Going for the B***S, Fini, Reprise - Oh...just one more thing your Honor...

I just thought his honor would like to rule on just one more thing before the termination...don't you?

Enjoy guys!  This one gets filed in BOTH cases.....right after NOW.

COMES NOW Christopher and Elizabeth Bruce in their motion nunc pro tunc to enlarge a finding in the permanancy hearing when the father was dismissed from that case; held on and ruled on; on January 15th, 2015.

1. It was ordered by his Honor on January 13, 2015 that the motion to establish paternity in this case; #237150, as well as for case #238150, where the same motion was filed; would be heard on January 15th, 2015, in the permanency hearing for this case, #237203.

2.  In the hearing, for this case; #237203, that motion was heard and decided first, finding the father to be extraneous to this case, #237203; and an order was issued dismissing the father from that case.

3.  It clearly states, in an order for THAT case; #238150, on January 13th, 2015, that the same motion would be heard for THAT case; #238150, as well.  It was NOT, nor was an order issued with a decision concerning that motion.

4.  This father would seek, as relief, that the motion be considered immediately in that case; #238150; as his Honor so ordered; and issue an order on it before the hearing for that case, #238150, on February 25th, 2015, since his honor ordered the motion to be heard and ruled for that case as well on the 15th of January, this same year; and it was addressed, ruled on, and ordered IMMEDIATELY in this case, #237203.

5.  The father also, as relief, requests that, if the order is the same for that case; #238150 as it is for this case, #237203, why the father hasn’t been dismissed yet in that case, #238150?  If it is to be ruled on that the father remain in that case, #238150, and his right to be there intact, then the father would like his honor to expand on his ruling that the father be removed in this case, #237203, and not in that one; #238150?  Aren’t the reasons the same, that the child only should be identifying with only a single father?  If the father isn’t dismissed in this case, wouldn’t the damage still be in danger of being done to this child’s ability to identify with a single father?

6.  Finally, if the order should be ruled the same, this father would like to know why his being a party to that case was ruled to be his removal from that case, considering the Supreme Court’s decision concerned a party whose rights had been terminated, and this father’s rights are not; and if it is ruled that the father is to remain in this case, why the ruling wouldn’t be the same for the other case; this case; using the same decision as evidence that he be also dismissed as a party?

Pow....Zoom....right in the KISSER...hehe..:D