In family court proceedings, judges prioritize child safety over parental rights, and when a parent violates court orders by introducing a person with a history of domestic violence into the child's home, the court will impose strict restrictions (such as prohibiting that person's presence during visitation) and require additional investigation before allowing any changes to the custody arrangement.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
Ex-Wife HUMILIATES Herself After Moving DV Boyfriend Into Chi1d’s Home—Judge Cracks Down!Added:
The opening tension in this hearing has nothing to do with technical parenting details. The court immediately locks onto instability that changes the entire atmosphere before anyone even starts defending themselves. The commissioner already sounds frustrated because the case was supposed to be moving toward agreed orders, which usually signals cooperation and progress.
>> good now.
I can hear you.
Okay.
So, here's where I am based on my preview of the file. When we were last together um on September 6th it seemed to be going very well and we were expecting agreed orders to be presented.
That hasn't happened and now I do see that Mr. Hart has filed a motion um to restrict visitation.
Um we reviewed the GAL findings.
Uh I haven't yet seen a response from Ms. Hart. I can't tell if she has been served that motion or not.
Ms. Hart, did you receive Mr. Hart's motion to restrict visitation?
Yes. Yes, I received that.
It's very hard to hear you. I'm not sure if you can turn up the volume somehow.
Is that any better? I can talk louder.
Someone's Mr. Hart, I don't know if that's from your end. There's just a lot of feedback audio audio.
Uh it might be. Let me see.
Yeah, that is you. So, Ms. No, it's not you. Ms. Hart, is that you on your end? I don't know what it would be. I don't have anything going.
I can Wait, hold on. I'm going to mute you just to see if it is you. Hold on.
Yeah, it is you, Ms. Hart. Um so, hold on one sec. I have you muted. Ms. Hart, I have you muted. There's a ton of audio feedback that's making it difficult for us to hear anyone else.
And I can barely hear your voice. So, I'm going to have you stay muted just for a minute.
I think what I've heard you say is that you did receive the motion to restrict visitation.
So, I am going to come to you in just a minute, but because of your audio issues, I'm going to have you hold tight for just a minute. I'm going to go to Mr. Hart and to Ms. Call. So, Mr. Hart, it sounds to me like we don't have agreed orders. You have some new concerns and you want those looked into.
Does that sound correct?
Well, the parenting plan orders are we pretty much agreed on it. There was just a couple of errors that needed to be fixed on uh dates where Eric lived.
Um and that was pretty much the only thing with the parenting plan. It just some errors needed to be fixed, but other than that, we agreed on everything. But uh the issue, my main issue is that um well, it was a couple weeks ago now, my son came home and like while we were talking about what was going on, at one point, he was like, "If I'm going to be spending the night at Mommy's house, how do I do that if I'm not supposed to be around Kevin?" Because it said in the GAL recommendations that Kevin Johnson was not supposed to be around my son.
And I just assumed that the GAL recommendations was basically the court findings because that's what she's hired to do.
Um and when I brought this up to Catherine, she basically just said like, "I talked to Heather and she said it was basically fine and she said I could bring this back up in the court if needs be." And so, I'm just needing her to follow the rules because like that's We were getting along and everything was going so well because everybody was just following the rules and doing what they're supposed to. And then when I found this and like it's not like she disclosed that. I found it out from my son like a month after he had started going over there.
And so that that's just my main issue is that it said in the paperwork not to be around.
And it was very very specific, you know, and and then I find out that like not only is it around but she didn't tell anybody.
Okay.
Let me Let me go to Ms. Call. Ms. Hart, I will come to you. It's difficult to hear you but I will come to you next.
Good morning, Your Honor.
So Mr. Hart is correct that I did in my recommendation state that no unmarried romantic partner should be should Eric have access to it this point. My only reason for that is because this is such a sensitive situation with Eric and we know that dramatic change for Eric is very difficult given some of his diagnoses and some of the things he struggles with.
My particular concern around Mr. Johnson is a very long history specifically with Ms. Hart with domestic violence as well as very serious substance abuse. I at this point in time I want to applaud Ms. Hart because she's really done a wonderful job on her sobriety. She's doing a wonderful job coming slowly back into Eric's life and I can respect and appreciate the fact that Ms. Hart is excited to fully integrate Eric into her world and have him be back in her life but we also know what we know about Eric is that going at a slow pace and doing this in a way that's healthy for him and with the support of his mental health professional and with the support of Mr. Hart and and his wife whom Eric has been living with for the majority of his life.
I want to respect Mr. Hart's wishes that this that this timeline be respected in a very specific way. I also understand Ms. Hart has moved Mr. Johnson into her apartment, so I can um understand that that there's a desire here for this all to happen at once.
Um but uh I it is my recommendation that that is not the healthiest path forward for Eric, and I have very serious concerns um given that Ms. Hart, I believe, has just hit her sober birthday, if I'm correct in that, for a year, and I really I respect and applaud that. Um but I think we need a longer history of sobriety for both of these people before Eric is put in a situation where he uh needs to adjust to not only these new um relationship standards with Ms. Hart, but also with this other person in her life who he doesn't know and doesn't have a history with.
I'm just looking here at the report, Ms. Hart. I'm going to come next to you.
Um so it sounds to me like as far as the parenting plans, we're still kind of working through that, and I can give you all new dates for that, but the most immediate pressing issue appears to be your son coming to your home uh now that Mr. Johnson appears to be living there. So what can you tell me about that, Ms. Hart?
The mother makes a critical courtroom mistake here.
She keeps answering fear-based concerns with achievement-based defenses.
Every time the court worries about violence, she responds with certificates, programs, sobriety milestones, or completed classes.
That might work in criminal rehabilitation discussions.
You're going to have to unmute and speak really loud.
Okay. Is that any better?
There's still background noise, a lot of it, but just go ahead. We're just going to push through. Okay.
Um Mr. Johnson has been sober for over 2 years. I submitted all his certificates to both the court, to Mr. Hart, and to Ms. Cole.
Um he's he's been clean and sober for over 2 years. Uh he completed the drug court program in Clark County. I I turned in his parenting class certificate. He completed the 52 weeks of the DV and anger management classes. So, he's you know, I I am coming up on my sober birthday here next week um for 1 year, but Kevin has over 2 years. He's been at his job for almost 2 years.
Um the reunification process between him and I, you know, it was a process as he completed all all of those classes and everything. Um You know, Eric has been When did Mr. Johnson move in with you?
Uh around the beginning of last month.
The beginning of last month. So, were you aware of the or of the adoption of the GAL recommendation that your child not be exposed to unmarried romantic partners without consent of the other party? It I don't know about consent of the other party part, but it was after court.
And I Heather was aware that we were seeing Kevin, that he was coming up on weekends at that point. Um and I also kept her aware of of his progress. So, it was our last court that he had moved back up. It was after he completed all his program. Okay, but also you're talking a lot about his sobriety.
What I'm concerned about is his felony DV arrests.
So, that's a huge concern, ma'am, for the court. I'm I'm actually just a little bewildered that you thought this was an okay path forward saying, "Well, it happened after we went to court, so we we we don't have permanent parenting plans in place. This is all still very much an open family law case." And I guess I'm just trying to get from you why you would think this is appropriate for your child because I don't.
I don't know what to say. Kevin and I have a 3 and 1/2 year old daughter together and he's completed all those classes so that our family could be unified again. And Eric is a part of this family.
So, he was arrested uh 2 years ago almost exactly for felony no contact order violations and unlawful imprisonment and DV.
Mhm.
And that's where he completed his the the entered into the drug court program to get to take care of that. And that's why he went through that program and completed >> Can you understand why Curtis Hart has concerns about his child being in this environment? Yeah, I do understand.
Okay.
I I told him even like I understand like looking at the record, I would also have those concerns.
I can't Ms. Hart, you're going to have to speak much louder.
I I understand Mr. Hart's concerns.
And that's why I tried to showed him uh all the progress that had been made and everything that had been completed on Mr. Johnson's end.
Um Ms. Call, what I guess I'm I am troubled by this. This is very different than what was presented to the court by Ms. Hart when we thought things were all moving forward.
I understand Mr. Hart's concerns. I personally am very concerned. I just I also don't want to I mean, normally what I would do in this situation is essentially terminate visitation until we work this out. I don't want to do that. I think this child has been yo-yoed enough.
But I don't know what else to do with these concerns with a very recent history of domestic violence.
Significant We're not talking misdemeanor domestic violence. We're talking felony domestic violence.
Your honor, I share those concerns and the the DV case was actually against Miss Hart. She was the person involved with this issue and her daughter she and her daughter essentially fled her relationship with Mr. Johnson and I you know, when I first visited with Miss Hart and she did share with me she was having digital visitation with Mr. Johnson because he is her daughter's father and I had asked her specifically, and I wrote about this in the report, if she was still engaging with Mr. Hart. She said she was and that's what led me to make the recommendation that Eric not have to have a relationship with unmarried romantic partners specifically because of the concerns that you're bringing up, your honor. I I have very serious concerns about this as well. At this point in time, I think it would be very hard on Eric to go back to not being allowed to see his mother and I have concerns that Eric would not understand why that's happening. But I do think either a once a week visitation or even a supervised visitation may be appropriate until Mr. Hart feels that there is enough trust established that Eric can safely be in this relationship.
It is true that he has a younger sister who I think he should have access to.
They have a bonded relationship that I think is valuable and I do believe that a bonded relationship with his mother going forward is appropriate. However, I think that at this point in time, we need to see that that's going to be a healthy and an appropriate relationship in a way that's safe for Eric.
I I agree. Mr. Hart, what is your hope here? What are you feeling comfortable with?
Well, I feel like you I I agree with the whole like unmarried partners thing, at least for like you know, like I would imagine like 6 months cuz he doesn't really know his mom yet. Like he's just getting to know her.
Um and it's for those specific reasons like everything you were talking about. Like they had to crawl out of a trailer window with her baby according to the paperwork. Yeah, I understand.
>> And that's like I'm I just don't want my son to ever have to be put in any type of situation where a stepchild annoys a stepfather. The father becomes extremely persuasive here because he avoids sounding vindictive even while discussing frightening allegations.
He keeps bringing the conversation back to structure, caution, and gradual trust building.
That restraint helps him tremendously.
Many parents lose credibility by sounding obsessed with punishing the other side.
You know, and so like I also don't want him to not be able to see his mom because he's doing very well. Everything's going very well. I was under the impression like I've been told by Alice that Kevin has a mom. Like he can just go to his mom's house and not be there, you know, as far as I'm concerned like he could still totally go and hang out there as long as Kevin's not around.
Like I thought that he wasn't going And if he's like if he's not there because Eric's in this school program where he's going to like in a leadership club and he so he needs to get like a different ride besides the bus in the morning and so he was going to be going over there on Wednesdays. We switched it to Tuesdays so that he could spend the night and then go to school from her house because she's just right down the road from the school.
And she came and she she picked him up this morning and just and drove him over there, which is great, but like I'm like if Kevin's just not there, like I'm fine. I I just need the courts to tell me that he's fine and if he's fine, if he's not fine, I like I don't really know what to do.
Ms. Hart, my inclination is to issue a bench order that allows you the continued visitation as is, but the stipulation is that Mr. Johnson cannot be at the home when your child is there.
Can you make that work?
I'm sure between me and Mr. Hart we can figure something out. That's what we've been doing.
And Mr. Johnson works full-time, so a lot of times he's at work anyways, so we can figure something out until maybe we can are able to get this reviewed again once Right.
appointed and she can look into I don't know verifying his you know, completion of classes and everything that was required uh for him to come come back with me and my daughter. Yep, I think that I think that is a good idea. What I'm going to do now we'll set a review date on this to allow Mr. Hart I don't know if I'll call you at your cap with this case. I'm not sure where you're at.
I am. I'm I'm beyond my cap. Uh it's a county paid case. Um I actually went beyond the cap on this case, but if your honor feels it appropriate for me to remain involved, I'm happy to do so.
Okay. I am and I will approve additional hours and monies for this case. I think it's important in this unique scenario and I'll I'll um you can send that any type of request for um fees directly to me because I know why I'm making this ruling and why I'm requesting additional hours it is for the safety of the child.
Although specifically with felony DB cases typically there's a 5-year probation period where a court is monitoring. So I I really am just not comfortable right now with anything other than what I'm going to order which is at least until our next review that Mr. Johnson not be present when the child is visiting Miss Hart.
How far out do you all want to review this?
Well your honor given that we're coming into the holiday season and I will confess my caseload is quite stacked at the moment. If we could get into the new year, I know that's a long wait, I know it's a ways out, but I want to be sure that I can actually give this case my attention. If it's possible to get into January, that would be very helpful for me.
I assume at this point I'm going to need to do some interviews with Mr. Johnson and spend some time with Eric and so I just want to make sure that I can do the appropriate investigation.
Yeah, I'm thinking January let's get us a little bit past the new year January 10th.
Would that work for the parties? That that'll be a Wednesday. Well, are they keeping this docket Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. in 2024?
Well and just so you know your honor, I do have a review hearing that morning in Clark County.
Okay, so we'll pick a different date.
I'm available on the 17th if that works for everybody else.
What when will it be?
Oh, it is still going to be. Okay. For now. Now if we change 2024 brings in docket changes, we'll certainly advise the parties, but for now let's set this review for January 17th 2024. I wrote 2023. 2024 at 9:00 a.m.
that'll will be the Wednesday zoom docket.
Um and then it's I know we had the parent or excuse me the orders, the agreed orders. Um I would probably say you know that the court is going to want to see this further investigation before we do any sort of final orders. So, um I would hold tight on those for now.
Okay. And would your honor appreciate an amended report or would you just like a verbal review? You know, I'm fine either way. Probably I'll I'll leave that to your discretion depending on how in-depth you know the interviews go and the information you need to get to the court but I'm fine either way. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay, we'll see you all back on January 17th. Anything else the parties need from me? The final ruling exposes the court's true priority.
Controlled monitoring.
The commissioner does not trust the situation enough to expand freedom but also does not want another traumatic separation for the child.
That balancing act defines the entire outcome.
The court essentially freezes the reunification process in place until further investigation happens.
What stands out most is the commissioner approving extragal funding beyond the normal cap.
That is a massive signal. Courts do not spend additional resources unless they believe risk levels justify extended oversight.
The repeated references to felony domestic violence and probation monitoring reveal the deeper fear driving the ruling.
The court is worried this situation escalated faster than anyone expected.
The mother technically avoids losing visitation but politically she loses leverage.
From this point forward every future request she makes will likely be filtered through a trust deficit. Once a judge starts doubting judgment, rebuilding credibility becomes painfully difficult.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02











