10. D. “You’re making me dizzy!”

Last week, Judge Debra DiSegna expressed irritation at “Jenny’s” mom, “Tracy,” who kept standing, swaying, and fidgeting while attorney Cynthia Gifford grilled her in cross-examination.

Tracy’s attorney, Keven McKenna, objected repeatedly, questioning the need for such a barrage of insinuation that appeared calculated to trigger Tracy’s symptoms of high-functioning autism. Judge DiSegna overruled McKenna and demanded answers.

Tracy’s ADA aide was not allowed to sit beside her, where she could have touched Tracy’s arm or leg to focus her back on her body in the way that helps those with neurological disorders. McKenna and the aide searched for the magnets Tracy uses to calm herself and settled for coins she could shift in her palms.

Two days later, at the Family Court’s statewide training on the neurological and psychological impact of childhood trauma, the keynote speakers cogently described what was happening to Tracy in DiSegna’s courtroom. (I’ve posted more on this conference at CustodyScam.blogspot.com)

Licensed clinical social worker Robert Hagberg and Dr. James Greer described how “rockers” need physical movement to “quell their overactive limbic systems” as a normal and necessary balancing function of the brain’s cerebellar vermis. When teachers (or judges) think words should be sufficient to stop this behavior, they are simply mistaken.

Tracy and her brother were both born with autism, which may have contributed to later traumatic episodes. She was four when a playmate teased her by pulling away a pillow as she jumped. Her crash onto cinder blocks split open her skull. At nine she tried to pet a dog who bit away part of her face. Repeated surgeries gradually rebuilt her face and skull until she was twenty, when she said she could not endure any more reconstructive procedures.

She went on to serve in the U.S. Air Force with top clearance until she left in fear of the “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” strictures on gay and lesbian service members. An Air Force friend agreed to father a child for her and her partner, Barbara, who gave birth to Jenny in 1996. Tracy adopted Jenny. The girl’s birth certificate includes both mothers’ names as her legal parents.

Barbara’s attorneys, Cynthia Gifford and Cherrie Perkins, now appear intent on triggering Tracy’s symptoms as if to imply she is an unfit parent. Scores of photographs since Jenny’s birth--full of exuberant activities, trips, pets, and friends--convey the unmistakable bond between Jenny and Tracy, whose disability has never hindered her from being an inspired and nurturing mother.

Last week, Tracy testified that throughout 2008, she never even met Judge Laureen D’Ambra, who signed the emergency ex parte order that gave temporary sole custody to Barbara. In 2010, Dr. Robin Stern, M.D., Chief of Psychiatry at Kent County Hospital, testified that Tracy was not mentally ill. She wrote:

[Tracy] has no signs of psychosis, delirium, severe depression, panic disorder or substance abuse. Her presentation is consistent with what is called High Functioning Autism. A person with this disorder can present as paranoid, especially under conditions of increased anxiety and stress. They can look more disturbed than is actually the case. They are frequently misunderstood by someone unaware of autistic behavior as they have difficulty picking up appropriate social cues.
In terms of how her behavior would impact on a child, I do not see any dangerous or concerning impulses, thoughts or activity. Children are much more adaptable in the setting of unusual behavior and a daughter who is accustomed to a mother with autism would not be alarmed or confused. I would be more worried about the impact of loss on a child whose mother has been taken away.

Judge Raymond Shawcross disregarded Dr. Stern's expertise in 2011 when he ruled that Tracy was mentally ill. The history of this case illustrates how cabals, rife with rumors and false insinuations, influence far-reaching judicial decisions—a subject for another post.

Tonight, I am most concerned about Jenny, who is still forbidden to communicate in any way with Tracy. Tomorrow, Barbara will bring their daughter, now 15, to answer questions from the lawyers and Judge DiSegna. Will they grill her in the same taunting, abusive way? Or will they hear what she needs to say?

Last Wednesday, Attorney Gifford tried to condemn Tracy for bringing Jenny into the courthouse to observe public hearings in 2009.

Tracy had picked up Jenny when snow closed her school. But there were still plenty of opportunities for learning. And Jenny had pressing questions that needed answers. What better way for a conscientious parent to teach a smart youth about the forum where these decisions are getting made than to take her into an American courtroom and watch? Predictably, Judge Shawcross exploded and ordered them out of his court.

But the court file still holds Jenny's handwritten affidavit in green ink:

I cannot take living like this anymore, because it is driving me crazy. I am depressed and angry because of this whole custody battle . . . . I don't know how the whole court thing works, but I know somewhere, someone has said something inaccurate or I could be with [Tracy] right now. . . . . There is sooo much more to tell you about my situation and what I want. May I please talk to you?

On Wednesday, Attorney Gifford accused Tracy of trying to tell Jenny what her rights are under the law that allows 14-year-olds to go to Probate Court for a guardian ad litem of their own choosing.

Last Friday, Chief Judge Bedrosian’s statewide training introduced a panel of youth who had lived in the foster care system. They compellingly asserted their precept: “Nothing about us without us.”

Whenever I research custody cases, it is an important principle for me to try to detect the children's concerns. The last time Jenny spoke to me in private, she despondently told me that no one assigned by the court was listening to her. She deserves the opportunity to speak fully, without any harassment from lawyers, about her needs and hopes for the future.

In addition to ADA accommodations, the Family Court needs to accommodate this basic principle: Nothing should be ordered for Jenny without respecting her voice in the process.

10. C. Jenny's dream school

http://jmwschool.net/

I've been learning about the Jacqueline M. Walsh High School for the Performing and Visual Arts. A charter school founded in 2005, it became the first public high school in Rhode Island to accept applicants based on their audition or portfolio. Their culturally diverse student body pursues rigorous academics with individualized work in their chosen field: visual arts, dance, music, or theatre.

Based in the Pawtucket Armory, the JMW High School has a mission:

To provide an intensive, high-quality, conservatory-style high school education in and through the arts

and a vision:

To fully challenge and nurture high school students with exceptional talent in the arts who wish to pursue careers in the visual and performing arts.

JMW is the only school in Rhode Island with art programs approved as "Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs of Study." What an ideal school this could be for "Jenny," already a performing musician when she graduated from eighth grade in 2010.

But her two parents disagreed.

One of them, "Barbara," had money for lawyers to bring an emergency ex parte motion and persuade a judge to award her temporary sole custody in 2008. Everything went downhill from there as Barbara’s lawyers tried to stop the girl from communicating with her other mother, “Tracy,” who had nurtured her talents since early childhood.

Tracy was forbidden to attend Jenny's track meets, performances, and eighth grade graduation. Barbara confiscated a basketful of cell phones from their daughter’s attempts to contact Tracy.

How would Jenny’s world be different if she were at the JMW High School, a total environment of students and professionals devoted to the arts, where she could establish long-term contacts and relationships?

Last Wednesday, Tracy tried to persuade the judge: It’s not too late for Jenny to audition for next year.

Barbara’s attorney, Cynthia Gifford, minimized the loss: After all, Jenny plays in the band at her local high school. And she won a coveted seat in the state symphony orchestra.

Which proves she is motivated to excel and is missing out on one of the finest opportunities this state offers gifted students like her.

It’s too expensive, Gifford counters, as if to say: Why bother? Why encourage this girl to try?

Tracy says it might cost $500 a month, but there are scholarships, and Barbara is paying far more on attorneys to limit Jenny’s options. Tracy says she would gladly move to Pawtucket to cut the cost.

Tracy is a very good parent. But that is not evident in this courtroom, which has grown morbidly sick with sarcasm hurled back and forth between Barbara’s attorney and Tracy.

Barbara’s other attorney, Cherrie Perkins, talks to me today during the break, thanks me for noting her correction last week.

She tells me she is not an evil person. She started out really good, working at the Women’s Resource Center.

I tell her I don’t think she’s evil. I know she’s smart. So why doesn’t she help Jenny go to the JMW High School?

Why not use her compassion and intelligence to protect children from this dismal adversarial system?

"Someone as smart as you doesn't need to be in this line of work, doing this to people."

“I have to make a living,” she says.

Bingo.

Attorney Gifford is mangling the language the way lawyers do. She constructs convoluted questions out of leading statements she wants to get into the record:

Is it not true that the record shows you hold a grudge against Barbara?

I can barely imagine how these verbal gymnastics fry the circuits for someone on the ASD spectrum, like Tracy, who is intensely precise and literal.

Finally Tracy exclaims: "What kind of question is that? I can’t answer yes and I can’t answer no!"

10. B. Cherrie Perkins set me straight

Silly me. I never have been too good at fashion.

After court yesterday, Cherrie Perkins let me know that the jeans she was wearing Friday were CERTAINLY not Wranglers, but Levi's.

We laughed. It felt good. (Why would anyone want to spend her one-and-only life laughing at people when it feels so much better to laugh with them?)

10. A. A Rodeo Island courtroom stunt

What happened two days ago at the Washington County Family Court would be hard to believe if I had not seen it.

I was researching another case at the clerk’s counter about 2 pm when three women, perhaps in their 60s, appeared, asking where they could find “the courtroom with the woman judge.” The clerk directed them to Room 1, saying the judge would be there in twenty minutes.

They talked among themselves, comparing this courthouse to others they had visited. They eyed me suspiciously. Adversarial litigation breeds wariness.

They were soon joined by four others, apparently all guests of Attorney Cherrie Perkins, who greeted them with hugs when she arrived wearing heavy jewelry of silver and turquoise, wrangler jeans and cowboy boots, complete with spurs and a mean set of rowels—those spiked disks that let a horse know who’s boss.

It was an uncommon getup for a Rhode Island courtroom.

It was Friday afternoon, and Perkins’ friends were in a festive mood as if awaiting a spectacle. They settled into several rows behind Perkins, whose law partner, Attorney Cynthia Gifford, arrived with her client, “Barbara,” a mother intent on keeping her 15-year-old daughter, “Jenny,” away from the girl’s other mother, “Tracy,” who suffers an invisible disability on the autism spectrum.

Tracy is high-functioning, intelligent, gifted, and has held top-clearance positions in the U.S. Air Force. But she can become overwhelmed when confronted with aggressive stimuli and distractions.

Judge Debra DiSegna was endeavoring to provide accommodations for Tracy. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tracy is entitled to bring an aide, who sits beside her. The aide uses calming techniques. She prompts and cues Tracy to slow down for the stenographer. She alerts the court when Tracy is growing distraught and needs a break.

The judge let Tracy stay seated at the defendant’s table instead of going to the witness stand, but required her aide and lawyer to move their chairs back. Gifford began her cross-examination, her voice trembling with stress.

Tracy answered precisely, but sometimes accused Gifford of goading. Without her aide at her elbow, Tracy grew hyper-vigilant, wary of trick questions. Gifford approached her. Tracy rose from her chair and backed away.

Four years ago, Perkins won an emergency ex parte order for Barbara to gain temporary sole custody of Jenny. The girl is Barbara’s biological child, but Tracy adopted her and cared for her from birth while Barbara pursued her studies and career. Though the two women separated, they successfully co-parented their daughter for more than a decade until Gifford and Perkins took charge of their lives.

Before that, Jenny had flourished, excelling in martial arts, track, and music. She plays in the regional youth orchestra. She used to go to summer science camps. The girl wanted to live with Tracy and attend an arts high school, but Barbara refused and got her lawyers to stop Tracy and Jenny from communicating altogether nearly three years ago.

In the courtroom yesterday, Perkins suddenly leapt to her feet. Her silver bangles clattered. Her boots shuffled across the aisle to confront a woman who held a cell phone. She wanted the deputy sheriff to check for pictures or recordings or text messages. While the Court waited, he obliged and found nothing.

When Judge DiSegna took a break and left the room, Tracy sat alone, her hands folded on the table.

Attorney Perkins, an officer of the court, stood with her friends in Tracy’s line of vision and laughed. One loudly exclaimed: “This is more lively than I expected!”

If Tracy were in prison, she would be allowed to testify in court on a monitor and telephone. She could avoid the smirks and bullying in the corridor, the provocations in the courtroom—although these may now give the judge important insights to what has been happening throughout this case.

Wouldn’t it be better if Tracy sat in a quiet room with her aide and a sheriff to assure the aide was not coaching her—so she could clearly communicate with the Court on a monitor, free of all this aggressive stimuli?

I wrote about this case long before Judge DiSegna inherited it. I searched back through our blogs to refresh my memory. It was in August 2010:

http://trophychild.blogspot.com/2010/08/flash-1-breakdown-and-stoning_31.html

9.I. Summarizing Vincent's Case

I did not have time to complete the month-by-month summary of "Vincent's" abuse of his family--and his easy manipulation of DCYF and Family Court. But here is an overall summary:

Rhode Island needs the Attorney General’s Child Abuse Unit

Congratulations to Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin for creating a new Child Abuse Unit that will work with the accredited victims’ advocacy group Day One (“New unit to tackle cases of child abuse,” The Providence Journal, Dec. 6, 2011, page A1). This effort could finally protect children from sex abuse--unless it falls prey to the same pressures that too often sabotage the missions of Family Court, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), and Hasbro Hospital’s Child Protection Program.

Pressures to impede the unit will be intense, because it is usually family members and friends, not strangers, who perpetrate child abuse. Pedophiles’ motives may not be sex so much as power and control over vulnerable victims. Add to that the enormous profitability of child pornography and the ease of webcam pimping.

But state officials charged with protecting children are so fragmented that they seldom bother to look beyond the boundaries of their individual roles to identify larger patterns of abuse. Each official is insulated from the benefits that a team of equals can bring by intentionally enlarging upon each other’s limited perspective.

In 1997, a Hasbro doctor and counselors at the St. Mary’s Shepherd Program all reported signs that a sister and brother suffered sexual abuse by their father. DCYF “indicated” the father, who sued the agency’s senior attorney for administrative failures. Suddenly under siege, DCYF pressured the Hasbro doctor to change her report.

She complied with a new report that minimized the evidence she once found compelling. By 2000, Family Court General Magistrate John O'Brien gave the children to their father's sole custody.

In 2002 the boy tried to run away. The following year, he had a breakdown. He tearfully testified to Judge Howard Lipsey about a laundry basket of videotapes in their father's bedroom.

Lipsey returned the children to their mother, but apparently never called state police to investigate the videotapes. He declared that he was now prejudiced against the father and could no longer rule on the case.

The next Family Court judge, Michael Forte released the father from paying child support because the children refused to visit him. The mother worked several jobs at minimum salary and raised her children in poverty.

From 1992 to 2006, more than a dozen judges grappled with the case under our failed system of adversarial litigation. In their final hearing, the father stood with photos in his hand and a smirk on his face, saying he wanted to show Judge Forte the stripper’s pole he had installed in his daughter's bedroom. Forte ignored him and ended the hearing.

Like Penn State officials, none of these authorities felt responsible to call in state police to investigate what really happened to these children. (State police exposed the fraudulent credentials of the court’s mediator who worked on this case, and the children’s guardian ad litem was later found to be defrauding the fund that paid him to represent poor litigants. Neither court official was prosecuted.)

Many Family Court custody cases are orchestrated by guardians ad litem--privately paid lawyers with enormous power over families. Judges assume these “guardians” submit objective reports, but many are blatantly biased, depending on which parent pays them and the guardians’ relationships to other professionals profiting from these cases.

Guardians often ask judges to order parents to pay for expensive psychological “evaluations” by one of a handful of clinicians still willing to produce highly questionable reports for Family Court.

Attorneys for alleged abusers often insist that children must stop seeing trusted counselors like those at Day One, arguing that therapy will interfere with clinical evaluations. This calculated strategy keeps children under the thrall of their abusers.

Meanwhile, judges order clinical “evaluations” and forced “reunification” sessions with abusers “in a therapeutic setting” that further traumatize abused children. Rhode Island Blue Cross and Blue Shield told me they do not pay clinicians for court-ordered sessions, since these are not therapeutic. But court-ordered clinicians have learned to couch their reports in therapeutic language and to bill insurers under nondescript codes. Victims of abuse can seldom afford to pay for these sessions, but children regularly pay the cost in night terrors and gastrointestinal disorders.

Based on more than two decades studying Family Court custody cases, I hope that the Attorney General’s Child Abuse Unit will finally bring clarity, ethics, and prosecution to our state’s stymied system of child protection.

Victims need this clarity and continuity of a single, salaried team trained to recognize family dynamics that accompany child sexual abuse. The team must thoroughly understand and care about a family’s history and be available to that family in the future to effectively provide both legal and therapeutic advocacy.

Team members should meet often to build mutual trust. They must disclose and evaluate any attempts by others, especially lawyers, to contact them, and they must preserve the confidentiality of agency whistleblowers and potential victims who might suffer reprisals for coming forward. Team members must recuse themselves from any case where they have conflicts of interest.

To this end, team members should regularly disclose, under penalty of perjury, all outside contacts and verify that they have received no payment or benefits other than salary for working on this case.

Finally, the Attorney General’s Office must move quickly to bring evidence of child sex abuse to the Grand Jury where it belongs, to alert Family Court and DCYF, and to assure prompt, skillful prosecution of abusers in Superior Court.


Anne Grant (parentingproject@cox.net) investigates legal abuse in Family Court custody cases. Her writing appears in blogs like http://LittleHostages.blogspot.com and in Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues, ed. By Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D., and Barry Goldstein, J.D (Civic Research Institute, 2010).

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.G. The Supreme Court weighs in, 1999

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.

August 1998 Based on Dr. Jenny’s revised report, DCYF overturned the indication against “Vincent,” and accused the mother of neglect. But they felt confident enough to let her continue caring for the children under supervision of the child protection agency in Illinois. The neglect charge offered her a legal means to get a public defender, Brian LeClair, in Rhode Island who could respond to Vincent’s frequent motions without requiring the mother to keep returning to Rhode Island.

November 1998 Once again, “Vincent” secured a letter from U.S. Sen. Jack Reed—this time to Chief Judge Jeremiah. Reed asserted that the mother had Muchausen’s--even though DCYF’s psychologist Dr. Ira Gross had rejected that diagnosis and said she was suffering from PTSD due to her “constant torment and abuse by her former husband” (Kathryn Hammann, Revised Summary of Facts, 8/24/98: 3.)

When Jeremiah received Senator Reed’s letter, he ordered yet another review of the case. Vincent again threatened to sue DCYF’s chief legal counsel Kevin Aucoin for failing to schedule an administrative hearing on his latest appeal.

September 1999 Vincent’s physician, Dr. Perry Mandanis, MD, reported to the court that his patient had been “thoroughly compliant with his treatment” and “that he was successful in coparenting with his first wife and raised their son without conflict”—an assertion that is contrary to the first wife’s 1991 motion for sole custody (Perry Mandanis, MD, Progress Notes, 9/9/99: 1).

[This is why reports by privately paid experts need to be evaluated by an independent multidisciplinary team, rather than taking the court’s time on potentially biased reports.]

September 1999 A Catholic Charities case worker reported that her visits to the family’s home in Illinois “go very well.” She wrote: "Both children are very well adjusted children. I have observed a very strong bond between them and [mother] on a number of occasions. . . . Academically,they are overachievers and genuinely good kids. (Catholic Charities Report, 9/19/99: 1-2). Both children said they felt “uncomfortable” talking to their father on the phone. The 10-year-old son said he was “scared that his father was taping the call, especially when he forced [son] to say he loved him. [Son] said he felt he would use that against his mother in court or something. He said that it wasn’t that he doesn’t love his father, because he does, but at that time he wasn’t feeling love for him and didn’t want to say it” (Catholic Charities Report, 9/19/99: 2-3).

The case worker found the Illinois home “safe, nurturing and appropriate” for the children, but also described a disastrous visit when the mother verbally attacked a therapist who allowed Vincent to have a four-hour unsupervised visit.

Master John O’Brien approved a motion from DCYF lawyer Martha Diamond to bring both children into foster care in Rhode Island. The mother resisted, saying she had no money for plane fare and not enough time to drive to Rhode Island for the next hearing.

October 1999 DCYF chief legal counsel Kevin Aucoin secured an order from Master O’Brien issuing an arrest warrant for the mother and fining her $100 a day until she returned the children to Rhode Island.

O’Brien signed a confusing warrant to arrest a “child,” but it gave the mother’s name with the father’s address--perhaps so Vincent could call officers if the mother brought the children there and have her taken to prison.

Knowing she would be arrested if she came to Rhode Island, the mother refused to bring the children. O'Brien issued an order for the children, ages 9 and 10, to be seized in Illinois for extradition to Rhode Island. The mother’s public defender, Brian LeClair, secured a stay from the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which found Master O’Brien’s order improper.

NEXT: 9.H. "Vincent" wins sole custody, 2000