The hearing for Bill & Ivy Walker’s custody dispute with Ivy’s parents over Peter was held on 2009-06-15 at 15:00 in Plymouth Family Division court.
Bill D., Ryan M., and I left Manchester around 13:00, to go up to the restaurant and pick up Bill & Ivy to bring them to court. William & Amy were planning on meeting us there, along with Don, Ivy’s line cook. Several of us were ready to testify in Ivy’s favor in the dispute: All of us have seen how well Bill and Peter could get along, and could provide testimony to rebut the grandparents claims that Bill “scares” Peter. Ryan’s testimony would be especially vital—he had lived with Bill & Ivy for several months while they were in Manchester. And as usual, I was prepared to video the proceedings should the court try to interfere. (They did.)
We all got to court right on time, a few minutes before 15:00. Passing through security was uneventful; the bailiff didn’t even comment on the camera. I filed the motion paperwork at the clerk’s window, who was coöperative but (as usual) had to be informed on how the video motion process works. I had to explain to them how Manchester handles it (and how the very motion form we use was based on the ones they hand out in Manchester). Ryan pointed out afterward that in the future, perhaps we shouldn’t use this exact form—it only gives the opposing party a chance to object to being recorded, and many of the courts we’ve been in don’t seem to be aware they have that privilege, and don’t ask. We probably shouldn’t help our opponents by letting them know about it.
After security, we went upstairs and waited outside of Courtroom 1, where the hearing would be held. It wasn’t until nearly 15:30 that the other party—Ivy’s parents, Bristol Police Chief John Clark, and a couple other people none of us recognized—arrived. The grandparents and Bill & Ivy went in, while we were all required to wait out in the hallway. “For the children,” the bureaucrats wouldn’t permit us to video the proceedings.
After twenty minutes or so, Bill came out, and explained that the judgewas now hearing only from the parties in controversy. Peter’s father, Ivy’s ex-husband, had been testifying via teleconference also, and had been dismissed at that point. Now it was just the grandparents and Ivy.
More waiting, John Clark goes in. More waiting, Clark comes out. We stand around commenting on the ludicrousness of secret proceedings “for the children” and the bland public art adorning the hallways.
According to Ivy, Clark was there to testify about furniture in the downstairs section of the restaurant and about reloading equipment Ivy keeps on a desk there. The presiding judge was Thomas A. Rappa, Jr..
Finally, a little after 16:30, Ivy came out, and it was immediately apparent that the news must be good: Triumphantly she announced that her mother had been ordered to return Peter to her by noon on the next day. (Peter was returned to his home in New Hampshire around 02:30 in the morning.)
The judge, in his ruling in Ivy’s favor, said in part, “In New Hampshire, parents have a right to raise their children any way they see fit,” and, “Money doesn’t make you a good parent. Sometimes rich folks are good parents, sometimes poor folk folks are good parents. In fact, usually poor folks make better parents.”
Ivy described the situation to us briefly; noting, importantly, that her mother’s case hinged on the fact that Ivy had been incarcerated at the time that Peter had been snatched, and now that she’d been released, there essentially was no case. (Bill’s potential legal guardianship would be addressed at a future date.) Amusingly, one of the points Ivy’s mother had tried to attack her on was that Peter had access to firearms—to which Ivy responded that Peter actually owns a firearm—a .22 rifle—which he often shoots, under her supervision. One of the bailiffs had started laughing at how deftly she handled this question.
On the way out, I called in the news to Porc411, and shortly before 17:00, we all headed out. A second victory in as many hearings.