Legal Question in Family Law in California
I had filed contempt charges against my ex in September 2012. At this time he was represented by an attorney. He was arraigned twice for the same exact charges. Once in October 2012 and again in January 2013.
1.) Is this possible?
2.)Is this against California Court Rules Southeast District?
3.) Can a Commissioner not a Judge do this? He has been PRO TEMP for the last few years in our case and I was wondering can I file a motion to dismiss him as the Commissioner or motion to go in front of a JUDGE?
Here is the facts of how it happend and what happened at October 2012 ex-parte.
I then filed an ex-parte in Ocotber 2012 regarding medical issues with my child. The issues were heard. Then my ex's attorney had asked the courts to arraign my ex the same day as the ex-parte. The Commissioner stated it was ok and read my ex his rights. The Commissioner asked if my ex was aware of what he was being charged with and my ex adknowledged he knew what the charges were. So THE ARRAIGNMENT WAS DONE THAT DAY. The minute Orders state from October this:
"At the request of petitioner's attorney the contempt hearing presently set for November 2012 is advance to this date and continued to January 2012 in this department. "
"Petitioner waives time for arraignment."
January 2013
My ex is no longer represented by an attorney and I recieved a SOA form 2 days prior to the trial.
My ex and I attended this TRIAL DATE FOR CONTEMPT in January. It was placed on the courts calendar as "TRIAL:CONTEMPT"which was listed on the courts calendar. When we went up for the Commissioner to hear our case he stated that he was NEVER ARRAIGNED while looking through our file. The Commissioner then asked my ex if he had ever been arraigned for the CONTEMPT CHARGES and my ex stated NO. I then informed the Commissioner that my ex had been read his rights and he was the one who requested this court date in January 2013. I was told by the Commissioner that he can't see where my ex had been arraigned. I said it states it in the Minute Orders from October 2012. (Which are listed above). I explained that in the Minute Order from October 2012 it stated he "WAIVED HIS TIME FOR ARRAIGNMENT. " The Commissioner stated well in case I didn't arraign him I'm going to do it now. I'll just arraign him two times. The Commissioner informed him of his rights again in January 2013. The Judge then stated my ex has the right to 45 days until TRIAL. The minute order states:
"Matter is called for hearing. Respondent requests time to provide proof that the petitioner was arriagned in October 2012 although the minute order indicates the respondent waived time for arraignment on that date."
"Petitioner is arrigned and read his rights this date."
"Court trial on contempt is set for April 2013 in this department."
So Can you please inform me if this is even fair or correct that a Commissioner can do this.
Can my ex legally be entitled to 90 days until trial instead of the 45 days that is normally ordered?
Can someone please explain this situation to me or if they have ever heard of such idiotic behavior by a judicial member?
2 Answers from Attorneys
Look litigating by yourself is emotionally taxing. While you're obviously upset, since it seems your EX pissed you off, I think you're out of line redirecting that on a judicial member. How can you call this actions idiotic if you don't understand? Just don't get angry with the Judge it is all a process. It is not meant to be quick as mistakes happen when rushing.
About your questions, a judge pro tem is a volunteer, meaning he is not getting paid and is spending his time to do this as a public service. Considering what he did, he did what he ought to do with an unrepresented person. The order states "At the request of petitioner's attorney" but next time your ex did not have an attorney with him and your EX, also according to your story, was saying he wasn't arraigned. Thus the Commissioner was simply making sure your now unrepresented EX knew the charges. He has to do that. Any delay in arraignment only matters whether it prejudices your EX's right to a fair trial.
To be honest with you, I think you are making a big deal out of nothing. Contempt powers are very severe, and a judicial officer can get in serious trouble if they mishandle them. It seems in this case, the judge was not sure that your ex had been arraigned, which is a requirement. The judge is just dotting his "i's" and crossing his "t's."
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
