Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
natkhat pari
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:56 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#121

Unread post by natkhat pari » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:17 am

As one of kid is balig was he forced to give remisaq to ms bs.
Or its diferrent set of rule for quser Ali specics

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#122

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:44 pm

alhaq wrote:Natkhat :lol: :lol:
misaq ho gaya aur tum log dekhtay hi reh gaye.... :lol: :lol:
Ameerul Mumineen ne bhi Abu Bakr ko "bayat" diya tha...Usme kaun si badi baat hai ji.

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#123

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Tue Mar 17, 2015 10:14 pm

alhaq wrote:Magar amirulmomeneen ko zabardasti pakar kar khench kar ..galay may kaala rassa daal k bayaat lya gya tha..yaha aisa nahi howa..yaha to bachay khushi khushi moula moula keh kar misaq dya....agar tum chahtay ho to misaaq ka video bataw?
Are you asking my permission to show the video?

noor5253
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:36 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#124

Unread post by noor5253 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:16 am

UnhappyBohra wrote:
alhaq wrote:Magar amirulmomeneen ko zabardasti pakar kar khench kar ..galay may kaala rassa daal k bayaat lya gya tha..yaha aisa nahi howa..yaha to bachay khushi khushi moula moula keh kar misaq dya....agar tum chahtay ho to misaaq ka video bataw?
Are you asking my permission to show the video?
Unhappy pappy
Why are your replies always so stupid?
Is it because u r unhappy?

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#125

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:51 am

noor5253 wrote:
UnhappyBohra wrote: Are you asking my permission to show the video?
Unhappy pappy
Why are your replies always so stupid?
Is it because u r unhappy?
Noor were you born stupid or do you work really hard at it?

objectiveobserver53
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:29 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#126

Unread post by objectiveobserver53 » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:54 am

UnhappyBohra wrote:
noor5253 wrote: Unhappy pappy
Why are your replies always so stupid?
Is it because u r unhappy?
Noor were you born stupid or do you work really hard at it?
Noor and alHaq seem to be competing for the Stupidity prize here :roll:

Crater Lake
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:46 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#127

Unread post by Crater Lake » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:00 am

UnhappyBohra wrote:
alhaq wrote:Magar amirulmomeneen ko zabardasti pakar kar khench kar ..galay may kaala rassa daal k bayaat lya gya tha..yaha aisa nahi howa..yaha to bachay khushi khushi moula moula keh kar misaq dya....agar tum chahtay ho to misaaq ka video bataw?
Are you asking my permission to show the video?
It is clear that this reply was too clever for alHaq or Noor to handle :)

think
Posts: 1838
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:15 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#128

Unread post by think » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:14 am

So all this hoopla of masjid opening ceremony in Los Angeles was just an upfront show to get a free ride and collect some dough. The real reason was that Muffy had been granted o.k. from the courts to come and visit his children, so he came. Now it makes sense why he did not stop at any other heavy abde places like houston. He had to spend all the time he was allowed by the courts with his children.

natkhat pari
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:56 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#129

Unread post by natkhat pari » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:19 am

As kid are again back with mothers
teenager kid has again given misaq to skq.
As they will be having another vistation next month kids will given dual misaq onki basis of dual citizen ship proposed by modi to usa NRI
so they can enjoy jahanam and janat together

think_for_yourself
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:12 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#130

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:29 am

Crater Lake wrote:
UnhappyBohra wrote: Are you asking my permission to show the video?
It is clear that this reply was too clever for alHaq or Noor to handle :)
UnhappyBohra trying to have an intelligent discussion with either of our MSLovers here is an exercise in futility. All they know is to run to MS gatherings and shout Moula Moula and crush their fellow brothers and sisters in ill-behaved crowds while MS sits on the takhat like some glorified fruit hawker. I am sure you can find better use for your time.

And I agree with you. She was asking for your permission to post the video :wink:

think_for_yourself
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:12 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#131

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:36 pm

alhaq wrote:What about the love that kids showed towards moula
What about the love that they have shown Qutbuddin Moula? What you viewed as "love," I saw as fear and good manners. Their moms have taught them well.

SBM
Posts: 6366
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#132

Unread post by SBM » Wed Mar 18, 2015 1:05 pm

alhaq wrote:Tujhay un pyaray kids ki MOM ki bohot fiqar hay.. :lol:
kya baat hay hamay bhi to batawo unkay mom ki....
Another Adam in disguise

fustrate_Bohra
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:46 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#133

Unread post by fustrate_Bohra » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:20 am

See their CHEAP languages but it's not their fault and neither their parents who had blind faith in CORRUPT n COWARD dai. People like alhaq, Adam, mm noor5253 who all had lost humanity and decency and self respect are results of extreme brain washing done right from their child hood.

Now these people for sure will ruin their own childrens life and train them how to loose self respect and disrespect women in the name of CORRUPT n COWARD dai.

Thank you all for using such foul languages as this show your TALIM given to you by your DAI.

mnoorani
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 3:05 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#134

Unread post by mnoorani » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:20 pm

alhaq wrote:Acchaaa..
hamnay zara sa keh dia to itni mirchi lag gaye....
aur tumharay saathi jo itna bura bura boltay hay uska kya?
Jo gandi zaban use kartay hay uska kya?
jo badtamizi say baat kartay hay uska kya?
tumhay ye taaalim mili hay....kkya tum ye sikhaw gay apnay bachho ko?
pehlay apnay grebaan may dekho phir doosray ko bolo.....

MOM waali baat ka to jawab day do :lol: :lol:
Maa ki baat aayi hai to Baawan ki maa ka kya?
kaunse khule aangan me dafan hai wo na muraad bata ?
Apni biwi ki kabr pe sunehri gilaaf aur Urs pe jahaan bhar mein faateha!
Pyaare Nabi ki pyaari maa ke qadmon ki hadees ka kya?
Kya bhul gaya tha dai wo ahem hadees bata?
Naam Q nahin liya zindagi mein apni maa ka, kya thi uski khata?

UnhappyBohra
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:23 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#135

Unread post by UnhappyBohra » Thu Mar 19, 2015 10:40 pm

alhaq wrote:Acchaaa..
hamnay zara sa keh dia to itni mirchi lag gaye....
aur tumharay saathi jo itna bura bura boltay hay uska kya?
Jo gandi zaban use kartay hay uska kya?
jo badtamizi say baat kartay hay uska kya?
tumhay ye taaalim mili hay....kkya tum ye sikhaw gay apnay bachho ko?
pehlay apnay grebaan may dekho phir doosray ko bolo.....

MOM waali baat ka to jawab day do :lol: :lol:
AlBatil the last laugh is on you. Think_for_yourself is a mother herself. Based on the bio she posted here, she was a regular attendant of all miqats with Burhanuddin Moula in years past and during Burhanuddin Moula's time, you may even have done salaam to her ( assuming you are a woman...) so all you dirty insinuations are bouncing right back at ya you gutter ka kida. Your filthy thoughts reflect the filth your dai is teaching you.

think_for_yourself
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:12 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#136

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:07 pm

UnhappyBohra wrote:
alhaq wrote:Acchaaa..
hamnay zara sa keh dia to itni mirchi lag gaye....
aur tumharay saathi jo itna bura bura boltay hay uska kya?
Jo gandi zaban use kartay hay uska kya?
jo badtamizi say baat kartay hay uska kya?
tumhay ye taaalim mili hay....kkya tum ye sikhaw gay apnay bachho ko?
pehlay apnay grebaan may dekho phir doosray ko bolo.....

MOM waali baat ka to jawab day do :lol: :lol:
AlBatil the last laugh is on you. Think_for_yourself is a mother herself. Based on the bio she posted here, she was a regular attendant of all miqats with Burhanuddin Moula in years past and during Burhanuddin Moula's time, you may even have done salaam to her ( assuming you are a woman...) so all you dirty insinuations are bouncing right back at ya you gutter ka kida. Your filthy thoughts reflect the filth your dai is teaching you.
AlBatil is all wound up like a cheap watch. She needs to take a deep breath, maybe go for a nice meal with her husband, care for her children and get a relaxing massage. Listening to all those non-sensical muffy bayans and failed attempts to schmooze with fake Muffy snobs is turning her into a bitter hag.

think_for_yourself
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:12 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#137

Unread post by think_for_yourself » Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:16 pm

alhaq wrote:think think think
first go near dr n do full body check up ....
i think u r stressed.....b coz i m not a girl.....
n today do chk yur self....r u male or female or......? :P :lol:
I know who you are alHaq. You are someone very similar to that pudgy Bensab checking her phone during matam. And I think you fight with your husband all the time...

SBM
Posts: 6366
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#138

Unread post by SBM » Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:25 pm

^
There are many other Bensahebs who regularly fight with their husbands all the time :) :)

SBM
Posts: 6366
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#139

Unread post by SBM » Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:55 pm

alhaq wrote:Any examples :P :lol:
Your wife

SBM
Posts: 6366
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#140

Unread post by SBM » Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:34 pm

alhaq wrote:N what about yur father n mother :lol: :lol:
They are resting in Heaven Alhamdullillah

Mkenya
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:16 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#141

Unread post by Mkenya » Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:39 am

The posts are descending to personal level and 'below the belt'. Let sanity and good judgement prevail. Please refrain or else shut up.

natkhat pari
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:56 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#142

Unread post by natkhat pari » Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:05 am

Taha and ebrahim are real topic and their sex life .
If both knew that their wife was against ms bs from weding .
Where 9 children were born as punishment for their belives.
Would they have really accepted skq as 53 dai if theirs wife told to do so after retruning from srilanka.
Could Taha and ebrahim have stayed in darus sakina aftee they accepted skq as dai

fustrate_Bohra
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:46 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#143

Unread post by fustrate_Bohra » Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:58 am

alhaq wrote:we won the case......
dawat ye auj per hay aur auj per rahay gi aadae deen ki surat rubah jeasi hogi.....
we won won won won won....
dawedar aur uskay saath k log k muu kaalay hogaye,,,
may nay kal chellenge kia tha,,,,,
Arrey waah, mubarak Thai.

Abhi tumhe aur tumhare bachon ko aur nau chote-chote aqa ke samne haath jod k aur jhukne ka mauka milega.

Adam
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:50 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#144

Unread post by Adam » Sat Mar 21, 2015 6:31 am

I've said this before.

Mubarak to the Qutbi family.
At least their children will be on HAQ.


fayyaaz
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:40 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#145

Unread post by fayyaaz » Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:35 am

Whatsapp message received;

EK AZEEM BUSHRA SHAHZADA AALIWAQAR QAID JOHAR BS EZZUDDIN YE HAMNAJ RAUDAT TAHERA MA DIRECT SUNAWI CHE. FARZANDO NA CASE MA AQA MOLA TUS NE FATEH MUBIN HAASIL THAI CHE. DAWEDAAR YE JE PAACHI APPEAL KIDI HATI ENE COURT YE OUTRIGHT REJECT KIDI CHE. MOLANA TUS YE IRAADO FARMAAYO CHE KE FARZANDO NE LAI NE KARBALA MOALLA ZYARAT WAASTE PADHARE. INSHALLAH. SAGLA NE AA MASARRAT NI KHABAR POHCHAWJO. MOLA MOLA MUFADDAL MOLA.

SBM
Posts: 6366
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#146

Unread post by SBM » Sat Mar 21, 2015 4:08 pm

^
While 2 bohras died in Karachi, no mention for their soul but celebration for their kids. This is what you call Moula. What a shameful of a leader who could not issue some thing for those who died in Karachi.

Shammu
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:54 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#147

Unread post by Shammu » Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:24 am

I am sure thousand of bohra must be reading u r very wrong as I am also bohra and reading regularly and what ever I am reading I am agree with every body who r writing opposite our religious leaders

Mkenya
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:16 am

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#148

Unread post by Mkenya » Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:59 pm

alhaq: Kya baat kahi aapne! Mujhe to eisa pehle se lagta that ke sirf mutthi bhar laug yahan likhte. Meine bahut dafa ees forum me likhs hei ke yahan likhne wale dil ke shole ko hawa dete hein. Ees se elawa kar bhi kya sakte hein hum. Haan, hamare me se bahut se logo apni apni pahoonch ke mutabik charity aur doosri sewaein kar rahehe hein. Baaki to hum se aur kuch nahi ho sakega. Dono camp ke jagdnewale eik deen zurur thaal me beith ke roti todenge; tub hamara kaam rahega 'baldi' gumake unko khilane ka!

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#149

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:32 pm

Family Law Case Information All Minute Orders

Case Number: S1501FL627601
Case Title: SAIFUDDIN VS SAIFUDDIN
Case Type: DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
Filing Date: 1/30/2014
Filing Location: METRO DIVISION JUSTICE, 1215 TRUXTUN
Case Status: APPEAL 3/11/2015 2:34:58 PM

Notes: 1. Entries are listed in reverse chronological order.
2. Some entries may display odd characters (e.g., x, xx, or o) at the beginning of a sentence. This is a result of the way the data is entered into the register of actions and can be ignored.

3/18/2015 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR ORDER IN RE: INTERIM ORDERS
APPEARANCE TIME: 8:30 AM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE CAME ON REGULARLY AT THIS TIME TODAY FOR HEARING WITH
PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT AS FOLLOWS:
NO APPEARANCE BY PETITIONER OR COUNSEL OF RECORD
NO APPEARANCE BY RESPONDENT OR COUNSEL OF RECORD
****************************************
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
NO PROOF OF SERVICE ON FILE.
MATTER DROPPED

3/10/2015 RULING ON: PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR STAY OF THAT PORTION OF THE COURT’S ORDER
ALLOWING THE MINOR CHILDREN TO RETURN TO INDIA
APPEARANCE TIME: 2:25 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: CECILIAR
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT

Petitioner seeks a temporary stay of the Court’s order that returned the custody of the minor children
to the Respondent. Petitioner has filed her request, on behalf of herself and her children, for asylum
on the basis of religious and political persecution pursuant to 8 U.S.C section 1158. Petitioner argues
that the filing of her asylum petition divests this court of its jurisdiction to make orders that would
permit the minor children to be returned to India. Petitioner claims that because of the federal
government’s plenary authority over matters of immigration the immigration laws preempt any
authority of this Court to make custody and visitation orders that would permit the children to leave
the United States. The cases cited by Petitioner do not provide any direct authority for the proposition
that the federal immigration laws preempt state court jurisdiction over custody matters. Petitioner
argues that under the principles of both field preemption and conflict preemption, this Court decision
to allow the children to be in the physical custody of their father is preempted. After review of the
relevant statutes, the Court does not find there is preemption on the basis of congressional intent to
“occupy the field because “the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion” or
because “Congress has unmistakably so ordained” that result. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v.
Paul (1963) 373 U.S. 132, 142. There is nothing in relevant statutes that suggests let alone demands
that this Court is not empowered to make custody orders under California statutory authority. Nor
does the Court find that there is any “conflict” preemption that would preclude the Court from making
custody orders under California statutory authority. In Elk Grove School Dist. V. Newdow (2004) 542
U.S. 1, 1213,
the Supreme Court stated: One of the principal areas in which this Court has
customarily declined to intervene is the realm of domestic relations. Long ago we observed that
“[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the
laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593–594, 10
S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890). See also Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 587, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 104
L.Ed.2d 675 (1989) (“[D]omestic relations are preeminently matters of state law”); Moore v. Sims,
442 U.S. 415, 435, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979) (“Family relations are a traditional area of
state concern”). So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a
“domestic relations exception” that “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and
child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468
1992). We have also acknowledged that it might be appropriate for the federal courts to decline to
hear a case involving “elements of the domestic relationship,” id., at 705, 112 S.Ct. 2206, even when
divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at issue: “This would be so when a case presents
‘difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose
importance transcends the result in the case then at bar.’ Such might well be the case if a federal suit
were filed prior to effectuation of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree, and the suit depended
on a determination of the status of the parties.” Id., at 705–706, 112 S.Ct. 2206 (quoting Colorado
River, 424 U.S., at 814, 96 S.Ct. 1236). Thus, while rare instances arise in which it is necessary to
answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, see,
e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432–434, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984), in general it
is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.
(Footnote omitted.) While Elk Grove dealt with prudential standing, and not preemption, it is
indicative of the degree of deference the federal courts have afforded state courts in making child
custody decrees. Given this deference, the Court does not find that there are any preemption issues
that would preclude making the custody orders that it has in this case. The request for a stay of the
child custody orders allowing the children to return to India is denied.

EX PARTE HEARING.
APPEARANCE TIME: 10:56 AM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: JILL FERGUSON
COURT CLERK: CECILIAR
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE CAME ON REGULARLY AT THIS TIME TODAY FOR HEARING WITH
PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT AS FOLLOWS:
PAIGE M ETCHEVERRYBARNES
APPEARS IN COURT WITHOUT ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1).
LANCE SPIEGEL AND PATRICK J. OSBORN APPEAR IN COURT WITHOUT TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN
(RE1).
****************************************
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
MATTER IS TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION. WRITTEN RULING TO FOLLOW BY 4:00 PM ON TODAY'S
DATE.
2/26/2015 RULING ON: PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE WITH
MUMBAI, INDIA CUSTODY COURT; RULING ON PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CHILD
CUSTODY EVALUATION AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING; RULING ON PETITIONER’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
APPEARANCE TIME: 4:30 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
RULING ON: PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE WITH
MUMBAI, INDIA CUSTODY COURT; RULING ON PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CHILD
CUSTODY EVALUATION AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING; RULING ON PETITIONER’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
APPEARANCE TIME: 4:45 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
RULING ON: STATEMENT OF DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT RESTRAINING ORDER AND WITH RESPECT TO
RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR ORDERS REGARDING ASSERTION OF TEMPORARY
EMERGENCY JURISDICTION BY THE COURT
APPEARANCE TIME: 4:30 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
RULING ON: STATEMENT OF DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT RESTRAINING ORDER AND WITH RESPECT TO
RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR ORDERS REGARDING ASSERTION OF TEMPORARY
EMERGENCY JURISDICTION BY THE COURT
APPEARANCE TIME: 4:45 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT

1. PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE WITH MUMBAI, INDIA
CUSTODY COURT Petitioner has filed her request that the Court participate in a telephonic conference
with the Mumbai, India Custody Court. Family Code section 3424(d) provides: A court of this state
that has been asked to make a child custody determination under this section, upon being informed
that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child custody determination has been
made by, a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive, shall
immediately communicate with the other court. A court of this state which is exercising jurisdiction
pursuant to Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive, upon being informed that a child custody proceeding has
been commenced in, or a child custody determination has been made by, a court of another state
under a statute similar to this section shall immediately communicate with the court of that state to
resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the child, and determine a period for the
duration of the temporary order. Petitioner asserts that the Court had been previously notified of the
pendency of proceedings in India related to custody and visitation for the parties’ children. Petitioner
provides a portion of the transcript from proceedings that occurred on June 11, 2014 in support of this
claim. Interestingly, counsel for Petitioner states in the transcript provided: “So whether this is a real
document or not, I have no idea [referring to papers served on her client by the opposing party]. But
there’s no stamp from any court. There’s no verification. The date lines are not dated. So I don’t
believe that it’s actually been started in India, nor was it prior to the DVPA action being filed.
[Emphasis added.]” This statement was made as part of Petitioner’s argument that this Court had
jurisdiction under Family Code section 3424 since there was no other action pending in another
jurisdiction. This Court was never made aware of any proceeding in India during the pendency of this
matter nor during the hearing on the merits. At a proceeding on February 11, 2015, in response to a
question from the Court, Petitioner’s counsel was unable to provide any reference in the record where
this Court was made aware of any proceeding in India that would have triggered the Court obligation
under subsection (d) of section 3424. This issue has only arisen after all the hearings were completed
and the Court issued its Tentative Statement of Decision. Petitioner cannot remain silent and then
complain the Court failed to communicate with the court in India once this Court has issued its
decision. Moreover, there is nothing in Petitioner’s request that would suggest how the outcome of
this case would have been affected by this Court communicating with the Court in India. The orders
this Court has made are temporary orders pursuant to its emergency jurisdiction under Family Code
section 3424. The orders specifically acknowledge that they will be superseded by any orders made by
the court in India, which the parties have acknowledged in the home state for the children in this
matter. 2. PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION AND EVIDENTIARY
HEARING Petitioner requests that this Court order a custodial evaluation and hold an evidentiary
hearing pursuant to Andrew V. v. Superior Court (published February 9, 2015) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
(2015 WL 521836) (hereinafter “Andrew V.”). The case relied upon by Petitioner is inapposite to
these proceedings. In Andrew V., the Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ because the trial
court had deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to be meaningfully heard before granting the
respondent’s outofstate moveaway request to relocate the parties’ two minor children. The trial
court had granted a “temporary” moveaway order allowing the respondent to relocate the minor
children to the State of Washington based solely on the written recommendation of a child custody
investigator. In issuing the writ, the court stated that a full adversarial hearing must precede, not
follow, any outofstate moveaway order. In the instant case, the parties had a full evidentiary
hearing over the course of six days. The hearing on the merits took place nearly seven months after
Petitioner filed her request, providing her ample opportunity to conduct discovery and obtain
evidence. There is nothing in the record to suggest that there has been any denial of Petitioner’s
opportunity to present any evidence or argument she deemed appropriate. Just as suggested in
Andrew V., Petitioner’s claim was heard in a calm, dispassionate manner, with adequate time to
marshal and present evidence. Unlike Andrew V., this case does not involve a moveaway
request. It arises from Petitioner’s request for a Domestic Violence Prevention Act restraining order and for
custody and visitation orders after Petitioner left

The Court issues this Statement of Decision consistent with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
section 632. The parties are the parents of five minor children: Sakina T. Saifuddin (born July 30,
1999); Mohammed T. Saifuddin (born July 20, 2001); Taher T. Saifuddin (born August 20, 2004);
Mustafa T. Saifuddin (born March 3, 2006); and Murtaza T. Saifuddin (born August 3, 2009). On
January 30, 2014, Petitioner filed her request for a temporary restraining order pursuant to the
Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”; Family Code 1 section 6200 et seq.) and for custody and
visitation orders related to the minor children. On January 30, 2014, the Court issued temporary
orders on an ex parte basis and included personal conduct orders and a stay away order that basically
restrained Respondent from contacting Petitioner or the minor children. An order was also made that
Petitioner would have sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor children and Respondent would
have no visitation.2 Respondent filed his Response to the request for a DVPA restraining order on May
2, 2014. On May 7, 2014, Respondent filed his request for an order requesting, inter alia, that the
Court exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to Section 3424 and make orders regarding
custody and visitation. On August 27, September 23, November 14, 18 and 25, and December 3,
2014, the Court conducted a hearing on the merits of the Petitioner’s request for a DVPA restraining
order and on Respondent’s request for the Court to exercise its temporary emergency jurisdiction and
return custody of the minor children to him.3 On January 21, 2015, the Court issued its Tentative
Statement of Decision. On February 2, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Petitioner’s request for a
stay of the effectiveness of the Court’s orders pending resolution of any appeal of the Court’s
decision. After consideration of the evidence presented and the arguments made, the Court makes
the following decisions. 1. Request for DVPA Restraining Order. The purposes of the DVPA are to
prevent a recurrence of domestic violence and to provide for the separation of the persons involved.
(§§6220, 6300.) A restraining order may be issued if the information provided shows, to the
satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. (§6300.) In pertinent part,
the DVPA defines domestic violence as “abuse” perpetrated against a spouse. (§6211(a).) Among
other things, “abuse” means placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily
injury to that person or to another or engaging in behavior that could be enjoined pursuant to Section
6320. (§6203.) Behaviors included in Section 6320 include attacking, threatening, harassing,
destroying personal property, contacting by mail or otherwise, or disturbing the peace of the other
party. (§6320(a).) The decision whether to impose a domestic violence restraining order rests in the
discretion of the trial court after consideration of the particular circumstances of each case. In re
Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495. In the present case, the parties had resided
in Mumbai, India prior to Petitioner leaving India on January 17, 2014 and coming to Bakersfield,
California where her brother lives. The incidents that Petitioner relies on to support her request for a
restraining order all occurred while the parties resided in India.4 To understand the dynamics of this
case, the events of January 17, 2014 and those leading up to that date are important. The parties are
members of the Dawoodi Bohra faith, a sect of the Muslim religion. The spiritual leader of the
Dawoodi Bohra is known as the Syedna. On January 17, 2014, the 52nd Syedna passed away.
Because of their family relationships with the Syedna, Petitioner and Respondent are considered part
of the royal family leading their sect.5 Upon his death, there was a dispute over who should be the
rightful successor to the Syedna. Petitioner believes it should be her father. Respondent believes it
should be his father. Respondent testified that the 52nd Syedna had appointed his father as the
successor Syedna two years prior to his death. Following the designation of Respondent’s father as
the successor, he and Petitioner did not have any discussion about who each thought should be the
rightful successor. At the time of the 52nd Syedna’s death, Respondent and his cousin, Ibrahim
Ezzudin (the Respondent in a companion DVPA case brought by his wife, the sister of the Petitioner in
this case), were on a religious trip to Sri Lanka. Upon learning of the Syedna’s death, they
immediately returned home. Unbeknownst to them, Petitioner and her sister had both left India for
the United States with their respective children. On January 20, 2014, shortly after their arrival in
California, Petitioner posted on You Tube a video of her oldest son, Mohamed, and his cousin Murtaza
Ezzudin, pronouncing their mat

THE DECISION IS MAILED TO ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL AS STATED ON THE ATTACHED DECLARATIN.
THE DECISION IS MAILED TO ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL AS STATED ON THE ATTACHED DECLARATION.
RULING ON: PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE WITH
MUMBAI, INDIA CUSTODY COURT; RULING ON PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CHILD
CUSTODY EVALUATION AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING; RULING ON PETITIONER’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
APPEARANCE TIME: 4:30 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
RULING ON: PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE WITH
MUMBAI, INDIA CUSTODY COURT; RULING ON PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CHILD
CUSTODY EVALUATION AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING; RULING ON PETITIONER’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
APPEARANCE TIME: 4:45 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
RULING ON: STATEMENT OF DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT RESTRAINING ORDER AND WITH RESPECT TO
RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR ORDERS REGARDING ASSERTION OF TEMPORARY
EMERGENCY JURISDICTION BY THE COURT
APPEARANCE TIME: 4:30 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
RULING ON: STATEMENT OF DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT RESTRAINING ORDER AND WITH RESPECT TO
RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR ORDERS REGARDING ASSERTION OF TEMPORARY
EMERGENCY JURISDICTION BY THE COURT
APPEARANCE TIME: 4:45 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT

1. PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE WITH MUMBAI, INDIA
CUSTODY COURT Petitioner has filed her request that the Court participate in a telephonic conference
with the Mumbai, India Custody Court. Family Code section 3424(d) provides: A court of this state
that has been asked to make a child custody determination under this section, upon being informed
that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child custody determination has been
made by, a court of a state having jurisdiction under Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive, shall
immediately communicate with the other court. A court of this state which is exercising jurisdiction
pursuant to Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive, upon being informed that a child custody proceeding has
been commenced in, or a child custody determination has been made by, a court of another state
under a statute similar to this section shall immediately communicate with the court of that state to
resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the child, and determine a period for the
duration of the temporary order. Petitioner asserts that the Court had been previously notified of the
pendency of proceedings in India related to custody and visitation for the parties’ children. Petitioner
provides a portion of the transcript from proceedings that occurred on June 11, 2014 in support of this
claim. Interestingly, counsel for Petitioner states in the transcript provided: “So whether this is a real
document or not, I have no idea [referring to papers served on her client by the opposing party]. But
there’s no stamp from any court. There’s no verification. The date lines are not dated. So I don’t
believe that it’s actually been started in India, nor was it prior to the DVPA action being filed.
[Emphasis added.]” This statement was made as part of Petitioner’s argument that this Court had
jurisdiction under Family Code section 3424 since there was no other action pending in another
jurisdiction. This Court was never made aware of any proceeding in India during the pendency of this
matter nor during the hearing on the merits. At a proceeding on February 11, 2015, in response to a
question from the Court, Petitioner’s counsel was unable to provide any reference in the record where
this Court was made aware of any proceeding in India that would have triggered the Court obligation
under subsection (d) of section 3424. This issue has only arisen after all the hearings were completed
and the Court issued its Tentative Statement of Decision. Petitioner cannot remain silent and then
complain the Court failed to communicate with the court in India once this Court has issued its
decision. Moreover, there is nothing in Petitioner’s request that would suggest how the outcome of
this case would have been affected by this Court communicating with the Court in India. The orders
this Court has made are temporary orders pursuant to its emergency jurisdiction under Family Code
section 3424. The orders specifically acknowledge that they will be superseded by any orders made by
the court in India, which the parties have acknowledged in the home state for the children in this
matter. 2. PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION AND EVIDENTIARY
HEARING Petitioner requests that this Court order a custodial evaluation and hold an evidentiary
hearing pursuant to Andrew V. v. Superior Court (published February 9, 2015) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
(2015 WL 521836) (hereinafter “Andrew V.”). The case relied upon by Petitioner is inapposite to
these proceedings. In Andrew V., the Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ because the trial
court had deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to be meaningfully heard before granting the
respondent’s outofstate moveaway request to relocate the parties’ two minor children. The trial
court had granted a “temporary” moveaway order allowing the respondent to relocate the minor
children to the State of Washington based solely on the written recommendation of a child custody
investigator. In issuing the writ, the court stated that a full adversarial hearing must precede, not
follow, any outofstate moveaway order. In the instant case, the parties had a full evidentiary
hearing over the course of six days. The hearing on the merits took place nearly seven months after
Petitioner filed her request, providing her ample opportunity to conduct discovery and obtain
evidence. There is nothing in the record to suggest that there has been any denial of Petitioner’s
opportunity to present any evidence or argument she deemed appropriate. Just as suggested in
Andrew V., Petitioner’s claim was heard in a calm, dispassionate manner, with adequate time to
marshal and present evidence. Unlike Andrew V., this case does not involve a moveaway
request. It arises from Petitioner’s request for a Domestic Violence Prevention Act restraining order and for
custody and visitation orders after Petitioner left

The Court issues this Statement of Decision consistent with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
section 632. The parties are the parents of five minor children: Sakina T. Saifuddin (born July 30,
1999); Mohammed T. Saifuddin (born July 20, 2001); Taher T. Saifuddin (born August 20, 2004);
Mustafa T. Saifuddin (born March 3, 2006); and Murtaza T. Saifuddin (born August 3, 2009). On
January 30, 2014, Petitioner filed her request for a temporary restraining order pursuant to the
Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”; Family Code 1 section 6200 et seq.) and for custody and
visitation orders related to the minor children. On January 30, 2014, the Court issued temporary
orders on an ex parte basis and included personal conduct orders and a stay away order that basically
restrained Respondent from contacting Petitioner or the minor children. An order was also made that
Petitioner would have sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor children and Respondent would
have no visitation.2 Respondent filed his Response to the request for a DVPA restraining order on May
2, 2014. On May 7, 2014, Respondent filed his request for an order requesting, inter alia, that the
Court exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to Section 3424 and make orders regarding
custody and visitation. On August 27, September 23, November 14, 18 and 25, and December 3,
2014, the Court conducted a hearing on the merits of the Petitioner’s request for a DVPA restraining
order and on Respondent’s request for the Court to exercise its temporary emergency jurisdiction and
return custody of the minor children to him.3 On January 21, 2015, the Court issued its Tentative
Statement of Decision. On February 2, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Petitioner’s request for a
stay of the effectiveness of the Court’s orders pending resolution of any appeal of the Court’s
decision. After consideration of the evidence presented and the arguments made, the Court makes
the following decisions. 1. Request for DVPA Restraining Order. The purposes of the DVPA are to
prevent a recurrence of domestic violence and to provide for the separation of the persons involved.
(§§6220, 6300.) A restraining order may be issued if the information provided shows, to the
satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. (§6300.) In pertinent part,
the DVPA defines domestic violence as “abuse” perpetrated against a spouse. (§6211(a).) Among
other things, “abuse” means placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily
injury to that person or to another or engaging in behavior that could be enjoined pursuant to Section
6320. (§6203.) Behaviors included in Section 6320 include attacking, threatening, harassing,
destroying personal property, contacting by mail or otherwise, or disturbing the peace of the other
party. (§6320(a).) The decision whether to impose a domestic violence restraining order rests in the
discretion of the trial court after consideration of the particular circumstances of each case. In re
Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495. In the present case, the parties had resided
in Mumbai, India prior to Petitioner leaving India on January 17, 2014 and coming to Bakersfield,
California where her brother lives. The incidents that Petitioner relies on to support her request for a
restraining order all occurred while the parties resided in India.4 To understand the dynamics of this
case, the events of January 17, 2014 and those leading up to that date are important. The parties are
members of the Dawoodi Bohra faith, a sect of the Muslim religion. The spiritual leader of the
Dawoodi Bohra is known as the Syedna. On January 17, 2014, the 52nd Syedna passed away.
Because of their family relationships with the Syedna, Petitioner and Respondent are considered part
of the royal family leading their sect.5 Upon his death, there was a dispute over who should be the
rightful successor to the Syedna. Petitioner believes it should be her father. Respondent believes it
should be his father. Respondent testified that the 52nd Syedna had appointed his father as the
successor Syedna two years prior to his death. Following the designation of Respondent’s father as
the successor, he and Petitioner did not have any discussion about who each thought should be the
rightful successor. At the time of the 52nd Syedna’s death, Respondent and his cousin, Ibrahim
Ezzudin (the Respondent in a companion DVPA case brought by his wife, the sister of the Petitioner in
this case), were on a religious trip to Sri Lanka. Upon learning of the Syedna’s death, they
immediately returned home. Unbeknownst to them, Petitioner and her sister had both left India for
the United States with their respective children. On January 20, 2014, shortly after their arrival in
California, Petitioner posted on You Tube a video of her oldest son, Mohamed, and his cousin Murtaza
Ezzudin, pronouncing their mat

THE DECISION IS MAILED TO ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL AS STATED ON THE ATTACHED DECLARATIN.
THE DECISION IS MAILED TO ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL AS STATED ON THE ATTACHED DECLARATION.
2/11/2015 EX PARTE HEARING RESPONDENT
APPEARANCE TIME: 11:00 AM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: KELLI R RUSSELL
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE CAME ON REGULARLY AT THIS TIME TODAY FOR HEARING WITH
PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT AS FOLLOWS:
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1)
APPEARS WITH PAIGE M ETCHEVERRYBARNES.
LANCE SPIEGEL APPEARS IN COURT WITHOUT TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1).
PATRICK J OSBORN ESQ APPEARS IN COURT WITHOUT TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1).
JIM R CANADAY APPEARS FOR MINOR CHILD(REN).
****************************************
THE COURT REPORTER Kelli R Russell HAS SIGNED KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FORM 1123 AND
ALL COUNSEL ORALLY STIPULATE TO USE THIS COURT REPORTER AS THE OFFICIAL COURT
REPORTER FOR THIS PROCEEDING. THE COURT APPOINTS Kelli R Russell AS THE OFFICIAL COURT
REPORTER FOR EX PARTE
THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND ORDERS:
EX PARTE PETITION IS DENIED.
TIME SET FOR HEARING: 03/18/2015 at 8:30 a.m in division b
2/6/2015 RULING. PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST
FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT RESTRAINING ORDER AND WITH RESPECT TO
RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR ORDERS REGARDING ASSERTION OF TEMPORARY
EMERGENCY JURISDICTION BY THE COURT APPEARANCE TIME: 8:00 AM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT

The Court issues this Proposed Statement of Decision consistent with the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure section 632. Any party may, within 15 days after this Proposed Statement of Decision is
served, serve and file objections this Proposed Statement of Decision. The parties are the parents of
five minor children: Sakina T. Saifuddin (born July 30, 1999); Mohammed T. Saifuddin (born July 20,
2001); Taher T. Saifuddin (born August 20, 2004); Mustafa T. Saifuddin (born March 3, 2006); and
Murtaza T. Saifuddin (born August 3, 2009). On January 30, 2014, Petitioner filed her request for a
temporary restraining order pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”; Family Code1
section 6200 et seq.) and for custody and visitation orders related to the minor children. On January
30, 2014, the Court issued temporary orders on an ex parte basis and included personal conduct
orders and a stay away order that basically restrained Respondent from contacting Petitioner or the
minor children. An order was also made that Petitioner would have sole legal and sole physical
custody of the minor children and Respondent would have no visitation.2 Respondent filed his
Response to the request for a DVPA restraining order on May 2, 2014. On May 7, 2014, Respondent
filed his request for an order requesting, inter alia, that the Court exercise temporary emergency
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 3424 and make orders regarding custody and visitation. On August 27,
September 23, November 14, 18 and 25, and December 3, 2014, the Court conducted a hearing on
the merits of the Petitioner’s request for a DVPA restraining order and on Respondent’s request for
the Court to exercise its temporary emergency jurisdiction and return custody of the minor children to
him.3 On January 21, 2015, the Court issued its Tentative Statement of Decision. On February 2,
2015, the Court held a hearing on Petitioner’s request for a stay of the effectiveness of the Court’s
orders pending resolution of any appeal of the Court’s decision. After consideration of the evidence
presented and the arguments made, the Court makes the following decisions. 1. Request for DVPA
Restraining Order. The purposes of the DVPA are to prevent a recurrence of domestic violence and to
provide for the separation of the persons involved. (§§6220, 6300.) A restraining order may be issued
if the information provided shows, to the satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or
acts of abuse. (§6300.) In pertinent part, the DVPA defines domestic violence as “abuse” perpetrated
against a spouse. (§6211(a).) Among other things, “abuse” means placing a person in reasonable
apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another or engaging in behavior
that could be enjoined pursuant to Section 6320. (§6203.) Behaviors included in Section 6320 include
attacking, threatening, harassing, destroying personal property, contacting by mail or otherwise, or
disturbing the peace of the other party. (§6320(a).) The decision whether to impose a domestic
violence restraining order rests in the discretion of the trial court after consideration of the particular
circumstances of each case. In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495. In the
present case, the parties had resided in Mumbai, India prior to Petitioner leaving India on January 17,
2014 and coming to Bakersfield, California where her brother lives. The incidents that Petitioner relies
on to support her request for a restraining order all occurred while the parties resided in India.4 To
understand the dynamics of this case, the events of January 17, 2014 and those leading up to that
date are important. The parties are members of the Dawoodi Bohra faith, a sect of the Muslim
religion. The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra is known as the Syedna. On January 17, 2014, the
52nd Syedna passed away. Because of their family relationships with the Syedna, Petitioner and
Respondent are considered part of the royal family leading their sect.5 Upon his death, there was a
dispute over who should be the rightful successor to the Syedna. Petitioner believes it should be her
father. Respondent believes it should be his father. Respondent testified that the 52nd Syedna had
appointed his father as the successor Syedna two years prior to his death. Following the designation
of Respondent’s father as the successor, he and Petitioner did not have any discussion about who each
thought should be the rightful successor. At the time of the 52nd Syedna’s death, Respondent and his
cousin, Ibrahim Ezzudin (the Respondent in a companion DVPA case brought by his wife, the sister of
the Petitioner in this case), were on a religious trip to Sri Lanka. Upon learning of the Syedna’s
death, they immediately returned home. Unbeknownst to them, Petitioner and her sister had both left
India for the United States with their respective children. On January 20, 2014, shortly after

THE DECISION IS MAILED TO ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL AS STATED ON THE ATTACHED DECLARATION.
2/2/2015 PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR ORDER IN RE: REQUEST FOR STAY OF TEMPORARY ORDERS
APPEARANCE TIME: 8:30 AM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: TIMOTHY J SCOTT
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE CAME ON REGULARLY AT THIS TIME TODAY FOR HEARING WITH
PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT AS FOLLOWS:
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1)
APPEARS WITH PAIGE M ETCHEVERRYBARNES.
AND HERB FOX
TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1)
APPEARS WITH LANCE SPIEGEL. AND PATRICK OSBORN
JIM R CANADAY APPEARS FOR MINOR CHILD(REN).
****************************************
THE COURT REPORTER TIMOTHY J SCOTT HAS SIGNED KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FORM 1123
AND ALL COUNSEL ORALLY STIPULATE TO USE THIS COURT REPORTER AS THE OFFICIAL COURT
REPORTER FOR THIS PROCEEDING. THE COURT APPOINTS TIMOTHY J SCOTT AS THE OFFICIAL
COURT REPORTER FOR PETITIONER REQUEST FOR ORDER
RESPONDENT WAIVES DEFECT IN SERVICE, HE HAS FILED A RESPONSIVE DECLARATION
MATTER ARGUED AND SUBMITTED
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
REQUEST FOR LIVE TESTIMONY IS DENIED. THE COURT WILL GRANT A TEMPORARY STAY FOR 20
DAYS, FROM THE EXEUCTION OF THE ORDERS TO SEEK RELEIF FROM THE 5TH DISTRICT OF
APPEALS BY THE WAY OF WRIT STAY PURSUANT TO CCP 923 IF THE FATHER IS GOING TO BE IN
THE UNITED STATES, THE MINOR CHILDREN WILL BE IN THE CUSTODY ON THE FATHER
1/21/2015 EX PARTE HEARING STAY OF TEMPORARY ORDERS
APPEARANCE TIME: 11:00 AM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: LARRY L FLEISCHER
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE CAME ON REGULARLY AT THIS TIME TODAY FOR HEARING WITH
PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT AS FOLLOWS:
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1)
APPEARS WITH PAIGE M ETCHEVERRYBARNES.
AND HERB FOX
TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1)
APPEARS WITH LANCE SPIEGEL. AND PATRICK OSBORNE
JIM R CANADAY APPEARS FOR MINOR CHILD(REN).
****************************************
THE COURT REPORTER LARRY L FLEISCHER HAS SIGNED KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FORM
1123 AND ALL COUNSEL ORALLY STIPULATE TO USE THIS COURT REPORTER AS THE OFFICIAL
COURT REPORTER FOR THIS PROCEEDING. THE COURT APPOINTS LARRY L FLEISCHER AS THE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FOR EX PARTE
MATTER ARGUED AND SUBMITTED
THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND ORDERS:
EX PARTE PETITION IS DENIED.
TIME SET FOR HEARING: 02/02/2015 AT 8:15 A.M IN DIVISION B
THE FATHER SHALL HAVE VISITATION WITH THE MINORS FROM 5:00 P.M. TODAY TILL 6:00 P.M.
ON 01/25/2015, THE FATHER IS TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE SCHOOL, TO INSURE NO
TRUANCY THE FATHER/RESPONDENT IS TO LODGE HIS PASSPORT WITH ATTORNEY PATRICK
OSBORN.PRIOR TO THE VISITATION, AND THE PASSPORTS SHALL BE RETURNED BACK TO THE
FATHER/RESPONDENT AFTER THE VISITATION HAS ENDED
1/14/2015 RULING ON: STATEMENT OF TENTATIVE DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER’S
REQUEST FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT RESTRAINING ORDER AND WITH
RESPECT TO RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR ORDERS REGARDING ASSERTION OF
TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION BY THE COURT
APPEARANCE TIME: 3:00 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: NONE
REPORTER: NONE
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT

The Court issues this Statement of its Tentative Decision consistent with the provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure section 632. The Tentative Decision will be the Statement of Decision unless within
ten (10) days any party files and serves a document that specifies controverted issues or makes
proposals not covered in the Tentative Decision as provided by California Rules of Court, Rule
3.1590(c). Pending further order, this Tentative Decision constitutes the temporary orders of the
Court. The parties are the parents of five minor children: Sakina T. Saifuddin (born July 30, 1999);
Mohammed T. Saifuddin (born July 20, 2001); Taher T. Saifuddin (born August 20, 2004); Mustafa T.
Saifuddin (born March 3, 2006); and Murtaza T. Saifuddin (born August 3, 2009). On January 30,
2014, Petitioner filed her request for a temporary restraining order pursuant to the Domestic Violence
Prevention Act (“DVPA”; Family Code1 section 6200 et seq.) and for custody and visitation orders
related to the minor children. On January 30, 2014, the Court issued temporary orders on an ex parte
basis and included personal conduct orders and a stay away order that basically restrained Respondent
from contacting Petitioner or the minor children. An order was also made that Petitioner would have
sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor children and Respondent would have no visitation.2
Respondent filed his Response to the request for a DVPA restraining order on May 2, 2014. On May 7,
2014, Respondent filed his request for an order requesting, inter alia, that the Court exercise
temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to Section 3424 and make orders regarding custody and
visitation. On August 27, September 23, November 14, 18 and 25, and December 3, 2014, the Court
conducted a hearing on the merits of the Petitioner’s request for a DVPA restraining order and on
Respondent’s request for the Court to exercise its temporary emergency jurisdiction and return
custody of the minor children to him.3 After consideration of the evidence presented and the
arguments made, the Court makes the following decisions. 1. Request for DVPA Restraining Order.
The purposes of the DVPA are to prevent a recurrence of domestic violence and to provide for the
separation of the persons involved. (§§6220, 6300.) A restraining order may be issued if the
information provided shows, to the satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of
abuse. (§6300.) In pertinent part, the DVPA defines domestic violence as “abuse” perpetrated against
a spouse. (§6211(a).) Among other things, “abuse” means placing a person in reasonable
apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another or engaging in behavior
that could be enjoined pursuant to Section 6320. (§6203.) Behaviors included in Section 6320 include
attacking, threatening, harassing, destroying personal property, contacting by mail or otherwise, or
disturbing the peace of the other party. (§6320(a).) The decision whether to impose a domestic
violence restraining order rests in the discretion of the trial court after consideration of the particular
circumstances of each case. In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495. In the
present case, the parties had resided in Mumbai, India prior to Petitioner leaving India on January 17,
2014 and coming to Bakersfield, California where her brother lives. The incidents that Petitioner relies
on to support her request for a restraining order all occurred while the parties resided in India.4 To
understand the dynamics of this case, the events of January 17, 2014 and those leading up to that
date are important. The parties are members of the Dawoodi Bohra faith, a sect of the Muslim
religion. The spiritual leader of the Dawoodi Bohra is known as the Syedna. On January 17, 2014, the
52nd Syedna passed away. Because of their family relationships with the Syedna, Petitioner and
Respondent are considered part of the royal family leading their sect.5 Upon his death, there was a
dispute over who should be the rightful successor to the Syedna. Petitioner believes it should be her
father. Respondent believes it should be his father. Respondent testified that the 52nd Syedna had
appointed his father as the successor Syedna two years prior to his death. Following the designation
of Respondent’s father as the successor, he and Petitioner did not have any discussion about who each
thought should be the rightful successor. At the time of the 52nd Syedna’s death, Respondent and his
cousin, Ibrahim Ezzudin (the Respondent in a companion DVPA case brought by his wife, the sister of
the Petitioner in this case), were on a religious trip to Sri Lanka. Upon learning of the Syedna’s
death, they immediately returned home. Unbeknownst to them, Petitioner and her sister had both left
India for the United States with their respective children. On January 20, 2014, shortly after their
arrival in

THE DECISION IS MAILED TO ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL AS STATED ON THE ATTACHED DECLARATION.
12/3/2014 PETITIONER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
APPEARANCE TIME: 1:30 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: SUSAN RAE WOOD
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE CAME ON REGULARLY AT THIS TIME TODAY FOR HEARING WITH
PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT AS FOLLOWS:
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1)
APPEARS WITH MICHAEL R KILPATRICK.
TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1)
APPEARS WITH LANCE SPIEGEL.
TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1)
APPEARS WITH PATRICK J OSBORN ESQ.
JIM R CANADAY APPEARS FOR MINOR CHILD(REN).
****************************************
MICHAEL KILPATRICK MAKES CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
LANCE SPIEGEL MAKES CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
THE FATHER SHALL HAVE VISITATION UPON 72 HOURS NOTICE GIVEN TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR
FIVE DAYS EXCEPT FOR THE WEEKEND OF DECEMBER 12TH 14TH.
ALL OTHER PREVIOUS ORDERS
SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT CAUSE HEARD AND SUBMITTED. CAUSE STANDS
SUBMITTED. EXHIBIT LIST ATTACHED AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
11/25/2014 PETITIONER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
APPEARANCE TIME: 1:30 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: JILL FERGUSON
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE CAME ON REGULARLY AT THIS TIME TODAY FOR HEARING WITH
PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT AS FOLLOWS:
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1)
APPEARS WITH MICHAEL R KILPATRICK.
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1)
APPEARS WITH PAIGE M ETCHEVERRYBARNES.
TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1)
APPEARS WITH LANCE SPIEGEL.
TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1)
APPEARS WITH DANIEL T CLIFFORD ESQ.
JIM R CANADAY APPEARS FOR MINOR CHILD(REN).
****************************************
APPEARANCE DATE OF AT 1:30 P.M M IN DIVISION B REMAINS AS SET.
ALL PRIOR ORDERS TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
11/18/2014 PETITIONER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
APPEARANCE TIME: 1:30 PM
COURTROOM: B
BAILIFF: DEPUTY SHERIFF
REPORTER: JILL FERGUSON
COURT CLERK: LINDAK
HEARING JUDGE: STEPHEN D SCHUETT
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE CAME ON REGULARLY AT THIS TIME TODAY FOR HEARING WITH
PARTIES AND COUNSEL PRESENT AS FOLLOWS:
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1)
APPEARS WITH PAIGE M ETCHEVERRYBARNES.
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN (PE1)
APPEARS WITH MICHAEL R KILPATRICK.
TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1)
APPEARS WITH LANCE SPIEGEL.
TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN (RE1)
APPEARS WITH PATRICK J OSBORN ESQ.

ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Saifuddin v/s Saifuddin: Child custody case judgment

#150

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:11 pm

As per reports :-

MUFFY TAKING KIDS TO KARBALA ON FRIDAY.

TAHA BS AND IBRAHIM BS ARE TO REMARRY AND THE NIKAH WILL BE PERFORMED IN EGYPT !!