2002 april 2 dr. dale evaluation forensic ordered by court to get mom out of supervised visits

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 Dr. Dale Evaluation Forensic Ordered by Court to Get Mom Out of Supervised Visits

1/8

Milfred Dull; Ph.D. UCCIUlCd Psychologist 220 I SW 29111 Slrccl Topclw. K.S 06611 DIVISION17115) 267-tl025 I P'll( (7RS) 26


2/8

2

When I a&.kcd Ms. Dombroski what tlte Coon' s view or her was. she again criticized SC'VettlI of those whohad been previously involved. HOwe\'er. after explah'ling that such aiticisms were not going to gel hera n y w h ~ with me or Ihc Coon. I rcfmmed the question to "What might Judge Anderson say is the n:8sonIhings arc the way the)' are?" To thts she replied. "Because ( ilid not comply with the coW1-ordcr to moveto Topeka. Which is wrong." When I inldTUp1cd her to iJtstruc1 he r t-o say what she thought the Judgemight say rather than her opinion. she paused a moment.. then added. 'because Jcontinued to appeal theorders.. oontinucd 10 resist orders \0 go \0 Topeka." I explained 10 Ms. Dombroski and her husband Ilaat Imight oOen ask them 10 see situations (rom a perspective besides their own in our work since doing Ihiswould be noc.cssary 10 reduce the oonOicu in the caseIn this first meeting. I also established (hull would inlenupt aod redirect the proct!SS whenever it digressed3wnyfrom OODStnu:tive activiry. In additJon to imenupting Ms. Dombroski as descnbed above, [intCITUpted her husband's description of Mr. Ricbrudson with 8 quick question. "Would you say that if he(Mr. Ricburdson) was here? Or, i fRill i was hereT' When be said. 'No." I stated that. QI least wilhin theevaJuatiOl'l process. these two qUCSlions would establish the criteria ror what could be said. If it wasn'lacceptable to be said directly to anether person or in front or RikltJ. it probably shouldn'l be said.Jn addition. le:qJlained to Ms. Dombroski and her busband tbal it WlI9 not my intern to rclwlh theircomplaints about the people invol\'ed. the legal sySlCm. or !he prooc:s.s tbey had experic:zIced. 1 referencedthe "prc-evaluatioo negotialioos" as evidcnoe that the Court bad no intCS'CSt in this. I needed 10 know i fMs,Dombroski could understand tile Court's view orhcr; namely. thai Rfkki was living "'ith Mr. Richardsonbecause the Cowt viewed Ms. Dombroski as refusing to sIweRill i wilh Mr. Richardson and because Ms.Dombroski', pn:vious ac:tiODS IuJd Jed the Court to view hcr as haviog little to no cn:dibility. I cmphasiza!that the Court ,n fact believed Ms. Dombroski has e n ~ g e d in active deceplions on lIlJtUC.'!fOOS occasionsover the course oflhc conflict.I also explained bow these two issues had conlributcd to the view or Ms. Dombroski as potentiallydangerous tQ I.h.c point wIleR the: Case Manager BOd the OCher side WlUltcd JOD1.C n::assur.ancc about safetyissues.. Basically, the safety anxiety WB5 that. if Ms. Dombroski could never "share RikId" with Mr.Richardson and i f the COW1 would not return rcsid.endal CUSKldy to her, sbe mi8ht get dcsparatccnougIllotake RikJd's liIe, then cake her own rather than aUowing Rikki to continue rcsjding with her fathc:r.Ms. Dombroski's response to the "sI1an:: Rikkj" question was to describe her version of some of the eventsin Dcccmber 2000. She admilS 10 taking Rikki with herafter she was "nipCd" by Mr. Richardson. SlICeventually brousht Rilli back aDd turned bcncJf and RikJd in at the polloc station. It was from thefethalRiJckj WB5 plac.cd in Mr. Ricbardsoo', custody.My approach to suicide risk. was also explained in this first 1ICSSi0n.. "The approach follows a modeldeveloped by Mcn.niftser psycbologlats ltUdying suicide in the 1980s. This model rocuses on two aspcdSof I pRiCDI's sease ofSClf: what il called the "false setr and what is called the "true scI!" ne false selr isa social self. a part or0UI'SIClves thai we show 10 otbc:rs and for which I..b.ey may admiJe us.. The bUe self is apriV


3/8

3 ,Allhc cnd of the lirst meeting. 1emphasized Ms. Dombroskl's need 10 focus on Iwo Innjor issues. Firstshe nccdod 10 con\'juce !he Court and Mr. Richardson lb.11 she could "shan::" Rikki \tilb Mr. Richardson.Second. sh e needed 10 earn crcdibililv wilh Ihe COUi1 and Mr. Richardson before sJlC would be ollowed anvadditional or unsupervised lime \"i.lh-IQkki. I instructed Ms. Dombroski 10 purcha.'iC a copy of the book.. -Getting 10 Yes. regarding the differences between positional bargaining and principled negotiation J alsoreminded the couple of the Court's focus 011 visitation mt.hcr IIIIlJI custody issues.And finally. I asked wbat Ms. Dombroski's reaction mighl be 10 a face-to-face meeting with Mr.Richardson. Both tilts. Dombroski aud her husband Ihoughl about Ihis for a'minule. then Slated they wouldbe willing 10 do this after I assured them that bol.h sides would be prq:Jared for Ihis mccting much in..dvancc of iI aclually happening. .Ms. Dombroski and Mr. Yockers came 10 Ihe second meeting on Man:b 21, 2002. wilb two copies of theQsming 10 y book. Ms. Dombroski was particularly exciled ahQut tile ideas o f ~ n e g o t i . a l i n g " regardingRikki, although she became disappointed when liried 10 slow her down by staling. -r think you thiRk. we'reon step 4. I think we're on step 1.5." Ms. Dombroski had brought a number of d o c u m c n t . ~ Mlh her andhanded them over one by one at the beginning of lhe: meeting. Wilh each one she had IUJ explanation os 10what poinl she wnnted OIC to get from 11. She: nOied she Irnew this process was quite "positiotWl:' but shefelt a need to give me these things, after which she was going to try 10 Ihink lIboul the: princ1p1cs underlyingvcuious positions - even those different from her own - rather IbDn jusl lhinking IIbout from wbat positionshe wanted to negotiate. I briefly reviewed the documents. but 001)' comrncnlcd ondle fint two she savcme. l11e first one was the order she daimcd gave her permission to move 10 Oreal Bend. although Iexplained thai I read Ihis order 10 be 11 temporary order wlIb a notation. at Ihe end lbat a permanent orderwould be made at the time the divorce was finalized. In the Order of Di\'OTCe dated in 1996 ( read that Ms.Dombroski was directed to reloc.1le back to Topeka.H o ~ ' C V c : r . rather than spend thc conlact time fCVlewing documcnts, I reilemted our need to focus on bowlhe CoUi1 c:nme to view Ms. Dombroski as bei.n8 WlWilling to share IU.kki with Mr. IQchardson and whatactions might be done about Ibis. Initially. Ms. Dombroski clalmcd. -] never renl.ly wanted to lake heroompletely." Through tears and with Mr_ Yockers' support. she explained varimw past events and herrationale for them. I aJlcrnated between active listening and inlCmJpling her when she began to press wbllI perceived 10 be onc--sidcd views that might polari7..e the situalion rather than result in solutions.FillaUy. I imcrvcned and focused our d.i!ilCU5sion on the web site. '. ,.' , . .,.:. I stated that the: website was inflammatory towards others (e.g., Mr. Riclwdson. lhe Case l\ilanager, and dle Court) and that itscontent pcrpcIuated no t oo1y lhe conflict but also the view of Ms. Dombroski as UIItlble to "share R . i l l i ' ~ and as deserving IiltJe crodibil ity from the Coort. Mr. Yeckel'S suggested lhat it be shut down. However. Ihad notioed somethiog very intcn::stmg aboul Ms. Dombrosk.is demeanor in lbc se:ssions. When talkingabout abuse issues. she aImof;t always became tearful and her quality of her thinking suifered. Wbca upsetlike this. he r emotions clearly impacted her capacity for rational thoughl 8JId planning. However. when,describing &he advoc::acy iSSUC!l related 10 the web site, she seemed moreorgaaiz.cdand her ablJity toexpress her thoughts improved. II was clear that Ibc web site was both a place 10 fight (especially when shefillt sbe oouIdn's 6gb! tn other ways) as well as an actMty from which w derivI:d considc:rnblc: self-esteemand confidence. I suggested ways of reorgani7jng abe web site so that those who supported her (and v1


4/8

4

In this meeting Ms. Dombroski /lIso repeated herassertion that she fell uappcd with nowhere 10 go whencooccmed about the SIlfcty of Rikki and henelf However. I poinlcd oot that the Case Managemem processwas in place 10 address these concerns and that. even though she was often in conflict wilh Ihe most recentcase manager. she should bave worked wilh him regmdins ltds Inllner sinoc this was what the Court haddiJ'CCted her to do when she feels thc:re are risks for abuse or violence. These conflicts wen: il cemralproblem in the events of December 2000 and may have made it difficult for others 10 dclennine just exactlywhat happened.1De rest of the third meeting addressed actions through wrueb Ms. Dombrosk i might gnin smaU measuresof credibilily and show albers ber willingness to "share Rikk1." This was also a very emotiooai topic forher. In tears sbe spoke of wbat she might do. I suggested the format of writing a lettcrto Mr. Richardson.Through tears she spoke of what she might say.' As I nolcd earlier. when tearful Ms. Dombroski strugslcsto organize ber thooghts. I provided the orgnnization for Ms. Dombroski by jOlting down notes. then after atime. showing lhem to her in the form of an outline of things she: mighl say to Mr. Richardson. She Jeftwith this outline for writing a letter to Mr. Richardson l I the end of the session.lbis letter wna to be reviewed and revised prior to 8D)' delivery. The so::UOD5 &he was asked .to addn:sswere: (I ) bow bard it was for people 10 sec Ms. Dombrosld as cooperative and how evcrythirJg&he mightsuggest might be viewed as for her pcnonal p in rather than as best for RikId; (2) how she migJu showotberS her willingness to shale, particularly given she now knows how it fecls to be without R.lk.ki forextended periods of time: (3) what she had learnod about herself and llOW decreasing the fight helps Rikki;(4) bow she needs to ftod a way of feeling !hat RiW and she arc safe without blaming Mr. Richardson; and( ~ ) how certain money and logistics is61.Ic:s might work 0U1 to Mr. RichantJon'S D'1UIIage if she weteallowed additional visitation. The letter was one step lowards preparing Ms. Dombroski for an eventualmeeting with Mr. Richardson.Prom.with Mr, RkJwdIOJ!One meeting with Mr. Ricbardsoo was condUCIod on March 26. 2002. Although 5d1edulcd for one hour.we:: laJkod for two. I CKpIaincd my process with Ms. Dombroski and Mr. Yoc:kcrs including my rocus OllMs. Dombroski's need to dcmoostmte a willingness and ability to "sha.rc RiW" and her need 10 buildcnxboUity with the Court. We ancmplcd to access the web site 10 confirm th e changes. but were ROC able todo 90 because of what appeared 10 be set\ 'U problems. Mr. RicbaJ:dson spoke clearly about bow the website bid burt him as 'INCiI as family memben in the Manhattan community. He asked if I had seen the sileand. when I admowledged I bad. he &Sated. ..It sal l lies."I asked Mr. Ric.bacdson directly for his nssessmem of Ms. Dombroski's potential for banning Rikki via ahomicide-cuicide and via abduction. and explained to bim tbr; model for assessing suicide: risk as I baddonewith Ms. Dombroski. Rqarding a pot.eJltiaJ bomlcic:lc-su.idde. be SIDled, .. don', bavc a grea&COftQml nowbecause I f il was SoinS to happc:n. it would IlIIVC been in AUIJIlSI to Occcmbcr of 2000" wbcn R.ikti W8Iinitially placed in his custody. Pertaining 10 M.s. Dombroski's potential for abducting RiW. his responsewas. wrr she getS too nruch of a squeeze Oft bet (Rikki). I think its in the ptCture." Wbcn asked how MI.Dombroski might gain credibility with him. be said. "I t would have fD be actions. It would have 10 betime." Owl' the course of he hour I made notes about poIenlial actions be would like to sec. We agreedthey included Mno more aUcgations of physical or sexual abwJc of Ri.kki or Claudine" aDd I added "00 mon:poruayals orHal as a domestic batterer or child abuser." Mr, Ricbardson stopped me when I wnn this last..action." noting. KHAI did fight with Claudine," I was impressed with this IlOCXIPtance or responsibility forsome of the conflicts. HOWe-vef. I noted with him that such continued portm:yaJs of bim WC1'e not ill Rikld'sbest intcteSts. We needed to move past such miSfakcs (and both sides hod made them) in order to do whatwas besl for Rikki. One benefit of I'Cduccd conflict in the case migha be thaI CM:JIwaUy he might not bei.dcJ1dfled or labeled in this way to his daughter.In addition, Mr.RJcha.rdson agreed wilh my emphasis on Ms. Dombroski's need to share: RikkI. Hebelieved Ms. Dombroski at times trealed Rikt.llike 8 "piece ofpropcny" 8Dd that $he often told him. ~ s h e ' s (Rikki's) mine. you've got your own kida" as if she did not rccogni7..c he W8I also quite aUJlChcd to Jtikkj.


5/8

5\We also discussed Mr. Rich:m:lson's wishes (or RiIdd. He "wants RikJd to be n good kid'" and claimed hewas extremely proud of Rikki when her ftnt grade teacher staled tbat "'we would De\'CJ' have kno\\'U RikJdwas from a broken bome'" by bow she oonducls herself III schooL

We also discussed the casket thai sits in Mr. Ridwdson', living room and lhat is pjctw'ed on the wdl sile.Mr. Richardson nOied that he bought this from a friend after his divorce. He denied thaI it reprcscntcdanything other than an amiquc and olI'enxt 10 allow me 10 LtIlk 10 Rjkk,i to sec if she believed it couveyedlhe "control" messages as claimed by Ms. Dombroski I told him' would need to think mon: about itbefore laIkiog with Rikk.iIn contrasllO bow be was porlnlyed by Ms. Oombl'Olkl. Mr. RicblU'dson was pleasant in OW' discussion.The only time he seemed inilable or even mildly difficult was with 10 the casket. I ~ he badoffered to "get rid of it " berore (when discussing this wilh the losI Cwse Manager), but be did ootcomeacross aa really wanting to do Ibis and Ibot be was irritated at disalss;ng it. pcrbaps for the "uptCCPth Lime."No decision about it was made in IbJl filSl meeting. If I hod continued. I would have addn::sscd this i.ssucagain. Tt would be my hope thal Mr. Richardson would remove Ule casket 10 keep it from inIlarning theprocess (just I recommended Ms.. Dombroski romCM: tbe web site).Mr. R.k:hanlson' s refcn:na:s to Ms. Dombroski for the most past conc:emcd bow "she must behave."However, his opinion orM$. BCIty Siumpf. M&. DombrosId's mother, isdedded1y mon: critic:aI. HebelieVes Ms. Stumpf has not been helpful 10 he and Ma Dombroski with rcsped to their c:oafUcu. Hiswords for describing her well) "'she' s poisoo." I did not ask bim to elabomte 00 this in this initial meeting.Mr. Richardson and , was discussed ,he pholo album I had given him at the end or lhe Status Coofmmcc.He bad placed pictures of RikJd In iI. As I browsed through Ibcm, I ~ J a i n C d lhc pmposc oC the album wasboth prnctical and a bit symbolic. Because people in hish-conOia divorce CBSCII often argued aboutpictures. my pInn was to scan piC1un:& he bad ofRikki and provide lhem 10 Ms. Dombroski (and vicevc:rsa). The symbolism islhat this offen the other side to know about aspects oftbc child's life they were:unable 10 witness I.hcmselves. Mr. Rk:hantson identified Ad others in Ibc piauRa ond asked thallonly scan pic::tun!s ofRiW herself since be believed pictures of Rikki with othermembers of his fimUlymight antagonize Ms. Dombroski. He did DOt want thc pictures to stir up moRi conflict I agn:cd with bisIhoughts on this issue but did nol ge l Chis task. c:omplcteriAs thc end ofOW' meeting approached. Mr. Richardson asked. "So what am I supposed to dor I atkcd himto cad the Oettins 10 Yes book and loaned bien a copy. He said be would n:ad it. WbeD I suggested thatbe work on the kiod& ofvisitation schedules that mlsht work. be stated he would wan' to doh "like before."He described a scbcdulc very close to "guideline visitatioa" with RiW soctng Ma. Dombroski everyWodnesdsy for two bours and every other weekend. 'lbc:y could also divide up the holidays and vacationsin aa:ordancc with thc Shawnee County OuidcJincs. He stated be would bcncftt from RIkJd being withClaudine every other weekend by being able 10 take 011 more jobs at won:. He also Ionscd for an end 10 theoonfticu because of he stJess they meant fOT him and Rikki. \Vhen I asked about possibly lDCICting williMs. Dombroski. Mr. Ri


6/8

6

AI least in the sessions with me. her behavior did 1101 appear to indicalc any rage or hatred at Mr.Richardson tbat was Ihl'COlCfting Co find e.'q)feSSiOD in a homicide-suicide. I also did not perceive nnyintolerable or i.ncscapablc distress t.haJ might trigger a psychological crisis of sufficient JUagnilude towarrant a oomjcldesu.icidc solution. Indeed. her stance with respect to Mr. Richardson seemed mon: abotJldislress she experienced al being UJluble LO cbangc anything about his role in her situation and about uyingto get others to make sore he didn't harm Rikki. Ms. Dombroski denied having any plan to halm Rikld anddid not appear as I f she hod given up hope to the poim of being suicidal. Indeed. she bas remanicd andappears to have a good relationship with htt new busband. She is acth1cly involved in advocacy activiliesrelated to domestic violcncc from which she demcs sigoi11cant self-esteem. She reports a good womngrelationship with a psychotbernplSl She has followed th e visitation scbedule of supervised time with Rikk.jand now wants more time 10 re-establish a more significant reLaliooship.Ms. Dombroski understood me issue: of needinS to "sIlare Rik.ki" and seemed to respond LO 90me of myiDtcn'COliODS designed to helphcr make more reasonable requests with respect to her porcntiJl8 time wittlRikki. Regardless of what one believes about whether or not Ms. Dolllbf05ki WU5 ~ b l c or incapable ofsliming Rikld In the past. she appears to be learning how the Court has oorne to view her as havingproblems in this auea that need to be addn:ssed. Signs 1M l she might be &ess extreme in her peQuontowards Mr. Ri(;hamfson inc:lude the modification oftbe web sile 10 exclude data about the case andmenaces to Mr. Ric:hardson and her willingness to evCfltually meet with !rim 10 discuss a parenting timescbcdu.le. .And finally, to my knowlcdSC, Ms. Dombroski has DO history of betns physiallly hannfuJ 10 her daughter.She denies any motivation for hanuing RiUi and lus ts her inlcnl is exactly the opposite. Mr. Richardsonbelieves the highest risk for dangerous actions would have been from August to Dco:mber 2000 wbcn thecustody of Rikki switcbcd &om Ms. Dombroski. While Ms. Dombroski 's conflicts with the Court and itsofficers WCIe significant aI thai time and persisted up to the present time. none: of these seemed sufficienl topush her towards harmful or homicidal actions in the past aud it is diffitu1t to look into the future andimagine c:vcnts tbol WQU.Id ~ c or e x tbc stteRea or Ihca: evcntt,With respect to the risk of Claudine Dombroski ..abducting" RikJd. it is the Court"s view that Ms.Dombroski did do this in tbc past and lIIat Ms. Dombroski had also enpged in otber kindl of actions thatinlerfc:rcd with Mr. Ricbardsoo'll pan:l1'Ital rights. This evaJwdor did not rmel Ms. Dombrolki to have anykind of actm: plan to defy the Court and take Rikki. Again. wbilc Ms. Dombroski's tcfIdcncy 10 lhink aboutwhat may be scm as cxccsstve motions to plac:e before the Court is a problem.. this behavioral patternspeaks 10 her cff'o'fU to raotve mattcrs in ways other than ilh:ga1 actioN like abduction.WUC ,....Id belp Ike Court ecc M. . Dombroddu cRdlble CIICMIP 'Co raaDIC more Dormal poratiagadlwt!es a t RQdd'. . . . .raitleadal paftllt1Docs Ms. Dombroski still want n:sidcntla1 CUSlody7 Yes.. she docs. I don', know many mothers whowould ever give up lbls wish. Bur the question orinlcrcst 10 the Court is wlllC'lhct she can accept her role allII I'IOI'H"ClIidcndaJ pan:n1 or. show the Court me is makillg ptugress lowmds tlrls end. am abe and Mr.Richardson find ways of decn.sing th e conflicts in rhe case to the benefit of their dauglucr1Functioning adequately lIS lhe nonresidential parent will require Ms. Dombroski to rcsisI conliDwlJlypetitioning for changing custody from Mr. Richardson to herself The amdety cngcndcrcd from suchmotiolllicads to the polarized positions described throughout this report 'The case SOCII nowhere i f thisissue is always in the rorefront or the COn1ad between the parties. But the case also SIands litde cbancc ormoving forward i f this issue is C\lCrprcsent in the ba


7/8

7\Ar e abe parents C8peble of' mediDI 10 aegodaae plllreatmR plan tbat in't'otvC!1 M.. DombrodU b .....ing.more ....... IUpeniscd ddt l through the Sale Vlllit Prognm? Are theR poreata "lIllnl to meet anddlClUld dIey do this!

I don ( know if tbe Couo can come up wtch It better solution than the parents could i f Ihey had a properlyinnnaged mC!C1ing, Such u meeliug was a goal of my proocsses with both pan::ml. Such a mCC1ing wouldrequire the porcnlS to set aside tbcit conflicts (and 10 a large extent soUle of tbcir e views) to finda way to ~ s b a r c Rikll.i." Mr. Richardson c:xprcssed a willingness to nu:=et i f the meeting can be aboulsharing Rikki. Neither he or the Court have any interest in relwhiDs past cvems, arguing 0\lC'T custody. orany planning that means IUkki is taken from him. Showing a willingness to meet with Mr. Richardson (0negotiate parenting time, not custody, could also be secft as an indiC8l.ion of Ms. Dombroald pL'lCing "';duein he r role aB non-residential patCI'Jl I was moving Ms. OombroslU in this direction and preparing her forsuch a meeting. To EICalmpUsh Ibis meeting. clear limits and boundaries similar would need to beestablished and maintained. But J believe UIICSC two parents can worlt lowards.aud achjeve the goaJ ofmeeting to discuss tbci.r daughter if appropriate suppons available an d adequafe pre-mCC1in8 preparntion iscompleted.V tb c p.reao c::aa Itt to be poiDa of aegoliatina ,. pareatilll time s:ebeduJe.. wbDt IIlIgbt the parentiDgtime IIChedule look Ike!Mr. Ricbatdson's suggestion to "do wbalwc did before" seems I",c a big step from the curreat~ This oWer may represent biro choosil18 an Ihat he hopes mcaJlS less stress mtherthan negofi.ming StcpII to more sradually arri't'C III this amIJlFfIlCDl CertninJy, stICh an arrangcm.cnt aMJldbe viewed as a goal for the process between the parcnlS. I bad suggested 10 Mr. Riduudson thatMl1.Dombrosid' 5 incR:ased contact with RikJd take place at school wbcrc olber personnel were around toprovide a degree of monitoring.What appnNl" udPc A cue DlADqer tIIJ&e to ecldeve IIIItteICI (e .. . . salety. decreue In c:onf1ict.PlU'CDdnll time for both pareaCI) la 1111. cue?1lae question of who migbl manage or mediate tbe meetinS between dle parents will be a mat ter for chcCowt. Is there "'hope" for change from the oonUnual oonflict \hal has c:luuacterized so mucb ofdJiscouple"s relationsbip?Ooc'SaDSWef to thisqucsUort dctermi.ocsooc'1I: opinion ofwbal should be donefrom this point forward. I fone bel.ic:vcs tbalthe psycholosici and behaviors of the partlca wiU not cbangc,that.the n:latiooship will always be marmt by conflict and vioJence if' COOlaCt between the parcnb 1saJJowcd. and lha:t tbe support.sys&ems orlhe partict wiU furtbcr lock aDd entrench tbe pa:rtles in theirootdlict. eben some kind orarlJitrator like a Case Manattcr lIIIdIor Ihc Court will supervise the case: untilRikki is 18. Th e COlIn clearly sees the disadv8lJl88CS of thil scenario.My n:c:ommcndatiaa ill for the Court to ideDIifY a c:aac mat1It8Cf wbo couJd work with the parents in wbJdone JI'light term. ..mcdiation-oriCDU:d casc management." This process would have the parents .meet andwOlk together to &CI as far as possible 00 eac:b contCliCed Issue before !he case manager makes a dcc:ision. IIwill be diJficull 10 conduct die I..'USI: in lbi.II way 81 Om.. but the beDeftm are dIaIlbe .pGlUIts can C\'eDtuaIIylearn how to focus tJaeir efforts 00 tJtejr chiJd's needs rather thaD dJei, conf1jcu or pcmJOMI agc:ndas.EDeline AD d FeesRt:garding my coD1actS wilh the parnes since my role in Ihc case endcI:I. I ba't'C spoken to Mr. Richardsonby phone to make ammgemen1S for kim to retunl pick up IUs pbOo and 10 return my boc*.. I havealso spoken 10 Ms. Dombrosld to amcd a mcetin8 scheduled for March 29. 2002. I dl.rccted her 10 work onthe I8SIc.s we had discussed in our meetings (e.g., revtsio,gthc web site, working on a letter to Mr.Richardson) because these activities held more promise for improviog her Lime and relationship with IUkkiUum additional RU181 with tho Court.This report completes my role in the case. My fees for the C8!lC 8rc 12800 for fOUJ1cCn hours on the case.As noted in my Idter of February 7. 1002, my fees are calculated al $200 per hour for both direct and


8/8

8 \1ndirec11ime spent in the evaluation including bu. not Umitcd 10 intcnicws and les1ing. telephone conlaCls,document review, deposition. coun preparntion and testimony, and repo" preparntiOIl. I ha\'e refundedMs.Dombroski $2200 from her $5000 retainer.

I focused my report on the issues of celltrnl importance in dljs case and worked to build bridges wherec:onfliCl scpamtcd people. Perhaps Ihis can move things forward. I am avail;lblc 10 addrcs.. questions aboutthe case and Ihis report.

2002 april 2 dr. dale evaluation forensic ordered by court to get mom out of supervised visits

Documents