看一看美国的司法腐败， 法官是怎样把一个无故孩子从妈妈身 (转载)# NextGeneration - 我爱宝宝
w*1
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: yecao (野草), 信区: Military
标 题: 看一看美国的司法腐败， 法官是怎样把一个无故孩子从妈妈身
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Nov 23 20:28:00 2012, 美东)
这是真人真事， 请大家舆论支持。
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
Wan (aka Winnie) Tin ) Case #: B222712
)
Plaintiff and Respondent, ) (Sup. Ct. No. CK71139)
v. )
Los Angeles County Superior Court )
)
In re Joshua Tin )
)
----------------------------------------------------------------)
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
This Extraordinary Writ is from a termination of the visitation right
for dependent court case In re Joshua Tin. The appellant had timely filed
the notice of appeal.
This Extraordinary Writ is asking the court of appeal to review the entire
record of the case, revise the trial court to terminate the visitation
right, and to dismiss the entire case. The reason appellant asked the appeal
court to reopen the previous appeal is because that the appellant was
informed by her trial court attorney that the appeal would be taken one or
two years, and the appellant was never contact by any her appeal attorney.
Later on, the appeal lawyer would file a motion to the court stated there
are nothing to appeal, to waive mother’s right for appeal and eventually
leading Mother Winnie Tin to lose her right to appeal on her custody for her
son Joshua Tin. This extraordinary writ is asking the court to open up the
previous appeal and give the mother a chance to have the higher court to
review the trail court legal proceedings and dismiss the entire allegation
and return Joshua Tin back home with his mother.
INTRODUCTION
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joshua Tin was given birth by the birth mother Wan (aka Winnie) Tin on 11-21
-2003 under the putative marriage agreement between the mother and the LA
county superior court Judge Ernest Hiroshige in Dept 54, who had proposal
marriage to the birth mother and when the mother was conceived, they lived
together. (reporter transcript, page 2, line 28 – page 3, line 3, reporter
report page 34, line 1-6, line 13 – 16,) The birth mother believed in his
marriage proposal and accepted it with a good faith. The mother lived with
Judge Hiroshige while she still keep her own place, they were about to buy
a house in Marina Del Rey. One day, the mother found out that Judge
Hiroshige was chatting on her. They had an huge argument, judge Hiroshige
claimed that this is a man’s world one night after they had dinner. The
mother was very hurt and after hearing his statement, the mother went to
Alan Isaac’s house to share her pain. Mother called Judge Hiroshige with
Alan’s home phone until Judge Hiroshige hung up on her and never pick up
her calls. Alan Isaac try to comfort her and gave her a drink, which drugged
her and forced her to have sex that night. Mother was embarrassed to tell
Judge Hiroshige the detail of the incident. She only mentioned to Judge
Hiroshige that Alan force her but he did not finish. That is the only night,
the mother had seen Alan for that period of time.
The mother still lived with Judge Hiroshige. A month later, the mother
informed Judge Hiroshige she got pregnant, and he believed that Joshua Tin
is his child. Judge Hiroshige protest to have a child without preparation
first. And than claim he did not want her to live with him any more if she
did not get an abortion. The mother did not want to get an abortion because
her age, faith and many reasons. However, after the first tri-master, Judge
Hiroshige accepted the fact that a baby can coming at any time, it is a
blessing. Judge Hiroshige started taking his responsibility, take the mother
to see a marriage counselor with his pastor Gary Gaulton, shopping baby
item, planning to have a baby to come, accompany the mother to the hospital.
However, because his own ethical behavior, he slept with other woman as he
wish, (reporter’s transcript, page 34, line 13-16) The mother had argued
with Judge Hiroshige over and over why he had made a marriage agreement with
her, why he sleep with other woman. Judge Hiroshige answer that this is man
’s world. Judge Hiroshige would make a statement: “ look, you cannot
have sex now, what is the difference for me to sleep with someone else.” (
reporter’s transcript, page 34, line 13 – 16). When the birth mother
finally would not tolerate his verbal and mental abuse by Judge Hiroshige
and initiated reporting him to the presiding judge Duke and supervising
judge Charles McCoy. Judge Hiroshige filed a restraining order application
by lying about their relationship to the court and prohibited the mother
going LA Superior Court. ( reporter report page 48, line 9 – 13, line 27
to page 49, line 9)
In around August 2003, the mother had a lawyer to representing her to defend
her for judge Hiroshige’s accusation to the court administration personal
and claim the birth mother harassed him since Feb 2003, had the court apply
the restraining order against the birth mother. While the mother had a
lawyer representing her, the court legal counsel Brad Binco contact the
mother directly while she had a lawyer in place. After listening to the
mother, Brad Binco also asked Judge Hiroshige did not leave the mother. But
judge Hiroshige is stubborn, finally he had Brad Binco threatened and forced
the mother signed the mutual agreement. (reporter’s transcript, page 50,
line 9 – 13.) Judge Hiroshige abundant the birth mother while she was 8
month pregnant. Judge Hiroshige admitted in the criminal trial that he
assume himself is the father for Joshua Tin, he admitted that he give the
birth mother his personal check to help the mother raise the child, which is
evidence that he did lie to the court to apply the restraining order
against the birth mother.
Birth mother Winnie Tin went to the hospital gave birth to Joshua Tin on 11-
21-2003 by herself. After the c-section, the nurse took her to the patient’
s room at 11:00 pm. However she start an excessive bleeding and nobody
called the doctor until early morning. She almost lost her life. On the
birth certificated, birth mother Winnie Tin left blank on the father’s name
, because she did not know what to do as the baby was half white and half
Asian.
The birth mother was in bad for three month due to the complication of the c
-section, with excessive bleeding. Judge Hiroshige stopped by to see her on
her birth day, Jan 30th, 2004. Judge Hiroshige bought a bottle Japanese
Wine with Japanese wine glass for the mother’s birthday, and indicating
that this is selfish gift, he would like to continue the relationship with
the mother and to take his responsibility. Judge Hiroshige indicating that
the gift is kind for himself. Judge Hiroshige had meet Winnie’s nanny on
that day. Later, Judge Hiroshige arranged his pastor Gary Gaulton to do the
counseling for the mother.
During the pregnancy, Judge Hiroshige had question the mother the night when
she went to Alan Isaac’s house, if Alan Isaac had been taken advantage of
her. The mother told him what happened. Judge Hiroshige request to do a DNA
test to make sure that Joshua is his biological child. In June 2003, mother
arranged a DNA test by using the symthinsestic fluid from, send to the DNA
diagnostics center and they should be able to make a decision. However, the
report shows that Judge Hiroshige is not the biological father. (clerk
report, page 0318, DNA parentage Test report. ) At the time, Judge
Hiroshige and mother Winnie Tin had a discussion. Mother Winnie Tin told
judge Hiroshige more details that the night after Judge Hiroshige hung up on
her while the mother called him from Alan’s house, Winnie was crying and
told judge Hiroshige that Alan Isaac gave her a drink and forced her to
have the intercourse. The mother Winnie also told Judge Hiroshige that she
try to fight against Alan but she did not have any energy and she did told
Alan many times to stop, Alan did finally stop without ejaculating in her.
In addition, Alan had vasectomy. So it is impossible that Alan Isaac is the
father. Winnie cried to Hiroshige, #1, the DNA report may be wrong because
the child was not born yet, we do not know for sure that Alan is the father.
Secondly, if Alan is the biological father, you know Alan’s crazy life
style, how can he be the father for this baby? In addition, we want this
baby, we want to have family, we plan to have at least one child. It is
because we loved each other to have the baby, let raise this child together.
Hiroshige held the mother and he agreed.
Between 2005 and 2006, Judge Hiroshige and the mother try to
reconsolidate the relationship by judge Hiroshige’s pastor Gary Gaulton.
But Judge Hiroshige wants the baby Joshua Tin’s biological grandfather
Godfey Isaac and Kathleen Isaac to pay the child living expense in order for
him to marry with the mother. The reconsolidation of relationship did not
work out. In June 2006, Judge Hiroshige filed another restraining order
against the mother. A month later Judge Hiroshige started file a fraudulent
police report and claim that mother had called him with a tapped recorded
conversation and violated the restraining order. A hearing officer is a
judge from Los Angeles county, a co-worker with Judge Hiroshige, put the
mother into the custody for 15 days only because Judge Hiroshige claim the
mother called him and violate the restraining order.
In May 24, 2007, Joshua Tin end up with DCFS. When the mother was
incarcerate in jail, after she was released from the jail. The mother went
DCFS had the DTM meeting. (Clerk Transcript, PG 0009) In the meeting,
mother told social worker Joshua Tin was born due to Judge Hiroshige
initiated to have a family and proposal marriage, unfortunately, Joshua Tin
was conceived from the raped by Alan Isaac. Social worker from DCFS had very
clear picture that judge Hiroshige is the presumed father for the minor and
Alan Isaac is the natural father. Under the family code 7611 with penal
code 256.1, Alan Isaac did not have the constitutional right to be the
alleged father for Joshua Tin.
In between June and December 2007, the mother shared her difficulty by
raising Joshua alone with Dr. Winnie Hsieh, Joshua’s counselor. The mother
had fight a criminal prosecution, make a living to support herself and
Joshua. It is already difficult for anybody to raise a child along, but the
mother had taking an additional work load. She told Dr. Winnie Hsieh a lot
of times, after she finish the whole day work load, doing loans, taking
care of Joshua, clean up the house. Before the night she went sleep, her
whole body was in pain. (reporter’s report, page 51, line 24, to 28). She
needs some help. Dr. Winnie Hsieh called social worker Huichi Hsieh and
arranged meeting among those three to see if DCFS can arrange some
financial aid for the mother, or arrange Joshua to tempera to live with the
presume father Judge Hiroshige. But months pass by, DCFS provide nothing.
On December 20, 2007, the mother called Dr. Hsieh again, and cried, and
asked her if she need some help how come nobody do anything. Dr. Hsieh told
the mother being patient. Dr. Hsieh was worried and called back, the mother
did not answer the phone. Dr. Hsieh called child abuse hotline for welfare
check. Please refer to the clerk’s report page 0008, “ Per the referral,
approximately two weeks ago she attended a meeting with the mother and the
mother’s CSW to address possible childcare for her son……. The caller
reported that CSW developed a plan to work on contacting the child’s birth
father and the child’s presumed father as possible childcare providers. The
caller stated she tried to explain to the mother about being patient with
the DCFS process. The mother was upset and hung-up on her. So Dr. Winnie
Hsieh was worried and called back, but the mother did not answer the phone.
Dr. Winnie Hsieh called the Child Abuse Hotline for welfare check.
On December 20 2007, West Covina Police Officer shows up in the mother’s
house for welfare check on Joshua Tin. The mother had already put Joshua to
bed. See the police report, clerk report page 0110, “ I walked into her
bedroom and saw V/Joshua asleep under the bed covers. V/Joshua appeared
unharmed” , next page 0111, “I spoke with W/Carrillo who told me the
following: W/Carrillo is S/Winnie’s roommate, W/Carrillo works at the
school V/Joshua Attends. W/Carrillo watches V/Joshua while S/Winnie is at
work. W/Carrillo has not witnessed S/Winnie mistreated V/Joshua.”
Police officer heard the mother’s story, how she was raped by Alan Isaac
and how her boy-friend judge Hiroshige abandoned her while she was 8 month
pregnant and she believed he covered up the rape case. The mother told the
police she had contact DCFS many times she need help. But nobody was there
to help her. “I spoke with Davis who told me the following: S/Winnie has
had an open case with DCFS since May, Since s/Winnie’s case has been open,
s/Winnie has called DCFS numerous times for help.”
Police officer Veronica Perez, Sean Carmon, Don Preston discussed the
situation and interview mother’s roommate Gloria Carrillo, they told mother
that they are going to take Joshua Tin today, and they want the mother go
to the court, asked the judge to make order on financial assistance in order
for her to raise Joshua alone on her own. They told the mother to prepare
the need list, for instance: baby sitting, food stamps, clothing, health
insurance whatever can help her to raise Joshua on her own. Gloria Carrillo
was crying and bagged the police officer. Gloria said “ officer, please do
not take Joshua away. It is about Christmas. I think Winnie just stress out,
I can help Winnie couple of days. And Joshua is her only family” Police
officer responded to Gloria: “ you can help her couple of days, who is
going to help her the rest of the 20 years.? We need her to go to the court
so a judicial officer can make a finding on the father issue, who would be
responsible to Joshua and give her some financial help to raise Joshua alone
.”
When the social worker Gladys David finally arrived, she said we told
you to be patient, now we have to take Joshua away. On December 21, 2007,
the mother talked to Gladys Davis supervisor Robert Rodriguez, Robert said
prepare your need list and when you go to the court the next hearing on
December 26, 2007. The judge should be release Joshua on the same day.
However, the mother went for the court hearing on Dec 26, 2006, Ryan
Matienzo shows up in front of her and told her that he is the court appoint
lawyer for her, and there is no way for the judge to release Joshua back to
her in this situation. Ryan Matienzo simply had the mother fill out some
paper work if Joshua Tin is the Indian tribe child, and the PRI to indicate
that who are those family member and relative may be able to provide the
care for Joshua Tin. Mother put the presume father Judge Hiroshige on the
form. But the form is currently missing from the record. ( reporter
transcript page 3 line 14 – 25. & clerk report, page 0385 date 6-20-2008)
Ryan Matienzo did not go over any filing paper from DCFS for the charges nor
help the mother presented the need list to the court. The court asked if
the mother want to wave reading the petition, without talking to the mother,
lawyer Ryan Matienzo prompted answer for the mother: Your honor, we waive.
Enter a general denial. (reporter’s transcript, page 2, line 11 – 14)
After the hearing officer detent Joshua Tin, mother’s lawyer gave the
social worker’s paper. Mother was reading the paper in the evening when she
return back home and found social worker alleged the mother had visual
hallucinations and audio hallucinations. Based on those allegation from
Social Worker’s report, the court put Joshua Tin to detention. Winnie Tin
called Dr. Winnie Hsieh and told her that she found that social worker lied
to the court regards her mental state.
Obviously, someone arranged Ryan Matienzo show up for the mother prior to
the court hearing and arranged social worker Yumi Lim writte a false
petition. The mother believe that was arranged by judge Hiroshige to cover
up the paternity issue but claim the mother had mental issue. Social worker
Yumi Lim knowingly and intentionally make a false allegation on the mother’
s mental state and did not provide the truth on the paternity issue to the
court, social worker Yumi Lin only claim Allan Isaac is the alleged father,
but left judge Hiroshige’s name out of the alleged fathers. Both social
worker and county council had basic legal knowledge that a person who is
under a penal code cannot and do not have the constitutional right to be the
father for Joshua Tin.
The next hearing, Feb 13, 2008, The court set this case for mediation. ( RT,
page 8, line 27 – 28.)
On March 27, 2008, social worker provided the mother with Mediation
agreement. On the mediation agreement, social worker changed the father from
Alan Isaac to unknown. When mother refuse to take the mediation, the
mediator Joe threaten the mother if you do not sign this mediation agreement
, it would be a tragedy for this child.
April, 28, 2008, The court jurisdicte on this case, without clear and
convincing evidence the minor was physically and emotionally harmed and
endanger by the mother, with a letter from the mother’s psychiatrist to the
court that the mother did not have any visual hallucination’s and audio
hallucinations, the court error detention the minor Joshua Tin into the
foster system.
Since the child was detent on Dec 20, 2007, Social worker Huichi Hsieh
had arranged the mother had two hours on each visitation and twice a week,
and allow the mother talk to Joshua Tin though phone conversation by provide
her the foster parent Maria’s phone number.
In May 2008, social worker Amy Watonabe took this case, she suddenly
decided to move Joshua Tin from the original foster family Maria’s house to
a new foster family Brian Boem. Amy Watonabe also decided to reduce the
visitation from twice a week to once a week, from two hours each visit to
one hour each visit. Amy Watonabe also cutting off the phone connection
between Joshua Tin and his mother. Amy told the foster parent Brian Boem
that the visitation is confidential and asked Brian Boem did not release his
phone # to the mother.
The court ordered family reunification service for the mother. The
mother try her best to comply with the court order to reunify with her son.
The mother started attending individual counseling, and parenting class. The
mother even take the individual counseling prior court order in order to
get her son back.
The mother had emailed the new social worker Amy Watonabe many times she
wants to increase the visitation times back to two times a week. But she
got no response. According to the DCFS police, social worker should provide
the home visit to the mother on the weekly basis. But for months, the
mother did not know who is the social worker on the case. The mother had
contact to the regional manager Dr. Lock Ngyuen, and executive board of
director Rick Brian. Rick Brian request Amy Watonabe step by talk to the
mother after the visitation occurred in the foster agency.
Social worker also authorized the foster agency to write a false report
on the mother and claim that the mother try to contact the foster father’s
family doctor to find foster family address, and request the restraining
order against mother.
Social worker also pre-arranged the security guard try to hand cuff the
mother when she enter the building to visit her son and to creating a story
about the mother. One day when the security guard try to put on his black
hand glove, and try to push the mother while the mother standing in the
lobby talk on the phone with the social worker. The chief Operating officer
Jennifer Lopez just passed by and witness the whole thing.
In the trial, the mother testified that to the court, but the trial
judge believed the social worker.
During the family reunification service period, the mother and her lawyer
raised the issue to the court that the mother did not get her visits, but
the court fails to supervise on the case plan progress and enforce the
visitation for the mother. The mother also twice testified that Judge
Hiroshige had contacted her counselor by wire tapping, but the court did not
take property action on it.
In August 13, 2009, 18 month status review hearing, the mother’s
lawyer present the evidence for the mother compliance with the case plan,
she finished her parenting class, and individual counseling, argued to
release the child to the mother. But the court deny mother’s request.
During the contest, mother’s lawyer asked the mother’s therapist Mr. Sam
Ng to testify about the mother’s ability to care for her son, and Mr. Sam
Ng said he has no double that the mother is capable to care for her son. But
the court reject to release the minor to his mother’s custody due to the
mother complain that Judge Hiroshige wire tapping her phone and contact her
counselor. The mother had testify that her counselor threatened her during
a session. The mother contest “ he said if I still believe Judge Hiroshige
still has certain responsibility towards me and Josh, that my son would be (
put) into adoption. So I want to know why he (Sam Ng) has those conclusion?
Why he is threatening me? (reporter’s transcript, pg 160, line 14 -19.)
Trial court terminated mother’s family reunification service based on
mother’s believe that judge Hiroshige wire tapping her phone and approach
her counselor. The judicial officer abvously had bias on the mother due to
conflict interested of the jurisdiction. Unless the county can provide the
proof with clear and convincing evidence that return the minor to the parent
is going to danger to the minor, the law and legislation request the court
return the child’s custody back to the parent. No authority distinguishing
between insufficient evidence and abuse of discretion. Neither any authority
nor the juvenile court can rely upon factual assumption. The trial court is
mistaken about the scope of its discretion, the mistaken position may be ‘
reasonable’, nonetheless error, it is wrong on the law.
This case is not about how the mother believed Judge Hiroshige wire
tapping her phone, interfere with her counselor. This case is about her
ability to care for her son. It is parent – child relationship under the
constitution as a citizen. No court should discriminate against anybody to
take the minor out of parent control.
After the termination of the family reunification in 8-13-09 hearing,
the mother had continued the visitation with the minor in the Southern
California foster and adoption agency. The many visits are very good because
the minor and the mom had special, closed, loving relationship between them
. The mother is only person Joshua Tin knew he can depend on, and the minor
is the only family the mother had in the states. During the visit, they
singing together, they play games, they play basketball, and football in the
small room where they meet, the mother tell Joshua jokes. The mother bought
new clothes, toys, and educational material, such as computer, books for
Joshua. But none of those is in the report to the court. The mother
sincerely believed that social worker authorized the foster agency writing a
false report on the mother’s monitor visit. The mother has stored some of
the picture was taken during the visit and submit to the court as evidence
but it is not in the records. From those pictures, and video tape by the
cell phone, it can be clearly shown there is warm, loving relationship
between Joshua Tin and the mother. The foster agency had written a false
report to the court judicial officer.
The mother had request her lawyer to subpoena those important witness from
the foster agency, please see attached email date Sep 21, 2010, the mother
was very clearly asked to subpoena the therapist from the foster agency on:
1. Michael habousch, 213-365-2900
2. Ilianna Aispuro,
3. Brian Kim
4. Director from South California Foster Agency.
The mother also wants to subpoena social workers Yomi Lin, Angela Chau, Hui
Chi Hsieh, Amy Watanable, Dr. Ngyuene Loc, Yoko Parsons, and current social
worker Mary Gladys Davis, Robert Rodriguez, Assaye Tsegga. Foster parent
Israel, Maria Palcios, and Brian Boem.
The mother also want to subpoena west Covina police officer Mrs. Perez.
Her lawyer neither subpoena those witness nor prepare the mother for trial.
The mother had Marsden hearing and told the judge, her lawyer did not
prepare her for trial.
In between, August 2010 to September 2010, the mother asked the lawyer to
file a 388 to reinstated the family reunification service, but the lawyer
left for vacation without doing so.
The mother finally filed a 388 petition on her own, but the trial court deny
to hear on it and stated it is untimely.
BACKGROUND OF THE MOTHER
The birth mother Winnie Tin was a foreign student from China, She immigrated
to this country for her MBA program in 1996, she graduate from Penn state
with MBA with full scholarship in 1998. After the graduation, she launched
a job as a mortgage loan officer in Bank of America in year 2000. And she
worked for Bank of America for 4 years as a residential loan officer. When
the mortgage industrial start subprime mortgage loan, Winnie Tin moved her
career to commercial real state lending. She currently occupied as a
residential and commercial real state loan officer and runs a small mortgage
dept on her own. In 2002, while she worked for Bank of America, she met
Judge Ernest Hiroshige in a social function in Chinese Southern California
Lawyer Association. Her friend who she met in the church try to bring her
into the association so she can meet some client. However, Geoffrey could
not go to the meeting.
Mother has good education background, and her parents are professor in
Mainland China. Mother Winnie Tin is a devoted Christine and go to a local
Chinese Church.
Winnie Tin met Judge Hiroshige in the first meeting to the function. . After
10 month dating relationship, Judge Ernest Hiroshige proposed marry to her
and have a family. Jushua Tin was born under this marriage contract due to
they want to start having a family.
Mental history, Mother Winnie Tin had 4 times mental hospital record
with diagnosed with major depression in between 2005 – 2006. Due to the
relationship did not worked out between her and Judge Hiroshige. After the
counseling by her pastor and different psychologist, mother keep emotion
stable and keep working as a residential loan officer on her own. Until May
2007, Judge Hiroshige claim that mother had been violated restraining order
and had a co-worker, another judge to hear on the case, and put the mother
in the Jail for two weeks. Other than violating restraining order, mother
has no criminal history.
In May 2007, Joshua Tin end up in the social service. When the mother
was released from the Jail, DCFS put the minor back home with the mother. In
between May 2007 and December 2007, mother had contact social worker many
times request for help. But social worker initiated any help.
In two court hearing, the mother told the trail court judge that
judge Hiroshgie had been in contact with her counselor and interfere with
her in the compliance with the case plan with no fault on her. Judge
Margaret Downing did not take no action to investigate on Judge Hiroshige.
In August 13, 2009, with passive monitor visit report from the
therapist and the passive testimony from the mother and her therapist, the
court refuse to release the child back to the mother’s custody, which is an
procedure error specified I the Fourteenth amendment. There is no proof by
the county with clear and sufficient evidence that return of the minor to
parental custody would be detrimental to the minor.
Visitation under family reunification service was not implement by DCFS.
Mother’s lawyer has been raise the visitation issue to the court and
county council in numerical times that the mother did not get the visitation
or liberalized the monitor visit. The statutory procedures used for
termination of parental rights satisfy due process rights satisfy due
process requirements only because of the demanding requirements and multiple
safeguards built into the safeguards through no fault of her own, her due
process rights are compromise. Meaningful visitation is pivotal to the
parent-child relationship, even after reunification services are terminated.
Under section 366.26, subdivision © (1) (A), the Legislature has
provided a means by which even a parent to whole custody a child cannot
currently be return has a final chance to avoid termination of parental
right if she can show she had maintained regular contact and visitation with
her child, and the child can not currently be returned has a final chance
to avoid termination of parental rights if she can show she had maintained
regular contact and visitation with her child, and the child would benefit
from continuing the relationship. Obviously, the only way a parent has any
hope of satisfying this statutory exception is if she maintains regular
contact with her child. For the parent deprived of visitation, it is a
forgone conclusion that he or she is not going to be able to establish of
visitation, it is a forgone conclusion that he or she is not going to be
able to establish the exception or have any meaningful chance to avoid the
termination of parental right. A visitation order which fails to protect a
parent’s right to visit is illusory.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AND STANDARDS OF PREJUDICE
1. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCREATION IN REFUSING TO RELEASE THE MINOR
AFTER THE JURISDICTION AND VIOLATED APPELLANT CONSTITIONAL RIGHT PARENT
CHILD RELATIONSHIP
The court was wrong on grand to rule on the county’s petition and ignore
the evidence from this appellant to the court. The social worker filed false
petition on count B-, B-2, and G-1, and claim the mother had serious mental
issue with visual hallucinations and audio hallucinations, based on those
allegation, the mother submit a letter from her own Phycharisit that the
mother under his care and with current examination, the mother never had
those symptoms. But the social worker brought in the mother’s past hospital
record and claim the mother’s depressed so that the mother could not
render the care for her son. But the hearing judge would rule strike the
mother sufers from mental so she suffers from emotional problem which render
the mother could not take care of her son. (RT PG 67, line 1 – 5). This is
legal error. Because many people have suffer emotional problems but still
can function as a good parent.
In regards the paternity issue. The county had knowledge that Judge
Hiroshige is the presumed father, but on the initial petition, the county
put Alan Isaac’s name only on the alleged father. After the mother refused
to sign the mediation agreement, the court ordered Judge Hiroshige to come
for paternity contest to take care of his responsibility on 6/19/08, Judge
Hiroshige used his own connection and to manipulating the mother’s lawyer
to claim to put him on call as witness for mother’s character. (CT -------)
but. During the trial on 9/23/2008, the county council had Judge Hiroshige
submit the DNA report date on 7/14/03, (CT 0318) and asked the mother that
the DNA report shows that Judge Hiroshige is not the biological father. The
mother question the county council she never claim that judge Hiroshige is
the biological father. Judge Hiroshige is the presumed father.
The court decided to dismiss B-2 (RT pg 67 line 6), the court made the child
has no father for the child Joshua Tin.
The detention of minor Joshua Tin is violated the parent child relationship
against the mother’s constitutional right under fourteenth amendment.
The trial court ignored all of the clear evidence and standard proof the
mother had no mental health issue. It is clear evidence mother had open case
with DCFS in May 2007 when the mother was incarcerated in Jail, after the
mother was released from Lynwood jail, DCFS put the mother on a voluntary
family maintenance program to prevent the removal of the child Joshua Tin (
CT 0014). It is a very clear evidence that between May 2007 to December
2007, the mother had request help from social worker (CT 0008 - 0009). But
nobody from DCFS helped the mother. DCFS had very clearly picture that the
mother DO NOT have mental issue, Nor she is an abusive person and had
physically or mentally abused Joshua Tin. The social worker also had first
hand knowledge Judge Hiroshige is presumed father for Joshua Tin (CT 0008)
But the county left judge Hiroshige name out from the alleged father on the
petition.
Until 12-20-2007, DCFS response a call from child abuse hotline for welfare
check. (CT page 0008 – 0009). And the caller reported that the SCW
developed a plan to work on contacting the child’s birth father and child’
s presumed father as soon as possible to provide childcare providers to help
the mother. But the mother hung up on her during the conversation. “The
caller stated the mother was very emotional and she sounded unstable.” The
caller was worried and called back, the mother did not response to the
phone call. So the caller wants to have a welfare check on the child and the
mother.
West Covina Police Dept response the welfare check request. On Dec 20th 2007
, “ when the police officer arrival to the mother’s house, the mother had
put Joshua into asleep under a bed covers. Joshua appeared unharmed.” (CT
page 0110) The police also talk to the mother’s roommate Gloria, and she
said she did not see the mother had never mistreated Joshua.
The police officers heard the story about how the mother was raped by Alan
Isaac, judge Hiroshige left the mother while she was 8 month pregnant. And
now charged her crime by complaining she called him and violated the
restraining order, put her in the jail for two weeks. Mother also had shared
that she believed that her raped case was covered by Judge Hiroshige.
Mother also told the police that many days after she finish her work, ,
feeding Joshua, and finish the house work when she go to sleep, her whole
back was in pain because the work load. She asked Social worker to help her
if they can get provide with a baby sitter or some other help to assist her
to raise Joshua alone. So far she have not heard anything from social
worker.
The police was very sympathetic on her situation and they discuss among
themselves, they told the mother that they wanted the mother go to the court
and tell the judge what happen to her, and also asked the mother to make a
financial need list, such as baby sitting, clothing, food stamps, housing
assistance, etc, so the judge can make an order to help her. They told that
to the mother in front of her roommate Gloria Carrillo.
On December 26, 2007, lawyer did not read the petition to the mother, and
minor Joshua Tin is detent by the hearing officer. On 2/13/08, the court
offered the mother Mediation.
On March 27, 2008, the mother refused mediation because on the mediation
agreement, the county changed the alleged father from Alan Isaac to unknown,
still intentionally cover up for the truth and requested the mother agree
to put Joshua into the foster family.
On April 28, 2008, the mother testified in the court, and present her
Psychiatrist letter to the court and show to the court that she did not have
visual hallucinations and audio hallucinations.
On June 16, 2008, the court order Judge Hiroshige to testify the paternity,
Judge Hiroshige did not show up in the court hearing.
Prior to the court’s jurisdiction over the case on April 28, 2008, the
monitored visitation report sent to the court. The mother had good record on
the visitation report. The mother brought Pizza, snack, vitamins, and
Joshua’s clothes for visitation. They play puzzles together, and Joshua
though a piece puzzle, the mother try to discipline the kids and told the
kids to pick up the puzzle. Even the mother did not fell well and she still
did not want to miss the visitation, and she came and told the foster agency
she is a little bit sick that she did not want to miss the visitation, she
came to see her son. Let take look the monitor report from the foster agency
well, so the mother sometimes speak to Joshua in Chinese, and During the
Mandarin conversation Joshua started screaming, apparently he was making fun
singing in Mandarin. 2/14/08, BM’s interaction towards Joshua was
appropriate and affectionate. She was observed talking and reading a book to
Joshua. 2/21/08, BM’s interaction towards Joshua was appropriate. 2/22/08,
during this monitored visit BM brought some snacks for Joshua. She also
brought 3 warns vests for him. BM stated that it was Joshua’s clothes he
left in her home and she wants him to use it. BM’s interaction was
appropriate. She was observed playing with Joshua. BM left 10 minutes early.
2/25/08, Joshua had monitored visit with BM at Covina FFA office. Visit
went well. 2/28/08 BM was observed to be attentive with Joshua; BM brought 2
more Joshua’s outfits. BM stated that she want him to use the outfits
before it does not fit him. BM also brought snacks for Joshua. They eat the
snacks during the visit. BM brought a book and she read the book for him. BM
asked Joshua to take the book to the foster home and to read at home. On 3/
4/08, the monitored visit was OK. 3/10/08, BM was observed to be attentive
with Joshua. She brought Joshua a toy (Thomas set collection) BM was
observed helping him to set the toy. 3/13/08, monitored visit with Joshua’s
BM. BM’s interaction towards Joshua was appropriate. BM brought another
Thomas set collection for Joshua and a new outfit. 3/4/08, while Joshua is
in the pre-school, he slide down on his tummy and scratched his nose,
forehead, and some cheek and full of the blood scab. When 3/6/08, when the
mother saw the bloody scab on the minor face, nose, and forehead, she was
surprised and asked what happen, why is that happen, if the minor has been
taking to see a medical doctor. The foster agency social worker did not know
any thing. , the mother had to call the social worker from DCFS right away.
When the social worker from DCFS arrived and order the foster agency to
take Joshua to see medical doctor, and Joshua was diagnosed Acute facial
abrasion. That is basic knowledge and responsibility from the foster agency
when they take care of a child, they did not even perform their duty. And
when the mother questioned social worker if they knew the school background
is safe? Nobody knew. The mother has gone to school to check on the school’
s safety.
The mother has master degree, and she can make a rational decision compared
to many people. From 3/4/08, when Joshua had the serious accident until 3/6/
08, neither social worker nor school teacher has basic knowledge that acute
facial abrasion can be infected if did not give immediate treatment. (CT
0088 – 0089) The mother is highly educated female with a sophisticated
manner. The evidence shows the mother is attentive and affectionate to her
son.
After the incidence, the mother talked DCFS and wanted to bring Joshua Tin
back from the foster home. But the court and the county refused to help her
under prejudice.
Generally, when no specific burden is specified, preponderance of the
evidence applies. (evidence. Code $115)( In re Gerald J. (1991) 1 Cal.App.
4th 1180, 1186 (2 Cal. Rptr.2d 569). When addressing taking a minor from the
physical custody of a parent with whom the minor resides at the time the
petition is initiated, requires the court to find any of the conditions
warranting removal by clear and convincing evidence. On the standard of
proof to determine whether placement with a custodial parent would be
detrimental. Absent any other considerations, a preponderance of the
evidence standard would apply. A parent right to care, custody and
management of a child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the
federal constitution that will not be disturbed except in extreme cases
where a parent acts in manner incompatible with parenthood. ( In re
Carmaleta B. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 482, 489); Cynthia v. Superior Court (1993) 5
Cal.4th 242, 251) The standard reflects both the weight of private and
public interest affected and a societal judgment of how the risk of error
should be distributed between the parties. In Santosky, The Supreme Court
held that due process requires a finding of parental unfitness be supported
by a minimum of clear and convincing evidence to terminated parental rights.
And here we are talking about to remove the minor out of the parental
control when the mother is a mature adult.
Here, we do not deal with the termination of parental rights but rather with
the initial denial the child be return to the custody of the parent after
the court had jurisdiction, and after the mother’s testimony that the
police officer initially removed the child because they want the mother go
to the court and had a judge make a finding on the paternity issue, and to
order the financial assistance to help the mother. The emergency social
worker intention to ask the mother to go to the court to present the needed
list on the financial assistance to be order by the court. There were never
any physical evidence and witness that the child Joshua has been mistreated
by the mother. And the mother is ready, willing and able to care for the
minor. (RT PG 55, line 21 -24),
DCFS has no clear evidence to proof that the child Joshua under the mother’
s custody would be physically and mentally detriment to the child when the
court remove the child custody from the mother. Instead, the night, the
mother needs help, she called and asked help from the councilor, and told
the councilor she is willing to wait until DCFS help her with a resolution,
“ OK. I am going to put him go to sleep tonight. We can talk tomorrow.”
( RT Page 57, line 2 – 5) and on the police report stay the same thing, the
mother put Joshua into sleep under a bed cover. Joshua is not harmed. The
evidence from DCFS is she said and he said. But the evidence from the Police
report, from the witness, mother’s roommate’s testimony is hard evidence.
There is no harm from the mother to request the county to help her when she
raised the child on her own. she tried to provide the best care and
education for the child. But it is wrong for the county did not tell the
court the truth, and it is wrong for the court to be biased against the
mother.
Section 361 provides in pertinent part:” No dependent child shall be taken
from the physical custody from his or her parents or guardian with whom the
child resides at the time the petition was initiated unless the juvenile
court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following:
(1) There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the minor or
would be if the minor was returned home, and there are no reasonable means
by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the
minor from the minor’s parents or guardians physical custody. The fact that
a minor has been adjudicated a dependent child of the court pursuant to
subdivision (e) of section 300 shall constitute prima facie evidence that
the minor cannot be safely left in the custody of the parent or guardian
with whom the minor resided at the time of injury.”
By detention report, the evidence is the mother had a problem with judge
Hiroshige and the mother requests to help her. In the hearing , the county
counsel provide evidence the mother’s problem with Judge Hiroshige; the
problem with Godfry Isaac, Kathleen Isaac, the rapist’s father and step
mother, to whom the mother approached, told them that she was raped by his
step son, and even though her past relationship with Brian Leader from 12
years ago were all brought in against the mother. But the hearing officer
did not honor mother’s request to release Joshua nor order some financial
help to assist the mother. But blame the mother open her mouth and testify
about Judge Hiroshige is the presumed farther for Joshua Tin. The mother
still freshly remember this judge said: “we told you do not open your mouth
, here is the help I give to you: parenting class and anger management class
.” Of course those won’t appear on the transcript.
The trial court was wrong to detent Joshua Tin into the foster system and
violate the parent-child relationship, the mother asked appeal court to
review all of the evidence and dismissal all of the charges in this case.
2. JURISDICTION ISSUE WITH THE HEARING COURT – CONFLICT INTEREST AND
BIAS
The mother contest that social worker intentionally left out the paternity
issue for judge Hiroshige, the court knew it. The court had conflict
interest on the hearing of the paternity issue. The mother also had
submitted a letter from her psychariatrist on her mental issue which tells
the court she had depression in the past, but she got treatment and she is
fine to take care of her son and she moved on with her life.
The first hearing officer, had read the PRI from the mother, and already
noticed that the mother put Judge Ernest Hiroshige’s name as a presumed
father on Joshua Tin. But the court still decided to make Alan Isaac is the
father for Joshua Tin and even nobody knew where Alan is.
On March 26, 2007, DCFS present the mediation agreement and indicated the
father’s identity unknown.
On April 28, 2007, before the trial, mother’s lawyer ask the mother did not
open her mouth, it is bad. It is bad? How many men would leave their wife,
fiancé, girl friend while she was 8 month pregnant? Instead of helping her
to raise the child, but file a false police report, use the power and
connection, put the mother into the jail? And influence the public defender
told her church not to bail her out because Winnie Tin committed a crime in
America so she should face the consequence until Joshua end up into the
foster agency. Why should any person be in the jail with no evidence by
claiming she called?
However, the hearing officer order Judge Hiroshige to come in for the
paternity conference on 6-19-08 (clerk’s report, page 0194). Judge
Hiroshige did not show up. Instead, Ryan Matienzo claims to order judge
Hiroshige to be the witness.. order judge Hiroshige as he is named……. He
almost break out the “father” the name, but Ryan than proceed that to call
him to the witness on the restraining order issue. (reporter’s
transcript page 26, line 4 – 10)
After September 23, 2008, after the trail, with no witness and evidence on
the physical and emotional damage to the child, but she said and he said
from the county, the hearing officer would detent the child. Instead off
ordering financial assistance but detain the child and order the mother for
parenting class and counseling.
After the trail, the mother asked her lawyer to fill a motion to move the
case out of LA superior court. But Ryan Matienzo refused to do so.
On Nov 17, 2008, mother filed a motion asked the court to reconsider the
paternity issue. The motion was never heard in the court.
On March 18, 2010, the mother filed a motion to recusal of the hearing
officer. With the significant issue regards the hearing officer can not be
holding a fare hearing on numerical issue involved from the paternity
finding, with social worker’s did not provide the service to the mother for
family reunification, action towards arrange the visitation for Joshua,
intentionally calling police on the mother while the mother going for the
visitation than to write a report and claim the mother is wild. But the
hearing officer would ignore the issue and response the mother with a
strike statement of disqualification.
On May 27, 2010, the mother file another motion to recues all Los Angeles
County Judge. But the motion was never heard. ( In re Richard W. (1979) 91
Cal.App.3d 960 (biased judicial officer.)
In the 366.26 hearing, DCFS request to terminate mother’s family
reunification service. Despite the mother has try the best to compliance
with the case plan, she finished the parenting class, she has been start
individual counseling prior to the jurisdiction. With passive progress
visitation report, the county provide to the court. The court did not take
into considerationt, The court error terminated the mother’s family
reunification service.
In addition to the passive visitation report, on Aug 7th, 2009, the DCFS
holding another TDM meeting. During the meeting, the social worker
recongnized the mother progress reached a goal that the social worker will
be continue to provide the family reunification service and will be possibly
increase the visitation to twice a week.( clerk’s report page 0656).
During the meeting the mother request Full Time Service was offer in the
past but was not implemented, and social worker agree to offer her the
service again. The full time service was never provide to the mother, the
social worker claim because the court terminate mother’s family
reunification service, the social worker moved the monitor visitation to
Southern California Adoption Agency.
In two of the trials, the mother brought up that Judge Hiroshige wire
tapping her phone and been contacting her counselor, been influence social
worker to write a false report on the mother. The social worker did not
provide the service to the mother as follow up the court order. When the
mother brought up those issues, the hearing officer said I do not believe
you who do social worker do that to you? That is bias. The hearing officer
certainly should have done some investigation to find out if the mother’s
statements are in fact true. The court is responsible to make sure that the
family reunification service is implemented by the law.
3. PATERNITY IN ERROR BY TRIAL COURT
From May 2007, when Jushua Tin was just first time end up in the DCFS due to
the birth mother Winnie Tin was accused violating the restraining order
went to jail. After Winnie Tin was released from the Jail, Winnie Tin had
report to DCFS the history about Joshua Tin. Joshua Tin was born due to
Judge Ernest Hiroshige promised her marriage and family. DCFS already knew
that Judge Hiroshige is the presumed father for Joshua Tin but social worker
intentional left his name out from the petition. Alan Isaac is the nature
father but based on the family code 7611.5 and in addition in violation of
the penal code 261.5, Alan Isaac should not and could not have any paternity
right by law. If the county council Guillermo Barragan who has been
Juvenile Court lawyer for 30 years, they have the basic knowledge, when
there is an allegation arise the mother was raped and became pregnant, the
court should have stop right there and bring in the DA to find what is going
on. However, the court did not bring up any those issues, and erroneous
Alan Isaac to be the father for Jushua Tin.
Mother’s phone has been at-tapped by Judge Hiroshige for the past 5 years.
When the mother try to find out from any lawyer, Judge Hiroshige normally
would approach and threaten the lawyer did not take her case. Mother has
been discussed the paternity issue with her lawyer Ryan Matienzo many times,
but the issue was not raise in the court, until the mother wrote the
paternity finding on her own.
On the first court appearance, Mother provide Ryan Matienzo PRI, stated the
presume father is Judge Ernest Hiroshige, but the paper work was missing in
the clerk’s transcript. (reporter’s transcript, page 3, line 21-23) but
you can verify from the court proceeding.
During the court hearing on April 30, 2008, mother’s attorney Ryan Matienzo
represent to the court the Paternity Questionnaire to the court. (please
see attachment, which is missing from the clerk’s transcript.)
Mr. Matienzo: Your Honor, my client would like to submit a paternity
questionnaire.
The court: Okay. Thank you.
Miss Tin, I don’t have the court file. So I am going to put over the
issue of Paternity until the next court date---
Minor’s mother: OKAY
(Reporter’s transcript, page 22, line 14 – 20.)
Please refer to 04/30/2008 Minute order: DCFS ORDERS: PATERNITY FINDINGS
DEFERRED TO 6-19-2008 (clerk transcript, page 0194).
On 4/30/08, mother’s lawyer told me that the judge is going to order Judge
Hiroshige to come in for the paternity funding, but On 6-19-08 court hearing
, mother attorney Ryan Matienzo talked to the mother that Judge Hiroshige
won’t be able to come into the court for hearing due to his busy schedule.
On the reporter transcript, mother attorney Ryan Matienzo start to play game
that he is going to call Hiroshige to present to be the witness for this
case, but not present to the court for the paternity finding. (reporter
transcript, page 28, line 10-14.)
In November 17, 2008, the birth mother filed a motion for reconsideration in
the paternity finding. (clerk’s report 451-457.) But the motion was never
heard in the court. In the report, the mother indicated that in addition to
the penal code 261.5 committed by Alan Isaac, Alan Isaac did not have good
character, no stable job, has crazy life style, and does drugs.
Under the marriage agreement, Judge Hiroshige lived with the birth mother
while the child was conceived. They planning to have at least one child for
their marriage, and Judge Hiroshige welcomed Joshua Tin to the new family.
However, due to Judge Hiroshige’s own character and unethical behavior with
other woman involved in his life while he is committed to the birth mother.
The birth mother complained Judge Hiroshige behavior to his superior and
Judge Hiroshige used his power lie to the court about their relationship and
abundant birth mother Winnie Tin while she was 8 month pregnant. However,
prior to his breaking up the relationship with her, he took the father’s
role, buying the baby item, family medical book, baby clothing, for the
newborn. In that way, Judge Hiroshige acted as the father for Joshua Tin.
Under the family code 7540 and 7611, Judge Hiroshige and the birth mother
both presume that him is the father for Jushua Tin. Under family code 7611 (
b) (2) a man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he meets
the condition even if the attempted marriage could be declared invalid only
by a court, the child is born during the attempted marriage, or the child is
born within 300 days after the termination of cohabitation.
However, the trial court make Alan Isaac to be the alleged father is an
erroneous. First of all, Alan Isaac is involved with penal code 261.5, the
sexual criminal act is pending in the DA. Secondly, Alan Isaac did not have
a stable job nor has a good character to be a role model in Joshua Tin’s
life. Trial court erroneous Alas Isaac to be the alleged father. ( In re
Keyl’s adoption 112 Cal. App. 4th 538.)
During September 23, 2008 proceedings, the birth mother testifying in the
court:
“ By Mr. Barragan:
Q: Good afternoon, Miss Tin.
Ms. Tin, we are here to adjudicate a petition that was filed on behalf
of your son, Joshua.
I’d like to ask you first of all, who is the father of Joshua?
The Witness: From my understanding, it should be Judge Hiroshige. And also,
I have been told DCFS about the whole scenario over and over. The DCFS
employee filed false information to the court.
Q. By Mr. Barragan: Why do you say Judge Hiroshige is the father of Joshua?
A. Initially, Judge Hiroshige and I were planning to get married and have a
family. And we got into a verbal argument because as a result, I found out
that he was sleeping with some other woman. He verbally abused me,
The witness: okay. And I questioned him. I said, why you discuss marriage
with me? How can you sleep with some other woman? He said, MEN’s world. Not
big beal.
Q. By Mr. Barragan: Are you saying that Judge Hiroshige is the biological
father of Joshua?
A. No. I never said that he was biological father in any paper or verbally.
I did not understand why DCFS ask him to take a paternity, for DNA test.
(reporter transcript, page 33 Line 3 to page 22;)
A marriage contract differs from other contractual relations in that there
exists a definite and vital public interest in reference to marriage
relation. In this case, Judge Hiroshige had initiated the marriage, children
and family due to his first child from previous marriage was in the serious
mental illness. He would like to have few more child with me. Mother Winnie
Tin accepted his proposal and is willing to be his wife and base on that
promise and agreement.
They had Joshua Tin and later found that he was not the biological father
for Jushua Tin. Judge Hiroshige still agree to raise Jushua Tin with the
birth mother. Evidence shows that Judge Hiroshige took the mother shopping
for the bed room linen, accompanies her to see doctor, shopping for the baby
cloth and item, took her to the hospital, buying the family medical book,
giving the birth mother money to support her and the kids. All of those
presents a marriage relation between the two. The birth mother would like
humbly request the court to reverse a decision from the trial court, Judge
Hirhshige is the presumed father for Joshua Tin.
What is the best interest for this child Joshua Tin? The court and the
county keep saying that, but their action is make this child has no father.
Or named Alan Isaac to be the alleged father for Joshua and by knowingly
that Alan Isaac has no job, do not have good character, who is a criminal.
Should the court to make a ruling that this child with no father or should
the court finding Judge Hiroshige is the legal father for Joshua Tin to take
his responsibility and to provide for the child. Each case law is very
different. Judge’s decision is based on the law and what is making sense
based on moral, ethic code.
On Nov 17th, 2008, the birth mother filed a motion for reconsideration in
the paternity finding and order DCFS change the service unit. On December
2nd, 2008, deposition, “ The court has received a motion for
reconsideration of the paternity finding and to order DCFS to change the
service unit. ( RT PG 86 line 1 to pg87, line 3. ) But the motion was never
heard in the court.
REASONNIING FOR REVIEW THE PATERNITY ISSUE
After 10 month romantic dating, the birth mother Winnie Tin accepted Judge
Hiroshige’s proposal, they lived together and planning to have a family.
Since November 2002, The birth mother Winnie Tin was lived with the presumed
father Judge Hiroshige. Until February 2003, The birth mother found out
that the presumed father was chatting on her with some one named Linda. They
had a big argument; Judge Hiroshige claim that this is man’s world and
left at 11:30 pm. The birth mother was upset and called a friend, Allan
Isaac, shared her relationship with Alan Issac. The birth mother was crying
and trying called Judge Hiroshige in Alan’s house, they were arguing on the
phone until later Judge Hiroshige hang up on her. Allan Isaac gave the
birth mother a brink, drugged her and force her to have sex, took advantage
of her that night
One month later, the nature Mother Winnie Tin informed Judge Ernest
Hiroshige on the pregnancy, and Judge Ernest Hiroshige and she both believed
he is the father for Jushua Tin. Judge Hiroshige agreed to have the baby to
the new family and took her to for marriage counseling with his pastor,
Gary Gaulton. And Judge Hiroshige had promised her that he will take care of
her and the child. However, Judge Hiroshige would still sleep with other
woman and one night after have intercourse with the birth mother Winnie Tin,
he stated that “ look, you can not have sex any way, what is the
difference I am being with other woman”. The birth mother trys to put up
with his abuse because she want the baby to have a family. Judge Hiroshige
still take his duty if he is in the good mood. He took the birth mother
Winnie Tin to the hospital, help her to shopping for food, buying baby
clothing and prepare the baby item for the baby. Judge Hiroshige knew that
night the birth mother went to Alan Isaac’s house, he said he want to make
sure that he is the biological father, After one day he took her to the
hospital for themostistical testing, the doctor told them that they can do a
DNA test with the mother’s fluite. On July 14, 2004, Judge Hiroshige and
the mother want to a clinc did a DNA test. The birth mother was shock with
the result. And she told Judge Hiroshige that the night Alan Isaac did force
her, but after the mother told him many times that she did not want. Alan
Isaac finally stopped, there is no way that Alan Isaac is the father. In
addition, Alan Isaac had vasectomy. And now the baby was not born yet, Maybe
the result was not accurate. Judge Hiroshige may still be the father for
Joshua Tin. Judge Hiroshige became very angry and he was shouting to the
mother, you still defend for him. The birth mother cried and talked to Judge
Hiroshige, we want this baby because we loved each other and we want to
have a family. Let say for instance, Alan Isaac is the biological father, we
can not have him to get involved with the child’s life anyway because his
character. Judge Hiroshige agreed stay with the birth mother Winnie Tin.
Until August 18, 2003, the birth mother Winnie Tin found Judge Hiroshige
chat on her again with the same lady. She is getting very upset and told
Judge Hiroshige that if he still going to abuse her, She is going to seek
help form presiding Judge Duck. (In Asian Culture, work and family all
mixed together, the mother want his boss to intervene to help her.)
Judge Hiroshige felt very embarrassed was the mother’s action, He did not
want to his co-worker and his supervisor to know his unethical, immoral
behavior, he misinformed the court personal and lied to the police, had
court council Brett Bianco accused the birth mother Winnie Tin had been
harassed him since February 2003 because he had break up with mother Winnie
Tin, the mother went to continue to keep relationship with him. The birth
mother Winnie Tin hired lawyer Kevin Kay to defending her, with the lawyer
and all of the evidence, Judge Hiroshige did not want to go to court the
birth mother Winnie Tin was contact by Brett Bianco who verbally threat her
to sign up the mutual agreement and abundant the birth mother Winnie Tin
while she was 8 month pregnant.
On November 21, 2003, birth mother Winnie Tin gave birth to her son Jushua
Tin in Huntington Memorial Hospital. Mother Winnie left father section blank
and did not put any body’s name on the father section in the birth
certificate.
Joshua’s name is from Joshua, because the presumed father was judge
Hiroshige, so the mother used Jushua instead of Joshua.
After the c-section, nature mother Winnie Tin got into a complicated medical
situation, she was bleeding all night, because there was no body with her,
she passed out in her patient’s room until the doctor inspect the room. The
birth mother Winnie Tin was taken into the emergency units for blood
transfusion. After the hospitalization, she had stay in the bad for over
three months. On January 30th, 2004, Judge Hiroshige called her on her birth
day, and took her to dinner to celebrate her birth day, the house keeper
can be the witness to testify that the judge Hiroshige visit the mother and
the new born with a gift. In the dinner, he said he is going to be
responsible, and wants to part of her life and the child’s life. When he
hold Joshua Tin was not his biological child, he was hurt. The mother had
apologized to him. The birth mother Winnie Tin was crying to her pastor
Jonathon Wu. Judge Hiroshige’s pastor Gary Gaulton was also involved with
the reconciliation for the relationship during the year 2004 and 2005.
In 2004, nature mother Winnie Tin asked the maternal grandmother to help her
to take care of her son. When Joshua Tin was 10 month old, birth mother had
a friend of her took Joshua to the maternal grandmother help her to raise
Joshua Tin until Joshua Tin become 3 years old. In January 2007, the birth
mother Winnie Tin brought Joshua back to USA from China. They lived in a
rental house in West Covina.
The relationship did not worked out between Judge Hiroshige and the birth
mother. In June 2006, the last time they saw each other, Judge Hiroshige
punched her. When the police arrival and Winnie Tin told the police officer
that he punch her, they did not arrest him. After a week, Judge Hiroshige
obtaining the restraining order against the birth mother Winnie Tin. And In
July 2006, Judge Hiroshige filed a false police report again and claimed
that the birth mother had called him and violate the restraining order.
Please see attached police report from judge Hiroshige. Judge Hiroshige used
an false tape and had his co-worker another Judge listen to the case and
left Winnie Tin’s OR and put the birth mother Winnie Tin incarcerated in
the Jail. The birth mother arranged a friend to pick up Joshua Tin. On May/
24/2007, mother’s friend was unable to help to take care of Joshua Tin
anymore and give the child back to the kindergarten where the child was
going to school. The school teacher called social worker because mother’s
friend could not help her to take care of the child any more. Joshua Tin end
up with DCFS. On May 24th 2007, the birth mother was released from Jail.
DCFS put Joshua Tin was under Voluntary Family Maintenance agreement with
the mother. During the meeting with DCFS, Winnie Tin had reported to the
social worker that how she was raped by Allan Isaac and Judge Hiroshige is
the presume father and how he left her while she was 8 month pregnant
immorally.
In between May 2007 to December 2007, the birth mother asked help from
Social worker due to the stress by fighting back the criminal prosecution,
making a living, raise Joshua along. She asked if social worker can
temporally place Joshua Tin into the presumed father’s house Judge
Hiroshige or the paternal grandfather Godfrey Isaac’s house who is well
known attorney lived in Beverly Hills (cited clerks transcript, page 0008,
Detention report.) The birth father here means Alan Isaac and the presumed
father is Judge Hiroshige but on the cover sheet of the detention report,
social working knowingly and intentionally put Allan Isaac as alleged father
only and John Dow, Social worker intentionally left out Judge Hiroshige’s
name as presume father.
Social worker had legal obligation to tell the court truth on the paternity
issue. If there is more than one father for the child, social worker should
be given all of the information to the court. However, social worker only
put the nature father’s name on the detention report and claims that the
birth mother had visual hallucination and audio hallucination, some pre-
arranged a lawyer without notice the mother and hiding the initial detention
report from the mother and put Joshua into detention. Without reading the
social worker’s court paper work, the birth mother did not have a chance to
talk to the hearing officer about the financial need list and Joshua become
the court dependence.
“The court: And you waive reading of the petition and your right and enter
a denial?
Mr. Matienzo: Yes, Your honor, we waive, enter a general denial.” (reporter
’s transcript, page 2, line 11 – 14.)
4. DCFS’S COLLBORATION WITH JUDGE HIROSHIGE
.
When the birth mother was incarcerated in May 2007, Joshua Tin ended up
in the foster home. Because it is involved with the paternity issue, social
worker did not want book Joshua Tin into the system. Even Joshua Tin got flu
with favor for over two days and social worker Yumi Lin still did not book
him in, until three days later the supervisor Kim told social worker Yumi
Lin she need to book the kids into the system and give him some medical
treatment, Otherwise if anything happen to the kid, they would have to be
responsible for it. Finally, social worker Yumi Lin booked Joshua into the
system and took him to see the doctor. When the mother was released from the
Jail, the mother was told by one of the Social worker. Joshua Tin was still
taking the medication.
Many times, birth mother Winnie Tin asked social worker for help. Social
worker did nothing besides threatening the birth mother that if Joshua Tin
went into the system and the judge would put Joshua into adoption. The truth
is Joshua Tin ever book into the system, DCFS will have to present to the
court on the paternity issue. Please see attached Mediation report offer by
DCFS, on the paternity issue social worker changed the father from Allan
Isaac to father identity is unknown.
When the day, West Covina police officers come in to BM’s residence for
welfare check and heard the story, Police officers wanted the mother put a
list things need to be help on, and go to a judge to made a ruling on it.
But DCFS would put the report that the BM has mental issue. Whatever the
depression caused by Judge Hiroshige from the past, mother had seen the
psychologist in the past, and claimed she had mental issue. The social
worker lie to the court that mother had visual hallucinations and audio
hallucinations, brought out the past and criticized the mother is depressed
with a personality disorder.
In between May 2008 to Dec 2008, social worker Hui-chi Hsieh had stopped
by in the Mother’s home and negotiated a financial settlement figure on
behalf Judge Hiroshige. The mother told Hui-chi Hsieh that the financial
settlement is strictly confidential among she, Judge Hiroshige, and the
lawyers, nobody should get involved, especially social worker has no
position on this.
In many occasions, Hui-chi Hsieh stated that if Joshua Tin was book into the
system, judge will consider to put into Joshua into adoption and his
biological father family would come in to rescue Joshua Tin from the
adoption. Based on those actions, the mother believed Judge Hiroshige
influenced social worker and merely gave the mother any help.
5. DCFS DID NOT PROVIDE SERVICE TO MOTHER
1. The social worker did not provide service to the mother after the
judge order family reunification services.
The mother started her individual counseling right before the court hearing
on this case on September 23, 2008, n order she can get her son back earlier
.
In December 15, 2008, the mother first had private counselor Patricia
Anderson as her counselor. ( clerk’s transcript page 0578), she is very
good counselor but it is too expensive.
In Feb -1-2008, mother switch to a Christian counseling Living Grace, A
Christina counseling agency with Peggy Tsui. (Clerk’s transcript page 0579.
) for lower cost.
In June 2008, Foothill Family Service offer her no fee counseling, mother
start individual counseling with Nicole Ho in order to get Joshua Tin back
home as earlier as possible. But Judge Hiroshige interfere with mother’s
counseling, mother filed a formal complaint about Nichol Ho to Helen
MorranWolf, the executive director from Foothill Family Service. (CT PG 0492
– PAGE 0494)
During the counseling session with this counselor, Nichol Ho kept want to
talk with her about Judge Hiroshige is afraid to loss his job. The birth
mother told her that she did not want to talk about the past relationship
because it is all in the past, she want to move on and talk about present.
She did not want talk about Judge Hiroshige any more. She needs to do some
individual counseling to get her son back. But the counselor keeps saying
that she felt the mother need to see a psychiatrist. The mother informed the
counselor that she was fine and she was not felt depressed nor have
difficulty to control her emotion. Her psychologist had release her from the
treatment. Finally, the mother had escalated the problem to the higher
management and the mother got kick out from the program. (clerk’s
transcript page 0492 to 0494, reporter transcript page 100, line 20, to page
101, line 15).
In late October 2008, Mother again attending Christine Living Grace
counseling by Sam Ng. Please see attached report from Sam Ng, dated on April
3, 2009. In the letter, Sam Ng had address the mother trying her best to
deal with all these hurtful experiences, from time to time, ….. yet her
religious faith helped her to stay calm again, to move on in her life. She
is now able to work regularly at her loan business and maintains good self
care. (clerk’s transcript page 0632) The mother has been made an
individual counseling on the weekly basis with this counselor.
Mother participate in parenting class and successfully graduated from the
parenting class. Please see attached certificated for the parenting class. (
clerk’s report page 0633.)
The mother believed social worker has been influence by Judge Hiroshige that
If Joshua would be put into adoption, and his natural Godfry Isaac and
Kathleen Isaac would step in to rescue the child. Judge Hiroshige did not
have to be the legal father. The reason I said that it is because there many
talks among the social worker, eg. Social worker Huichi Hsieh once said: if
the kids put into adoption, his family would come in and rescues him.
Angela Chao also said the same thing,” how can the biological father did
not want his own kids? Once the kids is going to be adopted, they would have
to come in to rescue him.” Who gave social worker those ideas about the
kids being adopted Godfred Isaac and Kathleen Isaac would be come in?
Yoko Parsons: Winnie, You want to get your son back? You could not even get
a counselor to say your emotionally stable. HaHa…..”
Social worker did not provided service to the mother. In another hand they
disconnect the service to the mother, the judge order the visitation is
going to be monitored in a therapeutic setting. However the therapeutic
setting was merely provided by the social worker. The intention is good, it
is in order help the mother to understand Joshua, to be a good parent. But
the implementation is difficult to be taking by social worker.
In May 2008, a new social worker Amy Watanabe took over the case. Amy moved
Joshua from foster Maria’s home to foster Brian Boem’s home without
notifying anybody, and just went to Maria’s house and pick up Johsua and
hurry in to move him. She ordered the foster parent did not release their
phone number to the mother. Amy canceled the phone communication between the
birth mother and the minor. And lied to the BM, and claim that the foster
parent request did not release the phone to the BM. BM had request the
foster parent to put down those as evidence to the court. Please see foster
parent Brian’s hand writing as evidence (clerk transcript, page 0496.)
Prior to Amy took over the case, the mother has monitor visit with the
minor in the foster agency for two times a week. After Amy took the case,
the visit become once a week. When the mother requesting to increase the
visitation hours. Mother was told talk to the foster agency, then the mother
talk to the social worker from the foster agency, they told the mother talk
to the social worker in the DCFS. Mother was like a ball kicked back and
forth.
DCFS did not intent to sent Joshua back to the mother. The case started on
Dec 20, 2007, September 23, 2008, the court had jurisdiction and ordered
family reunification service. One month apart, November 12, 2008, DCFS
requested to terminate the birth mother’s family reunification service and
request to terminate family reunification service. (clerk’s transcript page
0405.)
In all different times, the birth mother has request to move the case out of
Asian pacific unit due to lock of support from Social worker and conspiracy
between social worker and judge Hiroshige.
On December 26, 2007, the birth Mother request to move the case out of Asian
Pacific Unit (reporter’s transcript page 6, line 4-5).
On September 23, 2008, the birth Mother request to move the case out of
Asian Pacific Unit:
The mother says:
No. 1. I don’t have trust with DCFS Asian Pacific Units. As a result of
that, they filed a false report to the court.
No. 2. They helping intervene to --- for the financial settlement between me
and Judge Hiroshige.
No. 3. I have to complain their behavior to their supervisor. And right now,
I have allocated it to board of director, executive board of Director Rick
Brian, As a Result I feel there is corruption and conspiracy with Judge
Hiroshige. I do not feel comfortable and trust to work with Asian Pacific
Unit. ( reporter’s transcript. Page 55, line 11 - 18)
Let take look at the chorological time line in this case:
1. On Dec 26, 2007, DCFS file a petition to the court by response a phone
call for child welfare check. By not reading the DCFS’s petition to the
mother, mother’s legal council work together with DCFS put Joshua Tin into
the foster family. The mother was provide the foster parent phone number by
social worker Gladys Davis in order for the mother to communicate with
Joshua Tin on the daily basis. With the report from the foster agency, you
can see the relationship between the birth mother and child is affectionate,
attentive.
2. In May 2008, social worker Amy Watanobe took the case and she
authorize the foster father did not provide his home phone number to the
mother and to disconnect the communication between the mother and the child
Joshua Tin. (clerk’s transcript, page 0496, & page 0454, line 11- page 0455
line 2.) Than Amy told the mother that the foster family did not want to
release their phone number because it is confidential placement and the
foster family did not want to be bother by her phone call. The mother asked
the foster father Brian Boem write is done as evidence. Brian proceeded
told the mother that their family had been involved with few foster care,
they always open the kid talk to the biological family. Please see attached
hand written from the foster parent that the social worker told him did not
release his home address & phone # to the mother of Joshua Tin dated 5/2/08.
( clerk’s transcript, page 0496), Social worker also bad mouth the mother
to the foster care agency counselor Dr. Peterson and the office director
Holly Brunton. (Clerk’s transcript, page 0496). Amy has had reduce the
visitation from two times a week to one times a week while the mother is
under the family reunification service. Please see attached the information
for court officer, it outlet the foster agency written monitor visit, it
clearly shows that the visitation is scheduled twice a week in January,
February, March 2008. (clerk’s transcript, page 0131) But after Amy come on
board, Amy reduce the visit from twice a week to one times a week. ( please
see attached email between the mother and Amy Watanobe, and the mother
testimony in the 366.26 hearing.( clerk’s transcript, page 153 line 18 –
24)
3. On September 23, 2008, the court jurisdiction the case, and order the
visitation in the therapeutic setting, In between Nov 17, 2008 to December
16, 2008, the dept only arranged only one visitation but the visitation only
occurred once on 10-1-08.
4. On November 17, 2008 DCFS request to terminate birth mother
reunification service and put Joshua Tin into adoption. In DCFS report date
11/17/2008, it indicating that Joshua did not want to see his mother. Those
information is contradict from other visitation report from other therapist
in the DCFS report to the court.
service.
5. There is no visitation between July 31, 2008 to October 22, 2008 (see
attached email on October 17, 2008 and email on October 17 at 5:23 pm).
Please see the mother’s lawyer’s argument: “ Well, First of All, Mother
Objects to any termination of visitation. On September 23, 2008, This court
ordered mother to have monitored visits in a therapeutic setting. Since then
, there has been one visit at a therapeutic setting which went well. In fact
, my client maintains the therapist believed the visit went well and even
recommended more thereafter.
The report states clearly the visitations under the therapeutic was not able
to occur at any time during this period, meaning that order was not
followed. “
“My client has repeatedly asked for visits which have not honored, NOR has
her request to talk to her son. The order made by this court has not been
honored, which explains why there may have been incidents.’
“As this court knows, reunification, which my client has, involves
visitation. I must repeat, my client still has family reunification.
Termination of her visitation prior to her services being terminated only
helps DCFS’s recommendation to terminate her services because she would not
be allowed to regularly visit her son. In fact, cutting of visitation
entirely prior to her service being terminated is unnecessary and only fast-
tracks a permanent plan for adoption.
In the alternative, I would ask that the court follow its original order
which was visitation in a therapeutic setting. Doing so will allow a
continued relationship with her son and not set up for failure at a .26
hearing laer down the road. (see reporter transcript page 81 line 25 to page
82, line 3.) On December 16, 2008, DCFS again request to terminate the
family reunification service. ( clerk’s transcript 0537.)
During the trail, the mother’s lawyer and child’s lawyer argued the
following:
“ Mr. Matienzo: My client would also like the current social worker on call
as well. In addition, My client has not received any visits since October.
I would request the Dept help facilitate her getting those visits with her
son.
The court: All right. The court will put Marie Nakayama on call for that
date and ask the dept to use its best efforts to facilitate visitation for
mother with Joshua.
Ms. Eshraghi: And, Your Honor, the court did order that the visits be in a
therapeutic setting, and he just recently had intake on 12/5. So it has to
be one when the therapist deems it appropriate. (clerk’s report, page 113,
line 14-26).
Social worker’s status report shows that they merely provide visitation to
the mother after September 23, 2008. On 04/06/2009, the social worker status
report shows the visitation only occurred twice on 12/24/2008, and 2/5/2009
. ( clerk’s transcript, page 0591,) Those two visit, the mother prepared
for the visitation, “The mother brought jackets for Joshua and they were
appropriately for Joshua.” 2/5/09, visit, Mother brought clothes for Joshua
and mother’s companion also came and brought new toys for Joshua. During
the visit, mother and Joshua ate snacks, played with toys, and mother read a
book to Joshua. During the visit, mother asked Joshua about his school and
friends, and Joshua appropriately answered mother’s questions. ( clerks’s
transcript, page 0591)
On 3/11/09, the mother contact SCSW and requested a visitation with Joshua.
Again DCFS request to terminated the family reunification services as to
mother is terminated, and WIC 366.26 selection hearing is request. (clerk’s
report, page 0594).
On 4/1/09, DCFS hold a TDM meeting with the mother, The team explained to
the mother about the permanency planning for adoption for child Joshua and
that an adoption family have been identified. The mother questioned the DCFS
TDM meeting, that Joshua Tin had relative here, he had birth father and
presumed father, why DCFS worker want to place Joshua into adoption? Finally
, the team also informed birth mother to disclose any of her relatives who
might to able to provide permanent placement for the child. As a result of
the TDM meeting, the goal is for mother to provide information on her
parenting education and counseling to CSW Hanges. Mother is to also provide
CSW information on any relative who may be able to provide permanent care
for Child Joshua.
2. Social worker’s report is contradicting among itself.
After the TDM meeting, DCFS start arranged the visitation again. On May 7,
and June 17, 2009, the visitation was taken place in the mother therapist
Sam Ng’s office.” In May 7, 2009, the counselor had monitor couple of
the visit with the mother. And he had descript very good letter regards the
visitation. Let read some of the letter from this therapist: “she looked
happy when she saw her son Joshua and showed the son the food and toy items
she brought. The son also looked excited to follow her to the meeting room.
Once they both entered the room, Ms Tin realized that she had turn off her
phone. She did. She then started to take some items out of the bag to show
her son. The items she brought included a hardcover story book, some toy
items, a bottled yogurt drink, a small bag of chocolate, and three kinds of
fruit. She attempted to engage her son in a conversation by asking how was
he doing. The son responded but also tried to reach for the food. She than
coached the son that he needed to ask the son how was he doing and try to
know some of his experience at home and in school.
After a while, the mother tried to teach the son to wash his hands after
eating, and to keep the table clean. She then showed him a story book she
brought which came with a toy watch for learning how to tell time, and to
understand the time for common daily activities. The son wanted the mother
to hold him and sit on her lap as the mother read him the story. THE SON
WANTED THE MOTHER TO HOLD HIM AND SIT ON HER LAP AS THE MOTHER READ HIM THE
STORY. The mother was able to keep the son interested in the story for about
10 minutes, while he was drinking the bottled drink and eating other food
items. When the son switched his attention, and want to draw on the
blackboard, the mother tried to bring his attention back. Later she learned
to show interest in what the son like to play with. And she followed him and
get involved by asking what he was drawing and gave him verbal praises……
… When the time was running short. She showed him to clearn up threw away
the trash, and hugged him to say good bye, she also wanted him to say good
bye with a kiss on her check. He did. He looked happy during the meeting and
when leaving.
Impression: The mother was prepared to meet with her son. She brought
some toys and food items. That are generally age appropriate and healthy,
but she brought more than enough……. Both of them seem to enjoy the
interaction.” (clerk’s transcription, page 0727)
In June 17, 2009, the therapist wrote another letter to the court: “
She looked somewhat preoccupied, yet she was prepared to meet the son. She
turned off her cell phone, and showed him the food and toy items she brought
. …… After a while, the mother tried to ask the son to do some drawing.
But the son wanted to play with the new board game. The mother then TOOK THE
SON TO SIT ON HER LAP, SHOWED HIM THE STEPS, AND PLAYED WITH HIM TOGETHER
BY ROLLING THE DICE AND MOVING THE TOKENS. DURING THE GAME TIME, WHETHER HE
LIKE TO BE HOME WITH HER, HE KNOCKED HIS HEAD.( WHICH IS ERROR ON THE
THERAPIST) The son wanted the mother to bring him the computer. The mother
later did not continue the subject, and switched to talk about something
else and tried to say something funny to engage in additional conversations.
When time was running short, she showed him to clean up, threw away the
trash, and hugged him to say good bye. She also wanted him to say good bye
with a kiss on her check. He did, he looked happy during the meeting and
when leaving.
Impression: The mother was prepared to meet with her son. She brought
one toy item and some food items that are generally age appropriate and
healthy. She made some good attempts to engage the son in conversation and
play, and tried to teach the son something such as to wait, to talk, and to
teach him courtesy. Although she still showed tendency to want the son
follow her instructions, she had also learned to show interested in what the
son like to do and be interested in. Both of them to enjoy the interaction.
In addition, she still subtly told the son she wanted him come home to be
with her someday, and she had some goodies at home waiting for him.
Monitor report for another one: “ The mother quickly took her son into the
meeting room. She looked somewhat preoccupied, yet she was prepared to meet
the son. She turned off her cell phone, and showed him the food and toy
items she brought. The son started to eat the fruits she brought, and she
tried to pen the new board game she brought. ……. The mother then took the
son to sit on her lap, showed him the steps, and played with him together by
rolling the dice and moving the tokens. During the game time, the mother
also asked the son whether he like to be home with her, and said she had a
computer there waiting for him to play. The son KNOCKED HIS HEAD and wanted
the mother to bring him the computer. When time was running short, she
showed him to clean up, threw away the trash, and hugged him to say good bye
. She also wanted him to say good bye with a kiss on her cheek. He did. He
looked happy during her meeting and when leaving. (clerk’s transcript, page
0821)
On the 08/13/2009 status review report to the court the visit between July
31st to Aug 7th, Per the therapist, Mike Habousch and Illiana Aispuro, the
mother has prepare all of her visit, and the visit went well. Let read the
last two paregraph: Mother seemed a bit awkward at first with child. However
, after about 5 minutes, mother warmed up and engaged in playing games with
child, such as tossing football and playing with toy trucks. Both mother and
child were laughing and seemed enjoy themselves over all. On 08/07/09, The
mother bought a kid computer for the minor, and tired to teach the child
typing. (clerk’s transcript 0651) Please refer to Mr. Blair’s write up
for the 08/07/09, visitation attached. ( But the report was not in the court
file).
On 8/7/2009, the mother had another TDM meeting, with SCSW Rose Studebaker,
CSW Vantha Hanges, and also the TDM facilitator, despite the good visitation
report from above, the meeting try to increase mother’s visitation to
twice a week. However, the court terminated the family reunification
services.
On December 24, 2009’ 366.26 WIC report, social worker wrote the birth
mother arrival pretty much on time, on 11/17/09, Mr. Haboush told this CSW
mother arriving pretty much on time, trying pretty hard to become a mother”
They would play games and mother would use opportunities during the visit
to teach Joshua lessons. On 9/24/09, during a face to face visit, Joshua
described his visits with mother as “okay” and that they “talk and play”
during visits. When asked further questions about his visits, Joshua did
not answer questions and proceeded to play with this CSW. Then the social
worker turn around to request the court to terminate the visit between
mother and Joshua, as it precludes to the adoptive planning. (Clerk’s
report page 0677)
3. Social worker has constantly provide
the court false information
DCFS social worker claimed on the paper work that CSW had made referral to
FSP and letter to mother upon her request. And mother was referred to FSP
services in the past. However she refused the service. (clerk’s transcript
page 0652) Please see the email between the mother and social worker Yumi
Lin. Please see attached (judicial notice one)
4. Most social worker paper allegation did not have any support and or
contradicting with the fact evidence by emails
The social worker has been lied under oath to the court that they refer the
mother to the full services partnership service because the mother never
received any calls from suggest services. There is only a fax from social
worker Vantha Hanges, but that did not mean she had made those arrangement.(
Clerk’s transcript page 0660.) There is no evidence mother has refuse the
service. In stead mother has been frequently sent emails to the social
worker asking for the full time service program, and asking for the
visitation.
6. Terminated Family Reunification Service is Error
On August 13, 2009, the court have the 18 month review for argument to
return Joshua Tin back home. Mother’s attorney argued mother’s compliance
with the court-ordered case plans and her ability to care for her son.
“ The court: All right. I do not need her compliance. I have that
information. It would be her ability to care for her son that is a issue
with respect to mother’s testimony.”
The mother testify that she hold a job and owns a mortgage brokerage
company, and originated residential loan and commercial loan. And she lives
in a condo in Arcadia, which is a nice city with a good school district.
Mother’s lawyer asked:
“Q: What do you do during these visits?
A: I prepare the games, and we play the games…..
Q: Now, how does he react to you when you have the visit?
A; I call him……. He calls me mom. I present him with the gift. He is happy
to see me with those. One time, I bought him a computer and teach him how
to type ( reporter’s transcript, page 154, line 7 – 21) Which is match
with Mr. Blair’s the visitation written report dated on 08/07/2009 from the
foster agency , clerk’s transcript
page 0651).
Q: By Mr. Matienzo: During your visits, has he ever expressed a desire to
live with you?
A: Yes.
Mother’s lawyer also subpoena mother’s therapist Sam Ng, who had been
watch the visitation for the mother and the child and mother has been going
for counseling for a while.
“ Q: Mr. Ng, have you been monitoring my client’s visits with her son?
A: I did twice
Q: Okay, And you wrote a letter dated June 17, 2009; is that correct?
A: Yes. Correct.
Q: And in that letter, you stated that Joshua looked happy during the
meeting with my client; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Was my client appropriate with her son during that visit?
A: I think most of the time, yes.
Q: Was he?
A: yes
Q: Was she affectionate?
A: She appeared to be, yes.
Q: Now, Do you believe ---- Do you think that her son recognizes her as
the mother?
A: yes
Q: All right. Now, the letter, you ended that by saying, “My client has
learned to show interest in what her son would like to do and be interested
in, and both of them seemed to enjoy the interaction.” That is how you
ended that letter. Right?
A: Correct. Yes.
Q: So you believe her son enjoyed her company?
A: In the session, yes, I believe so.
Q: And you also wrote a similar letter dated may 7, 2009, is that
correct?
A: yes.
Q: Again you stated that basically my client and her son enjoyed
each other’s company?
A: yes. That is one important part of what I observed during the
session.
Q: So In summary, the visits have been positive, right?
A: yes, I believe so. Right.
(repertor’s transcript, pg 177, line 9 – page 178, line18.)
On the 08/13/2009 status review report provide to the court the
visitation went well between July 31st to Aug 7th, Per the therapist, Mike
Habousch and Illiana Aispuro. The mother has prepared all of her visit with
games and food, and the visit went well. Let read the last two paragraphs:
Mother seemed a bit awkward at first with child. However, after about 5
minutes, mother warmed up and engaged in playing games with child, such as
tossing football and playing with toy trucks. Both mother and child were
laughing and seemed enjoy themselves over all. On 08/07/09, The mother
bought a kid computer for the minor, and tired to teach the child typing. (
clerk’s transcript 0651) Please refer to Mr. Blair’s write up for the 08/
07/09, visitation attached. ( But the report was not in the court file).
In this status review report, it also shows the mother’s therapist Sam
Ng had provide a good report for the court for the to visit has been
arranged by him. Please see attached report from San Ng dated on May 5, 2009
(clerk’s transcription, page 0727) , and June 17, 2009. (clerk’s
transcription, page 0728)
In those report, It clearly shows the evidence the loving, caring
relationship between the mother and the child. The child wants the mother
hold him while the mother reading him a book.
The Legislature has very carefully detailed what findings the court must
make at such a hearing. (In re Joshua S. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 147, 153 [
230 Cal. Rptr. 437].) The court must first determine whether the minor is be
returned to the parent. It appears the county has the burden of proving the
negative of this issue. (? 366.2, subd. (e); In re Joshua S., supra.) If
the child is not returned, the court must determine whether there is a
substantial probability that the minor will be returned to the physical
custody of the parent within six months. If so, the court must set another
review hearing within six months. (? 366.25, subd. (c).) However, if the
court makes negative findings on both questions, it must develop a permanent
plan for the child. (? 366.25, subd. (d).)
Based on those passive report and testimony, the county council deny to
release the child back to the mother’s custody due to once the child return
the mother’s custody than child support issue will be raised. “ It’s
clear if the child were return to Miss Tin, the issue of who is your father
and who is obligated to support you and provide would be a disservice. It
would be an in justice, and it would be a detriment to this child at this
time.” ( reporter’s transcript, page 186, line 22 – 27).
Those argument are violating the parent and child relationship, and is in-
constitutional. And it is not in the best interest of the child.
In this court hearing with the passive report, it seems the county has the
burden to proving the negative of this issue. The only argument for the
county to argue is about child support issue between Judge Hiroshige and
Alan Isaac. That should not be children’s court concern.
The court error to termination the mother’s family reunification service
and refuse to return the child’s custody back to the mother. In re Kiesha
E. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 68, 76. “Our society does recognized an ‘essential’
and ‘basic’ presumptive right to retain the care, custody, management, and
companionship of one’s own child, free of intervention by the government.
(Citations.) Maintenance of the familial bond between children and parents
– even imperfect or separated parents – comports with our highest value
and usually best serves the interests of parents, children, family, and
community. Because we so abhor the involuntary separation of parent and
child, the state my disturb an existing parent-child relationship only for
strong reasons and subject to careful procedures.”
The child’s lawyer also recommend to terminated the mother’s reunification
services. “Your honor, I am asking the court at this time to terminate
mother’s reunification services. Joshua has been doing excellent in foster
care. He is finally at a position where he is stabilizing in a good home.”
Which statement is totally against the constitutionally for the mother and
the child interested. In re Cheryl E. (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 587. “We cannot
encourage, under the guise of ‘best interests’ or ‘home stability,’ the
arbitrary determination by a governmental agent that a well-educated ‘
professional’ couple will be better parents than ‘red-necked hillbillies’
(AW’s words, not ours) who are on welfare and have six other children.’ (
Id., at pp. 606-607.)
In re Kimberly F. (1997)56 Cal.App.4th 519. The best interests standard
cannot be a simplistic, comparison between the natual parent’s and the
caretakers household – i.e., a “simple best interest test.” (Id., at p.
529.) “ In statutory terms, the ‘simple best interest test’ provides an
imcomplete picture of ‘best interestes’ under section 388. It ignores all
familial attachments and bonds between father, mother, sister and brother,
and totally devalues any interest of the child in preserving an existing
family unit, no matter how, in modern parlance, “dysfunctional.” It fails
to account for the complexity of human existence, substituting in its stead
a one-dimensional comparison which does not adequately address the child as
a whole person, including his or her formative years with a natural parent.
After all, the Legislature used the plural, “best interests,” rather than
the singular ‘best interest’ thereby indicating a more complex standard
than a unidimensional comparison between households.” (Id., at pp. 529-530.
)
In re Randalynn G. (2002) 97 Cal. App.4th 1156, 1169. The two standards –
the section 388 best interest standard and the section 366.26 ( c ) (4)
detriment standard – are basically two sides of the same coin. What is in
the best interest of the child is essentially the same as that which is not
detrimental to the child.
John Bowlby, the world-famous psychiatrist and author of the classic
works: Attachment, Separation, and Loss offers important guidelines for
child rearing based on the crucial role of early intimate relationship. His
theory was adopt by Library of congress Catalog in publication date in 1968
In re-examining the nature of the child’s tie to his mother, traditionally
referred to as dependency, it has been found useful to regard it as the
resultant of a distinctive and in part pre-programmed set of behavior
patterns which is the ordinary expectable environment develop during the
early months of life and have the effect of keeping the child in more or
less close proximity to this mother-figure (Bowlby 1969). By the end of the
first year the behavior is becoming organized cybernetically, which means,
among other things, that the behavior becomes active whenever certain
conditions obtain and ceases when certain other conditions obtain. For
example by pain, fatigue and anything frightening, and also by the mother
being or appearing to be inaccessible. The conditions that terminate the
behavior very according to the intensity of its arousal. At low intensity
they may be simply sight or sound of the mother, especially effective being
a signal from her acknowledging his presence. At higher intensity
termination may require his touching or clinging to her. At highest
intensity, when he is distressed and anxious, nothing but a prolonged cuddle
will do. The biological function of this behavior is postulated to be
protection, especially protection from predators.
“Separation Anxiety in Children and Adolescents by Psychologist Andrew
R. Eisen and Charles E. Schaefer also dressed: “ when the child has that
bond with the mother as infant, but by any reason to separate the mother and
the child to separation, it normally will cause the result of child with
Anxiety.”
In re Philip B. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 796, 801. “inherent in the
preference for parental autonomy is a commitment to diverse lifestyles,
including the right of parents to raise their children as they think best.
Legal judgments regarding the value of child rearing patterns should be kept
to a minimum so long as the child is afforded the best available
opportunity to fulfill his potential in society.” (see also, In re Petra B.
(1989) 216 Cal. App.3d 1163, 1170.)
The juvenile court has the statutory authority, on a proper record and
after conducting a hearing, to exercise its discretion and terminate
reunification services at any time. In doing so, the court must consider all
of the circumstances before it, and its determination must be based on
careful exercise of its discretion. In Denny H. v. Superior court (2005) 131
Cal.App.4th 1501, 1509. For children ages three and older, court-ordered
reunification services may be extended up to a maximum period of 18 months
if the court finds at the 12-month review hearing ‘that there is a
substantial probability that the children will be returned” to parental
custody or the reasonable services have not been provided.
Under section 366.26 ( c ) (2), precludes termination of parental right
on review when social services has failed to offer or provide reasonable
reunification services to a parent throughout the reunification period.
Here again, the appellant asked the review court to reconsider the
termination of the family reunification service.
The trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction concerning visitation
As noted above, section 362.1 requires that an order placing a minor in
foster care and ordering reunification services must provide for visitation
between the parent and the minor. Here, the court ordered that family
reunification services be provided but did not make any orders regarding
visitation. Further, when petitioner requested the court to make sure the
social worker comply with the visitation order and to increasing visitation,
the court did not take any action on it.
The juvenile court may properly delegate the administration of a visitation
order to the social worker. (In re Danielle W. (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1227,
1237 [255 Cal. Rptr. 344].) However, a visitation order granting the social
worker complete and total discretion to determine whether or not visitation
occurs is invalid. (Ibid.)
The Legislature has determined that such a decision must be made by the
court. Thus, the trial court's failure to make a specific order concerning
visitation was error.
7. Judge Hiroshige’s Wire Tapping
The mother believed Judge Hiroshige has been wire tapping the mother’s
phone, and interfere with her therapist, which caused the mother had switch
from two therapist, and it effect the mother to finish the counseling
program. The mother tried her best to comply with the court case plan, but
she could not finish due to Judge Hiroshige interfere with her counselor.
And the mother had testify in two court hearing regards Judge Hiroshige’s
wire tapping and illegally contact the mother’s counselor.
In December 2, 2008, restraining order hearing, child lawyer question the
mother about the counselling,
“Q: And are you currently enrolled in counseling?
A: I was enrolled in Counseling. I have the report back in October. However,
Judge Hiroshige tap into my phone, Got connection with the counselor. I had
to write three pages complaint about Nicole, the counselor. I told her, I
come over here because I want to deal with my own issues. I want to be
better to be for myself, better to be for my family. I do not want to talk
about Judge Hiroshige. It is a long time ago. My wound is already healed. I
do not want it to be open up anymore. But all of the conversation has been
release to Judge Hiroshige.”
“Finally, I wrote three pages complaint in the report. I think it is also
been attached to the board of director for the clinic. Up until now, my
phone still was tapped by judge Hiroshige. I just want to have a normal life
. What is the reason Judge Hiroshige can not leave me alone? I go to two
counselors already, all off them, Judge Hiroshige has been talking to them
” ( clerk’s transcript, page 97, line 23 – page 98, line 15.)
In September 13, 2009, 18 month status review hearing, again the mother
protest against Judge Hiroshige’s wire tapping and illegally contact her
counselor.
“A. Basically My last counselor Sam Ng ask me same questions. He said if I
still believe Judge Hiroshige still has cenerain responsibility towards me.
And Josh, and my son would be into adoption.”
Clerk Transcript page 157, line 15 – 18.page 159, line 27 -28
influence therapist. ( clerk transcript, page 0651 mother had never refused
to have any further monitor visitation as monitor by Mr. Ng
8. The Special Relationship Between
the Mother and the Child Joshua Tin
Joshua is a very special and smart kids. It is unfortunately he is born in
this unfortunate situation. When the mother sent Joshua back to China with
the maternal grandparents, mother told the maternal grandparents did not
tell Joshua who is his father because the mother worried that will affect
him emotionally.
The appellant loves Joshua, by nature it did not matter how Joshua was born,
the mother want to give the best to this boy. In this world, you have all
kind people. Good and bad, we cannot every body to be a good person act in
the good standard. The appellant can only require herself to do a right
thing, to take the responsibility, to love, to give. The appellant is very
affectionate, good, honest person, she wants to give the best to her child,
the love, the affection, the honor, the attention, to teach him to be good,
to nurture him to be honest, to give him the love and let him know he is
loved, he is wanted by his mother.
The child already knew who is his mother, and he is 7 now. Even though the
mother cannot see him now, but every week, the mother write him a love
letter and bought him a lot of gift, in his heart he knew those gift are
from his mother.
The appellant did not want this minor to think why he was put into adoption,
why his biological parent did not want him. When he become a teenager, he
would be looking for his biological family. And Joshua had already have a
family, his grandparent loves him, his aunt loves him, his causin loves him,
his uncle loves, what more we can tell Judge your honor, he is be loved by
his family. Let us to love him and give him the best.
After the court terminate the parental right, the mother start doing her
own legal research on the parent’s right and paternity funding. Legally
Allan Isaac could not and did not have the constitutional right for Joshua
Tin.
Back in year 2007, when the mother was just brought Joshua back from China
and informed his nature father Alan Isaac that Joshua is back now. Alan
wants to visit Joshua, and he drove to the mother’s house. the mother
allowed him to come in to see Joshua. However, Joshua did not have any
distinct feeling towards Alan Isaac. Alan sit on the coach, and try to close
to Joshua. Joshua looked at him and he acted very nerves. Right the way,
Joshua asked the mother in Chinese “ mom, I do not like this person, tell
him to leave.”
However, from all of the report, you can see Joshua have a very special
felling and connection with his mother. In his psychologist report from Dr.
Chia-Wen (aka Winnie) Hsieh, dated August 14, 2008: “ I have been treating
Joshua since 08/06/07 and provided mental health treatment for him
throughout his multiple placements……. In addition, he had many behavioral
issues such as aggression towards others, selectively mute (did not speak to
anyone besides few words to his mother. It was reported by school that
there was no consistent parental care for Joshua outside of the school
setting.
9. THE JUVENILE COURT’S DETERMENTAL FINDING IS NOT SUPPORTD BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Section 366.21, subdivision (f) is the statute that sets forth the procedure
the juvenile court must follow at a 12 month review hearing. That statute
provides in pertinent part:
At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for
the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be
returned to the child’s home and, if so, when, within the time limits of
subdivision (a) of section 361.5 The court shall order the return or her
parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal
guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety,
protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child
The social worker DID NOT have the burden of establishing that detriment;
Section 366.21, subdivision ( C ) requires the social worker to file a
report with the court containing his or her recommendations for disposition
of the matter at that hearing. The statute specifi-cally requires the social
worker who recommends that the child not be returned be parental custody to
“specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child.”
The juvenile court made a detriment finding in this case but there is
nothing in the social worker’s report to support the finding that return to
parental custody would have been detrimental to the children. The sole
statement in the social worker’s report concerning detriment is as follow:
10.THE COURT TERMINATE THE VISITION IS AN ERROR
Section 366.26 subdivision (C ) (1 ) (A) and (C) (3), A
decision whether to grant visitation rights to a parent is independent of
any decision authorizing the termination of parental rights. Visitation may
be granted or continued to a parent during the time it takes to determine
whether parental rights should be terminated.
Section 366.26 (C) The court shall also make an order for visitation with
the
parents or guardians unless the court finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the visitation would be detrimental to the physical or
emotional well-being of the child.
The court was wrong on terminated the visitation to the mother and the
child. The mother informed the court that social worker authorized foster
agency written a false report, and the mother had provide the picture was
taken during the visitation but without a hearing, the court deny the
visitation between the mother and the child.
The legislature very clearly stated that unless the court find clear and
convincing evidence the visitation cannot be terminated. Please see
attached picture from the mother to the court but it was not in the record,
the picture itself can tell the mother and the child had loving and caring
relation between the two. Appellant humbly asked the court to revise the
order from the trial court to terminated the visitation on this case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in the standard review, I asked the court of
appeal to reverse the visitation issue and sent the case to a different
jurisdiction for review on the paternity issue.
Date: January 18, 2010
Respectfully submitted
Winnie Tin
--------------------------------------------------
Wan (aka Winnie) Tin
Appellant
发信人: yecao (野草), 信区: Military
标 题: 看一看美国的司法腐败， 法官是怎样把一个无故孩子从妈妈身
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Nov 23 20:28:00 2012, 美东)
这是真人真事， 请大家舆论支持。
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
Wan (aka Winnie) Tin ) Case #: B222712
)
Plaintiff and Respondent, ) (Sup. Ct. No. CK71139)
v. )
Los Angeles County Superior Court )
)
In re Joshua Tin )
)
----------------------------------------------------------------)
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
This Extraordinary Writ is from a termination of the visitation right
for dependent court case In re Joshua Tin. The appellant had timely filed
the notice of appeal.
This Extraordinary Writ is asking the court of appeal to review the entire
record of the case, revise the trial court to terminate the visitation
right, and to dismiss the entire case. The reason appellant asked the appeal
court to reopen the previous appeal is because that the appellant was
informed by her trial court attorney that the appeal would be taken one or
two years, and the appellant was never contact by any her appeal attorney.
Later on, the appeal lawyer would file a motion to the court stated there
are nothing to appeal, to waive mother’s right for appeal and eventually
leading Mother Winnie Tin to lose her right to appeal on her custody for her
son Joshua Tin. This extraordinary writ is asking the court to open up the
previous appeal and give the mother a chance to have the higher court to
review the trail court legal proceedings and dismiss the entire allegation
and return Joshua Tin back home with his mother.
INTRODUCTION
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joshua Tin was given birth by the birth mother Wan (aka Winnie) Tin on 11-21
-2003 under the putative marriage agreement between the mother and the LA
county superior court Judge Ernest Hiroshige in Dept 54, who had proposal
marriage to the birth mother and when the mother was conceived, they lived
together. (reporter transcript, page 2, line 28 – page 3, line 3, reporter
report page 34, line 1-6, line 13 – 16,) The birth mother believed in his
marriage proposal and accepted it with a good faith. The mother lived with
Judge Hiroshige while she still keep her own place, they were about to buy
a house in Marina Del Rey. One day, the mother found out that Judge
Hiroshige was chatting on her. They had an huge argument, judge Hiroshige
claimed that this is a man’s world one night after they had dinner. The
mother was very hurt and after hearing his statement, the mother went to
Alan Isaac’s house to share her pain. Mother called Judge Hiroshige with
Alan’s home phone until Judge Hiroshige hung up on her and never pick up
her calls. Alan Isaac try to comfort her and gave her a drink, which drugged
her and forced her to have sex that night. Mother was embarrassed to tell
Judge Hiroshige the detail of the incident. She only mentioned to Judge
Hiroshige that Alan force her but he did not finish. That is the only night,
the mother had seen Alan for that period of time.
The mother still lived with Judge Hiroshige. A month later, the mother
informed Judge Hiroshige she got pregnant, and he believed that Joshua Tin
is his child. Judge Hiroshige protest to have a child without preparation
first. And than claim he did not want her to live with him any more if she
did not get an abortion. The mother did not want to get an abortion because
her age, faith and many reasons. However, after the first tri-master, Judge
Hiroshige accepted the fact that a baby can coming at any time, it is a
blessing. Judge Hiroshige started taking his responsibility, take the mother
to see a marriage counselor with his pastor Gary Gaulton, shopping baby
item, planning to have a baby to come, accompany the mother to the hospital.
However, because his own ethical behavior, he slept with other woman as he
wish, (reporter’s transcript, page 34, line 13-16) The mother had argued
with Judge Hiroshige over and over why he had made a marriage agreement with
her, why he sleep with other woman. Judge Hiroshige answer that this is man
’s world. Judge Hiroshige would make a statement: “ look, you cannot
have sex now, what is the difference for me to sleep with someone else.” (
reporter’s transcript, page 34, line 13 – 16). When the birth mother
finally would not tolerate his verbal and mental abuse by Judge Hiroshige
and initiated reporting him to the presiding judge Duke and supervising
judge Charles McCoy. Judge Hiroshige filed a restraining order application
by lying about their relationship to the court and prohibited the mother
going LA Superior Court. ( reporter report page 48, line 9 – 13, line 27
to page 49, line 9)
In around August 2003, the mother had a lawyer to representing her to defend
her for judge Hiroshige’s accusation to the court administration personal
and claim the birth mother harassed him since Feb 2003, had the court apply
the restraining order against the birth mother. While the mother had a
lawyer representing her, the court legal counsel Brad Binco contact the
mother directly while she had a lawyer in place. After listening to the
mother, Brad Binco also asked Judge Hiroshige did not leave the mother. But
judge Hiroshige is stubborn, finally he had Brad Binco threatened and forced
the mother signed the mutual agreement. (reporter’s transcript, page 50,
line 9 – 13.) Judge Hiroshige abundant the birth mother while she was 8
month pregnant. Judge Hiroshige admitted in the criminal trial that he
assume himself is the father for Joshua Tin, he admitted that he give the
birth mother his personal check to help the mother raise the child, which is
evidence that he did lie to the court to apply the restraining order
against the birth mother.
Birth mother Winnie Tin went to the hospital gave birth to Joshua Tin on 11-
21-2003 by herself. After the c-section, the nurse took her to the patient’
s room at 11:00 pm. However she start an excessive bleeding and nobody
called the doctor until early morning. She almost lost her life. On the
birth certificated, birth mother Winnie Tin left blank on the father’s name
, because she did not know what to do as the baby was half white and half
Asian.
The birth mother was in bad for three month due to the complication of the c
-section, with excessive bleeding. Judge Hiroshige stopped by to see her on
her birth day, Jan 30th, 2004. Judge Hiroshige bought a bottle Japanese
Wine with Japanese wine glass for the mother’s birthday, and indicating
that this is selfish gift, he would like to continue the relationship with
the mother and to take his responsibility. Judge Hiroshige indicating that
the gift is kind for himself. Judge Hiroshige had meet Winnie’s nanny on
that day. Later, Judge Hiroshige arranged his pastor Gary Gaulton to do the
counseling for the mother.
During the pregnancy, Judge Hiroshige had question the mother the night when
she went to Alan Isaac’s house, if Alan Isaac had been taken advantage of
her. The mother told him what happened. Judge Hiroshige request to do a DNA
test to make sure that Joshua is his biological child. In June 2003, mother
arranged a DNA test by using the symthinsestic fluid from, send to the DNA
diagnostics center and they should be able to make a decision. However, the
report shows that Judge Hiroshige is not the biological father. (clerk
report, page 0318, DNA parentage Test report. ) At the time, Judge
Hiroshige and mother Winnie Tin had a discussion. Mother Winnie Tin told
judge Hiroshige more details that the night after Judge Hiroshige hung up on
her while the mother called him from Alan’s house, Winnie was crying and
told judge Hiroshige that Alan Isaac gave her a drink and forced her to
have the intercourse. The mother Winnie also told Judge Hiroshige that she
try to fight against Alan but she did not have any energy and she did told
Alan many times to stop, Alan did finally stop without ejaculating in her.
In addition, Alan had vasectomy. So it is impossible that Alan Isaac is the
father. Winnie cried to Hiroshige, #1, the DNA report may be wrong because
the child was not born yet, we do not know for sure that Alan is the father.
Secondly, if Alan is the biological father, you know Alan’s crazy life
style, how can he be the father for this baby? In addition, we want this
baby, we want to have family, we plan to have at least one child. It is
because we loved each other to have the baby, let raise this child together.
Hiroshige held the mother and he agreed.
Between 2005 and 2006, Judge Hiroshige and the mother try to
reconsolidate the relationship by judge Hiroshige’s pastor Gary Gaulton.
But Judge Hiroshige wants the baby Joshua Tin’s biological grandfather
Godfey Isaac and Kathleen Isaac to pay the child living expense in order for
him to marry with the mother. The reconsolidation of relationship did not
work out. In June 2006, Judge Hiroshige filed another restraining order
against the mother. A month later Judge Hiroshige started file a fraudulent
police report and claim that mother had called him with a tapped recorded
conversation and violated the restraining order. A hearing officer is a
judge from Los Angeles county, a co-worker with Judge Hiroshige, put the
mother into the custody for 15 days only because Judge Hiroshige claim the
mother called him and violate the restraining order.
In May 24, 2007, Joshua Tin end up with DCFS. When the mother was
incarcerate in jail, after she was released from the jail. The mother went
DCFS had the DTM meeting. (Clerk Transcript, PG 0009) In the meeting,
mother told social worker Joshua Tin was born due to Judge Hiroshige
initiated to have a family and proposal marriage, unfortunately, Joshua Tin
was conceived from the raped by Alan Isaac. Social worker from DCFS had very
clear picture that judge Hiroshige is the presumed father for the minor and
Alan Isaac is the natural father. Under the family code 7611 with penal
code 256.1, Alan Isaac did not have the constitutional right to be the
alleged father for Joshua Tin.
In between June and December 2007, the mother shared her difficulty by
raising Joshua alone with Dr. Winnie Hsieh, Joshua’s counselor. The mother
had fight a criminal prosecution, make a living to support herself and
Joshua. It is already difficult for anybody to raise a child along, but the
mother had taking an additional work load. She told Dr. Winnie Hsieh a lot
of times, after she finish the whole day work load, doing loans, taking
care of Joshua, clean up the house. Before the night she went sleep, her
whole body was in pain. (reporter’s report, page 51, line 24, to 28). She
needs some help. Dr. Winnie Hsieh called social worker Huichi Hsieh and
arranged meeting among those three to see if DCFS can arrange some
financial aid for the mother, or arrange Joshua to tempera to live with the
presume father Judge Hiroshige. But months pass by, DCFS provide nothing.
On December 20, 2007, the mother called Dr. Hsieh again, and cried, and
asked her if she need some help how come nobody do anything. Dr. Hsieh told
the mother being patient. Dr. Hsieh was worried and called back, the mother
did not answer the phone. Dr. Hsieh called child abuse hotline for welfare
check. Please refer to the clerk’s report page 0008, “ Per the referral,
approximately two weeks ago she attended a meeting with the mother and the
mother’s CSW to address possible childcare for her son……. The caller
reported that CSW developed a plan to work on contacting the child’s birth
father and the child’s presumed father as possible childcare providers. The
caller stated she tried to explain to the mother about being patient with
the DCFS process. The mother was upset and hung-up on her. So Dr. Winnie
Hsieh was worried and called back, but the mother did not answer the phone.
Dr. Winnie Hsieh called the Child Abuse Hotline for welfare check.
On December 20 2007, West Covina Police Officer shows up in the mother’s
house for welfare check on Joshua Tin. The mother had already put Joshua to
bed. See the police report, clerk report page 0110, “ I walked into her
bedroom and saw V/Joshua asleep under the bed covers. V/Joshua appeared
unharmed” , next page 0111, “I spoke with W/Carrillo who told me the
following: W/Carrillo is S/Winnie’s roommate, W/Carrillo works at the
school V/Joshua Attends. W/Carrillo watches V/Joshua while S/Winnie is at
work. W/Carrillo has not witnessed S/Winnie mistreated V/Joshua.”
Police officer heard the mother’s story, how she was raped by Alan Isaac
and how her boy-friend judge Hiroshige abandoned her while she was 8 month
pregnant and she believed he covered up the rape case. The mother told the
police she had contact DCFS many times she need help. But nobody was there
to help her. “I spoke with Davis who told me the following: S/Winnie has
had an open case with DCFS since May, Since s/Winnie’s case has been open,
s/Winnie has called DCFS numerous times for help.”
Police officer Veronica Perez, Sean Carmon, Don Preston discussed the
situation and interview mother’s roommate Gloria Carrillo, they told mother
that they are going to take Joshua Tin today, and they want the mother go
to the court, asked the judge to make order on financial assistance in order
for her to raise Joshua alone on her own. They told the mother to prepare
the need list, for instance: baby sitting, food stamps, clothing, health
insurance whatever can help her to raise Joshua on her own. Gloria Carrillo
was crying and bagged the police officer. Gloria said “ officer, please do
not take Joshua away. It is about Christmas. I think Winnie just stress out,
I can help Winnie couple of days. And Joshua is her only family” Police
officer responded to Gloria: “ you can help her couple of days, who is
going to help her the rest of the 20 years.? We need her to go to the court
so a judicial officer can make a finding on the father issue, who would be
responsible to Joshua and give her some financial help to raise Joshua alone
.”
When the social worker Gladys David finally arrived, she said we told
you to be patient, now we have to take Joshua away. On December 21, 2007,
the mother talked to Gladys Davis supervisor Robert Rodriguez, Robert said
prepare your need list and when you go to the court the next hearing on
December 26, 2007. The judge should be release Joshua on the same day.
However, the mother went for the court hearing on Dec 26, 2006, Ryan
Matienzo shows up in front of her and told her that he is the court appoint
lawyer for her, and there is no way for the judge to release Joshua back to
her in this situation. Ryan Matienzo simply had the mother fill out some
paper work if Joshua Tin is the Indian tribe child, and the PRI to indicate
that who are those family member and relative may be able to provide the
care for Joshua Tin. Mother put the presume father Judge Hiroshige on the
form. But the form is currently missing from the record. ( reporter
transcript page 3 line 14 – 25. & clerk report, page 0385 date 6-20-2008)
Ryan Matienzo did not go over any filing paper from DCFS for the charges nor
help the mother presented the need list to the court. The court asked if
the mother want to wave reading the petition, without talking to the mother,
lawyer Ryan Matienzo prompted answer for the mother: Your honor, we waive.
Enter a general denial. (reporter’s transcript, page 2, line 11 – 14)
After the hearing officer detent Joshua Tin, mother’s lawyer gave the
social worker’s paper. Mother was reading the paper in the evening when she
return back home and found social worker alleged the mother had visual
hallucinations and audio hallucinations. Based on those allegation from
Social Worker’s report, the court put Joshua Tin to detention. Winnie Tin
called Dr. Winnie Hsieh and told her that she found that social worker lied
to the court regards her mental state.
Obviously, someone arranged Ryan Matienzo show up for the mother prior to
the court hearing and arranged social worker Yumi Lim writte a false
petition. The mother believe that was arranged by judge Hiroshige to cover
up the paternity issue but claim the mother had mental issue. Social worker
Yumi Lim knowingly and intentionally make a false allegation on the mother’
s mental state and did not provide the truth on the paternity issue to the
court, social worker Yumi Lin only claim Allan Isaac is the alleged father,
but left judge Hiroshige’s name out of the alleged fathers. Both social
worker and county council had basic legal knowledge that a person who is
under a penal code cannot and do not have the constitutional right to be the
father for Joshua Tin.
The next hearing, Feb 13, 2008, The court set this case for mediation. ( RT,
page 8, line 27 – 28.)
On March 27, 2008, social worker provided the mother with Mediation
agreement. On the mediation agreement, social worker changed the father from
Alan Isaac to unknown. When mother refuse to take the mediation, the
mediator Joe threaten the mother if you do not sign this mediation agreement
, it would be a tragedy for this child.
April, 28, 2008, The court jurisdicte on this case, without clear and
convincing evidence the minor was physically and emotionally harmed and
endanger by the mother, with a letter from the mother’s psychiatrist to the
court that the mother did not have any visual hallucination’s and audio
hallucinations, the court error detention the minor Joshua Tin into the
foster system.
Since the child was detent on Dec 20, 2007, Social worker Huichi Hsieh
had arranged the mother had two hours on each visitation and twice a week,
and allow the mother talk to Joshua Tin though phone conversation by provide
her the foster parent Maria’s phone number.
In May 2008, social worker Amy Watonabe took this case, she suddenly
decided to move Joshua Tin from the original foster family Maria’s house to
a new foster family Brian Boem. Amy Watonabe also decided to reduce the
visitation from twice a week to once a week, from two hours each visit to
one hour each visit. Amy Watonabe also cutting off the phone connection
between Joshua Tin and his mother. Amy told the foster parent Brian Boem
that the visitation is confidential and asked Brian Boem did not release his
phone # to the mother.
The court ordered family reunification service for the mother. The
mother try her best to comply with the court order to reunify with her son.
The mother started attending individual counseling, and parenting class. The
mother even take the individual counseling prior court order in order to
get her son back.
The mother had emailed the new social worker Amy Watonabe many times she
wants to increase the visitation times back to two times a week. But she
got no response. According to the DCFS police, social worker should provide
the home visit to the mother on the weekly basis. But for months, the
mother did not know who is the social worker on the case. The mother had
contact to the regional manager Dr. Lock Ngyuen, and executive board of
director Rick Brian. Rick Brian request Amy Watonabe step by talk to the
mother after the visitation occurred in the foster agency.
Social worker also authorized the foster agency to write a false report
on the mother and claim that the mother try to contact the foster father’s
family doctor to find foster family address, and request the restraining
order against mother.
Social worker also pre-arranged the security guard try to hand cuff the
mother when she enter the building to visit her son and to creating a story
about the mother. One day when the security guard try to put on his black
hand glove, and try to push the mother while the mother standing in the
lobby talk on the phone with the social worker. The chief Operating officer
Jennifer Lopez just passed by and witness the whole thing.
In the trial, the mother testified that to the court, but the trial
judge believed the social worker.
During the family reunification service period, the mother and her lawyer
raised the issue to the court that the mother did not get her visits, but
the court fails to supervise on the case plan progress and enforce the
visitation for the mother. The mother also twice testified that Judge
Hiroshige had contacted her counselor by wire tapping, but the court did not
take property action on it.
In August 13, 2009, 18 month status review hearing, the mother’s
lawyer present the evidence for the mother compliance with the case plan,
she finished her parenting class, and individual counseling, argued to
release the child to the mother. But the court deny mother’s request.
During the contest, mother’s lawyer asked the mother’s therapist Mr. Sam
Ng to testify about the mother’s ability to care for her son, and Mr. Sam
Ng said he has no double that the mother is capable to care for her son. But
the court reject to release the minor to his mother’s custody due to the
mother complain that Judge Hiroshige wire tapping her phone and contact her
counselor. The mother had testify that her counselor threatened her during
a session. The mother contest “ he said if I still believe Judge Hiroshige
still has certain responsibility towards me and Josh, that my son would be (
put) into adoption. So I want to know why he (Sam Ng) has those conclusion?
Why he is threatening me? (reporter’s transcript, pg 160, line 14 -19.)
Trial court terminated mother’s family reunification service based on
mother’s believe that judge Hiroshige wire tapping her phone and approach
her counselor. The judicial officer abvously had bias on the mother due to
conflict interested of the jurisdiction. Unless the county can provide the
proof with clear and convincing evidence that return the minor to the parent
is going to danger to the minor, the law and legislation request the court
return the child’s custody back to the parent. No authority distinguishing
between insufficient evidence and abuse of discretion. Neither any authority
nor the juvenile court can rely upon factual assumption. The trial court is
mistaken about the scope of its discretion, the mistaken position may be ‘
reasonable’, nonetheless error, it is wrong on the law.
This case is not about how the mother believed Judge Hiroshige wire
tapping her phone, interfere with her counselor. This case is about her
ability to care for her son. It is parent – child relationship under the
constitution as a citizen. No court should discriminate against anybody to
take the minor out of parent control.
After the termination of the family reunification in 8-13-09 hearing,
the mother had continued the visitation with the minor in the Southern
California foster and adoption agency. The many visits are very good because
the minor and the mom had special, closed, loving relationship between them
. The mother is only person Joshua Tin knew he can depend on, and the minor
is the only family the mother had in the states. During the visit, they
singing together, they play games, they play basketball, and football in the
small room where they meet, the mother tell Joshua jokes. The mother bought
new clothes, toys, and educational material, such as computer, books for
Joshua. But none of those is in the report to the court. The mother
sincerely believed that social worker authorized the foster agency writing a
false report on the mother’s monitor visit. The mother has stored some of
the picture was taken during the visit and submit to the court as evidence
but it is not in the records. From those pictures, and video tape by the
cell phone, it can be clearly shown there is warm, loving relationship
between Joshua Tin and the mother. The foster agency had written a false
report to the court judicial officer.
The mother had request her lawyer to subpoena those important witness from
the foster agency, please see attached email date Sep 21, 2010, the mother
was very clearly asked to subpoena the therapist from the foster agency on:
1. Michael habousch, 213-365-2900
2. Ilianna Aispuro,
3. Brian Kim
4. Director from South California Foster Agency.
The mother also wants to subpoena social workers Yomi Lin, Angela Chau, Hui
Chi Hsieh, Amy Watanable, Dr. Ngyuene Loc, Yoko Parsons, and current social
worker Mary Gladys Davis, Robert Rodriguez, Assaye Tsegga. Foster parent
Israel, Maria Palcios, and Brian Boem.
The mother also want to subpoena west Covina police officer Mrs. Perez.
Her lawyer neither subpoena those witness nor prepare the mother for trial.
The mother had Marsden hearing and told the judge, her lawyer did not
prepare her for trial.
In between, August 2010 to September 2010, the mother asked the lawyer to
file a 388 to reinstated the family reunification service, but the lawyer
left for vacation without doing so.
The mother finally filed a 388 petition on her own, but the trial court deny
to hear on it and stated it is untimely.
BACKGROUND OF THE MOTHER
The birth mother Winnie Tin was a foreign student from China, She immigrated
to this country for her MBA program in 1996, she graduate from Penn state
with MBA with full scholarship in 1998. After the graduation, she launched
a job as a mortgage loan officer in Bank of America in year 2000. And she
worked for Bank of America for 4 years as a residential loan officer. When
the mortgage industrial start subprime mortgage loan, Winnie Tin moved her
career to commercial real state lending. She currently occupied as a
residential and commercial real state loan officer and runs a small mortgage
dept on her own. In 2002, while she worked for Bank of America, she met
Judge Ernest Hiroshige in a social function in Chinese Southern California
Lawyer Association. Her friend who she met in the church try to bring her
into the association so she can meet some client. However, Geoffrey could
not go to the meeting.
Mother has good education background, and her parents are professor in
Mainland China. Mother Winnie Tin is a devoted Christine and go to a local
Chinese Church.
Winnie Tin met Judge Hiroshige in the first meeting to the function. . After
10 month dating relationship, Judge Ernest Hiroshige proposed marry to her
and have a family. Jushua Tin was born under this marriage contract due to
they want to start having a family.
Mental history, Mother Winnie Tin had 4 times mental hospital record
with diagnosed with major depression in between 2005 – 2006. Due to the
relationship did not worked out between her and Judge Hiroshige. After the
counseling by her pastor and different psychologist, mother keep emotion
stable and keep working as a residential loan officer on her own. Until May
2007, Judge Hiroshige claim that mother had been violated restraining order
and had a co-worker, another judge to hear on the case, and put the mother
in the Jail for two weeks. Other than violating restraining order, mother
has no criminal history.
In May 2007, Joshua Tin end up in the social service. When the mother
was released from the Jail, DCFS put the minor back home with the mother. In
between May 2007 and December 2007, mother had contact social worker many
times request for help. But social worker initiated any help.
In two court hearing, the mother told the trail court judge that
judge Hiroshgie had been in contact with her counselor and interfere with
her in the compliance with the case plan with no fault on her. Judge
Margaret Downing did not take no action to investigate on Judge Hiroshige.
In August 13, 2009, with passive monitor visit report from the
therapist and the passive testimony from the mother and her therapist, the
court refuse to release the child back to the mother’s custody, which is an
procedure error specified I the Fourteenth amendment. There is no proof by
the county with clear and sufficient evidence that return of the minor to
parental custody would be detrimental to the minor.
Visitation under family reunification service was not implement by DCFS.
Mother’s lawyer has been raise the visitation issue to the court and
county council in numerical times that the mother did not get the visitation
or liberalized the monitor visit. The statutory procedures used for
termination of parental rights satisfy due process rights satisfy due
process requirements only because of the demanding requirements and multiple
safeguards built into the safeguards through no fault of her own, her due
process rights are compromise. Meaningful visitation is pivotal to the
parent-child relationship, even after reunification services are terminated.
Under section 366.26, subdivision © (1) (A), the Legislature has
provided a means by which even a parent to whole custody a child cannot
currently be return has a final chance to avoid termination of parental
right if she can show she had maintained regular contact and visitation with
her child, and the child can not currently be returned has a final chance
to avoid termination of parental rights if she can show she had maintained
regular contact and visitation with her child, and the child would benefit
from continuing the relationship. Obviously, the only way a parent has any
hope of satisfying this statutory exception is if she maintains regular
contact with her child. For the parent deprived of visitation, it is a
forgone conclusion that he or she is not going to be able to establish of
visitation, it is a forgone conclusion that he or she is not going to be
able to establish the exception or have any meaningful chance to avoid the
termination of parental right. A visitation order which fails to protect a
parent’s right to visit is illusory.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AND STANDARDS OF PREJUDICE
1. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCREATION IN REFUSING TO RELEASE THE MINOR
AFTER THE JURISDICTION AND VIOLATED APPELLANT CONSTITIONAL RIGHT PARENT
CHILD RELATIONSHIP
The court was wrong on grand to rule on the county’s petition and ignore
the evidence from this appellant to the court. The social worker filed false
petition on count B-, B-2, and G-1, and claim the mother had serious mental
issue with visual hallucinations and audio hallucinations, based on those
allegation, the mother submit a letter from her own Phycharisit that the
mother under his care and with current examination, the mother never had
those symptoms. But the social worker brought in the mother’s past hospital
record and claim the mother’s depressed so that the mother could not
render the care for her son. But the hearing judge would rule strike the
mother sufers from mental so she suffers from emotional problem which render
the mother could not take care of her son. (RT PG 67, line 1 – 5). This is
legal error. Because many people have suffer emotional problems but still
can function as a good parent.
In regards the paternity issue. The county had knowledge that Judge
Hiroshige is the presumed father, but on the initial petition, the county
put Alan Isaac’s name only on the alleged father. After the mother refused
to sign the mediation agreement, the court ordered Judge Hiroshige to come
for paternity contest to take care of his responsibility on 6/19/08, Judge
Hiroshige used his own connection and to manipulating the mother’s lawyer
to claim to put him on call as witness for mother’s character. (CT -------)
but. During the trial on 9/23/2008, the county council had Judge Hiroshige
submit the DNA report date on 7/14/03, (CT 0318) and asked the mother that
the DNA report shows that Judge Hiroshige is not the biological father. The
mother question the county council she never claim that judge Hiroshige is
the biological father. Judge Hiroshige is the presumed father.
The court decided to dismiss B-2 (RT pg 67 line 6), the court made the child
has no father for the child Joshua Tin.
The detention of minor Joshua Tin is violated the parent child relationship
against the mother’s constitutional right under fourteenth amendment.
The trial court ignored all of the clear evidence and standard proof the
mother had no mental health issue. It is clear evidence mother had open case
with DCFS in May 2007 when the mother was incarcerated in Jail, after the
mother was released from Lynwood jail, DCFS put the mother on a voluntary
family maintenance program to prevent the removal of the child Joshua Tin (
CT 0014). It is a very clear evidence that between May 2007 to December
2007, the mother had request help from social worker (CT 0008 - 0009). But
nobody from DCFS helped the mother. DCFS had very clearly picture that the
mother DO NOT have mental issue, Nor she is an abusive person and had
physically or mentally abused Joshua Tin. The social worker also had first
hand knowledge Judge Hiroshige is presumed father for Joshua Tin (CT 0008)
But the county left judge Hiroshige name out from the alleged father on the
petition.
Until 12-20-2007, DCFS response a call from child abuse hotline for welfare
check. (CT page 0008 – 0009). And the caller reported that the SCW
developed a plan to work on contacting the child’s birth father and child’
s presumed father as soon as possible to provide childcare providers to help
the mother. But the mother hung up on her during the conversation. “The
caller stated the mother was very emotional and she sounded unstable.” The
caller was worried and called back, the mother did not response to the
phone call. So the caller wants to have a welfare check on the child and the
mother.
West Covina Police Dept response the welfare check request. On Dec 20th 2007
, “ when the police officer arrival to the mother’s house, the mother had
put Joshua into asleep under a bed covers. Joshua appeared unharmed.” (CT
page 0110) The police also talk to the mother’s roommate Gloria, and she
said she did not see the mother had never mistreated Joshua.
The police officers heard the story about how the mother was raped by Alan
Isaac, judge Hiroshige left the mother while she was 8 month pregnant. And
now charged her crime by complaining she called him and violated the
restraining order, put her in the jail for two weeks. Mother also had shared
that she believed that her raped case was covered by Judge Hiroshige.
Mother also told the police that many days after she finish her work, ,
feeding Joshua, and finish the house work when she go to sleep, her whole
back was in pain because the work load. She asked Social worker to help her
if they can get provide with a baby sitter or some other help to assist her
to raise Joshua alone. So far she have not heard anything from social
worker.
The police was very sympathetic on her situation and they discuss among
themselves, they told the mother that they wanted the mother go to the court
and tell the judge what happen to her, and also asked the mother to make a
financial need list, such as baby sitting, clothing, food stamps, housing
assistance, etc, so the judge can make an order to help her. They told that
to the mother in front of her roommate Gloria Carrillo.
On December 26, 2007, lawyer did not read the petition to the mother, and
minor Joshua Tin is detent by the hearing officer. On 2/13/08, the court
offered the mother Mediation.
On March 27, 2008, the mother refused mediation because on the mediation
agreement, the county changed the alleged father from Alan Isaac to unknown,
still intentionally cover up for the truth and requested the mother agree
to put Joshua into the foster family.
On April 28, 2008, the mother testified in the court, and present her
Psychiatrist letter to the court and show to the court that she did not have
visual hallucinations and audio hallucinations.
On June 16, 2008, the court order Judge Hiroshige to testify the paternity,
Judge Hiroshige did not show up in the court hearing.
Prior to the court’s jurisdiction over the case on April 28, 2008, the
monitored visitation report sent to the court. The mother had good record on
the visitation report. The mother brought Pizza, snack, vitamins, and
Joshua’s clothes for visitation. They play puzzles together, and Joshua
though a piece puzzle, the mother try to discipline the kids and told the
kids to pick up the puzzle. Even the mother did not fell well and she still
did not want to miss the visitation, and she came and told the foster agency
she is a little bit sick that she did not want to miss the visitation, she
came to see her son. Let take look the monitor report from the foster agency
well, so the mother sometimes speak to Joshua in Chinese, and During the
Mandarin conversation Joshua started screaming, apparently he was making fun
singing in Mandarin. 2/14/08, BM’s interaction towards Joshua was
appropriate and affectionate. She was observed talking and reading a book to
Joshua. 2/21/08, BM’s interaction towards Joshua was appropriate. 2/22/08,
during this monitored visit BM brought some snacks for Joshua. She also
brought 3 warns vests for him. BM stated that it was Joshua’s clothes he
left in her home and she wants him to use it. BM’s interaction was
appropriate. She was observed playing with Joshua. BM left 10 minutes early.
2/25/08, Joshua had monitored visit with BM at Covina FFA office. Visit
went well. 2/28/08 BM was observed to be attentive with Joshua; BM brought 2
more Joshua’s outfits. BM stated that she want him to use the outfits
before it does not fit him. BM also brought snacks for Joshua. They eat the
snacks during the visit. BM brought a book and she read the book for him. BM
asked Joshua to take the book to the foster home and to read at home. On 3/
4/08, the monitored visit was OK. 3/10/08, BM was observed to be attentive
with Joshua. She brought Joshua a toy (Thomas set collection) BM was
observed helping him to set the toy. 3/13/08, monitored visit with Joshua’s
BM. BM’s interaction towards Joshua was appropriate. BM brought another
Thomas set collection for Joshua and a new outfit. 3/4/08, while Joshua is
in the pre-school, he slide down on his tummy and scratched his nose,
forehead, and some cheek and full of the blood scab. When 3/6/08, when the
mother saw the bloody scab on the minor face, nose, and forehead, she was
surprised and asked what happen, why is that happen, if the minor has been
taking to see a medical doctor. The foster agency social worker did not know
any thing. , the mother had to call the social worker from DCFS right away.
When the social worker from DCFS arrived and order the foster agency to
take Joshua to see medical doctor, and Joshua was diagnosed Acute facial
abrasion. That is basic knowledge and responsibility from the foster agency
when they take care of a child, they did not even perform their duty. And
when the mother questioned social worker if they knew the school background
is safe? Nobody knew. The mother has gone to school to check on the school’
s safety.
The mother has master degree, and she can make a rational decision compared
to many people. From 3/4/08, when Joshua had the serious accident until 3/6/
08, neither social worker nor school teacher has basic knowledge that acute
facial abrasion can be infected if did not give immediate treatment. (CT
0088 – 0089) The mother is highly educated female with a sophisticated
manner. The evidence shows the mother is attentive and affectionate to her
son.
After the incidence, the mother talked DCFS and wanted to bring Joshua Tin
back from the foster home. But the court and the county refused to help her
under prejudice.
Generally, when no specific burden is specified, preponderance of the
evidence applies. (evidence. Code $115)( In re Gerald J. (1991) 1 Cal.App.
4th 1180, 1186 (2 Cal. Rptr.2d 569). When addressing taking a minor from the
physical custody of a parent with whom the minor resides at the time the
petition is initiated, requires the court to find any of the conditions
warranting removal by clear and convincing evidence. On the standard of
proof to determine whether placement with a custodial parent would be
detrimental. Absent any other considerations, a preponderance of the
evidence standard would apply. A parent right to care, custody and
management of a child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the
federal constitution that will not be disturbed except in extreme cases
where a parent acts in manner incompatible with parenthood. ( In re
Carmaleta B. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 482, 489); Cynthia v. Superior Court (1993) 5
Cal.4th 242, 251) The standard reflects both the weight of private and
public interest affected and a societal judgment of how the risk of error
should be distributed between the parties. In Santosky, The Supreme Court
held that due process requires a finding of parental unfitness be supported
by a minimum of clear and convincing evidence to terminated parental rights.
And here we are talking about to remove the minor out of the parental
control when the mother is a mature adult.
Here, we do not deal with the termination of parental rights but rather with
the initial denial the child be return to the custody of the parent after
the court had jurisdiction, and after the mother’s testimony that the
police officer initially removed the child because they want the mother go
to the court and had a judge make a finding on the paternity issue, and to
order the financial assistance to help the mother. The emergency social
worker intention to ask the mother to go to the court to present the needed
list on the financial assistance to be order by the court. There were never
any physical evidence and witness that the child Joshua has been mistreated
by the mother. And the mother is ready, willing and able to care for the
minor. (RT PG 55, line 21 -24),
DCFS has no clear evidence to proof that the child Joshua under the mother’
s custody would be physically and mentally detriment to the child when the
court remove the child custody from the mother. Instead, the night, the
mother needs help, she called and asked help from the councilor, and told
the councilor she is willing to wait until DCFS help her with a resolution,
“ OK. I am going to put him go to sleep tonight. We can talk tomorrow.”
( RT Page 57, line 2 – 5) and on the police report stay the same thing, the
mother put Joshua into sleep under a bed cover. Joshua is not harmed. The
evidence from DCFS is she said and he said. But the evidence from the Police
report, from the witness, mother’s roommate’s testimony is hard evidence.
There is no harm from the mother to request the county to help her when she
raised the child on her own. she tried to provide the best care and
education for the child. But it is wrong for the county did not tell the
court the truth, and it is wrong for the court to be biased against the
mother.
Section 361 provides in pertinent part:” No dependent child shall be taken
from the physical custody from his or her parents or guardian with whom the
child resides at the time the petition was initiated unless the juvenile
court finds clear and convincing evidence of any of the following:
(1) There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the minor or
would be if the minor was returned home, and there are no reasonable means
by which the minor’s physical health can be protected without removing the
minor from the minor’s parents or guardians physical custody. The fact that
a minor has been adjudicated a dependent child of the court pursuant to
subdivision (e) of section 300 shall constitute prima facie evidence that
the minor cannot be safely left in the custody of the parent or guardian
with whom the minor resided at the time of injury.”
By detention report, the evidence is the mother had a problem with judge
Hiroshige and the mother requests to help her. In the hearing , the county
counsel provide evidence the mother’s problem with Judge Hiroshige; the
problem with Godfry Isaac, Kathleen Isaac, the rapist’s father and step
mother, to whom the mother approached, told them that she was raped by his
step son, and even though her past relationship with Brian Leader from 12
years ago were all brought in against the mother. But the hearing officer
did not honor mother’s request to release Joshua nor order some financial
help to assist the mother. But blame the mother open her mouth and testify
about Judge Hiroshige is the presumed farther for Joshua Tin. The mother
still freshly remember this judge said: “we told you do not open your mouth
, here is the help I give to you: parenting class and anger management class
.” Of course those won’t appear on the transcript.
The trial court was wrong to detent Joshua Tin into the foster system and
violate the parent-child relationship, the mother asked appeal court to
review all of the evidence and dismissal all of the charges in this case.
2. JURISDICTION ISSUE WITH THE HEARING COURT – CONFLICT INTEREST AND
BIAS
The mother contest that social worker intentionally left out the paternity
issue for judge Hiroshige, the court knew it. The court had conflict
interest on the hearing of the paternity issue. The mother also had
submitted a letter from her psychariatrist on her mental issue which tells
the court she had depression in the past, but she got treatment and she is
fine to take care of her son and she moved on with her life.
The first hearing officer, had read the PRI from the mother, and already
noticed that the mother put Judge Ernest Hiroshige’s name as a presumed
father on Joshua Tin. But the court still decided to make Alan Isaac is the
father for Joshua Tin and even nobody knew where Alan is.
On March 26, 2007, DCFS present the mediation agreement and indicated the
father’s identity unknown.
On April 28, 2007, before the trial, mother’s lawyer ask the mother did not
open her mouth, it is bad. It is bad? How many men would leave their wife,
fiancé, girl friend while she was 8 month pregnant? Instead of helping her
to raise the child, but file a false police report, use the power and
connection, put the mother into the jail? And influence the public defender
told her church not to bail her out because Winnie Tin committed a crime in
America so she should face the consequence until Joshua end up into the
foster agency. Why should any person be in the jail with no evidence by
claiming she called?
However, the hearing officer order Judge Hiroshige to come in for the
paternity conference on 6-19-08 (clerk’s report, page 0194). Judge
Hiroshige did not show up. Instead, Ryan Matienzo claims to order judge
Hiroshige to be the witness.. order judge Hiroshige as he is named……. He
almost break out the “father” the name, but Ryan than proceed that to call
him to the witness on the restraining order issue. (reporter’s
transcript page 26, line 4 – 10)
After September 23, 2008, after the trail, with no witness and evidence on
the physical and emotional damage to the child, but she said and he said
from the county, the hearing officer would detent the child. Instead off
ordering financial assistance but detain the child and order the mother for
parenting class and counseling.
After the trail, the mother asked her lawyer to fill a motion to move the
case out of LA superior court. But Ryan Matienzo refused to do so.
On Nov 17, 2008, mother filed a motion asked the court to reconsider the
paternity issue. The motion was never heard in the court.
On March 18, 2010, the mother filed a motion to recusal of the hearing
officer. With the significant issue regards the hearing officer can not be
holding a fare hearing on numerical issue involved from the paternity
finding, with social worker’s did not provide the service to the mother for
family reunification, action towards arrange the visitation for Joshua,
intentionally calling police on the mother while the mother going for the
visitation than to write a report and claim the mother is wild. But the
hearing officer would ignore the issue and response the mother with a
strike statement of disqualification.
On May 27, 2010, the mother file another motion to recues all Los Angeles
County Judge. But the motion was never heard. ( In re Richard W. (1979) 91
Cal.App.3d 960 (biased judicial officer.)
In the 366.26 hearing, DCFS request to terminate mother’s family
reunification service. Despite the mother has try the best to compliance
with the case plan, she finished the parenting class, she has been start
individual counseling prior to the jurisdiction. With passive progress
visitation report, the county provide to the court. The court did not take
into considerationt, The court error terminated the mother’s family
reunification service.
In addition to the passive visitation report, on Aug 7th, 2009, the DCFS
holding another TDM meeting. During the meeting, the social worker
recongnized the mother progress reached a goal that the social worker will
be continue to provide the family reunification service and will be possibly
increase the visitation to twice a week.( clerk’s report page 0656).
During the meeting the mother request Full Time Service was offer in the
past but was not implemented, and social worker agree to offer her the
service again. The full time service was never provide to the mother, the
social worker claim because the court terminate mother’s family
reunification service, the social worker moved the monitor visitation to
Southern California Adoption Agency.
In two of the trials, the mother brought up that Judge Hiroshige wire
tapping her phone and been contacting her counselor, been influence social
worker to write a false report on the mother. The social worker did not
provide the service to the mother as follow up the court order. When the
mother brought up those issues, the hearing officer said I do not believe
you who do social worker do that to you? That is bias. The hearing officer
certainly should have done some investigation to find out if the mother’s
statements are in fact true. The court is responsible to make sure that the
family reunification service is implemented by the law.
3. PATERNITY IN ERROR BY TRIAL COURT
From May 2007, when Jushua Tin was just first time end up in the DCFS due to
the birth mother Winnie Tin was accused violating the restraining order
went to jail. After Winnie Tin was released from the Jail, Winnie Tin had
report to DCFS the history about Joshua Tin. Joshua Tin was born due to
Judge Ernest Hiroshige promised her marriage and family. DCFS already knew
that Judge Hiroshige is the presumed father for Joshua Tin but social worker
intentional left his name out from the petition. Alan Isaac is the nature
father but based on the family code 7611.5 and in addition in violation of
the penal code 261.5, Alan Isaac should not and could not have any paternity
right by law. If the county council Guillermo Barragan who has been
Juvenile Court lawyer for 30 years, they have the basic knowledge, when
there is an allegation arise the mother was raped and became pregnant, the
court should have stop right there and bring in the DA to find what is going
on. However, the court did not bring up any those issues, and erroneous
Alan Isaac to be the father for Jushua Tin.
Mother’s phone has been at-tapped by Judge Hiroshige for the past 5 years.
When the mother try to find out from any lawyer, Judge Hiroshige normally
would approach and threaten the lawyer did not take her case. Mother has
been discussed the paternity issue with her lawyer Ryan Matienzo many times,
but the issue was not raise in the court, until the mother wrote the
paternity finding on her own.
On the first court appearance, Mother provide Ryan Matienzo PRI, stated the
presume father is Judge Ernest Hiroshige, but the paper work was missing in
the clerk’s transcript. (reporter’s transcript, page 3, line 21-23) but
you can verify from the court proceeding.
During the court hearing on April 30, 2008, mother’s attorney Ryan Matienzo
represent to the court the Paternity Questionnaire to the court. (please
see attachment, which is missing from the clerk’s transcript.)
Mr. Matienzo: Your Honor, my client would like to submit a paternity
questionnaire.
The court: Okay. Thank you.
Miss Tin, I don’t have the court file. So I am going to put over the
issue of Paternity until the next court date---
Minor’s mother: OKAY
(Reporter’s transcript, page 22, line 14 – 20.)
Please refer to 04/30/2008 Minute order: DCFS ORDERS: PATERNITY FINDINGS
DEFERRED TO 6-19-2008 (clerk transcript, page 0194).
On 4/30/08, mother’s lawyer told me that the judge is going to order Judge
Hiroshige to come in for the paternity funding, but On 6-19-08 court hearing
, mother attorney Ryan Matienzo talked to the mother that Judge Hiroshige
won’t be able to come into the court for hearing due to his busy schedule.
On the reporter transcript, mother attorney Ryan Matienzo start to play game
that he is going to call Hiroshige to present to be the witness for this
case, but not present to the court for the paternity finding. (reporter
transcript, page 28, line 10-14.)
In November 17, 2008, the birth mother filed a motion for reconsideration in
the paternity finding. (clerk’s report 451-457.) But the motion was never
heard in the court. In the report, the mother indicated that in addition to
the penal code 261.5 committed by Alan Isaac, Alan Isaac did not have good
character, no stable job, has crazy life style, and does drugs.
Under the marriage agreement, Judge Hiroshige lived with the birth mother
while the child was conceived. They planning to have at least one child for
their marriage, and Judge Hiroshige welcomed Joshua Tin to the new family.
However, due to Judge Hiroshige’s own character and unethical behavior with
other woman involved in his life while he is committed to the birth mother.
The birth mother complained Judge Hiroshige behavior to his superior and
Judge Hiroshige used his power lie to the court about their relationship and
abundant birth mother Winnie Tin while she was 8 month pregnant. However,
prior to his breaking up the relationship with her, he took the father’s
role, buying the baby item, family medical book, baby clothing, for the
newborn. In that way, Judge Hiroshige acted as the father for Joshua Tin.
Under the family code 7540 and 7611, Judge Hiroshige and the birth mother
both presume that him is the father for Jushua Tin. Under family code 7611 (
b) (2) a man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he meets
the condition even if the attempted marriage could be declared invalid only
by a court, the child is born during the attempted marriage, or the child is
born within 300 days after the termination of cohabitation.
However, the trial court make Alan Isaac to be the alleged father is an
erroneous. First of all, Alan Isaac is involved with penal code 261.5, the
sexual criminal act is pending in the DA. Secondly, Alan Isaac did not have
a stable job nor has a good character to be a role model in Joshua Tin’s
life. Trial court erroneous Alas Isaac to be the alleged father. ( In re
Keyl’s adoption 112 Cal. App. 4th 538.)
During September 23, 2008 proceedings, the birth mother testifying in the
court:
“ By Mr. Barragan:
Q: Good afternoon, Miss Tin.
Ms. Tin, we are here to adjudicate a petition that was filed on behalf
of your son, Joshua.
I’d like to ask you first of all, who is the father of Joshua?
The Witness: From my understanding, it should be Judge Hiroshige. And also,
I have been told DCFS about the whole scenario over and over. The DCFS
employee filed false information to the court.
Q. By Mr. Barragan: Why do you say Judge Hiroshige is the father of Joshua?
A. Initially, Judge Hiroshige and I were planning to get married and have a
family. And we got into a verbal argument because as a result, I found out
that he was sleeping with some other woman. He verbally abused me,
The witness: okay. And I questioned him. I said, why you discuss marriage
with me? How can you sleep with some other woman? He said, MEN’s world. Not
big beal.
Q. By Mr. Barragan: Are you saying that Judge Hiroshige is the biological
father of Joshua?
A. No. I never said that he was biological father in any paper or verbally.
I did not understand why DCFS ask him to take a paternity, for DNA test.
(reporter transcript, page 33 Line 3 to page 22;)
A marriage contract differs from other contractual relations in that there
exists a definite and vital public interest in reference to marriage
relation. In this case, Judge Hiroshige had initiated the marriage, children
and family due to his first child from previous marriage was in the serious
mental illness. He would like to have few more child with me. Mother Winnie
Tin accepted his proposal and is willing to be his wife and base on that
promise and agreement.
They had Joshua Tin and later found that he was not the biological father
for Jushua Tin. Judge Hiroshige still agree to raise Jushua Tin with the
birth mother. Evidence shows that Judge Hiroshige took the mother shopping
for the bed room linen, accompanies her to see doctor, shopping for the baby
cloth and item, took her to the hospital, buying the family medical book,
giving the birth mother money to support her and the kids. All of those
presents a marriage relation between the two. The birth mother would like
humbly request the court to reverse a decision from the trial court, Judge
Hirhshige is the presumed father for Joshua Tin.
What is the best interest for this child Joshua Tin? The court and the
county keep saying that, but their action is make this child has no father.
Or named Alan Isaac to be the alleged father for Joshua and by knowingly
that Alan Isaac has no job, do not have good character, who is a criminal.
Should the court to make a ruling that this child with no father or should
the court finding Judge Hiroshige is the legal father for Joshua Tin to take
his responsibility and to provide for the child. Each case law is very
different. Judge’s decision is based on the law and what is making sense
based on moral, ethic code.
On Nov 17th, 2008, the birth mother filed a motion for reconsideration in
the paternity finding and order DCFS change the service unit. On December
2nd, 2008, deposition, “ The court has received a motion for
reconsideration of the paternity finding and to order DCFS to change the
service unit. ( RT PG 86 line 1 to pg87, line 3. ) But the motion was never
heard in the court.
REASONNIING FOR REVIEW THE PATERNITY ISSUE
After 10 month romantic dating, the birth mother Winnie Tin accepted Judge
Hiroshige’s proposal, they lived together and planning to have a family.
Since November 2002, The birth mother Winnie Tin was lived with the presumed
father Judge Hiroshige. Until February 2003, The birth mother found out
that the presumed father was chatting on her with some one named Linda. They
had a big argument; Judge Hiroshige claim that this is man’s world and
left at 11:30 pm. The birth mother was upset and called a friend, Allan
Isaac, shared her relationship with Alan Issac. The birth mother was crying
and trying called Judge Hiroshige in Alan’s house, they were arguing on the
phone until later Judge Hiroshige hang up on her. Allan Isaac gave the
birth mother a brink, drugged her and force her to have sex, took advantage
of her that night
One month later, the nature Mother Winnie Tin informed Judge Ernest
Hiroshige on the pregnancy, and Judge Ernest Hiroshige and she both believed
he is the father for Jushua Tin. Judge Hiroshige agreed to have the baby to
the new family and took her to for marriage counseling with his pastor,
Gary Gaulton. And Judge Hiroshige had promised her that he will take care of
her and the child. However, Judge Hiroshige would still sleep with other
woman and one night after have intercourse with the birth mother Winnie Tin,
he stated that “ look, you can not have sex any way, what is the
difference I am being with other woman”. The birth mother trys to put up
with his abuse because she want the baby to have a family. Judge Hiroshige
still take his duty if he is in the good mood. He took the birth mother
Winnie Tin to the hospital, help her to shopping for food, buying baby
clothing and prepare the baby item for the baby. Judge Hiroshige knew that
night the birth mother went to Alan Isaac’s house, he said he want to make
sure that he is the biological father, After one day he took her to the
hospital for themostistical testing, the doctor told them that they can do a
DNA test with the mother’s fluite. On July 14, 2004, Judge Hiroshige and
the mother want to a clinc did a DNA test. The birth mother was shock with
the result. And she told Judge Hiroshige that the night Alan Isaac did force
her, but after the mother told him many times that she did not want. Alan
Isaac finally stopped, there is no way that Alan Isaac is the father. In
addition, Alan Isaac had vasectomy. And now the baby was not born yet, Maybe
the result was not accurate. Judge Hiroshige may still be the father for
Joshua Tin. Judge Hiroshige became very angry and he was shouting to the
mother, you still defend for him. The birth mother cried and talked to Judge
Hiroshige, we want this baby because we loved each other and we want to
have a family. Let say for instance, Alan Isaac is the biological father, we
can not have him to get involved with the child’s life anyway because his
character. Judge Hiroshige agreed stay with the birth mother Winnie Tin.
Until August 18, 2003, the birth mother Winnie Tin found Judge Hiroshige
chat on her again with the same lady. She is getting very upset and told
Judge Hiroshige that if he still going to abuse her, She is going to seek
help form presiding Judge Duck. (In Asian Culture, work and family all
mixed together, the mother want his boss to intervene to help her.)
Judge Hiroshige felt very embarrassed was the mother’s action, He did not
want to his co-worker and his supervisor to know his unethical, immoral
behavior, he misinformed the court personal and lied to the police, had
court council Brett Bianco accused the birth mother Winnie Tin had been
harassed him since February 2003 because he had break up with mother Winnie
Tin, the mother went to continue to keep relationship with him. The birth
mother Winnie Tin hired lawyer Kevin Kay to defending her, with the lawyer
and all of the evidence, Judge Hiroshige did not want to go to court the
birth mother Winnie Tin was contact by Brett Bianco who verbally threat her
to sign up the mutual agreement and abundant the birth mother Winnie Tin
while she was 8 month pregnant.
On November 21, 2003, birth mother Winnie Tin gave birth to her son Jushua
Tin in Huntington Memorial Hospital. Mother Winnie left father section blank
and did not put any body’s name on the father section in the birth
certificate.
Joshua’s name is from Joshua, because the presumed father was judge
Hiroshige, so the mother used Jushua instead of Joshua.
After the c-section, nature mother Winnie Tin got into a complicated medical
situation, she was bleeding all night, because there was no body with her,
she passed out in her patient’s room until the doctor inspect the room. The
birth mother Winnie Tin was taken into the emergency units for blood
transfusion. After the hospitalization, she had stay in the bad for over
three months. On January 30th, 2004, Judge Hiroshige called her on her birth
day, and took her to dinner to celebrate her birth day, the house keeper
can be the witness to testify that the judge Hiroshige visit the mother and
the new born with a gift. In the dinner, he said he is going to be
responsible, and wants to part of her life and the child’s life. When he
hold Joshua Tin was not his biological child, he was hurt. The mother had
apologized to him. The birth mother Winnie Tin was crying to her pastor
Jonathon Wu. Judge Hiroshige’s pastor Gary Gaulton was also involved with
the reconciliation for the relationship during the year 2004 and 2005.
In 2004, nature mother Winnie Tin asked the maternal grandmother to help her
to take care of her son. When Joshua Tin was 10 month old, birth mother had
a friend of her took Joshua to the maternal grandmother help her to raise
Joshua Tin until Joshua Tin become 3 years old. In January 2007, the birth
mother Winnie Tin brought Joshua back to USA from China. They lived in a
rental house in West Covina.
The relationship did not worked out between Judge Hiroshige and the birth
mother. In June 2006, the last time they saw each other, Judge Hiroshige
punched her. When the police arrival and Winnie Tin told the police officer
that he punch her, they did not arrest him. After a week, Judge Hiroshige
obtaining the restraining order against the birth mother Winnie Tin. And In
July 2006, Judge Hiroshige filed a false police report again and claimed
that the birth mother had called him and violate the restraining order.
Please see attached police report from judge Hiroshige. Judge Hiroshige used
an false tape and had his co-worker another Judge listen to the case and
left Winnie Tin’s OR and put the birth mother Winnie Tin incarcerated in
the Jail. The birth mother arranged a friend to pick up Joshua Tin. On May/
24/2007, mother’s friend was unable to help to take care of Joshua Tin
anymore and give the child back to the kindergarten where the child was
going to school. The school teacher called social worker because mother’s
friend could not help her to take care of the child any more. Joshua Tin end
up with DCFS. On May 24th 2007, the birth mother was released from Jail.
DCFS put Joshua Tin was under Voluntary Family Maintenance agreement with
the mother. During the meeting with DCFS, Winnie Tin had reported to the
social worker that how she was raped by Allan Isaac and Judge Hiroshige is
the presume father and how he left her while she was 8 month pregnant
immorally.
In between May 2007 to December 2007, the birth mother asked help from
Social worker due to the stress by fighting back the criminal prosecution,
making a living, raise Joshua along. She asked if social worker can
temporally place Joshua Tin into the presumed father’s house Judge
Hiroshige or the paternal grandfather Godfrey Isaac’s house who is well
known attorney lived in Beverly Hills (cited clerks transcript, page 0008,
Detention report.) The birth father here means Alan Isaac and the presumed
father is Judge Hiroshige but on the cover sheet of the detention report,
social working knowingly and intentionally put Allan Isaac as alleged father
only and John Dow, Social worker intentionally left out Judge Hiroshige’s
name as presume father.
Social worker had legal obligation to tell the court truth on the paternity
issue. If there is more than one father for the child, social worker should
be given all of the information to the court. However, social worker only
put the nature father’s name on the detention report and claims that the
birth mother had visual hallucination and audio hallucination, some pre-
arranged a lawyer without notice the mother and hiding the initial detention
report from the mother and put Joshua into detention. Without reading the
social worker’s court paper work, the birth mother did not have a chance to
talk to the hearing officer about the financial need list and Joshua become
the court dependence.
“The court: And you waive reading of the petition and your right and enter
a denial?
Mr. Matienzo: Yes, Your honor, we waive, enter a general denial.” (reporter
’s transcript, page 2, line 11 – 14.)
4. DCFS’S COLLBORATION WITH JUDGE HIROSHIGE
.
When the birth mother was incarcerated in May 2007, Joshua Tin ended up
in the foster home. Because it is involved with the paternity issue, social
worker did not want book Joshua Tin into the system. Even Joshua Tin got flu
with favor for over two days and social worker Yumi Lin still did not book
him in, until three days later the supervisor Kim told social worker Yumi
Lin she need to book the kids into the system and give him some medical
treatment, Otherwise if anything happen to the kid, they would have to be
responsible for it. Finally, social worker Yumi Lin booked Joshua into the
system and took him to see the doctor. When the mother was released from the
Jail, the mother was told by one of the Social worker. Joshua Tin was still
taking the medication.
Many times, birth mother Winnie Tin asked social worker for help. Social
worker did nothing besides threatening the birth mother that if Joshua Tin
went into the system and the judge would put Joshua into adoption. The truth
is Joshua Tin ever book into the system, DCFS will have to present to the
court on the paternity issue. Please see attached Mediation report offer by
DCFS, on the paternity issue social worker changed the father from Allan
Isaac to father identity is unknown.
When the day, West Covina police officers come in to BM’s residence for
welfare check and heard the story, Police officers wanted the mother put a
list things need to be help on, and go to a judge to made a ruling on it.
But DCFS would put the report that the BM has mental issue. Whatever the
depression caused by Judge Hiroshige from the past, mother had seen the
psychologist in the past, and claimed she had mental issue. The social
worker lie to the court that mother had visual hallucinations and audio
hallucinations, brought out the past and criticized the mother is depressed
with a personality disorder.
In between May 2008 to Dec 2008, social worker Hui-chi Hsieh had stopped
by in the Mother’s home and negotiated a financial settlement figure on
behalf Judge Hiroshige. The mother told Hui-chi Hsieh that the financial
settlement is strictly confidential among she, Judge Hiroshige, and the
lawyers, nobody should get involved, especially social worker has no
position on this.
In many occasions, Hui-chi Hsieh stated that if Joshua Tin was book into the
system, judge will consider to put into Joshua into adoption and his
biological father family would come in to rescue Joshua Tin from the
adoption. Based on those actions, the mother believed Judge Hiroshige
influenced social worker and merely gave the mother any help.
5. DCFS DID NOT PROVIDE SERVICE TO MOTHER
1. The social worker did not provide service to the mother after the
judge order family reunification services.
The mother started her individual counseling right before the court hearing
on this case on September 23, 2008, n order she can get her son back earlier
.
In December 15, 2008, the mother first had private counselor Patricia
Anderson as her counselor. ( clerk’s transcript page 0578), she is very
good counselor but it is too expensive.
In Feb -1-2008, mother switch to a Christian counseling Living Grace, A
Christina counseling agency with Peggy Tsui. (Clerk’s transcript page 0579.
) for lower cost.
In June 2008, Foothill Family Service offer her no fee counseling, mother
start individual counseling with Nicole Ho in order to get Joshua Tin back
home as earlier as possible. But Judge Hiroshige interfere with mother’s
counseling, mother filed a formal complaint about Nichol Ho to Helen
MorranWolf, the executive director from Foothill Family Service. (CT PG 0492
– PAGE 0494)
During the counseling session with this counselor, Nichol Ho kept want to
talk with her about Judge Hiroshige is afraid to loss his job. The birth
mother told her that she did not want to talk about the past relationship
because it is all in the past, she want to move on and talk about present.
She did not want talk about Judge Hiroshige any more. She needs to do some
individual counseling to get her son back. But the counselor keeps saying
that she felt the mother need to see a psychiatrist. The mother informed the
counselor that she was fine and she was not felt depressed nor have
difficulty to control her emotion. Her psychologist had release her from the
treatment. Finally, the mother had escalated the problem to the higher
management and the mother got kick out from the program. (clerk’s
transcript page 0492 to 0494, reporter transcript page 100, line 20, to page
101, line 15).
In late October 2008, Mother again attending Christine Living Grace
counseling by Sam Ng. Please see attached report from Sam Ng, dated on April
3, 2009. In the letter, Sam Ng had address the mother trying her best to
deal with all these hurtful experiences, from time to time, ….. yet her
religious faith helped her to stay calm again, to move on in her life. She
is now able to work regularly at her loan business and maintains good self
care. (clerk’s transcript page 0632) The mother has been made an
individual counseling on the weekly basis with this counselor.
Mother participate in parenting class and successfully graduated from the
parenting class. Please see attached certificated for the parenting class. (
clerk’s report page 0633.)
The mother believed social worker has been influence by Judge Hiroshige that
If Joshua would be put into adoption, and his natural Godfry Isaac and
Kathleen Isaac would step in to rescue the child. Judge Hiroshige did not
have to be the legal father. The reason I said that it is because there many
talks among the social worker, eg. Social worker Huichi Hsieh once said: if
the kids put into adoption, his family would come in and rescues him.
Angela Chao also said the same thing,” how can the biological father did
not want his own kids? Once the kids is going to be adopted, they would have
to come in to rescue him.” Who gave social worker those ideas about the
kids being adopted Godfred Isaac and Kathleen Isaac would be come in?
Yoko Parsons: Winnie, You want to get your son back? You could not even get
a counselor to say your emotionally stable. HaHa…..”
Social worker did not provided service to the mother. In another hand they
disconnect the service to the mother, the judge order the visitation is
going to be monitored in a therapeutic setting. However the therapeutic
setting was merely provided by the social worker. The intention is good, it
is in order help the mother to understand Joshua, to be a good parent. But
the implementation is difficult to be taking by social worker.
In May 2008, a new social worker Amy Watanabe took over the case. Amy moved
Joshua from foster Maria’s home to foster Brian Boem’s home without
notifying anybody, and just went to Maria’s house and pick up Johsua and
hurry in to move him. She ordered the foster parent did not release their
phone number to the mother. Amy canceled the phone communication between the
birth mother and the minor. And lied to the BM, and claim that the foster
parent request did not release the phone to the BM. BM had request the
foster parent to put down those as evidence to the court. Please see foster
parent Brian’s hand writing as evidence (clerk transcript, page 0496.)
Prior to Amy took over the case, the mother has monitor visit with the
minor in the foster agency for two times a week. After Amy took the case,
the visit become once a week. When the mother requesting to increase the
visitation hours. Mother was told talk to the foster agency, then the mother
talk to the social worker from the foster agency, they told the mother talk
to the social worker in the DCFS. Mother was like a ball kicked back and
forth.
DCFS did not intent to sent Joshua back to the mother. The case started on
Dec 20, 2007, September 23, 2008, the court had jurisdiction and ordered
family reunification service. One month apart, November 12, 2008, DCFS
requested to terminate the birth mother’s family reunification service and
request to terminate family reunification service. (clerk’s transcript page
0405.)
In all different times, the birth mother has request to move the case out of
Asian pacific unit due to lock of support from Social worker and conspiracy
between social worker and judge Hiroshige.
On December 26, 2007, the birth Mother request to move the case out of Asian
Pacific Unit (reporter’s transcript page 6, line 4-5).
On September 23, 2008, the birth Mother request to move the case out of
Asian Pacific Unit:
The mother says:
No. 1. I don’t have trust with DCFS Asian Pacific Units. As a result of
that, they filed a false report to the court.
No. 2. They helping intervene to --- for the financial settlement between me
and Judge Hiroshige.
No. 3. I have to complain their behavior to their supervisor. And right now,
I have allocated it to board of director, executive board of Director Rick
Brian, As a Result I feel there is corruption and conspiracy with Judge
Hiroshige. I do not feel comfortable and trust to work with Asian Pacific
Unit. ( reporter’s transcript. Page 55, line 11 - 18)
Let take look at the chorological time line in this case:
1. On Dec 26, 2007, DCFS file a petition to the court by response a phone
call for child welfare check. By not reading the DCFS’s petition to the
mother, mother’s legal council work together with DCFS put Joshua Tin into
the foster family. The mother was provide the foster parent phone number by
social worker Gladys Davis in order for the mother to communicate with
Joshua Tin on the daily basis. With the report from the foster agency, you
can see the relationship between the birth mother and child is affectionate,
attentive.
2. In May 2008, social worker Amy Watanobe took the case and she
authorize the foster father did not provide his home phone number to the
mother and to disconnect the communication between the mother and the child
Joshua Tin. (clerk’s transcript, page 0496, & page 0454, line 11- page 0455
line 2.) Than Amy told the mother that the foster family did not want to
release their phone number because it is confidential placement and the
foster family did not want to be bother by her phone call. The mother asked
the foster father Brian Boem write is done as evidence. Brian proceeded
told the mother that their family had been involved with few foster care,
they always open the kid talk to the biological family. Please see attached
hand written from the foster parent that the social worker told him did not
release his home address & phone # to the mother of Joshua Tin dated 5/2/08.
( clerk’s transcript, page 0496), Social worker also bad mouth the mother
to the foster care agency counselor Dr. Peterson and the office director
Holly Brunton. (Clerk’s transcript, page 0496). Amy has had reduce the
visitation from two times a week to one times a week while the mother is
under the family reunification service. Please see attached the information
for court officer, it outlet the foster agency written monitor visit, it
clearly shows that the visitation is scheduled twice a week in January,
February, March 2008. (clerk’s transcript, page 0131) But after Amy come on
board, Amy reduce the visit from twice a week to one times a week. ( please
see attached email between the mother and Amy Watanobe, and the mother
testimony in the 366.26 hearing.( clerk’s transcript, page 153 line 18 –
24)
3. On September 23, 2008, the court jurisdiction the case, and order the
visitation in the therapeutic setting, In between Nov 17, 2008 to December
16, 2008, the dept only arranged only one visitation but the visitation only
occurred once on 10-1-08.
4. On November 17, 2008 DCFS request to terminate birth mother
reunification service and put Joshua Tin into adoption. In DCFS report date
11/17/2008, it indicating that Joshua did not want to see his mother. Those
information is contradict from other visitation report from other therapist
in the DCFS report to the court.
service.
5. There is no visitation between July 31, 2008 to October 22, 2008 (see
attached email on October 17, 2008 and email on October 17 at 5:23 pm).
Please see the mother’s lawyer’s argument: “ Well, First of All, Mother
Objects to any termination of visitation. On September 23, 2008, This court
ordered mother to have monitored visits in a therapeutic setting. Since then
, there has been one visit at a therapeutic setting which went well. In fact
, my client maintains the therapist believed the visit went well and even
recommended more thereafter.
The report states clearly the visitations under the therapeutic was not able
to occur at any time during this period, meaning that order was not
followed. “
“My client has repeatedly asked for visits which have not honored, NOR has
her request to talk to her son. The order made by this court has not been
honored, which explains why there may have been incidents.’
“As this court knows, reunification, which my client has, involves
visitation. I must repeat, my client still has family reunification.
Termination of her visitation prior to her services being terminated only
helps DCFS’s recommendation to terminate her services because she would not
be allowed to regularly visit her son. In fact, cutting of visitation
entirely prior to her service being terminated is unnecessary and only fast-
tracks a permanent plan for adoption.
In the alternative, I would ask that the court follow its original order
which was visitation in a therapeutic setting. Doing so will allow a
continued relationship with her son and not set up for failure at a .26
hearing laer down the road. (see reporter transcript page 81 line 25 to page
82, line 3.) On December 16, 2008, DCFS again request to terminate the
family reunification service. ( clerk’s transcript 0537.)
During the trail, the mother’s lawyer and child’s lawyer argued the
following:
“ Mr. Matienzo: My client would also like the current social worker on call
as well. In addition, My client has not received any visits since October.
I would request the Dept help facilitate her getting those visits with her
son.
The court: All right. The court will put Marie Nakayama on call for that
date and ask the dept to use its best efforts to facilitate visitation for
mother with Joshua.
Ms. Eshraghi: And, Your Honor, the court did order that the visits be in a
therapeutic setting, and he just recently had intake on 12/5. So it has to
be one when the therapist deems it appropriate. (clerk’s report, page 113,
line 14-26).
Social worker’s status report shows that they merely provide visitation to
the mother after September 23, 2008. On 04/06/2009, the social worker status
report shows the visitation only occurred twice on 12/24/2008, and 2/5/2009
. ( clerk’s transcript, page 0591,) Those two visit, the mother prepared
for the visitation, “The mother brought jackets for Joshua and they were
appropriately for Joshua.” 2/5/09, visit, Mother brought clothes for Joshua
and mother’s companion also came and brought new toys for Joshua. During
the visit, mother and Joshua ate snacks, played with toys, and mother read a
book to Joshua. During the visit, mother asked Joshua about his school and
friends, and Joshua appropriately answered mother’s questions. ( clerks’s
transcript, page 0591)
On 3/11/09, the mother contact SCSW and requested a visitation with Joshua.
Again DCFS request to terminated the family reunification services as to
mother is terminated, and WIC 366.26 selection hearing is request. (clerk’s
report, page 0594).
On 4/1/09, DCFS hold a TDM meeting with the mother, The team explained to
the mother about the permanency planning for adoption for child Joshua and
that an adoption family have been identified. The mother questioned the DCFS
TDM meeting, that Joshua Tin had relative here, he had birth father and
presumed father, why DCFS worker want to place Joshua into adoption? Finally
, the team also informed birth mother to disclose any of her relatives who
might to able to provide permanent placement for the child. As a result of
the TDM meeting, the goal is for mother to provide information on her
parenting education and counseling to CSW Hanges. Mother is to also provide
CSW information on any relative who may be able to provide permanent care
for Child Joshua.
2. Social worker’s report is contradicting among itself.
After the TDM meeting, DCFS start arranged the visitation again. On May 7,
and June 17, 2009, the visitation was taken place in the mother therapist
Sam Ng’s office.” In May 7, 2009, the counselor had monitor couple of
the visit with the mother. And he had descript very good letter regards the
visitation. Let read some of the letter from this therapist: “she looked
happy when she saw her son Joshua and showed the son the food and toy items
she brought. The son also looked excited to follow her to the meeting room.
Once they both entered the room, Ms Tin realized that she had turn off her
phone. She did. She then started to take some items out of the bag to show
her son. The items she brought included a hardcover story book, some toy
items, a bottled yogurt drink, a small bag of chocolate, and three kinds of
fruit. She attempted to engage her son in a conversation by asking how was
he doing. The son responded but also tried to reach for the food. She than
coached the son that he needed to ask the son how was he doing and try to
know some of his experience at home and in school.
After a while, the mother tried to teach the son to wash his hands after
eating, and to keep the table clean. She then showed him a story book she
brought which came with a toy watch for learning how to tell time, and to
understand the time for common daily activities. The son wanted the mother
to hold him and sit on her lap as the mother read him the story. THE SON
WANTED THE MOTHER TO HOLD HIM AND SIT ON HER LAP AS THE MOTHER READ HIM THE
STORY. The mother was able to keep the son interested in the story for about
10 minutes, while he was drinking the bottled drink and eating other food
items. When the son switched his attention, and want to draw on the
blackboard, the mother tried to bring his attention back. Later she learned
to show interest in what the son like to play with. And she followed him and
get involved by asking what he was drawing and gave him verbal praises……
… When the time was running short. She showed him to clearn up threw away
the trash, and hugged him to say good bye, she also wanted him to say good
bye with a kiss on her check. He did. He looked happy during the meeting and
when leaving.
Impression: The mother was prepared to meet with her son. She brought
some toys and food items. That are generally age appropriate and healthy,
but she brought more than enough……. Both of them seem to enjoy the
interaction.” (clerk’s transcription, page 0727)
In June 17, 2009, the therapist wrote another letter to the court: “
She looked somewhat preoccupied, yet she was prepared to meet the son. She
turned off her cell phone, and showed him the food and toy items she brought
. …… After a while, the mother tried to ask the son to do some drawing.
But the son wanted to play with the new board game. The mother then TOOK THE
SON TO SIT ON HER LAP, SHOWED HIM THE STEPS, AND PLAYED WITH HIM TOGETHER
BY ROLLING THE DICE AND MOVING THE TOKENS. DURING THE GAME TIME, WHETHER HE
LIKE TO BE HOME WITH HER, HE KNOCKED HIS HEAD.( WHICH IS ERROR ON THE
THERAPIST) The son wanted the mother to bring him the computer. The mother
later did not continue the subject, and switched to talk about something
else and tried to say something funny to engage in additional conversations.
When time was running short, she showed him to clean up, threw away the
trash, and hugged him to say good bye. She also wanted him to say good bye
with a kiss on her check. He did, he looked happy during the meeting and
when leaving.
Impression: The mother was prepared to meet with her son. She brought
one toy item and some food items that are generally age appropriate and
healthy. She made some good attempts to engage the son in conversation and
play, and tried to teach the son something such as to wait, to talk, and to
teach him courtesy. Although she still showed tendency to want the son
follow her instructions, she had also learned to show interested in what the
son like to do and be interested in. Both of them to enjoy the interaction.
In addition, she still subtly told the son she wanted him come home to be
with her someday, and she had some goodies at home waiting for him.
Monitor report for another one: “ The mother quickly took her son into the
meeting room. She looked somewhat preoccupied, yet she was prepared to meet
the son. She turned off her cell phone, and showed him the food and toy
items she brought. The son started to eat the fruits she brought, and she
tried to pen the new board game she brought. ……. The mother then took the
son to sit on her lap, showed him the steps, and played with him together by
rolling the dice and moving the tokens. During the game time, the mother
also asked the son whether he like to be home with her, and said she had a
computer there waiting for him to play. The son KNOCKED HIS HEAD and wanted
the mother to bring him the computer. When time was running short, she
showed him to clean up, threw away the trash, and hugged him to say good bye
. She also wanted him to say good bye with a kiss on her cheek. He did. He
looked happy during her meeting and when leaving. (clerk’s transcript, page
0821)
On the 08/13/2009 status review report to the court the visit between July
31st to Aug 7th, Per the therapist, Mike Habousch and Illiana Aispuro, the
mother has prepare all of her visit, and the visit went well. Let read the
last two paregraph: Mother seemed a bit awkward at first with child. However
, after about 5 minutes, mother warmed up and engaged in playing games with
child, such as tossing football and playing with toy trucks. Both mother and
child were laughing and seemed enjoy themselves over all. On 08/07/09, The
mother bought a kid computer for the minor, and tired to teach the child
typing. (clerk’s transcript 0651) Please refer to Mr. Blair’s write up
for the 08/07/09, visitation attached. ( But the report was not in the court
file).
On 8/7/2009, the mother had another TDM meeting, with SCSW Rose Studebaker,
CSW Vantha Hanges, and also the TDM facilitator, despite the good visitation
report from above, the meeting try to increase mother’s visitation to
twice a week. However, the court terminated the family reunification
services.
On December 24, 2009’ 366.26 WIC report, social worker wrote the birth
mother arrival pretty much on time, on 11/17/09, Mr. Haboush told this CSW
mother arriving pretty much on time, trying pretty hard to become a mother”
They would play games and mother would use opportunities during the visit
to teach Joshua lessons. On 9/24/09, during a face to face visit, Joshua
described his visits with mother as “okay” and that they “talk and play”
during visits. When asked further questions about his visits, Joshua did
not answer questions and proceeded to play with this CSW. Then the social
worker turn around to request the court to terminate the visit between
mother and Joshua, as it precludes to the adoptive planning. (Clerk’s
report page 0677)
3. Social worker has constantly provide
the court false information
DCFS social worker claimed on the paper work that CSW had made referral to
FSP and letter to mother upon her request. And mother was referred to FSP
services in the past. However she refused the service. (clerk’s transcript
page 0652) Please see the email between the mother and social worker Yumi
Lin. Please see attached (judicial notice one)
4. Most social worker paper allegation did not have any support and or
contradicting with the fact evidence by emails
The social worker has been lied under oath to the court that they refer the
mother to the full services partnership service because the mother never
received any calls from suggest services. There is only a fax from social
worker Vantha Hanges, but that did not mean she had made those arrangement.(
Clerk’s transcript page 0660.) There is no evidence mother has refuse the
service. In stead mother has been frequently sent emails to the social
worker asking for the full time service program, and asking for the
visitation.
6. Terminated Family Reunification Service is Error
On August 13, 2009, the court have the 18 month review for argument to
return Joshua Tin back home. Mother’s attorney argued mother’s compliance
with the court-ordered case plans and her ability to care for her son.
“ The court: All right. I do not need her compliance. I have that
information. It would be her ability to care for her son that is a issue
with respect to mother’s testimony.”
The mother testify that she hold a job and owns a mortgage brokerage
company, and originated residential loan and commercial loan. And she lives
in a condo in Arcadia, which is a nice city with a good school district.
Mother’s lawyer asked:
“Q: What do you do during these visits?
A: I prepare the games, and we play the games…..
Q: Now, how does he react to you when you have the visit?
A; I call him……. He calls me mom. I present him with the gift. He is happy
to see me with those. One time, I bought him a computer and teach him how
to type ( reporter’s transcript, page 154, line 7 – 21) Which is match
with Mr. Blair’s the visitation written report dated on 08/07/2009 from the
foster agency , clerk’s transcript
page 0651).
Q: By Mr. Matienzo: During your visits, has he ever expressed a desire to
live with you?
A: Yes.
Mother’s lawyer also subpoena mother’s therapist Sam Ng, who had been
watch the visitation for the mother and the child and mother has been going
for counseling for a while.
“ Q: Mr. Ng, have you been monitoring my client’s visits with her son?
A: I did twice
Q: Okay, And you wrote a letter dated June 17, 2009; is that correct?
A: Yes. Correct.
Q: And in that letter, you stated that Joshua looked happy during the
meeting with my client; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Was my client appropriate with her son during that visit?
A: I think most of the time, yes.
Q: Was he?
A: yes
Q: Was she affectionate?
A: She appeared to be, yes.
Q: Now, Do you believe ---- Do you think that her son recognizes her as
the mother?
A: yes
Q: All right. Now, the letter, you ended that by saying, “My client has
learned to show interest in what her son would like to do and be interested
in, and both of them seemed to enjoy the interaction.” That is how you
ended that letter. Right?
A: Correct. Yes.
Q: So you believe her son enjoyed her company?
A: In the session, yes, I believe so.
Q: And you also wrote a similar letter dated may 7, 2009, is that
correct?
A: yes.
Q: Again you stated that basically my client and her son enjoyed
each other’s company?
A: yes. That is one important part of what I observed during the
session.
Q: So In summary, the visits have been positive, right?
A: yes, I believe so. Right.
(repertor’s transcript, pg 177, line 9 – page 178, line18.)
On the 08/13/2009 status review report provide to the court the
visitation went well between July 31st to Aug 7th, Per the therapist, Mike
Habousch and Illiana Aispuro. The mother has prepared all of her visit with
games and food, and the visit went well. Let read the last two paragraphs:
Mother seemed a bit awkward at first with child. However, after about 5
minutes, mother warmed up and engaged in playing games with child, such as
tossing football and playing with toy trucks. Both mother and child were
laughing and seemed enjoy themselves over all. On 08/07/09, The mother
bought a kid computer for the minor, and tired to teach the child typing. (
clerk’s transcript 0651) Please refer to Mr. Blair’s write up for the 08/
07/09, visitation attached. ( But the report was not in the court file).
In this status review report, it also shows the mother’s therapist Sam
Ng had provide a good report for the court for the to visit has been
arranged by him. Please see attached report from San Ng dated on May 5, 2009
(clerk’s transcription, page 0727) , and June 17, 2009. (clerk’s
transcription, page 0728)
In those report, It clearly shows the evidence the loving, caring
relationship between the mother and the child. The child wants the mother
hold him while the mother reading him a book.
The Legislature has very carefully detailed what findings the court must
make at such a hearing. (In re Joshua S. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 147, 153 [
230 Cal. Rptr. 437].) The court must first determine whether the minor is be
returned to the parent. It appears the county has the burden of proving the
negative of this issue. (? 366.2, subd. (e); In re Joshua S., supra.) If
the child is not returned, the court must determine whether there is a
substantial probability that the minor will be returned to the physical
custody of the parent within six months. If so, the court must set another
review hearing within six months. (? 366.25, subd. (c).) However, if the
court makes negative findings on both questions, it must develop a permanent
plan for the child. (? 366.25, subd. (d).)
Based on those passive report and testimony, the county council deny to
release the child back to the mother’s custody due to once the child return
the mother’s custody than child support issue will be raised. “ It’s
clear if the child were return to Miss Tin, the issue of who is your father
and who is obligated to support you and provide would be a disservice. It
would be an in justice, and it would be a detriment to this child at this
time.” ( reporter’s transcript, page 186, line 22 – 27).
Those argument are violating the parent and child relationship, and is in-
constitutional. And it is not in the best interest of the child.
In this court hearing with the passive report, it seems the county has the
burden to proving the negative of this issue. The only argument for the
county to argue is about child support issue between Judge Hiroshige and
Alan Isaac. That should not be children’s court concern.
The court error to termination the mother’s family reunification service
and refuse to return the child’s custody back to the mother. In re Kiesha
E. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 68, 76. “Our society does recognized an ‘essential’
and ‘basic’ presumptive right to retain the care, custody, management, and
companionship of one’s own child, free of intervention by the government.
(Citations.) Maintenance of the familial bond between children and parents
– even imperfect or separated parents – comports with our highest value
and usually best serves the interests of parents, children, family, and
community. Because we so abhor the involuntary separation of parent and
child, the state my disturb an existing parent-child relationship only for
strong reasons and subject to careful procedures.”
The child’s lawyer also recommend to terminated the mother’s reunification
services. “Your honor, I am asking the court at this time to terminate
mother’s reunification services. Joshua has been doing excellent in foster
care. He is finally at a position where he is stabilizing in a good home.”
Which statement is totally against the constitutionally for the mother and
the child interested. In re Cheryl E. (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 587. “We cannot
encourage, under the guise of ‘best interests’ or ‘home stability,’ the
arbitrary determination by a governmental agent that a well-educated ‘
professional’ couple will be better parents than ‘red-necked hillbillies’
(AW’s words, not ours) who are on welfare and have six other children.’ (
Id., at pp. 606-607.)
In re Kimberly F. (1997)56 Cal.App.4th 519. The best interests standard
cannot be a simplistic, comparison between the natual parent’s and the
caretakers household – i.e., a “simple best interest test.” (Id., at p.
529.) “ In statutory terms, the ‘simple best interest test’ provides an
imcomplete picture of ‘best interestes’ under section 388. It ignores all
familial attachments and bonds between father, mother, sister and brother,
and totally devalues any interest of the child in preserving an existing
family unit, no matter how, in modern parlance, “dysfunctional.” It fails
to account for the complexity of human existence, substituting in its stead
a one-dimensional comparison which does not adequately address the child as
a whole person, including his or her formative years with a natural parent.
After all, the Legislature used the plural, “best interests,” rather than
the singular ‘best interest’ thereby indicating a more complex standard
than a unidimensional comparison between households.” (Id., at pp. 529-530.
)
In re Randalynn G. (2002) 97 Cal. App.4th 1156, 1169. The two standards –
the section 388 best interest standard and the section 366.26 ( c ) (4)
detriment standard – are basically two sides of the same coin. What is in
the best interest of the child is essentially the same as that which is not
detrimental to the child.
John Bowlby, the world-famous psychiatrist and author of the classic
works: Attachment, Separation, and Loss offers important guidelines for
child rearing based on the crucial role of early intimate relationship. His
theory was adopt by Library of congress Catalog in publication date in 1968
In re-examining the nature of the child’s tie to his mother, traditionally
referred to as dependency, it has been found useful to regard it as the
resultant of a distinctive and in part pre-programmed set of behavior
patterns which is the ordinary expectable environment develop during the
early months of life and have the effect of keeping the child in more or
less close proximity to this mother-figure (Bowlby 1969). By the end of the
first year the behavior is becoming organized cybernetically, which means,
among other things, that the behavior becomes active whenever certain
conditions obtain and ceases when certain other conditions obtain. For
example by pain, fatigue and anything frightening, and also by the mother
being or appearing to be inaccessible. The conditions that terminate the
behavior very according to the intensity of its arousal. At low intensity
they may be simply sight or sound of the mother, especially effective being
a signal from her acknowledging his presence. At higher intensity
termination may require his touching or clinging to her. At highest
intensity, when he is distressed and anxious, nothing but a prolonged cuddle
will do. The biological function of this behavior is postulated to be
protection, especially protection from predators.
“Separation Anxiety in Children and Adolescents by Psychologist Andrew
R. Eisen and Charles E. Schaefer also dressed: “ when the child has that
bond with the mother as infant, but by any reason to separate the mother and
the child to separation, it normally will cause the result of child with
Anxiety.”
In re Philip B. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 796, 801. “inherent in the
preference for parental autonomy is a commitment to diverse lifestyles,
including the right of parents to raise their children as they think best.
Legal judgments regarding the value of child rearing patterns should be kept
to a minimum so long as the child is afforded the best available
opportunity to fulfill his potential in society.” (see also, In re Petra B.
(1989) 216 Cal. App.3d 1163, 1170.)
The juvenile court has the statutory authority, on a proper record and
after conducting a hearing, to exercise its discretion and terminate
reunification services at any time. In doing so, the court must consider all
of the circumstances before it, and its determination must be based on
careful exercise of its discretion. In Denny H. v. Superior court (2005) 131
Cal.App.4th 1501, 1509. For children ages three and older, court-ordered
reunification services may be extended up to a maximum period of 18 months
if the court finds at the 12-month review hearing ‘that there is a
substantial probability that the children will be returned” to parental
custody or the reasonable services have not been provided.
Under section 366.26 ( c ) (2), precludes termination of parental right
on review when social services has failed to offer or provide reasonable
reunification services to a parent throughout the reunification period.
Here again, the appellant asked the review court to reconsider the
termination of the family reunification service.
The trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction concerning visitation
As noted above, section 362.1 requires that an order placing a minor in
foster care and ordering reunification services must provide for visitation
between the parent and the minor. Here, the court ordered that family
reunification services be provided but did not make any orders regarding
visitation. Further, when petitioner requested the court to make sure the
social worker comply with the visitation order and to increasing visitation,
the court did not take any action on it.
The juvenile court may properly delegate the administration of a visitation
order to the social worker. (In re Danielle W. (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 1227,
1237 [255 Cal. Rptr. 344].) However, a visitation order granting the social
worker complete and total discretion to determine whether or not visitation
occurs is invalid. (Ibid.)
The Legislature has determined that such a decision must be made by the
court. Thus, the trial court's failure to make a specific order concerning
visitation was error.
7. Judge Hiroshige’s Wire Tapping
The mother believed Judge Hiroshige has been wire tapping the mother’s
phone, and interfere with her therapist, which caused the mother had switch
from two therapist, and it effect the mother to finish the counseling
program. The mother tried her best to comply with the court case plan, but
she could not finish due to Judge Hiroshige interfere with her counselor.
And the mother had testify in two court hearing regards Judge Hiroshige’s
wire tapping and illegally contact the mother’s counselor.
In December 2, 2008, restraining order hearing, child lawyer question the
mother about the counselling,
“Q: And are you currently enrolled in counseling?
A: I was enrolled in Counseling. I have the report back in October. However,
Judge Hiroshige tap into my phone, Got connection with the counselor. I had
to write three pages complaint about Nicole, the counselor. I told her, I
come over here because I want to deal with my own issues. I want to be
better to be for myself, better to be for my family. I do not want to talk
about Judge Hiroshige. It is a long time ago. My wound is already healed. I
do not want it to be open up anymore. But all of the conversation has been
release to Judge Hiroshige.”
“Finally, I wrote three pages complaint in the report. I think it is also
been attached to the board of director for the clinic. Up until now, my
phone still was tapped by judge Hiroshige. I just want to have a normal life
. What is the reason Judge Hiroshige can not leave me alone? I go to two
counselors already, all off them, Judge Hiroshige has been talking to them
” ( clerk’s transcript, page 97, line 23 – page 98, line 15.)
In September 13, 2009, 18 month status review hearing, again the mother
protest against Judge Hiroshige’s wire tapping and illegally contact her
counselor.
“A. Basically My last counselor Sam Ng ask me same questions. He said if I
still believe Judge Hiroshige still has cenerain responsibility towards me.
And Josh, and my son would be into adoption.”
Clerk Transcript page 157, line 15 – 18.page 159, line 27 -28
influence therapist. ( clerk transcript, page 0651 mother had never refused
to have any further monitor visitation as monitor by Mr. Ng
8. The Special Relationship Between
the Mother and the Child Joshua Tin
Joshua is a very special and smart kids. It is unfortunately he is born in
this unfortunate situation. When the mother sent Joshua back to China with
the maternal grandparents, mother told the maternal grandparents did not
tell Joshua who is his father because the mother worried that will affect
him emotionally.
The appellant loves Joshua, by nature it did not matter how Joshua was born,
the mother want to give the best to this boy. In this world, you have all
kind people. Good and bad, we cannot every body to be a good person act in
the good standard. The appellant can only require herself to do a right
thing, to take the responsibility, to love, to give. The appellant is very
affectionate, good, honest person, she wants to give the best to her child,
the love, the affection, the honor, the attention, to teach him to be good,
to nurture him to be honest, to give him the love and let him know he is
loved, he is wanted by his mother.
The child already knew who is his mother, and he is 7 now. Even though the
mother cannot see him now, but every week, the mother write him a love
letter and bought him a lot of gift, in his heart he knew those gift are
from his mother.
The appellant did not want this minor to think why he was put into adoption,
why his biological parent did not want him. When he become a teenager, he
would be looking for his biological family. And Joshua had already have a
family, his grandparent loves him, his aunt loves him, his causin loves him,
his uncle loves, what more we can tell Judge your honor, he is be loved by
his family. Let us to love him and give him the best.
After the court terminate the parental right, the mother start doing her
own legal research on the parent’s right and paternity funding. Legally
Allan Isaac could not and did not have the constitutional right for Joshua
Tin.
Back in year 2007, when the mother was just brought Joshua back from China
and informed his nature father Alan Isaac that Joshua is back now. Alan
wants to visit Joshua, and he drove to the mother’s house. the mother
allowed him to come in to see Joshua. However, Joshua did not have any
distinct feeling towards Alan Isaac. Alan sit on the coach, and try to close
to Joshua. Joshua looked at him and he acted very nerves. Right the way,
Joshua asked the mother in Chinese “ mom, I do not like this person, tell
him to leave.”
However, from all of the report, you can see Joshua have a very special
felling and connection with his mother. In his psychologist report from Dr.
Chia-Wen (aka Winnie) Hsieh, dated August 14, 2008: “ I have been treating
Joshua since 08/06/07 and provided mental health treatment for him
throughout his multiple placements……. In addition, he had many behavioral
issues such as aggression towards others, selectively mute (did not speak to
anyone besides few words to his mother. It was reported by school that
there was no consistent parental care for Joshua outside of the school
setting.
9. THE JUVENILE COURT’S DETERMENTAL FINDING IS NOT SUPPORTD BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Section 366.21, subdivision (f) is the statute that sets forth the procedure
the juvenile court must follow at a 12 month review hearing. That statute
provides in pertinent part:
At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for
the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be
returned to the child’s home and, if so, when, within the time limits of
subdivision (a) of section 361.5 The court shall order the return or her
parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal
guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety,
protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child
The social worker DID NOT have the burden of establishing that detriment;
Section 366.21, subdivision ( C ) requires the social worker to file a
report with the court containing his or her recommendations for disposition
of the matter at that hearing. The statute specifi-cally requires the social
worker who recommends that the child not be returned be parental custody to
“specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child.”
The juvenile court made a detriment finding in this case but there is
nothing in the social worker’s report to support the finding that return to
parental custody would have been detrimental to the children. The sole
statement in the social worker’s report concerning detriment is as follow:
10.THE COURT TERMINATE THE VISITION IS AN ERROR
Section 366.26 subdivision (C ) (1 ) (A) and (C) (3), A
decision whether to grant visitation rights to a parent is independent of
any decision authorizing the termination of parental rights. Visitation may
be granted or continued to a parent during the time it takes to determine
whether parental rights should be terminated.
Section 366.26 (C) The court shall also make an order for visitation with
the
parents or guardians unless the court finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the visitation would be detrimental to the physical or
emotional well-being of the child.
The court was wrong on terminated the visitation to the mother and the
child. The mother informed the court that social worker authorized foster
agency written a false report, and the mother had provide the picture was
taken during the visitation but without a hearing, the court deny the
visitation between the mother and the child.
The legislature very clearly stated that unless the court find clear and
convincing evidence the visitation cannot be terminated. Please see
attached picture from the mother to the court but it was not in the record,
the picture itself can tell the mother and the child had loving and caring
relation between the two. Appellant humbly asked the court to revise the
order from the trial court to terminated the visitation on this case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in the standard review, I asked the court of
appeal to reverse the visitation issue and sent the case to a different
jurisdiction for review on the paternity issue.
Date: January 18, 2010
Respectfully submitted
Winnie Tin
--------------------------------------------------
Wan (aka Winnie) Tin
Appellant
