i. On May 4, year 1 attended hearing to develop temporary unallocated support

1. Petitioner’s attorney set respondent’s compensation at $10,000

a. Respondent’s Income and Expense Declaration stated income at $2,500 per month

b. Respondent pleaded with the court that $10,000 was incorrect

c. Respondent was told that this is temporary and during the next hearing it will be changed

d. Respondent was told that if he challenged the $10K the judge would get upset and make it worse

e. Respondent objected but…

2. The support was based on an erroneous $10K. Respondent had these questions:

a. How temporary is temporary?

b. When can this be modified again?

c. What is this doing to financial stability of the Respondent?

d. How does this ruling impact Respondent’s ability to be with his children?

e. What other impact can this have on Respondent?

ii. On June 29, Year 1 attended another hearing to determine support

1. Petitioner’s attorney insisted that income was $10,000

a. Respondent provided further proof current income was $0 and average income for the past twelve months as $2,000.

b. Respondent provided proof that the startup he is launching ran out of money and he isn’t getting paid.

c. Judge would not listen.

d. Support continued to be based on $10,000

iii. March Year 2 a vocational evaluation report and recommendations were reviewed – Forensic accountant report was also submitted with a recommendation

1. Vocational Evaluator report recommended the following:

a. Respondent should devote more time to Start-up

b. Respondent should continue testing market for contract work and possible other permanent job

c. If business is not more successful within 8 months Respondent should devote 50% of his time looking for contract or permanent work

d. In today’s environment it will take at least 8 months to find other work while devoting 100% of one’s time to the looking for another job.

e. Basically the Vocational Evaluator stated that respondent was doing what they recommended and beyond.

2. Forensic accountant report was questioning the wisdom of using $10,000 income for support on zero income.  She recommended review and modification of the support calculation.

3. Judge left support the same.

iv. June Year 2 …

1. Respondent paid $80,000 in unallocated support on $20,000 income. All of it was taken out of his share from the sale of the house.

2. His driver’s license was threatoned to be revoked

3. His Tax refund was hijacked

1. Father lives in Southern California
2. June 2004 – Mother gave up 6 year old daughter (Neither parent paid any child support)
3. April 2006 – Father got a higher paying job working for the government
4. June 2006 – Mother move to Northern California – Contra Costa County
5. June 2006 – Mother asks if she can spend time with daughter during the summer and promises to let her return home before school starts
6. June 2006 – Father agrees
7. July 2006 – A couple of weeks after her move, Mother files an Ex Parte motion  for full custody and  child while Father is on government duty out of state
8. August 2006 – Mother enrolls daughter in new school
9. August 2006 – Family Court Services Mediator met with daughter for 10 minutes without father’s knowledge or consent
10. September 2006 – Commissioner Huffaker stated that mediator report was thin but gave temporary custody to Mother even though:
• Daughter had lived in Southern California
• She lived in a stable home with her Father, Stepmother and five siblings
• She attended school there for two years.
• Now Father is responsible to pay $1000 per month in support
11. October 2006 – Mediator communicates that she herself had a similar experience.
• The Mediator stated that she understood why mother took daughter because she did the same thing with hers.
• (Questions… Isn’t this confirming a biased mediator? Should this mediator been assigned to this case?)
12. October 2006 – Mediator refuses to testify in court. Says she is on vacation.
13. October 2006 – At the custody hearing Huffaker calls mom unstable
• Gives custody to Mother who lives with boyfriend
• Sets review hearing in 9 months
• Orders that daughter sees a psychologist
14. May 07 – Psychologist recommends child to be returned to Father.
15. June 07 – Conducted custody review hearing
• Mediator recommends that daughter stay with Mother
• This recommendation was based on ensuring continuity for the daughter at school and with friends
• (Question… Why didn’t this same reasoning apply the prior year when daughter was removed from a stable home with five siblings and 2 years of school?)
• Custody evaluation was ordered
16.  December 2007 – After reading the evaluators report Huffaker states on the record that he made a mistake in uprooting child from home one year earlier
• Custody evaluator states that child should have stayed with Father
• However Huffaker says since child is doing well he will not change custody... (Question… Why didn’t this same reasoning apply the prior year when daughter was removed from a stable home with five siblings and 2 years of school?)... Because the past is the past.
• Parents ordered to take daughter to a court appointed counselor for therapy