Transcript Divorce Hearing Volume V

STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. NINTH DISTRICT Civil Action DIVISION OF SOUTHERN CUMBERLAND Docket No. FM-08-510 Igor Malenko versus Lori M. Handrahan VOLUME V BEFORE: The Honorable Jeffrey Moscowitz, Judge of the District Court, at the Ninth District Court, Portland, Maine, on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. APPEARANCES: Michael J. Waxman, Esq. For the Plaintiff Kenneth P. Altshuler, Esq. For the Defendant Elizabeth Stout, Esq. Guardian ad Litem OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Prepared by the Electronic Recording to PYWITNESSES C. Allie Knowlton (by Mr. Altshuler) (by Mr. Waxman) (by Ms. stout) Lesley Devoe (by Mr. Altshuler) (by Mr. Waxman) (by Ms. Stout) Elizabeth Stout (by Mr. Wasman! (by Mr. Altshuler) REBUTTAL WITNESS: Lori M. Handrahan (by Mr. Altshuler) (by Mr. Waxman) EXHIBITS GAL #4, #5 (emails) Def's #7 (report) Def's #8 (binder) INDEX OF WITNESSES CROSS REDIRECT DIRECT. 3 26 107 129 130 INDEX OF EXHIBITS MARKED 19 31 124 OFFERED ag 31 124 104 124 ADMITTED 21 32 124 CROSS10 v1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Prt 22 23 24 25 VOLUME V - CONTINUED FROM VOLUME IV MR. ALTSHULER: Okay. I'll call Allie Knowlton. And, your Honor, that's K-n-o-w-1-t-o-n. and it's actually C. Allie, A-1-1-i-e. COURT: C, Allie Knowlton. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Knowlton. Ms. Knowlton, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will present in court today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? WITNESS: I do. COURT: Thank you very much. Please have a seat. C. ALLIE KNOWLTON, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER Q Ms. Knowlton, the microphone does not amplify your voice. A Speak up. Okay. Q = Thank you. A Tell me if I need to speak lower. Q Okay. And I'm going to be very quick with you, because as you-- A Yes. Q --have figured out we have very little time. Who are you? How do you know these parties? A I'm Carlene [sic] Allie Knowlton, but I go by10 u 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Allie. And I've been a counselor for thirty-one years, a social worker since 1986, and a (indiscernible) practitioner for eighteen years. Then, my primary source has been working with people with cults, and survivors and people with serious traumas. And-- Where do you work? --I work at Tri--at--yeah, that's a slip of the past. I work at True North, which is an integrated medical center. And that's in Falmouth? In Falmouth, Maine. Correct. And how did you come to meet Lori and Mr. Malenko? I came to meet, actually, Igor first in '06, October, '06. They were preparing for a baby, and Igor wanted to feel that he had a clean slate to begin from--life with a new child in the family. And shortly after that, Lori came, also, for the same purpose, to prepare for the birth of Mila. So, originally, Mr. Malenko came to you on his own? Yes. Correct. Okay. And Lori joined at some point, so you did conjoint sessions with both of them? Individual first, and, then, after the birth of10 iW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 Mila and the conflict started in--which I believe was in January, they came initially as a couple. Okay. And, once again-- Yeah. --I'm going to do a very brief review-- I'm trying to be brief. --okay. No, I'm gonna try and be brief. You answer them as long as you need to. Okay. I want you to please tell the Court any conflict that was reported to you--first of all, let's go with Lori. Mmbmm. Could you recall, in a very brief overview, what had Lori said to you-- Minh. -with or without Mr. Malenko being present-- Mahmm. Right. --that--of the conflict that was in their relationship? The--what was said to me was, at the--in the January session, was a concern that Igor was not able to support--give her the support, which she had a full-time job, was nursing Mila, and he was not able to pick up the things that needed to do10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 for support of her, and that they were working on that issue. And that was the first beginning sense of, "This is not going well." Okay. Did Lori, at any point, report to you any incidences that she considered to be--whether you did or not, she considered to be abusive to her (indiscernible)? Yes. What did she report to you? In February 4% Of what year? --0f 107-- Okay. --I got a call that Igor had hit her. and I called back, and Igor was in the background, and he agreed--both of them agreed to come for an emergency session the next day. And did they do that? And they did. Okay. And they met with you? Correct. Okay. Can you describe for the Court what happened during that session? What was said-- Yes. --by both people?10 i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 Well-- As best as you can remember. Yes. What was said was that--and what was the biggest concern for me was the--Igor described as having a ball in his chest that exploded, and he--it was out of control with that experience. Let me stop you there. Yes. Did Mr. Malenko describe to you what happened that precipitated this session? No. Did Lori tell you what happened? They--what--what--let me just think for a minute, here. I'm--I'll speak again. What Igor said was that he was having a flashback of the incident of when he was six--the sixteen year old incident, which I'm sure the Court has already heard. and that in--what was pertinent was the feeling to be a need--I can't--T can't--I'm out of control. I'm out of control. I can't hear words and things repeated. I'm out of control. Did he mean that? I don't what to say what you interpreted that, but did he talk to you about out of control that one day, in general, when he was sixteen? What did he say to you about being out10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 of control? A What he said was that this is the first time of being out of control, although he said, also, that, "I have flashbacks of when I was sixteen, and I hurt that young boy, and I'm concerned about that." Q Did he say to you how often he had flashbacks to the incident when he was sixteen? A No. He didn't say how often he had--he also said later, at another incident, also had flashbacks of when he was--or the--of that incident at sixteen. Q Okay. A And, it--to me, it's the flashback that is what I'm targeting. MR. WAXMAN: I'm going to object. This is not an expert. She can testify about her observations of the witnesses [sic]. I don't think it's appropriate to have her give her opinion about any matter at all. WITNESS: I'm a licensed clinical social worker. MR. WAXMAN: I'm aware of that. You're qualified, but you're not designated, so-- COURT: Well, what part of her--the response was a narrative response, as are many of the witnesses! responses in this case. What part of that response do10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 you object to? MR. WAXMAN: When she started to say what concerned her, I think that's irrelevant. What concerned her is irrelevant. MR. ALTSHULER: She's working-- COURT: Well--well, we'll take the answer. She was working with the couples [sic] as--trying to counsel them, so, her concerns were relevant. $0, go right ahead. MR. ALTSHULER: --okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q Let me back you up again. A Yes. Q Did he--did Mr. Malenko ever describe to you this incident that happened when he was sixteen? A Yes, he did. and-- Q How did he describe it to you? A --4n the very first intake session, he described that he was out of control, that the boy was teasing him, and that in the teasing him, he lost control and beat him to the point that he was hospitalized and in a coma, in serious trouble, and that he had psychiatric help, and that that was the description-- Q That who had psychiatric help?10 i 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 --that he--that Igor had psychiatric help at that time. Okay. He said that to you? He said that to me. He also--well-- Go ahead. what else did he say? --he also said that at the age of ten, he decided that his father was not a good father, that he had to raise himself, and his father was abusive, and he-- He described his father as being abusive? --exactly. And he iterated that in subsequent session, when more of the explosive episodes occurred. So, now, we go from--he said about ten years old, and he said about sixteen years old. So, this incident with the slapping of the hands-- Mmmm, -for lack of a better word-- Yes. --is that the first time he reported to you an incident that was involved in a flashback? Correct. Okay. And after that, was there another--any other incidences that he reported to you as being part of the same kind of flashback--result of a 1010 uw 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 flashback? That was the predominant one. And there was another one, and I'm trying to remember which the other one was. There was another one. One of the times when we were talking with him about trying to support Igor to look at what was happening when he had his out of control anger times, what--how could we support him to gain control again without exploding. The explosive episodes was what I was concerned about. And in those explosive episodes, there were times when he had flashbacks to the incident at sixteen. Did Mr. Malenko ever describe to you having explosive incidences other than the sixteen year old--when he was sixteen, when he--the hand- slapping was second. Mmhmm. Did he, in general, talk to you about having other explosive episodes? No, because at that point, from the very first time when we had the emergency session, I referred him to Dr. Ronald Finetech [sic], who is an expert in anger issues. And I felt that that was the most important thing, and, also, to a psychiatrist at True North, Dr. Miles Simmons, for an 110 i 12 13 14 15 16 qT 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 evaluation to-- Q And why did you think it was important to refer him to Mr. Finetech? A --for anger management. My experience in working with people with severe abuse is that when that sense of being totally out of control is part of their repertoire, and it goes back to an earlier time. It's not just an individual incident or a situational incident. It's based on the past history, and that when that history is healed, they can move out of that. MR. WAXMAN: I'm going to object to this, your Honor, as being beyond the scope and beyond her qualifications in this case, to talk about. MR. ALTSHULER: Well, your Honor, frankly, I'm bringing this in as a rebuttal witness to virtually everything Mr. Malenko said about all of his experiences and how--you know--and she is describing something very contrary to what Mr. Malenko described. So, I think she's entitled, as his mental health provider, to testify in a way that contradicts some of the things he's said. COURT: As to statements made, she certainly can testify to anything that is contrary to what--but I don't believe that was the objection, is that-- a210 i 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 MR. ALTSHULER: I'm sorry. Maybe I missed the objection. MR. WAXMAN: Well, my objection is she's talking now about her feelings and opinions about what's appropriate to do for someone in his condition. And I don't think it's appropriate. MR. ALTSHULER: I asked her why she referred him to Mr. Finetech. COURT: And she said because Mr. Finetech is an anger--specialist n expert--or--in anger. And, so let's move on to-- MR. ALTSHULER: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q When's the last time you did work with Mr. Malenko? A Let me see. I can't give you an exact date. Q Approximately when? A Would have--I can't tell you that without--I have a little book in my pocketbook that I could look it up, but I don't have it in my mind. It would-- from the time that I referred him to Dr. Finetech, there was a time when I think we saw he and Lori two times for additional support, and at that time, they were--also began working with my recommendations, and they chose to go back to work 1310 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 with the counselor they had worked with before, as a couple. When you worked with Mr. Malenko-- Right. --and Lori, either together or separate-- Right. --did you ever express to them--or did you ever have any concern, based on what they were saying to you-- Mimhmm. -with Mila's safety while with Mr. Malenko? That's exactly why we had the emergency session. Why? Because I was very concerned--when there's any out of control behavior by any party in a family, that the child is not unsafe unless they are seeking immediate help around the--whatever the issues are that precipitate that out of control behavior. To me, it doesn't matter which--what precipitates. It's the fact that if they go to the point of out ef control, to--in my opinion, a child is not safe. Did you ever hear anything from Mr. Malenko or from Lori, or observing it yourself, that caused you to be concerned with Mila's safety when being 1410 ul 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 cared for by Lori? A I never heard that. No. Q © Okay. Your concern was solely with Mr. Malenko? A Correct. MR. ALTSHULER: I have nothing further, your Honor. COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Waxman? MR. WAXMAN: Thank you, your Honor. Just briefly. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WAXMAN Q = Miss Knowlton-- A Yes. Q 9 --I'm Michael Waxman, I'm Igor Malenko's attorney. We've not met, correct? A Yes. Q Are you here under subpoena? A Yes Q You are? How many times have you spoken with Attorney Altshuler? A ‘Three times Q We haven't spoken at all, correct? A Correct. Q Now, you work at True North, right? A ‘That's correct. Q And Miles Simmons is the psychiatrist there, right? 1510 rT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 Correct. Now, before you testified today, did you review any of the records of True North? Correct. Okay. You're aware that Miles Simmons, a psychiatrist, has concluded that what's at stake here, really, in terms of the relationship between Mr. Malenko and his wife is that there's a lot of stress being created in the marital relationship, right? Correct. All right. And, in fact, with regard to Mr. Malenko, that's the conclusion that he reached, that his--any anxiety he was suffering from was not a major mental health disorder, but, rather, situational and because of the relationship stress, correct? Not correct, siz. That's not correct? Because it was--his assessment was--in the very first--right after the very first incident, and there were many subsequent incidents, and it's the acceleration of those incidents that is of concern. Yeah. I think maybe I either misspoke or you 1610 ry 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 misheard me. Dr. Miles Simmons has filed a report in this case. And that report says that he doesn't--Ivor Malenko does not have any major mental health issues, but, rather, any problems he's having are situational, and as a result of the relationship stress, true? That's what his report said earlier than-- Okay. --the time in which the acceleration occurred. And I have to keep saying that, because that's the difference between what you're saying-- I see. --and what my position is. Okay. How much of today's hearing--testimony and evidence did you hear? Oh, I've been here since twelve-thirty. Okay. And you think you know better than Miles Simmons? I'm not going to answer that, sir. Thank you. COURT: Ms. Stout? MS. STOUT: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. STOUT And, Ms. Knowlton, just to clarify that previous question. 1710 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Yes. Dr. Simmons issued an opinion in approximately January of 2008. Is that the opinion that we're talking about? I don't know. I have no re--no report in front of me to know what--to verify a date. Okay. But you know that the parties were in Budapest in October of 2007? Yes. Correct. And it was after their return that he-- Correct. =-did the evaluation with Dr. Simmons? Correct. So, it would have been either late 2007 or early 2008, is that right? I don't have it in front of me, so, I'm-- But does that make sense to you? -it makes sense. Okay. Yeah. And, 80, the acceleration that you're talking about occurred after January of 2008? The acceleration--the major acceleration occurred in--from my--there was a period of time when I wasn't as involved, when they were working with 1810 ul 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 their psychologist, where I don't have ace don't have any records in my record. I picked it back up with the return of Lori and Igor from Budapest. And from that time on, there--the--is where the accelerations that really concerned me. Q I'm going to show you two documents that I've marked as GAL Exhibit 4 and GAL Exhibit 5, and just ask you if you can (indiscernible)? MR, ALTSHULER: Can I see that real quick? Q If you could just quickly look at those-- A Yeah. Q and tell me if they look familiar? A They're familiar. Yes. This one is, anyway. Q Are those two email messages to you from Dr. Handrahan? A Correct. Q And as far as your brief review and you can tell, do they appear to be accurate copies of messages that you received? A Yes. MS. STOUT: I'd move for admission of 4 and 5, your Honor. COURT: Any objection? MR. ALTSHULER: I object, your Honor. I mean, first of-- 1910 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 COURT: On what basis? MR. ALTSHULER: --first of all, they're hearsay. They're out of court statemen:s by--no, it's an--under the rules of evidence, it's a hearsay statement, even if Lori wrote it. Second of all, I'd have to see if there was emails before and after that. I'd love to see the responses. It's not a complete record. But it is hearsay, and I object to it. She can testify to what was said to her. COURT: Okay. Why would you say it's hearsay? MR. ALTSHULER: Because, by the definition of hearsay, it's an out of court statement if it's not an admission. Now, I don't know--I didn't read the whole email. If it's admitting to something that she denies, then it would be an exception to hearsay. It's a hearsay because it's an out of court statement, be it a party or be it a non-party, it is still hearsay under the rules of evidence. COURT: Well, you--are you saying that it's not, quote, "an admission"? Is that why it's-- MR. ALTSHULER: I didn't read it. COURT: --is that why it's hearsay? MR. ALTSHULER: I looked at it for five seconds. I haven't read the whole email. when Miss Stout gave it to me, I read it and saw it was from her to 2010 rT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Bat 22 23 24 25 Allie, 80 I knew it was okay Sor her to ask questions about it, but I didn't read the whole contact. COURT: All right. you say it's hearsay. better why? MR. ALTSHULER: If it's 2 an email from my client that's somebody else, it is a hearsay (Indiscernible) verbal, it's a it's an admission, which is en rule. It is hearsay COURT: If she's a party, MR. ALTSHULER: COURT: --still hearsay? MR. ALTSHULER: Under the hearsay. COURT: Okay. I guess I'm puzzled as to why Could you explain to me a little statement from--if it's made out of court to statement. hearsay statement unless exception to the hearsay it's That's correct, your Honor. rules of evidence, it is Does either attorney want to comment on the argument made about this being hearsay? MS. STOUT: (Indiscernible) statement by a party opponent and is therefore admissible. COURT: Okay. Mr. Waxman? MR. WAXMAN: I've got nothing. COURT: Okay. I--they're admitted. MR. ALTSHULE! COURT: Of course. 21 I'm sorry. May I read it, your Honor? I thought you had10 uw 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 had a chance to-- MR. ALTSHULER: I--no. It was handed to me for about five seconds, your Honor. COURT: --okay. Why don't you take a good look through it? (PAUSE) MR. ALTSHULER: Well, your Honor, I simply-- frankly (indiscernible). I mean, I'm--you've admitted it. I'm noting my exception-- COURT: How long are those emails? MR. ALTSHULER: --well, three pages, three pages each. MS. STOUT: One is three, and one's- MR. ALTSHULER: One is three and one is two. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard? The proper course of examination is that this part--this party may question the witness. She must show the document at some point to the opposing counsel. But there's no requirement that he be able to take his time to read it before she examines the witness. COURT: No. I understand. I just wanted to give Mr. Altshuler a chance to see what's in those documents. I think he has--I think it's--in fairness, he ought to see those. MR. ALTSHULER: I--well, actually, I am entitled 2210 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 25 to read it, not slowly, but fast. I don't have time to read it, your Honor. I have too many other things T have to put in, couRT: All right. MS. STOUT: I have nothing further, your Honor. COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to staple these documents. All right. Mr. Altshuler, do you have any redirect? MR. ALTSHULER: I do not, your Honor. COURT: Okay. Ms. Knowlton, thank you very much. MR. ALTSHULER: And if she wishes to be excused, she can be excused finally, your Honor? COURT: Absolutely. MR. ALTSHULER: You can either stay or leave, depending which you want. COURT: Mr. Altshuler, do you have one remaining witness? MR. ALTSHULER: Yes. Lesley Devoe, your Honor. COURT: Okay. MR. ALTSHULER: Can you tell me the parameters--I mean, I don't know if the cross-examination of the guardian is my time or her time. This is more-- COURT: It's her time. It's her time. MR. ALTSHULER: --this is more important to me-- COURT: Cross-examination of the guardian is her 2310 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 25 time. She took an hour and a half. I--originally, we thought two and a half hours for the guardian was what we were going to allot. That leaves an hour. But, that depends upon how long each of you depend--intend to cross-examine Ms. Stout. And-- MR. ALTSHULER: It's more important for me to examine this witness than Ms.--I mean, it's important for me to do both, but this is more important than that. COURT: --all right. Mr. Waxman, how long do you think you may cross-examine Miss Stout? MR. WAXMAN: Very short. COURT: About how long? MR. WAXMAN: Ten minutes, fifteen minutes. COURT: Ten minutes? Okay. Mr. Altshuler? MR. ALTSHULER: If I had unlimited time or-- COURT: Well-- MR. ALTSHULER: --a reasonable cross-examination would probably be a half hour, but I don't think I COURT: --all right. Let me suggest this. I intend to end--we're supposed to end at four, correct, cara [sic]? CLERK: Yes. cour: All right. Cara says we're supposed to end at four. I intend to go for another roughly two 2410 iW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 hours. It's two-fifteen now. I intend to go to about four-fifteen. We're--it's overtime, but I think we need to. So, if you have two hours, Mr. Altshuler, understanding Mr. Waxman is going to use ten or fifteen minutes to cross-examine Miss Stout, you can gauge how you want--how you'd like to go from there. MR. ALTSHULER: I obviously am. I'11 just note if the report could come in, it would be faster, but I understand the Court's ruling on that. So I'll be as fast as I can. COURT: Okay. MR, ALTSHULER: Please state your name for the record. COURT: Actually, we need to swear the witness in. MR. ALTSHULER: Oh, I'm sorry, your Honor. COURT: And who is tl 2 MR. ALTSHULER: Lesley Devoe. L-e-s-l-e-y is her first name. WITNESS: E-y. MR. ALTSHULER: I thought I said that. Devoe, D-e--is it capital v-o-e? WITNESS: No. Small v. MR. ALTSHULER: D-e-v-o-e. COURT: Wonderful. Thank you. And is it Miss Devoe? 2510 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 25 WITNES: : Yes, Mmbmm. COURT: Ms. Devoe, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give in court today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? WITNESS: I do. COURT: Thank you very much. WITNESS: Mmhmm. COURT: Please have a seat. LESLEY DEVOE, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, ALTSHULER Q Good afternoon. A Good afternoon. Q Please state for the record what your name is. A My name is Lesley Devoe. Q And where do you--you have a practice, is that correct? A That's correct. I'ma licensed clinical social worker in private practice in Rockland. Q And, very briefly, when did you get your deg-- your--your most advanced degree is in what? A Yeah. I've a Masters Degree in social work from the University of Minnesota. Q And when did you receive that? A 1977. 2610 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 And what have you done after that, in the past thirty-one years-- Uh-huh. --in your professional capacity? Beginning to feel old. I developed a specialty first in child sex abuse identification and treatment. Then I developed an--about fifteen years ago, a speciality in the assessment of domestic abuse. During that time, I've made numerous presentations to groups around the state, including to CMO's, judges, guardians ad litem, mental health professionals, foster parents. 1 also train psychiatrists. I did a presentation of a homicide review case that I worked on to psychiatrists in New York City. I have also done consultation for psychologists. Right now, a psychologist is coming to me for consultation, and I've also had--I had a psychiatrist coming to me for months at a time to learn about child sex abuse in her practice. I've written many training tools. One is the domestic abuse--it's a matrix that I believe was--I don't know if that's made it into the judge's records or not. I've developed xecently a domestic abuse paradigm. I've rewritten the domestic abuse power wheel that was 2710 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 done in Duluth, to show how batterers manipulate mental health professionals. I'm writing a book right now on how mental health professionals are-- or how batterers manipulate mental health and legal professionals. And I started and tr--I did a course-- (cough) --excuse me--I created and taught a two-year course for Masters Degree social workers at the University of Maine at Orono. One other thing I neglected to mention is I also worked with child sex offenders at the Maine State Prison as a co-therapist for two years, for two hours a week. Is it fair to say that you have a focus, during the last thirty-one years, on issues of domestic violence? Yes, particularly in the last fifteen. Okay. And can you possibly estimate how many _ cases you have been involved in, either in family cases, DHHS cases, protection from abuse cases, that involved domestic violence? There's no way--I'm terrible with numbers. There's just no way I can tell you numbers and have that be accurate. More than ten? Yes. More than ten. Probably--we have a contract 2810 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 your with the Department of Health and Human Services, my colleagues and I. And probably fifty percent of my work is trauma related. Okay. How did you become involved in this case? Lori called me and asked me--she said she needed someone to take a look at her case from a domestic abuse paradigm, which I said I would do, because that's very different from a mental health and medical paradigm. And I said I would be willing to do that. And when was it that she contacted you? That was in September, I believe, toward the end of September. Of this year? September 8. Sorry. September 8". Of this year? Yes. And pursuant to that request-- MR. ALTSHULER: --and may I approach the witness, Honor? COURT: Of course. I'm going to show you a report that's dated November 21", 2008. Is this the report that you drafted pursuant to the request of Lori Handrahan, outlining your findings and conclusions? 2910 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 A Yes, it is. Mmhmm. Q Okay. And I'm going to show you-- MR. ALTSHULER: --I'm not sure, Did we mark this as an exhibit, her--okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's in the back. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q As part of the document-- (ATTORNEYS CONFER) Q --these are the--there is--attached to your report, there's what's called documents attached to Lesley Devoe's report. A Mmbmm. Q And this shows twenty-three things. Could you very briefly outline for the Court what documents you reviewed in formulating your opinion? A dust read the list? @ Yeah. And when you get to a particular list, I may ask you--well, maybe it's better if I don't do this. But, you get-- MR. WAXMAN: I'd be happy to stipulate that if she claims that she saw these records, then you can--and this is admissible, if you ask me. MR. ALTSHULER: --oh, all right. That's good. Thank you. COURT: So, mark that as-- 3010 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 MR. ALTSHULER: #-- COURT: --where are we up on defendant's exhibits? CLERK: 6. CouRT: #6. CLERK: Well, it would be 7, actually. COURT: I'm sorry. #7. CLERK: We have 6. I'm sorry. MR. ALTSHULER: Thank you. And, thank you, counsel. MR. WAXMAN: You're welcome. MR. ALTSHULER: So accommodating. May I approach, your Honor? COURT: Of course. Thank you very much. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q Do you have a copy of that, Lesley, with you, from-- A Not accessible. Q -okay. Hold on. A And I think it's only handwritten. MR. WAXMAN: Here. MR. ALTSHULER: No, I'm-- COURT: You can--would you like--well-- MR, ALTSHUER: --I've got it, your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q What I'd like you to very briefly is pick out the 3110 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 most--any report in there that was of specific significance to you in formulating your recommendation. And say what about it was significant to your ultimate findings and conclusions? I know they were all important together. We don't have a lot of time, so. A Yeah. Q --the most important? And please refer to the number, too. A Number four, Jessica's letter or email, describes early contact--two points of interest. One is early contact, her conversation with Igor saying that he, after four days, was going to marry and have-- MR. WAXMAN: Objection. I don't have a problem with her saying which things she relied upon, but I think to talk about the content of those things, which have not yet been admitted, is inadmissible hearsay. COURT: Well-- MR. ALTSHULER: All these documents were used as a basis for the opinion she's formulating to present to the Court. I'm not going to be allowed to submit the report to the Court, but she can say what about it she relied upon. COURT: --all right. We'll take the answer. 3210 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Okay. Go ahead. Stating that the early part of the courtship, that Igor moved the relationship through very quickly, and that she had concerns. And, also, that she spent some time in Maine, and his moods ruled, basically. He didn't speak to her for a while because she was a vegetarian, didn't eat the fish that he was cooking. Okay. Jackie Campbell's affidavit is very, very important. I've seen her speak, and I've read her book, and she's been mischaracterized, as I understand it, by-- No. (Indiscernible) . --I'm sorry. Who is Jackie Campbell? Jackie Campbell is a lethality expert, a Ph.D. nurse of Johns Hopkins, I believe. And her affidavit is very, very important. Okay. And what about what she--the information you got from her was significant to your investigation and conclusions? Her concerns about lethality in terms of this case. 3310 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 Q Okay. A Actually, they agreed with my concerns. Q Okay. Continue. A Okay. ‘MR. WAXMAN: Objection. Motion to strike. Who agreed with whom? That's-- COURT: That's granted. Next question? DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q Okay. Go ahead. A ‘The copy of the criminal charge of Igor when sixteen years old was very significant. Q Why was that significant? A Because, first of all, it was very serious. It was an assault, and a young man was really badly hurt. And what I saw in the various ways that Igor described it, I saw a batterer, a manipulation of professionals, and I saw minimization. And I had real concerns about the changing story. MR, WAXMAN: I just want to lodge an objection for clarification. You say Igor's--the witness was talking about Igor's manner of describing it. I don't think she's ever had a conversation with Igor, so I want the Court to be clear on what she's basing Igor! statements on. 3410 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 COURT: I'm clear of that. Proceed, please. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER And before you go any further-- Mabmn. --you did not meet with Mr. Malenko? That's correct. I tried to, but was denied. You made a request to meet with him? Yes. Mmhmm. And they declined to do that? That's correct. Okay. Go ahead. A letter from David Pritchard-- Why was that--and why was that--what was the significance of that in your evaluation? --this was significant because it so showed a mental health professional not understanding mental--or not understanding domestic abuse, and doing what I call leveling. What is leveling? Leveling is where you take the accountability off the batterer and put it on gradually, step by step by step, the battered woman. And I actually had a pretty strong reaction, because I thought here is a person who--not only was I concerned that he was leveling, but he was seeing them as a couple, and 3510 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 25 then he decided he--he showed his favoritism to Igor by agreeing to see Igor individually afterward-- Is that-- --which I thought was really a boundary problem. --is--I was going to ask you that. Mmbmm, In your profession, is that a boundary problem? Yes. That is correct. One more question about leveling-- Mihm. -and I'ma lay person. Mmmm. But, is it, for example, if a party or a court requires one party to do something because they think that party needs to do it, but requires the spouse to do it, as well, even if that other person may not need to do that, is that leveling? That's a really good example. Okay. Well, good. Yeah. Okay. Move on to what's the next document. The two emails from Igor to Lori, one in particular that I remember showed that she was raising perfectly normal parenting concerns, and 3610 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 then Igor, as I described in my report, listed just sort of in a very harsh way, very demeaning way, called her a liar and all sorts of things that had nothing to do with what she had been saying. A photo of the dog--I mean, she was accused of abusing the dog, by Igor, by doing a bad shaving job, and I saw the shaving job, and it was--you know, as I said in my report, it was a bad shaving job, but it wasn't abuse. And I was particularly wanting to see that, because Igor had actually abused his dog, himself, and was accusing her of doing that. And, so, T thought that that was really important to follow up on in terms of details. The letter from Lou Ivy, I was impressed with because she had witnessed--on the phone, she had heard Igor yelling at Lori, and then stopping yelling. And I thought that that was interesting. That really supported my notion that the whole mental illness concept was a red herring, that he wasn't mentally ill, that he was a batterer, an abuser, and that he--otherwise, he wouldn't be able to stop it so easily. Shauna Handrahan's letter was very important because--and, also, it was followed by a phone call that I had with her, that showed that-- 3710 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 Shauna Handrahan is Lori's sister? Lori's sister--that she had been involved-- she told me so clearly how Lori, in her family of origin, would stand up to her profoundly abusive father. This is a man who took a two by four to an animal and so on. She would stand up to him, and defend her mother and her sister. And I felt like--I felt that that was very significant, because it was showing that she's doing the same thing now, and--but, also, she told me about a situation where her mother, who had been unable to protect her children, was involved in a marriage now where she was unable to stand up to her husband. And she gave me an example in Bar Harbor, where her mother would not let her--she was having really bad pains, and was a pregnant woman in the car, called her doctor in California. The doctor said, "You may be having a miscarriage. Go to the hospital." And this is in Bangor, so she said to her mother, "Please--"--she was--her mother was driving. “Please take me to the hospital." Mother's well, "No. You know, Woody doesn't have a cell phone. I can't reach him. We're supposed to meet him in Ellsworth. I can take you to the hospital there." Well, an hour 3810 u 2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 later in traffic, in summer traffic, she was in agony and really scared that she was losing her baby. And her mother wouldn't take her until she'd gone over and--so she could talk to Woody and tell her [sic] that. And T actually had a session--I had a m:eting with Jan Tarbuck, and she confirmed that tha: was the truth. And she--but she had a differen: side. She sort of said, under her breath, "Well, you know, doctors are worried about malpractice and all that," but she did confirm that her husband didn't have a phone, and--but she didn’: look at any other solutions, and her daughter suffered. Okay. Next? Okay. I guess the most important was the CD of Igor licking Mila's hand. Okay. Let's talk about that. And the Court--just so you know, the judge has seen-- Has seen it? --the entirety of the DVD. This was one scene-- Mimbo. --on the C--DvD. -why that was significant to 3910 u 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 That was significant--I looked at that and just had to say, as an adult, I was pretty horrified. If I had no training at all in child sex abuse or identification, I would have been horrified. First of all, because I have my--I have experience- So, in the context of your training-- --in my--but in terms of my training-- --yes. =-I looked at that, and I thought, "Here's a baby whose eyes are closed, who's sleeping. He's taking her hand, putting it in his mouth, and he's licking each finger individually, and he's sucking on each finger, And I saw that as eroticized affection. I also saw that as a real exhibitionism, because he sent it off to various people, friends. And they were horrified. One couple said that they didn't want to have him-- their child around him any more. But I saw that in context of his refusal to let anybody else bathe Mila, including the nanny. And that meant that for the week that the nanny took care of the baby, Mila was given sponge baths for a whole week. And I--also, during one episode, he blocked the door--he was taking Mila for a bath. And she 4010 cr 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2a 2 23 24 25 was really upset and didn't want to go. And Lori said, you know, "I'm not gonna let you take him [sic] --take her to have--"--and he insisted into, actually, why she's so upset [sic]. Lori reported to me she said--he said, "Why is she so upset? What did you do to her the last time you had a bath with her? I'm gonna make you strip." He basically tried to make her strip, made Lori strip, to take her into the tub with her daughter, and that he would watch and make sure she did the right bathing routine. I'd also read, in Liz Stout's report, that--oh, gosh, I can't remember where I was going with this. We're talking about why the DVD was concerning to you. Well, okay. It was mainly the--that--oh, I know what it was, it was the--she had asked--Liz Stout had said that he was afraid--he was a pool instructor or a swimming instructor. And he had all of these issues about pool safety, and he knew that children could drown in pools. And he was equating that to safety in a tub. And I was quite concerned at that logic. And I thought--I was also concerned that Liz wasn't sufficiently concerned about that. All of that together, 4110 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 because of what I know about projections for offenders, for abusers, their ability to take, you know, what's in them that they're--don't find acceptable and sort of put it on others, I found that very alarming that he would say, "What did you do in the last bath?" Sort of accusing her of doing something inappropriate, because Mila was crying because she didn't want to have a bath with her father, not with her mother. And, also, Lori had told me that her father would take long baths, like twenty-five minutes, twenty minutes, rather than her ten minutes. And all of that together really concerned me in ter--another piece of this, too, was that Lori had said that Igor often said, "I'd rather be fucked up the ass by the JNA than be with you," and I just thought that was sexualized anger. And, here, I was hearing sexualized affection. And I was also concerned in context that there are a lot of unknowns about the abuse, the type of abuse that Igor received. and in a phone conversation with Allie, he had said to her that his grandmother said, "You've got to leave when you're -when he was ten, because he was afraid his father--or she was afraid his father would kill him. And, so, all I'm--I'm. 4210 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 just to wrap it up-- What--no. No. t's a lot of questions about her past--about his past. Nothing has come out in a--no one has asked him detailed questions about the abuse. It's referred to in these reports, but never details. And that really worried me. In the psychologist's report, he even said he'd never been abused. --and I'1l--I'm going to break that down a little. Mohmn. But, obviously, the information you received, other than the documents you've listed-- Moho. --the vast majority of information came from Lori Handrahan, correct? Correct. (Indiscernible). You obviously spoke to other people. You talked to the guardian ad litem in the course of this? Mmmm. That's a ye--you have to answer yes or no. oh, y + Sorry. How about Dr. Kabakoff£? Did you talk to Dr. Kabakof£? 4310 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 No. Okay. Are you concerned at all--how does it affect the validity of your conclusions that you were unable to speak with Mr. Malenko? Well, I find it disappointing that he wasn't allowed to do that, and I also find it disappointing that Liz kept some information from me that might have been helpful. Now, what information did Liz keep from you, and how do you know that? Well, she said so in her--she said there was a fair amount of information that I wasn't privy to. And I had actually called her and shared the DVD with her. And I was wondering why she didn't do the reverse courtesy. Did she tell you why she was not providing you with that information? No. It was just in the report, saying that there wasn't-- Oh, in the supplemental report? --in the supplemental report. Right. Does the fact that you only got information from Lori and everything else you've referred to, does that diminish the validity of your findings and conclusions in this case? 4410 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 aA I don't believe it does, because most--most people who work with survivors don't work with batterers directly. What they need to find out about batterers, they find out from battered women. Well, what-- But, also, I want to say that I did so much digging and comparing of records and so on, and looking at emails, and talking to people by phone, that I feel like I did as much as I possibly could without talking to Igor. --and that was my question. What if everything that was said to you--take this as a hypothetical-- ‘Mimbo . £ everything she said to you is an outright lie, just--she is just make--everything she's said to you up--from the beginning to the end-- Mmmm. -and nothing she has said to you is true, how do you know that if she's the primary source of your information? How do you know what you conclude is valid, just based--if that's the source of your information? Well, you check and you check and you check. And I did a lot of checking. I also, at certain 4510 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 points, will lead a witness to see if I can push them and sort of add some information, and to see where they go with that. And Lori was very precise. She was very precise, and I--at one point--there was an example, for exam--I--this is an example. She said to me she and Igor and the baby and the dog were leaving to go shopping or for a walk, I guess. And Igor started--Mila started to cry. And Igor raised his hand to hit her, and she confronted him about that. He said, "Oh, I--I thought it was the dog." And, so, I said to her--I was writing that down, so, I said, “Igor hit Mila?" And she said, "No. No. He didn't hit her. He started to." I said, "Oh, thank you." You know, and I took that as a good sign that she was very precise, and not wanting to sort of lay on a lot of things that weren't true. I want to get to your conclusions and then backtrack a little bit- Mnbmm . --and ask you how you got there. You conducted-- you said what you looked at--and be very careful pouring that water, because it can spill all over (indiscernible) . Okay. Thanks. 4610 ul 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 25 So I want you to pay attention to that. Okay. (Indiscernible) exhibit drenched. You've already said of all the records you've looked at, and we have that exhibit--you--there were some people you've talked to that are not listed in those documents, correct? I think you mentioned shauna Handrahan. Yes. You spoke to the guardian ad litem? ‘Mmhmm. Uh-huh. Are there other people--Allie Knowlton. Allie Knowlton, Fran Fuller from NAMI [sic]. --okay. National Association of Mentally Ill. Do you want me to exp-- If you remember, off the top of your head, other people you spoke to? =-you don't want me to explain what-- Oh, sure. Go ahead. Okay. Fran Fuller was involved with Lori on the phone fairly regularly for consultation, and as was his staff. And he actually-- MR. WAXMAN: I'm going to object to this information coming in. It's hearsay, and I--she can 4710 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 4 25 say she relied on information from her [sic], but I think it's back-door hearsay. MR. ALTSHULER: I'm okay with that. COURT: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q You can't say what Fran said to you. A Okay. Q I'm--what I'm trying to get at is who you spoke to to gather information-- A Mmhmm, Q --and who they are. You can testify to that. A Okay. Q Okay. So, Fran Fuller was-- A Yeah. Q 0 -=NAMI? A Yeah. Q Who--do you know who else you spoke to that wouldn't be itemized in the list of documents that you referred to? What I'm trying to do is get to who else you spoke to that the judge wouldn't know by looking at that exhibit. A Mmmm. Katherine Landon Malone, a nurse practitioner from True North. I read two--I saw two police reports, many, many emails. Q = Between who? 4810 u 12 13 14 15 16 47 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Lori and lots of people, and Igor and Lori, a couple of them. I saw notes from Frank Hoffberg, M.D., Hoffberg. I saw letters from Lori's former husband, Lori's employers, colleagues and friends. I saw a letter from the couples! real estate broker, and I received a letter from Michael Waxman, denying my request to meet with Igor. Is that pretty--so, we've covered everybody you talked to and everything you looked at in the course of your evaluation? As far as I believe at this point. Yeah. We'll get to the conclusions (indiscernible) . Uh-huh. Okay. Based on your evaluation, did you reach a conclusion as to whether or not you believe, first of all, Lori is a victim of domestic violence? I do believe she is. Okay. You reached that conclusion: Yes. --that you believe she is? Yes. Based on your evaluation, do you believe that Mr. Malenko is the perpetrator of that abuse? Yes. Okay. Let's go back and talk about what 4910 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 incidences support, in your mind, that conclusion, okay? Mmmm. Let's start with the incident when Mr. Malenko was sixteen years old. Is there something about that incident that contributes to your conclusion, and if so, why? I--could I even back it up further than that? Sure. Oh, ten years--is the ten year old-- Yeah. --okay. Go right ahead. Yeah. Domestic abuse really needs to be seen as a pattern of behavior. And it needs to be seen in context. And what I looked at was here's a situation where a man has been abused in his family so badly by his father--I mean, that his grandmother wanted him to leave so he'd be alive, so he wouldn't die at the hands of his father. That is a real concern. I mean, that is lethal, lethal, potentially lethal domestic abuse. Four years or six years later, he does a potentially lethal assault to a sixteen year old that leaves him in a permanent paralysis of one side, puts him in a coma, leaves him in a permanent paralysis. What I looked at, also, was the explanation he 5010 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 gave. And it changed from person to person to person. He told Lori that he was really upset by it, that he was playing soccer, and his friend--it was an accident. His friend got hurt. He took him to the hospital. He--it could have been him that got hurt. He implied that he fell backward and hit his head on a rock. But, then, when I saw the Macedonian criminal court record, it said that he--what jumped out for me in terms of domestic abuse was the statement, "I only wanted to scare him." I thought, Why is that revealing to you? That is so revealing because that's what domestic abuse is about. It's about power and control. It's about coercive control. He learned it in his family and his father, and, you know, you could say, "Well, a lot of people do have--experience domestic abuse or battering as children, but they don't identify with the aggressor." This told me that he was identifying with the aggressor, which is the bridge that moves somebody from an abuse experience as a child to then going out and hurting a partner, and, then, potentially, a child. And, so, that, to me, said he's identifying with the aggressor. And the way he 5110 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 talked about it, the way he minimized it, the way--also spoke to me about the slide from the truth that abusers are well known for, and that, unfortunately, mental health professionals slide right along with him and believe him, and don't pick up. Q ‘The--I may take this out of chronological order, and I apologize. Let me see if I--one second, here. (PAUSE) MR. ALTSHULER: TI want to make sure I got the--can I have Lori's file--Lori's file? Give me one second. (PAUSE) MR. ALTSHULER: Here it is. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q I believe--I'm locking for the next incident. Here--of alleged abuse. But do you know what the next incident was? A Well-- Q = There was a-- MR. WAXMAN: I'm going to object to the leading nature of the question you're about to submit. MR. ALTSHULER: --okay. courT: Well-- MR, ALTSHULER: Let me ju-- 5210 iW 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 COURT: --let's--let's--I think we're going to allow some leading, because we need to get through this. MR. ALTSHULER: --I'm actually--thank you, your Honor. I'm--I just meant to--let me just (indiscernible) . Q > © DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Well, what is it that you recall, if you know, the next incident that Lori reported to you as an abusive behavior on Mr. Malenko's part, do you recall? The next abusive behavior I remember--and--was when they had not--they'd been together not very long. They weren't even married. There was no child, no pregnancy. I believe it was in Holland. And he, Igor, had had trouble with the car, and he punched his dog in the face. And he felt terrible about it for the whole weekend, apparently was very sad, you know, crying, "I didn't mean to do it. I feel terrible," and all that. And why was that significant to you? Pet abuse is very significant in domestic abuse. How is pet abuse significant? Well, it's significant because it says something about how you attach to objects or people. And, 5310 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 also, it's very significant in terms of a risk factor for child abuse, for then abusing your child. And if you're abusing a pet, that has real significance to a child. So, it gets really--it's very, very important. And it also became the basis for him later accusing Lori of taking her frustrations out on the dog, that she felt for Igor, when, actually, he had done that years before. It's also significant because it shows that they were not married, they were not having a stressful relationship, and he was losing control. And what I--one of the best definitions I have of abuse is--for batterers is to lose control to gain control. And I see a pattern of that in this relationship that has nothing to do with the marriage or the stresses, which is what all the mental health center--all the mental health people were erroneously saying. $0, you know, if I had looked and never had seen it anywhere else, I would say, "Well, maybe they're right." But, then, I see it all the way through his life. Okay. I believe the next incident was the food-- an incident about food being--Lori alleges there was food--that Igor threw food at her. Do--did she report that to you? 5410 uw 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 Yes, she did. If that was the next event in the sequence, was that a factor in your evaluation? She was pregnant. Yes. And there are three risk factors that really, really move domestic abuse from a partner to a child, that I just consider vitally important. One is marital rape. The other is violence when pregnant, and the other is pet abuse. And, so, when there's violence when a person is pregnant, that--what that says basically is that the needs of that man at that moment to have control, and to have his say, overrides the safety of the pregnancy, of the woman, and it's not a good sign. And it really makes the whole argument that, you know, "I was under stress," it's a pattern. He's been under stress all of this relationship, from day one and even before the relationship. I believe the next incident was an allegation that a sweater--that Mr. Malenko threw a sweater at Lori while she was nursing-- Mmbmm. --Mila. Did she report that incident to you? Yes, she did. Okay. And was that incident of concern to you? 5510 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 That was of concern to me. Uh-huh. Now--and I understand that some people would think a sweater is not a big deal. Is--does it matter that it was a sweater? Why is that incident significant to you? It doesn't matter what it is. The fact is a mother is nursing a baby. She--the mother is really exposed. The baby is really exposed. and the danger is there. Again, it's what Wendy Bancroft [sic] calls overriding anyone else's safety except your own impulses and what's important to you at that moment. And with each of these incidents, Lori said that Mila started to cry, woke her up or her started to cry. And that's not good for a child. Okay. If--I believe the next incident was what we called the hand-slapping incident, where Mr. Malenko slapped--allegedly slapped Lori's hand- Mabmmn. --resulting in them going to True North. Did she xeport that situation to you? Yes, she did. Is that incident of concern to you? Yes, it is. And why? 5610 uW 2 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 25 Because, number one, it shows that he's out of control to gain control, and he doesn't even understand it, or he says he doesn't understand it. But, it's scary, because someone is getting hurt at the moment, and he's surprised by it, as well. And it harks back to when he was sixteen years old. So, what I later understood was that the psychologist didn't think that the sixteen year old episode was that important, but I think even Igor believes it's important. How important are incidences that happen in your childhood? How significant is this incident sixteen--oh, am I blowing it out of proportion (indiscernible)? No. It's formative. Well, why is it important? It's formative. Sixteen year olds have a lot of anger, but they don't send someone to the hospital, put them in a coma, have that person be paralyzed on the side of-- Okay. n the record, what was also significant was the family lied about the abuse. There it was. So, there was the beginning of the pattern of lying. And, also, it established--because of the 5710 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 different iterations of the story, it showed how Igor was also lying, and how it wasn't picked up by the mental health professionals, because they don't have a domestic abuse paradigm. They have a mental health, medical paradigm that is absolutely irrelevant, if not dangerous, when it comes to domestic abuse cases. And that's why that navigating article for judges is so important to be read, because it says exactly that by a psychiatri--psychologist, a judge and a lawyer, that a domestic abuse paradigm is--that domestic abuse is different and needs to be treated differently. What do you mean when you're saying domestic violence paradigm? What does that mean (indiscernible) terms? What is that? It means the questions need to be ask differently, that a lens needs to be looked at in terms of coercive control, in terms of exploitation financially, in terms of emotional abuse, in terms of pet abuse, in terms of sexual abuse. Expectation of truth and--you know, needs to be changed, basically. This is kinda taking this question out of order, but I think we all recognize that Lori--and don't 5810 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 get offended by this question--is very intelligent-- Mabon. --very successful. When the outside comes off, she describes herself as bossy and can be condescending. Mmbmm. Sometimes it's hard to believe somebody who appears to be that strong and independent could possibly be a victim of domestic violence. Is that--can women like her be victims of domestic violence in a period of time without stopping? Absolutely. And I think that's what's made this a particularly difficult case, because Lori does not--if you deal with violence from a mental health and medical point of view, you sort of expect--you sort of have a little bit of an understanding of domestic violence, but it's real superficial, and it's based on a lot of myths. And one of the myths is that battered women are compliant, they're downtrodden, they're really-- they're not angry. Mental health professionals are known for not liking angry women. And, so, angry survivors who talk a lot and don't stay focused, they don't like them. And I--you know, I 5910 crt 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 Bat 22 23 25 think there is some failure of empathy very clearly in even Miss Stout's report. But, my--the point I want to make is that not only can they be abused, actually, that can be the reason for the abuse, because of jealousy for the career, for because it blows away a man's entitlement. Lost my train of thought. (Indiscernible) -- I'm trying to--see, I'm trying to rush too much stuff in here in the length of time that I have. --well, don't. Don't. You have plenty of time, and I'm gonna make sure counsel has time to cross- examine you, because I'm sure-- Uh-huh. --they both have questions for you. so, I'm trying (indiscernible) this. Uh-huh. Now I forgot what I was gonna ask you. Oh, you said something very--at the beginning that I thought was interesting, because there's been some testimony that Lori keeps talking about Mr. Malenko being mentally il1-- Mahmn. --having a mental illness. And you said this is not about mental illness. And I know you can't 6010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 prt 2 23 24 25 diagnose mental illness, but-- I can, but not on somebody I haven't seen. --okay. But, you said this is not about mental illness. This is about domestic violence. Mihm. What did you mean by that statement? I mean that it's not about medication, but Lori wanted it to be about mental illness, because she didn't want it to be about abuse, basically. I think--she told me something very poignantly--when she gets off her revved central nervous system (indiscernible) scared presentation, she opened a door. And she said to me, "I believe that every time I resisted him and stood up to him, that I was not being like my mother, and it was not abuse." And, so, then, what I had to tell her was, "I'm sorry, but it was abuse." And that--it was really pretty crushing for her, because she at least had this badge of honor that she wasn't having an abusive relationship like her mother was, because she never--she had said to herself she would never let that happen. And, so, if you look at this from a mental health paradigm, you see a woman who is trying to go around and trying to get all these diagnoses, and I saw the way that 6110 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 was--also worked through all the reports, the ight diagnosis, this and this. Really victim blaming. But if you look at it from an abuse paradigm, you see that this is a woman who was doing active help-seeking. She was not trying to throw him out. She was trying to get the marriage to work. That's the only thing she thought would happen, because this guy was having rages, angry, and then very nice, very loving. So, she saw two men. And she loved the man who was very loving, and she really wanted to stay married to him. Well, isn't the fact that she would bring Mr. Malenko, or encourage him to go to ten, fifteen psychiatrists, and keep finding people to diagnose him and medicate him--that's been characterized as her being abusive. Is that not abusive to a certain extent? No. Well, why not? You know, it--that's called blaming the victim. It's called turning--she was the kind of person who--is the person who would just say everything about--all about herself, and be real transparent, and it gets used against her, whereas Mr. Malenko is very secretive about some of his stuff. And, 6210 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 4 25 so, he's like Teflon, and she's like velcro. And in the process, she's desperately, desperately trying to save this marriage, trying to stay safe, keep Mila safe. And she goes and she thinks, I'll get help. He'll say--you know, he'll go," and he goes along. And then it doesn't work. He doesn't take the pills, and she becomes more and more frustrated, and more afraid. I--you know, she presents herself as really tough and really angry and really solid, but she's very scared underneath. And I also saw that. I saw that door open. I believe her central nervous system was been permanently changed. MR. WAXMAN: Objection. I think it's beyond the scope of this woman's qualifications to talk about somebody's central nervous system being damaged. COURT: Okay. MR. ALTSHULER: I'11 move on to the next question. COURT: That's sustained. We'll take the next question. MR. ALTSHULER: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q want to talk briefly about Dr. Kabakoff's report and the guardian's report-- A Mmbmm. 6310 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 25 Q ~and then I'll be able to let counsel have a chance to ask you questions. Did you review Dr. Kabakoff's report? A Yes, I did. Q Okay. You did not--and I think you said you didn't talk to her? A ‘That's correct. Q Okay. Did you identify any concerns, first of all, with Dr. Kabakoff's--first of all, what her role is in the case, to begin with, what she--what her goal--what she was doing in the case? A Well, I believe-- MR. WAXMAN: Objection. That leads us beyond the scope of this expert's credentials, and beyond the designation, as well. I understand she's a domestic violence expert. I do not think she has the qualifications to second guess or criticize a Ph.D. or Py.D. psychologist's report. I don't think--it's beyond her qualifications. MR. ALTSHULER: That wasn't what I was asking her. The issue, your Honor, is that--it's the issue about whether or not to do a psychological evaluation on a domestic violence situation. That--I'm not--I was--I can lead and ask her that question. But that was what I was trying to get at by my question. I'm not asking 6410 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 her to say if Dr. Kabakoff-- COURT: Well, why don't you ask her the leading question, then? MR. ALTSHULER: --okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q -You--are you concerned with a psychological evaluation being done in a case in which domestic violence exists? A I'll give you the official domestic violence opinion on psych testing. Psych testing is-- provides a snapshot of how a person is at the moment. And what it does for a survivor is show how badly she's doing at that moment. It doesn't say anything about how she did before the abuse started occurring, or how she's going to do after the abuse occurred. Battered women look terrible in-psych testing, and batterers look great. They just--they don't have any particular mental illness, any diagnostic categories. It's not a situation about mental illness. And, as a result, they waltz off with a real clean bill of health, and they look good, and the woman looks bad. It ends up being the leveling that I was talking about. That's a real concern, because it's dangerous for women, and it--in child custody 6510 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 situations, it's problematic. And I just think it gets used very badly. Also, in this case, the evaluation was premised on a lie by Igor. He said, in the report, there was no domestic--no abuse in his family of origin, none. And, then, you know, looked in the report: Lori was very honest about hers, you know, very up front about hers. It was never picked up by anybody that he hadn't told the truth. From my point of view, that rules out the efficacy of the evaluation, because you have to have it based on truth. It's a parent capacity evaluation, and if it can't pick up lies, that's a problem. And from the domestic--from a domestic abuse point of view, tests that exaggerate--all of the tests--I can give a list here, and, actually, the navigating article is very helpful in terms of how really harmful tests can be, and they don't at all pick up abuse potential. In fact, I was--I went to a workshop by Joel Milner, who created the Child Abuse Potential Inventory. And he has written, as late as 2007, that that inventory (indiscernible) -- MR. WAXMAN: I'm going to object to this. This is hearsay. 6610 uu 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 COURT: Well, we'll take-- MR. ALTSHULER: Well, if she (indiscernible) -- WITNESS: --I actually have the-- COURT: --we'll take the answer. We need to move on here. MR. ALTSHULER: --okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q Go ahead. Go ahead and finish your answer. A --mmhmm, That it finds--I have the book with me, if that matters. Q Oh, okay. A ‘That it finds false negatives, and-- Q This is a test that Dr. Kabakoff used? A --mmbhmm. Q That's a yes? A Yes Q One of my questions of Dr. Kabakoff was kind of a comparison between testing and experiences. I went through the allegations of abuse incidents versus her testing. A Mmbmm. Q And her answer was, "Well, my--the testing showed this." Is there a comparison between the reliability of tests--in a domestic violence situation, testing and actual incidences being 6710 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 reported? Is one more relevant than the other or are they both equal? Is there more significance to one than the other? The literature basic--and research basically shows--I think this is going to be answering your question, that women's reports are more accurate than men's reports. Are there any other--for time constraints, we have to move along, so I'm going to do this and be very brief (indiscernible). Any other aspects of Dr. Kabakoff's approach to the case, or the report itself that caused you concern from a DV perspective? Parental alienation was mentioned. That is seen as pseudo science. It's--parental alienation syndrome was developed by a doctor who has since said that this does not apply to domestic abuse. So, parental alienation is not a possibility in domestic violence cases? He believes it shouldn't even be considered. And why is that, in your opinion, (indiscernible)? Because the dynamics of a domestic abuse situation are very different, and-- 80, a defensive action could be viewed as alienation when you're--it's actually protection? 6810 MW 12 13 14 15 16 q7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 --right. And for--and active help seeking can be used incorrectly. That's worth a--viewed incorrectly. Im terms of the guardian ad litem, you spoke to the guardian ad litem? Yes. On two or three occasions, three occasions. Do you have some concerns about, first of all, the guardian ad litem's report itself, either the investigation or the things she says, or--do you have some concerns about the guardian ad litem's investigation? I do. And what are those concerns? I don't believe she understands domestic abuse. Well, the guardian ad litem has said that she has some expertise in domestic violence. Mahmn. So, why do you think contrary to that? Well, first of all, she acknowledges that there are two episodes of domestic abuse, and that there's a PFA in effect. And, then, in a footnote, she listed that a sweater had been thrown at the baby and the mom when the mom was nursing. For someone to put an allegation that serious in a footnote, to me, was one of the most 6910 i 12 13, 14 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 creative forms of leveling I've ever seen, and-- Well, you--the--as lawyers-- --uh-huh. --we think sweaters are not a big deal. Why, ina DV perspective, is throwing a sweater more than a lay person would think it's a problem? Do you know what I'm asking? Why is it a problem? Is that what you're saying? Well, wh--why is it that it's a sweater--why is it--is the fact that it's a sweater, why is that not a minimal incident in abuse, rather than significant? Well, it's significant because it's toward a baby. And, you know, I could make a case for it being abuse of a child, because the sweater went toward the mother and the baby, and landed on the mother and the baby. So, your concern of her doing it in a footnote is what? Minimizing. And I was really concerned about that. Another part of our conversation, she--she was sort of suggesting that Lori wasn't really being honest with her, because she said--she told me at first that it was a bottle that hit her in the back of the head, rather than--and it turned 7010 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 3 25 out to be a peanut butter jar. And I thought, "That doesn't matter." I mean, what difference does it make? And that's sort of going off on a tangent that really doesn't matter at all. Well, that--does it matter what hit her in the back of the head? No And why doesn't it? Because it's the act of hitting your wife in the back of the head, when she says she wants to have ananny, It--it's really coercive control. one of the things that you look at is is the reaction totally out of the realm of poss--or what an average person would do for the concern? And always it is. What are the concerns that you have about the guardian's recommendations or investigation, from a DV perspective? Well, she also talked about she felt that this was--oh, how does it go? It's--I can't remember the term, couple violence. It's-- Situational? --situational couple violence. And one of the concerns I have about that is that that is appropriate for two people who fight, and get 110 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 physical when they fight. And they both do, and they both sanction using--the use of violence when they fight, and they- t actually makes the situation better. I don't subscribe to that, but some people have that as a value. And it makes the situation better. The police are never called. No one is ever scared. That's--that-- Well, you--is this analogous to people putting on boxing gloves and just getting it out of their system, but being (indiscernible)? --yeah. And they--but they don't call each other names that are humiliating, particularly, and there's no fear involved. That's not this case, but that's what the guardian said this was. And that's a real minimization. This is a case--you never use that, ever, when there's been a police call or two, or any. You never use it when there's been some fear. You never use it when one person hasn't been physically violent. And I just felt that that was a real distortion. Okay. You made me remember one incident that I left out-- Minho. --the peanut butter incident, peanut butter jar. So, I need to go back to when I was going through 7210 av 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 all the incidents of abuse, and ask you where that fits in, or is that just part of the pattern that we saw in your-- It's part of a pattern. As I understand it, Lori was holding Mila, and she put Mila down into her car seat, which was right next to her in the kitchen. When she stood back up, she got hit by the peanut butter jar. And the descriptions that I've seen from Igor's explanation to the various people involved goes from, "It was an empty peanut butter jar," to, "I just swept it off the table, and it hit the refrigerator. I didn't mean to hit her." You know, it sort of goes from one thing to another, and-- --well, why doesn't that diminish the diff--the problem with that situation? Why doesn't the fact that it's an empty peanut butter jar, plastic peanut butter jar, why doesn't that make it less violent? --well, first of all, I don't believe that that's what it was, because that's not what he told the police officer, and that's not what he's told other people. It just--the story keeps changing. The act itself--I mean, when you're--it goes back to what I said in quoting Wendy Bancroft, that it 7310 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 means that his needs at the moment override any concern for people in his life. It's like the car incident. When the car broke down, his need--his frustration overrode the fact that, you know, he was hitting his--he was punching his dog in the face. I mean, it just means he feels that entitled. Abuse is all about entitlement versus empathy. And at those moments, he's--an abuser is full of entitlement, has no empathy at all. Ms. Devoe, I don't have much--I want to give the other counsel time to ask you questions. Mmbmm. I want to ask you one final question here. Your cone--you--in your--you concluded that Lori has been abused by Igor. What does that mean from a DV perspective about Mila and how the Court should assign, for example, parental rights, or more importantly, contact and supervision. what does that mean from a DV perspective? Tt means, from a DV perspective, that contact should be supervised. I believe there should be some kind of--what I always recommend is that there's some kind of clarification session where the abuser takes responsibility for what he's done, and admits to the various types of abuse, 7410 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 whether it's financial abuse, which I think is true in this case, and financial exploitation, or emotional abuse or physical abuse or pet abuse. In this case, because the child is two years old, it would be a little more difficult, but I think you can still find a two--a way to talk to a two year old about some things that sort of explain why the visits are being supervised, and really taking on the father. I also think he should have a psychosexual evaluation. And what is a psychosexual evaluation? It's--and it would hopefully mean he would be honest about it, but it would be looking at his life from a psychosexual point of view, his sexual development, and why he was sexualizing affection toward a daughter. It would be nice to know exactly what kind of abuse he had in his family of origin. It would be nice to know more about his Army experience in terms of what he says was torture there, because if he was sexually tortured, that needs to be understood. Okay. I'm also recommending that he attend a batterers intervention program, not anger management. Anger management is really not the appropriate 7510 att 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 treatment. What's the difference between the two? Anger management is much smaller in length of time. And as I have said in my abuse paradigm that we submitted, it requires a lot less investment of the batterer in terms of money and in terms of effort. Batterers know all they need to know about anger. It's all the power, control, all the other stuff that has to do with creating fear as a way to get what you want that he needs help with, not anger. He's got--I mean, he knows how to--abusers know how to be angry, and then to shut it off, and to know when to bring it out and when to put it away. Their problem isn't anger. It's power and control. Ms. Devoe, you made me think of one other question in your answer. You talked about financial abuse. There's been a lot of discussion--and I think even the--maybe in the guardian's report or Dr. Kabakoff's report, I'm not sure, about how Lori used money to control Mr. Malenko. Is that--are you saying that Lori abused Mr. Malenko financially, when you talk about financial abuse? No. Actually, when I said what I said earlier about, for batterers, it's about losing control to 1610 uw 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 gain control. The flip side of that for survivors is control within a context of no control. she had some controls in her life, but she had--in terms of the big picture, of where things were going, she was miserable, and this relationship was not working. She was not feeling safe. And she listed to me the various--actually, early on in the relationship, she paid twenty thousand dollars worth of debt for Igor. And I list in my report the various ways that financial abuse seemed--he took money from Mila's college fund, and never put any money in. He took money twice. She was the one who put money in. He wouldn't let her--he got in the way of her filing her IRS tax return. He ran up credit card debt. He pushed to buy a more expensive house. That's corroborated in the realtor's notes. I actually found--another thing that really needs to be looked at for abuse--in abuse situations is cultural factors, how does culture factor in. That's nothing that a mental health or a medical model looks at, but a domestic abuse paradigm would. And the cultural factor here--I was reading in a book by Evan Stark called Coercive Control, said that Balkan men-- it's sort of accepted in Balkan society that the 7710 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 men don't work, and they exploit their women's money. And, so, I have that book with me, if you-- MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, I object and move to strike that information. She's not qualified as a Balkan expert, and I'd like that stricken from the record. MR. ALTSHULER: Well, I can ask the question if you want to-- COURT: We'll just move on. MR. ALTSHULER: --okay. Actually, your Honor, in courtesy to the other counsel, I really think I need to let them have a chance to do cross-examination. couRT: All right. MR. ALTSHULER: So, thank you, Miss Devoe. WITNESS: Mmhmm. COURT: Okay. Counsel each will have fifteen minutes of cross-examination. MR. WAXMAN: Thank you, your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WAXMAN Q Miss Devoe, good afternoon. A Good afternoon. Q I'm Michael Waxman. Have you been here today the entire day? A I started at--I got here at about ten-thirty, I 7810 i 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 think. All right. And how about yesterday? Were you here yesterday, as well? No, I wasn't. All right. I think you testified that your involvement in this case began in September, 2008, right? Correct. What have you been paid in this case? So far, I've billed out forty-three hundred dollars. What's your rate? Seventy-five dollars an hour. Now, when you got involved in the case in September, did you learn that there had already been a guardian appointed, and a forensic psychologist appointed in the case? You learned that there had been a psychological evaluation in process for both Mr. Malenko and Ms. Handrahan? Yes. All right. Did you know that, when you got involved in the case--shortly before you got involved in the case, the guardian had recommended 7910 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 that Mr. Malenko be entitled to have unsupervised visitation? Yes. Did it occur to you that perhaps Ms. Handrahan was using you because--and speaking with you, and engaging you as an expert, because the other expert wasn't giving her the answer she wanted? Well, that's why I do so much in the way of collateral checks. Well, let me ask you-- In case that's the case. And I--if that's the case, I don't appear in court. --I see. Well, let's talk about collateral checks. Mmbmm. one thing you didn't do is call Dr. Kabakoff, right? My understanding was that the--that Judge Kennedy said, from court, that she and Ms. Stout should call me. And because, as I understood, it was something to the effect that they should call me, and they would have something to learn about domestic abuse or something, something to that effect. And, so, I was waiting for her to call. I also knew that there were no releases of 8010 uw 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 information from Igor for me to talk to anybody. Let's just stop with that one question, okay? You just said that before you get involved, you do some collateral checks? Mobo. one of the collateral checks you didn't do was to call Dr. Kabakoff, the court-appointed psychologist, forensic psychologist who was doing an evaluation of both parties, true? Right. I was waiting for her to call me. Okay. You didn't reach out to her, though? No. All right. Did you reach out to Dr. McCarley [sic] at Maine Medical center? My understanding was I had no release to talk to anybody--from you, I had no release to talk to anybody. Igor was not giving me a release. You were not giving me a release, so that would have been a waste of my time. Well, in lots of your testimony today--I want to be fair-- ‘Mmmm. --you answered questions beginning with, "Well, through a domestic violence paradigm, such and such is true," right? 8110 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 Mmbmm. — Mimbmm. Is that yes? That's yes. Okay. Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse? In other words, if you look at something through a particular lens, you're going to see what you want to see, don't you? Well, you look and see if are there PFA's in place, are there allegations that are pretty consistent over time, and are there people who will corroborate that. This case has actually a lot more corroborating information than most. I see. So, you begin work because Lori calls you and tells you she wants you to look at this. She asked for you to look at this from a domestic abuse paradigm, right? She didn't use those exact words, but-- Well, I thought that's what you testified to. --yeah, but it was something like because of my expertise in domestic abuse. And we all-- Mmbmm. — Mirdamm. --agree you are an expert in domestic abuse, right? Mimbo. 8210 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 I mean, you've done a lot of work with it. You've probably helped a lot of people, right? Mmbmm. You believe in it very strongly, correct? Correct. I mean, the--and there's no one in this courtroom who will deny that domestic abuse takes place, I hope. But, you seem to indicate that the mental health paradigm is no good in looking at domestic violence, true? True. Okay. Where is there any literature that says that mental--the mental health model is to be ignored when looking at domestic violence? I've said--in my report, I think I've listed all sorts of references. Is it your contention: It was-- --that there's a body of literature out there that says-- --absolutely. Oh, absolutely. I see. In fact, the navigating--whatever it's called, custody evaluation-- That the judge has got, right? 8310 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 --judges--right. Okay. It speaks to that. Okay. I'm talking about anything that we see in maybe the New England Journal of Medicine or (indiscernible) or any of those reputable treatises or medical publications, is there anything that we'll find there that says your paradigm is more effective than a mental health paradigm? I haven't read those two that you've said, but--I haven't read those two, so I can't answer that. You're not away of any, in well recognized journals, that confirm your belief that your model is a better way of looking at it? Oh, there are--the journals are full, books are full of it. You know, I have probably this many books that will talk about that kind of issue, that the mental health paradigm-- I'm talking about well accepted and well-- --I am, too. I am, too. =-okay. What treatises are you aware of that say this? What treat--can I pull out some books that I brought? 8410 ul 12 13 14 15 16 q7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Treatises. Yes. Do you consider books treatises? Treatises that are used by the medical community. Ah. Well, my books are over there. Well, are you aware of any? MR. ALTSHULER: Well, yeah. She has the-- WITNESS: By the medical community? CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN Yeah. I can't speak for what the medical community looks at. Oh, you're not part of the medical community? I'm not part of the--I'm part of the-- Oh-- --I'm part of the mental health and medical community. I was-- --what objective tests did you use in this case to try to make your determinations? Any? --one of the best objective cases--or best objective tests in this field is Jackie Campbell's-- Okay. --Danger Assessment. All right. And that has questions like has the violence increased in frequency over the past 8510 i 12 13, 14 15 16 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 year, has the physical violence increased in severity over the past year, and/or has a weapon or threats from a weapon ever been used. Does he ever try to choke you? Is there a gun in the house? Has he ever forced you to have sex when you did not wish to do so? Does he use drugs? By drugs, I mean uppers or amphetamines, speed, angel dust, cocaine, crack, street drugs or mixtures? Does he threaten to kill you, and/or do you believe he's capable of killing you? Is he drunk every day or almost every day, in terms of the quality--quantity of alcohol. Does he control most or all of your daily activities, for instance, does he tell you who you can be friends with, how much money you can take with you shopping, or when you can take the car. If he tries, but you do not let him, check here. Have you ever been beaten by him while you were pregnant? If you have never been pregnant by him, check here. Is he violently and constantly jealous of you? For instance, does he say, "If I Have you ever can't have you, no one can threatened or tried to commit suicide? Has he ever threatened or tried to commit suicide? Is he violent toward your children? Is he violent 8610 uu 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 24 25 outside of the home? Those are the kinds of questions that are part of that test, right? Mmhmm. Correct. And that's the test you administered, right? I didn't administer it. Jackie Campbell did. I see. You talked a fair amount today about information you learned from Lori. And I may have misheard you, but I thought I heard you testify that you believe her, and you don't believe Igor, correct? Correct. Okay. So, in doing your analysis, you made a decision about credibility. Correct. Okay. Based on all sorts of information. Are you aware that Dr. Kabakoff testified in this case, and she indicated that she made no conclusions about credibility. Are you aware of that? Not precisely. No. Were you there, by the way, in Macedonia when Igor injured the teammate? No. Were you there with the peanut butter jar incident? 8710 cr 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 No. Were you there with any of these incidents? No. Have you sat in this courtroom and listened to the evidence from ten-thirty on? Yes. And is your conclusion unaffected by what you've heard in this courtroom today? Yes. Thank you. COURT: Miss Stout? MS. STOUT: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. STOUT Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'll try to be brief. Moko. Just to ins--I'm going to ask you a few questions about your report and your conclusions. Mink. And when I read your report, when I started taking notes about it, I started thinking of it as a risk assessment. Would that be a fair way to describe it? Correct. Yeah, That would be. 8810 iW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 So, you essentially were doing a risk assessment about Igor Malenko to determine what kind of a risk he might pose to Lori and/or Mila? I was doing a risk assessment of her, as well. I mean, I was looking to see how she seems to function, and her honesty and so on. Okay. ‘Mmmm. But the purpose of your report and testimony was to give an opinion about what kind of risk that Igor would pose? Right. Okay. And in the course of developing the--first of all, have you been called on to do risk assessments in other cases? Of domestic abuse nature. Yes. Yes. Many. And have you offered those conclusions to courts in testimony? Yes. Okay. And when you are gathering information for your risk assessment, do you follow any kind of a protocol in terms of the type of information and structure of your interview, testing, other types 8910 1 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 of things, or is it more you gather information as it comes? In other words, do you have a list of things you need to do-- Yes. --for a risk assessment? Yes. Okay. And that list of things does not include face-to-face contact or interview with the person who's the subject of the risk assessment? If I can, I do, but I don't usually. Okay. And, so, my question is are you aware of any--have there been any studies or validation tests or peer review or other types of validation or review of that methodology? In other words, risk assessments done without interviewing the person being assessed are reliable to x degree? I think risk assess--I remember seeing some--it's not exactly what you're asking, but risk assessments that show that battered women are much better informants about situations than battered men--batterers. Right. And that is not my question. So, that's--well, that's-- I guess--let me put it to you this way. ~-mmbmn, 9010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 And Dr. Kabakoff referred to this, used a term called positive predictive value. Mmbmm. In other words, if you have a test for diabetes, you want to make sure that the test will predict that you have diabetes, or cancer or whatever type of problem that you have. Social sciences is obviously a less precise art, but, nonetheless, I think it's important for the Court to know if-- what's the predictive value--how do you know that your risk assessment will accurately predict the future? Have there been any tests or studies about that? Well, the best--the most generally accepted way to predict future violence is a past history of violence. That's really the only predictive--you know, that's the most solid clinical information available. So, do I understand that there's not any validation studies about a methodology that does not include interviewing the person be assessed? Do you follow my question? Maybe you'd better ask it again. Okay. So, your--what I'm calling your methodology-- 9110 cre 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 ‘Mmbmm . includes reviewing all the documents that are in that exhibit? Right. Interviewing Lori, talking to me, the other things that you talked about on direct, that's your methodology? Minima. And that methodology does not include direct contact with Mr. Malenko? Correct. How do we know that that methodology produces a reliable result? Okay. And have there been studies or validations of that methodology? There haven't been studies, but, I would--I--I would actually ask how Kabakoff can say hers was reliable, when she was lied to? Well, I don't-- You know? I mean, that-- --I'm not-- --that's a reverse question, really. --well, I'm not asking right now about Dr. Kabakoff, I'm just asking about the reliability 9210 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 25 of your-- Well, you referenced Dr. Kabakoff in the basis of your question. --I said she used the term positive predictive value. Right. But, I'm also circling it back and saying that I think she's not one to criticize my methods, when she sat with a man who lied and told her about another lie, that he had lied to the Army and told them that he had had--been psychiatrically--he told them he was depressed so that he could get out of the service. He told her that had told a lie, and she didn't pick up on that, and you didn't, either. Well, with due respect, I'm going to have to object to response as not responsive to my question. COURT: It isn't, and it's sustained. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT The other question I have is in your--based on your conversations with--well, first of all, did I understand you correctly to say that your opinion is that women's reports are more accurate than men's reports, as a general matter? Survivors! reports are more accurate than 9310 MW 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 batterers reports. Yes. Okay. And you also said that parental alienation should not be considered in a domestic violence case? Correct. So, if a victim of domestic violence says to a child, "Your father is bad. He's stupid. He's mean. You shouldn't like him. Don't go with him. He's going to hurt you," etcetera, the Court should not consider that behavior? Well, what I'm saying is that the doctor who came up with this says that parental alienation syndrome has been misused-- Okay. --so that's why it's dangerous. And it's also-- the guy who did it was self-published. He's really seen by the scientific community as pretty questionable. Right. Actually, I wasn't talking about parental alienation syndrome-- Uh-huh. --which was offered at one point as a mental health diagnosis. ‘Minh. I'm talking about the activity of parental-- 9410 nn 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Right. Okay. --alienation. I think when I look at--what I didn't see looked at or considered in this report when it came up was the fact that Mila loves to see her father. So, where's the parental alienation? And, also, Lori suggested to the powers that be that Igor be allowed to use the phone and talk to his daughter. That was her idea. That's not parental alienation. Right. She paid for supervised visits. That's not parental alienation. I guess my question was to try to understand your statement on direct testimony. And T think you said parental alienation could not be considered in a domestic violence case. And do you mean that the- Without--I should amend that, without great care, because it's very dangerous. --if I could just finish my question? Okay. Do you mean that the behavior by a parent-- No. couRT: If you could just-- 9510 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 WITNESS: I'm sorry. COURT: --let the question come out? That's okay. MS. STOUT: --(indiscernible). COURT: ZI understand the eagerness to answer, but-- WITNESS: Well, there's a time constraint here. COURT: --well, let the attorneys worry about the time constraints. WITNESS: Okay. COURT: Go ahead. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. STOUT Q The behavior by a parent in a case to disparage a parent to a child, that should not be considered if the parent doing it is a victim of domestic violence? A No. Q = That's not what you meant? A That's not what I meant. Q = Okay. That's-- A Okay. Q --thank you. Okay. And when you and I talked, we discussed the fact that there was some evidence that Dr. Handrahan was requiring Mr. Malenko to either take medication that was not prescribed to him, or misuse medication that was prescribed to 9610 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 him, take it in another fashion. Do you remember that conversation? Yes. Okay. And that did not cause you concern about Dr. Handrahan at all? What I took that to mean was she was very, very desperate, and, you know, if you look at it in the context of trying to get help, and having it not work, and being scared, and the rages continuing, I think it was inappropriate, but I think it was desperate. I don't judge it-- Well, when you talked about--first of all, you said that there were some records that you didn't receive. Do you remember a conversation that we had about Igor's medical records, that you were seeking the True North records? --correct. Yeah. I do remember. And do you recall that I expressed to you concern about re-releasing medical records to you? Yes. A bit--I was referring, I think, when I said that, to your statement in your second report. Right. And did you understand that statement to refer to Mr. Malenko's medical records, which I did not believe I was authorized to re-release to you? 9710 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 I thought it meant something else, like maybe tapes or something. I can't remember what you said in that. Well, in any event, when you have a concern--you described this situation as one where Mr. Malenko uses coercive control. Mmmm. --over Dr. Handrahan, What examples come to mind of things that Mr. Malenko forced Dr. Handrahan to do, or not do that she had a right to? Well, one was he was trying to force her to strip and have the bath with her daughter while he watched. I actually felt that his videotaping right after her delivery was pretty inappropriate. Was--is that him forcing her to do something? Well, she was really out of it from having a baby, a very hard delivery, and he was videotaping. and there were some, for lack of a better word, crotch shots that I felt were really pretty inappropriate, pretty, you know, boundary- crossing. I think his statements about who can hold the baby and who can't are pretty imappropriate. I think’ all the violence is tied in, of course, with control. What do you see the violence as him attempting to 9810 un 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 control her? In other words, if the violence is coercive control-- Mmbmm. --I guess I'm having a hard time seeing a connection between that he was trying to isolate her or make her live somewhere that she didn't want to live, or-- I think-- --some other type of controlling-- --if you consider violence or--you know, violence as instrumental--and what was his goal? --right. And I think his goal was to be allowed to stay home, not work, and have her pay the bills. And it goes to the exploitation of financial-- financial exploitation that I talked about earlier. Okay. And, so, you do not feel that that was-- that was role definition of him being a house husband-- Mihm. --and her being the primary wage earlier, that that was not a voluntary arrangement? I think initially it probably would have worked out well if it had worked out well, but it didn't 9910 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 work out well. He didn't end up doing it. and he also was really controlling about where Mila could be, whether she could be bathed by people, whether it was safe to go half a block away to the beach or to the library or to the zoo in D.C. He over- reacted to bee stings and--or skinned knees or-- not bee stings, but skinned knees, that sort of thing. Mmhmm. Well, Lori certainly traveled-- ‘Mim. --on a regular basis during their marriage relationship? Mmmm. She maintained her close friends and friendships, correct? Correct. She visited friends and had friends visit her-- Right. --on a regular basis? She chose to take various employment opportunities, including the one in Budapest? Correct. So, those are certainly not examples of life decisions that Mr. Malenko was controlling? Although I think a couple of jobs were compromised 10010 Wn 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 by his moods, and her having to deal with them. But, I don't think--you know, if you look only at that level, you don't see that she really had a request for some harmony at home, some safety at home, some personal peace. That, she wasn't getting. And I think she probably would have traded a lot of the other stuff off for some personal safety at home. Mmhmm. You said you met with Janet Tarbuck? Yes. Okay. Did you discuss with her that there had been a number of conflicts between Lori and family members and friends prior to her relationship with Igor? Yes. And did that--was that significant to you in any way? Well, I think what it--what I understood it to be was Lori is a confronter of abusers, and she has gotten to a point where she has an allergy to abuse, and she will confront. And that's what she was doing. And that actually was allow--was helpful to show the different--well, I don't want to get off on a tangent. So, your understanding of her--when she had anger 10110 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 or confrontation or conflict with family members or others, it was because they were abusers? Because it was of her mother and of her stepfather. Yeah. Yeah. And I know she-- (Indiscernible) sister. --she's had some conversations with her that have been pretty heated, but her sister is here, supporting her. They've really worked it through. Prior to this divorce being filed, she had some significant conflict with her sister, correct? Correct. And her sister's boyfriend, and later--I don't know if it's her husband or partner? But they've worked it out. Right. But the fact is she did have angry conflict with them in the past, correct? And not because they were abusers? Yeah. And, see, what I think happens sometimes is battered women are expected to be perfect, and they're not. They're not--she has some issues. She's not perfect. There's no question about it. Okay. But when you talked about your concern about Dr. Kabakoff's report and it's a snapshot-- 10210 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 ‘Mmhmm. --and it shows the survivor at a very bad moment, wouldn't the fact that Lori had angry conflicts previously, prior to this relationship, tend to suggest that it's not just a snapshot, but that this is a--this is her pattern of behavior? If you said in there, with people who are abusive, that she's had some unfinished business with her family of origin, I would accept that. But, I've seen letter after letter in email, and I've talked on the phone, and all of these people really love Lori. That means something to me. That balances the slate, you know? And what concerns me is that you've focused on the negatives. Did you talk to anybody or receive information from anybody who had anything critical to say about Dr. Handrahan? I think her sister did tell me that--you know, that they'd had issues, that she's pretty heated, 80 I would consider that critical. But, you know, that was one piece, and then all the rest was really positive. Thank you. MS. STOUT: I don't have any more questions. COURT: Thank you. Any redirect? 10310 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALTSHULER: I guess I have one question for Ms. Devoe. WITNESS: Mmbhmm. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER Q Ms. Devoe, if you, based on your conclu--based on your evaluation, had concluded that Lori was not a victim of domestic violence, or that Mr. Malenko was not an abuser, or that there was no risk to Mila, what would you have done? Would you have issued a report? MR. WAXMAN: Objection. Calls for speculation. COURT: Sustained. WITNESS: Hmmm. MR. ALTSHULPR: Well, let me see if I can ask it a different way. REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q Were you hired to--were you hired with--to reach the conclusion that Lori wanted you to reach? A No. No. I would never agree to that kind of a contract. @ And your conclusion you reached after your investigation is based on your investigation and not the fact that you were hired by Lori to be here today? A Correct. 10410 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 25 MR. ALSTHULER: I have nothing further, your Honor. MR. WAXMAN: Your Honor, I have nothing further, except I want to make a motion now, under Rule 702, in the case In Re: Sarah C., to strike all of this testimony, because it does not have sufficient scientific reliability. There has been no testimony from her that it has any predictive validity, that there's been any scholarly articles, that there's been any peer review. It is ad hoc and anecdotal. This well-qualified domestic abuse violence counselor has made all kinds of credibility determinations in reaching her conclusions, and that's all that she has to go on to tell this Court what she's told this Court. And I think that this Court should strike the entire testimony. It is not helpful to this Court in reaching a conclusion. COURT: Mr MR. ALTSHULER: Well, what-- COURT: --Ms. Stout, do you--actually, Miss Stout pointed out In Re: Sarah--the case that you cite, in her supplemental report, and I had a chance to read that case last night, Is there anything you'd like to say about that, Miss stout? MS. STOUT: Your Honor, I'm not objecting, because 10510 u 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 I think the Court should have all the information that I--from my perspective, I'd like you to have all the information that I've looked at. COURT: Thank you. And, Mr. Altshuler? MR. ALTSHULER: --well, first of all, do you want me to comment on Sarah C., because Sarah C. talked about whether you can conclude somebody else would be abused by abusing this person, and she's talking about these people, and whether Mila's at risk of significant violence. The other arguments go to the weight to give the testimony, But, I and you can certainly give it as much weight as you want. But, I think she's certainly met the professional standard. COURT: Thank you. The motion is denied. and, obviously, counsel can make the relevant arguments as to the weight of the testimony. Any further questions for Ms. Devoe? MR. WAXMAN: No. COURT: Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Devoe. WITNESS: MR. ALTSHULER: And if she wishes to leave, could she be excused finally? COURT: Of course she can. MR. ALTSHULT Miss Devoe, you're welcome to stay or leave as you wish 10610 wn 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 COURT: It's about twenty of, so we're doing fine on time. I guess at this time I'd like to invite Miss Stout to--or should--well, we probably shouldn't take a break. It's probably late in the day to do that, anyway, so I invite Miss Stout to take the stand. And, Miss Stout, do you--is there anything you'd want to add other than the reports that you've submitted? MS. STOUT: I have a couple of minor corrections (indiscernible) . COURT: Sure. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give in court today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? MS. STOUT: Yes. COURT: Thank you very much. Have a seat. MS. STOUT: Thank you. COURT: Okay. ELIZABETH STOUT, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED IN DIRECT AS FOLLOWS MS. STOUT: First of all, just a couple of--well, at least one correction. In my supplemental report, I talked about the danger assessment that was referred to a few minutes ago, and I stated that there would be only one, possibly two, positive answers on that instrument. And when I reviewed the danger assessment again, I realized there would be two, possibly three. 10710 uw 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 The additional question on the danger assessment was have you recently separated, or separated relatively-- in recent past, something to that effect. So, that's a correction that I'd like to make. What I wanted to say--and I appreciate that it's been a long couple of days, and I--it's a contentious situation, and the nature of this process is to focus on all the negatives. And that's one of the reasons that this adversary process is an unfortunate way to make decisions about children, because these are two good people who adore their beautiful child. And the fact that--the fact, in and of itself, that she is a beautiful child who's developing well, who's happy and healthy and loves both her parents, is to their credit. And they have--they have--they deserve credit for the work that they've done. It's to her benefit. I don't believe that there are malicious lies being told. I believe that these parties have obviously vastly different perceptions of the situation. And, you know, it's for the Court to determine the reliability and credibility of the various statements that have been made. One thing that I do hope is that the--first of all, I wanted to make sure that my first report and supplemental report are part of the record that the Court will consider. I don't know if they need to be 10810 ul 12 13 14 15, 16 17 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 marked and admitted. couRT: The first--the initial report, I believe, has been marked as--well, maybe it hasn't. But, I'11 have to go look at my notes again. But, both of those reports are in evidence. MR. ALTSHULER: Your Honor, could I just note for the record my objection to the supplemental report was her references to studies she had read, because if I had gotten the report earlier, I would have presented witnesses that--something she is suggesting that's contrary to that. I don't have a real problem with the report coming in as the guardian's report, but I am concerned about the text before it that refers to things that she has read and books she has consulted, which has a whole different side to it, which I did not have an opportunity to present as opposed to her supplemental report. So, I guess--so, I just want to lodge that objection. Basically, I'm objecting to just the--her references to the treatises and books that she has read. COURT: All right. Miss Stout, I think you had a--I don't know if it got on the record before, but I think you had a response to that issue about why the report was generated, and the timing of it. MS. STOUT: Right, It was certainly an issue 10910 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 earlier in the summer--I don't know exactly when--that relocation was a possibility, that it was addressed in Dr. Kabakoff's report. I did include it--a reference to it in my first report. But it wasn't until December it that it was officially sort of noticed as an issue for trial, that relocation was going to be proposed. And that's why the report was issued in the time frame that it was. COURT: Thank you. ‘MR. ALTSEULE : And, your Honor, I'm not object-- I'm not suggesting she didn't have a reason to file the supplemental report. And that's why the content of it, I'm not objecting to. It's the reference to treatises and books that hve an opposing point of view that I would have presented opposing exhibits and testimony to, if I had time in that. couRT: All right. Thank you. Go ahead. MS. STOUT: T'm hoping--so, I understand that the two reports are evidence that will be considered by the Court? COURT: They are. MS. STOUT: Okay. I'm--I would also ask the Court to review the protection from abuse file in its entirety. I mean, it has the complaint, it has the order, etcetera, and I think it's obviously relevant. 11010 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 So, I hope the Court will take judicial notice of its own orders in that case. COURT: It will. Ms. STOUT: And, you know, other than that, I mean, these are two long reports. I think I've said everything I'd like to say. And, again, I appreciate the difficult task that the Court has here, and I think it will be in the child's best interest to have a decision as quickly as possible so the parties can move on. Obviously, from listening to that horrific tape of Mila screaming, this ongoing conflict between the parents is having a devastating effect on her, and it needs to stop. COURT: Thank you. MS. STOUT: So-- COURT: Mr. Waxman? MR. WAXMAN: Thank you, your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WAXMAN Q Good afternoon, Liz. A -chi. Q Just quickly, now that we've gotten through today's difficult testimony and evidence, does any of what you've heard in this courtroom the last two days changed any of your conclusions in your two reports? 1110 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 No. All right. So, just so we're all clear, are you recommending that, assuming both of the litigants stay in this area, that Ms. Handrahan function as the primary residential parent? Yes. I think that the recommend--I stand by the recommendations that I made. I think they need to be a package, not bits and pieces. I believe that there should be a gradually increasing level of contact between Mila and her father. I think that the treatment recommendations that are made need to be an integral part of the process. And, frankly, although there's no statutory authority for a parent coordinator, I think that that would be a critical piece, as well, because these parties are clearly so unable to work together. If Ms. Handrahan is not willing to undergo the kind of therapy as recommended by Dr. Kabakoff, does that give you any concern about her becoming or remaining the primary residential parent? Well, it's--of course, because I wouldn't have recommended it otherwise. It's--that would be a very difficult question. If the Court ordered it, and she did not comply with it, you know, I think we'd have to look at where things stood at that 11210 ul 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 1 2 23 24 25 point. What has been the experience thus far, as far as you understand, with regard to Mr. Malenko's attempts to see his child, and how those have gone, his attempts to see his child, Mila, during the last seven or eight months? Has he had unfettered ability to do so? No, of course not. The protection from abuse order directed--I believe it was the protection from abuse order that directed supervised contact. But, in any event, he was limited to supervised contact by court order. Okay. And when you proposed that that supervision requirement be lifted, Ms. Handrahan refused to do so, correct? She did not agree. Nor did she agree that Janet Tarbuck or Woody Tarbuck could be supervisors, correct? That's right. Okay. Are you concerned that there's any kind of parental alienation going on in this case? MR. ALTSHULER: Objection. She does not have the qualifications to testify to that, your Honor. COURT: Sustained. Next question. (CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. WAXMAN 11310 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 24 25 What about if Ms. Handrahan decides to move to Washington? I think your report indicates or concludes that if that were the case, the primary residential care should be allotted to Mr. Malenko, correct? Yes. And I understand that may not have been an easy determination to make-- No. --but that's--that was what you concluded, right? Yes And in the event that Ms. Handrahan does stay here, and does have primary residential care, I don't remember exactly what conclusions you made about his ability to see his child, but would you tell the Court what it is you think he should be permitted to do in terms of visitation? Well, what I outlined was sort of a gradually increasing plan where he would see her--I think he said three days a week for daytime visits, and, then, after six months, that we would start introducing overnight visits, one, and then a second, and, then, at the end of a year, we'd be looking at three overnight visits a week. and what's the reason for your wanting to do that 11410 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 in a graduated manner? Well, initial--one of the reasons why I wrote it that way in my report was in the hopes of promoting some kind of accord between the parents. But, also, I think--there is evidence that Mr. Malenko has a high degree of anxiety. There is evidence that he is over-protective to an extreme degree that I don't understand. There is evidence that his time with Mila, in terms of number of hours, has been limited in the past, in terms of sole responsibility for her, with no one else there. And those issues, I think, would prompt me to say let's try this in steps. Let's try this in stages. It's also, to some degree, out of respect for Dr. Handrahan's point of view, although I understand her point of view is much farther down along the line than what I'm proposing, but her initial concerns, when I met with her in the early summer, were that he would have--if he were alone with Mila, he would have some type of attack, and would neglect her, would leave her sitting by the side of the road while he went off and did something else. As that was her concern early on in the process, it, frankly, carries a lot more weight with me than things which have subsequently 11510 uw 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 developed. And this graduated plan was, in some-- to some extent, designed to address that. Q Do you have concerns about the well being of this child if a parent coordinator is not employed? A Yes. Q Okay. Can you talk about that? A Well, I think that it's reasonable to expect that the--it would continue to be a very high conflict situation. And the information that I have from my training and experience is that high conflict parent situations create significant risks for kids. I think I talked about some of that in my report. Q And did you ever discuss the parent coordinator issue with Miss Handrahan? A I don't think I did. Q Are you aware of her position on it? MR. ALTSHULER: Objection. She said she didn't discuss it with her, your Honor. COURT: Sustained. Next question? MR. WAXMAN: That's all I have. Thank you. COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Altshuler? MR. ALTSHULER: I'm actually going to be fairly brief, your Honor. couRT: I'm sorry? 11610 u 12 13 14 15 16 q7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 MR. ALTSHULER: I'm going to be very brief. COURT: Okay. Sure. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER You understand that DBT counseling is primarily for borderline personalities? It's--I understand it is somewhat effective for borderline personalities. And there's been no diagnosis that--by anybody, that you know of, that Lori has borderline personality? Correct. Okay. You feel that if she does counseling, she should do counseling that addresses whatever mental health professionals think she needs counseling for? Do you agree with that? If she does counseling, she should do counseling for what mental health professionals think she needs counseling for? Right. I mean, Dr. Kabakoff is recommending a therapy that is primarily designed for borderline personality. That's what DBT counseling is designed for. I think that that--those are the primary clients of DBT. What I understood from Dr. Kabakoff was that it also appeared to be effective with other 11710 ul 12 13 14 15 16 47 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 types of personality disorders. Well--and, of course, she testified that Lori has narcissistic personality, and she did put that in the report. Do you have any reason to believe DBT is appropriate for narcissistic personalities? Based on Dr. Kabakoff's recommendation. But she didn't put that in the report. she just testified to it. Right. 1 had conversations with her about it, as well. Well, you didn't put it in your report? I thought I said to follow the recommendations of Dr. Kabakof£. You didn't put it in your report that Dr. Kabakoff had concluded that Lori had narcissistic personality-- Correct. I did not. --and, so--and it (indiscernible) I mean, Lori's getting counseling, correct? That's what I understood from Allie Knowlton. Well, you looked at the True North--didn't you talk to people at True North? I didn't speak to them directly. No. I--they send me a certified copy of all their records. Is there any reason why you didn't talk to them at 11810 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 True North? Well, there was a--I spent a lot of time on this case. I did not speak to them directly. I spoke to Dr. Ouellette, who was the pediatrician. I don't know if she's part of True North or not. But-- I don't think-- --that was the only of those--that group of people that I spoke to during (indiscernible). --but, you talked to a lot of people, but True North is the only organization that worked with both of these people, except for Mr. Pritchard, who worked with these people together for a period of time. True North was the only who worked with both of them? It was the only organization that really did extensive work with both of them? Extensive. Yes. Don't you think it was important to talk to them? Well, I--as I said, I had their complete record. I read every word of it. I did not think I needed to verify the information the record, and I chose not to. I'm going to show you--and I don't remember if I 11910 ul 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 a 2 24 25 marked this--I think this is--I think I'11--1 don't know if we-- MR. ALTSHULER: --may I approach the witness, your Honor? COURT: Of course. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. ALTSHULER Q The GAL exhibit binder-- A Yes. Q --this is a binder that was put together for you by Ms. Chadbourne? A Yes Q And you reviewed everything in it? A I did. I can't say I--I mean, I reviewed all the documents. A number of the documents, I already had, so I didn't reread them. And the whole last section was a pleading that was filed, so I didn't xeread that. Q Okay. Could you--do you have your report with you, your original report? A Yes. Q Your--T want to call your attention specifically-- particularly to pages fourteen through eighteen. And when I read these pages, this looks like a real compilation of the information you gained from third parties, the True North records and 12010 u 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 those-- Right. --this is a little difficult for me, because I've got time constraints. Normally, I would go through every page and ask you if you--if that was part of the records you received when saying this. So, I'm going to ask you this, and in turn, I'm going to ask the Court to actually take the binder as a rebuttal exhibit. When you were describing pages fourteen to eighteen-- Mmhmm. --does that accurately, in your opinion, characterize, at least in part, the information you received from this exhibit binder? I was not basing the report on the binder. I was basing the report on information I had collected. A lot of it was duplicates. I understand that. So-- Of course, it probably had two or-- --so, in other words, some of the documents in there are the same documents that I relied on, but --so, for example? -I'm not sure that I got the binder before my 12110 Mu 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 report was done. I'm not positive. If I was to represent to you that Attorney Chadbourne said you did, do you think there was any reason why--you think you did? I think I did. I'm not sure. Okay. Let me call your-- Tt was around the same time. --of course. Let me call your attention to page sixteen-- Mmbmm. --the first full paragraph that starts with "Igor". Mmbmmn. The last line in there says, "Several people who have interacted with Igor told me that they did not see any indication that he was strange, mentally imbalanced, threatening or concerning in any way." Would you agree that there are many documents in this binder that contradict that? Yes. Okay. And the next line says--I'll skip the first line--well, there are several references to concerns about Lori. "More than one person indicated that she was not always a reliable reporter of events." 12210 i 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 prt 2 23 24 25 A Mmhmm. Q Would you agree that there's many documents in this book that contradict that? A Yes Q Okay. The last question I'm going to ask you is you said to the Court that you think it's important that the Court review everything here to be able to make a decision. A sure. Q Do you think it would be beneficial for the Court to review the documents in that file? A I don't think it could hurt, and I think particularly the translation of the court document from Macedonia would be a good thing for the Court. to read. MR. ALTSHULER: Macedonia? Your Honor, I'm going to submit this as Exhibit--I think Exhibit 8 (indiscernible). And, your Honor, before I submit this, let me tell you that I'm going to waive you listening to the five hours of CD's. I think, frankly, that it's really a waste of court time. And I think that, although I disagree with how it came in, and I made my objection known, I just don't feel that's a beneficial use of the court time. I think, frankly, this is not--that has anything to do with this, but I 12310 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 think this is more important. so, I'd rather this be reviewed than those CD's, and if there's a convenient time--normally, I would ask her to go through every document (indiscernible). So, I'm submitting this as a general rebuttal exhibit to pages fourteen to eighteen of the guardian's report. And I think I'm on #8? Yeah, I think you're right. COURT: What number is the defense up to? CLERK: (Indiscernible) . COURT: #8. Good. You're right on. MR. ALTSHULER: I'd submit it as-- COURT: Any objection to-- MR. ALTSHULER: s Exhibit 8. MR. WAXMAN: No objection, your Honor. COURT: Okay. It's admitted. MR. ALTSHULER: Thank you, your Honor. I have nothing further. COURT: You're welcome. Okay. Thank you. Any--I guess any redirect? MS. STOUT: Well, yes. Sorry. REDIRECT TESTIMONY BY MS. STOUT MS. STOUT: I forgot two things. Just in terms of updated information--and there was reference in the questioning of Dr. Kabakoff about violation of court orders, that the visits were--have supposed to have 12410 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 been twice a week for a total of three and a half hours. And what the information from Connections For Kids is that those--the last several weeks, the weekday visit has been canceled by Dr. Handrahan, and that the Saturday visits have been three hours, instead. So, that's just updated information. The other thing I forgot to talk about is money. There's a significant outstanding balance due on my fees, and there--that will be even greater--that is even greater as of this time. So, I would ask the Court to please address the outstanding fees, and require payment in a prompt manner. COURT: Okay. MS. STOUT: Do you want to know the figure? COURT: I do, and it would certainly--I certainly need to know that, and do you--I don't know if you have that now? MS. STOUT: I do. COURT: You do? Okay. MS. STOUT: At the end of today, the balance due will be eighty-eight hundred twelve dollars and fifty cents. That's assuming eight hours today, the 9 of December. COURT: Eighty-eight hundred twelve dollars and fifty cents? 12510 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 MS. STOUT: Yes. COURT: That's the balance due at the--as of the end of today? MS. STOUT: Yeah. COURT: Okay. MS. STOUT: And Dr. Kabakoff obviously has a large outstanding bill, and I'd also ask the Court to address that to the parties, as well. I would just add there were some comments in some of the pleadings about the timing of Dr. Kabakoff's expert designation, and the fact that the guardian has designated her. And just to address that, the--Dr. Kabakoff hadn't released her report to the parties because she hadn't been paid. As we approached the deadline for expert designation, I designated her as an expert, because I think the information was important for the Court to have. That's kind of the beginning, middle and end of that. COURT: All right. MS. STOUT: I didn't want the Court to draw any adverse inference otherwise. MR. ALTSHULER: Well, your--I do--the problem is that whoever used Dr. Kabakoff as an expert has to pay for it. So, the--unfortunately, by the guardian designating it, it puts it into the guardian's bill, vather than if Mr. Waxman had called her, and he would 12610 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 have had to pay for it. So, my objection was it was an indirect way of getting my client to pay for it, because it becomes her expert, and she has to pay for the guardian. That was the objection I raised with the--I understand Dr. Kabakoff refused to release it, which I think I have some issues with, but that--my concern about Miss Stout designating her was because that was a back end of--back door way of having my client pay for it. COURT: Okay. MR. WAXMAN: If I could respond, your Honor? COURT: Mmbhmm. MR. WAXMAN: My understanding, from the outset of this case, was that the guardian chose, with our agreement, Dr. Kabakoff to do independent evaluations of both parties. I did not see Dr. Kabakoff as my expert. I saw her as the expert used--almost like a collateral divorce, to do an examination of both parties. My client has an outstanding bill to me of about twenty-five thousand dollars. I have not been paid one cent in this case. We are asking for the defendant to pay my attorneys fees, as well. He doesn't have the money to pay for the expert report. COURT: Okay. MR, WAXMAN: Thank you. 12710 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 COURT: Is there anything further, Miss Stout? MS. STOUT: No. COURT: Okay. Based on the very brief redirect that Mis: Stout just spoke about, is there anything: any further cross-exam? MR. WAXMAN: No, your Honor. COURT: Okay. MR. ALTSHULER: No, your Honor. I'm--well, I'm gonna--I feel obligated to have Lori explain the last two--because of her testimony about why the last two visits didn't happen. I'm concerned that the Court's going to draw the wrong inference on that, so now I'm-- I can either ask her or I can ask Lori what the reason for that was, unless the Court's not drawing any inverse impression from that. COURT: Frankly, I haven't decided what kind of inferences, if any, to draw from them. There's a fair volume of information that I have to look at, so-- MR. ALTSHULER: I know. I just--as an abundance of--I need--I don't think I can cross-examine Miss Stout, because I don't know if she knows the reason for it. So, I think I'm going to have call Lori back to the stand for one minute. COURT: Okay. Why don't we do that, then? MR. ALTSHULER: Lori, please remember you're under 12810 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 pat 2 23 24 25 oath. WITNESS: Yes. LORI M. HANDRAHAN, HAVING BEEN RECALLED AND PREVIOUSLY SWORN, TESTIFIED IN REBUTTAL AS FOLLOWS, DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ALTSHULER You heard the guardian testify about the last two visitations-- Yes, I did. --that the--can you tell the Court why those two last visitations didn't happen? The visitations were not canceled. The week of Thanksgiving, I was scheduled, I believe, to do a Monday and a Wednesday, and Betsy Vamadu [sic] called me and said because it was just before Thanksgiving, she couldn't do the Wednesday, so we went over to the Saturday visit. And, then, one week, I had a very hectic work week, which is quite unusual, and I asked if we could do all the three and a half hours on Saturday. Igor did not object. We usually have communication through Kids Connects [sic]. Betsy said that that was a fine thing to do, so we did it. and, this week, Betsy asked, "Should we do a visit during the week? We're supposed to do one during the week and one on Saturday," and I said, "We both have 12910 cr 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 the hearing this week. It's going to be an exhausting, stressful week, and I prefer to do it all on Saturday, if Mr. Malenko doesn't object. He didn't object. This has been an ongoing problem that-- Wait. Wait. Okay. --okay. Was that why the--those three weeks! visitations were different? They were different because of those reasons. MR. ALTSHULER: I have nothing. Thank you. MR. WAXMAN: Uh-- WITNESS: Oh? MR. WAXMAN: --yeah. Sorry. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WAXMAN Miss Handrahan, haven't there been at least five visits in the last two months that you've canceled? I don't recall. I'd need to see the records. But there have been ongoing problems with information coming out of Kids Connect being manipulated. And there's a letter testifying to that by Connections For Kids that some of their information has been manipulated. Okay. Can you please stop? On any occasion when 13010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 you canceled, you didn't see fit to tell Kids-- Connections For Kids any reason, did you? A Actually, there's a lot of email about that in some of the testimony, In the beginning, I did, because I believe in full disclosure, and I said-- one time, I canceled because Mila was sick. One time, I canceled because I was sick. And I started to get a lot of harassing emails from Mr. Malenko's lawyer. And, then, Connections For Kids said, "Actually, because of the PFA, we don't require you to tell us why you need to cancel the visit in the future, Miss Handrahan. Please just tell us you need to cancel the visit and don't give us additional information, because it puts us in a compromising position." so, from that point forward, I just simply said, "I can't make these days, and I'd like to do this schedule." I've been incredibly accommodating to Mr. Malenko, as Connections For Kids would testify, if they were here. Q Is that right? Does that include allowing him to have a visit with his daughter in his apartment? MR. ALTSHULER: Objection, your Honor. That goes out of the scope of my redirect [sic]. MR. WAXMAN: She opened the door. 13110 ul 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 MR. ALTSHULER: I brought it--no. No. The guardian opened the door by saying that the two-- COURT: We'll ju--we'll take the answer. Frankly, folks, this bit of information here really doesn't seem to me--I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me extremely momentous with respect to the entire body of the evidence in this case. Is there any further cross- exam? MR. WAXMAN: No, your Honor. COURT: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. WITNESS: Okay. COURT: That concludes the evidence in this case. We got it done on time. And I want to do a couple of things. Ms. Stout was kind enough to note, in her testimony, today, that the Court has had a difficult time in this case, and it's true, I have. This has not been an easy case. And I think it's obvious that it hasn't been easy. But I also want to note for the xecord that I admire and have a lot of respect for the litigants in this case, the parties, the law--all the lawyers involved, because this is not an easy case. And everybody--all things considered, everybody has comported themselves with wonderful behavior. This has been a very pleasant case from the standpoint of dealing with a very hard emotional matter in a way 13210 MW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ay 2 23 24 25 where folks have been very decent with each other, by and large. So, I want to thank everybody for that. I understand, as Miss Stout pointed out very rightly in her testimony, that this is important--this is an important case for the Court to make a decision on quickly, and I agree with that completely. I also want to make it the best decision I can, and this is going to take a little time for me to get through the infor-- the exhibits. I want to look at them fully. I want to xeview some of the other--I want to look at the exhibits carefully, and I want to review my notes carefully. I took, I think, pretty good notes throughout the process for these two days. So, it may take a little time. I understand that time is of the essence from the standpoint of getting a decision out for the best sake of the child, and I certainly will do that to the best of my ability. Now, last thing I want to ask is there anything further that counsel want to submit? I'm not--I don't--I'm not requiring anything, and, as a matter of fact, it may be counterproductive, in my view, for things to be submitted by counsel. But, if counsel wants to submit anything post-hearing in terms of argument or suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law, by all means, do that. But, I'm not- 13310 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 MR. ALTSHULER: Let me quickly jump up and suggest that we don't. MR. WAXMAN: TI agree. MR. ALTSHULER: But, if he--I mean, if one of us does, the other one is going to have to respond. COURT: --no, I understand. MR. ALTSHULER: And, so, I think you heard the case-- courT: I that's why I raise it, because I want to-- MR. ALTSHULER: --I'm fine with--if you haven't heard it by now, I don't think there's anything we can add that's productive. MR. WAXMAN: I agree. MS. STOUT: The only thing I would add, your Honor, is I think the parties really need as detailed and specific a plan as they can- COURT: TI understand. MS. STOUT: --(indiscernible). COURT: And that's well set out in both your testimony and your report. All right. Is there anything further to take up? MR. ALTSHULER: No, your Honor. MR. WAXMAN: No, your Honor. COURT: Okay. I want--again, I want to thank 13410 ul 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 25 everybody for your patience and grace during process. MR. ALTSHULER: Thank you, your Honor. COURT OFFICER: All rise, please. END OF HEARING 135 this10 uW 2 1B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 24 25 CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing, Pages 3 through 135, is a true and accurate transcript of Cassette #1078, Index #s 2761-7000, and Cassette #1080, Index #s 08-1118, 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. DATED: March 12, 2009 PReraha. SOc ALA Marsha F. Boutilier Transcriber A TRUE COPY, dated at Bangor, Maine, this 12% day of March, A. D., 2009. Reed d Cri lebas Notary 136

Transcript Divorce Hearing Volume V

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript Divorce Hearing Volume V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like