Chapter 7 - The two criminal files
Judith was charged first.
Misdemeanor assault.
Child-endangering count under the applicable facts.
No severe injury enhancement.
No felony because the slap looked horrible.
Criminal grading depends statute and harm.
Her attorney entered not guilty.
Then me.
The prosecutor filed two low-level assault-related counts based on:
Slapping Noah.
Shoving Judith.
Context mattered.
But neither adult was actively attacking me when I used force.
Judith’s assault on Sadie had just occurred.
Would defense-of-another apply to my shove?
Potentially only if I reasonably believed further force against Sadie was imminent.
Video showed I first slapped Noah, then shoved Judith, then picked up Sadie.
Prosecutor did not accept full self-defense.
My lawyer for the criminal matter, Amanda Cho, said:
“Do not make this about whether Judith deserved cake in her face.”
“She did.”
“Not legally useful.”
I smiled despite myself.
Then Noah’s injury.
Red cheek.
No lasting harm.
Judith:
Minor nasal soreness.
Frosting in hair.
No fracture.
No medical treatment beyond later urgent-care check for nose tenderness.
I had no prior record.
Prosecutor offered diversion:
Plead? Diversion usually no plea or deferred adjudication. Let's be careful.
Pretrial diversion agreement:
I acknowledged conduct.
Completed anger-management/conflict course.
No contact violations.
Community service.
If completed over six months, charges dismissed.
Judith’s attorney objected publicly to “special treatment.”
The prosecutor responded:
Different defendants.
Different victim ages.
Different conduct.
Different records.
Judith had struck a two-year-old and faced child-endangering theory.
I had struck adults in immediate emotional aftermath and admitted it.
Separate.
Then CPS.
Tanya Ellis interviewed Sadie with developmentally appropriate methods.
No prolonged interrogation.
She interviewed Jenna.
Kendra.
Noah.
Me.
Judith refused substantive interview on advice of criminal counsel.
Her right.
Interim agency safety finding:
Judith posed unacceptable unsupervised-contact risk pending resolution.
Noah showed failure-to-protect concerns but also had capacity for safe parenting if he complied with boundaries.
Me:
Protective overall, but retaliatory violence required attention.
Again.
No perfect parent.
Then Noah’s supervised visits.
The first was awkward.
Sadie ran to him.
“Daddy!”
He cried.
I hated him for crying.
Then hated myself.
A supervisor documented:
Appropriate affection.
No discussion of litigation.
No discipline issue.
Good.
The second visit:
Sadie threw crackers.
Noah calmly cleaned.
No calling Judith.
No problem.
Third:
Sadie screamed at transition.
He did not use it as evidence of instability.
He wrote in the parenting app:
She had a hard handoff. Settled after ten minutes.
Neutral.
That mattered.
Then he sent me:
I’m sorry about the birthday.
I did not answer.
He sent no second message.
Good.
Then forensic financial discovery started.
The $260,000 note was not the only thing we found.
May you like
Noah had also moved his annual HEG bonus timing.
That became the next fight.
