Case Facts
Below is an email from Mullen two weeks after our break up in mid July 2007. This date is worth noting because of the accusations made during trial. The break up was amicable. Mullen, Lucy and I had gone to a brunch with our friends and discussed the break up along with the determination that even though we would not be girlfriends anymore, we were still a family and that was our main focus. Among witnesses at this brunch were Kathy and Rochelle Nardiello, Vicki and Karen Aronoff-Holtmier. Mullen later denied involvement in that brunch, stating she was there but did not participate. Not sure what that's supposed to mean; but she said it under oath.
From: Mullen, Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:53 AM To: Michele Hobbs Subject: Lucy's things, including her room Everything that was mine to begin with as well as any gifts to me. Half of the dishes, glassware etc CDs with all of our photos and videos that are on your computer Your love and support for the rest of my life 'Chele, this relationship did not end because of lack of love. It ended because we need different things to make us feel complete. I have changed over the last couple of years and have different needs and wants than I did in the beginning. There are things that I want for my personal life and relationship. I have been very lonesome. Friends are not my top priority. Family will always be #1. You are right, the family trip to Lake Michigan spoke to both of us. When you didn't want to be there, I realized that I needed more from a partner. And the lack of intimacy was a slow death for us. It scares me that we will not be each others partner anymore. You are honestly my favorite friend. You are cute and so much fun. You are my 1st choice to be with when I do go out on the town. So, ending our relationship hurts but losing you as a friend scares the shit out of me. Please, lets do this as painless as possible. I need to feel like you still have your arms around me and that you still love and RESPECT me. This is only a place in our lives. I believe that God has much more happiness in store for both of us. We can still grow old together. If you agree to the above. I will have papers drawn up so that we can do what we need to do. Trust me, not knowing where my home will be is very unsettling. The quicker the better. |
Multimedia
Below is one of many examples where Mullen calls Michele "mama." Mullen claimed in court that Lucy never called Michele "mama," which Judge Lipps accepted as fact.
Below hear Lucy explain to Michele that Kelly (a.k.a. "Mommy") told Lucy she shouldn't call Michele "Mama." You can hear Lucy's confusion as she tries to explain to Michele
Below are cards used as evidence in the trial that Kelly Mullen refered to me as Mom, Momma, Mama etc. Mullen UNDER OATH claimed she nor Lucy called me Mama. These cards are again more facts, truth and evidence that Mullen did not tell the truth in trial. An act that Magistrate Kelley saw completely thorough, but some how Judge Lipps didn't care.
      |
Mullen had taken Lucy from the house the last weekend in October and not only refused to let me see her, but she wouldn’t even respond to my texts and emails asking about Lucy. At one point Mullen sent me an email that said not to contact her or her family. I first filed my motion for visitation on December 20th, 2007. It would be 7 months before I would see Lucy again. Below are five documents from the start of my journey. Mullen used to tell people she would never take Lucy away from me. And I was told by Liming that if I did not pursue this legally, Mullen would allow me to see Lucy. By the time I filed my first legal brief, I had not seen Lucy for 2 months and Mullen would not return calls, emails or texts until the day she was actually served papers to appear in court. After that all correspondence went through our attorneys. Another note: Liming had been my friend for many years. It was me who reached out to him about being a sperm donor. Mullen and Liming had never met until me. A lot of people ask me why is Liming siding with Mullen. This is easy for me to answer. Scott Liming told me in my house in October 2007; 'Chele, if Kelly thinks I am siding with you in any way, she could do the same thing to me as she is doing to you. I can't risk her taking Lucy from me too." Scott Liming signed the sperm donor agreement (see below after legal filings) that relinquished all of his rights to any child born from it. To this day Scott Liming has no legal rights to Lucy.
After a 2 day trial in July the Judge gave both sides till 10-29-08 to present closing arguments. We then had 30 days to review and write a rebuttal. Magistrate Kelley sat through the trial, viewed all the witnesses, facts and evidence, then on 12-22-08 granted our motion for shared custody.
You can read all of the legalities in these documents. Notice in all of these writings, our factual documents and evidence are repeatedly referred to. Cards, emails etc. where Mullen refers to me as Mama, documents signed and notarized by Mullen referring to me as “co-parent”, the ceremonial birth certificate, invitro documents and so forth. These were all introduced as “facts” and evidence. Search throughout and you will NOT find one piece of “fact” or evidence that could be substantiated where Mullen “refused to consider” me being Lucy’s Mom. The evidence says shows and proves the exact opposite. Magistrate Kelley’s decision was based on the “facts”.
You can read all of the legalities in these documents. Notice in all of these writings, our factual documents and evidence are repeatedly referred to. Cards, emails etc. where Mullen refers to me as Mama, documents signed and notarized by Mullen referring to me as “co-parent”, the ceremonial birth certificate, invitro documents and so forth. These were all introduced as “facts” and evidence. Search throughout and you will NOT find one piece of “fact” or evidence that could be substantiated where Mullen “refused to consider” me being Lucy’s Mom. The evidence says shows and proves the exact opposite. Magistrate Kelley’s decision was based on the “facts”.
After we won, Mullen filed an objection. No biggie, we expected that. Then, for no reason Judge Grady removed herself from the case. She had been part of this for over a year and we had been in front of her on two different occasions on appeal. This is when Judge Lipps appears. Above is his Entry rejecting the Magistrates decision, you can read the transcripts from that hearing. What is terribly important in his written decision here is that he states at least SIX times “refused repeatedly”, “consistently refused”, “consistent refusal”, “discussed...several times”, “refused to consider”, “when pressed…she refused” all referring to a custody agreement. Where is the evidence? Where are the “FACTS”? Where did this Judge come up with this opinion? It is this Judge’s unfounded “facts” and writing that the Appellate Court will eventually rely on. This is the Judge that went to Elder High School with Mullen’s Father and Uncle. Mike Mullen and Judge Lipps both ran cross country and played basketball for Elder. Judge Lipps campaign treasurer for his Judgeship re-elecction, James Ruwe, lived on Citation Lane (a cul-de-sac in the Westside) the entire 15 years the Mullen family lived there. The Lipps, Mullen, Ruwe families all have kids the same ages and grades. On the Hamilton County Auditor’s website I found about 43 addresses that are owned by a person named Mullen. In ALL of Hamilton County! What are the odds that one of them lives 2 doors down from Judge Lipps?
This is the written opinion/ruling from the Court of Appeals. Note this:
The decision issued by the Appellate Court is actually quite good for non-biological LGBT parents because it embraces several key legal points. After laying out some basic important key legal principles in paragraph 6 that are fairly well-established, the Appellate Court then made two very important legal conclusions. First, in paragraph 11, the Appellate Court says "We agree with Hobbs that the law does not require a written agreement to establish shared custody...." Then, in paragraph 12, the Appellate Court says "We find no reason...why a partial relinquishment in favor of shared custody cannot be proved in the same way -- i.e., through conduct."
This is the first time that an appellate court in Ohio has explicitly stated that you do not have to have a written agreement to prove that a same-sex couple agreed to share custody of a child. It is also the first time that an appellate court has explicitly acknowledged that "partial relinquishment" can be proven through the parties' conduct. In reaching these conclusions, the Appellate Court rejected the arguments presented in briefs filed in support of Mullen.
Now here is the insane part: -- the legal principles embraced by the Appellate Court should have led to the conclusion that Mullen and I had an enforceable agreement. But, the Appellate Court focused on the some "fact" that the two of us consistently discussed entering into a written agreement and did not do so. The Appellate Court determined that this was the most important evidence demonstrating that there was no agreement. Even if this "fact" were true (which it is not), the Appellate Court and trial court should not have weighed it so heavily in light of the overwhelming evidence that I am Lucy's mother. Unfortunately, the Appellate Court's decision was based on a dispute about the facts, not the law.
So where did this come from? Judge Lipps. Period. No evidence, no documents! Read what the Appellate Court wrote:
“The trial court relied most heavily, however, on the fact that Mullen had repeatedly refused to enter into a legally enforceable shared-custody agreement with Hobbs when presented with the option to do so.”
In all of these writings, it is only Lipps who states at least 6 times there are “facts” supporting this!
Why would the Appellate court weigh so heavily on the words of Judge Lipps? Let’s look at a few more “oddities” with Judge Lipps in addition to his ties to Mullen.
Judge Lipps sites Judge Sylvia Hendon as a reference in a 1998 Biography of himself:
Honorable Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon
800 Broadway, 12th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1332
In Judge Hendon’s last election bid, he gave over $5800 to her election campaign. Now this all legal and there is no wrong doing here….BUT the answer to how the Appellate Court came to: “The trial court relied most heavily, however, on the fact that Mullen had repeatedly refused to enter into a legally enforceable shared-custody agreement with Hobbs when presented with the option to do so.”?
Judge Hendon TRUSTED Lipps and his finding of “facts” he wrote so many times in his ruling! They have a long term professional relationship and surely she was confident he actually had all the FACTS.
Another oddity? My daughter and Kelly Mullen live 4 doors down from Judge Hendon.
If you were to redline Judge Lipps finding of “fact” SIX times:
“refused repeatedly”, “consistently refused”, “consistent refusal”, “discussed...several times”, “refused to consider”, “when pressed…she refused” all referring to a custody agreement I believe the Appellate Court outcome to my custody rights to my daughter would be completely different. Remember; they agreed with our legal argument!
I am seeking to have the Courts in Hamilton County review the Judicial Prejudice in this case and determine why Grady removed herself after a year on the case, her Boss Judge Lipps take over, overrule a colleague and influence the Appellate Court with “facts” that do not exist and investigate the lifelong influence and relationships between the Mullens, Ruwe and Lipps.
Keep in mind that my motion to the Supreme Court is in progress but they do not accept cases based on dispute of fact, just dispute of law. My case needs to be re-evaluated here in Hamilton County promptly and my visitation with Lucy reinstated immediately. I am seeking to shed light on this case and appealing to anyone who views this website to help get the truth out there.
The decision issued by the Appellate Court is actually quite good for non-biological LGBT parents because it embraces several key legal points. After laying out some basic important key legal principles in paragraph 6 that are fairly well-established, the Appellate Court then made two very important legal conclusions. First, in paragraph 11, the Appellate Court says "We agree with Hobbs that the law does not require a written agreement to establish shared custody...." Then, in paragraph 12, the Appellate Court says "We find no reason...why a partial relinquishment in favor of shared custody cannot be proved in the same way -- i.e., through conduct."
This is the first time that an appellate court in Ohio has explicitly stated that you do not have to have a written agreement to prove that a same-sex couple agreed to share custody of a child. It is also the first time that an appellate court has explicitly acknowledged that "partial relinquishment" can be proven through the parties' conduct. In reaching these conclusions, the Appellate Court rejected the arguments presented in briefs filed in support of Mullen.
Now here is the insane part: -- the legal principles embraced by the Appellate Court should have led to the conclusion that Mullen and I had an enforceable agreement. But, the Appellate Court focused on the some "fact" that the two of us consistently discussed entering into a written agreement and did not do so. The Appellate Court determined that this was the most important evidence demonstrating that there was no agreement. Even if this "fact" were true (which it is not), the Appellate Court and trial court should not have weighed it so heavily in light of the overwhelming evidence that I am Lucy's mother. Unfortunately, the Appellate Court's decision was based on a dispute about the facts, not the law.
So where did this come from? Judge Lipps. Period. No evidence, no documents! Read what the Appellate Court wrote:
“The trial court relied most heavily, however, on the fact that Mullen had repeatedly refused to enter into a legally enforceable shared-custody agreement with Hobbs when presented with the option to do so.”
In all of these writings, it is only Lipps who states at least 6 times there are “facts” supporting this!
Why would the Appellate court weigh so heavily on the words of Judge Lipps? Let’s look at a few more “oddities” with Judge Lipps in addition to his ties to Mullen.
Judge Lipps sites Judge Sylvia Hendon as a reference in a 1998 Biography of himself:
Honorable Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon
800 Broadway, 12th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1332
In Judge Hendon’s last election bid, he gave over $5800 to her election campaign. Now this all legal and there is no wrong doing here….BUT the answer to how the Appellate Court came to: “The trial court relied most heavily, however, on the fact that Mullen had repeatedly refused to enter into a legally enforceable shared-custody agreement with Hobbs when presented with the option to do so.”?
Judge Hendon TRUSTED Lipps and his finding of “facts” he wrote so many times in his ruling! They have a long term professional relationship and surely she was confident he actually had all the FACTS.
Another oddity? My daughter and Kelly Mullen live 4 doors down from Judge Hendon.
If you were to redline Judge Lipps finding of “fact” SIX times:
“refused repeatedly”, “consistently refused”, “consistent refusal”, “discussed...several times”, “refused to consider”, “when pressed…she refused” all referring to a custody agreement I believe the Appellate Court outcome to my custody rights to my daughter would be completely different. Remember; they agreed with our legal argument!
I am seeking to have the Courts in Hamilton County review the Judicial Prejudice in this case and determine why Grady removed herself after a year on the case, her Boss Judge Lipps take over, overrule a colleague and influence the Appellate Court with “facts” that do not exist and investigate the lifelong influence and relationships between the Mullens, Ruwe and Lipps.
Keep in mind that my motion to the Supreme Court is in progress but they do not accept cases based on dispute of fact, just dispute of law. My case needs to be re-evaluated here in Hamilton County promptly and my visitation with Lucy reinstated immediately. I am seeking to shed light on this case and appealing to anyone who views this website to help get the truth out there.
WEBSITE UPDATES: Come here when updates are announced
Updated 3-8-2010 after noticing anonymous comments on the City Beat article.
Mullen has often told people that I owe her money. The documents we had drawn up, were done so that Mullen and Lucy could buy a new house and we could transition Lucy to her new home as easily as possible. Our discussions included me continuing to pick Lucy up at the sitter and me making dinner every night just like always. Once the "negotiations" her Mike Mullen (her Father) worked out and the attorneys agreed we were ready to "sign the documents", Mullen took Lucy and I did not see her until Judge Carla Grady enforced the 6 hours per week visitation schedule that Magistrate Kelley granted me. For those of you who have only heard Mullen's version, this "tidbit" may be a little shocking...
Below is proof of financial obligations I have paid, in addition to what I am still obligated to pay when I sell or refinance my house. Note that Mullen's Lexus SUV, items she received in the agreement, (i.e. pool table, furniture, and the cost of Lucy's in vitro) are all on the second mortgage of which I am still paying.
Mullen has also repeatedly told people I have had free legal council and that I am financially supported by a bunch of gay groups. This is just not true. What is true is that LAMBDA Legal has provided legal council and a tremendous amount of research and support to my local attorney Lisa Meeks. To date my total legal fees owed Newman-Meeks is in the neighborhood of $38,000. I could post the actual statement, but Ms. Meeks perfers not to have an itemized statement of her "day to day minutia" made public. If anyone has any doubts regarding my debt to her, feel free to call her; you will be charged her standard rate for that call.
|
| ||||||||||
Updated 3-10-2010 Mullen submitted the following to the Ohio Supreme Court last week:
Kelly Mullen's response to our brief to the Ohio Supreme Court. For the many, many people who knew us together you will notice the lies right away. First they start by saying (multiple times) we had a "romantic relationship beginning 2003". Kelly and I met May 2000, and were exclusive until July 2007. The lies continue through out. They said and did this stuff through out the trial. I guess the goal was to marginalize the relationship and me at the same time. If it wasn't so evil, it would almost be laughable. To email Kelly Mullen regarding this public document; [email protected]
UPDATED 3-15-2010 Ohio Supreme Court reinstates visitation rights to Hobbs
The Supreme Court has reinstated my Saturday time with Lucy!!! We're not sure how long until they actually review the case, but until then....ALL OF YOUR PRAYERS AND POSITIVE SUPPORT WORKED!!!!! Thank you! Bless you! Yay for the TRUTH!!
The Supreme Court has reinstated my Saturday time with Lucy!!! We're not sure how long until they actually review the case, but until then....ALL OF YOUR PRAYERS AND POSITIVE SUPPORT WORKED!!!!! Thank you! Bless you! Yay for the TRUTH!!
