.

y
1': t.

SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MINUTE ORDER 02-0CT-2002

Dept:
Judge: Case #

L66 Nancy Wieben Stock

Clerk:
Case Name

Linda

Sun

980003818

KING V KING

No Appearances. You are hereby noticed that, effective 10-15-2002, this case is ordered reassigned to Commissioner Gale P. Hickman, for all purposes. The previous order assigning this case to Judge Daniel T. Brice is ordefGd vacated. All hearings for the above mentioned case shall take place in ~e~artment ot the central Justice Center.

t63

The Central Justice Center is located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, Ca. Department C63 is located on the Third Floor, West Wing. Department C63 can be reached at 714-834-3368. All filings with the exception of ex parte relief for emergency orders for this matter should continue to be submitted to the Family Law Clerk of the Court at Lamoreaux Justice Center, 341 The City Drive, Orange, Ca. 92868. Emergency ex parte relief should be submitted directly to Department C63. The hearing dates of matters currently set on or after 10-15-2002 are to remain and will be heard before Commissioner Hickman in Department C63. Entered: 02-0CT-2002 Clerks Certificate of Mailing (CCP l013a) - I certify I am not a party to this cause, over age 18 and a copy of this document was mailed first class postage prepaid in a sealed envelope addressed as shown below. Mailing and execution of this certificate occurred on OCT 0 3 2002 at Orange, California. Alan Slater, Chief Executive Officer and Clerk pf the Superior Court in and for the County of Orange by SOPHIA BEROAv&' ,Deputy.

ROBERT C BERGEN 333 CITY BLVD. W., STE. 1240 ORANGE, CA 92868

DIANNE M KING
22320

HARBOR RIDGE LANE

NO. 2
TORRANCE, CA 90502

of

Associar:e

to

(MNllO)

..
To : The Honorable Judge Daniel T. Brice Orange County Superior Court - C65

9/2112002
Re: King vs. King - 98-D003818

This is an informal request for you to voluntarily reconsider your decision on 9/20/02. It is my contention that your decision must have been a judicial oversight as the decision to dismiss my case was done even though: 1) The Motion filed was signed on 9/16/2002 4 days prier to the court date of 9/16/2002. Therefore the motion filed failed to meet the deadline as prescribed in: CCP. 1005(b). - Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 21 calendar days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court "All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least 10 calendar days, and all reply papers at least five calendar days before the hearing. " Additionally there is no local protection of this failure under Orange County Rules of Court: Rule 703(E) Time Limitations: Responsive or supplemental declarations, memoranda of points and authorities and other documents in support of a position shall be filed in the department where the OSC or motion is set and served on the appropriate parties or counsel not less than 48 hours (two court days) prior to the date and time of hearing. The court may allow responsive declarations to be filed at the time scheduled for the hearing, however upon a showing of prejudice to the other party, may permit a continuance if requested. Respondent filed a "Motion in Limine" and a responsive. Motions require filing "At least 10 calender days" prier to the hearing. This motion could not be heard on 9/20/02.

2) These papers were served to 223210 Harbor Ridge Ln. apt #2, Torrance Ca. 90502 as my Address of record is 22320 Harbor Ridge Ln. #2, Torrance Ca. 90502 3) I was not served "conformed endorsed-filed copies of all of the moving papers" as required. I was not served a financial declaration nor copies of his paystubs. I have no way of knowing if this was actually filed or not.

4) Respondent's motion for relief was filed in a "Motion in Limine" and added an accusation of a frivolous action that is a separate motion and is not a response seeking affirmative relief under Orange County Rules of Court 706(c).

5) Respondent claims that he was not personally served. Respondent has failed to file a
motion to quash service of summons and has: a) "By seeking relief other than as provided in CCP 418.10,418.11 or FAM.C. 2012, respondent makes a general appearance and submits to the court's personal jurisdiction in the action. "The voluntary appearance of a defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons and copy of the complaint upon him" (Code Civ. Proc.,

416)"
b) The motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action amounted, substantially or in legal effect, to a demurrer to the complaint on that ground. At all events, a motion to dismiss on the ground of want of jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action necessarily calls for relief which may be demanded only by a party to the record. It has been uniformly so held, as logically it could not otherwise be held, and, furthermore, that where a party appears and asks for such relief, although expressly characterizing his appearance as special and for the special purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he as effectually submits to the jurisdiction of the court as though he had legally been served with process." [Crabtree v. Superior Court, 197 Cal.App.2d 821]. c) Respondent was served called me on xxJxxJ2002 and statement I can't believe that you are trying to put me in jail. He appeared in court on August 30th 2002, with attorney Grainne Ward and offered to pay children's psychological evaluation if I dropped the contempt case. Further he agreed to postpone the existing case to trail the contempt therefore further demonstrating 'Jurisdiction" and knowledge of the service and motion by executing his rights against self-incrimination and due process. 6) Respondent states in his motion "Petitioner merely states of total amount due". My "OSc. And Affidavit for Contempt" pg. 2 states reasons and refers to the pages relevant in the accompanied chronicled "King vs. King-Evidence in Support". There are typographical errors that should be amended. a) For failure to pay his 12of the joint tax obligation it should read- pgs. 2,13-25. b) For failure to pay support 6115/00, 7/01/00 - pgs. 2,3,11,12 c) For failure to pay support ordered on2/21/02 by Judge Brice - pgs. 28-31

The accusations are exact and documented. The page numbers were typos. The documentation in support is enormous and includes the copies of garnishment receipts from employers of partial payments, a list of all checks, missing arrears, and checks from his personal account. In fact the checks are written by him and include the support dates they cover he prove conclusively that payments are past 30 days late and

automatitally a violation of contempt. He has siened these checks and therefore

already has testified against himself. Pg 29-31 7) Petitioner is requested sanctions against me while he has abused this system. His choice to

attain an attorney in the 11th hour is evidence ofhis lack of "Good Faith". He has currently failed to respond to the motion in a timely matter and has thereby denied me the time prescribed to prepare myself properly. As I am in "Pro Per" this is multiplied lOx. Further he is accusing me of being frivolous and harassing him. I in no way, am harassing him and I have continually attempted to resolve this issue for the last three years
by asking him to pay what he owes and agree to the correct amount of support as statutes have prescribed. I am at a huge disadvantage but I intend to exercise my rights to the best of my ability and the fullest extent guaranteed by the Constitution, Legislators, and Justices. He is further seeking ridiculous sanctions in the amount totaling $13,000 from a "Pro Per" for mailing a copy of my motion instead of having it personally served. 8) Respondent has declared on pg. 2 of responsive declaration 9116/02 that all support payments have been made and are documented in Petitioner's evidence accompanying her contempt action." This was signed under the penaltv of contempt. a) Pgs 29-31 of this documentation clearly shows that, April 2002, May 2002, June 2002, the payments were a minimum of30 days late. That is 3 instances of

contempt.
b) It further documents that the 7/1/2002 and the 7/15/2002 payments have never been paid. This is another contempt c) The Respondent has declared his own contempt in his declaration refuses to testify he has convicted himself. and if he

9) Respondent further says I said in open court "that no back support was due". a) I stated in open court "Not at this time" when the judge asked if I was pursuing any other arrearages. I never did say respondent doesn't owe them. b) On 7/6/99 Respondent agreed to retroactive support in the amount of$687.5 twice a month. After failing to pay the difference as agreed I had to obtain on order to garnish respondents wages. c) This order stated 10 months of2 payments of $38.83 payments. There were only 18 of the 20 arrearage payments made. Payment due 6/1/2000 was short

and payments due 6/15/2000 and 7/1/2000 were never paid. The garnishment took longer than expected and he accrued additional arrears that were not on the order but were still due. There was a standing order often months of payments and respondent only paid nine.

d) Therefore from 6/1/2000 every month until support was abated (September
27th 2001) or for 16 months respondent failed to make his court ordered support payments and is therefore in contempt every month. 16 additional accounts of contempt

10) Declaration #3 - " The order on 7/6/99 regarding tax obligations was paid by garnishment of my portion of the divided 401 K in 1999" d) The order dated 7/6/99 is the equalization of assets and debts but at no point does it credit respondent with paying $6228.33 of taxes. e) In fact the equalization contains an error in math that incorrectly denied me $1718.80 that was due to me. f) This statement supports the fact that he has made no payments to our joint obligation and has forced me to pay all cost including $8140.00 of his obligation. The academics are set forth on pgs. 13-25. 11) Declaration #4 -" I did not fail to provide Petitioner with my employer's name address and phone number" g) "At the time of the petitioner's request on 5/22/00, I had not started work - One week after I started my new job I called Petitioner's mother and gave her the new employers name address and phone number." As of 5/19/2000 Respondent had received final compensation from Toshiba. This means not only did he have full knowledge of his new job he also had given Toshiba some kind of two week notice. This contradicts the innocent complying demeanor of this statement. Further, it took my lawyer to find respondents job. h) "Petitioner's request for employer information on 12/15/01 could not befurnished as 1 was not employed until 12/19101 1 attempted to call Petitioner however 1 was unable to speak to her. " Respondent has my cell phone, home phone and work phone and has reached me to exchange the children. "1finally gave the information to our son Blair on 111102." His responsibility is to give it to me. Respondent's credibility is non-existent as respondent specifically told our son "Blair" that he would be in trouble if"mommy find out I have ajob" This was told to my mother while she was watching "Blair" during his Christmas break while respondent was working. I found out where he worked only after Grainne Ward sent proof of his job just days before court date of 2/21102. This is a perjured statement as I didn't know until January about him having a job and kept quiet to keep my son from getting in trouble until I found out who he was employed by from Grainne Ward.

Also we have directly exchanged the children since September so the statement regarding being unable to reach me is another ridiculous lie.

Based on this evidence presented I all of the respondent's motions should have been denied with prejudice as further attempt to suppress evidence can only impede justice. I attempted to express this in court and you wouldn't listen to me. I am absolutely terrified of you. You have the ability to take my children away and deny me justice. I was in court when you told a lady that if she cares about her children that she cannot afford not to have an attorney. You further gave her a date and told her to be sure she returned with an attorney. On 8/26/200230 seconds before I went in front of you, you made a comment to the attorney's in court that" The Appelettejudges that believe it is the right/or people to represent

themselves need to come and sit in the court and deal with the 20 little messes that I have to deal
with every day. " I understand your frustration as I can easily see how much time can be wasted, however it is my constitutionally guaranteed right to self-representation and taxpayer money pays our judges to provide.an atmosphere and forum for judicial equality for all persons Pro Se or not. I am not trying to insult you or attack you in anyway. If you would take 10 minutes and look at the document entitled" King vs. King -Evidence in Support" you will see without a doubt that I have support money owed to me, have been denied access to money I have worked for, have incurred thousands of dollars in attorney bills trying to get what was rightfully mine. You have punished me for not having an attorney and have rewarded him for disrespecting this court's orders by giving him an advantage that further impairs my ability to afford an attorney. I have tried to have an attorney and have incurred $20,000 in attorney fees. Respondent makes $80,000 per year plus options and bonuses I make $25,000. I didn't choose not to have an attorney I was forced not to. If this court had forced respondent at some time during the last two years to pay his arrears of over $4000 and his tax obligation of over $8000 that was taken from me I would have a lawyer. Further I have incurred over $8000.00 in attorney fees trying to get $2000.00 in arrears.

If my take home is about $1800-2000/mo and I am paying rent, car insurance, utilities and supporting 2 children how can I afford an attorney when the court still after 2 years has not addressed my arrears. I cannot afford my own health insurance. He has not had to pay his support that he owes and can afford to pay three attorneys and agree to pay $4,000 $6,000 to a psychologist friend of his attorney to recommend the removal of my child from my home. I am trying to survive and he is buying Hi-Definition Big Screen Televisions.
There is no reason that Grainne Ward needs to talk to a "Independent" evaluator of my children's needs. That person needs to assess my children, their father, and myself only. Grainne Ward's input can only skew the process in her favor. In an attempt of "Good Faith" I agreed to use their evaluator on the simple condition that she was not allowed to talk to the evaluator. This was denied

Respondent is a verbally abusive and controlling person with a lot of charisma so he doesn't appear so. I help to support him from when he was a telephone installation person and I made more money than him. He advanced in his career to an excellent position. He wouldn't allow me to return to school to become a RN as he didn't like the idea of me making more money than him. I wasn't allowed to drive and didn't get my license until 1999 after my divorce at 29 years old. I

divorced him in this court to alleviate myself from his control and yet he controls my life and my finances more now than ever.
I am not uneducated and have not pursued anything frivolous or un-merited. I have not embarrassed this court and have provided basis for my case. I have purchased the $400 California Practice Guide - 2002 and am paying $80/week to have access to "Find Law" to help me attempt to protect my rights and access case law an rights. I have not insulted you or the integrity of this court yet I am being punished with decisions. I am in Pro Per and I know you don't want me to be. You told me at least 10 times in court" That why you need a lawyer". Please allow me to fail and loose my case on the merits, rather than decisions that I hope are "Judicial Oversights" and not what appears on face to be "biased".

If this has not been simply a "Judicial Oversight" a person would be forced to question if there was any type of preferential treatment being provided to an attorney who has served as "Judge Pro Tern" in the court, and was running for a Judgeship in the Orange County Court. Respondent had told me before that I can't win as Grainne Ward is personal friends with most of the judges in this court and has served as a judge. I hope this insight of the respondent is was a lucky prediction of the outcome and not some sort of admission to more of the unethical conduct of his attorney based on some type of agreement or knowledge of relationship currently unknown to me. However there are issues that must be raised if not an oversight.
1) Grainne Ward is able on September 27th 2001 to get an order abating support to a pregnant

mother supporting 1 child and about to start her maternity leave without ever having a

motion filed or served anybody during a court date that has been agreed to be continued by all parties.
2) Grainne has preferential treatment and continually talks to the judge in chambers about a case where there is no representation there for the "Pro Per" person.

3) Where this same attorney has lied to the court regarding a "Threat" that never happens. 4) My attorney makes statements to me that the judge believes that I should be working more than 36 hrs. per week- I should be working 40. - I haven't been involved in this conversation in court. 5) When my attorney tells me that the judge has had difficulties with me yet I have followed everything the court has asked and respondent has violated orders and stipulations on at

least 30 different occasions.

6) When Grainne Ward's client is in arrears and everyone in the court knows it, has violated almost every order this court has made, and the presiding judge dismisses the case with prejudice for the contempt that everybody knows he is guilty of This case is dismissed for

improper service yet this motion it is guilty of a more numerous and more serious instance of improper service. Yet all of my legitimate, statute guaranteed, case verified
defenses against the dismissal are ignored.

7) Why is it important that the attorney is able to speak to the "Independent" evaluator. The
report should be submitted to the court and the court should use it on it's merit or allow both parties to view what the independent evaluation is. Grannie Ward and I are in adversarial

position as she nearly caused the death of my child, she has lied time and again to the court, and made negative comments to the last evaluator. I don't understand why she was
there the last time stating that I "Allegedly was the custodial parent" as this is more of her unethical behavior. I also don't understand why she needs to say anything to the next evaluator - I don't have kids with her, they don't live with her and her input is only negative.

My motion to have her not speak to the evaluator is denied.

8) When we were in court on Friday, Grainne Ward made a comment to you attacking a letter written to by me to Perry that she gave you. She stated ''that it was disturbing". I don't understand how the court could have in its possession a copy of a personal letter written on the previous Saturday to respondent and we were in court together and there was never a request in open court to enter this letter into evidence into the record. Yet you replied ''yes I have a copy right here in front of me". How does evidence get to the judge this way? Where is my due process? 9) Why has this court still not addressed his obsession with guns and his attempt to retrieve guns he has been compensated for. This type of behavior only solidifies my position as to the obsessive behavior that coincides with all the things that have happened in this case 10) Why has Respondent never been forced to provided proof of income in two years of court when Orange County Rules of Court 702(a) requires compliance with C.R.C.1225(b) and 702(c) requires three pay stubs State and Federal tax returns, and his W-2. His employment letter states he gets $80,000 per year plus 40,000 shares of the company in 33 installments and health is paid by the company yet he claims $80,000 as his income (66671 mo.) This is just under the change in calculation in the support calculator and does not include his shares in a $250 million company and he is given a $250 credit for health insurance. I can't even afford health insurance.

Pro Per litigants are supposed to be held to a lower standard than the attorney counterparts, How am I being held to a higher one. The purpose ofthis court is to provide justice and a balance this has not existed in this case due to the aggressive and unethical conduct of respondent's attorney. With respect I ask that you re-consider your decision and either re-instate the case as a "Judicial Oversight" or dismiss it without prejudice. Further this case is inherently sensitive and you have made it clear that you hate doing "Pro Se" cases. Also I respectfully ask that you voluntarily recuse yourself from this case and relieve yourself of this "Pro Se" litigant as I will not lay down to Respondent or Grainne Ward any longer and will do every legal thing available to protect my rights, keep my children, recover money that belongs to me, an find an equitable solution to this abomination of a case. I seek resolution and your question in court about why we don't just agree to keep the children separated as they are is a valid question and would be answered if you would listen to the CD you refused to admit in evidence. It is what we agreed to, except he wanted to use his attorney to bully me into accepting $400 per month in support "or I will take both fucking kids away from you." As you can see by the calculation in record that is still below the correct guideline, $400 is way below the California guidelines of what he should pay. And for this the case continued since September last year. This case is about money, control and the abuse of power that superior financial position provides. It has nothing to do with the children.

With Regards,

Fanily Law Public

Woo - Print

Register Of Action

Pa;}e5 of 6

ROA 143

Docket Oed crati on-Uni form Custody Proof Of Servi ce-Other Proof Of Servi ce-Other Proof Of Savice By Mal-Family Law Notice-Ooc Continua1OO By

11441
145

Filing Date 08120/200 08/23/200 08123/2002 08123/2002 08/2812002 09/20/2002

Filing Party Dienne M. King DianneM. King Diame M. King

Dtame M. King

Document SeI 2 pages es 1 pcges 1pcges

Minor Children

2paJeS
3pcges

g
D

J~
tf(

r.

C'
~

09/20/2002 109/20/20021 This Date 09/20/2002 09/1312002 09/13/2002 09/20/2002 09/20/2002 Responsive 000 T 0 Osc-Domesti c 09/20/2002 Violence Proof Of Servi ce-Other 09/16/2002 Proof Of Servi ce-Other 109/16/20021 Proof Of Servi ce-Other 09/1612002 Proof Of Servi ce-Other 09/16/2002 Minute Order Reassignment Re 1010212002 Inventory ChCJ1ge M oti on-Other 09/20/2002 Proof Of Service By Mal-Family 09/20/2002

Dianne M. Ki n9 DimneM. King Perry R. King Perry R. King

Perry R. K in9

DimneM. Kin DianneM. King

INSTANT ORDER - NO COURT RECUSAL DEMAND DfUVERED 9/24 - MARKED 104

Perry R. King Perry R. King Perry R. King Perry R King

2pcge; 2p~es

LCMf

Mati on-Other Motion-Other MinuteOrder-Continuoo By Stipulation RElCISS gnment -I nventory Proof Of Service By Mal-Family Law M iocell CI100US Document Noti ce-Conti nuance Minute Order Conti nuCllce Affidavit-Other Response'Repl -Other Responsi ve Oed aati on esponse-M oti on Or Opposi ti on

109/20/20021 0912012002 10/08/2002

\NoDocumen1D
DianneM. King Diame M. King Perry R. King 1 PC)des DiameM. King DianneM. King Perry R. Kin Depatment Of Chi Id Su port Savi ces 1pcges

https:llocapps.occourts.orglfcmpub/Pri

ntRoa.do

9/27/2012

128585
AITORNf'(OR PAAlY1fTHOUT AnORNEYOR GOVERNt.'.EHT,tLJrrGEN::'f K 11475.1, U4782J (NMIJfI. slal&beI'lXNnbw, ...-d.ct:te.uJ:

~WtM.'!nIl

Code,

FOH COUNt U:'l: ~'l

'(

rRANDALL K. RUPP 165774

i.AW OFE'ICF.S 01" RANDALL

K. RUPP

RANDALL x. RU?P 910 WEST 17TII STRE8T #"

SANT1~ ANA,
Ta.PHONENO, An(RNE.Y fOR (NanmJ:

CA.

92706 (714) 542-2000 Pe r r y fL King,

COUNlY

FAX NO.:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA.

5TREET ADDRESS:

OF

Jr. ORANGE

IMIUNG AODR.I!SS:

an AND ZiP CODE:

BRANCH NAME:

341 THE C:JTY DRIVE PO 30X 14170 ORl\NGE, Ch. 92663-l570

I,AI10Rr,;J.I.UX

I
I

JUSTICE CSNTER
KTNG
t{.

PETITIONERIPlAINTIFF: RESPONDENTIDEFENDANT: OTHER PARENT:

DTf,N'IIF.:

hRI{Y

KlNG,

JR.
NUO<&R.

~.-NOTICE:

....

_.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL restraining

orders

CAS

98DO::3UlO

To serve temporary

you must usc persona! service (see fonn 1285.84).

1. I am over the age of 18. not a party to this cause, and not a protected person listed in any of the orders. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place. 2. My residence or business address IS:

910 W. 17Lh st Santa Ana, CA

reer

Suite

9270G

3. Iserved

a copy of the follOWingdocuments (specify): Rcsponsi vo Declaraticn to Order to Show cause , Defendants' Hobon Ln Limine Ra : Lack of Specificity in Charging ),\].1 cUClti.or:, Defendants' Motion i:l ..t mi nc I(C: :..ack of Personal se rv. ce , and Derenriclnt"l' Motion ~n LimIne re: S~~ctlon~ A9a~nDt Petitioner.

by enclosing them in an envelope AND a. 0 depositing the sealed envelope with Ihe Unrted states Postal Service wtIh the postage fully prepaid. 1>. :J[! placing the envelope for collection and mailing on the dale and at the place shown in item 4 following our ordinary business practices. I am raadily familiar wilh this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing. it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service In a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
4.

The enveiope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: ni.anna King b. Address: 22J210 Hazbo r Ridge Lane,

Apr;. ?

Torrance, c. Date mailed: ')/16/02

CA

90502 Sar.ta Ana, Ca 1 i r orru.a

d. Place of mailing (city and state):

5. I deciare

under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of tho State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: 9/16/02

.,T.a9Js.i.e. \(4PP.
(T'I?E OR PRIHT NAME) Fwm~'9dbyRulltl2'85.8S Jud'iaal Council 01 CUfomiol I ZS5.M !Now Jutv I. 1eooJ

.. .. ~ ~t1~~~T~-':--TIIIS--fOOM)-(See inSlructiollls on reverse) ,- -- \.. ,

~~'

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

(Familv LoW)

L.lmal >ns' SoIi.I~1rl

CodoolCl'''';;''"" e. !S

'0'" '0''''

27-SEP-2001
Clerk:

08:30;00

SUPERIOR

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANCE MINUTE ORDER Convened at

Dept: Bailiff:

L60 DANlEL BRlCE LES VANDERKOLK DC 980003818

JudgeJComm:

JOANNE SCHWARTZ

Reporter:

STEVE PAY, CSR 7034

Case Category:
Case Number: Event: 248

DISSO WITH ClllLD KlNG y KING

SUPPORT,CUSTODY,vrSIT, OTHER ... FILED 09-13-00 BY 02 255 OSC RE MODIFICATION CHll.D SUPPORT, A/F, OTHER ... FaED 09-01-00 BY 01

ase RE CHILD

APPEARANCES: ATIORNEY FOR RESPIDEFf IN OPEN COURT AT 9:20AM. ORAL DISCUSSION HELD.

GRAINNE WARD-LAW OFFICES OF

COURT GRANTS RESPONDENT'S

COUNSEL'S MOTrON TO CONTINUE. HEARING CONTINUED TO: Event: 248 OSC RE CHILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY,VISIT, OTHER. .. FILED 09-13-00 BY 02 255 ose RE MODIfICATION CHILD SUPPORT, A/F, OTHER ... FILED 09-01-00 BY 01 Date: 16-0CT-Ol at 08:30:00 1..60

COURT ORDERS CHILD SUPPORT ABATED PENDING THE t Q...16-0 1 HEARING. RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL INFORMS THE COURT THAT RESPONDENT HAS LOST

#13 JMS

ENTERED:

27SEP200 1

SfP 28 2001


Dept: L69 DAVID S. WEINBERG DAVE ERICKSON DC 98D003818 Clerk: Reporter: Judge/Comm: Bailiff: Case Category: Case Number: Event: DISSO WITH CHILD

Convened at 08 :00:00 DOROTHY OKUTSU DEBRA CADIZ,CSR 9076

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MINUTE ORDER 30-AUG-200l

KING V KING

248 OSC RE CHILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY,VISITATION FILED ON 9/13/00 BY RESPONDENT 255 OSC RE MODlFICATION FILED ON 8/1/00 BY PETITIONER

APPEARANCES: PETITIONER RESPONDENT ATTORNEY FOR DIANNEKlNG PERRY KING

GRAINNE W ARDLA W OFFICES OF

RESPIDEFT
HEARING CONTINUED TO: DEPT L60 Event: 248 OSC RE CHILD SUPPORT,CUSTODY,V Date: 27-SEP-Ol at 08:30:00 \ _

Oe. \\ca ..... -r

.... I QlAec.-.

4"
I

IN DEPT L64, PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CONTINUE IS DENIED.

MATTER TRANSFERRED FROM DEPT L64 TO DEPT L69 FOR TODAY'S HEARING. JUDGE

"i."
,~

,,0 ffZ.
1\

STIPULATION TO COMMISSIONER DAVID WEINBERG AS TEMPORARY SIGNED BY PETITIONER AND COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.

IN OPEN COURT. COUNSEL WARD PRESENT FOR RESPONDENT. BOTH PARTIES PRESENT AND SWORN. COURT HEARS FROM PETITIONER.

AUG 31 Z001


COURT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT. BOTH PARTIES VOIR DIRED BY THE COURT.

30AUG20oi 98D003818 2of2

COURT APPOINTS, PER FC 3150, ROBERT BERGEN TO REPRESENT THE MINOR CHILDREN. COURT FINDS IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CHILDREN. EACH PARTY IS TO PAY COUNSEL BERGEN $500 AS A DEPOSIT FOR HIS ATTORNEY FEES SUBJECT TO REALLOCATION AND FURTHER FEES. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE MINOR CHILDREN SIGNED AND FILED THIS DATE. COURT FURTHER ORDERS COUNSEL BERGEN TO PREPARE A STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS AND SERVE A COPY ON ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL AND FILE WITH THE COURT PRlOR TO THE NEXT HEARING. COURT MAKE.s NO CHANGES TO THE CURRENT ORDERS.

MATTER IS CONTINUED TO 9127/01 AS SCHEDULED ABOVE.

BOTH PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT, THEY ARE ADVISED THAT THIS CASE IS ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DANIEL BRICE FOR ALL PURPOSES. COURT TEMPORARILY ORDERS THE CHILD, BLAIR, IS TO REMAIN ~TH RESPONDENT AND THE CHILD, ELLE, IS TO , , REMAIN WITH PETITIONER.
\

ALL PRIOR ORDERS TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

PETITIONER IS TO WRITE DOWN HER CURRENT ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND THE ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER IN TORRANCE AND GIVE THAT INFORMATION TO RESPONDENT BEFORE SHE LEAVES TODAY. RESPONDENT IS TO WRITE DOWN IDS CURRENT ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER AND GIVE THAT INFORMATION TO PETITIONER BEFORE HE LEAVES TODAY. COUNSEL TO GIVE NOTICE TO COUNSEL BERGEN. ENTERED: 30AUG2001

r-

PETITIONERIPLAINTIFF:DIANNE

KING

CASE NUMBER

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

PERRY

R.

KING

980003818

OTHER PARENT:

4.

c.

d. No provision of this order may operate to limit any right to collect the principal (total amount of unpaid support) or to charge and collect interest and penalties as allowed by law. All payments ordered are subject to modification. e. All payments must be made to (name and address of agency): Orange P.O. County Dept. of Child Support Services

Box 448
92702-0448
must Issue.

Santa Ana, CA
f. g. An Order/Notice

to Withhold Income for Child Support (form FL-195)

':'; Obligor Obligee must (1) provide and maintain health insurance coverage for the children if it is available through employment or a group plan, or otherwise available at no or reasonable cost. and must keep the local child support agency informed of the availability of the coverage; (2) if health insurance is not available, provide coverage when it becomes available; (3) within 20 days of the local child support agency request. complete and return a health insurance form; (4) provide to the local child support agency all information and forms necessary to obtain health care services for the children; (5) present any claim to secure payment or reimbursement to the other parent or caretaker who incurs costs for health care services for the children; (6) assign any rights to reimbursement to the other parent or caretaker who incurs costs for health care services for the children. If the "Obligor" box is checked, a Health Insurance Coverage Assignment (form FL-470) must issue.

I==:J

h. Both parents must complete the Child. Support Case Registry Form (form FL-191) and send (deliver or mail) it to the local child support agency withiA ~ days of the date of this order. The parents must notify the local child support agency of any change in the information submitted on the form by submitting an updated form within 10 days of the change.
i.

The form Notice of Rights and Responsibilities and Information Sheet on Changing a Child Support Order (form FL-192) is attached.
I ]

j.
k.

The following ,person (the "Other Parent") is added as a party to this aclio'n under Family Code section 17404 (name):

x :

The court further orders (specify): Defendant owes arrears of $3,420.00 for the period 8/02 - 12/02. Defendant owes arears of $2,705.00 for the period 1/03 - 5/03, total arrears of $6,125.00 less child support paid since 8/1/02. Cou~r Rc~G~S
::fuRI?i)K.not0 (JIftu jl/ppoRr

ru

]J~/<MI.JC tJRD(!ReD

17k
7ODA-Y

rr'.ImL I~

,4MOf'/\/r

or:
#'1GtlfeR

H~Re-~~
/A.)(.CJ.-fl:!

CWI?t)

w o

'/Z)

HOOIF,(

J77'~

PI<bo;: oP

15 ree ... ~A)TtfD

WALTER D. POSEY

JUN 13 2003
VvALTER D. POSEY
JUDICIAL O~FICER

Date:

JUN 1 3 2003
attached:

5. Number of

WALTER

D.

POSEY

Approved as conforming to court order: Date:

SIGNATURE FOLLOWS LAST ATIACHMENT

(SIGNATURE O~ ATlORNEY

FOR OP'

~L.~7

IRev Janu~ry 1. 20031

ORDER AFTER HEARING

(('!I"'\\lor"nrnant::.l\

p;age 2

0'

20D3
1:-

DissoMaster(trn)

v.2003-1

page

Ci(X(~ ~

,?~po( 1.i->:

,*V
DissoMaster Data Screen
Monthly Figures (2003) Cash Flow Analysis Comb. net spendable Gdln. Prop. Mother Mother Guideline Nets (adjusted) Father

Input Data Party Jnfo Number of children % time with NCP Filing Status # federal exemptions Wages + salary Self-employment income

king king

6443 0% 541

6495

4124 2319 6443 541

Percent change king, payor of CS, Prop. CS Payment cost Net spendable income

0.8% 470 3654 71 56.3% 138.1% 1302 71 7 4311 522 2841 -20 43.7% -38.1 % 357 -20 5 2236

20
HH/MLA

20
HH/MLA

Mother Total

(,

}suppon
Presumed CS Basic CS Add-ons Spousal Support Total Proposed, Tactic 9 blocke

3582 0 55.6% 0% 1442 0 5 4161 541 2861 0 44.4% 0% 269

0

5667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101
0

2600

Change from guideline of combined spendable

o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0

541 % 0 %

Other taxable income TANF plus CS received Other nontaxable New-spouse Adjustments (ATI) income

of saving over guideline

Total Taxes

d Dep. exemptions value

income to income

541 #

withholding

allowances

Net wage paycheck

SS paid other marriage CS paid other relationship Health insurance Itemized deductions Required union dues Mandatory retirement

Presumed CS Spousal Support Total Comb. Savings Releases to king (opt)

610 0 610 52

Mother Payment benefit Net spendable income

Change from guideline % of combined spendable

0 0

0
0 0*

of saving over guideline

Total Taxes Dep. exemptions val\.Je

Hardship deduction Other guideline deductions) AMT Info (IRS Form

O
6251)

0
0
0

Default Case Settings

12)
0 Default Tax Settings

# withholding

allowances

7 2312

Net wage paycheck

Child support add-ons

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE LA~(\I1'" .' '~. I' ,,.,rlr.r: CENTER

FILED

MAY 0 1 Z003
ALAN Sl~_~.~.ur'

~-

Calculation Results Summary and Detail

~S""""
'I~ ) "'0
Parent 1 584.00 584.00 0.00 0.00
0.00

Page 1 of 4

Calculation Results Summary ~ Monthly Support Totals Monthly Child Support Amount Basic Child Support Amount Child Support Add-Ons Amount Child Care
vtsnrrravei

Parent 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

Expenses School Expenses Uninsured Health Expenses

0.00 0.00 0.00 ().OO Parent 1 4221.00 5667.00 0.00 5566.00 4454.00 3637.00 HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD SAME AS FEDERAL 2 663.00 181.0Q 434.00 0.00 67.00 NO Parent 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 01.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per Child

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parent 2 2273.00 2600.00 0.00 2600.00 ~488.00 2857.00 HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD SAME AS FEDERAL 97.00 0.00 199.00 0.00 31.00 NO' Parent 2 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0, 0.00 0.00. 0.00 2

Total Arrears Support Amount Temporary Spousal Support Amount (N/A) Information (Tax Year: 2004) Monthly Net Disposable Income Monthly Taxable Gross Income Monthly Non-Taxable Gross Income Federal Adjusted Gross Income

, Monthly Tax/Income

r ,

2,t<
1J2.'

, Federal Taxable Income Net Income Of Parties With Support , Federal Tax Filing Status
I

Number of Tax Exemptions (Federal) State Tax Filing Status Number of Tax Exemptions (State)

, Federal Tax Liabilities State Tax Liabilities FICA Self Employment Tax CASDI TANF/CalWORKS Other Monthly Deduction Totals Child Support Paid (Other Relationships) 'Required Union Dues Mandatory Retirement Other Guideline Deductions Health Insurance Premium Hardstup Deduction Amount Hardshi~ Deduction Children Necessary Job-Related Expenses Extraordinary Health Expenses Uninsured Catastrophic Losses Monthly Support Amounts

.....

211

% Time
with Parenti

Parent l' Parent 1 Parent 1 Parent 2 Parent 2 Parent 2 AddTotal AddSupport Total Support Ons Ons 0.06 0.00 193.00 391.00 193.00 391.00

HRST-BORN SECOND-BORN Average % Time with NCP ,

50.0 50.0 50.0%1

().OO
0.00 0.00

10.00 0.00 0.00

G.OO
0.00 0.00

0.001 584.001 584.00

PARENT 1 is required to pay PARENT 2 $584.00 in CURRENT SUPPORT

, Total Child Support Arrears Per Child

II

Child Name

Prior Period Date Range

Parent1

Parent1

Parent1

Parent2

Parent2

Parent2

https:llwww.ese.ea.gov/ChildSupporti

csel guidelineCalculator/viewGuidelineCalculation...

12/12/2012