The transcript below clearly describes how Oscar Delahoya wanted to give away his child.
(Before the Honorable Joyce M. Reikes - Department F-4)
THE COURT; Let me call the Desbrow matter now
MR. SCHUSTER: If I can announce my appearance, Dennis
Schuster appearing on behalf of respondent who is present with counsel.
MRS. RIOS: Delilah Knox Rios for the petitioner who's
present in court.
MS. BLUM: Stephanie Blum from Nachsin & Weston
representing the father Mr. Oscar De La Hoya. Not present in court.
THE COURT: Thank you. And in the absence of an
objection, I'll hear this matter as the temporary judge. The parties have not been sworn, so we need to
MR. SCHUSTER: Well, if I can just bring the Court up to
date as to what's happening —
THE COURT: I remember seeing you in chambers, I think,
the last time you were in. Let me see if I can — all right.
That was an OSC re child custody and visitation, and it was put over until today.
MR. SCHUSTER: Really, your Honor, what had happened the
last time we were in front of your Honor, you had heard my motion to set aside the default that had been entered against my client. You set it aside. Parallel to that, we also had my client's order to show cause for custody and visitation. You were concerned, and you set it over to today's date, one, to allow opposing counsel to file her amended petition changing date of separation. We have filed our response. It's my understanding she would like to take bifurcation of status today. You had wanted me to see how we intended to proceed in light of the fact that there is a judgment of paternity that parallels this matter, having analyzed this, your Honor, my request is that today the Court specially set a trial date as to
the specific issue of date of separation. The original date of separation would have made my client conclusively the father at the minor child if you allow an amendment to the petition so that the date of separation was prior to the conception of the minor child. Issues of custody and visitation, support, I think are...
THE COURT: Excuse me Pm sorry to interrupt Mr. Schuster, but as I understand it, the reason you wish to challenge the date of separation is strictly for the issue of paternity.
MR. SCHUSTER: Yes, your Honor, that's right.
THE COURT: All right. There's already a judgment of
paternity. That judgment stands It was judicated. It's no longer an Issue. It's not an issue. Once there's a judgment, a judgment is a judgment is a judgment. If you want to move to have that judgment set aside by the Court that issued it, that's a whole different ball game and not one that I'm involved with today. But I am not going to set a trial. I think it's inappropriate to set a trial date to challenge the date of separation only for the purpose of—if there were other purposes, that's a different ball game. But only for the purpose of challenging or otherwise disparaging a judgment that has otherwise been fairly entered and I think that's inappropriate. I'm not going to do that.
MR. SCHUSTER: What I would ask the Court to do of-course that would be a trial matter, the date of separation. My client obviously was not joined to the particular judgment in question so he was not a party to that, either to enter an objection or
THE COURT: Then he has to challenge that judgment in front of the Court that entered it.
MR. SCHUSTER: I understand that, your Honor.
THE COURT: And so that's not my that's not an issue before me today, challenging that
MR. SCHUSTER: I'm not asking you to challenge the judgment. It was just we're going to challenge the judgment and they're going to say, "What's the basis of your challenge?" And we're going to say, "Date of separation" And they're going to say, Why don't you go back to the family law court, go in
front of that judge in the divorce matter and have her decide
what the date of separation is.
THE COURT: Once again, I think that's up to the Court that entered. The judgment. What I do recall is a statement made by the father, Mr. Oscar Delahoya who is not in court today, still, he is the father. He indicated that he would be happy to give up his rights. Stop me if I'm wrong. The father said he'd be happy to give up his rights if that were what the parties desired. I don't know whether that factors into this at all, whether you talked with Mr.De La Hoya's council—
MR. SCHUSTER: I have not discussed that matter with opposing counsel. I didn't know that.
THE COURT: You were in the room when they said it.
MR. SCHUSTER: No, no, I know that. Exactly, your Honor. It was my understanding as to how it was to be done procedurally.
THE COURT: If you want to discuss that, certainly you
can do that today. You're all here.
MS. BLUM: My client has no intention of getting involved in this matter. This does not involve him.
THE COURT: I understand. However, this does involve his child.
MS. RIOS: your Honor, my client has no intention of having this child raised by a father who is not the father. If the father of the child wants the child signed over that's-
THE COURT: Well, then that's something all three of you have to work out. I'm not getting into it. Technically, it's not an issue before me today. So what I have before me today is an order to show cause re custody and visitation on - Unfortunately, I've had no opportunity to review the file, and I apologize for that. Even more so, I note that there was a mediation appointment back on January 30th and one party attended and petitioner did not attend.
MS. RIOS: Yes, your Honor. We discussed that last time. My client was ill that day, and you did not order a new mediation date. You wanted to see if counsel was actually going to attack the other judgment or not.
THE COURT: If he wants to attack it, he's going to have
to attack it in that court and that court can determine date of separation as well I can. Certainly, it's not appropriate for me
Tiffany
San Bernardino, California
U.S.A.
0 comments