Judge Elizabeth Feffer’s Draconian Orders Reversed
Finally the Court of Appeals, Justice Woods and Perluss in particular, recognize the nature of Judge Elizabeth Feffer’s orders separating children from their mothers.
This reporter watched a hearing between Elizabeth G and her ex spouse Gregory G. The words on the transcript could not capture the callous and bitchy tone of voice Feffer used in addressing the beautiful young mother.
Apparently the words spoken in a different hearing, where Elizabeth G was represented by attorney Robert Canny did appeal to the justices’ sense of decency.
You can read the “unpublished” opinion by clicking here, but the online version is only available for 60 days from when it is posted. If the link no longer works, write to email@example.com and I’ll try to send a pdf. When I have more time, I’ll try to convert the entire pdf to a word doc and post it here.
My favorite line from the opinion was toward the conclusion. “Issuance of such a draconian restraining order was not proper unless failure to issue it might jeopardize [the child’s] safety.”
A few things bothered me.
First, the glaring resemblance to my own case, also decided by Feffer, Perluss and Woods, in which the restraining order against me was affirmed. My ex was not represented by counsel, unless you count Feffer as his personal attorney, and Feffer cited Nadkarni, on her own.
Second is the practice of taking out the identifying names in the opinion, supposedly to protect the innocent children. The stigma from having the school, church, friends and neighbors told that Elizabeth was such a despicable human being that she could have no contact with her son was irreversible and defamatory. If the Court did not grant itself absolute immunity from liability, it seems Elizabeth G would have a slam dunk, multi-million dollar lawsuit against Feffer and her employer. It is the least the Court could do to print and broadcast a retraction on the cover of the L.A. Times. There is more good than harm done if the names of the victims of court abuse are published.
(Elizabeth G did not give me permission to publish her full name. The opinion was emailed to me by a third party and I recognized the parties from my prior investigation.)