Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Author Topic: Vote NO-Robert A. Schnider for Los Angeles Judge in 2004  (Read 1852 times)


  • Guest
Vote NO-Robert A. Schnider for Los Angeles Judge in 2004
« on: Jan 10, 2004, 08:45:38 PM »
 I recieved this email from a group I'm with....Just shows how little Judges care about NCP's.

Case now in 2nd District Court of Appeals, California  

       Although the California Supreme court is currently reviewing a child custody case known as "Burgess," a Father has recently lost joint physical custody of his children.
      Governor Grey Davis recently appointed Robert A. Schnider to the bench in Los Angeles. The Judge was admittedly angry at the Father based on an allegation by a custody evaluator who was of the professional opinion that Father was manipulating the system in an effort to delay the Mother from moving away to the state of Kentucky. The custody evaluator indicated the Mother SHOULD be allowed to move away. The Private Custody Evaluator (who is a former DCFS Social Worker and now a local Family Therapist) did acknowledge, that the Mother indicated she would not move if the Judge did not allow her to. The children were raised in California and both sides of their Families were located in the area.
      In early 2001, well over a year before the hearing, the Mother and Father had both stipulated and agreed to actual Joint physical custody of their children. In this agreed and judicially ordered status quo arrangement, the children spent one week with each parent.
      In September 2002, after this custody evaluation was conducted, the Mother filed to move away. The Judge indicated he had decided in chambers that he was going to allow the move for what he indicates was a punitive reason, based on the alleged delay. However, after the parties officially appeared before the court and Father disputed the evaluator's report, Schnider agreed to continue the matter until November for a full hearing, still admitting he was leaning on allowing the children to move due to the alleged delay.
       In November 2002, Father went to court with witnesses and a Forensic Psychologist and found the court had only granted him 2 hours to present his full case. During the hearing, the court stopped the trial in mid-testimony and set it to continue three months later. On the objection of Father's Attorney, the Court indicated he was allowing the children to move to Kentucky in the interim, without allowing Father the opportunity to present his evidence. The court stated he believed the Father delayed the move, indicating he does take it into consideration that the Father has not had the opportunity to dispute the delay allegation. The Judge also stated that the move "does not predict the ultimate resolution of this case." The trial court balanced Stepfather's alleged new job against the Fathers Fundamental rights. Father's attorney refused to file a writ of supersedeas.
     Three months later, after completion of the trial, the Judge admitted he was wrong about believing the evaluator's delay allegation and that was why he let the children move, but he felt "it was certainly OK that I did." The Judge stated he was going to allow the relocation, indicating he was exercising his "widest discretion" under Burgess footnote 12 and stated "I should treat this as a de novo hearing" and the "Burgess case also tells me to take the parties as I find them, and I find the respondent living in the state of Kentucky and the Petitioner living here." Schnider admitted that if the children were still living here in California, he would not have disturbed the Joint physical custodial agreement (not allow the children to move).  
     The Judge acknowledged that Mother had misrepresented to the court the need to move. The Father did indicate to the court before the move that Mother's motives were questionable. However, the court stated he felt the Mother gave an acceptable reason for wanting to move away (in court testimony, two months after her move had already occurred ). Testimony shows the stepfather took a Family Medical Leave from his full time job in California when the court allowed the move and had his job still open and waiting for him two months later when the court allowed the children to stay in Kentucky.
    A Forensic Psychologist (also a local custody evaluator) testified that the original custody Evaluator was biased against the Father and conducted a biased and unbalanced evaluation. The evaluator disregarded and left out of her report everything that was not favorable to the Mother, using language such as "Father complained" and "Father belabored." The evaluator also misrepresented to the Court a previously conducted mini-evaluation that was unfavorable to Mother and Stepfather and made it appear to be unfavorable to the children's Father. In this court ordered mini-evaluation, conducted 9 months before the biased custody evaluation, the Daughter indicated she loved both of her parents equally and the little boy stated his Father was his favorite person.

     The Court did acknowledge that the Father was the better parent. The Judge also dismissed away evidence of the Mother's behavior (such as removing Father's name from the children's school emergency cards numerous times in California and in Kentucky and denying the Father overnight visits when he visited the children in Kentucky). Schnider stated that this is not the behavior of a parent attempting to frustrate the child's relationship with the other parent. The Courtroom spectators and the Families of the children who were present in the courtroom were shocked at the court's unfairness and minimization of the Father's Fundamental rights. One Attorney who was present in the Courtroom stated it was very obvious that this Judge did not like the Father.
     Entered into evidence was medical documentation of two separate injuries upon the 6-year-old boy caused by both his Mother and new Stepfather. Shortly before the evaluation began, and 5 days after Stepfather's injury on the child was medically documented, the Mother accused the Father of spanking and leaving bruises on the boy. The Mother allegedly made a videotape of some bruises on the boy's bottom. This video has not been seen by the Father, was not shared with his Attorney or seen by the court and Mother took both children to the Doctors that same day of the alleged video for something different, but questionably never mentioned or medically verified these alleged bruises. The Father indicated he told the Mother and the custody evaluator that the child had fallen off his bike and if there really was any bruising, that is where it would have come from. The custody evaluator indicated she believed there was evidence of Father's alleged "abuse" based on the video and what the children told her, yet mentioned nothing about the bicycle incident. The evaluator reported to the court that the children had minimal contact with Doctors and therefore refused to contact them even though there was this documentation of injury upon the boy. The evaluator also noted that the children were told what to say by their Mother.

     Custody evaluators are mandated reporters and by law are required to report even suspicion of these findings. Interestingly, the custody evaluator never contacted anyone regarding her alleged findings. This adds doubtfulness to the creditability of her custody evaluation and expert opinion, especially when the Forensic Psychologist had testified that she was biased.  

     It appears that the Court, apparently being angry about the alleged delay, held out on making his ruling until after the children had moved away. Upon realizing his mistake regarding the delay, he decided to use this same custody evaluator's opinion that the children were allegedly more bonded to the Mother as the factor for justifying his decision. The Court chastised the Father for having "an intensity in this case". The court also ordered the father to pay some of Mother's attorney fees.

     Hundreds of Los Angeles voters feel Judge Robert A. Schnider should be removed from the bench.

This Case has being appealed.
Judges have too much discretion.
Transcripts available.
(Taken from court transcripts and records)
Contact info;




  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 982
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Vote NO-Robert A. Schnider for Los Angeles Judge in 2004
« Reply #1 on: Jan 12, 2004, 12:10:35 PM »
Is there a link that I can pass on?  I live in the Los Angeles area, but I hate to say that I'm still not sure what district I'm in.


Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.