There is a contentious custody case being fought in a paternity suit, according to the father and his new significant other, Sandra Kay McBeth. In a now popular tactic in the child alienation community, McBeth filed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the mother, Tony Award winning actress and activist Tonya Pinkins.
The basis of the order was that Pinkins allegedly sent false and misleading letters to three friends of McBeth, a doctor, a lawyer and a judge. Also, Pinkins published a website meant to unite people with complaints about McBeth, www.sandrakaymcbeth.com.
Pinkins denies sending the letters to Judge Irma Brown, Lawyer Brenda Spitt and a doctor. Pinkins claims the letters were forgeries. She presented expert testimony that said there was an 85% chance the letters were forgeries. McBeth presented expert testimony that the letters were 90% certain to be from Pinkins. Commissioner William Torres of the Inglewood Courthouse expressed belief that Pinkins did in fact send the letters.
But the court, in a move that surprised Pinkins, found that the letters and website were not false or misleading, and therefore not grounds for a restraining order. Pinkins was surprised, not because she was at fault, but because one witness, Irma Brown is a judge in the same courthouse as the commissioner. Commissioners are appointed by and act at the will of the judges.
Mathew J Ruff, the criminal defense attorney who represented Pinkins thought the case should have been brought as a civil libel action, according to Pinkins. It would likely be dismissed with an anti-Slapp suit in that case, and Pinkins could have recovered attorney's fees. As it stands, Pinkins is out at least $6,500 in costs.
There was an altercation in the courthouse hallway after the two day trial. According to an anonymous source, Attorney Ruff came out first and told Pinkins husband "we won".
McBeth followed him out and started yelling at McBeth's former spouse who testified against her. She yelled "Mother F**ker" several times, according to the anonymous source. The bailiff stepped in and said "if you say another word I'm going to arrest you." McBeth's former spouse told the examiner that he did not even want to be there in the first place, but was subpoenaed. He said he just told the truth.
Pinkins said when she first contacted a criminal defense attorney he told her "you can do this yourself - the charges are baseless". Unfortunately many parents are put in the position of needing to defend themselves, and feel the family law judges presiding over their cases will make a decision based on a technical deficiency in the defense, rather than the merits of the case.
This case was not heard by a family law judge, as the underlying paternity case did not name McBeth.
Comments
So how does a TRO to stop publications against McBeth, have anything to do with "alienation?"
And are you publicly saying that all TRO's are an alienation tactic? I sure hope you are not implying that.
Not all TROs are alienation tactics. But some are, and the alienators seem to all read the same manual.
In this case, a civil libel suit would be more appropriate, though still would lose. But a restraining order would make it difficult for the mother to see her daughter at school functions, etc. The new significant other just shows up at the school event and then the mother is not allowed there.
In my own case, a restraining order was obtained by not serving me properly, then going to court and committing easily provable perjury. Commissioner Friedenthal did nothing about the perjury or falsified proof of service. (Comm Friedenthal is no longer in family court and there is a CJP investigation of my allegations against him.)
The effect of the restraining order is it is risky to make phone calls to my son for fear the father will report me as making harrassing phone calls and having me incarcerated. The court could have made accommodations for the phone calls, but chose not to.
And again, it sounds like the TRO was to stop publications,and communications with third parties, which is what she was bitching about right? It had nothing to do directly with threats, bodily harm, or direct danger to McBeth. Courts do not usually issue restraing orders for bodily protection (which you infer would carry out to public functions with the step child) when no threats of bodily harm exist, it sounded like this TRO was only to opress freedom of speech. Not the same kind of TRO, and not an alienation tactic.
We are not that far apart. Maybe I am not making my point well.
I think McBeth wanted to get a restraining order to alienate Tonya from her daughter. The TRO had that effect. Tonya could not go to school functions, because Sandra would show up.
Since Sandra had no legitimate reason to obtain a restraining order, and she did not like Tonya's protected speech, Sandra just filed this frivolous motion in the hopes the court would grant it because her witness was a ranking judge in the same court...not on the merits.
Good news. The court did the right thing in this case. Well, almost...Tonya did have to pay her own attorney fees.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!