Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*****************************
*****************************
APPELLANT’S REPLY
*****************************
** a. SUBJECT INDEX **
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appellant’s reply 2
** b. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES **
Adams v. Lovette, 105 N.C. App. 23, 411 S.E.2d 620 (1992) (cited on
page 3)
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S ARGUMENT I
trial court could have relied. This argument is moot because the trial
court has explicitly stated that it would not consider the Findings of
Facts of any temporary custody order "This Court will not consider any
exclusion during the trial as the trial court stated "I can’t consider
discretion (Adams v. Lovette, 105 N.C. App. 23, 411 S.E.2d 620
showing such an abuse of discretion. Had the trial court stated that
it would indeed consider those findings during the hearing, after the
have had many more objections, but he did not need to lay those out
evidence, but the trial court clearly contradicted this theory: "Dr.
from evidence by the trial court (Finding #14 R p. 125), there was no
custody orders.
transcript was not objected to, but the answer to this question is not
Dr. Calloway, and did not relate to the truth of the matters asserted
would not constitute hearsay. This is true in principle, but the trial
court went further and has taken for truth the statements in the
have been improper for the trial court to consider Dr. Calloway’s
wrong in stating that the trial court has accepted hearsay into the
trial because the trial court believed that hearsay was lawful when it
However, this is the reason that the Court stated for accepting
here, because whether or not the trial court had another, unexpressed,
reasoning, hearsay did get included into the trial and was included in
order that was written after the writing of Dr. Calloway’s report,
Appellant’s reply 6
claims that the fact that the order was written before the
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S ARGUMENT II
than the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, that free
trials will impede on the person’s rights to free speech, but they
the trial. In doing so, they ensure that only speech which serves to
about the violations of rights that occur in family courts against men
psychologist who was being asked these questions, and the jokes that
he did as a comedian.
fact he even specifies that he was talking about people who have lied
through affidavits and who are not present in the room on that day (it
should be noted that both the Plaintiff and her counsel were present
by the fact that he believes he has the right to see his son without
mental health. These are basic rights and claiming them in court
cannot on its own lead to a finding that the parent is unfit, or else
of insight or self-control.
Appellant has asked to see the child and that he considers this to be
the trial court that "Defendant finds it near impossible to take the
parents can be found to be unfit merely for asking to see their child,
courts unfair.
abiding citizen who has never committed a single wrongful act in his
Appellee to demonstrate that any concern that the court may have
his experience working with animals to make the case in the trial
the final part of this finding "of his distorted thoughts." The fact
p. 114 line 2 to 115 line 18). The evidence simply shows that the
a review of the order that was in effect at the time, and there is no
way that the court order in effect would have to be violated. The
evidence since she is not aware of the legal ways in which an order
The Plaintiff-Appellee then claims that the mere use of the words
"kill her" justifies Findings #33, #57 and #58. However, the
statements are not illustrative of any mental health issue on the part
public educator. They also cannot fall under the category of threat
since these statements were not aimed nor sent to the Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Appellant’s reply 11
that the Defendant-Appellant does not suffer from mental health issues
should not trigger a response from the court that the Defendant-
that case.
justifies finding #57, stating that he did not take proper care of his
should have seen a Doctor rather than a nurse. Nothing supports the
claim in Finding #40 that the Defendant has "symptoms congruent with a
warrants the part of Finding #40 that would depend on this Court
but again the trial court indicated that it would not consider those
Appellant’s reply 12
object, and thus waived her opposition to this decision by the trial
court.
indeed the following sentences are questions about the child: "You
"And you attribute harassment and threats to kidnap the child. Is that
that everything falls unto the Plaintiff […]." The question did not
Appellee.
Concerning Finding #49, the idea that the child has never seen
his child, but in fact there remains none after a proper review of the
issues.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S ARGUMENT IV
did not come from the report of Dr. Calloway, but that it came from
"This Court will not consider any previous findings of fact from
earlier hearings in this case […]" (Finding #14 R p. 125). "I can’t
lines 4-10). The report of Dr. Calloway was similarly rejected by the
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S ARGUMENT V
determine that the order is in the best interest of the child, and
custody is a fit and proper person to have custody and that it will be
custody order will also be vacated where the findings of fact are too
his child. Thus, the findings left after review of the issues by this
p. 30, 161 and 173) support the idea that the Court has considered
joint custody, but none of these portions show that the Court has ever
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S ARGUMENT VI
Plaintiff-Appellee claims that the trial court did not order the
court did do so: "I don’t want you to spend money to come back out
here for an entry award date" (T p. 175 lines 14-15), "Neither one
will have to show her. Okay?" (T p. 175 lines 18-19), "I don’t want
you all having to come in, especially from Canada – you said $400 down
me, we need more time.’" By ordering this, the trial court has pushed
agreed to the order that was submitted to the trial court on March 16th
2017, but this is false and the Defendant-Appellant hereby denies this
the order.
** d. CONCLUSION **
with his son, and that his son does not attend school and can
Carolina.
3. Provide any other relief that this Court may deem just.
_____________________________
certified mail under the exclusive care and custody of the United
PO BOX 603
USA
_____________________________
450-436-1674
Sainte-Sophie, QC
jeanfrancois.gariepy@gmail.com