CathyinTexas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,143
- Reaction score
- 182
And did she use the name Elizabeth Jones, ie, the fake id.
Legal and Law Questions - * No Discussion *
- Thread starter NewMommy09
- Start date
And did she use the name Elizabeth Jones, ie, the fake id.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
Custodial interference--December 20 at whatever time Logan was supposed to get him.
Kidnapping--Because she's the mother, I believe that would come into play only after EJ made a threat of harm to Gabriel or stated that she had actually harmed him.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
The link didn't work for me. An affidavit like that would be filed in court in order to get a final order of adoption. I would assume it could be filed in any county, regardless of what county she signed it in. I don't know if adoption court records are open in TX (probably not), but LE could certainly get them. Most likely, though, LE would need to know the name of the adoptive parents to find the right file.
It is kind of strange that anyone would have her sign legal documents for an illegal adoption. :waitasec:
momtective
Lifetime WS Non-Mod
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 11,995
- Reaction score
- 26
Sorry, the link changed somehow in the post...let's try it again http://www.texaslawyershelp.org/tyla/library/attachment.86703
The thing I really think happened is that the adoptive couple may have known that the adoption was/is a "legal risk" but I doubt they thought it was an illegal adoption. I believe EJ had a Texas ID and probably claimed to be a Texas resident so if she went through an attorney of the adoptive parents choosing, the attorney wouldn't have had a clue.
They adoptive parents found their own birth mother (independent adoption) so no 3rd party such as an agency would be involved, just the birth mother, adoptive parents and an attorney to file the necessary paperwork.
Granted with Gabriel's story out there now, they surely know that it's an illegal adoption but what if they are just waiting it out knowing that nothing on the legal paperwork indicates EJ or Gabriel as EJ and Gabriel...kwim.
I really believe the adoption will be consummated in a Texas court within the next 4 months. It will be illegal yes but who will be the wiser? Only the adoptive parents and the attorney. Obviously the attorney doesn't value his law license very much if this is indeed what has happened with Gabriel.
Another thought...one of both of the adoptive parents just might be an attorney :waitasec:
Mom..I was brainstorming here and was about to ask a question, but I think you shed some light on what I was going to ask....I was just trying to figure out where all these legal documents were coming from...be it TX or AZ. Since you can do so much on line these days, are those documents you can just download and proceed. Somewhere, surely, there has to be a true player in this.
CathyinTexas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,143
- Reaction score
- 182
Regarding a Texas ID, I think the witness statement that she had a Texas ID under another name suggests Texas residency was the reason for the fake ID. Even if Gabriel were to become unrecognizable over time, don't they have to have a valid birth certificate, and most importantly, a Social Security number? I believe that SS numbers are given at birth now.
BeanE
Inactive
Hi AZ. I just went through Elizabeth's court documents as well as the transcript of her hearing. I found it odd that although she's charged with conspiracy, there's no mention of Tammi, who I assume is her co-conspirator.
Is there anything significant about that? Or is it no big deal?
Thanks as always!
:blowkiss:
Is there anything significant about that? Or is it no big deal?
Thanks as always!
:blowkiss:
BeanE
Inactive
Hi, AZ. When you have a chance, could you please explain in plain English what JM/The Adoption Place did wrong per this case:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ig=AHIEtbTcCCK52BSWjXhJGhI6T5JTYXbkyg//&pli=1
I interpreted that Adoption Place made only perfunctory attempts to determine who the father was, and the court found they should have made diligent attempts. Then I decided to ask you because I don't want to guess wrong
TIA!
ETA: The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, reversed and remanded the trial court’s order terminating the Appellant/Unknown Father’s parental rights through service by publication. The appeals court held that the trial court erred in granting a protective order that prohibited the Appellant’s attorney from gathering pertinent information to determine his whereabouts and/or identity. The appeals court also held that Appellee/The Adoption Place, Inc. did not make a “diligent inquiry” of the birth mother to ascertain the identity of appellant before serving appellant by publication. Thus the court determined since the requirements of service were not met, all proceedings held were void.
and
The issue of whether a name and address are reasonably ascertainable, or can be found with diligentinquiry, “is a question of fact and must be determined upon trial.” Freeman, 926 S.W.2d at 250.The strangely identical affidavits of L.V. and J. M. are more concerned with keeping the birth mother’s name out of the notice than with detailing their efforts to identify the unknown father. The only information about identifying the father is contained in paragraphs 5 and 11 of both affidavits. Each paragraph 5 states: “The birth mother did not know who the father of the child was and simply stated that she was at a party in Jackson, Tennessee when [the conception]occurred.” This statement is classic hearsay and is not admissible. Tenn. R. Evid. 802. Each 8 paragraph 11 states: “This agency has no other source to seek the identity of this father.
and
The trial court specifically found that, “[T]he Adoption Place has made reasonable effortsto ascertain the identity of the father from the minor mother,” but made no findings as to theevidence supporting this conclusion. Actions taken to achieve service of process in these cases should not be merely perfunctory. In Re C.L.M., No. M2004-02922-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 842917,*5 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 30, 2006) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Simply asking thebirth mother if she knows the name of the father and then giving up is not sufficient. Given the woeful absence of information regarding the steps taken to identify the father provided in these affidavits and the record, this Court must conclude on this record that the preponderance of theevidence shows The Adoption Place did not carry its burden of demonstrating the “diligent inquiry” required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 21-1-203(a) in order to use service by publication
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ig=AHIEtbTcCCK52BSWjXhJGhI6T5JTYXbkyg//&pli=1
I interpreted that Adoption Place made only perfunctory attempts to determine who the father was, and the court found they should have made diligent attempts. Then I decided to ask you because I don't want to guess wrong
TIA!
ETA: The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, reversed and remanded the trial court’s order terminating the Appellant/Unknown Father’s parental rights through service by publication. The appeals court held that the trial court erred in granting a protective order that prohibited the Appellant’s attorney from gathering pertinent information to determine his whereabouts and/or identity. The appeals court also held that Appellee/The Adoption Place, Inc. did not make a “diligent inquiry” of the birth mother to ascertain the identity of appellant before serving appellant by publication. Thus the court determined since the requirements of service were not met, all proceedings held were void.
and
The issue of whether a name and address are reasonably ascertainable, or can be found with diligentinquiry, “is a question of fact and must be determined upon trial.” Freeman, 926 S.W.2d at 250.The strangely identical affidavits of L.V. and J. M. are more concerned with keeping the birth mother’s name out of the notice than with detailing their efforts to identify the unknown father. The only information about identifying the father is contained in paragraphs 5 and 11 of both affidavits. Each paragraph 5 states: “The birth mother did not know who the father of the child was and simply stated that she was at a party in Jackson, Tennessee when [the conception]occurred.” This statement is classic hearsay and is not admissible. Tenn. R. Evid. 802. Each 8 paragraph 11 states: “This agency has no other source to seek the identity of this father.
and
The trial court specifically found that, “[T]he Adoption Place has made reasonable effortsto ascertain the identity of the father from the minor mother,” but made no findings as to theevidence supporting this conclusion. Actions taken to achieve service of process in these cases should not be merely perfunctory. In Re C.L.M., No. M2004-02922-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 842917,*5 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 30, 2006) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Simply asking thebirth mother if she knows the name of the father and then giving up is not sufficient. Given the woeful absence of information regarding the steps taken to identify the father provided in these affidavits and the record, this Court must conclude on this record that the preponderance of theevidence shows The Adoption Place did not carry its burden of demonstrating the “diligent inquiry” required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 21-1-203(a) in order to use service by publication
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
They threw in that charge because they think she had help. No need to limit the allegations--if Tammi didn't help her, someone else did.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
Hi, AZ. When you have a chance, could you please explain in plain English what JM/The Adoption Place did wrong per this case:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ig=AHIEtbTcCCK52BSWjXhJGhI6T5JTYXbkyg//&pli=1
I interpreted that Adoption Place made only perfunctory attempts to determine who the father was, and the court found they should have made diligent attempts. Then I decided to ask you because I don't want to guess wrong
TIA!
ETA: The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, reversed and remanded the trial courts order terminating the Appellant/Unknown Fathers parental rights through service by publication. The appeals court held that the trial court erred in granting a protective order that prohibited the Appellants attorney from gathering pertinent information to determine his whereabouts and/or identity. The appeals court also held that Appellee/The Adoption Place, Inc. did not make a diligent inquiry of the birth mother to ascertain the identity of appellant before serving appellant by publication. Thus the court determined since the requirements of service were not met, all proceedings held were void.
and
The issue of whether a name and address are reasonably ascertainable, or can be found with diligentinquiry, is a question of fact and must be determined upon trial. Freeman, 926 S.W.2d at 250.The strangely identical affidavits of L.V. and J. M. are more concerned with keeping the birth mothers name out of the notice than with detailing their efforts to identify the unknown father. The only information about identifying the father is contained in paragraphs 5 and 11 of both affidavits. Each paragraph 5 states: The birth mother did not know who the father of the child was and simply stated that she was at a party in Jackson, Tennessee when [the conception]occurred. This statement is classic hearsay and is not admissible. Tenn. R. Evid. 802. Each 8 paragraph 11 states: This agency has no other source to seek the identity of this father.
and
The trial court specifically found that, [T]he Adoption Place has made reasonable effortsto ascertain the identity of the father from the minor mother, but made no findings as to theevidence supporting this conclusion. Actions taken to achieve service of process in these cases should not be merely perfunctory. In Re C.L.M., No. M2004-02922-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 842917,*5 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 30, 2006) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Simply asking thebirth mother if she knows the name of the father and then giving up is not sufficient. Given the woeful absence of information regarding the steps taken to identify the father provided in these affidavits and the record, this Court must conclude on this record that the preponderance of theevidence shows The Adoption Place did not carry its burden of demonstrating the diligent inquiry required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 21-1-203(a) in order to use service by publication
You're exactly right. The Court is saying that it isn't good enough to ask the mom, "Who's the father?" and to accept the answer "some guy at a party" without further inquiry. Like... "Some guy at a party named what? Did you know him before the party? Did you ever see him again after the party? Did anyone speak to him at the party? What did they call him? Where was the party? Whose house was it at? How can we get hold of that person? What did this guy look like? In the course of your, um, relations, did he mention anything else about himself like his NAME or where the heck he lived or how he knew the host of the party? Did he give you his phone number?"
Can/Could LM file a lawsuit against JS,TS or JM ??? I know his main concern is beautiful GB right now and finding him, however, if he were to file some type of suit, it might shake their house of cards down and maybe some new information might come out of it. Long shot I know...
YellowSubmarine
If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Reaction score
- 4
Does anyone know when EJ's next court appearance is? Is there nothing that can be done to get more info from her or are they just going to let her sit quietly in her cell with three meals a day while SO many people are out searching for Gabe?
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
Yes, he could, assuming they've done something to prevent him from seeing his son. But he would be smart to wait until LE has done most of the investigation for him.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,122
She has a pretrial conference scheduled for March 9 at 8:15 a.m. Very little is likely to happen at that proceeding.
Due to the 5th Amendment, there is nothing they can do to make her talk.
Order for DNA testing 1/25
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...0/m4064876.pdf
Why would they ask for DNA testing? Is that standard procedure in a case like this or would they need it for a specific reason-like to match it with evidence they currently have?
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...0/m4064876.pdf
Why would they ask for DNA testing? Is that standard procedure in a case like this or would they need it for a specific reason-like to match it with evidence they currently have?
BeanE
Inactive
Hi, AZ. Any idea whether it's EJ or her PD requesting termination?
"According to court officials, Johnson refused to leave her cell to attend the hearing, which was scheduled to designate the case complex and to hear a motion to terminate council.
Johnson's presence was required for the motion to terminate council, so the hearing was rescheduled for March 17 at 10 a.m."
http://www.kpho.com/news/22785043/detail.html
P.S. Any and all other gossip, rumors, and hearsay welcome
"According to court officials, Johnson refused to leave her cell to attend the hearing, which was scheduled to designate the case complex and to hear a motion to terminate council.
Johnson's presence was required for the motion to terminate council, so the hearing was rescheduled for March 17 at 10 a.m."
http://www.kpho.com/news/22785043/detail.html
P.S. Any and all other gossip, rumors, and hearsay welcome
southern_comfort
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 0
AZ will likely know the specifics in the state of Arizona, but the request to designate the case as "complex" and the motion to terminate counsel may be related. Often a different team of public defenders is lined up to defend complex cases.
I am interested to know what factors and circumstances might cause this case to be deemed "complex". My cursory understanding of AZ law is that the "complex" designation is applied to first degree murder cases and those involving wiretapping, though the court could apply a complex designation for other reasons.
I am interested to know what factors and circumstances might cause this case to be deemed "complex". My cursory understanding of AZ law is that the "complex" designation is applied to first degree murder cases and those involving wiretapping, though the court could apply a complex designation for other reasons.