The Court having taken this matter under advisement and
having considered the arguments of counsel for the parties, the evidence presented, and
all matters of record, the Court's findings and orders are as follows:
The first witness to testify at the evidentiary hearing was
Jennifer Brewster, her testimony dealt with the value of the trip that Petitioner/Father
had won. The trip was valued at just under $5,000 according to Ms. Brewster.
Petitioner/Father's out-of-pocket expense for the trip was $1,504.59, which was
nonrefundable.
Next, doctors Mannion, Blaylock and Al-Bayati testified
about the various risk factors associated with child immunizations, an issue that the
Court had addressed in prior proceedings in this case.
After that, Petitioner/Father, Steve Hutchinson took the
stand and testified. Initially, Petitioner/Father testified that the parties had
entered into an agreement in accordance with their parenting plan permitting him to
exercise his summer vacation access or parenting time with children by taking the children
on a cruise to Alaska. Petitioner/Father and the children were scheduled to leave
for this trip to Alaska on May 15, 2004 and return on May 22, 2004.
Next Petitioner/Father testified about the events that
occurred on May 12, 2004. On that day, pursuant to the Court order,
Petitioner/Father went to his children's school for the purposes of transporting them to a
doctor to have the children immunized. When Petition/Father arrived at his children
school, he was met with a demonstration orchestrated by Respondent/Mother.
Petition/Father made his way through the demonstrators and took the children to the
doctor's office to get their immunizations. Furthermore, on May 12, 2004
Petition/Father also received an e-mail message from Respondent/Mother allegedly revoking
her consent to the trip to Alaska.
The children were in the custody of their father from May
12, 2005, when he returned them to the school on Friday, May 14th. During that time,
Petition/Father testified that he did not observe any evidence of an adverse reaction by
the children to their immunizations. After Petition/Father returned the children
school, Respondent/Mother was to have the children in her custody prior to them leaving
for the scheduled trip to Alaska.
On the evening of May 14, 2004, Respondent/Mother failed to
exchanged the children with Petitioner/Father for the purpose of the children going on the
scheduled cruise to Alaska with their father. The next time that Petition/Father had
contact with his children was the following Monday when Respondent/Mother returned them to
school. Petitioner/Father and his children failed to take the scheduled trip to
Alaska.
After that, Petition/Father testified that as a result of
his failure to take the trip to Alaska as scheduled, he forfeited $4,687.17.
The next witness to testify was Erik Larson; he's
Respondent/Mother's brother. Initially, Mr. Larson testified about the character of
children. Mr. Larson was with the children on May 14, 2004, and testified that
Gwyneth's behavior was completely out of the ordinary; she did not eat much dinner that
night and was ill. Next, Mr. Larson testified that Greyson's behavior was completely
out of character; he also did not eat much for dinner and could not stand still.
The day, according to Mr. Larson, Greyson was sweating and
the pupils of his eyes were dilated. After that, Mr. Larson testified that he
considered taking the children to the hospital.
Under cross-examination, Mr. Larson acknowledged that the
children were not given any treatment for the symptoms presented during that weekend.
Further, Mr. Larson acknowledged that no one advised Petition/Father that the
children were suffering from any of the effects of their immunizations.
The last witness to testify at the hearing was
Respondent/Mother, Janet Burton. Initially, Respondent/Mother testified about why
she changed her mind about permitting the children go on vacation with their father.
Next, Respondent/Mother testified that she was of an opinion that was she was fully
capable of rendering appropriate care to her children on that weekend.
Next, Respondent/Mother testified about the condition of
the children when she picked them up from school on Friday. Respondent/Mother went
on to testify that during the weekend she had the children and she did not advise
Petition/Father that the children where with her and that the children were suffering from
the effects of their immunizations.
The Court finds that Petition/Father was acting within his
legal rights, pursuant to orders of the Court, when he had the children immunized on May
12, 2004. The Court further finds that Respondent/Mother objected to children's
immunizations on May 12, 2004. The Court further finds that Respondent/Mother's
displeasure was evidenced by the demonstration that Petition/Father was confronted with at
the school. the Court further finds that after the children were immunized, that
Petition/Father did not notice that the children were suffering any side effects from the
immunizations. The Court further finds that Respondent/Mother was angry and upset
about the immunizations of her children as demonstrated by the demonstration she
orchestrated. The Court further finds that after the children were immunized,
Respondent/Mother attempted to revoke her consent to father exercising his parenting time
with the children in accordance with the agreement and parenting plan.
The Court finds that Respondent/Mother willfully violated
and breech that agreement and the parenting plan by wrongfully withholding the children
from Petition/Father. The Court further finds that Respondent/Mother did not have a
legitimate excuse for her willful and wrongful violation of the parenting plan.
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent/Mother is in
contempt of Court for her willful violation of orders of this Court.
Petitioner/Father testified that the value of the Alaska
trip was just under $4,668.17 and that he wants to be reimbursed for the value of the
trip. However, the testimony clearly indicated that Petition/Father only lost his
out-of-pocket expenses of $1,504.59.
The Court finds that Petitioner/Father, as result of the
willful and wrongful actions of Respondent/Mother, lost his out-of-pocket expenses of
$1,504.59. the Court further finds that it would be unreasonable to expect
Petition/Father to go on this Alaska cruise without knowing where his children were.
IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered
against Respondent/Mother and in favor of Petitioner/Father in the amount of $1,504.59.
Attorneys Fees
The Court must consider the financial resources of both
parties and the reasonableness of both parties in accordance with A.R.S 25-324, when
considering an award of attorney's fees. In the case at bar, Respondent/Mother's
behavior in this matter was outrageous and vindictive. The reason why these children
did not get the opportunity to experience Alaska was because Respondent/Mother wanted to
harm Petition/Father. Unfortunately, the victims of Respondent/Mother's conduct were
the children.
This case illustrates the extent to which parents were
engaging gamesmanship by using the children as their tools to administer pain and injury
to the other parent. Such behavior is clearly contrary to the best interests of the
children because the children become the innocent victims of the outrageous conduct in
behavior of their parents.
IT IS ORDERED that counsel for
Petitioner/Father shall submit a China Doll affidavit so the Court can determine what
reasonable fees to award to him.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute
entry as a formal order of this Court pursuant to Rule 58, Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Amazing how the judge accuses Respondent/Mother of
violating the parenting agreement which he himself disregarded when Respondent/Mother
referred to it in her case against vaccination of the children. In that parenting
plan vaccinations were not to take place. The judge violated this parenting plan as
well by his order to have the children inoculated. Is it possible that the
evidence (by exhibits) that Respondent/Mother had previously submitted before the courts was too compelling to acknowledge and
admit to Arizona (by example of this case) that mass child abuse has been conducted in the
state of Arizona? Is it safe to assume that the judge ruled only to keep consistent
with his previous court order which he made on the bases of inaccurate representation of
Arizona statutory laws?
