This page contains all of the documents filed in the Arizona child custody case I filed the time I abducted our child and took him to Arizona to try to get custody of him.
In December 2001, when our son was 15 months old, I abandoned him in Phoenix and ran off back to Florida. Patrick then raised him alone for the next 9 years, with no significant contact and with no assistance or support from me at all.
In January 2011, Patrick tracked me down and put me and our son in contact. In May and June 2011, I made two weekend trips to Los Angeles to visit our son. Then, in August 2011 I went to Los Angeles and took our son, by force, back to Arizona where I tried to get "emergency" custody by falsely claiming Patrick had been hiding our son from me for the past 9 years, that he was an illegal alien, and that I believed he would again disappear with our son. I even tried to get a restraining order prohibiting all contact between our son and Patrick.
The major issue in this case ended up being the question of whether Arizona had jurisdiction in the matter. Patrick argued that California was our son's home state and must have jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
As usual, I had a useless, jackoff attorney (David L. Goldfarb, of Gillespie, Shields & Durant) - one of those typical, arrogant, Arizona attorneys who insists just because someone (Patrick) didn't go to law school, he can't possibly have any idea what he's talking about.
Ultimately, the Arizona and California courts decided that Patrick was right and California was the home state and the state with jurisdiction. For that reason, this case was dismissed.
In the end, I ended up paying that fucking Goldfarb thousands of dollars for accomplishing absolutely nothing! He was punked by a asshole with absolutely no formal legal training (Patrick).
|2011-08-11||Desiree||Notice of Appearance||Desiree's notice that incompetent attorney, David L. Goldfarb, of Gillespie, Shields & Durant, would be representing her.|
|2011-08-11||Desiree||Affidavit of Foreign Judgment|
|2011-08-11||Desiree||Findings and Order After Hearing||A copy of the 2002 order from the California court, granting Patrick and Desiree joint legal and physical custody of their son.|
|2011-08-11||Desiree||Notice of Filing Foreign Judgment|
|2011-08-11||Desiree||Notice of Filing Certified Copy of Judgment|
|2011-08-24||Desiree||Petition for Dissolution of Marriage|
|2011-08-24||Desiree||Emergency Ex Parte Petition for Temporary Custody||Attempt to get "emergency" custody by falsely claiming Patrick hid our son from me for 9 years, was in "prison", and was going to be deported upon his release from prison.|
|2011-08-24||Desiree||Notice of Rights|
|2011-08-24||Court||Order to Attend Parent Information Program Class|
|2011-08-25||Court||Order to Appear for Expedited Pre-Decree Temporary Orders Hearing|
|2011-08-30||Court||Minute Entry||Denying request for ex party action; setting a hearing for the temporary custody request; appointing a best interest attorney for their son.|
|2011-09-07||Court||Minute Entry||Appointing Timothy Nelson as Best Interest Attorney for Patrick's and Desiree's son.|
|2011-09-16||Desiree||Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Order for Child Custody||Desiree's second attempt to get a temporary custody order, and an order prohibiting Patrick from having direct contact with their son. Desiree falsely alleged Patrick was threatening to take their son back to his home state of California. Because this was an "ex parte" motion, Patrick was not given the opportunity to appear or respond to Desiree's allegations.|
|2011-09-16||Court||Temporary Order Without Notice for Child Custody||Temporary order granting Desiree sole custody of their son, based solely on her false allegations Patrick had hid their child from her for 9 years and was now threatening to go to Arizona and bring their child back to California.|
|2011-09-16||Court||Minute Entry||Granting Desiree's request for emergency, temporary custody of their son.|
|2011-09-16||Desiree||Petition for Order of Protection||Desiree attempted to obtain an order of protection against Patrick, for herself and their son, in order to prevent Patrick from having any contact with their son.|
|2011-09-16||Desiree||Proof of Filing Petition for Order of Protection|
|2011-09-16||Court||Order of Protection||Order denying Desiree's petition for an order of protection against Patrick.|
|2011-09-19||Patrick||Motion to Continue|
|2011-09-21||Patrick||Motion to Dismiss||Based on Arizona not having jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because California was the child's home state, and because the child was only in Arizona as a direct result of Desiree's misconduct.|
|2011-09-26||Court||Minute Entry||Ordering Desiree to respond to Patrick's Motion to Dismiss; for Patrick to provide Desiree's attorney a copy of any documents filed by him in the California court; ordering Desiree to allow Patrick to have telephone contact with their son; keeping the temporary custody order, Desiree having sole legal and physical, in place until the next hearing on November 26, 2011.|
|2011-10-11||Desiree||Response to Motion to Dismiss||Arguing California was not their son's home state because Patrick had been in custody in Arizona for the past 4 years. The argument was incredibly weak and shows the type of frivolousness you can expect from the type of hack attorneys Desiree hires.|
|2011-10-21||Court||Minute Entry||Determining California to be their son's home state, and the court which shall have jurisdiction over the child custody matters.|
|2011-10-21||Patrick||Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss||Arguing that Desiree's claim that Arizona is the home state, because neither parent has been residing in California for the preceding 6 months was incorrect because the home state is based on where the child resides - not the parents. Regardless, this reply was moot because by the time it was filed, the Arizona and California courts had already determined California was the home state and would have jurisdiction.|
|2011-10-25||Desiree||Notice of Non-Compliance and Accelerated Request for Telephonic Conference||Allegations that Patrick was failing to comply with the court's orders, and requesting the court set an accelerated conference with the California court to determine the issue of jurisdiction. The pleading was moot, however, because the courts had already conferred and determined California had jurisdiction.|
|2011-10-28||Court||Minute Entry||Setting a telephonic status conference for Desiree's Notice of Non-Compliance.|
|2011-10-31||Court||Minute Entry||Informing the parties the Arizona and California courts had conferred and determined that California was the home state and would have jurisdiction in all matters relating to child custody.|
|2011-11-09||Patrick||Response to Notice of Non-Compliance||By the time this was filed with the court it was moot because the courts had already determined California had jurisdiction in the child custody matters.|
|2011-12-02||Court||Minute Entry||Vacating existing temporary custody orders and conceding jurisdiction to the California court; dismissing all pending matters - including the petition for dissolution of marriage even though that could have continued in the Arizona court.|
|2012-11-16||Desiree||Notice of Withdrawal as Attorney|
|2015-05-20||Court||Minute Entry||Consolidating case FC2011-001201 (Desiree's petition for annulment of marriage) into this case; directing Desiree to proceed by default regarding the annulment.|
|2015-06-17||Minute Entry||Denying Desiree's Ex Parte Motion to Amend Court's Orders Dated May 20, 2015.|
|2015-07-02||Desiree||Application and Affidavit for Default|
|2015-07-02||Desiree||Notice of Change of Address||This is when Desiree moved in with James Pendleton's home in Sahuarita, AZ.|
|2015-07-20||Desiree||Notice of Default Hearing||Notice, the hearing date is set for August 4, 2015 and Desiree filed her Petition for Order of Protection in the Sahuarita Municipal Court on July 21, 2015. Which means this action was still pending before the Maricopa County Superior Court when she filed the order of protection - which means, even without considering the pending action in the California court, the Sahuarita court again did not have jurisdiction to issue the order of protection because this case was still pending.|
|2015-08-04||Court||Default Decree of Annulment of Marriage||Assuming there are no questions of jurisdiction resulting from the fact that a Petition for Dissolution was already pending in the California court at the time this Petition for Annulment was filed in the Arizona court, then this effectively annuls Patrick's and Desiree's marriage. However, that question of jurisdiction may still be raised, at any point, which could, potentially, invalidate this decree.|