THIRTEENTH DIVISION

HAL RICHARDSON )
PETITIONER, )
VS. ) Case No. : 96-D-217
)
CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI )
RESPONDENT. )

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

PROCEEDINGS had before the Honorable David B.

Debenham, Judge of Division 13 of the District Court of Shawnee

th
County, Kansas, at Topeka, Kansas on the 16 day of December,

2008.

APPEARANCES:

The Petitioner, Mr. Hal Richardson, appears in person and by

and through counsel, Don Hoffman. 112 West th Street, Topeka

Kansas 66603.

The Respondent, Ms. Dombroski, appears in person and pro

se, 3120 SE Minnesota, Topeka, Kansas 66605.

The minor child appears not but through the Guardian ad

Litem, Jill Dykes.

matter of. the marriage of. ,Hal Richardson and Claudine Dombroski,

96-D-217.

Appearances for the Court, please.

MS. DYKES: May it please the Court, the minor child appears

not, but by and through, Guardian ad Litem, Jill Dykes.

MR. HOFFMAN: Hal Richardson, the natural father, appears in

person and with his lawyer, Don Hoffman.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Claudine Dombroski appears pro se, the

biological mother.

THE COURT: I received, I think, three reports from the

Odyssey Group. Ms. Dykes, did you give those to me?

MS. DYKES: Your Honor, I received a copy of that and I

provided those to the Court from Ms. Haney. She wasn't sure who

the Court would want to distribute those to, but I do have a copy of

them.

THE COURT: Thank you. I do. Ms. Dombroski, Mr.

Hoffman, I will give you each a copy of this.

The Court has this set. This is on Ms. Dombroski's Emergency

Motion for Orders of Justice. I think the basis is that she wishes, you

-----~- -~~-~ .....- -...- - ..... -~.- .....­ .. ~

 Ms. Dombroski?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You need to stand up, ma'am.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed?

MS. DOMBROSKI: As best as I can.

THE COURT: Mr. Hoffman, are you ready?

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, your Honor, we are present and ready.

THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Dykes, you're present and ready I

.(\.
to go?

MS. DYKES: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Dombroski, it's your motion, call

your first witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: I'll call Dr. Rodeheffer, please.

THE COURT: Ma'am, do you have a cell phone on -- on

your ear?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Oh-­

THE COURT: There are no cell phones, no cameras

allowed in the courtroom.

 Dr. Rodeheffer.

THE COURT: Sir, would you come on up. Can you give

me your first name?

DR. RODEHEFFER: David.

THE COURT: And spelling of your last name.

DR. RODEHEFFER: R-O-D-E-H-E-F-F-E-R.

(THEREUPON,

DAVID RODEHEFFER.

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been first

I duly sworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE COURT: Okay. If you would have a seat. This is a

recording division, so that microphone does not amplify your voice, it

just records your voice.

MR. RODEHEFFER: Okay.

THE COURT: So, you'll need to keep your voice up for

us, sir. Thank you.

MR. RODEHEFFER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski. Go ahead.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

-- - - - - - - - - - - - _ _-_ ... ... _--­

 Q. Dr. Rodeheffer, I am in no contact except for supervised

visitation as a result of an ex parle order that was signed by Judge

Bruns on a case manager's recommendation February 3, 2004. With

that, they based it on your - the whole merit of the ex parle order is

based on what my daughter allegedly told you about her - about

whatever danger that I may be to my daughter. In the records that I

have, they don't coincide with the dates. You didn't see her until the

same week after. So I'm just a bit curious as to what it is, what

records you have the reports that I don't have, obviously, and why

you think I'm a danger and we are now five years later.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, one question at a time,

please.

MS. DOMBROSKI: I've never done this before, imagine that.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, I will not tolerate that

attitude. Do you understand me?

MS. DOMBROSKI: You know -­

THE COURT: Do you understand me?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Your Honor, I completely understand.

THE COURT: Now, what I said was one question at a

 MS. DOMBROSKI: One question at a time, I will do my very

best. Please-­

THE COURT: You-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: --be patient with me.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, you are acting as your

own attorney. You are held to the same standard. What I've told you ....

MS. DOMBROSKI: If I were held to the-­

THE COURT: -listen-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: -- same standard, we wouldn't be here

today.

THE COURT: Listen, Ms. Dombroski, one question at a

time. It's very simple. Ask your question.

Q. (by Ms. Dombroski) Dr. Rodeheffer, let me make it. Okay, we got

to make it. Let's see, real small minded. Why five years ago, what

was it? Just what was it?

A. I'm not sure what your question is.

Q. What did-- my-- what information do you have other than the

fact what we have in the court documents that state nothing about

her mother being a threat to her daughter?

 Q. Do you have any documentation on you, with you, that

you can provide to the court, that shows that I'm a threat to my

daughter?

A. Ijust have my clinical file.

Q. Well, may we see it, please?

A. I don't know.

Q. '" don't know." Well, okay. Well, you know what? I want to

see it, because that's-­

A. I just need clarification from the court. It's a clinical file. I

I don't know what I can release or can't release, and I don't know what

permission I need to release.

Q. You know, well-­

THE COURT: Wait a second, wait. The clinical file was

between you and the patient?

MR. RODEHEFFER: Yes.

THE COURT: That patient is who?

MR. RODEHEFFER: The daughter, Ricki.

THE COURT: I'm not allowing, I'm not ordering that to be

released.
 THE COURT: Then go ahead with your question.

Q. (By Ms .. Dombroski) Okay. This is where we get really

messed up, and I'm going to lay this down. This is what we call

therapeutic jurisprudence, where we are taking -- we have somebody

who I cannot cross-examine. Who's making decisions. Are you a

doctor-­

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski.

MS. DOMBROSKI: --are you a doctor?

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, you don't get to cross­

examine, this is your witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Are you-no. These-

THE COURT: This your witness you called. You based it

on your Emergency Motion for Orders of Justice.

MS. DOMBROSKI: You know, this is fine.

THE COURT: Just a second. It appears that you're

asking that the parenting time be enlarged. So the issue is, what

material change has taken place that would authorize the Court to do

that? That's the issue in this case. So that's what your questions

need to be directed to.

 to do that considering five years ago--never.
THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you understand?

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) Dr. Rodeheffer, when was the last time

you saw my daughter?

A. It would be a year ago October--I'm sorry, September 23,

of 'OT

Q. Of '07, where was that at?

A. The safe visit.

Q. How long had it been before then that you had seen my

daughter?

A. I saw her prior to that on July 31st,of '07.

Q. How many times total have you seen Ricki?

A. Oh, I would have to count them up. Let's see, looks like

12.

Q. Twelve. That was, I have eight of them, of your records.

Three prior to the February 3, 2004, order suspending my parenting

time, and then the rest were after that. Can you explain the

difference? Okay.

What's your opinion, what makes you an expert, Dr.

------ ....... -.~-- - - ... - ~-.- ........- ...... ~ - - -------

 A. I don't know that I've been qualified as an expert at this

point

Q. But you--but the court made a decision that changed

lives.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, what's your question?

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) What is your background, to make this

decision? What is your experience to make this decision?

A. Which decision are you talking about?

Q. To keep Ricki from her mother.

A. 1don't know that that was my decision. 1believe that was

the Court's decision, not mine.

Q. Okay. Based on your whatever you said to the Courts,

which I'm not-- see, this is really hard for me, because everybody in

here knows what he said to the Courts except for me.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, we're not going to

relitigate prior orders in this case. You filed a motion that you want to

enlarge your parenting time, so the question is, the issue is what

material change has taken place. We're not going to relitigate what's

taken place in the past.

- - - - ....... _ - - - _ ......... _­
case simple, Right now. Really simple right now.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you understand my

question?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Yes, I do. I want to say something though

because I don't want to go through this redundant circus anymore. I

really don't. At this point, it's past the point of no return and it really

doesn't matter. I had a friend that just died from doing shoveling. So

I'm going to say to everybody that ifs fine to everybody that came in

here.

Simply put, I would like to have time with my daughter again.

And you know what? I'm not going to stop. And every time we come

in here, you know, you don't want to relitigate, she wants to send stuff

in, then you're asking me questions, he hasn't seen her, nobody has

seen her. This is crazy.

THE COURT: Do you have a question of the doctor?

MS. DOMBROSKI: All your stuff is going up online. That's alii

have to say, I will expose you. So I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross, Mr. Hoffman.

MS. DYKES: I would just have a question with regard to that

 THE COURT: We'll get to that.

MS. DYKES: There are orders previously that she not put

anything that has to do with Ricki and if she's contemplating putting

therapeutic records that she has online regarding my client, I would

object to that and ask the Court to order her not to do that.

THE COURT: That would be the order of the Court. You

are not authorized and you can not place online, on the internet, on

your website, on your face page, face page, whatever you have, on

your website, you cannot put any therapeutic records, medical

records, any records pertaining to your daughter on that web site.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Therapeutic-

THE COURT: Do you understand?

MS. DOMBROSKI: No, I don't, because I understand the First

Amendment Right and the freedom of speech and -­

THE COURT: No.

MS. DOMBROSKI: --Constitutional Rights without due

process-­

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, I'm not going to argue with

r, you.
 THE COURT: That is an order of the Court.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Yes, It's an order of the Court to continue

abuse-­

THE COURT: Now, Ms. Dykes, do you have any cross

examination?

MS. DYKES: None, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Hoffman?

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, I have no questions of Dr.

Rodeheffer.

THE COURT: Doctor, you are excused. Thank you for

appearing today.

Ms. Dombroski, do you have additional witnesses?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Yes, I would like to ask Jill Dykes what her

best interest of the child is.

MS. DYKES: Your Honor, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

100, I cannot be called as a witness to testify.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay. See where this is going?

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you have an additional

witness that you want to call? You've subpoenaed in a number of

- - - - -..... - - -..... -~ ...-~ - - - - - - . - - ­..... --~-----~.

 MS. DOMBROSKI: Dr. Albott, please.

(THEREUPON,

DR. ALBOTT,

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been first duly

sworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE COURT: Please have a seat, Doctor, and as I

mentioned to the prior witness, this is a recording, but it doesn't

amplify your voice. Please keep'your voice up.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. DOMBROSKI:

Q. Hi.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Dr. Albott, it's been a few years or more and we've seen

you a couple of times through order of joint co-parenting. and I am

basically wanting to see my daughter, still. Even though we haven't

seen you for, I don't know how long it's been.

A. Since March 15, 2004.

Q. 2004. During the times prior to that was I cooperative with

(--"\ you? Did you see me as to be a threat? In fact, your report to

- - - - - - - - .... -.~~- .....- -....- -...- - ......- - - .-~- ......- - -..... ~--- ..... ~
 just ask you for the record again. I'm sorry. Do you see me as a

threat to my daughter?

A. I think my reports have indicated in the past that I saw the

conflict between you and the biological father as being so intense as

to have an adverse impact on your daughter.

Q. Correct. But I am not. But in your opinion other than that,

that is the only reason that-­

A. I have no other information that I could form an opinion

other than the interactions I saw between you and the biological

father of your child.

Q. Can I ask you a question about a perpetrator/victim

scenario? Is it typical for a victim who has suffered trauma to react in

what types of ways? As a psychiatrist, psychologist, you would

probably understand that.

A. I don't think there's any standard mode of people acting

like a victim. I think that covers an awfully wide range of behaviors.

Q. Okay. Say a victim of domestic violence was forced to sit

in the same room with the same person who perpetrated extreme

violence against her, there would -- would that be a natural reaction

----~ ........ -~--- ... - .......

~--~
 A. Not necessarily. One could show fear, one could show

withdrawal, one could show quietness, one could show -- there's

again a wide range of behaviors, and there's not one specific that I

would assign to any person like that.

Q. Okay. So other than just the conflict between her father

and I, that's it, that's all there is, that's the only reason why I can't see

my daughter, is because currently there's conflict between her father

and I?

A. I don't know that that's the only reason as I remember.

f\
Q. The alleged daddy says about me evidence, but oh, yeah.

that's what it was. I had owed $112 to the case manager and daddy

said that-­

MS. DYKES: Your Honor, I'm going to object to-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: -- that uh -­

MS. DYKES: - to Ms. Dombroski asking that.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, just a second. Would you

go ahead and say your objection? I didn't catch it.

MS. DYKES: Your Honor, I don't believe she's asking a

question.
can't testify.

MS. DOMBROSKI: I'm just asking from the heart. I'm not a

lawyer, I am the mom.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you know how to ask a

question?

MS. DOMBROSKI: I'm doing the best I can.

THE COURT: No, you will ask a question.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Do you -- this is really-- again, I apologize

to the court, because I've never had anybody ever give me the

opportunity for this decision to be made as part of the hitch (sic)

court. I really don't know what to ask at this point, to be perfectly

honest with you.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, you filed the motion.

You've filed numerous motions-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: You know-

THE COURT: --wait a second. Over the course of this

case. You know how to file motions. You're acting as your own

attorney. All I have asked you to do is ask your question. You cannot

testify. You have to ask the question.

 THE COURT: Ask the question. Let me hear it.

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) Did you, is there a -- do you know of a

profile for a batterer versus the profile on a victim. Did you know that

there is a profile that does exist on a batterer?

A. I am unaware of any statistically reliable such profile in

the literature.

Q. Do you think that domestic violence has any part to do

with a child, whether it happens when they're little, when they're

small, and/or how do you think throughout their life span, especially

when, with this conflict, that is going on between her father and I,

would affect a regular, a regular child?

A. I don't think I, I think I know what you're trying to get at

but I don't really understand.

Q. Is it in the, let's use the best interest of the child rule. Is it

in the best interest of the child to be separated from her mother

because her father and her mother have conflict? Is it in the best

interest of the child?

A. I think that-

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, that question is really a

be some foundation laid for that, that the doctor doesn't have. I

mean, it's obvious that he has had no contact with this case since

2004. And the issue presently before the Court has to be the things

that have occurred much after that.

I would suggest here that unless you can show some

relevance to matters that go back to '04, this is no criticism to Dr.

Albott, he's at a very bad disadvantage of trying to fill the questions,

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Ms. Dombroski,

Dr. Albott hasn't been involved in this case since 2004. It's now 200S.

I mentioned earlier that we are not going to relitigate what has

happened in the past, but we're here today to determine what's in the

best interest of your child, as you noted, and whether you should

have expanded parenting time with your child. So if Dr. Albott has

seen you or your child in the very recent past, then you can pose a

question to him. If he hasn't and he hasn't seen either of you since

2004, it's not relevant at this time.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Thank you, Dr. Albott.

MR. ABBOTT: You're welcome.

MS. DOMBROSKI: I have no further questions.

 MS. DYKES: None, Your Honor.

MR. HOFFMAN: We have no questions.

THE COURT: Sir, you may be excused. Ms. Dombroski i

would you call your next witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Before I call anymore witnesses, I'm just

going to go back to the original motion, since that's the way you're

wanting to go.

THE COURT: No just a second, Ms. Dombroski, we're

hearing the evidence right now. If you've finished putting on all your

evidence, then you need to rest, but if you haven't then you need to

call your witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: With the evidence for the record that I wish

to present for the case is the case of the Inner American Commission

of Human Rights, which this case is for Human Rights violations.

Other than that, I have really not passed, but I'm going to go ahead

and go here with this. I can't call the Guardian ad Litem} who is

supposed to be doing the best interest of my child, who -- so I can't

cross her on that, so kind of stops that. So we'll come right back

down to it, maybe we can save all these people time. I was
reaction together in the last few months.

THE COURT: If you're going to call a witness, call a

witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: So I'll call Connie.

(THEREUPON,

CONNIE. (No last name)

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been first duly

sworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Please be seated.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. DOMBROSKI:

Q. Hi, Connie. I'll make it short and sweet. You've known

Ricki and I since 1995, I believe is when we were first ordered into

supervised visits or I mean safe visit with monitored exchanges, and

then in 2000, when dad got custody, I was ordered into supervised

visits.

A. I know that some of the records that we had on your

family, we do destroy after five years. So the records I have currently

 Q. I am looking to have expanded visitation with my

daughter. From the years that you've witnessed and known us, do

you see me be a harm to my daughter?

A. If I could answer that question in a way that would be, I

mean, I don't have that magical answer. What I would say is that we

did suspend service in March of '08 after having served you for

almost five years in supervised visits. And we suspended service in

March of '08, because at that time, as stated in the report, you know,

felt that there was just not enough reason to carry on with things in

the same manner.

Q. And in your report, that report, what it was saying, that

Ricki didn't have any idea really what was going on and that we

needed to move forward with this basically other than-­

A. That was more so -- her opinion was that she didn't feel

_ comfortable. She expressed to us that she didn't feel comfortable

having unsupervised contact with you at that time, and had never

expressed feeling comfortable with having unsupervised contact.

Q. How many people are comfortable when, in your

structured facility of guards and closed rooms, and one-arm's length

natural environment. Is that a -- would that be a normal statement,

basically?

A. Well, survey results that we have on families in

supervised visits of those people who submit surveys return them to

us, almost 95 percent do say they feel comfortable in that setting. So

as far as, you know, I'm not an evaluator of those folks. I can't say

how they feel and their emotional state, but I know that her verbal

response to us was that she did not feel comfortable being

unsupervised with you.

Q. Being unsupervised or being supervised?

A. No, being unsupervised.

Q. Okay. But clarify, because you said she didn't want -- she

no longer wanted to -­

A. She didn't feel comfortable continuing service, because

she didn't want to maintain that ongoing contact in the supervised

setting and didn't feel comfortable having unsupervised contact with

you.

Q. Okay. So you're saying that my daughter doesn't want to

see me at all, period. Clarify this for me. Or that she doesn't want to
 A. What she said to us, what she said to me specifically was

that she wished that you could be a normal mom.

Q. What is a normal mom?

A. Someone that she felt comfortable with that she could

talk to about friends and school and go places with without a fear of

being embarrassed or without a fear of-­

Q. Why would she be embarrassed? I'm sorry, why would

she be embarrassed?

A. By actions and behaviors and things that you might do.

I'

Q. Such as?

A. I don't have a specific example of that. That's what she

shared. That was her statement to us.

Q. So Ricki wants to have a relationship with her mother, but

no longer supervised, she just wants to have a normal relationship

with her mother and talk about friends and be that normal kind of

thing, the clothes, the talking, the malls.

A. What sne said to us was that she wished she could have

a normal relationship like other kids do, but that she didn't feel she

(~
was able to.
 A. No, because of your behaviors and your communications.

Q. We have had no communications. So how can we, you

understand, almost nine years, of very minimal, minimal

communication with my daughter, and it is very uncomfortable.

How many of your clients are victims of domestic violence that

are in supervised versus those that aren't on just a round about-­

A. I don't have that statistic in my head.

Q. Okay. What constitutes the purpose -- what would lay the

foundation for supervised visitation to begin with?

A. It can be a variety of factors. Some people need

supervised visits because the parent that is visiting them has mental

health problems. They might be financially unstable to the point that

they're homeless and they don't have a safe environment to see their

child in. Some people see their children supervised because they

just recently found out through paternal testing that they were the

child's parent. Some people see their parent supervised because

they've been in prison and so they haven't had a relationship with

them. Some families see their parent in a supervised setting

because of child abuse. Domestic violence, drugs, it's a combination

 Q. Why was I in supervised visitation?

A. I'd have -- you were referred by the Court for, my

recollection is -- \'11 have to look at the record but I think it was

because of safety concerns about your child seeing you

unsupervised.

Q. Her safety, my safety, or dad's safety?

A. Her safety and being with you unsupervised.

Q. Okay. Is there any history of any violence that you know

of in, anywhere in 13 years, say 14 years, now?

A. The history that I recall, and like I said, I apologize, I don't

have records for prior to 2004, but from my memory is one of the

issues was that you had left the community and -- with your daughter

at one time, against Court order. And then, but there were several

situations that, from 2004, to the current time, you know, that were

brought to our attention after you had been in the services.

Q. Who brought to your attention to the--who brought those

to your attention?

A. Ricki, would talk about different situations that came up.

(\ For example, when you arrived at the school when you weren't
and you were videotaping her on a camera-­

Q. Two thousand four, is that what you're talking about,

2004?

A. I would have to go back through the records.

Q. Okay. So it's okay, for somebody with a history of violence

against somebody to have custody of a child and then put the non­

offending parent in supervised visitation and place the blame on that

parent because they might embarrass their child because of the

violence?

A. I'm sorry. Did you -- is there a question in there for me? I

didn't-­

Q. Is that a normal thing to do? Is that a normal thing to do?

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, the question-­

THE COURT: Just a second, just a second.

MR. HOFFMAN: --facts which are not in evidence.

MS. DOMBROSKI: This is in evidence.

THE COURT: No, ma'am, it's not. I sustain the objection.

That is not within the personal opinion or the basis for which this

witness makes decisions. She takes the clients on safe visits under
 Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) Typically, how long is the length of

safe, supervised visitation?

A. Every case is unique, actually.

Q. How many cases have been in nine years,

approximately? Out of all the cases that have gone through this

revolving door, how many have been in there in nine years--ten

years?

A. In my direct program or in the national picture?

Q. No, in your direct program. Just-- just-­

A. Probably under a dozen. Less than 12.

Q. Out of say, what, how many thousands, hundreds?

A. We serve about 150 families in a year.

Q. So it's pretty unusual to go this length?

A. Some cases don't continue in service for a variety of

reasons. So it's hard for me to really say that that's highly unusual.

Some families have no resolution beyond supervised visits. So that's

why they are in service long term.

Q. So they should stay in supervised visits until the child

becomes 18?
 Q. I mean, have they, have they?

A. Some children have, yes.

Q. Really. Wow, that's sad. Okay, well, I don't really have any

other questions then. I mean, I was just kind of curious as to what

constitutes (INAUDIBLE)

THE COURT: Cross?

MS. DYKES: I have no questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Hoffman.

MR. HOFFMAN: I have no questions, Your Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: You may be excused. Ms. Dombroski,

please call your next witness. You have Mr. Swartz here. Is he a

witness?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Well, Mr. Swartz was the whole reason

why I'm under supervised visits with Dr. Rodeheffer and the fact that

Dr. Rodeheffer, emailed the Guardian ad Litem and the Guardian ad

Litem-­

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, is he a witness?

MS. DOMBROSKI: - so I was trying to - it's hard to put

together it really is . Excuse me?

 MS. DOMBROSKI: Right now, I really don't know what to say,

to be perfectly honest with you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have your next witness ready?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Sure. Lloyd Swartz, please come up.

(THEREUPON,

LLOYD SWARTZ,

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been first duly

sworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE COURT: Please have a seat.

MR. SWARTZ: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Dombroski.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. DOMBROSKI:

Q. Hello, Mr. Swartz, it's been a while. How are you?

A. Fine.

Q. I didn't even know if your were still doing -- when I

subpoenaed your records. My basic, I've been informed that I can't

bring up the past as to why we're here in the present which is how it

became kind of a mix up, but what is the job of the case manager?
 I'm not sure if it's changed from the time that I was a case manager,
but as I understand it, the role of the case manager back in those

days was to serve as the final solution for courts that could not come

up with other solutions.

Parties would be ordered into case management if the Court

concluded that they had been in court, I think it was more than three

times in the last six months to twelve months, that the Court

concluded that it was not successful to come to court. That the court

concluded that mediation was not going to be successful. That the

,; court had concluded that counseling was not going to be successful.

And that the case manager was to serve, basically, as a person who

would make immediate decisions and make recommendations to the

court.

Q. What happens after you make a recommendation to the

court?

A. Process in those days was I would make a

recommendation, I would mail it to the court and mail it to the parties

and the parties would have ten days in which they could object. And

n. the Court would then rule on whether or not the recommendations

..
 Q. In this particular case that we're dealing with now,

somehow our written objection never made it to--even though it was

filed--Iet me--I've never met the judge that signed this order, Judge

Bruns. There was a lot of correspondence between you guys and

everybody. Let me retract that.

Let me ask you, about how many times-- about how many

clients do you usually do, I mean, is this a full-time thing?

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, you haven't asked Mr.

Swartz this, but it sounds like from his testimony that he was the

case manager on your case a significant period in the past; is that

correct?

Mr. Swartz, do you recall when you were case manager in this

case?

MR. SWARTZ: I don't remember when it commenced, but I

looked at the Court docket sheets and it ended for me July of 2005.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Can I make a statement?

THE COURT: No, you may not make a statement at this

point in time-­

/~'\ MS. DOMBROSKI: I didn't think so

 But let me ask you, what we are here for today is what is relevant

and what has happened in the recent past. So I'm wondering what

Mr. Swartz is doing here if he hasn't been the case manager since

2005.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Because we're in a lock, we've been

locked in this position for the last five years. This case has not

moved. We've been put in supervised visitation, we have been in this

gossipy circle without -- this is the first time in five years I've ever

been able to call a witness.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: So we're in a lock in this case. I mean, you

keep saying come back to the present, which I'm trying to do. Okay.

And you're saying significantly happened in the last, what, five years.

We've been in supervised visits. There is nothing to grab on.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: I don't know what to ask.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you have questions of

this witness that he could answer within the recent past, and that's

I ), not five years ago, that's not five years ago, that's within the last
 expanded.

MS. DOMBROSKI: I'm going to go ahead and say, first of all,

that I do not feel like justice is being served here and-­

THE COURT: You can make a closing argument in time,

Ms. Dombroski, but this is your time for questions-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: Well-­

THE COURT: If you do not have a question of this

witness, I am going to excuse the witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Yeah, I don't have any more questions.

Thank you, Lloyd.

THE COURT: I take it there is no Cross Examination.

MS. DYKES: None, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Swartz, you are excused.

MR. SWARTZ: Thank you.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, call your next

witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Kara Haney, come up here, please.

THE COURT: Can you spell your first name for me?

MS. HANEY: K-A-R-A.

--~ ~-- .....- -.--­

 MS. HANEY: H-A-N-E-Y.

(THEREUPON

KARAHANEY,

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been 'first duly

sworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE COURT: Please have a seat. If you could keep your

voice up for us, I think there's also some Kleenex's there if you need

them, it's the cold season.

MS. HANEY: Thank you.

f\
DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. DOMBROSKI:

Q. Hi, Kara.

A. Hello.

Q. I haven't read your report yet, because I was still kind of

flustered with every thing that's going on. I'm extremely disorganized.

I just want to ask you what you have observed between Rick; and her

mother. Do they get along? You know.

A. My observation during visitation, I have observed

(\ approximately, I would say, 10 to 13 visits between you and your

 your daughter are excited when we arrive at visits. I have observed

you interacting appropriately with your daughter; however, I have also

observed times when your daughter tries to talk to you about things

and you talk right over her head as if she hasn't even spoken. I have

observed Ricki get embarrassed from time to time during visitation

because of certain things.

Do teenagers typically get embarrassed by their parents?

Absolutely.

Is that-­

Absolutely.

Considering what you know of the background of the

case and the history of the case, would you call these normal

reactions for that situation that need working say reunification

therapy? Okay. Let me retract all that. take all that back. When were

you when did Odyssey become a part of supervising this case?

A. I believe that Odyssey was contracted for services late

June. I believe that somebody before me supervised a couple of

visits in July, and then I took the case in August and have been

j\ supervising visits since.

~
 little puzzle together?

THE COURT: Why don't you start it and we'll see, okay?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay. In April of this year, after Connie left,

it was to say that Ricki stated that she wanted to have contact, more

normal contact, which has been in court on the record with her

mother, and that therefore they thought they would try the Odyssey

program. The Odyssey program was not-­

THE COURT: Are you making a -- are you making a

preliminary statement to the witness that you're going to ask a

question about?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Yeah, I guess I'm trying to say­

THE COURT: Because-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay, from April -­

THE COURT: Because you'll have a time to testify

yourself if you wish to do that and put statements on the record in

that manner. But right now, you need to ask questions of the witness.

Okay?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay, so like I said, I haven't done this

(~ before.
 been really wonderful, I want to say thank you. Let's see.

Other than that, I mean. Are these issues that you think that

given more time we could work out or do you think separating us

further would make it better?

A. I can't really answer that question. What I can answer is

that in my experience speaking with Ricki and asking her what her

desires are in terms of a relationship with her mom and future

visitation and things like that, she has expressed, and it is my priority

to look out for Ricki's best interest, she has expressed a desire to
/..r-.....\

keep things status quo. She has expressed a desire to keep the visits

every other week. She has expressed a desire that she wants them

to stay supervised.

Q. You don't think that--that Ricki might-­

THE COURT: Wait just a second.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay.

THE COURT: Did you finish your answer?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Oh, I'm so sorry.

A. And she has expressed a very strong desire to me on

more than one occasion, but especially recently, that you know that
rne that when and if she's ready to pursue a different relationship with

you-­

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) Uh-Huh.

A. -- she wants it to be not the court's decision, not her dad's

decision, not your decision, not mine, she wants it to be her decision.

I think that that is very important to her, and she has stated to me that

that's not what she wants at this time.

Q. Do you think that Ricki knows her mother?

A. In my opinion, I would say, not very well at this point.

Q. So we're placing a whole lot of pressure on this little girl

to make these, I mean, after all these years of not talking or seeing

her mother, and then all these other external pressures along with

her normal growing up and 13- and 14-year-old stuff, and you know.

it's just kind of easier to stand back, I mean, I mean, not-

A. It is my opinion that forcing a relationship with her or on

her with you at this point is more of a pressure than anything. Right

now, I think, that she is doing well to thrive in school and have normal

teenage relationships, and to do the things that she does, and I think

that she very much feels pressure to try to-­

 A. -- to try to have a relationship with you that she's not

comfortable with pursuing yet.

Q. Why does she say she's not comfortable with that?

A. Honestly, I talked to Ricki at length before this hearing, I

talked to her last week and I talked to her after the visit and before

the visit, and she expressed to me that there are several things that

she wishes for in her relationship with you and she does not have

those things. And she doesn't think that she can get them currently.

She doesn't feel like you take her seriously. She said she just wants

you to listen to her when she talks.

Q. Given the very, very short amount of time that we ever

have, it's kind of hard to hear it all, and so do you think that

separating it more is going to make it easier? I mean, here we are,

we've got people, that a mother and a daughter that don't know each

other. We haven't been around each other, and it's uncomfortable for

both of us. I mean, it's probably the most shutful (sic) thing for me to

do myself. And she's my heartbeat. But we don't get enough time

together to get to know each other. So how can we fix that?

I mean, when you have typically a situation where a parent has

~------------------------ .....~
 Don't you try and like give them time to get to know each other again,

basically?

A. I think that in most cases, that's appropriate, but I also

think that we have a 14-year-old who has been very clear and

concise in her reporting not only to me but to other people in her

wishes and her desires. As indicated in my report, I think if visits were

lengthened or were to be unsupervised, it would be my

recommendation and the recommendation of our agency that before

that would happen, that you and your daughter would need to have a
weekly therapeutic interaction to work on that process.

Q. Okay, good.

A. However, Ricki indicates that right now she's comfortable

with the way things are and that is what I need to express to the

Court.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay. Okay, okay, okay. Thank you

Kara, I really don't have any other questions.

THE COURT: Cross Examination.

CROSS EXAMINATION

(\ BY MS. DYKES:
 about 10 to 13 times; is that correct?

A. Approximately.

Q. And how old is Ricki?

A. She just turned 14.

Q. Does she have any trouble expressing herself?

A. Not at all.

Q. Is she a bright young lady?

A. She's extremely bright.

Q. And she's been pretty clear with you; is that a fair

(\
statement?

A. Clear and consistent.

Q. And her clear and consistent statement is that she wants

things to stay just the way they are?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you see any harm to Ricki if things stay just the

way they are right now?

A. No, because that's what Ricki is comfortable with right

now.

MS. DYKES: Thank you, I have no other questions.

 MS. DOMBROSKI: I would like-­

THE COURT: Mr. Hoffman.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Ma'am, your report indicates that Ricki has expressed

embarrassment in a reference to her mother's behavior from time to

time; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is she referring there to embarrassment that occurs

during the supervised visits or just in general in regard to her

mother's conduct in relation to her?

A. Typically, it's something specific that happens in a visit.

Q. Okay. And does she go into detail with you about them or

do you actually see them yourself and understand what she's talking

about?

A. There has been an occasion where she's actually

expressed to mom "you're embarrassing me" and she expressed to

me at the last visit at one point that she was embarrassed of a

particular behavior at the visit.

 further.

THE COURT: Redirect.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. DOMBROSKI:

Q. Was that a guy thing that they were looking into?

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, you need to stand up and

ask your questions.

MS. DOMBROSKI: My foot hurts, your Honor. I'm on disability.

I need to stand -- sit, and I'm going to sit down and ask the question,

your Honor, I have stood when you-­

THE COURT: Then you need to ask permission just like

anybody else would.

MS. DOMBROSKI: You know, ('m not anybody else. I have

been denied-­

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, all you have to do is ask

permission to sit, like anybody else.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay. Your Honor, may I have permission

to sit as my disability indicates?

(-~ THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.

 THE COURT: Do you have questions?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay. Now, I lost track there.

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) Kara, we've run into boys and we blush

and things like that -­

A. Yep.

Q. -- And we only get two very, very, precious hours out of

two weeks. We were getting -- when visits first, started we were going

every Saturday for two hours with the goal to increase and expand

visitation. Ricki, when she said that she wanted to stop and go every

other week, there was -- she didn't feel real comfortable really even

saying that she just didn't know what to say. Do you think a kid wants

to please both parents and is going to do the very best that she can

to make it not so hard on either one?

A. I think that's typical of most children in cases of any

divorce, even amicable ones. I want to share that, you know, Ricki,

knows what my testimony was going to be. She was apprehensive,

because she loves you.

Q. Oh, I know.

A. And she doesn't want to hurt your feelings. But everything

- .. - ..... ~--
 going to voice those. She doesn't want to hurt your feelings, she

loves you, but she wants her wishes known.

Q. Okay. Why-- wow-- what stress at 14,13, five years to

have to be the one to make all these decisions.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you have a question?

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) I just, what is the goal from here with

Odyssey and the recommendations of the visits supervised and we

say that we need to integrate but she doesn't want to?

A. You know, if she were a younger child, I would say maybe

based on the best interest of the child, we should try to pursue small

incremental steps toward progress, but we have a child right now

who is bright and knows what she wants and is expressing it, and I

wouldn't recommend going against her wishes at this point.

f would feel that that was not in her best interest. So as Ricki

stated, she would like to leave things the way that they are.

Q. Okay, okay. And no more therapeutic intervention?

A. Ricki is very well aware that whenever she's ready for

that, all she needs to do is say so and that that can happen.

f\ Q. And you're aware that the whole therapeutic intervention

 they severed our contact? So we've got five years here. Five years

she has been separated from her mom. For five years, she's heard

nothing about her mom except from what they heard-­

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you have a question­

MS. DOMBROSKI: So now-­

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: We're all the sudden going to

base, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Your question.

MS. DOMBROSKI: On what Ricki doesn't know. Only

what she's been only what she's been forced to live the past five

years because she doesn't know her mom.

A. What I'm aware of are Ricki's wishes since l've been

involved in the case.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Correct. Correct, and thank you.

That's about it for now, I guess.

THE COURT: Re-cross.

MS. DYKES: I have nothing, Your Honor.

. THE COURT: Okay. You may step down. Thank you,

----- - - - - - - - - - - ...... - .. ~ ..- ......

 Ms. Dombroski, if you would call your next witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: 'would like to call Hal Richardson.

(THEREUPON,

HAL RICHARDSON,

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been first

duly sworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE COURT: Go ahead and have a seat, please.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. DOMBROSKI:
f'\
Q. Do you love your daughter?

A. Very much.

Q. Do you think that her mother loves her daughter?

A. I do.

Q. Do you think that we should have Ricki be the person to

make decisions or do you think that as adults and court people we

should be making the decisions?

A. , think Ricki is old enough to make her own decisions

now.

Q. Five years ago?

make herself clear on what she wants.

Q. And in the past five years, she's been denied almost all

contact with her mother, so she really doesn't know her mother so

what does she want is only based on the past 'five years of time that

she's been with you, correct?

A. I didn't understand the question.

Q. Okay. I, -- Ricki loves her mother?

A. Right.

Q. But Ricki don't want to see her mother?

A. Not on the same level that you want to see her.

Q. As a normal parent, half parent, semi parent or a criminal

parent?

A. She wants a mom.

Q. What is a mom, in her definition from you? Because

you're around her every day and every night, every day, and every

night. So-­

A. We talked about embarrassment earlier.

Q. Okay.

A. She doesn't need a best friend, she needs a mom.

 little girl to just be a mom, just kind of stand back and let her be a kid

instead of trying to join in-­

Q. Uh-huh.

A. --the doings of other teenage kids. She wants someone

to kind of sit back and watch things happen. She don't need some of

the things that go on at the mall.

Q. Okay. Oh , I'm sorry, go ahead.

A. You said earlier that you see boys and you both giggle

and laugh, you know that's kind of freaky, but that's where you kind of

need to step back and just let her be a kid.

Q. But how can I step back and let her be a kid if I'm not

allowed to have any contact with her other than that-­

A. A good start would be when do have her, when you are

with her, to show that you can do that. And she would be a changed

girl in no time.

Q. I think she's a pretty cool kid. I don't know her though, I

really don't, not as a daughter, any more than she knows me as a

mother. So that's kind of the analogy of just to be a mother, I would

~\ love to say, but I don't. All I can think of is I just want to make the

- - - - ...... - .. ~--
don't know anything about her. So it's not like I can just be a mother

other than the fact that and we can't do that by keeping more time

putting more distance between that. We're not going to get to know

each other and be able to assume those natural roles. You're going

to keep -- are you going to just, let me see here. Do you think that

she can do that by seeing me less? I can do that by seeing her less,

is that your opinion?

A. You-­

Q. I can learn to be a mom and just sit back in our very

limited two-hour period times over what extends over how many

hours of a year in contrast to an entire year? Do you think that can

happen by cutting back even further?

A. I think you can get to know her quite a bit in two hours'

time talking with her and letting her be a kid and you be mom. And I

think if you done that a few times you would probably see some

things change.

Q. Like for instance, sitting in, kickin up, poppin popcorn,

having a movie, sitting on the couch, and just hangin' out, right?

A. She and I like to go to Barnes and Noble, and I drink

 books. There's a lot of things you could do.

Q. We like Barnes and Noble, we've been there a lot of

times. Well, it's an awkward situation. I don't really know what to do I

know that I just- if you guys are set on this, everybody's set on it, I

guess I don't really have anymore to say other than I just wish that

somebody would step up and do the right thing.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you have a question?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Do I have a question?

THE COURT: Do you have a question of the witness?

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) Are you happy with what's

happened with Ricki's mom?

,

A. No.

Q. 8ecauseyou can see her hurt?

A. I see her hurt, I see her confused, I see her sad because

she has little girlfriends, especially back when she was in grade

. school in Girl Scouts, Mother's-­

Q. Uh-huh.

A. --day, you know, I can only do so much, but I couldn't do

/\ anything for her on Mother's Day, things like that. That's what I don't
 Q. So how can we fix that by separating it further?

A. Honestly, shutting down those websites, stop all this

nonsense, just be a mom. You know, that's all it is.

Q. Okay, so- let me see if I can word this right. I - she's

embarrassed because of the truth that's on the internet, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So I should lie to her? 1-­

A. Let me be clear that everything that is on that internet,

you know it, and I'm not gong to sit and argue about it, is not truth,

they're half truths. It shouldn't be on there. She's embarrassed by it-­

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Her friends see it.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. It's embarrassed her all along the way. She hears about it

at school.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. . That needs to stop. This needs to stop. You need to step

up to the plate and just pony up and be a mom-­

Q. You-­
 Q. Okay.

A. That's all you've got to do. It's easy.

Q. Okay. You don't think that it is really the other way

around, that it's the judiciary that should be embarrassed, it's the

people that let her down that should be embarrassed not the fact that

because, yeah, it's a very embarrassing thing. But it's -- not what if

it's -- it's somebody -- you want me to take all the blame for

everything. And then be a, what -- I mean-I'm really, Ricki is 14, and

she's just like me, just the few times that I've seen her.

MS. DYKES: Your Honor, is there a question?

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, you've got to ask a

question.

MS. DOMBROSKI: At any time is the right time to do what's

right and anybody can do that, that's all I'm saying, and you know­

THE COURT: Do you have any further questions?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Oh, the confines of humanity. No you can't

there's no life here.

THE COURT: Do you have any further questions, yes or

no?

-~ ......... - - - - - - - - - - - ........ -~-------

that by keeping a mother and child separated will make the

relationship any better so that we can resolve any of these issues

that everybody has about anything that complete separation, like it

has been for the past five years, nine years, actually ten years, we!re

going to put it that way, past ten years is going to make it better?

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, rm going to object to the form of

that question. It presumes facts which are not in evidence.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Ten years of supervised visitation!

separation.

THE COURT: I would sustain the objection. Do you have

another question, Ms. Dombroski?

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) Further separation, Mr. Richardson, is

that going to make it better?

A. I honestly don't know

MS:DOBROSKI: Okay. Okay, thank you.

THE COURT: Cross. Just a second, sir. Any cross?

MS. DYKES: No questions.

THE COURT: Okay, sir, you may step down.

Ms. Dombroski! if you would call your next witness.

--. ~.~.-- .......- -~- - - - - - - - _......._ - - - - - - ­

allowed to call because they're immune and they're not accountable,

so thank you guys, and I don't have any questions of them.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any further witnesses?

MS. DOMBROSKI: No, Your Honor, I do not.

THE COURT: I told you earlier that if you wish to testify

that you may testify. If you wish to testify before you close and rest

your case, this would be the time to do so.

MS. DOMBROSKI: You know, for the past, I don't know my

daughter, your Honor-­

THE COURT: Okay, I understand. Ms. Dombroski, you'll

have a chance to do a closing statement.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Oh, you said now?

THE COURT: No, no. Right now is just do you want to

take the stand and offer testimony under oath? You'll have a chance

to summarize-- .

MS. DOMBROSKI: What do I-­

THE COURT: --the evidence that you brought forward to

the Court at the time of closing arguments. This is just part of your
arguments?

THE COURT: This is evidence under oath. Your

summations and closing argument is based on-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: Well-­

THE COURT: -- is based on the evidence that you

brought to the court today to hear. If you want to also add evidence,

you may take the stand.

MS. DOMBROSKI: But as you said earlier, I am to be treated

and held at the same standard as a lawyer, and as an officer of the

court. They're already under oath when they enter the courtroom.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you want to testify as a

witness in this case?

MS. DOMBROSKI: I feel like I'm talking to myself, I don't know

what to say, so no, J don't.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. DOMBROSKI: This is already very difficult for me.

THE COURT: Okay. Are you resting at this time?

MS. DOMBROSKI: That means I can still say something later?

THE COURT: You have the opportunity to give a closing

evidence to present before the Court.

MS. DOMBROSKI: No, the only evidence that I'm wanting to·­

I'm just not getting this out very well. No, your Honor, I don't. But I

preserve the record for later incase I messed it up.

THE COURT: No. My question was, are you resting your

case at this time or do you have additional evidence that you want to

put on?

MS. DOMBROSKI: The only evidence that I want to -- yes, I

guess what I'm trying to say is what I've already said, though, is that

this further separation-­

THE COURT: Let me tell you this.

MS. DOMBROSKI: --is not going to give us-­

THE COURT: At the time that both parties rest, they will

each have a time to give a closing argument based on the evidence

that has been presented in the courtroom today. Now, you're at the

point that you're either going to call additional witnesses or you're

going to rest your case, at which time I will turn to Mr. Hoffman and

ask him if he wishes to present evidence. So that's where you're at.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay. So what I'm trying to say is when

oh, your Honor, we've been through this-­

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, that would be as a

witness. You give your closing statement from the table you're at. If

you want to testify as a witness, you go under oath and you come up

here.

MS. DOMBROSKI: And I ask myself questions?

THE COURT: You can just make a statement.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Gosh, I don't know, let's see. I guess I can

try it. I don't want to-­

THE COURT: Now, it's not up to me, it's up to you. What

do you want to do? You've got to make a decision.

MS. DOMBROSKI: I would like to say, I want to be heard.

THE COURT: Do you want to offer evidence, then?

MS. DOMBROSKI: I guess you are clarifying evidence, the

end is where you can do story telling?

THE COURT: The end is not story telling, the end is a

closing argument. It is based on the evidence that came before the

Court. That's all you can argue on.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Right. Well, I guess I'm going to have to

evidence to begin with to do this.

THE COURT: Okay. Are you resting, then? You need to

answer out loud so the microphone can pick it up.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Yes, because I don't understand how to do

this, no. Yes, I'm resting, because I do not understand how to do this.

THE COURT: I will explain it to you one more time.

MS. DOMBROSKI: No, you don't need to explain it to me,

because the whole thing about evidence, and you know, you're

saying evidence. Evidence is facts. As you can see-·

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, each of the witnesses that

you called presented testimony and that is evidence in the case, in

this hearing.

MS. DOMBROSKI: But the evidence, the facts··

THE COURT: Now, do you want to present evidence

through yourself as a witness?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Through myself, okay, no.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Not through myself, but­

THE COURT: Okay. Are you resting then?

 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hoffman, do you wish to present

evidence?

MR. HOFFMAN: We do not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Dykes, do you wish to present

evidence?

MS. DYKES: No, thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. I take it at this point in time we are

ready for closing arguments; is that correct?

MS. DYKES: Yes, please.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski,it was your motion. You

have the opportunity to present the first closing argument.

MS. DOMBROSKI: It's been ten years since I've had a normal

relationship with my daughter. It's been ten years since I have been

able to, ever even had the opportunity, to present evidence or even

an evidentiary hearing. Ten years have gone by and my little girl grew

up, and we can't change that, we can't fix that. That's lost forever.

I really don't know what to say other than the fact that

everything that I do, I do as a mother would do. I didn't wake up one

morning and decide to be an activist just to be an activist. I was a

----------------- - - - --- ..... -.~.- .......-.~-- . _

 r had a little girl. I was so happy. I had a little baby who almost

died. And then I had the mis -- I was -- I was under the fortitude that I
had the right to be safe and I'm not supposed to be hurt and I had

even been threatened by the courts that my daughter would be taken

if she witnessed the violence, and I left. If I had known what I know

now, I wouldn't have done that, I wouldn't have left. What I do now I

do for my daughter, because I don't want the same thing to happen

to her. I want her to know that there is no justice in courts when you

walk into those doors and you say you don't have the right. You don't

have the right. And Ricki knows that and a lot of people know that.

We've lost ten years. The only thing r can do is keep being a

mom. Everything I do is because of what's happened in the distance

that we've been through. I would just love to -- I will meet her again, I

know. I know that's not going to happen in the next four years.

But I am a bad mother because I go to the Battered Mother's

Custody Conference and I present with some of the greatest minds in

the nation. You talk about doctors and psychiatrist Lundy Bancroft,

Silverman, Jaffe. r can't take that off the web. I don't own the internet.

my site is my site. Kansans for Judicial Accountability, there was a

 as she was sitting outside this courthouse, and alii could think of

was my daughter. And you guys are saying they're saying that's not

being a mom? I don't see my child. I can't sit back and watch the

games, I can't sit back and watch a movie with her. But I could see

my daughter in that little girl, and in every child that walks around r

see my daughter in them, because I can't see my daughter. So what I

do is as a mom. "m trying to proted her the best I can. Ten years has

gone by. I'm not going to get that back, and I'm not going to change

this yet, but for my daughter, I will. Because she deserves it and her
,/-----
......
;
I '
generation deserves it. Our children deserve the right to not be

pressured or oppressed. I mean, that's just, you know, insanity, is

insanity and this is just insane.

I had a job, I had a whole life. I mean, I was crushed down. You

guys have crushed me down. The system has torn me apart and

refused to allow me to talk to my daughter.

Of course, she would be embarrassed by my behavior

considering she doesn't know anything about me. There's a little

thing called the internet and she found out about her mom, and back

in April she said, "I want to see my mom," when she thought a
you can't just sit there in two hours and see it. You have to get to

know each other again.

What is a good mom? I am a good mom. I'm protecting my

child in the only way that I'm allowed to. The system failed us. So I'm

going to I keep plugging and keep getting it out there. I won't let it

happen to her children. And the ex parte and the -- everything that

has happened in the past five years, right up to this day, I have never

had the opportunity, ever, to talk like I'm doing now which has totally

knocked me on the floor considering I just had a friend who had a

heart attack from doing his windows today and I didn't think I was

going to make it in. I'm going to just stick with the heart and I'm going

to stick with humanity and "m going to be the change that I want the

world to be for my daughter. I want the world be a better place, I want

it to be safe. I want the world to be safe. I want her to know that she

has a lot of rights, and it's not just one sided, and it's going to take

everybody to do this so. That's the only way I know how to be a mom,

because I haven't been around her, and that's for her.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hoffman.

MR. HOFFMAN: In short, Your Honor, Mr. Richardson would

in front of you have not been supported by the evidence in any

meaningful way. In giving complete deference to this request that's

being made here, it would seem that the request is that somehow an

increase in the amount of scheduled time would be in this child's best

interest, and other than the self-serving statements that have been

made here, I don't think that there is any evidence to support that. In

fact, the evidence that has been adduced here would suggest

otherwise.

On behalf of Mr. Richardson, who I will say we've been involved

in this case since 1996 together, a fair amount of deference has been

shown to Ms. Dombroski throug hout these proceedings, but they are

becoming burdensome, and I think two or three times now we have

had two professionals, three professionals subpoenaed here in

support of contentions that are totally off the map.

We've heard no evidence here about Social Security, Disability

payments nor recusal of the Guardian ad Litem, and therefore we

would suggest that they are meritless and there is no support for

them in the record.

MS. DOMBROSKI: I'm not allowed to ask-­

 Dombroski has-- Mr. Richardson has always paid his fees and costs

associated with this litigation. To my knowledge, there has never

been a deficit in anything that he has ever done of a financial nature.

I think we are to the point in this case where some consideration

should be given to the award of costs of attorney's fees not so much

for Mr. Richardson's counsel, but for some of these people that are

being utilized here, I think inappropriately. For example the Guardian

ad Litem has had to sit here throughout this and each and every time

she has been called upon to do that. My guess is that she has a

balance due from her, from Ms. Dombroski, that's probably-­

MS. DOMBROSKI: I will pay her, I have no problem with that.

I've been trying to for five years.

MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor.

THE COURT: Hey.

MR. HOFFMAN: So that's our response. I wanted to vent that

to you because this case is becoming a burden to Mr. Richardson

and I think others, and I think that this motion is patently without

merit.

~,
I \
MS. DYKES: I just-­
 MS. DYKES: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, I was

appointed to represent Ricki, I believe about four years ago. And

every time we've come into court, I've been a little nervous because

I've assured her that I would allow her voice to be heard through me.

And it's been difficult at times. There was one time that I brought

Ricki in to speak to Judge Johnson, and! think she was expecting a

little more than what actually occurred that day. And I tried to

reassure her that I will go into court and I will fight for you and I will

try to get what you want to have happen in court. Well, last Friday

she turned 14, and in the court's eyes in some way, shape or form,

that is kind of a magic number, and courts tend to give a little more

respect and a little more attention to a child of that age.

And I would just ask the court today to please listen to what

Ricki is saying. She has spoken through the most current provider

that was called today to testify, Kara Haney. She is a licensed

Bachelor's level Social Worker. She's working on her Master's at this

time. She's had more contact with Ricki than any of the other

providers that were called to testify today. She unequivocally said

that Ricki does not want anything to change, that Ricki would let
does not believe that there is any harm in continuing along in this

fashion.

I also believe that Mr. Richardson, who is the next person to

testify, stated that there are certain things that Ricki just wishes would

happen, and they are not complicated things at all. Ricki has

reiterated that same thing to me a dozen or more times. That she just

wants a mom. She doesn't want a best friend, she doesn't want

somebody hanging out with, she just wants someone there that can

be that can fill that role. And it doesn't happen. And no matter what

Ricki says, she talks and talks and talks, but somebody's got to listen

in order to hear what she is saying, and we just ask that you listen to

Ricki today and to deny the motion that is before the cou rt.

MS. DOMBROSKI: May I make another statement, please?

THE COURT: You can make a rebuttal argument.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Thank you. Okay, Ricki just wants a mom

so let's take and separate it even further, that's an oxymoron. There's

no way that Ricki can just have a mom by continued separation.

There's no way that Ricki is going to have a voice with the same stuff

that keeps being told over and over again. And we are to the point

---- - -
next four years in supervised visits with her because I can't make

everybody else in the court happy, because she doesn't understand,

because she doesn't have time to get to know her mom. So let's let

Ricki get to know her mom by separating her even further. That's not­

~ 1--I can't even say, you can say however you want, but that's the

bottom line. Ricki wants a mom, but it's mom's fault, so lets separate

it, even if she would just do in the two hours every now and then here

and there, you know, zoooop, that two hours goes by so fast. And

that was the most wonderful two hours we've had in five years.

That's, you know, supervised visits as far as finances go, you

know, it's all in the record. I'm not going to repeat it. The truth is in

the record. It's just, you know, I'm down to $500 a month, so we'll just

keep on going like that and that's really going to make it better for

Ricki and her mom. You know, and really it's just going to make it

better for them to try to make me go away and keep Ricki separated

from her mom, and she does need mom. More than ever she needs

me -- I can't the best role a parent can be with a child is an example,

and that, whether they live with that parent or not, that's what I have

to do for my daughter, is an example. And keep the separation,

-_ _ -
.. .. ---~-~ ......... --~---- ..

 THE COURT: 1 have listened to all the evidence in this

case. This motion was titled an emergency motion for orders of

justice. There are a number of like-styled motions that have been

filed in this case. There was simply no evidence that backed up your

motion in this case, Ms. Dombroski. I am denying your -- your

request of the recusal of the Guardian ad Litem. I am denying it,

because there was no evidence brought forward whatsoever about

the Social Security benefits. And quite frankly, all the witnesses in

this case testified that the best interests of the child in this case was

to leave the child where she is under the parenting time as it is now.

Any future motions that you file in this case need to be

supported by facts and case law as required by the Shawnee County

Family Court Guidelines and as required by Kansas Law. They will

not be heard and I will entertain motions to dismiss those, any

motions you file unless, they are supported with memorandums of

law as they should be.

Now, Mr. Hoffman, I'm going to ask you to draw up the journal

entry in this case. I am denying on all grounds your request in this

~\ case. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your allegations.

 parenting time as it stands right now-

MS. DOMBROSKI: Although-­

THE COURT: That is the order of the Court.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Although it's illegal-­

THE COURT: This case is closed.

MS. DOMBROSKI: You brought up law, you brought up law,

Kansas Statutes, that contrary to the law, contrary to the law. Here

we are listening to the gossip section, skip the law part, and then

you're telling me to do the law thing. (Laughs) Unreal, but not.

(THEREUPON, the proceedings were concluded.)

I~
STATE OF KANSAS )
) ss:
COUNTY OF SHAWNEE )
I, Misty M. Phillips, Transcriptionist of the Third
JUdicial District of the State of Kansas, do hereby certify that
the foregoing transcript contains all of the proceedings
requested to be transcribed: That said transcript, consisting
of 70 type written pages, is a correct and complete
transcript-- ( as correct and complete as a digital recording
will allow) -- from the digital recording made at the time of
the proceeding.
I further certify that the said transcript was made from a
digital recording and the recording was, at times, hard to
hear, to understand, people spoke at the same time at pOints
during the proceeding, and the transcription was done to the
best of my ability, having not been present at the time of
recording.
SIGNED, OFFICIALLY SEALED, and FILED, with
the Clerk of the District Court, Shawnee County, Kansas,
This 5th day of February 2009.

Misty M. Phillips
Transcriptionist