SUBHUMANS

Transcript of the Court Hearing from Jan 27 2026 in its entirety to show how judge Bigelow, her entire CPS layer cohort as well as her scribes have been recording, interpreting and treating us 21mos

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY SHASTA

HON. MOLLY BIGELOW, JUDGE

IN THE MATTER(S) OF:
Minors Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.

REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT ON PROCEEDINGS

REDDING, SHASTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

January 27, 2026

---o0o---

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE DEPARTMENT:

SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
BY: MICHAEL BRENN, Deputy County Counsel
1450 Court Street
Redding, CA 96001

FOR THE FATHER:

dad , Pro Se (Appeared via Zoom)
Redding, CA 96003

FOR THE MOTHER:

mom , Pro Se (Appeared via Zoom)
Redding, CA 96003

FOR THE MINOR:

MICHAEL HORAN, ESQ.
1548 West Street
Redding, CA 96001

GAL FOR THE MINOR:

ANEKE STOKES, ESQ.
1548 West Street
Redding, CA 96001

INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES FOR THE DEPARTMENT:
(No witnesses called.)

WITNESSES FOR THE MINOR(S):
No witnesses called.)

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBITS OFFERED BY THE DEPARTMENT:

(No exhibits marked.)

EXHIBITS OFFERED BY THE MINOR:

(No exhibits marked.)

PROCEEDINGS, JANUARY 27, 2026

BEFORE HON. MOLLY BIGELOW, JUDGE

DEPARTMENT NO. 54

THE COURT: Okay. So we’ll go on --

THE FATHER: Excuse me. I would ask translator

not to translate from English to Ukrainian unless I ask.

THE COURT: Okay. How will you signal the

interpreter to request translation?

THE FATHER: If I speak Ukrainian, he can

translate. Translate from English to Ukrainian without my

explicit ask is not necessary.

THE COURT: Okay. So we’ll go on the record in

the matter of . I will ask counsel to state

their appearances. I’ll begin with the parents. They are

representing themselves at this time.

Mr. is present; correct, dad?

THE FATHER: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mom is not present?

THE FATHER: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Dad is appearing remotely.

And then counsel for the minor, Mr. Horan?

MR. HORAN: Present with the minor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Ms. Stokes?

MS. STOKES: Aneke Stokes, guardian ad litem for

the minor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. Brenn?

MR. BRENN: Michael Brenn on behalf of the

Agency. Social worker is present and social worker

supervisor is also present.

THE COURT: Thank you.

We also have --

AUDIENCE: Savannah Cain with ILP.

THE COURT: ILP. And it’s Savannah Cain?

AUDIENCE: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

And we also have former caregiver which is Walter

Albert.

AUDIENCE: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you. And Mr. Albert, there has

been a request that you be excluded from the proceedings

so I’m going to ask that you step outside and remain at

this time; okay?

With respect to ICWA, dad, you have continually

related that you have no Indian ancestry. Is that still

your understanding?

THE FATHER: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

And the minor, any known Indian ancestry?

THE MINOR: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Okay. I believe the Court has already made the

finding that ICWA does not apply.

Matter is on today for 387 juris and dispo.

Reports were filed on October 29th, November 26th,

December 5th. There’s also been a JV-180 filed by the

parents, filed on January 8th. The request is to dismiss

the case and return the child to the care of the parents

with no Agency oversight. It’s my understanding, briefly,

Mr. Horan, you mentioned that you did not receive a copy

of that JV-180; is that correct?

MR. HORAN: No, I was not served, Your Honor. We

do get an electronic copy from the court asking generally

if we are in agreement or not in agreement and only sets

them when there is not agreement. I did get that courtesy

copy, but it mentioned there were, I think it said, 800

pages attached.

THE COURT: I think it was 660.

MR. HORAN: Okay. And those were never served on

me, and certainly I would imagine the court never

endeavored to email me 660 pages.

THE COURT: We do have a digital copy of it

because that is how I’ve read the documents, via digital

copy. We could certainly email you that copy.

The Court, in reviewing for today’s proceedings,

the issues really overlap with mom and dad’s JV-180 return

and the 387 petition which relates to --

MR. HORAN: Is it my understanding the entire 660

pages are just a manual of some -- can you just tell me

what the manual is?

THE COURT: It appeared to me to be the latest

information as it related to treatment of individuals,

minors with gender dysphoria, best practices as to proper

care.

MR. HORAN: By the government? By a private

entity?

THE COURT: By -- it actually indicates the title

was like a Children and Family Services document.

Is that correct, Mr. ?

THE FATHER: It’s an official report released by

HHS from November of last year.

THE COURT: Yeah. So let me go ahead and bring

that document --

MS. STOKES: And just for the record, Your Honor,

I also was not served or provided that document, but I was

aware and looked into it.

THE COURT: Okay. So do we have the ability just

to shoot out an electronic copy real quick to everybody

here so they have it available at least in that format?

That probably isn’t going to help Mr. Horan who’s not

sitting with a tablet in front of him.

MR. HORAN: Yeah. I don’t think I’ll get much on

my phone here but, if need be, I can. Your Honor, I just

might wonder if there’s a couple of things we should

address before we go any further, that technically mother

represents herself so we are proceeding without a party

and their representation is -- I don’t know if somebody

has something to say about that or if we can overcome

that. I’m not sure what happens when a pro per is not

present.

THE COURT: So obviously a parent can absent

themselves from these proceedings, and it appears to the

Court that she has chosen to do that.

MR. HORAN: Okay. So even though she’s acting as

her own attorney, that doesn’t create any different

standards?

THE COURT: No, I don’t believe so. And I don’t

believe it would be good cause for a continuance unless

there was something that’s happened to her and obviously

she cannot be here.

MR. HORAN: Yeah, okay. And then, I don’t know,

I never received anything saying the parents or parents

were going to appear electronically. Maybe there was an

outstanding one that was filed before, but I also thought

at the last hearing everybody was ordered to be present.

I don’t know if we can check the minute order, or if

anyone recalls specifically, but that was my recollection.

THE COURT: So I did anticipate that the parents

would be present today, physically present, not

electronically present. I couldn’t recall whether or not

the Court ordered them to be physically present for

today’s proceedings. I’ll have to rely on the minute

order.

And I was mistaken. It was 606, not 660.

MR. HORAN: Oh, then no problem from my phone.

THE FATHER: May I ask for all future sessions to

be present remotely, because we’re physically in a

different state. And if we need to be present physically,

it should be -- it should not be required without at least

two week’s notice before that.

THE COURT: Sure, I understand.

So, Mr. Horan, the notes don’t reflect whether or

not the parents were ordered to be physically present

today. They have been appearing remotely for some time.

MR. HORAN: All right. Well, at the end of this,

whatever happens today, we can address what will happen in

the future court dates. Okay. Thanks.

THE COURT: Sure. Give me just a minute.

Okay. So I’m not sure how you want to proceed on

the JV-180, but I do believe they are overlapping issues

with respect to the 387.

MR. HORAN: I’m prepared to go forward. I just

didn’t know what the document was and I -- now I

understand and if we need -- if anybody intends to use it,

I will look over somebody’s shoulder and do whatever I

need to.

THE COURT: We should have a hard copy of it

filed by the parents so I don’t have it physically here.

The clerk is supposed to be bringing me those documents.

MR. HORAN: Okay, great. But no, I’m not asking

for a continuance.

THE COURT: Okay. So I believe I’ve identified

everybody on the record. The matter -- we will hear the

JV-180 and the 387 petition at the same time.

So with respect to the 387 petition, Mr. Brenn?

MR. BRENN: Thank you, Your Honor. I wanted to

address one thing before we get to the 387. I was in

receipt of a court order that was signed on January 8th

of 2026 with respect to utilizing information from the

case. And I’m trying to recall, and I don’t recall

specifically, did the court mail that order to the parents

or email it too?

THE COURT: It should -- I believe Barbara, my

judicial assistant, did both.

MR. BRENN: Okay.

THE COURT: Because we wanted to make sure that

the parents did receive a copy. She did contact mom. Mom

indicated that their address here was still good so they

haven’t provided a new address to the court. The Court

did mail that to the address on file, and then also

emailed a copy to the parents.

MR. BRENN: Okay. And --

THE COURT: According to my recollection as to

what she related to me.

MR. BRENN: Okay. Thank you because --

THE FATHER: Sorry --

THE COURT: Yes?

THE FATHER: We didn’t receive any orders, not by

mail, not by email, not I, not my wife. We didn’t receive

any orders at all.

THE COURT: Okay. Um --

THE FATHER: And we verified our physical mail

last weekend, and there were not any orders in the mail

either. If possible, please, I would like to receive them

as soon as possible. We would like them.

MR. BRENN: The order I have, it indicates a

certified service by mail by a Deputy Clerk, B. Street.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BRENN: And with the address for, it has

mother’s name and father’s name. The address for the mail

was************ in Redding, California, area code

96003 which I’m understanding is the parents’ address

before they moved to Florida.

THE COURT: Is that the correct address, dad?

THE FATHER: That is correct address and we also

have on file our email addresses, and if it’s possible, I

would prefer to use emails for further communications. We

didn’t receive that mail, physical mail, until now. I

don’t -- what date it was issued?

MR. BRENN: January 9th, 2026.

THE COURT: Yeah, it was mailed January 9th.

THE FATHER: I don’t have it. Can it be sent by

email to continue?

THE COURT: I believe that Barbara --

(Court talking to clerk.)

Yeah, email it right now.

THE FATHER: The email address is **********

THE COURT: So I think my judicial assistant knew

your wife’s email address because your wife had actually

been contacting her in order to get the transcripts from a

particular proceeding, and so it was my recollection that

I instructed Ms. Street to just email a copy of the orders

as well as mailing them.

THE FATHER: Okay. That’s fine. Either to my

email or to my wife’s email is fine.

MR. BRENN: Well, regardless, I do remember being

in court with the Court at least showing it in court that

they’re not to disseminate any information from the case.

THE COURT: That is the order.

MR. BRENN: And the reason why I’m saying that is

because I’m in receipt of a post from January 17th where

the minor’s psychological evaluation has been posted on

the Internet. I have it sitting right here. I can show

it to the Court. I have the link to the -- whatever

website. It looks like it’s a created website that the

Court can look at. But, I mean, on top of the fact that

the Court made an oral order, which the Court has the

authority to make any and all reasonable orders for

protection of the minor whether they’re written or not,

the fact that this was mailed and emailed and, days later,

a psychological evaluation was posted on the Internet, I

would like the Court to take a look at it because we’ve

been going on in this case, maybe not with me

specifically, but for quite some time and the parents are

well aware that they’re not allowed to be posting this

information in an active dependency case; but it looks

like it’s been done. So I don’t know what the Court wants

to do about it?

THE COURT: You’re saying that was January 17th?

MR. BRENN: January 17th, 2026. And it -- you

know, whatever else they put in there, the primary concern

is there is a transcript from the examination of Dr. Tate

and then the psychological evaluation from Dr. Tate which

is obviously confidential and not subject to disclosure.

MS. STOKES: And where was that shared?

MR. BRENN: I can show it to you if you would

like. It appears to be on some sort of website that’s

been created. And if you look at it, the context is very

clearly from the mother. It’s not really that difficult

to figure out who posted it. And it contains the actual

psychological evaluation including transcripts from the

proceeding of that psychologist’s examination during the

juris hearing.

THE COURT: Dad, were those documents posted by

either you or your wife or did you have a third party post

them on your behalf?

THE FATHER: First of all, I would like to answer

to allegations again. I didn’t have any orders. I had

only a verbal order, and I don’t -- I cannot answer to

that question. I didn’t post any confidential information

which includes names which is required, as I understand,

is an accusation and at that point I cannot answer that

question. I didn’t receive that order.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, we emailed you a copy of

that order.

THE FATHER: Right now?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE FATHER: Okay. May I have a few minutes to

check because I didn’t see it before.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE FATHER: Thank you.

MR. HORAN: And I will point out this is the

second time --

THE COURT: Hang on. We’ll just let dad take a

look at that first.

Okay, so dad is back. Did you receive that

order, dad?

THE FATHER: Now I received that order.

THE COURT: Did you post or cause to be posted

that information online?

THE FATHER: After receiving that order, no.

THE COURT: No, I’m just asking, is that a

posting that either you made or your wife?

THE FATHER: I didn’t do it.

THE COURT: Okay. So did mom do it?

THE FATHER: I don’t know.

THE COURT: Did mom have a third party do it?

THE FATHER: I don’t --

THE COURT: Do you have the capacity to take it

down?

THE FATHER: First of all, I don’t know even what

exactly Mr. Brenn is talking about.

THE COURT: He’s talking about the psychological

evaluation of the minor child which is confidential.

THE FATHER: I understand, I understand. Anybody

who has access to the documents can make this post.

THE COURT: I’m sorry?

THE FATHER: I didn’t do it.

MR. BRENN: I can give the link to the website.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m not asking you if you did

that. I’m asking you, do you have the capacity to take it

down?

THE FATHER: I don’t know from where to take it

down. I don’t know who posted that. How can I tell

that -- I cannot answer that question.

THE COURT: So this doesn’t help your case. The

fact that it’s out there doesn’t help your case.

THE FATHER: Somebody had found that document and

posted it online. And --

THE COURT: Shockingly, somebody has found this

confidential document and posted it. Yeah, that’s really

hard to believe because we’ve been talking about the

confidentiality of these proceedings when we began this

case and the Court has asked, and your counsel have

instructed you, that you could not post confidential

information.

THE FATHER: Not minor by name. Not any other

confidential and personal information were posted that

violated any regulations and laws. What exactly Mr. Brenn

is referencing, I have no clue. I have no idea. Can I at

least see that link?

MR. BRENN: Yes.

THE FATHER: Because Mr. Brenn who could do that

and accuse us of doing that. Same as the -- all the fake

accusations. And before we proceed, may I -- can I make

some statement about recent communications with Mr. Brenn

and about CACI?

THE COURT: And about what?

MR. BRENN: CACI.

THE FATHER: CACI Index. Because we have no

communication from Mr. Brenn, and he insists for all of

the allegations in the original petitions are good enough

to keep me and my wife in CACI Index. He refused to

proceed and remove us from that index.

THE COURT: And I don’t have any authority over

the CACI.

THE FATHER: Okay. Is that official answer?

THE COURT: I’m sorry?

THE FATHER: Sorry. After 19 months in that

court, Court is using procedures to destroy my family.

I’d like to keep that in records. And CACI Index, we are

with zero allegations, zero true allegations; and by law,

CACI Index should reflect only real, substantiated

allegations and real parents with real abuse. I would

like to know in what legal basis Mr. Brenn refused to

remove me and my wife from CACI?

MS. STOKES: I would object as that is not

relevant to these proceedings.

THE COURT: I agree. So -- so this is the first

time I’ve ever been requested to address a CACI issue, and

it’s been my understanding that this Court doesn’t have

jurisdiction over that. Perhaps the Court could have

jurisdiction over that if an action was brought to the

Court regarding the CACI, but the fact that the Agency has

listed information as to the CACI, I mean, I just don’t

believe I have legal authority to direct Mr. Brenn to do

anything with CACI without a proper action being brought

before either this Court or a court; and I’m not even sure

what that procedure would be. So --

THE FATHER: May I ask another question?

THE COURT: I have a difficult time understanding

you. I’m sorry.

THE FATHER: The allegations are unsubstantiated,

unfounded, are totally false.

THE COURT: So I’ve made my findings with respect

to juris, and those are the allegations that have been

sustained.

THE FATHER: Mr. Brenn refused to communicate --

to accept the allegations are unsubstantiated.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, they are. The

allegations which the Court sustained are within the

record. So with respect to the CACI, I’m not sure the

procedure by which you move or operate in order to address

those issues but they are not before this Court at this

time. So this matter is on today for --

MR. HORAN: Your Honor, I’m sorry. We were

talking about another issue before we were distracted to

this side issue of CACI and I wanted -- as Mr. Brenn

pointed out, not only was the entire psychological

evaluation --

THE COURT: Can you use the mic, just to make

sure.

MR. HORAN: Not only was the entire phycological

evaluation posted, we’ve previously shown the Court the

parents have posted part of the psych eval and they were

told not to do that so they have knowledge of this, but

second of all, someone else may have posted this. It was

posted with the transcripts of Tate. And I bet if we will

look, and we will look, there’s only one party in this

room that’s ordered any transcripts, and I would imagine

that’s Mr. . So I would just let the Court

know that it’s highly, just what the Court already

suggested, it’s highly unlikely that somebody else did

this, but just to further put that point on there.

THE COURT: Thank you.

So with respect to today’s proceedings, which is

the 387 petition, we’ll go ahead and begin with that

proceeding.

Mr. Brenn?

MR. BRENN: Thank you. I’ll be submitting on

the -- all reports related to the 387 petition and reserve

any evidence, any additional evidence, for rebuttal.

THE COURT: Can you use the mic as well?

MR. BRENN: Yes, apologies.

I’ll be submitting on all. On the 387 detention

report, the 387 juris and dispo report, ask the Court to

take judicial notice of this family maintenance review

court order that was on August 29th of 2025, and I would

reserve any rebuttal evidence.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Dad, do you have any evidence you wish to

present?

THE FATHER: All documents and arguments have

been presented.

COURT REPORTER: I didn’t get that last part.

THE COURT: All documents and evidence have

already been presented; correct?

THE FATHER: Correct. I would like to make

statement regarding the allegations from Mr. Brenn.

THE COURT: So are the statements related to the

387 petition?

THE FATHER: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. We’ll go ahead and swear dad.

So dad, if you could raise your right hand to be

sworn.

dad ,

being called, after having been first duly sworn to

tell the truth, testified as follows:

THE FATHER: Yes, correct.

THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell it

for the record.

THE COURT: Can you state your name and spell it

for the record?

THE FATHER: My name is *********.

THE COURT: Thank you.

And dad, you wanted to make a statement. You can

go ahead.

THE FATHER: One second.

THE COURT: Are you going to read a statement?

THE FATHER: Yes, I --

The initial removal of minor was

totally fabricated, hundred percent of allegations are

false --

THE COURT: So wait. Hang on just a second --

MR. HORAN: That’s irrelevant.

THE COURT: So we have an individual who is

taking down everything you say to create a transcript of

these proceedings, and so you’re speaking really fast. If

you’re reading something, I’m happy to accept that and

adopt it into the record so we have a full knowledge of

what you’re saying or what you wish the Court to know.

THE FATHER: Okay. One second.

Can the Court see the statement?

THE COURT: I can.

THE FATHER: I can zoom in.

THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. If you want to go

ahead and just read it. Read that slowly.

THE FATHER: The central issue is whether minor

should be returned to my custody and my wife’s custody.

The petition alleges I failed to cooperate with the

proposed transition plan. Initially, restraining orders

for me and my wife were pending which limited our ability

to communicate or participate. Second, I respectfully

request the immediate return of minor to our custody

without a transition plan. As I maintain, there was no

probable cause for the initial removal. All allegations

are unsubstantiated. I reckon what the CPS produced is

lying and has not -- no evidence was provided to prove any

of their allegations.

THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else you’d like

to present to the Court regarding the 387 petition?

THE FATHER: Statement from mom. Mom would not

work with any of Shasta County CPS social worker due to

all false and fake allegations as well as number of issues

we documented and presented to Court before.

THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?

THE FATHER: No.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Cross-examination, Ms. Stokes?

MS. STOKES: Submitted, Your Honor.

MR. HORAN: No questions.

MR. BRENN: No questions, Your Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Any additional evidence you’d like to present,

dad?

THE FATHER: (Unintelligible.) If the Court has

new information about what and how we would like to

proceed.

THE COURT: So I do have a few questions for dad.

So the Court issued an order to return to the care of the

parents; agreed?

THE FATHER: It was CPS oversight.

THE COURT: Correct. Thank you. With CPS

oversight and a plan of family maintenance; correct?

THE FATHER: Yes.

THE COURT: And did you meet with CPS to arrange

a transition plan?

THE FATHER: We disagreed with family maintenance

of any kind of transition plan as original allegations

were false and lies. We would not work with CPS, period.

There are not any course for any -- anything that can be

used as legal obligations for us if we worked with CPS.

We would not work with CPS. That’s -- the original

allegations were manufactured and fake, actually fake.

CPS worked a lie from very first day of the case,

including Jen Szephegyi who lied about medications,

including Horan who did communication with our lawyer

behind our back about child medication, including a bunch

of other things. (Unintelligible.) After that, we’re

sorry, we would not work with CPS biological workers of

Shasta County.

THE COURT: Okay. So -- so obviously the child

had been out of your care for a significant period of

time. It was the Court’s finding that the parents and the

child should reunify. The Court found that family

maintenance was appropriate for a period of time in order

to allow the child to transition back to the care of the

parents and for the parents to provide services to address

the minor’s needs, and that was the objective of having

the transition. And it’s my understanding you didn’t take

advantage of that. You would not meet with the Agency in

order to arrange that transition of the minor into your

care; correct?

THE FATHER: May I answer?

THE COURT: Sure.

THE FATHER: We were trying to work with Agency

from day one. What Agency accused us falsely in many

things. Agency was trying to set up us. Agency looked at

us as criminals. And, no, we would not work with Agency

because that’s detrimental for our psychological state and

for child.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE FATHER: With Agency, we would not work

because Agency initially lied; but in all eight or twelve

allegations they have not any reason to remove the child.

They removed that child only for financial gain, personal

financial gain of Jen Szephegyi, Mandy, Chystal Nelson,

because all of that stuff comes from working and each

child is extra income for everybody who is sitting in that

room.

THE COURT: Well, I disagree with that statement.

So, but, you know, the bottom line, dad, is it seems that

you’re willing to put your disagreements with the Agency

ahead of custody of your child --

THE FATHER: That is not true.

THE COURT: -- and that has been your choice.

THE FATHER: No.

THE COURT: The Court has ordered family

maintenance. The Court was prepared and still is prepared

to hear a plan of transition into the parents’ care. The

Court believes the parents can care for the child, but the

Court would like to ensure the safety of all parties as

that transition occurs so the minor transitions back into

your care. And that simply hasn’t been able to occur

because the parents haven’t engaged the Agency which, in

turn, forced the Agency to file a 387 petition to

re-detain the child from the care of the parents because

the parents hadn’t complied with the order of family

maintenance to work with the Agency for a transition plan.

So you’ve put the disagreement you’ve had with the Agency

above custody of your child.

THE FATHER: No.

THE COURT: That’s exactly what’s happened here.

THE FATHER: That is not true.

THE COURT: Well, why -- how is it not true?

How -- how have you --

THE FATHER: That is not true. We didn’t put our

disagreement above child safety and reunification. Agency

should not stand between me and my child. We agreed to

put our child in --

THE COURT: I think you froze. Dad?

THE FATHER: Okay. But without involvement of

CPS. Sorry, I said it again, and I will say it again and

again. We don’t put our child -- we don’t want CPS

between us and our child. CPS should disappear, should be

eliminated from our lives completely. Mr. Brenn, you

should be eliminated from our life. That means legally

you should disappear from my life. I don’t want to see

you, Mr. Horan, Ms. Aneke, or anybody in that room. First

of all, that child was removed on false claims, false

allegations, all lies. I would like to know on what basis

I should cooperate with Agency to get my child back?

THE COURT: So --

THE FATHER: I would like --

THE COURT: So it’s the Court’s tentative that

it’s still appropriate -- family maintenance is still an

appropriate option for this family. The Court does

believe the minor and the parents should reunify.

Unfortunately, I have parents who are resistant to working

with the Agency for that limited process which is

unfortunate so -- and the Court had indicated that the

family maintenance was for purpose of assuring the

transition back into the care of the parents, and the

parents simply just haven’t worked with the Agency and

they haven’t worked with the Court in order to facilitate

that outcome. So it was my tentative today that I would

like to hear what the parents’ plan is to transition the

minor back into the parents’ care, and I’m hearing that

the parents are still of the same argument, that they will

not deal at all with the Agency. Therefore, precluding

the ability of the Court to transition the child safely

back into the care of the parents.

THE FATHER: We found facility for our child.

And we totally accept our child as it is and we totally

want our child back. What we don’t want? We don’t want

to see CPS workers in our life. We don’t want to see

biological attorneys who are still socially transition our

child in courtroom. They [due to dad’s mispronunciation the court reporter either intentionally or accidentally put ‘We’] are against even HHS report

recommendation. We don’t want to see our child to be

castrated by CPS biological workers against parents’ will.

That’s it. We want our child back without CPS. And we

have rights for that. CPS removed our child on all false

allegations, all lies. There are not any legal ground to

remove the child and keep the child in state custody

except financial gain for county and for everybody who

sits in that room. That’s the only reason my child is in

state custody, nothing else.

THE COURT: Okay. So the Court has simply asked

you to work with the Agency to make that transition

possible. I’m not hearing that you’re willing to work

with the Agency to make that transition possible. I’ve

not heard a transition plan for the minor from the

parents. Mom is not even present today which is very

disappointing to the Court. It was the Court’s hope that

the Court could facilitate the transition plan back into

the care of the parents that is safe for the minor. And

that is not going to happen today based on dad’s

testimony.

THE FATHER: What is not safe for child to be

with own parents, who protect the child from castration

mutilation?

THE COURT: So you’re making the assumption that

those things have happened to the child. I’m not making

those assumptions. So I’m --

THE FATHER: I’m not making that assumption.

(Inaudible) HHS report and whether the staying of child in

HHS custody -- or sorry, in CPS custody, who -- and,

again, HHS report and social transition is very good

statements about social transition. As I said, CPS, in

two years, didn’t work with us. CPS set us up multiple

times. CPS biological workers lied on reports, lied under

oath, lied in initial petition. And I would like to know

how normal human being would work in that biological

workers after all that. We want our child back, and we

don’t want CPS in our life. That clear statement.

THE COURT: So with respect to the JV-180, the

Court is going to deny the JV-180 to return the child to

the care of the parents without a proper transition plan.

So it is denied. The parents have not provided the Court

with a transition plan so the Court will deny it --

THE FATHER: Parents provided --

THE COURT: -- on the basis it is not in the best

interest of the child.

THE FATHER: Parents provided a transition plan.

We have A**** facility. It was selected long time ago.

It’s in Florida and we would like to transfer our child

into that facility for a couple of months, actually, to

detox from CPS, social transition from CPS, the

trans-ideology pushing and all of that stuff. But again,

that’s separate story. We have A****** and we agreed to

put our child -- to transfer our child to that facility,

not to us, our direct care, because the child simply

cannot be with family after all damage with CPS biological

worker done to me, my wife, and my child.

THE COURT: So, dad, it might be helpful if we

could just put your disagreement with Children And Family

Services aside for a moment. I do recall that, after the

Court issued the order of family maintenance, one of your

attorneys, I’m not sure who, did propose a transition plan

into a facility in Florida.

THE FATHER: Yes.

THE COURT: The Court was not aware at that time

that I received that transition plan that you had actually

moved or were moving to the State of Florida. But I do

recall, now that you mention that, that there was that

request to transition the minor into that facility. The

minor did participate -- the Court did order family

counseling immediately after ordering family maintenance.

The minor was asked by the Court to participate in that

counseling, to meet with the counselor here. That was the

counselor of your choice. I am drawing a blank as to the

name of the counselor.

MR. HORAN: Chris Jensen.

THE COURT: Yes, Chris Jensen. The minor --

it’s -- I’ve been informed through the proceedings that

the minor did participate in meeting with Mr. Jensen.

There was documentation contained within the file that

Mr. Jensen could no longer facilitate the family

reunification therapy because Mr. Jensen was not licensed

in the State of Florida and the parents were living in the

State of Florida, but I will say that the minor did comply

with the Court’s order to attempt to participate in that

therapy in order to transition the minor to the care of

the parents. Throughout this whole entire process, we’ve

asked that the minor participate and know what treatment

options are available to the minor. Minor did, through

Mr. Horan, be presented options and that’s how we got to

BNI, or BIN?

THE MINOR: BNI.

THE COURT: BNI, which the Court thought was a

fantastic facility for the minor and the minor was doing

well. But the Court understood that it was very costly to

the parents and the parents’ insurance were paying for a

portion of it but they, the insurance company, was no

longer willing to pay for those services for the benefit

of the minor.

THE FATHER: That’s not true. Again, that’s not

true. Insurance company will -- were willing to pay for

the services in BNI. I would like to remind, BNI

communication was blocked by CPS biological worker. We

had two weeks without communication with BNI because

Jennifer Szephegyi instructed not to communicate with

parents but keep communication with the foster family.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE FATHER: (Unintelligible.)

THE COURT: That is true. There was a period of

time in which the communication -- the parents were not

receiving communications from BNI. The Court did address

those issues, and it’s the Court’s recollection that that

communication was restored quite a few months before the

minor’s time at that facility ended. So it still is my

recollection that there were issues and the contract or

the agreement with BNI did end, and the minor returned to

Shasta County.

THE FATHER: No, no. BNI was instructed to kick

out the child. Our insurance company was totally fine to

pay for longer stay, but BNI facility decided to, because

of pressure from CPS workers, decided to kick the child

out. That’s why --

THE COURT: Okay. I don’t want -- you can rehash

all of this that you want. It doesn’t move the ball

forward in any way at this point. Your objective is to

have the child back in your care without CPS.

THE FATHER: No, no, no, and no. We would like

to see our child in our care without staying in the Court

oversight of CPS.

THE COURT: That’s what I just said.

THE FATHER: CPS went against us.

THE COURT: It is your objective --

THE FATHER: Against parents all the time.

THE COURT: Is it your objective to have the

child in your care without the oversight of CPS.

THE FATHER: We would like to see our child in

our care without oversight of Shasta County CPS biological

workers Mandy, Jennifer Szephegyi, and any other workers.

THE COURT: Is there anybody at Children Family

Services you are willing to work with?

THE FATHER: After I experienced you, Shasta

County CPS, absolutely not.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE FATHER: They have only one goal, destroy

family. That is why we would not work with and that is

all documented.

THE COURT: What is your goal, dad? What is your

goal?

THE FATHER: My goal is get my child back because

the child was removed on all lies --

THE COURT: Just tell me your goal. I get that,

dad, you’ve repeated it multiple times. Tell me what your

goal is, what you are requesting of this Court.

THE FATHER: Like I said before, multiple times,

we would like you to return our child without any

conditions, without CPS involvement, to our custody. And

initially we would like to send our child to A*****, the

facility in Florida -- it’s open-entry facility where we

provided information before -- where our child can stay

for awhile, if necessary, up until 18 years. And after

that, it will be the child who can decide what to do next.

We have agreement with A***** where they can keep child

as long as we would pay for it. And as I understand,

they’d be capable to handle our child’s psychological

needs, physical needs, and emotional needs. As long as it

is not CPS involved in our communications between us and

our child. CPS should be eliminated from our life. That

is my request.

THE COURT: Okay. And are you aware of the

current psychological needs, physical needs of your child

at this time?

THE FATHER: At that point, because CPS block all

communication with our child, CPS didn’t respond to us,

that’s why we ask to send our child to facility, to

A***** facility, where all psychological/physical needs

would be provided to the child, all and every. Really

good explanation of how we work with -- we provided

recommendation and that facility made recommendation of

our child. CPS -- CPS refused to provide any medical

information about our child, any psychological

information. CPS even more -- CPS uses state-funded

insurance just to hide services provided to our child.

CPS is just fraud in Shasta County.

THE COURT: Okay. So has the Agency --

THE FATHER: That’s why will not work with CPS --

THE COURT: Did the Agency --

THE FATHER: Sorry, Your Honor, but we will not

work with CPS because they have completely shown ability

to do nothing, to make false allegations, and really

destroy life of my family and my child. That’s only --

THE COURT: Did the Agency --

THE FATHER: We spent one hundred --

MR. HORAN: Your Honor --

THE FATHER: We spent --

THE COURT: Hang on.

THE FATHER: And at --

THE COURT: No. So did the Agency make an effort

to take a look at this program that the parents had

identified?

MR. BRENN: Apparently there was something

provided to the Court last year well before -- apparently

there was something provided to the Court by the parents

with respect to this A******* Treatment Facility long

before the Court made the family maintenance orders so it

certainly wasn’t recent.

THE FATHER: It still --

MS. STOKES: Your Honor, I believe it was --

THE FATHER: We still --

THE COURT: I’m sorry, Mr. , I have to

hear from everybody; okay?

Ms. Stokes?

MS. STOKES: If I recall, it was discussed

previously while the parents were still in the State of

California. And the issue was not, my understanding,

followed through on because that would indicate that the

child be placed outside of the State of California. And

my other recollection is, the next time that it was

brought up, the parents were no longer in the State of

California which then necessitated a conversation of how

would that transition happen without placing the child

directly into the treatment facility if the parents

weren’t cooperating with CFS, and so I don’t know that any

further investigation or plan was done. But I will say

that, for my purposes, I’ve been objecting to the release

of the child out of state until the family unit is stable

in state because this seems as though it is an opportunity

to avail the parents of other state’s jurisdiction and law

and remove the child from the law that has been applying

to this case with regards to health and welfare and the

laws of the State of California. And so I would be

objecting to any placement whether it was with the parents

and in an out-of-state treatment or in an out-of-state

treatment program while under the jurisdiction of this

Court because I believe it would no longer protect the

minor’s interest under the laws of the State of

California.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Mr. Horan?

MR. HORAN: Well, I don’t know what topic we’re

going to be talking about, but if we’re talking about

A*****, yes, that -- there was an A***** file floating

around. We never really made any decisions about it, but,

you know, that was also a long time ago. the minor has been

in therapy this whole time. He went to BNI and the reason

he left BNI, BNI discharged him. They said, “We can’t

help him anymore. He’s where he needs to be. He’s

stable.” That’s why he -- and coincidentally, the last

time the parents visited the minor was BNI, and they keep

saying, you know, we can’t talk to our child. They chose

to stop visiting. That was March of ‘25. But the minor,

since then, has graduated high school six months early.

He graduated this December. He’s been going to therapy.

He’s doing fine. There’s no even evidence that he needs

this program or that this program would benefit him at

this time. It’s just some program in Florida that the

parents threw out there, and we’re all sitting here

arguing about whether it’s the right one or whether he can

go there. I don’t even think it’s necessary. the minor is

stable. He’s on his medications. He’s, like I said, 17

and a half almost, he’s graduated high school; he’s on his

way to becoming a young adult. And there’s no even

indication that he needs to be sent to a facility in

Florida until he’s 18. I think, you know, how we even get

there at this point, I’m not sure of.

And what I would like to say is, we’re going to

talk about everything, is that, you know, the parents

talked about there’s no legal cause. No. They, after

days, and unfortunately it strung out for months of the

jurisdiction hearing, admitted the petition. It was

fashioned to what they admitted. So they admitted the

petition which gave the Court jurisdiction of the child.

So for them to say, “There was no evidence, nothing

happened,” they admitted that. They had three attorneys

advising them and they admitted that. The Court took

jurisdiction of the child so I don’t even know why we’re

arguing about that.

And then when it came to disposition, the parents

have not followed through with one thing. And all they do

is keep posting inflammatory information and saying how

the Court has taken away their child, and they’re the ones

that walked away. They chose not to visit from March to

April. The order right here on April 29th, the first

order on the minute order is the Court hereby orders

physical custody returned to the parents and names them by

name. They chose not to take the minor back into their home.

They told CPS, through their attorneys, they weren’t ready

and they needed more time. And we all kind of understood

that at the time, but we understood we thought there was

going to be this family therapy with the therapist they

chose. the minor met with the therapist twice, and then the

family met with the therapist once. And I don’t know what

happened in that therapy, but my guess is the parents

didn’t like what they heard; and whenever they don’t like

what they hear, they try to change the situation and

that’s when they left. And all of a sudden, we found out

that they moved to Florida and have never chosen to see

the minor since. And they’re saying, “The Court’s taken away

the minor and we just want nothing but our child back.” And

they made absolutely no effort to get their child back.

And I would think, before that could even happen, we would

need a disposition plan that would include psychological

evaluations of these parents.

The stuff they are posting, and you can hear the

stuff the dad is saying, it just -- it’s been

increasingly, increasingly, from the moment the social

worker showed up at their house just to talk to them,

there was no police, there was no -- there was just a

complaint made. He just wanted to go check up like they

do. There was no intention. It was just social worker

Nelson and the parents overacted, and that created a big

scene and it’s been nothing but scene after scene to where

I’m reading stuff like -- one of the things I heard was

that Stephanie Bridget, and the Court, yourself, and all

of us are harvesters for the Children’s Legacy Center and

we get these kids so they can sexually, you know, part

them out and everybody at the Legacy Center is wearing

jewelry and opulent clothes and we’re all getting rich off

this. And we’ve heard about castration today and -- these

parents have completely lost sight of the minor. They’re so

worried about CPS and they’re so worried about this

anti-trans community, being part of that and catering to

that. It just seems to get -- every time we come to

court, it seems to be worse and worse. And now this time

we come to court and dad can sit here and say he’s never

seen this order, but he was here when the Court said it

orally last time, and now we’re getting full transcripts

and the minor’s psychological evaluation. So these parents

have made their choices. They’ve chosen not to visit

the minor since March. They’ve chosen not to take the minor

back in family maintenance. They’ve chosen to post all

this hateful, contradictory, flat-out lies. The last one

I read starts off -- well, I don’t want to look it up, but

it says we lost custody of our child to the Shasta County

CPS. No, they didn’t lose custody of their child. In

fact, they still have custody of their child. The Court

ordered the child back to the home. They walked away.

And just to hear this, and the minor’s sitting here listening

to this, and you think the minor feels his parents want him

back? Do you think he feels that anymore? I know the minor,

I would say --

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

MR. HORAN: I would say up until about -- maybe

as far even as family maintenance, I think the minor had a

glimmer of hope that that was going to happen. But he

sees that’s not going to happen now. His parents aren’t

going to agree to do any transition plan, and they’re only

going to agree to do this if they can do it on their

terms, which I suggest at this point would not be safe for

the minor and would be detrimental to the minor.

THE FATHER: Mr. Horan, minor is not --

(Mother appears on the screen with father.)

THE MOTHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE COURT: So is that mom?

THE MINOR: They’re telling me to get home.

THE MOTHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE COURT: So it sounds like mom has been

present during these proceedings. So --

THE MOTHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

MR. HORAN: Your Honor, I have real feelings

mom’s been recording if not videotaping.

THE MOTHER: (Speaking in foreign language.) [I said Liar Liar at Horan and the reporter cut it out]

MR. HORAN: This is what we --

THE MOTHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

MR. HORAN: -- we’ve broken down to with these

parents.

THE COURT: So, okay. We’ll go ahead and cut the

mics to the parents at this point, to the parents. They

can hear, but I don’t want to be interrupted.

THE MOTHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE COURT: So with respect to these proceedings,

with respect to the 387 petition, while it was not the

tentative of the Court to grant the 387 but to try and

work again with the parties to restore the family unit,

that seems well beyond our ability to accomplish at this

time. The Court does find the allegations in the

387 petition to be true.

With respect to the JV-180 filed by the parents

which is to request return of the child to the care of the

parents without Children Family Services involvement, the

Court does not find that to be in the best interest of the

child and the Court denies the JV-180.

I will say, just for the record, the minor has

been cooperative with the Court. The Court has

consistently asked the minor to participate in activities

with the parents and the minor has not always been --

THE MOTHER: Sexualized, medicalized --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

THE FATHER: I would like --

THE COURT: So this is the Court’s opportunity to

speak. So I’m not sure where I was, but I know the minor has

been --

THE MOTHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE COURT: I’m sorry, but if you unmute yourself

again and interrupt me, I will -- I have been patient.

I’ve allowed dad to speak. Mom had indicated she was not

here or in the -- available today. She, in fact, was

available today. I believe mom did receive that order of

the Court as to not disclose any information from these

proceedings or provide it to any third party to disclose.

I did make an exception to disclose information if they

were seeking legal advice, but a copy of the order was to

be provided to anybody who received any documents from

this case. So it is my understanding that there has been

additional postings. I will order the parents, --

THE MOTHER: (Unintelligible.)

THE COURT: -- or any third party that they have

provided the information to, to remove those postings from

the Internet immediately. And immediately means within

24 hours so those are to be removed.

THE MOTHER: No --

THE COURT: So the Court’s going to sustain the

allegations in the 387. The parents are continuously

interrupting the Court so I will adopt the findings and

orders provided to the Court. The Court finds that notice

has been given as required by law. The child is a

resident of Shasta County, will continue as a dependent of

the Court. The allegations in the 387 supplemental

petition filed on October 24th are true. Child was

initially removed from the home on June 3rd of 2024 --

excuse me. If I said 2024, it’s 10/24/2025. Child was

initially removed from the care of the parents on June

3rd, 2024. The Court does find that the parents have

made no progress. The date for number nine?

MR. BRENN: May 15th, 2026.

THE FATHER: All and any documents would be

published at our discretion.

THE COURT: May 15th, 2026.

THE FATHER: (Unintelligible. Father continues

to speak while proceedings are going on.)

MR. BRENN: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

The Court will set the matter for .26/permanent

plan review on that date; correct, Counsel?

MR. BRENN: Yes.

THE COURT: May 15th, 2026.

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

MR. HORAN: Your Honor --

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE COURT: Could you please translate?

THE FATHER: No, please, don’t translate.

THE INTERPRETER: This is the interpreter

speaking. And first of all, interpreter missed a lot of

it because the parents spoke too fast. But then after

your order to translate, the parents said, “Do not

translate.” The interpreter heard, “These -- these

fuckers have been using you and paid some number of

thousands of dollars.” The interpreter missed that.

THE FATHER: I didn’t say fuckers. Don’t lie,

don’t lie.

THE COURT: So all I --

THE INTERPRETER: At this point -- this is the

interpreter. At this point, the --

THE FATHER: I said, “minor, please don’t listen

to these people because all that stuff -- what is going

on -- we spent $160,000 only to defend us, our family, and

you from castration and mutilation. If you still continue

to do that so be -- “

MR. HORAN: I think he’s trying to talk to

the minor.

THE COURT: Yes, it is clear that dad is trying

to speak to the minor without having the interpreter

interpret that for the Court.

the minor, if you could go ahead and just tell

Counsel what your father said so we can make a record of

it.

THE MINOR: From the very beginning when they

started speaking another language, the first thing that I

told by him, right before my mom, my bio mom came in --

or, I’m sorry. I was told not to say that, I’m sorry. He

told me to punch that fucker in the face.

THE COURT: And that fucker being who?

THE FATHER: You lie!

THE MINOR: I’m not lying.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay.

MR. HORAN: For he record, he’s pointing to --

THE FATHER: Okay. Guys --

THE MOTHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE MINOR: My mom just said, “Let her stay in

here.” She’s saying that she would let me stay in

custody --

(Both father and mother speaking in foreign

language over each other.)

THE COURT: Okay! Thank you.

Do not unmute!

Do not, so I can make a proper record of these

proceedings so you’ll have it in the future. So, I’m

sorry --

THE MINOR: Is it okay if I make a statement?

THE COURT: Yes, you can make a statement.

THE MINOR: And first of all, I apologize for

them being like this. This is basically how it’s been in

every family visit. They would speak another language so

that, you know, the people writing down, the family

workers, couldn’t, you know, translate because -- and then

the one time they had a person who could understand them,

they wouldn’t really speak to me in another language

because they understand that, you know, eyes were on them.

But basically, this has always been a thing where they

would speak another language to hide what they were

actually saying.

THE COURT: So at the end --

THE MINOR: At the end, my mom said, “Let her

stay,” which to me that says let me stay in custody. They

don’t want me back.

THE COURT: In care. You’re not in custody;

right?

MR. HORAN: Care.

THE MINOR: Well, yeah. In custody of --

THE COURT: The state.

THE MINOR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. I understand.

So I’ve tried to make my orders. So parents do

have a right to appeal the decision of the Court. Any

appeal within 60 days, counsel will be appointed, and a

free transcript provided to you. If you have any

questions regarding your right to appeal, contact counsel

right away. We will -- or seek counsel right away. We

will send to you by first class mail your right to appeal

the decision of the Court.

With respect to the JV-180, that is denied. The

Court does not find, based on these proceedings, that it

is in the best interest at this time for the Court to

grant the request to return the child to the care of the

parents so the Court will deny that JV-180 request as

well.

Parents are ordered not to post anything,

anything about this case, online at all. Any materials

that have been posted online are to be immediately

removed. In particular, any medical or psychological

examinations or documentation as it relates to the minor

should be immediately removed. That is privileged

material, the privilege of the minor, who does not wish

those materials to be available on any public, or private

forum for that matter, so they are to be removed

immediately. The Court has issued a very detailed order.

The parents are ordered to comply with that. Father has

been emailed a copy of that today. It is my understanding

mother received that some time ago. And certainly, I’m

sure Mr. Brenn will be requesting some digital

confirmation that mom did receive that information -- or

order, excuse me.

So the Court sets the matter for May 15th at 8:30

for .26 and permanent plan review. That is a --

MR. HORAN: Are all parties ordered to be

present?

THE COURT: All parties are ordered to be present

in court, and Court will no longer allow remote

appearances in this case because the Court cannot control

the proceedings in that venue so the Court will not permit

the remote appearances.

Any other orders the Court needs to make?

MR. BRENN: No, Your Honor. But I would like to

make a record that the father said that all things will be

posted at his discretion which indicates to me an intent

to violate the Court’s order. I would like the Court to

have a record of that.

THE FATHER: It is my intention to use my first

amendment and constitutional right to discuss stuff with

parties who are ordered by Court. I can discuss it with

my sister, with my wife, with parties allowed by first

amendment. If Court wants to put that order on us, it

will be discussed with our lawyers how that order is

constitutional.

MS. STOKES: With that in mind, I would make a

request that the Court order no personal records of the

minor be disclosed or disseminated to the parents at this

time without prior redaction of all personal information

including diagnoses and treatment plans.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. STOKES: They still have med and educational

rights, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. The Court --

THE FATHER: Technically we have more rights.

You have no rights. We sub human. (Unintelligible.) due to dad’s mispronunciation the court reporter either intentionally or accidentally put ‘You’

We are not mere dust.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE FATHER: (Unintelligible.)

THE COURT: So the Court will grant the request

that the parents return any confidential privileged

information to the Agency immediately. That would be any

psychological evaluations or any references to

psychological evaluations or medical records of any kind

that the parents have obtained pursuant to their right

under 827, to have a copy of that. Obviously those

documents were not to be disclosed in any way. It does

appear that the parents have allowed for their disclosure

so the Court will order those documents returned and any

copies of those documents made and that any digital copies

of those documents made be immediately erased. If the

parents believe they have a first amendment right, they

can certainly discuss with counsel their rights and the

Court’s order and proceed as they wish, but the Court is

ordering, pursuant to 827, all of those documents be

returned that relate to the minor’s privileged

information.

MS. STOKES: And going forward, Your Honor --

THE FATHER: It is impossible --

(Unintelligible) -- different lawyers, attorneys, and

third parties. I don’t believe -- [The court reporter intentionally or accidentally cut off speech this and multiple times]

THE COURT: If you have distributed those to any

lawyer or third parties, you’re to provide the order

issued by the Court as to the confidentiality of those

documents and the disclosure of those documents to any

additional individuals. So --

THE FATHER: (Unintelligible.) [The court reporter intentionally or accidentally cut off speech this and multiple times]

THE COURT: We sent that to you today; you have

that. So anybody who’s received those documents is to

receive a copy of that order.

THE FATHER: Thank you for showing up that we are

subhuman. As Ukrainian parents, we’re trying to defend

our child. You already shown us that we are nobody --

THE COURT: Thank you.

THE FATHER: -- Shasta County. I would like that

to be on the record, Judge Bigelow, if you don’t mind,

because after all the proceedings, we lost our house, we

lost $180,000, we lost our child, to you, to your county,

and to CPS biological workers.

THE COURT: Thank you.

THE FATHER: (Unintelligible.) [The court reporter intentionally or accidentally cut off speech this and multiple times]

THE COURT: So it was --

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE COURT: Dad, it was the Court’s order to

return the child to your care, so you’ve chosen not to

take custody of the child without a transition plan --

THE FATHER: (Unintelligible because father is

trying to speak over the Court.) [The court reporter intentionally or accidentally cut off speech this and multiple times]

THE COURT: -- and, as a result, the Court has no

other choice but to grant the 387 petition, set the matter

for .26. Matter is set for May 15th, 2026 at 8:30.

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.) [The court reporter intentionally or accidentally cut off speech this and multiple times and add things that were not there]

THE COURT: That concludes our proceedings.

Thank you.

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE INTERPRETER: This is the interpreter

speaking.

THE COURT: Yes?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, ma’am?

THE COURT: Could you interpret?

THE INTERPRETER: Um, the father said, and again

he spoke too fast, “If you get castrated, that is not your

decision. If these sub -- subfools were to castrate you,

it is not your decision.” And then the interpreter could

not hear.

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE INTERPRETER: We love you. We love you.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

THE FATHER: Thank you for showing us that we are

subhuman.

THE INTERPRETER: Is there anything else the

interpreter needs to interpret?

THE FATHER: (Speaking in foreign language.)

THE COURT: No, thank you very much. We’re going

to go ahead and end the proceedings.

(Proceedings adjourned.)

CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER