Adobe Acrobat Document Research Re Judge's Rules for Assigning Custody
Adobe Acrobat Document: 330 kB, 46 seconds seconds @ 56kbps

Case History Section 8


1997 - September 30

Legal Research / Custody

Section 8 provides legal research regarding the presiding Judges responsibility in the first Dearna divorce hearing in September, 1997, regarding the awarding and/or changing of custody and notice required.  Essentially, this case study clearly shows that Judge Kane (coincidentally, DA Suther’s close family friend) overstepped his authority and violated his highest responsibility with regard to minor children, by changing the custody of Harmon’s children to his child abusive wife, Dearna without notice to Harmon and by refusing to hear the testimony of six witnesses (one witness a licensed Colorado social worker) present at the hearing, ready to present incontrovertible evidence of Dearna’s child abuse.  After the first hearing, Judge Kane assigned the case to another Judge.



Index of PDF Documents in Case History Section 8:



Pg       1          Letter to Dale Parrish PC, research of cases pertinent to Harmon’s custody case.


Pg       2          Case:  Ashlock vs District Court, 5th Judicial District, Colorado.








  1. Did Judge Kane abuse his discretion and exceed his jurisdiction by focusing on Harmon’s alleged contempt for not showing up at a hearing where it was clear that he had not received proper notification?  What about a Judges first priority as to what is in the best interests of the children?
  2. Why did Judge Kane exit the case after the first hearing where he charged Harmon with contempt and issued an arrest warrant?
  3. How could a judge possibly justify breaking every ethical and statutory rule in the book regarding the best interests of the children, including refusing to hear testimony of child abuse and assigning custody to a registered child abuser.  What was his motive?  Was he influenced by DA's John Suthers or Jeanne Smith?