S.P.A.R.C.

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Author Topic: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ  (Read 7757 times)

aussierules

  • Guest
AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« on: Aug 27, 2004, 08:00:26 AM »
This is going to be long so I am going to get it posted in parts. Sorry. I will do my best to have it all done by tonight or tomorrow night. Enjoy. Questions are as always welcome as are comments, concerns & issues.

Arrived at court around 8:30am and met with FTC and both counsel. Lead counsel still insisted that there was no way that this was a 1 day trial and that I would not be giving evidence so I should relax. Yeah that was good advice. No objections from the judge or opposing counsel so my FTC sat at counsel table was good and ended up being quite the blessing. As soon as 9:00am rolls around the judge calls counsel which included the GAL into chambers and announces he wants this trial done in 1 day. There will be NO second day as mum’s counsel wanted and we almost accepted. My counsel returned and explained that we were going to have to cut some things to make this happen. Just an observation on my part but that doesn’t seem like justice to me when the clock dictates how much or how little evidence you can put on. That said my usually sloth like attorney found a new gear. Wonders never cease to amaze me.

Before I begin I want to make you all aware of something that dominated mum’s case yesterday and that I have not really talked about because it had been dismissed by all of the experts as being nothing. Yesterday however it took on a life of its own and became the center piece of her case. Back in October 2002 when my little girl was about 2 ½ or so she had a little accident at my house. She wet the bed because she was so stressed. She was dry all night but I can only conclude that on this one day she had too much in her little mind to deal with. Remember mum had just married the stepfather and moved him in and we had been apart for a year and a half almost. I am not making excuses for my child. My little girl was so upset at herself she did not want anyone to know what had happened. I told her that it had happened to me and I tried to make light of it because she was so distraught over this accident. On one phone call (and I mean one call) a couple of days later that I made to her when she was at mum’s home during my telephonic access, I reminded her that the incident was no big deal and that if anything it was funny and not to be worried about. This call was apparently taped by mum and ultimately used as the basis for the uraphilia accusation in April 2003. Remember close to 7 months elapsed from the time of the call to the referral to CPS. With that said I will go back to the trial.

We are first up as I am petitioner in the case and we put in Dr. P. He is a psychologist with an expert in psychosexual matters including SVP (sexually violent people). He is also BCBA and was formally of ATSA until he decided no longer to work for that organization. I had been to see him after the first allegation in April 2003 when CPS requested that I somehow prove I did not have interest or proclivity to do what mum had accused me of. Dr. P testified to pretty much all of the material except for the PPG. When he got there mum’s counsel objected and the judge ruled at least initially that it did not meet the scientific standards in AZ. There is some question to that and as of last night they were all still debating whether or not it could come in. Worst case that portion of the report gets redacted out and the best is that we win the legal argument and the report stays in tact. The PPG was only 1 of 10 tests that he performed so there are still 9/10 of the content of the report in tact to support my position that I am not what mum claims me to be. Mum’s counsel argues on cross that as I am so smart that I could have fooled the test. He goes on to ask if Dr. P heard the “tape” and if that would have changed his findings. Dr. P states that the findings are what they are and that in general no incident affects the objective test battery. Mum’s counsel decides to call uraphilia “water sports” because it is so much more visual and shocking and according to him he cannot say uraphilia. Right counsel!

We then put up my counselor Dr. C who has provided me a support network during this nasty mess. She is nervous because she has only been on the stand once before and she does not like mum’s counsel. She does ok and confirms that she concurs with the other experts and having seen me over 100 times in these 4 years that counts for a lot. Mum’s counsel gets up and reveals his surprise for the court. He accuses me of having a habitual tendency to put my hands down the front of my pants in public and play with myself. There are laughs from the court spectator area of course. I was not laughing. There is nothing quite like a new vulgar surprise to deal with at the eleventh hour. Dr. C said that she had never seen this and did not find any traits in my personality that supported this accusation. Mum’s counsel asked her if she had read the transcripts or heard the tape of the peeing discussion. Dr. C was nervous and said no even though she had. Mum’s counsel asked if she knew of any previous counseling that I had that might support one of mum’s wild claims she made to Dr. T during her psychological evaluation. She said that to the best of her knowledge there had been none. Yeeha! Her testimony was not for science anyway but to provide the court some idea of how I had been over many years.
Then my mum is on the stand. She is nervous but my mum is a trooper and she gets up on the stand and on direct she confirms her first meeting with the child’s mum and her impressions of her as a mum. My mother makes no negative comments. We had agreed that we would not do that. She states that there had never been any sexual abuse in our home and that I had been a good child and that she had seen me being a good parent with my child. On cross mum’s counsel tried to make her look like she would turn the other way if I was abusing my child but mum held firm and the testimony petered out. The GAL does not ask mum any questions.

And drum roll please we have our first out of order witness. Mum’s counsel calls mum’s mum to the stand. We shall call her grandma for ease of referring to her. Grandma gets on the stand and immediately starts this new line of attack. I can see where mum gets her wonderful personality from after this little lot. She claims that she never liked me and that she always thought I was up to no good. She states that I am putting the moves on my child and I dress her up like a stripper. Slinky outfits were the words that she used. I am told that the inference is that slinky means sexy. To be honest I do not know that I have ever seen a sexy outfit for a 5 year old and what it might look like if I did come across it. Then grandma bless her launches into her stories of me playing with myself in front of her at a frequency of 3-5 times an hour every day she saw me. Apparently I was not just playing with it I was really playing with it. She claimed that me taking my daughter to the beauty shop for her haircut and nails to be done was very odd and that it was like I was trying to make my child sexy. On cross my counsel got her to admit that despite this alleged behavior she had no problem having her daughter stay with me for many years and have a child with me. Counsel asked grandma what was different about dad taking our child to the beauty shop rather than mum. Grandma could not say except that she thought it was very peculiar that I would do it. Grandma cited her 30+ years teaching and that she had never seen a 4th grader with styled hair or fingernail polish. My take is that grandma was asleep at the wheel if she cannot remember that. On redirect (AZ allows the calling attorney a chance at redirect) she starts crying her eyes out and sobbing stating that she feels our child is at risk and they want to protect her from me. Yeah right. It is not me she needs protecting from. The GAL does not ask grandma any questions.

Next out of order witness was mum’s close personal friend of 13 years. Let’s just called her Ethel as she likes to change her name anyway. Ethel gets on the stand and initially at least claims to have been my friend although along the way she admits that although she did some stuff with me back in 1991 she never really was my friend but more of mum’s friend. She supports grandma’s story that I am a champion masturbator in public and that I spend 50% of my waking hours hanging on to my penis in mixed company. She tells a story that I once came around to her house and watched her change her son’s diaper – he was 2 months at the time and that I commented on the size of his penis apparently. She goes on to state that I made some sexual comments about a 12 year old girl she and I saw that worried her. Her coup de grace however was that she tells the court I came to her sometime in 1991 or so and told her that I was sexually abused as a child and that I was in therapy. How convenient because that is just what mum has said. She then said that in a visit I had with her in 1997 I told her I was worried I would sexually abuse my child if I ever had one. She starts crying and tells the court that she wishes she had taken my claim more seriously. Let me be very clear. I have never been abused by my parents physically or sexually. Their divorce was not fun and there may have been aspects of emotional abuse but that was as far as it went. I left the home so early I could not honestly tell you to what degree I was impacted by the problems in the house between mum and dad. On cross Ethel admits she cannot really remember when she last saw me (2 years ago) but she does remember well these conversations from 13 years ago. That is amazing isn’t it. Counsel asks her why she never reported this to CPS when mum made her first accusation? Counsel asks why she remained my friend despite this prolific masturbating habit and Ethel says that different friends have different places in her life. She says that after the incident with her son’s penis during the diaper change which incidentally I do not remember and I have close to a photographic memory, she would not allow me to be with her son on my own. Never heard that one before either. Counsel asks her what her real name was. She says that she just wanted to change it. Counsel asks her what her son’s real name was and she tells him and announces to the court that although he was in first grade at the time he wants to change his name to be like mummy. LUNATIC. The GAL does not ask Ethel any questions.


iLUVmySD

  • New Arrival
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #1 on: Aug 27, 2004, 08:26:26 AM »
I am intrigued by your story.  We are looking at hiring a lawyer and going to court at the end of this year or early next year.  We are in Tucson, so it'll be interesting to see how the courts are here.  Our battle should hopefully be "easy" because we are going to try to change jurisdiction from Nevada to Arizona.  I would say there is a 75% chance the BM won't even show up (It's an 18 hour drive down here).  Well looking foward to the rest of your story.

jilly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #2 on: Aug 27, 2004, 10:09:41 AM »
Just a comment about your daughter having an accident...she was 2 1/2! They will still have accidents from time to time at that age...even when they're awake!  Based on what you've said, the tape recording she made has no merit or basis in fact. Anybody with common sense should be able to realize that at 2 1/2 a child still doesn't have full control over their bladder.

wendl

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1470
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #3 on: Aug 27, 2004, 12:01:56 PM »
Sounds as if they are pulling at strings brining up the fact that your daughter wet the bed.  My nephew is 3 and he still has accidents.

As for the materbating part, omg. Hmm most men occassionally need to re-adjust things while wearing pants, its normal. Hmm what next they gonna say that kids that grab their private areas while doing the potty dance are materbating. I just can't (well yes I can) how these attys etc try and pull little things and make them into huge so called problems (in their minds).

My dh's trial was 2 or 3 days (omg what a, well I better not say as I got bm and her friends are probably still stakling me cuz they have nothing better to do)

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

jilly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #4 on: Aug 27, 2004, 12:09:23 PM »
"...materbating...attys...try and pull little things and make them...huge "

No pun intended I'm sure! ROFLMBO
(Cut and paste is a wonderful thing! LOL  Sorry...couldn't resist after reading your post!)


onedaddy

  • Guest
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #5 on: Aug 27, 2004, 01:12:19 PM »
RIDICULOUS!  Almonst humorous!

How did she get this recording of your conversation with your daughter?In NY it 's illegal to tape a conversation you are not party too!

wendl

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1470
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #6 on: Aug 27, 2004, 02:16:34 PM »
LMAO showing my typos too.

:)

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**

aussierules

  • Guest
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #7 on: Aug 27, 2004, 05:20:04 PM »
Arizona is what is called a one party state. However taping a child's conversation with her parent seems a little off to me. I do not tape any phone communication between my daughter and her mother. I think that is their private time even when she is with me and I do not plan on intruding on it. Just wait until I put the second part in you will really see rediculous. This was just the morning and the afternoon made that look mild by comparison. This whole thing would have been funny if it had not been happening to me. I just close my eyes sometimes and hope that the end is in sight.

aussierules

  • Guest
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #8 on: Aug 27, 2004, 05:23:57 PM »
I guess when you have nothing else you make a big deal about nothing at all. Maybe with hindsight I should have just less it lie but if things had been normal it would have been a non-issue. The point is that this call happened in October 2002 and mum did not report it to CPS or her concerns to CPS about my alleged uraphila until April 2003. As I stated in court yesterday if the roles had been reversed and I thought the problem had legs then I would have called it in the day after I had heard it.

aussierules

  • Guest
RE: AUSSIERULES Trial Report - AZ
« Reply #9 on: Aug 27, 2004, 05:25:52 PM »
It is noteworthy that mum never stated her concerns about my so called Olympic level masturbation habit to the custody evaluator (Jun 2003), the CPS investigators (Apr 2003, Oct 2003 and Feb 2004) and the psychological evaluator (Mar 2004). Surely it could nto have slipped her mind? The point is clear I think that it took her this long to make this stuff up. I think what was funny yesterday was her attorney announced he had a "smoking gun" and that he planned on revealing all to the court during the trial. It is sad that they would resort to this type of slanderous behavior to try and get a better custody outcome. I am also sad to report that my penis is now in hiding from the humiliation it once again suffered at the hands of opposing counsel.

 

Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.