Judge Susan Weaver Accused of Denying Mother an Opportunity to be Heard
This motion was filed in a family law case. A download from Court Connect is posted following the article, along with a download of the response.
Judge Weaver denied the motion indirectly. The denial was buried within an order denying a motion to quash a subpoena for the deposition of the mother.
The case went to a final hearing and is now closed, with full custody to the father and the mother given visitation with her alleged abuser or his family supervising in his house. The mother complained that the father denies her phone access to the children.
The mother believes Judge Susan Weaver in Faulkner County Circuit Court formed a bias against the mother and ignored all evidence in the mother’s favor throughout the proceedings.
*******************
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DECEMBER 19, 2019 ORDER AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Comes now the Defendant, Justine Simpson, by and through her attorney, Jennifer E.
Glover, and for her Motion states as follows:
- According to the docket entries contained on Court Connect, Plaintiff filed a
Complaint for Divorce and a Motion for Emergency Custody and Order Requiring the Children
to be Returned to the State of Arkansas on November 26, 2019. - According to the docket entries contained on Court Connect, on or about December 2,
2019 a hearing was scheduled in this matter for December 19, 2019. - According to the docket entries contained on Court Connect, a Notice of Hearing was
filed in this matter on December 2, 2019. - According to the docket entries contained on Court Connect, an Order was entered in
this matter on December 19, 2019 wherein Plaintiff was awarded custody of the parties’ children
and Defendant was ordered to return them to his custody in the State of Arkansas. - At no time has Defendant been served with a Notice of Hearing notifying her of the
December 19, 2019 hearing. At no time has Defendant been served with any pleadings filed in
this matter. - Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Non Service on December 3, 2019 wherein it was
alleged that service was attempted at an address in Indiana, the home of the Defendant’s father.
However, Defendant’s father informed the server that Defendant did not reside at the location.
The Affidavit makes no claims that papers were left with Defendant’s father. - Plaintiff has since filed an Affidavit in support of Warning Order which indicates that
Defendant resides at an address completely different than the one listed in the Affidavit of Non
Service. - Ark. R. Civ. P. 6 (c) requires that a Notice of Hearing be served “not later than twenty
days before the time specified for the hearing.” - Defendant was never notified of the hearing set on December 19, 2019. Defendant
was not given an opportunity to appear and provide testimony in her own defense. The Court
took testimony only from Plaintiff and possibly his witnesses. Defendant was not afforded an
opportunity to object to any testimony given, review any evidence presented, cross examine any
witnesses, present any evidence on her own behalf, or present any case of her own. The Court
was not able to hear testimony from Defendant that Plaintiff was emotionally and verbally
abusive throughout the marriage and that this abuse occurred in front of the minor children. The
Court was unable to hear that Plaintiff brought Defendant to Arkansas, isolated her from her
family, left her with no vehicle, no access to money, and then perpetrated the abuse upon her.
The Court was unable to hear testimony regarding Plaintiffs ongoing, daily alcohol abuse. The
Court was unable to hear recordings of the Plaintiff screaming at Defendant in front of the minor
children. The Court was unable to see pictures of the doors Plaintiff kicked in at the marital
home. The Court was unable to hear testimony about Plaintiff’s lack of supervision of the minor
children. Instead, because Defendant was not afforded any notice of these proceedings or the
hearing, the Court was only able to hear Plaintiff’s version of events. - Defendant’s custodial rights are fundamental rights protected by both the federal and
state constitutions. Custody has been granted to Plaintiff without any notice to Defendant.
Furthermore, Defendant’s due process has been violated by holding a hearing without any notice
to her and without giving her any opportunity to counter allegations made by Plaintiff and to
present her own case. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard
at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Villanueva v. Valdivia, 2016 Ark. App. 107, 4,
483 S.W.3d 308, 310–11 (2016). - Defendant respectfully requests that this Court set aside the Order entered on
December 19, 2019 as she was not provided notice as required by Ark. R. Civ. P. 6 and as her
due process rights were violated in holding a hearing with no notice to Defendant wherein she
was afforded no right to present a defense or present her own case before her custodial rights
were taken away.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Justine Simpson, prays that this Court set aside the Order
entered on December 19, 2019; for attorney’s fees and costs; and for all other relief to which she
is entitled.
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Jennifer E. Glover
Jennifer E. Glover, 2015126
Natural State Law, PLLC
900 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 705
Little Rock, AR 72211
(501) 891-6976-office
(855) 415-8951-facsimile
Jennifer.Glover@NatStateLaw.com
**************************************************
Comes now Plaintiff, Benjamin Simpson, by and through his attorney, Victor D. “Trey”
Wright, III, and for his Response to Motion to Set Aside December 19, 2019 Order, does state as
follows:
- All actions by this Court in this matter were correct and necessary under the law.
- Defendant Justine Simpson has willfully evaded service and has willfully removed
the children from the jurisdiction of the Court, and has continued to defy a court order for a period
of two months. - Defendant Justine Simpson, through the actions of her father and through her own
actions, should not be allowed to have an order set aside due to her inaction and her refusal to
engage in the legal process.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the motion of the Defendant be dismissed and denied, for
his costs and fees and all other relief to which he is entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Victor D. “Trey” Wright III
Victor D. “Trey” Wright, III
Wright Law Firm
111 Center Street, Suite 1200
Little Rock, AR
***********************************
This writer believes children should have access to both parents. It looks like both mother and father in this case were uncooperative with the other parent.
King Solomon thought it was preferable to leave a child with the person who wanted to keep a child whole. But that was literal, not figurative.
In this time of cell phones, Facetime, Zoom and Skype, there should always be communication between both parents and the children, barring a solid report by a professional that communication with one parent would cause psychological damage to the kids.
The mother in this case sounded rational and sober to this writer. Child protective services was not involved in the decision to separate her from her children.
The mother is unwilling to locate back to Arkansas. This writer would normally think that would be a good reason to give the father primary physical custody. But it does not show cause why the mother should have all contact with her children denied. The mother complained that the father was denying phone access. Judge Weaver turned a deaf ear toward the mother.
There are two problems with Judge Weaver that cause this writer to believe the mother might have had good reason to leave Arkansas.
Judge Susan Weaver does deny due process to litigants. She denied my right to due process. And she ignores evidence that is presented, often striking the exhibits due to an unnamed technical issue. Law is not supposed to be a game where the one who does not have a law degree loses. The number one rule of law, literally, is to apply the rules of civil procedure to “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.”
Judge Weaver does not give all litigants an opportunity to present evidence and other rights under due process. This makes it difficult to trust the integrity of the Court.
Judge Weaver was quoted as saying that 100% of the time 50% of litigants are mad about the outcome.
Even good judges and attorneys say similar things, such as the best outcomes in court leave everyone disappointed.
Unfortunately, that gives bad judges an excuse for their questionable decisions. “The loser was a disgruntled litigant.”
It is important for a judge to give all litigants an opportunity to be heard and always make an accurate record that shows the reason behind her decisions.
Judge Weaver does not.
The second problem with Judge Weaver that makes the mother’s refusal to return to Arkansas understandable is something this writer has experienced herself.
Judge Weaver’s vindictiveness is frightening. The woman has absolute power and is absolutely corrupted. As soon as I can manage it financially, I will move from Arkansas. I love the state, except the courts. I know that a judicial officer is trying to impermissibly seize my property. Stopping her takes all my time and causes severe emotional distress. Judge Weaver even commanded me to drive three hours for a hearing after I told her I was ill, vomited and provided my blood test showing impaired immunity. Then, when I showed up fully prepared, the judge refused to let me present evidence that the other party was lying about me as an individual.
It is easy to understand the mother’s fear that she will be persecuted by Judge Weaver if she returns. It is easy to understand that the mother fears she will have no protection from the man she claims is an alcoholic and abuser.
A Higher Law 