Brody Dalle v. Josh Homme
This week kicked off the long-awaited trial in the case of Dalle v. Homme. On Monday, a crowd gathered outside for a peaceful protest and the purpose was two-fold:
To ensure that Brody Dalle felt supported as she arrived at the courthouse.
To ensure that the family court professionals knew that we were watching.
The same day, an email was sent from Brody Dalle’s attorney to Josh Homme's legal team, which read:
“This email shall serve as notice that we will be filing an ex parte application at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 7, 2023 in Department 35 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, 90012. We will request that the Court forthwith remove Kendra Thomas, CFLS, as Minor’s Counsel for Camille Homme and Orrin Ryder Homme; and remove Sonia Dujan, Esq. as Minor’s Counsel for Wolf Homme.”
The filed ex parte motion goes on to state:
This Ex Parte Application seeks to advance the hearing on a Request for Order to terminate Kendra Thomas, Esq. and Sonia B. Dujan (“Minor’s Counsel”) as the court appointed counsel for Petitioner Brody Dalle-Homme and Respondent Josh Homme’s minor children.
Minor’s Counsel has taken the position that Petitioner should continue to be deprived of custody.
However, under the Minor’s Counsel statute (Family Code § 3150, et seq. and Cal. Rule of Court 5.240, et seq.) Minor’s Counsel is not obligated to explain their position and Petitioner is not permitted to cross-examine Minor’s Counsel on their position. With no other witness to examine as to Minor’s Counsel’s conclusions, Petitioner is deprived of a meaningful hearing and opportunity to respond to the assertion of Minor’s Counsel. Petitioner and her minor children have a due process right under the U.S. Constitution to a fundamentally fair proceeding to address the question of custody, and the Minor’s Counsel violates that right. For that reason, and others, Minor’s Counsel should be terminated pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court 5.240(f).
There is not, however, sufficient time to bring a Request for Order to terminate Minor’s Counsel before trial in this matter concludes. Accordingly, Petitioner applies ex parte to advance the hearing on its Request for Order Terminating Minor’s Counsel. Given the gravity of the issue and the ongoing trial, good cause exists to advance the hearing and grant Petitioner’s application.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner (Dalle) and Respondent (Homme) were initially granted joint legal and physical custody of their minor children by an order entered in October 2020. Minor’s Counsel were appointed shortly thereafter in September 2021.
However, in March 2022 Respondent was granted full legal custody of their three children. One of the children was placed in the physical custody of Respondent and two temporarily resided with Respondent’s parents (i.e., their paternal grandparents). Petitioner was ordered not to have contact with her children for a period of 90 days following entry of these orders. The children were ordered to participate in a “family communication” program, and did so at with “Family Bridges.” It was a disaster. The oldest child, Camille, stated that she had been coerced into disparaging Petitioner. She would recount this episode in a letter to the Court in which she stated that Respondent had (redacted) abused her and that she wished to reside with Petitioner. Camille was 16 at the time she wrote this letter and is 17 today.
Camille is a young-woman, not a child. But notwithstanding the grave accusation Camille made, Minor’s Counsel wrote in their February 9, 2023 trial brief that: ‘Since the court changed custody in March of 2022, neither Minor’s Counsel has received any information that the circumstances have changed ....To this end, Minor’s Counsel is not in agreement with Petitioner’ s request for custody to be restored.’
The notion that no “circumstances have changed” after Camille detailed Respondent’s conduct in a letter is perplexing, if not outright shocking. Minor’s Counsel intends to continue to advocate this position in the trial which commenced March 6, 2023, and Petitioner strongly disagrees with Minor’s Counsel’s position. Though Minor’s Counsel are taking a position sharply adverse to Petitioner, Petitioner has no right to question Minor’s Counsel or understand how and why Minor’s Counsel could take the position that nothing has changed with respect to Respondent’s fitness to retain sole physical custody of their children.
“Third, it is an abrogation of Camille’s procedural due process rights to be saddled with counsel acting adverse to her. That Camille had to write to the Court directly, rather than acting through her “counsel” highlights the extent to which Minor’s Counsel is not truly counsel for Camille. Camille, though a minor, is possessed of constitutional rights, and at 17 is able to articulate her desires in a reasoned and intelligent manner. The Minor’s Counsel statute, however, treats her the same as an infant or toddler who cannot provide input into a custody dispute and for which adult judgment might reasonably be necessary to determine his or her best interests. It is hardly a “fundamentally fair” process when Camille’s fundamental liberty interest to reside with her mother can be abrogated by her own putative “counsel” who cannot be questioned or made to explain the basis for its views. Because the Minor’s Counsel statute, both facially and as-applied in this case violates Petitioner’s due process rights under the 14th and 5th Amendments, at minimum, Minor’s Counsel must be removed.
Good Cause Exists to Hear Petitioner’s RFO on an Ex Parte Basis
On March 2, 2023, the eve of trial, Respondent filed motions in limine to exclude the testimony of the minor children because Minor’s Counsel would represent the interests of the children. Minor’s Counsel filed a notice the next day, March 3, 2023, that they would bring an oral motion in limine to prohibit the children from testifying. During the oral motion, Minor’s Counsel offered no evidence (admissible or otherwise) in support of their motion and no explanation in support of their conclusion. This, in a nutshell, is precisely what is problematic about Minor’s Counsel and the Minor’s Counsel statute—Respondent relies on Minor’s Counsel to present views that the Respondent agrees with, while Petitioner is prohibited from finding out Minor’s Counsel’s reasons, much less challenging them.
Because Minor’s Counsel has now made clear that they intend to use the Minor’s Counsel statute to abrogate Petitioner’s due process rights, Petitioner is obligated to act immediately to preserve her rights. And because Petitioner received Notice of these motions 1 and 2 business days before trial, respectively, and because trial is now underway, Petitioner has no alternative but to bring this ex parte application so that she can obtain relief before it is moot. Good cause therefore exists to bring this ex parte application to advance the hearing date on Petitioner’s request for order to remove Minor’s Counsel.
IV. CONCLUSION
Good cause exists to set a rapid briefing schedule for Petitioner’s Request for Order to Remove Minor’s Counsel.
We question why minor’s counsel Kendra Thomas and Sonia Dujan are so desperate to silence a young woman who will turn 18 in just ten months? Are they concerned about what she is going to share related to her Family Bridges experience? We question how often these professionals recommend reunification camp or reunification therapy with Family Bridges or similar camps? It is highly concerning and suspicious that these court-appointed professionals are trying to stifle the voice of a 17-year-old young woman. We implore Judge Gould Saltman to do the right thing and allow this young lady to be heard and, to remove Kendra Thomas and Sonia Dujan from this case - the whole world is watching.
The Second Appellate District Court recently reversed an order from Judge Steven Ellis and Judge Gould-Saltman, which would have placed two additonal children to Family Bridge’s 90-day reunification program. The appellate ruling stated, “Without evidence that it is in the best interest of the children to remove them from mother’s custody for at least 90 days to participate in the Family Bridges program, the court abused its discretion.”
I continue to sift through documents from the Dalle v. Homme case, and what has happened is truly appalling. In a letter dated, May 6, 2022, counsel for Mr. Homme emailed Ms. Dalle’s (former) attorneys stating that he had “decided to utilize the following after care professionals” (Vivian Lee Arber-Moore and Yvonne Parnell). These are two well-known players in the Family Bridges program. He didn’t “decide to utilize them,” they are part of the racket.
Once again, the safe/preferred parent is set up to fail because all of these professionals are colluding- it’s disgusting and criminal. The court orders are purposely created to be vague, which allows these professionals to maintain control. They continuously move the hoops, or the hoops are invisible or non-existent. In their carefully crafted game, the protective or preferred parent is made to look problematic.
At surface level, this seems like a complex situation and people are left wondering if there are two sides to the story because nothing else makes sense. That is by design. Beneath all the fluff, the games, and the smoke and mirrors, are the facts:
Josh Homme: a long, documented history of abusive behavior. There was a finding of domestic abuse in their marriage. Brody Dalle and her daughter had restraining orders against him. A restraining orders were in place at the time the children were violently abducted by transport agents and taken to Family Bridges (March of 2022).
Brody Dalle: accused of “alienation,” a denounced, debunked concept that was concocted by pedophile sympathizer, Dr. Richard Gardner.
Could it possibly be Josh Homme’s own actions and behaviors that caused the children to be fearful of him, or reject him? In the family court system, it is a common legal strategy to employee claims of "alienation," to reverse victim and offender. People who work in the alienation industry are financially incentivized by these legal strategies.
Proponents of the alienation theory sell the courts on the notion that children need relationships with both parents and when a child is labeled as, "severely alienated," the financial floodgates open and these professionals are making a great deal of money. These reunification camps range from $15,000-$40,000 for a weekend and that does not include the cost of the transporters, the professionals who are engaged in this process for years, and the exorbitant aftercare costs. If Josh Homme's attorney is correct in her email dated May 6, 2022 that the program was a, "great success," why has it been a full year since Brody has seen her children?
Family Bridges and other reunification camps tout a high success rate in their programs (95-100%) yet these success rates are self reported and we have yet to hear from a single survivor who is singing the praises of being violently ripped away from their safe parent and forced to endure the barbaric methods and practices of these camps. Quite the contrary, survivors from these camps are speaking out about the atrocities that they endured.
Again, we ask why minor’s counsel does not want the children, specifically 17-year-old Camille Homme, to have a voice? Would Camille’s voice be a threat to the narrative they have created to rob Brody Dalle of her children, and to rob these children of a relationship with their primary attachment figure? Would her voice be a threat to the narrative that is financially beneficial to these professionals?
If you have been affected by any of the professionals on this case, please email info@alienationindustry.com.
If you have been affected by a reunification camp, there are two class action lawsuits being filed: one on behalf of parents and one on behalf of child survivors. To submit your information, click here.
