Legal Question re: TD035397
Desiree:
I shall reference any emails containing legal questions relating to the custody/visitation case as above.
I intend to use at the hearing the records of your conviction for being under the influence in a public place in 2000. That conviction, however, is under the name Virginia Tomlin. Do you concede that was you?
If not I shall have to request the court subpoena the Santa Monica Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department for the mugshots and fingerprints relating to that arrest and booking. I mention the following only as a legal advisement: if you claim it was not you then the court orders the police to provide the mugshots and fingerprints it will seriously affect what credibility you have left.
If you do not respond I shall assume you do not challenge whether the arrest and conviction pertain to you.
Fox
What do you think thie judge with do with a charge from 12 years ago for "public intoxication"? You tried that in the 2002 case and the judge didn't buy it then (and refused your demand for drug testing). You gonna try it again? Yes, it was under the name Virginia.
Desiree:
Thank you. The purpose of presenting the conviction from 2000 is to show that your current drug use is not a one time or recent development but that it's been a way of life for all of your adult years. That shows that a) you are unlikely to change it or stop it, and b) you have been putting your other son in harm by having him around drugs all his life which goes to your character and judgment as a parent.
Telling you this is a bad strategic move on my part (revealing the arguments I intend to raise beforehand) but I am not trying to take advantage of your ignorance of the law or legal procedures or strategy. I know you don't have much knowledge of, or experience in the law and I have no intention of capitalizing on that. In all fairness, without an attorney I don't think you have much chance in court. But, contrary to whatever you may believe, I am not trying to screw you or get back at you for anything.
At the 2002 hearing I did not have irrefutable proof of drug abuse. Your recent arrest and your medical marijuana card are irrefutable proof of marijuana use. Perhaps you're right, though. Perhaps the court will not require drug testing prior to contact with Gabriel. However, I believe it would be negligent on my part not to request it. I've seen too many people piss their lives away hitting the bong and I don't want Gabriel spending time in an environment where smoking pot is considered normal and acceptable. And if it turns out that you are, actually, also using meth (or keeping meth in the house) then there's no question what the court will do. But, again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt until I find out otherwise.
It's not a drug charge, it was public intoxication.
California Penal Code section 647(F) is as follows:
Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
- (f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.
Copied from http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/647.html
The penal code does not differentiate between drugs or liquor for the purpose of section 647 however the police report states that you were under the influence of a controlled substance and you pled guilty to that. Moreover, you were under 21 at the time. Even if you could convince the court that it was only alcohol that you were under the influence of it still shows a substance abuse problem because you were not legally permitted to possess or consume alcohol at the age of 19. In addition, you would have to convince the court that alcohol caused the behavior in the courtroom that resulted in the court ordering you for psychiatric evaluation. Add to that, you continue to consume alcohol to this day.
I'm not being adversarial. I'm informing you of the facts and the matters of law so that, hopefully, you can make a rational decision that will be in Gabriel's best interest. Look, Desiree, I would want nothing more than to see you doing well, off drugs, and living a good, productive life, making reasonable, rational choices (even if those choices disagree with what I would choose to do, as long as they're based on rational consideration), so that Gabriel can look at both his parents as positive role models and be proud. That is the impression that I got from you when I first got in contact with you. Your actions since June 2011 have been completely contrary to your first few letters. I've never said you were a bad person, but I do think you've been making some really poor choices which have been affecting Gabriel. When I believed you were clean and doing well I had no problem leaving the past in the past, but I don't see a lot of difference between who you were in 2000 and who you are now.
It was 12 years ago Fox. Go ahead and try to prove a case with that.