Yaneth Nunez and Felix Fabien Nunez Amador
Case No: 16FL00757
Hearing Date: Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: DVRO

Respondent’s Req. for DVRO

Attorneys

Petitioner [“Yaneth”] is represented by Meghan Behrens

Respondent [“Felix”] is in pro per

Ruling: The Court will consider the declarations are “in evidence, subject to cross-examination;” please be prepared to go forward with any testimony or argument you have at 10:30am on 8/6/19 or as soon thereafter that I can get to it. Felix will need to explain why he misled the Court into believing there was no custody order in place; this case has a very long courtroom history.

Analysis

Background

This case was filed in 3/2016; it has a long history; a judgment of dissolution was filed in 1/2017 when Yaneth was awarded legal and physical custody based upon a mediated settlement agreement signed by them in 9/2016; it was six pages long. A time share agreement was reached.

DVRO filed 7/15 by Felix

It is 12 pages long; will summarize it only but have read it all; Felix seeks personal conduct orders; 100-yard stay away orders; to record unlawful telephone contacts; reports there is no child custody or visitation orders in effect [clearly incorrect, as the background establishes otherwise]; testifies Yaneth forced her way into his residence on July 12, 2019; grabbed son and began to drag him out of the house; she “punched and hit” him while she was pulling the child; that she “threatened” him and the three children.

The police came and he obtained an EPO authorized by Judge Herman; Felix asks for sole legal and physical custody; states there are no other custody cases; asks that Yaneth have no visitation with the children before or after the hearing; contends that Yaneth is a child abduction risk; states she will take their child out of California and hide the child from him; he seeks an order that she not be permitted to take the children out of the County of Santa Barbara.

Based upon his declarations and the existing EPO this Court issued a DVRO on 7/16/19 with a return date of 8/6/19. Custody was given to Felix with no visitation to Yaneth, pending the hearing; a no travel – child abduction risk order – was attached.

Response filed 7/31

Yaneth testifies, via declaration; her response is 11-pages long; have read it all; summarized here; she does not agree with the orders requested; Felix and she have three children together; been divorced since 2016; she has full legal and physical custody of all three children; Felix has 50% visitation rights; he works evenings; children spend most of their evenings with her; Felix lives in a studio apartment a mere two blocks from where the kids and she have lived since the divorce; he resides there with his parents, his brother, and during his custodial time, the children sleep on the floor of the studio since it only has one bed; she does not agree with any of the Orders requested by Felix; filed for divorce from Felix because of his constant physical violence towards her; in 2016, she reported his conduct; he was arrested and charged with five counts of domestic violence, including a felony for violating Penal Code section 591, cutting a telephone line; and four misdemeanors, including spousal battery with injury; false imprisonment; dissuading three witnesses from reporting a crime; and spousal battery without injury; reached a plea agreement; was placed on a three-year probation, which is still active; was required to complete the 52-week Batterers Intervention Program, and served 60 days in County Jail; was also served with a restraining order requiring peaceful contact; restraining order is still in effect; his contact with her on July 12, 2019, was not peaceful; it was the opposite; she will be requesting that his probation be revoked for his conduct on that night.

She testifies that Felix lied to the authorities on Friday, July 12; there being so much domestic violence on Felix’s part they agreed in mediation that she would have full physical and legal custody of the kids because she didn’t feel safe around him; he knew his visitation times and location pick up; didn’t have to communicate much besides important matters regarding the kids; she has enrolled and paid for all of their summer camps; Felix doesn’t know or care what summer camps they do; she can’t imagine how much the kids will suffer once school starts, if she is restrained from the children; during the 2018-2019 school year, on the mornings they woke up at Felix’s house, they were late 40 times; on April 1, 2019, the kids had an unexcused absence and didn’t go to school at all because he decided to take them to Tijuana, Mexico, without her permission; she didn’t even know they had left the country; he is also unable to assist with homework because he is not fluent in English; oldest son, Jovanni, recently asked to be in enrolled in counseling; put him on the waiting list at CALM; his first appointment to meet his counselor was on 7/29/19 and she had to reschedule it because she could not communicate with his father because of this restraining order; she is also doing parent-child interaction therapy with both Julian and Alexa at CALM; have a class on 8/6/19 at 4pm.

Felix’s Reply

None filed.

The Court’s Conclusions

I will consider the declarations in evidence, subject to cross-examination; please be prepared to go forward with any testimony or argument you have at 10:30 am on 8/6/19 or as soon thereafter that I can get to it. Felix needs to explain why he lied to the Court in his request for DVRO stating specifically that there were no custody orders in effect when there clearly were such orders and he had to know that. Yaneth will have to explain in detail what really occurred on July 12; she has not even begun to do that; the police usually do not call an EPO judge and request a DVRO unless they were convinced Yaneth committed acts of domestic violence against Felix on July 12.