JAMES M. MARLAR, Bankruptcy Judge
The trial in this adversary proceeding took place on April 19-20, 2004. The plaintiff, Kim Blandino, represented himself. The debtors/defendants, Nancy and Michael Bradshaw, also represented themselves. After consideration of the testimony, exhibits, applicable law, and arguments, the court now rules.
At the inception of the trial proceedings, Blandino orally moved to disqualify the bankruptcy judge. No statutory grounds being shown, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, the motion was denied in open court.
JURISDICTION
This action was filed to determine the dischargeability of a particular debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Additionally, allegations were made that the debtors should be denied their discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. This court has exclusive jurisdiction over these core matters. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), (J), (K); 28 U.S.C. § 1334; 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Because this court has exclusive core jurisdiction over the matters before it, it proceeded to trial on the merits. The plaintiff also seeks stay relief and injunctive relief.
The plaintiff, Kim Blandino, did attempt to have the matter remanded to state court, but because this court has exclusive federal jurisdiction, the court denied that motion on December 8, 2003.
ISSUES
1. Whether the debtors have willfully and maliciously injured Kim Blandino, pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), such that such debt is non-dischargeable?
2. Whether the debtors should have their discharge denied pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A)?
3. Whether the automatic stay of
11 U.S.C. § 362(a) should be lifted?
4. Whether the debtors are entitled to the protections and permanent injunction of their bankruptcy discharge, pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 524.
5. Whether this court should enter injunctive relief and orders in relation to Kim Blandino's visitation rights as to his children, and whether this court has the jurisdiction to do so?
6. Whether this court should quash the
lis pendens recorded against the debtors' property?
FACTS
The following narrative represents the court's Findings of Fact. Bankr.R. 7052.
A. Early Background
Debtor, Nancy Bradshaw ("Nancy") and plaintiff, Kim Blandino ("Kim") were "married" in 1987. As a result of this union, two sons were born. Zackary ("Zack") was born May 17, 1988, and Andrew was born June 16, 1990. In approximately February 1991, the couple separated. On July 1, 1991, Nancy petitioned the Nevada State Court to award her the primary physical care, custody and control of Zack and Andrew (Ex. 2). Although an order to that effect was not introduced into evidence, there is no dispute that the boys have legally resided and remained with Nancy since that date.
In actuality, their marriage was not valid under Nevada law, because the couple failed to procure a marriage license. (Ex. 10, lines 14-19; Ex. 2).
From the time they separated in 1991 until June 6, 1992, Kim and Nancy worked out a periodic visitation schedule (Ex. 1).
B. The Abduction
However, on June 6, 1992, Kim, without explanation or warning, abducted and kidnapped the two boys (See, Ex. 1). Distraught, Nancy contacted various law enforcement agencies for assistance in locating her children, then ages four and two. She also appeared on television in order to publicize her plight, and pled with the public to assist her in locating her children. Although Kim changed his identity, he was sighted in Portland, and eventually apprehended, with the children, in Phoenix, Arizona, on or about January 25, 1993.
In all, Kim's disappearance, boys in tow, lasted 7-1/2 months. At the time of his arrest, the boys were taken away in a police car and placed in protective custody (Ex. A to Ex. 46). The children's trauma had been exacerbated by Kim telling them "that their mother was dead," and that she had "spiritual cancer." (Ex. A to Ex. 46). During this period, Nancy had no communication whatsoever with either Kim or the boys.
C. The Interval Between Kim's Apprehension and Prison
Kim was eventually convicted of kidnapping on July 19, 1994, at which time he was immediately sentenced to prison, where he remained until May 27, 1998.
During the interval between his arrest and conviction, beginning May 30, 1993, Kim was allowed some supervised visitation with the boys (See, Ex. C to Ex. 46; Ex. 1). While there was slow progress toward healing made, the supervising caseworker was reluctant to allow more informal visitation, since Kim refused to provide her with any details on where he worked or lived, with whom he associated, or the fundamentals of his beliefs, citing his Fourth Amendment rights (Ex. C to Ex. 46). Thus, because the caseworker "did not know the content or boundaries of his belief system," she kept a tight rein on the supervised visitation during the period between his arrest and incarceration. (See, Ex. C to Ex. 46, covering a period of supervised visitation from August 1993 to January 1994).
D. Prison
Kim was sentenced to prison, and began serving his term for kidnapping on July 19, 1994. Until his release in May 1998, Kim's contact with his boys was sparse, limited to occasional phone calls, a few letters and one supervised visit before Kim's release (Ex. 1).
State of Nevada v. Blandino, Case No. C 111264.
Kim was released from custody on May 27, 1998.
E. Visitation: May 1998-September 2001
Upon his release, court-supervised visitation began again. The Domestic Relations Court appointed Alton J. Cathey, a family therapist, to assist in that regard. The purpose of Mr. Cathey's involvement was to assist in the "reunification" process (Ex. A to Ex. 46). Mr. Cathey met with the parties and the boys from June 1 to July 22, 1998 (Ex. A to Ex. 46). A meeting scheduled for August 19, 1998 was cancelled by Nancy. Ultimately, Mr. Cathey's report concluded that "reunification is not in the best interest of the children at this time," because, although he felt that both parents loved the children, Kim's approach to parenting was unconventional, in that "[h]e conducts his life by the by [sic] his interpretation of the laws of man and God without regard to the expectations of the society in which he lives." (Ex. A to Ex. 46).
Mr. Cathey then resigned from the case.
There was no significant contact between the parties, and no visitation activity of any note, for approximately two years (Ex. 1), until visitation resumed in approximately May, 1999 (Ex. 40).
On August 2, 1999, Kim engaged the services of Dr. Louis F. Mortillaro, Ph.D., to review the history of the case, and especially Mr. Cathey's report (Ex. A to Ex. 46). In an Affidavit dated August 2, 1999, Dr. Mortillaro opined that Mr. Cathey had considered his "personal values" over "rational psychological reasons." (Ex. B to Ex. 46). Dr. Mortillaro endorsed another effort at reunification.
On August 12, 1999, Kim filed an "Emergency Motion for Reunification" attaching the Mortillaro Affidavit and seeking renewed visitation (Ex. 46). A hearing was set for September 9, 1999. Although the court's order was not admitted into evidence, the court apparently agreed with Kim, and appointed Dr. Gary Lenkeit, Ph.D (Ex. 7) to assist in reunification efforts.
Dr. Lenkeit was eventually rewarded for his having taken this case when he was sued by Kim for "conspiracy" in March 2002 (Ex. 43).
The process of interviews and psychological testing then began anew. By October 2, 2000, Dr. Lenheit appeared hopeful that visitation "in a less restrictive environment might, in time, be achieved" (Ex. 7).
From October 2000, through the end of September 2001, matters concerning visitation and counseling were apparently succeeding. Kim's visits with the boys became more regular, and the strictures of the environment loosened from being held entirely at a psychologist's office to being held at parks, bowling alleys, and other normal outside venues.
F. Disintegration and Meltdown
On approximately August 10, 2001, Nancy revealed to Kim that she intended to relocate to South Carolina, with her family (Ex. 41). Kim was distraught at the idea of having his boys so far away, and on August 12, 2001, wrote Nancy that he also would consider a move to South Carolina (Ex. 12). Both parties recognized that court permission was necessary, and Nancy had filed a Motion with the Family Court on July 17, 2001, seeking permission to relocate (Ex. 12; Ex. 47 at 2, para. 5). By September 5, 2001, Nancy's Motion to Relocate was on file, and Kim wrote to her attorney that he would oppose it (Ex. 13). Apparently, Nancy's decision was causing friction between Kim and Nancy, and Nancy took the "position [that Kim] cannot see the kids unless [Kim] schedule a meeting about moving with Dr. Lenkeit" (Ex. 13). Dr. Lenkeit, by that time, had supervised the visitation and reunification effort for over one year.
During this same period, Kim began proceedings in the family court to recuse certain judges and appoint others. This chain of events paralleled the disintegration.