San Jose, California: Santa Clara County Family Court Judge Drew C. Takaichi denied 83 year old grandmother’s wish to be able to call and talk to her grandchildren on phone and perhaps visit them simply based on the criteria that parent Ms. Kamal Kapadia has sole physical and legal custody of the three minor children and gets the sole vote, and based on grandmother’s testimony at a one sided child custody trial that “mother [Ms. Kapadia] prevented the children from talking to her..that the children did not speak to her unless mother told them to speak to her”.
Judge Takaichi’s legal analysis
appears to be contrary to the California Supreme Court’s ground breaking
decision in Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 C4th 210, 17 CR3d 842, which requires a
Court to perform a detailed analysis of grandparent visitation vis-à-vis best
interest of the child vs. merely parroting the custodial parent’s wishes. The
ruling did not allow for live witness testimony, or conform to normal standards
of due process.
In a subsequent and different
hearing, Judge Takaichi ruled that a joined party [83 year old grandmother]
under Family Code §2021 has no standing to raise interests that impact her, including
her property being disposed off by Family Court without her being noticed, or given an opportunity to participate, despite her being the aggrieved party and joined pursuant to Family Code §2021.
While on one hand precluding the 83
year old disabled grandmother from raising matters that adversely impact her, Judge
Takaichi, without a motion served on the grandmother, and without a hearing,
ordered the 83 year old disabled grandmother to pay mother’s attorney’s fees,
simply on mother’s request (never served on grandmother) that “in light of the fact that [grandmother] has
no standing to bring the motions, however, if the Court wishes to have these
claims heard, I will need funds to contribute towards the legal fees I will
incur in such an endeavor”. Put it differently 83 year old disabled
grandmother was ordered to pay $10,000, attorney fees, that were anticipated, but not incurred yet, should Judge Takaichi allow grandmother, standing, to pursue
her claims, which the latter did not. More importantly the $10,000 attorney
fees was ordered against the 83 year old disabled grandmother without a notice,
a served motion on the grandmother, and without a hearing, or opportunity to be
heard, which raises the question of the derivation of such a large sum of $10,000.
All of the above in face of Mello-Granlund
Older Americans Act, Elder and Dependent under W&I code 15600 et seq., and
under CA and Federal ADA 42 U.S.C Chapter 126, California
Civil Code [“CC”] §51 et seq., CC 54 et seq.,. that requires special
consideration and protection of elderly disabled Americans.
It cannot be confirmed if the decision was affected
by disabled grandmother’s self-represented status, whereas Kamal Kapadia being represented by Mr. Christopher Hirz of the Law Offices of Del Ponte and Hirz.
Judge Drew C. Takaichi J.D. '80, of
San Jose, was appointed to the Santa Clara County Superior Court by Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Judge Takaichi has been a sole practitioner since 1994.
He was a partner for Brockman and Takaichi from 1983 to 1994 and Hamrick, Hoffman,
Guillot and Takaichi from 1982 to 1983. Judge Takaichi served as an associate
for the Law Offices of Diana E. Levitz from 1980 to 1982. He earned a Juris
Doctorate degree from Santa Clara University School of Law and a Bachelor of
Business Administration from California State University, Chico. Judge Drew and
his wife Ms. Nancy Takaichi live in the Bay Area.
Please direct your comment(s) to "judgeafteryouhaveheardall@gmail.com"
No comments:
Post a Comment