Battle to Achieve the Impossible Co-Parenting With Her Daughter’s Father...Robert Ontiveros As you will see...The two are sadly intertwined. Dulcie was diagnosed with Stage O cervical cancer sixteen years ago. The cancerous cells were surgically removed and she remained cancer free until June 2011. From that time forward she has fought and endured many battles. Her physical and emotional losses have been inconceivable. She has had six major surgeries and three reoccurrences of cancerous tumors. However...She feels the biggest loss to date is her daughter. Dulcie’s first surgery (radical hysterectomy) was September 2011 at USC Medical Center in LA. She had clear margins and was considered cancer free. Chemo and radiation followed. Before Dulcie could complete her round of chemo she received a phone call from her landlord. He apologized for the inconvenience...Especially under the circumstances but he and his wife could no longer afford the mortgage on the condo Dulcie was renting. They were going to have another child...The economy was bad. The condo needed to be sold. A few days later she received a formal letter (dated January 15, 2012)...I quote: “This letter is to inform you that you are hereby given 60 days’ notice of lease termination.” “This letter will cause the effective lease termination date to be March 15th.” “You have been a wonderful tenant. We appreciate your cooperation.” Dulcie and her parents sat down to discuss her options. Her doctors did not want her to return to work for at least six months after completing her chemo. She (and her daughter) lost their home. The economic downturn continued to be problematic for California and mostly importantly the Coachella Valley where Dulcie (and her daughter) lived. As a result...Budget cuts were affecting Dulcie’s ability to get into the required classes that she needed to enter the nursing program at her college. One of the most significant issues was the fact that Dulcie’s parents had recently retired. They had lived/worked in California for the last twenty years but they had plans to leave the Coachella Valley and return to family in IL. Dulcie’s sister and nephew were thinking of leaving the area as well because of the economic downturn. This would mean the loss of all family and family support. With much consideration and all the facts before them...A decision was made. Relocating back to IL and family was Dulcie’s only good option as far as they could see. As a result...Dulcie formally notified her daughter’s father...Robert Ontiveros of her intent to relocate back to IL. The letter was mailed by certified mail on February 25th, 2012. Her attorney (Timothy Ewanyshyn) formally filed her “Move Away” request a few days later with the California court. Timothy Ewanyshyn (Dulcie’s Attorney) filed the Order to Show Cause on February 27th, 2012. A few of Dulcie’s statements to the court are as follows...I quote: “I have decided after careful consideration to relocate back to my family in Bunker Hill, Illinois.” “Within the last 12 months, I was treated for a cancer relapse and underwent surgery, chemo and radiation treatment, lost my job and was forced to drop my courses at College of the Desert.” “To say that the last 12 months have been emotionally and financially draining would be a drastic understatement.” “On top of everything else, I have recently been given notice by my landlord that I must move because the premises are being sold.” “My family has been very supportive, and has offered me and Xxx a place to stay rent-free where they reside in Bunker Hill, Illinois.” “Xxx is very emotionally bonded to all of our family due to our visits with them here in California and Illinois.” “The schools in Edwardsville District Schools are world-class so Xxx will be able to receive a quality education.” “Family Circle Magazine rated Edwardsville, Illinois as one of the 10 best town for families in 2010 survey, with a school rating of 9 out of 10”. April 9th 2012 was the first hearing. The child’s father…Robert Ontiveros (of Palm Desert, CA) did not approve of Dulcie’s request to move away with their daughter. Dulcie and Robert had shared Joint Legal and Joint Physical Custody of their daughter since October 4th, 2010. Their daughter was about 4 ½ years old at the time. In December 2010…The court ruled that Robert should pay child support payments to Dulcie. Up until that point…Robert’s position was “You take care of you…And I’ll take care of me”. “No judge or court is ever going to tell me how to raise my daughter or tell me what to do”. “If you go to the court for anything I will not be able to trust you anymore”. On the day of the 1st hearing for the move away request…Robert (through his attorney) asked the court to order psychological testing on Dulcie. She willingly agreed to his request. As a result…Commissioner Olson ordered that psychological testing be done. Not just on Dulcie but on Robert as well. Dulcie’s Mom (Jeri) said that the look on Robert’s face was very telling when the commissioner made the order. Robert’s attorney...Frederic Wieder (of Palm Desert, CA) recommended Diana Herrington MFT (of Palm Desert, CA) be the 730 Evaluator. Dulcie’s attorney agreed. Brian Wexler PhD (of Palm Springs, CA) would administer the Psychological testing. I will fast forward to May 31st 2013 in order to provide documented facts regarding Robert and his psyche. Timothy Ewanyshyn (Dulcie’s Attorney) questions Brian Wexler PhD about Robert’s MMPI-2 testing results at trial (May 31st 2013) ...I quote: “Is it accurate to say that you performed psychological tests on both parties in this case?” Response... “Yes” “What tests did you perform on the parties?” Response...“My evaluation consisted of an interview, a mental status examination, which included a standard mental status procedure, some background details regarding their history, and testing included the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory second edition, Parenting Stress Index, and a Parent Child Relationship Inventory.” Question(s)... “I was looking in the second to last paragraph.” And this is under “Results of Robert’ MMPI-2” Quote: “Robert provided a validity profile which was interesting for an elevation on a measure which identifies items in which examinee appears to claim more psychological problems that typically observed.” “Can you tell us what that means?” Response... “It is a measure of unusual items, and there were a number of unusual items which were above a cut-off score which would signify more unusual things than most people would report.” Question(s)…“Okay”. “Looking towards the bottom of page 3, I note you indicate elevated scores for respondent for amorality, imperturbability, and ego inflation”. Note: Robert is respondent. The following definitions were found on mmpi-info/mmpi-2/mmpiint.html MMPI-2 Definitions for Harris Lingoes Subscales – Hypomania Subscales Amorality (Ma1) - Justifies manipulativeness by projecting own selfish opportunistic and exploitive tendencies onto others. Imperturbility (Ma3) - Little concern about the opinions and values of others, denies social anxiety and extroverted. Ego Inflation (Ma4) - Grandiose, over-estimates own worth, resentful and impatient with others. A good scale for picking up ego-syntonic grandiosity in paranoids and narcissistic personalities. Timothy Ewanyshyn asks Brian Wexler...I quote: “Okay” “I am going to quote something farther down the page on page 4”. “To further illuminate Robert’s test results, some of the critical items answered as true include the following: I believe that I am being plotted against.” “I feel I have often been punished without cause.” “Someone has been trying to rob me”. “I am sure I am being talked about”. “Sometimes unimportant things will run through my mind and bother me for days.” “I have had very peculiar and strange experiences.” “And I have never seen a vision, parenthesis, false, in parenthesis,” Brian Wexler’s Answer(s)... “In the findings with Mr. Ontiveros, there was some suspiciousness, and I kind of hesitantly would describe it as paranoia, but clinically, it is described as being paranoid or suspicious.” “To the questions “I have never seen a vision”, he answered that false implying that he has seen a vision.” To be fair... One of Dulcie’s elevated scores was Imperturbability as well. The other was life stress. Life stress...Can you imagine that? Question... “On this test, is it accurate to say that both parties actually tested with an elevated score on imperturbability”? Response... “Yes”. “That is true”. Question...“Let’s talk about Parenting Stress Index” “In the second paragraph, you indicate that Dulcie acknowledged a significant degree of life stress. “Is that accurate?” Response... “Yes.” Question...“And on the same test, Mr. Ontiveros scored only one elevated response above the 85th percentile; is that correct?” Response...“I believe that was a measure called adaptability.” It is our belief that Robert does not share. It is not in his vocabulary. We also believe that he is incapable of showing any form of empathy towards others. Everything...Is simply all about him. His wants his needs are the only things considered. Robert has claimed for years that all of the co-parenting issues between him and Dulcie are the result of her being scorned. Claims all problems started when he chose another woman to live his life with. There is no question that his relationship with Ana Laura changed things. The family unit that they had developed for their daughter was no longer. The abrupt way in which Robert brought Ana Laura into the child’s life was problematic. Robert contacted Dulcie in 2008 (shortly after his girlfriend’s arrival from Mexico). He explained that their daughter was having behavior problems and outbursts. He wanted to seek counseling. Dulcie agreed to go with Robert to counseling for their daughter. She also provided the health insurance coverage as well. We are confident that the information provided to you throughout this link will clearly define where the true problem(s) lie. Personal problems and Co-parenting problems between Dulcie and Robert began early on in their relationship. (See all Docs. under Immigration Fraud) But...The Co-parenting problems escalated after she requested the move away. Two months after the move away request was made (April 2012) it was discovered that cancerous tumors had returned. This time...Her Oncology surgeon determined that a radical pelvic exoneration surgery was needed to save her life. 23.5 hours for the first surgery and ten days later another 3 hour surgery. Dulcie’s hospitalization was extended because of surgical complications. Her specialists concluded that her intestines would not “wake up” from the 23.5 hours of anesthesia. As a result...She could not eat and experienced extreme nausea and vomiting for many weeks. Diagnosis... “Ileus”. It took many weeks but the Ileus showed signs of improvement. Dulcie was once again considered cancer free but complications would continue to plague her. Late May Dulcie sent Diana Herrington (730 Evaluator) an e-mail to notify her of her health status and inform her of ongoing co-parenting problems with Robert. Unfortunately Ms. Herrington intentionally dismissed the contents of the letter. In her 730 report to the court she stated that she received the e-mail from Dulcie. However... She distorted and downplayed the actual contents by simply stating that there were communication problems between Maternal Grandmother and Father during Dulcie’s illness. As a result...Vital information on hostile aggressive parenting was not provided for the court to review and consider. Actual Statements from Dulcie’s e-mail to Diana Herrington (730 Evaluator) dated May 22, 2012...I quote: “Xxx was with Robert the night before my first surgery on May 3rd.” “He did not have Xxx call me, he did not answer the phone when I called to speak with Xxx, nor did he return my text messages.” “I went into surgery without being able to speak to my daughter.” “To this day Robert has not asked my parents how I am doing.” “Robert has thwarted my efforts to see Xxx during my recovery as set forth in detail below.” “The most recent issue with Robert occurred over Memorial weekend (and my 5-day parenting time).” “I and my parents were still hoping that we could salvage some of my parenting time that weekend once my nausea had completely stopped.” “Robert keeps his phone very close as a result of his business.” “I would find it very hard to believe that he did not receive my mom’s messages.” Shortly before 3:00 p.m. he finally responded (via text)... Robert’s Message... “We already gone” “You are more than welcome to pick her up tomorrow afternoon at my house.” “My mom sent an immediate response/text inquiring as to why he did not contact her prior to leaving LA...as agreed. No response.” Thirty minutes later she sent another text “Where is Xxx now” “Again, no response”. In August 2012...Dulcie had her 4th surgery. The corrective surgery and healing gave her slight relief from her digestive complications. Thanksgiving 2012 The Custody Agreement states that Dulcie has her daughter for Thanksgiving Day on even years. This incident was not discussed with Diana Herrington but it was disclosed and/or discussed at trial for the court (Commissioner Gregory Olson) to consider. Dulcie, her daughter and her parents were very much looking forward to Thanksgiving Day. They felt that they had a lot to be thankful for at that time and was looking forward to spending the time all together. Dulcie’s surgical complications had decreased slightly. It was the first time in months that Dulcie was able to eat actual food. For almost six months she was fed almost exclusively through TPN. Dulcie’s parenting time included all Monday and Tuesday nights. There was no school on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving so Robert and Dulcie agreed to do the transfer of parenting time (back to Robert) at their daughter’s 5:00 pm (outdoor) swimming lessons in lieu of after school. (Swimming lessons that Robert did not discuss with Dulcie prior to registration). According to Dulcie... Robert said (at the lessons), “I don’t know why we let the judge tell us when we can spend holidays with our daughter.” “Holidays should be split in half”. “You have her half a day and I should have her half a day.” (Or words to that affect). Dulcie said that he was upset when she did not agree with his theory. It was at that point that Robert informed Dulcie that he made plans to take their daughter to church on Thanksgiving morning. Dulcie was not pleased that he did not discuss his plans prior to telling their daughter that they were going. However...Dulcie said that it would be OK for her to go. She made it very clear to Robert that she wanted to pick their daughter up for her parenting time immediately after church. Dulcie asked Robert what time church would be out. Plans were made to meet in the parking lot at Kohl’s. Shortly before their agreed upon time... Robert sent Dulcie a text message requesting that they change their meeting place. The new location...Parking lot of I-Hop. When Dulcie arrived their daughter was carrying out a take home container. Apparently... “After” church they went to I-hop to have a big breakfast. She was filled with pancakes and syrup. It was 11:30 a.m. and Dulcie’s dinner reservations with her parents were for 1:30 p.m. Only two hours later. Another win for Robert. He managed to manipulate his half of the Thanksgiving Holiday whether Dulcie agreed to it or not. Dulcie’s Mom (Jeri) was able to change their reservation time to later in the day...But their clubhouse was not able to fully accommodate them in another way because they were fully booked. Dulcie, her daughter and her parents had to eat their Thanksgiving Dinner in the bar area in lieu of the dining room. They were the only people in the room. Dulcie’s daughter watched the people in the dining room enjoy the music and entertainment. She kept asking, “Mommy...Why can’t we sit in there with the other people”? A few days after Thanksgiving Dulcie started experiencing problems. A CT scan was ordered. The CT scan indicated more bad news. Dulcie’s cancer had returned for the 3rd time. This time the cancer was considered inoperable. Her prognosis poor…Statistically10-13 months. The Specialists at USC had nothing more to offer. It was at this point that Dulcie’s parents desperately sought out treatment at other facilities. Returning to their home in the Coachella Valley (of CA) for treatment and follow-up was not an option. Dulcie’s type of cancer is considered to be rare, unpredictable and aggressive. A reason for being sent to an advanced Medical Center such as USC in the first place. Her surgeries were very specialized, highly technical and invasive. As a result...The local Cancer Center in the Coachella Valley (of CA) declined to provide her any further treatment/care because of her ongoing digestive complications and the specialized surgeries. Dulcie’s stepfather was on the board of director’s at one of the local hospitals during this time. It was explained to him and Dulcie’s Mom that they simply did not have the expertise to take care of their daughter and her specialized needs. A Colorectal Specialist at Eisenhower said “There is not a Dr. in this valley that would touch your daughter with a ten foot pole”. It became quite apparent that Dulcie would need to be associated with a big teaching hospital for the rest of her life. The actual physical separation of Dulcie and her daughter began when she was accepted for treatment (and possible clinical trial) at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO early December 2012. Dulcie was distraught when she had to leave her daughter behind in California. Again...She shared joint physical custody with her daughter’s father...Robert Ontiveros. The original court order for custody would not permit their daughter to leave the state of CA. The move away trial had not yet been held. Dulcie (and her parents) had no choice but to move forward with their plans if they wanted to save Dulcie’s life and give her relief from the ongoing surgical complications and/or symptoms. Dulcie and Jeri (her mom) lived with family back in Bunker Hill, IL until they found their new home in Edwardsville, IL. Within a few weeks of their arrival the Specialists at Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University School of Medicine had a treatment plan that relieved Dulcie from her surgical complications. They were also successful in keeping the side effects of the aggressive chemo treatments to a minimum as well. The love and support of our family being together again...Gave them (and our family) renewed strength. We all knew at this point that they had made the best overall decision for Dulcie. Hope was filling our hearts and minds once again. “Winter Break” and/or Christmas 2012 The 2010 Custody Agreement states that Dulcie has their daughter for her parenting time the 1st half of Winter Break on even years as well. It also states that the 1st half ends on December 26th. This would be the first time ever that Dulcie’s daughter was able to spend any time at Christmas (in IL) with our family. To reiterate our position on Robert’s lack of ability and/or unwillingness to share their child. See Robert’s following statement(s)... Robert’s Responsive Declaration from the original Custody Hearing dated September 9th, 2010...I quote: “My parents live in Acapulco Mexico and I visit them twice a year around Christmas and Easter. Since Xxx was 10 months old, she has gone with me to visit my parents (her grandparents) and my brothers, in Acapulco.” “Twice a year.” Jeri and Dulcie decorated her family’s home from top to bottom. Boughs and boughs of evergreens were brought from their Christmas tree farm “The Woods”. Dulcie worked diligently on the Santa Claus list for her daughter and all the other little cousins. Two big family meals were planned as well. One with Dulcie’s Dad’s side of the family and one with her Mom’s (our side) of the family. To say that we were all excited is an understatement. Dulcie’s excitement and anticipation was clearly seen on her face. Having said that...There was one problem. The amount of time that Dulcie’s daughter could be there. Dulcie, her attorney and our family believe the intent of the original custody order is for each parent to receive “Half” of the “Winter Break” days as their parenting time. The 2012 Winter Break was totally disproportionate towards Dulcie. Their daughter was released from school on Friday the 21st of December. As a result...Dulcie had four days of parenting time during Winter Break because of “ends on December 26th”. Friday the 21st and Wednesday the 26th were used for her daughter’s long distance travel. Her first full day back at school was January 7th. December 27 through January 7 gave Robert eleven full days of parenting time. Dulcie noticed the disproportionate parenting time in November prior to her knowing about her cancer reoccurrence. It was at that time that she first asked Robert for an “extra day or two” because she had dreamed of being able to take her daughter home for Christmas. Her parents, sister and nephew were making plans to return for Christmas as well. A verbal request was made directly to Robert, an e-mail to Robert and a formal request through her attorney...Timothy Ewanyshyn was made as well. After moving to IL the request for extra time was even more important considering the circumstances. For weeks Robert refused to give Dulcie an answer. She called him two days before their daughter was scheduled to leave. Finally he gave a response. “It is not my problem that the school scheduled their break the way they did.” “We have plans to go see Christmas lights in Orange County and I can’t change them.” (Or words to that affect). It should be noted that the Christmas lights in Orange County started before Thanksgiving and continued into the New Year. It became quite clear that without court intervention...Parenting time and/or visitation with her daughter in IL would be problematic. A request for an interim hearing was made by Dulcie’s attorney. January 30th, 2013 was scheduled. Dulcie’s Order to Show Cause was filed on December 22nd, 2012. Her Declaration was submitted shortly thereafter...I quote: “On or about December 5, 2013, I was informed by my physician that I have malignant cancer cells present in my body, consistent with metastatic-recurrent adenosquamous carcinoma.” “I was also told that my condition is inoperable and that my prognosis is poor if I do not have a significant response to treatment.” “I called respondent from the hospital at USC and informed him on December 9, 2012, that the cancer had returned.” “I explained that I was returning to my home in Bunker Hill, Illinois, so that I could seek treatment in St. Louis for cancer treatments and for qualification in clinical trials of unproved cancer treatments.” Respondent’s response to this news was to say “Who is going to pick Xxx up from school?” “I hope and pray that I will be blessed with a miracle.” “I hope and pray that the doctors are proven wrong, but if they are right, then I want to have as much quality time with our daughter in the time available to me, and this can only happen with intervention by the court.” Robert’s Response Declaration for the hearing – Dated January 8, 2013...I quote: “I do not have enough information regarding Petitioner’s current condition, other than the declaration of Petitioner’s counsel, to agree to any modification of the current orders.” “Petitioner’s counsel’s declaration lacks foundation and contains inadmissible hearsay.” “There is no medical verification of the alleged facts set forth by Petitioner’s counsel nor is there a declaration from Petitioner.” Since their original custody hearing in 2010...Dulcie and Robert had a 5-5-2-2- schedule for their parenting time. 50% of their daughter’s time was spent with her mother and 50% of her time was spent with her father (and his fiancée). Sadly...this type of custody arrangement requires that all parties are adaptable to change. Two days here...five days there... Dulcie kept a calendar hanging on her daughter’s wall so that she would know where she would be on any given night. Sad...but true. At the January hearing...Dulcie’s attorney asked the court to consider letting the child reside with her mother (and our family) back in IL until a physical custody “move way” trial could be held. We knew that Dulcie had an uphill battle. Her daughter’s school and overall stability were the key points to argue at this hearing if there was any hope of bringing her little girl to IL. Transitioning from one home/state/school to another was not a significant concern to Dulcie (or ours). Especially under the circumstances. Dulcie’s daughter was very familiar with IL and close to our family because of frequent contact and/or visits since she was born. 730 Evaluator – Diana Herrington states/opinions...I quote: “As far as I can tell, she has a really good relationship with her mom” She likes being with her mom, wants to be with her mom, feels she needs to be with her mom.” “Xxx is close to her Grandma, as well as her Mom. 730 Evaluator – Diana Herrington answers Timothy Ewanyshyn at the January hearing...I quote: “She has her cousin Xxxx back there who evidently she’s very close to, and there’s a lot of family”. Timothy Ewanyshyn questions Diana Herrington at trial...I quote: “Do you know what family she has in IL”? “I think in January, you may have testified to a cousin back there that Xxx is very close to?” Answers... “I can’t name them all because my understanding is there’s a lot.” “I understand that there is a very large family and a very large support system.” “I understand that from Mom, and I understand it from Xxx and also from Mom’s mother.” “Xxx has always liked Bunker Hill”. For the January (interim) hearing...Dulcie was there telephonically because her Drs. would not allow her to travel. Dulcie’s Attorney, Mom and Step Father were in attendance. Dulcie’s Mom (Jeri) testified. Timothy Ewanyshyn (Dulcie’s attorney) spoke about our family support, addressed ongoing issues surrounding Robert’s inability and/or refusal to co-parent and went into detail about their daughter’s school. Frederic Wieder – Robert’s Attorney quotes a statement made by Diana Herrington in her report... “If the child relocates to Bunker Hill, the child is placed in the position of facing the possibility of continued illness on her mother’s part without the emotional and physical support of her father.” 730 Evaluator – Diana Herrington states her opinion (based on Robert’s perspective only) at the January 30th hearing...I quote: “Because her dad is going to be the one that has to care - - if mom’s cancer doesn’t respond to treatment, dad is going to be the one who is going to have to help her through that.” “I believe that it was the Christmas one that they had taken the child early out of school without his knowledge or permission, and he felt like they should not take the child out of school at a time other than he and they had agreed to.” “I have not had a chance to talk directly to grandfather because I was only doing custody at this point, so I do not know grandfather’s perspective on any of this.” “Father’s perspective is that Xxx is uncomfortable with grandpa and dad is uncomfortable - - well, grandfather at this point because grandfather took her out of school without his permission.” Note: We believe that the above statements are a perfect example of Diana Herrington’s bias towards father (Robert). Even though she had not spoken with grandfather she did not question what Robert had to say as fact. “Because grandfather took her out of school without his permission.” Did he really take her out of school without Robert’s permission? No …He did not. Robert’s permission was not required because it was Dulcie’s parenting time…Not Roberts. Dulcie followed the custody rules. Robert was notified of the flight plans (and times) over 30 days in advance. She got approval from her daughter’s school and teacher for “grandfather” to pick up her daughter a few minutes early in order to make their flight. This was done well in advance as well. I wonder why Ms. Herrington didn’t consider that Robert might be wrong. Throughout her evaluation report her bias towards father (Robert) was always the same. Believe father (Robert)...Dismiss mother (Dulcie). Frederic Wieder – Robert’s Attorney questions Diana Herrington at the January 30t”h hearing...I quote: Do you have any opinion as to who should travel with Xxx when she visits her mother?” “I think if dad is willing to fly back with her, I don’t think that’s a bad idea, if dad is willing to take her back and forth on the airplane”. Timothy Ewanyshyn – Dulcie’s Attorney questions Robert at the January 30th Interim hearing...I quote: Question...“Sir, isn’t it true that for the Christmas trip you received the itinerary well in advance of December 21st?” Answer... “From my attorney, I did, from their office.” Question... “Well in advance.” “You didn’t receive it that day.” “You received it before that; isn’t that correct?” Answer... “I did”. Question... “Did you look at the itinerary before December 21st?” Answer... “I did”. Question...“Did you make any observation that flight departure times were prior to the end of the school day on December 21st.” Answer... “I look at them and I did tell them that I was going to come back with my attorney so let us know what they - - what they think about the - - the trips.” Question... “Is it true that the itinerary had her leaving at a time that is earlier than the end of school on Friday?” Answer... “I don’t recall that”. Question... “Is it possible?” Answer... “Maybe.” “But I am not sure about that.” Timothy Ewanyshyn (Dulcie’s Attorney) also provided proof that the child did not have the stability at George Washington Charter School that everybody clearly assumed she had. Documenting that Robert intentionally lied to qualify her into the school (Kindergarten and 1st Grade). Timothy Ewanyshyn (Dulcie’s Attorney) questions Robert at the January 30th hearing...I quote: “Can you tell us what that document is?” Robert responds...I quote: “Yes.” “It’s a - - for the school, for the map for school, I believe.” Timothy Ewanyshyn asks...I quote: “Is there any particular school that that map depicts?” Robert responds...I quote: “James Earl Carter”. Timothy Ewanyshyn asks...I quote: “Now, Xxx attends Washington Charter at present; is that correct?” Robert responds...I quote: “Correct”. Timothy Ewanyshyn asks...I quote: “Okay.” “And you testified that you reside at 72435 Cactus Drive; is that correct?” Roberts responds...I quote: “Correct.” Timothy Ewanyshyn asks...I quote: “Is that address on Cactus Drive depicted anywhere on that map, either specifically or generally.” Robert responds...I quote: “No it is not” Timothy Ewanyshyn asks...I quote: “One final question, Mr. Ontiveros.” “Would it be accurate to say that if I were to call Xxx’s school today, that they would not have your address as being on Cactus Drive in Palm Desert?” Robert responds...I quote: “Well, they already know.” “They already know because I - - I come out with two proofs of address from the permanent where I live right now and I provide, still, my bills, my statements, anything, I still get regular mail there.” Of Special Note: The policy at George Washington Charter School is as follows... George Washington Charter School – Ellie Weiner, Registrar states...I quote: “Our policy that the family attending WCS live in the WCS attendance zone.” Timothy Ewanyshyn addresses Commissioner Gregory Olson...I quote: “I’ve spoken to the principal there several times, and I do know they have some unique rules.” “But I can tell the court this: The court (should be school) believes that Xxx lives at a different location from where she actually lives.” Commissioner Gregory Olson responds...I quote “I don’t think that’s particularly persuasive, “I don’t think you need to go on that.” “It’s a very good school. I don’t.” “She’s been there for almost two years.” “That’s the stability they’re talking about.” “Whether she would have been there or not is beside the point. “She’s going to stay there.” “She’s - - the school is not taking her out, so we’re going to assume that’s not going to happen.” How does Commissioner Olson know that “She’s going to stay there”...that they are not going to “take her out”? Does he know something that we do not? Robert testified at the trial that they might “drop her out” if she missed a few days of school. Commissioner Olson questions Robert at the January 30th hearing...I quote: “I need to know what the consequences will be if she misses a few days of school.” Robert responds to Commissioner Olson’s questions(s)...I quote: “I have talked to Mr. Lehman before”. “That might be a possibility that they might drop her out.” Of special note: When Dulcie learned of her most recent reoccurrence she contacted George Washington Charter School to clearly understand their policy on excused absences and/or home schooling. Mr. Lehman was in a meeting so she spoke directly with Ms. Ellie (Ellie Weiner, registrar). She explained to Dulcie that their home school program allows two excused absences per school year. Dulcie asked about the maximum time that a student could be home schooled. Ms. Ellie explained that there have been special circumstances in the past where a student was approved to be absent (and home schooled) for an entire semester. She said it would be up to Mr. Lehman but clearly Dulcie’s circumstances were special. Dulcie asked that Mr. Lehman return her call. Shortly thereafter...Mr. Lehman returned Dulcie’s call. He explained to Dulcie that he had already spoke with Robert about their daughter and her current prognosis. He said that he was sorry to hear her news but… He agreed with Robert that their daughter should not miss school if at all possible. At her age it could be detrimental. A day or two attached to two long weekends would be all that he could approve. If she missed more days than that he couldn’t hold her spot at the school. I and our family find Mr. Lehman’s position interesting and telling... It is definitely not a supportive position towards Dulcie and her daughter under the circumstances. I and our family believe that it’s more detrimental to the child to not have precious time with her terminally ill mother. If she is still properly educated how can time away from school be more detrimental? It is beyond our comprehension. She is not in Jr. High and/or High school. She was just entering 2nd grade. Dulcie personally home schooled her daughter last year for the visits to IL. All homework was completed and turned in in a timely manner. Before Dulcie’s illness she was taking classes to obtain a nursing degree. She had a 4.0 GPA We as a family have full capability in assisting Dulcie with her daughter’s schooling and/or homework if it is needed as well. Within their own home…Papa Bob is willing and able to help. He has two master’s degrees and was the President of Esterline Defense Products for almost seventeen years. One of his degrees was in engineering and the other in business. He also taught business classes at a college level in his early professional career. Grandma Jeri did not graduate from college but she attended Design School and ran her own business for over twenty years. We also have two teachers in our family. One is Grandma Jeri’s sister in law and the child’s aunt. She is a 2nd grade teacher and speaks fluent Spanish. Her daughter (the child’s cousin) will be returning home from studying in Ecuador within the next few weeks. She graduated Salutatorian from her High School (in IL) and speaks fluent Spanish as well. Her other cousin will be graduating from High School this year. She is an honor student and plans on majoring in engineering. All have offered to help Dulcie and her daughter in any way needed. The child’s education and/or studies will not suffer if she spends time with her mother in IL. Edwardsville Schools are highly rated as well if the child relocates to IL with her mother. School Registration at George Washington Charter School – Palm Desert, CA Kindergarten registration forms were filled out by Dulcie and Robert both. Dulcie filled out her physical address truthfully... “Cook St. - Palm Desert, CA”. A physical address that did not qualify their daughter at George Washington Charter School. Robert filled out his physical address deceptively as being at xxx Chicory - Palm Desert, CA 92260. Robert owns the home on Chicory but does not physically live there. He used the rental address in lieu of his physical address on Cactus Drive because the rental is in the school’s qualifying zone. From the time their daughter was born Robert has insisted that she would attend that school. His step children from his previous marriage attended the school. “It is the most prestigious school”. There simply was no discussing it. The following year (1st grade) Robert alone filled out the school registration because Dulcie was in the hospital for her 3rd reconstructive surgery. Robert did not supply Dulcie with any information and/or paperwork. When she was released from the hospital she asked the school for a copy of Robert’s registration and school pick-up list since he refused to provide one to her. Mr. Lehman refused to give it to her as well. Dulcie asked her attorney (Timothy Ewanyshyn) to call Mr. Lehman. Mr. Ewanyshyn explained to Mr. Lehman that Dulcie and Robert have Joint “legal” custody and as a result each parent has legal rights to their daughter’s school records. Still he refused Dulcie a copy of the document. A copy of Robert’s registration was later retrieved from Desert Sands Unified School District Office in La Quinta, CA shortly before the trial. (May 2013) Dulcie was shocked when she seen that Robert had changed his physical address to Cactus Drive. But she was even more shocked when she read that her (and her daughter’s) physical address was Robert’s rental home on Chicory. (See copy of “2012-2013 Regular” “Registration Information” posted on this site) Timothy Ewanyshyn questions Robert at the January 30th, 2013 hearing…I quote: “One final question, Mr. Ontiveros.” “Would it be accurate to say that if I were to call Xxx’s school today, that they would not have your address as being on Cactus Drive in Palm Desert?” Robert responds…I quote: “Well, they already know.” “They already know because I - - I come out with two proofs of address from the permanent where I live right now and I provide, still, my bills, my statements, anything, I still get regular mail there.” Now we know what Robert meant when he said “Well, they already know.” Robert’s intent when he registered his daughter for 1st grade was to free himself from the first lie. He knew that at some point and time his actual physical address on Cactus would be discovered by someone at the school. So…What does Robert do? Create another lie to cover up the first lie. Including Dulcie in his deception is low and it was wrong. This is why we are divulging the actual facts to all of you. Dulcie and her daughter’s physical address was not Chicory at the time of their daughter’s 1st grade registration. She had not lived in Robert’s home (on Chicory) since their daughter was born. Almost 7 years prior. Dulcie and her daughter lived with her parents in La Quinta at the time their daughter started 1st grade. According to Case # INS1300471 Robert Ontiveros (plaintiff) has a civil case filed with the Superior Court of California – County of Riverside against the actual renters of his Chicory home and/or rental at 74365 Chicory St.; Palm Desert, CA 92260. Public records indicate that Robert filed the case in small claims court on March 1, 2013. According to information provided on the public access site…A hearing was scheduled for 10/21/2013. I can assure you that the names listed as “Defendant(s)” are not Dulcie and her daughter.
Posted on: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:39:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015