Chapter 10 - The Trial Begins
The state did not try every financial offense and child abuse issue in one chaotic story without limits.
Charges were grouped where legally appropriate.
Evidence rulings narrowed.
The jury would not hear every ugly thing Derek ever said.
Good.
The prosecution focused on:
The shove causing eyebrow injury.
The cold shower despite medical instructions.
Retaliation after Caleb disclosed.
Forgery and attempted HELOC.
Identity related credit accounts.
Certain financial documents that explained motive and context.
Cedar Ridge draft? Limited, perhaps excluded as prejudicial because not completed. Good. It remains part of CPS/divorce but not trial unless relevant. Let's note judge excluded most of it.
Adoption draft excluded.
Life insurance excluded.
No poisoning-style overreach.
The case became stronger by becoming smaller.
First witness:
Dr. Collins.
Wet dressing.
Caleb’s fear.
Finger shaped bruise.
Then earlier ER social worker.
Caleb reported being pushed before I knew.
The defense attacked:
Children change stories.
Yes.
But first hospital note:
Patient says “Derek pushed me when I touched paper.”
Time stamped before shower, before police, before me knowing bank.
Strong.
Then bank fraud investigator.
Application under my name.
No direct verification.
No funds disbursed.
Signature inconsistent.
Supporting debt schedule.
Then forensic examiner.
Signature copied from real forms.
Again, no how-to.
Then credit issuers.
Accounts opened under my identity.
Transactions linked to Derek/business.
Then business accountant.
Derek debt.
His email:
Megan cannot see liabilities. She shuts down equity plan.
Then mortgage broker.
Derek represented spouse approval.
Then my testimony.
I told bathroom.
No exaggeration.
Defense:
“How cold was water?”
“I didn’t measure.”
“Did Caleb suffer hypothermia?”
“No.”
“Infection?”
“No.”
“Stitches remained?”
“Yes.”
Then:
“So medical harm minimal.”
“The doctor said wound remained intact.”
Important.
Then original injury.
“Did you see shove?”
“No.”
“So you rely on child?”
“Yes.”
Then job.
Defense suggested I hated Derek for financial betrayal.
“Yes, I was angry.”
Could that influence?
“I’m here to tell what I personally saw and documents I received.”
Then house.
“You benefit financially from Derek conviction because business debts separated?”
“No. Divorce assigned based on ownership and fraud claims separately. Conviction may affect restitution.”
Then:
“You filed divorce.”
“Yes.”
“Wanted him out.”
“After shower.”
Timeline.
Then Caleb.
Court allowed protective testimony setup.
He described office.
Paper.
Shove.
Hospital.
Blue sheet.
Shower.
Defense gentle? Counsel had to be careful.
“Caleb, you were scared?”
“Yes.”
“Could you have slipped when Derek grabbed paper?”
“I got pushed.”
“Did he say ‘I am pushing you’?”
“No.”
“Was he trying to take paper?”
“Yes.”
Then:
“Could you have fallen because both pulled?”
Caleb thought.
“He used both hands.”
Then:
“Are you angry at Derek?”
“Yes.”
Honest.
“Want him punished?”
Caleb looked at judge.
“I want him away.”
That was not same.
Then shower.
“Did Derek say water was punishment?”
“He said stop crying.”
“Did he say he wanted stitches damaged?”
“No.”
Good.
Intent to harm medically not necessary; deliberate cruel treatment.
Then prosecution redirect.
“Did you tell him stitches stay dry?”
“Yes.”
“What did he say?”
“Paper doesn’t make me boss.”
Then:
“Did he turn water off when you asked?”
“No.”
“Who did?”
“Mom.”
Enough.
Derek decided to testify.
His lawyer did not seem pleased.
He said:
“I never meant to hurt Caleb.”
Then original incident:
He grabbed paper.
Caleb pulled.
He pushed him away.
“Not hard.”
Caleb struck cabinet.
He panicked.
Told Megan trip because he knew it looked bad.
There.
Admission of shove.
Then shower:
“He was hysterical.”
“I used cold water to snap him out.”
He called it parenting technique from his childhood.
Then:
“Did you know instructions?”
“Yes.”
“Why tear?”
“I was frustrated.”
Then loan.
“I was trying to save company.”
“Did Megan authorize?”
“We had discussed equity.”
I had said no.
Then signature.
“I believed she would agree when numbers made sense.”
The prosecutor asked:
“Did she agree before you signed her name?”
“No.”
That pattern.
Then:
“Did Caleb agree to be sprayed?”
“No.”
“Did Megan agree to loan?”
“No.”
“Did bank know signature unauthorized?”
“No.”
Three no’s.
Derek looked down.
Then jury went out.
May you like
And the case was no longer about whether Derek had a bad temper.
It was about whether he believed consent became optional whenever he thought his reason was good enough.
