Below you will find substantiation for my complaint regarding case no. [Redacted]. This substantiation is divided into three sections: items the Court presented that were objectively inaccurate, concepts the Court presented that are irrational or otherwise not in the best interest of the child, and concepts the Court presented that are based in prejudice or bias. Most of the items and concepts presented here reference a section or factor of the Findings & Recommendations for Judgment of Modification (enclosed). These items have a superscript number to reference the relevant statement made within the corresponding section of the Judgment. Many of them also have relevant portions of the transcript from the hearing. The longer transcripts are highlighted in order to draw attention to the most important parts of them. I’ll note here that the transcripts provided are all transcribed by me, using the audio provided by the court. I would be happy to provide the audio as well, if instructed on how to do so.
Item 1: In Factor 2, the Court stated that I do not know what grade my daughter is in.[1] This is incorrect and I stated my child’s grade during the hearing. The primary reason I brought the case was to establish a more structured form of education for my daughter because my ex-wife, the respondent, was not providing that. It should be reasonable to recognize that I’m not sure she has actually progressed enough to be in the third grade. However it is still made clear that I did, in fact, know which grade she would be in, if considering only her age. Here is the transcript of the relevant part of the case:
Start Time [10:39:46]
Respondent’s Attorney: What grade is your daughter going into?
Petitioner: She’s eight so would be going into third grade perhaps.
RA:You don’t even know what grade your daughter’s going into?
P:She hasn’t been in a grade in her whole life so no. I know what the state thinks based on the year of the child’s age.
Item 2: In Factor 2, the Court stated that I did nothing to check into the school my daughter would attend.[2] This claim is not true and I stated during testimony that I did gather all the necessary information needed to arrange for her to attend public school:
Start Time [10:10:22]
Petitioner’s Attorney: So if this Court were to order that [The Child] attend a public school, based on your address, where would she be attending?
Petitioner: [School District Redacted].
PA: And have you looked to enrolling her, what that would take or look like?
P: Yes. I tried to call them a few times, but I believe they are on Summer break and wouldn’t answer the phone. However, I came into contact with the principal, [Principal Name] I believe his name was, and he indicated that I can enroll her in August and the steps I’d have to take to do that.
PA: Alright, do you know if she’s current on her vaccinations?
P: I don’t believe she is. That’s something I’ll have to work with [Respondent] to get.
PA: Alternatively, if the Court did not see fit to make you the residential parent would you still want [The Child] to go to a public school?
P: Yes.
PA: And where would that be based on [Respondent]’s address?
P: She is in the [Redacted] school district.
Item 3: In Factor 2, the Court stated that I exhibited “reluctance” to financially support my daughter.[3] At no point did I express that I was reluctant to financially support my child. I did express that I was unable, which is notably different than the definition of reluctance. Here is the relevant transcript:
Start Time [11:04:48]
Commissioner: And how much support have you paid, since you filed?
Petitioner: I paid. I believe I paid $200 instead of $472 on one month, and $100 on a different month, and then $25 on this latest month.
C: So it’s a.. a total of what that you’ve paid since you filed your motion?
P: I would want to check with my bank records to be sure, but perhaps $325 in the last three months.
C: And why did you do that?
P: Because I’m unable to afford any more.
[...] [11:06:13]
Respondent’s Attorney: So $25 last month, is what you’re saying?
Petitioner: Correct.
RA: That’s what you paid her, that’s what you think is sufficient for [Respondent] to take care of your daughter?
P: No, I believe that’s all I could afford.
RA: So it’s up to your former wife to come up with the rest to take care of your daughter, that’s what your saying?
P: I’m sure it will be tight for both of us.
Item 4: In Factor 2, the Court stated that I have not contributed to any uninsured medical expenses.[4] Both myself and the respondent stated that I did pay for our child’s prescription during the last doctor visit. Here is the part of the transcript where the respondent stated so:
Start Time [11:26:52]
Respondent’s Attorney: We also heard your husband, former husband sorry, testify that since he’s been back he’s bought one prescription for your daughter.
Respondent: Yes. He had her that day, so he picked up her prescription.
Item 5: In Factor 3, the Court stated that the respondent initiated and continued weekend contact between my child and her paternal grandmother.[5] The Court could not have known that it was the paternal grandmother who initiated contact regarding setting up visitation, as this did not come up in testimony. What the Court should have known, however, is that the respondent did not continue doing so after my return to Missouri. Paternal grandmother gave testimony about this. Relevant transcript:
Start Time [11:10:44]
Petitioner’s Attorney: Has your contact, since this case has been filed, so back in September, err August of last year, has your contact changed with [The Child]?
Paternal Grandmother: The contact hasn’t changed, something that I have noticed is, when I have asked um for [The Child] on a certain weekend, if it’s not her father’s weekend to get her, [The Respondent] has not been, has not wanted me to have her on any other time other than when it’s my son’s weekend to have her. Did I answer that?
PA: So your time is now contingent upon [Petitioner]’s time?
G: Exactly, that’s what I’m saying.
Item 6: In Conclusion No. 26, the Court stated that I testified that I am not attending school full time, and that I could be earning $944.00 if I chose to.[6] While I understand that the testimony may have been a bit difficult to comprehend, it should be clear that a) I specifically testified that I was attending full time, and b) that I didn’t testify it was possible to earn the full housing stipend by attending full time. Here are the three times this topic was discussed in court:
Start Time [10:15:22]
Petitioner's Attorney: Do you receive any other form of income or assistance on a monthly basis?
Petitioner: I’m getting a stipend through the Post 9/11 GI Bill. That is a housing stipend based on my education
PA: What do you think the average is per month on that between being in school and being out of school, a monthly average?
P: I calculated that to around 700 and change, $708 maybe.
PA: Alright, and then other than where you’re working at [Business Name], are you currently a full time student as well?
P: Yes.
PA: Where is that at?
P: [University Name].
[...] [10:51:40]
Respondent’s Attorney: You stated in your Exhibit 5 that your other monthly income received is $708 per month, but in your discovery responses you state that you actually receive a $944 from the United States government.
Petitioner: I receive on a monthly basis, prorated for the specific days that I have school, in school; $944 if I am in school for the entirety of that month. However between semesters there are times that I’m not in class that are prorated out, which averages out to about 700 and some.
RA: That’s only for the Summer months? Or are you not in Summer school?
P: I am currently, yes.
RA: Alright, then are you going full time in school next Fall?
P: Yes.
RA: 15 hours?
P: 12 I believe, no 13 I think.
RA: And so that will qualify for the $944 a month?
P: During the months that I am fully in classes, yes.
RA: And then Spring semester, same thing. So you just cherry-picked the Summer month that you’re not going to get the full $944 as part of your income/expense thing, correct?
P: No that's not correct.
RA: But September you will get $944. In October you will get $944.
P: um…[long pause] yes. In September and October.
[...] [10:57:57]
Petitioner’s Attorney: And as part of your VA benefit, which you testified to earlier as $708 per month, how did you calculate that specific amount?
Petitioner: I calculated the days between semesters, including between Fall and Spring, and I mean between Fall and Summer, between Summer and Spring, and um, took those days out of the prorated amount of the $944 and then averaged it per month.
PA: So do you believe based on your calculation that it is fair and accurate?
ME: Yes.
Concept 1: In Findings No. 6, the Court recognized the respondent claimed I did not have suitable housing[7], and testimony in the court regarding the suitability of my housing (shown below) did not show it to be unsuitable. Yet the Court made no finding regarding the suitability of my housing in the relevant Factor 5.
Start Time [10:23:03]
Respondent’s Attorney: She (the respondent) also objected because you were couch surfing. You didn’t have a home when you moved here, correct?
Petitioner: um. I paid rent to a friend to stay in his room, not a couch.
RA: That wasn’t conducive for a little child you’re spending long periods of time with, correct?
P: I disagree. She had her own room while I was in that house.
RA: By herself?
P: Yes.
Concept 2: The Court rejected my parenting plan proposal, which divided parenting time to 50% for each party, with no explanation other than “it’s in the child’s best interest.” The Court ordered a parenting plan that provides me with about 24% parenting time and the respondent with 76% parenting time. This is in opposition to the guidelines for parenting plans set forth by §452.556 RSMo. This subsection states that the guidelines for parenting plans should “maximize to the highest degree the amount of time the child may spend with each parent.”
Concept 3: The Court heard testimony from myself[8] (shown in Conclusion No. 22) and the child’s paternal grandmother that the child was not being educated properly. The Court heard testimony from the respondent that the child struggles with reading and writing. The Court did not receive a curriculum from the respondent during formal discovery. The Court only received two pieces of evidence regarding my child’s educational documentation, a handwritten list of books and an hour-tracking sheet, which were submitted the day before the hearing. Yet in Conclusion No. 22, the Court found it appropriate to enter an order[9] that the mother will continue to homeschool. This order is not in the best interest of the child.
Start Time [11:11:33]
Petitioner’s Attorney: And do you have any other grandchildren?
Paternal Grandmother: Yes I do, I have one other.
PA: And how old is that child?
G: He’s six.
PA: Alright, is he homeschooled?
G: No he goes to a, he goes to a private school.
PA: OK, and have you made certain observations with that grandchild compared to [The Child]?
G: I have, especially in this last year, um, with him being in that school. Um we have time where we sit and read with him and do other, do math with him. Um and I have, observed that he is a.. He is more advanced than she in, in reading and math skills. Um I’ve also noticed an issue where I believe she’s, she’s dyslexic and she needs to be tested for dyslexia. Um she’s not as eager to learn. Um she cries, like if I attempt to have her read. Um she doesn’t want to pursue it, and she cries.
PA: OK, and you said that your other grandchild is six currently?
G: Yes.
PA: And [The Child] is eight?
G: Yes.
PA: So I believe, based on your pa… your testimony, you have some concerns about [The Child] being homeschooled by [Respondent], is that correct?
G: I.
PA: Based on your own observations.
G: I just am not certain that she’s at the level she should be and I uhh, from what I know as far as Missouri law and homeschooling, uhh Missouri is a state that is very lax in their homeschooling. And there’s no, as far as, Missouri education board, there is no, there is no testing that occurs. It’s the, I guess the parent has to produce a certain amount of hours that the child has studied core subjects. But as far as anyone else.. as far as any other accountability from the state, there is not any. And, you know, from what I am seeing I am a bit concerned that she could be falling behind from where she should be, for her level.
Start Time [11:44:04]
Respondent’s Attorney: How do you, outside of just plugging in the hours, which that’s what exhibit G is correct? Just kind of showing what the hours are?
Respondent: Yes.
RA: That she has accumulated. What other ways do you progress uh your child’s education?
R: Well, one of the ways has been through the workbooks she has, of course she’s making progress through the books. And she’s retaining the information. Also I have been, I’ve always kind of compared her to other children that are in her grade-level because of course we have exposure to that from her co-op as well as my best friend’s daughter is her age.
RA: Gotchya, and also homeschooled?
R: Yes, um no. She’s, sorry, she’s public schooled.
RA: And [The Child] is in-line with that child?
R: Other than reading and writing to somewhat, which I have known is a struggle for her. I’ve been closely monitoring that and trying to provide support for that, but otherwise Yes, she is either in line or exceeding in line with those.
[...] [12:05:42]
Petitioner’s Attorney: I’m going to show you what you’ve marked as Response Exhibit F. Do you recall that being the book list that you guys were exercising?
Respondent: Yes.
PA: Do you remember answering or providing certain documents to my office about curriculums and booklists and things like that?
R: uhh.. Yes I believe, I have a list.
PA: And did you in fact provide this handwritten copy?
R: Yes.
PA: So when did that, Exhibit F, come into being?
R: um.. I just recently turned it in. I, At the time I entered that, that was what I had on hand. That I knew about.
PA: So, [Petitioner] had never seen Exhibit F before today basically, correct?
R: Yes, correct.
Concept 4: Though, as previously mentioned, the Court ordered that the child be homeschooled, the Court ordered parenting plan (enclosed) holiday schedule relies completely on a public school schedule. For example, “Christmas: From the time school dismisses for Winter Break until 2:00 p.m. on December 25th.” However, the Court also ruled that the child be homeschooled, which does not follow a strict schedule. This type of holiday schedule is not appropriate.
Concept 5: In Factor 3, the Court offered significant praise to the respondent[5] for ensuring the child maintained contact with her paternal grandmother even though it was stated in testimony that she discontinued that when I returned to Missouri (reference Item 5 of this document). In Factor 2 the Court offered significant condemnation towards me[10] for performing the exact same action, ensuring the child maintained contact with her paternal grandmother. Either the action of ensuring contact with the grandparents is good, or it is not; It should not depend on which parent is performing it.
Concept 1: In Factor 2, the Court made a statement[11] that would logically apply to every service member who has been separated from their child(ren). The Court using this sort of logic is exercising bias against veterans.
Concept 2: In Factor 5, the Court condemned me, based on my gender, for being proactive regarding my child’s education.[12] The Court making negative statements in reference to a party’s gender is exercising gender bias.
Concept 3: The Associate Judge who signed this Judgment, [Name Redacted], has a familial relationship with the person who runs the Facebook homeschool co-op mentioned in Factor 5, [Name Redacted(note last name is the same as part of the judge’s hyphenated last name)]. This likely prejudiced the judge and presents the appearance of impropriety. This judge should have recused.
Considering all the information provided above, I submit that this Court has violated Missouri Supreme Court Rule 2 - Code of Judicial Conduct. To be more specific: