Serious problems with Custody Evaluators, 730 Evaluators, Child Custody Evaluators, Bad Custody Evaluations » THE PUBLIC COURT

Serious problems with Custody Evaluators, 730 Evaluators, Child Custody Evaluators, Bad Custody Evaluations » THE PUBLIC COURT

What do Custody Evaluators Steven Adam and Stephen Doyne have in common?
“A Los Angeles Times news item from 1992 states that court justices reverse a decision which dropped Adam from a lawsuit brought by a woman who sued him for approving unmonitored visits to her daughter by her ex-husband.. The appeal justices’ ruling stated court-appointed evaluators such as Adam do not get “blanket immunity for all negligenct conduct.” Mark I. Pinsky, “Court of Appeal Reverses Verdict in Murder Case, Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1992.” This case answers the question for so many families caught in the family court trap, “Can I sue my custody evaluator?” The answer in California is, “Yes, you can, in particularly, for negligence.”
AND
“Adam is also the poster child for stepping out of the scope in the court orders for a custody evaluator. In the Seagondollar case, the appeal justices spanked Adam for not following the court orders that defined a custody evaluation. Adam, took it upon himself to follow his own rules. The court of appeal justices caught Adam stepping out of the scope in the well known California Family Law Appeal case known as The Seagondollar Case. This lead to mandated classes for all custody evaluators across the U.S. regarding how they must follow court orders in how a custody evaluation is to be conducted. In the courts terms and not dictated by the custody evaluator.” Seagondollar Appellate case opinion
What is of significant importance in regard to Adam and the Segondollar case is that in the entire San Diego County, prior to July 24, 2009, CA Rules of Court were never followed, never administered, when they are very clear that ‘each court must’ follow them. Well in the case of Tadros vs. Doyne this is highlighted by Emad Tadros and Chris Morris (Associate of Mike Aguirre) in that they had 20″ x 30″ inch poster boards showing the very forms having to do with the Rules that were violated in front of Judge Jay Bloom and he completely ignored the violations Stephen Doyne and Court itself had violated for years. Judge Bloom granted Doyne the Anti-Slapp and ordered Tadros MD to pay Doyne 80k for blowing the whistle on him and the Court.
Stephen Doyne and all of the rest of the Custody Evaluators in San Diego County as well as all of the Judges in San Diego County, NEVER used these forms (FL-327 and FL-326) as mandated by the Court.
Mr. Michael C. Roddy, Court Executive Officer of San Diego Superior Court participated in Judicial Counsel meetings where the Rules (CRC 5.225-5.230) pertaining to these forms were first introduced, and then he attended another JC meeting and voted on amending to them, continuing to make them more detailed and important in protecting the Public from fraudulent and unqualified Custody Evaluators. However, Mr. Roddy NEVER administered the Rules of Court he voted on to protect the Public! These Rules also protect Evaluators as well in substantiating their background training and qualifications in order to perform evaluations or serve as expert witness of the court, and they are to be signed under the penalty of perjury. Precisely, because these forms were never filled out and filed in the time sensitive, mandatory 10-day period they were to be completed by, NOT a single Evaluator in San Diego County over several years were NEVER qualified to serve as expert witness — They were UNQUALIFIED! Stephen Doyne should never have been granted the Anti-Slapp ruling precisely because he never legally attached to Tadros MD’s evaluation in the first place. The Rules are very clear, if you don’t complete the form FL-326 then you cannot serve as expert witness, but they all have been doing it anyway, committing to HIPAA violations in the act, denying litigants their due process, and well, essentially being illegal interlopers in the act of conducting 730 Custody Evaluations. These are just the broad sweeps of what is at issue, there are many more details to these Rules of Court known as CRC 5.225 – 5.230 and how San Diego’s Custody Evaluators are conducting themselves.
It is very clear that the precedents that the Segaondollar case went ignored by San Diego County and it’s corrupt team of so-called court professionals. Why did San Diego ignore these Rules of Court when every other county in the State of CA complied with them??? If you really want to know, follow the money…and good luck!