Milfred Dull; Ph.D.

UCCIUlCd Psychologist

220 I SW 29111 Slrccl

Topclw. K.S 06611

17115) 267-tl025 I P'll( (7RS) 26<;..654(,

DIVISION 2
<i! h~,,!t.IA.Y2'1';I.\,II.:\lm

Apri12,2002

Honorable Richard Anderson

Division 2 District Court
Shawnee Count\' Counhouse
200 SE 1" stmit .
Topeka. KS (NiB

RE: Case No. 96-0·217

Dear Judge Anderson:

Please consider this letter my report on my wort in Ihc: above case. In my Idler of February 7, 20()2, and in
the Status Conference of March 11, 2002, I agn:ed to assess the issues of dangerousness in this case and
asked the Court for pennission 10 addn:ss the factors that caused and maintained lbc conJlicts in the hopes
of developing some kind of guidelines or blueprint for the future of the couple' Ii child I declined the talk of
an assessment limited to Ms. Dombroski's potc:ntiallO hann or kill htr daughter for f'C8SOns ouLliru:d in the
February 7. 2002. leller aad at tbe Status Coofenmcc. [understood the Court' s direction lhaI my wort was
not to ackb'ess any potential change of residential custody or any re<ODSidcration of past Court decisions or
Court orders. The Court wanted to know about potential dangerousness, it WBJIted lO know bow 10 addtea
the extended and ~istenc:e confiicts between the ponies. and il wanted a visitation/parenting time plan
that was appropriate and workable, My work wirh the parties toward$ these goals had gone well prior to
the revocation of my status as the Court' s CMlIuator

The information upon which lhi.!i report is based include: a nwiew ofwriltcn and wetHii.tc matcriaJs.
muJtiple conversations wi1h you and nvo Court Services officet5 (botb of whom were Case Managers in the
case), three two-hout sessions witb Claudine Dombroski and her QlJ1'CIlI husband. ooc two-hour session
with Hal Richardson. the Status Confcn::ncc on March 11. 2002. and a coDversation with an attorney being
considered as a GAL. all the case.

At lhc direction of !he Court, Claudine Dombroski and her CUI1'1:l1t husband submiUed a $50()(} ~ 10
CQVef Ute costs of the evaJ.ualion. I subfilcqucntly met with them in two-bour appointments on ~1arc1l t 8.
2002. Man:b 21.2002. and Mareb 2S, 2002, I met wilh them logClhc:r because I pcttICived the current
husband as a potential helpful person in moving Ms. Dombroski toward less adversarial and polartT.ed
positions. as weU as a potcnlial help in getting her co stick to agn:ements once she made them.

In my IirsnnectiDg with Ms. Dombrollki and her current husband. Ms. Dombroski presented her side of the
case and addn::ssed a long list of concems she had about just about c:ve-ryone involved io the case. or Mr.
Riclwdson. she descnOcd his aDcsed "abuse" of !terseIf and RiW as well as how she had tried 10 "'fight it"
through involving SRS and the police. When I asked her, "Why arc Ihings this wayT Ms. Dombroski
Slated. "because when ( left my ex-husband. I was stupid" and that she didn't believe Rikkl would ever be
given to Hal Richardson. She went on to critici7.c Mr. Richardson. his altOmcy. a fonncr GAL. on lhe
case, and a previous judge on lbc case. Pcrbllps as a way of mtionalizing her f'ailures in previous coun
prooeedin~, she also criticized seveml of her pn:'Vious anomcys for "selling (her) down the river'" or
railing to set aside time occessaty to successfully litigate the case on her bebalf.
 2

When I a&.kcd Ms. Dombroski what tlte Coon' s view or her was. she again criticized SC'VettlI of those who
had been previously involved. HOwe\'er. after explah'ling that such aiticisms were not going to gel her
anywh~ with me or Ihc Coon. I rcfmmed the question to "What might Judge Anderson say is the n:8son
Ihings arc the way the)' are?" To thts she replied. "Because ( ilid not comply with the coW1-ordcr to move
to Topeka. Which is wrong." When I inldTUp1cd her to iJtstruc1 her t-o say what she thought the Judge
might say rather than her opinion. she paused a moment.. then added. ·'because J continued to appeal the
orders.. oontinucd 10 resist orders \0 go \0 Topeka." I explained 10 Ms. Dombroski and her husband Ilaat I
might oOen ask them 10 see situations (rom a perspective besides their own in our work since doing Ihis
would be noc.cssary 10 reduce the oonOicu in the case

In this first meeting. I also established (hull would inlenupt aod redirect the proct!SS whenever it digressed
3wnyfrom OODStnu:tive activiry. In additJon to imenupting Ms. Dombroski as descnbed above, [
intCITUpted her husband's description of Mr. Ricbrudson with 8 quick question. "Would you say that if he
(Mr. Ricburdson) was here? Or, if Rilli was hereT' When be said. ·'No." I stated that. QI least wilhin the
evaJuatiOl'l process. these two qUCSlions would establish the criteria ror what could be said. If it wasn'l
acceptable to be said directly to anether person or in front or RikltJ. it probably shouldn'l be said.

Jn addition. le:qJlained to Ms. Dombroski and her busband tbal it WlI9 not my intern to rclwlh their
complaints about the people invol\'ed. the legal sySlCm. or !he prooc:s.s tbey had experic:zIced. 1 referenced
the "prc-evaluatioo negotialioos" as evidcnoe that the Court bad no intCS'CSt in this. I needed 10 know if Ms,
Dombroski could understand tile Court's view orhcr; namely. thai Rfkki was living "'ith Mr. Richardson
because the Cowt viewed Ms. Dombroski as refusing to sIwe Rilli wilh Mr. Richardson and because Ms.
Dombroski', pn:vious ac:tiODS IuJd Jed the Court to view hcr as haviog little to no cn:dibility. I cmphasiza!
that the Court ,n fact believed Ms. Dombroski has en~ged in active deceplions on lIlJtUC.'!fOOS occasions
over the course oflhc conflict.
I also explained bow these two issues had conlributcd to the view or Ms. Dombroski as potentially
dangerous tQ I.h.c point wIleR the: Case Manager BOd the OCher side WlUltcd JOD1.C n::assur.ancc about safety
issues.. Basically, the safety anxiety WB5 that. if Ms. Dombroski could never "share RikId" with Mr.
Richardson and if the COW1 would not return rcsid.endal CUSKldy to her, sbe mi8ht get dcsparatc cnougIllo
take RikJd's liIe, then cake her own rather than aUowing Rikki to continue rcsjding with her fathc:r.

Ms. Dombroski's response to the "sI1an:: Rikkj" question was to describe her version of some of the events
in Dcccmber 2000. She admilS 10 taking Rikki with her after she was "nipCd" by Mr. Richardson. SlIC
eventually brousht Rilli back aDd turned bcncJf and RikJd in at the polloc station. It was from thefethal
RiJckj WB5 plac.cd in Mr. Ricbardsoo', custody.

My approach to suicide risk. was also explained in this first 1ICSSi0n.. "The approach follows a model
developed by Mcn.niftser psycbologlats ltUdying suicide in the 1980s. This model rocuses on two aspcdS
of II pRiCDI' s sease of SClf: what il called the "false setr and what is called the "true scI!" ne false selr is
a social self. a part or 0UI'SIClves thai we show 10 otbc:rs and for which I..b.ey may admiJe us.. The bUe self is a
priV<ltc part of om5C1ves Ihar ill seldom s::.m by Olhers. otteo becau&t it coutains Ibougbts about OtIl"IlCJves
that aR: quite personal and IhoI we do oot want to share. Suicide oak is at its highest wbea tberc is some:
kind of incsatpabk: or imotwble psychological distress IUd some ptCCipifDlins C\'CDl threatens our
fuDCtionaJ "raJse" sense of self. The prcciPlaliag C\'Cnt either in some way invalidates Ihc false self or
leads to a loss of I.bc admiring aldienoc while at the same time exposill8 aspects or the troe sclt thal arc
terribly humiliating. If Ihc threat to the INC self is cxperic:nQ!:d as inescapable as wcU. suicide becomes a
real possibility. r used the OJ. Simpson casc with (he oouplc to iUUSlrate Ihcse concepts..

We also discussed the web si1e in Ibis meeting. II was dcscribcd as being consuucted -to keep hope aJj"e~
with respect to Rilki. I shared my view that the web site may' have positive meaning to Ms. Dombroski,
but it appeared to function as a provocation 10 Mr. Richardson and pahaps even .he Court because or its
oootent and the lack ofbaJaooe conocrning the issues of importanoc in the case.
 3

,
Allhc cnd of the lirst meeting. 1 emphasized Ms. Dombroskl's need 10 focus on Iwo Innjor issues. First
she nccdod 10 con\'juce !he Court and Mr. Richardson lb.11 she could "shan::" Rikki \tilb Mr. Richardson.
Second. she needed 10 earn crcdibililv wilh Ihe COUi1 and Mr. Richardson before sJlC would be ollowed anv
additional or unsupervised lime \"i.lh-IQkki. I instructed Ms. Dombroski 10 purcha.'iC a copy of the book.. ­
Getting 10 Yes. regarding the differences between positional bargaining and principled negotiation J also
reminded the couple of the Court's focus 011 visitation mt.hcr IIIIlJI custody issues.

And finally. I asked wbat Ms. Dombroski's reaction mighl be 10 a face-to-face meeting with Mr.
Richardson. Both tilts. Dombroski aud her husband Ihoughl about Ihis for a'minule. then Slated they would
be willing 10 do this after I assured them that bol.h sides would be prq:Jared for Ihis mccting much in
..dvancc of iI aclually happening. .

Ms. Dombroski and Mr. Yockers came 10 Ihe second meeting on Man:b 21, 2002. wilb two copies of the
Qsming 10 y~ book. Ms. Dombroski was particularly exciled ahQut tile ideas of~negoti.aling" regarding
Rikki, although she became disappointed when liried 10 slow her down by staling. -r think you thiRk. we're
on step 4. I think we're on step 1.5." Ms. Dombroski had brought a number of documcnt.~ Mlh her and
handed them over one by one at the beginning of lhe: meeting. Wilh each one she had IUJ explanation os 10
what poinl she wnnted OIC to get from 11. She: nOied she Irnew this process was quite "positiotWl:' but she
felt a need to give me these things, after which she was going to try 10 Ihink lIboul the: princ1p1cs underlying
vcuious positions - even those different from her own - rather IbDn jusl lhinking IIbout from wbat position
she wanted to negotiate. I briefly reviewed the documents. but 001)' comrncnlcd ondle fint two she savc
me. l11e first one was the order she daimcd gave her permission to move 10 Oreal Bend. although I
explained thai I read Ihis order 10 be 11 temporary order wlIb a notation. at Ihe end lbat a permanent order
would be made at the time the divorce was finalized. In the Order of Di\'OTCe dated in 1996 ( read that Ms.
Dombroski was directed to reloc.1le back to Topeka.

Ho~'CVc:r. rather than spend thc conlact time fCVlewing documcnts, I reilemted our need to focus on bow
lhe CoUi1 c:nme to view Ms. Dombroski as bei.n8 WlWilling to share IU.kki with Mr. IQchardson and what
actions might be done about Ibis. Initially. Ms. Dombroski clalmcd. -] never renl.ly wanted to lake her
oompletely." Through tears and with Mr_ Yockers' support. she explained varimw past events and her
rationale for them. I aJlcrnated between active listening and inlCmJpling her when she began to press wbll
I perceived 10 be onc--sidcd views that might polari7..e the situalion rather than result in solutions.

FillaUy. I imcrvcned and focused our d.i!ilCU5sion on the web site. '. ,.' , . .,.:. I stated that the: web
site was inflammatory towards others (e.g., Mr. Riclwdson. lhe Case l\ilanager, and dle Court) and that its
content pcrpcIuated not oo1y lhe conflict but also the view of Ms. Dombroski as UIItlble to "share R.illi'~
and as deserving IiltJe crodibil ity from the Coort. Mr. Yeckel'S suggested lhat it be shut down. However. I
had notioed somethiog very intcn::stmg aboul Ms. Dombrosk.i· s demeanor in lbc se:ssions. When talking
about abuse issues. she aImof;t always became tearful and her quality of her thinking suifered. Wbca upset
like this. her emotions clearly impacted her capacity for rational thoughl 8JId planning. However. when
,describing &he advoc::acy iSSUC!l related 10 the web site, she seemed more orgaaiz.cd and her ablJity to
express her thoughts improved. II was clear that Ibc web site was both a place 10 fight (especially when she
fillt sbe oouIdn's 6gb! tn other ways) as well as an actMty from which w derivI:d considc:rnblc: self-esteem f
i
and confidence. I suggested ways of reorgani7jng abe web site so that those who supported her (and v1<lC i
versa) had their needs met. wltiJc simullal1cously hoping to gain some credibility with the Coun by
removing all rc.ferencc.s to Mr. Richardson as well os any refereoccs to RiW thaI porlmyc:d Mr. Richard!iOn
in a negativc manner. I even sketched II now chaJt and a page uullinc for Ms. Dombroski 10 usc in her
planning about how to redesign the: site 10 achi~'C these cbjcctivcs.

In our third meeting on March 25. 2002. Ms_ Dombroski proudJy opened the llIIOCling by stating. "We've
shut dOl\'Jl the web site!" Sbe had l..1ken my am'ioe to post I) ItIC$SIIge stati.og the site was closed for
redesigning. A copy of what Ms. Dombroski claim.~ to have posted is .attached to this report. However,
when l\'C tried to access the web sile. a senter problem prevented me from getting 10 it. Ms. Dombroski e·
mailed me oopics of the material she claims 10 havc posted. During the meeting. we aallcd and IaJked to
Ihe webmaster an Texas aboul our problems 3C()CSSing abc site but \t'C were po( able 10 view the site 10 "jew
its nole about being closed for redesign.
 4

In this meeting Ms. Dombroski /lIso repeated her assertion that she fell uappcd with nowhere 10 go when
cooccmed about the SIlfcty of Rikki and henelf However. I poinlcd oot that the Case Managemem process
was in place 10 address these concerns and that. even though she was often in conflict wilh Ihe most recent
case manager. she should bave worked wilh him regmdins ltds Inllner sinoc this was what the Court had
diJ'CCted her to do when she feels thc:re are risks for abuse or violence. These conflicts wen: il cemral
problem in the events of December 2000 and may have made it difficult for others 10 dclennine just exactly
what happened.

1De rest of the third meeting addressed actions through wrueb Ms. Dombrosk i might gnin smaU measures
of credibilily and show albers ber willingness to "share Rikk1." This was also a very emotiooai topic for
her. In tears sbe spoke of wbat she might do. I suggested the format of writing a lettcrto Mr. Richardson.
Through tears she spoke of what she might say.' As I nolcd earlier. when tearful Ms. Dombroski strugslcs
to organize ber thooghts. I provided the orgnnization for Ms. Dombroski by jOlting down notes. then after a
time. showing lhem to her in the form of an outline of things she: mighl say to Mr. Richardson. She Jeft
with this outline for writing a letter to Mr. Richardson lIthe end of the session.

lbis letter wna to be reviewed and revised prior to 8D)' delivery. The so::UOD5 &he was asked .to addn:ss
were: (I) bow bard it was for people 10 sec Ms. Dombrosld as cooperative and how evcrythirJg &he might
suggest might be viewed as for her pcnonal pin rather than as best for RikId; (2) how she migJu show
otberS her willingness to shale, particularly given she now knows how it fecls to be without R.lk.ki for
extended periods of time: (3) what she had learnod about herself and llOW decreasing the fight helps Rikki;
(4) bow she needs to ftod a way of feeling !hat RiW and she arc safe without blaming Mr. Richardson; and
(~) how certain money and logistics is61.Ic:s might work 0U1 to Mr. RichantJon' S D'1UIIage if she wete
allowed additional visitation. The letter was one step lowards preparing Ms. Dombroski for an eventual
meeting with Mr. Richardson.

Prom. with Mr, RkJwdIOJ!

One meeting with Mr. Ricbardsoo was condUCIod on March 26. 2002. Although 5d1edulcd for one hour.
we:: laJkod for two. I CKpIaincd my process with Ms. Dombroski and Mr. Yoc:kcrs including my rocus Oll
Ms. Dombroski's need to dcmoostmte a willingness and ability to "sha.rc RiW" and her need 10 build
cnxboUity with the Court. We ancmplcd to access the web site 10 confirm the changes. but were ROC able to
do 90 because of what appeared 10 be set\'U problems. Mr. RicbaJ:dson spoke clearly about bow the web
site bid burt him as 'INCiI as family memben in the Manhattan community. He asked if I had seen the sile
and. when I admowledged I bad. he &Sated. ..It· s all lies."
I asked Mr. Ric.bacdson directly for his nssessmem of Ms. Dombroski's potential for banning Rikki via a
homicide-cuicide and via abduction. and explained to bim tbr; model for assessing suicide: risk as I bad done
with Ms. Dombroski. Rqarding a pot.eJltiaJ bomlcic:lc-su.idde. be SIDled, .., don', bavc a grea&COftQml now
because If il was SoinS to happc:n. it would IlIIVC been in AUIJIlSI to Occcmbcr of 2000" wbcn R.ikti W8I
initially placed in his custody. Pertaining 10 M.s. Dombroski's potential for abducting RiW. his response
was. wrr she getS too nruch of a squeeze Oft bet (Rikki). I think its in the ptCture." Wbcn asked how MI.
Dombroski might gain credibility with him. be said. "It would have fD be actions. It would have 10 be
time." Owl' the course of the hour I made notes about poIenlial actions be would like to sec. We agreed
they included Mno more aUcgations of physical or sexual abwJc of Ri.kki or Claudine" aDd I added "00 mon:
poruayals or Hal as a domestic batterer or child abuser." Mr, Ricbardson stopped me when I wnn this last
..action." noting. KHAI did fight with Claudine," I was impressed with this IlOCXIPtance or responsibility for
some of the conflicts. HOWe-vef. I noted with him that such continued portm:yaJs of bim WC1'e not ill Rikld's
best intcteSts. We needed to move past such miSfakcs (and both sides hod made them) in order to do what
was besl for Rikki. One benefit of I'Cduccd conflict in the case migha be thaI CM:JIwaUy he might not be
i.dcJ1dfled or labeled in this way to his daughter.

In addition, Mr.RJcha.rdson agreed wilh my emphasis on Ms. Dombroski's need to share: RikkI. He
believed Ms. Dombroski at times trealed Rikt.llike 8 "piece ofpropcny" 8Dd that $he often told him. ~she's
(Rikki's) mine. you've got your own kida" as if she did not rccogni7..c he W8I also quite aUJlChcd to Jtikkj.
 5

\
We also discussed Mr. Rich:m:lson's wishes (or RiIdd. He "wants RikJd to be n good kid'" and claimed he
was extremely proud of Rikki when her ftnt grade teacher staled tbat "'we would De\'CJ' have kno\\'U RikJd
was from a broken bome'" by bow she oonducls herself III schooL
We also discussed the casket thai sits in Mr. Ridwdson', living room and lhat is pjctw'ed on the wdl sile.
Mr. Richardson nOied that he bought this from a friend after his divorce. He denied thaI it reprcscntcd
anything other than an amiquc and olI'enxt 10 allow me 10 LtIlk 10 Rjkk,i to sec if she believed it couveyed
lhe "control" messages as claimed by Ms. Dombroski I told him' would need to think mon: about it
before laIkiog with Rikk.i

In contrasllO bow be was porlnlyed by Ms. Oombl'Olkl. Mr. RicblU'dson was pleasant in OW' discussion.
The only time he seemed inilable or even mildly difficult was with ~ 10 the casket. I~' he bad
offered to "get rid of it" berore (when discussing this wilh the losI Cwse Manager), but be did ootcome
across aa really wanting to do Ibis and Ibot be was irritated at disalss;ng it. pcrbaps for the "uptCCPth Lime."
No decision about it was made in IbJl filSl meeting. If I hod continued. I would have addn::sscd this i.ssuc
again. Tt would be my hope thal Mr. Richardson would remove Ule casket 10 keep it from inIlarning the
process (just I recommended Ms.. Dombroski romCM: tbe web site).

Mr. R.k:hanlson' s refcn:na:s to Ms. Dombroski for the most past conc:emcd bow "she must behave."
However, his opinion orM$. BCIty Siumpf. M&. DombrosId's mother, isdedded1y mon: critic:aI. He
belieVes Ms. Stumpf has not been helpful 10 he and Ma Dombroski with rcsped to their c:oafUcu. His
words for describing her well) "'she' s poisoo." I did not ask bim to elabomte 00 this in this initial meeting.

Mr. Richardson and , was discussed ,he pholo album I had given him at the end or lhe Status Coofmmcc.
He bad placed pictures of RikJd In iI. As I browsed through Ibcm, I ~JainCd lhc pmposc oC the album was
both prnctical and a bit symbolic. Because people in hish-conOia divorce CBSCII often argued about
pictures. my pInn was to scan piC1un:& he bad of Rikki and provide lhem 10 Ms. Dombroski (and vice
vc:rsa). The symbolism islhat this offen the other side to know about aspects oftbc child's life they were:
unable 10 witness I.hcmselves. Mr. Rk:hantson identified ~ «Ad others in Ibc piauRa ond asked thall
only scan pic::tun!s of RiW herself since be believed pictures of Rikki with other members of his fimUly
might antagonize Ms. Dombroski. He did DOt want thc pictures to stir up moRi conflict I agn:cd with bis
Ihoughts on this issue but did nol gel Chis task. c:omplcteri

As thc end of OW' meeting approached. Mr. Richardson asked. "So what am I supposed to dor I atkcd him
to cad the Oettins 10 Yes book and loaned bien a copy. He said be would n:ad it. WbeD I suggested that
be work on the kiod& of visitation schedules that mlsht work. be stated he would wan'
to doh "like before."
He described a scbcdulc very close to "guideline visitatioa" with RiW soctng Ma. Dombroski every
Wodnesdsy for two bours and every other weekend. 'lbc:y could also divide up the holidays and vacations
in aa:ordancc with thc Shawnee County OuidcJincs. He stated be would bcncftt from RIkJd being with
Claudine every other weekend by being able 10 take 011 more jobs at won:. He also Ionscd for an end 10 the
oonfticu because of the stJess they meant fOT him and Rikki. \Vhen I asked about possibly lDCICting willi
Ms. Dombroski. Mr. Ri<:baldson asscr1Cd he would be willing 10 meet with Ms. 00mbr0sId to discuI:s
visiWion issues. He eodcd by saying. "l{ Claudine bc~ hcne1f, no problem. Just don 'I let her
(Claudine) rake Ri.kJd away,"

eO!ld-MOP!
I.. tIIerc 11m to Ibow tlUlt MJ. Do..brolkl II • rltk to IdII or abduct bet'dauprer1 0 ... Ia dIere data
to IbOW' dun tllia risk Is DOt pret:eat1

Ms. Dombroski orpni7..CS herself around feelings and she is impulsive. I noted IilCYcra.I tifDCI in the thn:e
meetings with her how sbe organ.i7..CS around how she fcels aJW1 that this results in bet presenting bctsclf in
different ways at different limes. She was qtdle teary throughout mudl of our COlUUds. When upset about
mi&s.i1l8 her daughter. she becomes ICarful and lhlnks of filing motions in CQW1 seeking custody. Wbc:ln
reminded of the Court's rulings and currenI stance regarding c:u.stody. she thinks of fi ling moll.ons in the
,
I,
fulU~ as if perhaps at another time the Coun will somehow change its mind.
 6

,
AI least in the sessions with me. her behavior did 1101 appear to indicalc any rage or hatred at Mr.
Richardson tbat was Ihl'COlCfting Co find e.'q)feSSiOD in a homicide-suicide. I also did not perceive nny
intolerable or i.ncscapablc distress t.haJ might trigger a psychological crisis of sufficient JUagnilude to
warrant a oomjclde·su.icidc solution. Indeed. her stance with respect to Mr. Richardson seemed mon: abotJl
dislress she experienced al being UJluble LO cbangc anything about his role in her situation and about uying
to get others to make sore he didn't harm Rikki. Ms. Dombroski denied having any plan to halm Rikld and
did not appear as If she hod given up hope to the poim of being suicidal. Indeed. she bas remanicd and
appears to have a good relationship with htt new busband. She is acth1cly involved in advocacy activilies
related to domestic violcncc from which she demcs sigoi11cant self-esteem. She reports a good womng
relationship with a psychotbernplSl She has followed the visitation scbedule of supervised time with Rikk.j
and now wants more time 10 re-establish a more significant reLaliooship.

Ms. Dombroski understood me issue: of needinS to "sIlare Rik.ki" and seemed to respond LO 90me of my
iDtcn'COliODS designed to helphcr make more reasonable requests with respect to her porcntiJl8 time wittl
Rikki. Regardless of what one believes about whether or not Ms. Dolllbf05ki WU5 ~blc or incapable of
sliming Rikld In the past. she appears to be learning how the Court has oorne to view her as having
problems in this auea that need to be addn:ssed. Signs 1Ml she might be &ess extreme in her peQuon
towards Mr. Ri(;hamfson inc:lude the modification oftbe web sile 10 exclude data about the case and
menaces to Mr. Ric:hardson and her willingness to evCfltually meet with !rim 10 discuss a parenting time
scbcdu.le. .

And finally, to my knowlcdSC, Ms. Dombroski has DO history of betns physiallly hannfuJ 10 her daughter.
She denies any motivation for hanuing RiUi and lusts her inlcnl is exactly the opposite. Mr. Richardson
believes the highest risk for dangerous actions would have been from August to Dco:mber 2000 wbcn the
custody of Rikki switcbcd &om Ms. Dombroski. While Ms. Dombroski's conflicts with the Court and its
officers WCIe significant aI thai time and persisted up to the present time. none: of these seemed sufficienl to
push her towards harmful or homicidal actions in the past aud it is diffitu1t to look into the future and
or
imagine c:vcnts tbol WQU.Id ~cb or ex~ tbc stteRea Ihca: evcntt,

With respect to the risk of Claudine Dombroski ..abducting" RikJd. it is the Court"s view that Ms.
Dombroski did do this in tbc past and lIIat Ms. Dombroski had also enpged in otber kindl of actions that
inlerfc:rcd with Mr. Ricbardsoo'll pan:l1'Ital rights. This evaJwdor did not rmel Ms. Dombrolki to have any
kind of actm: plan to defy the Court and take Rikki. Again. wbilc Ms. Dombroski's tcfIdcncy 10 lhink about
what may be scm as cxccsstve motions to plac:e before the Court is a problem.. this behavioral pattern
speaks 10 her cff'o'fU to raotve mattcrs in ways other than ilh:ga1 actioN like abduction.

WUC ,....Id belp Ike Court ecc M .. Dombroddu cRdlble CIICMIP 'Co raaDIC more Dormal poratiag
adlwt!es at RQdd'.....raitleadal paftllt1
Docs Ms. Dombroski still want n:sidcntla1 CUSlody7 Yes.. she docs. I don', know many mothers who
would ever give up lbls wish. Bur the question orinlcrcst 10 the Court is wlllC'lhct she can accept her role all
II I'IOI'H"ClIidcndaJ pan:n1 or. show the Court me is makillg ptugress lowmds tlrls end. am abe and Mr.
Richardson find ways of decn.sing the conflicts in rhe case to the benefit of their dauglucr1

Functioning adequately lIS lhe non·residential parent will require Ms. Dombroski to rcsisI conliDwlJly
petitioning for changing custody from Mr. Richardson to herself The amdety cngcndcrcd from such
motiolllicads to the polarized positions described throughout this report 'The case SOCII nowhere if this
issue is always in the rorefront or the COn1ad between the parties. But the case also SIands litde cbancc or
moving forward if this issue is C\lCr·prcsent in the ba<::k.ground as if such motions might be mod at lbe flnt
siin of opportunity.
DemoustraJiDg an ability to dccn::asc her public criticisms of Mr. Richardson via the weblritc o. in other
forums migbt alISO indicate Ms. Dombroski can accept and value her role as the non-residential parent
 7

\
Are abe parents C8peble of' mediDI 10 aegodaae • plllreatmR plan tbat in't'otvC!1 M.. DombrodU b......ing.
more ....... IUpeniscd ddtl through the Sale Vlllit Prognm? Are theR poreata "lIllnl to meet and
dlClUld dIey do this!

I don '( know if tbe Couo can come up wtch It better solution than the parents could if Ihey had a properly
innnaged mC!C1ing, Such u meeliug was a goal of my proocsses with both pan::ml. Such a mCC1ing would
require the porcnlS to set aside tbcit conflicts (and 10 a large extent soUle of tbcir e~ views) to find
a way to ~sbarc Rikll.i." Mr. Richardson c:xprcssed a willingness to nu:=et if the meeting can be aboul
sharing Rikki. Neither he or the Court have any interest in relwhiDs past cvems, arguing 0\lC'T custody. or
any planning that means IUkki is taken from him. Showing a willingness to meet with Mr. Richardson (0
negotiate parenting time, not custody, could also be secft as an indiC8l.ion of Ms. Dombroald pL'lCing "';due
in her role aB non-residential patCI'Jl I was moving Ms. OombroslU in this direction and preparing her for
such a meeting. To EICalmpUsh Ibis meeting. clear limits and boundaries similar would need to be
established and maintained. But J believe UIICSC two parents can worlt lowards.aud achjeve the goaJ of
meeting to discuss tbci.r daughter if appropriate suppons available and adequafe pre-mCC1in8 preparntion is
completed.

V tbc p.reao c::aa Itt to «be poiDa of aegoliatina ,. pareatilll time s:ebeduJe.. wbDt IIlIgbt the parentiDg
time IIChedule look Ike!

Mr. Ricbatdson's suggestion to "do wbalwc did before" seems I",c a big step from the curreat
~. This oWer may represent biro choosil18 an ~ Ihat he hopes mcaJlS less stress mther
than negofi.ming StcpII to more sradually arri't'C III this amIJlFfIlCDl CertninJy, stICh an arrangcm.cnt aMJld
be viewed as a goal for the process between the parcnlS. I bad suggested 10 Mr. Riduudson that
Ml1.Dombrosid' 5 incR:ased contact with RikJd take place at school wbcrc olber personnel were around to
provide a degree of monitoring.

What appnNl£" udPc A cue DlADqer tIIJ&e to ecldeve IIIItteICI (e.... salety. decreue In c:onf1ict.
PlU'CDdnll time for both pareaCI) la 1111. cue?
1lae question of who migbl manage or mediate tbe meetinS between dle parents will be a matter for chc
Cowt. Is there "'hope" for change from the oonUnual oonflict \hal has c:luuacterized so mucb of dJis
couple"s relationsbip?Ooc'SaDSWef to thisqucsUort dctermi.ocsooc'1I: opinion ofwbal should be done
from this point forward. If one bel.ic:vcs tbalthe psycholosici and behaviors of the partlca wiU not cbangc,
that.the n:latiooship will always be marmt by conflict and vioJence if' COOlaCt between the parcnb 1s
aJJowcd. and lha:t tbe support.sys&ems orlhe partict wiU furtbcr lock aDd entrench tbe pa:rtles in their
ootdlict. eben some kind or arlJitrator like a Case Manattcr lIIIdIor Ihc Court will supervise the case: until
Rikki is 18. The COlIn clearly sees the disadv8lJl88CS of thil scenario.

My n:c:ommcndatiaa ill for the Court to ideDIifY a c:aac mat1It8Cf wbo couJd work with the parents in wbJd
one JI'light term. .. mcdiation-oriCDU:d casc management." This process would have the parents .meet and
wOlk together to &CI as far as possible 00 eac:b contCliCed Issue before !he case manager makes a dcc:ision. II
will be diJficull 10 conduct die I..'USI: in lbi.II way 81 Om.. but the beDeftm are dIaIlbe .pGlUIts can C\'eDtuaIIy
learn how to focus tJaeir efforts 00 tJtejr chiJd's needs rather thaD dJei, conf1jcu or pcmJOMI agc:ndas.

EDeline ADd Fees

Rt:garding my coD1actS wilh the parnes since my role in Ihc case endcI:I. I ba't'C spoken to Mr. Richardson
by phone to make ammgemen1S for kim to retunl pick up IUs pbO«o ~ and 10 return my boc*.. I have
also spoken 10 Ms. Dombrosld to amcd a mcetin8 scheduled for March 29. 2002. I dl.rccted her 10 work on
the I8SIc.s we had discussed in our meetings (e.g., revtsio,gthc web site, working on a letter to Mr.
Richardson) because these activities held more promise for improviog her Lime and relationship with IUkki
Uum additional RU£181 with tho Court. \ ,

This report completes my role in the case. My fees for the C8!lC 8rc 12800 for fOUJ1cCn hours on the case.
As noted in my Idter of February 7. 1002, my fees are calculated al $200 per hour for both direct and

~----------------------- .. - .. - ..- - -...- -..-~

 8

\
1ndirec11ime spent in the evaluation including bu. not Umitcd 10 intcnicws and les1ing. telephone conlaCls,
document review, deposition. coun preparntion and testimony, and repo" preparntiOIl. I ha\'e refunded
Ms. Dombroski $2200 from her $5000 retainer.

I focused my report on the issues of celltrnl importance in dljs case and worked to build bridges where
c:onfliCl scpamtcd people. Perhaps Ihis can move things forward. I am avail;lblc 10 addrcs... questions about
the case and Ihis report.