Disturbing New Claims Revealed In Randy Hames Civil Lawsuit
Disturbing New Claims Revealed In Randy Hames Civil Lawsuit
“You’ll lose your kids if you don’t have sex with me.”
The contention of a new civil lawsuit involving Cullman Attorney Randy Hames outlines contentions that his actions were willful, malicious and beyond all bounds of decencies and were only intended to gratify his sexual desires in regards to a Ms. Alisha Cobb.
In a sworn complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cullman County, ALISHA COBB has sued RANDY ALLAN HAMES, Hames Law Firm, L.L.C., and Fictitious Defendants 1-10 and Fictitious Defendants 11-20.
The essence of this new civil lawsuit alleges abuse of attorney power by Randy Hames as a Court appointed Guardian Ad Litem in a Child Custody matter involving DHR.
A Guardian Ad Litem is appointed to represent a child’s interests.
The complaint portrays Hames as a relentless sexual predator seeking physically amourous reciprocation from Cobb in return for assistance in guiding her through a DHR process involving her four (4) children: “You’ll lose your kids if you don’t have sex with me.”
Also, the complaint contends that Hames attempted to convince Cobb that her children would return to her custody in exchange for sexual conduct with him.
Also, the civil filling details Hames’ actions as violating his obligations as a licensed attorney and as the Court appointed Guardian Ad Litem. The contention is Hames’ actions were willful, malicious and beyond all bounds of decencies and were only intended to gratify his sexual desires.
Cobb is filing this Civil Complaint against Randy Hames in conjunction with a criminal arrest and charges of Human Trafficking which we first reported Saturday.
Cobb is represented by the Cullman law firm of Crocker & Sparks and the Birmingham firm of Wiggins, Childs, Pantazis, Fisher, and Goldfarb.
The action has 2 Counts: The first count, a violation of the: Representatives Jack Williams and Merika Coleman Act Alabama Code § 13A-6-150, et seq. (Human Trafficking). Count two involves Conspiracy.
All defendants in civil and criminal legal cases are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Like any defendant, Hames will be afforded this consideration by the Cullman judicial system.
Below are raw, unedited excerpts from the above mentioned Civil Action
At all times relevant hereto, Hames was the sole agent, officer, and shareholder of Hames Law Firm, L.L.C., where he operated his law practice.
Plaintiff was a party to a dependency action in Cullman County, Alabama which commenced on or about December 2, 2010.
This case involved four of Plaintiff’s children.
Randy Allan Hames, a licensed lawyer, was appointed by the Court to serve as Guardian Ad Litem for Plaintiff’s children.
“Guardian Ad Litem” is defined as “a licensed lawyer appointed by a court to defend or represent a child in any action to which such child may be a party.”
Alabama Code § 12-15-1(12). A Guardian Ad Litem is generally considered an officer of the court appointed to protect the interests of an unrepresented minor child. The duties are to protect the legal rights of the child and to bring these rights to the court’s attention.
At all times pertinent hereto, Hames was Guardian Ad Litem for Plaintiff’s children.
Early in the legal proceedings, Hames summoned Plaintiff to his law office to meet with him alone. This happened regularly, sometimes multiple times in the same week. Plaintiff attended these meetings because she wanted her children returned to her and Hames told her the meetings were necessary for the case.
During these meetings, Hames asked Plaintiff personal, private questions.
For example, Hames asked Plaintiff whether she was still having sex with her ex-husband; whether she ever gave her ex-husband “blow-jobs;” whether she was having withdrawals from not having sex; what she “liked” sexually, and whether she shaved her pubic area.
Plaintiff was taken aback by these questions. When she asked Hames why he was asking such things, he said he had to know because “it’s part of the case.”
In or about December 2010, Hames began showing up at Plaintiff’s house primarily at night. He would pull his vehicle into her driveway and sit in his car with the headlights off. Once, Hames banged on Plaintiff’s door at approximately 10:00 p.m. A few minutes later Plaintiff saw Hames’ face looking through her kitchen window. Plaintiff did not answer the door. On the next day, Hames called Plaintiff and angrily confronted her, asking why she did not open the door.
In the spring of 2011, at one of the so-called “necessary for the case” meetings at the Hames Law Firm Plaintiff and Hames were alone.
While Hames was seated behind his desk and Plaintiff was facing him, Hames told Plaintiff he wanted to come to her home on that night. Hames said he would bring elderberry wine and “we’ll talk about it,” referring to Plaintiff’s custody situation. Plaintiff told Hames she had a conflict and could not meet with him that night.
Hames told Plaintiff she was “beautiful” and said, “I’m here to help you. I can get your kids back.” Then, Hames got up and sat down beside Plaintiff. Hames put his hand on her thigh.
Plaintiff reacted by jumping up out of her seat. Hames got up and ran his hand down her back, over her buttocks and stuck his fingers into her crotch from behind. Plaintiff jumped away from Hames again and told him that she had to go.
Hames said “I didn’t mean to make you uncomfortable” and that he is “like a parent” and a “Christian man.”
Plaintiff did her best to avoid Hames for some time after this incident.
Throughout his tenure as Guardian Ad Litem for Plaintiff’s children, Hames’ statements and questions to Plaintiff were rarely about her children but were almost always about her and of a romantic or sexual nature.
For example, Hames told Plaintiff “You’ve got to tell me if you’re dating anybody,” and he later forbade her from dating, saying, “You can’t date anybody.” Hames frequently asked Plaintiff if she was meeting her ex-husband for sex. His standard excuse for asking these types of things was “it pertains to the case.”
At one point Hames tried to convince Plaintiff to move into his trailer park, “rent-free.”
He told Plaintiff that DHR was concerned about her relationships and if she would move into one of his trailers he could “keep an eye on” her and this would help get her kids back. Hames said “I can help you. I can testify you’re living here.”
Plaintiff agreed to go look at the trailer, and when she did, she took a male individual with her. Hames bristled when he saw this man and said he needed to speak with Plaintiff privately.
Hames took Plaintiff inside the trailer alone and angrily confronted her and questioned why she brought this man with her. Plaintiff subsequently declined to move into Hames’ trailer park.
In addition, the trailer was in a very poor condition that was not suitable for children.
During another meeting in his office, Hames asked Plaintiff her favorite color.
Plaintiff told him red. A few days later Plaintiff found a bag on her front porch. This bag contained panties, a bra, and lingerie, all of which were red. Hames sent Plaintiff a text message asking if she found a surprise. Plaintiff called Hames, and he told her he put those items on her porch and said red would look good on her.
While serving as her children’s Guardian Ad Litem, Hames asked Plaintiff if she needed money, which she declined. Hames often told Plaintiff he was a “good man” and he could take care of her and give her a good life. Additionally, Hames would blatantly proposition Plaintiff for sex and make statements such as “You’ll lose your kids if you don’t have sex with me.”
When Plaintiff would challenge his solicitation of her, Hames would respond with statements like “Who is going to believe you? DHR’s got your kids”.
After the dependency cases had been in court for a year or so, DHR filed to terminate Plaintiff’s parental rights. Hames called Plaintiff at night in late 2012 after DHR had filed to terminate her rights. Plaintiff returned Hames’ call, crying and upset because she no longer had visitation with her children. Hames told her, “I’m trying to help you through this process. Everyone is against you.”
Hames told Plaintiff she was a good mother and that 90-95% of the time the judge does what the Guardian Ad Litem recommends to the court. Hames said, “I can help you. I’ll take care of you, and you can put this behind you.”
Hames told Plaintiff he wanted to have sex with her.
When Plaintiff said this was a conflict, Hames said “It’ll be our secret. No one has to know.”
Hames continued making sexual advances toward Plaintiff. Hames continued making comments such as “The GAL holds the cards” to remind Plaintiff of his position over her. In late 2012, after Plaintiff continued to refuse and not accept his sexual advances, Hames turned against Plaintiff. Hames became rude and adversarial to Plaintiff in court and began supporting DHR’s petition to terminate her parental rights.
Plaintiff’s visitation with her children was stopped, and Plaintiff learned that GAL Hames had recommended ending Plaintiff’s visitation with her children. The termination was scheduled for trial on March 13, 2013.
Plaintiff knew the GAL Hames was now against her and believing she had no chance of prevailing in court, Plaintiff agreed to a compromise in which she relinquished her parental rights on March 13, 2013.
Because of DHR’s petition to terminate Plaintiff’s parental rights on some of her children, Plaintiff’s ex-husband filed to terminate her rights on two other children.
That case was scheduled for trial in June of 2013. Between March 15, 2013, and June 2013, Hames called Plaintiff and said, “You’ve got another case coming up.” Hames propositioned Plaintiff, saying, “Let’s get together.” Hames talked about them drinking wine together and going on a date. Plaintiff refused his sexual advances.
Following Plaintiff’s refusal, Hames went to court with Plaintiff’s ex-husband and testified against her in June 2013 resulting in termination of her parental rights for those children.
Cullman County Courthouse