Essay On Court Restraining
Watching cases in family court in the past had peaked my interest in the restraining order process. Commissioner Blanco was in charge of the hearings for some of the domestic violence restraining orders so, I went to go see. When in the courtroom, I noticed they have a bailiff, which is rare to see in civil court. The petitioner wanted a permanent restraining order against her ex boyfriend. The petitioner had a dating relationship with the petitioner for three years. The respondent was not present. In the past, she alleges that the respondent has tried to contact her through social media, has called her privately, stopped her in her car so she can listen to him, and has caused drama at her job. The petitioner did not feel threatened, but felt
…show more content…
that he could affect her job. The petitioner said that she has gotten in trouble during her job because of him. Commissioner Blanco granted the restraining order, which expired in two years. This to me sounded like a bad breakup situation. I think the only thing that made the situation more extreme was the job disruption. I found it interesting that the respondent did not have to be there, but I am more than sure he is going to be aware of the restraining order becoming permanent. Commissioner Blanco’s primary job for the day was to see if the restraining orders would become permanent or they would set a further hearing.
The next hearing was a young man petitioning a restraining order on a young woman. Both parties were present for the hearing. The petitioner had an attorney, he seemed more prepared. The respondent brought a laptop, but made the mistake of not submitting her evidence and denying to talk to the attorney or petitioner outside of court. It seemed ironic to me that the respondent did not want to talk to the petitioner and kept on repeating it. The respondent wanted to go on without evidence. The parties ended up choosing a different date for the hearing. I wish I knew more details about the parties because it did seem interesting. The respondent kept on saying that school was her main priority and that the hearing was taking time away from that. It just had me wondering how did they get into this situation in the first place.
The next hearing involved a couple who were in a dating relationship, but they had a minor child involved. The petitioner claims there was 3 incidents showing the restraining order should be granted. The petitioner’s main issues were some alleged physical altercations, the daughter was taken from her, and threats. I believe this all began when the respondent followed her one day she was out late at night. The respondent said that it was too early back in the relationship to go out, they had just started living together again. I felt like this was a possessive statement. The respondent claims the night she went out, he was watching her and following her. The respondent replied during his turn, stating that someone told him to go see what she was doing because she was with a guy. As a result, the petitioner tried to get her daughter back, but the respondent would not allow that. The petitioner was allegedly pushed by the respondent and his sister. The respondent was recording and threating to break her windows. The respondent did admited that he was going to break her windows, but he then decided not to.
The petitioner called the police as recommended by the respondent. The police gave the responded custody until the petitioner has a valid and verifiable address. The petitioner had an address, but did not want to give the apartment number because the person who lived there was scared. The respondent has criminal history and has admitted to being a ganger. The petitioner finally got her daughter, once she gave the apartment number. The last incident happened when the petitioner picked up the child from his residence. The respondent allegedly threw the daughter into the car seat in an aggressive manner and hit her car door. The respondent later admits to somehow bumping into the door. The Commissioner found a more important issue to focus on is a parenting plan.
Commissioner Blanco said that she just sees a concerned father and a bad breakup. She said she cannot do anything about the restraining order right now. The commissioner was understanding to the respondent with his emotional stress of the situation. I think that he does show some aggression. Something should at least be done about his agression. I do agree the child should be a priority, but there should be no tolerance for abuse of any type. The gang and criminal record seems to be irrelevant at least in this situation for the commissioner. It was confusing because seeing them outside of court it seemed normal. Outside the courtroom they were having a conversation but I think it had to do with the fact that they were directed to another place in the courthouse.
Next, I went over to Judge Watkins courtroom, she was currently handling a case. This was a restraining order case. This case was very complicated. The petitioner was the son in law of the respondent. The petitioner was trying to get a restraining order against his mother in law because she would allegedly call’s him to much. Additionally, the respondent would always call child services on him. Another issue, was the respondent’s words to the petitioner’s children telling them that he is a bad person. Judge Watkins told the petitioner that she has talked to the whole family and they want to maintain the family together. The petitioner was worried about his depression. Judge Watkins was not agreeing to the restraining order so, she recommended him a therapist. This was a very complex case, because there were many issues. One of the issues was that the respondent’s wife had a metastatic cancer; the mother would blame the petitioner for that. After, Judge Watkins dismissed a confused group and send them to their home courthouse there was an interesting case. The case was interesting because of the parties involved in it. Judge Watkins had to split the hearing into three parts and I only got to observe two. The petitioner finally shows up to court, after the court sending her a couple of notices. The petitioner had changed her address, but never alerted the court. The respondent has not seen one of his daughters in 3 months. The petitioner alleges that the reason why, is the respondent has not seen his daughter was because the daughter never wants to stay with him. The petitioner claims that she has lost a job because of the respondent. Judge Watkins says there has to be a trial, the respondent does not comply he is very mad she did not show up 3 times. The respondent is in emotional distress he will not stop being fidgety or angry. The respondent had to be asked to leave at some point twice. The daughter is outside talking to someone; I believe a therapist. I learned that in paternity cases the court has jurisdiction of the children. The respondent has the younger daughter.
The petitioner says she is concerned about younger daughter because she sees her grades are going down and she has yellower teeth. The petitioner says that the respondent’s older daughter is the one that watches over her daughter; She does not like the results of that. The Judge asks the petitioner to show the respondent the evidence against him. The Judge decides that she will have a further hearing. Cases like this are very tough, what I learn when I observe these types of cases is that it must be hard to be a mediator with all the emotions in the room. Later, a few other parties walked in and Judge Watkins gave them instructions.
I went to Judge Kellogg’s courtroom; he was doing arraignments. He had a hearing with a defendant wanting to file for probation and wanting to enlist in a drug program. Judge Kellogg’s response to him being in drug program was, drug programs are for credit not for the individual. Judge Kellogg disagreed in putting him in a drug program. Additionally, that he was going to give him more time in jail. The additional time was due to the defendant bringing in drugs and paraphernalia into the drug program. The Judge told him he needs to makes changes in his life and told him a story about his
mother.
Another defendant was brought in handcuffed for his preliminary trial. A sheriff was put on stand to testify. The sheriff found methamphetamine on the defendant when he searched him. There was confusion on whether the defendant had committed a felony or a misdemeanor because of prop 47 so, they went on a side bar. Originally, they believed the defendant committed a misdemeanor. The Judge found that the crime was not reducible by the realignment act or prop 47. The defense counsel wanted to object, because of the unfairness of the situation since, the defendant was in a comma due to a car accident. The prosecutor disagreed with the motion on the grounds of the defendant’s criminal history and the fact that his crime was an exception to the misdemeanor rule. The prosecutor asked to leave the conviction as a felony. Judge Kellogg agreed with keeping it as a felony without prejudice.
The next hearing was with a very young defendant that had already spent 365 days in jail. The defendant was homeless and currently pregnant. Since, the defendant was pregnant the Judge required her to check in with her probation officer to make sure she was taking prenatal vitamins. The defendant seemed very anxious. I was surprised that they can make her have prenatal care. The next hearing was a little complicated. First, they brought out many exhibits that were loans, assets, and mortgage related. The main issue was that the defendant and his counsel had to prove that he did not obtain the property in a criminal manner. So, they had brought in the mother who does the finances to testify. The main question was on property acquisition. The interesting part was the Judge saying we don’t do property in criminal from the confusion. Additionally, the defendant was already under custody.
Judge Watkins recommended to visit the family service clerk to see the behind the scenes of family court. I visited the family court with one of the fellow interns. I learned that the family clerk helps with planning and mediation with the families but has no authority. Additionally, we got to talk to the one in charger of talking to the family and kids. I learned that she gets to talk to the kids and then gives recommendations. If the family agrees on recommendations she does not have to testify; if they disagree she has to testify.
that he could affect her job. The petitioner said that she has gotten in trouble during her job because of him. Commissioner Blanco granted the restraining order, which expired in two years. This to me sounded like a bad breakup situation. I think the only thing that made the situation more extreme was the job disruption. I found it interesting that the respondent did not have to be there, but I am more than sure he is going to be aware of the restraining order becoming permanent. Commissioner Blanco’s primary job for the day was to see if the restraining orders would become permanent or they would set a further hearing.
The next hearing was a young man petitioning a restraining order on a young woman. Both parties were present for the hearing. The petitioner had an attorney, he seemed more prepared. The respondent brought a laptop, but made the mistake of not submitting her evidence and denying to talk to the attorney or petitioner outside of court. It seemed ironic to me that the respondent did not want to talk to the petitioner and kept on repeating it. The respondent wanted to go on without evidence. The parties ended up choosing a different date for the hearing. I wish I knew more details about the parties because it did seem interesting. The respondent kept on saying that school was her main priority and that the hearing was taking time away from that. It just had me wondering how did they get into this situation in the first place.
The next hearing involved a couple who were in a dating relationship, but they had a minor child involved. The petitioner claims there was 3 incidents showing the restraining order should be granted. The petitioner’s main issues were some alleged physical altercations, the daughter was taken from her, and threats. I believe this all began when the respondent followed her one day she was out late at night. The respondent said that it was too early back in the relationship to go out, they had just started living together again. I felt like this was a possessive statement. The respondent claims the night she went out, he was watching her and following her. The respondent replied during his turn, stating that someone told him to go see what she was doing because she was with a guy. As a result, the petitioner tried to get her daughter back, but the respondent would not allow that. The petitioner was allegedly pushed by the respondent and his sister. The respondent was recording and threating to break her windows. The respondent did admited that he was going to break her windows, but he then decided not to.
The petitioner called the police as recommended by the respondent. The police gave the responded custody until the petitioner has a valid and verifiable address. The petitioner had an address, but did not want to give the apartment number because the person who lived there was scared. The respondent has criminal history and has admitted to being a ganger. The petitioner finally got her daughter, once she gave the apartment number. The last incident happened when the petitioner picked up the child from his residence. The respondent allegedly threw the daughter into the car seat in an aggressive manner and hit her car door. The respondent later admits to somehow bumping into the door. The Commissioner found a more important issue to focus on is a parenting plan.
Commissioner Blanco said that she just sees a concerned father and a bad breakup. She said she cannot do anything about the restraining order right now. The commissioner was understanding to the respondent with his emotional stress of the situation. I think that he does show some aggression. Something should at least be done about his agression. I do agree the child should be a priority, but there should be no tolerance for abuse of any type. The gang and criminal record seems to be irrelevant at least in this situation for the commissioner. It was confusing because seeing them outside of court it seemed normal. Outside the courtroom they were having a conversation but I think it had to do with the fact that they were directed to another place in the courthouse.
Next, I went over to Judge Watkins courtroom, she was currently handling a case. This was a restraining order case. This case was very complicated. The petitioner was the son in law of the respondent. The petitioner was trying to get a restraining order against his mother in law because she would allegedly call’s him to much. Additionally, the respondent would always call child services on him. Another issue, was the respondent’s words to the petitioner’s children telling them that he is a bad person. Judge Watkins told the petitioner that she has talked to the whole family and they want to maintain the family together. The petitioner was worried about his depression. Judge Watkins was not agreeing to the restraining order so, she recommended him a therapist. This was a very complex case, because there were many issues. One of the issues was that the respondent’s wife had a metastatic cancer; the mother would blame the petitioner for that. After, Judge Watkins dismissed a confused group and send them to their home courthouse there was an interesting case. The case was interesting because of the parties involved in it. Judge Watkins had to split the hearing into three parts and I only got to observe two. The petitioner finally shows up to court, after the court sending her a couple of notices. The petitioner had changed her address, but never alerted the court. The respondent has not seen one of his daughters in 3 months. The petitioner alleges that the reason why, is the respondent has not seen his daughter was because the daughter never wants to stay with him. The petitioner claims that she has lost a job because of the respondent. Judge Watkins says there has to be a trial, the respondent does not comply he is very mad she did not show up 3 times. The respondent is in emotional distress he will not stop being fidgety or angry. The respondent had to be asked to leave at some point twice. The daughter is outside talking to someone; I believe a therapist. I learned that in paternity cases the court has jurisdiction of the children. The respondent has the younger daughter.
The petitioner says she is concerned about younger daughter because she sees her grades are going down and she has yellower teeth. The petitioner says that the respondent’s older daughter is the one that watches over her daughter; She does not like the results of that. The Judge asks the petitioner to show the respondent the evidence against him. The Judge decides that she will have a further hearing. Cases like this are very tough, what I learn when I observe these types of cases is that it must be hard to be a mediator with all the emotions in the room. Later, a few other parties walked in and Judge Watkins gave them instructions.
I went to Judge Kellogg’s courtroom; he was doing arraignments. He had a hearing with a defendant wanting to file for probation and wanting to enlist in a drug program. Judge Kellogg’s response to him being in drug program was, drug programs are for credit not for the individual. Judge Kellogg disagreed in putting him in a drug program. Additionally, that he was going to give him more time in jail. The additional time was due to the defendant bringing in drugs and paraphernalia into the drug program. The Judge told him he needs to makes changes in his life and told him a story about his
mother.
Another defendant was brought in handcuffed for his preliminary trial. A sheriff was put on stand to testify. The sheriff found methamphetamine on the defendant when he searched him. There was confusion on whether the defendant had committed a felony or a misdemeanor because of prop 47 so, they went on a side bar. Originally, they believed the defendant committed a misdemeanor. The Judge found that the crime was not reducible by the realignment act or prop 47. The defense counsel wanted to object, because of the unfairness of the situation since, the defendant was in a comma due to a car accident. The prosecutor disagreed with the motion on the grounds of the defendant’s criminal history and the fact that his crime was an exception to the misdemeanor rule. The prosecutor asked to leave the conviction as a felony. Judge Kellogg agreed with keeping it as a felony without prejudice.
The next hearing was with a very young defendant that had already spent 365 days in jail. The defendant was homeless and currently pregnant. Since, the defendant was pregnant the Judge required her to check in with her probation officer to make sure she was taking prenatal vitamins. The defendant seemed very anxious. I was surprised that they can make her have prenatal care. The next hearing was a little complicated. First, they brought out many exhibits that were loans, assets, and mortgage related. The main issue was that the defendant and his counsel had to prove that he did not obtain the property in a criminal manner. So, they had brought in the mother who does the finances to testify. The main question was on property acquisition. The interesting part was the Judge saying we don’t do property in criminal from the confusion. Additionally, the defendant was already under custody.
Judge Watkins recommended to visit the family service clerk to see the behind the scenes of family court. I visited the family court with one of the fellow interns. I learned that the family clerk helps with planning and mediation with the families but has no authority. Additionally, we got to talk to the one in charger of talking to the family and kids. I learned that she gets to talk to the kids and then gives recommendations. If the family agrees on recommendations she does not have to testify; if they disagree she has to testify.