- Petitioner and Respondent were married on or about April 5, 2011 in Durham, North Carolina.
- Petitioner had 2 children prior to the marriage. Petitioner and Respondent had one child prior to the marriage and 4 children within the marriage.
- Petitioner and Respondent lived in the state of North Carolina for the duration of the marriage and moved to the state of Oklahoma on around October of 2018.
- Throughout the marriage, the respondent was verbally, emotionally, psychologically and physically abusive to the petitioner. See Exhibits 1 and 2 for 2 arrests and convictions of the respondent for domestic violence also including hospital records from one of the incidents.. On around June of 2020, the petitioner took her 5 small children and fled the abusive relationship, which she is protected in doing according to §43-109 (I)(3) and §43-111.4 (A). The petitioner and children went to North Carolina to continue their battle to get the petitioner’s two sons from the petitioner’s estranged mother, Juanita Lee. The petitioner and children were staying in hotels in Oklahoma and continued to stay in hotels in North Carolina. The petitioner purchased a property in North Carolina and the family utilized the daily clearing of the property as healing and used the property as a place of refuge from the decade of narcissistic abuse to which the petitioner and her children had been subjected for the children’s entire lives. The petitioner purchased a pre-build cabin and the family camped on the property some nights utilizing a generator and propane heater.
- On November 30, Petitioner retrieved her 14 year old son from the Petitioner’s estranged mother, Juanita Lee, in Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina, using Wake County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Duncans. The petitioner’s 14 and 16 year old sons were being held by Lee since October of 2018, with Lee having no legal custody. Respondent, Elijah Vick, and his abusive behavior was cited by Lee as her reason for holding the children. Respondent hired attorneys in both North Carolina and Oklahoma to retrieve her sons from Lee, it having been an everyday struggle for the petitioner, as a very devoted, loving and caring and passionate mother, to retrieve her children from Lee. See Exhibit 3 for Oklahoma County case filing by Petitioner’s attorney, Todd Waddell showing Oklahoma County Judge Lynn McGuire denying jurisdiction on a writ of habeas corpus to have the petitioner’s children returned to her.
- On December 1, 2020, the day after the petitioner finally had all of her precious children, who love each other very much, together for the first time in over 2 years, Lee called the Department of Human Services and made allegations about the plaintiff at a place where she had never been. This is the second time Lee made allegations to CPS about the petitioner in an effort to get custody of her 2 oldest children. Lee was not interested in the younger children because they take much work to care for and Lee is well known for constantly telling everyone about how much she loves to sleep. The very intelligent CPS workers in Durham, NC advised the petitioner that they let Lee know they would not be taking the petitioner’s children and giving them to her and if she is holding the children it is of her own will and not anything to do with them. This time with the Moore County CPS workers, Lee was able to effectively manipulate them into taking the children and giving them to her. Moore County North Carolina CPS on December 2, 2020, with the use of 20 police officers and county sheriffs using high powered assault rifles, took the petitioner’s 7 children and her partner’s child from the property without a court order and delivered them all to Lee in a clear conspiracy. CPS workers took the children on a “verbal hold” and then signed them into non-secure custody after denying the petitioner the right to be present, which the statute clearly states the parent has the right to be present during a verbal hold. Once the petitioner was finally able to have a hearing in 7 days, their non-secure custody order was dissolved. Exhibit 4- video of the encounter with Moore County CPS where they took the children, Exhibit 5- Order returning the children to the custody of the petitioner, Exhibit 6- Moore County DHS voluntary dismissal of the case, Exhibit 7- recorded phone call between petitioner and Moore County DHS after the court hearing proving their blatant malfeasance.
- On December 10, immediately upon conclusion of the court hearing where the order was dissolved, respondent, Vick, held the petitioner for an hour and a half disallowing her from going to pick up the children (Exhibit 8 is the full 1.5 hour recording of this encounter). Respondent stated that in order for him to allow the petitioner to leave, she would need to give him a divorce right then and there and the respondent did not have the paperwork for the divorce, but was expecting the petitioner to produce the paperwork. Once the petitioner advised the respondent that she had the paperwork in her vehicle he allowed her to leave. The petitioner left, but was held up in seeking to retrieve the dissolved custody order from the judge. Respondent went and in collaboration with Lee, took the 5 small children, brought them to Oklahoma and hid them from the petitioner, fulfilling every condition of Child Stealing according to Oklahoma Child Stealing Statute §21-891. Exhibit 9- Text message thread between respondent and Lee with them working together for respondent to take the children.
- Respondent left the children with his girlfriend, Jasmine Runnells, and they were being neglected. Exhibit 10 are all of the video calls between petitioner and her children when petitioner found respondent’s girlfriend on Facebook and was able to convince her to allow petitioner to video chat with the children. Exhibit 11includes recorded phone conversations with the respondent of his admitting to the abuse and other relevant recordings displaying the true character of his skewed, selfish and abusive perspective.
- Petitioner got an emergency custody order from Oklahoma County Judge McGuire on December 22, 2020.
- The respondent sent the oldest child of the parties to the state of Washington with his sister and petitioner was not able to make contact with her child for 3 weeks until she flew to Washington and worked with their
child finder detective and got a writ of habeas corpus and finally got her child back. They flew back to Oklahoma and the petitioner finally had all of her children together again, this time for 2 days. Exhibit 12 is the writ of habeas corpus. - At the show cause hearing on the emergency order on January 4th, 2021, Judge Martha Oakes illegally transferred custody of the children to the respondent citing proof of his domestic abuse against the petitioner “meant nothing.” She transferred custody because of the respondent’s allegations against the petitioner for the cps kidnapping even though the case had been heard and Moore County District Judge Bartholemew returned the children to the petitioner. Judge Oakes did not see any evidence on the allegations and violated §10a-1-4-102 which states when there are allegations in a matrimonial proceeding, there should be a dhs investigation and in 30 days come back and make a custody determination and she gave children to the perpetrator of domestic violence. Exhibit 13 is the case record from Oklahoma County showing Judge Oakes’ emotional response to the respondent’s allegations citing “problems with the home.” A determination she made with no evidence, only the word of the abusive, manipulative respondent. Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the Oklahoma County Case.
- Respondent was kicked out of the girlfriend’s home the following day, on January 5th now being at neither home that Judge Oakes cited the plaintiff as having as to why she gave temporary custody of the children to him and moved in with his sister, Crystal Vick, in Stillwater. The respondent’s sister has a history of violence, being convicted of biting 2 police officers and committed to a mental health institution by Payne County Courts. Exhibit 14 is the OSCN record from Crystal Vick’s case.
- Crystal Vick now replaced Runnells as caretaker for the children. Crystal shortly thereafter began hitting the children to which they were telling their mother, the petitioner, over the phone. The petitioner told Crystal to keep her hands off of the children. From this point Crystal and the respondent cut off communication between the respondent and the children. Exhibit 15 is a recording of Crystal Vick trying to exhort the children’s social security cards from the plaintiff. Exhibit 16 is a call recording of the respondent’s cousin trying to mediate with Crystal to allow the respondent to speak with her children and Crystal Vick displaying the true nature of her mental health issue. Exhibit 17 includes the respondent admitting that Crystal Vick is caring for the children with her schizophrenia because he has no other options. In this recording he also ends with letting the petitioner know that he does not intend for their daughter to talk to the petitioner ever again because of his own selfishness.
- The respondent now has a warrant for his arrest out of North Carolina for absconding probation on his domestic violence conviction. Exhibit 18 is a recording of a phone conversation with the respondent’s probation officer, Michelle Thompson, where she is confirming that the respondent, in fact, now has a warrant for his arrest.
- Oklahoma Statutes which specifically speak to this case:
§43-109(I). 1. In every proceeding in which there is a dispute as to the custody of a minor child, a determination by the court that domestic violence, stalking, or harassment has occurred raises a rebuttable presumption that sole custody, joint legal or physical custody, or any shared parenting plan with the perpetrator of domestic violence, harassing or stalking behavior is detrimental and not in the best interest of the child, and it is in the best interest of the child to reside with the parent who is not a perpetrator of domestic violence, harassing or stalking behavior.
2. For the purposes of this subsection: a. “domestic violence” means the threat of the infliction of physical injury, any act of physical harm or the creation of a reasonable fear thereof, or the intentional infliction of emotional distress by a parent or a present or former member of the household of the child, against the child or another member of the household, including coercive control by a parent involving physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, economic or financial abuse,b. “stalking” means the willful course of conduct by a parent who repeatedly follows or harasses another person as defined in Section 1173 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, and
c. “harassment” means a knowing and willful course or pattern of conduct by a parent directed at another parent which seriously alarms or is a nuisance to the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose including, but not limited to, harassing or obscene telephone calls or conduct that would cause a reasonable person to have a fear of death or bodily injury.
16. If a parent is absent or relocates as a result of an act of domestic violence by the other parent, the absence or relocation shall not be a factor that weighs against the parent in determining custody or visitation.
17. The court shall consider, as a primary factor, the safety and well-being of the child and of the parent who is the victim of domestic violence or stalking behavior, in addition to other facts regarding the best interest of the child.
The court shall consider the history of the parent causing physical harm, bodily injury, assault, verbal threats, stalking, or harassing behavior, or the fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault to another person, including the minor child, in determining issues regarding custody and visitation.
§43-110.1. Shared parenting - Policy.
19. It is the policy of this state to assure that minor children have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interests of their children and to encourage parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of rearing their children after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, provided that the parents agree to cooperate and that domestic violence, stalking, or harassing behaviors as defined in Section 109 of this title are not present in the parental relationship. To effectuate this policy, if requested by a parent, the court may provide substantially equal access to the minor children to both parents at a temporary order hearing, unless the court finds that shared parenting would be detrimental to the child.
20. §43-112.6. Awarding of attorney fees and costs – Victim of domestic violence or stalking. In a dissolution of marriage or separate maintenance or custody proceeding, a victim of domestic violence or stalking shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs after the filing of a petition, upon application and a showing by a preponderance of evidence that the party is currently being stalked or has been stalked or is the victim of domestic abuse. The court shall order that the attorney fees and costs of the victimized party for the proceeding be substantially paid for by the abusing party prior to and after the entry of a final order.
21. §43-112.2.- In every case involving the custody of, guardianship of or visitation with a child, the court shall consider for determining the custody of, guardianship of or the visitation with a child whether any person seeking custody or who has custody guardianship of or visitation with a child: 4. Has been convicted of domestic abuse within the past five (5) years;
There shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interests of the child to have custody or guardianship granted to a person who: 4. Has been convicted of domestic abuse within the past five (5) years;
§43-112.5- C.
In applying subsection A of this section, a court shall award custody or guardianship of a child to a parent, unless the court finds that the parent is affirmatively unfit. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a parent is affirmatively unfit if the parent: 4. Has been convicted of domestic abuse within the past five (5) years;
According to §43-109.1 If the parents of a minor unmarried child are separated without being divorced, the judge of the district court, upon application of either parent, may issue any civil process necessary to inquire into the custody of said minor unmarried child. The court may award the custody of said child to either party or both, in accordance with the best interests of the child, for such time and pursuant to such regulations as the case may require.
And according to §43-109.3 In every case involving the custody of, guardianship of or visitation with a child, the court shall consider evidence of domestic abuse, stalking and/or harassing behavior properly brought before it. If the occurrence of domestic abuse, stalking or harassing behavior is established by a preponderance of the evidence, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interest of the child to have custody, guardianship, or unsupervised visitation granted to the person against whom domestic abuse, stalking or harassing behavior has been established.
The petitioner is a client with Palomar, Wings for Hope and the YWCA (YWCA advocate Lisa Epperson. Exhibit 19 is a letter from Ms. Epperson confirming that the petitioner is one of their clients.
Exhibit 20 is an article from world renowned author Lundy Bancroft given to the petitioner by her Y advocate. In the article’s first paragraph Bancroft states, “Contrary to popular belief, children of batterers can be at just as much risk psychologically, sexually, and even physically after the couple splits up as they were when the family was still together. In fact, many children experience the most damaging victimization from the abuser at this point. A genuine batterer can be convincingly play the part of a man who has been unfairly accused, and batterers who will be a grave risk to their children during unsupervised visitation can be hard to separate from those who can visit safely. The insights and expertise of those service providers who have extensive experience working directly with abusers needs to be drawn from, and the level of contribution from victims themselves to policy design also needs to be greatly increased. Custody and visitation battles amidst allegations of domestic violence require policies and interveners (judges, mediators, and Guardians Ad Litem) based in the most detailed knowledge, experience, sensitivity, and integrity. The stakes for children are very high.”
It is the understanding of the petitioning party that in order for the court to grant temporary emergency custody, the petitioner must prove the risk of irreparable harm to the children. It is also the petitioner’s understanding that irreparable harm can be defined as such: Anytime a child is in danger would constitute irreparable harm because the child is very likely to be permanently harmed, either intentionally or unintentionally, while in the care of the impaired person.
Given the exhibits put forth above and adding Exhibits 21 and 22, which are video recordings of the two children who were being held by the respondent and were retrieved after being left by the respondent with a cousin. In the videos the children, who are 6 and 8 years old, speak of the caretaker, Crystal Vick and her treatment of them. They express that she called them “dumb” as well as the fact that they did not feel safe with her and that they do not feel that their siblings are safe.
Given the facts and evidence presented above, if the court has the ability to see the situation from the perspective of the children, the court should see a serious, not only risk, but deep levels of irreparable harm already done to the children.
- The children were exposed to serious instances of domestic violence for an extended period of time.
- When their mother was finally able to escape the abuse and get them into hiding, they were immediately
illegally kidnapped by the cps entity using high powered assault rifles and taken to a person who had just shot at them a couple of months prior. (Exhibit 23 is a video of the day that Lee’s husband, William Lee, opened fire on the family when they were there to get their children of whom J Lee and W Lee had no legal custody. In the video, Lee is not seen shooting the firearm, but he is seen to be holding it in an extremely emotional display). - The children were then stolen by their abusive father whom they fear and hidden from their mother. Left with a woman, Runnells, whom they do not know and who neglected them along with the respondent.
- They were then transferred to a dangerous woman, Crystal Vick, whom they also do not know well, who is diagnosed with mental illness, has been hitting them and has cut them off from their mother.
The petitioner seeks immediate relief in the form of emergency custody to prevent further harm to the children and to protect their safety from the violent, dangerous and abusive mentally ill siblings, Elijah and Crystal Vick.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Hospital Record
More extensive Hospital report (79 pages)
bell0017_dy3564_151584226-2.pdf |
Exhibit 2:
Download file for full details.
|
Exhibit 3:
|
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
|
|
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Exhibit 10:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit 11:
elijah admitting to the abuse
|
elijah- "you're a c*nt alicia"
|
elijah rambling on and on about what he thinks I need to do
|
Elijah the abuser, go to therapy for my abuse of you before you see the children
|
Exhibit 12:
Exhibit 13:
oscn_case_details.pdf |
Exhibit 14:
oscn_case_details.pdf_-_crystal_vick.pdf |
Exhibit 15:
Exhibit 16:
(At around 15 minutes is when Crystal Vick starts to become irate and showing the nature of her mental illness)
(At around 15 minutes is when Crystal Vick starts to become irate and showing the nature of her mental illness)
Exhibit 17:
(45 mins.)
(45 mins.)
Exhibit 18:
Exhibit 19:
Exhibit 20:
understanding_the_batterer_in_custody_and_visitation_disputes_-_lundy_bancroft.pdf |
Exhibit 21:
maxs_interviews-4.pdf |
Exhibit 22:
mazis_interview.pdf |
Exhibit 24:
This is a video taken on the night of March 30, 2021. After over 2 months of the respondent prohibiting the children from speaking with or seeing their mother, after the court hearing on 3/25/21 in an effort to stop himself from looking so extremely evil, after court he allowed their 10 year old daughter to call her mom who she loves very much. Petitioner took a screen recording of the call, but audio is not available when screen recording FaceTime. The petitioner's daughter can be seen caring for the petitioner's 1 year old son who misses his mother and does not understand why he cannot see her. The baby was nursing at the time the children were taken. The baby is crying and no one can be seen to come to comfort the baby. The petitioner knows from almost a decade of involvement with the respondent that he is not in a mental place to care for children and the children must be freed from this extreme and dangerous situation that has struck a serious blow to the psyche of all of the involved children.
This is a video taken on the night of March 30, 2021. After over 2 months of the respondent prohibiting the children from speaking with or seeing their mother, after the court hearing on 3/25/21 in an effort to stop himself from looking so extremely evil, after court he allowed their 10 year old daughter to call her mom who she loves very much. Petitioner took a screen recording of the call, but audio is not available when screen recording FaceTime. The petitioner's daughter can be seen caring for the petitioner's 1 year old son who misses his mother and does not understand why he cannot see her. The baby was nursing at the time the children were taken. The baby is crying and no one can be seen to come to comfort the baby. The petitioner knows from almost a decade of involvement with the respondent that he is not in a mental place to care for children and the children must be freed from this extreme and dangerous situation that has struck a serious blow to the psyche of all of the involved children.