Dear Editor,
I am writing as a concerned citizen in opposition to one of the candidates for the upcoming vacancy on the seat of the Pima County Superior Court.
Commissioner Ken Sanders presided over the hearing in the matter of SP20060213 Laura I. Cruz v Robert John Garcia Jr. which took place on June 24, 2015. This was noted as a status hearing in a contentious custody case. What took place instead was Commissioner Sanders suspended the mother’s parenting time for one year based on the court finding that such parenting time seriously endangered the Minor’s mental and emotional health (Sanders, 2015). He provided no evidence to support his decision. Instead he later filed an “In Chambers Findings and Orders” to place his “findings” on the record. These “findings” were based on one sided “facts” and Commissioner Sanders’ interpretation of the case.
Ms. Cruz and her attorney were not given the opportunity to present evidence and in fact Commissioner Sanders took it one step further by vacating the petitioner’s trial and ruling she could not file any court documents for a year. What took place is a gross negligence of the right to due process of law guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution as well as blatant disregard for Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.6(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. (Court, 2014)
If in fact Commissioner Sanders’ intent was to protect the child’s mental and emotional health he would have been alarmed by the following facts from this case:
- Mother had sole physical and legal custody for 11 ½ years. Father was denied custody by the courts the last four years.
- On January 11, 2007 father was arrested for sexual misconduct with a minor. He was 24 at the time and had impregnated a 14 yr old CPS runaway.
- Father has a history of domestic violence arrests. In 2004 he pointed a gun to mother’s head while their child slept in an adjacent room. He served one-year probation for this.
- On September 9, 2009 father was arrested for domestic violence involving a minor.
- On May 13, 2014 Father was found in contempt of court by Judge Villareal for not attending counseling as ordered by the court to assist in reunification of the child with the mother.
- Father carried a gun into the office of two court ordered therapists, one of whom stated she was fearful of him and refused to treat him.
- Child’s paternal grandfather was a Tucson Police Officer who was disciplined for having an inappropriate relationship with a minor, providing her with alcohol and soliciting her to other officers.
- Mother has no prior criminal history, history of drug abuse or child abuse.
- Mother followed all court orders to the letter.
- Sanders stated prior to 2013, the history of this case consisted of petitioner making every effofl (sic) to deny Respondent contact with the Minor(Sanders, 2015). However, the truth was father and his family had visitation every other weekend with the child, as ordered by the courts, while in mother’s custody. Mother withheld the child on one occasion when she feared for the child’s safety.
- Since father has taken custody, the child has not once been allowed to see her maternal grandparents or mother’s extended family. These are people she knew and loved since birth. They have basically been erased from her life.
- While in petitioner’s care, the child did not live with drug use, available paraphernalia, rampant pornography, corporal punishment, a sexually hostile boyfriend, and a fondling step-grandfather(Sanders, 2015). As a matter of fact, in the initial interview with the child from the Children’s Advocacy Center, the child stated she had never seen her mother use drugs or alcohol and she had never been touched inappropriately. She said she saw a picture on her mother’s phone of her mother using cocaine, which to this day no one else, including the Sheriff’s Deputy conducting the interview, has ever seen. All of those accusations came after the child had spent considerable time with her father, his girlfriend, and her paternal grandfather.
- Sanders quoted Dr. Alicia Pellegrin, In the 20 years doing work with high conflict families, I have never seen a child so averse to even considering a gradual reunification with a parent (Sanders, 2015; Alicia Pellegrin, 2015) . However he did not include the balance of her statement which said This case has all of the ear marks of alienation, including complete lack of acknowledgment that there was once a positive relationship; a total turning away of everyone associated with the parent, including extended family and friends; a constant repetition of one or two transgressions on the part of the parent that the child cannot let go of; and a total disavowal of that parent, while seeming to idealize the other parent and family. Since I have not evaluated all parties, I am not able to state definitively that this is a case of extreme alienation or make the typical recommendations that are often made in these cases. However, I am extremely concerned about the well-being of this child(Alicia Pellegrin, 2015),
It appears Commissioner Sanders never bothered to acquaint himself with the history of this case, or worse yet, simply disregarded it. If Commissioner Sanders can decide a case based on his opinion and not facts, without allowing the accusations made to be challenged as is provisioned by law, it is a dangerous precedence we set by appointing him a Pima County Superior Court Judge. I unequivocally oppose Mr. Sanders’ appointment as a Pima County Superior Court Justice.
Respectfully,
Cynthia Oxman
Alicia Pellegrin, P. D. (2015). Clinician’s Report to the Court. SP20060213 Laura I. Cruz v Robert John Garcia.
Court, T. A. (2014). Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct., (p. 13).
Sanders, H. K. (2015). IN CHAMBERS FINDINGS AND ORDERS. SP20060213 Laura I. Cruz v Robert John Garcia Jr.