december 16, 2008 transcript hearing of injustice

8/8/2019 December 16, 2008 Transcript Hearing of Injustice

1/72

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

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSPROCEEDINGS had before the Honorable David B.

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

County, Kansas, at Topeka, Kansas on the 16th

day of December,2008.APPEARANCES:

The Petitioner, Mr. Hal Richardson, appears in person and byand through counsel, Don Hoffman. 112 West th Street, TopekaKansas 66603.

The Respondent, Ms. Dombroski, appears in person and prose, 3120 SE Minnesota, Topeka, Kansas 66605.

The minor child appears not but through the Guardian adLitem, Jill Dykes.


2/72

. . , ,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 whothe Court would want to distribute those to, but I do have a copy ofthem.

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

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


3/72

.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 readyto 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 -- onyour ear?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Oh-THE COURT: There are no cell phones, no cameras

allowed in the courtroom.


4/72

I

. .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 firstduly sworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE COURT: Okay. If you would have a seat. This is arecording division, so that microphone does not amplify your voice, itjust 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-- -----------_..._-_ ..._--


5/72

. . ,visitation as a result of an ex parle order that was signed by JudgeBruns on a case manager's recommendation February 3, 2004. Withthat, they based it on your - the whole merit of the ex parle order isbased on what my daughter allegedly told you about her - aboutwhatever danger that I may be to my daughter. I n the records that Ihave, they don't coincide with the dates. You didn't see her until thesame week after. So I'm just a bit curious as to what it is, whatrecords you have the reports that I don't have, obviously, and whyyou 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


6/72

. ,best. Please-

THE COURT: You-MS. DOMBROSKI: --be patient with me.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, you are acting as yourown 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 heretoday.

THE COURT: Listen, Ms. Dombroski, one question at atime. It's very simple. Ask your question.Q. (by Ms. Dombroski) Dr. Rodeheffer, let me make it. Okay, we gotto make it. Let's see, real small minded. Why five years ago, whatwas 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 thefact what we have in the court documents that state nothing abouther mother being a threat to her daughter?


7/72

I

. , ,you can provide to the court, that shows that I'm a threat to mydaughter?

A. I just 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

don't know what I can release or can't release, and I don't know whatpermission 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 bereleased.


8/72

.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 calltherapeutic jurisprudence, where we are taking -- we have somebodywho I cannot cross-examine. Who's making decisions. Are you adoctor-

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski.MS. DOMBROSKI: --are you a doctor?

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, you don't get to crossexamine, 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'reasking that the parenting time be enlarged. So the issue is, whatmaterial change has taken place that would authorize the Court to dothat? That's the issue in this case. So that's what your questionsneed to be directed to.


9/72

-- .THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you understand?

Q. (By Ms. Dombroski) Dr. Rodeheffer, when was the last timeyou 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 parentingtime, and then the rest were after that. Can you explain thedifference? Okay.

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

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


10/72

.point

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

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. 1 don'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 inhere knows what he said to the Courts except for me.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, we're not going torelitigate prior orders in this case. You filed a motion that you want toenlarge your parenting time, so the question is, the issue is whatmaterial change has taken place. We're not going to relitigate what'staken place in the past.

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


11/72

, . .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. Ireally don't. At this point, it's past the point of no return and it reallydoesn't matter. I had a friend that just died from doing shoveling. SoI'm going to say to everybody that ifs fine to everybody that came inhere.

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 comein here, you know, you don't want to relitigate, she wants to send stuffin, then you're asking me questions, he hasn't seen her, nobody hasseen 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


12/72

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

anything that has to do with Ricki and if she's contemplating puttingtherapeutic records that she has online regarding my client, I wouldobject to that and ask the Court to order her not to do that.

THE COURT: That would be the order of the Court. Youare not authorized and you can not place online, on the internet, onyour website, on your face page, face page, whatever you have, onyour website, you cannot put any therapeutic records, medicalrecords, 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 FirstAmendment 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

, you.


13/72

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

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


14/72

. . , .(THEREUPON,DR. ALBOTT,

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been first dulysworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE COURT: Please have a seat, Doctor, and as Imentioned to the prior witness, this is a recording, but it doesn'tamplify your voice. Please keep'your voice up.

DIRECT EXAMINATIONBY 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 ambasically wanting to see my daughter, still. Even though we haven'tseen 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

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


15/72

. .threat to my daughter?

A. I think my reports have indicated in the past that I saw theconflict between you and the biological father as being so intense asto 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 opinionother than the interactions I saw between you and the biologicalfather of your child.

Q. Can I ask you a question about a perpetrator/victimscenario? Is it typical for a victim who has suffered trauma to react inwhat types of ways? As a psychiatrist, psychologist, you wouldprobably understand that.

A. I don't think there's any standard mode of people actinglike a victim. I think that covers an awfully wide range of behaviors.

Q. Okay. Say a victim of domestic violence was forced to sitin the same room with the same person who perpetrated extremeviolence against her, there would -- would that be a natural reaction

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


16/72

\

. . ,withdrawal, one could show quietness, one could show -- there'sagain a wide range of behaviors, and there's not one specific that Iwould assign to any person like that.

Q. Okay. So other than just the conflict between her fatherand I, that's it, that's all there is, that's the only reason why I can't seemy daughter, is because currently there's conflict between her fatherand I?

A. I don't know that that's the only reason as I remember.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 daddysaid 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 yougo ahead and say your objection? I didn't catch it.

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


17/72

.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 theopportunity 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 perfectlyhonest 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 ownattorney. All I have asked you to do is ask your question. You cannottestify. You have to ask the question.


18/72

. .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 thatthere is a profile that does exist on a batterer?

A. I am unaware of any statistically reliable such profile inthe literature.

Q. Do you think that domestic violence has any part to dowith a child, whether it happens when they're little, when they'resmall, and/or how do you think throughout their life span, especiallywhen, 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 atbut I don't really understand.

Q. Is it in the, let's use the best interest of the child rule. Is itin the best interest of the child to be separated from her motherbecause her father and her mother have conflict? Is it in the bestinterest of the child?

A. I think that-MR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, that question is really a


19/72

, .mean, it's obvious that he has had no contact with this case since2004. And the issue presently before the Court has to be the thingsthat have occurred much after that.

I would suggest here that unless you can show somerelevance 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 hashappened in the past, but we're here today to determine what's in thebest interest of your child, as you noted, and whether you shouldhave expanded parenting time with your child. So if Dr. Albott hasseen you or your child in the very recent past, then you can pose aquestion to him. If he hasn't and he hasn't seen either of you since2004, 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.


20/72

. , .MR. HOFFMAN: We have no questions.

THE COURT: Sir, you may be excused. Ms. Dombroski iwould you call your next witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Before I call anymore witnesses, I'm justgoing to go back to the original motion, since that's the way you'rewanting to go.

THE COURT: No just a second, Ms. Dombroski, we'rehearing the evidence right now. If you've finished putting on all yourevidence, then you need to rest, but if you haven't then you need tocall your witness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: With the evidence for the record that I wishto present for the case is the case of the Inner American Commissionof Human Rights, which this case is for Human Rights violations.Other than that, I have really not passed, but I'm going to go aheadand go here with this. I can't call the Guardian ad Litem} who issupposed to be doing the best interest of my child, who -- so I can'tcross her on that, so kind of stops that. So we'll come right backdown to it, maybe we can save all these people time. I was


21/72

.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)


THE WITNESS: Yes.THE COURT: Please be seated.

DIRECT EXAMINATIONBY MS. DOMBROSKI:

Q. Hi, Connie. I'll make it short and sweet. You've knownRicki and I since 1995, I believe is when we were first ordered intosupervised visits or I mean safe visit with monitored exchanges, andthen in 2000, when dad got custody, I was ordered into supervisedvisits.

A. I know that some of the records that we had on yourfamily, we do destroy after five years. So the records I have currently


22/72

.daughter. From the years that you've witnessed and known us, doyou see me be a harm to my daughter?

A. If I could answer that question in a way that would be, Imean, I don't have that magical answer. What I would say is that wedid suspend service in March of '08 after having served you foralmost five years in supervised visits. And we suspended service inMarch 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 inthe same manner.

Q. And in your report, that report, what it was saying, thatRicki didn't have any idea really what was going on and that weneeded 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 neverexpressed feeling comfortable with having unsupervised contact.

Q. How many people are comfortable when, in yourstructured facility of guards and closed rooms, and one-arm's length


23/72


24/72

'

. ,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 ofbeing embarrassed or without a fear of-

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

A. By actions and behaviors and things that you might do.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 relationshipwith her mother and talk about friends and be that normal kind ofthing, the clothes, the talking, the malls.

A. What sne said to us was that she wished she could havea normal relationship like other kids do, but that she didn't feel shewas able to.


25/72

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

understand, almost nine years, of very minimal, minimalcommunication with my daughter, and it is very uncomfortable.

How many of your clients are victims of domestic violence thatare 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 mentalhealth problems. They might be financially unstable to the point thatthey're homeless and they don't have a safe environment to see theirchild in. Some people see their children supervised because theyjust recently found out through paternal testing that they were thechild's parent. Some people see their parent supervised becausethey've been in prison and so they haven't had a relationship withthem. Some families see their parent in a supervised settingbecause of child abuse. Domestic violence, drugs, it's a combination


26/72

.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 wasbecause of safety concerns about your child seeing youunsupervised.

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 theissues was that you had left the community and -- with your daughterat one time, against Court order. And then, but there were severalsituations that, from 2004, to the current time, you know, that werebrought to our attention after you had been in the services.

Q. Who brought to your attention to the--who brought thoseto your attention?

A. Ricki, would talk about different situations that came up.\ For example, when you arrived at the school when you weren't


27/72

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 nonoffending parent in supervised visitation and place the blame on thatparent because they might embarrass their child because of theviolence?

A. I'm sorry. Did you -- is there a question in there for me? Ididn'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 thiswitness makes decisions. She takes the clients on safe visits under


28/72

. . ,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 thisrevolving door, how many have been in there in nine years--tenyears?

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'swhy they are in service long term.

Q. So they should stay in supervised visits until the childbecomes 18?


29/72

. , ,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 whatconstitutes (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 awitness?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Well, Mr. Swartz was the whole reasonwhy I'm under supervised visits with Dr. Rodeheffer and the fact thatDr. Rodeheffer, emailed the Guardian ad Litem and the Guardian adLitem-

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?


30/72

. , ,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,


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'tbring up the past as to why we're here in the present which is how itbecame kind of a mix up, but what is the job of the case manager?


31/72

,;

..

.

,but as I understand it, the role of the case manager back in thosedays was to serve as the final solution for courts that could not comeup with other solutions.

Parties would be ordered into case management if the Courtconcluded that they had been in court, I think it was more than threetimes in the last six months to twelve months, that the Courtconcluded that it was not successful to come to court. That the courtconcluded that mediation was not going to be successful. That thecourt had concluded that counseling was not going to be successful.And that the case manager was to serve, basically, as a person whowould make immediate decisions and make recommendations to thecourt.

Q. What happens after you make a recommendation to thecourt?

A. Process in those days was I would make arecommendation, I would mail it to the court and mail it to the partiesand the parties would have ten days in which they could object. Andthe Court would then rule on whether or not the recommendations


32/72

. ,somehow our written objection never made it to--even though it wasfiled--Iet me--I've never met the judge that signed this order, JudgeBruns. There was a lot of correspondence between you guys andeverybody. Let me retract that.

Let me ask you, about how many times-- about how manyclients 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 thecase manager on your case a significant period in the past; is thatcorrect?

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

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


33/72

,and what has happened in the recent past. So I'm wondering whatMr. Swartz is doing here if he hasn't been the case manager since2005.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Because we're in a lock, we've beenlocked in this position for the last five years. This case has notmoved. We've been put in supervised visitation, we have been in thisgossipy circle without -- this is the first time in five years I've everbeen 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 ofthis witness that he could answer within the recent past, and that's

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


34/72

.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 thiswitness, 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 nextwitness.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Kara Haney, come up here, please.THE COURT: Can you spell your first name for me?

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

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


35/72

. - - - - .(THEREUPONKARAHANEY,

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been 'first dulysworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

THE COURT: Please have a seat. If you could keep yourvoice up for us, I think there's also some Kleenex's there if you needthem, it's the cold season.

MS. HANEY: Thank you.\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 hermother. 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


36/72

.you interacting appropriately with your daughter; however, I have alsoobserved times when your daughter tries to talk to you about thingsand you talk right over her head as if she hasn't even spoken. I haveobserved Ricki get embarrassed from time to time during visitationbecause 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 normalreactions for that situation that need working say reunificationtherapy? Okay. Let me retract all that. take all that back. When wereyou when did Odyssey become a part of supervising this case?

A. I believe that Odyssey was contracted for services lateJune. I believe that somebody before me supervised a couple ofvisits in July, and then I took the case in August and have beensupervising visits since.


37/72

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, morenormal contact, which has been in court on the record with hermother, and that therefore they thought they would try the Odysseyprogram. The Odyssey program was not-

THE COURT: Are you making a -- are you making apreliminary statement to the witness that you're going to ask aquestion 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 inthat manner. But right now, you need to ask questions of the witness.Okay?

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


38/72

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

given more time we could work out or do you think separating usfurther would make it better?

A. I can't really answer that question. What I can answer isthat in my experience speaking with Ricki and asking her what herdesires are in terms of a relationship with her mom and futurevisitation and things like that, she has expressed, and it is my priorityto look out for Ricki's best interest, she has expressed a desire tokeep things status quo. She has expressed a desire to keep the visitsevery other week. She has expressed a desire that she wants themto 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


39/72

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 thatthat'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 seeingher mother, and then all these other external pressures along withher 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 onher with you at this point is more of a pressure than anything. Rightnow, I think, that she is doing well to thrive in school and have normalteenage relationships, and to do the things that she does, and I thinkthat she very much feels pressure to try to-


40/72

.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 beforethe visit, and she expressed to me that there are several things thatshe wishes for in her relationship with you and she does not havethose 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 wantsyou to listen to her when she talks.

Q. Given the very, very short amount of time that we everhave, it's kind of hard to hear it all, and so do you think thatseparating 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 eachother. We haven't been around each other, and it's uncomfortable forboth of us. I mean, it's probably the most shutful (sic) thing for me todo myself. And she's my heartbeat. But we don't get enough timetogether to get to know each other. So how can we fix that?

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


41/72

,basically?

A. I think that in most cases, that's appropriate, but I alsothink that we have a 14-year-old who has been very clear andconcise in her reporting not only to me but to other people in herwishes and her desires. As indicated in my report, I think if visits werelengthened or were to be unsupervised, it would be myrecommendation and the recommendation of our agency that beforethat would happen, that you and your daughter would need to have aweekly 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 theCourt.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay. Okay, okay, okay. Thank youKara, I really don't have any other questions.

THE COURT: Cross Examination.CROSS EXAMINATION

\ BY MS. DYKES:


42/72

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.


43/72

.THE COURT: Mr. Hoffman.

CROSS EXAMINATIONBY MR. HOFFMAN:

Q. Ma'am, your report indicates that Ricki has expressedembarrassment in a reference to her mother's behavior from time totime; 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 hermother'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 talkingabout?

A. There has been an occasion where she's actuallyexpressed to mom "you're embarrassing me" and she expressed tome at the last visit at one point that she was embarrassed of aparticular behavior at the visit.


44/72

.THE COURT: Redirect.

REDIRECT EXAMINATIONBY 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 likeanybody else would.

MS. DOMBROSKI: You know, ('m not anybody else. I havebeen denied-

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, all you have to do is askpermission to sit, like anybody else.

MS. DOMBROSKI: Okay. Your Honor, may I have permissionto sit as my disability indicates?

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.


45/72

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 goingevery Saturday for two hours with the goal to increase and expandvisitation. Ricki, when she said that she wanted to stop and go everyother week, there was -- she didn't feel real comfortable really evensaying that she just didn't know what to say. Do you think a kid wantsto please both parents and is going to do the very best that she canto make it not so hard on either one?

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

..... ~ -


46/72

. ,loves you, but she wants her wishes known.

Q. Okay. Why-- wow-- what stress at 14,13, five years tohave 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 wesay that we need to integrate but she doesn't want to?

A. You know, if she were a younger child, I would say maybebased on the best interest of the child, we should try to pursue smallincremental steps toward progress, but we have a child right nowwho is bright and knows what she wants and is expressing it, and Iwouldn't recommend going against her wishes at this point.

f would feel that that was not in her best interest. So as Rickistated, 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.\ Q. And you're aware that the whole therapeutic intervention


47/72

.she has been separated from her mom. For five years, she's heardnothing 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 fiveyears because she doesn't know her mom.

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

- - - - - - ---- ...... - .. ..- ......


48/72

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

(THEREUPON,HAL RICHARDSON,

Called as a witness on behalf of the Petitioner, having been firstduly sworn by the Judge, testified under oath as follows:

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

BY MS. DOMBROSKI:\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 weshould be making the decisions?

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

Q. Five years ago?


49/72

.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 sowhat does she want is only based on the past 'five years of time thatshe'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 everynight. So-

A. We talked about embarrassment earlier.Q. Okay.A. She doesn't need a best friend, she needs a mom.


50/72

,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 ofthe 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 ofneed 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 notallowed to have any contact with her other than that-

A. A good start would be when do have her, when you arewith her, to show that you can do that. And she would be a changedgirl in no time.

Q. I think she's a pretty cool kid. I don't know her though, Ireally don't, not as a daughter, any more than she knows me as amother. So that's kind of the analogy of just to be a mother, I wouldlove to say, but I don't. All I can think of is I just want to make the

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


51/72

.other than the fact that and we can't do that by keeping more timeputting more distance between that. We're not going to get to knoweach other and be able to assume those natural roles. You're goingto keep -- are you going to just, let me see here. Do you think thatshe 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 manyhours of a year in contrast to an entire year? Do you think that canhappen 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 Ithink if you done that a few times you would probably see somethings 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


52/72

. .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 Iknow that I just- if you guys are set on this, everybody's set on it, Iguess I don't really have anymore to say other than I just wish thatsomebody 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


53/72

.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-


54/72

. .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 thepeople that let her down that should be embarrassed not the fact thatbecause, yeah, it's a very embarrassing thing. But it's -- not what ifit's -- it's somebody -- you want me to take all the blame foreverything. And then be a, what -- I mean-I'm really, Ricki is 14, andshe'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 knowTHE COURT: Do you have any further questions?

MS. DOMBROSKI: Oh, the confines of humanity. No you can'tthere's no life here.

THE COURT: Do you have any further questions, yes orno?

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


55/72

relationship any better so that we can resolve any of these issuesthat everybody has about anything that complete separation, like ithas been for the past five years, nine years, actually ten years, we!regoing 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 ofthat 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 haveanother question, Ms. Dombroski?

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

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


56/72

,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 testifythat you may testify. If you wish to testify before you close and restyour case, this would be the time to do so.

MS. DOMBROSKI: You know, for the past, I don't know mydaughter, your Honor-

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


57/72

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 youbrought 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 treatedand held at the same standard as a lawyer, and as an officer of thecourt. They're already under oath when they enter the courtroom.

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, do you want to testify as awitness in this case?

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


58/72

.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 Ipreserve the record for later incase I messed it up.

THE COURT: No. My question was, are you resting yourcase at this time or do you have additional evidence that you want toput on?

MS. DOMBROSKI: The only evidence that I want to -- yes, Iguess what I'm trying to say is what I've already said, though, is thatthis 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 willeach have a time to give a closing argument based on the evidencethat has been presented in the courtroom today. Now, you're at thepoint that you're either going to call additional witnesses or you'regoing to rest your case, at which time I will turn to Mr. Hoffman andask 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


59/72

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

witness. You give your closing statement from the table you're at. Ifyou want to testify as a witness, you go under oath and you come uphere.

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 cantry it. I don't want to-

THE COURT: Now, it's not up to me, it's up to you. Whatdo 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, theend is where you can do story telling?

THE COURT: The end is not story telling, the end is aclosing argument. It is based on the evidence that came before theCourt. That's all you can argue on.

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


60/72

.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'resaying evidence. Evidence is facts. As you can see-

THE COURT: Ms. Dombroski, each of the witnesses thatyou called presented testimony and that is evidence in the case, inthis hearing.

MS. DOMBROSKI: But the evidence, the factsTHE 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?


61/72

. . ,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 areready 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 beenable to, ever even had the opportunity, to present evidence or evenan evidentiary hearing. Ten years have gone by and my little girl grewup, 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 thateverything that I do, I do as a mother would do. I didn't wake up onemorning and decide to be an activist just to be an activist. I was a

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


62/72

. .died. And then I had the mis -- I was -- I was under the fortitude that Ihad the right to be safe and I'm not supposed to be hurt and I hadeven been threatened by the courts that my daughter would be takenif she witnessed the violence, and I left. If I had known what I knownow, I wouldn't have done that, I wouldn't have left. What I do now Ido for my daughter, because I don't want the same thing to happento 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'thave 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 amom. Everything I do is because of what's happened in the distancethat we've been through. I would just love to -- I will meet her again, Iknow. 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'sCustody Conference and I present with some of the greatest minds inthe 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


63/72

......;'

,was my daughter. And you guys are saying they're saying that's notbeing a mom? I don't see my child. I can't sit back and watch thegames, I can't sit back and watch a movie with her. But I could seemy daughter in that little girl, and in every child that walks around rsee my daughter in them, because I can't see my daughter. So what Ido is as a mom. "m trying to proted her the best I can. Ten years hasgone by. I'm not going to get that back, and I'm not going to changethis yet, but for my daughter, I will. Because she deserves it and hergeneration deserves it. Our children deserve the right to not bepressured or oppressed. I mean, that's just, you know, insanity, isinsanity and this is just insane.

I had a job, I had a whole life. I mean, I was crushed down. Youguys have crushed me down. The system has torn me apart andrefused to allow me to talk to my daughter.

Of course, she would be embarrassed by my behaviorconsidering she doesn't know anything about me. There's a littlething called the internet and she found out about her mom, and backin April she said, "I want to see my mom," when she thought a


64/72

.know each other again.

What is a good mom? I am a good mom. I'm protecting mychild in the only way that I'm allowed to. The system failed us. So I'mgoing to I keep plugging and keep getting it out there. I won't let ithappen to her children. And the ex parte and the -- everything thathas happened in the past five years, right up to this day, I have neverhad the opportunity, ever, to talk like I'm doing now which has totallyknocked me on the floor considering I just had a friend who had aheart attack from doing his windows today and I didn't think I wasgoing to make it in. I'm going to just stick with the heart and I'm goingto stick with humanity and "m going to be the change that I want theworld to be for my daughter. I want the world be a better place, I wantit to be safe. I want the world to be safe. I want her to know that shehas a lot of rights, and it's not just one sided, and it's going to takeeverybody 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


65/72

meaningful way. In giving complete deference to this request that'sbeing made here, it would seem that the request is that somehow anincrease in the amount of scheduled time would be in this child's bestinterest, and other than the self-serving statements that have beenmade here, I don't think that there is any evidence to support that. Infact, the evidence that has been adduced here would suggestotherwise.

On behalf of Mr. Richardson, who I will say we've been involvedin this case since 1996 together, a fair amount of deference has beenshown to Ms. Dombroski throug hout these proceedings, but they arebecoming burdensome, and I think two or three times now we havehad two professionals, three professionals subpoenaed here insupport of contentions that are totally off the map.

We've heard no evidence here about Social Security, Disabilitypayments nor recusal of the Guardian ad Litem, and therefore wewould suggest that they are meritless and there is no support forthem in the record.

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


66/72

-- .associated with this litigation. To my knowledge, there has neverbeen 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 considerationshould be given to the award of costs of attorney's fees not so muchfor Mr. Richardson's counsel, but for some of these people that arebeing utilized here, I think inappropriately. For example the Guardianad Litem has had to sit here throughout this and each and every timeshe has been called upon to do that. My guess is that she has abalance 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 thatto you because this case is becoming a burden to Mr. Richardsonand I think others, and I think that this motion is patently withoutmerit.

MS. DYKES: I just-\


67/72

. , . ,appointed to represent Ricki, I believe about four years ago. Andevery time we've come into court, I've been a little nervous becauseI'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 broughtRicki in to speak to Judge Johnson, and! think she was expecting alittle more than what actually occurred that day. And I tried toreassure her that I will go into court and I will fight for you and I willtry to get what you want to have happen in court. Well, last Fridayshe 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 morerespect and a little more attention to a child of that age.

And I would just ask the court today to please listen to whatRicki is saying. She has spoken through the most current providerthat was called today to testify, Kara Haney. She is a licensedBachelor's level Social Worker. She's working on her Master's at thistime. She's had more contact with Ricki than any of the otherproviders that were called to testify today. She unequivocally saidthat Ricki does not want anything to change, that Ricki would let


68/72

---- --

fashion.

I also believe that Mr. Richardson, who is the next person totestify, stated that there are certain things that Ricki just wishes wouldhappen, and they are not complicated things at all. Ricki hasreiterated that same thing to me a dozen or more times. That she justwants a mom. She doesn't want a best friend, she doesn't wantsomebody hanging out with, she just wants someone there that canbe that can fill that role. And it doesn't happen. And no matter whatRicki says, she talks and talks and talks, but somebody's got to listenin order to hear what she is saying, and we just ask that you listen toRicki 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 momso let's take and separate it even further, that's an oxymoron. There'sno 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 stuffthat keeps being told over and over again. And we are to the point


69/72

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 letRicki 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 thebottom line. Ricki wants a mom, but it's mom's fault, so lets separateit, even if she would just do in the two hours every now and then hereand there, you know, zoooop, that two hours goes by so fast. Andthat was the most wonderful two hours we've had in five years.

That's, you know, supervised visits as far as finances go, youknow, it's all in the record. I'm not going to repeat it. The truth is inthe record. It's just, you know, I'm down to $500 a month, so we'll justkeep on going like that and that's really going to make it better forRicki and her mom. You know, and really it's just going to make itbetter for them to try to make me go away and keep Ricki separatedfrom her mom, and she does need mom. More than ever she needsme -- 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 haveto do for my daughter, is an example. And keep the separation,

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


70/72

case. This motion was titled an emergency motion for orders ofjustice. There are a number of like-styled motions that have beenfiled in this case. There was simply no evidence that backed up yourmotion in this case, Ms. Dombroski. I am denying your -- yourrequest of the recusal of the Guardian ad Litem. I am denying it,because there was no evidence brought forward whatsoever aboutthe Social Security benefits. And quite frankly, all the witnesses inthis case testified that the best interests of the child in this case wasto 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 besupported by facts and case law as required by the Shawnee CountyFamily Court Guidelines and as required by Kansas Law. They willnot be heard and I will entertain motions to dismiss those, anymotions you file unless, they are supported with memorandums oflaw as they should be.

Now, Mr. Hoffman, I'm going to ask you to draw up the journalentry in this case. I am denying on all grounds your request in thiscase. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your allegations.


71/72

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. Herewe are listening to the gossip section, skip the law part, and thenyou're telling me to do the law thing. (Laughs) Unreal, but not.

(THEREUPON, the proceedings were concluded.)


72/72

) ss:

COUNTY OF SHAWNEE )I, Misty M. Phillips, Transcriptionist of the Third

JUdicial District of the State of Kansas, do hereby certify thatthe foregoing transcript contains all of the proceedingsrequested to be transcribed: That said transcript, consistingof 70 type written pages, is a correct and completetranscript-- ( as correct and complete as a digital recordingwill allow) -- from the digital recording made at the time ofthe proceeding.

I further certify that the said transcript was made from adigital recording and the recording was, at times, hard tohear, to understand, people spoke at the same time at pOintsduring the proceeding, and the transcription was done to thebest of my ability, having not been present at the time ofrecording.

SIGNED, OFFICIALLY SEALED, and FILED, withthe Clerk of the District Court, Shawnee County, Kansas,This 5th day of February 2009.

Misty M. PhillipsTranscriptionist

december 16, 2008 transcript hearing of injustice

Documents