I’ve gotten the impression, but wanted to clarify, that you are NOT allowed to bring up things that were discussed at the temp hearing in the permanent hearing. Am I wrong or right on this? The temp hearing is supposed to be “without prejudice” to the perm hearing–but what exactly does that mean?
I am specifically wondering about two things:
-
I now have documents that show that two people were either lying on the stand or lying to me at another time. IOW, I can’t prove perjury, but I can “impeach” the witness if I am allowed to refer to their sworn testimony from the temp hearing.
-
If someone authenticated their email address at the temp hearing, would that authenticate it for the perm hearing?
Also, is it true, as I read in Black’s Law Dictionary, that if you “impeach” a witness by showing their dishonesty, the person who called them as a witness is considered to be impeached as well? Or is this just getting too technical and not something I ought to be wasting my time (or yours) on?
That is correct, the temporary hearing is done, and will not be rehashed. Without prejudice means that one parent cannot expect to gain favor or disfavor based on the temporary schedule.
Testimony at the temporary hearing will not be re-evaluated.
You can ask the judge to refer to the record regarding the email address.
As far as the Black’s definition, the context is not relevant in this case, you need not worry about that.
I don’t understand what you mean by your last sentence. Can you clarity that for me? Thank you.
Also, asking the judge to refer to the record regarding the email address . . . what about this. I know that these two committed blatant perjury, just outright lied. And now I can prove that they lied. Is that something that the judge would consider. Like can you call the same witness, and say something like, “When we were last here, you were emphatic that ___________,” and yet I have this email here, and this photograph here that show you were not being honest. Can you explain that?"
I really think that they need to have their blatant dishonesty exposed–this judge show know that in her courtroom, profound disrespect for the law was shown. That’s also part of the character of the father. This guy just lies–if it suits his needs? He lies. And if the whole thing is about what’s in the best interests of the children, then shouldn’t it be okay to do that? I mean, these were some whoppers of lies told about me, and a few other things, that ought to be shown to be false, and those who uttered such blatant lies exposed for what they are.
I’m thinking your answer is probably, too bad . . . that’s the way it is. I’m just boggled by this, really. It’s not that I would want to gain favor based on that hearing, but one thing I want to drive home is that these two are inveterate liars–and it is one of the things that got us all into this spot, this continual way of life: lying whenever it suits them. Lying to me, as a mother; lying about me as a mother. It drove me bananas, hurt my kids, and set a horrible example for the two older ones.
The blacks language is referring to “opening the door” to impeachment. It is a more complex rule of evidence, of which a detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this forum.
The judge is not going to hear evidence relating back to the temporary hearing, and will not hear your evidence relating back to the evidence presented there. The temporary hearing, and the findings made therein are not to be used in a determination of a permanent schedule, so it is irrelevant to the judge. He or she will be focusing on what is in the best interests of the child moving forward.
You have enough other evidence to show your ex’s character.
Thank you, Erin, very, very much.
I went to the library and got some NOLO books as well as some other DIY books. And now I know you can download “scholarly” articles from wake county’s public libraries. Good to know that there are some resources.