Here it is, Kathleen's report that she has spent the past 4 months working on. First of all, I would like to thank Kathleen for victimizing me all over again. This is why when women are victim's of Domestic Violence, they do not come forward. For you to discount it on Adam's word is disgusting. But then Kathleen, I expect nothing less of you.
Once again she failed to discuss the things that Adam has done. Hey, kathleen what about Adam sending the girls' to me with provacative things and then he complains no matter what I say in an explanation. Why didn't you bring up these things to Hilliard?
What I find amuseing is that I told Kathleen all along that I knew she was biased and that her report would be negative against me. She kept saying that I had to wait and see what she wrote. Well, Kathleen, I was right.
I find it amusing that you say that I do not take responsibility for my actions and behavior. I take complete responsibility for them, I just ask that other people take responsibility for their behavior.
As far as the medical coverage goes, you are a liar. I thought I had coverage, I didn't. However, I NEVER asked or demanded that Adam pay for the visits. IBEGGED you to stop letting Adam withhold the girls' insurance so that I would only have to pay the copay. Once again you write and report it to skew it to make me look bad.
As far as taping goes. You and Julie Skakoon have lied for the past two years. Dr. McPhee knew from the get go that I was taping. I spoke to his assistant about it and I took the tape recorder out during the first session. I am so tired of the half truths and lies that you report in order to make me look bad.
I will have more to write, but I wanted to let you know that your request to stop my blogging is denied. It is called the first amendment and I have every right to report on the fraud that you are. You are a danger to our children and should be removed as a parent coordinator.
ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF MARICOPA
HONORABLE RUTH H. HILLIARD
Kathleen Miholich, LCSW
Family Court Specialist
Family Assessment Consultants
16826 S. 34th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85048
- Ph/fax
IN RE THE MATTER OF Case No. FC 2004-002284
ALISA FAITH ABRAMS
ADAM MARC JAMES
PARENTING COORDINATOR REPORT
The following report is pursuant to the Parenting Coordinator appointment of /09,
made by Ruth H Hilliard. The PC appointment is now expired.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The parties were not married but have twin
daughters in common. They are Dulcinea T. Abrams and Rhiannon H. Abrams,
DOB 10/05/03.
CONTACTS: 04/15/09 Joint office consultation
04/28/09 Joint office consultation
05/05/09 Joint office consultation
05/19/09 Joint office consultation
05/30/09 Joint office consultation
06/06/09 Home visit with Alisa & the girls
06/30/09 Joint office consultation
07/30/09 Individual consultation with Alisa
07/30/09 Joint office consultation
08/28/09 Joint office consultation
10/05/09 Joint office consultation (father by phone)
12/16/09 Individual consultation with Alisa
01/16/09 Joint consultation including Dr. Ronn Lavit
AREAS OF CONCERN
Parental communication: The communication between the parents continues to be
nonproductive and fraught with sarcasm and accusations. The PC directed mother
to text message father in the event there was an emergent situation that could not
wait for an email, such as a late exchange or a medical question. Despite direction,
father would not respond to mother’s messaging.
Both of the parents have, at times, presented their perceptions of a situation which
turned out to be a misrepresentation or over exaggeration of the facts.
In 2/10, father filed with Superior Court for an OOP, based on the reckless and
vicious narratives mother has been posting on the internet, along with comments she
has made over time that have concerned father for his safety and the safety of his
family. The OOP was granted.
PC instructed father to avoid having the children present when mother would be
served. Mother phoned the PC to report that, despite direction, father was, in fact,
serving her with the children present. Further checking revealed that father had
arranged for service to be done at the exchange, but he had arrived without the
children so they would not witness the police serving the paperwork. After service
was accomplished, father called his wife, who was a short distance away, and she
brought the children for the exchange. Later, when mother called the PC a second
time for this matter, she complained that father had delivered the children late to
the exchange.
Even in the presence of the PC, it is impossible for the parties to communicate in
any productive way. Mother talks over father will seldom acknowledge him in any
positive way. Mother has been regularly disrespectful of the PC, making
accusations that the PC is “anti-Semitic, unprofessional and takes father’s side” in
almost every situation. Father becomes angry, frustrated and red-faced. Mother
verbally displays her anger openly while father most often removes himself from the
room or simply shuts down.
PC asked if either parent was taping the sessions and both responded that they were
not. Several sessions later, it was discovered that mother was taping. PC requested
that she provide copies of any taping that was done and she agreed but has failed to
provide such tapes. It should be noted that mother also taped without authorization
when Dr. David McPhee was the PC. There is no doubt that mother knew taping
was not allowed, but chose to break the rules without regard for honesty or the
process.
There have been 2 occasions when mother has become out of control during the
joint sessions and the PC has been forced to ask her to leave the room. Both times
mother simply refused to leave.
During the first session with mother, she insisted that the PC was biased, a member
of a so called “Father’s Rights group and that in consort with the judicial officer,
seeks to insure that she would not have access to her children. Mother’s comments
were, at times, bizarre.
During an early session, when mother was asked if she loves the children, she
responded, “I don’t know if I have any feelings for them (the children.) They hate
me so why would I want to be in their life.” When pressed further, as to whether or
not she wanted to continue contact with the children, she responded, “Yes, I love
them.” Later she referred to the children as “brats” and commented that “they
hate me; they say they hate me.” Again PC asked if she wanted to work toward
increased parenting time. At one point she told PC that she would walk away from
the girls if she was assured that she would not still have to pay child support. A few
minutes later, she commented, “why should I walk away when he (father) is going to
be dead in 12 to 18 months.” When questioned about this comment, she stated that
she “just knew.” She continued with, “he paid off the custody evaluator and the
judge; no one if taking responsibility for what’s happened.”
Mother reportedly made a statement to the girls in which she said that Dad and
Gina “are rotten inside, like rotten fruit.” In another reported conversation,
mother commented to the girls, age 6, that if their grandmother died, that she would
just “stuff grandma and put her in the corner.” Though mother was trying to make
a joke, the girl’s response was anxious and fearful, as they did not know she was
joking and their concrete thinking made the prospect of a dead, stuffed grandparent
horrific and frightening.
When the children’s reaction was discussed with mother, she minimized their
response and was apparently not aware that her comments would have such a
negative impact on the children.
Counseling: The court issued orders on 2/20/09, in which the children and each of
the parents were to participate in counseling. Father engaged in counseling only
after the PC requested that he do so on several occasions. He attended fewer then 3
sessions and reported that the therapist said he coping well and that it was not
necessary for him to continue. Though he acknowledges being very stressed by the
situation with mother, he has determined that he is not in need of counseling.
Mother has worked with 2 counselors since this PC was appointed. She reportedly
discontinued working with Michael Liebman because his fees were too high. She
counseled with Ms. Mary Vucurevich, LCSW for several months, but has
discontinued counseling with her for some unknown reason.
The girls have been seen in counseling by Dr. Kim Wright, Ph.D. She saw the
children several times alone, several times with mother, and saw mother once
independently. Mother claimed that she has medical coverage for the appointments
through her employer, and only after billing was attempted did Dr. Wright discover
that mother was, in fact, not insured for counseling. Mother claimed that she could
not afford to pay for the sessions, and insisted that father do so. Father did pay for
the sessions that included the children but resisted paying for the sessions spent
alone with mother. Dr. Wright is currently seeing the children on an as need basis
when they are brought in by father.
PC contacted Dr. Wright on 2/26/10 for an update on her work with this family.
She agreed with PC that a period of supervised parenting time for mother would be
appropriate.
Children’s Activities: Mother put the girls in ballet classes on her Saturday
parenting time. There was a performance, short though it was, and mother did not
advise father. Father was upset and requested that mother advise him of future
performances.
PC was contacted by another PC client who knows Ms. Abrams from the girl’s
ballet classes. This parent reported the following, “I met another PC client of yours.
She said a lot of negative things about you. I told her that was not my experience
with you. The more this woman talked, the more I realized that there must have
been a good reason why she lost custody of her kids. Then, without any request to
do so, the mother brought one of her girls in to tell me that they “are afraid of their
father” and that they “want to live with mom.” This parent had the impression
that the girls had been coached to say what was said and was concerned enough
with the behavior of Ms. Abrams, that she stated she will not participate in any
future play dates that include Ms. Abrams.
Father has enrolled the children in Girl Scouts. Mother was insistent that she be
given the information about the location/time of the meetings. Eventually she was
able to find out the information on her own. Now she is insistent that she be allowed
to attend the meetings, which are held in the private room of a restaurant. She
claims “I can go wherever I want to; no one can stop me,” and comments she will
remain at a distance and observe rather then insert herself into the activities.
Religion: Mother insisted that PC was taking away her right to take the children to
religious activities at Temple and to celebrate religious holidays with them at home.
In fact, the court order limited mother’s parenting time until certain criteria were
met. Mother still has not met the criteria needed to advance to stage 1 of parenting
time.
Several times the PC requested mother provide a written description of the Temple
activities and education for children, as well as a calendar of the religious holidays.
Mother did not provide the information, stating that there was nothing written
about the program. PC contacted the Temple Beth Sholom of the East Valley and
was provided with a schedule.
Questions have been raised as to whether or not mother has attempted to provide
religious instruction to the children during the parenting time she does have. Dr.
Wright, the girls therapist, commented that she asked mother to talk to the girls
about Chanukah during one of their counseling sessions. Mother reportedly started
to talk about something different and did not appear to know the details of the
Chanukah story. This was surprising to the therapist and the question was raised as
to the mother’s own understanding of the history and her involvement in the Jewish
faith.
The internet and blogs: Mother has been posting information about the family court
case, this PC, father and his wife, the assigned judicial officer, Dr. Ronn Lavit, Ph.D.
and several others. She claims that both the PC and the judicial officer are anti-
Semitic and have been unprofessional and unfair in judging her case. The postings
mother continues to make have become mean spirited, cruel and vicious. The
comments that she makes raise the question of judgment and point to distorted
perception on her part.
School participation: Since mother’s time with the children is so limited, the PC
suggested that she visit them at school and have lunch with them on occasion and/or
participate in their classroom with celebrations, special activities, etc. When school
started, mother, with tape recorder in hand, presented herself to school, stating that
she was there to have lunch with the girls. Because the principal was unfamiliar
with the details of the court order, he suggested mother leave until the matter could
be reviewed. Once reviewed he let mother know that she could have lunch with the
girls. Later mother asked to participate in the classroom. Mother started coming to
school several times a week, for lunch and to assist in the classroom. On days that
she did not attend, often the maternal grandmother would come and have lunch
with the children. Mother and the MGS would bring or buy lunch for the girls and
indicate that they did not have to eat the lunch packed from father’s home. There
were times when the lunch food was simply thrown away.
Mother presented herself as intimidating and threatening to the principal and to the
school staff and teachers. Principal Michels talked to the PC and wrote a letter to
mother stating that she and her mother were not welcome on the campus, that their
motives were suspect and that they were not trusted. Mother complained to the
level of the superintendent and threatened to go to the School Board. The ban was
lifted and mother/MGM have both continued to visit the school approximately 4
times each week.
Father is opposed to the level of involvement mother has at the school, stating that
the girls are confused and that they are uncomfortable. Father claims that the
mother and grandmother’s presence interferes with their normal interactions, citing
the fact that grandmother goes out on the playground with the girls, which impedes
their play with the other children. Father claims that mother advised the school
principal to “watch the girls for bruises, since father abuses them.”
The girl’s last name is Abrams and mother has no tolerance for them using father’s
last name on occasion when they are at school. Though father and the school both
report that they make every effort to insure that the girls use the legal name, there
are times when the children write their last name as James. On one occasion, the
school announced their birthday over the school intercom system, using the last
name of James. Mother was very upset about this and brought this issue to the
principal’s attention.
In January, father has asked mother, in session, if she would agree to a name
change, which would make the girls legal last name Abrams-James. Despite the fact
that mother agreed that a hyphenated name is the best plan and that she was in
agreement with a name change, she would not formalize such agreement. Instead,
mother stated that she did not want to make this easy for father, and that she would
force him to spend a lot of money to return to court to secure the name change
order and that she would raise other issues at the same time, thereby forcing father
to pay for her chance to be heard by the court on other issues. She said that she is
not going to cooperate or “give him something,” when he ever is willing to give her
anything that she wants. No even if it is in the best interests of the children.
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATONS
Though both of the parents present with their unique set of issues, the focus of this
report is on the behavior/functioning of mother, since she is the parent whose access
to the children and parenting time was limited by the court in the orders issued on
2/20/09.
Father has been cooperative and available throughout the past 12 month process.
He has followed the direction of the PC for the most part, though he was resistant to
engaging in counseling. His response to problems and difficulties presented by
mother can be reactive. His overall response to everything that has taken place has
been overwhelmingly frustration and concern for the welfare of the children and his
family in general. Mother has complained about the paternal grandmother, who is
a teacher at the children’s school. This was very upsetting to father because his
mother has been silent throughout this process and he notes that she has been
named Teacher of the Year and he worries that such unfounded complaints may
have a negative effect on the reputation she has earned as an outstanding teacher.
PC contact with the step mother has been minimal; however such interactions have
been positive. The children appear to have a good relationship with Ms. James.
They interact with her, seek her out for assistance and seem to move easily between
her and father. She has remained in a support role for father while he has taken the
lead in meeting with the PC and the children’s therapist.
Information from mother’s therapist Michael Liebman stated that mother was
“over reactive and offensive, and that she has “poor self-awareness.” Mother
worked in counseling with Ms. Liebman for just a short period of time.
Her next counselor was Mary Vucurevich, LCSE. Mother counseled with Ms.
Vucurevich from 7/10 to 11/09. Ms. Vucurevich had an optimistic outlook initially,
and worked with mother on issues such as self-regulation of her mood, reduction of
impulsive reactions, and letting go of her resentment and anger toward father. She
hoped that mother would be able to replace the focus on father with a focus on
working toward increasing self-control and parenting skills with the goal of
increased parenting competency leading to an increased time with her children.
There were times when both Ms. Vucurevich and the PC believed mother was
making progress and plans were formulated so mother’s time with the children
would increase. However, before initiation of any plan, information came to light
which was a repeat of past negative behaviors.
Mother appears to continue her position of taking no personal responsibility for
anything that has happened in this case. She is quick to blame, intimidate, name
call, and point out any negative she perceives. Such behavior serves to only
reinforce past opinions and prevent her from moving forward toward goals for
increased time with her children. Mother is impulsive and cannot seem to regulate
her moods. She is quickly upset and emotionally reactive. Her boundaries are poor
and she often seeks revenge on those who do not agree with her or who she perceives
as standing in her way.
Mother is manipulative, dishonest and often presents with a sense of entitlement and
self-righteousness. She has tried to discredit the main players in this case, rather
then focusing her energy on what she can do to advance her own position with her
children.
Mother has made statements that are of concern and posted same on the internet.
For example, she has recently accused father of raping her several years ago and of
“attempting to kill the children.” She continues to believe and broadcast her belief
that father and his wife are abusive to the children, that the PGM secrets father
information from the elementary school and that everyone there lies on behalf of
father.
Mother’s behavior has been reckless and impulsive and has shown indiscriminate
vengeance. Mother appears to have little respect for the court and believes that
without cause, she has been singled out as a negative influence in the children’s
lives.
Given the comments repeated by the children and information from the community,
there is reason to believe that she continues to coach the girls and make negative
comments about their father and other extended family members.
Mother was directed to take a parenting class, but said doing so was not
manageable. Her interactions with the children and comments she has made to
them indicate that she does not have a full awareness of their developmental needs.
Unless and until mother takes personal responsibility and is able to develop insight,
it is unlikely that anything will change. Because of mother’s mood shifts, it is
unknown whether she is unwilling or unable to control herself. For this reason, it
would be of assistance to have an IME to further attempt to understand and assist
mother.
There is little likelihood that these parents will achieve measurable co-parent
cooperation.
The following recommendations are made for consideration by the court:
- An IME be completed on mother in order to determine if her reported premature menopause or other conditions are impacting her behavior and
her ability to control responses.
- Mother’s visits with the children will be supervised in a structured environment, such as Parenting Skills. Visits will be up to 4 hours each, twice a week.
- Mother participate in a comprehensive parenting class to assist her in a more clear understanding of child development and the levels where her children are currently functioning.
- Father be ordered to resume taking the children to synagogue so they can attend a religious education program and religious services appropriate for children their age. Unless mother is an actual member of a specific Temple, father may select a Jewish community near his home. Mother be authorized to attend services/school with the children and to participate in related activities at the school or synagogue. Father will transport the children to services on religious holidays so that mother may attend with them. If mother does not attend, father will attend with the children.
- Father will place a daily phone call to mother from the children between 5:30 and 6:30p.m. The call will be placed by cell phone so as to generate a record. Father will monitor the calls and will encourage the children to talk to mother.
- Mother be allowed to participate with the children at school to assist the teacher and/or have lunch on only one day each week. An exception to this would be if mother is asked to assist with a special celebration/party or special school activity. MGM can attend with mother. Neither mother nor MGM will interfere with the children’s recess time.
- Mother may send toys and items of personal clothing to father’s home with the children. The expectation is that these items will be maintained and available to the children for their personal use. There will be no expectation that these items will be returned to mother or any requirement that such items will be worn by the children on mother’s visitation days. If father objects to any of the items due to style or logo, such item will be returned to mother intact so it may be returned or kept at mother’s home.
- The children will continue to use their legal last name of Abrams at all times unless a legal name change is effected.
- No discussion, criticism or negative comments will be made by either parent toward the other in the presence or within earshot of the children.
- Both parents will refrain from the use of a video camera and will not take photos during exchanges. Each parent may bring a 3rd party observer to the exchanges, if they so desire. The exchanges will continue to be silent. The parents will park 2 spaces apart and send the children with good wishes to the receiving parent. Any pictures the parties wish to take should be taken well before the exchange time.
- Mother will discontinue blogging with the names and/or identifying details of the family court case.
- Father should be allowed to take the children to his sister’s wedding in Boston, in November 2010. Father has requested authorization to attend the wedding of his sister. The girls have been asked to be flower girls. Father wants to travel with his family between 11/02/10 and 11/08/10. This would interfere with mother’s current parenting time on one Saturday. Mother will not agree to father’s request, stating that she does not trust that father will follow through with make up time. Make up time will be done on Veteran’s Day, 11/11/10, which is a federal holiday and a day the children will not be in school. Mother will have the children on 11/11/10 during the same hours she would have them on Saturdays, that is, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., unless the parenting time schedule is changed between now and then.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this _____ day of March, 2010
Kathleen Miholich, MSW; LCSW
Parenting Coordinator
