10.R. Closing arguments

"Jenny's" letter to "Tracy" from SIG Camp, July 27, 2009.

Wild-eyed warnings launched this case in 2008--a preemptive war that became a 4-year fiasco with little regard for the truth, the cost, or the collateral damage.

Most Family Court judges forbid me to write in “their” courtrooms. In Superior Court I once inquired if I could take notes, and the clerk studied me quizzically: Of course! Why not? She even offered me a pen.

But Family Court is a different culture, with a veiled history of unrecorded conversations and backroom secrets. So I do the best I can to copy the public files, to remember what happens in court and to write it down as soon as possible. (I always welcome corrections, documents and other evidence to comprehend these often astonishing cases.)

On Tuesday, the final day of arguments, Judge Debra DiSegna presides, attentive but visibly weary of the mess others left since that first “emergency” ex parte order of April 23rd, 2008.

All week I’ve been trying to reconstruct Tuesday’s arguments and research the legal citations to be sure I understand their significance. Let’s return to that afternoon at Washington County Courthouse.

The stage is set: a lectern poised between the two attorneys. First up to speak, “Barbara’s” lawyer, Cynthia Gifford, reads her long script at the lectern in a trembling voice for the better part of an hour. As far as I can recall, she does not clearly cite state or federal laws, court rules, findings of fact, evidence, or testimony. She beats a single drum, reminding the judge again, again, and again, that a miserable creature sits at the next table.

Her incendiary words fail to ignite any outbursts from “Tracy.” (Folk wisdom prevails: Whenever you point a finger at somebody else, three of your fingers point back at you.) Gifford accuses Tracy of bullying, scheming, invading privacy, harming a child, and having no remorse.

Gifford advises the Court on something she calls “parental competence,” but she offers no evidence of her qualifications. (The opposing attorney later notes that he has raised five children to adulthood. He has 19 grandchildren. But he chooses to focus his remarks on the law.)

Keven McKenna speaks without using the lectern. He stands beside his client, Tracy, and her ADA assistant. He addresses the judge and occasionally turns to acknowledge half a dozen Gifford fans seated beyond Gifford’s partner, Attorney Cherrie Perkins.

The judge must decide this case based only on the law, McKenna says. He refers to “Jenny’s” birth certificate that names her birth mother, Barbara, and her adoptive mother, Tracy, as natural parents with equal rights. He cites the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Santosky v. Kramer (No. 80-5889) (455 U.S. 745 753 1982) that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child.

He cites King v. King, 114 A.2d 329 333 A.2d 135 (R.I. 1975) that age-change itself constitutes a significant material change of circumstance sufficient to warrant the trial court to reopen prior orders of custody. He reminds the court that four years is forever in the life of Jenny, who has aged from 11 to 15 while this case dragged on. King also holds that the testimony of a 12-year-old child is highly material.

McKenna notes that Parrillo v. Parrillo, 554 A.2d 1043 (R.I. 1989) assures jurisdiction since “the circumstances and conditions that existed when custody was decided have been changed or altered.”

Gallagher v. Dutton, 895 A.2d 124 (R.I. 2006) shows one parent using a restraining order “as a hammer to justify” not letting the other parent share significantly in the child’s life. As a result, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial justice’s decision “to award sole custody and physical placement” to the parent who had been hammered out of the child’s life.

In Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 913-14 (R.I. 1990) the state Supreme Court established a list of factors that must be weighed in an analysis of the best interest of the child when deciding custody:

1. The wishes of the child’s parent or parents regarding the child’s custody.

2. The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parent or parents, the child’s siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest.

4. The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community.

5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.

6. The stability of the child’s home environment.

7. The moral fitness of the child’s parents.

8. The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuous parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent.

Jenny’s stated preference from the beginning was to live with Tracy. McKenna notes that two witnesses, both of them parents, one a psychologist, have testified that they do not consider Tracy a danger to Jenny or to other children.

McKenna avers that Tracy, Barbara and both their homes meet the Pettinato factors--except for the last one:

8. The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuous parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent.

Tracy alone meets that one.

Frankly, I distrust this eighth factor, often called the “Friendly Parent” standard. It sounds good in many cases--except where there has been a history of domestic violence, sexual abuse, or coercive control.

In those cases, the “Friendly Parent” standard has too often opened the door for felonious parents to win sole custody of children they terrorize. When the children refuse to visit them, Family Court routinely punishes these youthful attempts at self-protection. The Court has given countless children to abusive parents, who then cut off all normal communication with the parents who tried to protect them.

While I do not believe Barbara is felonious, she and her lawyers have certainly done everything they could to break Jenny and Tracy’s close relationship.

Three years ago, on June 5, 2009, Dr. Judith Lubiner sent an email to both mothers:

I will be writing a letter to Judge Shawcross letting him know that [Jenny’s] stated preference is to live with [Tracy]. . . . I am hopeful that [Jenny] will feel better knowing that someone has expressed her wishes to the judge.

Lubiner’s exercise in truth-telling apparently provoked some pushback; ten days later she sent another email:

I regret that I impulsively agreed to do something that, upon consideration, believe was outside the boundaries of my role.

A month later, Jenny wrote letters to Lubiner and Barbara from the University of Texas, where Tracy had driven her to attend the Summer Institute for the Gifted (SIG). It was the last summer Barbara would let her attend SIG. The 12-year-old wrote to Tracy:

Dear Mom,
Thank you so much for getting me all the way out to Texas! I know it’s been a hard year for you and you’ve been struggling to pay the bills a lot. I’d like to write this letter . . . to inform you that I am sending the black phone back to [Barbara] because I cannot stand this phone issue any longer . . . .

Another reason why I’m writing you this letter is that I’m afraid [Barbara] and possibly even Judith wont speak the truth about the letters that I sent them and I know I can trust you to speak the truth.

I don’t want to have another year like 7th grade because that was the worst year of my life . . . . There’s so many things I want to do and achieve in life! I want to improve on my violin, do good in repertory, get accepted into Walsh, etc. But I believe that the only person strong enough to help me achieve my goals in life and be my mother too is you.

Judge DiSegna offers no clue to the decision she will render on May 3rd, at 2 p.m. She informs the parties that she will meet 15-year-old “Jenny” in chambers at 3 p.m. to explain her decision directly to the young woman whose future she is now deciding.

10.Q. Cutting the Gordian knot

Alexander cuts the Gordian Knot, by Jean-Simon Berthélemy (1743–1811) from Wikipedia.org

Let's recap Tuesday at Washington County Family Court:

Everyone is angry. On the witness stand, "Barbara" has nothing nice to say about her former partner, "Tracy," and she's angry that "the blogger" has written about their daughter's positive evaluation at the Gifted Resource Center of New England (10.M. "Zealous advocates," March 14, 2012, below).

Tracy's attorney, Keven McKenna, is angry because Barbara filed an abuse complaint in 2010; Barbara's attorney, Cynthia Gifford, succeeded in getting Judge Raymond Shawcross to sign an extraordinary three-year restraining order to "protect" Barbara and Jenny from Tracy. Barbara still claims to be in fear of imminent physical danger, but admits that Tracy never even came near her.

Judge Debra DiSegna is angry at McKenna's loud, aggressive tone. She stops him and abruptly leaves the bench.

Gifford walks McKenna out and brawls in a voice everyone can hear: "When are you gonna grow up?!"

To which McKenna responds: "When are you gonna grow up?!"

Touché!

Chastened, the attorneys return. Fifteen minutes later, Judge DiSegna is back on the bench with a big book. She calls the attorneys forward to discuss some finer points of law and finishes with a plea: "Do you see any way we can speed this up?"

McKenna says: "Cut the Gordian knot. You have authority to do it."

Aha! A classical reference that means "to cut right to the heart of the matter without wasting time on external details" the way Alexander the Great did with a single stroke of his sword, cutting an intricate knot tied by King Gordius of Phrygia, because an oracle said that whoever undid that knot would become ruler of Asia.

With that clarified, McKenna settles down and asks Barbara what she will do to help reunify their daughter, "Jenny," with her other mother.

Barbara is not keen on this. She says she will encourage Jenny to get counseling, though she has already testified that Jenny resists counseling because she does not trust adults.

When McKenna calls Tracy back to rebut, he asks her the same question in reverse, something like: What will you do to reunify with Jenny, but still maintain her relationship with Barbara?

Tracy promises to make colored calendars that coordinate all three schedules--as she had done for ten years--to help Jenny spend time with each mother.

She lists four steps for reunification:

First, over spring vacation, Tracy wants to take Jenny to see the girl's grandmother, "Gras," who cared for her often, but has been critically ill and anguished over the court case. (In one touching moment, McKenna asks if Barbara knows Gras, Tracy's mother. Tracy responds yes, she was "like a fourth daughter" to her.)

Second, Tracy will pick up Jenny from orchestra on Saturdays and deliver her to school on Mondays and will be free to talk with her teachers, to attend track meets and other events.

Third, Jenny should spend the summer with Tracy to make up for "two and a half years total blackout," but their daughter will be completely free to see Barbara whenever she wants. Jenny will soon drive and be able to travel easily between homes.

Fourth, Jenny should be allowed to audition for the state's performing arts high school and take her own time to explore her interests. She could even repeat tenth grade there, since she is a year ahead for her age. Let her take a break from the pressure and decide how she wants to finish her junior and senior years.

Will you make sacrifices? McKenna asks.

Yes! Tracy says: When I was called up after 9/11, I drove a thousand miles every week to see my daughter. I never missed a visit!

Tracy has a large notebook with 170 exhibits to show that she thought she and Barbara were engaged in a good-faith effort at mediation with the late Dr. Judith Lubiner.

She mentions disturbing items in the court file, including a strangely substituted order without any court stamp. (Perhaps I will return to these later.)

Near the end of the day, Tracy says she felt "deceived." Judge DiSegna stops McKenna mid-question and asks the stenographer: Did you get that? I want the record to show that she felt "deceived."

Suddenly the hearing is over, and final arguments set for April 3rd. Is the Gordian knot getting pulled tighter? Or is it about to be cut?

10.O. Overcoming fear

I was washing dishes tonight, listening to Rhode Island Public Radio, when a tragic story reminded me of court today . . .

Last month in Florida, a neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, 28, followed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was visiting his father's friend in a gated community.

Zimmerman claimed he was afraid of the teen and phoned 911:

There's a real suspicious guy...looks like he's up to no good....on drugs or something....he's just staring, looking at all the houses, looking at me.... coming towards me...got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male....something's wrong with him....I don't know what his deal is....

The police dispatcher warned Zimmerman not to follow the young man: "We don't need you to do that."

But Zimmerman followed anyway in his SUV, got out with his 9 millimeter handgun and killed the 17-year-old, claiming it was self-defense. The dead youth held only a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea.

That's what fear does.

"Barbara" says she was so fearful of her former partner, "Tracy," that she hired a law firm to win sole custody of their daughter, "Jenny."

I can see the courtroom again: Barbara's lawyer, Cynthia Gifford, wants her client to talk more on the witness stand about fear--all the bad things that might happen if Tracy and their daughter resume their close relationship.

Tracy's attorney, Keven McKenna, objects to the speculative narrative. Judge Debra DiSegna sustains his objection.

Barbara claims that Jenny is much better now with Tracy out of her life, but admits there are those odd moments when Jenny seems sad and says stuff like, It's not something you can help me with.

McKenna begins his cross examination by impugning Barbara's credibility, getting her to admit an embarrassingly false assertion in her "Complaint for Custody" four years ago.

Barbara conceived and gave birth to Jenny the old-fashioned way. The child's father willingly gave up his paternity rights so his friend, Tracy, could formally adopt the baby. Both mothers' names appear as parents on her birth certificate. The child's full name includes both their surnames.

McKenna also asserts that they successfully co-parented Jenny for twelve years.

He introduces a notebook of emails as if to suggest that the one Barbara seized and Gifford pored over for days with Dr. Vilker was (as Vilker suggested it might be) an aberration and not representative of a long list of positive emails between Tracy and her daughter.

Barbara is annoyed by "the blogging." She says it is biased.

It is true that I, as author of the blog, am offended--not by Barbara, but by the lawyers who dragged her here to make their living. I am frankly troubled by the damage adversarial litigation does to families, the sarcasm from both sides, the games of Gotcha that degrade everyone in the room.

I write about color-of-law custody cases at Family Court because I am paying for them with my taxes, and they need to end. They have done lasting damage to children and families for no good reason but to enrich a privileged guild.

In this case, maybe the only way out, ironically, is to let Jenny be independent, to set her free of the lawyers, the emergency ex parte motions and miscellaneous complaints that have trapped her and her mothers here through all her teen years.

This much is certain: Tracy and Barbara have an amazing daughter. I suspect that once she is independent, she will find ways to build healthy relationships with each of them.

Her love may succeed in finally overcoming fear.

"Jenny" made this picture in 2008.

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.J. Déjà vu all over again

Some readers thought Attorney Cynthia Gifford's subpoena of me meant I was headed to prison. Not so. As ordered, I appeared in court yesterday, where no mention was made of my subpoena. These are tricks some lawyers play to intimidate, complicate, and if possible, accumulate billable hours.

"Barbara's" attorney, Cynthia Gifford, continued her cross-examination of Dr. Ronitte Vilker. "Tracy's" attorney, Keven McKenna, continued to object, saying Gifford was raising subjects far beyond the scope of his original questions and Barbara should pay the psychologist's fees to use her as an expert. Judge Debra DiSegna denied his objections.

But the judge also pleaded with Gifford to conclude her tedious cross-examination--which involved lengthy hypotheticals calculated to get the psychologist to say her patient, Tracy, was untrustworthy, a failure as a parent, a danger to her daughter, and incapable of co-parenting with her former partner.

It was déjà vu all over again, recalling the history of another psychologist, the late Dr. Judith Lubiner, on this case nearly three years ago, which I will recount at another time.

Snow and sleet fell outside, and another expensive afternoon slipped away at the Washington County Courthouse.

Then something remarkable happened. Gifford protested, but Judge DiSegna needed to ask the doctor some questions. In that instant, the atmosphere changed from an adversarial game of Gotcha to a heartfelt conversation between the expert and the judge about how they could make the future better for Jenny.

A wasted afternoon became some of the most potentially productive minutes in this case. The clerk and stenographer agreed to stay longer as we watched a scene unfold that needs to happen more often if Family Court is to provide the wisdom and justice that good parents hope for when they come here.

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]

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.