Amended Motion for Contempt of Court

---

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
1
PARTIES
2

3
Chance Catudal, Plaintiff, is a natural person residing in Franklin County whose
4
mailing address is: 2783 Martin Road # 353, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
5

6
Anna C. Catudal, Defendant, is a natural person residing in Cochise County whose
7
physical address is: 539 South 3rd Street, Sierra Vista, Arizona 85635.
8

9
Haley A. Catudal, Plaintiff and Defendant's Daughter, is a natural person residing
10
in Cochise County whose physical address is: 539 South 3rd Street, Sierra Vista,
11
Arizona 85635.
12

13
Captain Daniel O. Benjamin, Defendant's Commanding Officer, is a natural person
14
residing and/or working in Cochise County whose physical address is: TTSB, 2274
15
Irwin Street, Building 52309, Fort Huachuca, Arizona 85613 and/or TTSB, 2274
16
Irwin Street, Building 53320, Fort Huachuca, Arizona 85613.
17

18
Dr. Donald Derrick, is a natural person residing and/or working in Cochise County
19
whose physical address is: 650 East Wilcox Drive, Sierra Vista, Arizona 85635.
20

21
Marcus VanCleave, is a natural person residing and/or working in San Bernardino
22
County whose mailing address is Post Office Box 6275, Twenty-nine Palms,
23
California 92278.
24

25
Dirken D. Winkler, is a natural person residing and/or working in Franklin County
26
whose physical address is 1007 (A) South High Street, Columbus, Ohio 43206.
27

28
STATEMENT OF CASE & FACTS
29

30
Plaintiff's initial Complaint for Divorce was filed Pro Se on December 6, 2010.
31

32
Plaintiff has not seen his Daughter since October 2010.
33

34
Plaintiff's next scheduled Parenting Time was from January 29, 2011 to February
35
26, 2011. Plaintiff purchased an airline ticket to return his Daughter to her Mother
36
in anticipation of her showing up; however, Plaintiff's Daughter did not show up.
37

38
Plaintiff's last scheduled Parenting Time was supposed to be a co-joined Two-
39
Week Vacation (from December 8, 2011 through December 21, 2011) and Winter
40
Break (from December 22, 2011 through January 3, 2012). Defendant did not
Page 2

---

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
1
allow this Parenting Time to take place.
2

3
Plaintiff scheduled a Deposition on January 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM. Plaintiff
4
Subpoenaed Defendant to said Deposition by filing a Subpoena with this Court on
5
December 14, 2011. Defendant did not show up to said Deposition.
6

7
Plaintiff filed a Request for the Production of Documents on December 14, 2011
8
and Amended said Request on January 4, 2012. Said Production was supposed to
9
be obliged by January 14, 2012. Said Request was ignored by Defendant.
10

11
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery on January 9, 2012 regarding the
12
Deposition and Production mention above. Both aspects of Plaintiff's Motion to
13
Compel were Denied; however, Defendant was instructed to attend a Deposition
14
on February 29, 2012. Plaintiff's Request for Production has yet to be obliged.
15

16
On February 29, 2012, Plaintiff refused to proceed with the Deposition. Magistrate
17
held a Hearing instructing Plaintiff that his Objection was noted and he instructed
18
Defendant to provide an unaltered Production (i.e., mobile phone bill). To date,
19
Plaintiff has not received the unaltered Production that he requested.
20

21
Plaintiff further Objected to proceeding with the Deposition on February 29, 2012
22
considering that Defendant's attorney, Bryan Bowen, was a Defendant to a lawsuit
23
filed by Plaintiff (i.e., Case # 2012-CV-002467). Plaintiff mentioned to the
24
Magistrate that according to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7 (2),
25
if there is a "substantial risk" to Bryan Bowen's ability to consider, recommend, or
26
carry out an appropriate course of action for his client based on his own personal
27
interests and is thus unable to adhere to the standards set by the Ohio Rules of
28
Professional Conduct and should therefore be excused from the Case. Magistrate
29
Ordered for the Deposition to proceed and that Bryan Bowen be excused
30
thereafter.
31

32

33
CAUSES OF THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT ACTION
34

35
Defendant has done everything possible to deny Plaintiff his Court Ordered
36
Parenting Time; Defendant has been allowed to get away with lying to this Court;
37
Defendant has not been held accountable for her lies or commission of Child
38
Abuse.
39

40

Page 3

---

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
1
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT ONE:
2
PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO PHONE HIS DAUGHTER
3

4
Plaintiff was granted the ability to phone his Daughter via Memorandum of
5
Agreement filed on June 23, 2011. Plaintiff attempted to phone his Daughter on
6
June 23, 2011, June 24, 2011, June 25, 2011, and June 26, 2011. Plaintiff was
7
unable to speak to his Daughter.
8

9
The issue here is Plaintiff needing Defendant to acknowledge that he will be
10
recording said phone calls to document his being able, or not, to phone his
11
Daughter. Defendant refuses to acknowledge this. Plaintiff cannot instruct a
12
Minor Child that he is recording said phone call.
13

14
Plaintiff requests that this Court demand Defendant to acknowledge the following:
15

16
1.
Plaintiff will call his Daughter in the evenings between 10 PM and 11
17
PM Eastern Standard Time;
18

19
2.
Plaintiff will be calling from a Private telephone number;
20

21
3.
Plaintiff will be recording said telephone calls for documentation
22
purposes.
23

24
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for denying
25
the phone calls mentioned above and standing in the way of Plaintiff calling in
26
general by not acknowledging 1 - 3. Plaintiff requests that this Court punish
27
Defendant by imposing a fine of $250.00 and/or thirty (30) days in jail.
28

29

30
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT TWO:
31
PLAINTIFF BEING DENIED RULE 27 TWO-WEEK VACATION
32

33
Plaintiff was granted the ability to enjoy Parenting Time with his Daughter via
34
Judgment Entry - Decree of Divorce. Said Decree, Page 10, Paragraph 3 states
35
that "Plaintiff shall exercise parenting time pursuant to the Court's model parenting
36
time schedule (Local Rule 27) for parents traveling over 90 miles one way..."
37

38
Plaintiff attempted to arrange a Two-Week Vacation with his Daughter. Defendant
39
attempted to use the Minor Child's School Handbook to support her refusal of said
40
request by misquoting the School Handbook in an email to Plaintiff on October 30,
Page 4

---

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
1
2011 at 12:55 PM, "Arizona State Law highlights that it is unlawful for any child
2
to fail to attend school during the hours school is in session, unless there is a valid
3
excuse. The child will be considered truant when there is not a valid reason for
4
absence. Vacations and out of town visitors are not valid reasons for absenteeism...
5
If a parent fails to ensure that the child attends school, the law states that they are
6
guilty of Class III Misdemeanor." Plaintiff learned through his Discovery efforts
7
that Defendant did indeed misquote the School Handbook. It stated, "Arizona
8
State Law highlights that it is unlawful for any child between the ages of six and
9
sixteen to fail to attend school during the hours school is in session, unless there is
10
a valid excuse." Not only is Plaintiff's Daughter five (5) years old, but spending a
11
Two-Week Vacation would be viewed by the Superintendent of said School as a
12
"Valid Excuse" per recorded conversation with the Superintendent himself on
13
November 3, 2011 at 6:06 PM. This conversation was provided to this Court as an
14
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Motion to Add New Parties that was filed on November 10,
15
2011.
16

17
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for denying
18
said Two-Week Vacation mentioned above and standing in the way of Plaintiff
19
seeing his Daughter in general. Plaintiff requests that this Court punish Defendant
20
by imposing a fine of $500.00 and/or thirty (60) days in jail.
21

22

23
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT THREE:
24
PLAINTIFF BEING DENIED RULE 27 WINTER BREAK
25

26
Defendant stated in the Trial Transcript, Page 116, Lines 15 - 19 that it was
27
cheaper to purchase airline tickets way in advance.
28

29
Defendant denying Plaintiff the Two-Week Vacation in Count Two, by lying about
30
the grounds of denying said event, must been seen by this Court as an attempt to
31
deny Plaintiff his Winter Break as well. Plaintiff attempted to co-join the Two-
32
Week Vacation and Winter Break so as to be able to afford the airfare.
33

34
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for denying
35
said Winter Break mentioned above and standing in the way of Plaintiff seeing his
36
Daughter in general. Plaintiff requests that this Court punish Defendant by
37
imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and/or thirty (90) days in jail.
38

39

40

Page 5

---

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
1
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT FOUR:
2
NOT OBLIGING SUBPOENA FILED ON DECEMBER 14, 2011
3

4
Defendant did not oblige the Subpoena filed on December 14, 2011. This
5
Subpoena was issued for the Deposition scheduled on January 3, 2012. This
6
matter is discussed at length in the Objection to Defendant's Motion to Take
7
Deposition by Telephone filed on January 23, 2012.
8

9
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for not
10
obliging the Subpoena filed on December 14, 2011. Plaintiff requests that this
11
Court punish Defendant by imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and/or thirty (90) days in
12
jail.
13

14
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT FIVE:
15
NOT OBLIGING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
16

17
Plaintiff filed a Request for the Production of Documents on December 14, 2011
18
and Amended said Request on January 4, 2012. Said Production was supposed to
19
be obliged by January 14, 2012. Said Request was ignored by Defendant.
20

21
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for not
22
obliging Plaintiff's initial and Amended Request for the Production of Documents.
23
Plaintiff requests that this Court punish Defendant by imposing a fine of $1,000.00
24
and/or thirty (90) days in jail.
25

26

27
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT SIX:
28
ALTERING EVIDENCE PROVIDED IN SAID PRODUCTION
29

30
Plaintiff filed a Request for the Production of Documents on December 14, 2011
31
and Amended said Request on January 4, 2012. Said Production was supposed to
32
be obliged by January 14, 2012. Said Request was ignored by Defendant.
33

34
Plaintiff was finally provided with the Documents that he requested on February
35
24, 2012; however, Defendant altered (i.e., redacted) the mobile phone number on
36
the mobile phone bill requested by Plaintiff in an attempt to make it inadmissible
37
as evidence in the Contempt Trial that is forthcoming.
38

39
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for not
40
obliging Plaintiff's Request for the Production of Documents by altering the
Page 6

---

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
1
mobile phone bill requested in an attempt to make it inadmissible as evidence in
2
the Contempt Trial that is forthcoming. Plaintiff requests that this Court punish
3
Defendant by imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and/or thirty (90) days in jail.
4

5

6
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT SEVEN:
7
DEFENDANT LYING TO THIS COURT
8

9
In the Production of Documents that Plaintiff was finally provided on February 24,
10
2012, Plaintiff further learned that Defendant lied to this Court and was in fact
11
involved in an intimate relationship with Marcus VanCleave. Plaintiff was
12
provided with a mobile phone bill that was in Marcus VanCleave's name.
13

14
Plaintiff further contends that evidence of this relationship was provided to the
15
previous GAL and that he did not make the Court aware per the Ohio Rules of
16
Professional Conduct.
17

18
Marcus VanCleave initially came up as a Party to this matter Pre-Decree. In fact,
19
on Pages 57 and 58 of the Trial Transcript, Lines 4 - 25 and Lines 1 - 24
20
(respectively), Defendant lied indicating that she was not in a relationship with this
21
man. Plaintiff has both provided evidence of this relationship to Chris Heckert as
22
GAL and to this Court in the Second Motion to Remove Chris Heckert as GAL
23
(Chris Heckert was Removed as GAL) that said relationship was in fact true (i.e.,
24
via Defendant's own admission in a recorded conversation with Plaintiff on
25
January 1, 2011).
26

27
Plaintiff further provided this Court with evidence of Marcus VanCleave admitting
28
that this relationship was in fact a reality. Marcus VanCleave admitted this to
29
Plaintiff on September 14, 2011.
30

31
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for lying to
32
the Court and keeping this fact secret when it should have played a role in the
33
Judgment Entry - Decree of Divorce. Plaintiff requests that this Court punish
34
Defendant by imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and/or thirty (90) days in jail.
35

36

37
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT EIGHT:
38
DEFENDANT LYING TO THIS COURT ABOUT CHILD ABUSE
39

40
Defendant lied to this Court about abusing the Minor Child in question.
Page 7

---

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
1
Said abuse initially came up Pre-Decree. Defendant denied it on Pages 81 and 82
2
of the Trial Transcript, Lines 21 - 25 and Lines 13 - 16 (respectively). Plaintiff
3
has both provided evidence of this abuse to Chris Heckert as GAL and to this
4
Court in the Second Motion to Remove Chris Heckert as GAL (Chris Heckert was
5
Removed as GAL) that said abuse did indeed take place (i.e., Endangering
6
Children Complaint filed against Defendant on August 5, 2006).
7

8
Plaintiff was unable to make the Court aware of this fact due to the issues between
9
Plaintiff and Chris Heckert fully discussed in both Motions to have him Removed
10
as GAL.
11

12
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for lying to
13
the Court and keeping this fact secret when it should have played a role in the
14
Judgment Entry - Decree of Divorce. Plaintiff requests that this Court punish
15
Defendant by imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and/or thirty (90) days in jail.
16

17

18
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT NINE:
19
DEFENDANT NOT ALLOWING PHONE CONTACT WITH PARTIES
20
MINOR CHILD
21

22
Plaintiff indicated to Defendant via email on February 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM that he
23
intended to phone his Daughter at 11:00 PM (EST). This is the time that the
24
Parties have previously agreed to.
25

26
Plaintiff asked Defendant to acknowledge the following:
27

28
1.
Plaintiff will be calling from a Private telephone number;
29

30
2.
Plaintiff will be recording said telephone calls for documentation
31
purposes.
32

33
Defendant replied indicating a change in the time that it is permissible to call and
34
that she would not be acknowledging what Plaintiff requested. Plaintiff would like
35
to point out that this would not be all that big of a deal if this were the first time
36
that this has happened; however, considering the events of this Motion, and this
37
Case in general, Plaintiff is confident in requesting that this Court view this as
38
Defendant further trying to curtail Plaintiff's communication with the Minor Child
39
in question.
40


Page 8

---

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
1
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for
2
continuing to stand in the way of Plaintiff being able to communicate with the
3
Minor Child in question. Plaintiff requests that this Court punish Defendant by
4
imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and/or thirty (90) days in jail.
5

6

7
CLAIM FOR RELIEF - COUNT TEN:
8
DEFENDANT NOT ALLOWING PHONE CONTACT WITH PARTIES
9
MINOR CHILD AND REFUSING TO ARRANGE A 2012 RULE 27 TWO-
10
WEEK VACATION PRIOR TO MARCH 21, 2012
11

12
Plaintiff called his Daughter on March 1, 2012 at 8:06 PM. Plaintiff called the
13
Magic Jack phone number provided in Plaintiff's last Request for the Production of
14
Documents # 11that he was finally provided with on February 24, 2012. The phone
15
rang straight to voice mail. Plaintiff recorded the call.
16

17
Plaintiff sent the following text message to the mobile phone number that
18
Defendant stated was hers (i.e., 760-401-6194) on March 1, 2012 at 8:10 PM
19
indicating the following, "I left you a voice-mail message on your home # (520-
20
686-8255). Please listen to it and text me back when I can call and speak to
21
Haley." Defendant did not text Plaintiff back.
22

23
Plaintiff took the recorded massage he just left Defendant and sent in as a wav file
24
in an email to Defendant courtesy coping both Bryan Bowen and Dirk Winkler in
25
said email. Plaintiff indicated his intention to speak to his Daughter that evening
26
and his intention to arrange a Two-Week Vacation with his Daughter before March
27
21, 2012 that included March 21, 2012.
28

29
Plaintiff's phone call, text, and email were ignored.
30

31
Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendant in Contempt of Court for
32
continuing to stand in the way of Plaintiff being able to communicate and spend
33
time with the Minor Child in question. Plaintiff requests that this Court punish
34
Defendant by imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and/or thirty (90) days in jail.
35

36

37
CONCLUSION
38

39
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court ensure that the
40
Fathers of Franklin County are not allowed to have their Rights trampled on by the
Page 9

---

---