This Complaint is written in regard to the same Missouri case that we wrote about yesterday.
Court dates the protective mother didn’t know about
On March 18, 2020, Commissioner David Kimminau had decided to rule that primary custody of the subject child, then 15 years old, be awarded to the father. This meant that the child was to be removed from her home with her mother for the third unjust occurrence and placed in the care of the man in whose care she had been sexually abused, even raped, from the ages of 4 to 9 by an older half-sibling.
The father never attempted to pick the child up from her mother’s residence. He did, however, begin filing on May 27, 2020 claiming the child was being withheld from him.
On October 1, 2020 when Kimminau retired, Commissioner Lisa M. Dubé (pictured above) took over the case in question. When Commissioner Dubé took responsibility for this case, there had already been numerous court dates that had occurred without the knowledge of the protective parent mother. Commissioner Kimminau had ordered a Habeas Corpus on August 11, 2020.
Commissioner Dubé’s first day on the case, October 1, 2020, she granted the Family Access Motion. Two court dates later, October 30, 2020 (and still no appearance from the mother who had no knowledge of the obligations), Commissioner Dubé issued a warrant for the protective mother as well as an Order for Body Attachment.
All orders were reported as being served by posting to the mother’s residence for the first time on October 23, 2020. All orders were made without even notifying the mother, let alone allowing her a chance to voice what had happened denying her the civil right of due process.
It is later noted on Casenet on November 30, 2020, that notices of orders had been returned through the mail and labeled undeliverable, because the address was incorrect.
This occurred until the mother’s correct address was used, conveniently after the warrant was issued.
Regardless of the court’s error, the warrant was denied dismissal by the protective mother’s brief representation, John Reed on November 19, 2020, who had appeared for her in court. John Reed reported to his client, attempting to voice her side and explain that she had never received notice.
Commissioner Dubé called the process server onto the stand where it was claimed to have been posted to the mother’s door. It was never mentioned that an error was made regarding her address.
The commissioner ruled the mother had been properly served and voiced that nobody knew the safety of her daughter and she would be putting a call in with her former employer, Child Protection Services.
This act shows the biased premature opinion of the Commissioner, who amended the warrant and Body Attachment as well as the next court visit. Regardless of the epidemic, the next court date would be in court instead of Webex.
You cannot object on the basis of past sexual abuse
On December 17, 2020, the protective mother appeared at court without her daughter, because the child refused to attend, fearful of going to her father’s to live. The protective mother wanted her daughter to feel safe and so attended without the child.
The protective mother testified that she could not assure her child’s safety at the father’s residence and felt it her obligation to the welfare of her child to respect her voiced wishes.
The father’s lawyer, Lindsey Vanfleet, stated this meant she could not control the child. When the mother explained she had been homeschooling the subject child as well as her younger child, she was accused of not having them in school at all and deliberately disobeying court orders to have her attend school from the father’s residence.
The mother explained she had not heard from the father and carried on without him like she had always done in his sporadic absence. She stated she didn’t know if he had enrolled her and she couldn’t have done it herself due to her residence being 40 minutes away from his.
Anytime the mother attempted to explain why she was concerned for her daughter’s safety, an objection was immediately sustained. The abuse couldn’t be mentioned when Mrs. Vanfleet stated the case had been expunged in December when the half-brother turned 18 and was no longer a minor.
The case where he was not properly charged but got a clean slate.
The same could not be said for his victim, who has come to expect failure where there should be justice. This also expunged her safety in the order of the half-brother not being allowed in her presence.
The father fabricated his testimony, under oath, and was treated as if he spoke strictly facts without any supporting evidence. When asked if Ms. Franklin deserved to go to jail, he quickly responded yes.
The protective mother goes to jail
Commissioner Dubé made her ruling, sending the protective mother to Jackson County Correctional Facility and adding a Temporary Restraining Order without Notice. She informed the protective mother that she would only be released upon the subject child’s cooperation and deliverance to her father as well as the excessive bond of $5500 cash only as well as posting with Civil Records $7500. This occurred just a week before Christmas.
The subject child did not want her mother to be in jail for the holiday and selflessly went to her father’s so her mother could be released. The bond was dropped the morning of the 21st and the protective mother was released after 5 days in jail.
This was during a time when criminals caught with drugs were being given signature bonds in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus.
The protective mother loses her right to her daughter
A hearing took place on December 31, 2020, in which the commissioner extended the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Then another on January 7, 2021. The mother’s counsel requested a new judge, which the commissioner denied.
January 19, 2021, John Reed withdrew from the case and the mother was a newly pro se litigant. She was also informed that the next court date would be a hearing for a preliminary injunction. She requested a continuance so that she could educate herself on the matter.
Commissioner Dubé denied her request, claiming that she “could not” grant a continuance because the TRO would expire that day.
The mother was being punished for the accusation of withholding the child from her father. Now the child was being withheld from her and she was stripped of her parental rights.
The GAL, Dana Outlaw, harshly informed the mother that her child had attempted to run away from her father’s as well as attempted suicide to try to escape. Dana Outlaw made it clear she felt the mother was to blame for such actions.
The child had arrived at the father’s with a cell phone that she attempted to conceal from her father. Dana Outlaw, as well as Commissioner Dubé, stated to the protective mother that she had violated her TRO and communicated with her child on the cell phone. The mother, who had just become a pro se litigant, was never shown evidence that supported this claim. In fact, the accusation is clear evidence that the commissioner communicated without the parties present regarding the case.
When the preliminary injunction arrived in the mother’s mail, she was shocked to learn she had no legal rights to her daughter.
Despite being of no harm to her child, in all reality trying to protect her child, a preliminary injunction was placed.
The preliminary injunction stated that she was unstable, but with no supporting evidence. It even attempted to extend the restraining order to any individual acting as the mother’s agent, servant, or relative.
The court’s accomplishment: turning a child over to an unsafe environment
The court went to the extreme of giving the father—the one who allowed the abuse to occur to the young child, even after knowledge of the abuse—complete authority to isolate her from her family and friends.
It was not frowned upon when the father homeschooled the child, isolating her even further, further violating the mother’s civil right to a fair judgement.
The father’s lie is considered truth with no evidence, but everything the mother gives with supporting evidence is treated as a fabrication.
Commissioner Dubé has denied this mother and child the right to due process and has violated the rights of the victim as well as the mother’s rights as a parent with her extreme orders that endanger the wellbeing of the child.
The subject child’s mother was robbed of any opportunity to protect her from further harm.
The final blow: The protective mother pays unjust fees
A few days later the mother received another ruling that was dated January 25, 2021. She was not even allowed a court hearing to try to oppose the ruling of owing the father’s attorney fees.
The ordered child support remained the same, accumulating since April 2020, totaling to date $2,392. This, even though the protective mother solely supported the child until December 21, 2020 when the child went to live with the father.
Commissioner Dubé is allowing the father to profit from the financial abuse of the mother who simply wanted to protect their child, a right by instinct of a non-abusive parent.