Opinion
08-19-2016
M.C., Plaintiff, v. D.C., Defendant.
M.C., Westchester County, Pro Se Plaintiff. D.C., Westchester County, Pro Se Defendant. Arlene Gold Wexler, Esq., Mamaroneck, for the Children.
M.C., Westchester County, Pro Se Plaintiff.
D.C., Westchester County, Pro Se Defendant.
Arlene Gold Wexler, Esq., Mamaroneck, for the Children.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, J.
A “Mother's love is bliss, is peace, it need not be acquired, it need not be deserved. If it is there, it is like a blessing; if it is not there, it is as if all the beauty had gone out of life,” Erich Fromm. Imagine that one's mother attempted to take not just the beauty of life but life itself. V. C., the eight (8) year old child of the parties in this action, looked to his mother as she took the wires from his sister's headphones and wrapped them around his neck. “It will only hurt for a minute,” she eerily comforted him. This, while his five (5) year old sister was shoved into the bathroom to allow the mother an opportunity to get rid of her son as extra baggage, in her attempt to vanish with her “sweet little girl”, I. C., whose every reference is prefaced with “my sweet little girl”.
Nothing could be more be more bizarre than that this mother, who attempted to take her own son's life, has demanded joint custody of him and his sister and an access schedule that allows her the opportunity to see her children multiple times weekly for multiple hours.
Background
This case first appeared before the Court when Mrs. C. came by Order To Show Cause in August, 2014 and requested the Court freeze her husband's assets that she claimed he was transferring overseas.
The Court brought the matter in and issued Orders in an attempt to preserve the status quo. At the same appearance, the father requested time with his children. He claimed that during the marriage, the mother had refused to allow him time alone with the children. Nor would she allow the children to spend time with the father's relatives. She would not dress them in clothes his relatives had purchased but only the clothes she had bought them. After hearing from the parties, the Court froze the parties' accounts except for carved out exceptions and directed that the father be given access to the children. However, before the father had the opportunity to exercise his access, the Court received a frantic call from the father's attorney alerting the Court that he was bringing on an emergency Order to Show Cause, alleging that the mother had absconded with the children. The Order to Show Cause was filed late Friday afternoon. The plaintiff had proof that his wife had obtained one-way tickets to Denver for her and the children, contrary to existing Court Orders. As a result, the Court gave temporary custody to the father to enable him to effectuate the return of the children. With the help of the police, defendant was located in Denver and directed to return to New York. Upon returning, the children were handed over to the father.
During the ensuing months, the mother saw her children in only court approved supervised settings. Her son, as reported by the supervisor, was difficult, nasty and obstinate. Her daughter was sweet and compliant. The children were in therapy.
Suddenly a symbolic bomb exploded. The Court had always wondered about the mother's odd name. Her first name was that of a designer brand, like “Gucci” or “Versace”. Her last name was another designer type name like “Wedgewood” or “Steuben”. The father, at trial, testified that he had hired a private investigator. The Court recalls that the children's original therapist had done some digging of her own. In any event, it was discovered, and the wife does not dispute, that she was not Italian as she had told her husband and children, but rather from Mexico. She had legally changed her name and had given the children Italian names, based on her “so called” Italian heritage. The family had vacationed in Italy where defendant proudly showed her family places of interest and introduced them to a “childhood Italian friend.”
Not only was she not from Italy but she was not an orphan, as she had claimed. She left her Mexican family when she was 19 years old and never looked back. She had absolutely no contact with her mother, father or ten (10) brothers and sisters since about the time she left. While she was testifying, the Court asked her why she left her family. She claimed both parents were abusive. But the Court reminded her of what the forensic psychologist, Dr. Abrams wrote in his report,
Mrs. [C.] described her mother as a very nice lady who was always trying to keep the peace in a chaotic household filled with children and grandchildren. She stated that her father was a physical man, who was verbally demeaning. He would discipline a child by slapping the child with a belt. She never had a good relationship with father, stating that he always left her with a bad feeling. She reported that her mother was always trying to defend the children from their father.
Court Exhibit 1A, p. 4.
However, when defendant spoke with Dr. Tuckman, Court appointed Forensic Psychiatrist, she gave yet a different account.
She denied any abuse of her or her siblings by her parents and also admitted that she even vacationed with one of her older sisters and family. I had anticipated that this topic would be very painful for her to speak about, yet, it was not the case, at all. It was during this time in—, Colorado, when she applied to have her name changed and “cut off all contact with my family and they never knew where I was.” When I confronted her with the possibility that her family could have been deeply hurt by her sudden disappearance, she stated, “It's best to keep your distance. That's how I was thinking .” When, I challenged her about whether she ever thought about the pain that her family may have gone through at her disappearance or whether she ever wondered about them, she stated, “I wish for them the best. I don't forget where I'm from.” At this comment, I again challenged her with the fact that she apparently seemed to erase her family from her mind, including changing her name and her heritage, she stated, “Well, I wanted to tell [M.] but I never found the time.
Court Exhibit 2B, p. 11.
The issue regarding D. C.'s completely fabricated life history combined with her “designer” name and attempt to abscond with the children, made this a very bizarre case indeed.
Dr. Carolyn McGuffog, Ph.D.
The case continued to unfold. On or about February 7, 2015, the children's therapist, Carolyn McGuffog, Ph.D., decided to have a “truth” session with the children (who were unaware of their mother's deceit) and their mother, in an attempt to help them deal with the fact their mother had raised them to believe she was Italian and they were also of Italian heritage, which were complete fabrications.
As Dr. McGuffog described the session during trial, I.C. was snuggling with her mother and innocently said, “Mom, if this is a truth session, so can you tell why you put a smelly rag over my nose and I kept asking you to stop. Why did you keep putting the smelly rag up my nose?” The Doctor testified that the mother acted as if nothing was wrong. The child continued, “Why did we go to Denver? Why did you say we were seeing your friend? Why didn't you take Daddy's calls? Why did you say the plan didn't work?” All the while, D.C. was angrily asking why an additional visitation was not taking place. The therapist testified that she was not expecting these questions from I.C., especially as they had been working on a plan for the mother to get a place to live that would enable her to exercise visitation at her house with I. C.
Prior to the session with I. C., Dr. McGuffog and defendant's son, V. C., had met with the mother. During his session, speaking of the time before his parents separated, he had asked his mother, “... then why do you lie, why do you put me to bed at 7:00.” Moving on to the present, he complained, “You don't want me to see my father, you make me stay on the phone” (during Court ordered phone access). After his initial session, he left and I.C. had her session as described above. He then returned with his father, who said that V.C. had something to share. V.C. described his mother wrapping a cord around his neck and putting I.C. in the bathroom. He was shaking and crying as he described his mother putting smelly stuff over his face. He was sobbing, saying, “I'm really sorry I lied about what happened to my neck.” (He had previously said when he returned from Denver, that he accidentally wrapped the cord around his neck.) He said, “My mother said, the next time she would do it for real and kill me if I told anyone!” Both children separately told their therapist that their mother put makeup on his neck and told him to say it was an accident. Dr. McGuffog testified that he told this in sobs, shaking.
The children also said that their mother was speaking to Mona, her psychic, while in Denver.
Upon questioning by the Court, Dr. McGuffog explained that she believed the children's statements to be true. She spoke with experience, explaining the difference between children's statements that are the result of coaching versus those that are truthful. When asked if the children were being manipulated, the therapist explained that children being coached do not behave this way. Children of this age who are being coached are periodic and consistent. These children are not giving rote statements, she explained. The affect of the children, which was very disorganized, is very typical of children who have been abused, Dr. McGuffog testified.
Dr. McGuffog explained that when she first met the children, they were both very different than they are today. She began seeing the children on November 7, 2014. V.C. would come into the sessions and throw himself around. V.C. had been with a prior therapist (Dr. Adler, who discovered defendant's true background). He was extremely dysregulated and did not want to talk. He was concerned as to whether Dr. McGuffog would believe him.
As to the initial supervised visits, prior to the discovery of defendant's deceit but after Denver, V.C. complained bitterly; especially because his mother never admitted to anything. He claimed the supervisor was not really watching. Mostly he was really upset that his mother was a liar.
I.C. was inconsistent, not wanting to talk about things.
After the “truth session”, the therapist recommended that all visitation stop because the children needed space in the event of further disclosures. From February, 2015 to June, 2015, the children described what their mother did to them that included hitting, pushing and hair pulling. They said she had put on her “mean face” at supervised visits when no one was looking, which was what she did when they lived with her before and she hurt them. They described their mother as two people—one who was nice and sweet—the other a mean face when they were home alone. She also threatened them with a knife. I.C. said that V.C. got hit many more times than she because she learned to be a “good girl”. She would say to her mother, “Can't V.C. just go up to his room for a time out.” Instead, the mother would make him stand in a certain way and hit him until it hurt. Each child corroborated the other, according to the therapist.
Before the children's disclosures, Dr. McGuffog was working with the parents and children, encouraging the mother to get her own home and trying to discern why V.C. was so angry with his mother. V.C. said his mother hit him and scratched him but there had been forensics that did not substantiate excessive abuse. She understood she would be helping the children work through the issues related to their ethnicity and repair their relationship with their mother. The initial supervisor thought the mother was great and the children were terrible. The father was very upset and the mother appeared extremely patient. Defendant just wanted her “good little children” back. The therapist was struggling to understand the case.
Not until the critical session, did Dr. McGuffog realize what had happened. The daughter had been defending her mother. But during the “truth session”, she was so genuine. “It poured out”, said the therapist. But the son was identifying with the aggressor. He was being very controlling and mean while I.C. would say, “You're the best mommy in the world, and look, I put my pink headband on.” The therapist described her behavior as “reactive formation expression” or acting the opposite of what one feels.
The therapist testified that the children needed the safety and the space to disclose.
Before the disclosure, she saw the children once weekly. After, she saw them twice weekly until about May/June, 2015. Then she went back to once weekly.
Initially, in February/March, 2015, V.C. was terrified; afraid to go to school or sleep alone. He believed his mother would kill him for disclosing. He did not want to go places he had been with his mother. He was extremely agitated, clinging to his father. He could not sit still in class. By June, he improved significantly. He was engaged and learning, playing with friends. Dr. McGuffog and the child were building trust. The mother insisted she never laid a hand on him. The therapist understood that initially she needed to hear what V.C. had to say. (Note: she did not say she needed to believe him.) She testified that she did find both children credible.
The sessions moved on to empowerment. V.C. started to record messages to his mother. He used lyrics in rap songs in which he would win against his mother. She continued in her denial. He adjusted to a new school. He wanted his mother to admit what she had done and apologize but the therapist helped him understand this may never happen but that he needed some kind of relationship with his mother. She explained that they practiced better behavior; not being rude, bossy, or controlling but he could ask appropriate questions. She began to have a session or two with the mother and V .C. “Now, as long as he has some say and control, he can reason how to work out a relationship with his mother,” the therapist testified.
As for I. C., she resumed visits with her mother in late August/September, 2015 with Mary Crowe, as supervisor. V.C. did not begin at this time because he was adamant he did not want to visit his mother. I. C.'s behavior had improved around the end of the 2015 school year. She was playing with other children.
After the most recent mother/child session, Dr. McGuffog described V.C. coming into her office with palpitations and quick speech saying, “I never agreed to more visits. I wasn't aware of more visits!” The therapist explained that when he felt like he had some element of control, he was willing to accept that he has to see his mother.
The children have been traumatized, the therapist testified. It takes a lot out of them both before and after a visit. They worry about the visit. I.C. plans the visit so it will go well. “It takes a lot out of their childhood,” the therapist lamented. “I see her as a little girl (referring to I. C.), who works very hard at presenting as good and nice.” Meanwhile, I.C. complained to the mother. “I'm afraid she's developing an as if' personality,” Dr. McGuffog warned. “As I predicted, she started complaining and reported to me that she did not want to go.” She went to a visit, let down her guard and was not the good little girl. Now I.C. is steadfast that she does not want to go.
Dr. McGuffog recommends visits no more than once monthly, if there must be a regular schedule but visits should take place as the children are ready. “This is not a parental alienation case,” Dr. McGuffog explained. The children must do this on their own terms, she warned. I.C. felt forced and is now ten (10) steps backward. She needs healing, according to her therapist.
With all this having been said, Dr. McGuffog explained that “Deep down inside it is better for them to love their mother.” But because trust has been destroyed, the relationship must develop on their terms.
She went on to explain that the mother constantly disparaged the father during sessions. It was a lot of externalizing. She just wanted her sweet children back. According to the mother, everything the children said was lies. It was the therapist's job to tell her why this all happened.Since she did not, the mother thought she was a bad therapist. Dr. McGuffog testified that she was never able to get the mother to acknowledge a single bad parenting act. She was the “perfect parent” with the “perfect children” until the plaintiff caused all these problems.
The therapist reiterated that she had two (2) joint sessions in addition to the “truth session.” At one of these joint sessions, the mother claimed the father, who had business overseas involving entertainment, was going to Spain to be in clubs. During one of these sessions, the mother was angry at Dr. McGuffog because she believed the children.
Cross–Examination
Upon cross-examination, Dr. McGuffog answered the mother's question as to her goal. “To help heal their relationship with their mother.” In the beginning, she was trying to understand why it was broken and why they were so angry with their mother. She tried to get a “window into it.” She tried to establish if they have something of which to be afraid of. The children, she testified, would love if their mother would admit things she did and stop referring to them as liars.
The children were very good students as reflected by their report cards, up to the time of the Denver incident.
Dr. McGuffog testified she also had done a lot of parenting work with the father who had not been actively involved with the children prior to 2014.
The therapist was also involved with a worker from the Department of Social Services, as an Article 10 Petition had been filed against the mother. Dr. McGuffog had recommended against visits between the children and mother after February, 2015 until after June, 2015 when she recommended visits resume in September/October, 2015 once I.C. settled into her new home and school, to enable the children time to develop good peer relationships, comfortable learning and doing well in school. I.C. was ready to resume visitation before her brother.
Dr. McGuffog testified that the children were not mean, belligerent or acting out in sessions with her. The therapist explained their positive behavior as a result of the trust she has developed with them.
Dr. McGuffog responded to questions regarding attempts made to reduce V. C.'s acting out behavior during visits with his mother. Dr. McGuffog explained, that they worked on trying to get V.C. to deal with his mother so that if she did not say what he wanted her to say, he would stop talking and just try to relax.
Around the time this case was on for trial, the children were having a visit with their mother supervised by Mary Crowe. Dr. McGuffog explained that V.C. had been assured that if he wanted to end the visit, he would signal the supervisor. He claimed he did this and she convinced him to continue. I.C. was also left alone with her mother for a short time, in contravention of the Court Order prohibiting this.
Upon questioning by the Court, Dr. McGuffog recommended one visit every two months for 45 minutes to one (1) hour, supervised. In six (6) months, V. C.'s visits could increase to one (1) time per month. I.C. “fell off the rail” and might need more time, she explained. Of course, if the children request more time, it should be granted. Her reasoning was that both children have given the time frame as to what they can tolerate. V.C. was not forced and it has gone better. I.C. was forced and it went badly. If the mother were to acknowledge what she has done, it would impact upon the children significantly. She impressed that some contact is important so the children do not idolize the parent.
She also remarked that she has seen no evidence of the father manipulating this. He only calls at appropriate times with appropriate questions. He is trying to follow “many, many recommendations.” He forces I.C. to attend visits with her mother.
Plaintiff
This matter commenced with an inquest at which time this Court granted plaintiff a divorce based upon DRL 170(7) upon consent of the defendant. Plaintiff married the defendant on——, 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada in a civil ceremony. V.C. was born in 2005 and I.C. was born in 2008.
Both parties appeared pro se for trial, however, each had been represented by able counsel up to the point of trial. Almost as if prescient, when the parties first appeared, this Court admonished them that despite having $1 million they should work towards settlement because their money could quickly dissipate in a heavily litigated case. Unfortunately, no truer words were spoken. As the parties neared trial, plaintiff pleaded to have his attorneys released because he did not wish to go further into debt to them. Defendant was significantly in debt to her attorneys but also refused their advice. They parted ways. Both parties were bright, capable and represented themselves admirably, although pro se.
The plaintiff explained that he wanted sole legal and physical custody of the children for the simple reason that defendant kidnaped the children, attempted to suffocate them and strangle his son. He explained, “I don't know her real name or where she's from ...” He understood her background was from Italy with Italian parents who were killed in a car accident. He found out she was from Mexico. The children thought they were Italian, more so than American. Defendant engaged in systematic abuse upon the children, he claimed. He testified that he has no birth certificate for the defendant who has used three (3) to four (4) names. “I have used all my financial resources,” plaintiff claimed. He is trying to help the children have a normal childhood. The defendant claimed she would, “... destroy me and I'd wish I'd never been born.” Two and one-half (2–1/2) years later plaintiff testified he has no money and is looking at years of therapy for the children. Defendant refuses to respond to every communication. He referred to her as having a “narcissistic personality disorder.” He testified how it took a long time for the children to begin to recover from defendant's physical and mental abuse. V.C. would hit himself in the head and say he wanted to be dead. Now he is an excellent student causing the teachers to have tears in their eyes at the parent/teacher conferences. Every time V.C. tries with the mother, she is in complete denial. Nevertheless, the father explained that his son has developed a way to have a relationship with defendant. But, he is exhausted for days after a visit.
He believes it is extremely important for the children to continue with Dr. McGuffog. The children have done exceedingly well with her, he testified.
Plaintiff supports supervised visits one time monthly.
Plaintiff is the President and CEO of—, Ltd. His job has lots of flexibility. The company,—, Ltd. is headquartered in London but also has acquisitions in Spain. He resides in a single family rental residence in Westchester County, New York. He owns a 2007 Toyota Cruiser worth about $10,000 and a 2013 Cayenne Porsche worth $38–40,000 with a $39,000 loan, that defendant is driving and refuses to allow plaintiff to sell and pay off the loan. The parties have $18,000 in a Charles Schwaab account and plaintiff has $16,000 in a Citibank account, used to pay monthly bills. He owes his lawyer $70,000, Dr. McGuffog $13,500, Dr. Adler $8,000 and the IRS $59,000 (some of which could be reduced if defendant would cooperate but she has refused). Plaintiff also has a 401k worth about $20,000. His income in 2015 was $157,000.
Mr. C. described that he has employed a nanny who worked 3–9:00 p .m., Mondays through Fridays, backed up by his mother who also lives in Westchester County. His nanny recently quit.
The father listed his children's activities which include tennis, baseball, coding, CYO basketball, town and travel soccer and beading jewelry.
From the father's perspective, his children are amazing. In many ways they saved themselves from their mother's physical, mental and emotional abuse, he opined. They were willing to try to move forward. “From when they returned from Denver to today, is nothing short of a miracle. They are doing exceptionally well,” he testified.
Cross–Examination and AFC Questioning
In response to questioning by the children's mother, the father defended Dr. McGuffog, explaining that she is focused on helping the children and defendant have a healthy relationship. He explained that visits were not about quantity but rather quality.
The Attorney for the Children, Ms. Wexler, questioned plaintiff's travel that took him out of the country and away from the children 10–14 days of each month in 2016 and a similar schedule since June, 2015. Her questions reminded him of how much the children miss him when he is away.
As to his involvement with the children before the divorce action, he testified that he came home at 6:30 during the week except for Fridays at 4:30. He was with the family 100% of the time on weekends but defendant never allowed him to be alone with the children. The parties always decided the children's activities together. He attended all of the children's activities on the weekend and every parent/teacher conference. Both parties were involved with the children's homework. He was unaware of defendant's physical abuse of the children but felt the exclusion of his family and not being allowed to be alone with the children was harmful. “We argued about it every day,” he testified.
Incredulously, the Attorney for the Children asked plaintiff, “You were married for approximately 10 years, and you had no idea she wasn't Italian?” He explained, “We went to Italy. She introduced me to her friends. She spoke Italian. She showed me a friend she said she grew up with.”
Plaintiff was in finance and testified that he would look for work if his current job situation did not work out. When asked about his future plans, he testified he has no money left. The landlord intends to sell the house. His lease is up at the end of August and his mother just retired and cannot afford to stay in the area. But, he wants to keep the children in their current school district. Oh, and the nanny abruptly quit.
The Attorney for the Children also questioned the long hiatus when the children did not see their mother.
The children met plaintiff's female friend in the fall of 2015. She lives in London and sees them every couple of months. He testified he might reside with her in the future in either New York or London. “I want to make the best decision for the children. It is not on the table now,” he testified.
When questioned about his level of support of the children's visits with their mother, he explained that he always does everything to support the visits. However, significantly the mother has never taken responsibility. When reminded that she agreed to a consent finding in Family Court, he replied yes, “without admissions or findings. ” (emphasis added.)
He agreed with the children's attorney's requests to sign releases for the children's medical and school records to allow defendant access were he given custody. He would agree to follow the therapist's recommendations regarding meeting with the mother, the children and him if requested. However, he believes he should be allowed to select the therapist.
He also testified about all the people his children have had to meet with, including CPS, the Attorney for the Children and Dr. McGuffog. They have met with CPS about every two (2) weeks and Dr. McGuffog one-two times weekly. They also saw Mary Crowe for supervised visits with their mother.
He wants to raise his children in the Catholic religion.
The Attorney for the Children asked him if he would use “Our Family Wizard” to post the children's activities, which he agreed to do.
He thought, however, that the children would be fearful of the mother attending their activities.
He also agreed that he would be willing to communicate about the children's special events to the mother and to notify her of any travel out of the area. But, he wants the children's passports.
The Attorney for the Children reminded him that Dr. Abrams recommended he be in therapy. His response to her was, “I don't have the time or the money for therapy.”
Regarding the level of visits, he responded that the goal is to develop a healthy, safe relationship with their mother. In response to a question about their reaction to visiting with their mother, he testified, “When the children won't get off my leg, go to bed at 7 p.m., won't let me leave, I don't need a therapist to tell me they were traumatized.”
As for his income and expenses, he testified he is breaking even. His income pays his living expenses.
Regarding the neglect filed against the mother, Mr. C. testified that three (3)-four (4) different calls were made to CPS from the pediatrician, the school and the children's therapist. He recounted that they went to Court eight (8) times before a Consent Finding was entered without Admissions or Findings. The disposition is awaiting this decision.
Defendant
Mrs. C. testified, claiming Mr. C. was abusive, “just like her father.” One day he has a temper, the next he was happy. She recounted how Mr. C. had previously worked for-.-for seven (7) years until he quit his job after reconnecting with a friend from college. They became involved in a start-up business streaming music, based in London. Her initial testimony in this custody/access phase of the trial focused on her allegation that plaintiff forged her name on a Power of Attorney form and took her name off a Charles Schwaab account. She complained of him transferring money to London and Spain.
Eventually, her testimony transitioned to her role as mother. She stayed home to take care of the children. She “had no cleaning lady.” [M.] had a “decent job” she testified, that allowed for after school activities.
She claimed that Mr. C. was trying to present her as a “horrendous mother.” “I love my kids.” She testified, “I enjoy playing with them. My kids are fantastic.”
In response to Mr. C.'s continued demand that she return the car as something they could no longer afford, she responded, “Mr. C. gave me the car (a Porsche) because I was a very good mother.” “My children are being used as pawns for Mr. C.'s games,” she explained. “There is no case for me in Denver,” rebutting claims that there are criminal charges pending against her in Denver. She claimed her husband was always the one who controlled her and manipulated her. “He moved us out of New York to a town in Westchester County for two (2) years. I didn't like it so we moved to another town in Westchester County. My kids love all my friends in Westchester County, and I have many friends.”
“I've been mistreated in the Court,” she decried.
As for therapists, she advised that she has been seeing her therapist Dr. Susan Berenswig. (She chose not to bring her in to testify, explaining she did not want to interfere with her therapeutic relationship.) She wants the children to have help from a professional but not Dr. McGuffog. She exclaimed, “I do not know what she has done to help them and to reconnect the wonderful relationship even when my little girl was asking to see me.” She continued, “I feel heartbroken for my children. I am so sad not seeing them ... They were happy, outgoing kids. V.C. was very active, outgoing, so many friends. I was with them always ... a wonderful relationship until about approximately one (1) year ago. My children were turned against me.”
As for the Denver incident, defendant tells the following story: “The day before, we were before (the Court) and (the Court) froze all the accounts. Plaintiff came to the house and he was screaming and threatening me because of my application to freeze the assets. He was making a big scene, acting crazy and a neighbor came looking in the windows.” “I decided I wanted to go see my friend in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff wanted me to remove the account freeze. He said he wanted to buy a radio station in Spain. He was upset. He tried to manipulate everything. In a year we will sell the Company for $25 million, he claimed. I buy [sic] a one-way ticket to Denver. When I am in Denver I have (sic) many telephone calls. Two (2) police officers came to where I was ... I said I was trying to see a friend. I told them where I was. They told me to come back,” she testified.
By this point in the trial, defendant agreed to plaintiff having physical custody of the children but wanted joint legal custody and access with both children on Tuesdays and Thursdays for two (2) hours.
Cross–Examination
On cross-examination, defendant testified that she has not spoken to her mother, father or ten (10) brothers and sisters in 20 years. She came to the U.S. on a VISA. She worked in an electronic store and was paid cash because she did not want to work illegally she reasoned. At the age of 23, she married a man in Colorado. She divorced him in 2002. She admitted that she assumed an Italian personage and told plaintiff her parents died in a car crash.
She claimed, “Somebody tried to turn my kids against me,” and “I never saw the marks on my son's neck.” “I never hit the children.” “I put the children in time out.” “One time I grabbed I. C.'s hair and one time I tapped V. C.'s shoulder.”
When asked by plaintiff if she ever let him be alone with the children, defendant responded, “No because you always had the stress of your job.” She continued to deny any abusive behavior.
As to never responding to any of plaintiff's e-mails, defendant testified, “I cannot respond. You are too manipulative.”
The Attorney for the Children questioned defendant as to why she was not initially truthful with Dr. Abrams who wrote the following:
Mrs.[C.] initially provided a history that was clearly not true. This examiner would ask probing questions that would lead most people to understand that what she was saying did not “add up.” She continued on with her false history until this examiner was able to present her with evidence that clearly indicated that she was not being honest. She then began to tell a more truthful version of her history, but chose not to be entirely honest. This examiner confronted her again with evidence that she was [sic]being fully honest with this examiner. The history presented below appears to be an honest accounting of her history.
Court Exhibit 1A, p. 4.
Defendant replied, “I was ready to tell him. The only lie was about who I was. My abusive relationship with Mr. C. was true.” I was “pretty truthful” when I told him who I was, she testified.
Her response to the Denver allegations was that they were “completely fabricated. ”
Defendant provided her recollection of the supervised visits. Mary Crowe supervised visits of I.C. from August, 2015 to December, 2015. There were about five (5)-six (6) visits as defendant recalled. During the last visit with Mary Crowe, the children came “full of anger” at me,” defendant testified. She described I. C.'s behavior as that she started to calm herself down and started to play with Barbies. She said, “I love you mommy.” Defendant testified that she said to I. C., “I am sorry if you feel like I hurt you.” I.C. wanted V.C. to hear this. Mary Crowe decided to invite V. C., who was outside in the car, into the supervised visit. Mary Crowe came under criticism because she left I.C. alone with her mother for the time it took her to go outside and convince V.C. to come into the visit. As a result, she did not continue in her role as supervisor.
However, she did manage to convince V.C. to come in. When he was present, his mother testified that she told him, “I never intended ... My job is for you to feel safe. I am sorry if you feel like I hurt you. (emphasis added)”
Upon questioning by the Court as to why defendant had no contact with her family from Mexico, she responded, “My parents were not very nice.” When reminded of what she told Dr. Abrams, she replied that “There were too many children.” “If you have a relationship with the children (her siblings (?)), then you have to have a relationship with the parents.”
Mary Crowe
Defendant called Mary Crowe. She described the supervised visits. Ms. Crowe testified that initially I.C. was happy, excited, almost hyper and laughing. She wanted to please the defendant. She was careful about what she wore, defensive about her dad. She was navigating a difficult balance between wanting to connect with the defendant and not getting her angry. She would regress in baby talk. She wanted to take the Barbie dolls home but was not allowed. Once, Mary Crowe testified, she suggested defendant let I.C. take the doll home but, “it seemed important that you wanted to hold it at your house.”
Defendant questioned Ms. Crowe, “Did you see any sign of my little girl being so afraid of me she was traumatized.” Mary Crowe responded that when defendant threatened to call I. C.'s teacher, I.C. looked petrified—scared. V. C.—“for sure”—very traumatized, every time he had to show up to be with you. He worked very hard to show up.”
Defendant asked if plaintiff was inflexible with defendant's schedule. Mary Crowe responded that he was cooperative but it was harder at the holidays.
Defendant asked about the last visit with, “My little girl I. C.” Defendant questioned Mary Crowe, “Do you agree that visit was going well?” Mary Crowe responded, “Not initially. She didn't want to come.” Mary Crowe testified that she told I. C.'s therapist that she was going ahead with the visits because she thought it was causing her too much anxiety to decide whether to visit. She testified, “I thought it was too much responsibility.” “I thought therapeutically it was important.” She reported that the father said he was having a really hard time getting her to come. She was eventually able to tell her mother she was angry that her mother did not admit. Mary Crowe's recollection, which is different from the mother's testimony, is that the mother said, “I'm sorry that I hit you.” I.C. said, “It would be good if my brother could hear this.” So she left I.C. inside and went out to convince V.C. to come in.
Mary Crowe admitted she violated the Court Order that directed that the mother was not to be left alone with the children. Nevertheless, she thought it was a very productive visit. She wrapped up her direct testimony by saying that she found the children very credible.
In response to questions by Ms. Wexler, Ms. Crowe testified that the first visits she supervised were in August, 2015. The last visit was March, 2016. She supervised 15–20 visits in total.
She remembered that when defendant told V.C. that she was sorry, he remarked, “Well, it's about time,” and slapped his knee.
She also commented that as I.C. was getting older, she was getting angrier and more resentful. She was finding her voice.
She described some of the sessions, the length of them. She reiterated that plaintiff was cooperative. There were times when the children came to see Mary Crowe but the mother was told not to come because the children did not want to see their mother and it would be counterproductive to force them. (This was seemingly done to force the children to attend even if they did not wish to visit their mother.)
Lincoln Hearing
The custody/access portion of this trial concluded with an in camera with the children and their attorney. The children confirmed the salient points of this case, particularly as it relates to the mother's actions in Denver and their wishes regarding their therapist and access. This Court found them completely credible and remarkably resilient.
Dr. Marc T. Abrams and Dr. Alan Tuckman
Dr. Marc T. Abrams, Ph.D. completed a forensic evaluation and report dated January 13, 2015. Unfortunately, it was completed prior to the now infamous truth session of February 10, 2015. While he recognized many of Ms. C.'s shortfalls, he was evaluating this family without the very significant factor relative to defendant's attempts to strangle her son. He, like the first visitation supervisor, did not understand V. C.'s acting out behavior and did not completely believe him. His analysis of the defendant's actions follows:
When their marriage fell apart, Mrs. [C.] was reluctant to allow the divorce, but wanted financial security and to be able to raise the children by herself. When the Court ordered her to allow Mr. [C .] to have the children for a period of time without her, she panicked and fled with the children to Denver, Colorado. No one will ever be able to know what her real intentions were with this act. The act itself appeared to be impulsive and poorly planned. As a result of this very bad choice, she lost custody of her children and a custody evaluation was ordered. Her carefully orchestrated, fictional world began to implode. She was deprived of her foundations of her “new self,” which were her identity as an Italian and her identify as the “perfect mother of perfect children .” Mrs. [C.] was struggling mightily to try and salvage anything from this proverbial “wreck.” She did not appear to be psychologically ready to acknowledge how damaging her actions were to herself and to her children, instead, wanted to blame Mr. [C.] for the misfortunes in her life. She knew that she would no longer hold onto the fictional Italian heritage, but believed that she was still capable of serving the role as the sole caretaker for the children. She was a women who needed a lot of psychological help in making peace with the past (as opposed to denying it) acknowledging poor choices and decisions and using this awareness and acceptance to learn how to create a psychologically healthy sense of self that would be capable of being a consistently appropriate parent.
Court Ex. 1A, p. 16.
Thinking that the worst abuse defendant leveled upon her son was “hitting” him and disbelieving V. C.'s rendition of his mother's abuse, Dr. Abrams wrote the following:
[V.C.] was a boy who was struggling mightily with the dramatic changes in his life. He was almost entirely raised by his mother. He knew that in order for him to get what he wanted, he had to follow exactly what she demanded of him. He knew that she could become angry very quickly and hit him. Like all boys, he wanted to identify with his father, who was not around a lot. He went from being cared for by a overly strict mother who could be both caring and mean, to being cared for by a father who had no real clue on how to structure his life, let alone discipline him. He could now do what he wanted to do, without fear of being hit. He gained a false sense of omnipotence that by talking about his mother's past wrongs, he could insure that he would continue to get what he wanted. He began exaggerating and lying about the extent of his mother's actions in order to “hedge his bet” on having his father raise him. (emphasis added) He then had to address his actions in therapy and adjust to a father who was beginning to consistently employ more appropriate structures and routines in his life. The presence of a therapist and more appropriate parenting from his father could not come soon enough. He then faced the prospect of having to reconnect with his mother in a more appropriate manner in which both of them would be able to benefit from their genuine caring of each other. (emphasis added)
Id.
Dr. Abrams wrote of I.C. in the following terms:
[I.C.] was a girl who was also struggling with the major changes in her life. She idealized and loved her mother dearly. She did not like being hit by her mother, nor did she like to [sic] excessive strictness of her mother. She genuinely wanted to believe that her mother learned her “lessons” and would no longer act like she had in the past. She was not old enough to recognize that her mother had not yet really “learned the lessons.” [I.C.] recognized that the household run by her father was a more relaxed and consistent environment and she also enjoyed being able to spend more time with her father.
Id.
His analysis of Mr. C. was not entirely flattering:
Mr. [C.] was a man who directed himself on a life path based upon his thoughts about what would make him happy and successful. He was an intelligent, hard-working man who was able to achieve some of his work goals. He seemed to have the belief that ultimate work goal was through entrepreneurial success. Unfortunately for him, he was not able to realize this difficult goal. Relationships with women were important for him as a means of supporting his vision and thoughts for living a successful life. When the woman no longer fit that vision, he had a pattern of ending that relationship. His relationship with his wife fit that pattern. He allowed her to run the household and raise the children as she saw fit. This allowed him to continue his routine of exercising before work, working a long day and coming home to an immaculate home and two nice children. He allowed her to control their social lives with some minor grumbling. He became increasingly less tolerant of her demands for their displaying conspicuous signs of financial success that were somewhat beyond his financial means. The final straw for him was when she was unwilling to support his desire to risk his financial gains and achievements so that he could try and fulfill his vision of himself as a wealthy, successful entrepreneur. He was not willing to put up with that, so he was willing to get a divorce, allow her to raise the children, while he continued to pursue his dreams. To the best of his knowledge, the children were being well cared for and that would continue into the future. He just wanted more access with his children when it was convenient for him.
Id. at p 14–15.
Dr. Abrams recommended the following:
It is the professional recommendation of this examiner that Mr. [C.] be appointed as the sole legal and physical guardian of the minor [C.] children. Mrs. [C.] should be allowed access to all important information regarding the children. She should be advised of upcoming issues and decisions and allowed to express her opinions, while recognizing that Mr. [C.] will have final decision-making power.
Id. at 18.
After the “truth session”, the Court ordered Dr. Alan Tuckman, forensic psychiatrist, to interview the mother to provide a psychiatric analysis of Ms. C. to determine if she suffered from a mental illness and if so, to what extent it affected her ability to parent. He wrote
As requested, my opinion in this case will focus exclusively on [D. C.]'s mental status. To begin with, I found no evidence of psychosis (breaks with reality) or disordered thinking, indicating a major mental illness such as Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder. But from all of the material that I reviewed, and the individuals I spoke with, it appears that Ms. [C.] suffers from a severe Mixed Personality Disorder, with components of an Antisocial Personality Disorder, and a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. She appears to lack the ability for empathy, never recognizing the impact of her behavior on others, nor appreciating the feelings of others that would be produced by her actions. She completely disconnected from her entire family of origin, walking out of their lives, never to see them again nor to even be capable of thinking about the pain they might have endured at her disappearance. This is especially highlighted and significant in that she admitted that nothing serious nor dangerous, nor traumatic occurred in her life in Mexico that would warrant her completely separating herself from her family. After a period of time in Colorado, she comes to New York to begin her new life, having changed her name and her identity. When she met Mr. [C.], she never, at any time over the next years, shared with him the fact of her earlier life, as if it never existed for her. She then proceeded to get married, have two children and live a reasonably successful and appropriate life, being engaged in her children's activities, until such time that her life became destabilized by her husband's seeming withdrawal from her, and what appears to be, his plan to move his life and activities to London, separate and apart from her, including, at one point, filing for divorce. This crisis in her life seemed to precipitate the events of the next year, including her abuse of the children with a total disregard of their feelings and her taking them to Denver with a very strange and not to be believed plan to only spend less than one day there, while having no return tickets, and while there, some very frightening events occur, including the abuse of the children and, what appears to be something more sinister. Since Ms. [C.] withholds significant amounts of information about her motives, thinking and behavior with regard to that Denver trip, it is impossible to know what her actual plan was. But she does return to New York with the children.
Ms. [C.] also has an extraordinary capacity to avoid responding directly to difficult confrontations and questions and simply moves on. She appears to be almost unemotional, viewing herself as a superb mother, while at the same repeatedly abusing her children.
There is much we do not know about Ms. [C.], her thinking and her judgment, but I view her as a highly manipulative, unemotional, unempathic individual, with a significant level of inner emptiness and absence of appreciation for the needs of others. She has a very classical severe, narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder, who maintained a reasonably effective level of functioning and stability in her life until it was threatened by her husband's withdrawal from her, and his plan to leave her. She, apparently, deteriorated emotionally, at that point, which led to her abuse of the children and her trip to Denver with the children, for some, as yet unexplained, but seemingly, sinister, reason.
As described in the American Psychiatric Association's “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, “A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible. While there may be subtle evidence of this underlying personality disorder earlier in life, it may not come to the attention of others and, more specifically, professionals, until such time as the individual's previously stabilizing situation is disrupted with the loss of the stabilizing person, such as a spouse, and the serious personality disorder traits come to the surface.” Ms. [C.] has very clear evidence of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with antisocial traits. Since this disorder is pervasive, it is extraordinarily difficult to treat, and requires years of intensive psychotherapy. Because we know so little about Ms. [C.]'s past, as well as her motivations and thinking during this past year, and especially during the trip to Denver with the children, it would be impossible, at this point, to know the depth of the derangement she is struggling with and how serious a threat she can be to her children, were she to have unsupervised access to them. At the present time, with the loss of her husband, her family and her social structure, we must consider Ms. [C.] unstable, unpredictable and potentially dangerous to her children.
Court Ex. 2B.
Custody/Access
Conclusions and Law
The pivotal question to be answered by the Court in a custody proceeding is what is in the best interests of the child. Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727 (1996). The sole concern of the Court is which resolution will best serve the interests of the subject children, promoting their welfare, happiness and optimum development. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 (1982). The Court must evaluate the best interests in light of the totality of the circumstances. Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer; 55 N.Y.2d 89 (1982) ; Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167. Neither parent has a prima facie right to custody. The primary focus must be upon which of the parents is in a better position to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development, the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance to be provided. Matter of Louise E.S. v. W. Stephens S., 64 N.Y.2d 946 (1985).
Stability is a factor to be considered. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167. While it is of paramount concern in assessing the best interests, the fact that change may be somewhat disruptive is not necessarily conclusive. Matter of Louise E. S., 64 N.Y.2d 946.
The financial positions of the parents and who is better able to provide the child with material advantages should be considered. Wallinger v. Wallinger, 96 A.D.2d 988 (3rd Dept.1983). However, this, as with any other single factor is not controlling. See, D'Alessandro v. D'Alesandro, 60 A.D.2d 897 (2nd Dept.1978). Where a parent who is less affluent can provide at least an adequate home for the child, the financial advantage offered by the other parent is not very weighty in evaluating the child's best interests. Davis v. Davis, 240 A.D.2d 928 (3rd Dept.1997).
Separation of siblings is a consideration to be taken into account by the Court when making a custody determination. Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768 (1975). Generally, split custody of siblings will not be ordered unless clearly justified by the circumstances of the case. Ebert v. Ebert, 38 N.Y.2d 700 (1976).
Wishes of the children, if of sufficient age and discretion, are a factor to consider. Bullotta v. Bullotta, 43 A.D.2d 847 (2nd Dept.1974). Although not determinative, preferences of children of sufficient age and maturity should be given consideration. Ebert, 38 N.Y.2d 700.Courts have held that the recommendations of court appointed experts are a factor to consider when making a custody determination. Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114 (2nd Dept.1995). The recommendations are entitled to some weight unless those opinions are contradicted by the record. In fact, in the case of Linda R. v. Richard E., 162 A.D.2d 48 (2nd Dept.1990), the appellate division reversed a custody determination, in part due to the trial court's failure to consider or to adequately explain why it failed to consider the recommendations of neutral experts. The Courts have said that an evaluation by an independent expert should not be readily set aside. Rentschler v. Rentschler, 204 A.D.2d 60 (1st Dept.1994).
Joint custody should not be imposed on parents who do not communicate [Matter of Diana W. v. Jose X, 296 A.D.2d 614 (3rd Dept.2002) ; Matter of Heintz v. Heintz, 275 A.D.2d 971 (4th Dept.2000) ], who are unwilling to cooperate [Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995 (1982) ; Amari v. Molloy, 293 A.D.2d 431 (2nd Dept.2002) ], and who are unwilling or unable to set aside their personal differences [Webster v. Webster, 283 A.D.2d 732 (3rd Dept.2001) ; Matter of Meres v. Botsch, 260 A.D.2d 757 (3rd Dept.1999) ] and work together for the good of the children.
Also to be considered is the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the children's relationship with the other parent. Mohen v. Mohen, 53 AD3d 471 (2nd Dept.2008). Which parent will assure that the child maintains a meaningful relationship with the other parent is a significant factor to be considered. Vasquez v. Ortiz, 77 AD3d 962 (2nd Dept.2010) ; Tori v. Tori, 103 AD3d 654 (2nd Dept.2013).
Interference with the relationship between a child and noncustodial parent “is so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as custodial parent.” Diaz v. Diaz, 97 AD3d 747 (2nd Dept.2012), quoting Matter of Chebuske v. Burnhard–Vogt, 284 A.D.2d 456, 458 (2nd Dept.2001) ; Lawlor v. Eder, 106 AD3d 739 (2nd Dept.2013).
In making its determination on the issue of custody, the Court is to evaluate the testimony, credibility, character, temperament, demeanor and sincerity of the parties and other witnesses. Matter of Rory H. v. Mary H., 13 AD3d 373 (2nd Dept.2004) ; Matter of Dobbins v. Vartabedian, 304 A.D.2d 665 (2nd Dept.2003). “In reaching a custody determination, the trial court must weigh all relevant factors (citation omitted) and base its decision upon a preponderance of the evidence presented.” Hanna v. Hanna, 267 A.D.2d 903, 904 (3rd Dept.1999). The Court found the plaintiff to be credible for the most part.
Discussion and Analysis
Domestic Violence
Inasmuch as the issue of domestic violence has been raised in this case, the Court is obliged to comment upon it. Defendant has claimed the plaintiff was abusive. She made no specific allegation of abuse except that he angrily yells at her and was “manipulative.”
This Court does not find defendant has proven domestic violence by preponderance of the evidence.
Domestic violence by defendant with her children is another more salient issue that will be discussed further in this decision.
Decision on Custody/Access and Conclusions
The Court has reviewed, considered and evaluated the testimony and arguments of the parties and the witnesses and the documentary evidence in making its decision. Additionally, the Court has relied upon its personal observations of each witness in determining issues of credibility. In reaching its conclusions, the Court has carefully observed and listened to the parties during multiple days of trial and has evaluated all evidence in light of its relevance, materiality, credibility, importance, weight, and where applicable, permissible inferences have been considered.
Applying these legal principles to the facts of this case, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court awards plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the children, V.C. and I. C., subject to defendant's rights of access as set forth herein as follows:
After six (6) years in Family Court during which time this Judge started up and ran an IDV court and after spending 5–1/2 years in a Supreme Court Matrimonial Part, one begins to think that there is very little that can shock the Court. This case shocks the conscience.
In assessing credibility, the Court finds plaintiff mostly credible and the children very credible. The defendant is completely unbelievable. In assessing defendant's credibility, one must not forget her history of fraudulently claiming a past that never existed. She is a liar and a fraud. As Dr. Tuckman wrote, she is a “highly manipulative, unemotional, unempathic individual, with a significant level of inner emptiness and absence of appreciation for the needs of others.” This woman called plaintiff manipulative. On the contrary this Court found defendant extremely manipulative.
Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, this Court finds that defendant attempted, while in Denver, to strangle her son while putting “smelly rags,” to the noses of her two (2) children and putting her daughter in the bathroom. Her attempt to strangle her son left visible scars on his body and his young psyche. Her actions of abuse were not limited to this one incident. Defendant exhibited a pattern of abusive behavior upon the children that included hitting them and threatening both them and herself with a knife, which was both physical and emotional. These were clear acts of domestic abuse upon her children.
As a result of the foregoing, this Court finds defendant to be potentially dangerous to her children.
Based upon a preponderance of all the credible evidence presented, this Court awards plaintiff sole, legal and physical custody. Defendant shall have only supervised access with the children.
This case is unlike even the most horrendous cases of abuse and neglect that Family Court Judges must preside over. In most of these cases, the parent's behavior is either negligent or performed during extreme rage. Attempting to kill one's own child in a calculated, cold-blooded manner is a rarity. As, Dr. McGuffog concluded, this is not a case of alienation.
Unfortunately, most people who deal with these kinds of cases from visitation supervisors and the like, are used to dealing with children who have been subjected to parental alienation or “relatively” minor abuse or neglect. By comparison, V.C. must deal with the knowledge that his mother attempted to end his life. And we must understand and recognize that the subject children must be first and foremost protected from their mother.
Dr. McGuffog is to be commended. Rather than dismiss her, she should be congratulated for having the incredible therapeutic ability to bring V.C. around; to have helped him understand that despite his mother's “shortfalls” (the Court's word), she is still his mother and for his sake, he must find a way to have a relationship with her. When this Court met with him, he discussed how and why he needed to have this relationship with incredible maturity and understanding. As Dr. McGuffog described, I.C. is now dealing with her own anger with her mother because she is finally allowing herself to feel the anger. This Court has no doubt that Dr. McGuffog will help her find her way to having a better relationship with her mother. Defendant's access shall be one (1) to (2) times monthly, depending on the parties' and children's schedule for 45 minutes to one (1) hour (a minimum of one (1) visit per month and up to two (2) visits per month). This time may be increased upon agreement by the parties. After six (6) months, it shall increase to at least two (2) times monthly. After one (1) year, defendant may petition the Court for more access if not agreed to.
Regarding the choice of therapist, this is the decision of the plaintiff as he is awarded sole legal custody.
The mother shall be entitled to receive copies of the children's school records such as report cards. She shall be entitled to copies of health records and as such the father will execute authorizations allowing the providers to provide her records directly and to allow her to speak to the medical personnel.
Plaintiff shall be given the children's passports forthwith.
The parties shall notify each other of his or her current e-mail address, telephone numbers and residential address.
As for the defendant receiving a schedule and the details of the children's activities, the plaintiff shall not be required to disclose this information. Recalling Dr. Tuckman's warning that the extent of danger defendant poses to the children had not been determined and given this Court's determination that she attempted to strangle her son, it is determined that such information presents too great a risk to the children's safety and well being. Defendant's access shall be limited to Court ordered access only, and she shall not be in the presence of the children except as approved by the Court and for therapeutic purposes.
Defendant may send gifts and letters to the children's therapist who will then give them to the children if they wish to receive them.
Plaintiff is not required to be in therapy. As he testified, he is unable to afford it both economically and time wise.
The children, however, must remain in therapy until such time as the therapist determines it is no longer necessary for their mental health. Likewise, defendant must remain in therapy for so long as she wishes to exercise access and until such time as the therapist recommends her release which, based upon Dr. Tuckman's report, would be a very long time. If not already done, her therapist and the children's therapist are to receive a copy of Dr. Tuckman's report. The children's therapist may conduct joint sessions with either or both of the parties and either or both of the children as she determines. These are not access.
Linda Seever shall be the court approved supervisor or such other person as the parties can agree upon or the Court appoints.
Because this case was bifurcated with custody tried first, this decision only addresses custody and access. The decision regarding equitable distribution, maintenance and child support shall follow.
The Court has considered the additional contentions of the parties not specifically addressed herein and finds them to be without merit.
Plaintiff is directed to settle proposed Findings of Fact and Judgment of Divorce, in accordance with this Decision and the financial issues to be determined separately and including the usual and customary language not specifically contained herein, within 30 days of the date of the determination of the financial issues.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Registry checks were completed pursuant to DRL § 240(1)(a–1) and results were found.The Court found the following: 1) a pending Article 10 matter in which the mother is the respondent; and 2) a temporary order of protection in favor of the children and against the defendant, that was issued August 2, 2016 by the Hon. Rachel Hahn, Westchester County Family Court, and which will expire on September 26, 2016.
This Decision is being forwarded to both the Denver District Attorney's and the Westchester District Attorney's office to act upon this case as they deem appropriate.