The court-appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL), attorney Mary Chappelle, filed a motion asking for attorney's fees. However, in the height of presumption and privilege, Mary Chappelle failed to file an affidavit for the amount of fees she is owed or to provide any evidence of billing to Judge Jewell at the hearing of this matter.

At the same time, GAL Chappelle sends a letter to both parties in an attempt to dredge up issues about the parties' children in school and in an attempt to push (yet another) custody evaluation through the system, in spite of the fact that the parents have a fairly stable joint custody with visitation arrangement at this point in time. This example illustrates a typical way that a GAL ramps up the fees in a case because the GAL wants to collect more money from the parties, perpetuating the conflict for the GAL's enrichment and at the expense of the children. This unethical practice it keeps the parents in conflict ad infinitem.

On January 4 2007, mother filed a motion to retroactively amend child support because of new evidence that father underreported his income. She also asked for the third time for attorney's fees. Since her income is almost negligible compared to father's income, even at his underreported level, NMRA 1-127 and ample New Mexico case law supports an award of fees. Otherwise, the huge disparity of income effectively denies her equal access to the courts, a fundamental right in the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Angela Jewell issued an order on January 5, 2007 after a "status hearing". There is no provision in the law for a status hearing. It is a waste of taxpayer money and court resources. Supposedly it is a hearing with no issues before the court, in which evidence and testimony are not prepared. If no motions have been filed, there is no judicial notice of the issues to be heard, thus, no opportunity for each side to prepare a defense against the issues, known ahead of time, that the other side plans to bring before the Court. Instead, at a "status hearing" is is a free-for-all in which anything goes - anything can be discussed and decisions may be made by the judge without proper evidence or testimony. This practice defies the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure, and even the U.S. Constitution which requires due process: judicial notice and an opportunity to be heard (or prepare and present evidence and testimony.) Judge Jewell claims in the order that the psychological evaluation of mother was for the purpose of determining her competency [to represent herself Pro Se]. This claim should evoke fear in the heart of every American who believes that they are entitled to the rights of the U.S. Constitution. This document prepared and provided by our founding fathers guarantees every citizen the right to self-representation, with no strings or conditions attached. The fact that Judge Jewell forced a competency exam before allowing mother the constitutional right of self-representation is alarming and unlawful.

Most disturbingly, Judge Jewell by this ordered forces mother, who has been declared indigent by the courts because of her low income, to pay court ordered guardian, Mary Chappelle $150 a month! Judge Jewell claimed that this amount was "very minimal", showing that she clearly does not get it. From her position high on the bench she has plenty of money provided to her from our taxes and know nothing of the kind of poverty that she has forced mother and the children into by demanding payment for a court ordered official that mother stated she could not afford long ago. Mother has now been forced to apply for food stamps and welfare - also provided by our tax money. In other words, Judge Jewell might as well have stuck her hands in our pockets and pulled out money to hand to Mary Chappelle, a wealthy local attorney. This is a disgusting example of how millions of dollars of American tax money is being ear-marked for the courts favored cronies in the family court cottage industry.

Mother's actual monthly income is $1023. This order to pay wealthy attorney, Mary Chappelle, represents 15% of Mother's income!

Mother filed two motions: a motion to clarify and a motion to reconsider the $150 a month award to Guardian Mary Chappelle. The motion to clarify was aimed at pinning down Judge Jewell's justification for ordering the psychological evaluation of mother. In the motion, mother reviews the history of excuses given by Judge Jewell for this invasive evaluation, citing multiple instances on the record or in written orders where Judge Jewell alternately claimed the purpose was to determine competency for self-representation in the case or, alternatively, for the purpose of evaluating mother's ability to parent the children. (Father was not ordered to have a similar exam.) In this interesting motion, mother relays the kinds of questions that were asked of her during the psychological exam, administered by Dr. Beth Roth of the Bernalillo County Court Clinic, a state-tax-subsidized alternative to private custody evaluators for family court. Here are some of the questions asked of mother in the "verbal IQ test". (There is no such thing as a verbal IQ test.)

• What do these words mean: winter, breakfast, repair, assemble?
• How are these words the same: fork/spoon, piano/drum, orange/banana, eye/ear?
• How much is $4.00 + $5.00?
• Soft drinks are sold 6 cans to a package. If you want 30 cans, how many packages must you buy?
• Chris has two times as much money as Robert. Chris has $99.00. How much does Robert have?
• What is a thermometer?
• How many weeks are in a year?
• Who wrote Hamlet?
• Whose name is easily associated with theory of relativity?
• Name all the continents.
• Name three kinds of blood vessels in the human body.
• What is the world population?
• What is the speed of light?

If one needs to know the answers to these questions (and more - see the motion) to be a competent parent, we had better have an awfully large compound to house all the children that must be removed from their parents in this country!

• On July 5, 2001, police charged the father with domestic violence, battery on a household member, and child abuse. download pdf version
• A criminal complaint was filed against the father. download pdf version
• The Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) investigated and substantiated physical and emotional abuse on November 7, 2001. download pdf version
• The domestic violence case was heard on September 12, 2001. The father pled guilty and was referred to probation. Download pdf version
• September 12, 2001 plea disposition and agreement. download pdf version
• September 10, 2001 court order appointing a Guardian ad Litem and an 11-706 expert witness (custody evaluator). download pdf version
• September 21, 2001 entry of appearance by Mary E. Chappelle as the Guardian ad Litem, or advocate for the children. download pdf version
• January 8, 2002 judgment: the father is guilty of battery on a household member and sentenced to no contact with the victim. download pdf version
• One son returned from his father with bruising on his neck. His mother took him to UNM hospital, who called the police to report the incident. download pdf version Photographs were taken. download pdf version and safe house interviews of the children were conducted. download pdf version
• A police supplemental report (April 23, 2002) concluded that the father committed simple battery on the son; a misdemeanor summons would follow. download pdf version
• On February 18, 2002, Judge Angela Jewell ordered that the children should have supervised visitation with their father. download pdf version
• On March 14, 2002, CYFD once again substantiated physical abuse on the part of the father. download pdf version
• Mary Chappelle recommended on December 2, 2002 that the children visit their father unsupervised. download pdf version
• Mary Chappelle adds extended time between the father and children to her recommendation on July 21, 2003. download pdf version
• The father's attorney, Joyce M. Gentry states that the sons' claims of being abused by the father are not true and that they originate from the mother's attempts to alienate the sons from their father. This concept, parental alienation, is a fabrication of the legal community that is used against many parents with legitimate concerns about the safety of their children, even when evidence shows that there is a reason for concern. download pdf version
• Two years and five months from the initial order appointing the custody evaluator, Dr. Richard P. Reed releases his evaluation report that suggests the children's stated fears are the result of their mother's "obsession" and influence. download pdf version
• Mary Chappelle recommends even more unsupervised visitation between the children and their father, and states, "If [the children's therapist] feels Dr. Reed is wrong, then I will recommend a change in therapists". This is another common tactic: change personnel associated with the children until all of them give the Guardian the answers she wants to hear.
• The mother asked her attorney, Stephen Eaton, to withdraw from the case and began representing herself. While trying to protect her children from the risks of unsupervised visitation, Joyce M. Gentry made claims without evidence that the mother had mental problems. Judge Angela Jewell ordered that the mother undergo a psychological competency evaluation. The issue of protecting the children has still not been scheduled to be heard. download pdf version