10.K. Searching for Best Practices

Yesterday was Dr. Ronitte Vilker's final day on the witness stand.

Once again, Attorney Cynthia Gifford tried to get the psychotherapist to discredit her patient, "Tracy," with a series of hypothetical questions and misleading assertions cherry-picked from an email Tracy had sent to their daughter "Jenny" twenty-nine months ago and from a 25-page letter Tracy had sent to "Barbara" nearly four years ago.

Attorney Keven McKenna objected repeatedly, but Judge Debra DiSegna overruled him.

Dr. Vilker insisted that Gifford's questions ignored the context for Tracy's remarks and the way in which a person with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) might normally respond to the pressure she was feeling.

Gifford tried to get Vilker to imply that Tracy could suffer from other psychiatric conditions than ASD and PTSD. Judge DiSegna pushed the HIPAA envelope by asking whether Vilker would refer her patient for further tests. Dr. Vilker's discomfort was visible.

She looked at Tracy, who nodded.

Dr. Vilker said she wanted to continue working with Tracy, who had voluntarily sought her help. She would recommend that Tracy also work with a doctor who specializes in helping patients with ASD to develop skills for examining their thoughts before expressing them in ways that may prove counterproductive.

DiSegna inquired: Could the Court order specify that Tracy must cooperate with her therapist?

Vilker responded emphatically: No! That would undermine the therapy.

Vilker said she would never return to the courtroom, and DiSegna assured her she was not subject to the Court in any way.

This important exchange underscores what I've seen over two decades of Family Court custody cases: a few psychologists are doing enormous harm to children and families by delivering Court-ordered "evaluations" as a business--similar to the testimony Attorney Gifford kept trying to extract from Dr. Vilker.

Attorney McKenna asserted that the Court is not qualified or authorized to be in the business of behavior-modification. He asked whether it is harmful for a child to be separated from a parent for two and a half years when there has been no evidence of abuse by that parent. The therapist agreed.

I have been listening to delightfully engaging interviews of David Finch, author of the new book, The Journal of Best Practices: A Memoir of Marriage, Asperger Syndrome, and One Man's Quest to Be a Better Husband.

http://davidfinchwriter.com/radio

David and his spouse, Kristen, describe the undeniable challenges in their relationship and how they are overcoming them together.

This raises yet another hypothetical question:

How much better off would Jenny and her parents be today if Barbara had known in advance what Dr. Vilker has learned? If only she had stayed far, far away from Gifford, Perkins, and the adversarial mindset of Family Court.

10.F. The Education of Dr. Vilker

Psychologist Ronitte Vilker came to court Friday to testify about her work with "Tracy." It is not something psychotherapists want to do, but the hearing was one of the most valuable I have seen in this courtroom.

Tracy sought out Dr. Vilker's help voluntarily. This therapist operates on a higher plane than the handful of psychologists whose patients endure (and pay for) sessions under the duress of a court order.

Vilker has been seeing Tracy since 2009. They focus on the trauma of the court proceedings that produce "ambiguous" loss and grief.

Can you define that? asks Judge Debra DiSegna.

When a child dies, Vilker explains, there is finality that allows the bereaved parent to grieve, get some closure, and gradually move on.

But Tracy has been cut off from normal communications with her daughter for years. She does not know where or how "Jenny" is or what the future holds for them. The court process never comes to a conclusion. There is no possibility of closure. This ambiguity means that healing cannot come.

Such loss is traumatic for Tracy--and certainly for Jenny as well, the doctor adds. From her work with children she asserts that Jenny will need therapy for what she is going through right now.

(Her explanation is relevant to every custody case where lawyers plunder the deepest pockets of family wealth by prolonging the process until a child ages out of the system at 18.)

What is Dr. Vilker's diagnosis of Tracy?

From her Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) she gives the code for Asperger Syndrome, noting that this name will not appear in the DSM's next edition, but probably something like High-Functioning Autism or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

Do many people have this disorder? asks Tracy's lawyer, Keven McKenna.

At M.I.T., says the doctor. ASD is common among engineers.

Only recently has our understanding evolved to recognize that these neurological wiring disorders occur on a spectrum. Higher functioning individuals can learn in childhood to compensate for symptoms, like their difficulty picking up social cues. Though Tracy was not diagnosed in childhood, her mother and uncle helped her in ways much like the therapy given to children with ASD today.

Tracy has been diligent in seeking therapy. At first she met weekly with Vilker, then twice a week and never missed a session. She has improved steadily, says the doctor. She has gained coping skills. Even in the courtroom, the doctor notes, she saw Tracy get up and stand against a wall, a technique she learned to calm herself.

I look at the stenographer . . . the sheriff . . . the judge listening intently. Vilker is describing behavior we've all seen in this courtroom.

Attorney Gifford asks which ASD characteristics do not apply to Tracy. Dr. Vilker reads through the codes: Tracy does not have any problems with language skills. She does not lack empathy. Indeed, she is well known for going above and beyond to help others, adults and especially children.

Gifford asks if Vilker has given Tracy any other diagnosis than ASD?

Yes.

What is it?

PTSD.

Did Tracy ever say that "Barbara" abused her?

Yes. But that was not the focus of the therapy.

Gifford pursues another line of questioning. Does Vilker know Dr. Karin Huffer, who writes about Legal Abuse Syndrome--how courts traumatize litigants and how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides accommodations for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including that induced by abusive tactics in the courtroom? Vilker has heard Huffer's name, but not much else.

Then Gifford asks a question that makes my jaw drop.

(Unlike most other courts, many Family Court judges do not let people write in the courtroom. So I cannot record anything exactly.)

But Attorney Gifford asks something like: "Does Tracy take any responsibility for why she has no contact with her daughter?"

[TO BE CONTINUED]

9.H. “Vincent” wins sole custody, 2000

This case study begins at 9.A. below. (Click on August, then 9.A. in the Blog Archives at right.) My comments appear in italicized brackets.

October 2000 Master O’Brien gave Vincent sole custody and permission to go to Illinois and bring back the children.

November 2000 The 10-year-old boy emailed a greeting card (above) to his mother with this message:

mom, keep remembering me. I’ll always be in your heart no matter what. I keep on knitting my scarf. I’ll send it to you. I miss Matt and Andrea so much. I cry every night, wishing and wishing and wishing that I was there, with you. I hope your O.K. I love you with all my heart. Tell everybody that I miss them. I miss playing with Matt soo much! Love YA!!

He also sent a handwritten message:

Dear Mom,

I miss you very much! You’re the best ever! I will do my best on the clarinet. Tell everybody at home that I miss them so much!

I keep on sending you E-cards, but I guess they don’t get through. Anyway, make sure to send pictures of everybody, even kitty and dufus.

Keep on trying to get us back, Day and night. I’ll keep on writing to you. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxo
Love x infinite x infinitity,
[Son's signature]

February 2002 Judge Pamela Mactaz ordered that both children could speak with their mother on the phone without being monitored by their father.

September 2002 Their mother, who had moved back to Rhode Island, filed a motion to regain custody and placement of the children.

October 2002 The son ran away from his father’s home.

[Later, the son, then 13, wrote about their traumatic removal from his mother and his “forever home” in Illinois. I will add more details later from the voluminous court history, which was paid for by Rhode Island tax payers and the victims of the court.]

April 2003 Justice Howard Lipsey described “the scars that each party and each child has suffered from this unending litigation.” He blamed both parents for seeming “to thrive on exposing their children to the pain and suffering of litigation.” But he did not appear to blame the court system.

Lipsey affirmed an “unequivocal” fact:

. . . both children unambiguously and unequivocally desire to be with their mother and not their father. That has always been the position of the children and it has only been through the intervention of the Court that this has not been possible. (Emphasis added.)

He concluded:

. . . joint custody will continue the never-ending litigation that . . . would be detrimental to the well being and best interests of these children.

Justice Lipsey granted the mother sole custody and placement of the children.

May 2003 The son, 14, had a breakdown and threatened to harm himself at school. Bradley Hospital enrolled him in its Crisis Intervention program and notified DCYF.

[While in an abusive parent’s care, trophy children need to be rigorously obedient. They often excel at school, where they find affirmation and relief away from the oppressive atmosphere at home. But once they return to a supportive parent, they often suffer breakdowns. The grades of good students may plummet. Pushed to the limit of their endurance under the thumb of an abusive parent, they can finally allow themselves to feel emotions that they once kept under tight control. This is not unlike the breakdowns that soldiers with PTSD suffer after coming home from the rigors of war.]

June 2003 Vincent filed numerous motions blaming the mother for interfering with his court-ordered visitation and phone calls with the children. He blamed the mother for “psychologically abusing” the children. He even attached an email from his son, who blamed “Vincent” for lying to manipulate the court and to harm their mother.

December 2003 Justice Lipsey summarized Vincent’s numerous motions and also his ex-wife’s motion for child support, but he refused to rule on any of them. He declared that he must recuse himself from hearing the case altogether, for he had become "biased:"

After having had an opportunity over a lengthy period of time of trial, to observe the parties in this case and to observe what their reaction was to the children and what their motivations appeared to me to be with respect to the children, it is clear to me that I could not impartially hear this case because I feel on the basis of the testimony I have heard before, on the basis of my observations of both parties, on the basis of my observations and talks with the children, on the basis of the multitude of motions that have been filed within a very short time after my decision in this case, that I could not be without bias towards the defendant [Father] in this case.

I feel he is utilizing this court system for his own purposes. I feel that he is abusing the court system for his own purposes. I feel that he has no real interest for the best interest of the children. I feel further that he is taking advantage of a system, taking advantage of his children, taking advantage of his oldest son who is in the courtroom here. I think he is taking advantage of his former wife. I think he is devious. I think he has no desire to really look to the best interest of a child and children, and if anyone is not allowing them to reestablish a relationship with him and with their sibling, it is he who is doing it. . . . on the basis of my review of all the facts in this case, . . . for me to be able to impartially judge the motions that have been filed before this court would be a physical and a metaphysical impossibility.

[After examining the evidence, Justice Lipsey saw exactly what was happening. But he claimed that the Judicial Code precluded him from ruling on the case. He did not end the cycle of abuse by Vincent or by the Court. His failure to award child support condemned these children to grow up poor. Their mother patched together minimum-wage jobs day and night, sought charity, and neglected her own medical needs, while Vincent refused to pay court-ordered child support. This was particularly galling to his children, for they knew he was lying about his income. They had accompanied him when he picked up cash payments from numerous tenants.]

The next judge, Michael Forte, has a reputation for misogyny. He cut Vincent’s debt to the children’s mother in half, and he brought in David Tassoni to “mediate” child support.

NEXT: 9. I. How David Tassoni and Judge Forte punished the children and favored “Vincent.”

9.F. How Dr. Carole Jenny rescued Kevin Aucoin from "Vincent," 1998

This case study begins at 9.A. below. (Click on August, then 9.A. in the Blog Archives at right.) My comments appear in italicized brackets.

December 1996 After a Christmas visit, the 7-year-old boy said their father had held the 6-year-old girl on his lap and scratched her crotch through her clothing. Master Sammartino ordered sex abuse evaluations of both children.

[I had wondered if Vincent’s alleged behavior might be merely his attempt to provoke more allegations, so the court would blame the mother for accusing him. Justice Shawcross had quizzed one DCYF investigator:

You never heard anybody say there’s a higher incidence of false accusations when there is litigation going on between a mother and father? (Transcript, 11/18/93, p. 13.)

[Shawcross's statement has never been substantiated by research, but it was widely promoted by Richard Gardner, and Chief Judge Jeremiah admitted he was reading Gardner on the subject. (Transcript, 4/11/94, p. 18.) By 2004, a year after Gardner’s suicide, his legal strategem held sway in Rhode Island’s new training manual for guardians ad litem. Defense attorneys routinely accused mothers of “alienating,” “brainwashing,” and coaching” children who resisted their fathers for any reason. (See post 8. The problem with Pettinato's "friendly parent," under the August Blog Archive, below.)]

January 1997 Dr. Carole Jenny at Hasbro Children’s Hospital interviewed the daughter and wrote, “There is no doubt in my mind that some event happened because of the child’s clear and consistent disclosure.”

February-March 1997 St. Mary’s Shepherd Program conducted extensive interviews by separate counselors of the children and parents. They called for the children to work with therapists “trained in familial sexual abuse.” They recommended that Vincent be “evaluated for sexually offending behavior, aggressive tendencies, and physically abusive behavior” and “that he participate in an adult offender plethysmograph evaluation….”

March 1997 DCYF filed a petition alleging that the mother was subjecting her daughter to emotional harm and the father had sexually abused both children. Both parents were arraigned. DCYF left the children in their mother’s care.

April 1997 DCYF wrote to Vincent that he had been indicated for sexual abuse. He complained that he did not receive the notice until late May.

June 1997 Vincent’s attorney appealed the DCYF finding and requested an administrative hearing.

July 1997 Master Sammartino issued a 3-year restraining order against Vincent that denied him contact with his children.

November 1997 The daughter, 7 ½ , expressed fear of a visit with her father and suffered chest pains, anxiety, depression, and panic symptoms at school. Bradley Hospital admitted her for a week. Physicians had already medicated her with Prozac, and later Tenex.

The attending psychiatrist, Dr. Elizabeth Wheeler, described “evidence of significant character pathology in both parents.” But she listened to Vincent's allegations that the children's mother had Munchausen's factitious disorder by proxy. Wheeler identified the father as “narcissistic and equally caught up in the [custody] battle,” but she recommended a “full forensic evaluation” of the mother alone and agreed to serve as Vincent's expert witness.

December 1997 Counselors at The Doric Center of CCAP wrote to Family Court that the mother had been in counseling with them for half a year and suffered from symptoms of PTSD related to abuse by her ex-husband and by her children’s disclosures of his sexual abuse. Counselors urged that the daughter not be forced to visit her father and that the restraining order remain in place.

December 1997 Vincent again asked DCYF to hold an administrative appeal hearing on the findings against him.

March 1998 DCYF referred the mother to Dr. Ira Gross for a psychological evaluation. He diagnosed her with "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, relating to her former marital life.” He found no indication of Munchausen’s and reported: “she is a concerned mother that needs to be on constant alert to predation by her former husband.”

April 1998 U.S. Sen. Jack Reed sent a 3-page letter on behalf of his constituent, "Vincent," summarizing Vincent’s complaints to DCYF director Jay Lindgren and child advocate Laureen D’Ambra. Reed asserted that the mother was diagnosed with Munchausen’s, and he protested DCYF’s failure to schedule Vincent’s administrative appeal hearing.

May 1998 Psychologist Dr. Ira Gross warned the mother that Vincent’s behavior was increasingly unstable and she should take steps to protect herself and the children.

May 1998 Vincent threatened to sue DCYF and its senior counsel Kevin Aucoin for failing to schedule his administrative hearing.

June 1998 Vincent’s attorney, Michael Hagopian, withdrew, and Vincent entered his appearance pro se. He sought hearing dates for himself and his older son, 18, represented by a separate lawyer. Father and son each sought visitation with the younger children, 8 and 9.

[This is a common strategy used in Trophy Child cases, when older siblings are brought to court. Children often complain that older siblings they had once liked are used by an abusive parent to grill and harass them with guilt-provoking arguments and to pry information from them that is then used in court.]

"Vincent" complained that he, his 18-year-old son, and their three witnesses came on ten separate dates, but could not be heard due to the crowded court calendar. He sought confirmation of hearings for his son and himself on three certain dates.

Vincent asked the court to order his ex-wife to pay for her full forensic psychological evaluation, asserting that Dr. Wheeler suspected it was not the father, but the mother, who was abusing the children due to Munchausen's and that the mother "exhibited suicidal ideation in the past" which endangered the children.

July 1998 Dr. Carole Jenny delivered a forensic investigation of 27 documents at DCYF’s request. She acknowledged her uncertainty whether the December 1996 incident was “a purposeful molest, a thoughtless gesture, or perhaps even a suggestive touch made to inflame the family relationships even further.” She wrote: “I am struck by the extraordinary hostility between the two parents.”

Dr. Jenny enumerated extensive concerns:
• The mother’s allegations about Vincent’s abuse of her and the children included “extraordinary acts of violence and intimidation.”
• Vincent’s “relatively positive psychological evaluations” were “somewhat superficial.”
• No sex offender evaluation tools “currently available are 100% sensitive or specific.”
• St. Mary’s Shepherd evaluators felt that Vincent was “very inappropriate.” “They expressed on several occasions feeling intruded upon, threatened, and verbally attacked” and “had major concerns about his parenting abilities.”
• Victor’s psychiatrist talked about his “interpersonal difficulties, depression and anxiety” and was working with him “on his personality style.” But

. . . there was no description of his family of origin or of his childhood. There was no description of his level of functioning in general. Is he employed? Does he have reasonable social relationships with adults and peers? There was no discussion of drug or alcohol abuse. . . no evidence that the psychiatrist had looked at the effect of [Vincent’s] physical illness . . . or his medications on his ability to function.

Still, Jenny concluded that she was no longer “convinced the children had made unambiguous disclosures of abuse.”

She wrote: “the very process of these allegations and counter allegations . . . is extraordinarily destructive to these children.” Yet she blamed this on the two parents, not on the court system, itself, that encourages years of adversarial litigation, as exacerbating this problem. Instead, she blamed both parents and strongly suggested “that the courts consider one of two options:”
1. Putting the children in foster care . . . . or
2. Ordering the parents to meet face-to-face each week for at least two hours with a competent family therapist for at least six months to find common ground. . . .”

[Would Dr. Jenny’s assessment have changed if she had seen the 1982 affidavit detailing Vincent’s alleged violence and threats against his first wife and son? Both wives described sadistic acts of domestic violence and coercive control. Experts in domestic violence warn that “therapeutic” mediation must never be attempted when one partner persists in patterns of power and control.]

When Dr. Jenny revised her original report, and decided there was no evidence of sexual abuse and that the children were being emotionally abused by both parents, she gave DCYF the document they needed to escape Vincent’s lawsuit against their senior counsel Kevin Aucoin.

August 1998 DCYF chief investigator Edward O’Donnell wrote to "Vincent" that DCYF had overturned the indication against him, because Dr. Jenny had revised her original report from “indicated” to “unfounded.”

NEXT: 9.G. The Supreme Court weighs in, 1999