Registered Pedophile Allowed to Go to Kern County Grammar School Every Day
May 7, 2015. Bakersfield, CA
Should a six year old girl be required to have sex with her guardian? Should she be required to drink his sperm? Little Angie didn't think her step-father's sperm tasted so good according to the report of the abuse filed by Dectective B. C. Barrett (excerpts to left and below). The step-father, a registered sex offender, was apparently not satisfied with simply having molested his six year old step--daughter Angie. Nicholas Elizondo went to Oklahoma and gained custody of his six year old daughter by another mother, Lisa Knight.
Should a six year old girl be required to have sex with her guardian? Should she be required to drink his sperm? Little Angie didn't think her step-father's sperm tasted so good according to the report of the abuse filed by Dectective B. C. Barrett (excerpts to left and below). The step-father, a registered sex offender, was apparently not satisfied with simply having molested his six year old step--daughter Angie. Nicholas Elizondo went to Oklahoma and gained custody of his six year old daughter by another mother, Lisa Knight.
The second little girl's mother, Lisa Knight, had been required to go to the hospital for a health emergency and was expected to be away from her daughter for three days. Lisa's cousin tried to take Lisa's six year old daughter to school near the cousin but the school asked for temporary guardianship papers to enroll the girl for even three days. This was the mistake that opened the door. Knight and Elizondo had been divorced for some time but somehow he found out about the three day temporary guardianship and demanded custody of Knight's daughter. To Knight's shock, the Oklahoma judge (knowing of the molestation conviction) gave Elizondo (a registered sex offender) full custody of Knight's six year old girl and allowed the registered sex offender to take Ms. Knight's little girl to California. In reaction, the Oklahoma legislature passed a statute (HB 3472) making it unlawful for a judge to give custody of a child to a convicted sex offender. Oklahoman's are nick-naming the law passed in honor of Lisa's daughter," Sarah's Law."
Though California also has a statute against sex offenders from getting custody of their children, Kern County judges ignore that law. Commissioner James Compton continues to allow Nicholas Elizondo to have full custody of the little girl. Each day he is allowed to walk into Eissler Elementary School if he chooses. On May 7, the little girl was attending a children's after school program in the cafeteria. She was at a table on the far side from the entrance, just before he picked her up. In order to walk over to her to pick her up, he would have had to have been allowed to walk past dozens of other young elementary students. While Knight has begged the commissioner to give her temporary custody to protect her own daughter, what about the other students at Eissler? The commissioner's rulings affect not just the little girl in the custody case but also the other innocent young children with whom the pedophile likely comes into contact with when he visits the school.
The daughter is a beautiful young girl who loves her mother very much. She rejoices and smiles whenever her mother comes into the room and has repeatedly said she wants to be with her mother, not Elizondo. Discussions with those who have seen her reveals that the girl is happy, outgoing, focused while with the mother. In school on days when her father drops her off and picks her up (which is every day), she is distracted an unable to concentrate on her work--according to her teacher. Although she is bright, she gets only a fraction of the work done as other students and often does very little at all. Eissler's staff seems to have no concerns about their children being exposed to a pedophile. This leaders to the question of whether the parents of the other Eissler Elementary children know that their children are being exposed on a daily basis to a registered pedophile.
The second alleged molestation victim was reportedly seen in a twin bed with Elizondo while he was undressed. She has reportedly said, with respect to that, that she does what she has to do. She wants to be with her mother. The kind of abuse that is allegedly occurring in this case is what the California legislature tried to avoid with Family Law Code section 3030.
Section 3030 is not discretionary as it says "No person shall be granted physical or legal custody or unsupervised visits if the person is required to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code. That rules out Elizondo from custody - except he has custody. Additionally, the conviction, under section (3) is declared "prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk." In other words, Commissioner Compton appears to have directly violated Section 3030. According to that section, Compton's rulings appear to have placed Ms. Knight's child at "a significant risk."
Though California also has a statute against sex offenders from getting custody of their children, Kern County judges ignore that law. Commissioner James Compton continues to allow Nicholas Elizondo to have full custody of the little girl. Each day he is allowed to walk into Eissler Elementary School if he chooses. On May 7, the little girl was attending a children's after school program in the cafeteria. She was at a table on the far side from the entrance, just before he picked her up. In order to walk over to her to pick her up, he would have had to have been allowed to walk past dozens of other young elementary students. While Knight has begged the commissioner to give her temporary custody to protect her own daughter, what about the other students at Eissler? The commissioner's rulings affect not just the little girl in the custody case but also the other innocent young children with whom the pedophile likely comes into contact with when he visits the school.
The daughter is a beautiful young girl who loves her mother very much. She rejoices and smiles whenever her mother comes into the room and has repeatedly said she wants to be with her mother, not Elizondo. Discussions with those who have seen her reveals that the girl is happy, outgoing, focused while with the mother. In school on days when her father drops her off and picks her up (which is every day), she is distracted an unable to concentrate on her work--according to her teacher. Although she is bright, she gets only a fraction of the work done as other students and often does very little at all. Eissler's staff seems to have no concerns about their children being exposed to a pedophile. This leaders to the question of whether the parents of the other Eissler Elementary children know that their children are being exposed on a daily basis to a registered pedophile.
The second alleged molestation victim was reportedly seen in a twin bed with Elizondo while he was undressed. She has reportedly said, with respect to that, that she does what she has to do. She wants to be with her mother. The kind of abuse that is allegedly occurring in this case is what the California legislature tried to avoid with Family Law Code section 3030.
Section 3030 is not discretionary as it says "No person shall be granted physical or legal custody or unsupervised visits if the person is required to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code. That rules out Elizondo from custody - except he has custody. Additionally, the conviction, under section (3) is declared "prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk." In other words, Commissioner Compton appears to have directly violated Section 3030. According to that section, Compton's rulings appear to have placed Ms. Knight's child at "a significant risk."
FAMILY CODE - FAM
DIVISION 8. CUSTODY OF CHILDREN [3000 - 3465] ( Division 8 enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. )
PART 2. RIGHT TO CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD [3020 - 3204] ( Part 2 enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. )
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions [3020 - 3032] ( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1992, Ch. 162, Sec. 10. )(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 207, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2007.)
3030. (a) (1) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person is required to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code where the victim was a minor, or if the person has been convicted under Section 273a, 273d, or 647.6 of the Penal Code, unless the court finds that there is no significant risk to the child and states its reasons in writing or on the record. The child may not be placed in a home in which that person resides, nor permitted to have unsupervised visitation with that person, unless the court states the reasons for its findings in writing or on the record.
(2) No person shall be granted physical or legal custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if anyone residing in the person’s household is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, unless the court finds there is no significant risk to the child and states its reasons in writing or on the record. The child may not be placed in a home in which that person resides, nor permitted to have unsupervised visitation with that person, unless the court states the reasons for its findings in writing or on the record.
(3) The fact that a child is permitted unsupervised contact with a person who is required, as a result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to be registered as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code, shall be prima facie evidence that the child is at significant risk. When making a determination regarding significant risk to the child, the prima facie evidence shall constitute a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. However, this presumption shall not apply if there are factors mitigating against its application, including whether the party seeking custody or visitation is also required, as the result of a felony conviction in which the victim was a minor, to register as a sex offender under Section 290 of the Penal Code.
(b) No person shall be granted custody of, or visitation with, a child if the person has been convicted under Section 261 of the Penal Code and the child was conceived as a result of that violation.
(c) No person shall be granted custody of, or unsupervised visitation with, a child if the person has been convicted of murder in the first degree, as defined in Section 189 of the Penal Code, and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child who is the subject of the order, unless the court finds that there is no risk to the child’s health, safety, and welfare, and states the reasons for its finding in writing or on the record. In making its finding, the court may consider, among other things, the following:
(1) The wishes of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference.
(2) Credible evidence that the convicted parent was a victim of abuse, as defined in Section 6203, committed by the deceased parent. That evidence may include, but is not limited to, written reports by law enforcement agencies, child protective services or other social welfare agencies, courts, medical facilities, or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations providing services to victims of domestic abuse.
(3) Testimony of an expert witness, qualified under Section 1107 of the Evidence Code, that the convicted parent experiences intimate partner battering.
Unless and until a custody or visitation order is issued pursuant to this subdivision, no person shall permit or cause the child to visit or remain in the custody of the convicted parent without the consent of the child’s custodian or legal guardian.
At a hospital in Madera on April 8, 2015, according to witness Dora Martinez, the little girl did not want to go. According to Martinez. Elizondo kicked Lisa in the stomach and pulled the daughter away. Above is an excerpt from the police report. Follow-up information reveals, Elizondo reportedly grabbed the little girl hard as she screamed that she did not want to go with him and that he dragged her away.
There are exceptions to California Family Law Code 3030 but Elizondo does not appear to fall within them as his conviction involved a six year old child. So why won't Commissioner Compton protect Knight's daughter or the other children at Eissler? Has sex with children become acceptable to Commissioner Compton?
Appearing to represent the pedophile instead of the child, minor's counsel Stephanie Childers has gotten the court to continue the case three times. On May 7, 2015, the Commissioner spoke as if the only problem for the girl is the conflict between the parents while ignoring the fact that the girl was living with a man with an apparent propensity for having sex with young children. Nothing at all, in Compton's courtroom, was done to protect the child from the kind of molestation to which her step sister had been subjected by the same man whom Compton had entrusted with the little girl's care.
In trying to protect her daughter, Knight has gotten the run-around. First she was not told she could get a fee waiver for a court-reporter. A civil rights activist in the Sacramento area paid for the first court reporter and then learned that the transcript for a short hearing would cost $6000. Other women have reported being gouged by reporters for transcript fees when trying to protect their children and their rights in Kern Courty Courts. Ms. Knight was discouraged from subpoening witnesses by the Family Law Facilitator downstairs, who told Ms. Knight there would be a minimum fee of $400 for each witness she subpoenaed. The clerk did not have the usual subpoena forms, possibly a ploy to further discourage women from exercising their rights. The clerk only had subpoena duces tecum forms which could be used as regular forms but which were not the standard form when no documents were being requested. Justice Gazette reporters have observed numerous situations where Knight was misled by Kern Superior Court staff about her rights to her detriment. Because Knight has an innocence about her, she has been handicapped by the system--adding to her hearing handicap, which does not appear to be properly handled by the court in this case. It is possible that the visible game-playing and run-arounds from the court staff violate her rights under the Americans with Disability Act. The actions of the Kern County Court staff many also constitute serious civil rights violations against Ms. Knight and her daughter.
Commissioner Compton is a Jerry Brown appointee from long ago. News staff at the Justice Gazette received an unverified report that Jerry Brown received a $100,000 contribution in exchange for the appointment. A court observer has told the Justice Gazette that she, Commissioner Compton, the convicted pedophile's attorney Larry Wilson and the minor's counsel Stephanie Childers all belong to a Masonic group in Kern County. If that is true, perhaps it is the out-of-court comraderie that has outweighed the best interests of the child in this case. Regardless of these reports, the prima facie case of a "significant risk," referred to by 3030 has seemingly been completely ignored by Commissioner Compton.
Commissioner Compton is not the only judge endangering children by forcing them to be raised by child molesters. Each year, over 58,000 kids fall victim to what Safe Kids International calls “Court-Licensed Abuse.” Other common names for these decisions are "Judicial sex trafficking” and "Court-approved child rape."
Those who know Lisa Knight say she is a kind, fit mother who loves her daughter and always places the girl's interests first. Lisa was reportedly providing an excellent home for her daughter prior to Elizondo obtaining custody. Her case has gained international attention and human rights activists across the globe have expressed concern about what they call consider a judical attrocity.
The next hearing is at 8:30 A.M. on June 10, 2015 in Department D on the second floor of the Kern County Superior Court (Family Law Building), 1215 Truxtun, Bakersfield, CA 93301. That day, the Commissioner is expected to either turn over custody to Lisa Knight or to ignore statutory law and the risk of harm to the child by allowing a convicted register child molester to raise a little girl who does not want to be a sex slave.
Members of the Justice Gazette staff recall a time when child abuse was not celebrated by judges and judges did not work hard to put child molesters together with those they molested and with other young children. Times have changed and now this has become a very common practice. The question further arises whether awarding or authorizing continued custody of to a convicted registered pedophile in violation of Section 3030 constitutes an act so far outside the jurisdiction of the court that such rulings would remove the judicial immunity of the commissioner or judge, But that is a question for an appellate court to decide.
Human rights groups across California have called on Kamala Harris and Jerry Brown to investigate. Kamala's failure to act to protect children is the number one issue likely to derail Kamala Harris's bid for the U.S. Senate. A growing list of candidates, including Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, has been entering the race to replace Barbara Boxer in D.C.and this could well be the campaign issue that turns the election.
There are exceptions to California Family Law Code 3030 but Elizondo does not appear to fall within them as his conviction involved a six year old child. So why won't Commissioner Compton protect Knight's daughter or the other children at Eissler? Has sex with children become acceptable to Commissioner Compton?
Appearing to represent the pedophile instead of the child, minor's counsel Stephanie Childers has gotten the court to continue the case three times. On May 7, 2015, the Commissioner spoke as if the only problem for the girl is the conflict between the parents while ignoring the fact that the girl was living with a man with an apparent propensity for having sex with young children. Nothing at all, in Compton's courtroom, was done to protect the child from the kind of molestation to which her step sister had been subjected by the same man whom Compton had entrusted with the little girl's care.
In trying to protect her daughter, Knight has gotten the run-around. First she was not told she could get a fee waiver for a court-reporter. A civil rights activist in the Sacramento area paid for the first court reporter and then learned that the transcript for a short hearing would cost $6000. Other women have reported being gouged by reporters for transcript fees when trying to protect their children and their rights in Kern Courty Courts. Ms. Knight was discouraged from subpoening witnesses by the Family Law Facilitator downstairs, who told Ms. Knight there would be a minimum fee of $400 for each witness she subpoenaed. The clerk did not have the usual subpoena forms, possibly a ploy to further discourage women from exercising their rights. The clerk only had subpoena duces tecum forms which could be used as regular forms but which were not the standard form when no documents were being requested. Justice Gazette reporters have observed numerous situations where Knight was misled by Kern Superior Court staff about her rights to her detriment. Because Knight has an innocence about her, she has been handicapped by the system--adding to her hearing handicap, which does not appear to be properly handled by the court in this case. It is possible that the visible game-playing and run-arounds from the court staff violate her rights under the Americans with Disability Act. The actions of the Kern County Court staff many also constitute serious civil rights violations against Ms. Knight and her daughter.
Commissioner Compton is a Jerry Brown appointee from long ago. News staff at the Justice Gazette received an unverified report that Jerry Brown received a $100,000 contribution in exchange for the appointment. A court observer has told the Justice Gazette that she, Commissioner Compton, the convicted pedophile's attorney Larry Wilson and the minor's counsel Stephanie Childers all belong to a Masonic group in Kern County. If that is true, perhaps it is the out-of-court comraderie that has outweighed the best interests of the child in this case. Regardless of these reports, the prima facie case of a "significant risk," referred to by 3030 has seemingly been completely ignored by Commissioner Compton.
Commissioner Compton is not the only judge endangering children by forcing them to be raised by child molesters. Each year, over 58,000 kids fall victim to what Safe Kids International calls “Court-Licensed Abuse.” Other common names for these decisions are "Judicial sex trafficking” and "Court-approved child rape."
Those who know Lisa Knight say she is a kind, fit mother who loves her daughter and always places the girl's interests first. Lisa was reportedly providing an excellent home for her daughter prior to Elizondo obtaining custody. Her case has gained international attention and human rights activists across the globe have expressed concern about what they call consider a judical attrocity.
The next hearing is at 8:30 A.M. on June 10, 2015 in Department D on the second floor of the Kern County Superior Court (Family Law Building), 1215 Truxtun, Bakersfield, CA 93301. That day, the Commissioner is expected to either turn over custody to Lisa Knight or to ignore statutory law and the risk of harm to the child by allowing a convicted register child molester to raise a little girl who does not want to be a sex slave.
Members of the Justice Gazette staff recall a time when child abuse was not celebrated by judges and judges did not work hard to put child molesters together with those they molested and with other young children. Times have changed and now this has become a very common practice. The question further arises whether awarding or authorizing continued custody of to a convicted registered pedophile in violation of Section 3030 constitutes an act so far outside the jurisdiction of the court that such rulings would remove the judicial immunity of the commissioner or judge, But that is a question for an appellate court to decide.
Human rights groups across California have called on Kamala Harris and Jerry Brown to investigate. Kamala's failure to act to protect children is the number one issue likely to derail Kamala Harris's bid for the U.S. Senate. A growing list of candidates, including Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, has been entering the race to replace Barbara Boxer in D.C.and this could well be the campaign issue that turns the election.