A: For purposes of appeal, the family law matter and Don’s $65,000 default judgment award in the civil matter were combined. On October 1, 1990 the appellate court ruled that FLC Velatequi’s February 17, 1988 temporary order awarding Don temporary custody had expired under its own terms on February 29, 1988, and was therefore void, and that the Writ of Habeas Corpus had also expired on February 29, 1988 and was also void. The appellate court next ruled that FLC DuBuque’s post-dated March 11, 1988 temporary order was a lawful order, despite their recognition of Due Process violations.
In the civil matter, Don’s $65,000 default judgment, which had been entered based on my failure to participate in discovery proceedings, was affirmed. In its appellate decision, however, Division I ignored the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the court had entered in the default order and created its own Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to reflect how it wished to rule. After creating its own findings and conclusions, the appellate court declared that Don’s $65,000 default judgment was a valid judgment because it sprang from my act of Custodial Interference, not from my failure to participate in discovery proceedings.
A: On December 10, 1990 in response to the King County Prosecutor’s appeal of the dismissal of the Custodial Interference charge, the appellate court affirmed—in its entirety—Judge Dixon’s May 3, 1989 Order of Dismissal. I was awarded attorney’s fees.
By affirming—in its entirety—the May 3, 1989 Order of Dismissal, the appellate court had reached the same conclusion about FLC Velatequi and FLC DuBuque’s orders as Judge Dixon: “…the court concluding that the orders of February 17, 1988 and March 11, 1988, upon which this action is based were entered in violation of defendant’s Due Process rights guaranteed under the state and federal constitutions and are void ab initio… the court further concluding that defendant retained lawful custody…and further concluding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of guilt based upon undisputed facts and…further concluding that defendant has established a complete defense to this action…it is hereby ORDERED that this action be and the same is dismissed with prejudice….”
When my attorney and I read this December appellate decision we immediately realized that Division I had rendered conflicting appellate decisions involving these three inextricably bound matters: family law, civil and Custodial Interference. These three matters were inextricably bound because none could stand alone. Don first had to obtain the order affording him temporary custody before he could approach Det. Chapin and the King County Prosecutor’s Office requesting that they pursue the Custodial Interference criminal charge against me. And, the temporary custody order and the Custodial Interference charge had to exist in order to form his basis for the civil action.
A: I don’t know, and during the ten plus years of subsequent litigation seeking clarification of their conflicting decisions, all levels of the judiciary refused to address this question.
