Angela Freiner-Court Motion

IN THE TWENTY–FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI

FAMILY COURT
ANGELA FREINER, )
Petitioner, )
) Cause No. 14SL-DR02617-02
)
v. ) Division 31 FILED
2/23/2021
) JOAN M. GILMER
JAMES JUDY, ) CIRCUIT CLERK
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
Respondent. )
HEARING ON COURT’S INTENT TO ENTER ORDER
On the Court’s own motion, the Court gives notice to the parties that the Court
will hold a hearing on the Court’s intent to enter an order against the parties on February
26, 2021 at 10:00am. The reasons for the Court’s motion include, but are not limited to
the following:
1. At a hearing on February 11, 2021, Respondent adduced evidence that
Petitioner has posted recordings of the Court proceedings in this case on the internet,
including on Facebook.
2. During the hearing on February 11, 2021, it was discovered by security that
Petitioner had a phone in her possession that was recording the hearing. Petitioner
advised the Court that it was the minor child’s cell phone (who was present at the
hearing). The Court immediately addressed the issue with the parties. Respondent
advised the Court that he purchased the phone for the minor child and that it belonged to
him. The phone was returned to Respondent, who confirmed that the phone had been
recording the hearing that day.
1
3. Thereafter, the Court received emails from a third party who included links
to what the sender described as audio recordings of select portions of the February 11,
2021 Court proceedings. The links were to You Tube.
4. This case is a paternity case and, as such, all proceedings (hearings,
conferences, etc.) and pleadings are confidential. Missouri Revised Statute § 210.846
states in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any other law concerning public hearings and records, any
hearing or trial held under sections 210.817 to 210.852 shall be held in closed
court without admittance of any person other than those necessary to the action
or proceeding. All papers and records, other than the interlocutory or final
judgment, pertaining to the action or proceeding, whether part of the
permanent record of the court, are subject to inspection only by the prosecuting
or circuit attorney or attorney under contract with the family support division
or upon the consent of the court and all interested persons, or in exceptional
cases only upon order of the court for good cause shown.
5. Additionally, pursuant to Local Court Rule 9.5, no one is allowed to
photograph or record any Court proceedings without permission or as authorized by
Court Operating Rule 16. Indeed, the Court advised the parties of this Rule on a regular
basis. According to the evidence previously presented to the Court at the February 11,
2021 hearing, the recording(s) that Petitioner posted to Facebook (and, perhaps,
elsewhere) includes the Court’s admonition to the parties that they may not record Court
proceedings. Moreover, this case was filed before the onset of the pandemic and both
parties would have seen signs posted throughout the Courthouse that prohibit recordings.
6. The Court has great concern about what appears to be violations of
Missouri law regarding confidentiality of paternity proceedings and the Court Rules by a
party/the parties in this case. Therefore, the Court finds this hearing to be a critical and
2
urgent matter that should be conducted in person.
7. Based on the above, it is the Court’s intent to enter an Order prohibiting the
parties and/or counsel from recording any Court proceedings, posting any previously-
recorded Court proceedings on the internet or otherwise, disseminating any previously-
recorded Court proceedings, and/or communicating any information regarding this case
and/or discussing the specifics of the case with third parties. The parties are further
prohibited from granting access to any third party to the minor child for the purpose of
discussing any issue relating to this pending litigation. The Court also intends to enter an
Order requiring that the parties/counsel remove any and all recordings previously posted
on the internet, obtain all recordings disseminated to third parties, and turn over to the
Court all original and copies of all Court proceedings that were recorded by the parties or
in the possession of the parties (recorded by others) no later than March 3, 2021.
8. Additionally, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 36.01(b), a willful
violation of a Court order could cause the Court to hold the offender in indirect criminal
contempt. If the Court holds a party in indirect criminal contempt after adducing
evidence at an evidentiary hearing, the Court could fine the offending party and/or send
the party to jail for up to six months in the custody of the Department of Justice Services
for each violation.
THEREFORE, it is ordered that Petitioner, the GAL, and all counsel appear in
Court in person and Respondent appear by video (because he lives in Montana) to
3
respond to this motion on February 26, 2021 at 10:00am, which is the Court’s previously
scheduled conference in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
_______________________
Nicole S. Zellweger
Family Court Judge
February 23, 2021

Angela Freiner-Court Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Angela Freiner-Court Motion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Angela Freiner-Court Motion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why is the court holding a hearing?

What does the court intend to order?

IN THE TWENTY–FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, STATE OF MISSOURI

HEARING ON COURT’S INTENT TO ENTER ORDER

1. At a hearing on February 11, 2021, Respondent adduced evidence that

recording the hearing that day.

2021 Court proceedings. The links were to You Tube.

4. This case is a paternity case and, as such, all proceedings (hearings,

states in pertinent part:

5. Additionally, pursuant to Local Court Rule 9.5, no one is allowed to

photograph or record any Court proceedings without permission or as authorized by

6. The Court has great concern about what appears to be violations of

recorded Court proceedings on the internet or otherwise, disseminating any previously-

8. Additionally, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 36.01(b), a willful

for each violation.

Court in person and Respondent appear by video (because he lives in Montana) to

scheduled conference in this case.

You might also like