Court hearing, Friday, february 26th 2010

[Natal]

Exactly. To me it's a visitation of sorts by the child rapists thru intermediaries.

Naive bunny I am. I actually thought this kind of situation would be handled in family court.

California family law states this:
B. Child Conceived By Rape: Without exception, no person convicted of rape pursuant to Ca Penal § 261 may be granted custody or visitation with respect to a child conceived by that act of rape. [Ca Fam § 3030(b)]

He's not convicted yet but there's a really good reason that law exists. This judge just let a child rapist be on a somewhat of an equal footing as his victim.

Unfreaking believable.

That means that someone convicted under 261 can't be granted the right to custody or visitation, but it doesn't exclude contact. That code is primarily intended to prevent rapists from claiming parental rights from the victim when they don't have any other form of relationship, but this case is clearly different since the girls have lived with PG as their father since birth. The code still applies as far as he is concerned, but does not apply to girls.

Basically it means the court can't force the girls to visit him, but, if they want to, visiting him isn't excluded. The court would be giving them permission to see or contact him under those circumstances. The rights that would be protected would not be his, it would be theirs.

 

[LinasK]

That means that someone convicted under 261 can't be granted the right to custody or visitation, but it doesn't exclude contact. That code is primarily intended to prevent rapists from claiming parental rights from the victim when they don't have any other form of relationship, but this case is clearly different since the girls have lived with PG as their father since birth. The code still applies as far as he is concerned, but does not apply to girls.

Basically it means the court can't force the girls to visit him, but, if they want to, visiting him isn't excluded. The court would be giving them permission to see or contact him under those circumstances. The rights that would be protected would not be his, it would be theirs.

The problem is threefold, but first of all, it's simple: this is NOT a divorce case. 1) most importantly the girls are the product of a serial rapist. I'm sure if Jaycee had had her way, they would have been aborted. 2) They are material witnesses in a crime 3) They are immature teenagers. We don't give teenagers the right to consent to sex, driving, drinking, smoking, getting married, or voting for those very reasons.
Jaycee had NO say in her kidnapping, her imprisonment, her forced sex, and continual rapes, and childbirth. They didn't even allow her to be a mother to her own children. She had to be the "sister".

Still inappropriate, considering they will be witnesses in his trial!

 

[kbl8201]

That means that someone convicted under 261 can't be granted the right to custody or visitation, but it doesn't exclude contact. That code is primarily intended to prevent rapists from claiming parental rights from the victim when they don't have any other form of relationship, but this case is clearly different since the girls have lived with PG as their father since birth. The code still applies as far as he is concerned, but does not apply to girls.

Basically it means the court can't force the girls to visit him, but, if they want to, visiting him isn't excluded. The court would be giving them permission to see or contact him under those circumstances. The rights that would be protected would not be his, it would be theirs.

why do you continue to act like this is a run of the mill divorce?

 

[believe09]

I would think that the girls would have to be evaluated to determine how competent they are....I am not implying anything but we are speaking about children who were secreted in a back yard with their mother who they were told was their sister and who were not sent to school. They were taught by that same mother who ceased her education at 11 right? Are we certain the judge didnt give them a guardian ad litem?

I am as steamed as the rest of you who have just watched Jaycee's rights as a parent and a victim torpedoed....

 

[BeenaBobba]

It is normal for courts to determine the opinion of the children, if they are old enough, in cases where the parents have an adverserial relationship. The judge is not doing anything that every other court in the country isn't doing.

Granted, the official position of the court is innocent until proven guilty, but this goes far beyond your run-of-the-mill divorce or custody case. This is rape we're talking about here, so I don't think "every other court in the country" is allowing possible contact and/or visitations between minors and their rapist "father."

I don't see what the problem in determining what the children want is.

Hypothetically speaking, what if the children want to see the Garridos? Do you honestly think that this would be in their best interest? They're going to have to come to terms with the manner in which they were conceived, and I don't think it's going to be an easy pill to swallow. IMO, seeing the Garridos would only complicate their recovery. I'm really, really hoping that they want nothing to do with them. If they do want to see them, I'm not going to judge them, but I do hope the right choice is made.

 

[BeenaBobba]

Where's Dr. Doogie? I thought he was going to be there today to give us ongoing updates from the court???:waitasec:

I'm sure he'll pop up sooner or later. I'm looking forward to hearing his impressions on the hearing.

 

[Natal]

The problem is threefold, but first of all, it's simple: this is NOT a divorce case. 1) most importantly the girls are the product of a serial rapist. I'm sure if Jaycee had had her way, they would have been aborted. 2) They are material witnesses in a crime 3) They are immature teenagers. We don't give teenagers the right to consent to sex, driving, drinking, smoking, getting married, or voting for those very reasons.
Jaycee had NO say in her kidnapping, her imprisonment, her forced sex, and continual rapes, and childbirth. They didn't even allow her to be a mother to her own children. She had to be the "sister".

It isn't a divorce case, however, the parents have been cohabiting since the birth of the children and they know the accused as their father, so for practical purposes as far as they are concerned it is effectively a divorce.

1) It is irrelevant if Jaycee would have wanted them aborted, they weren't, they are here now and they have rights too, rights which supercede those of their parents.
2) They are not material witnesses to a crime since all of the charges refer to events either before they were born or when they were too young to remember. The exception would be the forcible confinement charge that refers to an act that took place sometime in the 18 years. But, the forcible confinement likely happened before they were born as well, all the evidence we have so far seems to suggest that Jaycee was not restrained when they were around. I doubt the prosecution will call them as witnesses, if anything it is more likely the defence that would call them.
3) They are not immature as far as the law is concerned when it comes to something like this. Children can't do those things you listed because society deems it improper, but they ARE held accountable for their actions and as such their opinion will be considered by the court. If you disagree could you explain why children accused of serious crimes are routinely tried as adults in the US?

What happened to Jaycee has no bearing on the rights of the two girls. They can't be used as tools to punish PG. Now, they may choose to have nothing to do with him, we know next to nothing of what sort of relationship they had, but that is for them to decide, not you or me.

 

[kbl8201]

It isn't a divorce case, however, the parents have been cohabiting since the birth of the children and they know the accused as their father, so for practical purposes as far as they are concerned it is effectively a divorce.

1) It is irrelevant if Jaycee would have wanted them aborted, they weren't, they are here now and they have rights too, rights which supercede those of their parents.
2) They are not material witnesses to a crime since all of the charges refer to events either before they were born or when they were too young to remember. The exception would be the forcible confinement charge that refers to an act that took place sometime in the 18 years. But, the forcible confinement likely happened before they were born as well, all the evidence we have so far seems to suggest that Jaycee was not restrained when they were around. I doubt the prosecution will call them as witnesses, if anything it is more likely the defence that would call them.
3) They are not immature as far as the law is concerned when it comes to something like this. Children can't do those things you listed because society deems it improper, but they ARE held accountable for their actions and as such their opinion will be considered by the court. If you disagree could you explain why children accused of serious crimes are routinely tried as adults in the US?

What happened to Jaycee has no bearing on the rights of the two girls. They can't be used as tools to punish PG. Now, they may choose to have nothing to do with him, we know next to nothing of what sort of relationship they had, but that is for them to decide, not you or me.

same song and dance,

 

[LinasK]

It isn't a divorce case, however, the parents have been cohabiting since the birth of the children and they know the accused as their father, so for practical purposes as far as they are concerned it is effectively a divorce.

Not by choice! That's what you're missing. Jaycee would have gladly left and had her freedom. This is not whom Jaycee ever would have chosen as her life partner. And... had it not been for the horrendous screw-ups by the parole officers in not detecting Garrido/being blinded by his charms, she would have been freed long before 18 years. Thank God the U.C. Berkeley officers were sharper than that- they detected the odd behavior of the girls, and not baffled by Garrido's B.S.!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Jaycee had NO say in her kidnapping, her imprisonment, her forced sex, and continual rapes, and childbirth. They didn't even allow her to be a mother to her own children. She had to be the "sister".

P.S. Since their father now sits in jail for the rape and kidnapping of the woman they now know to be their natural mother, I think the girls get that it's not a divorce!

 

[BeenaBobba]

It isn't a divorce case, however, the parents have been cohabiting since the birth of the children and they know the accused as their father, so for practical purposes as far as they are concerned it is effectively a divorce.

They may have known him as their father before August 26th, but they now know that their mother was wrongfully kidnapped, raped, and impregnated -- and heartbreakingly, they now know that their very existence is a result of those terrible crimes.

In garden variety divorce situations, there's usually no criminal activity involved. In divorce/custody cases where one parent is a crack addict, for example, the court would bar visitation if it was not in the child's best interest. This case is even worse. I just don't see how contact with a rapist would benefit these kids in any way. On the contrary, I think it would be quite detrimental.

What happened to Jaycee has no bearing on the rights of the two girls. They can't be used as tools to punish PG.

I disagree. What right does PG have to see the girls? He may be their biological father, but they were conceived through criminal activity that should never have taken place to begin with.

 

[Natal]

Hypothetically speaking, what if the children want to see the Garridos? Do you honestly think that this would be in their best interest? They're going to have to come to terms with the manner in which they were conceived, and I don't think it's going to be an easy pill to swallow. IMO, seeing the Garridos would only complicate their recovery. I'm really, really hoping that they want nothing to do with them. If they do want to see them, I'm not going to judge them, but I do hope the right choice is made.

Well, the judge clearly is going to take their opinions into account, otherwise he wouldn't have appointed lawyers to act on their behalf to determine what those opions are.

When you are talking about recovery, you are talking about Jaycee. The girls don't (as far as we know) have anything to recover from, what they have to do is adjust to their new reality, which is something completely different.

 

[LinasK]

Well, the judge clearly is going to take their opinions into account, otherwise he wouldn't have appointed lawyers to act on their behalf to determine what those opions are.

When you are talking about recovery, you are talking about Jaycee. The girls don't (as far as we know) have anything to recover from, what they have to do is adjust to their new reality, which is something completely different.

They have to recover from being born into captivity and living sheltered from society and from discovering the circumstances of their birth. I'm sure it was highly traumatic to them to learn that for all these years the person they knew and were raised with as their sister was really their mother, and I'm sure they feel some empathy from learning she was a kidnap and continual rape victim by their father, and that their father and Nancy lied to them all these years! You can't honestly tell me that you think the girls were totally unaffected by the circumstances.

 

[lawlady84]

Relax everyone. Attorneys are often appointed for minors, not just in divorce cases, but in many criminal situations. The court will appoint independent, outside attorneys who represent the interests of the children - how is that EVER a bad thing? God forbid, but what if Jaycee was still completely brainwashed and WANTED to see PG? Wouldn't you want an independent voice for the girls so they could say no if THEY didn't want to see him?

Do you really think an independent, honest lawyer is going to try to pressure an abuse victim to go visit her abuser? Of course not. But in the interests of protecting EVERYONE, a 15 year old should have the right to her opinion. Plus, I think it will be incredibly empowering for the girls to each be able to say NO to PG - something they have never been able to do before. They go from being "the girls" to independent women who can tell their abusers to f-off.

 

[kbl8201]

Well, the judge clearly is going to take their opinions into account, otherwise he wouldn't have appointed lawyers to act on their behalf to determine what those opions are.

When you are talking about recovery, you are talking about Jaycee. The girls don't (as far as we know) have anything to recover from, what they have to do is adjust to their new reality, which is something completely different.

im daring anyone to defend this. please.......defend this

 

[kbl8201]

Relax everyone. Attorneys are often appointed for minors, not just in divorce cases, but in many criminal situations. The court will appoint independent, outside attorneys who represent the interests of the children - how is that EVER a bad thing? God forbid, but what if Jaycee was still completely brainwashed and WANTED to see PG? Wouldn't you want an independent voice for the girls so they could say no if THEY didn't want to see him?

Do you really think an independent, honest lawyer is going to try to pressure an abuse victim to go visit her abuser? Of course not. But in the interests of protecting EVERYONE, a 15 year old should have the right to her opinion. Plus, I think it will be incredibly empowering for the girls to each be able to say NO to PG - something they have never been able to do before. They go from being "the girls" to independent women who can tell their abusers to f-off.

yeah but the premise there would be thats what they want.

the judge just basically spit in jaycee's face when he said 'children dont always agree with there mothers'. uhhhhh so what?
this guy shouldnt be judging a pie eating contest nevermind a case this big.

 

[nina1441]

That means that someone convicted under 261 can't be granted the right to custody or visitation, but it doesn't exclude contact.

Of course it excludes contact as it falls under the discretion of the mother (guardian) as to whether contact is allowed - NOT a criminal court judge.

That code is primarily intended to prevent rapists from claiming parental rights from the victim when they don't have any other form of relationship, but this case is clearly different since the girls have lived with PG as their father since birth.


The code is is pretty much a simple declarative sentence. It in no way addresses relationships. The byproduct of that code is that the mother or the current gaurdian of that child has parental rights.

The code still applies as far as he is concerned, but does not apply to girls. Basically it means the court can't force the girls to visit him, but, if they want to, visiting him isn't excluded.

Of course it is excluded if the mother does not consent. Again these girls are minors and the situation goes to Jaycees' parental rights. If she wishes for the girls to have contact then so be it. If not than that is her right. But this right is something this judge just annuled.

Women wishing to keep their children conceived in rape is a relatively new area for all 50 states to address. Some have not. Kudos to California in trying to address it.

But this decision by this judge to allow contact from these rapists thru intermediaries simply circumvents Jaycee Dugard parental rights. It is wrong. It is immoral.

 

[lawlady84]

Plus, the court ultimately has to do what is in the child's best interest. If (God forbid) one of the girls actually did say she wanted to see PG, I would bet anything the lawyer would report back to the court that the girls are obviously still emotionally unstable and don't yet appreciate the severity of what happened. By any interpretation of what happened, these girls were abused since the day they were born - kidnapping is by definition abuse. Even in a divorce case, if one parent is abusive - or, for example, kept the child confined in the backyard for 15 years - it doesn't matter if the child shouts from the heavens that she prefers to live with the abusive parent, the court will NOT allow it; abuse is abuse and is against the law for a reason.

 

[BeenaBobba]

Well, the judge clearly is going to take their opinions into account, otherwise he wouldn't have appointed lawyers to act on their behalf to determine what those opions are.

Yup. But my point is that that doesn't necessarily make it right, know what I mean?

When you are talking about recovery, you are talking about Jaycee. The girls don't (as far as we know) have anything to recover from, what they have to do is adjust to their new reality, which is something completely different.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Natal. As was noted in another thread, the recent claims that Jaycee filed on the girls' behalf make mention of physical, emotional, and psychological damages as a result of life with Garrido; therefore, one can infer that they indeed have something to recover from. I don't know how they viewed Garrido before August 26th, but imagine if they thought he was a great guy before that. Imagine how much it would hurt to find out he's not the caring dad they thought he was, that everything they believed about him was a lie. Even if they disliked him before the 26th, it likely would have been due to mistreatment. Either way you look at it, they probably have a lot to get over.

 

[lawlady84]

yeah but the premise there would be thats what they want.

And that's exactly the point of the lawyer, to find out what they want.

 

[kbl8201]

And that's exactly the point of the lawyer, to find out what they want.

well here's hoping therapy terry and jaycee have helped them make the right choice.