April 7, 2026 • 24 mins
A judge ruled today that Taylor Frankie Paul can only have 8 hours of supervised visits each week with her 2-year-old son, Ever. Paul shares her youngest son with ex Dakota Mortenson, who filed for a permanent restraining order after submitting more videos of an incident between the two where Paul reportedly pushes him with their child in his arms. Paul also filed a temporary protective order against Mortenson alleging he physically assaulted her in February of this year.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there, folks. It is Tuesday, April seventh, and Disney
and ABC dodged a bullet and probably right now are
really grateful that they do not have Bachelorette episodes airing
the same week that Taylor, Frankie, Paul and her ex
(00:24):
ended up intoday's court hearing. And with that, welcome to
this episode of Amy and TJ. Rhodes's getting uglier. It's
getting uglier. We learned some details today I didn't know about.
This is getting uglier and uglier.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Yes, there was. Yeah, it was an eighty minute hearing
in court where you had Taylor, Frankie Paul, and Dakota
Mortenson's representatives there in court, their attorneys and then Taylor
and Dakota were joining this hearing. The zoom correct, they
were doing a video.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
I ever saw them, and the whole time, everybody's done
zoom before where you don't want your face shown. It
just Taylor Frankie and it said Dakota.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
That makes sense. I can understand why they might not
have wanted their faces there. But it was a hell
of a day in court and what the judge had
to say and what the ruling ultimately was was also
a fairly big blow to Taylor Frankie Paul.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
I'll just start there. She lost in court today. We'll
explain what that's about. But she was in court today
trying to get visitation with her kid, unsupervised, full visits
with her kid, the two year old with kids they ever, ever, ever,
the two year old she has with Dakota. That's what
the hearing was about. The reason Robes they had to
have this hearing is because it was immediately right after
(01:38):
all the drama and the video came out. They cost
her the Bachelorette and they had to be canceled on
all this. Dakota went to the court pretty quickly.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Yes, he filed a temporary protective order, which he was granted,
and that gave him full temporary custody of his son
ever and it denied Taylor any parental rights period. She
wasn't allowed to even visit her son until today. They
said this was the hearing where they would decide things
beyond this date. And look at that point, Dakota Mortensen
(02:10):
asked for that temporary protective order to become permanent. And
I would say, and just before the hearing started, Taylor
Frankie Paul then also filed a protective order against Dakota.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
All right, so let's take just today's hearing because there's
all my like I say, it's getting uglier because we're
learning about more incidents and Frankie Taylor Paul is taking
more legal action. But to today's point, and I should
I guess you can look at it two different ways.
She wasn't able to see her kid for the past
three weeks. She was in court today asking for that
(02:46):
to be lifted and she can go back to whatever
agreement she had with Dakota about visitation. They were sharing
child custody, so she was asking for full unsupervised back
to being a mom again. So she did get but
something from the judge today she is going to be
able to visit her kid, but supervised. Her attorney was
(03:07):
really arguing that why should she have to have supervised visits?
And that's going to continue at least for the short
foreseeable future.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, I mean, this was a This is I was
just imagining it from a mom's perspective. This is very
painful because before all of this, before the protective orders
were filed, the arrangement was that Taylor Frankie Paul had
Ever about seventy percent of the time. Obviously it was unsupervised,
so she was the primary parental figure in Ever's life
(03:38):
just from a shared custody standpoint.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
And we should point out I didn't know it kind
of makes sense, but his attorney's argued in court today
he has been taking care of that kid almost solely
because she's been traveling. They actually said she's been out
of town for months and he has been the sole provider. Wow,
I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Yes, I didn't know if she was. I thought maybe
she was bringing him with her because at least look
when we saw the end of The Secret Lives of
Mormon Wives that she was heading to La to go
film the Bachelorette. They showed her mom and her sister
with Ever and he was coming with them. So yeah,
I was under the presumption that he was in the area,
(04:24):
or at least in Los Angeles, maybe with her mom
and her sister while she was filming. But that apparently
wasn't the Hay, you.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Can tell me if I got this wrong. I'm trying
to remember that shot. She has two older kids, does
she not? She does, but it wasn't them in that
at the airport was it the little because where we're
talking about now is the two year old, the itty
bitty one. This is not the one you all that
you all that's in the video that she's throwing the chair.
That's a different kid. That's her older, older daughter. Okay,
so I am wondering was Ever in that shot or
(04:53):
was it there? I don't know, see I'm thinking about
it now, I'm second guessing. So, but it came out
and they said in court that he has been primary
really taking care of this kid for the past several months.
She's in there fighting to see they're two year old again.
And to your point, what's that like for a mom
o ropes. She hasn't been able to lay eyes on
the kid.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
That's devastating. Tell us what that is. And you know
when they're that little Obviously, Ever isn't really aware and
will never remember this time where he's been separated from
his mom. But she is like, it is devastating to
not be able to see your son and for a
court to tell you you're not allowed to be around your son.
And so yes, she was granted up to eight hours
(05:35):
per week supervised. That iss an hour a day. Basically,
that's it.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
He said six initially, and they asked for a couple
more before he did an official ruling. Yeah, he said
six at first.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Wow. And that is all going to be in place
until they meet again. I believe that's happening on April thirty,
so later this month. But still she was, I'm sure
hoping to go into court today or at least be
a part of the core proceedings today, and walk away
with a resumed parental rights. And that just did not
(06:09):
happen for her.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
And we're going to get into some of the judge's
words here in a moment, but that is the ruling.
She gets eight hours. There's also an argument robes. Okay,
she gets the eight hours. That's not a lot during
a week, but it was a big argument over whether
or not it should be supervised. She didn't want it supervised,
and then after the judge says I needed to be supervised,
there was an argument over who is the supervisor. Who
is going to be in there, somebody that he picks,
(06:32):
somebody that she picks, or somebody that's independently picked. So
that was a big back and forth. Dakota, excuse me,
he wanted to pick his person. She wanted to pick
her person. The judge. Wow, I said, wow, that's really smart.
He said, it's better for all parties to have somebody
independent in the room because you can trust on both sides.
She can be in there knowing that somebody's keeping an eye,
(06:55):
can make sure that she's doing the right thing. If
he has one of his people in there, she's not
going to be comfortable with her kid because you gotta
think that person spying on her the whole time. I
was like, oh, that makes sense. I'm not sure what
they settled on.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
That does make sense. You would not want the person
that your ex who is fighting you in court for custody,
to pick the person who's now watching you, literally watching you.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Then here was the other argument by Taylor Frankie having
her own person in there. He said, that doesn't really
protect you because that person can is not in their
Dakota can argue they're in there, you know, partnering together
on this and things are going on that we don't
have an independent voice, he said, we need so. I
actually don't know how they settled on that, but I
(07:38):
think an independent person is going to be used. But
for eight hours, you get to see a kid a
two year old, and somebody's gonna be sitting there watching
you for the whole eight hours that you don't.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Know, that's rough in your home, monitoring you, and you're
very aware that they will be reporting back to the
court what they've witnessed, what they've observed.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
What do you think about the argument her attorney was making,
which is true, but it almost sounds no judge, she
should have unsupervised visits with her kid. All of her
anger it was never directed at the kid.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yes, he did say that, he said all of her anger.
I actually have the quote. Her anger is very clearly,
unambiguously directed at Dakota. It has nothing to do with
the children. So that was part of their argument that
she's never been abusive deliberately towards her children.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
If you ever have to say deliberately.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
I say that just because of the incident on the
video where she caught her got hit by the metal chair.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
What you're saying is one hundred percent right. The statement
should just be I've never been angry or violent towards
their children, Yes, deliberately or not.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
But it's interesting because what we have on video and
the injured child is from another marriage and another custody
a child situation. This involves ever, which is her youngest,
and he was not anywhere on those videos that we
have seen. But there was another video that was referenced
by Dakota's folks saying that he was potentially at one
(09:04):
point when some of this aggressive behavior began, that they're
alleging that he was holding the child when it happened.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
This one is not public and this is frankly, it
is the first I've heard about it. I don't know
if there's reporting on this one, but in court today, yes,
the judge referenced and they talked about another incident. I
believe it was the last year if we have the
date right, not the February. There's a February incident, but
there's also.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
There's a twenty twenty four accident there.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, he wanted to be twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
It's hard because we don't actually get the specifics or
the dates, but yes, I believe the incidents that have
been alleged of domestic violence are obviously the one from
twenty twenty three that got hurt taken off the Bachelorette.
Then there are these videos that allegedly exist over some
domestic violence incident in twenty twenty four. And then there
(09:49):
are the latest allegations that are from February twenty four
and twenty five of twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Okay, so this is where I'm getting all my numbers
mixed up. So let's go with incident number two, if
you will, Yes, in chronological order, is in twenty twenty four. Robes.
The judge you could tell, was himself disturbed by this,
and he said, I have to take this into account.
He describes a video. Now he said it in such
a way that mostly audio, but they describe incidents Robes.
(10:19):
One of them she kicks down, the kicks in, i
should say, the door of her two year old sleeping child.
And the other one, Robes they describe is an incident
in which the child could have been hurt because yes,
she's going after Dakota, but Dakota's holding a baby.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Yes, and reportedly Dakota almost fell because she pushed him
so hard with ever two year old ever in his arms,
or I guess at that point he would have been
a baby. Because if we're talking twenty twelve, christ yes,
how you think about it? Yeah, if we're talking twenty
twenty four. Oh my gosh, she was an infant, like
a newborn, like close to like just month months old.
(11:00):
We're not talking, I mean, and that's even a little scarier.
It's never obviously a good thing if you're aggressively pushing
somebody who's holding a toddler, but an infant, okay, they're
even more delicate.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Okay, so let's do then I'll move down to what
the judge said, because you just made a point about
that that I didn't consider the two year old was
not two years old in twenty twenty four. Jesus criming.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
He just turned to when all of this went down,
so like within the last month.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
So yeah, it was months old. Oh my okay, I
didn't think about less than a year for sure. Okay,
So his this last we need to This is why
he took issue. The judge made these comments and it
rolled again. It sounded like he didn't want to. He said,
I have to take this yeriously because that incident occurred
(11:50):
while the child was in the arms of the petitioner.
There doesn't seem to be any thought put into the
effect this might have upon the child, and that way
heavily on the court. You're attacking a man that is
holding a newborn possibly uh, and he did several times Robes.
He said, this is not I'm not here in this
court to decide domestic abuse one way or another, but
(12:14):
I have to take into account the behavior I'm seeing,
even if it's directed at him, children don't seem to
stop her. And that's a problem.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Yes, because actually he said, regardless the reactions that even
if he was trying to provoke a response, the reactions
that occur are very troubling. And that does make us
a lot of sense. He's saying, I don't know Dakota
could have said something to anger her or done something
to provoke a reaction, and still her choice to react
the way she did is putting that child at risk. Him.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Hearing him describe that incident, which again we're hearing it
for the first time, that's a I mean, it's wow.
I mean, the stuff's on video. We now are aware,
at least publicly, we haven't seen that one, but we
know a judge has, and this is how he described it.
This is two incidents of this woman not able to
control herself when it comes to a domestic dispute. That's
(13:13):
awful to not give a damn about any other one
in the room and who was it that said? Was
it you babe? Damn? Where not just hear this? That
the video of her the twenty twenty three incident, Like
the worst part that you just can't get your head
around is that she tosses this stool. Her child immediately starts.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Crying, and she doesn't rush to her child.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
What does she do? Keep attacking Dakota. Oh, that was
a That is the most powerful moment of that video
is to hear that child start crying.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
And then to not see her mother rush to her aid.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
That came up today in court as well. We'll tell
you what was said about that also what was said
by what is attorneys pretty powerful stuff that the judge
also had to consider.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Stay here, Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy
and TJ, where it was yes, another dramatic day for
Taylor Frankie Paul and Dakota Mortenson. This time the drama
was in the court room. It was all very supervised,
(14:27):
and we learned that Taylor Frankie Paul is not going
to be given back her full unsupervised parenting time with
her two year old son. Ever. In fact, she now
can only have up to eight hours a week supervised
visitation with her son and Dakotah's argument. Dakota's attorney's arguments
(14:51):
were pretty powerful what he had to say about what
has happened between the two in court, and it certainly
swayed the judge. We heard from his attorney saying that she,
Taylor Frankie Paul is always the aggressor in every incident.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Can I stop there and let's go, because I don't
know if we addressed it fully Because I stopped, we
were taking things in order. We said, this thing has
got in MESSI or part of the mess. Yes, was
a lot of stuff we heard in court today. But
you mentioned earlier the temporary restraining order. He was the
one to initiate first an order for her to stay
away from the kids, and he got custody. But she
has now gone out roads and her restraining order she
(15:30):
wants against him. Right, Yes, has had some pretty serious allegations.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Yes, that happened actually today just before the court hearing.
In fact, her attorney called, he said during the court
proceeding to day, he said that her temporary restraining order
against Dakota was hot off the presses. So he said
that Dakota Mortensen.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Wait, he used that language.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
He used that language, hot off the presses?
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Why today? Why fire today?
Speaker 2 (16:00):
Because they wanted it to get the most attention it
could get, and they knew by being in court, everyone
was going to be monitoring this court hearing, and so
if they could get this filing in beforehand, it would
be a part of the conversation. And think about it.
If she just she lost in court today, she certainly
did not get what she wanted. This had to be
a devastating blow to her. But they at least knew
that maybe some of that could be offset by filing
(16:22):
their version of things and filing a temporary restraining order
against Dakota, that at least maybe they could get some
coverage that would be pro tailor anti Dakota.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
So her, she's calling him a physical abuser, yes, she yep.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
The filing alleges that Dakota had a pattern of abusive
conduct and coercive control, and in this order they detail
four alleged incidents during their relationship. I don't know that
I have four, but I know the one that really
stands out is that she claims that during that incident
when he took her in his car while her three
(16:56):
children were still in the hall in February that he
like against her will, took her in the car, slammed
her head against the dashboard, and then punched her with
his fist on her knee and her elbow, which I
thought was really weird.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
That I don't know, I didn't hear that detail. He
punched her in the knee, I saw that, and punched
her in the elbow.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Yes, okay. Her attorney said that Morton said drove away
with Paul against her wishes.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Oh so kidnapping, yes, nice.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Then grabbed her head, slammed it into the dish dashboard,
hit her knee and her elbow with his fist. That
sounds painful to the fist what but also maybe as
he's trying to say that that's why it wouldn't leave marks,
I don't know. They also said. They also said that
they did provide the court with photos of alleged injuries
(17:48):
that back up her claims and text messages that were
sent between the two immediately following the incident. That was
what their proof was in their filing asking for temporary
restraining order. Yes, claiming physical abuse from Dakota.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
That's serious. Yes, if you bang, If this woman's head
was banged against a dashboard, that is that is awful.
When you said punched on, I didn't think you were
going to say knee and elbow.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
That really stood out to me as well. That was
uh and I the only thing I could think about
was that perhaps the claim is that he punched her
there because it wouldn't leave a mark. They didn't say that,
but I'm like, because I'm trying to think, why would
someone I mean, imagine, in the heat of the moment,
you're all upset at somebody. You've say, you have taken
them to the car, you slammed their head on the dashboard,
you punched their elbow and their knee. It just seems
(18:35):
so strange. I was trying to figure out why or
how that would even be a thing.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
I don't know, he's got a good aim. It's tough
to an elbow. It's something else they're describing or it okay?
Is there? That is okay? That you could have left
it a dashboard, right, I don't banged her head in
the dashboard.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yeah, that's pretty serious.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Uh yeah, this was supposedly awful stuff. Yep, that happened. Yep.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
And and the kidnapping. He kidnapped her while her kids
were sleeping inside her home, so he forced her to
leave her children, to abandon her children.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
You can add child abuse to this.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
You could. Yes, So this is what they are claiming
in their court order against Dakota.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Okay, so yes, that's also happening. And again we started
at the top here robes about can you imagine if
this started coming out while the Bachelorette new episode Sunday,
what would they do in this mess is playing out
in real time showing a much different view of the
woman who's handing out roses. She's handing out roses every week,
(19:44):
handing out roses, pushing a guy holding your infant child
throwing like you to think that those two images could
have been playing out weekend, week out, and to.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Think that these videos have existed for that long and
just now coming to light and going into court. And look,
that is part of what Taylor Frankie Paul's attorney was
saying that you can just see how vindictive he is.
This is what he's doing, like trying to somehow point
the finger back at Dakota, saying him releasing these videos
(20:16):
and him filing these protective orders and asking for custody
is just retaliation. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
His side is saying, what this is. What you're saying
is just things have been escalating since that incident in
twenty twenty three, and this has been an ongoing, volatile
and violent relationship in which she is always the aggressor,
says she often will invite him over to her house.
Her attorneys were trying to make a point that he
was in some way excuse me, yes, her attorneys that
he was the aggressor. He was always coming to where
he shouldn't be. Well, he was saying he was invited
(20:46):
there and possibly she was trying to provoke a trying
to get an incident or using the child at least
to start fights upon is the word I believe they used. Okay,
this is the argument his attorneys continue to make. Whatever
the argum, Oh, what do you have some of that?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Well, this is I actually have the exact language that
her attorneys used about Dakota. They said, Dakota is excellent
at escalating an aggravating Taylor when she reacts, it's one
hundred percent of Dakota. Dakota pushes buttons he's excellent as
that at that. As long as these people stay apart,
then there's no risk to the child. But they were
saying he's the aggressor. He pushes her buttons. Again, this
(21:23):
is kind of classic. He made me do it, like
he knows how to push my buttons, and I can't
help my reaction. That's kind of what I was.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Hearing, regardless the reactions that, even if he was trying
to provoke a response, the reactions that occur are very troubling.
That's from the judge. Yeah, fine, so he provoked her
and she threw barstools. He provoked her, and she pushes
him with her baby in his arms. The judge took
(21:51):
issue with that.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Yes, and look, we heard from Dakota's attorneys saying, my
client is doing everything he can at this point to
protect his son. Period.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
This is going to keep going. And how many weeks
does the Bachelorette usually go? I mean it's over two months, maybe,
I think.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
That's about right. I think these are usually like thirteen episodes,
that kind of that's usually the typical format for these
types of shows. So, yeah, this would have been like
I would if they had gone forward if the video
hadn't come out that week, they still would have had
to pull it off. They would have had to pull
it off mids and they would have there's no way
they could promote it, have like fun cute ads for it,
(22:30):
like all of it would have to go away. So
whether they started it or was in the middle of it,
it would have ended badly, abruptly, and people would have
been like, huh, yeah, I mean, it's best that none
of it aired, but you still see online people are
trying to get clips and video. It's all kind of like,
it's so interesting. People are desperate to see what the
season would have been, and it just now appears that
(22:52):
that season could never have been.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Yeah, because this isn't done. We got another hearing in
the next few weeks. But if you haven't been paying attention,
something trickles out. It seems like almost significantly every two
three days, there's some development. Somebody's done something, said something.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Files something, and even Taylor Frankie Paul is back on
social media and she had a big Easter post. He
has risen, but she also said that she's left the
Mormon faith and just you know, she's still trying to
do some pr work and communicate and show how desh
I think there was one shot of her over the
toilet like she had been vomiting, like she's so sick
(23:29):
with all of the publicity and pressure and certainly the courts,
and now she's you know, look, we don't know if
her attorneys are claiming no criminal charges are going to
be filed, but police have not confirmed that. So there
is zero confirmation that this is over for her legally
beyond custody, whether or not she would face any charges
for any of these incidents. But of course we will
(23:51):
continue to monitor all of the drama coming out of Utah.
But thank you in the meantime for listening to us.
As always, I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ. Holmes, and we
will talk to you soon
Hey there, folks. It is Tuesday, April seventh, and Disney
and ABC dodged a bullet and probably right now are
really grateful that they do not have Bachelorette episodes airing
the same week that Taylor, Frankie, Paul and her ex
(00:24):
ended up intoday's court hearing. And with that, welcome to
this episode of Amy and TJ. Rhodes's getting uglier. It's
getting uglier. We learned some details today I didn't know about.
This is getting uglier and uglier.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Yes, there was. Yeah, it was an eighty minute hearing
in court where you had Taylor, Frankie Paul, and Dakota
Mortenson's representatives there in court, their attorneys and then Taylor
and Dakota were joining this hearing. The zoom correct, they
were doing a video.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
I ever saw them, and the whole time, everybody's done
zoom before where you don't want your face shown. It
just Taylor Frankie and it said Dakota.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
That makes sense. I can understand why they might not
have wanted their faces there. But it was a hell
of a day in court and what the judge had
to say and what the ruling ultimately was was also
a fairly big blow to Taylor Frankie Paul.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
I'll just start there. She lost in court today. We'll
explain what that's about. But she was in court today
trying to get visitation with her kid, unsupervised, full visits
with her kid, the two year old with kids they ever, ever, ever,
the two year old she has with Dakota. That's what
the hearing was about. The reason Robes they had to
have this hearing is because it was immediately right after
(01:38):
all the drama and the video came out. They cost
her the Bachelorette and they had to be canceled on
all this. Dakota went to the court pretty quickly.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Yes, he filed a temporary protective order, which he was granted,
and that gave him full temporary custody of his son
ever and it denied Taylor any parental rights period. She
wasn't allowed to even visit her son until today. They
said this was the hearing where they would decide things
beyond this date. And look at that point, Dakota Mortensen
(02:10):
asked for that temporary protective order to become permanent. And
I would say, and just before the hearing started, Taylor
Frankie Paul then also filed a protective order against Dakota.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
All right, so let's take just today's hearing because there's
all my like I say, it's getting uglier because we're
learning about more incidents and Frankie Taylor Paul is taking
more legal action. But to today's point, and I should
I guess you can look at it two different ways.
She wasn't able to see her kid for the past
three weeks. She was in court today asking for that
(02:46):
to be lifted and she can go back to whatever
agreement she had with Dakota about visitation. They were sharing
child custody, so she was asking for full unsupervised back
to being a mom again. So she did get but
something from the judge today she is going to be
able to visit her kid, but supervised. Her attorney was
(03:07):
really arguing that why should she have to have supervised visits?
And that's going to continue at least for the short
foreseeable future.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, I mean, this was a This is I was
just imagining it from a mom's perspective. This is very
painful because before all of this, before the protective orders
were filed, the arrangement was that Taylor Frankie Paul had
Ever about seventy percent of the time. Obviously it was unsupervised,
so she was the primary parental figure in Ever's life
(03:38):
just from a shared custody standpoint.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
And we should point out I didn't know it kind
of makes sense, but his attorney's argued in court today
he has been taking care of that kid almost solely
because she's been traveling. They actually said she's been out
of town for months and he has been the sole provider. Wow,
I didn't know that.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Yes, I didn't know if she was. I thought maybe
she was bringing him with her because at least look
when we saw the end of The Secret Lives of
Mormon Wives that she was heading to La to go
film the Bachelorette. They showed her mom and her sister
with Ever and he was coming with them. So yeah,
I was under the presumption that he was in the area,
(04:24):
or at least in Los Angeles, maybe with her mom
and her sister while she was filming. But that apparently
wasn't the Hay, you.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Can tell me if I got this wrong. I'm trying
to remember that shot. She has two older kids, does
she not? She does, but it wasn't them in that
at the airport was it the little because where we're
talking about now is the two year old, the itty
bitty one. This is not the one you all that
you all that's in the video that she's throwing the chair.
That's a different kid. That's her older, older daughter. Okay,
so I am wondering was Ever in that shot or
(04:53):
was it there? I don't know, see I'm thinking about
it now, I'm second guessing. So, but it came out
and they said in court that he has been primary
really taking care of this kid for the past several months.
She's in there fighting to see they're two year old again.
And to your point, what's that like for a mom
o ropes. She hasn't been able to lay eyes on
the kid.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
That's devastating. Tell us what that is. And you know
when they're that little Obviously, Ever isn't really aware and
will never remember this time where he's been separated from
his mom. But she is like, it is devastating to
not be able to see your son and for a
court to tell you you're not allowed to be around your son.
And so yes, she was granted up to eight hours
(05:35):
per week supervised. That iss an hour a day. Basically,
that's it.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
He said six initially, and they asked for a couple
more before he did an official ruling. Yeah, he said
six at first.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
Wow. And that is all going to be in place
until they meet again. I believe that's happening on April thirty,
so later this month. But still she was, I'm sure
hoping to go into court today or at least be
a part of the core proceedings today, and walk away
with a resumed parental rights. And that just did not
(06:09):
happen for her.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
And we're going to get into some of the judge's
words here in a moment, but that is the ruling.
She gets eight hours. There's also an argument robes. Okay,
she gets the eight hours. That's not a lot during
a week, but it was a big argument over whether
or not it should be supervised. She didn't want it supervised,
and then after the judge says I needed to be supervised,
there was an argument over who is the supervisor. Who
is going to be in there, somebody that he picks,
(06:32):
somebody that she picks, or somebody that's independently picked. So
that was a big back and forth. Dakota, excuse me,
he wanted to pick his person. She wanted to pick
her person. The judge. Wow, I said, wow, that's really smart.
He said, it's better for all parties to have somebody
independent in the room because you can trust on both sides.
She can be in there knowing that somebody's keeping an eye,
(06:55):
can make sure that she's doing the right thing. If
he has one of his people in there, she's not
going to be comfortable with her kid because you gotta
think that person spying on her the whole time. I
was like, oh, that makes sense. I'm not sure what
they settled on.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
That does make sense. You would not want the person
that your ex who is fighting you in court for custody,
to pick the person who's now watching you, literally watching you.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Then here was the other argument by Taylor Frankie having
her own person in there. He said, that doesn't really
protect you because that person can is not in their
Dakota can argue they're in there, you know, partnering together
on this and things are going on that we don't
have an independent voice, he said, we need so. I
actually don't know how they settled on that, but I
(07:38):
think an independent person is going to be used. But
for eight hours, you get to see a kid a
two year old, and somebody's gonna be sitting there watching
you for the whole eight hours that you don't.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Know, that's rough in your home, monitoring you, and you're
very aware that they will be reporting back to the
court what they've witnessed, what they've observed.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
What do you think about the argument her attorney was making,
which is true, but it almost sounds no judge, she
should have unsupervised visits with her kid. All of her
anger it was never directed at the kid.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yes, he did say that, he said all of her anger.
I actually have the quote. Her anger is very clearly,
unambiguously directed at Dakota. It has nothing to do with
the children. So that was part of their argument that
she's never been abusive deliberately towards her children.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
If you ever have to say deliberately.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
I say that just because of the incident on the
video where she caught her got hit by the metal chair.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
What you're saying is one hundred percent right. The statement
should just be I've never been angry or violent towards
their children, Yes, deliberately or not.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
But it's interesting because what we have on video and
the injured child is from another marriage and another custody
a child situation. This involves ever, which is her youngest,
and he was not anywhere on those videos that we
have seen. But there was another video that was referenced
by Dakota's folks saying that he was potentially at one
(09:04):
point when some of this aggressive behavior began, that they're
alleging that he was holding the child when it happened.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
This one is not public and this is frankly, it
is the first I've heard about it. I don't know
if there's reporting on this one, but in court today, yes,
the judge referenced and they talked about another incident. I
believe it was the last year if we have the
date right, not the February. There's a February incident, but
there's also.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
There's a twenty twenty four accident there.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, he wanted to be twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
It's hard because we don't actually get the specifics or
the dates, but yes, I believe the incidents that have
been alleged of domestic violence are obviously the one from
twenty twenty three that got hurt taken off the Bachelorette.
Then there are these videos that allegedly exist over some
domestic violence incident in twenty twenty four. And then there
(09:49):
are the latest allegations that are from February twenty four
and twenty five of twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Okay, so this is where I'm getting all my numbers
mixed up. So let's go with incident number two, if
you will, Yes, in chronological order, is in twenty twenty four. Robes.
The judge you could tell, was himself disturbed by this,
and he said, I have to take this into account.
He describes a video. Now he said it in such
a way that mostly audio, but they describe incidents Robes.
(10:19):
One of them she kicks down, the kicks in, i
should say, the door of her two year old sleeping child.
And the other one, Robes they describe is an incident
in which the child could have been hurt because yes,
she's going after Dakota, but Dakota's holding a baby.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Yes, and reportedly Dakota almost fell because she pushed him
so hard with ever two year old ever in his arms,
or I guess at that point he would have been
a baby. Because if we're talking twenty twelve, christ yes,
how you think about it? Yeah, if we're talking twenty
twenty four. Oh my gosh, she was an infant, like
a newborn, like close to like just month months old.
(11:00):
We're not talking, I mean, and that's even a little scarier.
It's never obviously a good thing if you're aggressively pushing
somebody who's holding a toddler, but an infant, okay, they're
even more delicate.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Okay, so let's do then I'll move down to what
the judge said, because you just made a point about
that that I didn't consider the two year old was
not two years old in twenty twenty four. Jesus criming.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
He just turned to when all of this went down,
so like within the last month.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
So yeah, it was months old. Oh my okay, I
didn't think about less than a year for sure. Okay,
So his this last we need to This is why
he took issue. The judge made these comments and it
rolled again. It sounded like he didn't want to. He said,
I have to take this yeriously because that incident occurred
(11:50):
while the child was in the arms of the petitioner.
There doesn't seem to be any thought put into the
effect this might have upon the child, and that way
heavily on the court. You're attacking a man that is
holding a newborn possibly uh, and he did several times Robes.
He said, this is not I'm not here in this
court to decide domestic abuse one way or another, but
(12:14):
I have to take into account the behavior I'm seeing,
even if it's directed at him, children don't seem to
stop her. And that's a problem.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Yes, because actually he said, regardless the reactions that even
if he was trying to provoke a response, the reactions
that occur are very troubling. And that does make us
a lot of sense. He's saying, I don't know Dakota
could have said something to anger her or done something
to provoke a reaction, and still her choice to react
the way she did is putting that child at risk. Him.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Hearing him describe that incident, which again we're hearing it
for the first time, that's a I mean, it's wow.
I mean, the stuff's on video. We now are aware,
at least publicly, we haven't seen that one, but we
know a judge has, and this is how he described it.
This is two incidents of this woman not able to
control herself when it comes to a domestic dispute. That's
(13:13):
awful to not give a damn about any other one
in the room and who was it that said? Was
it you babe? Damn? Where not just hear this? That
the video of her the twenty twenty three incident, Like
the worst part that you just can't get your head
around is that she tosses this stool. Her child immediately starts.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Crying, and she doesn't rush to her child.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
What does she do? Keep attacking Dakota. Oh, that was
a That is the most powerful moment of that video
is to hear that child start crying.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
And then to not see her mother rush to her aid.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
That came up today in court as well. We'll tell
you what was said about that also what was said
by what is attorneys pretty powerful stuff that the judge
also had to consider.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Stay here, Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy
and TJ, where it was yes, another dramatic day for
Taylor Frankie Paul and Dakota Mortenson. This time the drama
was in the court room. It was all very supervised,
(14:27):
and we learned that Taylor Frankie Paul is not going
to be given back her full unsupervised parenting time with
her two year old son. Ever. In fact, she now
can only have up to eight hours a week supervised
visitation with her son and Dakotah's argument. Dakota's attorney's arguments
(14:51):
were pretty powerful what he had to say about what
has happened between the two in court, and it certainly
swayed the judge. We heard from his attorney saying that she,
Taylor Frankie Paul is always the aggressor in every incident.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Can I stop there and let's go, because I don't
know if we addressed it fully Because I stopped, we
were taking things in order. We said, this thing has
got in MESSI or part of the mess. Yes, was
a lot of stuff we heard in court today. But
you mentioned earlier the temporary restraining order. He was the
one to initiate first an order for her to stay
away from the kids, and he got custody. But she
has now gone out roads and her restraining order she
(15:30):
wants against him. Right, Yes, has had some pretty serious allegations.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Yes, that happened actually today just before the court hearing.
In fact, her attorney called, he said during the court
proceeding to day, he said that her temporary restraining order
against Dakota was hot off the presses. So he said
that Dakota Mortensen.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Wait, he used that language.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
He used that language, hot off the presses?
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Why today? Why fire today?
Speaker 2 (16:00):
Because they wanted it to get the most attention it
could get, and they knew by being in court, everyone
was going to be monitoring this court hearing, and so
if they could get this filing in beforehand, it would
be a part of the conversation. And think about it.
If she just she lost in court today, she certainly
did not get what she wanted. This had to be
a devastating blow to her. But they at least knew
that maybe some of that could be offset by filing
(16:22):
their version of things and filing a temporary restraining order
against Dakota, that at least maybe they could get some
coverage that would be pro tailor anti Dakota.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
So her, she's calling him a physical abuser, yes, she yep.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
The filing alleges that Dakota had a pattern of abusive
conduct and coercive control, and in this order they detail
four alleged incidents during their relationship. I don't know that
I have four, but I know the one that really
stands out is that she claims that during that incident
when he took her in his car while her three
(16:56):
children were still in the hall in February that he
like against her will, took her in the car, slammed
her head against the dashboard, and then punched her with
his fist on her knee and her elbow, which I
thought was really weird.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
That I don't know, I didn't hear that detail. He
punched her in the knee, I saw that, and punched
her in the elbow.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Yes, okay. Her attorney said that Morton said drove away
with Paul against her wishes.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Oh so kidnapping, yes, nice.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Then grabbed her head, slammed it into the dish dashboard,
hit her knee and her elbow with his fist. That
sounds painful to the fist what but also maybe as
he's trying to say that that's why it wouldn't leave marks,
I don't know. They also said. They also said that
they did provide the court with photos of alleged injuries
(17:48):
that back up her claims and text messages that were
sent between the two immediately following the incident. That was
what their proof was in their filing asking for temporary
restraining order. Yes, claiming physical abuse from Dakota.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
That's serious. Yes, if you bang, If this woman's head
was banged against a dashboard, that is that is awful.
When you said punched on, I didn't think you were
going to say knee and elbow.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
That really stood out to me as well. That was
uh and I the only thing I could think about
was that perhaps the claim is that he punched her
there because it wouldn't leave a mark. They didn't say that,
but I'm like, because I'm trying to think, why would
someone I mean, imagine, in the heat of the moment,
you're all upset at somebody. You've say, you have taken
them to the car, you slammed their head on the dashboard,
you punched their elbow and their knee. It just seems
(18:35):
so strange. I was trying to figure out why or
how that would even be a thing.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
I don't know, he's got a good aim. It's tough
to an elbow. It's something else they're describing or it okay?
Is there? That is okay? That you could have left
it a dashboard, right, I don't banged her head in
the dashboard.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yeah, that's pretty serious.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Uh yeah, this was supposedly awful stuff. Yep, that happened. Yep.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
And and the kidnapping. He kidnapped her while her kids
were sleeping inside her home, so he forced her to
leave her children, to abandon her children.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
You can add child abuse to this.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
You could. Yes, So this is what they are claiming
in their court order against Dakota.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Okay, so yes, that's also happening. And again we started
at the top here robes about can you imagine if
this started coming out while the Bachelorette new episode Sunday,
what would they do in this mess is playing out
in real time showing a much different view of the
woman who's handing out roses. She's handing out roses every week,
(19:44):
handing out roses, pushing a guy holding your infant child
throwing like you to think that those two images could
have been playing out weekend, week out, and to.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Think that these videos have existed for that long and
just now coming to light and going into court. And look,
that is part of what Taylor Frankie Paul's attorney was
saying that you can just see how vindictive he is.
This is what he's doing, like trying to somehow point
the finger back at Dakota, saying him releasing these videos
(20:16):
and him filing these protective orders and asking for custody
is just retaliation. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
His side is saying, what this is. What you're saying
is just things have been escalating since that incident in
twenty twenty three, and this has been an ongoing, volatile
and violent relationship in which she is always the aggressor,
says she often will invite him over to her house.
Her attorneys were trying to make a point that he
was in some way excuse me, yes, her attorneys that
he was the aggressor. He was always coming to where
he shouldn't be. Well, he was saying he was invited
(20:46):
there and possibly she was trying to provoke a trying
to get an incident or using the child at least
to start fights upon is the word I believe they used. Okay,
this is the argument his attorneys continue to make. Whatever
the argum, Oh, what do you have some of that?
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Well, this is I actually have the exact language that
her attorneys used about Dakota. They said, Dakota is excellent
at escalating an aggravating Taylor when she reacts, it's one
hundred percent of Dakota. Dakota pushes buttons he's excellent as
that at that. As long as these people stay apart,
then there's no risk to the child. But they were
saying he's the aggressor. He pushes her buttons. Again, this
(21:23):
is kind of classic. He made me do it, like
he knows how to push my buttons, and I can't
help my reaction. That's kind of what I was.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Hearing, regardless the reactions that, even if he was trying
to provoke a response, the reactions that occur are very troubling.
That's from the judge. Yeah, fine, so he provoked her
and she threw barstools. He provoked her, and she pushes
him with her baby in his arms. The judge took
(21:51):
issue with that.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
Yes, and look, we heard from Dakota's attorneys saying, my
client is doing everything he can at this point to
protect his son. Period.
Speaker 1 (22:03):
This is going to keep going. And how many weeks
does the Bachelorette usually go? I mean it's over two months, maybe,
I think.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
That's about right. I think these are usually like thirteen episodes,
that kind of that's usually the typical format for these
types of shows. So, yeah, this would have been like
I would if they had gone forward if the video
hadn't come out that week, they still would have had
to pull it off. They would have had to pull
it off mids and they would have there's no way
they could promote it, have like fun cute ads for it,
(22:30):
like all of it would have to go away. So
whether they started it or was in the middle of it,
it would have ended badly, abruptly, and people would have
been like, huh, yeah, I mean, it's best that none
of it aired, but you still see online people are
trying to get clips and video. It's all kind of like,
it's so interesting. People are desperate to see what the
season would have been, and it just now appears that
(22:52):
that season could never have been.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Yeah, because this isn't done. We got another hearing in
the next few weeks. But if you haven't been paying attention,
something trickles out. It seems like almost significantly every two
three days, there's some development. Somebody's done something, said something.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Files something, and even Taylor Frankie Paul is back on
social media and she had a big Easter post. He
has risen, but she also said that she's left the
Mormon faith and just you know, she's still trying to
do some pr work and communicate and show how desh
I think there was one shot of her over the
toilet like she had been vomiting, like she's so sick
(23:29):
with all of the publicity and pressure and certainly the courts,
and now she's you know, look, we don't know if
her attorneys are claiming no criminal charges are going to
be filed, but police have not confirmed that. So there
is zero confirmation that this is over for her legally
beyond custody, whether or not she would face any charges
for any of these incidents. But of course we will
(23:51):
continue to monitor all of the drama coming out of Utah.
But thank you in the meantime for listening to us.
As always, I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ. Holmes, and we
will talk to you soon
Hosts And Creators
Amy Robach
T.J. Holmes
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.