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.

 

 

---