WV.
In 03 I filed petition for upward modification of child support, Motioned for final judgement in January05, hearing was scheduled for March'05.
After receiving notice of final hearing, ex-husband files falsse complaints w/cps which determined allegations false then further retaliates by taking out fraudulent D.V. Petition alledging drug abuse and threatening to harm our children.
My question is this:
Is the JUDGE REQUIRED to act under the current PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES of Family LAW as well as Current TRIAL COURT RULES and WV RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE?
Clearly, my own assumption is yes, then my question becomes two fold (or threefold)
When the JUDGE clearly, and erroneously disregards the above mentioned rules, acts according to his own personal will, and makes rulings based not on ANY (emphasis add and intent to implicitly indicate in total lack of, absent void, evidence that does not exsiste and was NOT presented) evidence, but upon who the hell knows what, and does so in clear violation of constitutional rights of the respondent and the children (who have as evidence will show suffered in light of the judges rulings) when or what becomes sufficient to proove section 40 article 1983 and overcome judicial immunity?
In 03 I filed petition for upward modification of child support, Motioned for final judgement in January05, hearing was scheduled for March'05.
After receiving notice of final hearing, ex-husband files falsse complaints w/cps which determined allegations false then further retaliates by taking out fraudulent D.V. Petition alledging drug abuse and threatening to harm our children.
My question is this:
Is the JUDGE REQUIRED to act under the current PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES of Family LAW as well as Current TRIAL COURT RULES and WV RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE?
Clearly, my own assumption is yes, then my question becomes two fold (or threefold)
When the JUDGE clearly, and erroneously disregards the above mentioned rules, acts according to his own personal will, and makes rulings based not on ANY (emphasis add and intent to implicitly indicate in total lack of, absent void, evidence that does not exsiste and was NOT presented) evidence, but upon who the hell knows what, and does so in clear violation of constitutional rights of the respondent and the children (who have as evidence will show suffered in light of the judges rulings) when or what becomes sufficient to proove section 40 article 1983 and overcome judicial immunity?