Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
STANLEY MICHAEL WILLIAMS
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION FILE
vs.
NO. 20FM5772
SARA REBECCA CAUTHEN
WILLIAMS
Defendant.
DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
TEMPORARY CUSTODY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
COMES NOW the Defendant, SARA REBECCA CAUTHEN WILLIAMS, in the
above-styled matter and moves this Honorable Court to grant an emergency hearing to
issue a protective order and temporary custody order by showing the following, to-wit:
1.
That on or about May 26, 2012, STANLEY MICHAEL WILLIAMS (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the “Father”) and SARA REBECCA CAUTHEN WILLIAMS
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Mother’) were married.
2.
That there is one (1) minor child as a result of this marriage, to-wit: ROMAN
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, born in 2013.
3.
That the parties have been separated since November 2016, in which the Mother
has been the primary caretaker of the minor child.4.
That on or about August 13, 2020, the Father filed the above-styled divorce
action.
5.
That during the pendency of this litigation, the Mother was offered an
employment opportunity in the State of Florida. The parties agreed that the Mother
could re-locate to the State of Florida with the minor child, and allow regular contact
between the Father and the minor child.
6.
That on or about December 21, 2021, this Honorable Court issued its ORDER
APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, in which Heather Wright was appointed, by
agreement of counsel, as the Guardian ad Litem for the minor child (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the “Guardian’).
7.
That the Guardian completed an extensive investigation which included meeting
with the parties, interviews with witnesses, home visits with each party (in the States of
Georgia and Florida), observations of each party with the minor child, and review of
numerous documents.
8.
That on or about May 3, 2022, the Guardian issued her findings and
recommendations to the parties’ counsel. In pertinent part, the Guardian ad Litem
found,That the Mother's relocation to the State of Florida was not based on any
intent to limit the Father's parenting time or to harm the Father's
relationship with minor child.
That the Father has demonstrated a lot of anger and animosity toward the
Mother, which is entirely misplaced as the Mother has made a sound
decision to improve her life and financial circumstances.
That with regard to the Mother's living arrangements, the house is nice
and acceptable for the minor child’s residence. The minor child attends a
good school and has a good nanny, who helps with after school care and
on the weekends when the Mother is required to work.
That the Father has been very difficult, argumentative, and has a high
level of anger and animosity toward Mom that he shows to the minor child.
The Father has mentioned conversations with the minor child that involve
matters regarding the custody case that he should not be having with the
minor child.
That with regard to the Father's living arrangements, the Father's current
living situation is wholly unsuitable for the minor child. The Father has a
makeshift “loft” in the basement of an industrial building. The minor child
does not have his own room or space, sleeping in the same full/queen bed
with the Father. The finished space (drywall and drop ceiling) opens into
an industrial storage area full of tools and other equipment that is stored
on the property. The entire “loft” spells like gasoline and other chemicals.° That the Mother is actually doing the actions necessary to care for minor
child.
° That the Father needs to make some hard decisions about his living
arrangements and his attitude toward the Mother.
. That the Father's bitterness towards the Mother is not healthy for the
minor child.
9.
That to date, the Mother has not received any notice from the Father that he has
obtained alternative living arrangements for himself and the minor child (when he will
visit). As such, this illustrates the Father's denial of the Guardian’s concerns and his
ignorance to the needs of the minor child.
10.
That ultimately, the Guardian recommended that the Mother have primary
physical custody of the minor child and decision-making authority. Further, the
Guardian recommended that the Father should not have any overnight parenting time
until he relocates to an acceptable residence.
11.
That prior to the issuance of the Guardian’s recommendation, the Father has
attempted to thwart the minor child's continued enrollment at the school he has been
attending. Such actions were purely malicious and intent on hurting/frustrating the
Mother; the Father was clearly not thinking of the best interests of the minor child.12,
That since the issuance of the Guardian's recommendation, the Father has
continued to contact the minor child’s school in an attempt to dis-enroll him.
13,
That on or about May 16, 2022, the Mother's employer received a letter, at his
personal residence, from the Father (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Letter’).
In the Letter, the Father made unfounded, meritless assertions which jeopardizes the
Mother's continued employment as well as the well-being of the minor child.
14.
That in the Letter, the Father blames the Mother's employer for “proactively
seeking to remove [his] rights to be a father”. The Mother’s employer is a non-
participant in this litigation and has absolutely nothing to do with the custody issues that
are being present to this Honorable Court.
15.
That in the Letter, the Father states, in pertinent part, that
“[wlell if | have to lose, | prefer the company of others. You
want to take my child away from me? Well | hope | am able
to return the favor. .. | hope that the prison you will be
occupying will allow you visitation with your children.”
16.
That in the Letter, the Father concludes with an extortious offer with which to
comply by June 6, 2022.17.
That the Letter jeopardizes the Mother's continued employment by threatening to
publish meritless claims in order to seek his prosecution.
18.
That the Letter serves no legitimate purpose, and violates numerous criminal
laws.
19.
That Paragraph 9 of this Honorable Court's AUTOMATIC STANDING ORDER
GOVERNING ALL DOMESTIC CASES, filed in this matter, states, in pertinent part, that
“[elach party is hereby enjoined and restrained from doing,
or attempting to do, or threatening to do, any act injuring,
maltreating, vilifying, molesting or harassing the adverse
party or the child(ren) of the parties.”
20.
That notwithstanding said Order, the Father has failed and/or refused to restrain
from making defamatory comments to third parties, as illustrated in the Letter. It is clear
that the spite and anger that he has towards the Mother is unchecked; as a result, the
safety and well-being of the minor child is a concern of the Mother and the Guardian.
21.
That such a failure and/or refusal is wilful and without justification.22.
That this Honorable Court should issue an order enjoining and restrain the Father
from any acts directly or indirectly which harass and/or intimidate Mr. Mark Brennan.
Further, the Father should be enjoined from approaching within five hundred (500)
yards of Mr. Brennan and Mr. Brennan’s residence, located at or about 241 Maxwell
Street, Decatur, Georgia 30030. In addition, the Father should be prohibited from
having any contact of any type, direct or indirect, or through another person with Mr.
Brennan, including but not limited to telephone, pager, fax, e-mail, mail, or any other
means of communication with one exception: should the Father wish to communicate
with Mr. Brennan, he may do so by contacting Mr. Brennan's attorney, Mr. Alex Merritt,
at the DeWoskin Law Firm at 404-987-0026 or via email at alex@atlantatrial.com.
23.
That this Honorable Court issue an order specifically prohibiting the Father from
publishing any defamatory or extortious materials concerning the Mother, her relatives,
her friends, or associates.
24.
That given the Father's current state of mind, as expressed to the Guardian and
others, it is not known what he will do with the minor child as he incorrectly believes that
the minor child was wrongly taken away from him. The Mother is gravely concerned
that the Father will take actions that are contrary to the minor child’s safety and well-
being.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays:
(a) That the Plaintiff be served with a copy of this Motion as provided by law;(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(
(g)
That an emergency and expedited hearing be scheduled to consider this
Motion and admit documentary evidence in support thereof (which is not
attached to this Motion in order to protect the privacy of third parties but
will be made available at any scheduled hearing);
That an order issue preventing the Father from direct contact with the
Mother's employer;
That an order issue preventing the Father from making disparaging
statements to third parties about the Mother;
That a temporary order issues granting temporary physical and legal
custody of the minor child to the Defendant;
That the Plaintiff be held in contempt of court for violating its AMENDED
STANDING ORDER GOVERNING ALL DOMESTIC CASES; and
That this Honorable Court grant such other relief as it deems reasonable
and necessary.
This | 1 day of May, 2022.
For he Firm:
gory D. Golden
eorgia Bar No. 299542
One Securities Centre
Suite 600
3490 Piedmont Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
(404) 460-4500
greg@kgfamilylaw.comIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
STANLEY MICHAEL WILLIAMS
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION FILE
vs.
NO. 20FM5772
SARA REBECCA CAUTHEN
WILLIAMS
Defendant.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that | have this day served counsel for the opposing party in the
foregoing matter and the Guardian ad Litem with a copy of this pleading by depositing in
the United States Mail a copy of same in a properly addressed envelope with adequate
postage thereon.
This | H say of May, 2022.
KUPFERMAN & GOLDEN
Georgia Bar No. 299542
One Securities Centre
Suite 600
3490 Piedmont Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
(404) 460-4500
grea@kafamilylaw.com
Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA STANLEY MICHAEL WILLIAMS Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE vs. NO. 20FM5772 SARA REBECCA CAUTHEN WILLIAMS Defendant. DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TEMPORARY CUSTODY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR CONTEMPT COMES NOW the Defendant, SARA REBECCA CAUTHEN WILLIAMS, in the above-styled matter and moves this Honorable Court to grant an emergency hearing to issue a protective order and temporary custody order by showing the following, to-wit: 1. That on or about May 26, 2012, STANLEY MICHAEL WILLIAMS (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Father”) and SARA REBECCA CAUTHEN WILLIAMS (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Mother’) were married. 2. That there is one (1) minor child as a result of this marriage, to-wit: ROMAN MICHAEL WILLIAMS, born in 2013. 3. That the parties have been separated since November 2016, in which the Mother has been the primary caretaker of the minor child.4. That on or about August 13, 2020, the Father filed the above-styled divorce action. 5. That during the pendency of this litigation, the Mother was offered an employment opportunity in the State of Florida. The parties agreed that the Mother could re-locate to the State of Florida with the minor child, and allow regular contact between the Father and the minor child. 6. That on or about December 21, 2021, this Honorable Court issued its ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD LITEM, in which Heather Wright was appointed, by agreement of counsel, as the Guardian ad Litem for the minor child (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Guardian’). 7. That the Guardian completed an extensive investigation which included meeting with the parties, interviews with witnesses, home visits with each party (in the States of Georgia and Florida), observations of each party with the minor child, and review of numerous documents. 8. That on or about May 3, 2022, the Guardian issued her findings and recommendations to the parties’ counsel. In pertinent part, the Guardian ad Litem found,That the Mother's relocation to the State of Florida was not based on any intent to limit the Father's parenting time or to harm the Father's relationship with minor child. That the Father has demonstrated a lot of anger and animosity toward the Mother, which is entirely misplaced as the Mother has made a sound decision to improve her life and financial circumstances. That with regard to the Mother's living arrangements, the house is nice and acceptable for the minor child’s residence. The minor child attends a good school and has a good nanny, who helps with after school care and on the weekends when the Mother is required to work. That the Father has been very difficult, argumentative, and has a high level of anger and animosity toward Mom that he shows to the minor child. The Father has mentioned conversations with the minor child that involve matters regarding the custody case that he should not be having with the minor child. That with regard to the Father's living arrangements, the Father's current living situation is wholly unsuitable for the minor child. The Father has a makeshift “loft” in the basement of an industrial building. The minor child does not have his own room or space, sleeping in the same full/queen bed with the Father. The finished space (drywall and drop ceiling) opens into an industrial storage area full of tools and other equipment that is stored on the property. The entire “loft” spells like gasoline and other chemicals.° That the Mother is actually doing the actions necessary to care for minor child. ° That the Father needs to make some hard decisions about his living arrangements and his attitude toward the Mother. . That the Father's bitterness towards the Mother is not healthy for the minor child. 9. That to date, the Mother has not received any notice from the Father that he has obtained alternative living arrangements for himself and the minor child (when he will visit). As such, this illustrates the Father's denial of the Guardian’s concerns and his ignorance to the needs of the minor child. 10. That ultimately, the Guardian recommended that the Mother have primary physical custody of the minor child and decision-making authority. Further, the Guardian recommended that the Father should not have any overnight parenting time until he relocates to an acceptable residence. 11. That prior to the issuance of the Guardian’s recommendation, the Father has attempted to thwart the minor child's continued enrollment at the school he has been attending. Such actions were purely malicious and intent on hurting/frustrating the Mother; the Father was clearly not thinking of the best interests of the minor child.12, That since the issuance of the Guardian's recommendation, the Father has continued to contact the minor child’s school in an attempt to dis-enroll him. 13, That on or about May 16, 2022, the Mother's employer received a letter, at his personal residence, from the Father (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Letter’). In the Letter, the Father made unfounded, meritless assertions which jeopardizes the Mother's continued employment as well as the well-being of the minor child. 14. That in the Letter, the Father blames the Mother's employer for “proactively seeking to remove [his] rights to be a father”. The Mother’s employer is a non- participant in this litigation and has absolutely nothing to do with the custody issues that are being present to this Honorable Court. 15. That in the Letter, the Father states, in pertinent part, that “[wlell if | have to lose, | prefer the company of others. You want to take my child away from me? Well | hope | am able to return the favor. .. | hope that the prison you will be occupying will allow you visitation with your children.” 16. That in the Letter, the Father concludes with an extortious offer with which to comply by June 6, 2022.17. That the Letter jeopardizes the Mother's continued employment by threatening to publish meritless claims in order to seek his prosecution. 18. That the Letter serves no legitimate purpose, and violates numerous criminal laws. 19. That Paragraph 9 of this Honorable Court's AUTOMATIC STANDING ORDER GOVERNING ALL DOMESTIC CASES, filed in this matter, states, in pertinent part, that “[elach party is hereby enjoined and restrained from doing, or attempting to do, or threatening to do, any act injuring, maltreating, vilifying, molesting or harassing the adverse party or the child(ren) of the parties.” 20. That notwithstanding said Order, the Father has failed and/or refused to restrain from making defamatory comments to third parties, as illustrated in the Letter. It is clear that the spite and anger that he has towards the Mother is unchecked; as a result, the safety and well-being of the minor child is a concern of the Mother and the Guardian. 21. That such a failure and/or refusal is wilful and without justification.22. That this Honorable Court should issue an order enjoining and restrain the Father from any acts directly or indirectly which harass and/or intimidate Mr. Mark Brennan. Further, the Father should be enjoined from approaching within five hundred (500) yards of Mr. Brennan and Mr. Brennan’s residence, located at or about 241 Maxwell Street, Decatur, Georgia 30030. In addition, the Father should be prohibited from having any contact of any type, direct or indirect, or through another person with Mr. Brennan, including but not limited to telephone, pager, fax, e-mail, mail, or any other means of communication with one exception: should the Father wish to communicate with Mr. Brennan, he may do so by contacting Mr. Brennan's attorney, Mr. Alex Merritt, at the DeWoskin Law Firm at 404-987-0026 or via email at alex@atlantatrial.com. 23. That this Honorable Court issue an order specifically prohibiting the Father from publishing any defamatory or extortious materials concerning the Mother, her relatives, her friends, or associates. 24. That given the Father's current state of mind, as expressed to the Guardian and others, it is not known what he will do with the minor child as he incorrectly believes that the minor child was wrongly taken away from him. The Mother is gravely concerned that the Father will take actions that are contrary to the minor child’s safety and well- being. WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays: (a) That the Plaintiff be served with a copy of this Motion as provided by law;(b) (c) (d) (e) ( (g) That an emergency and expedited hearing be scheduled to consider this Motion and admit documentary evidence in support thereof (which is not attached to this Motion in order to protect the privacy of third parties but will be made available at any scheduled hearing); That an order issue preventing the Father from direct contact with the Mother's employer; That an order issue preventing the Father from making disparaging statements to third parties about the Mother; That a temporary order issues granting temporary physical and legal custody of the minor child to the Defendant; That the Plaintiff be held in contempt of court for violating its AMENDED STANDING ORDER GOVERNING ALL DOMESTIC CASES; and That this Honorable Court grant such other relief as it deems reasonable and necessary. This | 1 day of May, 2022. For he Firm: gory D. Golden eorgia Bar No. 299542 One Securities Centre Suite 600 3490 Piedmont Road Atlanta, Georgia 30305 (404) 460-4500 greg@kgfamilylaw.comIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA STANLEY MICHAEL WILLIAMS Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION FILE vs. NO. 20FM5772 SARA REBECCA CAUTHEN WILLIAMS Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that | have this day served counsel for the opposing party in the foregoing matter and the Guardian ad Litem with a copy of this pleading by depositing in the United States Mail a copy of same in a properly addressed envelope with adequate postage thereon. This | H say of May, 2022. KUPFERMAN & GOLDEN Georgia Bar No. 299542 One Securities Centre Suite 600 3490 Piedmont Road Atlanta, Georgia 30305 (404) 460-4500 grea@kafamilylaw.com