03x116 - Custody, Kidnapping, and Harassment, Oh My!

[bunniefuu]

- You were married to him?
- Yes, Your Honor.

I have a permanent
Order of Protection, and my child.

- Not by my choice.
- He has fought the restraining order.

So I can see my son
that she has kidnapped.

You have no right with regard
to this child. That's the law.

- Do not bother her again.
- [announcer] This is Judy Justice.

[theme music]

[announcer] Melissa Grajek is suing
her ex-husband, Adham Elebyany,

for moving expenses, travel costs,
legal fees, and harassment.

[Kevin]
Court come to order. All rise.

- [Judy] Have a seat please.
- Case 3182, Grajek versus Elebyany.

- Thank you.
- You're welcome.

[Judy]
Ms. Grajek, you were married to him?

- Yes, Your Honor.
- [Judy] From when to when?

A short marriage from September 2014,

our divorce was finalized
December of 2016.

[Judy]
And that marriage produced a child?

- Yes, Your Honor.
- That child was born in what year?

He was born in the fall of 2015.

[Judy] This is an interesting case and an
area that I'm somewhat familiar with.

When your divorce was final,
according to you,

you got full custody of your son, correct?
And there was issued, at some point,

a permanent Order of Protection
that kept your husband, Elebyany,

- away from you and the boy.
- Yes, Your Honor.

Who issued that order and when?

An emergency Order of Protection
was issued in May of 2016,

which was later, after a hearing,
made a five-year restraining order,

protecting both myself and my child.

- You remember that order, sir?
- [Adham] Yes.

- You remember that trial?
- Yes.

[Judy] Now, the five-year order
issued included the boy?

- [Melissa] Yes, Your Honor.
- Do you have a copy of that order?

- I do, Your Honor.
- [Judy] I'd like to see it.

You... the five-year?

- Yes.
- [Melissa] Okay.

So it was originally issued
and then amended to the final five-year.

Before I look at this, I just want
to lay out the facts of the case.

It is your claim
that the defendant's actions

by continuing to file cases against you
is harassment and abuse of the system.

And that because of his stalking and
harassment, you've had to move, lost work.

And his behavior,
by this harassment and stalking

and multiple filings of multiple cases
when there is no basis for filing,

is nothing more
than really aggravated harassment.

The defendant has a counterclaim due to
mental distress and kidnapping his son.

That's what his counterclaim is.

Is there any decision
other than this order?

So I have some decisions
that were made later on,

as far as like our minute orders
from hearings.

I also have a Criminal Protective Order
that protects my son.

[Adham] I object, Your Honor.
There's no Criminal Protective Order.

It expired in 2020.

[Judy] That doesn't make any difference
whether it expired, sir. It existed.

You, I understand.

A court issuing an order that precludes
a father from seeing his child.

And this case gets more complicated

because his parental rights
were terminated,

with his consent, he signed off
on terminating his parental rights

and the child has
subsequently been adopted by your husband.

That puts the case sort of in context.
Do you have your judgment of divorce?

No, Your Honor.

- The judgment of divorce was 2016?
- Yes, Your Honor.

Who got custody of the child?
Was it joint custody?

No. He never... I've... from day one,
I've had sole custody, physical and legal.

- Physical and legal?
- [Melissa] Yes, Your Honor.

- Okay. Is that correct, Mr. Elebyany?
- Yeah.

[Judy]
Now, you remarried in what year?

I remarried in March of 2018.

Do you have any children
from that marriage?

- No, Your Honor.
- You're still married?

[Melissa]
No, Your Honor.

That's what comes into play for the
upcoming harassment that's been recent.

We separated in December of 2021.

Our divorce was finalized in May of '22.

[Judy] Okay. So the person who adopted
your son is no longer your husband?

- Correct, Your Honor.
- [Judy] Okay.

- But he's still the legal father.
- [Judy] I understand that.

- Did you remarry?
- I get married next week.

- And I see you're expecting?
- Yes, Your Honor.

- [Judy] When?
- Next month.

[Judy] Okay. In what month and year
did the defendant agree

- to terminate his parental rights?
- February of 2022.

- No. That's not correct. January 2019.
- Shh.

- January 2019?
- Yes.

Where was it that you actually...
was it in a lawyer's office?

- Was it in a courthouse?
- San Diego Courthouse, North County.

- So you appeared before a judge?
- [Adham] Yes.

- And the judge asked you questions?
- Correct.

And when the judge asked you questions,
because I've been there,

the judge had to tell you that once you've
agreed to terminate your parental rights,

you are free from the obligation
to support the child?

- Correct.
- [Judy] Judge told you that?

That you have no rights
to see the child or...

That's incorrect, actually.

You mean, the judge didn't explain to you

that once you terminate
your parental rights...

I have here the adoption agreement.
It allows me visitation time.

May I see?

Okay. This is very clear, sir.
It doesn't say what you indicate.

It says "Any contact between
the boy and his cousins

shall be arranged through the mothers.

Future contact between the boy and the
respondent or extended family members,"

Respondent, that's you.

"May be arranged provided
there is no restraining order

or a Criminal Protective Order in place,

and as long as [...] desires
and initiates such contact."

- Correct.
- [Judy] Not you.

[Adham]
I understand.

- It doesn't give you any rights.
- [Adham] Correct.

But it doesn't specify
who can be the custodian on that

and I asked the court for a guardian
ad litem to make the determination.

You asked that of the court in what year?

October 2023.

And this agreement,
which is a settlement agreement, was 2021?

Let's call it what it is.

- It's blackmail because...
- Just...

- I'm gonna finish with this part of it.
- Yes.

- [Judy] This agreement is 2021.
- Correct.

And the last Order of Protection
expired when?

I have a permanent Order of Protection.

- [Judy] For you?
- [Melissa] And my child.

- Is that here?
- [Melissa] Yes, Your Honor.

It's the final one
from August of 2022, I believe.

And when that
termination agreement was signed,

the Criminal Protective Order...

- That's 2020.
- ...protecting only my child...

- Shh. Just a second.
- [Melissa] ...was still...

Would you ask her to just give me
the order that makes it permanent

in favor of herself and the child?
Unless, of course, you acknowledge

that there is a permanent
Order of Protection.

- [Adham] I acknowledge it, ma'am.
- Okay. Never mind.

- [Adham] But I'm acknowledging it's 2022.
- Shh. Don't speak.

I'm just saving myself a little time, sir.

[theme music]

There is a permanent
restraining order in place.

You have no right to seek anything
with regard to this child.

There's nothing here that gives you
any right to file cases.

- [Adham] Correct.
- I'm just telling you.

- [Adham] Yes.
- That's the law.

[theme music]

[announcer] Melissa Grajek has accused
her ex-husband, Adham Elebyany,

of harassing her for custody of their son.

Adham is countersuing, claiming Melissa
forced him to give up his parental rights.

Okay. There is a permanent
Order of Protection

in favor of the plaintiff and the child

- against... and you are the respondent.
- Correct.

- And it is a no contact order.
- Correct.

Okay. So this settlement agreement
that you entered into, sir...

- Mhm.
- ...says that any future contact with you

may be arranged,
provided there is no restraining

- or Criminal Protective Order in place.
- Correct.

- And [...] initiates the contact.
- Correct.

So there is a permanent
restraining order in place.

You have no right to seek anything
with regard to this child.

As long as that permanent
restraining order is in place,

there's nothing here that gives you
any right to file cases.

- [Adham] Correct.
- I'm just telling you.

[Adham] Yes.
- That's the law.

That's what
your settlement agreement says.

- [Adham] Correct.
- You agree with that?

- Of course.
- [Judy] And you would agree

that you have filed multiple proceedings
in order to see your son?

- How many?
- One.

- [Melissa] No, Your Honor.
- Only one.

He's filed two petitions
in the state of Arizona

and one petition
in the state of California.

- That's incorrect, ma'am.
- I have a copy of it.

I'd like to see them. You sure?
Two in Arizona, one in California

after your parental rights
were terminated.

[Adham] I filed to request
that the restraining order be set aside.

[Judy]
Just a second. You said one.

She says three. There's a difference.
One and three.

This is first Arizona, California,
and second Arizona.

- Two... That would be three.
- That's one hearing, ma'am.

[Judy] Well, it would be three.
Two in one state, one in another state.

- Where do you work, sir?
- Oh, I'm self-employed.

- Where is your office?
- I have a home office.

- [Judy] Where's your home?
- In Georgia.

Now, I'm gonna tell you,
you have no right to have any contact

with her or your son.
Do you understand that?

- Yes, I do.
- [Judy] Very good.

And you did have contact,
ongoing contact with her,

when there is a permanent restraining
order in favor of her and your son

- to keep you away.
- Correct.

- You have a defense?
- Yes, ma'am, I do.

[Judy] I'd like to hear,
'cause what your defense here

is that you were forced to sign a document
terminating your parental rights

- and the court should vacate it?
- No. I did not ask for that.

[Judy]
Well, what did you ask for?

My ask of the court
was not to vacate this order.

I do not care about vacating this order.

My ask of the court
was to set aside the restraining order

and hire a guardian ad litem to see
if my son wants to see me or not.

And the judge said?

The judge said that the statute
of limitation on that has passed.

That I should have... I should have
filed an appeal back in 2020, so...

Yeah. Judge Ola had...
just read your settlement.

The settlement says that you cannot move
to see your child, unless, one,

- there is no longer a restraining order...
- Mhm.

- [Judy] ...in favor of the child.
- Correct.

[Judy] The only thing that you can do
to mitigate this settlement agreement

is to go back to the court and say,

"I'm moving to vacate the order,
the permanent restraining order."

It's gonna be denied,

- so you could save yourself some money.
- He did, Your Honor.

And then, then I would ask the court

to assign a guardian ad litem
to see if my son wants to see me.

- [Adham] That's exactly what I did.
- Just a... just a second.

- They didn't vacate the order.
- No.

- [Judy] Well, then you can't file.
- I didn't.

[Judy]
Just... shh.

[Adham] That's what happened.
That's exactly what happened in March.

And I did not file anything
since then, ma'am.

She's doing this
because I filed one time in four years

a request to set aside
the restraining order

so I can see my son that she has kidnaped.

Okay. I'm not getting into that.

- If I may.
- [Judy] Yes.

So because he has fought the restraining
order over and over and over again

over the last...
since it was issued in 2016,

Mr. Elebyany was actually declared
a vexatious litigant

in the state of California in 2019

- and then he was declared again...
- Would you look that up please?

That was in 2019?

- [Melissa] I have a copy of that order.
- [Judy] Yeah, I'd like to see it.

I also have a copy here.

This is my permission
to grant me to file...

- Shh.
- [Adham] ...as granted by the judge.

[Judy]
While she's looking for that order, sir,

I would just like to know,
can you tell me,

- you haven't seen your son since 2000...
- '18.

[Judy] 2018.
And have had no communication with him?

- Not by my choice.
- Of course, by your choice, sir.

- [Adham] Of course not.
- Of course, it's by your choice.

You agreed to terminate
your parental rights

and have no rights whatsoever to see him.

No, ma'am. That's not what happened.

He is on the... on the list
in San Diego Superior Court.

- I'm acknowledging that.
- [Judy] Shh.

The date being December 12th, 2019.
He was added to that list.

- Just a second. So in 2019...
- [Melissa] Yes.

...you were added to the list of people
who could no longer file any actions

relative to this case
in the state of California?

Without permission of a judge.

And some judge, who didn't read it right,
gave you permission,

ultimately,
you were told you can't file here.

No. Ultimately, I was denied
because I should have appealed the order.

[scoffs] Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Go. Let me see it.

So this is the order
that lists vexatious litigant.

[Judy]
Sir, do you have any other children?

- Yes.
- [Judy] How many?

- Two more.
- [Judy] How old are they?

[Adham]
Four and five.

- Where do they live?
- With me.

- Are you married?
- No. Divorced.

- [Judy] You got custody?
- No.

- Correct.
- No, Your Honor.

- [Judy] Shh. Just a second.
- My witness is...

- Let him answer.
- [Melissa] Okay.

Let him answer please.

You are the primary custodian
of those children?

For the past three years...

- for the past four years.
- [Judy] Shh. Where is their mother?

- Oh, that would be you?
- That would be me. Yes, ma'am.

- Okay. Stand up. You have two children?
- We do.

- [Judy] Four and five years old?
- Yes, ma'am.

- Did they live with you?
- We have a... no.

- [Judy] That's my question.
- Yes, ma'am.

[Judy]
Just follow me. They do not live with you?

- No.
- [Judy] And they have not lived with you

- for the last four years?
- Incorrect.

When was the last time
they lived with you?

They do... we do have an order.
It's a temporary order.

They do come see me on a frequent basis.

- I didn't ask you whether they...
- Lived with me 2021.

- 2020.
- [Alicia] '21.

Whatever. For the last several years,

their father has been
their sole custodian?

- Not by my choice, no.
- [Judy] Who cares by whose...

- It had to be by a judge's choice.
- [Alicia] Yes.

And however judges usually say...
we're supposed to say,

"We see no difference
in the sexes, mother, father.

Nobody has greater rights to a child,
mother or father." Most judges say,

"You know, if there's nothing wrong with
the mother, then little kids should be..."

and the children were little then.

"We're gonna let these little children
be raised by their father."

The father whose parental rights
were terminated

and not only parental rights terminated

but a final Order of Protection exists
in favor of a child

who is older than your children.

- You...
- I do have something to say.

This is all temporary
in the state of Georgia.

I wanna tell you something, madam.

- [Alicia] It's...
- Three years isn't temporary.

- If I didn't see my dog for two days...
- [Alicia] Correct. I have...

...I would say to myself,

- "What happened? My life is over."
- [Alicia, indistinct]

I don't... sit down. I got it.

- Sit. Yeah.
- [Alicia] Okay. Yes, ma'am.

[theme music]

Your defense to her action
was that you were blackmailed.

And the reason you were blackmailed

is because she said you're going to have
to support him to the tune of $50,000,

and that was enough for you to say,
"Okay, where do I sign?"

[theme music]

[announcer] Melissa Grajek claims
her ex-husband, Adham Elebyany,

has used the court system
to harass her for many years.

Adham is countersuing
for emotional distress,

claiming Melissa refuses
to let him see their son.

- [Judy] Okay.
- Judge, can I say something please?

I'm just looking at this.

"This court has substantial concerns
about the respondent's inability

to understand the consequences
of his behavior.

Although, the respondent
has shown an ability,

- at times, to regulate his behavior."
- There was judicial misconduct in my case

to the point where I shouted at the judge
and his bailiff in the courtroom

and this is what he is referring to
and this is why he punished me

and prevented me from having my son.
It has nothing to do

- with serious actions of mine.
- No, what first prohibited you,

Mr. Elebyany, from having your son
was the fact that you agreed

- to terminate your parental rights.
- [Adham] That's incorrect, ma'am.

- It was... 2016...
- Just a second.

And you said... just a second.

And you said that your defense to her
action was that you were blackmailed.

- That's what you said to me.
- Correct.

And the reason you were blackmailed

is because she said you're going to have
to support him to the tune of $50,000.

And that was enough for you to say,
"Okay, where do I sign?"

- Give me... just show me where I...
- [Adham] That's incorrect, ma'am.

- Let me see what it says.
- I gave her $40,000

in three and a half years.

"Eventually,
Melissa was able to adopt my son

with her new husband
because she blackmailed me.

She said that
if I didn't sign the paperwork,

I would have to pay $50,000
in child support,

which she knew I didn't have.
She had attorneys

and I couldn't afford a lawyer at
the time, so I signed the paperwork."

[Adham] She file to hold me
in contempt of the court order.

And at the time,
I was a Green Card holder.

So she used that, and if I violated that,
I would have been deported.

- Take this back. Okay.
- [Melissa] Your Honor,

he had an attorney for the adoption.
I have a copy of his attorney,

- the court assigning him one.
- Did the court assign you an attorney

- for the adoption?
- [Adham] Of course.

Okay. So you were represented by council?

- Correct.
- [Judy] Good. Okay.

It's a particularly sad case
but not very difficult to rule on.

You may have made a mistake

when you consented to terminate
your parental rights. May have.

Which allowed for your son to be adopted.
You can't continue to t*rture her.

Shh. Don't... I'm ruling now.
So, you can't continue to t*rture her.

And there has to be
some financial consequence for you

because two judges have already told you
you have to stop annoying her.

- Actually, no, ma'am.
- [Judy] You've got... don't.

- Don't speak.
- She asked for...

- Hey...
- [Adham] ...double jeopardy, ma'am.

...what part of my mouth
don't you understand?

This is not a back and forth anymore.
Now, I'm ruling.

And what I'm telling you is,
sir, this is my ruling.

- And that's an incorrect ruling, ma'am.
- [Judy] This is... this is my ruling.

- It's unconstitutional.
- [Judy] This is my ruling.

- A judge already denied her sanction.
- [Judy] This... listen to me.

This is my playpen.
They cut off your mic.

- [Adham] Correct.
- So it's like my not hearing you.

I'm ruling now and I'm telling you
that I am awarding her $5,000

to send a message to you,
do not bother her again.

However... so that's my judgment.

I'm dismissing your counterclaim
as it is of no merit.

But what I'm suggesting to you is...
and this is just a suggestion.

He clearly, in the mind of some judge,

was sufficiently fit to be a fulltime
custodian for two small children

because she may have had...
I don't know what kind of problem she had.

But to grant custody to a father

who has a protective order for another
child permanently during his minority,

it must have been some beaut of evidence.
Don't shake your head.

So all I'm saying to you is I'm not so
sure that somewhere down the line

your son would like to be able
to see all of his half-siblings,

the ones that you're gonna have
and the ones that his father has. Maybe.

Yes, Your Honor.
The mother and I have talked.

And when it is safe, that is definitely
something we're open to.

Great. Okay.
That's my ruling. Judgment for plaintiff,

- $5,000. Thank you.
- [Melissa] Thank you, Your Honor.

- This court is adjourned.
- [theme music]

It's double jeopardy.
She was denied sanctions before.

He has no interest in my child.
He just doesn't want...

he wants to punish me
by making sure I can't have access.

I mean, they are both scorned women.

He's just trying to control
the situation, the people, the kids.

He wants to control everybody. And if it's
not going his way, it's a problem for him.

I just wanna see my son. Just...
that's all I want, just to see my son.

I don't foresee an end coming,

but we'll keep doing whatever we can
to protect our kids.

[Sarah] You know, one thing
I'm sure you're also wondering

is how a judge would grant the defendant
permanent custody, physical and legal,

of two younger children when there's an
outstanding permanent restraining order,

which is not a low burden to meet
to receive a permanent restraining order,

especially for a biological child.

So I'm just wondering
if that was an oversight on the judge

that granted him the custody
of the two younger ones

or maybe the plaintiff's witness,
the mother of those children,

really had a record that we didn't see,

because I can't think of a reason why I
or you or any judge should be granting

that sort of custody to someone

who had this outstanding
permanent restraining order.

[Judy] Don't know, except she was
probably a beaut with something.

And as between foster care,
and state care, and father,

the court granted him custody,
and it's evidently been without incident

over the last three years,
because he still has physical custody.

But I think what I said
at the end of the case,

aside from the fact that she was right,
he's making her life a living hell,

since he is raising
these two young children,

and these two young children are siblings
of this boy, they should consider it.

And I see that these two ex-wives

- have at least been talking...
- Sure.

...with regard to that.

You know, I would agree,
and I usually agree with that sentiment

of the children always come first
and they should meet their half-siblings,

but I think there's a lot underlying
in that permanent restraining order

- that we did not hear here today.
- Yeah. Right.

[Sarah]
So you never know what's going on.

But she seemed open to it
when it was safe,

- so that was, at least, a good step.
- She did. She did.

[announcer] Are you a victim
of an as*ault?

[theme music]