Odyssey

Posted: December 10, 2013 | Author: Father | Filed under: Mrs. Marshfield | Leave a comment

My son’s and my odyssey with the Plymouth County Probate Court has now spanned four years, since my under ten years of age son came to me in January 20XX, and asked me if his mother was trying to kill him.  Medical records revealed that my son had suffered two weight loss episodes within the prior year, totaling 15 pounds.  A highly regarded family law attorney in Boston told me that my son had been sent to bed without dinner on consecutive nights- spanning weeks, which accounted for the shocking weight loss on my son’s meager under ten year old frame.

After enduring two years of delay and stall tactics by my ex-wife and her attorney, a State Rep, I published a blog on the shortcomings of the professionals involved in this case (counsel, judge, therapist, GAL and parenting coordinator), when I found out my son was suicidal under his mother’s care throughout the Summer of 2011, and the professionals in this case continued to act against the interests of my son.  From the moment I published the blog, the case turned and I was told I was the problem, despite having no criminal record, no history of drug abuse, and despite my son’s repeated requests to live with me.  Visitation was suspended in Fall 2011 and subsequently restored in Spring 2012.  By the fall of 2012, I published a book inspired by the court proceedings of the previous two and a half year years and the blog.  The idea was that the public should know how the probate system operates, how the judge is accountable to no one, and how fiction and opinion trumped facts throughout my son’s and my three-year ordeal; but above all, I believed the book would help my son.

Visitation was again cut off with the publication of Mrs. Marshfield.  But at the same time, the Judge from Plymouth Country probate also acknowledged the legality of the book, and acknowledged my first amendment right to publish the book.   And the reason given for suspending my visitation, like the blog before the book, I was told that the book, Mrs. Marshfield, was harmful to my son.

I immediately contacted my State Senator, and after hearing me out, he contacted the Massachusetts Board of Judicial Conduct and requested an investigation on my judge in November 2012.   At this point, my book remained on line for purchase.  We were to meet again in the Plymouth Country probate court in May 2013; but the Judge was still under investigation, I asked him to recuse himself (which he denied), and did not appear at trial, as the mother nor her counsel made any attempts to contact me.

In July 2013, I was told by my State Senator’s office that the investigation had failed, and the Judge was found – innocent – what a surprise.  At this point, I gave the judge what he wanted and suspended sale of my book, the one I had every legal right to publish- per the judge, pending another hearing in Fall 2013.  What follows are the findings of facts that I presented to the court on the heels of that hearing.  To date, no medical and psychological documentation has ever been provided that my son was harmed by me telling the truth.  My son was not harmed by the blog or the book; but rather, after years of his mother running him around from doctor to doctor, in search of proof that our son was learning disabled (something no doctor would ever validate), my son is now a straight A student, which is what I had always forecast would happen.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT

 

PLYMOUTH DIVISION                              DOCKET NO. PL 02D 1047-DR

 

MARGARET KENNEY,            )

                  PLAINTIFF                )        PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED

and                                       )        FINDINGS OF FACT AND

                                             )        RATIONALE

FATHER,                  )       

                  DEFENDANT   )

On October 2, 2012 and October 2, 2013, the parties in the above entitled Complaint for Modification appeared before the Court, the Honorable James Menno presiding, for Trial. The Plaintiff, Margaret Kenney (hereinafter “Mother”) was present and represented by Attorney Brian Ward. The Defendant, Father, (hereinafter “Father”) was present and represented by himself. Upon consideration of all the evidence, and after assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the Court hereby enters the following

1. Procedural History:

1. Plaintiff Margaret Kenney (hereinafter “the Mother”) currently resides in Marshfield, Massachusetts. She is represented by Attorney Brian Ward of Quincy, Massachusetts.

2. Defendant Father (hereinafter “the Father”) currently resides in Marshfield, Massachusetts. Father presently has not legal representation, and is representing himself.

3. The parties have one (1) child, namely Chris (hereafter “Chris”), who was born in 2000.

4. The parties were divorced on September 5, 2001 before the Superior Court of California with a complete Divorce Agreement on all issues.

5. Pursuant to this Judgment of Divorce and related Divorce Agreement, the parties maintained shared legal custody of Chris, while the Mother maintained his primary residence.

6. In July of 2002, the Father filed a “Complaint to Enforce and Modify a Foreign Decree” with the Plymouth Probate and Family Court.

7. In November of 2002, the Court (Sabaitis, J.) entered a Modification Judgment confirming its jurisdiction over the parties’ case and ordered that the parties shall have shared legal custody of Chris. The Modification Judgment also incorporated the parties’ mutually agreed upon parenting plan.

8. On or about February 26, 2004, the Father filed this Complaint for Modification. Earlier Temporary Orders in 2004 revised the parties’ plan and specifically appointed Dr. Vicki Lyall as Parent Coordinator. The parties never worked with Dr. Lydall.

9. On or about early 2006, the parties executed a Mediation Agreement with Attorney Michelle Dorsey of Safe Harbor Mediation in Scituate.

10. On or about April 21, 2010, the Father filed Motion for Temporary Orders, Motion to Amend Complaint for Modification and Motion for Guardian Ad Litem.

11. On or about May 2, 2010, the Mother filed Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for Temporary Orders and Motion for Guardian Ad Litem.

12. On May 4, 2010, the parties and their respective attorneys appeared before this Court for a hearing on all of these motions. At that time, the Father and the Mother reached a comprehensive and detailed Stipulation of the Parties dated May 4, 2010, which this Court entered as a Temporary Order with the following terms:

13. a) The Father defers his Motion for Guardian Ad Litem until the completion of the psychological evaluations as outlined below (and without prejudice) He also defers his immediate request for custody until this later time (without prejudice).

14. b) The Father and the Mother shall submit to psychological evaluations through an expert with experience before the Probate and Family Court in custody disputes at their individual expense. Counsel for the parties shall agree upon this expert as soon as practicable. Both attorneys shall receive a copy of both evaluations; each parent may review these evaluations in his or her respective attorney’s office but may not receive a copy of them.

15. c) Should either parent later pursue a Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, these evaluations may be disclosed to him or her as part of this investigation. Otherwise, these evaluations shall not be disclosed to any third parties.

16. d) The following issues shall be presented to the Court for determination: (a) appointment/continued work of Attorney Michelle Dorsey as Parent Coordinator. There is a dispute as to whether this work has been conducted within “mediation” or within “parent coordination”; (b) payment of Attorney Michelle Dorsey’s fees for May 4, 2010; (c) payment of Attorney James Cantwell’s fees for May 4, 2010; and (d) payment of Attorney Michelle Dorsey’s fees on April 16, 22010 and February 22, 2010.

17. e) The parents will honor and continue to utilize the parenting terms (insofar as their schedule with Chris and their contact with one another only) negotiated with Attorney Dorsey, although the Father’s parenting time with their son shall be on Tuesdays from 4:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. (coordinated around Chris’s activities schedule) and every Thursday from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. during Cub Scouts and every other Thursday once Cub Scouts ends, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. The parties thus agree that Chris shall continue to have his sailing activities as scheduled each Tuesday and Thursday from 2:00 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. Mother shall take Chris to the sailing lessons. Father shall pick up Chris after the lesson on Tuesdays.

13. After further hearing on the remaining issues, such as appointment/continued work of Attorney Michelle Dorsey as Parent Coordinator and payment of Attorney Michelle Dorsey’s fees and Attorney James Cantwell’s fees, this Court (Menno, J.) also ordered that “the Court finds that Attorney Dorsey has been working with the parties as a parent coordinator and appoints her to continue in the role of parenting coordinator. Her prior fees as “coordinator” are subject to the agreement she made with the parties, and prior order of Court (70% Father/30% Mother), the Court awards no fees for May 4, 2010 appearance. No counsel fees are ordered at this time”.

14. On or about May 4, 2010, the Trial Department of the Plymouth Probate and Family Court issued a notice of Pre-Trial Conference scheduling this case for hearing on November 12, 2010 before Judge James V. Menno in Plymouth.

15. On or about June 10, 2010, the Father filed Motion for Reconsideration of Order for Parenting Coordinator dated May 10, 2010. The Mother failed to file a response.

16. On or about July 8, 2010, the Father filed a Complaint for Contempt against the Mother alleging that she “failed and refused to select an expert and to participate in a psychological evaluation “as soon as practicable”.

17. On or about July 16, 2010, this Court (Menno, J.) denied the Father’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order for Parenting Coordinator dated May 10, 2010.

18. On or about August 15, 2010, Attorney W. Sanford Durland III filed a Verified Petition for Interlocutory Relief and Memorandum in Support of Petitioner for Interlocutory Relief on behalf of the Father with the Massachusetts Appeals Court which was denied.

19. On or about October 22, 2010, the Mother filed her Answer and Counterclaim to Complaint for Contempt.

20. On or about October 26, 2010, the Father filed his Answer to Counterclaim to Complaint for Contempt.

21. On October 28, 2010, the parties and their respective attorneys appeared before this Court for a contempt hearing. At that time, the Father and the Mother reached a comprehensive and detailed Stipulation of the Parties dated October 28, 2010, which this Court entered as a Temporary Order with the following terms:

2010. a) The parties agree that the attached “XXXXX-Kenney Parent Coordinator Agreement October 28, 2010” shall be incorporated and become a Temporary Order of the Court. The “XXXXX-Kenney Parent Coordinator Agreement October 28, 2010” states: (1) Both parents shall not speak to Chris, within Chris’s presence or hearing distance, about the other parent (except as to details regarding day to day activities, for example, “What time do you have to be at cub scouts with Mom/Dad?”). There is to be no discussion with or in Chris’s presence or hearing distance regarding litigation, court, custody, lawyers, going to the press, reporting of any nature to any social service agency, etc. Discussions of this nature are disturbing to Chris and not in his best interest. They are detrimental to his well being. This recommendation repeats what the parents already agreed to do in writing on February 22, 2010. This failure of either parent to abide by the provisions of this paragraph shall be immediately reported by the other parent to the Parenting Coordinator if he or she has good faith reason to believe the other is in violation.; (2) Chris shall begin individual therapy with Sol Levin of Hingham forthwith. Both parents shall contact Dr. Levin to arrange a time for him to interview each of them individually and shall cooperate with Dr. Levin’s efforts with Chris. Dr. Levin’s work with Chris shall be protected by the therapist/client privilege with the exception that Dr. Levin may report to the Court or the Parenting Coordinator concerns he may have regarding Chris’s best interests and may fulfill his duty as a mandated reported under law, if necessary; (3) Father shall pay for the services of the Parenting Coordinator in connection with this recommendation/agreement, which include meeting with Chris, speaking with both attorneys and both parties, reviewing written material from each parent and a brief court appearance, up to six hours.

 

1. b) The parties’ respective requests for attorney’s fees and costs for the Father’s Complaint for Contempt and the Mother’s Counterclaim for Contempt shall be deferred without prejudice to a further hearing.

 

22. After further hearing on the remaining issues, such as appointment of Guardian Ad Litem and psychological evaluations, this Court (Menno, J.) also ordered that “the Court declines to order a Guardian Ad Litem at this time; and the Court stays the May 4, 2010 order of psychological evaluation until further order.”

23. On or about November 10, 2010, the parties and their respective attorneys appeared before this Court for a Pre-Trial Conference Hearing.

24. On or about January 7, 2011, the Court (Menno, J.) appointed Dr. Richard Wollman as Guardian Ad Litem in the instant matter.

25. On May 1, 2011 the Court (Menno, J.) entered a Temporary Order denying the parties’ requests for depositions and allowing the Court and incorporating a stipulation by both parties on the issues to be determined at trial.

26. On June 22, 2011, the parties appeared before the Court (Menno, J.) on Mother’s Motion for Temporary Orders, requesting that Father’s parenting time with the child be supervised.

27. On July 1, 2011 the Court (Menno, J.) entered a Temporary Order denying the the Motion for Further Temporary Orders without prejudice, and accelerating the Trial on this matter to July 27 and July 29, 2011. The Court (Menno, J), further allowed the Motion to release the Guardian Ad Litem report to Dr. Levin and Attorney Dorsey.

28. On July 21, 2011, September 26, 2011, October 3, 2011 and October 9, 2011, the parties appeared before the Court (Menno, J.) for Trial.

29. Counsel for both parties submitted an extensive Stipulation of Uncontested Facts which is also incorporated herein.

30. In December 2011, the court issued its orders, in the matter of XXXXX V. Kenney, and gave sole legal and physical custody to Mother. Moreover, Father was afforded supervised visitation pending psychiatric therapy attendance (the father completed this and began seeing Chris in late Winter 2012).

31. On September 25, 2012, the Mother filed a complaint for modification, in the matter of Kenney V. Father (f/k/a XXXXX), and on October 2, 2012 Judge Menno held a hearing on the same complaint for modification.

32. On October 23, 2012, Judge Menno issued orders forbidding Father from seeing son, stating as the reason the publication of the book Marshfield, True Crime and Corruption in Plymouth County (herein referred to also as “book”), and the father’s promotion of the book around the town of Marshfield. Judge Menno believed the book was injurious and detrimental to son.

33. A hearing was subsequently set for April of 2013, and the father did not attend, as the Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Ward, had made no pre-hearing contact with Father; and the Father asserts that the Menno Court was under review by the Committee of Judicial Conduct, on a matter directly related to the Judge Menno’s conduct and ruling in the matter of XXXXX V. Kenney.

34. A new hearing was established in the matter of Kenney V. XXXXX on October 2^nd 2013, and Judge Menno requested both parties to provide a proposed order, procedural history, findings of fact, rationale, and conclusions of law. Herein, is what follows:

1. Findings of Fact

 

General information

1. Chris XXXXX is an intelligent eleven-year old boy who has been primarily residing with the Mother since his parents’ divorce in 2001.

2. At the time of Chris’s birth, the parties were married and residing in California. (Testimony of Father, Testimony of the Mother)

3. Shortly after Chris’s birth, the relationship between the Mother and the Father soured. (Testimony of the Father, Testimony of the Mother)

4. In 2001, the Mother obtained the consent of the Father to take Chris from California to Massachusetts for a summer vacation. Upon conclusion of the vacation, the Mother refused to return to California. The Father was forced to obtain a Court order directing Mother to return to California to adjudicate the divorce and determine custody. (Testimony of the Father).

5. The Court finds that the relationship of the parties to be one that has been challenged from the outset, in large part due to the contentious tone set by The Mother’s unlawful removal of the Chris to Massachusetts from California before receiving the Father’s or any Court’s permission to her to do so.

6. The Mother is presently employed as a school teacher in the Marshfield Public Schools. She earns $1,174 weekly. (Court records)

7. The Father is presently employed as an Executive Underwriter with Connecticut Insurance carrier, and earns approximately $XXXX weekly plus bonuses. (Court records).

8. On or about November 23, 2009, the parties’ son, Chris, began making repeated requests to spend more time with the Father, a request that was refused by the Mother.

9. On or about December 11, 2009, Chris began expressing a desire to live with the Father, citing problems in the Mother’s home as a reason, including problems with his stepbrother, his mother yelling at him, not having enough food to eat, and being sent to bed without dinner.

10. The Mother remarried in 2005 to Tom Kenny. Mr. Kenny has a teenage son from a previous marriage, who has resided in the Kenney’s home in the past.

Overview

11. The Court finds that the Father has credibly identified reasonable concerns about the Mother’s parenting choices as documented in the book Marshfield (submitted into evidenced at the October 2^nd, 2013 hearing in the matter of Kenney V. Father by Attorney Ward), including but not limited to: Mother’s failure to provide adequate nutrition and clothing for Chris; her abuse of animals in her home; her tolerance of the presence of her stepson, John, in her home, even after Chris expressed fear and concern about step son John’s presence and discomfort with John’s drug abuse and drug testing; her unwillingness to see as reasonable the Father’s concerns about Chris serving as an altar boy; his numerous school evaluations and an unnecessary IEP (Chris is now a straight A student as foretold by father); and Chris’s suicidal behavior while in the care, custody and control of mother, as previously testified to by Attorney Dorsey, Doctor Wolman, and Mrs. Kenney.

12. The Court finds that much of the testimony and evidence propounded by the Mother to be focused on the behavior of the Father, attempting to portray Father as a difficult or disruptive person. However, none of this testimony nor any of the documentary evidence has shown clearly (beyond conjecture) that the Father’s personality or behavior has had any negative effect on Chris. The Court does not find that any clear link between the intra-parental challenges or Father’s behavior and any negative effect upon Chris has been drawn.

13. In particular, in the matter of Kenney V. Father, the Menno court took away Father’s visitation rights in October 2012, citing the harm the book Marshfield would cause Chris. The book Mrs. Marshfield was written by father. In the hearing of October 2^nd 2013, no evidence was provided by Mother or Attorney Ward that Chris was harmed in any way by the publication of the book Mrs. Marshfield; in fact, Chris was testified to by Mother as thriving, and doing very well both academically and emotionally and socially.

14. The court finds that the father has no criminal record, no history of drug abuse, no history of attending drug rehabilitation, and is a loving parent, who has never missed visitation or a child support or insurance payment. Moreover, the father is a role model for son, as he has never been without employment and has never suffered disciplinary action on the job.

15. The court finds that publication of the book Marshfield was legal and a protected First Amendment right, as cited in Judge Menno’s orders of October 23, 2012. Please note, Judge Menno is also a constitutional law scholar and professor.

16. The court finds that the mother has a long history of attempting to alienate father from Chris, including but not limited to: failure to return to the State of California with son in the year of his birth; withheld visitation with no good reason; making disparaging remarks about father in the Marshfield community; frequent trips to the former parenting coordinator/mediator/legal counsel to the mother, Michele Dorsey; frequent trips to the probate court with no fewer than five visits to court initiated by the Mother, since May 2011. In all these visits to court and to the parenting coordinator, the Mother has a single objective – despite comments to the contrary – to remove father from Chris’s life.

17. The court finds that the mother has a history of bringing Chris into parental conflicts.

18. The court finds that the father enjoyed unsupervised and progressively expanded visitation, from the birth of the child through August 2011, when attorney Dorsey removed father from the child’s life as a result of the publication of a blog, freeChrisXXXXX.com.

19. The court finds that parenting supervisor Keeys (sp?) was in the process of expanding father’s time and contact with son, Chris, when mother brought the present case before the Menno court, in September 2012.

Mother’s testimony and evidence

20. The court finds that the mother appears to have a preternatural obsession with the book Marshfield, and promotion of same, as her nearly hour and a half testimony at the October 2^nd 2013 hearing focused almost entirely on the publication and promotion of the book, and indeed, Attorney Ward submitted said book into evidence.

21. The court finds that neither Attorney Ward or Mother submitted any evidence, nor testified, that Chris was harmed by the publication or promotion of the book Mrs. Marshfield.

22. The court finds that mother testified that Chris was doing very well socially, academically, and mentally, all during a time that the book, Mrs. Marshfield, was under publication.

23. The court finds that Chris’s therapist, Dr. Levin, as testified to by Mother, ceased to see Chris as a client in November 2012, despite publication of the book Mrs. Marshfield in the Fall of that same year. The book was published in September 2012 and taken down by father in very early July 2013.

24. The court finds that neither Mother or Attorney Ward provided any medical evidence demonstrating that Chris has suffered any health affects, as a result of the publication of Mrs. Marshfield.

25. The courts finds that the mother provided no testimony or evidence that the Father was stalking, harassing, or contacting Mother, in anyway. This is very important as the mother had previously testified that this was a problem, while the father asserts there was never a problem.

26. The courts finds that the mother neither provided any evidence or testified that the father suffers from any anger or rage issues. Again this is important, because the mother had previously asserted this, as did a Doctor Wolman in the past.

27. The court finds that the mother testified that she had repeatedly asked Chris about his visits with father, and that Chris failed to give his mother a response, at the instructions of Parenting Supervisor.

28. The court finds that the mother has a history or dragging Chris into this case, as she testified that she had told Chris about the book, Mrs. Marshfield, and she testified that she repeatedly asked Chris about his visits with the father.

29. The court finds that the mother testified that Chris asks about his father, and loves his father.

30. The court finds that the mother, once again, testified that she wants Father in Chris’s life, but then went on to say that she wants father removes from Chris’s life, part of a continued pattern of parental alienation.

31. The court finds that neither mother or counsel Ward provided a single fact or piece of evidence, demonstrating that the father had harmed his son, in any shape, form or matter. Moreover, the father, as always, followed the court’s instructions to the letter.

The book, Mrs. Marshfield

32. The court finds that the book Mrs. Marshfield was written by father.

33. The court finds that the book Mrs. Marshfield was cited throughout the hearing by Attorney Ward, and in fact, submitted into evidence.

34. The book Mrs. Marshfield (here after referred to as “book”) describes the trail and court proceedings from the period of May 2010 concluding in December 2012 with Judge Menno’s ruling, in the matter of XXXXX V. Kenney (the case that proceeded Kenney V. Father).

35. The book uses pseudonyms, and changes key dates to protect Chris and the many professionals involved in this case, and the mother. In fact, the book states as much in Chapter One.

36. The court finds that the father testified that he wrote the book as a “whistle-blower,” with the idea of bringing to light the many problems, issues and inconsistencies he saw in the probate court, the professionals involved with the case, and the mother’s problematic behavior towards their son, Chris – without identifying anyone by name.

37. The court finds that the father testified, and is credible, that in publishing the book that he wanted to bring the truth to light, and reform to the probate system. See Chapter Fifteen of the book.

38. The court finds the father’s assertion is correct, in that nearly the entire body of the book, consists of actual court room testimony and court room documents, from the matter XXXXX V. Kenney. The father asserts that these documents are a matter of public record.

39. The court agrees and has written that the publication of the book was protected under the first amendment, as written by the Menno Court.

40. The court finds that the father testified that the mother and Judge Menno were angered by the book, and that the professionals involved in the case were also equally angered.

41. The court finds that the book states how the father published a blog, www, freeChrisXXXXX.com, as a result of hearing that his son, Chris, was suicidal while under his mother’s care throughout the summer of 2011. The book states that Attorney Dorsey documented Chris’s suicidal tendencies while under his mother’s care, and it was testified throughout the trail, in the matter of XXXXX V. Kenney. Moreover, Counsel Ward references the blog in both October 2012 and 2013 hearings on this matter. (See Chapter Seven from the book)

42. The court finds that nobody has successfully addressed or refuted the central themes expressed in the book concerning Chris: that Chris did suffer a medically documented fifteen pounds while under the care of his mother; that child suffered from fainting spells while under his mother’s care; that animals were abused in the home; that Chris was repeatedly tested for learning disorders by his mother (despite the fact that he is a straight A student today); that Chris was dragged into the middle of this case by mother; and that Chris was suicidal under his mother’s care as testified to and/or documented by Mother, Attorney Dorsey and Doctor Wolman.

43. The court finds that the book challenges and affords criticism of Doctor Wolman’s performance as a GAL, Attorney Dorsey performance as a mediator/parenting coordinator/attorney for the mother; and Judge Menno’s performance on the bench, and seeks the reform of same professions, professionals, and courts. (Please see book Chapters Eight through Fifteen, submitted into evidence by attorney Ward).

44. The court finds that it is highly probable for any of the professionals involved in this case, or the Mother, to be upset or angered by publication of the book, even though it is protected free speech, and supported by – and consists largely of – court room documents and testimony.

45. The court finds that the mother, nor any of the professionals involved in this case, have sued the father for defamation, libel or slander, as such legal action is ordered to flow through the Menno court.

46. The court finds that the book documents a history of the court, and its surrogate, removing Chris from Father’s life, for publication of a blog, freeChrisXXXXX.com – not dissimilar from the actions taken by the Menno court for publication of the book. In short, the court has a history or a pattern of removing Chris from the life of the Father anytime he publishes court documents that provide a narrative contrary to the court’s findings or rulings.

47. The court finds that the justification for removing Chris from the father’s life for publication of the blog or book, as afforded by the court and it’s surrogate – Counsel Dorsey- has been that that such publication was harmful to Chris.

48. To date, no medical, psychiatric, or mental health professional has furnished documentation or evidence demonstrating that Chris has ever been injured, physically or mentally, by the publication of the blog or book. And no such evidence was provided at the trial.

49. The court therefore, cannot provide justification or rationale from removing Chris from the father’s life, particularly on the grounds of the father exercising his first amendment right.

Father’s Testimony

50. The court finds that the father testified that the mother and her cadre of attornies have dragged these proceeding out, since May 2010, as promised by Attorney and State Rep. Cantwell at a pre-trial conference in May 2010.

51. The court finds that the father testified that mother cannot stay out of courts, and has dragged father into court no fewer than five times, since he attempted to resolve this matter – on the advice of counsel – on the heals of the GAL report in May of 2011.

52. The courts finds that by virtue of the mother bringing all these complaints and trials against the father that it is harmful and detrimental to Chris. Clearly, it takes time away that mother should be spending with her son.

53. The court finds that the father testified that today’s trial is part of a continuing campaign by mother to alienate father from Chris.

54. The court finds that the father testified that he is a model father: never missed a support payment; never let insurance lapse; always an employee in good standing – never unemployed; never missed a visit; always there for Chris. Moreover, everyone acknowledges that the father loves his son, and his son, in turn, loves his father.

55. The court finds that the father testified that the mother has been grilling and questioning, and listening into, father and son conversations, visitations, and contact for all of these last thirteen years.

56. The court finds that the mother has made Chris’s life, in many instances, miserable, to the point of suicidal talk, because of the mother’s overwrought and obsessive and unfounded concerns about father and son relationship.

57. The court finds that the father testified he has no history of child abuse, like the many and often documented issues – that occurred with mother and while in the mother’s care.

58. The court finds that the father asserts that he should not be denied visitation because of the mother’s inability to control herself. The father wonders why he and Chris must pay the price for his mother’s demonstrable hatred towards father, which she often exhibits though her interactions with Chris.

59. The courts finds that father testified and expressed concern about the child support sent to mother, when she’s in court all the time on this and other matters, and out of concern over how little of his support payments actually reaches Chris. Chris has questioned father before as why he is “poor.”

60. The court finds that the father asserts that the courts have been instrumental in alienating father and son, by supporting the mother.

61. The courts finds that father testified that he would prefer not give information about his new employer and new Connecticut address, due to the mother’s history of trespassing on father property, conducting investigations on father’s property, and entering the father’s home without permission.

62. The father testified that he went to therapy as mandated by the Menno court, as a precondition to seeing his son, through Winter and Spring 2012.   Moreover, he went to therapy for four to five months, until his attorney told him he no longer had to go.

63. The courts finds and has received documentation from the father’s therapist, Doctor Okin, that he is perfectly mentally fit to enjoy unsupervised visitation with his son, Chris. Moreover, same therapist saw no issues that would prove detrimental to Chris. This same therapist said that father’s emotions over what transpired at the trial, XXXXX V. Kenney, were both rational and justifiable. A sentiment that was echoed by Counsel DeGregorio.

64. The court finds through the publication of the book, and having it entered into evidence at the trial, that Doctor Wolman testified that Chris had requested to live with his father many times, despite threats to tell his mother on him from Doctor Wolman, himself. (See Chapter nine of the book submitted by Attorney Ward).

65. The court finds that the father testified that the mother again, dragged Chris into the case by telling him about the book, and that the father further testified that he couldn’t have possibly told Chris about the book, because visitation had ceased when the book was started, or father was under supervised visitation. Mr. Keeys never made mention of the father discussing the book with Chris in his reports.

66. The court finds that the father testified that the book is legal, consists largely and almost exclusively of court documents and testimony, and that Judge Menno has already stated that the book is legal.

67. The court finds that the father testified that the mother called him the Friday before the trail and that the mother told him that his son, Chris, loved him, missed him, and asked about him all the time. The father noted how the mother played this down at trial.

68. In regards the name change, father noted how the name change was approved by the Plymouth County probate court, and how it has yet to be demonstrated how this name change was detrimental to Chris. Note, the father has offered to mother to change Chris’s last name at father’s expense. A request that was denied by Mother.

69. The court finds that father testified at the trial that he is a “whistle blower.”

70. The court finds that the father testified that he blew the whistle on the Menno court, in the hopes that the truth would get out to the public and that there would be reform. We can see this testimony reinforced in the book submitted into evidence, see Chapter 15.

71. The court finds that the father testified that he believes, that even though the Judge declared the book both legal and constitutional, that Chris was removed from his life as a form of punishment and retribution for having published a book that was based almost entirely upon the public record. This belief is further supported by the actions the court’s surrogate, Attorney Dorsey, took when the father published a similar blog (the blog was raised by counsel Ward at the trial).

72. The court finds that the father testified that his goal in publishing the book was that the truth get out to the public.

73. The court finds that the father’s assertion and belief that Margaret and other professionals involved in this case, were embarrassed and emotionally invested in seeing the book removed from publication, is further supported by Attorney Wards and mother’s near myopic and singular focus on the book at the trial. Based upon dialogue with Judge Menno, at the October 2012 hearing on this matter, the father also believes Judge Menno very much wanted the book to be removed from publication.

74. The court finds that the father felt and testified that withholding child visitation was a form of duress and pressure to remove the book was tremendous, a direct abridgement and assault on the father’s first amendment right.

75. The court finds that the father’s testimony that Chris actually thrived while his book was in publication to be true and correct, and supported by the mother’s testimony.

76. The courts find that the father testified that no medical records or mental health or school records, have been provided suggested that Chris had been harmed by the book or the blog.

77. The father asserts that since Chris was not harmed by the blog, that the court had full knowledge that the concept or belief that the book would also not prove injurious to Chris; and therefore, the courts actions on visitation were therefore punitive.

78. The court finds that the father testified that the book was taken down from publication on July 4^th, 2013.

79. The courts finds that the father testified that he is looking for every other weekend visits with son, and nothing else. Moreover, father testified that he was not seeking to attend school meetings or medical visits, unless requested to by mother.

80. The court finds that the father testified that he hoped he never had to see the judge again, and he was confident that the judge did not want to see him again. In making this statement that father merely hoped that Judge Menno would lock down the visitation schedule, and there would be no need to return to court anytime soon. The father regrets saying this, but only to the extent that the comment was perceived to be hurtful to the judge’s personal feelings.

 

 

Chris XXXXX & Father’s Parenting Abilities and His Home

81. The Court finds that the Father is a loving, caring person who always has their son’s best interests in mind. (see book testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Parenting Coordinator; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother)

82. The Court finds that the Mother has acknowledged the extent to which Chris loves his Father, enjoys spending time with his Father, that he has missed his Father during this most recent prolonged separation, and that the Father’s forced removal from Chris’s life has been terrible. (see book Testimony of the Mother)

83. The Court finds that the Father’s condominium home is appropriate and that the Father at all times provides developmentally appropriate activities for Chris. (see book Testimony of the GAL; Testimony of the Parenting Coordinator; Testimony of the Father; Testimony of the Mother)

84. The Court notes that the Father moved from California to Massachusetts so that he could be close geographically to Chris. (See book Testimony of the Father; GAL report)

85. The Court notes that the Father sought to comply with the parties’ stipulation that each of them complete psychological exams, while the Mother has failed to comply with this stipulation and order. Moreover, despite disagreeing with nearly every ruling on this court, the father has obeyed all rulings (see book Testimony of the Father).

86. The Court credits the Father’s testimony that Chris consistently wishes to extend parenting time with the Father and has never requested to leave early to be with the Mother. (See book Testimony of the Father).

87. The Court finds that, although the Father has been characterized as “difficult” by some of the professionals with whom he has worked on behalf of Chris, these circumstances involved situations where the Father truly believed that Chris’s important medical, education, physical, or social needs were compromised. He was reacting to protect Chris.   (See book submitted into evidence by Attorney Ward.)

88. The Court finds that the Father has great insight into his communication style and personality. Specifically, the Court notes with interest correspondence from the Father to Principal Oakman and other professionals at Chris’s school, written on March 15, 2007. (Exhibit 18). In this letter, the Father notes, “[d]ue to my occupation and my own personal experiences I am not a very trusting adult, and I often question and re-question people in the hopes of obtaining the truth. I place a very high value on the truth. I do not believe present day society or Margaret place the kind of value that I do on honesty; and I have questioned Margaret’s motives for sometime now, in her never ending desire to have Chris labeled with a learning disorder. Quite frankly, I’m not sure that her motives are 100% pure.” The Court finds that the Father’s interest in this letter is very clearly expressed, and can easily draw from this correlations to the Father’s interactions with other care professionals who have worked with Chris. (See book submitted into evidence by attorney Ward)

 

II. Findings of Fact

 

The defendant, Father, wishes to amend his original findings of fact to include the following:

 

89  The court finds that Attorney  $$$ and Mother quoted liberally from the book Mrs. Marshfield, submitted said book into evidence, and that the book Mrs. Marshfield is about the XXXX V. XXXX trial.

90  The court finds that the book Mrs. Marshfield is a book is based, in large part, upon testimony and court filings in the XXXX V. XXXX trial.

91  The court finds that a key participant and investigator in the XXXX V. XXXX trial was a Doctor Richard Wolman, the court appointed GAL.

92   The court finds that Doctor Wolman is a licensed psychiatrist by training and profession, and that his profession played a key role in his investigation in the matter of XXXX V. XXXX.

93  The court find that Doctor Wolman’s testimony and his report played a significant role in Judge ’s decision making, and his final decision in the matter of XXXX V. XXXX.

94  The court is aware, as is the public, that the National Institute of Mental Health Director, Tom Insel, M.D., (appointed by President Obama) recently discredited – to a very large degree – psychiatry, psychiatrist, and the diagnostics manual of mental illness or DSM.

95  The court finds that Doctor Insel states among other things:  “The weakness of the (DSM) is its lack of validity.”  He goes on to say, among other things, that the DSM is not backed by science, or biology.  But rather lists mental health “symptoms.”  (This from the NIMH web site, post 4-29-13)

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

96  The court finds as the field of psychiatry and the profession has been found lacking in credibility by the highest ranking psychiatrist in the land, Doctor Mephisto testimony and his report therefore, lack professional credibility.

97  The court finds as a result of this lack of credibility, the GAL report should be removed from the public record, and Doctor Wolman’s testimony should be treated for what it is, that is lacking in any real professional credibility.

98  The court finds that without the professional testimony and report of Doctor Wolman that the court should reverse its earlier orders, and that the father should retain legal custody of Chris XXXX, and enjoy unsupervised visitation with his son.

---

Purchase Mrs. Marshfield today, on Amazon.com

Posted: December 9, 2013 | Author: Father | Filed under: Mrs. Marshfield | Leave a comment

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mrs-Marshfield-Corruption-Plymouth-County/dp/1479171549/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

---

Chapter Eleven: A Tsunami of Cover-Ups and Lies

Posted: December 9, 2013 | Author: Father | Filed under: Mrs. Marshfield | Leave a comment

Chapter Eleven:  A Tsunami of Cover-Ups and Lies

 

 

 

 

Psychologist and linguists may tell you that non-verbal cues makes up two-thirds of all communications, expressed between two or more parties.  Non-verbal communications are facial expressions and cues, body movement and posture, and ticks and unusual behavior.  And while writing out the following excerpts from day three of court testimony is very revealing, what the reader will miss from the following testimony were the extraordinary non-verbal cues attorney Faust of Bay Meadows emitted from the stand.  The reader can get some sense of her emotional state from the stammering, and some of the incoherent logic and speaking, that you are about to read (I have done my best to write out exerts of her testimony verbatim, as cross examined by my attorney)… but what the reader cannot see is a person whose face was intensely red, and under a great deal of what I have concluded to be strain.   Ms. Faust’s head appeared throughout testimony to turn scarlet and then purple, so that I thought at least once during her testimony that, surely, she would have an aneurism.   Ms. Faust appeared deeply troubled, stressed and conflicted; she appeared to be extremely uncomfortable, and was continuously pulling at her face and tugging at her cheeks; and she also fumbled with her water bottle repeatedly. 

 

My guess is if there was video taken of that testimony, and experts had seen it, Ms. Faust’s testimony would have been dismissed out of hand, as not credible.  Clearly, there appeared to be a disconnect between what was coming out of an officer of the courts mouth, and her own bodies comfort level with her statements.

 

Why exactly would an attorney, Ms. Faust, who spent professional time dealing with courts, appear to be so stressed out on the witness stand?  One thing is for sure, it is easy to tell the truth in a courtroom, and it’s a whole lot harder to manufacturer testimony from the witness stand, which could possibly explain why Ms. Faust labored under cross examination.  Since I have lived through and experienced the events that she was to describe, I can safely say that the ticks I witnessed during her testimony, probably stemmed from the fact that she knew, in some instances, that she was evading the truth.  Attorney Faust’s credibility?

 

I’m not an expert, but I do know what is true in this case, and what I can tell the reader is that Attorney Faust (our mediator, parenting coordinator, and Jane’s apparent co-counsel) was telling untruths, evasive, and relied upon Jane for a great deal of her information, since she did not care enough about my son to interview him directly for the prior twelve months, before to giving her October 3^rd testimony.   She certainly did not come to me for information.  Receipts from Bay Meadows Mediation only tell some of the story, which is this “impartial mediator” in this matter, was having dialogue, phone conversations and email with Jane that I was not privy to, and yet, that I was paying for.   My belief is that and audit of Ms. Faust’s phone records and email might demonstrate even more dialogue between these two, and possibly Jane’s co-counsel – the State Representative.

 

As a result of Attorney Ms. Faust’s disassembling on that stand on October 3^rd, 2011, and her decision to suspend visitation in August 2011, the relationship between my son and I has been damaged.  By day three of the trial, I had not spoken to or seen my son for six weeks.  And only heaven above knows what his mother was telling our child about my absence.  The blog, which was allegedly so harmful to my son, was never seen by Chris, at least nobody ever presented evidence to that effect.  What is clear is the blog was possibly damaging to the reputations of school officials, lawyers, and the doctors involved in this case; and in particular, to Jane’s community standing. 

 

Therefore, just guessing here, but is this why the court, through its proxy Ms. Faust of Bay Meadows, came down with the heaviest sanctions, and is this why, possibly, the two physicians involved in this case were never called to testify?

 

The extent of the damage to my relationship with my son has yet to be determined, but I believe it to be severe.  And what has Chris learned from these events (?) — that it is okay for Mrs. Marshfield, as Chris stated, to lie?  What is clear is that Ms. Faust, with the sanction of the judge, perpetrated upon me that which they accused me of doing to Jane, that is to say, parental alienation.  I also believe Ms. Faust’s testimony is payback for me reporting her to the Massachusetts Bar – which conveniently never came up during the trial.  Looking back now on this case and the October 3^rd testimony, I believe that the judge had already made up his mind; we appeared to be going through the motions at this point.  As evidence of this, the judge kept putting off his decision on the emergency request to restore visitation – with his mind possibly made up – he had no intentions restoring visitation any time soon.   My family and I, and most importantly my son, were being strung along by the Probate Industrial Complex; their strategy was obvious:  waste time and resources, and who knows maybe the father might do something desperate to justify the poor decision making on the professional involved in this case. 

 

On a final note, Doctor Mephisto contradicts his earlier testimony from day one of the trial, and will now testify that he did authorize Jane to conduct an investigation, with Chris, upon my property.  Doctor Mephisto also testified that he believed Chris to be very stressed out, emotionally; but appears not to draw the connection between Chris’ emotional and mental health, and the boy living with his mother full time.  What a brilliant man.

Moreover, based upon Attorney Dorsey’s and Doctor Mephisto’s testimony during cross examination, neither professional could given specific examples of whether I had, allegedly, alienated Chris from his mother, supposedly the cornerstone of Team Jane’s case.

 

The following are excerpts from testimony given by Doctor Mephisto and Ms. Faust of Bay Meadows Mediation on the trial date of October 3^rd, 2011 – the third day of trial.  Names have been changed, and some minor editing has been done for sake of readability and brevity.

 

CF (Counsel for father)

DM (Doctor Mephisto)

AF (Ms. Faust of Bay Meadows Mediation, Parenting Coordinator and Attorney)

 

10-3-12

 

Clerk:  Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

 

DM:  I do.

 

CF:  Between the court date in July and the present time did you have the opportunity to meet with Chris again?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Have you had the opportunity to meet with father again?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Have you had an opportunity to meet with Jane?

 

DM:  No I didn’t.   I spoke to her on the phone.

 

CF:  What was the substance of that phone call?

 

DM:  I called her to find out how Chris was doing.

 

CF:  When did you make this phone call?

 

DM:  Probably three or four days ago.

 

CF:  And was that in anticipation of the hearing today?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you make a similar phone call to father about how Chris was doing?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Are you aware that Chris’ contact with his father has been suspended, since August 18^th 2011?

 

DM:  That is my understanding.

 

CF:  Who informed you of that suspension?

 

DM:  I believe it was…. I believe it was Jane’s attorney.

 

CF:  And have you had conversations with Jane’s attorney in preparation for your testimony today?

 

DM:  Yes, he told me that I was going to appear.  He told me what some of the issues were.  And informed me about the suspension of visitation.

 

CF:  And as a result of that conversation with mother’s attorney, did you follow up at all with father about the allegations that were made against him?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you feel that would be important to do in preparation for your testimony?

 

DM:  No, father does not talk to me.  I have seen him in court and tried to interact with him, but he doesn’t talk to me.

 

(Authors note:  I never said to Doctor Mephisto that I would not talk to him, nor was I ever sanctioned during these proceedings for inappropriate behavior.)

 

CF:  Move to strike as unresponsive.

 

Judge:  The answer stays.

 

CF:  My question was would it be important for you, in your role as GAL, with the allegations made by Jane’s attorney to talk to father about the nature of those allegations.

 

DM:  Not at this time.  No.

 

CF:  In your report did you find that Chris had bonded with his father?

 

DM:  Yes, I did.

 

CF:  In your report did you indicate that father was very engaged with Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you find father was committed and involved?

 

DM:  I found that he was committed, yes.  And involved in some aspects of Chris’ life.  Yes.

 

CF:    Did you find that Chris loved his father?

 

DM:  I believe he does, yes.

 

CF:  And at times did Chris express a specific preference of where he wanted to live?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What was that preference?

 

DM:  He said he wanted to live with his dad.

 

CF:  At any time during your investigation did Chris tell you he wanted to stay with his mom?

 

DM:  Chris told me that he wasn’t sure, and that he wanted to spend time with both his parents.

 

CF:  But he did say he was sure that he wanted to live with his dad?

 

DM:  Uh, he didn’t say he was sure, he just said he wanted to live with his dad.

 

CF:  In your report, you indicate several times that there were things Chris told you that he asked you not to tell his parents?  Is that true?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Do you recall what those types of things were that he asked you not to report to his mother?

 

DM:  Only that he wanted to live with his dad.

 

CF:  Did Chris make any statements to you that he asked you not to share with his father?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Do you have information about what Chris was told, as to suspension of his time with his father?

 

DM:  (Inaudible.)

 

CF:  And what was he told?

 

DM:  My understanding comes from my conversation with Chris’ mother…  who told me Chris had asked her several times why he wasn’t seeing his dad?  And that she told him that it wasn’t something he really needed to worry about right now, they were working on it, and that – uh – when the time came he would be able to see his dad.  He did not want to get into any of the conversations with any of the details of the suspension with him.

 

CF:  In your conversations with Ms. Jane… did she say how she was “working on it” with his father?

 

DM:  I think this whole process is an attempt to understand what would be best for Chris and how he can have a relationship with his mother and with his dad.

 

CF:  Do you think it’s best for Chris to go two months without any contact with his father?

 

DM:  Do I think it’s best?  Under the current circumstances, yes.

 

CF:  Why is that?

 

DM:  Because of the pressure, the stress, the anxiety, the uncertainty, the fear that was developing in Chris to the point that he was really becoming quite tortured, and dysfunctional. 

 

CF:  And you were able to identify that pressure as part of your work with Chris?

 

DM:  Part of the work I did as GAL, yes.   And also in follow up conversations with mother and the child’s therapist.

 

CF:  You indicated that you did not have any follow up conversations with dad.

 

DM:  I think I answered that.  But I didn’t.  I didn’t.

 

CF:  And as part of your subpoena to come here today… did we ask of you for a copy of your file?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And did you provide a copy to me and mother’s attorney?

 

DM:  Yes, I did.

 

CF:  Please identify the document before you?

 

DM:  These are the notes I had from my conversation with the child’s therapist.

 

CF:  Within your role as GAL … how many times have you spoken to Chris’ therapist?

 

DM:  I would say three of four.

 

CF:  And in you report itself… you indicate that the therapist did not give much information about Chris wanting to live with his father because his therapy with Chris was new?

 

DM:  Yes, in my initial conversation with the therapist, there is not a lot of information for

him to report because Chris has just begun therapy, and because Chris was reticent to open up to the therapist.  My conversation with him was relatively brief…. I spoke with him ¾ of an hour, during my investigation.  But you know when professionals speak to each other they have a common language so they can convey a lot of information in a short sentence, just as you might to another lawyer.  So um, it wasn’t until I talked with him later, which was earlier this month, that I got a sense that Chris was feeling more comfortable with his therapist.  That he actually looks forward to his time with the therapist.  He is engaged in therapy.  And is feeling more comfortable having a safe place in which he can speak about what is on his mind in safety.  So ummm….

 

(Author’s note:  From the first day of testimony, and in his report, the GAL only spoke to the therapist for 15 minutes, which I believe is consistent with his report.)

 

CF:  And in your conversations with Chris’ therapist did you ask whether or not in the last couple of months he had been involved with any conversations with the father?

 

DM:  My understanding from the therapist is that mother had been the individual who brought Chris to the appointments and he did not indicate to me that he had talked with father.

 

CF:  In your notes, second line from the bottom… could you please indicate what you recorded from your conversations with Chris’ therapist?

 

DM:  “He is getting no worse, but his self-esteem is in the gutter.”

 

CF:  Going up a little higher in your notes, the third paragraph down, would you please read to the court what that says?

 

DM:  “The boy is very attached his father.  Chris is elusive in terms of opening up.”

 

CF:  You indicated that Chris was… you found that Chris was suffering from stress and anxiety as a result of his current circumstances?

 

DM:  I did.

 

CF:  And that was something that was found in your GAL report and filed?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Despite those findings in your report, you made recommendations that there be no changes to the parenting plan with Chris?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  You made no recommendation that father’s time with Chris be supervised.

 

DM:  No, I did not make that recommendation.

 

CF:  And you did not recommend that his time with his father be suspended at all – did you?

 

DM:  No.  That was as of the end of May 2011.  I did not make that recommendation.

 

CF:  So between the end of May, when the report was issued, and your court appearance in June, in what was to be the first day of trail, you indicate that your recommendations had changed?

 

DM:  Uh. Yes.

 

CF:  But that change was not based upon any new interview that you had with Chris?

 

DM:   That was based upon information I received from my conversations with the parenting coordinator, Ms. Faust of Bay Meadows, and based upon conversations with the mother… ummm…. about Chris’ state of mind.  And about his…. Well at one point she said Chris was talking about suicide.  And at another point she said, his mother, that Chris had come home and basically fallen on the floor in tears.  And the issue had come up in meetings with attorney Ms. Faust, in her meetings with the parents, and I believe she brought those issues to the parents in an effort to relieve the pressure to Chris.

 

CF:  Isn’t it true about you being aware of Chris’ comments about not wanting to be in this world, about being suicidal, when you filled out your report for your original investigation?

 

DM:  No.  Don’t believe I mentioned that in my report.

 

CF:    You were concerned that Chris had fallen on the ground and was upset?

 

DM:  Maybe that was the case around that time.

 

CF:  Do you recognize this document?

 

DM:  I do.

 

CF:  What document is this?

 

DM:  This is my GAL report (issued in May).

 

CF:  And would you please read the following from this report?

 

DM:  Okay.  In a recent communication with mother she told me she was worried about Chris who had come to her in tears wanting to tell her about something father had done in front of other kids and parents that upset him.  Mother told Chris that he should not act like that.  I don’t want you tell him because he’ll get mad.  I don’t like what he did.  Mother said Chris fell on the floor and was so upset about not only what his father was doing but about whether or not he should be telling his mother.  She assured Chris and was not in a quandary whether or not to bring the matter up with father and the parenting coordinator.  “I want father to be in Chris’ life, but I want him to behave, normally.”

The suicidal wasn’t mentioned here but I think that came up later.

 

CF:  Okay.  So based upon your report as written you had information about the alleged falling on the ground when you made your recommendation.

 

DM:  Correct.  Correct.

 

CF:  In your findings you indicate that the psychological pressure on Chris was enormous…did you in any part of you GAL report specifically link that pressure to anything father did or did not do?

 

DM:  Sure.

 

CF:  Did you link that pressure to anything mother did or did not do?

 

DM:  I link the stress on Chris to the situation he was living and the circumstances that were occurring, in particular the issue of his safety when he went into the woods, with a friend, and was in a dangerous situation.  That entire situation brought down a tremendous amount of pressure on the family, on Chris.  Chris was well aware of many of the back and forth conversations, many of the fathers predilections, many of the fathers resentments and concerns about his mother.  So the entire report is really based upon the emotional pressure on this child.

 

CF:  And can you show me specifically in the report where you say that Chris is aware of all the things you say that his father said or did?  I didn’t find that anywhere in your report.  If you could point that out to me it would be very helpful.

 

(Very long pause.)  

 

DM:  I don’t think I said in the report that Chris himself stated that there was pressure on him; what I said in my report is that the situation that had been created to put that kind of emotional pressure and anxiety on him. 

 

CF:  And you mention the situation in May …. Are you aware whether or not anyone found a gun behind father’s house?

 

DM:  A gun was allegedly in the wall of the cabin, out in the woods that Chris and his friend had stumbled into.

 

CF:  Are you aware of anyone finding a gun.

 

DM:  I don’t know specifically if they found a gun.

 

CF:  Do you recall on your earlier day of testimony… you emphatically said that you had not directed mother to go over to father’s property with Chris and look around in the woods.  Is that not true?

 

DM:  True.

CF:  And given the pressure and stress that you describe in Chris, given your professional opinion was it a good decision for mother to bring Chris into the woods, behind his father’s house… knowing that his father would be upset if his father knew about it?

 

DM:  Absolutely, because, mother contacted me about Chris’ report that he had been in the woods.  That he had discovered this cabin with a mattress.  He said that they saw a gun in the wall. It was near a gun club.  And it’s in the woods behind the condominium where the father had lived.  Mother also said on the other side of the woods is a gun club and a housing development that is known for having a lot of difficult people living there, and some of the children are students of her as well.  She didn’t know what to do.  And she was very concerned for Chris’ safety.   Chris has been in the woods; he was upset about it.  So she said I don’t know what I should do, and maybe I should go and look at it.  And maybe I should call the parenting coordinator.   So I told that I thought calling the parenting coordinator was something that she should absolutely do.  I told her that calling me was the proper thing to do. 

 

And I told her that she also needed to … uh… inform father of what Chris was going on and what was found.

 

She told me she wasn’t sure she could contact Chris’ father because he would get mad, and would get all upset.  And I said, nevertheless it was a question of safety, and the father needs to know, so she in fact did tell father.  And in fact he did get upset and tried to take out a restraining order on her. 

 

But in any case, I told her she should take a look at it.  I said yes, absolutely, she should take a look at it, and find out what’s going on.  Find out for yourself.

She has the report of an eleven year old child.  I thought it would be worthwhile for her to see for herself what her son was talking about… ummm… I also thought it would be a good idea for her to take photos.  Which she did do because sometimes verbal descriptions do not describe the essence of what is going on.    She took photos.   She sent them to me.  Ummm.   And uh… it was clear that Chris was in a situation that was pretty marginal in terms of his safety.  And in my opinion she did exactly the right thing.

 

CF:  I’m a little confused Doctor Mephisto because in earlier testimony today you had indicated that it wasn’t good for Chris to be involved in the middle of a conflict between his parents… isn’t that true?

 

DM:  Well it’s never good for any child to….

 

CF:  Well at the same time… you have reported that mother is afraid of father… isn’t that correct?

 

DM:  She didn’t say that… she said he would get very upset, and I wasn’t sure what he would do.  And that was the situation she was afraid of.

 

CF:  And you received information from the parenting coordinator earlier that father had rage towards his former wife… isn’t that correct?

 

DM:   Yes.  That’s true.

 

CF:  Under those circumstances do you still believe it was right decision to bring Chris into a potentially dangerous situation behind his father’s home and wander in the woods looking for something?

 

DM:  Umm… Yes I do.    Yes.  I don’t think I brought him into a dangerous situation.  I think as a parent she did the proper and responsible thing, which was to check it out for herself.  And to find out if there was anything she needed to worry about, which there was.  And even though it created more conflict between her and father… I also think it was proper for him to inform him, as father, to inform him of what the conditions were that their son was concerned and worried about. 

It was a question of the child’s safety, and the parenting coordinator wrote a strong letter to the father saying uh that she hoped his response would have been more of concern for the child, rather than simply to say, that she had trespassed at there should be a restraining order against her. 

 

I actually asked the father about this situation, and he told me that in his opinion the mother had trespassed on the property; and if he had tried that, or if he had done anything near similar, he would be in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit…meaning prison outfit.

 

CF:  So you have no way of knowing what particular impact for Chris had upon him?

 

DM:  I cannot specify between this event and how it impacted Chris’ psyche except to say it contributed even more the difficulty of the situation in which he lived. 

 

CF:  In your conversations with father did he say it was okay for Chris and his friends to be back in the woods?

 

DM:  Yes, he said he wasn’t worried about it because his friend had a cell phone with him, and could be called or contacted to come home.  And that was the extent of his interest or concern in what Chris was experiencing in the woods.

 

CF:  Isn’t it true that instead the father had a hard and fast rule about Chris being in the

woods?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection

 

Judge: Over-ruled.

 

CF:  Isn’t it more accurate, Dr. Mephisto, that father shared not only with you, but with the parenting coordinator, that he had very specific rules about how far Chris and his friend could go into the woods from his house?

 

DM:  He may have, yes.

 

CF:  And isn’t it more accurate to state that father had a very clear rule that Chris could not lose sight of their house from the woods?

 

DM:  Ummm…. A clear rule for an eleven year old child.  In this case, Chris had gone beyond the rule, and had discovered something and put himself in a situation with his friend that was a great concern for the child.  And he reported it to his mother.  And his mother reported it to his father.  So to me, rule notwithstanding, the situation was a security/safety situation for Chris.  And, needed to be dealt with as such.

 

CF:  Are you aware of any other situations that you would characterize as a security/safety situation, when Chris was receiving care from his father?

 

DM:  No.  This one was particularly telling me.

 

CF:  Strike to move as unresponsive.

 

Judge:  Okay.  Everything after “no” comes out.

 

CF:  In the course of your work as a GAL did you have an opportunity to visit with Chris at his father’s residence?

 

DM:   Yes.

 

CF:  Would you identify what I just put before you?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What is the date on this document?

 

DM:  March 19^th, 2011.

 

CF:  Did you draft this document?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And what is it entitled?

 

DM:  Uhhhh.   Father home visit.

 

CF:  Would you please read the notes that you took for this particular part of your investigation?

 

DM:  Ummm. The notes I took here were that they have been in the condo for several years, ummm… they had a big sofa that Chris had picked out and the father had purchased for them.  His best friend lives on the first floor.  His name is BBBBB. 

 

CF:  And that’s the extent of your notes that you took following your meeting with Chris and his father at father’s home?

 

DM:  Uhh…. That’s the extent of the notes I wrote down.  Yes.

 

CF:  Doctor Mephisto, you indicated in your GAL report you noted that father and mother had two very different parenting styles.   Could you please identify what type of parenting style you believe father has?

 

DM:  Uhh…. Well, I think father style is not unusual in many situations in which one parent doesn’t see their child that often.  In this case every other weekend, and one during the week, it is not unusual for that parent to be more indulgent with the child.  And want the experiences to be as friendly and as happy as they can.  It’s understandable.   The parent, with whom the child lives during the school week, and for most of the time, is really saddled with setting not only pleasurable experiences, but setting rules, limitations, expectations.  And uhh, therefore, the parenting style has to be much less one of, shall we say play time… and more of reality time.  Time to go to bed, time to get homework done, time to get up, time to go to school, and so forth.  So that’s not uncommon to see that split. And in this case, the mother obviously had a major responsibility for Chris’ care and care taking, and so she was more of the disciplinarian… kind of the authoritative voice that was needed.  It doesn’t mean that they didn’t have good times together this is just part of the picture.  I think when Chris was with his father that requirement really wasn’t there and so they could do things together, they could go to a Lego Store, or buy toys and things – bike riding – and get a little more of a vacation kind of feel.  And so that would be reflected in their corresponding parenting styles. 

 

CF:  To use your words though, the reality parent… would the reality parent be more or less responsible for bringing Chris to his medical appointments?

 

DM:  That varies but usually my experience is that the parent with whom the child is living the most time takes care of medical appointments – the psycho therapy appointments – get’s them to soccer games, cub scouts.  If that parent can get help from the other parent – which is a desirable thing to do – then both parents can participate in some kind of co-parenting arrangement, which is a desirable outcome.

 

CF:  And in this particular situation – did you find that the bulk of the homework responsibility was with mother?  Because Chris was with her more of the time?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  How about the bulk of taking Chris to his medical appointments, and following up on medical care?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  You indicated that – the words you used were – that the time father spends with Chris is such that father is able to give his full attention to Chris… isn’t that true?

 

DM:  Yes, I believe I said that.

 

CF:  Were you aware that on the June 22^nd hearing that Jane was asking this court to suspend contact between Chris and his father or to supervise that contact? 

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Were you later informed that this court declined to enter an immediate order suspending over supervising contact between Chris and his dad?

 

DM:  I was not aware.  I did not know the sequence of events.  No.

 

CF:  Did you have any follow up conversations with attorney Ms. Faust about her changes to the parenting schedule after the June 22^nd hearing? 

 

DM:  Yes, I believe I read a note that she wrote ordering a change in the visitation schedule, as a result of the web site.  Experience had come up with father, in which he created a web site articulating all his issues and all the court information, the doctor’s information, on a web site; I think it was called FreeChris.com.   And I think she was extremely troubled by that, and so she ordered a change in the visitation schedule. 

 

CF:  I’ll come back to the blog but I’m talking about the hearing on June 22^nd, were you aware that attorney Ms. Faust, acting as parenting coordinator, required after the hearing that Chris’ contact with his dad be supervised by family members?

 

DM:  Yes, I believe I was.

 

CF:  And were you aware that despite that recommendation by attorney Ms. Faust that mother, Jane, told her former husband, father, that supervised visitation was not necessary?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you have an opportunity to look at the blog that has been the source of a lot of controversy in this case?

 

DM:  Umm.  The first I heard of it, I think, was from attorney Ms. Faust.  I went to the web site, that was set up, and looked at it for thirty seconds.  And then I haven’t seen it since.

 

CF:  I have nothing further judge.

 

CF:  Returns

 

CF:  You indicate in your investigation that Chris was aware of disparaging comments made by father about his mother?  Is that correct?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did Chris specifically tell you about disparaging comments that were made by father about his mom?

 

DM:  Yes, Chris said my father doesn’t like my mother.  My mother is afraid of my father, but my father does not like my mother.

 

CF:  And does your report reflect those comments?

 

DM:  I don’t know if I put that in there or not.

 

CF:  I don’t remember seeing that… can you take a look and see if it’s there at all?

 

DM:   Obviously, it would be important for you to include such information, right Doctor Mephisto?

 

CF:  Right.

 

DM:  I don’t think I had that particular phrase. 

 

CF:  Are there any other phrases that reflect specific things that Chris told you that father said negatively about this mother?

 

DM:  Nothing in the report.  I didn’t quote Chris on that.  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask Chris specifically if there were things his father said about his mother, which upset him?

 

DM:  Uhhh…. No.  No, I don’t usually do that.

 

CF:   Did you ask father – specifically – if he had made any comments to Chris about Jane?

 

DM:  I didn’t have to.  I knew he did. 

 

CF:  My question is… did you ask him specifically if he had made any of those statements that you say he made?

 

DM:  I don’t remember if I asked him specifically or not.

 

CF:  And the source for that information primarily came from Jane to you, right Doctor Mephisto?

 

DM:  Uh… no.  Father was quite clear to me when I met with him about his hatred for Jane, and his concerns for how she was caring for Chris.  And how she thought she was – uh – really malnourishing him, mistreating him… um… taking him to doctors who were unreliable and not going to help him.  How she was overbearing in her need and interest in an educational plan.  And how she had basically rallied people around her against him.  He was very clear about that.

 

CF:  And father has been very consistent about his concerns about mothers care of Chris to you? 

 

DM:  He has some specific issues that he brings up.  Yes.

 

CF:  And didn’t express specific concerns about the parenting coordinator throughout this case?

 

DM:  You’ll have to ask the parenting coordinator?

 

CF:  Based upon the information that father gave to you… you draw the link that he also shared that information with Chris?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  You indicated that Chris’s statements to you, that he also wanted to live his father, to be like a mantra and robotic… would you please share with me in your report where you use the word “robotic?”

 

DM:  I think I used that word for me in my testimony here.  I don’t believe I used that word in my report.

 

CF:   The letter that Chris wrote to you (requesting to live with father)….  Did you have any interviews with Chris about that letter?

 

DM:  He didn’t write it to me… he wrote it to the judge.   Ummm…. Yes, yes I did.

 

CF:  Did you ask Chris specifically about the letter?

 

DM:  It might have come… I don’t think I specifically targeted that letter.  No.

 

CF:  There is nothing your report that speaks to conversations you had about the letter, after receiving the letter.

 

DM:  I don’t think I had any specific conversation with Chris about it.

 

CF:  Did you have any conversations with Chris about any threatening or pressure from his father to write that letter?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask father if he was involved in Chris preparation of that letter?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask Chris about the use of the words “free will.”

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask father about his possible use of the words “free will.”

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask his mother if Chris has ever used those words before?

 

DM: No.

 

CF:  How about your conversations with the child’s therapist, did you ask him?  About Chris’ understanding of the term free will?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  You indicated that the content of the letter signed by Chris contained the same information that Chris shared with you directly?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  That is Chris wanted to live with his father?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  So as far as we know the information that was provided to you, and provided to the court, is consistent with Chris’ requests?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  Did you have any conversations with Chris about the telephone conversation that allegedly over heard by Ms. Jane that took place back in October 2010?

 

DM:  No. No.

 

CF:  No?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you have any conversations with father about the substance of that phone call?

 

DM:  No.  As GAL I don’t crossexamine during my investigation.  I take that information and report it to the courts.

 

CF:  In the course of your investigation you had the affidavit that was prepared by Ms. Jane, about the content of that phone call, but also you felt the need to talk with her directly about the content of that phone call.

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   And based upon the testimony today, you indicated that telephone call was very concerning to you, in terms of father’s parenting of his son.

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Despite the fact that you have had this information since the origin of your role as GAL, not once have you asked the father, who allegedly made these statements, whether or not that phone call accurately depicted what was said?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  You were very clear as a mandated court report that you would have to file allegation or report of abuse or neglect if you saw something concerning?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And at no time did you file a report with DCF about father?

 

DM:   Correct.

 

CF:  And at no time did the pediatricians file a report against father, as far as you know?

 

DM:  As far as I know, they didn’t.

 

CF:  And at no time did the educations professionals file a report against father, did they?

 

DM:  I don’t believe they did.

 

CF:  You indicated that father… did not believe that father is capable of participating in decisions involving Chris medical care?

 

DM:   I said at this time, I don’t believe he is.  I think he is capable.  I just don’t think it is a good idea.

 

CF:  Are there any specific limitations on father’s ability to speak with any of Chris’ health care providers?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   What limitations are those?

 

DM:  Father’s suspicious and distrustful attitude, which is extreme; and which makes it extremely difficult for him to communicate with physicians, and for physicians to communicate with him.

 

CF:  Are you aware of any refusal on the part of Doctor X to share information on an on-going basis with father?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Are you aware of repeated medical appointments that the parents attended together with Chris, during the course of this litigation?

 

DM:  I don’t know how many there were.  No.

 

CF:  Do you know how many times Chris has seen his therapist, since you filed the report in May?

 

DM:  I don’t know the exact number.  I think now, maybe, he told me he sees him every ten days?   Something like that.

 

CF:  Have you every characterized father’s involvement with the pediatrician as overly suspicious?

 

DM:  Yes.  Mistrustful.   Suspicious.  And at this point in time, father’s judgment, with regard to medical decisions is not good enough for him to be in a position to make medical decisions for his son.

 

CF:  So do you characterize father’s concern over Chris’s weight loss of over fifteen pounds as overly suspicious?

 

DM:  I would say his initial question of it is a question.  I think his continuing preoccupation with this weight loss, in spite of all the evidence that was presented to him that this issue with a non-issue… that Chris was of normal height and weight… and the evidence that Chris was eating properly… uh…. Is something that … uh…. Begins to go beyond the realm of normal.

 

CF:  You concluded that Chris was being fed properly by his mother based upon your single visit to the mother’s home… you saw him eating cereal?  That was one of the pieces of information you took….

 

DM:  That was a day… yes, correct.

 

CF:  You testified that Doctor X treated Chris since birth?

 

DM:  I believe that is what Doctor X told me.  Yes.  Chris wasn’t born here… so he knew him since he was an infant.

 

CF:  You indicated that you did not find at this particular time that father was capable of participating in any educations decisions involving Chris?

 

DM:  I think father has a right to his views and certainly can express his views… in terms of decision making however, I don’t think his judgment is of a quality that he can be in a decision making position.

 

(Author’s note:  And what of the mother’s judgment, Doctor Mephisto, that would send a nine year old boy to bed night after night, so that he lost 15 pounds?  Or what of the mother’s judgment, in regards her own parenting, so that son is reported suicidal throughout the summer 2011,while under his mother’s care?)

 

CF:  You had relied upon in making that recommendation; you relied upon information that you had gleaned from Chris’ fifth grade teacher?

 

DM:   No.

 

CF:  In your report did you take into consideration any specific information that you had received from Chris fifth grade teacher?  Did you speak with Chris’ fifth grade teacher?

 

DM:   Yes.

 

CF:  And in your report did you speak with Chris’ current principal?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And you testified earlier that you spoke with his prior principal?

 

DM:  Yes, that’s all in the report.

 

CF:  Can you share with me in the report where specifically, you identify that you talked with the prior principal?

 

DM:  I don’t think I referenced him in my report.   I referenced the current principal.

 

CF:  Did you have an opportunity to look at Chris’ educational records as part of your investigation?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And did you review them for all the years that were presented to you?

 

DM:  Yes, I think I read them.

 

CF:  And on your question from mother’s attorney, you suggest that Chris that success is the result of the Individual Education Plan (IEP)?

 

DM:  No, I didn’t.  I don’t draw that causal relationship, but I said that I believe it helped him.  And I think that I’m sure there are other things that helped him too?  But I think he’s doing better than he was before.

 

CF:  Are you aware that his IEP was suspended in the spring of 2010?

 

DM:  Uh.. yeah.

 

CF:  Do you have information about his success, or lack of success, past MCASS for the fifth grade?

DM:  I believe his performance on the fifth grade MCAS was quite high.

 

CF:  Have you seen any educational records for Chris as far as this academic year?

 

DM:  No.  My terms of GAL is over.

 

CF:  Your term as GAL was over.

 

DM:  Yeah.

 

CF:  But despite that fact that your term as GAL was over you did speak with Chris’ therapist in preparation for your testimony today?

 

DM:  Right. I spoke with Chris’ therapist, and I spoke with his mother.  And this is good news.  He’s doing well in school and he’s adjusting.  And he has friends, which he didn’t have before.   And he’s much more ebullient.  And much more engaging with school friends, and he’s doing better.

 

CF:  You talked briefly about the blog… are you aware of Chris seeing the blog, personally?

 

DM:  I didn’t.  I never spoke to Chris about it…. No.

 

CF:  Isn’t it true… that you had access to virtually everything you referenced today – with the exception of the blog – when you prepared your report in May of 2011?

 

DM:   Say that again?

 

CF:  Isn’t it true that– other than the blog – you have testified to no new information about this family, since May 31^st 2011 when you filed your report?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection.

 

Judge:  Sustained.

 

CF:  Jane’s attorney has asked you a specific question about a series of emails that were generated by father to the school, prior to May 2011?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And you had access to that information prior to filing your report in this case, didn’t you?

 

DM:   Yes.

 

CF:  And despite that information the recommendations that you made in your original report called for or ordered no change whatsoever in the parenting plan for Chris?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  And your original report called for no restrictions on the father’s time with Chris whatsoever?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  And in your recommendations – you specifically suggested that father could benefit from his own therapy?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  Have you communicated at all with father’s therapist since filing this report?

 

DM:  No.

Ms. Faust on the stand and cross examined by my counsel:

CF:  How much time prior to your testimony today did you spend with Jane’s attorney, prior to taking the stand?

 

AF:  I spoke to him briefly today, and I had a telephone conversation with him yesterday afternoon.

 

CF:  And how long did that telephone conversation last?

 

AF:  Maybe a half hour.

 

CF:  And you had testified earlier about an agreement signed by the parties from October 2006 regarding the role as a parenting coordinator.

 

AF:  Correct.

 

CF:  Are you aware that just a couple of days before that the parties had also signed an agreement with you in your role at Bay Meadows Mediation to serve as their mediator?

 

AF:  Sure that’s when they first came to me about switching roles.

 

CF:  So they signed an agreement first for you to serve as the mediator, and then several days later signed agreement for you to serve as a parenting coordinator?

 

AF:  Well they… before… they were would be a gap, and they needed the protection of at least the mediation statute to cover them.  ‘Til they formally decided with their attorney’s to have me as parenting coordinator.   

 

CF:  And to the best of your knowledge, did the parties talk through with their respective attorneys what they were signing with respect to your parenting coordinator role?

 

AF:  As I understand it… Yes.

 

CF:  You had indicated that as early as February 2010 you participated in a meeting at Chris’ school regarding his IEP?

 

AF:  Correct.

 

CF:  Was that the first time you had participated in a meeting in regards the IEP.

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  How many times before that?

 

AF:  I… I… at least once, possibly two others.

 

CF:  And how long have you been an attorney?

 

AF:  I have been an attorney since __- __-_____

 

CF:  And how many other cases have you met with parties and school officials regarding

IEP’s of children?

 

AF:  I have done it, but I don’t recall.  I couldn’t quantify.

 

CF:  And did father specifically ask you to attend that meeting?

 

AF:  They both did.

 

CF:  And at that time did father express his concern about Chris being involved in an IEP?

 

AF:  He expressed his pleasure that he was off the IEP, I think more than that.

 

CF:  And in fact he came off the IEP not only because of what you had decided, but also because of what the school professionals had recommended at that time.

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  And following that meeting you indicated you had a conversation with father about his request for custody?

 

AF:  There was a brief meeting the three of us had after the IEP meeting at the school, yes.

 

CF:  Was Jane present when he was talking about his request for shared custody or equal custody of Chris?

 

AF:  Yes, I didn’t meet with them alone at that point.

 

CF:  Was that the first time father had raised that particular request?

 

AF:  Ummm… No.  I don’t believe so.

 

CF:  Do you recall when he first raised that request with you?

 

AF:  About … shared custody of any nature?

 

CF:  Yes.

 

AF:  I think he’s mentioned it periodically since I have been the parenting coordinator.

 

CF:  So that wasn’t a new request on father’s part, at that time?

 

AF:  It was more formal at that point.

 

CF:  And what was Jane’s reaction to that request if you remember?

 

AF:  I don’t remember her having a reaction.

 

CF:  Did you say to father that he was this close to having shared parenting time based upon the schedule that was in place at that time?

 

AF:  I don’t think I said that then, but at one point – when father was discussing going to the court and litigating – I indicated to him that he at that point had, what I considered, very generous co-parenting schedule.  And that it would be considered about that far apart (holds up her hand to show thumb and forefinger less than an inch apart) from what many people considered shared physical custody.

 

CF:  And after that conversation, or at a later one, did you inform father that he could have a shared parenting plan with Jane, if only he was nicer to her?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ever say to father at that meeting, or any subsequent meetings, that he could have shared parenting if he learned to play by your rules?  

 

AF:  No… I think I said… I think I already said that I suggested that should be his goal.  To work in a way that they could achieve shared parenting. 

 

CF:  So as recently as February 2010, it wasn’t an unrealistic goal for father to have more of a shared parenting plan with Chris?

 

AF:  I’m not sure I understand the question.

CF:  Well during the meeting of February 2010 there were conversations between the three of you, you, mother and father, about his request to have a shared parenting plan with Chris?

 

AF:  He requested it. 

 

CF:  You indicated to him that was a goal to have.

 

AF:  Nah… I don’t remember that … I don’t think that happened then.  That, we … I think… you’re talking about comments that took place periodically over many of these meetings.  I don’t remember that taking plan specifically then.

 

CF:  Did it take place at meeting that followed that meeting of February 2010?

 

AF:  Ummm… I don’t recall.  The nature of our discussions seemed to change in the winter of 2010.

 

CF:   And you first met with Chris in 2006?

 

AF:  Well, I said first grade.  Yeah, I think that is probably right.

 

CF:  And then your next meeting after 2006 took place in what year?

 

AF:  Umm… I don’t have the date in front of me.   Um, I did not take notes when I met with Chris as a rule cause it seemed to make him nervous.  I tried once, so I don’t have notes.   I would have to look but I … I can tell you that I met with him once in first grade, and then, I met with him also…. Um… in subsequent years.  Ummm… two of three times other prior to the fall of 2010. 

 

CF:  And you had testified earlier about a meeting that had happened in April of 2010 …where he was the most relaxed. 

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  Umm… do you feel that having him more relaxed and having him to settle down was possibly associated with the fact that he was four years older at that time?

 

AF:  Well there was a progression, there was a progression, but this was sort of the culmination of it.  He just seemed like a natural little boy, who… just seemed comfortable, at ease, and he had a little bit of poise talking to me so…

 

CF:  At that was the meeting that happened at Jane’s home?

 

AF:  It happened at Jane’s home.  Yeah.

 

CF:  Did you ever have meetings with Chris at father’s home?

 

AF:  I did not.

 

CF:  And as a part of you meeting with Chris at his mother’s home did you coordinate that meeting in advance with her?

 

AF:  I believe I coordinated it with both them.  We discussed… when I met with Chris for the most part I believe, it was always discussed at a parent coordination meeting and when it was going to take place.  I believe that meeting was supposed to take place at my office, and I had some concerns about Chris being intimidated about coming to a lawyer’s office.  I think that is why it switched to Jane’s home.

 

(Authors note:  That is false.  I would have never agreed to a meeting between the PC and Chris at Jane’s home, and one in that setting was not cleared with me in advance.)

 

CF:  Do you recall there being specific advance notice to father that the meeting was going to happen at his ex-wife’s house, rather than a mutual sight?

 

AF:  Ummm…. I don’t recall.

 

CF:  And why would you switch the meeting sight with from school, where you had met with Chris all the other times, to Ms. Jane’s residence?

 

AF:  I think it was because there was no school…. It was April, so it was either Easter time or around Chris’ birthday.

 

CF:  And you had testified that the IEP really focused on two things, with him settling down and his problems with hand writing.

 

AF:  Yes.   I’m not a special ed. specialist but … a problem that is reflected by his hand writing I should have probably said.

 

CF:  And had you continued to be in close contact with Chris’ teachers during the second grade to see how the IEP was going?

 

AF:  No, I relied on the parents to tell me that.

 

CF:  How about third grade?

 

AF:   Same… I had some contact with teachers over the years but only when either one requested, by parents, or really one when requested by parents. 

 

CF:  And who specifically requested that you be present at the IEP meeting in 2010?

 

AF:  Both parents.

 

(Author’s note: This is a false statement, and I expressly asked Ms. Faust what value she could bring to the IEP, when she did nothing for Chris’ when his weight loss occurred.)

 

CF:  When you first met with Chris attorney Ms. Faust had did you explain your role in his life?

 

AF:  Ummm….. I honestly don’t remember because I think I had an explanation planned, but I don’t think it actually happened because he was really, literally jumping from chair to chair.  I don’t remember… I don’t have memory of giving him an explanation.  Although I’m sure.  I know I have a standard explanation for children.  

 

CF:  And what is your standard explanation?

 

AF:  It depends on what role I’m playing but I usually say that both parents love the child, and sometimes it’s difficult for them to see things exactly the same way, and it helps to have another person talk to the child.  And everyone just wants to make sure the child is happy.   And so… that’s what I’m here to see if I can help with. 

 

CF:  Did you indicate to Chris that there was discord between his parents, at any meetings you had with him?

 

AF:  No.  He indicated that to me though.

 

CF:  Did he specifically say that his father has made negative comments to him about his mother?

 

AF:  He said something to the effect that his father … he knew his father didn’t like his mother, or something to that effect.  I don’t think he got into specific.

 

CF:  But from that comment you draw the conclusion that he said that something his father had said to him?

 

AF:  Can you say that again.

 

CF:  Sure.  You indicated that Chris told you he knew his mother did not like his mother…. Did he specifically say to you what his father said or did to him that lead him to make that statement?

 

AF:  No.  And I did not interrogate him.

 

Judge: Break

 

CF:  Do you remember what the original parenting plan was in place for Chris and his dad?

 

AF:   No… not without the file.

 

CF:  Is it fair to say it was every other weekend, including overnight some Sundays, every Tuesday over night and some Thursdays.  Does that sound about familiar?

 

AF:  I don’t recall.

 

CF:  Is it fair to say that between 2006, when you first became involved with this particular family, and 2010 – over a series of meetings – Chris’ parenting time with his father was expanded?

 

AF:  It was fair to say over the time I was involved with the family Chris’ time with his father was expanded but I began with this family in 2001 in a different capacity.

 

CF:  And as part of your capacity as a mediator were the fees for you equally divided between the two parties?

 

AF:  I don’t remember.

 

CF:  What is the division of fees for you now?

 

AF:  It’s 30% to mother and 70% to father.

 

CF:  And as part of the agreement that you signed with them, changing your role from mediator to parenting coordinator, did you map out a process by which recommendations you made may be challenged in court?

 

AF:  I would have to look at the actual agreement.  Are you talking about the parent coordination agreement?  I have to look at it.

 

CF:  But that parent coordination agreement that was signed by you and both parents was not entered by the court as an order until May 2010?

 

AF:  I… I … I know that I gave it to the parties to have their attorneys do that.  I never heard differently until much later.  And I don’t really actually know when it happened.

 

CF:  Did you receive an order of appointment of parenting coordinator from this court in

this case?

 

AF:  I did but not until May of 2010.

 

CF:  So between 2006 and May 2010, were you acting as a parenting coordinator without a formal court order, attorney Ms. Faust?

 

AF:   I don’t know.  I… I… one of the agreements signed in 2006 which covered only a short period of time was an agreement to mediate that covered less than a week.  After that there was an agreement saying there was a need for parent coordination.  And… I….I… don’t know what happened in between 2006 in terms of it being formalized by the court.  I do know that a new order was issued, completely different and under different circumstances in May 2010.

 

CF:  And isn’t it fair to say between the fall of 2006 and spring of 2010 most of the work you handled for these particular parents resulted in them reaching some written agreement?

 

AF:  Ummm…. Some agreement…. Yes.  I would say on every occasion that we met, the first effort was to reach a written agreement.  And where there couldn’t be a written agreement then I would make a ruling if necessary. 

 

CF:  But your first ruling to use your words over one parents objection…. Really didn’t happen until April of 2010, when you entered some decisions in the father’s absence?

 

AF:  No, I don’t believe so.  There was always little, little…. When we met there were multiple issues… I would ask father what are your issues you would like to discuss today and Jane what are the issues you would like to discuss today…. I would list them… ummm… and then, what they couldn’t agree upon they would discuss and then if necessary I would enter a ruling.  And that happened pretty much throughout.  They might have been very small issues but there were issues I would enter an order on.

 

(Author’s note:  Ms. Faust never filed a finding with the court until April 2010, due to disagreement between the parents, and couldn’t have because she was not appointed by the court as a parenting coordinator, until April 2010.)

 

CF:  Okay that was before May of 2010 when the formal order appointing you was issued by the judge?

 

AF:  There was always… since I was parenting coordinator.

 

CF:  And does your agreement for parent coordination that you had the parties sign include any review mechanism, year by year?

 

AF:  I would have to look at it specifically to see. 

 

CF:  Is it your intention that you would remain the parenting coordinator in this case until Chris reached the age of 18?

 

AF:  I… I… don’t have any intention, although I would …. I remember joking with them that I wanted to go to the high school graduation, but no, no, I don’t have any intention.

 

CF:  Did you have an opportunity attorney Ms. Faust to look at the spread sheet, as Jane’s attorney characterized it, showing the decisions that were entered throughout this case by you?

 

AF:  I did.  I believe father sent it to me at one point.  I’ve seen it in other forms. 

 

CF:  Okay.  Was that something you specifically discussed with the parties in any of you meetings together?

 

AF:  No… it was sent outside of a meeting, and was never, never came up.  It may have come up in discussion but it never up in discussion as a point by point conversation, no.

 

CF:  Okay.  Let’s talk about Chris’ weight loss…. Father was the parent that first communicated to you that he was concerned about Chris’ weight loss January 2010, right?

 

AF:  Ummm… he was the one that raised the issue…. I don’t know… it may have proceeded January 2010?

 

CF:  And you aware that Chris was brought to his pediatrician in January 2010 for a cough?

 

AF:  I…. I… I may have been aware but I don’t remember that specifically.  

 

CF:   Do you remember …. Or do you know if Chris was the person who informed the doctor about the time he was feeling faint?

 

AF:  I don’t know that. 

 

CF:  Did you have an opportunity to …. Strike that…. Father called you a number of times in January 2010 requesting a parenting coordination meeting to talk about Chris’ weight loss … do you recall them?

 

AF:  No.

 

(Author’s note: I have emails documenting several requests for emergency meetings, which were in turn denied by Ms. Faust.)

 

CF:  Did you testify earlier that you refused to meet with the parties until you had an opportunity to look at Chris’ medical records?

 

AF:  I don’t think I refused to meet with them…. I think I said that I facilitated request for medical records… um… and told them that a meeting when it was first raised as a concern that I would be happy to look at the medical records then we could talk about it subsequently.

 

CF:  And at that time didn’t father and mother have shared legal custody of Chris?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  And they still do according the court order, don’t they?  Right?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  Why would need to facilitate obtaining medical records for a child for whom both parents had shared legal custody?

 

AF:  I believe it was because … um… it was concern on the part of father about information coming…. And wanted it to come from both sources.

 

CF:  Did you have an opportunity to talk with Chris’ pediatrician in January 2010?

 

AF:  I did not.

 

CF:  Did you talk with the pediatrician that was covering at that time?

 

AF:  No.  I just reviewed the records.

CF:  And if your review of the records did you note that the treating physician, who was covering for Doctor X, the covering physician, Doctor Y, had specifically identified that Chris had a weight loss of 15 pounds?

 

Jane’s Attorney:  Objection

 

Judge:  Sustained.

 

CF:  Were you aware that medical records that are in evidence in this case reflect that there was a fifteen pound weight loss noted by the covering physician?

 

Jane’s Attorney:  Same objection, judge.

 

Judge:  Overruled… you can answer.

 

AF:  I… I…. I have always understood the weight loss to be approximately ten pounds, slightly more, nothing more.

 

CF:  Okay.  And were you concerned about Chris weight loss at that time?

 

AF:  At what time?

 

CF:  In January 2010?

 

AF:  Well… I was concerned enough that I said I would review the medical records to see if we could sort through and see what’s at the bottom of it …. And but when I read them I was no longer concerned.

 

CF:  And after the incident in January 2010 did father raise to you attorney Ms. Faust another medical concerning involving Chris’ hands?

 

AF:  I don’t recall it being…. When it was … about one point he raised a concern about Chris hands being kind of raw.  And then at another point – much later – umm…. He… um… mother raised a concern about him washing his hands frequently almost obsessively.  And I remember father saying, well I haven’t seen it but hand cleaner goes very quickly.  So those are the concerns about Chris’ hands.  Father’s original that they seemed raw, mother mentioning that Chris was obsessively washing his hands, and father concurring that there was a lot of hand cleaner being used.

 

CF:  Did someone … at some point in the last year did someone provide you with copies or

photographs of Chris’ hands?

 

AF:  Ummm…. I don’t remember seeing photographs…I remember seeing photographs of the hands on the web site.  I don’t recall seeing them otherwise.

 

CF:  And did you follow up at all with Chris’ medical team in terms of looking at the alleged issue with his hands.

 

AF:  The, which one… the … the hand washing or the other one?

 

CF:  Well the first is a hand rash?

 

AF:  Did I follow up … No… I… I think that mother said his hands got chaffed in the winter.  I didn’t see that as an area for my concern.

 

CF:  Have you had any meeting with Chris that you had without first alerting one of his parents?

 

AF:  Yes.  The one…ummm… I believe that the one that took place in October 2010 was without notice to father?

 

CF:  Have there been any meeting that took place between you and Chris that happened w/out notice to Ms. Jane?

 

AF:   No.  All the… all the other meeting were with notice and consent in advance by both parents.

 

CF:  Drawing your attention to April of 2010 did you meet with Ms. Jane for a parent coordination meeting in absence of father?

 

AF:  In April of 2010?  Yes I did. 

 

CF:  And was he away on school vacation with Chris at that time?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  Were you aware that Ms. Jane had failed to produce Chris for a scheduled vacation time that month?

 

AF:  Was I aware that?

 

CF:   Did you know at that meeting in April 2010 that Ms. Jane had failed to produce Chris for scheduled time with his father?

 

AF:  I can’t … I can’t answer that they way you are asking it.

 

CF:  Were you on board on this case in May of 2010?

 

AF:  I believe so.  Yes.   I don’t know the exact date. 

CF:  And between May of 2010 and September of 2010 did you participate in any parent coordination meetings with this couple?

 

AF:  In August I believe we had a meeting.

 

 

CF:  And as a part of that meeting was it fair to say that father’s parenting time with Chris remained status quo… that there were no reductions in his time in September 2010?

 

AF:  Everybody’s time had been adjusted a little because of the schedule trials … so … and there had also been an adjustment because Chris had some boy scout schedules … uh… schedule events …. So everybody’s time was a little off this summer…. Uh … between the trial and Chris’ scheduled boy scout time.

 

CF:  Last summer you mean?

 

AF:  This summer.  Past summer…. It … it…. I’m sorry.

 

CF:  I’m talking about summer 2010.  I’m sorry.

 

AF:  I’m not remembering off the top of my head.

 

CF:  But there were adjustment made to Chris’ schedule this summer to coordinate around his schedule and the time of the trial?

 

AF:  Correct.

 

CF:  And those were actually made in June 2011 and again in August 2011?

AF:  Yes, and I think there was some even prior.

 

CF:  Before we get to that, I want to talk about the meeting you had with Chris on October of 2010.   How many times did you meet with Chris that month?

AF:   Once.

 

(Authors note:  I recorded three visits with Chris…I was not told one was at the mother’s home until this trial.)

 

CF:   Just once, and that meeting was before the alleged telephone conversation that took place between Chris and his father?

 

AF:  No.  I believe it was afterwards.

 

CF:  And that was the incident where you found Chris jittery and jumping in and out of his seat?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  And are you aware of the fact that the principal informed the GAL that Chris didn’t like being called out of class to meet with you?

 

AF:  Yes, I read the GAL report.  Yeah.

 

CF:  How many times had you actually pulled him out of class to meet with you in 2010?

 

 

AF: Umm… I haven’t … I never had him pulled out of class.  I met with him during lunch time…um… or during recess or before school.  I don’t think … I don’t recall ever having him actually pulled out of class.

 

CF:  How were you first alerted to the alleged telephone call conversation that took place in

October 2010 between father and Chris?

 

AF:  Mother called me.

 

CF:  And when she called you did she tell you how long that telephone conversation took place?

 

AF:  I don’t recall.

 

CF:  Did she tell you that she intervened when she was listening in on the other line to step the telephone call when she heard what she claimed was happening?

 

AF:  No… I believe she told me otherwise.

 

CF:  That she allowed the call to go on?

 

AF:  I believe she told me that… she inadvertently picked up the phone at the same time Chris did.  And when she realized what father was saying she paused and just listened because, even though she said she was conflicted about doing that, she felt that she had to listen.  That the things she has been hearing shouldn’t be going on.  That’s what she told me.

 

CF:  Was this the first time in you work as parenting coordinator with this couple that the issue of listening in on phone calls had been raised by either parent?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  Who first raised that issue?

 

AF:  Father has consistently raised that as an issue …. Um…. Throughout the years. 

 

CF:  And have there been interim agreements between the parties that prohibited them from listening in on one another’s phone calls with Chris? 

 

AF:  I don’t remember ever writing something into an agreement … there were issues about recording.  I think we talked about it.  I don’t ever remember reducing it to a writing.

 

CF:  But it had been raised as an issue?

 

AF:  Yes… there… there had been issues about listening to phone calls and recording phone calls raised over the years.

 

CF:  And you have felt the circumstances as described to you by Ms. Jane at that time warranted an emergency court appearance regarding Chris contact with his father?

 

AF:  Well…. I felt it warranted her providing me an affidavit, where she committed under oath, that’s what she heard.  And then I felt it warranted contacting counsel, and it happened that there …. I didn’t mark a motion or anything like that.  I believe you folks were already coming here for something and I said well this has to be resolved.

 

CF:   Did you at any point talk to father about the allegations raised in mother’s affidavit?

 

AF:  Yes.  I don’t know if I talked to him but I… I… know that … umm…. I know that I spoke to him here.  And I…I… could … no I…. Probably initially I think I communicated through counsel.

 

(Authors Note:  This is a lie … I was grilled by Attorney Ms. Faust, shortly after the event.)

 

CF:  Did you ask him for an affidavit?

 

AF:  He wasn’t recording anything?

 

CF:  He was denying that he said the things that Jane said he said.

 

AF:  Uhhhh…. I don’t recall hearing anything or receiving anything formal that he was denying.

 

CF:  But you didn’t ask him for any affidavit, so that ….  Credible information about what the allegations were?

 

AF:  No… I didn’t … uhhh…. I didn’t ask him for an affidavit because he hadn’t made any allegations at that point.

 

CF:    And as part of the order appointing you as parenting coordinator did the Judge outline a specific process that if either party wanted to review or challenge any recommendations made by you?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  Isn’t it true that based upon that order … if the parties were not able to come to an agreement that you were going to make a recommendation, you would make a recommendation in writing.

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  And then if either party disagreed with the recommendation in writing at that point then there would be a review through the court?

 

AF:  Correct.

 

CF:  And if only there was a review from the court then only then would a written report be filed?

 

AF:  Yes… I believe that is true.

 

CF:  Was there a written report filed by you in connection with the alleged October 2010 telephone call.

 

AF:  I don’t’ think I wrote a report.  I wrote… ummm… I wrote recommendation I believe that was later incorporated into an agreement that was agreed upon by parties and counsel; but I didn’t write a report.

 

CF:  Do you recall meeting in December 2010 attorney Ms. Faust, where you met with the parties to talk about how Chris would be informed about the GAL?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  A GAL has not been appointed in this case as of yet, had he?

 

AF:   I don’t remember.  I do remember about talking about …ummm… I remember a conversation about Chris being affected by the litigation, and how having him talk to one more person might be painful to him, and the parties agreed that it should be done in a way that was least intrusive to Chris.

 

CF:  By that point father has requested a GAL and that request had been ordered by this court.

 

AF:  I don’t remember if it was a pending request.   Orrr… but… but … it was clear that there was going to be a GAL appointed, if it had not already been done. 

 

CF:  What made it clear?

 

AF:  I believe there was agreement … or maybe the judge said from the bench that he would appoint someone.  I don’t’ remember.  But I remember understanding that there was a consensus between father and mother that there was going to be a GAL .  I don’t think they knew who it was, and the concern in our meeting had to do not what the GAL was or who was appointed, but how this would impact father.  Not father… I’m sorry Chris. 

 

CF:  Would it surprise you to know that Jane had opposed the appointment of a GAL in this case throughout the litigation?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection.

 

Judge:  Can answer.

 

 

AF:  Well I was aware that she had originally objected to a GAL.   And he had talked about GAL, on and off, throughout the parent coordination process.

 

CF:  Drawing your attention to 2011…. Was there a meeting in January 2011 requested by father to address the Super Bowl, so that he could have contact with Chris over Super Bowl weekend?

 

AF:  I don’t recall that that was the sole reason for that particular meeting, but I do

remember a January meeting where we talked about the Super Bowl, as one of many issues.

 

CF:  Do you recall what the other issues were at that time? 

 

AF:  Hmmmm….. I think…. Well… part of it was another …. Uhhh…. Extension of the Super Bowl issues which was school and whether or not Chris should miss any additional time from class.  Um… he had missed time when going to, uh, Texas with father at Thanksgiving, and so that was part of it.  Those were two of the things.  I would have to look at my notes to know what else.

 

CF:  At some point during early 2011 did father raise the issue of a winter coat for Chris with you or during those sessions with you?

 

AF:   He raised it a couple of times.  Yeah.

 

CF:  And did you have to write a specific recommendation that Ms. Ms. Faust would provide Chris with a winter coat?

 

AF:  No.  Jane volunteered to do that.  And… and… ummm…. Said she would provide Chris with a similar coat to the one that father had bought Chris.  And that she had believed had been taken inadvertently by somebody.

 

CF:  How many meeting was the winter coat an issue for the parties?

 

AF:  Oh… I think we may have talked about it two of three times. 

 

CF:  That conversation continued partly because father believed Chris didn’t have a winter coat, despite his former wife’s statement that she would provide one.

 

AF:  Ummm…. I don’t know why we talked about it as much as we did to be honest with you.

 

(Author’s note:  That would be because Chris was sick for six consecutive weeks and running around in a spring jacket, during an extremely cold winter._And Ms. Faust did commit it to writing that the jacket was to be replaced by Jane.)

 

CF:  You testified under direct examination attorney Ms. Faust about discussion involving boy scouts?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you talk to any of the people involved in the alleged incident involving boy scouts with father and another father?

 

AF:  No I did not.

 

CF:  Do you know if any criminal charges were filed as a result of that incident?

 

AF:  I do not.

 

CF:  Do you know if DCF was ever contacted, in connection with that incident?

 

AF:  I do not.

 

CF:  Are you aware of any DCF cases or reports that were made in this case beyond that were made by father?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  Would you deem yourself as parenting coordinator a mandated court reporter?

 

AF:   No.

 

CF:  No?  Are you aware of the child’s therapist ever filing a report with DCF for Chris?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  What about his pediatrician?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  What about anybody at school?

 

AF:  No, not that I know of.

 

CF:    You indicated in April 2011 that father first raised the issue of custody was that correct?

 

AF:  No… No he’s raised custody since I met him, or at least since 2006 in one shape form or another…. He’s talked about custody on and off throughout meetings.  

 

CF:  As a continuation of his request for custody did you discuss his request for custody in your role as parenting coordinator?

 

AF:  Yes.  We did.  We talked about custody when he would raise it.  Ummm.  As an issue.  Yes.

 

CF:  Up until August 2011 the most recent report that you filed, you typically would include language in the meeting notes that you denied his request for custody?

 

AF:  I would.  I would say it was denied.  I think I finally said to him that I don’t have the authority to enter the order to grant custody.  But it’s not something I am going to do here.

 

CF:  And in fact you said that in your August notes you said this was beyond the authority of the parenting coordinator?

 

AF:  Right.  I believe I said that verbally before but I actually I wrote it that time.

 

CF:  During the same conversations did Ms. Jane request with you that Chris’ time with his dad be suspended?

 

AF:  I…I thing she asked for that … back in …um… May 2011.

 

CF:  That wasn’t the first time she had requested it?

 

AF:  No, I take that back…. You absolutely…. She had requested … she also asked in October of 2010… she reported the conversation …. When she overhead Chris….um… the conversation between Chris and his father.  Yup.

 

CF:  And you denied that request?

 

AF:  I did.

 

CF:  In May of 2011 did the three of you talk about Chris contact at all with his extended families?

 

AF:  Ummm…. I mean… I’m almost certain it did, I would have to look at my notes, but if it was May, and the trial was coming up…. I… I… seem to remember that I was concerned about Chris, and …umm…. How he would fair because he was already …it sounded like from both parents…. Ummm…. Absorbing a lot of stress and so we discussed… father’s family coming up and making time for them to see um Chris, without anybody having a conversation with Chris about the trial in the same for Ms. Jane’s family, who comes up from Florida in the summer time, that they would be spending time.

 

CF:  So you entered the same restrictions on both families that nobody should be talking to Chris at all about the trial?

 

AF:   There was a universal ruling, recommendation, whatever you want to call it; I made it very clear that nobody should be talking to this child about litigation.   And it became even louder and more often that I would say this when it became apparent that the child was hearing things he shouldn’t hear and reacting to them.

 

CF:  As part of the work that you did as parenting coordinator in the spring of 2011, did you have an opportunity to talk one on one with Chris’ teacher?

 

 

AF:  I don’t recall doing that.

 

CF:  Did you have an opportunity to speak with Chris’ principal?

 

AF:  Spoke with Chris’ principal in the fall but I don’t remember speaking to her in the spring?

 

CF:   Did you have an opportunity to look at Chris’ report card, or interim progress reports as part of your work in 2011?

 

AF:  I believe so.   They routinely, both parents, proudly produced report cards, and reports… so I… I… whenever we had a meeting if there had been a recent report card, progress report – I saw.

 

CF:  Did you have any concerns about Chris’ academic performance in the spring of 2011?

 

AF:  I recall him slipping a bit.  I…I recall that he had, uh… climbed from the point where he was that fidgety little kid, and became more focused, and he got off the IEP plan.  And became, uh, a better student and then he started to slip a little bit after that… I believe, if it wasn’t the winter 2011, but the, into the spring. 

 

CF:  Were you aware that he missed over thirty homework assignments in the spring of 2011?

 

AF:  I certainly was. 

 

CF:  Were you aware that his teacher had indicated to the GAL that he didn’t have a lot of friends?

 

AF:  I’m aware that…. In ah… in ah… the spring?

 

CF: Yes, for 2011?

 

AF:  I am.

 

CF:  Were you aware that his overall performance was found concerning based upon what the teacher had told the GAL this spring?

 

AF:   What?  That he… his performance was beginning to go down?

 

CF:  Have you talked with his teacher this year?

 

AF:  I have not.

 

CF:  Have you seen any progress reports for him this year?

 

AF:  I have not met with the parties since August 2011.

 

CF:  And when did you last meet with Chris?

 

AF:  Uhh… the last time I met with Chris was…. Last, um, October.  I haven’t seen Chris for a year.

 

CF:  You haven’t seen Chris for a year?

 

AF:  As best as I recall… Yeah.

 

CF:  So despite having not seen Chris for a year… you entered a judgment on August 19^th 2011, which essentially suspending his contact with his father in his best interest?

 

AF:  Is that a question?

 

CF:  Yes.

 

AF:  Yes, I did.

 

CF:   After not speaking with him for a year?

 

AF:  After, after looking at the web site and hearing his father, frequently, say things that lead me to believe that it would be bad for Chris to be continuously – with the stress he was already under – yes.

 

CF:  But you were not able to personally gage the stress Chris was under after October 2010?

 

AF :  Other than through the parents and what they both reported? 

 

CF:  Yes.

 

AF:  And other things I had read through the GAL… and … I…I did not go see Chris after that?

 

CF:  Okay.  And in fact you appeared in court of June 2011 and request that the judge supervises or suspend contact between Chris and his father at that time?

 

AF:  I did, indeed.

 

CF:  And at that time you were acting on information that you had received from both parties at a meeting in June 9^th of 2011, regarding the statements Chris made, correct:

 

AF:  It was not… just that particular meeting but it was the culmination of many meetings, what I had seen last, personally, of Chris… what I knew, um, from the emails I continuously received, um from what happened in May when the father seemed to think that an incident, regarding this child’s safety, should have been embraced as an… first of all… uh, uh… and event where the child was safe and both parents acted out of concern… turned into a DCF complaint… uh, uh, restraining order complaint…. Yeah, I based it on all those things.

 

(Authors note…. ?????????????.)

 

CF:  Okay.  With all those things occurred before a June 9^th meeting where the three of you sat down for a couple of hours, and mapped out a schedule for Chris for the summer of 2011…. ?

 

AF:  Yes, we had talked about that schedule before.

 

CF:  Answer my question, so … strike… let me go back a bit…. At the June 9^th 2011 meeting were you first alerted by Jane that Chris was making statements that seemed concerning to her?

 

AF:  Was that the first time I heard that?

 

CF:  Those statement about not being on this world… not being on this planet?

 

AF:  Uh… it was the first time I heard statements of that gravity.  I had been hearing comment that Chris didn’t sound like he was doing well before but that was the first time that this child might be having some thoughts of suicide and not wanting to live.

 

CF:  Okay and you also received similar information from father at that time at that meeting on

 

AF:  Father was concerned, yes.

 

CF:  Okay.  And after that meeting were you concerned enough to meet with Chris to talk about it, one on one?

 

AF:  Uh..uh, I chose not to meet with Chris at that point.  He had a therapist.  He had a GAL.   And I honestly felt he was under a tremendous amount of stress, and I didn’t think there was anything I could add to this little boy’s life at that point.  And I took as credible both of his parents concerns about the child …. This is one place where they were consistent.  They might have differed about the reason for Chris’ stress was, and they certainly differed about what should have been done about it; but nobody in that room differed that this was a serious thing to hear a little boy say.

 

(Authors note:  I attributed Chris’ single comment made to me, about “not wanting to live,” to him spending over 99% of his time with his mother; and by the August Bay Meadows meeting, the only person hearing Chris make those suicidal comments was his mother; and that is when I asked, why are you, Ms. Faust, allowing this little boy to continue to live with his mother, when he’s expressing these thoughts?  Ms. Faust would suspend my visitation within two weeks.)

 

CF:  But the result of that June 9^th meeting was that no major changes were made with Chris’ parenting time with either parent for summer 2011?

 

AF:  Well… that’s not entirely true.  The schedule was tweaked so that Chris had lots of time at Scout activity … oh… away from the stress.  He would be away from both dad and mom.  And he also was going to spend time with the extended family, both fathers’ family when he was up, and actually during the time of the trial, I told them, recommended, and they both agreed that Chris should spend the time that the trial was supposed to be taking place in June with …um… Jane’s family, and not have any contact – other than a phone call – from both parents.  So no I did make adjustments.

 

CF:   But there were no formal restriction made as of June 9^th 2011 that suspended contact between Chris and his father this summer, beyond what you just said.

 

AF:  I think at that point there was still a motion pending here.  I think Judge was still waiting to hear whether or not he acted on a motion.

 

CF:  And were you aware that Chris’ therapist the week after your June 9^th meeting with his parents?

 

AF:  Ummm…. I may have been … I had some… uh… email exchanges with the therapist.

 

CF:  Do you know if his therapist had recommended any emergency treatment for Chris, as a result of the stress at that time, alleged stress at that time?

 

AF:  Ummm…. I believe I … no I don’t… I… I don’t know about that.  I don’t know.

 

CF:  Do you know if the therapist had recommended any hospitalization for Chris, after June of 2011?

 

AF:  No.  I don’t.  I mean I don’t think he did… I don’t know that he did, and I don’t think he did.

 

CF:  Do you know if the child therapist had recommended any medication for Chris … in June 2011?

 

AF:  I don’t believe he did.

 

CF:  Do you know if the child therapist had filed any report with DCF … in June 2011?

Jane’s attorney:  Objection.

 

CF:  I’ll withdraw the question.

 

CF:  Following that you appeared here on June 22^nd 2011 for what was going to be the first day of trial?   Did you not?

 

AF:  I …um… I think … I think I did.  I don’t remember, specifically.

 

CF:  Were you subpoenaed to appear by mother to appear in court that day?

 

AF:  I was subpoenaed to the trial.  Ummm… and if that was the first day of the, first time, schedule, I may.  I was here at some point in June.

 

CF:  And at that time, did you address the court and indicate that you thought that Chris’ time with his father should be suspended or supervised?

 

AF:  I did.

 

CF:  And despite the fact that there was not order entered by the judge did you take it upon yourself a parenting coordinator to enter a supervision component in the week following the hearing in June 2011?

AF:  I… I …. Did not.

 

(Authors note:  Yes, she did.)

 

CF:  Did you require that Chris’ time with his father be supervised or overseen by family member in late June 2011?

 

AF:  No… I reiterated that there should be no discussion whatsoever, about the litigation, and with Chris.  And I think my orders said that if anybody had any reason to think that Chris was being spoke to about litigation or engaged in the process that they should report it immediately to me, and I would report it to the court.  That’s what I did.

 

CF:  Didn’t Jane’s attorney ask you this morning whether or not father had complied with your order to have his sister present during his parenting time in June 2011?

 

AF:  I’m not sure if that’s what he asked but I did not require … and I think I said that… I didn’t require his sister be with him all the time during his time in the summer.  That was not my… that was not what I ordered.

 

CF:    Okay…. So when you testified earlier today that father didn’t have his sister present, during a day that he was schedule to have Chris, and that was a violation… that was not necessarily accurate?

 

AF:  No… that’s accurate.  That was a special day that father requested additional …. He wanted a lot of time with his sister…. And, ummm… Chris, when his sister came up for the trial.   And I felt it was important to insulate Chris from any discussion about the trial, but I also understood that his sister was up from Texas and he wanted Chris to have time to be with his paternal aunt.  And father had a weekend, a Friday through a Sunday, and I said I’m willing to tack on that additional Monday, which I believe was right before the trial … maybe there was a day in between… ummm… give you that extra time, provided that you are telling me the time would be with your sister. 

And the sister, and what I what I testified this morning is that my understanding is that, that the sister went to the airport in the morning.  And father kept the child, and it wasn’t under the order, it wasn’t under the spirit of the order.

 

CF:  And when you met with father and mother in August of 2011 at that time was a request made by Ms Jane for supervision or suspension of father’s time with Chris? 

 

AF:  I don’t remember.  It may have… she became more vocal about that.

 

CF:  That wasn’t something that you recommended in early August of 2011?

 

AF:  No… there was some … the trial kept getting postponed and I kept thinking this was going to be taken under advisement by the court; and so I was really dealing with short periods of time here.  

 

Excuse me… actually because there was a meeting, actually scheduled for last week… so that was only intended to cover the end of summer, the first couple of weeks of school.  Then we were meeting again, we were supposed to meet last Wednesday to talk about what was going to take place for the first half of the school year.

 

CF:  And how did you first become aware of the “freechris” blog?

 

AF:  I received a phone call from Ms. Jane.

 

CF:  And did she explain to you how she became aware of the blog?

 

AF:  I don’t remember.  It might have been a voice mail I got.  I was on vacation.

 

CF:  When did you first instruct father to remove the blog?

 

AF:  I believe it was August 19^th.

 

CF:  And that was on a Friday?

 

AF:  That’s correct.

 

CF:  And you referenced in your direct examination an email that you sent to father that day, and to my office directing him to take it off line?

 

AF:  And to mother’s attorney, and to the GAL, and to Jane.

 

CF:  And that email that you sent and to all the professionals in the case, was sent at 21:00 hours or 9:30 at night?

 

AF:  I….I… I’ll take you word for it.  I sent it from my iphone.

 

CF:  And your recommendation at that time was that the blog be dismantled?

 

AF:  Dismantled… I think I used about six different words to describe that it should come down and nobody should be able to see it. 

 

CF:  And did you know that I was on vacation that same week you were on vacation, in August of 2011?

 

AF:  You didn’t check with me… no… sorry, I didn’t. 

 

CF:  But did you receive a subsequent email from me attorney Ms. Faust saying that I had instructed father to remove the blog completely?

 

AF:  I believe I did.  Yes.

 

CF:  And did I send you a follow up email after that informing you that he had removed the blog to the best of my knowledge?

 

AF:  Yes. I believe you did.

 

CF:  And did I several times request that you vacate your orders and restore contact between

Chris and his father because the blog had come down?

 

AF:   I believe you did on two occasions.

 

CF:  And on those occasions did you change your order?

 

AF:  I did not change my order because I did not believe father had done what you suggested he did.

 

CF:  Did you check the blog today to see if it was up?

 

AF:  I… I don’t think I checked today but I checked yesterday… um…whatever he’s got up … um… you can access privately which I think you can do by signing up.  But I know if I hit Google and I hit ‘freechris” and I do images I can see his hands.  And I believe that other things come up if you … umm… try the different choices under Google.

 

CF:  Do you know the father has worked specifically with Google in trying to remove all the items, which are called cached items, from the blog?

 

AF:  I don’t know that.

 

CF:  Do you know if Chris has seen the blog?

 

AF:  I do not.  I hope he has not.

 

CF:  Have you talked to Chris at all, as to whether or not he has seen the blog?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection.

 

Judge:  Sustained.

 

CF:  Have you talked with Chris’ therapist as to whether or not he has seen the blog?

 

AF:  I would not do that.

 

CF:  Attorney Ms. Faust did you ever meet with Chris in the presence of his strepbrother?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ever meet his stepbrother?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  In the course of your work with this family as a parenting coordinator did you ever receive concerns from father about Chris’ relationship with his stepbrother?

 

AF:  Ummm….. Yes.

 

CF:  What were those concerns?

 

AF:  Initially, father was concerned that… they were horsing around too much, the he was older and just some general concerns.  And then later on… um… after Jane indicated the stepson was having some problems, and they had to set some limitations… uh….father was concerned about the situation. 

 

CF:  In your parent coordination meetings with this couple did you ever talk about the holes the step brother had punched in the wall?

 

AF:  I don’t recall.

 

CF:  Did you ever talk to this couple about the drug testing that was happening at the home with the stepbrother, which Chris was aware?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection.

 

Judge:  Sustained.

 

CF:  Did you ever talk with this couple about any drug testing at Ms. Jane’s home with her stepson?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  Did father ever raise to you that Chris was aware and involved in the drug testing for the step-brother.

 

AF:  No.  Father never mentioned that.

 

(Author’s note:  That is incorrect.)

 

CF:  Did father ever talk to you in your work as parent coordinator about a swastika that had been drawn on the wall within Jane’s home?

 

AF:  No he didn’t.

CF:   Were there ever any disclosures made to you by father in the course of your work with this family about the step brother being naked around Chris or sleeping with Chris while naked?

 

AF:  Absolutely not.

 

CF:  None of this had ever come up in any of the parent coordinator meetings?

 

AF:  Absolutely not.

 

(Author’s note:  That’s incorrect again.  Of course, Ms. Faust would not put into her meeting notes issues or comments that were unfavorable to Jane or her family.)

 

CF:   Did Chris ever raise any of those issues with you directly?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ever ask Chris specifically what he loved about being with this father?

 

AF:  I asked Chris one time what were his favorite things when he was with dad, and what were his favorite things when he was with mom…

 

CF:  How long ago was this?

 

AF:  Ummm…. It was a long time ago.  After the first meeting, maybe.   The second or third meeting, I was…

 

CF:  A couple of years ago?

 

AF:  Yeah, I was trying to figure out what were the strengths of the relationship between Chris and each parent so we could work on building it.

 

CF:  What kind of things Chris indicate he loved about being with his father?

 

AF:  I think he mentioned Legos. 

 

CF:  Anything else.

 

AF:  Ummm… He talked about his friend BBB, and playing outside with BBB

 

CF:  Did you ever tell Chris that what he told you would not be shared with his parents? 

 

AF:  I don’t believe I told Chris that, I asked Chris maybe on one occasion was there anything he wanted to talk to me about that he might not want me to share with either of his parents.

 

CF:  And what did he say?

 

AF:  He didn’t… he didn’t give me any information.   I offered him the opportunity.  Yes.

 

CF:  Was there anything that he disclosed to you voluntarily that he asked you not to share with his mom?

 

AF:  Not that I recall.

 

CF: Was there anything that he disclosed to you voluntarily that he asked you not to share with his dad?

 

AF:  Not that I recall.  I… I… didn’t take notes again, during my meetings with Chris.  Cause it was difficult to get him to talk, at least up until the last time I met with him.  That was the last time I met with him.

 

CF:  So your answer to my question is you have not been directly in touch with anyone from his employer?

 

AF:  I have not been directly, or indirectly, in touch with anyone… that’s the only thing I have done in regarding ….ummmm… fathers concern about his employer. 

 

CF:  Did you inform the GAL that from your opinion that father had influenced Chris and Chris has to parrot what his father wants him to say?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  Was there anything specific that Chris said to you that you can attribute directly to his father, other than he did not like his mother very much?

 

AF:  Ummm….. Yeah one time when I was speaking to him ….ummm… at one of those meeting he …ummm…  he announced he wanted a certain schedule, and it was …ummm… it was hours and times identical to what his father had requested at his previous meeting.

 

CF:  And when was this?

 

AF:  That was not the first meeting and it certainly wasn’t the April meeting ….umm….

Jane’s home, it would have been one of the two meetings in between.

 

 

CF:  So this would have been a meeting that happened between you and Chris prior to August 2011?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  Do you know if father has ever been arrested?  During this litigation?

 

AF:  I don’t believe he has.  I don’t know that he has.

 

CF:    At what point did you have to put a restriction in place that father could not be on

Ms. Jane’s street?

 

AF:  I think it was during the spring of 2011.

 

CF:  And the concern was that he was near her home?

 

AF:  The concern was that Ms. Jane said that her neighbors, as well as herself, had looked

out the window and found father on the street.  At a time when there was not a visit.

 

CF:  And that was information Ms. Jane had shared with you that she had received from a third person?

 

AF:  And that she had seen herself I believe.

 

CF:  Did Ms. Jane inform you in August 2011 that she believed father was parked outside her house?

 

AF:  I don’t remember.

 

CF:  Let’s talk about the May 8^th, 2001 incident… did you specifically tell Ms. Jane to bring Chris to her former husband’s property and walk around in the woods?

 

AF:  NO!

 

CF:  Had you made earlier recommendations that Chris should be shielded from the on-going dispute between his parents?

 

AF:  Yes.

 

CF:  In your professional opinion would bringing Chris to the woods to search behind his father’s house be shielding him from the dispute from his parents?

AF:  In my professional opinion bringing Chris to the woods was a prudent parent action that – it had nothing, it had nothing to do with the litigation between father and Jane.  It had to do with Chris’ safety.

 

CF:  You thought it would be appropriate for Chris to be in the woods with his mother behind his dad’s house?  When Chris had been concerned about things his father was being told?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection

 

Judge:  Sustained.

 

CF:  Do you know if there was ever a gun found in the house in the woods behind father’s house?

 

AF:  Well…. I do know … I… I mean there was a gun but I don’t think it’s the gun you are talking about.  I believe there was a gun found there recently.  But no, I don’t believe in connection to this there has ever been anything.

 

CF:  And during the August 2011 meeting, when you were talking to father and Jane, did

Jane make any disclosures to you about who her own life and her own feelings?

 

AF:  The August meeting…. Her own life and he own feelings?  I…I…I.. It’s not something I recall.

 

CF:  You indicated that you thought father time with Chris should be supervised?

 

AF:  I do now… yeah.

 

CF:  Do you believe that supervised contact should start immediately?

 

AF:  Ummm….I believe that….I… I… think that there’s some need for therapeutic intervention here.  I think that somebody should talk to father.  Somebody should talk to Chris.  I think that person should make an assessment about when it’s time for Chris and father to meet in the company of that person?  And where it should go from there.   I… I… think it’s gotta start there basic and be built.

 

CF:  Do you have any information about what Chris was told about his father’s sudden absence from his life?

 

AF:  I believe he was told that there was just going to be a break for a while ….ummm… and that he was not going to see his dad.

 

CF:  And do you know what, if any, his reaction was to that?

 

AF:  Ummmm… my understanding is that he asks for his dad regularly.  But it’s my understanding also that he has indicated some relief, that his is not stressed, and he has suggested that now he does not know what the gossip is.

 

(Authors note:  This might be possible.  His mother certainly wouldn’t be screaming at him anymore after visiting my residence.  The it again, it might be self-serving propaganda reported by Chris’ mother to Ms. Faust.)

CF:  But that is coming from someone else?

 

AF:  You asked me what I knew … that’s what I know.

 

(Author’s note:  Ms. Faust of Bay Meadows had not met with Chris for an entire year, she received this information from Jane or from third parties.)

 

CF:  And when you entered your order in August of 2011, after suspending contact, was it your intention that that suspension would be going on two months now?

 

AF:  All my intention at that point was to make sure Chris was not going to be harmed…umm… and I believed that the harm from what was going on, and what I was listening to about him from his parents, and from other sources, indicated he was in a bad way.  And not seeing father was less of an evil.  But no, it gave me no pleasure to stop a relationship between a father and a child.  I would only do it as a last resort.

 

CF:  But I’m trying to understand what the last resort is, because the only thing that is different from the meeting you had with these parents in August 9^th 2011 when the parenting schedule was implemented, and now two months later when Chris has not seen his father, is the existence of the blog, which he has not seen.

 

AF:  Which Chris has not seen?

 

CF:  Yes.

 

AF:  I…I…I’m sorry.. uh… what’s the question because I want to make sure I’m understanding it?

 

CF:  Isn’t it true that the only thing different between the meeting on August 9^th 2011, when you created a parenting plan for the month, and now two months later – when Chris has not see his father – is the existence of the blog, which Chris has not seen himself?

 

AF:  No.  The difference is this.  That father took a measure that so blatantly ignored and was oblivious to the state Chris was in… even though he himself had expressed concern and knew Chris was feeling if not suicidal, at least sort of desperate for a kid his age…. And then when his father is called too…. Ummm…. Do something about it and to…um… be responsible for some lack of judgment … he became actually entrenched and said if you think that’s something you’re going to see more. … to me that showed that father’s judgment, at least for now, whether it’s in the heat of litigation, for whatever reason, had gone so far askew, that Chris needed to be protected from him.  I did not think his judgment was good.  And I did not think he should be with a child right now.  And I do not consider myself the last resort.  I consider the court the last resort.

 

(Author’s note:  My judgment in setting up the blog was out of desperation for the very poor judgment Ms. Faust had exhibited in leaving my, allegedly, suicidal son the care of his mother.)

 

CF:  But you have been very consistent in what you have reported so far that you’re not in a position to make any custody determination.  Correct?

 

AF:  That’s correct.

 

CF:  Don’t you think entering this order on the eve of the trial that suspends all contact between a son and his father essentially does just that?

 

AF:  Well…. Uhh…

 

CF:  Yes or no?

 

AF:  Do I think that… that amounts to a custody order?   No.

 

CF:  I have nothing further judge.

 

CF: Returns.

 

CF:  In your conversations with Chris is it clear that he loves his father?

 

AF:  Absolutely.  He loves both his parents.

 

CF:  Is it clear that he looks forward to the time he spends with his father?

 

AF:  Umm…. I, I can’t say that.   I can say that, honestly, what I got from Chris was concern about that he felt torn about the time he had with both his parents.

 

CF:  In any of the conversations you have had with Chris, which granted, you did not have for the past year, did he specifically tell you that he wanted to spend less time with his father?

 

AF:  No.

 

CF:  Isn’t it true that Chris has a bond with his father now?

 

AF:  Yes, he has a bond with his father.

 

CF:  And yet, you believe that the only way that bond can be reestablished is by having therapy, at this point, between Chris and his dad?

 

AF:  I think that bond had to be made healthy.

 

CF:  Don’t you see that your decision to suspend contact between Chris and his father has affected that bond?

 

AF:  I only see that as protecting Chris at this point.  My decision.

 

CF:  Do you know father has been working with a therapist?

 

AF:  I do not…I’m happy to hear that.

 

CF:  I have nothing further judge.

 

 

---

Purchase Mrs. Marshfield on Amazon.com, today…

Posted: December 8, 2013 | Author: Father | Filed under: Mrs. Marshfield | Leave a comment

http://www.amazon.com/Mrs-Marshfield-Corruption-Plymouth-County/dp/1479171549/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

---

Dr. Richard Wolman (Boston), Takes the Stand.

Posted: December 3, 2013 | Author: Father | Filed under: Mrs. Marshfield | 1 Comment

Shaman: Doctor Richard Wolman (Boston), Takes the Stand

 

 

 

 

The following are excerpts from testimony given by Doctor Mephisto (aka Boston’s Doctor Wolman), the court appointed guardian ad litem (GAL), on the trial date of July 27^th 2011.  Some minor editing has been done for sake of readability and brevity.  Again, to protect the collaterals in this case, I have omitted names.

 

The following testimony speaks for itself, and the credibility of the GAL and the Probate Industrial complex.  The fact that Doctor Wolman report and testimony was critical to this trial is simply amazing, and speaks directly to the veracity and credibility of the judge, his appointee, and the judge’s decision.

 

My attorney did outstanding work on this date, as the readers shall soon see.

 

July 27, 2011

 

Counsel for Father (CF)

 

Doctor Mephisto/GAL (DM)

 

Court Clerk:  Do you swear to tell the truth, whole truth, so help you God?

 

DM: I do.

 

CF:  In your work as a GAL did you believe it was important to consider the wishes of

Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Within your report there’s no suggestion or recommendation that father’s time with

Chris be limited from that which he has now?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  And there’s no suggestion in your report that Father participate in any anger management classes is there?

 

DM:  Anger management classes?  That’s not in there.  No.

 

 

CF:  And at any time in your investigation did you refer Father out for psychological evaluation?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk to the child therapist in his work with Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And Chris referred you to Doctor Nevin

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And in your report you specifically identify the child’s therapist as a valuable resource?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Do you see the child therapist as a key person in this little boy’s life?  Your report indicates that the therapist is a safe place to express, explore and resolve the intensely painful emotional conflicts with which he is dealing?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And you recommend that Chris continue to see the child therapist

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Do you see the child therapist as a key person in this little boy’s life at this point?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Yet in your report you indicate your only contact with the child therapist was a telephone call on May 16^th, 2011 for a quarter of an hour?

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And there’s only one mention of the child therapist in your report?

 

DM:  Right.

 

CF:  And the only information the child therapist gave you was Chris told him (therapist) about Chris’ mother being mean?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   Did you talk to the child therapist after your initial fifteen minute phone call?

 

DM:  Umm.. Yes.

 

CF:  But that’s not mentioned anywhere in your GAL report … is it?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  Didn’t you think in the scope of your work that it would be really important to spend some significant time with Chris’ therapist, as the only mental health person in Chris’ life?

 

DM:  Uhhh…. I spend the time that I thought was required.

 

CF:  Do you know if the child therapist ever contacted DCF, hospital admission, invoked emergency sessions?

 

DM:  I do not.

 

CF:  And do you know how often Chris sees him now?

 

DM:  Now, I think he sees him every week.

 

CF:  In addition to the child therapist you spoke to a Doctor Bonnell (Jane’s aunt)?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And you indicate in your report that you talked to her for about one hour?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And what is her reported degree… is she a PhD?

 

DM:  She is a PhD. in psychology.

 

CF:  And what is her relationship to Jane.

 

DM:  She’s her aunt.

 

CF:  And Doctor Bonnell never treated Father, did she?

 

DM:  Not that I am aware of.

 

CF:  And she’s never treated Chris?

 

DM:  Not that I am aware of.

 

CF:  Did you know when you were talking to Doctor Bonnell that her last personal contact with the father was over ten years ago?

 

DM:  Ummmm.  I knew it had been some time.  I didn’t know the exact number.

 

CF:  Do you understand all the information Doctor Bonnell had she gleaned from Jane and her family?

 

DM:  I understood a lot of it was.  Yes.

 

CF:  And did you feel that Doctor  Bonnell’s role – such as it was – warranted four times the amount of time you spent with the child’s therapist?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And it’s fair to say that Doctor  Bonnell in no way has a professional capacity to comment on father’s mental health?

 

DM:  Ummm.  Doctor  Bonnell can comment on anyone’s mental health, if she wants to.

 

CF:  She’s never treated the father?

 

DM:  She’s never treated him.

 

CF:  And she’s never seen him in over ten years.

 

DM:  I don’t know?

 

CF:  But despite all that you thought it was important to indicate what her findings were in your report?

 

DM:  I’m not sure what you mean by findings.  She had an opinion.  She’s a collateral.  She’s one of the collaterals I spoke with.  Yes.

 

CF:  And did you speak to a Jim Hale?  And your report indicates that you spent 90 minutes with Jim Hale at your office.

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What is Jim Hale’s role in Chris’ life?

 

DM:  He was the cub scout master.  Spent a lot of time with Chris and other children at cub scout meetings.

 

CF:   Do you know how many cub masters Chris has had, or how often he meets with them?

 

DM:  I assume once a week but don’t know specifically.

 

CF:  Do you know how much one on one time Jim Hale spent with Chris, assuming ten children in the troop?

 

DM:  One on one time?  No.

 

CF:  And within your report you state that Jim Hale, cub scout master, found Chris to be very intelligent and does well in school.  Did you provide Mr. Malloy with any of the father’s reports or report cards?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   Do you know if Ms. Faust did?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  In your report you state that Jim Hale says Chris has a quote – good disposition – end quote?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Umm.  Did he indicate to you any sense of sadness in Chris?

 

DM:  If he did, I don’t recall reporting on it.

 

CF:  Okay.  And how about any signs of stress in Chris?

 

DM:  I don’t recall reporting on that.

 

CF:  And do you recall talking to Jim Hale where another parent at Scouts was behaving roughly with his son in front of father?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Mr. Malloy shared with you that he had not seen that incident directly, did he?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And did you ask Jim Hale about any safety measures he would take with his troop?

 

DM:   Ummm.  No.

 

CF:   And has Jim Hale ever had to invoke any safety measure concerning the father?

 

DM:  Not that he told me.

 

CF:  And did he share with you that he ever had to ask father to leave a scouting event?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  And did Jim Hale ever share with you there was a second incident with the troop…

where father saw one of the parent’s being physical with his son?  At a basketball game?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And at the event Jim Hale did not personally observe it?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  He was just sharing with you what he had heard from other people?

 

DM:  No.  No that’s wrong.

 

CF:  That’s wrong?

 

DM:  Yes. That’s wrong.

 

CF:   You make mention in your report about your concern over the list of collaterals provided by father versus the number of collaterals Jane offered?  Is that correct?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  And you indicate in your report that you spoke to many of the collaterals that were provided by Jane?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  So one of those collaterals was Mrs. M, a co-worker of Jane’s.  You spoke to her for thirty minutes, but there’s absolutely nothing in your report about what she told you?

 

DM:  Like I said, I don’t have my report in front of me.

 

CF:   We can give you a copy.

 

DM:  Sure.

(Report provided to DM)

 

CF:  Getting back to the report, you spoke to Mrs. M for approximately 30 minutes.

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And there’s nothing in that report about the substance of that conversation is there?

 

DM:  Ummm.  I think that’s right.

 

CF:  Yes also talked to the assistant superintendant of schools?

 

DM: Um-hum.  Yes.

 

CF:  And you talked to the assistant superintendent of schools for about 30 minutes?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Again, there’s nothing in the report concerning the substance of this conversation with the school superintendent?

 

DM:  Right.

 

CF:  You next talked with KP, a college friend of Ms. Jane?

 

DM:  Okay.

 

CF:  You talked to her for about 30 minutes?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Is there anything in the report about the substance of that conversation?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   And you spoke to Mrs. Jane brother…  K?  For about 30 minutes?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Is there anything in the report about the substance of that conversation?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  And you spoke to Chris’ 4^th grade teacher, Mrs. ZZ, as well?  For about 30 minutes?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Again, there is nothing within this report about the substance of that conversation?

 

DM:   Right.

 

CF:  You found it significant to note within your report that father’s only collateral’s were family members?  Correct?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:   And yet, of all the collaterals provided to you by Jane, not one of the collaterals gave you information that was relevant or important enough to cause you to place that information within your report?

 

DM:  Ummmm……….. I wouldn’t agree with that.   No.

 

CF:  But you specifically say that father’s list of collaterals creates a “deleterious” impact upon Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you talk with father at all about him being an introvert?

 

DM:  I wouldn’t use that word.  No.

 

CF:  Did he use that word?

 

DM:  I don’t recall.

 

CF:  Did he talk to you at all about having friends at work?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   Did he talk to you about having a prior relationship with a woman that had ended several years ago?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you think it was concerning that father has not remarried, while Jane had?

 

DM:  In and of itself, no.

 

CF:  And in fact you praise father for being able to devote himself entirely to Chris when he is in father’s care… didn’t you?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Let’s shift gears and talk about Miss Jane’s home.  Did you request drug testing for her new husband?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you request drug testing for anyone involved in this case?

 

DM: No.

 

CF:  How long were you in the presence of Chris, his mother and his step father, during your home visit?

 

DM:  I would say a half hour to forty-five minutes.

 

CF:  Did you observe Chris with his stepbrother at all?  Are you aware that there are concerns about his stepbrother’s involvement with Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And who provided you with information about the concerns surrounding the stepbrother’s involvement.

 

DM:  Ummm… the mother, the father and the stepfather.

 

CF:  And did you at anytime request for verification that step brother wasn’t living at home with Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   Did you know that the stepbrother has been there on a full time basis in the recent past?

 

DM:  I knew that he had lived there some.  Yes.

 

CF:  Were you aware that there were difficulties with Chris and his stepbrother sharing a bedroom?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you include any of that in your report?

 

DM:  I believe I did.  I believe I referenced the stepbrother.

 

CF:  Were you aware that the stepbrother punched holes in the wall at the house, and that

those holes were upsetting to Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you ask Chris to point them out during the home visit?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did he show them to you?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Does it say anything in your report about that?

 

DM:  Specifically, no.

 

CF:  Did you ask him about the holes in the wall.

 

DM:  I didn’t ask him about it.  No.  He told me about it.

 

CF:  What did he say?

 

DM:  There were holes in the wall.  His stepbrother punched a hole in the wall.

 

CF:  Did you talk to Chris at all about his stepbrother’s alleged substance abuse?

 

DM:  Chris mentioned it to me.  Yes.

 

CF:  What did he say?

 

DM:  That his stepbrother had made bad choices and that some drugs were involved.  He

didn’t have any specifics.

 

CF:   Does it say any of that in your report.

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk with Chris at all about his brother’s participation in drug testing within the home?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did father provide you with information about the stepbrothers drug testing.

 

DM:  No, not that I am aware of.

 

CF:  Did you read Father’s pre-trail memo he filed with this case?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you rely upon that and use it shape your investigation.

 

DM:  I’m sure I did.

 

CF:  So you overlook the fact that Chris’ stepbrother was undergoing drug testing?

 

DM:  I may have.  Yes.

 

CF:  And were you aware that Chris’ step brother was sleeping in Chris’ room naked?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ever talk to Chris about that?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  So that doesn’t show up in your report at all?

 

DM:  Stepbrother wasn’t living there, when I was involved.   And he hadn’t been living there for some time.

 

CF:  But he was spending time at that residence.

 

DM:  Sometime.  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you talk to Chris at all about his pets?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you talk to him about the bunny?

 

DM:  I don’t know if brothers or sisters?  About the dog?

 

CF:  Are you aware that there were significant concerns about the care of the bunny on the part of Ms. Faust?

 

DM:   Ummm.   I think so.  My memory is vague on that.

 

CF:  So that was an area that you did not feel you needed to explore.

 

DM:  Bunnies?  No.

 

CF:  Um.. what did Chris tell you about the bunny?

 

DM:  I actually don’t remember.

 

CF:  And did you talk to father at all about the bunny?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk about the bunny issue with Ms. Jane?

 

DM:  No… I don’t think the bunny issue made it onto my radar screen.

 

CF:  What about the dog?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What did Chris tell you?  Did Chris identify that a dog was living in his mother’s house?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did he share with you anything unusual about the dog?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What did he say?

 

DM:  He said that his mother was very mean to the dog.

 

CF:  Did he seem upset by that?

 

DM:  Yeah, I would say he was upset.  He said if the dog made a mess… he mother would take the dog over to the mess, and rub the dog’s nose into the mess.   And then spank it, and send the dog out.

 

CF:  And did Chris share all that with you?

 

DM:  He did.

 

CF:  Did you share this issue with Ms. Jane?

 

DM:  I did.

 

CF:  Did she admit to that?

 

DM:  She admitted she disciplined the dog if she made a mess.  She also said she did not rub the dog’s nose in the mess.  Her technique for discipline is to rub the dog’s nose near the mess, and then scold it.  I think I included it in the report to, it would be very messy, to say the least, to rub a dog’s face it its own mess.  So she would never do that.

 

CF:  Was it your opinion that Chris was lying about his mother care for and disciplining the dog?

 

DM:  Ummm… I don’t use the word “lying.”

 

CF:  Misrepresented?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   What makes you think Chris misrepresented?

 

DM:  Because, uh… it sounded improbable.

 

 

CF:  It sounded improbable?

 

DM:  Yes.  That someone would actually rub there dog’s face in their own feces and then

send them out. And when Mrs. Jane told me how she did discipline the dog it sounded much more plausible and realistic.

 

CF:  Mrs. Jane is involved in a custody dispute with her former husband correct?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  So would it surprise you that she would not admit to something like that if you’re a person making findings and recommendations concerning her parenting

 

DM:  Ummm… would it surprise me?  Please.  Say that again.  Sorry.

 

CF:  Sure.  Would it surprising for her to want to present herself in the best possible light to you, as someone who is reporting findings and recommendations about her parenting?

 

DM:  No.  It would never surprise me that parents would want to put them selves in a positive light, but in this case, the specific situation fits more into my analysis of what is probable and what isn’t probable.  I found her to be more credible.

 

CF:  More credible than Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Were you aware of any financial strains concerning Mrs. Jane and her current husband?

 

DM:  No.  GAL’s don’t focus on finances.

 

CF:  In his pretrial memo father indicated that Chris was feeling strain because of arguments in the mother’s home.  Did you talk with Chris about any arguments in his mother’s home?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk to him about that?

 

DM:  No Chris was very reticent to talk to me when I visited him at his mother’s home.

 

CF:  How about when you met with Chris at your office did you talk with him about it there?

 

DM:  No.  I don’t think he share with me much that was personal in my office.

 

CF:  Wouldn’t it be relevant to know whether or not Chris was upset or not upset about events in his mother’s home?

 

DM:  Of course.

 

CF:  In his pretrial memo, did you know father had concerns about Chris’ hygiene?

 

DM:  Yes, I believe he did.

 

CF:  And did you talk with Chris about that in anyway?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask Jane about that?

 

DM:  Specifically about his hygiene?  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask his teachers about it?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   Did you ask the doctors about it?

 

DM:  When I spoke to the doctors they said Chris was doing just fine.

 

CF:  Did you specifically ask them about hygiene? 

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Do you know where Chris attends school Doctor Mephisto?

 

DM:  I do but I don’t have it front of me.  It’s in township.

 

CF:  And do you know what time his school day starts?

 

DM:  Ummm…. I believe it starts….. 8:30 to 9:00 something like that.

 

CF:  Do you know what time he goes to school?

 

DM:   My understanding he goes early because his mother is also a teacher in the same school system but at a different school.  And she drops him off early because she has to go

to her school which starts earlier than his school.

 

CF:  When you say “early,” do you mean 90 minutes to two hours before the start of the school day?

 

DM:  Um… my understanding was it was an hour to an hour and a half, something like that.

 

CF:  Did you ever talk to Chris about going to before school care?

 

DM:  Not specifically.

 

CF:  Did he share with you any feelings about not wanting to be there?

 

DM:  Not specifically.  He might have said something about getting up early, but not specifically no.

 

CF:   Were you aware that this was a big concern for father?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   Despite that being a concern for father you didn’t follow up?

 

DM:  I didn’t question him specifically on it.

 

CF:  Do you know what time Chris gets home from school, Doctor Mephisto?

 

DM:  I think it’s around 3:30, when he shows up.

 

CF:  Are you aware of any incidents where he was locked out of his mother’s house in the last year?

 

DM:  Yes.  His mother told me about one incident in which I think her sister was covering for her; and there was a mix up in communication according to what she told me.  And so when he got home the covering person wasn’t available and so mother was contacted and she told me she came home directly from school to rectify the situation.

 

CF:  Did you talk to Chris about that particular incident?

 

DM:  I think he might have mentioned it.

 

CF:  Did you include what he told you in your report?

 

DM:  Ummm.   No.

 

CF:  Were you aware that there were at least two other incidents where the same thing happened to Chris?

 

DM:  I don’t know about other incidences… that’s the one I was told about.

 

CF:  And as part of your report Doctor Mephisto you indicate you reviewed an affidavit that Mrs. Jane filed in October 2010.  Do you recall that?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And at that time she was looking to get supervised time between father and son?

 

DM:  I believe that’s right.

 

CF:  Are you aware of any order of this court that allows Jane to listen in on phone calls, between Chris and his father?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk to her about listening in on a phone call without court permission?

 

DM:  Without court permission?  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk to father about the allegations made against him by mother for this alleged phone call?

 

DM:  I believe I did.

 

CF:  He denied making all those statements didn’t he?

 

DM:  I believe he did.

 

CF:  Did you talk to Chris about that alleged phone call?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  So you don’t know if Chris story regarding that alleged phone call mirrors that of his father or mother?

Jane’s attorney:  Objection.

Judge:  Sustained.

 

CF:  In terms of Chris overall physical health, did father share photos with you during the course of your investigation?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What were those photos of, Doctor Mephisto?

 

DM:  As I recall, they were photos of Chris’ hands.

 

CF:  What did you learn about Chris’ hands?

 

DM:  I think they were pictures where his hands look sore.  Kind of reddish in the picture.

 

CF:  Do these pictures look familiar to you?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Are these the photos father gave to you as a part of your investigation?

(Introduces photos of Chris’ raw and bleeding hands)

 

DM:  I believe so.  Yes.

 

CF:   At anytime you met with Chris did you notice his hands looking like that?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   Did you investigate Chris’ medical reports as part of your investigation?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And did you reference any of those reports specifically in your report?

 

DM:  No, I referenced my conversation with his pediatrician.

 

CF:  And did you notice that no care or treatment was sought for Chris’ hand condition over the last several years?

 

DM:  I don’t remember seeing any.  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk to Ms. Faust about Chris’ hands?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk to Mr. Father about Chris’ hands.

 

DM:  Ummm.   Not specifically.  He told me that his hands were as you see in the pictures.  Red and rough, and he was concerned about it.

 

CF:  Did he say specifically what his concerns were about it?

 

DM:  He might have.  I don’t remember.

 

CF:   And that was not in your report either?

 

DM:  Right.

 

CF:  Were you concerned about father’s concerns about Chris’ weight?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  In the medical reports did you glean that Chris has lost a total of 10 pounds between September 2009 and January 2010?

 

Jane’s attorney objects.

 

Judge:  Over-ruled.

 

DM:  Yes, there was a conversation about a ten pound weight loss.  There was a swing of weight over that time.

CF:  And the doctor who first highlighted Chris’ weight loss was not Chris’ primary care pediatrician was it?

 

DM:  Actually, Chris’s primary care physician noted it, but didn’t include … garbled…  I think one of the pediatricians who was covering for him, when he was away…. Ummm….. Noted it in her records.  I think. 

 

CF:  And that’s Doctor Y?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And in fact Doctor Y met with Chris when she brought him in for a cough in January 2010?

 

DM:  I believe that is correct, yes.

 

CF:  And in fact it was Chris who reported – and not Mrs. Jane – who reported that he was feeling dizzy and that he had fainted, didn’t he?

 

DM:  I believe that is right.  I don’t have the report in front of me.

 

CF:  But you did look at the medical report when you interviewed these witnesses and prepared your report?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   And you had access to all those medical records.

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  But nowhere in your report does it say that Chris was the one who made the disclosure?  Does it?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  In fact Doctor Y highlighted the weight loss on her reports didn’t she, Doctor

Mephisto?

 

DM:  I don’t believe she highlighted it.  I think she may have mentioned it.  Uh… saw nothing adverse about it, but it was in there.

 

CF:  She saw nothing adverse about it, but are you aware that she ordered an immediate

EKG for Chris in her office that day?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Are you aware that she pulled up records from a prior EKG that had been ordered for Chris, because of the same exact incident the year before?

DM:  I don’t believe I saw any EKG reports.

 

CF:  And are you aware that she referred Chris back to her primary care physician, Doctor X, for follow up?

 

DM:  I’m sure she did.

 

CF:  And if your report, Doctor Mephisto, you shared that you talked to Doctor Y about Chris’ care… didn’t you?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   On page 13 you state, I also spoke briefly to Doctor Y, a pediatrician who covered for Doctor X on one of Chris’ visits.

 

DM:  Right.

 

CF:  And that she had only talked to Chris once, and that I should consult with his regular care physician for more information….

 

DM:  Right.   Doctor Y would not talk to me.

 

DM:  And you think Doctor Y wouldn’t talk to you because there was a complaint against her pending with the Massachusetts Board of Medicine?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection

 

Judge:  Overruled.

 

CF:  Did Doctor Y indicate she would not talk to you due to the pending investigation?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  And yet you didn’t pursue any additional information from her, even though she was the first one saw Chris in January 2010 and identified the ten pound weight loss.

 

DM:  I told you she wouldn’t talk to me.  I got a letter from her lawyer instead.

 

CF:  Did you reference the letter from her lawyer in your report at all.

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Do you find it concerning that she wouldn’t talk to you?

 

DM:  Concerning?  What do you mean?

 

CF:  How often in your work as a GAL have you had a child’s pediatrician refuse to talk to you about her patient?

DM:  Um, in this case… she was not the primary pediatrician for Chris.  So it didn’t surprise me that she wanted me referred to his primary pediatrician, which she did.

 

CF:  And did you also speak with his primary pediatrician Doctor X?

 

DM:  Yes, I did.

 

CF:  And did you have an opportunity to review Doctor X’s response to the Board of Medicine?

 

DM:  Ummm.  No.

 

CF:  Did it seem likely to you that Doctor Y would admit to any inappropriate or inadequate care of Chris?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection

 

Judge:  Overruled

 

DM:  I don’t understand the question.

 

CF:  Well your involved in a case where you’re looking at parenting of Chris, and your looking into care by both parents…. when you talk to Doctor Y, you had already received a copy of the information from the Board of Medicine that she was under investigation. 

Didn’t you?

 

DM:  I don’t know she didn’t tell me what she had or didn’t have.

 

CF:  But if you look at the time line of the records received in the context of your investigation, it shows that the letters were received well before your conversation.

 

DM:  That may well be.  All that I know is Doctor Y didn’t want to talk to me.

 

CF:  Would you find it surprising that she wouldn’t tell you that she had made a mistake?  And that she had behaved inappropriately?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection

 

Judge:  Sustained

 

CF:  Thank you judge.

 

CF:  Moving on to Doctor X… did you speak to Doctor X as part of your work?  And you indicate in your report that Doctor X said, “Both the mother and the father take good care of Chris, physically.”  Isn’t that true?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And then Doctor X remarks Chris may have had something in his pockets?

 

DM:  Doctor X also said “I am also concerned about the emotional effects upon Chris of the fathers continuing litigation.  The dad is….”

 

CF:  Move to strike as non-responsive….

 

Judge:  You have to answer the question as poised.

 

CF:  So Doctor X indicated to you that maybe Chris has something in his pockets, which elevated his weight back in September 2009?

 

DM:  He said that he had made an offhanded remark to that effect.  Yes.

 

CF:  But then if you look at the letter Doctor X provided to the Board of Medicine…  he says exactly the opposite doesn’t he?

 

DM:  I don’t have that in front of me.  I don’t know.

 

CF:  Well he indicates that I don’t recall making a statement as alleged by father that Chris had rocks in his pockets…. Did you review the letter (Doctor X letter to the Board of Medicine) that you referenced in your report?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   No? 

 

CF:   And were you aware or did you ask Doctor X if he was aware of any fainting spells?  For Chris?

 

DM:  Umm. No.  I asked him about Chris’ general health, and he told me.  That it was good.

 

CF:  And he also said both parents took good care of him?

 

DM:  That’s what he said.

 

CF:  And as far as you know did Doctor X ever file a case, as a mandated reporter, involving Chris?

 

DM:  I don’t know that he did.  No.

 

CF:  How about Doctor Y?  Do you know if she did?

 

DM:  I don’t know that she did.  No.

 

CF:  Did you ever have a conversation with Chris about fainting spells?

 

DM:  No.

CF:  Did you ever talk to him about his dizziness?

 

DM:  No specifically.

 

CF:  When you say “not specifically,” did you talk to him about something related to his dizziness?

 

DM:  Said sometime he got hungry.  But didn’t use the word “dizzy.”

 

CF:  Did Chris share with you that on the days he fainted the events related to his fainting?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Do you know where he fainted?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did father ever tell you where he fainted?

 

DM:  He might have, but I don’t remember.

 

CF:  Lets shift gears, Doctor Mephisto…. To Chris’s educational situation… do you think that Chris academic performance is relevant to his overall wellbeing?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you have an opportunity to review his academic reports?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What period of time were you provided reports?

 

DM:  Ummm.  I believe it was three years.

 

CF:  What grade is Chris going to be in for next year?

 

DM:  Sixth

 

CF:  Did you talk with father over concerns about Chris’ work at school?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Were you aware that Chris had an Individual Education Plan (IEP)?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Do you know the basis for his IEP?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What is the basis for his IEP?

 

DM:  My understanding is Chris had an IEP as a result of his mother and teachers concerns when he was younger about his difficulties with attention, paying attention in class, being able to pay attention to his studies.  And also in terms of some of his social development, his awareness of his affect on other children, children in groups, and being comfortable with other children.  Umm. And so forth.

 

CF:  Do you know when this IEP was first implemented?

 

DM:  Think it was in the third grade 

 

(Note to readers:  Chris was introduced to the IEP in the first grade)

 

CF:  Where you aware father opposed the IEP for Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Were you aware he was required to sign off on it or he would be precluded from participating in any school meetings?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection

 

Judge:  Sustained

 

CF:  Did father share with you that he ultimately signed off on the IEP process?

 

DM:  I think he did.  Yes.

 

CF:  And did he tell you if he hadn’t signed off he would be precluded from participating in

any IEP meetings?

 

DM:  He might have.  I don’t recall that.

 

CF:  Did you talk with father at all about his concerns over Chris being tested repeatedly?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And does that show up anywhere in your report?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you know that the last IEP meeting also involved the parenting coordinator, Ms. Faust?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And were you aware that Chris’ IEP was terminated in spring 2010?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you know at that point that father still was opposed to the IEP?

 

DM:  Umm… Yes.

 

CF:  What about Chris’ current development?  Have you had an opportunity to look at any scores on the MCASS test?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What do you know about that?

 

DM:  I don’t’ have his MCASS scores in front of me but my memory is that he had done well.

 

CF:  Were you aware at some point that Ms. Jane would change her focus on Chris’ educational challenges and begin to categorize her son as “gifted?”   Despite years of an IEP?

 

DM:  (Long silence) Could you please repeat that?

 

CF:  (Repeats)

 

DM:  Yes, I believe I heard that.

 

CF:  And were you aware of her having Chris take a placement test for a private school?

 

DM:  (Long silence)  I think the answer to that is yes.

 

CF:  Were you aware of father’s position about Chris going to a private school?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   What did he say to you?

 

DM:  As I recall he didn’t want it, or something to that effect.

 

CF:  Have you reviewed all the court documents that you reference in your report?

 

DM:   Yes.

 

CF:  Are you aware that in her early court pleadings Jane takes all responsibility for Chris’ academic success?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection

 

Judge:  Sustained

 

CF:  Have you had an opportunity Doctor Mephisto to look at Chris midterm report 2010 to

2011 academic year?

 

DM:  Yes, I believe I did.

 

CF:  Were you aware that his records showed up as concerning in almost every category?

 

DM:  Every academic category?

 

CF:  Yes.

 

DM:  Ummm.  Don’t believe they were concerning in every academic category.

 

CF:  And were you aware that he missed 31 homework assignments?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  You talked with his teacher?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you ask Ms. Faust at any time why her son, and she’s a teacher, had missed 31 homework assignments?

 

DM:  I believe I heard from both parents that there were either missed homework assignments when Chris was going from home to home, or that they were turned in late….uhhh….by a few hours or didn’t show up on time, or something that the cases had been done but not turned in.  So he was getting negative credit, penalized.

 

CF:  On 31 different occasions?

 

DM:  Uh, yeah, my understanding both parents were trying to get his homework in on time.

 

CF:  Did you talk specifically with father about the work he did with Chris’s homework?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And how many nights a week would Chris being doing homework with his dad, versus his mom?

 

DM:  Well my understanding is he did homework with his dad, during the week when he visited with his dad.

 

CF:  How many nights a week is he visiting with his dad?

 

DM:  One night.

 

CF:  Getting back to his current teacher…  she indicated that Chris had a hard time staying focused and completing his work?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And had Chris indicated to you that his lack of focus was attributable to his mother?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection.

 

Judge:  Overruled.

 

DM:  I’m just reviewing what I wrote here.  (Long pause.)

 

CF:  Did you talk to Chris specifically about a lack of focus at school?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   And did you talk to father specifically about Chris lack of focus at school?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And didn’t father tell you that Chris attributed it to his mom?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection!

 

Judge:  You can have that.

 

CF:  So you talked specifically with father about Chris’s lack of focus on school didn’t you?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did father share with you what he knew from his conversations with Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What did father tell you?

 

DM:  Father said it was the other children’s fault.

 

(Author’s note: Chris attributed his lack of concentration to problems in his mother’s home, which is what I conveyed to Doctor Mephisto.)

 

CF:  That’s what father told you?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  You never talked with Chris about it?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk with Chris about missing over 31 homework assignments?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk with his teacher over missing 31 homework assignments?

DM:  Yes.  Like I said.  I think I answered that one already.

 

CF:   Did the teacher give you any specific areas of concern in Chris’ behavior and

performance that are not reflected in your report?

 

DM:  No, I think I tried to capture what she said.

 

CF:  One of the things she said is Chris has no friendships, right?

 

DM:  I don’t think she said he had no friendships.

 

CF:  Page 14, pier relationship section…. Read for us…

 

DM:  Reading:  Teacher reports he has no friendships, with one love/hate relationship.  What she was saying was that nobody really comes to him, not that he doesn’t have friends.

 

CF:  This teacher would have the greatest amount of daily contract with Chris… as his primary teacher… correct?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  How about his teacher’s relationship with father?  Did you ask her if she met with father?

 

DM:  Umm… I don’t think I asked her specifically.

 

CF:  Did you ask her if father volunteered in the classroom?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask her anything about Chris’ weight loss?

 

DM: No.

 

CF:  Did you ask her anything about Chris’ fainting spells?

 

DM: No.

 

CF:  Did you ask her about his overall health?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask her if Chris had ever passed out in class?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask her about Chris’ emotional state during the school day?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  Did you ask her whether or not Chris was always appropriately dressed for the weather?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Were you aware that there was a lot of time spent by these parents with the parenting coordinator concerning whether or not Chris was wearing appropriate winter coat?

 

DM:  I know that has been a conversation.  Yes.

 

CF:  So you knew it was a concern for father?

 

DM:  Yes.  Yes.

 

CF:  It was important enough that the parenting coordinator entered a recommendation that

Chris have an appropriate winter coat at all times.

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  And yet, you did not ask the teacher about that?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask the teacher about her observations of Chris in the presence of his dad?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   Did you ask the teacher about her observations of Chris in the presence of his mom?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you ask the teacher if she had ever filed a DCF report on behalf of Chris?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  In addition to the teacher, you also spoke with the school principal?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And did she confirm that there had been a series of missing homework assignments?

 

DM:   Um, I have to check my report.

 

CF:  It’s on page 15.

 

DM:  Yes, she references 15 missing homework assignments.

 

CF:  What else did she say about the homework assignments?

 

DM:  Um, said it was a big concern for dad.

 

CF:   Did she say it was a big concern for mom?

 

DM:  She said what I wrote.

 

CF:  She also said she had observations about Chris socially?

 

DM:  (Reading)  “She sees Chris just like any other fifth grade kid… he adjusts well.   He’s a capable student.”

 

CF:   So does that perception about Chris being socially adjusted, socially like any other kid and adjusting well, mesh with what his teacher said – that Chris has no friends?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you also talk with the principal about Chris’ meals and eating at school?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  And she indicated that she at lunch with him every single day?  And saw that he ate his lunch every single day?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  What did she say?

 

DM:  She said she’s in the lunchroom, but she doesn’t eat lunch with him. 

 

CF:  But she goes onto say he eats the whole meal with no issues?

 

DM:  Right.

 

CF:  Did she tell you that she ate lunch at his table every single day?

 

DM:  ????

 

CF:  Did she talk to you about father’s participation at any teacher parent conferences?

 

DM:  Trying to think if it was a private conversation or a conference with all three of them.  I can’t really remember.

 

CF:   So you don’t remember asking specifically how well either parent was about making meetings and keeping meetings?

 

DM:  Not specifically.

 

CF:  Did the principal talk to you all about parenting coordinator, Ms. Faust, coming to school to talk with Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF: What did she say about that?

 

DM:   I believe she had said attorney Ms. Faust had come to school.  She was aware that attorney Ms. Faust had come to school.

 

CF:  Did she make any observation about whether or not Chris liked meeting with attorney

Ms. Faust at the school?

 

DM:  My memory is that she thought Chris did not like it.

 

CF:  Actually you don’t have to count on your memory; you can go by your report.  Doesn’t it say Chris doesn’t like being called out at school?

 

DM:  That sounds right.  I was just looking for that sentence.  The answer is “yes.”

 

Jane’s Attorney:  I object to the characterization that Chris does not like the parenting coordinator.

 

Judge:  I’ll allow it.

 

CF:  Did you talk to the principal overall about Chris’ overall health?

 

DM:  Not specifically no.

 

CF:  Did she share awareness with you about Chris’ hands?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did she share awareness with you about Chris being dizzy?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  About Chris fainting.

 

DM:  Nope.

 

CF:  About Chris’ weight loss?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk to her at all about whether or not Chris was appropriately dressed?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  And recognizing that there was a real disconnect between what the fifth grade teacher and the principal said about Chris, did you go back and follow up with her for any clarification?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did the principal give you any observations about Chris in the presence of his father?

 

DM:  Not that I recall.

 

CF:  And how about in the presence of his mom?

 

DM:  No, I don’t’ remember.

 

CF:  So despite all that, despite all the questions you did not ask, you indicated in your report Doctor Mephisto, father exaggerated about Chris’ academic experience?

 

DM:  Um…can you reference that for me please?

 

CF:  From page eighteen…   I’ll withdraw that question for now.

 

DM:  You investigated Ms. Jane as part of your investigation as well, didn’t you?

 

CF:  Yes.

 

DM:  And as part of that interview you included everything that she told you about her relationship with the father?

 

CF:  Well, I include what I consider to be the relevant material, yes.

 

DM:  And if your opinion the relevant material included allegations made about him from eleven years ago?

 

CF:  Well.  Yes.

 

DM:  Were you aware that she attempted to obtain a restraining order against father that was

not continued against him?

 

Jane’s attorney:  Objection.

 

Judge:  Repeat the question.

 

CF:  Repeats.

 

DM:  Yes. I am.

 

CF:  And are you aware that restraining order was suspended.

 

DM:  Um…… no.

 

CF:  How many times during the course of your investigation did you have the opportunity to observe Chris with his dad?

 

DM:  How many times?   I think two occasions at my office in Boston, and once at my home visit.  Two visits or three to my office, I would have to check.  (Long pause.)   Yes, two times at my office, and the home visit.

 

(Author’s note: Dr. Mephisto only saw Chris and I together twice… once at home, and once at his office – for a visit that I had to insist upon.)

 

CF:   Two times in your office with dad, or two times with….

 

DM:  Yes, yes.

 

CF:  Are you sure about that?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  I have in your report that you met with father and son on May 19^th for two hours.

 

DM:  May 19^th….

 

CF:  Where’s the second indication of a meeting with father and son?

 

DM:  No, one visit.

 

CF:  Okay.

 

DM:  May 19^th, one visit… spent some time together, than with one, and than the other.

 

CF:  Another meeting on March 19^th…. I don’t’ see any other indications of a meeting with you and father and son?  Did I overlook something?

 

DM:  Ummmmmmmmmm……………(long pause)…. No, I don’t see it either.  I might be wrong about that.

 

CF:  Did Chris appear comfortable with his dad?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Was he affectionate?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did he engage with his dad?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did he make eye contact with his father?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did he smile and laugh with his dad?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:   Did Chris at anytime appear anxious about being around his father?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did Chris cry at all during the meetings you had with his father?

 

DM:  Not when his father was there.   No.

 

CF:  Did he appear upset around his father?

 

DM:  Not specifically.  No.

 

CF:  Did he seem fearful?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Why didn’t you include any of that information in your report Doctor Mephisto?

 

DM:  I thought I did, when I referenced the home visit.

 

LONG PAUSE….

 

CF:  You indicated when you met with Chris that he was crying…. Do you know what he was crying about?

 

DM:  Not specifically. No.

 

CF:  And you first met with Chris in his office?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Who brought him to that appointment, Doctor Mephisto?

 

DM:  His mother brought him.

 

CF:  Did you outline your role to Chris at that time?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What did you say?

 

DM:  Basically, the Lamb Warning.

 

(The rules covering disclosure of information generated by court-ordered clinical evaluations in Massachusetts require that patients be warned that the patient-psychotherapist privilege does not apply to the evaluation interview. The nature of the warning required (“the Lamb warning”) is not perfectly clear and is especially uncertain when those being warned are children and families. Comparing the Lamb warning to the Miranda warning offers some insight but is not conclusive. To reach conclusions regarding the type and degree of procedural protections for children required by the Lamb warning, it is necessary to analyze the stakes, interests, and capacities involved for children in juvenile court. This analysis suggests that in most situations a relatively informal procedure is sufficient to provide the required warning. However, there are some exceptional circumstances in which more formal and thorough warnings should be required. These include juvenile transfer hearings and some situations involving child abuse and neglect.)

 

CF:  How did you explain that to an eleven-year old boy?

 

DM:  I let him know who I was.  Told him I worked for the court.  Told him what he told me I would report to the judge.

 

And he said don’t tell my mom.  I don’t want her to know.

And I said, I have to tell the judge whatever you tell me.

 

CF:   And he specifically said don’t tell my mom what I say?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  So do you think that might have carried over to later meeting when he refused to talk to you?

 

DM:  I don’t necessarily think so.  No.

 

CF:  What was another thing Chris said to you during that first meeting that you referenced in your report?

 

DM:  That he wanted to live with his dad.

 

 

CF:  In fact in your report you say that Chris said that to you repeatedly…. Didn’t you?

 

DM:  He said it several times.  Yes.

 

CF:  You indicate that he did not have a lot of emotion in his voice?

 

DM:  I think I used the word robotic.

 

CF:  Did you find that Chris had a lot of emotion in his voice when he talked about other things with you?

 

DM:  Ummm….. Yes.

 

CF:  Did you include within your report specifics that brought on emotion with Chris, in your conversations?

 

DM:  Um…trips, vacations, he went to the Superbowl with his father.  He went to Texas… he enjoyed that.  There was emotion.

 

CF:  What emotions did you see when he talked about those kinds of trips with his dad?

 

DM:  Umm…. He laughed, sometimes embarrassedly.  There’s a picture on this wall with two cheerleaders from the football game.  He said his dad liked the cheerleaders so he took the picture.  He giggled.

 

CF:  Was there other things that Chris described where he showed a lot of emotion?

 

DM:  No.  I never saw a lot of emotion with Chris.

 

CF:  Did Chris share with you that one of his parents yelled more than the other?

 

DM:  Not like that… no.

 

CF:  Did Chris tell you that his mother yelled at him?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did Chris ever say that his father ever yelled at him?

 

DM:  Nope.

 

CF:  Did Chris say that his mother was mean?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did Chris ever say that his father was mean?

 

DM:  Nope.

 

CF:  Did Chris talk to you about his mother being rough with the dog?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did Chris ever make those kind of statements about his father?

 

DM:  Nope.

 

CF:  Did Chris ever talk to you about his mother doing anything with the bunny?

 

Jane’s attorney: Objection, asked and answered.

 

Judge: Sustained.

 

CF:  I’ll withdraw judge.

 

CF:  You indicted that Chris said to you, “please don’t tell my mother about this.”  What kinds of things did he not want you to tell his mother about?

 

DM:  That he said he did want to live with his dad.

 

CF:  Is there anything else?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  And did Chris ask you not to tell anything he shared with you to his father?

 

DM:  No.

 

Judge:  Five minute warning.  Break to hear another matter.

 

CF:    Doctor at any point did you receive a letter from Chris during your investigation?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  When did you receive that?

 

DM:  I don’t recall the date?

 

CF:  Do you recall after you had met with his dad or with his mom?

 

DM:  I can’t tell you specifically.

 

CF:  What did the note say?

 

DM:  As I recall… it said, I want to live with my dad.  And this is a paraphrase, I am writing this of my own free will.  Something like that.

 

CF:   Did you show the note to Jane?

 

DM:  I don’t think I did.  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk about the note to Chris at the next interview?

 

DM:  I think I got it after my last meeting with him?

 

Judge:  With you last meeting with whom?

 

DM:  Chris.

 

Jane’s Attorney:  The GAL/DM received this letter by way of his father.

 

CF:  And could you tell by looking at the note whether or not it was physically forced upon Chris?

 

DM:   I don’t know what physically forced writing would look like in an eleven year old child, so I couldn’t answer that.

 

CF:  When you met with Chris in each parent’s home… did you find each home was appropriately furnished?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did each parent have a separate room for Chris?

 

DM:  Yes. 

 

CF:  Did the rooms contain things that would be important to Chris?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did Chris appear comfortable at his fathers?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  What kinds of things did you observe in the house that belonged to Chris?

 

CF:  Did you meet privately with Chris at his father’s home?  What did he say?

 

DM:  Said he wanted to live with his dad.

 

CF:  Did he say it with more or less emotion?

 

DM:  Pretty much the same.

 

CF:  Did you ask him follow up questions about why he wanted to live with his dad?

 

DM:   Of course.

 

CF:  What kinds of questions did you ask him?

 

DM:  I said why?

 

CF:  What did he tell you?

 

DM:  He said a lot of reasons.  Too many to tell you.  Can you give me one, I said.  And

that’s when he told me his mom is mean and yells too much.

 

CF:  Did he say that you could share this with his therapist?

 

DM:  He did say to me… yes, you can talk to the therapist.

 

CF:  In your report you characterize the pictures at his mom’s house as pleasant, but you didn’t describe the pictures at the fathers the same way.  Can you say why?

 

DM:  The pictures were different in Chris’ room.

 

CF: Can you identify in what you call a “pleasant picture.”

 

DM:  Yes, there were landscapes scenes.  Nothing I would note as out of the ordinary. 

 

CF:   Did you talk with Chris about those pictures at his mom’s house?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you talk to Chris about the pictures at his father’s house?

 

DM:  Well, I was struck by the picture I saw on page ten. 

 

CF:  After his you visit with Chris in his bedroom – did you go anywhere else with Chris at your meeting at Chris’ house.

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  At the meeting at his mom’s house… did you go anywhere besides the house?

 

DM:  Yes. 

 

CF:  Where did you go?

 

DM:  Chris decided he wanted to show me the neighborhood.

 

CF:  Did you get to speak with Chris about his wishes while at his mothers.

 

DM:  Not while outside but within the home… yes.

 

CF:  Did he turn his back from you to avoid eye contact?

 

DM:  He did.

 

CF:  You indicate that he really didn’t want to talk about much of anything, did he?

 

DM:   Correct.

 

CF:  At that point did Chris turn on the TV to avoid talking to you altogether?

 

DM:  That’s what I mentioned here, yes.

 

CF:  Did Jane intervene and call down to Chris to turn off the TV?

 

DM:  Yes.  She did.

 

CF:   You note in you visit to Jane’s she never once raised her voice.

 

DM:  That’s not what I said, I said the only time she raised her voice was to call down to Chris to turn off the TV.

 

CF:  Did you expect Jane to yell at Chris while you were visiting their home?

 

DM:  No… I didn’t expect one way or the other.

 

CF:  It wouldn’t put her best foot forward, if she was shouting while the GAL was visiting would it?

 

DM:  That’s not up to me to decide.

 

CF:  Then you visited with Chris a third time at your office did he make any comments about where he wanted to live?

 

DM:  When I saw him… his statements were I want to live with my dad.

 

CF:  Did he ever say to you that he wanted to live with his mom?

 

DM:   No… like I said he wants to live with his …. He does live with his mom.

 

CF:  Did he say he wanted to stay with his mom?

 

DM:  Not specifically, but when I asked when would he see his mom… he wasn’t real clear about that.  He said he would see her, a lot, but didn’t say he wanted to live or not live with her.

 

But he did say I want to live with my dad.

 

CF:  Did he report that he wanted to spend more time with his dad, whether or not he lived with him?

 

DM:  I think he might have.

 

CF:  What was the one consistent thing that Chris said throughout your investigation?

 

DM:  He wasn’t consistent… in his last meeting he started interviewing me.  He made it real clear he wasn’t interested in engaging.

 

CF:  How many times during your investigation did he make it clear to you that he wanted to live with his father?

 

DM:  Probably four or five.

 

CF:  In your professional opinion Doctor, could it be that Chris is unemotional because no one is listening to what he is saying?

 

DM:  In my opinion – No.

 

CF:  In your professional opinion do you think Chris stop making professional disclosures to you when you made it clear that everything he said to you would be shared with his mother?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  That’s not possible?

 

DM:  Is it possible?  It’s possible but not probable.

 

CF:  Did you at anytime specifically instruct Jane with Chris to go to the wood by father’s house?

 

DM:  NO!

 

CF:  In your findings you note that there is emotional and psychological pressure on Chris… and you called that pressure enormous?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  But you didn’t say in your findings that all that pressure was caused by father did you?

 

DM:  I didn’t say that, no.

 

CF:  And you said that Chris has to negotiate his own development… didn’t you?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  But that’s not specific to Chris….. That’s for all children his age?

 

DM:  Correct.  I also add that he has the added pressure.

 

CF:  You also mention that he has emotional and social challenges but those aren’t new… they go way back, and are a continuing challenge?  Is that correct?

 

DM:  I agree.

 

CF:  Did you perform any psychological testing with Chris?

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:  Did you make any official determination as to what his emotional intelligence is at this point.

 

DM:  No.

 

CF:   You state Chris faces the difficult world of a custody dispute?  Did you have any specific conversations with Chris about what his parents were fighting over?

 

DM:  I might have in my early contact with him…about they were fighting over where he might live. 

 

CF:  How did he react?

 

DM:  I think that might have been one of the times when he said I want to live with my dad.

 

CF:  You also reference something called significant reality testing?  Can you explain what that means?

 

DM:  To me “reality testing” means Chris’ ability to determine what is real and what is not real, and what’s happening and what’s not happening?  And how much of what he believes is coming from himself or other sources? 

 

CF:  And would that kind of analysis be something that the therapist would do for Chris as well?

 

DM:  Ultimately… yes.

 

CF:  But you never talked to the therapist about reality testing?

 

DM:  No, I did… I did.

 

CF:  But you make no mention about it in the report.

 

DM: The therapist had not met enough times with Chris… he said Chris is very reticent with him and has a hard time opening up and telling what was on his mind.

 

CF:  In your interview with Jane, did she ever say she would support Chris’ requests to live with his father?

 

DM:  I don’t believe that came up… no.

 

CF:  Did Ms. Jane ever say she would encourage Chris to have a relationship with his dad?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did Jane ever say she’s agreed to agree to Chris’ request for additional time with his dad?

 

DM:  I do remember Jane saying that she desired (for Chris) to have a continuing relationship with his dad.

 

CF:  Are you aware of vacations between father and son, she specifically request that their time be cut short… so she could have more time with Chris?

 

DM:  I was aware of a day for family function.

 

CF:  Are you aware that a lot of time and money was spent with the parenting coordinator not only so that Chris could travel to Texas with dad to see the Superbowl, but also to see family members on his dad’s side?

 

DM:  I am aware of a long conversation and trying to figure out a way to make it work for Chris.

 

CF:  In your report you say many, many positive things about Chris relationship with his father… don’t you?

 

DM:  I’m sure I do.

 

CF:  You state that Chris and his dad have a strong bond?  And that they definitely have a different relationship then that which he shares with his mom?

 

DM:  Correct.

 

CF:  You indicate two different parenting styles… could you indicate you observations about father’s parenting style?

 

DM:  I think father’s parenting style is permissive.  He doesn’t see Chris that often, so they spend a lot of play time together.   They watch movies together.  They ride their bikes together.  They do physical activities.  In terms of style, he’s very devoted to making sure Chris gets what he wants.  There’s not much competition for dad’s attention when Chris is there.  I think father is very attached to Chris; Chris is very attached to his father.  My concern is not the style.  My concern is the father’s judgment.

 

CF:  In terms of all those things, you didn’t say any of that in your report.

 

DM:  No, I say those things in my report…. There are a lot of positive statements.

 

CF:  Do you sense that Chris is feeling pressure to choose between his parents?

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Do you feel its important Doctor Mephisto for father to be a part of Chris’ life?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Are you aware that Ms. Jane is requesting sole legal and sole physical custody be placed with her?

 

DM:  I heard that.  Yes.

 

CF:  Are you aware that she is looking to suspend or supervise his time with his father?

 

DM:  Yes.

 

CF:  Did you feel as a result of your investigation that there was anything that should have been reported to the department of children and families?

 

Judge:  We’ll call the attorney’s tomorrow to figure out the timing on Friday, as of right now we are starting at 8:30.   We’ll talk to you tomorrow but we are suspending here for today.

 

Note to readers:  The trial dates that were scheduled for the 28^th and 29^th of July 2011 were cancelled. 

 

Out of desperation, and because the mother reported Chris as suicidal on August 10^th – while Chris was living under his mother’s care, and due to the poor treatment received by Chris and me by the court’s surrogate  – Ms. Faust of Bay Meadows Mediation – the father began adding entries to a blog, previously described.   As a result of the blog’s discovery, visitation was suspended for the duration of the trial, and pending a ruling by the court.  I approached the Massachusetts Probate Courts three times with the full knowledge and support of my attorney – approaching three different judges – in the month of September 2011 requesting an emergency hearing to resume visitation.  The courts denied the father an audience three different times, visitation was not restored, and the trial, which started in late July, was not resumed until late September.

 

The trial would ultimately span the months of July, August, September and October.

To the best of my knowledge, Doctor Mephisto is still operating as guardian ad litem, and a fully licensed psychologist, to this very day.

---