Besr

Fraud, misrepresentation, and other misconducts were committed by Jerry Jr. in order to get his motion for modification of custody and child support, filed July 3, 2017, favorably granted. He intentionally misrepresented facts of this matter, intentionally misrepresented and slandered the plaintiff, and took advantage of judicial assumptions about his adherence to basic judicial processes, including due diligence, notice of motion, and service of his motion.

Misrepresentation of Facts

Jurisdiction

The defendant intentionally misled the court when he allowed it to assume it held the jurisdiction necessary to enter a valid ruling in this matter. However, the child had not yet been in Alaska for at least six months when the defendant filed his motion on July 3rd, nor when the order on his motion was issued on July 18th. The child arrived in the State of Alaska on May 20th, 2017. Due to lack of established residency, the court did not have jurisdictional authority to issue a binding ruling; however, the defendant declined to offer information about the child's recent arrival in the state, thereby allowing the court to assume his recognition of legal jurisdictional authority.

Due Diligence

A court commonly assumes the responsible party in an action will perform due diligence as necessary. The defendant misled the court when he allowed it to assume he had made successful inquiry into accurate service information for the plaintiff. His failure to make inquiry was inexcusable; the plaintiff and defendant were in communication during the weeks leading up to the filing of his motion. None of the defendant's messages during that time gave any form of notice to the plaintiff of his plans to file a motion for change of custody, and neither did he give notice that a motion had been filed. The defendant did not ask the plaintiff for an effective service address or attempt to coordinate service with her.

Inconsistent, Invalid Service Information Provided to Court

The defendant intentionally misled the court when he provided inconsistent and invalid service information for the plaintiff in his motion documentation. He did provide responsive data in the three areas service information for the plaintiff is requested (on pages ___ , ___ and ___) in the court's motion for modification template form, but each entry is different; none of the three responses provided are the same and all are in conflict with each other.

Allowance of Judicial Assumptions of Provision of Valid Plaintiff Service Data

The defendant allowed the court to attempt service of the order on his motion on the plaintiff with full knowledge that the order would not be received by the plaintiff, and it was in fact returned to the court as undeliverable, as noted on the docket for the matter on _____________

Incomplete, Invalid Service Certifications

In addition to the above issues with the defendant's motion, issues that should have disqualified it from filing, the defendant deliberately did not fully complete the service certifications in his template motion documents. It can be assumed that this failure to complete these parts of the paperwork was intentional because each and every other section of the paperwork, other than Section ____ requesting child support information (another topic the defendant successfully evaded addressing, likely due to owing over $5,000 in unpaid child support at the time of his filing), is completely filled out. He even wrote "unknown" in __________ different places on the first page of his motion in response to requests for plaintiff's personal information.

Service of Motion

The plaintiff was never served with any of the documents filed with relation to the July 18, 2017 order in this matter. She only received a copy of a portion of the motion documentation and order because she submitted and paid for a formal document retrieval request to the Fairbanks Superior Court, as per the clerk's directive.

Court-Ordered Prerequisites to Unsupervised Visits

The defendant's documented history of endangering the subject child, displaying abusive behaviors toward her, and acting with extreme indifference to her mental and emotional wellness, and of repeated violent actions perpetrated on the plaintiff (physical abuse committed before, during, and after her pregnancy with their child), were not disclosed to the court, and the court didn't provide any acknowledgment of these concerning behaviors in its July 18 ruling.

Custodial Interference

The child and mother were made victims to an extreme incidence of custodial interference perpetrated by the defendant. Since the child's birth and until the child was around 20 months old (when she and her mother left Alaska), the defendant made threats to multiple persons and repeatedly threatened to the plaintiff that he was going to take their child, leave the country with her, and make sure that the mother and child never saw each other again. He, with direction, LURED THE CHILD FROM HER HOME CITY AND STATE TO ALASKA WITHOUT ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY AND WITH THE INTENT TO KEEP HER INDEFINITELY.

Further, in less than three month's time, he had the child completely concealed from persons outside of his residence. She was unreasonably and intentionally kept in such a situation against her will from about July 8, 2017 until June ___, 2018 and denied all communication abilities.

Prior to entry of the July 18, 2017 order, the child had lawfully been in the custody of her mother without issue for her entire life. The pair lived in Seattle, Washington for the majority of the child's life. The defendant is Krystin's biological father. He declined to establish any form of relationship with the child until his very unexpected, sudden appearance in May, 2017, when he wasted no time in exercising heavy manipulative tactics on the child, including lengthy and unexpected periods of isolation in a strange environment, intentionally inciting feelings of fear and guilt, lies about himself and potential life with him in Fairbanks, AK, extreme altered character, and encouragement of negative beliefs about her mother and life in Seattle to lure her out of the city and to Fairbanks in a matter of days.

Defendant's Abuse of Custodial Privileges & Child

The defendant's treatment of the child during the time that she was in his home were constantly neglectful and physically and emotionally abusive. The was forced to endure outrageous and absolutely unnecessary treatment, which included the following:

Deprivation of necessary and specialized medical care

Deprivation of legally-required education

Deprivation of emotional supports

Deprivation of privacy in male-dominant household

Deprivation of all socialization, extended periods of isolation

Neglect to basic physical needs & overall health

Physically damaging "punishments"

Physically damaging sleeping provisions, despite obvious potential for aggravation of surgically-fused vertebrae

Unwanted, potentially damaging physical contact from males in the household

Regular, severe verbal abuse

While in the defendant's home, she existed in a state of constant fear and severe anxiety, her every movement subject to scrutiny and criticism from the defendant. When the opportunities arose, she was too afraid to relay information about her living situation for fear of Jerry Jr. finding out.