10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 Okay. That's true, isn't it? You brought him to that psychiatrist? I brought him. Yes. Yes. And you had said before bringing him there that if he would simply go to one more very qualified medical provider, you would listen to what that person said, right? The person said, "Come back in two weeks. We have to have an ongoing session." All right. You didn't let him see his daughter after that? The daughter was there with us in that session, and he brought her a little pig, which I can bring to the courtroom as an exhibit. And Lou Ivy could also testify to that, because she was there at the time, and she knows the daughter was present during that session. Let's focus on when you come back to the States. First of all, that--there was a period of about three weeks, am I correct, that he was away from his daughter? At what point? Okay. Starting with when you left--when he left the home, after the ambulance was called, and got an apartment down the street, that entire time, 8610 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 except for one incident, he didn't see his daughter, right? He did not. Okay. He didn't see his daughter next until you arrived back in the States, true? correct. How long a period of time was that? I can't recall. It wasn't as long as three weeks. It was probably ten days, twelve days, maybe two weeks. I can't recall. I don't have the documents in front of me. So, you got back to the States. He was working at that time, right? He was not. Okay. You had one car at that time, right? We did. And he asked whether you could buy another car, right? He had not. Never? He had begged me to buy another car for him when he refused to work quite early on in the marriage. When he threw the jar at my head, and I asked my parents. if they would take him, because he couldn't come back to the house, my stepfather 8710 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 28 offered to give him a car loan on--asked me to make the payments on that for him. And I said I would not make payments on a second car that we couldn't afford, when my husband refused to work. All right. You bought a house that cost over five hundred thousand dollars, true? That's true. But you only had one car in the family? That's true. And if he wanted to use that car, he had to ask you permission? He did not. As I've already testified, I couldn't even get him to drive legally. He didn't ask for you to give him the right to drive the car? Never. Never? He drove the car freely and at will far more often than I did, because I was at home taking care of the child, breast feeding and working. So, you never denied him access to the car? Well, probably when he wanted to take the car on the Mother's Day incident, I said, "It's my car and I'm driving to Sorrento." And he said, "How can I get to work?" And the police officer said10 MW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 to him, "Sir, there's a bus." Okay. You wanted him to be on medication, true? I wanted the violence to stop, and I had been told by many people, because of the impulsive nature of his rage attacks, that medication would help. In the beginning, I did not want medication. I was raised as a Christian Scientist, hence, the lack of vaccines. I'm very anti-medication, as I believe Allie Knowlton will be able to testify. Thank you. But, at some point, you were determined to have him on medication? I had been told over and over again that that-- That--excuse me. I don't need to hear what you've been told. I'm just asking you, Miss Handrahan, at some point, you became determined that he be on medication? --I had thought that would stop the violence and protect my daughter. and, in fact, when you came back to the U.S. after having been in Budapest, and after having tried an intervention which failed, having tried having him involuntarily committed, which failed, you then conditioned his remaining in your home on his taking medication in front of you, true? I was told to do that, and I did. Yes. I told 8910 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 you, Mr. Waxman, at this point, I'd been unbelievably determined to keep my family together-- Okay. I don't need to hear the rest of that. Thank you. --I'm going to protect my-- I'm trying to speed things along. --daughter. Okay. So, you made it a condition to stay in your house that he actually take pills in front of you? I did. I was scared for my life. He had threatened to snap my neck three times. I. I don't need. --probably shouldn't have allowed him back in the house. --the rest of that. We know that. Okay. And he told you that he didn't want to take medication in front of you, that he'd, in fact, taken the dosage that he thought was appropriate for that day, right? He did. And he has all this on tape, ‘cause he was always tape recording me at this point-- Okay. --which is an indication of domestic abuse when one is surveilled [sic] and told that they're 9010 ul 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 being surveilled all the time. I was constantly told I was being recorded, and that there were hundreds of hours of tapes. And you said to him, "You are not staying in the house. If I say you're out of this house, you are out of the house," true? It may be true. I'd have to hear the tape again to refresh my memory. So, you don't remember that? I said, as I said before, there will be no violence in my home. And, in fact, I allowed--and I feel terribly guilty for the amount of violence that I allowed, and the damage that that may have been doing to my daughter. I tried very hard to keep my family together. I tried very hard to believe that I had fallen in love with a good man who wasn't a liar and who wasn't an abuser. I did everything possible. I reached-- Okay =-I did what everybody tells women to do. I reached out to everybody, and I said-- That's enough. "Help, please." Thank you. COURT: Okay. Mr. Waxman, about how much longer 9110 crt 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 do you anticipate-- MR. WAXMAN: I think, you know, this would be a good time to break, within five minutes from now. COURT: --well, I'm curious as to how much longer you believe you may have. MR. WAXMAN: Oh, well, I intend to play a couple of tapes. I think I've probably got another half an hour. COURT: Okay. And, Miss Stout, do you intend to cross-examine, as well? MS. STOUT: I do. COURT: Okay. All right. In light of all that, why don't we take a lunch break now? We'll only take a half hour lunch break. We'll resume at twelve-thirty-- well, a thirty-five minute lunch break. We'll resume at twelve-thirty, in light of the pressures of time. MR. ALTSHULER: And I just want to note my continuing conc--I ha--I mean, I--out of my twenty witnesses, I've got two more that I can put on. couRT: I understand. And I'm going to ask counsel to be as surgical as possible. We have these two days. That's all we have-- MR. ALTSHULER: Yeah. couRT: --and I'm going to ask counsel to be as quick and as concise as possible, and-- 9210 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 MR. ALTSHULER: And I have really--I mean, I've really cut out half her testimony-- couRT: --okay. MR. ALTSHULER: --so I can get my other two witnesses in, And cross-examination has taken longer than my direct, which is about-- COURT: All right. We!ll-- MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, there's a lot at stake in this case. COURT: --oh, I understand. MR. ALTSHULER: --well, yes. COURT: Look, I--folks-- MR. ALTSHULER: ¥¢ That's true. COURT: --folks, I understand. We have till the end of today. I am confident we can get the evidence in if the attorneys will only focus on what is absolutely relevant and material, and try to limit the amount of time at stake, and with superfluous material. I'm going to take--we're going to take a lunch break now. I'm going to take the opportunity to review--is this #6? MR. ALTSHULER: ‘Yes, your Honor. COURT: Okay. I'm going to take the opportunity to review the DVD and (indiscernible). MR. ALTSHULER: And I know you're going to review 9310 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 25 the entire thing. I think the scene that Ms. Devoe addresses is (indiscernible), and I apologize, I don't remember the title of it. COURT: All right. And that's fine. And this is the Dvp titled Mila's birth. MR. ALTSHULER: Correct. COURT: Okay. Good. We'll be in recess. Thank you. COURT OFFICER: All rise. HEARING RECESSED HEARING RESUMED COURT: Okay. We're back on the record. Sorry it--there was a delay. I just concluded, a short while ago, looking at Defendant's #6. I watched the entire part--I think eleven parts to the DVD. So, I have watched the entire thing. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, just so I can lay out what I'm doing, housekeeping-wise, I understand time is of the essence. My plan would be to have more questions from the witness, and then I wanted to play four snippets of tapes that have been made and have been already admitted into evidence. and those snippets are less than twenty minutes in total, then I have about another five minutes, and I'll be done. That's my plan. 9410 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 COURT: Okay. MR. ALTSHULER: Note I'm going to say I'm really concerned with snippets, because it doesn't have the whole--I mean, there is a right to have the whole part of it listened to. And when you listen to snippets, it is going to be the part they want you to listen to, and not the whole part. The problem with the whole thing is our-- COURT: No. I understand that. And are the--Mr. Waxman, are you referring to-- MR. WAXMAN: I have them right here, your Honor. I'm sorry. I got them because I had to make sure they were useable. I'm referring to Exhibits--Plaintiff's 63 and 64, And in--I'm sor--yeah, and in particular, numbers thirty-one and sixty-six on 63, and one twenty- two and one forty-four, I believe, on May-- (INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION) MR. WAXMAN: --let me (indiscernible), here. on the May, 2008, which is #64. The two snippets there are one twenty-four and one forty-four. COURT: Mr. Waxman, the Court doesn't have its DVD's. Do you have them? MR. WAXMAN: Ido. Yes. COURT: I'm sorry. Okay. MR. WAXMAN: No. I apologize. 9510 ar 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 COURT: Mr. Altshuler, I intend to watch the entire--whatever the parties admit into evidence, I intend to watch the entirety of it. MR. ALTSHULER: You mean hear the entirety of it. These are audio. COURT: Oh, okay. Li--that's right. Listen to it. Is one of those things a DVD, though? MR. ALTSHULER: No. MR. WAXMAN: No. COURT: They're not? Okay. MR. ALTSHULER: You've seen the only DVD-- MR. WAXMAN: Yeah. MR. ALTSHULER: --I believe. The only problem with your good intentions, your Honor, are that these tapes--each file--some of them are as long as an hour. If you listen to each of the four files, it would probably exceed five hours. COURT: © Okay. MR. WAXMAN: So, I'm simply asking to be able to play the fragments that I think are relevant to the case. COURT: Okay. MR. WAXMAN: And it's not been suggested to me 9610 i 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 a 2 23 25 that there's anything unfair about doing that under the rule of completeness, 106. I certainly gave the Court and opposing attorney notice yesterday as to which (indiscernible) files I wished to play, and, therefore, it would seem to me difficult to be able to render a decision perhaps today, without--if you're going to listen to all of those tapes. That's all. MR. WAXMAN: Well, let me go back to my original objection that I didn't get these tapes till Thursday. We--as Hesper already said, she--there were hours of silence on some of these tapes. So, we did the best we could to do it. These particular snippets have parts on it that would still be added and subtracted from it, okay? So, the problem still becomes--even if I don't want you to waste your time listening to five hours, some of it, which is, I understand, footsteps for fifty minutes, which I don't want you to have to listen to. I can't think that these--these snippets are not a complete record, and there would be other parts of that. The one they played in court yesterday was at least a complete recording from that incident. COURT: All right. I understand the concern. and I intend to listen to the entire recording at a later time. MR. ALTSHULER: Fine. 9710 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 COURT: So-- MR. WAXMAN: Okay, your Honor. couRT: --footsteps and all. MR, ALTSHULER: Well, I hate to make you do that. COURT: Well, that's okay. I mean, that's the. that's the way that things are, and that's fine. MR. WAXMAN: Okay. Then, at this point, I'd call--recall Ms. Handrahan. COURT: Now-- MR. ALTSHULER: And, your Honor, I did talk to counsel--one of my witnesses, Allie Knowlton, is here, someone on a time frame, and the parties do not mind if we take her out of order. I don't know if you want to finish with her first? MR. WAXMAN: Well, it's going to take, as I said, five minutes now, and then a little less than twenty minutes for the tape, and then five more minutes with Miss Handrahan, then I'm done. So, I don't really want to interrupt my examination. MR. ALTSHULER: Well-- MR. WAXMAN: We'd be done by one-thirty at the latest. COURT: Well, let me just ask--Miss Stout, how long do you int--I know you can't give me an exact amount, but how long do you anticipate cross-exam to 9810 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 be? MS. STOUT: I--if I can stay focused on the issues I am planning to ask about, your Honor, I would estimate about twenty minutes. COURT: Okay. Well, while everybody's here, and before we begin the actual taking of evidence--and, by all means, have a seat, Dr. Handrahan. You don't need to stand. What I'd like to say is, in the interest of getting this done in an efficient way, I'd like to ask counsel and the witnesses, if any are here aside from Dr. Handrahan, to please refrain from making any statements that aren't related to the question asked. Please listen to the question the attorney asks, and answer only the question. Don't offer a lot of other information, because that is really taking a lot of the time away from relevant evidence in this case. So, to the extent we can do that, that would be wonderful. Now, Mr. Altshuler, is your witness pressed for time such that they need to leave quickly? MR. ALTSHULER: I just asked her, and she can stay for the afternoon. I thought she had to leave early. So, I apologize for that, your Honor. COURT: Okay. No. That's okay. That--I just want to make sure we try to accommodate people. MR. ALTSHULER: If you're going to listen to the 9910 iW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 whole tape, one of the first questions I was going to ask is do we have to listen to them today, if you're going to listen to them later? That cuts twenty minutes out. I am really concerned--I know that's the only way that we can (indiscernible) - COURT: Well, let me just check. Mr. Altshul--or, Mr. Waxman, do you think that it's essential for your cross-exam to play these snippets that you want to play? MR. WAXMAN: Yes. COURT: Okay. Well, then, we'll take--we'll do that. MR. ALTSHULER: --so, if we're not-- COURT: So, let's begin. I'm sorry? MR. ALTSHULER: --if we're not done by two o'clock, I'm just going to put on the record again, for me to get Allie Knowlton and Lesley Devoe on, and get the guardian on cross-examination is absolutely imp mean, there's no way I can physically do that. And I'm just going to reiterate that. COURT: Okay. Well-- MR. ALTSHULER: And I purposely was quick with my cross-examination (indiscernible) . couRT: --all right. It's now five of one. A lot of whether we get done today depends on whether the 10010 1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 witnesses are willing to answer questions, and not offer a lot more information. And I'm hoping the witnesses will do that. So, with that, let's begin. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q When you came back from Budapest in November of 2007, you applied for a position at the American University in Washington, D.C., correct? A Yes. Q You didn't tell Igor you were doing that, did you? A No. Q At some point in time, you wrote part of a novel called The Last Good Summer, correct? A Yes. Q Okay. In that novel, you told of a damaged Balkan man, haunted by ghosts, correct? A I don't recall. I don't have the documentation in front of me. It was stolen off of my laptop, once again. MR. WAXMAN: May I approach the witness, your Honor? COURT: Yes CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q I'm showing you now what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 20. Does looking at that refresh your recollection? 10110 aT 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Tt does not. Did you, in fact, write a novel, The Last Good Summer? I did. And nobody had known about it. It confidential, personal writing. Okay. And you don't recall what you wrote in that? I don't. You don't recall that it was about a do-gooder American woman who decides to be with a damaged Balkan man-- I've already told you-- --who sees ghosts? --I don't recall. Okay. Are you a do-gooder American woman who married a damaged Balkan man? I am not. Do you agree that at some point in time, you presented to Igor to be signed a health care power of attorney? I did. All right. I'm showing you now what I have marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 67. I'd ask you to look at that, please? I'm sorry. Let me show it to your counsel first. 10210 M1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 have (PAUSE) MR. WAXMAN: Is this the one that's purported to been presented to him? CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Have you seen that document before? I don't recall. Would you look at it and tell me if it refreshes your recollection by looking at it? I don't recall. Okay. You did get a health care power of attorney, correct? I dia. And you wanted Igor to sign it, correct? I dia. And that health care power of attorney would have given you the right to involuntarily commit Mr. Malenko, correct? I don't know that. You don't know that? No. By the way, during the period of time that Mr. Malenko was permitted to have supervised contact with his child, which is the time frame from May of this year until now, there's a suggestion put forward by the guardian that perhaps a suitable 10310 ul 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 supervisor for these visits could be your mother, Janet Tarbuck and/or your stepfather, Woody Tarbuck, correct? A Yes Q And what was your position about that? A My mother stood by and neglectfully watched my sister and I be abused as a child, and I said I would absolutely not be--feel comfortable with her as a supervisor. And Woody is an abuser himself. Q Are you aware that she has several other grandchildren, and that she provides care and day care for those grandchildren? A For her step-grandchildren. I'm also aware that my sister is here to testify that my mother wouldn't even take her to the hospital when she thought she was miscarrying-- COURT: All right. Let-- WITNESS: --because she didn't want to anger my stepfather. COURT: --once again--excuse me, Dr. Handrahan. We're--I think we're getting kind of far afield-- WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. COURT: --that's okay. I think we need to- WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm very sorry. COURT: --no, don't be sorry. I just--I think we 10410 cre 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 need to pay attention to the question and-- WITNESS: I'm sorry. It's very emotional for me. I'm very sorry. COURT: --I understand. MR. WAXMAN: All right. At this point, your Honor, I'm going to play some of the snippets I have mentioned. I guess what I'll do is identify what I'm playing for the record. The first one is Plaintiff's Exhibit 63, which is the November, 2007 cD. I'm playing file thirty-one, and I'm beginning at about twenty-three thirty-six, and I intend to play this for about six minutes or so. Here we go. (INDEX #8 954-1056 NOT TRANSCRIBED - TAPE PLAYBACK) MR. WAXMAN: All right. Let me just ask a question generated by that tape of Ms. Handrahan. (CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q Ms. Handrahan, is it your contention that you're fearful of Mr. Malenko? A Yes. Q You're intimidated by him? A When he's violent. MR. WAXMAN: Now moving on to tape--file number sixty-six. And I'm beginning at around twenty thirty- six. That'll do it. Okay. 10510 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 (INAUDIBLE CONVERSATION) CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q All right. Ms. Handrahan, you do recall at least one conversation with Mr. Malenko in which you tried to force him to sign the health care power of attorney, correct? A I asked him to sign it. Q Okay. (INDEX #8 1089-1186 NOT TRANSCRIBED - TAPE PLAYBACK) MR. WAXMAN: All right. I'm now moving forward to about twenty-three minutes on the same tape, if I can do this successfully. (INDEX #8 1120-1211 NOT TRANSCRIBED - ‘TAPE PLAYBACK) MR. ALTSHULER: I would really like the rest of that, your Honor. I mean, she's just starting to respond to him, and he cuts it off, you know. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q Ms. Handrahan, it's true, is it not, that after this particular conversation in which Mr. Malenko refused to sign the health care power of attorney, he then went to your parents' house to stay for a bit of time? A Once again, I asked them to take him. Yes. 10610 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 Q Okay. MR. WAXMAN: I'm now going to play, on the May, 2008 CD--go ahead. (Indiscernible). I'm going to play a snippet from file number one twenty-four, and represent to the Court I believe this is the incident in which Ms. Handrahan indicated she was going to take the child to Sorrento for two weeks. WITNESS: Am I allowed to make a point of information about the first recording? MR. WAXMAN: No. MR. ALTSHULER: I can ask you that, Lori. (PAUSE) CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q And while we're waiting, Miss Handrahan, I played that tape involving your request for Igor to take the medication in front of you. He eventually capitulated and took the medication, right? A He did. And the point of information I wanted to make is he was under court orders at that time from the filing that I had negotiated for us, to stay on prescribed medication. And, once again, I did not contact the D.A.'s office. I did not contact the police, and I did not-- Q That's enough. Thank you. A --report him. Instead, I asked him, please, over 10710 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 and over, to do it. Once again, I think that tape shows me constantly trying to negotiate and keep the family together. I could have had him thrown out of the country for not complying. That was medicine that True North gave him for anti- anxiety, that he was refusing to take. He was court ordered to take it. Well, now that you've raised the issue, I appreciate that. Let me just ask, are you referring to the conditions under which he was supposed to live because of the filing of the case? Is that what you're referring to? No. It's--all the conditions were any prescribed medication. He was supposed to take any prescribed medication. All right. Am I correct that it was to engage psychological counseling to the satisfaction of the provider, and to take all medications as prescribed, and follow other treatment recommendations, right? ‘That's correct. Are you the provider? I am not, but I'm-- All right. ~-the one who lives with the violence, and I'm the 10810 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 one that's tasked with the responsibility of protecting my daughter. Q All right. A And if he's not-- COURT: Okay. That's-- WITNESS: --oh, sorry. I'm sorry. MR. WAXMAN: All right. This, again, is file number one twenty-four on Plaintiff's 64, which is the May, 2008 tape. (INDEX #8 1268-1406 NOT TRANSCRIBED - TAPE PLAYBACK) MR. ALTSHULER: Your Honor, I would suggest if she's not--can you pause for a sec? If she's not on this any more, it's-- MR. MALENKO: She is. MR. ALTSHULER: --oh, okay. He just told me he didn't know. MR. MALENKO: She is. And the police is on there. (INDEX #8 1414-1467 NOT TRANSCRIBED - TAPE PLAYBACK) MR. WAXMAN: All right. I'm moving forward. MR. ALTSHULER: I thought that she was back on that tape somewhere. MR. MALENKO: Yeah. The police is gonna come. They- 10910 ul 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 MR. ALTSHULER: Well-- MR. WAXMAN: If you want to hear more, I'll play more. MR. MALENKO: --it is an hour and a half or three hours, so you feel free to listen to everything. I would be more than happy-- MR. ALTSHULER: --well, I had--was under the impress-- COURT: Okay. Well, why don't we-- MR. ALTSHULER: --I was under the impression-- CouRT: --why don't--why don't you cross-examine-- do you intend to cross-examine Dr. Handrahan on that tape? MR. WAXMAN: No. COURT: Okay. Well, all right. Let's move on, please. WITNESS: Tell (indiscernible). MR. ALTSHULER: I'11 ask you that. MR. WAXMAN: I'm moving forward to the last snippet, which is file number one forty-four on, once again, Plaintiff's 64, which is the May, 2008 tape. I'll represent this is on May 23", in the morning, and I'm beginning at the beginning, and it goes about two minutes. (INDEX #8 1481-1572 NOT TRANSCRIBED - 11010 rr 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 TAPE PLAYBACK) CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Miss Handrahan, I thought I heard you testify earlier that on May 23 of 2008, in the morning: Mabmn. --that you were terrified? Mr. Waxman, that last tape is absolutely bogus. And that's the trouble with these tapes. You can pick up anything. That is absolutely not what happened. He went and taped himself whispering to himself in a room. That's not a--that's not what happened the 23". That's not an accurate taping of what happened the day I filed the PFA. Absolute lie. Every single-- Okay. stop. --he's told the re--he's told the GAL and the Kab-- Please stop. So, your contention is that that tape-- --is bogus. --is bogus? Okay. So, you claim--it's your contention that that morning, he came in like the Hulk, with his face contorted? Yes. By the way, it was what, five-thirty? 11110 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 Yes. Dark, right? It was not. It was the summer. 5/23? I don't know the exact time. And that he came in and threatened, "Don't you ever take her. You'd better be back here when I get back," right? He did. Okay. dust a couple more questions, Miss Handrahan. Do you agree, as has been suggested by Dr. Kabakoff and by the guardian, that a parenting coordinator would be very helpful in this case? Depends on the parenting coordinator. Well, let's assume we could find a very good parenting coordinator. Do you agree that a parenting coordinator, regardless of who gets primary residential care--please wait for my question--should, in fact, be in this place? I'm not sure. MR. ALTSHULER: Your Honor, I'm going to object, just bas--it's a legal conclusion. There's no statute that allows for a coordinator. We'd have to do it by agreement, and I'm not--I haven't even talked to her about the possibility. I--she can't testify to whether 11210 iW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 mu 2 23 24 25 she thinks a parenting coordinator would be a good idea or not. It's a legal conclusion. couRT: Well, I don't know that it's a legal conclusion. It's actually a question about whether she--as you point out, it's something that has to be by agreement. And I think he's just exploring whether she would agree to that. MR. ALTSHULER: Well, I would really like to advise my client about it before she has a discussion with opposing counsel about something. That's a legal context. MR. WAXMAN: Well, that's not generally how cross- examination works. MR. ALTSHULER: Well-- COURT: Well, we'll allow the questioning. He's just asking whether she would agree with that. WITNESS: I don't know the-- COURT: She can agree or not. It's up to her, but-- MR. ALTSHULER: He! asking her if she'd agree to a legal contract without allowing her to talk to her legal counsel about it? couRT: A legal contract? ‘MR. ALTSHULER: A parenting coordinator is a legal contract. 11310 iW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 COURT: Okay. Well-- MR. ALTSHULER: There is an order that gets signed by the parties and by a Court that outlines the responsibilities and duties of the parenting coordinator. couRT: --okay. Well, if you want to take a few minutes to speak with your client about it, that's fine. MR. ALTSHULER: Well, I certainly don't want my client to say if she would agree to a contract without knowing what the terms are, who it would be-- COURT: Well-- MR. ALTSHULER: --what the parameters would be. MR. WAXMAN: Let me lay a better foundation. COURT: --okay. (ROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Q 1s 4t fair to say that you and Igor can't reach agreement on many issues these days? A ‘There's now a PFA in place. Q dust please answer my question. Is it fair to say you two can't reach agreement on many issues right now involving Mila? A ‘There is a PFA in place. Q Ma'am, T just want to know--for instance, in the last-- 11410 MW 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 2 2 23 25 aA aA I don't know. --ma'am, in the last several months, the proposition or suggestion was put forward by the guardian--and you know that Igor agreed with it-- that visits could be unsupervised. You disagreed with that, right? I did. It was--the proposition was put forward that perhaps Janet Tarbuck and/or Woody Tarbuck could be supervisors. You disagreed with that, right? For reasons that are very good, which I explained. Okay. So, can we agree that it might be a good idea, no matter who has primary care, to have somebody in place that would help resolve disputes? I don't know the legal ramifications, considering there's a protection order, and I'd like to have counsel before I discuss that with you. COURT: Okay. Let's move on. MR. WAXMAN: All right. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN What about the recommendations that Dr. Kabakoff made in her report? Do you have any intention of trying to do what she recommended? I don't know. 11510 MW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Q You don't know? A I don't know. Q Well, do you--do you have any intention of seeking out therapy, DBT therapy? A I do not. Q You--do you have any intention of seeking out individualized therapy? A I have stayed with the therapist at True North, and with Dr. Frank Hoffberg, the entire time. @ But you don't concede that you have a DSM-IV classified mental health illness? A ‘There's absolutely not a shred of evidence for that. WITNESS: Ken, I had a point of information on that, too. MR. ALTSHULER: Okay. COURT: Mr. Waxman, are you--oh, I'm sorry. MR. WAXMAN: Okay. That's fine, your Honor. I am complete. I'm done. COURT: Okay. Ms. Stout? MS. STOUT: Thank you, your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. STOUT Q Good afternoon, Dr. Handrahan. A Good afternoon. Q So, I had a few areas that I wanted to ask you 11610 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 25 about. In my review of the records, between May of 2005, when you and Igor met, and May of 2008, when you separated, I counted that you lived in nine different location, is that accurate? I don't know. Well, you lived in Macedonia, correct? Yeah. You lived in Holland? Yes. You moved to Sorrento in Maine? Yes. You lived with your parents for a brief time? Yes. You moved to an apartment in Portland? Yes. You lived in a rental in Willard Beach? Yeah. You purchased a home at Willard Beach? Yes. You lived briefly in Budapest? Yes. And then you returned to the Willard Beach residence? Yes. So that would be nine residences? 11710 cr 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 25 Apparently. And over the course of the last three years, you've been employed, at different times, one--you had a job with UNICEF, correct? I've been a freelance consultant on and off for about ten years. Okay. So, during those-- I had a freelance contract with UNICEF. Yes. --okay. And you also worked as a--some--in some capacity with the University of New England? I dia. And you got this job at CARE in April of 20087 I dia. You also had a different job working for the United Nations, correct? I was a freelancer. I took short term contracts with many different U.N. agencies. I'm quite well known in my field, and well respected. And how many different contracts have you had in the past three years? Well, I was very successful, so I had many contracts. More than ten? I don't know. I'd have to check my records. I wanted to ask you briefly about what seems to be 11810 cr 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 a problem in this case is that you often have a different perception of events from other people who experience those events. That's not true. You do not agree that you have a different perception of events from other people? No, I do not. Well, you testified on direct examination that during some of your couples counseling--and I assume that was with Dr. David Pritchard-- Yes. --that during that couples counseling, Igor made a threat on your life? He did. okay. And if Dr. Pritchard indicated that there was never any threat made in his presence, how do you explain that difference of perception? Is he here to testify to that under oath? No. I'm just asking you how would you explain that difference in perception? My question would be is here to testify under oath to that? Well, actually, I'm just asking you the questions xight now. Your attorney will have plenty of opportunity to ask me questions later. And I'm 11910 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 asking you do you have any explanation-- I have no idea that he has said that or not said that. I have no idea that he's denied that's taken place. --okay. If he-- He has never communicated that to me. --if he did deny that, would you have any-- I would have serious concerns about his professional capacity. --if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to be able to finish my question. Mmmm. If he did make that statement, do you have any way to understand how the two of you could have such different perceptions of the same event? If he made a statement saying that Igor did not say, during a joint session, "If I wanted to finish you off, I could," and, "I hope that you die, so I can take all your money and your child." And if David Pritchard has denied this under oath, I would think that he was trying to save his professional career, because that would be a grave breach of ethics. So, in other words, you think he would be not telling the truth about that? 12010 iW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 I would. And during your relationship with Mr. Malenko, he had a number of evaluations with various mental health professionals. We discussed that at length today, correct? Yes. And you have stated to various professionals that you believe that Igor has severe mental health problems, correct? And that he needed to be on medication? Yes. And at one point, you felt he néeded to be involuntarily committed to a mental institution? Yes. And, yet, the evaluations by those professionals consistently show that he--that they resulted in a conclusion that he did not have mental health problems, is that right? That's correct. okay. And, again, how do we--how do--how does the Court resolve these different perceptions, one of yours that he has--suffers from bipolar or other mental health problems, and another that he does not have those issues? 12110 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Bat 22 23 24 25 aA I think the Court resolves it by looking at the full records, including the binder that we've given the GAL, with all of the affidavits and testimony and material evidence that I have gathered that refute every lie that he's ever told. ‘Igor Malenko has a huge problem telling the truth. He should not be credible. He told you very different things than he told Dr. Kabakof£, and he's told me, that he's told Allie Knowlton. He stole my credit card. He charged it. He told you he did not do that. I have provided you the records. He cleaned out her college savings account, Mila's college savings account, and I provided you the records. He lied to you. So, I would suggest that the Court would look at the binder, please, that I have provided, because I don't think all of the evidence that's been into account--and that's the same thing, Miss Stout, that happened with the mental health professionals. They have taken an eraser and erased the violence all the way through. The belief that you and Dr. Kabakoff has is that he is telling the truth, and I am lying. Okay. So, if I could just summarize your answer, if I'm understanding it correctly, the way that we 12210 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 resolve the multiple evaluations that found nothing and your statement that he has serious a serious mental health problem, is that he lied to those providers? Yes, he has. And there's plenty of evidence he's lied many times to many people. Even your report and Dr. Kabakoff's report-- I'm just trying to understand-- --don't fit. Yeah. --the answer about resolving these different perceptions. Do you believe today that Igor Malenko has a serious mental health problem? Well, apparently, the mental health community doesn't believe that violence and threatening to kill somebody and pathological lying is mentally ill. So, I guess he's fine. No. I'm asking you for your belief. Well, I'm not a mental health expert, so I'm not sure how credible that is any more. I believe that somebody's lying pathologically over-- Okay. Okay. T asked the question and you gave me the answer. I'm just trying to stay focused on the time, here. Now, you also had some different perceptions about some of the mental health providers that you have consulted with, correct? 12310 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 It's a leading question. I'm not sure where you're going with that. Well, is it correct that you had some different perceptions from some of the mental health providers that you consulted? I don't understand the question. Well, isn't it a fact that there are several providers and a nurse practitioner that recommended that you have a mental health evaluation and seek mental health treatment? They did. It's called leveling. It's exactly what happened with the divorce filing, that we should both be evaluated, because, obviously-- Dr. Handrahan, excuse me, but I'm going to object to your answer as non-responsive to my question. COURT: Sustained. Next question. (CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT Were you ever told that you needed to get an evaluation and mental health treatment? --yes. And did you get an evaluation before Dr. Kabakoff? I did not. And other than telephone consultations with Frank Hoffberg, what individual mental health treatments did you have? 12410 ul 12 13 14 15, 16 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 I've been seeing Allie Knowlton at EV [sic], and Frank Hoffberg for over a year and a half. And Frank Hoffberg is the doctor that you consulted with by telephone? He's the former associate director for the National Institute of Mental Health. I wasn't asking for credentials, so, again, I'm going to object as non-responsive. COURT: Sustained. Next question. WITNESS: I was identifying him. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT Is he the person that you consulted with by telephone? Yes. Thank you. Now, a moment ago, I think you testified that you are not a mental health provider, so you would not be qualified to give a diagnosis, correct? That's correct. Okay. Isn't it a fact that, on multiple occasions, you urged Igor to either take medication that was not prescribed to him, or not take medication that was prescribed to him? As I said earlier, during the filing, he was ordered to take prescribed medication, and he did 12510 aT 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 have medication prescribed to him. Q Again, I'm going to object as non-responsive-- COURT: Sustained. Q -+(indiscernible) . COURT: Doctor, if you could just listen to the question and respond to the question, that would be fine. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT Q Did you not urge Mr. Malenko-- A Yes. Q --let me just finish my question, if you don't mind--to take medication not prescribed to him, and to stop taking the medication that was prescribed to him? A No. Q You never did that? A I don't recall. Q You don't recall, or you never did that? A I don't recall. Q 80, it's possible you did? A I don't know. (PAUSE) Q I'm showing you a document I've marked-- MS. STOUT: --oh, excuse me, your Honor. May I approach? 12610 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 24 25 COURT: Sure. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT Marked as Guardian Exhibit 3. Do you recognize that? It looks like an email, apparently. Okay. If I could call your attention to the portion of the message that's marked with a tab, there. I believe it's the third page of the message. Moko. At the bottom of that page actually, it's marked as page five of six. At the bottom of the page, you--there's a message from you to Igor, correct? Minho. And at the bottom of that message on the page, it says, "I'm asking you to, one, sign the health care power of attorney forms, two, I would like you to ask Miles to go on Lamictal. You are on Xanax replacement now. The trouble is that Xanax can cause manic in bipolar cases." And the message continues that says, on the next page--do you see where I'm looking--referring to? That's the same problem, Miss Stout. I don't know where this has come. I don't know if it's been doctored. You've taken it from Igor. 12710 i 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 24 25 Q Dr. Handrahan-- A ‘I didn't provide this to you. Q --excuse me. I'm going to again object to your response as non-responsive, and ask you if you could please review the document-- A I don't know if it's an authentic document or not. I'm sorry. Q --to the section that I'm calling your attention to. MR. ALTSHULER: Actually, the proper thing to do is see if this refreshes her memory, if she doesn't recognize the document. If she says it refreshes her memory, then she can respond to it. If it doesn't xefresh her memory, then she can't. COURT: That's correct. (CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT Q 80, looking--does this document refresh your memory~ A It does not. Q --excuse me. If I could finish my question? A I'm sorry. Q Thank you, Dr. Handrahan. Looking at this document, does this refresh your recollection about the information you gave to Mr. Malenko? A It does not. 12810 u 12 13, 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Your--you have no memory of suggesting that he go off the Xanax that was prescribed to him? I replied to the question already. So, you have no memory-- I do not. --of that? Do you have any memory of sending him an email in November of 2007? I do not. Well, you communicated with Mr. Malenko by email during that time, regularly? I can't recall. You don't remember? My life had just been threatened. I was staying in a hotel. I'd had a friend fly over. I was trying to keep my job and take care of a toddler at the same time, in a foreign country. I can't recall my email habits at the time, Miss Stout. I'm very sorry. I'm sorry. You were staying in a hotel in November of 20077 I'm sorry. I misspoke. It was October. Now, actually, in November of 2007, you were back in the United States, correct? I was. And you directed Mr. Malenko to have an evaluation 12910 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 with Miles Simmons, Dr. Miles Simmons? I did. You did? And Dr. Simmons gave you the results of his evaluation-- He did not. --excuse me. If I could finish my question, please? Did Dr. Simmons give you the results of his evaluation? He did not. He did not send an email to you, describing his findings? He did not. Did you ever learn what his conclusions were? Through Igor, I was told that it was extreme marital stress. And would it surprise you that that is the same diagnosis that's reflected in the True North records? It would not. But you do not accept that finding? I do not. Now, in February--moving backwards in time, back in February of 2007, you and Mr. Malenko were working with True North, correct? Yes. 13010 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 un 22 23 24 25 You were working with Allie Knowlton? Yes. As well as other providers there? Yes. And is it correct that you, at one point, developed what you called a long-term healing plan for Igor? I do not recall. You don't remember that? I don't recall. Would looking at an email from you dated February 22™, 2007 refresh your memory? Probably not. There was a lot of stuff going on. Do you recall writing a plan that included information about what Igor should be doing for physical activity? As I said before, providers told me that I needed to be clear with Igor, and I needed to--we set out a contract what he should be doing at what time of the day, because he couldn't handle adult responsibilities. So, you do remember doing that, or you don't? I remember that we did, at various points in time, try to have schedules, which never worked. And would those schedules include what Igor was 13110 un 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 supposed to do for spiritual-- I don't recall. --excuse me. Did those schedules include what Igor was supposed to do for spiritual practice? I don't recall. And any schedules would have been done working in conjunction with counselors. These were nothing I did on my own. Okay. These were suggestions that I had-- And, again-- --from counselors to try to help. --okay. And, so, looking at your email addressed to passages@maine.rr.com would not refresh your-- It would not. --refresh your memory. It would not? You're confident of that, then? Iam. Okay. All right. Prior to filing--prior to the divorce being filed, you did, in fact, though, frequently leave Mila alone with Mr. Malenko, isn't that right? It's not. That's not right? Now, you had--you just talked about the written plans that you drew up, correct? 13210 vt 12 13, 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Correct. And there were at least three of those, isn't that right? I don't know. Well, wasn't there a February to May, 2007 goal? I've already said I can't recall. Well, if I told you that the True North records included at least three different plans that had specifically times for Igor to be taking care of Mila, do you have any comment about whether that was accurate? The comment is what I've already said. These were done at the suggestion of the various counselors, who encouraged us to try to set out a schedule so that Igor would take child care responsibilities, go there wouldn't be fights over what he was or wasn't doing. And as you testified earlier, what mother wouldn't want someone to take care of the child if she's working full-time, right? Would want some basic help around the house, rather than have a husband lying in bed all day. Yes, Miss Stout. And you wanted Igor to take care of Mila? I certainly did want him to do his share. 13310 u 12 13 14 15 16 q7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 And we've had some discussion about the Atlanta trip already. You recall that April, 2008-- I do. --trip to Atlanta? And you left Mila with Igor at that time? I was gone four days. Stephanie Bisol-- Now, he was employed at (indiscernible) at that time, correct? --he was. He was? Okay. So, your earlier testimony saying that he was unemployed at that time was a mistake? He was not unemployed at that time. I never said that. And in June of 2008, you proposed--after the PFA was filed, you proposed some visits for Mila in the community, correct? I dia. Your attorney did? I did. Yes. Now, during your--during your relationship--this relationship period--and I'm going to focus now on after you returned to the U.S., which would have been in the spring of--or summer, 2006, right? Correct. Until the separation in May of 2008. During that 13410 cy 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 bit? time, you continued to take trips and travel for your work obligations, is that right? I did not. You did not take any trips during that time? I took two. You took two? overnights. And who took care of Mila during those times? Three--actually, I went to New York once for one overnight, and Stephanie Bisol stayed that time. And I was very scared to leave Igor alone with Mila. So, I, as I always had to do, appease, suggested that it would be good if Stephanie stayed so she would get used to spending the nights alone if I had to travel, because Igor was working the night shift. And Igor agreed to that. The reason I did was because I was scared to leave Igor alone. I didn't necessarily need a nanny there-- Can I ask that the witness speak up a WITNESS: --if I had a non-violent husband. MR. WAXMAN: I'm having a hard time hearing. (CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT And you said during this time that you went to New 13510 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 York, Igor was working nights? I believe--it's quite difficult to keep it all in context if you don't have the documentation in front of you. I don't want to be accused of different perceptions. Now, Dr. Handrahan, you have numerous friends and supporters who have been involved in this case, is that fair to say? Yes, that is. And you have a number of close friends that you've maintained close ties with, including during this period of your relationship with Mr. Malenko, correct? Yes. And you have friends such as Margo Pies [sic] that you would see every few months during this period? More frequently than every few months. Yes. And you have another friend, Sarah Thompson [sic], that you would see maybe even as much as two times a month? Not quite as much as two times a month, but it depended on my travel or her travel to Maine. But, frequently, you saw your friends? And on the phone all the time. Recall, I haven't been--my home is Washington, D.C. I've only been 13610 M1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 in Maine since the birth of my child. My entire support system is in Washington, D.C. So I maintained-- Okay. Again, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm going to object-- --I'm sorry. --that's non-responsive. COURT: Okay. Sustained. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT And you continue to have telephone contact with your ex-husband, correct? I did. He and I maintained a friendship. All right. And, so, is it reasonable to conclude that Igor did not forbid you from contacting your ex-husband, or forbid you from contacting or visiting or speaking with your friends? That's not true. He specifically did. But you did it anyway? I did. Who decided to move to Maine? Igor. And how did you happen to pick Maine? Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. We weren't planning to move to Maine. We were only going to come back to get my rental property ready 13710 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 for the summer. It was already rented for the summer. So, did you come to Maine because you have ties to Maine? I came to Maine because I had a house, and we were gonna take a few weeks, prepare the property and not stay. It ended up that we stayed. And, in fact, you stayed with your parents who live in Maine, your mother and your stepfather? For two weeks in between. Has Igor ever owned a weapon, to your knowledge? Not to my knowledge, but he was in the Yugoslav National Army, so I assumed he was trained. Has he ever owned a weapon during the time that you've been in a relationship with him? Not to my knowledge. Okay. Has he ever destroyed your property? Well, it depends. If you take--taking away a modem, going through my files--I don't know how many files he's destroyed of mine. If I could--excuse me. Perhaps I should focus my question. TI mean between May of 2005 and May of 2008, has he ever destroyed any items of your property? And I'm saying he's gone through my files, so I 13810 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 don't know how many files he may have destroyed. And--but that was after the separation, correct? It was not. How could he have done this? He went through my personal files. You have the notes that I took in my own handwriting during a visit with the lawyers, that he had gone through my files and taken before the PFA was filed. Okay. But, that-- I don't know what he's destroyed. --other than that, has he destroyed any pictures personal items or cards or walls or windows? No. And after both the hand-slapping incident and the peanut butter jar incident, Igor acknowledged that he had engaged in this behavior, correct? No. It's not correct. Well, after the hand-slapping incident, you went almost immediately and had a joint session with the folks at True North, correct? He acknowledged that one. All right. And-- He has not acknowledged that he threw a jar at my head. --well, he told the police officer that- He certainly did. Yes. 13910 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 --I'm sorry. This is really difficult-- Sorry. --but if you could just wait until I finish my question, please? He acknowledged to the police officer that he threw the jar at you? Yes. Now, since the separation, has your--how much contact have you had with Mr. Malenko? He--we're--he's under a PFA. There's been no physical contact. Okay. You've had some email contact, correct? A bit. To your knowledge, has he ever been to your home? Not to my knowledge. To your knowledge, has he ever followed you? Not to my knowledge. Has he had--tried to have contact with you at the exchanges at the visitation center? No. Ever, in the history of your relationship with Mr. Malenko, have you ever expressed a concern that he has engaged in sexual misconduct? No. I wanted to ask you a few questions about the danger assessment. You completed a danger 14010 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 assessment as part of your work with Leslie Devoe? I did. Okay. And part of that danger assessment requires the person filling it out to go to a calendar, and look at all the events of violence that have occurred in the past year, correct? Correct. And you completed this in September of 2008? No. I completed it in--what month are we in now? It's-- Novem--we're December right now. --I can't remember when I completed it. Okay. Was it sometime this fall? It was sometime either this summer or fall. Well, do you remember whether it was after the guardian ad litem was reported, or before? I don't recall. Okay. Well, let's say--would it be reasonable to use September as a starting point? And you--Dr. Campbell's notes reflect a date in September. Would that seem right to you? Since she's not allowed to testify, I think that's an unfair statement. Okay. Well, if we assume. let's just assume, for the sake of discussion and moving things along, 14110 ul 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 that September, 2008 was when you completed that form, how many incidents of violence did you note for Dr. Caimpbell that occurred in the previous twelve months? I don't recall. I don't have the form in front of me. She's not able to testify, and I do not like to assume a date that we can't have a witness testify to. CouRT: All right. She doesn't recall is the answer, I guess. Next question. MS. STOUT: Okay. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT What is it that you want the Court to do here? I would like the Court to be fair, I would like the Court to consider a due process. I would like the Court to consider all of the things that I believe in about the American legal system, which would mean taking domestic violence seriously, considering all of the evidence, rather than just parts of the evidence, and pieces of the evidence that paint a picture of me that's not very attractive. I would like the Court to consider certain behavior patterns that are very indicative of domestic violence, in addition to actually physical violence. Most of all, I would like the 14210 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 Court to consider my child's safety. And if the Court did all that, what would the order say in terms of parental rights and responsibilities and Mila's residence and contact? I have made this very clear from the beginning. And I said this, Miss Stout, under oath already, and I said this in the questionnaire that I filled out for you at the start of all this. And I think that the preponderance of evidence that's been put forward in the two days, if nothing else, shows that I tried everything possible to keep Igor in the marriage and in the home with my daughter. I wanted, more than anything else, a family. And--I was just getting to that. If he--as I have said many times, I would love him to be a father for Mila. I would love him to be able to provide for her, to care for her. She needs to be safe, Miss Stout. It's a two year old life. Miss--Dr. Handrahan, are--do you--are you asking the Court to award you sole parental rights and responsibilities? Miss Stout, I'm asking the Court to review the records and to decide. If you relocate to Washington, D.C., how--who's going to pay for the travel for either Mr. Malenko 14310 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 to go to D.C., or Mila to go to Maine to have contact with him? I would be happy to split that cost with Mr. Malenko. And how frequently do you--would you propose that that contact happen? Well, if he could come every week, that would be the best. And I also see nothing that would prevent him from moving to D.c., himself. He has no ties to Maine. Have you ever discussed that with him? I have not. Oh, about Dr. Kabakoff£, I think you said your concerns about her were the same as your concerns about me? They were. Okay. And that included that you were concerned that Dr. Kabakoff and I were charmed or somehow swayed by Mr. Malenko's persuasive nature? I think it's quite clear, Miss stout, if I may xespond with more than a yes or no? When-- Well, actually, I'm asking is that-- --yes. -one of your concerns? Yes. 14410 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 Okay. And--but--and you said that Dr. Kabakoff was very rude and dismissive of you, did not allow you to-- She did. --tell your story? Dr. Kabakoff met with you first, though, right? She did. And you--had you ever met her before? I had not. Okay. Did she have any stake in the outcome of this proceeding? Not that I'm aware of. And, finally, Dr. Handrahan, you testified under direct that I refused to meet with you and your attorney when you requested a meeting. Isn't it true that we met on October 16 for one point three hours? Miss Stout, if you would review the records, which are in the GLA [sic] binder, which we hope the Court will accept as evidence, I had requested a meeting earlier, ‘cause I said I was very concerned that due process was not happening, and that you had set up a double standard, where Igor would tell you so COURT: Wait a minute, Doctor. What was the 14510 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 question, again? CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT Isn't it true that you and I met with your lawyer on October 16" for one point three hours? COURT: Answer? WITNESS: That wasn't the original question, your Honor. Yes, that is true, but I'd asked for-- have time COURT: Okay. Next question-- WITNESS: --a meeting beforehand. couRT: --please? MS. STOUT: 1 don't have any further questions. COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Altshuler, do you any redirect? MR. ALTSHULER: I have a lot, but I don't have for very much, your Honor. COURT: Well, do what you think is appropriate. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER These tape recordings, except for the one time that we heard Igor say, "I'm taping you," did you know what he was taping? Yeah. Sometime--it's hard to tell exactly when, I can't remember, but it was after we came back from Budapest, I think, that he began taping me on a regular basis. He told me all the time, "I'm watching you. I'm listening to everything you 14610 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 say. I'm taping you. You're taped." He said, "I have hundreds of hours of tapes of you. Did you see the tapes? Never. No. So, he told you he was taping you, but you didn't see the tapes? I never saw or never heard these. He didn't--when you were having a conversation, he wouldn't put the tape (indiscernible) No. --hold on a second. Sorry. He would not take a tape recorder out, put it on the desk, turn it on and say, "Okay, let's talk.” No. Sometimes he would whip it out, as he did in Budapest, clearly, and said, “Here's the tape recorder. I'm recording all of this." But, very often, it was just--I never knew when I was being recorded or not. Did you assume you were always being-- I did. Yes. 1 was under constant surveillance. --the tape recordings we heard here--and although I'm reluctant to have the judge listen to five hours of this, are there things before and after-- and I'm talking about immediately before and 14710 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 after-- Yes. --these four tapes that if we didn't--if it wasn't the whole thing, but if you listened to some before and some after, it would have a more complete picture? Absolutely. I mean, I don't think these tapes should be admitted. The Mother's Day one-- Well, hold on a second. COURT: Okay. They're being admitted. What I want you to comment on is-- What happened in-- --any of the four tapes, do you know right now, where--as you're sitting here, a tape that, if the judge listened before or after--I'm talking about two minutes before to two minutes after, it would have additional information that would sound differently? --Ken, I can't tell you that, though, because Igor could turn on and off the tape, so he could conveniently not tape parts that he didn't want anybody to hear. So, the Mother's Day tape, the incident that happened before that, whether it was on tape or not, I don't know if he--I was playing 14810 oy 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 on the deck with Mila. It's Mother's Day. It's my day. 1 was playing on the deck with her, waiting for him to come down, It was probably ten er eleven. He's still up in bed, as usual. And he said to me, "I'm going to get you fired from your job at CARE. I'm going to fax them. I have your files. I'm going to fax them the letter from CEU, and you're going to get fired from your job at CARE." And, then, I told him--we had some conversation. He may or may not have taped that. I said, "I don't want to do this." Mila was always with me, I tried to minimize the effect of this on Mila. She got more than I--than ev--she should have. At some point, I went up, I left, I came back. Iwas ina state. I thought, "I just can't continue. He can't continue to control me and ruin my life like this. If I lose this job, Mila's future is going to be destroyed. I won't have a house for her. I won't have any money. How do you provide for a child when your husband is constantly threat-- So-- --so I said, "I'm going to leave." As I was told by the counselors, when he acts like that, you don't engage. You leave. 14910 iW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 --listen to my question. Yes. The tape--the Mother's Day tape we heard-- Yeah. --it's your testimony that things happened beforehand-- It did. --that may or may not have been taped-- Yes. -that, within the context of what was presented to the Court-- Yes. --puts it in a different context? And, also, what's very difficult about that tape is you hear her--you don't have the visuals to go with the audio, so, he's claiming that she only started crying when she came out of his hands. That's not true. Immediately, when he started talking to the neighbor, that's when she started-- you didn't--he was holding her. She was not crying. He gave her to the neighbor. She started screaming. She doesn't want to be with the neighbor. There's a lot of tension going on. She wanted to come to Mommy. She was reaching out, "Mommy, Mommy". The neighbor was holding her. 15010 ul 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 prt 2 23 24 25 The neighbor was confused. The neighbor didn't know what to do. I kept saying, "Please just hand her over." She finally handed her to me, and she stopped crying. You could hear when he walked back down the street, Mila was silent, and, then, as soon as he starts with his agitated voice, she started crying again. We also don't have the police officer to testify in court what happened after that. Q don't want to take up any more time. Thank you. COURT: Okay. Any recross? MR. WAXMAN: I've got nothing, your Honor. COURT: Okay. Miss Stout? MS. STOUT: Nothing, your Honor. COURT: Okay. Thank you very much, Doctor. Mr. Altshuler, your next witness? MR. ALTSHULER: Can I note for the record the length of time that was taken in cross-examination just for the record? couRT: -it's noted, and a lot of that time was taken by answers that went on for--at great length, that weren't required. And, so, let's proceed with the next witness, please. CONTINUED TO VOLUME V 15110 ul 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing, Pages 3 through 151, is a true and accurate transcript of Cassette #1077, Index #s 4310-7132, and Cassette #1078, Index #s 8-2752, as recorded by Lauri Cataldi, on December 9, 2008, at the Ninth District Court, Portland, Maine, in the matter entitled Igor Malenko versus Lori M. Handrahan. 2 DATED: March 11, 2009 a nckart, ( Likes a Marsha F. Boutilier Transcriber A TRUE COPY, dated at Bangor, Maine, this 11% day of March, A. D., 2009. Devote $ UE Th Notary 152