2002 April 2 --- Dr_1

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2002-april-2-dr1 1/8

Apnl 2. 2002

Honorablc Richard Andc:non

Division 2 DistriCl CoonShawnee Counn' Counhouse200 SE1hSt~

Topelm. KS (Jl,(.,()J

RE: Case No. 96.0-217

Denr Judge Anderson:

Milfret.l Dille, Ph.D.

LIl:ensed PsychologIst

no I SW 29th :-)trCCI

lopelLa, KS 6661 I

17!l5)267~)025 I Fllx (7'15) 26(.-(i54(,

,lr!',!:d,l;lk;~.:I~>I,.,""D I VIS IO N 2

Please coDSlderthis letter my report on my work ill the aoo..'c case. In my letter of February 7. 2002. and 10

tltc Stltus Conference of March II. 2002, I agreed to assess (be issues of dangerousness in Ibis case andasked Ihe COUltfor permission (0address (he faClors Ilaatcaused and maintained the conflicts in the hopesof developing some kind of guidelines or blueprint for the future of llIe couple's child I declined (he task of an assessment hmi(ed to Ms. Dombroski's potential to haml or kill hcTdaughter for reasons outlined In theFcbru:uy 7. 2002, Ictter and a( the Status Confen::ncc. (understood the Court's direction that my work wasnot to address any potential change of residential custody or any rc-eonsidcration of past Cowt decisions orCOUltorders, The Court wanted to know about potential dangerousness, it wamed to know how to add r e s s

Uteextended and persistence conflicts between !he pnnies, and i( wanled a visitaaionlparcnting lime planthat was appropriate and workable. My work willi !he parties towards (hese goals had gone welJ prior tothe revocation of my status 8!llhe Court' 5 evaluator

11le informanon upon which Ibis report is based include: a review of wriUc:nand web-site materials.muJtiple conversations with you and IW O Coort Services offioers (boCbof whom were Case:Managers ID Ihc

) h h i i h Cl di D b lU d h h b d h i

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1


When I asked Ms. Dombroski what the Cowt's view of her was. she again criticized several ofthosc whoIwl been prevIously involved, HowC'\'er. after explaining that such crilicisms were not going to gel her

;mywhcre with me or the Coon, I refrnmed the question 10 ~What might Judge Anderson say is the n:8sonIhmgs an: the way thc)' are''''' To thISshe replied, "Because I did not comply with lhe cour1-orclcr10 move10 Topeka. Which is wrong," When I inlcrTUplcdher 10 instruct her I() say what she thought the Judge1I1ightsay rather than her opinion, she paused IImomenL, Ihen added. "becnusc r continued to appeal theorders, continued to resist orders to go 10 Topeka." I explained to Ms, Dombroslc.iand her husband tlaal Imight oOen ask them 10 see situations from a pcrspcclivc besides thei. own in our work since doing thiswould be necessary to reduce the conflicts in the case

In tlus first meeting, I also established Ibm I would lJ1tcnupt and ~1 the PI'OCf.:SS wbellever il dig:rcssodawuy rrom constntctive activity, In addition 10 ink:mJpting Ms, Dombroski as described above, [

intC'mJpted her lwsband'sdcscription ofMr, Rictuurlson wiUl a quick question, "Would you SIlythai ifhe(Mr Richurdson) was here? Or, if Riltki was here, When he said. "No," I slated that. IIIleast willun IheevaJuation process. these Iwo questions would cstabl.ish the criteria ror what could be said. If it wasn'lacceptable 10 be said directly to Mother person or in from of Rilli. it probably shouldn't be said,

In addition. I esplained 10 Ms. Dombroski and her husband that it was not my tntenl 10 rehash theiroomplaims aboul the people involved, the legal SYStem.or the process lhey had experienced, I referencedt1ac"pre-evaluation negotiations" as evidence that the COIUt had no interest in this, I needed 10know if MsDomb106ki could understand lbe Court's view of hc:r. raunely, that Rikki Wll5 living ",ith Mr, RichardsonbcClJUSC the Coun viewed Ms. Dombroski as refusing to slwc Rilli wiUl Mr. Richardson and bocause Ms.Dombroski' 5 previous actions hnd Jed the COUJ110 view her as having IHtJe10 no cn::dibilil)'. I emphasizedthat rhe Coun in ract believed Ms, Dombroski has CI1SJgcd in active deceptions on numerous occasiOflSover the course of the oonflict,

I also explained how these two issues had contributed 10 the view of Ms. Dombroski lIS potentially

dangerous to tlte point wIleR t he Case M anager and t he o the r s ide w811tcd some R:85IUJ3Jlce about safetyissues. BasK:aJly,the safety an:<iety was that. if Ms. Dombroski could never "share Rikki" with Mr.Richardson and if the COur1wouJd not return residential custody to hCl', she might get desparate enollglliotake Rik.ki's life, Ulen take her own rather than aUowing Rikki 10contiJlue rcsjding with her falhcr.

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1


\

AI lhe end of the lirst mcctlng. ( emphasi;:cd Ms Dombroski's ncod to focus Iln Iwo 1I11IJorISSueS First,she nccdOOto convince the Court and Mr. Richardson Ihat she could "share" Rlkki \\llh Mr Richan1sonSecond. she needed 10cam credibilIly wilh rhe COM imd Mr Richardson before she would be allowed an~additionaJ or unsupcn'ised IIJlJewllh Rikki I instruL1cdMs. DombroskI 10purchase a COP)'of Ihe book.Gcttmg 10 y~. regarding Ihe din-creon'S betwl,,-enposition;)1bargaimng and principled negolaallon I alsoreminded !lIe couple of the Court' 5 lOCuson visit.1lion mthc:rthan custody issm.'S.

And linally, I asked whal Ms Dombroski's miction mighl be 10a face-to-face mcctlng wilh MrRichardson Both M.s. Dombroski and her husband Ihoughl about this for a nunule. Ihen slated they wouldbe willing 10do Ihis after I assured them lhal bolh stdes would be prepared for Ihis meeting much IIIadvance of 11acluaJly happening

Ms. Dombroski and Mr Yockcrs came 10 the SlXond meetmg on MarcJl 21, 2002. wilh two copies of theQgJ!!ll:t.I2...Y~ book Ms. Dombroski was particulmty exciled aboUllhe ideas of"negoti.atin~" regardingRikkl, although she became disappointed when liried 10slow her dowl1 by stating. ~Ithink )'OU think we'reon step 4. I think we're on step I.S.~ Ms. Dombroslu had broughl a lIumber of ckx:umenls ",;Ih her andhanded them over one by one at Ihe begiIUung of lbe meeting. Wilh each one s o o had lU1 e.''(planalion as 10whal poin! she wantOOme to get from II. She nOIl:dshe knew lhis process was quite "positional:' but shefell a need to give me these things, after wtuch she wus gOlll8 10 lry 10 Ihink about the princIples underlyingvllriOUSpositions - even those different from her own - rather than jus. lhinking about from what positionshe wanted 10negotiate. [briefly reviewed Ihe documents, but only commcnaed on the first lWOshe gn"'cme. 11lc first one was Ihe order she claimed gave her permission to move 10Grcal Bend, although Iexplained lhal I read thISorder 10be a lempoflU')'order wilh a notation. at Ihe end that a permancnl orderwould be made at the:time the divorce was finalized. In lhe Order of Divorce dated in 1996 I read lhal Ms.Dombroski was directed to reloc.,te back to Topeka.

However. mther!han spend the conlactlJmc £eV1ewml'documents. I reitcrnted our need 10 fOClL'i on how

lhe COIlr1CllIDCto vicw Ms. Dombroski Its being unwilling 10share Rikki WltItMr. Richardson mid whalac t ions nugh( be :done abou t lb i s . ln it iaUy. Ms . Dombrosk i c la imed . , ~J never real ly wanted to I : lke hercompletely." TIlrougb Ie.vs and with Mr. Yockers' support. she expLTincd various past events aod hermlionale for them I alternated between active listening and mtcrrupling her whc:nshe began 10 press whalI perceived to be one-sided views that might polari7.c the situalion nllher tJLltnresult in solutions.

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1


4

In this meeting Ms. D<lmbroski also repeated her assertion that she fell trnppc:d with nowhcn: to go when

concerned about Ihe safety of Rikki and herself However. I pointed out that the Case M:U1Agemel1lprocess

was in place 10 address lhese concerns and that even though she was oileD in conflict ••.••llh the mOSI recenl

case manager. she should b.1ve worked with him regarding litis matter sinoc Ihis was what lhe Court had

directed Iter 10 do when she feels then: are risks for abuse or ••.iolcncc. l1lese conJliets were a ccnlrnl

problem in Ihe "•••.ents of December 2000 and may ha\'C made il difficull for others 10 dctenninc just exactlywhat happened.

1be rest of the lhird meellng addressed actions through wh.icb Ms. Dombroski might gain small measures

of credibility and show oll,crs her willingness to "share Rikki." TItis was also n vcry emotional lopic forher. In tears she spoke of wllat she might do. I !.uggestcd the format of wriling n letter to Mr. Richardson.

Through tears she spoke of what she might say. As 1 noted earlier. when tearful Ms. Dombroski struggles

to organize her thoughts. I provided the org;mization for Ms. Dombroski by jotting down notes. then after a

time, showing Ihem to her in the foml of an outline of things she migh1 say 1 0 Mr. Richardson She left

with lhis outline for writing a letter to Mr. Rkhardson at the end of the session

This letter was to be re\iewed and revised prior to any delivery. The sections &he was asked 10 addn:ss

were: (I) how bard it was for people 10 sec Ms. Dombrosld lIS coopcmtivc and how everything she mightsuggesl ntight be vicm=d as for her pergonal gain rather than as best for Rikki; (2) how she ntight show

otbers her willingness 10 share, particularly given she I10W knows how il feels 10 be williout Rikki for

e..~endcd periods of time; (3) what she had learnod about herself and how dc:cn:asing the fight helps RikkL

(4) how she needs 10 rmd a way of feeling lhat RikJd and she ore safe without blaming Mr. Richardson; and

(5) how certain money and logistics iSS\lcs might work out to Mr. Richardson's aIh'llJ1lage if she wen:

allowed additional visitation. The letter was one step lowank preparing Ms. Dombroski for an eventualmeeting willi Mr Richardson.

Prom' with Mr, RkbanllOl!

One mec:ting with Mr. Richardson was conducted on March 26. 2002. AUllOUgh sdJcdulcd for one hour,

we talked for two. 1 explained my process with Ms. DombJ"Oldd and Mr. Yock.en including my focus on

M D b ki' d d illi d bili 10 " h I Rikki" d h d b ild

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1


5

\

We also discussed Mr. Rich•.nt!son's wishes for Rikld. He ~wanlS Rikki to be a good kid~ and claimed hewas extremely proud of Rill, when her first grade teacher stated lhat " "w e would 'lC\'er have known Rikkiwas from a broken home" by how she conducts herself III school.

We al50 discus.'iCdtlte caskctlltat sits in Mr. Richardson's living room and that is pictured on the web site.Mr. Richardson noted lhat he bought this from a friend after his divorce. He denied that it repn:sentcdanything other than an antique and olfeJ't'd to aJlow me 10 1IIDl. to Rik.k.ito see if she be1iC\'ed it conveyedlhe Yculltrol" messngcs as claimed by Ms. Dombroski I told him I would noed 10 think man: aboul itbefore t3Jking with Rill •.

In contrnst 10 how be was portrayed by Ms. Dombroski, Mr. RicbllTdson was pleusant in ollr discussion.

"Theonly lime he scenled irritable: or even mildly difficuJt was with fC$pect 10 the casket I know he hadoffered to Ugel rid of it" before (when discussing this with the lust Case Manager>, but be did not comeacross as really wanting to do this and lhat he was irritated at discussillg it, perhaps for the "upteenth time."No decision aboul It was made in lhis lint meeting. If I had continued, I would have acldn:sscd this issueagain. It would be my hope that Mr. Richardson would remove Ulecaskct 10 keep it from inflaming theprocess (just I recommended Ms. Dombroski remove the 1I\'Cbsite).

Mr. Richardson's referc:nccs to Ms. Dombroski for the most past concerned bow "she rmlStbehave."

However, his opinion of Ms. BCUy Slumpf, Mil Dombroski's mother, is deddedJy mon: critical. Hebelieves Ms. Stumpf has not been helpful 10 he and Ms. Dombroski with respect to their conflict.!. Hiswords for describing her were "she', poison." I did not ask bim 10elabornte 00 tJUsin this initiaJ meeting.

Mr. Richardson and I was discussed the photo album I bad given him at the end o r tile Status Conference.He had placed pictures of lOW in il. As I browsed Ihrough them, I ~lained the purpose of the album wasboth prnctical and a bit symbolic. Because:people in higlt-confliet divorce cascs often argued aboutpictures, my plllll was 10 5c:m pict1JtCShe had of Rikki and provide them 10 Ms, Dombroski (and vice

versa). 'The symbolism is that this offers !he other side to know about aspects oCthe child's life they wen:unable to witncs5 themselves. Mr. Richardson idendfied Rikki and others in Ihc:pitturea ond asked UWtIonly scan pidlU'CSof Rilli herself since he believed pictures of Rikki with other members of bis fJunilymight antagonize Ms. Dombroski, He did DOtwant the pietlD'CSto stir up more conflict. I agreed with histhoughts on this i5Sllebut did not get this task. completed.

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1


6

Al least in the sessiOns wilh me. her behlnior lhd lJot appear 1 0 indicate any rage or hatred at Mr.

Richardson lhat was thrcaaening to find e.'q)TeSSJon in a hOlmcide-suicidc I also did 00( perceive nn)'

intolerable or inescapable distress thaI mighl trigger a psychological crisis of sufficient magnitude to

warranl 1 1 homicide-swcidc solution. Indeed. her stance with respect to Mr. Richardson seemed more abouldistress she experienced Ilt being unable Lo change anything about his role in her siluation and about trying

to get others to make sore be didn't bann Rikki. Ms. Dombroski denied having any plan to ban •• Rikki and

did not appear as if she had given up hope to the point of being suicidal. Indeed. she has remarried and

llppcMS to have a good relationship wilh her new husband. She is aetn:e:I)' involved in 3dvocacy a<.:liVI1JC:'i

related 10 domestic violence from which she derivcs significant seJf-estc:em She reports It good working

relationship with a psychotherapist She has rollowed tbe visiL1twn schedule of supervised time: with Rikki

and now wants more time 10 re-establish a more significant l'Cwuollship.

Ms. Dombroski understood the issue of nceillng to "shan: Rilli" and seemed to respond lO some of my

interventions designed to help her make more: reasonable requests with respect to her po.renting time wjth

Rilll. Regardless of what one believes about whether or not Ms. Dombro&ki \\11S capable or incapable of

sharing Rikki in the past" she appears to be learning how the Court has oome 10 view her as having

problems in Ihis orea that need to be addressed. Signs that she might be ~ extreme in her position

tawards Mr. Richardson include the modification of the web site to exclude data about the case and

references to Mr. Richardson and her willingness to eventuaJJy meet with trim to discuss a parenting tilDe

schedule.

And finaDy" to my knowledge, Ms. Dombroski has DO history of being physically harmful to ber daughter

She denies any motivation for banning Rilli and lwilts her intent is exactly the opposite. Mr. Richardson

believes the highest risk for dangerous actions would have bocn from August to December 2000 when the

custody of Rikki switched from Ms. Dombroski. While M&. Dombroski"s conflicts with the Court and its

officers were significant at that time and persiSiod up to the present time. none of these seemed sufficient 10

push her towards harmful or homicidal actions in the past aJX1it is difficult to look into the fu1ure and

imagine events tbat would malch or l;Xoced the SU'e$IeS of \he$e evClt1i,

With respect 10 the risk of Claudine DombrD5ki "abducting" Rikki., it is the CouJ1'S view that Ms.

Dombroski did do this in tbe post and tlUll Ms. Dombroski had also engaged in other kinds of acLions tbnt

interfered with Mr. Richardson's parental rights. This evah ••"ltor did not find Ms. Dombroski to have any

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1


7

Are Ute PIII-entscapable:of ~tiDllo nqotJale a pareating plan tbal involves ML Dombroski b""'ingmore tblln supervi!JCd ",'isits througb the Sale Villit Program? Are these p.~atll "llIinR 10meet andsfJouldtky do this!

I don 'I know if Ihe COWlC1I1 come up with a better solution than the pan:nts could if Ihey hnd a properlyIlUlJWgedmeeting, Such a mccting was a goal of my processes with both pran:tl1S.Sud! 3mee1jug wouldrequire the porcnlS 10 se( aside their conflicts (and 10 a large extent solue of their Cll1renched"iews) 10 finda way to ~share Rikki," Mr, Richardson expressed a willingness to meet jf the meeting can be aboutsharing Rikki. Neither he or the Court have any intcrest in rehashing PlSt C\:eots.arguing over custody, orany planning that means Rikki is laken fTOmhim. Showing II willingness to moet with Mr, ltichardson 10

negotiate parenting time, not custody, could also be seen as an indication of Ms. Dombroski pL'lcing~'alucin ber role as non-residential parent. I was moving Ms. DombroslU in this direction and preparing her for

such IJ meeting. To acetlmplis.h this mccljn~ clear limits and boundaries similar would need 10 beestablished and maintained. But I believe lhese two parents can work towards and achieve the goaJ of meeting to discuss their daughter if appropriate supports ••voilable and adequate pre-meeting preparnl.ion iscompleted.

If abe paceatl am I'CCCo t"e point of negoCilrtJnga parelltinl time KII~ule. wbat aligbt the puentingtime Khedule look fike!

Mr. Richardson's suggestion to ~do wbat we did before" seems like a big step from the CUI1'CI1t

arrangemc:nt. 'This offer may represent him choosing an arrnngc:mc:naIhat he hopes mc:aJl5less stress ratherthan negotiating steps to more gradually arrive III this ~l CcrtninIy, such an arnutgemcnt couldbe viewed as a goal for the process between the porents. I had suggested to Mr. Riclwdson thatMs.Dombroskj's incrcascd contact with R.ikkitake place at school wben: oLhcr personnel wen: around toprovide a degree of monitoring.

What approach ntlaJtt a cue: man8JlCr take to acltJeve SIlcrete (Colo •• ar",. decreue In COJInict.parentiDa time Corboth pamstl) la llUl rae!

1be question of who might manage or mediate tbe meeting between thc parents will be a matter for theCourt Is theR: ~bope" for change from the continual conflict that has characterized so much of thiscouple's relationship? ()nc's answcr to th.isquestion dctenniDcs one' ••opinion of what sbouId be donefrom this point forward. If one believes that the psychologies and behaviors of the pltl1ics wiU not change,that the relationship will always be mam:d by conflict and violence: if contact between the pnn : : n1 . 9 Is

8/8/2019 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1


8

\

Indirect tmlC !>-pc:n1In Ih e evaluatIon mcluding b u t n o t limited 10 inlclVicws and t e st ing . Ickphonc (;onl•••.15.

doculncntl"C\'iew. deposition. court preparntion and testimony. and report pn-paration. I ha'.e renuldcdMs. Dombroski S2200 from her S5000 rct..•iner

I focuSt:d my report on thc issues of ccntral importamce in this c.1se and worked to build bridges where

conflict scp8mlcd people. Pcrlurp1; Ihls c<m movc things forward I am a\mL1blc to :-tddrcs.c;questions aboutthe Cll.'iC and this report

i " : " b-4,7t2J.

Mi~h.DL1censed Psychologist

2002 April 2 --- Dr_1

Documents

Transcript of 2002 April 2 --- Dr_1