thedailytimes.com : Your 24/7 news source

Dear Editor:

I am the attorney representing the plaintiff/father, Fernando J. Calixto, in the story recently generated concerning Judge Young.

Please know that Mr. Calixto is a hardworking individual who loves his children and just wants to be able to spend time with them and raise them as any good divorced father would.

He and I filed a complaint for divorce May 3, 2007 and promptly had Ana Calixto served with the paperwork. She has hired no attorney. She has little or no command of the English language. Mr. Calixto can speak English a little bit better and can understand my “high school” Spanish better than his wife.

In spite of the fact that Ms. Calixto has hired no attorney and has formally made no response to the divorce petition, I have taken no action to “default her.” This would be to seek and obtain a divorce on Mr. Calixto’s terms only, without any input from her. I could have done so, may yet, but have not done so, out of a sense of fairness and fair play to allow the two parties to resolve all their issues themselves without a third party.

However, Ms. Calixto on her own filed a separate pleading in the divorce against Mr. Calixto alleging that she has grounds for a one-sided order of protection to be issued against Mr. Calixto. If granted, Mr. Calixto would be arrested and detained for having any contact with his children or Ms. Calixto, as per her own request.

When we appeared in Court, it seemed Ms. Ana Calixto understood very little if anything that was said other than having heard that she was instructed to “go back to Nicaragua,” as contained in your article.

At the beginning of the hearing on Ms. Calixto’s petition for order of protection, (please note this was not a hearing for the divorce), due to their inability to communicate in English, Judge Young asked both parties under what status they were here in America. Mr. Calixto freely admitted that he had no legal status while Ms. Calixto attempted to show Judge Young proof of a work permit.

The work permit was out of date and Judge young made note that both parties were apparently here illegally and could therefore be deported.

Judge Young asked me upon ascertaining that fact whether or not I knew of any basis whatsoever for “subject matter jurisdiction” for his court to determine an order of protection, (or child of protection, (or child custody determination or divorce action) with both parties being illegal immigrants. As I had never even questioned my client as to his or his wife’s status here in America, I could not answer that question. I merely told Judge Young that, quite frankly, I had not asked either party if they were here legally!

For a Tennessee Court to grant a divorce or make a child custody determination, it must first have subject matter jurisdiction granted by the Tennessee Legislature. I do not now know the answer to Judge Young’s most basic and underlying question, as I have been unable to research the same to date.

However, please know that Judge Young did not turn these people away from their divorce. He merely dismissed the order of protection. Based upon the statements made by Ms. Calixto in open court and the actual written allegations of the order of protection that Ms. Calixto had sworn to on August 30, 2007 (that Mr. Calixto would have the children to himself, that he would make her lose her job, and make sure that he gets the children, and was calling her constantly every day to see the children) the court did not feel that Ms. Calixto had met her burden of proof to sustain the order of protection, and strongly suggested that both parties return to their respective home countries, get legal and come back so that his court would, perhaps, then have subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage. Quite simply, there was absolutely no allegation, written or oral, by Ana Calixto of physical abuse or threat of physical abuse to justify granting an order of protection.

It appears that all the Calixtos heard or understood was Judge Young telling them to go back to their home country. They did not understand the legal basis upon which he was giving that direction, nor the added instruction that perhaps they needed to come back with the proper paperwork.

I am an advocate who must take one side or the other. I have sat in for judges on the general sessions level and find it very arduous, difficult and almost impossible to remain unbiased and unprejudiced during the proof stage of any hearing, as I am a trained advocate.

I greatly respect every judge in this county, or anywhere who has trained and disciplined his mind to remain impartial and open-minded throughout the proof of all matters until the close of the evidence before making a decision. That is a very difficult job to have and I find it hard to do myself when I am called upon to do so as a volunteer for an absent Judge.

I have practiced for many years in Judge Young’s Court and have always found him to be the epitome of courtesy and respect to all who appear before him, as he was in this instance. I have seen other attorneys really “cross the line” to where they deserved to be barred from his court and castigated publicly. In many of those instances, I have witnessed Judge Young keep his “cool” much better than I or most other human beings could, and handled the situation courteously and dispassionately. In fact, one of Judge Young’s most common spoken statements to me when he is right and I am wrong is as follows, “I respectfully disagree with you Mr. Hickman, now please move on.”

I will now move on.

Yours very truly,
Mike A. Hickman, P.A.
Attorney at Law
202 S. Washington St.
Maryville, TN 37804