Shock move in controversial Utah child custody case
Commissioner Catherine Conklin has ordered that four children be interviewed by her.
The evolving saga over the four Barnett children took another turn in the 2nd Judicial District in Utah.
Commissioner Catherine Conklin is presiding over the divorce and custody case of James Barnett V Amanda Barnett. I covered it earlier in the week.
Commissioner Conklin has ignored that all four children and their mother say that James is abusive. She has ignored several videos as well.
There have been multiple police reports as well.
Instead, Commissioner Conklin has determined that James is the “victim” of parental alienation; she has placed most of the blame on the oldest child- a sixteen-year-old boy- and blamed mom primarily for not reigning him.
“There have been allegations of abuse- both of Ms. Barnett and the children in this case- they have been investigated thoroughly by DCFS and by law enforcement.” Commissioner Conklin stated in a September 13, 2022, hearing, “There is nothing that supports the fact that they are in danger with him. I think Ms. Mateus is right; in the best-case scenario, you have sat by and allowed your sixteen-year-old to become the Don Quixote of the family.”
As such, on September 13, 2022, she ordered that three of the four Barnett children go live solely- on a temporary basis- with their father; she barred Amanda from having any contact with them; her oldest was also barred from having any contact and ordered to continue living with her.
On October 13, 2022, there was the first hearing since this absurd, arbitrary, and capricious ruling.
My influence was felt immediately.
Shortly before the hearing, a motion was filed to close the courtroom was filed by the guardian ad litem, Jessica Read.
“I support that motion,” Ms. Mateus stated, “I believe that too much information has been released about this case as it stands.”
Amanda’s attorney, Matthew Bartlett, opposed it on first amendment grounds.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear Commissioner Conklin side with open courtrooms.
“I am as concerned I think as everyone else with the information being released,” Commissioner Conklin stated, “however, Mr. Bartlett raises a good point about 1st amendment right.”
“There is a presumption in favor of the courts being open,” Commissioner Conklin concluded.
As such, I was not kicked out immediately and witnessed the entire hearing.
During the rest of the hearing, Commissioner Conklin made a stunning order.
She ruled that she would interview all four of the children.
This is unprecedented: Bartlett noted that in over twenty years practicing law this was the second time that a judge would speak directly to the children.
Ironically, judges have no trouble having other third parties like a guardian ad litem or therapist speak with children and then prepare a report.
In other words, judges have no problem creating a filter between themselves and the children whose lives they control but speaking directly to the children is considered unusual.
This might have something to do with the behavior of the GAL, Jessica Read.
She failed to speak to Tim Chavez, the reunification therapist and had no idea how the therapy has progressed since the children were moved.
She stammered throughout the presentation and had no clue the proper direction forward.
“I have not been able to speak with him since the last hearing,” Read said referring to Chavez, “It’s been a little bit difficult to- well- I believe that they have been going; I’m not sure how many times. I’m not sure how many times; so that is one piece. I have not followed up with the therapist because, sorry, I’m- I just lost my train of thought.”
She did say that previous therapy had gone poorly, and dad had not even participated.
If Ms. Mateus has her way, Amanda will never see her children again.
She stated during the hearing, “Returning them to her or letting the children have contact with her would be a mistake.”
She continued, “You can’t undo eighteen months of alienation in thirty days. The children need more time to heal and frankly to detox from the abuse they have suffered.”
She claimed that the children were doing great with her client the last month: including their grades improving.
I’m not sure how their grades could have improved since school had just started when they were placed with their father.
Left unsaid is that James Barnett called the Weber County Sheriff’s on October 3, 2022: that police report remains unshared by the Sheriff’s Office which did confirm that there was a report. Below is part of a text message one of the kids sent.
It was not left unsaid by Mr. Bartlett who said, “we know the police have been called a couple of times.”
He then criticized Read who he noted said in her report, “in light of the circumstances {whatever those were}, it was necessary.”
He continued, “It seems to be an attempt to deflect dad’s bad behavior.”
Commissioner Conklin did not heed Ms. Mateus’ warning.
Instead, she threw Amanda a bone.
She gave her supervised visits over Zoom on Sundays and unlimited email- as long as the case is not to be discussed.
Commissioner Conklin also ordered another hearing on October 24, 2022, where Mr. Chavez should be heard from.
She continued to bar Amanda’s oldest son from having any contact with his three siblings and barred her live-in boyfriend, Austin, from also having any contact.
She made no comment on the revelation that James has called the police on his children.
The audio from the previous September 13, 2022, hearing is below.
Thank e