PEACE BOND TO NOT COME TO MY HOME
OFFICERS RETURN HAS NOTHING IN IT-YOU HAVE TO BE SERVED BY SOMEONE LIKE A SHERIFF
Comes now the defendant Nicolette Crawford, Parent of Jayden White, Amari White, and
Malachi White. I am requesting a motion to dismiss the request petition and citation given by
the Plantiff Angela Wright on the grounds of timely filing and unreasonable access requests in
lieu of previous granted visitation and the overstepping of Grandparental rights in the past. I
am herby acting in the best interest of the child in the evidence in the exhibits that I can
present in this case.
I implore the lower court to not wrongly grant the grandparent access and to take into account
the fit parent presumption. It was not until May 19th that the citation was taped to my father’s
door where I do not reside; In addition to being past the deadline in which we can appeal
which was methodically calculated by the plaintiff. The reason grandparent is not allowed the
access of the grandchildren because I the Defendant was previously allowing the children to be
with their grandparent until she demanded more time. Which subsequentially resulted in a
Child protective order filed against myself and the other parent being sued in the 256th Judicial
court as well. The emotional burden of a false case and my children being interviewed in the
middle of class was emotionally impairing for my children who were crying when they came
home. The plaintiff has told my children that someone was coming after them which caused
them to live in fear thinking that something was going to happen to them and myself as well.
By law I the maternal mother have the fundamental right based on the constitutional principle.
Duly noted in the (2000) Troxel vs Granville 530 U.s. 57, 65-66 to deny access due to the best
interest of the children. Therefore, as long as the parent is acting in the best interest of the
children and adequately cares for her children (is fit) there will normally be no reason for the
state to inject itself in the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that
parent to make the best decision concerning the rearing of that parents’ children. Thus, as
according to the previous case mentioned the U.S Supreme court itself held that a trial courts
order to grandparent access is Unconstitutionally infringed on the parents’ fundamental liberty
interest were there was no evidence that the parent was not fit even when it was attempted to
be proven otherwise. It also states that if there is no evidence that the children’s health and
well-being would suffer nor that I attempted to deny grandparent access in entirety at one
point time. My sons spend time swimming, fishing and basketball with their grandfather whilst
learning music and various activities with their grandmother as well. I have not barred complete
access of my children to any grandparent or entity.
The State Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the Troxels' petition. In affirming, the State
Supreme Court held, inter alia, that §26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally infringes on parents'
fundamental right to rear their children. Reasoning that the Federal Constitution permits a State
to interfere with this right only to prevent harm or potential harm to the child, it found that
§26.10.160(3) does not require a threshold showing of harm and sweeps too broadly by
permitting any person to petition at any time with the only requirement being that the visitation
serve the best interest of the child.
According to the law a mother has a fundamental right to parent the child and decide who the
child will be with because of the greater good. There are exigent circumstances in place that
would significantly impair the wellbeing of the children in these visits. I would like to advise the
court that at one point time grandparent visitation was granted and that before the death of the
deceased the plaintiff did not request/nor get the children often. It wasn’t until the death of the
parent that the plaintiff decided that she wanted to see the children more often more notably after
being denied additional dates for access. The plaintiff began popping up at the school without my
knowledge to which the school reached out to me on several occasions about her attempts to
access the children. The plaintiff has also followed us home without my knowledge admittingly.
The plaintiff has not offered/nor helped the children since the protective services order was made
and did not make contact with them. The plaintiff has won cases and posed as next of kin in
which she was granted $3,000 which was not given to the children, nor were they advised of. In
roping everything in your honor there is nothing stating or proving that the plaintiff not being
involved with the child has significantly impaired the child by way of psychologist or therapist.
The plaintiff has never been with my children alone and has always needed additional assistance
when she was granted visitation and it significantly impacted her mentally to care for them alone.
I would like to implore the court to dismiss the exhibits given by reason of photographic
evidence taken after the death of the father.
The children have never been with the plaintiff from Friday to a Monday nor is it in the best
interest of the child to have the requested visitation granted. There are additional external factors
regarding the death of the deceased that I do not want to affect my children ongoing and do not
want to see something happen to them as a result of the psychological impairments imposed on
them by the plaintiff..
SO LONG AS A PARENT CARES FOR THEIR CHILDREN A GRANDPARENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
INTERJECT THEMSELVES WHEN IT COMES TO THE CHILD.
Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, concluded
that §26.10.160(3), as applied to Granville and her family, violates her due process right to make
decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters. Pp. 5-17.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has a substantive component that
"provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental
rights and liberty interests," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720, including
parents' fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of
their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp. 5-8.
The children affected in the suit were significantly impaired mentally and emotionally by the
granted access at that time in 2020 when they were granted access to the plaintiff. It was under
my children’s understanding that their father was going to return from the grave as stated by the
plaintiff giving my kids nightmares. I would also like to advise the court that the plaintiff called
child protective services on both myself and the other mother of the deceased’s eldest child a
week apart from each other. After a thorough investigation was conducted and charges were
dropped as unsubstantiated it was quoted by the officer that the plaintiff expressed dis-contempt
of the findings. I would like to advise the court that the plaintiff is very methodical when it
comes to court cases and has sued several parties in the subsequent years of her son’s death. This
visitation order comes two months after the suing of the apartment complex for wrongful death
for $1,000,000 dollars. The plaintiff has not asked to visit the children since she called Protective
services less than a year after the death of her son. On one occasion she sent text messages to my
father requesting that the children see her and family on his birthday in which the plaintiff saw
the children at the grave site while we were visiting.
The plaintiff has interjected with the I the maternal mother of the children on several occasions.
Taking them to get haircuts during the pandemic causing an infection, verbal abuse against the
mother stating that she is the devil and implying involvement with the death of the father.
Showing the children weapons, and telling them that their father was moving objects inside of
their home and our house. I implore the court to take into account that the plaintiff
emotionally/mentally harmed the children by playing videos of the father speaking into the
children’s ears while they were sleeping and then suddenly waking them.
It is my humble appreciation if this motion to dismiss is accepted by the court to Associate Judge
Don Turner and the other members of the Roster. Thank you.