Archive for the ‘Guardian Ad Litem Complaint’ Tag

Hennepin County Injustice   Leave a comment


I now have custody   1 comment

I really need to update this site but have had a very hard time posting this. My sons father passed away. He died of a drug overdose.   I had been telling the courts about his problem but it fell on deaf ears. No one listened or cared at the time.  Had the court required him to get help to see his son he may have been alive today.  The court chose to ignore me and gave my son to an active heroin user. Now my son is without a father at all.

I don’t understand why Carol Orleck,  Keith Prater,  Sue Olsen, or Judge Kirby did what they did to me.  I am not the only one being hurt by this system.  Countless number of kids and parents are being delibertely harmed by the family courts that should protect them. Our system needs to be completely overhauled.

I will write more information soon but wanted to post this update.

My heart cries for the moms and dads who can’t hold their children tonight because the system let them down.  I understand the heartache.

Complaint Sent for the Guardian Ad Litem Minnesota   6 comments

I am writing a formal complaint against guardian Sue Olson, who on August, 16th 2011, violated several of my rights during court for a Temporary Order of Protection.  I obtained a temporary order of protection from the Hennepin County Courthouse on August, 4th 2011, case number 27-FA-11-5570.  When I filed the temporary order of protection I made sure that the court knew that there were ongoing custody issues in Georgia regarding my son. 

It was during a visit to Minnesota that my son Peyton Hopkins who is six started to open up to me about what was going on at his dad’s house.  I called the guardian ad litem involved in the Georgia case on August 2nd.  She told me to return my son immediately.  I then called the department of family and children services in both Minnesota and Georgia.  Minnesota told me to file for an order of protection on my sons behalf.  I immediately filed an order on his behalf which was granted on August 4th.  The court date was on August 16th. On Monday August 6th, I received a call from a detective Jones in Peachtree City regarding Peyton’s return.  I gave detective Jones the Order of Protection that was issued in Minnesota.  She then gave it to the guardian ad litem here and my husband. 

When I showed up for court on August 16th I was informed that the order had not been served and a new court date would be ordered.  I went upstairs to speak to the court.  The guardian ad litem on duty for the court date started to question me regarding the circumstances.  It was clear she didn’t believe what I was saying from the start.  She talked to my son for about thirty seconds and then announced I was coaching him.  I had coached him to say these things.  In court she brought up the fact that she felt Peyton was coached and said that it should be dismissed because of jurisdiction because of the ongoing court proceedings in Georgia.  I was completely devastated.  I was unable to submit any evidence I had that proved the abuse was not coached.  I was also forced to return my son to an abusive home. 

My rights were completely violated according to UCCJEA.  Because this was an interstate issue this case fell under the federal regulations of the UCCJEA signed by all states in the United States. 

Under the UCCJEA there are two requirements for Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction. 

  1. Child must be physically present in the state; and
  2. Necessary in an emergency to protect child because child or a sibling or parent of child is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. 

Proper notice and opportunity to be heard given the opposing party before a custody determination is made. 

Because I already had the Temporary order of Protection I fell under this category when deciding jurisdiction.  On August 16th the court declined jurisdiction based upon an Inconvenient Forum thus violating my rights and my son’s rights. 

Also the UCCJEA states that Custody determination will proceed even though a court declines to assert jurisdiction under inconvenient forum grounds and finds that another court is a more convenient forum.  Court declining to assert jurisdiction must stay the proceedings “upon condition that a child custody proceeding will be promptly commenced in another state. 

This was not done at all even though the court in Minnesota declined because of Inconvenient Forum

According to the UCCJEA courts are authorized to communicate with each other about any proceeding under the UCCJEA. 

Parties may participate in any communications between courts. 

If parties are not able to participate in such communications, the parties must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made. 

Courts are required to make a record of their communication and to promptly inform the parties of such communication and grant them access to same. 

The guardian at litem, Sue Olson spoke with the guardian ad litem in Geogia, Carol Orleck before court.  I had no knowledge of this until Jen who works for a domestic abuse organization let me know after speaking with Sue Olson.  Jen’s phone number is 612-673-3525.  Jen was also a guardian ad litem and familiar with the system.  I received no notification regarding this correspondence and it has been detrimental to my case here because according to Carol Orleck GAL in Georgia.  Sue Olson said that it was the worst coaching case she had ever seen in her history.  I was not allowed to present my children’s statements, psychological evaluations or have my two oldest children testify. 

I want to make a couple of more points regarding this.  Under the UCCJEA, the two courts were required to communicate with each other. 

Under an Inconvenient Forum, the issue can be raised upon a motion of a party, the court’s own motion or at the request or another court.  A Guardian Ad Litem may not raise the issue of Inconvenient Forum.   Sue Olson is the one who brought up the proceedings in Georgia and told the judge that she thought it should go back there. 

The UCCJEA requires that a court that is declining jurisdiction is required to stay proceedings “upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another state”

In deciding to decline jurisdiction on the basis of inconvenient forum, the court must consider all the relevant factors, including

  1. Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child. 
  2. The length of time the child has resided outside the state
  3. The distance between the inconvenient forum court and the more appropriate forum court. 
  4. The relative financial circumstances of the parties.
  5. Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction
  6. The nature and location of the evidence needed to resolve the case, including testimony of the child
  7. The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence

Because of the actions of Sue Olson and the Hennepin County Court System there has been irreversible damage to my family.  My rights and my children’s rights were clearly violated.  I ask that this matter be formally looked into.

Thank you,

Amy Hopkins

Posted November 28, 2011 by justiceforpeyton in Uncategorized

Tagged with