​DEVIL WARS

Year 2013 (Home) No. 337

Inquiry of visitation interrogation case trial

 

Petitioner : Joyce Yasmin Brown

Address : Hell H-ill 

​

Opponent : Joe Burton 

Address : Heaven (hereinafter, confidential)

​

Minor eldest daughter 8 years old
Jazzmin Jewel Burton

Minor second daughter 6 years old

Janice Bell Burton
 

Main sentence

1 Dismiss the petition.

2 The procedure fee in case shall be borden by the Petitioner

​

Facts and reasons

I  Purpose of the complaint

Regarding nursing care for minors, the method of when Petitioner and Minors have meetings.

​

II  Claim of Opponent

II-1 Drug use of the Petitioner 

(opponent's assertion)

The petitioner announced to the opponent around August 2011 that the opponent uses the MDMA on the premise vision assumed that the minors were at the danger risk of life and the complaint of 10 million yen Claiming payment of charges and claiming criminal charges includes the other woman's partner. Because of this, the other party suspected the petitioner concerned about drug use and held the meeting. The petitioner shouted at the opponent's younger brother, where the minor two girls were around, shouting at the same time around December the same year to opponent's mother. On the 30th of the same month,  Petitioner came to the opponenty's house and requested "get drug test" in a disturbed state. 💩 (There is nothing to be excited about in front of a child, I think that it is prohibited to visit in order to keep disturbing the transmission of the facts and to keep on getting excited.)

According to the attitude of the above Petitioner, the opponent said there is a danger of minors taking away, and adverse effects on minors themselves opponent was strongly concerned that it might occur.

According to the brothers and sister, the petitioner said that after divorce, drugs were used at home and the frequency of use was also high. 💩 2 (Why is it possible for brothers and the other party to share drug use information?) 

 

(Petitioner's assertion)

The petitioner is a member of society, not a drug dependence state.

 

II-2 Taking away action · refusal to take back by the Petitioner

(Assertion of opponent)

The petitioner took out the second daughter who was in the kindergarten on June 18, 2012 despite having no appointment for the visit. On the same day, the petitioner forced her first daughter to forcibly hold her and took her away. Despite the eldest daughter's school schedule and the opponent's request, the petitioner did not let the minors go home on the same day. On the 23rd of the same month, the petitioner notified the other party not to return unless they accepted living with minors or it will be difficult petitioner let minors meet opponent in the future. 

 The petitioner tried to take away the eldest daughter who was under school on October 29 of the same year.

 

(Allegation of the petitioner) 

On the 23rd of the same month, the petitioner told the other party that she decided to take care and feed underage of minors, the other party also agreed. in the 24th when petitioner went to other party's home there were all stuffs for daughters includes schools stuffs in front of the entrance which petitioner requested to opponent.

  On the 25th of the same month, the opponent sent e-mail to petitioner he prepared package for minors, asking them to take minors or go to school or to attend, opponent is doing contradictory actions.

​

II-3 The feelings of minors

(Assertion of opponent)

Underages have taken refused stubbornly the meetings with the petitioner because of frightened to take away by mother as the Petitioner 💩 (It was a fear of abuse from the other party and his family, right?)

 

(Petitioner's assertion)

The opponent is communicating the evil situation of the Petitioner to underage people, minors are only considering the opponenty. Minors have realized that the opponent is angry about seeing a petitioner by acts of the other party.

 

III Court's Decision

III-1 According to one case record, the following facts are recognized.

(1) Background to divorce and remarriage of opponent

1. The petitioner and the other party married on April 25, 2005. Between the petitioner and the opponent, on the same day, the eldest daughter was born. Then second daughter was born on March 14, 2007.

2. Prior to the divorce with the opponent, the petitioner had offered to be separated.  

3. The petitioner and the opponent divorced upon mutual agreements on March 3, 2011. At that time, parents of minors were determined as opponents right.

4. The petitioner and the other party have not made rules to periodically conduct meetings between the petitioner and the minors at divorce and after divorce. 

5. The opponenty married to woman on January 21, 2013. (Hereinafter referred to as "stepmother")

6. The minors are currently living together in the Nanjo City, Okinawa Prefecture, with the eldest son, the second son who are the follower of the opponent's stepmother.

 

(2) Implementation status of meetings up to June 2012 after divorce

1. The petitioner met with minors about once a month since March 14, 2011.

2. In the same year, the petitioner had a meeting with sleeping night accompanied with opponent on the petitioner's birthday of the same year.

3. The petitioner visited a kindergarten where the second daughter attends, around   December of the same year.

4. The petitioner visited the opponent's house with the Petitioner's father on the 30th of the same month and discussed about meeting arrangements with the opponent under the presence of the father of the Petitioner and the opponent's mother.

5. The petitioner sent a letter to opponent on June 10, 2012(ref 2). The petitioner stated in a letter, "I apologize deeply for the series of riots since last year, I believe it was a misdirected act of wanting to get back my own children."

 

(3) Facts concerning the use of drugs 

1. In May 2011, the petitioner took the entrance exam of the music school in the Netherlands. 

2. The petitioner, on 16 August of 2011, ordered the opponent by email, that MDMA is a dangerous drug leading to death if the child accidentally drinks, that the other party has used MDMA without respect to the danger of the child.
   Apologize then sign up to the document stating the transfer of custody of minors to the petitioner because MDMA using is an action not suitable for custody, with paying cash for 10,000,000 yen of consolation fee which endangered the lives of minors. (ref 1) 

3. The petitioner filed a letter sent to the other party like below on June 16, 2012, "I was shouted out loudly by a person who came across" "Weight has reached 30kgs", "In the morning, around 6 o'clock, the door open, someone came into and turned on the light, and was sitting in front of the piano," and  "Mirror ball suddenly fell down from the shelf and turned around "(because it hanged up at the ceiling with a thread.) ," I think that's because I love music and cannabis "," I think that I do not want to have rules to bind myself It is also true for cannabis. "," Notice given to me, largely due to cannabis. When it was the drink, worst resulted as Alcoholic  "(ref 3).

4. The petitioner visited the opponent at midnight from the 18th of the same month to the following 19th and said that he told she had smoke cannabis in the Netherlands when talking with the other party.

 

(4) About occurrence on June 18, 2012

1. The petitioner visited the opponent's home on June 18, 2012 and went to the kindergarten where the second daughter is attending, with the mother of the opponent. The petitioner brought second daughter to young sister of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner visited the opponenty's house again on same day and took out elder daughter for celebrating petitioner's birthday promised to return to the other party at the latest on the same day, the eldest daughter then brought her to sister's home of petitioner.

3. The opponent contacted the petitioner to let the minors go home by phone or e-mail because minors did not return home on that evening. 

4. The petitioner visited the opponent's house and they had discussion at the midnight 18th to 19th and petitioner promised to bring back minors in the morning then minors came back home of opponent.

 

(5) About the occurrences from June 23rd to the 27th 2012

1. The petitioner requested the opponent to meet with minors in order to attend the petitioner's grandfather's service on June 23, 2012, and the opponent gave minors to the petitioner with the rule he made which is petitioner must return children in the day.

2. The petitioner did not let the minors go home to the opponent until 27th of the same month.The petitioner had not minors to attend school between the 23rd of the same month and the 26th of the same month. The opponent consulted the police to press petitioner to return minors. As a result of the police officers being present, the petitioner let the minors go home to the opponent.

(6) Abstract of the petitioner at the hearing conducted on July 24, 2013

1. About drugs, The petitioner mentioned that she had smoke cannabis in the Netherlands in May 2012 and that she has never used cannabis or other drugs after returning from the Netherlands.

2. The petitioner understood that the reason why minors stayed at the petitioners sister's house on June 18, 2012, that the eldest daughter requested to stay there to sleep and for minors petitioner thought that was too late to let them go home.

3. The petitioner said that minors said that the petitioner's side is much better on the reasons why the minors did not return to their opponents from the 23rd of the same month until the 27th of the same day and petitioner said that their feelings were more important than opponent's request to return children.

4. The petitioner said that from this time she will stay the rule of meeting, and also if minors requested petitioner not to want to return to opponent but petitioner understands that she must explain the reason because there is a rule of meeting where at would be about Okinawa Prefecture as a place of meeting.

(7)Abstract of the petitioner at the hearing conducted on October 22, 2013

Based on the incident in June 2012, the petitioner said that minors are afraid of opponent, especially when conflicts occurred between petitioner and opponent elder daughter recognized if the petitioner have arrested by police again against the statement of the opponent that the eldest daughter is afraid of taking away by the petitioner, and the petitioner thought that it was unbelievable that minors said they were "scared of being unable to leave there " 

In addition, the petitioner explained that, in the case that minors wanted to live in Yokohama, petitioner explain children must return under the opponent will by now. and then have mind which is make a judgment to change parental authority to a petitioner.

 

(8)Abstract of the petitioner in interview survey by family court inquisitor

Based on the fact interviewed by a family court investigator conducted on October 22, 2013, on the premise of the petitioner which is minors would have wanted to love with the petitioner, petitioner can not say to minors "Live with your father, not me"
It is not  true at all which opponent enforces their step mother as a mother.
The best thing for minors should be together with their mother is the petitioners thoughts then if minors requested petitioner to change their custody petitioner will make judgement to change the parental right.
Even after the explanation by investigator which is meeting arrangement based on the
esteem of the situation where the children now is the most high state on its Judge then both requests which are changing parental right and meeting arrangement on judge would be heavy for children but petitioner declared its mind is changing parental right on 5th Nov of same year.

(9) Feelings of minors and other family in interview survey by family court inspector

Family court inspector conducted an interview survey on minors on December 5, 2013 and the same 9th. The current living situation of minors and the feelings of minors recognized from the same interview survey are as follows.

1. Minors dislike that the petitioner was leaning towards music by neglecting minors and that she had stated bad things about paternal grandparents, but until June 2012 minors did not dislike the meeting itself with the petitioner.

2. About the incident on June 2012 minors said that petitioner brought them to her place then could not return to opponent, thought like could not go back to opponent in the future that made them scared much, thus petitioner said that she could make arrangement to meet opens but she didn't make it so minors recognized as she lied, minors have fear is not able to go back to opponent if once minor meet petitioner so minor declared " never want to see petitioner in the future".

3. Minors stated that there is no point in the current living with the stepmother and their children and living together. According to the results of the interview survey at the opponent by the family court inspector, it is recognized that the current living conditions of minors are stable. 💩 Sorry crying Stable and steady through.

 

(10) Response of the petitioner in the trial proceedings

1. The Inquisition was initially held at the Yokohama Family Court, but the opponent had applied to this court on April 12, 2013, as opponents and minors moved to Nanjo City, Okinawa Prefecture. At that time, the opponent made an opinion that it could not concretely clarify the address below Nanjo City, Okinawa Prefecture, because there is a danger of taking away the minors by the petitioner. The Yokohama family court domestic trial examiner decided to transfer this case to this court on May 1 of the same year, and the same decision was finalized.

2. After the case was transferred to this court, the petitioner ran around Okinawa Prefecture Nanjo City with a rental car to grasp the location of the opponent the day before the appeal date in this court. (ref 5) 💩

3. Since the petitioner and the opponent himself did not appear on the fourth hearing on December 20, 2013, the Court held a hearing based on interview results of minors on January 24, 2014 to be carried out.

4. At the 5th trial on the same year, the petitioner's attorney stated that the Petitioner could not appear due to a bad physical condition and stated that she wants a hearing by way of a video conference or telephone conference in the Yokohama Family Court. In response to this, the court specified the appointment date at 10:00 am on April 15 of the same year, and the petitioner attended the Yokohama Family Court and decided to conduct a hearing by the method of video conference. 💩 Once a toilet fails. I do not connect

5. The petitioner 's lawyer filed with the court on 28th that same year that lawyer would like to resign as an lawyer' s representative on petitioner. On the same day, the petitioner decided to conduct a hearing on the premise that she will appear at the Okinawa court, not on the method of video conference between Yokohama. The petitioner did not appear on the sixth trial date on April 15 of the same year. On the same day, the petitioner stated to the Court clerk that she did not arrange air tickets due to her economic circumstances. 

6. The petitioner reported to the court in writing that she asked to postpone the due date after June of that same year because she was diagnosed as hospitalized for one month due to overwork due to arrhythmia and over breathing etc. on April 24. On 16th May of the same year, the petitioner filed a medical certificate signed on 8th of the same month that the petitioner is in the hospital due to a mood disorder and the incident on June 18th, 2012, the minor is a family I filed a written statement stating that it is feeling like being pinched by a fox about what minor says to a court inspector that minors can not return to opponent. 💩リンク貼って This answer should have been submitted on March 25, there are 21 pages, I would not have wanted to convey feelings like being pinched by a fox.The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 13th May, 2014

7. The Court has decided to hold a hearing 27th June of the same year on 26th May.The petitioner received a diagnosis of WPW syndrome, paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia on May 27 of the same year. The petitioner said on 6th June that the physical condition was getting better and that she surely appear on the due date on 27th of the same year, but she did not appear on the day. 💩 Judgment has been decided, is it that she calls it many times

 

III-2  About the drug use of the petitioner

The petitioner is admitted to have smoked cannabis at least in the Netherlands. However, there is no sufficient evidence to admit that the petitioner smokes cannabis at this time, and it is not enough to admit that the cannabis aspiration history of the Petitioner immediately harms the welfare of minors. (What about MDMA?)

 

III-3  Taking away · refusal to take back actions by the Petitioner and concern of minors feelings

(1) According to the fact of the above certification, the petitioner did not observe the promise with the opponent let minors go back to opponent's on June 18, 2012, and kept stayed minors all night at petitioner's sister's home. On the 23rd of the same month, petitioner also made minors stayed at petitioner's and did not keep the promise to let the minors go home on 23rd until the 27th of the same month. It recognized minors had fear of being unable to return home when they met with the petitioner about these facts, also minors don't trust actions and words by petitioner which saying like you can see opponent.

 

(2) On the other hand, the petitioner searched for the place of residence of minors and found that minors wanted the truth to live with the Petitioner. After receiving an explanation from the family court inspector that petitioner must understand which esteem is the situation in minors living NOW is the highest priority on Japan Judge of meeting arrangement and in addition after survey reported which was shown minors feelings by inspector but unfortunately it seems petitioner could not reach understanding or it seems petitioner could not take actions following these our directions of judge side.

By the way, petitioner said that she will follow the rule of meetings with minors from this time. But assuming and concerning the situation which she could not attend at the courts many times after revealing minors feelings at survey result would be impossible for petitioner to be act accordingly.

 

(3) From the above, it is concluded that visiting and meetings are held between minors and the petitioner until June 2012, and considered minors did not dislike the meeting with petitioner, but judge recognized the situation now is against the children's welfare.to permit meeting among petitioner and minors.
💩 (I acknowledge that there is no problem in the meeting itself, why is it banned?)

 

Therefore, as in the main sentence, the decision is.

 

July 31, 2014

Family court

Domestic Judge : Go Mount Light K.O. Boy

​