definitely not adequate opportunity to inform me only 2 business days beforehand that the DC arbitrarily decided to repurpose a the 12.19.2022 hearing set for me to present my defense and evidence against Steve's 9.14.2022 Motion for Order to Show Cause which the DC oddly and abruptly interrupted me while trying to demonstrate how most of the dates Steve claimed (but failed to prove or even provide the required sworn affidavit asserting I deprived him the children during his court-ordered parenting time on the specific dates he listed in his affidavit-less motion for order to show cause the DC refused to permit me or my lawyer at the time to file a response in opposition to before far too quickly to reasonably permit me adequate time for either my new lawyer to get up to speed on this extensive highly contentious extremely unique and even more complicated case with which he was completely unfamiliar -- let alone have enough time to adequately prepare for the 10.12.2022 hearing based on Steve's 9.14.2022 motion for order to show cause.

AND IF THAT DID NOT MAKE THE upcoming 10.12.2022 show cause hearing confusing and overwhelming enough, Steve (and apparently the DC after an ex parte discussion about holding the required order of protection hearing Sec. 40-15-203, MCA, requires within 20 days from the granting of the TOP for the 10.5.2022 TOP during the same hearing it already set for Steve's 9.14.2022 motion for order to show cause which must have occurred the same day the 10.5.20222 TOP was issued as well as the same day Steve underhandedly motioned the YCJC to transfer the 10.5.2022 TOP it literally just granted the children to protect them from Steve's abuse -- 10.5.2022 --

underhandedly took it upon themselves to added the 10.5.2022 YCJC TOP with this 3-year-old extensive contentious case setting the show cause hearing for 10.12.2022 at 2:30 PM o during the 10.21.2022 TOP and Show Cause hearing because the court (SURPRISE UNDER R 60(b)(1)) suddenly and without reasoning or rationale to support its confusing and pointless change of course to suddenly convert the 10.21.2022 hearing from a combined hearing on the 10.5.2022 TOP the YCJC issued them the children to protect them from Steve's abuse and Steve's 9.14.2022 Motion for Order to Show Cause which both Steve and the DC in clearly an ex parte decision they made to Davina's exclusion (see the Steve's 10.5.2022 Motion to Transfer YCJC 10.5.2022 TOP to YCDC Cause No. DR 19-893 based on the reasoning that transferring the YCJC TOP to Cause No. DR 19-893 was appropriate because the protected parties under the TOP were the subjects of the parenting plan issued under YCDC Cause No. DR 19-893 AND a motion to amend that parenting plan was already pending in DR 19-893 (WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL THE CASE - THE 9.14.2022 contempt motion was NOT a parenting plan motion; it was a contempt motion) AND, as Steve states in his motion to transfer the YCJC TOP up to YCDC Cause No DR 19-893: the court has indicates it intends to combine the upcoming hearing set to for Steve deceitfully refers to as his pending parenting plan motion -- which he knows is his approximately 10th vexatious and meritless contempt motion he filed against Davina to deprive her of her parenting time and unlawfully secure yet another monetary judgment against her SEE ME DIVISION AND CONTEMPT CHRON/ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS FROM CONTEMPT CHRON AND EQUITILIZATION PAYMENT THE COURT NEITHER EXPLAINS THE REASONING FOR OR WHY THE WOMAN WHO MADE HALF WHAT STEVE MAKES OWES HIM A EQUITILIZATION PAYMENT AFTER LOSING HER JOB AND THE MAJORITY OF THE ME HER AND HER PARENTS BUILT AND MAINTAINED WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM STEVE WHILE STEVE DID NOTHING MORE THAN SERIOUSLY FINANCIALLY ABUSE DAVINA IN ADDITION TO SERIOUSLY PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSE DAVINA AND HER TWO CHILDREN...steal more money from her -- on October 12, 2022, at 2:30 PM (the same day and time as the hearing the DC already set for Steve's contempt motion he deceitfully calls a parenting plan action in his 10.5.2022 motion to transfer the TOP), which satisfies the Sec 40-15-201, MCA, requirement a hearing on the TOP be held within 20 days from the date the TOP was issued