Filed by Petitioner
FUTURE HEARINGS
12/21/2020 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order Hearing
Request for Order Hearing
01/20/2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order - Other
01/20/2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order - Other
01/20/2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order - Other
01/25/2021 at 8:30 AM in Department 27 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Request for Order Hearing
The middle three RFOs are entered as "Request for Order - Other," The first and last are "Request for Order Hearing."
All matters that impact the imminent hearing (Bley contends that it should just be called a hearing and not an evidentiary hearing but she also previously referred to it as a trial. Judge Riff still refers to it as an evidentiary hearing in his Order.) were filed ex parte and heard and decided by the court immediately. Ex parte applications are used in situations when there is not enough time for a standard motion, which typically take about four weeks, 16 court days minimum. The RFOs filed 10/02 and 10/06 were filed as standard motions and will only be heard by the regular court on 01/20 and 01/25 next year -- 3 1/2 months from now. The hearing dates are far beyond the 16 court days/ 4 weeks and after the presumptive 11/16 start of the evidentiary hearing.
All five RFOs pending before Department 27 were filed by Petitioner. All relate to Family Law and are apparently procedural. The12/21/2020 RFO Hearing is ostensibly for the 09/15/2020 RFO/MTN - Family Law (Petitioner RFO for trial in this matter to proceed remotely filed under seal). The fact that it was filed under seal indicates that it concerns and has info on the children. Since both Kiley's and Bley's filings state that they agree that the hearing will be conducted virtually and all witnesses will be testifying via Zoom, the RFO for trial to proceed remotely is already moot.
The supporting Memorandums for the 10/02 RFOs and the 10/06 RFO were also filed under seal so the arguments for those also involve the children.
Family Code Section 3042 - (a) If a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation, the court shall consider, and give due weight to, the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation.
"to Remone PPc Stanley J. Katz" - I presume that is a typo and it should read "to Remove"
Motion in Limine are motions to limit the evidence and arguments used at trial. In general, you make these motions in writing at the beginning of the trial. Many times, the motions are made orally .
There is a large team of mental health professionals who are set to give testimony about their work with the family and their interactions with Dr. Katz. All of them including Dr. Katz will testify as scheduled when the hearing is held. Dr. Katz's testimony will be consistent with his depositions taken in March, August and September this year so they already know what he will say. All the testimonies presented during the hearing including from the parties, family assistants and other non-experts will be considered by the Judge in making his decision. Presumably, they all support the conclusion that the children have sufficiently recovered and want to live again with Brad.
As noted, the hearing was scheduled to proceed remotely via zoom from Oct. 5 to 21 but was prevented by the General Order that directs all hearings lasting more than 5 days to only commence after Nov. 16. If they start on Nov 16, the hearing should conclude by Dec. 2. If the Judge takes two weeks to write his order as he did with the May 30 order, it should be ready by around Dec. 16.
A month after the Judge is finished hearing the testimonies, on Jan 20, 2021, they want the regular court to give an order that the children's wishes should be followed pursuant to Family Code Section 3042. They want Dr. Katz to be removed as "PPC" -- which presumably stands for private parenting coordinator. Bley's witness list states that Dr. Katz "is expected to testify about his work with this family as both an evaluator and Parenting Coordinator, the recommendations stemming thereform and the basis for his recommendations." He is being removed as PPC but apparently remaining as evaluator. It may be the part of his testimony that relates to his being a PPC that they do not want included for other consideration, hence they want him removed as PPC.
They also want the evidence and testimony from Robin Deutsch, PhD, whose area of expertise is "overcoming parent-child contact problems", removed for "Failure to adhere to Legal, Ethical and Procedural Requirements." Unlike Dr. Katz, specific reasons were cited for Dr. Deutsch. Since the RFO for Dr. Deutsch was filed under seal, the lapses she is alleged to have committed and are cited in the RFO involve the children. She is one of 3 mental health experts in Kiley's list who were not in Bley's Aug. 17th list, but Bley mentions that "Petitioner has separately designated her expert witnesses on August 14th which are in addition to the witnesses set forth above" and it is possible Deutsch and the others are on that list.
They want the court to issue these Orders in January after all the testimonies will have been given and already factored in the Judge's decision.
Because the 10/02 and 10/06 RFOs may be moot for the 15 day hearing and the Judge's resulting order, they may be directed at another party or parties who may be reviewing the results of the proceedings after the fact, including all the decisions made by the Judge. Family Code Section 3042 is a statute that courts are already required to follow therefore an order is not necessary where the court is concerned. As noted above, Motions in Limine are usually just made orally during trial. Neither Family Code Section 3042 nor a Motion in Limine would need the involvement of the regular court on matters before the Judge.
I think one concerned party may be the DCFS thru someone it designated. It may be the same outside party for whom last 03/03/2020 they asked court approval to make limited disclosure of custody evaluation info. When the DCFS ended its investigation of Brad, Angelina's statement read: "The job of the DCFS is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal." The long arm of the DCFS extends even after it officially ended its investigation thru the safeguards it required to be put in place. The DCFS was not content with having the therapeutic process overseen by the court. They wanted an independent outside party to review the proceedings before they were satisfied that the safeguards were sufficient.
Other previously listed filings for Oct. 2:
PROCEEDINGS HELD
10/02/2020 at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Riff, Lawrence P., Presiding
Ex Parte Hearing - Denied
10/02/2020 at 8:30 AM in Department 27, Weiner, Timothy M., Presiding
Ex Parte Hearing - Transfer - Different Department- This Hearing Only<
DOCUMENTS FILED
10/02/2020 Order (Order on Ex Parte Application re Authorization to Proceed With Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled for October 5, 2020 )
10/02/2020 Minute Order
10/02/2020 Minute Order
10/02/2020 Responsive Declaration (to ex parte )
Filed by Petitioner
10/02/2020 Ex Parte - Application
Filed by Respondent
10/02/2020 Order (Order on Ex Parte Application re Authorization to Proceed With Evidentiary Hearing Scheduled for October 5, 2020 )
10/02/2020 Minute Order
10/02/2020 Minute Order
10/02/2020 Responsive Declaration (to ex parte )
Filed by Petitioner
10/02/2020 Ex Parte - Application
Filed by Respondent
