Ruth Hilliard
9/17/09
Ruth Hilliard is known throughout the Maricopa County Courthouses for being "pro-father" or "anti-mother." In creating this web site, my first agenda is to put Hilliard under the microscope.
I sat through four cases today. FN2008-051952, Yerby v. Yerby, FC2009-051688, Gillet v. Cotten, FC2009-051460, Burghardt v. Burghardt, and FC2009-053082, Willis v. Willis.
Willis v. Willis is the case of a Mother who took her three children and moved out of the home, asking for an Order of Protection. Father was let out of the hospital today after checking himself in for depression and anxiety.
From the beginning, Hilliard started to malign Mother's actions. Apparently, Mother had an unilateral therapeutic interview. Hilliard has already insinuated that Mother is coaching children and making children aware of the tenuous situation. Hilliard admonished Mother's counsel for participating. She was angry over the CPS involvment.
Mother wants to move out of state, sorry Mother - but that's pretty much a no go.
This was just a hearing to set a date for temporary orders. On Oct. 14, 2009, Mother will be able to present her case. However Hilliard has already made statements that reveal she is leaning toward Father. Basically letting him know that if the Order of Protection is not vacated, she won't hold it against him.
I will be tracking this case along with any other conflict cases to prove that Ruth Hilliard needs to be removed from the bench.
It is time to hold the state responsible for the judges that sit in their courts.
September 19, 2009
So, Hilliard came back from vacation and has realized that I have been calling everyone and their dog about her and Kathleen Miholich. To punish me, she sent out an order refusing me the Jewish holidays and she was very harsh about it. I recognize that Hilliard is going to come after me with both guns now that I am fighting back. I expected it and can say that at least Ruthie didn't let me down.
I am prepared for the fall-out. It's always darkest before the dawn. When this is done, I want to hold the state of Arizona responsible for Hilliard's bad acts. Someone has to watchguard these judges to make sure that their personal issues are not clouding their rulings.
9/24/09
I sat through two of Hilliard's cases today. Both couples had been married. This is a factor in how Hilliard deals with the mothers. She still is pro-father, but her lack of regard for mother is not quite as obvious.
The first case was FC2009-051051 Berry v. Berry
This was a return hearing at Mother's request. They had agreed to a joint legal custody with 50/50 parenting time. Father has the residence. It is noteworthy that this couple has some substantial assets. It will be interesting to see if money is a factor in how she treats parents.
Father and Mother had gone to a mediator and agreed to a spousal support amount for 6 months and then it was to be lowered. Mother is arguing to keep it the same. Hilliard explains to Father that if it stays the same to prevent a trial for temporary orders, she will modify the final outcome to reflect Father's overpayment for the past 6 months as well as from here to January. Father agrees to this.
Lawyers start to disagree over parenting time. Father is pushing for a custody evaluation. That's another racket the courts promote. Custody evaluations that start out low and end up costing over several thousand. Father's lawyer is complaining that Mother's complaints are "typical." That bothers me because it shows that Judges and Lawyers consider any issues brought up by a Mother to be typical.
Rule 403A - factors for custody is mentioned.
Note to Mother- You can not watch children for Father on his parenting time. Give it up. You already pissed off Hilliard on that.
Mother needs money for her lawyer and Father refuses to free up assets. There is an all day trial scheduled for Tuesday 1/26/10.
FC2007-052423 - Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg.
Father lives in Texas and is appearing telephonically. Hearing was requested by Mother because when Father sent in paperwork to Judge Hilliard, he (supposedly) fraudulantly changed some of the agreements after Mother initialed and signed and then without notifying her, he sent it in to the Judge. At first glance it seems that Hilliard is holding Father responsible for this nefarious act. However, knowing Hilliard as I do, she is only posturing in case this comes in front of the Committee for Judicial conduct. Right after she nails him for his actions, she then minimizes them. Hilliard sets aside the stipulation and then states that she will make the necessary changes and put out the new order with Felice Goff as the Parent coordinator. She picked Ms. Goff to help keep costs down.
Hilliard Rules:
So, in the custody orders, I am supposed to have religious decision making. I am Jewish and father is Catholic. However, the times that she has given me to have the children do not allow me to participate in our religious activities, for the most part. During the past six months of going to see Kathleen Miholich, I have been trying to get them into Religious School and to participate in Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, our most holy days in the Jewish Religion. Kathleen wrote to Hilliard one week prior to Rosh Hashanah requesting that Hilliard specify whether or not I am not allowed to have the children on the Jewish Holidays. Of course, Hilliard put out an order denying me the right to have my children participate in the Jewish activities at our synagogue. How do I have Religious decision-making?
Judge David M. Talamante:
FC 2006-091563 - Kazemi v. Kazemi
Mother was primary caretaker for the children's entire lives. Father and Mother are in a contentious custody battle. Judge Talamante finds that Father is more likely to keep Mother in the children's lives.
Since his ruling, Father has continually interfered with Mother and children's relationship. He has ripped the phone out of the wall to prevent communication. He continually bombards the court and Mother with complaints of harassment. Claims that she is not allowed to talk with children for an hour. The children are female ages 12 and 14. Both children have express a desire to reside with Mother.
Today, Oct. 2, 2009, Mother found out that the children's school contacted police due to signs of abuse on the children. Mother will be contacting CPS, because the school contacted them, to discover their findings. However, the girls have not been turned over to Mother despite bruises on one of the children. CPS is limited in the scope of their authority due to the laws of Arizona. Which means, two girls may still go on living in an abusive situation because of a pro-father judge.
Who are these judges fighting for? How many children must die or committ murder before something is done?
