 |
 |
|||||||
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Topic: TBD
Judge
Ernesto Romero ignores evidence of child sexual abuse, calls hearing
with no Motions before the Court, and reverses a stipulated settlement
agreement protecting the child from contact alone with father. |
| The mother in this case joined CFJ over a year ago because the Family Court under Judge Loughren failed to protect her children from a sexually abusive father, even though the Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) and UNMH substantiated sexual abuse of the daughter by the father. In fact, Judge Loughren told the CYFD supervisor from the bench not to follow through with the authorities with a charge of sexual abuse. Judge Romero took over the case, and in the fall of 2003 he heard testimony from CYFD concerning substantiation of sexual abuse of the daughter by her father. In addition, pictures were submitted as evidence showing that the father had carved the name of his daughter on his abdomen. The father in this case has also testified in court over the last year that he has attempted suicide, is abusing substances, and is emotionally unbalanced to the point that he cannot keep his job. Through settlement facilitation, both the mother and father signed a series of stipulated agreements stating among other things that the father would only see his children in a supervised setting. These agreements became orders of the Court, signed by Judge Romero. (Download first agreement as pdf; Download second agreement as pdf.) The children were thus protected from harm. However, Judge Romero, with no motion before the court, contacted both parties, notifying them of a hearing to determine "all pending issues" Download Notice of Hearing as pdf. Neither party submitted any pending issues. Nevertheless, the hearing was conducted on October 18, 2004. Download hearing transcript as pdf. Father admitted during the hearing that he was suffering from "major depression and anxiety", that he had frequent "very crippling anxiety attacks", that he had made suicide attempts recently, and that he had no home, and that he had not owned a drivers' license for ten years because of DUI convictions. But he claimed that the two young children were "being sheltered from adversity to their detriment" by only seeing him with a supervisor present. Judge Romero mentioned the "major intervention by counselors and mental health counselors which brought us nowhere". Mother repeatedly asked for a chance to file a motion and prepare evidence (since there was no judicial notice of the topics to be discussed for the hearing). But Judge Romero, stating that "this case could make a nervous wreck out of anyone", ordered father to have unsupervised visits with the children, even though he received the evidence and testimony of sexual abuse less than a year earlier. Judge Romero wears the robe primarily to protect children and he utterly failed to do so in this case. There was no testimony from any professional that Father was rehabilitated; the judge simply put the children back with him and said that Father had better rehabilitate himself. Then he told Mother to give the children a cell phone so that they could call her if they had a crisis during visitation with their emotionally unbalanced father. The resulting order Download order as pdf) states: "The two (2) settlement facilitation [sic] which proceeded this hearing resolved all pending issues except the issue of petitioner-father's time-sharing responsibilities with the two minor children." But father never filed any motion or communicated with the Court, unless it was ex parte, that there was a need for a hearing or that the issue of time-sharing was unresolved. Why did Judge Romero call a hearing on this issue when neither side requested one? The order later states: "It is in the children's best interest that petitioner-father have unsupervised time-sharing responsibilities with his children . . . on a temporary basis based upon a material change in circumstances." What change? The fact that he no longer had a residence? that he stated he could not afford to feed the children? his stated emotional disorders? The children are both in elementary school. A judge who intentionally puts children in harm's way when there was not even a motion filed from a party asking for it should be removed from the bench. Judge Romero has his own agenda, and in this case it does not appear to include the protection of children. How many other children has Judge Romero failed to protect from actual or potential harm? |
| more
on Judge Romero Judge Romero ignores evidence Judge Romero participates in ex parte communication Judge Romero decides issues without notice to litigants or any hearings Judge Romero jails father as felon for alleged $1350 delinquent child support Judge Ernesto Romero Makes Father into a Federal Criminal |
| last updated on
October 7, 2007
|
Try out the CFJ blog! You can post with identification or anonymously. Help to expose corruption by posting what you know. |
||||||
Click
here to email this page to a friend |
|
|||||
Download free Adobe
Reader to read pdf files on your computer
If you do not have Microsoft Word,
download free Word
View 2003 to view Word files.
Send mail to webmaster with questions or comments about this web site. Any other questions or comments regarding CFJ please mail: info@family-justice.org