KristenPace

Judicial Conduct, Denial of Due Process, and the Failure to Consider Evidence My experience before Judge Pace was one in which I believe I was systematically denied meaningful due process, the opportunity to be fully heard, and the fundamental fairness that should be afforded to every parent appearing before the court, particularly when the relationship between a mother and her child is at stake. Throughout the proceedings, Judge Pace repeatedly disregarded my statements, failed to meaningfully acknowledge or consider the evidence I attempted to present, and issued decisions that appeared to rely almost exclusively on the allegations and representations made by my abusive ex-husband and his attorney, Kenzie Wright. These were not merely disagreements over differing perspectives. I maintain that numerous allegations presented against me were knowingly false, contradicted by available evidence, and part of an ongoing pattern of coercive control, intimidation, manipulation, and the weaponization of the judicial system to interfere with my relationship with my son. From the beginning of our custody litigation, my ex-husband engaged in what I believe was a deliberate campaign to discredit me, manufacture allegations, and manipulate the legal process to gain and maintain control over our child. I contend that he repeatedly made false statements under oath and that his attorney perpetuated material misrepresentations before the court. Yet, despite my repeated attempts to present evidence challenging those allegations, Judge Pace did not afford my evidence the same consideration she appeared to give his assertions. The most disturbing aspect of these proceedings was the court’s apparent failure to recognize or meaningfully examine the dynamics of coercive control and the impact those dynamics can have on a child who is living exclusively under the authority of the very parent accused of engaging in that conduct. My son had been taken from my care and remained solely in my ex-husband’s custody and control. Consequently, whenever the court sought to determine my son’s wishes regarding contact or reunification, his statements were made within the context of an environment controlled by his father. Each time, the court was told that my son did not want to see me, and those statements were treated as justification for continuing to restrict our relationship. What Judge Pace failed to meaningfully examine, in my view, was whether my son’s expressed reluctance reflected his independent wishes or whether it was being influenced by the emotional pressure, manipulation, and controlling behavior I had repeatedly raised concerns about. A child’s stated preference cannot be meaningfully evaluated without considering the circumstances under which that preference developed, particularly when allegations of coercive control, interference with reunification, and parental manipulation have been raised. Instead of examining those concerns, the court continued to rely on my son’s reported unwillingness to see me while leaving him exclusively in the care and control of the parent I alleged was actively undermining our relationship. This created what I believe was a devastating and self-perpetuating cycle: my ex-husband maintained control over my son’s environment, my son continued to express reluctance toward reunification, and that reluctance was then used to justify further separation without adequately investigating the circumstances contributing to it. The handling of reunification therapy illustrates the seriousness of these failures. Amanda Hall, who had been involved in our reunification counseling, specifically informed me that our sessions had stopped because my ex-husband was no longer scheduling them. She had also previously assured me that, when the time came, she would provide the court with a letter outlining the conduct, circumstances, and concerns that had emerged throughout the reunification process, including my ex-husband’s coercive control, intimidation, and manipulation. However, after I retained a new attorney, Amanda refused to work with that attorney and withdrew her willingness to assist, despite her direct knowledge of the circumstances and the significance of that information to the court’s understanding of why reunification had been interrupted. During a subsequent hearing, my attorney raised objections concerning the termination of reunification counseling and the fact that my ex-husband had been responsible for discontinuing the scheduling of sessions. In response, his attorney, Kenzie Wright, represented to the court that I had been the one who canceled counseling. That representation directly contradicted what Amanda Hall had personally told me. This was a material factual dispute that went to the heart of the court’s understanding of which parent was facilitating reunification and which parent was obstructing it. Rather than requiring clarification, examining the underlying records, or allowing the conflicting accounts to be meaningfully addressed, Judge Pace denied my motion. The result was that my ex-husband’s version of events was effectively allowed to stand while my attempts to establish what had actually occurred were unsuccessful. This was not an isolated occurrence. It reflected what I experienced repeatedly throughout the litigation: allegations against me were entertained and relied upon, while my evidence, objections, and explanations were dismissed or disregarded. I was placed in the impossible position of having to defend myself against accusations while being denied what I believed was a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that those accusations were false. Perhaps the clearest example of Judge Pace’s approach occurred when I personally attempted to explain the history of what had happened and the circumstances that had led us to that point. Rather than allowing me to provide the context necessary to understand the ongoing conduct and its impact on my child, Judge Pace stated directly to me, “I don’t care to hear anything about the past.” That statement was profoundly troubling. The past was not irrelevant history. It was the very foundation of the circumstances before the court. The allegations of abuse, coercive control, intimidation, interference with reunification, false accusations, and manipulation were not disconnected events. They were part of what I maintain was an ongoing pattern of conduct that directly affected my son’s emotional well-being, his relationship with me, and the court’s ability to make informed decisions concerning his best interests. How could the court meaningfully determine what was happening in the present while refusing to consider the conduct and circumstances that had produced it? How could allegations of manipulation or interference be fairly evaluated without examining the history of behavior alleged to establish that pattern? And how could I meaningfully defend myself against accusations rooted in past events when the judge expressly stated that she did not care to hear about those events? I understand that a court may impose reasonable limits on testimony, determine the admissibility of evidence, and distinguish between matters that have already been adjudicated and those properly before it. However, my concern is not simply that Judge Pace made evidentiary rulings with which I disagreed. My concern is that the cumulative effect of her decisions, her apparent unwillingness to consider relevant context, and her treatment of the competing allegations deprived me of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the factual narrative being used to justify the continued separation of my son from me. There is an extraordinary difference between a court hearing evidence and ultimately finding it unpersuasive, and a parent experiencing a process in which her evidence is never meaningfully received, examined, or acknowledged in the first place. My experience was the latter. I repeatedly attempted to bring forward information that I believed would expose material falsehoods, demonstrate the pattern of coercive control, and establish the circumstances surrounding the obstruction of reunification. Yet, rather than those concerns being meaningfully investigated, I watched decisions continue to be made on the basis of allegations I maintained were false, while the very conduct I was trying to expose continued to influence the proceedings. The consequences have been devastating. This was not merely a dispute over legal procedure or a disagreement with an unfavorable ruling. These decisions affected my fundamental relationship with my child, prolonged our separation, and, in my view, allowed the very dynamics of control and manipulation that I had been trying to bring to the court’s attention to continue without meaningful judicial scrutiny. A child who has been separated from a parent and remains exclusively under the influence of the other parent deserves a careful, independent assessment of the circumstances surrounding that separation. A parent alleging coercive control and interference with reunification deserves a meaningful opportunity to present relevant evidence. And a court entrusted with protecting a child’s best interests must evaluate material factual disputes rather than allowing untested allegations to become the foundation for decisions that can permanently alter a family. I am deeply concerned that Judge Pace failed to uphold those responsibilities in my case. I believe the proceedings reflected a pattern of unequal consideration of the parties’ representations, inadequate examination of material factual disputes, and repeated failures to meaningfully address evidence concerning the obstruction of reunification and the welfare of my son. Most importantly, I believe my son and I have suffered lasting harm because the court failed to adequately distinguish between a child’s independently formed wishes and the possibility that those wishes were being shaped by the coercive influence of the parent exercising exclusive control over his daily life. My request has never been that the court simply accept my word over my ex-husband’s. My request has been that the truth be examined, that the evidence be considered, that material contradictions be addressed, and that decisions affecting my child be based on a fair and meaningful evaluation of the facts rather than unchallenged allegations. That is the due process I believe I was denied. And that is why I believe Judge Pace’s conduct and handling of these proceedings warrant serious, independent review.