ERROR AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE TRIAL
COURT NOT TO HAVE FOUND PC REBECCA FINCH IN CONTEMPT FOR
PRESENTING FRAUDULENT INFORMATION. THE FALSE INFORMATION WAS
SIGNIFICANT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO REMOVE THE CUSTODIAL
STATUS OF THE MOTHER. THE COURT WAS IMPAIRED IN THE IMPARTIAL
PERFORMANCE OF ITS LEGAL TASK, THE ACT, KNOWN AS "FRAUD UPON THE
COURT", AND IS A CRIME DEEMED SO SEVERE AND FUNDAMENTALLY
OPPOSED TO THE OPERATION OF JUSTICE THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY
STATUTE OF LIMITATION; REBECCA FINCH'S OWN DOCUMENTATION, AS
RECEIVED BY THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE ON 07/11/2012. THE HANDWRITING IS
EASILY RECOGNIZABLE AS DIFFERENT FROM EITHER OF THE PARENTS
'INTAKE FORMS.' FURTHER NO CORRECTIONS WERE EVER MADE TO ANY OF
THE PC'S FORMS AT ANY TIME. THE FACT THAT THE PC WAS STILL ASSIGNED Guernsey County, Case No. 2012-CA-21 16
TO THE TOTH CASE AND MADE NO ATTEMPTS TO CORRECT HER OWN
MISTAKES, NOT EVEN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE PC UTILIZED HER OWN
ERRORS TO HARM THE MOTHER AND THE TOTH CHILDREN. THE HARM WAS A
DIRECT RESULT OF THE PC'S INCOMPETENCE AND THE FATHER'S ATTEMPT
TO MISLEAD THE COURT AND SLANDER THE MOTHER IN COURT.
{¶35} "XII. IT WAS ERROR AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO HAVE FOUND REBECCA FINCH A CREDIBLE WITNESS WHEN
REBECCA FINCH ADMITTED TO A MULTITUDE OF MISTAKES WHILE
PERFORMING THE PC'S PRIMARY ROLE: TO REDUCE CONFLICT BY PREPARING
CORRECT AND EQUITABLE PARENTING SCHEDULES.
{¶36} "XIII. IT WAS ERROR AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO HAVE FOUND PC REBECCA FINCH A CREDIBLE WITNESS,
WHEN REBECCA FINCH WAS UNABLE TO RECOLLECT OR LOCATE IN PC
RECORDS, THE VERY SIGNIFICANT AND EXACT DATES OR OCCASIONS THAT
LED TO THE MOTHER BEING FALSELY ACCUSED OF DENYING THE FATHER
PARENTING TIME; WHICH WAS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN THE TRIAL COURT
REMOVING THE CUSTODIAL STATUS OF THE MOTHER.
{¶37} "XIV. IT WAS ERROR AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT FATHERS [SIC.] RELOCATION
WAS NOT A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES; WHILE USING A DIFFERENT
STANDARD FOR THE MOTHER. THE MOTHER'S NOTICE WAS A FINDING OF
FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT THE MOTHER'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO
RELOCATE WAS A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND TRIGGERED THE TRIAL Guernsey County, Case No. 2012-CA-21 17
COURT TO ORDER A CHANGE OF CUSTODY. DECISIONS DATED 09/16/2011 AND
04/19/2012.
{¶38} "XV. IT WAS ERROR AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO APPLY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF OHIO
LAW, UNEQUALLY IN THIS CASE. THE DOUBLE STANDARD DID HAVE A DIRECT
AND HARMFUL EFFECT UPON THE MOTHER AND CHILDREN. THE TRIAL
COURTS OWN CONCLUSIONS STATE "OHIO CASE LAW REQUIRES THE
CHANGE TO BE OF SUBSTANCE AND NOT SLIGHT" 08/22/2012 DECISION.
{¶39} "XVI. IT WAS ERROR AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT COSTS ARISING FROM THE CONTEMPT
CHARGES AGAINST THE FATHER BE ASSESSED TO MOTHER. O.R.C.
3109.051(K) PROVIDES THAT