Rebecca Montoya Custody Battle Update: Lucero Denying Visitations; Bench Trial in 7 Days


The older daughter Mary looks upon her little sister Grace.
The Rebecca Montoya and Tom Lucero custody battle has hit another low prompting a bench trial set in 7 days to determine the future for not only the feuding parents, but for their young daughters as well.

Judge Abigail Aragon has been asked to step down off this case for impropriety (see attached 2nd Verified Motion to Recuse for Impropriety).

Montoya has been denied a relationship with her two daughters for almost 2 years. Lucero has not allowed court ordered visits between mother and children without any punishment from the Court for violating multiple orders.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the removal from a mother is so devastating that within 4 hours, children experience 6 times more post traumatic stress than combat troops.
 
Mr. Lucero was ordered to take the children to therapy to cope with being separated from their mother but has failed to do so. According to the public record on nmcourts.com, Montoya filed an Order to Show Cause and a hearing was set for November 19, 2012 only to be vacated by the Court upon the Court's own motion. This issue was never heard.

On December 20, 2012, Montoya filed an Emergency Motion for Custody of Minor Children due to the fact that Lucero has failed to seek medical care, dental care, and therapeautic care for their children. (See attached Emergency Motion for Custody of Minor Children)

As of today, Montoya and Lucero have joint custody of the two girls, Mary (age 3) and Grace (age 2). Lucero currently has temporary physical custody and has denied all visitations to Montoya.

A bench trial with Judge Abigail Aragon is set for February 14, 2013.

Montoya is hopeful in being reunited with her children after a prolonged separation. She states, "They [Lucero and the Court] can't keep my children away from me forever. I am and always will be their mother."


FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF SAN MIGUEL

 

TOMAS LUCERO,

            Petitioner,

 

v.                                                                                                         D-0412-DM-200900253

 

REBECCA MONTOYA,

            Respondent.

 

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN

 

            COMES NOW, Rebecca S. Montoya, appearing pro se, and respectfully moves the Court for an Order Granting Emergency Motion for Custody of Minor Children, and as grounds therefore states:

  1. On February 22, 2011, the Court issued an Exparte Order Granting Emergency Motion for Custody of Minor Child in which the Petitioner, Tomas Lucero, was granted temporary physical custody of the minor and nursing children Mary Montoya-Lucero and Grace Montoya-Lucero.
  2. The aforementioned order states: “Respondent [Rebecca S. Montoya] is granted supervised visitation…”
  3. This Respondent has not been allowed to visit with her children for five-hundred and forty-six (546) days which out-weighs the term “temporary.”
  4. On January 4, 2012, the Court issued a Stipulated Order Adopting Interim Advisory Consultation Recommendations in which both parties agreed to fully comply with these recommendations.
  5. Paragraph 6 of the aforementioned Order states: “…if Tomas changes the children’s physician and/or dentist, he will provide Rebecca, through her attorney, with the names and phone numbers of the new providers.”
  6. The Petitioner, Tomas Lucero, has not provided me with any changes in the children’s physician and/or dentist; therefore, the health care providers for the children are the status quo of the aforementioned Order: Pediatrician Mary Schipper, MD of The Alta Vista Clinic for Children and Youth and dentist Katrina Collins, DDS of Collins Dental.
  7. Exhibit 1 is a notorized Emergency Custody Order Affadavit from Dentist Katrina Collins, DDS verifying the fact that the Petitioner, Tom Lucero, has failed to take the children to the dentist during his temporary period of responsibility.
  8. Exhibit 2 is a notorized Emergency Custody Order Affadavit from The Alta Vista Clinic for Children and Youth verifying the fact that the Petitioner, Tom Lucero, has failed to take the children to their monthly well-care visits with their primary care physician during his temporary period of responsibility.
  9. On August 22, 2012, the Court issued an Order Adopting the Interim Advisory Consultation Recommendations in which both parties and the children were to participate in counseling through TeamBuilders Counseling Services, Inc.

10.  On or about September 14, 2012, the Petitioner, Tom Lucero, spoke with TeamBuilders’ clinical supervisor, Johanna Reznicek MA, LPCC, and denied counseling services.

11.  Exhibit 3 is a notorized Affidavit of Johanna Reznicek verifying Mr. Lucero’s defiance in obtaining services for his children from TeamBuilders, Inc.

12.  On October 11, 2012 an Order to Show Cause hearing was scheduled for 10:00am on November 20, 2012 “to show cause why he [Mr. Lucero] should not be held in contempt of Court for his failure to abide by this Court’s Order…” and was later vacated by the Court on the Court’s own motion.

13.  Due to Petitioner’s medical negligence of his two minor children while in his care, his complete defiance of the Court’s Orders, and eminent fear of bodily harm due to his horrific outbursts of anger, emergency exparte relief is requested.

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the Court place the minor children in her physical custody, allowing Petitioner supervised visitation at his own expense until further hearing in this matter, and any such other relief as the Court deems just and necessary.

                                                      Respectfully submitted:

                                                                        Rebecca S.Montoya











STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF SAN MIGUEL

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 

TOMAS LUCERO,

            Petitioner

 

v.                                                                                                         D-412-DM-200900253

 

REBECCA MONTOYA,

            Respondent.

 

2nd Verified Motion to Recuse for Impropriety

 

            COMES NOW, Rebecca S. Montoya, and hereby respectfully moves this Court to a recusal of Judge Abigail Aragon from the above entitled matter under 28 USCS Sec. 455, and Marshall v. Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980) and on the following grounds:

  1. The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that LIFE, LIBERTY, or PROPERTY will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law.
  2. The above is applicable to this Court by application of Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v. Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976).
  3. Respondent filed a “Motion to Recuse” through her former attorneys Silva & Grano’s Law Firm on July 26, 2011 for appearance of impropriety.
  4. Petitioner, who is employed with the State Police, has openly stated that he and the above-mentioned Judge have an alleged “relationship” and that she will do anything for him.
  5. Respondent has excused Judge Abigail Aragon from presiding over her Domestic Violence case no. D-412-DV-2010-123 and no. D-412-DV-2010-111 and Criminal case no. D-412-CR-2011-188.
  6. District Courts, like Federal Courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and uphold federal law.
  7. Petitioner has committed custodial interference and has succeeded in alienating our two small children, Mary and Grace, from their mother for 2 years with the assistance of this Court.
  8.  Respondent has good reason to believe that this Court has been biased and has unnecessarily punished her for custodial interference while the Petitioner has been allowed to commit the same crime to a higher degree without punishment.
  9. The above mentioned Judge has wantonly refused to provide due process and equal protection to all litigants before the Court and has behaved in a manner inconsistent with that which is needed for FULL, FAIR, and IMPARTIAL hearings.

10.  According to Congress and U.S. Supreme Court case law, a judge MUST bow out of hearing any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  Judges MUST avoid all impropriety and appearances of impropriety.

11.  The United States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS.

 

 

WHEREFORE, due to the perception that the Judge’s ability to carry out her judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired, the appearance of gender bias and impropriety, prior unethical and/or illegal conduct, the Respondent prays for Judge Abigail Aragon to recuse herself from this case.

Respectfully Submitted, 

Rebecca S. Montoya



 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments

  • 2/7/2013 7:46 PM Gail Benavidez wrote:
    Enough of this political bullshit!!!! Give those girls back to their mother before any further damage is caused. May God have mercy on the soles of those who have manipulated the system for their own selfish benefit. As for the judge "Abigail" your a joke lady!
    Reply to this
  • 2/17/2013 9:56 AM Fabian Lopez wrote:
    The worst part of this story is the fact that it was written and published. These children are going through enough, why publish their story for them to relive as they grow in to adolescent years. Its a merely a case of the "paper" becoming a gossip avenue. Sad......
    Reply to this
    1. 2/22/2013 11:31 AM native56 wrote:
      I wholeheartedly agree with you Fabian. The mother only does this prior to or right after a court date. She goes to the newspaper because she wants to stir up the public and try to get their support. She is a drama queen and should just focus on her new baby. The newspapers know their stories will sell a few more papers, and all at these poor little girls' expense. Ms. Montoya is not concerned about anyone other than herself. She says she doesn't have know where the girls are but then she posts their father' home address on her website rants. She's probably hoping someone crazy will go to his house and hurt if not try to kill him. She has friends on her public face book who have threatened to hurt or kill him. She needs help. I consider her to be very dangerous and that's probably one of the reasons she doesn't have the girls. Kind of smacks of Casey Anthony and Josh Powell. She HATES Tom more than she LOVES the girls.
      Reply to this
  • 2/22/2013 9:19 AM Rebecca is a PSYCHO wrote:
    THOSE GIRLS ARE SAFE WHERE THEY ARE!!! REBECCA HAS PUT HER SELF IN THIS POSITION!! THE THINGS REBECCA HAS DONE NO MOTHER SHOULD DO SUCH A THING TO HER KIDS A MOTHER SHOULD LOVE HER CHILD AND TRY TO MAKE THINGS BETTER NOT MAKE THINGS WORST! REBECCA YOU KNOW AND GOD KNOWS THE TRUTH TO THIS STORY AND WHEN YOUR TIME COMES YOU WILL PAY FOR THE HORRIBLE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE
    Reply to this
  • 2/22/2013 9:29 AM Stacy wrote:
    THOSE GIRLS ARE SAFE WHERE THEY ARE!!! REBECCA HAS PUT HER SELF IN THIS POSITION!! THE THINGS REBECCA HAS DONE NO MOTHER SHOULD DO SUCH A THING TO HER KIDS A MOTHER SHOULD LOVE HER CHILD AND TRY TO MAKE THINGS BETTER NOT MAKE THINGS WORST! REBECCA YOU KNOW AND GOD KNOWS THE TRUTH TO THIS STORY AND WHEN YOUR TIME COMES YOU WILL PAY FOR THE HORRIBLE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE
    Reply to this
    1. 3/4/2013 3:10 PM Anonymous wrote:
      To Psycho or Stacy or should we just say TOM. Only you would say this. Rebecca is a wonderful person and mother! Your abuse and above the law attitude will catch up to you. And yes, God has His time and place. May God Bless Mary and Grace and keep them safe.
      Reply to this
  • 2/22/2013 5:41 PM Celina wrote:
    Please keep us updated on this story.

    Rebecca keep fighting for your daughters. This man is so wrong to think he is above the law. Breaking all the rules of the court, and court hasn't called him on it because of a pathetic judge that has not done her job and ordered him back into the court.

    I don't believe name calling is necessary on this forum because it is meaningless.

    I worry that some of those that posted above have children that can read. Because they are going to be thinking " wow, our mom wouldn't fight for us".
    Reply to this
  • 3/8/2013 5:54 PM D. Aguilar wrote:
    Thank you for keeping us updated on this story. This happens a lot but doesn't get any media attention. Our judicial system is a worthless money-making joke! When are we the people going to stop looking the other way and start protecting our mothers and children? Thank you, Rebecca, for being brave enough to stand up to this legal corruption. My heart is broken with what you, your children, and your family have endured at the hands of "the law." I believe things will work out in your favor. Don't give up!
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.