Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2004 May 26 Dr. William Albott

2004 May 26 Dr. William Albott

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17 |Likes:
Published by AnotherAnonymom

More info:

Published by: AnotherAnonymom on Nov 19, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





WilliamL. Albott, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist - KS
909 SW T""'h -Topeb, ks ._
1' ~Z34- 4T43
- lax T'~Z:U-_'
May 26, 2004
Judge David E. Bruns
Shawnee County District Court
Division Twelve
Shawnee County Court House
Topeka, KS 66603-3922
Case No. 96 D 217
Dear Judge Bruns:
Let me begin with a note of apology in regard to the delay in providing the court
with this report As you know I had a respiratory illness that kept me out of the office
and basically rendered me to almost minimal physical functioning for over two weeks.
Since my return my stamina has been fairly compromised and thus trying to "catch up"
proved quite slow. With that note of explanation, I am writing you in regard to the above
encaptioned case and my role in this contentious custody conflict
To summarize my contacts with these individuals seems warranted and gennane.
I first worked with this couple upon a referral from Judge Richard Anderson I met with
them for a total of IS sessions over the time frame of August, 2002 to April, 2003 and
although I thought some progress had been made in diminishing the overt conflict the
sessions then terminated rather abruptly during one session when following a series of
accusations by Ms. Dombrowski, Mr. Richardson abruptly left the session and terminated
the process. During these initial meetings my impression was that Ms Dombrowski and
Mr. Richardson had an extremely dysfunctional history that was continued, even
( escalating, after the divorce Ms. Dombrowski had accused Mr Richardson of multiple
) actions that include domestic violence, rape, etc and in the course of the sessions these
\ accusations were frequently repeated by her to Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson's
iresponse to these accusations was to deny and then adopt a stance of basically "no
response" where he would just sit silently turning physically away from her. In spite of
the often accusatory quality of these sessions I thought we were able to achieve some
( "compromises" about co-parenting activities Immediate complaints, as distinguished
<from history, centered around Ms. Dombrowski belief that Mr. Richardson did things to
rprevent Ms Do~browski. !Tom having adequate parenting time with their da~ghter and
\, Mr. Richardson s complamts were about Ms. Dombrowski frequently appearing m
. .,
Judge DavId E. Bruns
Case No. 96 D 217
May 26. 2004
Page 2
locations where the daughter wa~ scheduled for some activity and acting very
V'\ t"-.I
( Y' Ot
In March, 2004, Ms. Dombrowski and Mr. Richardson following orders of the
court, began a process directed at facilitating co-parenting time and cooperation to this
end between the parties. I would note that also involved in the mailer was a Case
~Manager, Mr. Lloyd Schwartz. In this process I met with the parties011 two conjoint
sessions and one individual session with Ms. Dombrowski. In the~sessions ow;.fucus
had been on arranging visits betwl.'Cn Ms. DomlllinYskj and bcrdaughter
Dombrowski was unwilling to arrange the visit at "safe visit"-after
my office had
arranged for such a visit. My approach then was to attempt to arrange a session with Dr.
Rodeheffer, individual therapist for the daughter, and then also a joint session with Dr
Rodeheffer, Ms. Dombrowski and the daughter. This conjoint visit was scheduled for
3/23/04 hut Ms Dombrowski did not appear for the session and later indicated that she
had made a mistake in writing down the time. A conjoint session was scheduled then for
*4/13/04. On 3/21104 .Mr . .fuchardso!!~lIed my offi~.in~L",a!illgt.hat a protel.1ive order
hjld been filed in Platt Coun!y' Missourialliflli<ii'hc wan!~..!().disfontinue visit.s, he
Indicated that the application for-a:protective order included apparently an incident which
occurred in my office's parking lot on 3/8/04. Following this callI contacted Lloyd
Schwartz and yourself seeking advice as to how to proceed. During this period I also
. spoke with Mr. Hoffman (attorney for Mr. Richardson). Dr. Rodeheffer and I thcn
, consulted and again it was my decision that until we knew more ahout the protective
order that such a conjoint visit not take place given the limitations inherent in our offices
to provide supervision of the daughter in the absence of one of the parents while waiting
for the other parent. On the 29th of March my office received a copy of the Protective
Order via Fax from Mr. Donald Hoffman, In reading the Protective Order it specifically
(I)"Abuse, threaten to abuse, stalk, molest, or di.~turbthe peace of the
Petitioner wherever Petitioner may befound;and
(2) Communicate with Petitioner in any manner or through any medium"
Further in support of her request for this protective ordcr Ms. Dombrowski indicated that
"March8, 2004 .. in Parking lotthreatelled tofind me et kill me ...thatl
could not hide forever,. "
In that on this date, March 8, 2004 I had met with Ms Dombrowski and :'v1r.Richardson
and thus I concluded that the parking lot was my office parking, I thought this to risk the
potential for violation of number I above if I were to ask Mr. Richardson to bring his
daughter to the office for her and Ms. Dombrowski to have a joint session. I would note
that if Ms. Dombrowski is in fact making reference to some interaction which took place
in my office parking, she did not report this to me or to my office stafl' at the time and
further, it was my recall that Mr, Richardson had left the parking area in advance of Ms.
Dombrowski and have no recall of their having interacted in that area.
Given the protective order issued out of Platt County Missouri, it was my
conclusion that any joint session would represent a violation of the second point noted
above and further should I meet with the parties individually and then attempt to share

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->