William L. Albott, Ph.D.

Licensed Psychologist - KS
909 SW T""'h - Topeb, ks ._ 1'~Z34-4T43 lax T'~Z:U-_' -

May 26, 2004

Judge David E. Bruns Shawnee County District Court Division Twelve Shawnee County Court House Topeka, KS 66603-3922

RE RJCHARDSON v. DOMBROWSKI Case No. 96 D 217

Dear Judge Bruns:

)

Let me begin with a note of apology in regard to the delay in providing the court with this report As you know I had a respiratory illness that kept me out of the office and basically rendered me to almost minimal physical functioning for over two weeks. Since my return my stamina has been fairly compromised and thus trying to "catch up" proved quite slow. With that note of explanation, I am writing you in regard to the above encaptioned case and my role in this contentious custody conflict To summarize my contacts with these individuals seems warranted and gennane. I first worked with this couple upon a referral from Judge Richard Anderson I met with them for a total of IS sessions over the time frame of August, 2002 to April, 2003 and although I thought some progress had been made in diminishing the overt conflict the sessions then terminated rather abruptly during one session when following a series of accusations by Ms. Dombrowski, Mr. Richardson abruptly left the session and terminated the process. During these initial meetings my impression was that Ms Dombrowski and Mr. Richardson had an extremely dysfunctional history that was continued, even escalating, after the divorce Ms. Dombrowski had accused Mr Richardson of multiple actions that include domestic violence, rape, etc and in the course of the sessions these accusations were frequently repeated by her to Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson's response to these accusations was to deny and then adopt a stance of basically "no response" where he would just sit silently turning physically away from her. In spite of the often accusatory quality of these sessions I thought we were able to achieve some "compromises" about co-parenting activities Immediate complaints, as distinguished from history, centered around Ms. Dombrowski belief that Mr. Richardson did things to prevent Ms Do~browski. !Tom having adequate parenting time with their da~ghter and Mr. Richardson s complamts were about Ms. Dombrowski frequently appearing m

( ) \
i

<
r
\,

(

..

,

Judge DavId E. Bruns RE: RICHARDSON v. DOMBROWSKI Case No. 96 D 217 May 26. 2004

Page 2

locations where the daughter wa~ scheduled for some activity and acting very -I" inappropriately. -' 1tDD

(Y'Ot

V'\ t"-.I

md

*
)

In March, 2004, Ms. Dombrowski and Mr. Richardson following orders of the court, began a process directed at facilitating co-parenting time and cooperation to this end between the parties. I would note that also involved in the mailer was a Case Manager, Mr. Lloyd Schwartz. In this process I met with the parties 011 two conjoint sessions and one individual session with Ms. Dombrowski. In the~sessions ow;.fucus Ms. ~ had been on arranging visits betwl.'Cn Ms. DomlllinYskj and bcrdaughter Dombrowski was unwilling to arrange the visit at "safe visit"-after my office had arranged for such a visit. My approach then was to attempt to arrange a session with Dr. Rodeheffer, individual therapist for the daughter, and then also a joint session with Dr Rodeheffer, Ms. Dombrowski and the daughter. This conjoint visit was scheduled for 3/23/04 hut Ms Dombrowski did not appear for the session and later indicated that she had made a mistake in writing down the time. A conjoint session was scheduled then for 4/13/04. On 3/21104 .Mr . .fuchardso!!~lIed my offi~.in~L",a!illgt.hat a protel.1ive order hjld been filed in Platt Coun!y' Missouri alliflli<ii'hc wan!~..!().disfontinue visit.s, he Indicated that the application for-a:protective order included apparently an incident which occurred in my office's parking lot on 3/8/04. Following this callI contacted Lloyd Schwartz and yourself seeking advice as to how to proceed. During this period I also . spoke with Mr. Hoffman (attorney for Mr. Richardson). Dr. Rodeheffer and I thcn , consulted and again it was my decision that until we knew more ahout the protective order that such a conjoint visit not take place given the limitations inherent in our offices to provide supervision of the daughter in the absence of one of the parents while waiting for the other parent. On the 29th of March my office received a copy of the Protective Order via Fax from Mr. Donald Hoffman, In reading the Protective Order it specifically prohibits (I) "Abuse, threaten to abuse, stalk, molest, or di.~turbthe peace of the Petitioner wherever Petitioner may befound; and

(2) Communicate with Petitioner in any manner or through any medium"
(emphasISadded] Further in support of her request for this protective ordcr Ms. Dombrowski indicated that "March 8, 2004 .. in Parking lotthreatelled tofind me et kill me ... thatl could not hide forever,. " In that on this date, March 8, 2004 I had met with Ms Dombrowski and :'v1r.Richardson and thus I concluded that the parking lot was my office parking, I thought this to risk the potential for violation of number I above if I were to ask Mr. Richardson to bring his daughter to the office for her and Ms. Dombrowski to have a joint session. I would note that if Ms. Dombrowski is in fact making reference to some interaction which took place in my office parking, she did not report this to me or to my office stafl' at the time and further, it was my recall that Mr, Richardson had left the parking area in advance of Ms. Dombrowski and have no recall of their having interacted in that area.

(

Given the protective order issued out of Platt County Missouri, it was my conclusion that any joint session would represent a violation of the second point noted above and further should I meet with the parties individually and then attempt to share

/

Judge David E. Bruns RE RICHARDSON v DOMBROWSKI Case No. 96 D 217
May 26. 2004

Page 3

any communication from Mr. Richardson to Ms. Dombrowski this would also violate both provisions. I also concluded that my office has no resources which could be used to provide child care/supervision of the daughter should Mr. Richardson bring her to the office and leave before arrival ofMs Dombrowski, I shared this conclusion with Dr Rodeheffer (who shares office resources with me) and he agreed that we could not either provide such supervision nor could we be able to insure that there would be no contact between the parties. I shared with you verbally that in light of the above, it was my recommendation that any supervised visits between Ms. Dombrowski and her daughter be at Safe Visit as they were prepared for such conditions as imposed by the protective order. I also shared with you that I could not think of any way which I could effectively work with these adults in addressing the parenting issues and thus I was asking that this provision of your order be terminated pending receipt of this formal communication Although there are no formal allegations of Ms Dombrowski having physically abused her daughter, the presence of the Protective Order, in my professional opinion leaves me in the position of having no alternatives to Safe Visit to recommend to the court for supervised visits between Ms. Dombrowski and her daughter. I am providing you sufficient copies of this letter so that you may distribute them to the attorney's and the case manager. I am also attaching a copy of the Protective Order. Should you have any questions or need clarification of any point, please contact
me.

Respectfully yours,

0.- QL.

J

William L Albott, Ph.D Licensed Psychologist - KS
[Dombrowski v Ricbardson Icrr]

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful