What has transpired so far in cases SD 023 958 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90405, Dept. E, Room 111 is nothing short of a blatant abuse of discretion leading to prejudicial error. The Honorable Commissioner David J. Cowan, judge pro tem, has allowed the court-appointed Minors Council, Amy L. Nieman, free reign to operate. Under proper conduct, I would not be filing this verified accusation. Since Ms. Neiman's appointment February 7th, 2007, anyone with a reasonable and unabashed account of what has transpired in this Family Court would find the same result: unfair bias against the natural father of two children - these being my, Damon A. Duval's children, Jazz(born 09/28/2001) and Maya(born 12/21/2003). The most destructive and persevering by product of such partiality is the emotional and physical well-being of children of tender years. California Family Law strictly encourages frequent and continuous contact by both natural parents. At an alarming rate, the exact opposite has been happening in this Santa Monica Courthouse.
This court, unchecked in the prejudice against Mr. Duval, in this continuous course of partial conduct, has invoked the complete alienation of a loving, caring, and more than capable father. An appearance by a more than qualified psychiatrist, Dr. Willian C. Wirshing on July 20th, 2009, did nothing for the unchecked prejudice. Dr. Wirshing appeared on his own, free of charge, and on behalf of Mr. Duval and his two children. He considered there to be unfair decisions made by the court. Commissioner Cowan, unfortunately has always relied completely on the partial assessments of Ms. Neiman to influence all court orders. The fact that Dr. Wirshing's declaration was stricken from the record that day should provide more than an eye raising concern for this requested review.
The incontrovertible evidence is unquestionably sufficient enough to show this abuse of discretion, prove the substantial emotional injury sustained by this father and two children, and allow the higher courts to apply the proper relief, and restore and uphold the integrity of the Superior Court.
The concern right now is the safety and well being of two children through the malfeasant auspices of one court appointed Minors Counsel, Amy L.Neiman. There has been a more than enough evidence to warrant a full investigation into Marcus Boesch and what has transpired between him and the children. Particularly of note the, at the time three year old Maya, who accused him BY NAME of improperly touching her. This was accompanied by the frequent uncontrollable urination by Mr. Duvals daughter, a red light warning in any female child abuse matter. The soft handed investigation by Ms. Neiman has not cleared this abuse from having occurred, nor has it assured me that this abuse has ceased.
In West's Annotated California Codes Court Rules, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-100 note 6, "Attorneys must conform to professional standards in whatever capacity they are acting in a particular manner."[Crawford v. State Bar of Cal.(1960) 7 Cal. Rptr. 746, 54 Cal 2d 659; 355 P. 2d 490]
"One who is licensed to practice as an attorney must conform to professional standards in whatever capacity he may be acting in a particular matter[Alkow v. State Bar of Cal.(1952) 38 Cal. 2d 257; 239 P. 2d 871]
Rule 1-710: A member who is serving as a temporary judge, referee, or court-appointed arbitrator, and is subject under the Code of Judicial Ethics to Canon 6D, shall comply with the terms of that canon.
Canon 6(D): A temporary judge, a person serving as a referee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 638 or 639, or a court-appointed arbitrator shall comply only with the following Code provisions:
Canon 1:[integrity and independence of the judiciary]
Canon 6(A): Anyone who is an officer of the state judicial system and who performs judicial functions ,including, but not limited to, a subordinate judicial officer, magistrate, court-appointed arbitrator, judge of the State Bar Court, temporary Judge, and special master, is a judge within the meaning of this Code.
Canon 6(D)(3) A temporary judge shall, from the time of notice and acceptance of appointment until termination of the appointment, disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding as follows:
(vii) for any reason:
(A) the temporary judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice;
(B) the temporary judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial; or
(C) a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the temporary judge would be able to be impartial. Bias or prejudice toward an attorney in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification.
Canon 3(B)(4)[patient, dignified, and courteous treatment]
(6)[require lawyers to refrain from manifestations of any form of bias or prejudice]
Canon 3(c)(2): A judge shall require "staff and personnel" under the judge's direction and control to observe appropriate standards of conduct and to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status in the performance of their official duties.
Canon 3(c)(5): A judge shall perform administrative duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of administrative duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as 1) bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, or 2) sexual harassment.
Canon 3(D)(2): Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated any provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take appropriate action.
Custody of the two children, Jazz and Maya, were given back to the mother on February 7, 2008, one of many malfeasant opinions and suggestions by Minors Council, Amy L. Nieman and concurred by Comm. Cowan After months of stability and continuity in the full custody of their father[see 12/06/08 signed non court-ordered letter from mother granting father custody]. That custody had actually started in the summer of 2007, after the mother's boyfriend was accused by my daughter of touching her inappropriately(genitals). The El Segundo Police Dept. and Child Protective Services(reports made by both and filed with the court) were immediately notified by me. In the 2/7/08 proceedings, Ms. Nieman stated that "the love Mr. Duval has for his children is derived out of the hate he harbors for his ex-wife." She interviewed both parties, and was well aware that my now ex-wife had left the marriage in the middle of a move, children in tow, while we were traveling in a 22 foot RV that was purchased by both of us. Ms. Nieman made it clear that just because I lived in the RV(I had nowhere else to go) was cause for her decision. I wish I could provide the reporter's transcript. Therein it lies.
"The issue in a case such as this is not the condition of the home but in the fitness of the parents to supervise the care, custody, and control of the child[children] and what is in the best interest of the child[children].[Prouty v. Pruty(1940) 16 Cal 2d 190,195; 105 P. 2d 295 Civil Code Sections 84, 138 subd.1
It seems that Comm. Cowan and Minors Council, Amy L. Nieman, have been "narrowly" guided in scope by Civil Code Section 138 subdivision 2 which requires that "other things being equal" if the child[children] is of tender years, custody of the child should be given to the mother.
The 2/27/08 decision was judicially erroneous and severely bias. This decision was so blatant an abuse of discretion that I, the father and my two children have suffered substantial emotional injury. If absent this reprehensible judicial error, the three of us would have obtained a more favorable result.
On March 24th, 2008, completely aware of our joint legal custody status, plaintiff/respondent/mother in complete defiance of two signed court orders(a Conciliation Agreement and a Divorce Judgment) and without my consent, pulled the children out of school, hid out for two days without allowing any contact. She re-enrolled one of the children, my son, Jazz, back in school in El Segundo. Also without my consent, the younger child, Maya, 4 yrs., never even completed her very first year of preschool. Both children having had near perfect attendance, had completed 3/4 of their respective school years in the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.
"Averment in contempt affidavit that custodial parent[mother] "removed the children from the state[school that they were enrolled in] without my knowledge or consent and with the intent of preventing the exercise of my visitation and communication rights with the minor children is allegation of fact... not mere conclusion." [Rosin v. Sup. Ct.(1960) 181 Cal. App. 2d 486, 490 5 Cal. Rptr. 421]
Had the children been allowed to stay at their schools, undisturbed, the consistency and stability provided by their father over the last eight months would have achieved a continuity so stressed by any program for any child of tender years, and was stringently so in both court-appointed programs(P.A.C.T. and Parenting without Conflict), attended by both parents.
However this malfeasant decision was based on the three officers of the court's determined intention of depriving myself, the children's biological father, of the pleasure and of the company and necessary parental association with my two children.
As if the destructive and punitive nature of all these decisions weren't enough, it was seen fit to place a six month restraining order on me from the beginning of June through December(2008). There has never been any threat of violence by myself towards the ex-wife or my children. The mother of the children said through her attorney that she feared Mr. Duval might buy a gun. The only place the exchange of the children had been taking place over the previous year was the El Segundo Police Station. Take a gun to the Police Station to exchange the children? Would not that be suicide by cop? This restraining order kept me completely away from every aspect of my children's educational process, not even being able to so much as contact the schools in which they are enrolled. I would miss my son's first grade graduation in June of 2008, his 2nd grade graduation in 2009, and my daughter's graduation from pre-school. I still to this day do not know where my two children reside with their mother and the boyfriend.
In deciding a matter so vital to the welfare and emotional stability of children it is imperative that the trial court, in order to make as wise decision as possible, should have as complete a picture of the whole background as possible, all of which would aid the court, if remaining true to set rules, in determining the probabilities of either parent meeting the basic needs for a balanced existence for the children. It may be that if some of the factors are missing or conveniently overlooked, the the trial court may not arrive at the best decision.
"To be entrusted with the rearing of children a mother[parent] should be possessed of such character and conduct that by the force of his/her example he/she can train them in the paths of morality, righteousness, and rectitude."[Currin v. Currin 125 Cal. App. 2d 644; 271 P. 2d 61] [in accord with Kelly v. Kelly 173 Cal. App. 2d 469, 474; 343 P. 2d 391]
Contemporary psychology confirms what wise families have perhaps always known- that the essence of parenting is not to be found in the harried rounds of daily carpooling endemic to modern suburban life, or even in the doggedly dutiful acts of togetherness committed every weekend by well-meaning fathers and mothers across America. Rather its essence lies in the ethical, emotional, and intellectual guidance the parent gives to the child throughout his/her formative years, and often beyond. The source of this guidance is the adult's own experience of life; its motive power is parental love and concern for the child's well-being; and its teachings deal with such fundamental matters as the child's feelings about his/herself, relationships with others, system of values, standards of conduct, and goals and priorities in life. My capacity to parent was in no way related to a handicap- a 22 ft. RV. In such matters, a handicap may well be an asset.... few can pass through the crucible of a handicap without learning enduring lessons in patience and tolerance.
All of this has occurred on Amy L. Neiman's watch: a court appointed attorney on behalf of two children. My children ARE HER CLIENTS:
**Custody change, and disrupting a 50/50/visitation
**The disrupting of a school year with only ten weeks to go in arguably the finest public school district available is reprehensible, abominable. These are all documented and filed accounts.
**Putting the children back with the mother with this history of neglect:
* fighting to keep the children out of counseling - and placing contempt charges against the father just for taking the children to free counseling offered by their school. Four months of court expenses and NO counseling at all for at risk children, only to comply at the drop of the contempt charges.
* hiring (with the boyfriend) a 23 year-old babysitter over the period of MONTHS with a criminal record as this: arrested with heroin pipe possession, driving without a license, and arrest warrants in excess of ,000. How do you leave a five and three year old in these hands for one minute?
* a boyfriend accused, by name, by the three year old daughter, of inappropriate fondling and uncontrollable urination to go with the accusation.
* a five year old boy who had been unable to control his bowels for at least over a two year period, hiding his dirty underwear from the adults in the household.
* a three year old girl that screams "who do you think you are the fuck police" while chasing her five year old brother in play.
"A mere recitation of the facts shows grounds for the trial court to find that the character and demeanor of the plaintiff [plaintiff/respondent/mother Tammy L. Williams] would be adverse to a proper raising of children under these circumstances." [Santens v. Santens 180 Cal. App. 2d 809,819 4 Cal. Rptr. 635]
These malfeasant decisions that harmed myself and my two children are reviewable. I pray that the State Bar will find in their review the malpractice, abuse of discretion, and prejudicial errors committed by court appointed Minors Counsel, Amy L. Nieman. I pray that she be held accountable for her actions. The very integrity of our courts, and inarguably the defenseless children of tender years depend on this check and balance.
This verified accusation is against above named officers of the court pursuant to rule 9.13 subsection (d) through (f), California Rules of Court.
I swear, under oath this verified accusation, a written and compiled statement, to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.