STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss

DISTRICT COURT District Location of Civil Docket No.

IN RE: MILA A. MALENKO PETITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION ORDER Petitioner, Stephen J. Pickering,_Robert Gilman and Newbold Noyes, being duly sworn, under oath, state upon information and belief, that: 1.
Name Mila A. Malenko

CHILDREN:
Date of Birth 11-29-2006 City of Birth Portland State of Birth Maine Present Address 541 Preble St. South Portland, ME

is/are the children of: 2. MOTHER Lori M. Handrahan, whose residence is 52 Waukeag Street, Sorrento, County of Hancock, State of Maine-04677 FATHER Igor Malenko, whose residence is 541 Preble Street, South Portland, County of Cumberland, State of Maine-04106 3. INTERESTED PARTY: ___________________________ is/are interested party(ies) regarding the abovenamed child(ren)

4.

The legal residence of child(ren) is/are: 541 Preble Street, South Portland, ME 04106

MILA A. MALENKO

The child(ren) is/are now living in: MILA A. MALENKO 541 Preble Street, South Portland, ME 04106

5. The child(ren) is/are in circumstances of jeopardy to health or welfare and is/are in need of protection. X It is contrary to the child(ren)’s welfare to remain in the house.

6. Following is a summary of the facts which the Petitioner believes constitutes circumstances of jeopardy to the child(ren)’s health or welfare, and which show that it is contrary to the child’s welfare to remain in the home of Igor Malenko: Mila Malenko is in circumstances of jeopardy due to repeated incidents of sexual and physical abuse by her father, Igor Malenko. These incidents of abuse dating back to June of 2009 have been disclosed by Mila Malenko to her mother Lori Handrahan, RN Polly Campbell, FNP Angie Delvecchio, Stephen Pickering and Joyce Wientzen of Spurwink (See Exhibit 1). Each person has notified the Department of Health and Human Services. Each notification has been deemed as unsubstantiated by the Department of Health and Human Services. Petitioner Stephen Pickering has been intimately involved with this case since February of 2011. Petitioner's Newbold "Terry" Noyes and Robert Gilman have been involved since the beginning and have attended most of if not all court hearings associated with this case. On March 25, 2011 Mila Malenko disclosed to her mother that her father Igor Malenko struck her in the head with a metal pan. On March 26, 2011 your Petitioner witnessed the bruise and the bump on the child's head and has listened to the recording of the disclosure. On March 27, 2011 Mila was taken by her mother to the Maine Coast Memorial Hospital in Ellsworth. The bruise was examined and noted in a report. (See Exhibit 8) Mila did not disclose abuse or any other reason for the bruise. A report was made to DHHS by Handrahan. Mila was returned to her father, the alleged abuser, per the court ordered visitation and in anticipation that DHHS would act swiftly and decisively to protect Mila.

The Department of Health and Human Services office in Portland was notified and caseworker Alicia Cummings was assigned. Mila did not disclose to Cummings. On April 4, 2011 your Petitioner spoke with attorney William Harwood of Verrill Dana. He confirmed that he was former counsel to Handrahan and no longer is as attorney Waxman sued him and his firm. Attorney Harwood confirmed that James Beougher of DHHS admitted to him that DHHS did not have information beyond the Spurwink report for the basis of their decision and apologized for given erroneous information. Attorney Harwood related this information to Handrahan in a December 17, 2009 e-mail. (See Exhibit 9) On April 6, 2011 your Petitioner had a conversation with Cummings. She repeatedly questioned whether or not your Petitioner was confusing Mila's birthmark for a bruise. At this point Cummings had not seen the ER report or photos and was clearly basing her questions to your Petitioner on statements made by Mila's father and alleged abuser. Your Petitioner also learned from Cummings that the father was notified at least twenty four hours prior to the interview of Mila. Cummings told your Petitioner that she spent a total of twenty to thirty minutes with Mila. This period of time included Cummings being introduced to Mila, an explanation of why Cummings was there, rapport building (if any) and questioning about alleged abuse. Your Petitioner was told by Cummings that this period of time was sufficient to get a disclosure from a child. On April 13, 2011 your Petitioner spoke to the DHHS Child Protective Director, Dan Despard. The lengthy conversation included him stating that DHHS has no authority to circumvent or ignore court rulings. We also discussed the methamphetamine that was found in Mila's urine in 2010. On April 22, 2011 your Petitioner was with Mila and her mother while traveling from South Portland. Your Petitioner observed that Mila was excited to see her mother and engaged in what your Petitioner would describe as mutual conversation and "catching up" due to a lengthy separation. There was no questioning about abuse or leading questions with the intent of eliciting information about abuse. At approximately forty five minutes into the conversation while mother and daughter were playing the "I love your more than" game, Mila spontaneously stated that the bruise on her head that was discussed a month ago was actually a birthmark. Mila went on to explain that her father had provided her with this information. The entire exchange was recorded without Mila's knowledge. On April 23, 2011 Mila Malenko disclosed to your Petitioner that her father had struck her in the head with a metal pan. This was after DHHS case worker Chris Call had failed to get a disclosure. Mila Malenko repeated the information to Call who refused to consider it. May 10, 2011 was the last day that Mila's mother had contact with Mila. This is the result of the father, the alleged abuser of Mila, engaging in parental alienation with the full support of his attorney in violation of the court ordered visitation.

On May 29, 2011 Mila's mother sought remedy from the Ombudsman's Office as she did unsuccessfully in 2009. Your Petitioner has personal knowledge of the facts as it pertains to the 2011 request. The complaint was comprehensive. (See Exhibit 3) On May 31, 2011 Lori Handrahan met with Commissioner Mary Mayhew, Deputy Commissioner Bonnie Smith and Child Protective Director Dan Despard. Handrahan and several witnesses, present or in attendance telephonically, presented a comprehensive report on the relevant information as it pertained to the alleged abuse inflicted on Mila by her father. Part of this presentation included an affidavit made by Dr Eli Newberger, medical records from the emergency room at Maine Coast Memorial Hospital in Ellsworth, Maine and your Petitioner's personal observations. This part of the presentation left no doubt that there was a bruise on Mila's forehead in March 25, 26 & 27, 2011 and not a birthmark. (See Exhibit 8 ) On June 4, 2011 I learned from Commissioner Mayhew that she over heard Despard say after the meeting that May 31 was the first time he had heard anything about methamphetamine being in Mila's system. I informed Commissioner Mayhew that I told Despard about the drug in Mila's system on April 13, 2011 and that the conversation was recorded. Commissioner Mayhew told your Petitioner that she was getting conflicting information about the case from Despard and James Beougher. (Both these men have since been terminated from the employ of DHHS.) On June 21, 2011 Mila's mother attempted to see Mila and enjoy her court ordered visitation. Mila's father notified the police as did the mother when she was refused contact. Mila's father contacted his attorney, Michael Waxman. Waxman presented to the responding police verbal and written information indicating that Mila's mother was not allowed unsupervised contact with Mila and gave Mark Dalton of DHHS as a contact person that would corroborate the information. The police encouraged Mila's mother to contact Dalton and hire an attorney. The police left without taking further action. Mila's mother was denied contact with Mila. Your Petitioner learned through contact with the South Portland Police Department that responding officer, Patricia Maynard, observed an "official document" presented to her by attorney Waxman. This document is likely a copy of the divorce judgment that allows the primary residence parent, the father, to make decisions that concern the health and welfare of the child when both parents cannot agree. This does not apply to the court ordered visitation. On June 27, 2011 your Petitioner met with Mark Dalton of DHHS. Dalton assured me that neither he nor anyone else at DHHS told Mila's father or attorney that Mila's mother could not see Mila unless supervised. He confirmed that there is no DHHS document that states that Mila's mother is subject to only supervised visits. During this same meeting your Petitioner learned from DHHS caseworker Rebecca Austin, that she contacted Dr Carl Baum and questioned him about his written expert opinion about the 56ng of methamphetamine found in Mila's urine. Austin told your Petitioner that Dr Baum recanted on his assessment. Your Petitioner contacted Dr Baum

through Eileen King. Dr Baum responded via e-mail stating that Austin was not giving accurate information about their conversation and stated that he stood by his assessment. (See Exhibit 6) On September 22, 2011 the Ombudsman issued their response. Your petitioner reviewed the report and was able to determine that it was filled with glaring errors. The most obvious error was the ombudsman's conclusion that the father, Igor Malenko, has no criminal record when in fact he has an assault conviction where Mila's mother is the victim and a shoplifting conviction. This information is readily available at the Maine District Court in Portland. (See Exhibit 2). On October 17, 2011 I contacted Dean Crocker of the Ombudsman's office, the signer of the report. He stated that he did not conduct the investigation but stood by the report. Your Petitioner pointed out the obvious mistakes and he continued to assert that he stood by the report. Your Petitioner along with Lesley Devoe provide a rebuttal report that Crocker did not address or respond to. (See Exhibit 3.) On January 28, 2012 Mila's mother again attempted to see Mila. The attempt resulted in Mila's mother being assaulted by Mila's stepmother in full view of witnesses at Mila's daycare. The unplanned and poorly executed attempt appeared to the casual on looker as an attempted kidnapping. The Cape Elizabeth Police responded. District Attorney Stephanie Anderson was notified by the police. DA Anderson consulted with Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz and learned that there was currently no court order preventing Mila's mother from enjoying visitation with Mila. Judge Moskowitz confirmed that there was a court order in place that allowed Mila's mother to have visitation with Mila and confirmed to DA Anderson that he expected the court order to be upheld as he would any court order. DA Anderson provided this information to the police. The police officer chose not to take action based on DA Anderson's relevant information and chose instead to involve DHHS. The officer was told by DHHS to have the child remain with the father. The caseworker and /or supervisor ignored the court order and the judge's affirmation of his court ruling. On January 31, 2012 during a court hearing before Judge Moskowitz, attorney for the mother, Judy Potter, inquired of the court about her client being able to see her daughter. Judge Moskowitz stated that there is a court order in place that allowed for visitation. Attorney for the father, Michael Waxman, stood up, pointed at the judge and with a raised voice told the judge that his client would not obey the order. Attorney Waxman went on to inquire of the judge if his client, the alleged abuser, would be committing civil contempt or criminal contempt by this action. The judge refused to give legal advice, did not hold either the attorney or the father in contempt, made no attempt to enforce the court order and adjourned the hearing. Your Petitioner was present at this hearing and witnessed the actions of attorney Waxman. Your Petitioner is aware that a court transcript has been made and include a portion of it here. (See Exhibit 10) On February 1, 2012 Attorney Waxman sent Attorney Potter an e-mail relative to the January 31 hearing. He ended the e-mail with: And the more I think of it, the less I am
convinced that this Court has any power over ME in any fashion. (See Exhibit 4)

On February 2, 2012 your Petitioner contacted Therese Cahill-Lowe of DHHS and was told that all the case worker said was that they (DHHS) don't have an open case and to follow whatever the court order said. On February 21, 2012, DHHS case worker Christine Smith told your Petitioner and Attorney Judy Potter that nothing that Mila Malenko says now can be given any weight as she has been interviewed to many times. During this meeting Smith referred to Handrahan as a condescending bitch as she abruptly left the meeting against the direction of her supervisor. Smith eventually returned to the meeting. Two weeks later Smith issued a letter stating that Lori Handrahan could only see her daughter with supervision and based the majority of her findings on Mila Malenko's most recent statements. Your Petitioner is aware that at the time of the assessment Mila and not been in contact with her mother for nearly a year save for the few minutes on January 28, 2012. This separation was not the child's or mother's choice. It has been imposed by the father, the alleged abuser, supported by the father's attorney and in violation of the court ordered visitation. DHHS case worker Smith refused to consider that Igor Malenko likely coached Mila's statements. On May 3, 2012 Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz issued a ruling that included reference to evidence presented ostensibly in his courtroom that never was presented. He cited Handrahan's Narcissistic Personality Disorder though no evidence was ever presented in his or any other court to support this. Though it is very likely that attorney Waxman made reference to his belief that Handrahan is mentally ill during his many libelous orations in and out of court. In 2009 at Judge Moskowitz direction, Handrahan completed a full DBT evaluation, was cleared of any mental illness or disorder and the evaluation report was provided to the court on more than one occasion. In his decision he notes that he is not sure if it was done. (See exhibit 7) Your Petitioner is also aware that attorney Judy Potter requested that Handrahan be evaluated as a condition of her taking the case. Handrahan complied and once again showed no symptoms of mental illness or personality disorder. The decision mentions that medical records were admitted that claimed that Handrahan brought Mila to be examined on "at least twenty occasions" and hinted at or made claims that Mila was being abused by her father. Your Petitioner has seen these records and has reviewed them with attorney Potter. Judge Moskowitz clearly could not have examined the records. Your Petitioner counted fifteen visits between August 2, 2009 and April 28, 2011. All but two visits were for normal childhood maladies and no mention of abuse. Two were because of concerns related to alleged abuse and one of those was at the direction of DHHS to be examined by Spurwink. Your Petitioner has read the entire decision and it is consistent with the false or misleading information created by and disseminated by attorney Waxman in order to discredit Handrahan. On April 10, 2013 your Petitioner received a copy of PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PENDING DIVORCE AND REQUEST FOR EXPIDITED HEARING filed by Liliana Cvetkoska on March 13, 2013. Cvetkoska had filed for divorce from Igor Malenko and

alleged abuse in the attached motion. Cvetkoska asked for and received permission to relocate with her and her child, the second daughter of Igor Malenko, to Washington DC. She made the same request for the same reason as Handrahan who had been denied two years earlier. Your Petitioner believes that these actions by Igor Malenko are further evidence of his alleged abuse of Mila. Your Petitioner feels it is reasonable to infer that Malenko needs Mila under his exclusive control to keep Mila from making further disclosures of abuse. (See Exhibit 5) 7. The following aggravated factors are alleged:

The Department of Health and Human Services has made a less than adequate effort in their mandate to protect Mila Malenko. Both DHHS and Judge Moskowitz ignored the expert testimony of Spurwink Forensic Interviewer Joyce Wientzen. Wientzen interviewed Mila Malenko, prepared a report, signed an affidavit and testified that Mila Malenko has been abused, that her father Igor Malenko should not have unsupervised visits and testified that there is no evidence of coaching by Lori Handrahan. Judge Moskowitz was well within his authority to not consider the evidence but it was outside the norm for DHHS to ignore evidence from Spurwink. The Department of Health Human Services contradicted themselves several times to justify their stance. On April 13, 2011 Despard said that DHHS cannot ignore the court's rulings yet the case worker on January 28, 2012 did just that. On April 17, 2012 DHHS caseworker Christine Smith stated that Mila's allegations against her father could not been given any weight due to the number of times she had been interviewed but two weeks later they rendered a decision against Handrahan based primarily on recent interviews conducted with Mila. Judge Moskowitz's court is either incapable of determining what is factual and what is not in this case or he is happy to have attorney Waxman create a record for him to sign off on. Though many an aggrieved party points at improprieties of the court as the reason for their not prevailing it is clear in this case that the evidence presented does not match the decision given. Judge Moskowitz states in his decision that it is clear that Handrahan is incapable of co-parenting but he makes no reference to the fact that the father has withheld contact from Mila since May 10, 2011. A fact that attorney Waxman made clear to Judge Moskowitz on January 31, 2012. The courts have ruled in the past that both parents are to be involved in the decision making process as it concerns Mila Malenko. The court also ruled that the father, Igor Malenko, will make the ultimate decision as it concerns Mila Malenko’s welfare when they can't come to a decision together. The court has now ruled that the alleged abuser has complete control over the welfare of the child. These rulings effectively put the health and welfare of Mila Malenko, under the control of her alleged abuser. As attested to in recent court rulings the abuse in Igor Malenko's home continued with his second wife and that resulted in her fleeing with her child leaving Mila alone with her

alleged abuser with no other adult to provide protection. To date DHHS has done nothing with this new information. 8. Reasonable efforts to prevent removal of the child(ren) from the home:

X No reasonable efforts were made because of the aggravating factors stated in paragraph 7. 9. The following relatives of the child will be able to provide care for the child:

Lori M. Handrahan, 52 Waukeag St., Sorrento, ME 04677 10. 11. The following relatives of the child are, or may be, members of an Indian tribe: None. Notice to parents and custodians regarding legal counsel Parent and custodians are entitled to legal counsel in these proceedings. If you want an attorney, but are unable to afford one, you should contact the court at the telephone number (207) 667-7141 as soon as possible to request appointed counsel. 12. Notice regarding parental rights Failure to appear at court hearing or court conferences regarding this matter may be determined to indicate an intent to abandon the child(ren) pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. section 4002(1 – A). A finding of amendment may be the basis for removal of the child from your custody and may ultimately lead to termination of your parental rights. These proceedings could eventually lead to the termination of parental rights under 22 M. R. S. A. section 4051 – 4057. PRELIMINARY PROTECTION 13. 14. The child(ren) is/are in immediate risk of serious harm and is/are in need of protection pending entry of a final protection order. The following is a summary of the facts which the Petitioner believes constitutes immediate risk of serious harm to the child(ren). (See attached affidavits for additional facts.) 15. Pursuant to Title 22 M.R.S.A. Section 4033(2):

Notice of the Petitioner's intent to request a preliminary order has been given to the parent(s) and custodian(s), Notice has been attempted without success to parent(s) and custodian(s), X Notice has not been attempted because of the Petitioner's belief that: a. b. 16. X The child(ren) would suffer serious harm during the time needed to notify the parents or custodians in the or Prior notice to the parent or custodian(s), would increase risk of serious harm to the children or Petitioner.

Pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. section 4033(3-A): Information of the location where the child(ren) will be taken if the court grants a Preliminary Protection Order is not being provided to the parent(s) or custodian(s) by the Petitioner in that Order because of the Petitioner's belief that providing the information would cause the threat of serious harm to the child(ren) the substitute caregiver, the Petitioner or any other person.

WHEREFORE the Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court: 1. Fix a time for hearing on this petition, in order notice of the hearing to the parents and custodians of the child(ren), the Guardian ad litem for the child(ren), and other party named in the Petition; 2. Appoint a guardian ad litem for the child(ren). Pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. section 4005; 3. Pending a final protection order, issue a preliminary protection order pursuant to 22 M RSA section 4034 and section 4036, specifically ordering that custody be granted to the mother, Lori M Handrahan. 4. Order each parent to pay a reasonable amount of child support if the child is removed from the custody of the parent.

by____________________________ address________________________ ________________________ phone_________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on_____________________________ _____________________________________ Notary Public

by____________________________ address________________________ ________________________ phone_________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me on_____________________________ _____________________________________ Notary Public

by____________________________ address________________________ ________________________ phone_________________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me on_____________________________ _____________________________________ Notary Public

NOTICE OF HEARING A hearing on the petition is ordered by the________________ District Court address______________________________ in the County of______________, on_______________________, at__________a.m./p.m, and is further ordered that the parents and Guardian ad litem for the children and any other party named in the petition be notified of these proceedings at least 10 days prior to the hearing date by: Name of party Lori Handrahan Igor Malenko Guardian Ad Litem So that they may appear and be heard. Dated__________________________, at____________________________, Maine ________________________________ Judge of the District Court Appointments Appointment of guardian ad litem. ___________________________________________________ date _____________ method of service

Appointment of counsel for parents and custodians: _________________________ appointed for mother_________________ date _______ _________________________ appointed for father__________________ date________ STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT CUMBERLAND, ss District Location of Civil Docket No. IN RE: MILA A. MALENKO ORDER OF PRELIMINARY CHILD PROTECTION AND NOTICE TO PARENTS AND CUSTODIANS Findings In the matter of protection for the above-named children and with due consideration for the health and safety of the children, this court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following: 1. The child(ren) is/are in immediate risk of serious harm, for the reasons stated in the affidavit attached to the petition and incorporated herein by reference, with the following additions or exceptions, (if any): 2. (If removal of the child(ren) from the home is ordered:) remaining in the home of Igor Malenko is contrary to the welfare of the child. 3. The court finds the following aggravating factor(s) as to the parents or legal guardian indicated:

Disposition It is ordered, pursuant to 22 M. R. S. A. section 4034 and section 4036, that the above named child(ren) be given the following protection, pending entry of a jeopardy order under 22 M.R.S.A. section 4035:

1.

Custody of the children shall remain with the parents who had custody before this all order. is granted to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. is granted to____________________________________________

2. If custody has been removed from a parent or parents, the department shall schedule. Visitation between the child(ren) and the parent(s) within seven days of the date of this order, unless there is a compelling reason not to schedule the visitation. 3. Other specific provisions governing custody (if any):

4. (If the court has found an aggravating factor:) the Department is relieved of providing reunification services to the Mother Farther Legal guardian 5. A copy of this Order and the accompanying Notice of Hearing shall be served forthwith on the parents and custodians of the above-named child(ren) as follows: Name of party Method of Service

6. Child support: Pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. section 4036(1-G), child support shall be paid by each parent to the State of Maine Department of Health and Human Services, to be determined by the Court. If there is an Administrative Order of Child Support or a court order providing for support already in effect, the existing order is hereby amended to designate the custodian of the child(ren) named in this order to be the obligee of the support payments. 7. The clerk shall enter the following on the docket: The preliminary protection order dated_____________________ is incorporated in the docket by reference. This entry is made in accordance with MR Civ.P.79(a) at the specific direction of the court. Dated______________________at___________, Maine.

_______________________________________ Judge of the Portland District Court IMPORTANT NOTICES TO PARENTS AND CUSTODIANS NOTICE OF HEARING A hearing on the foregoing preliminary Child protective order is ordered at the Portland District Court address 205 Newbury Street, Portland, ME 04112 in the County of Cumberland on________________________at_________a.m./p.m. , so that the parents/custodians may appear and be heard, pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. section 4034. If you are a parent or custodian, and you were not served with a petition before this hearing date, you may request a subsequent preliminary hearing within ten (10) days after you receive this petition by calling the same clerk of court as you would to get an attorney appointed for you. 22M.R.S.A. section 4034(5). Dated______________________ ______________________________ Judge of the Portland District Court

INFORMATION REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF CHILD(REN) The above named children who have been temporarily removed from their parents custody have been placed at the following locations:

Information about the child(ren)'s placement is not required because the Petitioner has included in the petition for Child Protective Order a sworn statement of his or her belief that providing the information would cause the threat of serious harm to the child(ren), the substitute caregiver, the Petitioner, or any other caregiver.

NOTICE REGARDING RIGHT TO COUNSEL

You are entitled to legal counsel in these proceedings. If you want an attorney, but are unable to afford one, you should contact the court at the telephone number (207) 8224200 as soon as possible to request appointed counsel.

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Spurwink reports by Dr Lawrence Ricci and Joyce Wientzen LCSW Exhibit 2. Report of criminal convictions and related police reports associated with Igor Malenko. Exhibit 3. Ombudsman review request May 29, 2011. Ombudsman's response. rebuttal to ombudsman report by Stephen Pickering and Lesley Devoe. Exhibit 4. E-mail from Michael Waxman to Judy Potter dated February 1, 2012 Exhibit 5. Cvetkoska vs. Malenko divorce documents. Exhibit 6. Dr Carl Baum's assessment of methamphetamine in Mila's system and rebuttal e-mail to DHHS caseworker Austin's mischaracterization of their conversation. Exhibit 7. DBT evaluation of Dr Lori Handrahan PhD dated April 17, 2009. Exhibit 8. Maine Coast Memorial Hospital ER report of Mila's visit on March 27, 2011. Dr Eli Newberger's assessment of the injury to Mila. Exhibit 9. E-mail from Attorney William Harwood to Lori Handrahan dated December 17, 2009 discussing James Beougher's misinformation and retraction. Exhibit 10. Portion of transcript from January 31, 2012 hearing.