Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

NO.

C071887

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL


OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

SUSAN C. FERRIS,
Appellant,

v.

DAYID M. FERRIS,
Respondent.

Appeal From the Sacramento Superior Court


Case No. 98FL05615

Hon. Matthew:Gfily, Judge Presidi11:g

.RESPONDENT'S BRIEF

R. PARKER WHITE, (SBN 95579)


POSWALL, WHITE & CUTLER
1001 G Street, Suite 301
acratnento, CA 95814
Tel; (916) 449-1300
Fa: (916) 449-1320

. Attorney for Respondent


.: :.; .: :AVID FERRIS
.
. .. . .

'
. . . . .
...
' :l'
> ... :.''
'
! .-_. ;
.. ' . "

- .
-:.
-.. ..
. . .
.
.. - .. : ..:
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
.

APPELLANT NEVER REQUESTED COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT WOULD HAVE MADE


ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
.

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

'
'
.
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE CJBNS.ORG

INTRODUCTION

Appellant seeks the reversal of an order prohibiting any contact with a

daughter who she abducted. The sole bass of the request is that at the time of the

order, appellant chose not to be represented by counsel.

Accordingly, in order to find for appellant, this court must determine that:

1) appellant asked for an attorney and wanted to be represented by counsel; and 2)

had an attorney been appointed and had appellant been represented it would have

made any difference at all.

APPELL.ANT NEVER REQUESTED COUNSEL

As a review of both the Reporter's Transcript ("RT") and the Clerk's

Transcript on Appeal ("CT") will reveal, at no time did appellant Susan Ferris

request that the court appoint her counsel. Appellant has pointed to no evidence in

her opening brief that any such request was made.

The fact that appellant is currently represented on this appeal by two

separate law firms speaks to the fact that when she wants representation, she's able

to get it. She chose not to be represented and she cannot now claim on this appeal

that she's entitled to have another hearing on the matter.

Throughout appellant's opening brief, there is the suggestion that appellant

was wrongfully accused of arranging for her daughter's flight to someone else's

custody. Although respondent denied it under penalty of perjury in open court, her

1
daughter admitted that her mother was involved in making arrangements for her to

live in another place contrary to court order. (RT ER 196 9:14) Indeed, the only

reason that appellant has not been prosecuted for her criminal activity is because of

respondent's desire not to involve his daughter in further proceedings and allow

her to return to a life of normalcy.

Ironically, the court below did in fact offer appellant counsel for her

daughter. (RT 81:23-25) "Ms. Ferris, please bring her in, and her voice will be

heard. Not only will her voice be heard, but she, herself, will have an attorney."

Despite this offer by the court, appellant refused to cooperate and arrange for her

daughter to appear.

In fact, appellant expressly stated that she wanted to represent herself at

page 129 of the Reporter's Transcript on Appeal, lines 1:11.

THE RESPONDENT: I do have a right. You know, our founding fathers -


THE COURT: Ms. Ferris - -
THE RESPONDENT: - - are you looking down right now, and I do have a
right - -
THE COURT: Ms. Ferris - -
THE RESPONDENT: - - to represent myself - -
THE COURT: Ms. Ferris, you do - -
THE RESPONDENT: - - in this court of law.
THE COURT: Ms. Ferris, you are representing yourself. And hold on, I'll
give you a chance to speak.

Accordingly, not only did appellant never ask for a lawyer, she expressly

stated she wanted to represent herself.

2
f,J
! .:
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT WOULD HAVE
; MADE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE

As revealed in the trial transcript, the order terminating appellant's right to

see or communicate with her daughter didn't come out of the blue. It was the

terminal event in a long series of events that appellant brought upon herself. As

the court will note at page 72: 1-15,

THE COURT: The Court issued an order, I believe it was on November 41\
ordering sole legal, sole physical custody to dad. I think it was actually sole
physical custody to the father; is that correct?
THE RESPONDENT: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ZEFF: I think it was sole legal and physical, Your Honor, with
...

supervised viSitation to the mother.


THE RESPONDENT: Could I - - may I ask a question, Your Honor?
THE COURT: And - - yes, ma'am.
T RESPONDENT: Why was that? I've never gotten a clear answer as to
why that was.
THE COURT: The Court was concerned about the child's health, safety and
welfare.

Over and again, appellant has demonstrated to anybody who listens to her

and observes her behavior, that the child is not in safe hands with her. No amount

of lawyering can change that conclusion.

It became painfully apparent as the court proceedings went on, that

appellant had absolutely no respect for the court process. (RT 75:26-28)

Eventually, the court below expressed what had become painfully apparent about

the whereabouts of appellant's daughter despite her denials when the court stated,

128:6-11:
3
"Mr. Ferris is aggressively pursuing the recovery of his daughter. Ms.
Ferris, you're aggressively pursuing websites and Darrell Steinberg. Your
daughter, apparently from both of your testimonies, the boots that she was
wearing on the night she disappeared are now in your closet. I don't know
how they got there. They got there."

To uggest that the presence of counsel could somehow alter the fact that

appellant was actively hiding her child contrary to court order actively committing

perjury is ludicrous.

Moreover, appellant did in fact avail herself of counsel during the court

proceedings below. See hearing, pp. 149, et seq. Again, it is clear that when Ms.

Ferris wants representation she gets representation. Even with representation at

the court below, nothing would alter the outcome. Perhaps this entire case is best

summed up by the comment that the court below made in one of the last hearings:

"Right now I'm going to give the child a break. She's been through
a lot. And unfortunately, Ms. Ferris, she's been through a lot based
upon your misconduct. And I'm going to give her a chance and give
Mr,.. Ferris a chance to try to work through these things, and give her
a chance of coming out in the end of all of this some hope - - with
some hope of being normal."

4
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL BRANCH NEWS SERVICE CJBNS.ORG

CONCLUSION

This has been a sad and difficult ordeal for everyone involved. No good

. .will come of a reversal of the lower court's findings and orders. For that reason,

Attorney for Respondent


DAVID FERRIS

.. . ..
'I - 1l

5
' . '

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

_:)Le.<:fli#e,dJ)yrule 8.204(c)(l) of the California Rules of Court and in reliance on


:':::.:,;::, r:
.. .. _, ,-; ;

;Q,uf.ofthe computer program used to prepare this brief, counsel certifies that it
-;;:::;:_:_.;_::: y':
'il24_:.siiig--l3 point Roman type and consists of 974 words.
,;;;t:';)!,'// ..
Loyerriber.20, -.

2013 POSWALL, WHITE & CUTLER

Attorney for Respondent


DAVID FERRIS

. :: .
,.,,_
William Kennedy
Stephen E. Goldberg
LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
512 121h Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
via overnight delivery

Kendraciancy