Dr Michael H Pfeiffer & Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles Child Corruption in Arlington, Vriginia - 2011...

ROY L. MORRIS, ESQ. PO Box 100212 Arlington, VA 22210 202 657 5793 509 356 2789 (Fax) Roy [email protected] Member of the Bars of the: District of Columbia and United States Supreme Court (Not a member of the Virginia Bar)

December 20, 2010 Members of Senate Committee for Courts of Justice and the House Judicial Panel c/o Mary Kate Felch, Senior Research Associate Judicial Election Process Administrator Virginia Division of Legislative Services General Assembly Building 910 Capitol Street, Second Floor Richmond, VA 23219 804-786-3591 [email protected], [email protected] Senator, Henry L. Marsh III Delegate David Albo: Chairman, Chairman, Courts of Justice Committee, Senate Courts of Justice Committee, House 422 East Franklin St, Suite 301, 6367 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102, Richmond, VA 23219 Springfield, VA 22152 Donald Curry, Counsel Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission P.O. Box 367 Richmond, Virginia 23218-0367 Re: Documentation Regarding Opposition to Reappointment of Judge Esther Wiggins (JDR Arlington) Dear Chair Senator Henry Marsh, Chair Delegate Dave Albo, Other Distinguished Members of the Courts of Justice Committees, and Counsel Donald Curry

Thank you for the privilege of speaking at the annual Judicial Interviews in Richmond on December 10, 2010 before the Courts of Justice Committees of the Senate and the House. As the Committees requested, I am supplementing my remarks opposing the reappointment of Arlington JDR Judge Esther Wiggins with additional supporting documentation,1 specific transcripts from hearings before Judge Esther Wiggins, recent local newspaper articles publicizing the problems caused by Judge Wiggins [Wiggins-COJ-19 through 26]2, corrections to some of the misstatements of Judge Wiggins in her answers before the Committee, and documentation of the damages caused by the serious failures and misdeeds of Judge Wiggins – namely one seriously ill seven year old child, and the destruction of her family in her JDR Court (even though the husband and wife remain married to this day)..

A copy of my remarks from December 10, 2010, “Judge Wiggins: Deriving Pleasure from the Pain of Mothers,” is found attached to this letter as Attachment I. As pointed out in my remarks, Judge Wiggin’s cases

1 List of the 437 pages of Exhibits and Page References can be found at Attachment II. 2 References to Exhibits to this Letter are noted as “Wiggins-COJ-XX”.

Morris Letter to COJ Re: Denial of Rappointment of JDR Judge Wiggins

2

follow a pattern of devaluing the mother, and then using that degraded characterization to justify her actions of com-pletely eliminating the mother from the child’s life. Her genocide approach to natural mothers is systematic, and was followed in the well-publicized cases of Naomi Parrish, Nancy Hey, Benita Washington, and Dr. Ariel King.

I will focus here on the nine month long case, Michael Pfeiffer (Husband/Father) v Dr. Ariel King

(Wife/Mother), which was before Judge Wiggins. I personally attended all the hearings except the one on June 6, 2008 (however, I have reviewed and provided the transcript for that hearing, thus my knowledge is complete regard-ing all matters that occurred in that case). In that proceeding, Judge Wiggins awarded full legal and physical custo-dy to the father in an ex parte hearing, even though:

a) Judge Wiggins had not heard any testimony from the Husband/Father in the nine months of hearings,

yet still gave him full legal and physical custody of the child, b) Judge Wiggins had not received a full psychological from the Husband/Father (even though he was or-

dered to provide one), c) Judge Wiggins never talked to the child or had seen the child or seen the child with the Hus-

band/Father, d) Judge Wiggins gave full legal and physical custody to the Father on June 6, 2008 even though a Mary-

land Circuit Court Judge on June 2, 2008, who was the only Judge who had interviewed both the child and the mother in a hearing, had entered a Temporary Protective Order where he found evidence to suspect sexual and physical abuse, and medical neglect of the 5 year old daughter, and stalking by the Husband/Father of his Wife,

e) Judge Wiggins took no testimony or evidence on whether such an award of custody to the Father had met the statutory requirements for awarding custody under Virginia law; and, as demonstrated by her having to be corrected in the June 6, 2008 hearing, Judge Wiggins clearly did not know what that standard was.

f) Judge Wiggins award of custody to the unknown father ignored the only custody study done by the Court officer, Michele Woods. In that custody study Ms. Woods recommended that custody be jointly awarded to both the Wife/Mother and the Husband/Father, and that full physical custody of the little girl to remain with the wife/mother – who had been the primary caregiver of the child up until that point in time,

g) Judge Wiggins never looked into the concerns raised by Michele Woods that the father was living in a one bedroom apartment, sleeping with the small five year old child in a queen sized bed that the Father bought especially for the child,

h) Judge Wiggins allowed the unconstitutional malicious questioning of a Nancy Hey, who was in the au-dience at the June 6, 2008 hearing, as an impromptu witness even though that Ms. Hey, whose child was previously taken away by Judge Wiggins, demanded that she have an attorney present, and

i) Judge Wiggins entered two conflicting custody orders on the same day (June 6, 2008), marking one as “final” while the other is “temporary”.

j) Judge Wiggins was given information in the docket that the Wife/Mother had met the conditions of both conflicting orders but Judge Wiggins took no action to resume the Mother’s physical custody of her then 5 year old daughter and has taken no action to reunite the child with the only mother she has ever known, even though there has never been a finding by Judge Wiggins (or any other judge) that the Mother poses any harm or potential harm to the child.

k) Judge Wiggins took the case in JDR court, and failed throughout to take into consideration that the parents were and remain married.

l) Judge Wiggins failed to take into consideration that, at the time of his being awarded full legal and physical custody, the Father was unemployed, had been denied a medical license in Washington DC for inability to provide a valid medical school transcript from Germany. Judge Wiggins did not know these material facts because when she granted the Father custody, she had never placed the Father on the witness stand nor allowed the taking of his testimony.

In sum, Judge Wiggins routinely operates outside the law in a closed courtroom. She consistently and

systematically devalues and then eliminates nurturing loving mothers from their children’s lives. In the case of Pfeiffer v King, Judge Wiggin’s actions have caused the child to be in the custody of a Father who has had several protection orders against him because of concerns of safety of the child, and has been highly suspected by a Mary-land Circuit Court Judge of sexual and physical abuse. Moreover ever since the child came into the Father’s physical custody the child has suffered from the potentially fatal severe chronic neutropenia (i.e., critically low immunity,


3

like that suffered by those with AIDS) that experts now believe, based on test results to date, is “induced by tox-ins”/drugs used to facilitate and cover up abuse. The child’s untreated condition is life-threatening and so severe that the German Embassy has appealed to the father (who is a German citizen) to get an independent medical exam-ination of the child (who also holds German citizenship) to get her a proper diagnosis and GCSF, the only lifesaving medicine for severe chronic neutropenia, The aberrant Father has refused the pleas of his own German government, and thanks to Judge Wiggins, he feels immune in the US from having to answer to his own Government. The Fa-ther continues to do defy his own German government to the detriment to the health and well being of a now-7 year old little girl. [Wiggins-COJ-430]

The Case of Michael Pfeiffer (Husband) v. Ariel R. King (Wife): Judge Wiggins Ignored the Law and the Record to Illegally Give Full Legal and Physical Custody to an Abuser (Who Continues to Put the Life of the Child in Direct and Immediate Danger).

The Pfeiffer v King case suffered from irregularities of Judge Wiggins Court from the very beginning. The

case was filed in Virginia in August 2007 by Michael Pfeiffer (a German citizen on a visa that expires 2012). At that time and to this day, Dr. Pfeiffer was and continues to be the husband of child’s natural mother, Dr. Ariel King. The couple had lived in Maryland until Dr. Pfeiffer had abandoned the marital home and moved to Washington DC. Michael Pfeiffer left Dr. King and their child, Ariana-Leilani, penniless and without a home in June 2007.

Before filing his Virginia custody case in August 2007, a temporary protection order was issued in July 2007

in Washington DC against Michael Pfeiffer as a result of his attack on both Dr. King and their daughter at a recep-tion held at the Zambian Embassy for the Ariel Foundation International (See, TPO at Exhibits at Wiggins-COJ-54).3 In retaliation in July 2007, Pfeiffer filed in Washington DC for divorce and full custody of their then 4 year old daughter. Pfeiffer had falsely claimed in his Washington DC custody/divorce complaint that his wife, Dr. King was a resident at the Zambian Embassy. The DC Superior court dismissed Pfeiffer’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no party had lived in Washington DC for the required six months. [Exhibits at Wiggins-COJ-34] At the dismissal hearing, both parties agreed that Maryland was the child’s “home state.” 4

While Pfeiffer had his Maryland counsel negotiating a “parental agreement”, Pfeiffer hired a Virginia attor-

ney to secretly file a custody complaint in Virginia in August 2007, only 29 days after Dr. King had sought emer-gency housing and safety (that did not require a substantial deposit) for herself and her daughter in Arlington Virgin-ia. As of the date Father’s filing in Virginia, neither party had satisfied the six month residency requirement for ei-ther divorce or custody jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). [Exhibits at Wiggins-COJ-27, - 30, and - 59] Dr. King, the Mother, and her child had remained legal residents of Maryland, where she returned with her child less than three months later (October 2007).

Ignoring the Lack of “Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” Judge Wiggins Refused to Dismiss the Custody Case in JDR Court of this Married Couple, None of Whom Had Lived in Virginia for the Required Six Months.

Judge Wiggins never had a hearing to take evidence as to whether Virginia had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Instead, Judge Wiggins prematurely held an impromptu premature hearing on September 5, 2007 prior to the date set by the Petition of September 6, 2007 (See, Original Summons, attached hereto at Wiggins-COJ-27 and compare to date of September 5, 2007 Initial Custody Order, attached hereto at Wiggins-COJ-37, which contains no finding of subject matter jurisdiction). The parties were led to believe that the September 5, 2007 hearing was solely for the purpose of postponing the September 6, 2007 hearing date (which was unilaterally set by the Father in his Petition) to provide more time to respond. As a result of the premature hearing, the Mother and her attorney were not pre-pared to respond to the Husband’s custody petition at the September 5, 2007 hearing, to make proper argument, nor to prepare testimony or give evidence that Virginia did not have jurisdiction.5 Subject matter jurisdiction can nei-

3 As a result of the violent incident on July 7, 2007 at the Zambian Embassy, in Washington, DC the US Se-

cret Service (who had responded to the incident) advised Dr. King to obtain a Temporary Protective Order for their daughter and herself against her husband, Michael Pfeiffer.

4 Dr. King’s counsel told the DC Superior Court that the couple could not be divorced in Virginia, because "nobody has been there for six months." DC Aug. 1, 2007 Transcript at 19 and 23. He also pointed out that six months is also required for establishing Virginia as the "home state" for subject matter custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Counsel for both parties agreed that six months was required for Virginia to be the home state, and that the child's home state was Maryland. DC Aug 1, 2007 Transcript at 18-19, -23.

5 See, e.g., Burdick v. Brooks, III, 160 Md. App. 519; 864 A.2d 300 (2004).


4

ther be consented to nor waived by the parties or the court.6 Thus, it is a fundamental rule that no custody case can proceed until jurisdiction is established, which Judge Wiggins clearly failed to do.7

Judge Wiggins Failed to Recognized that, Even if Original Jurisdiction were Present in August 2007, Virginia Lost Continuing Jurisdiction Automatically in October 2007 When All Parties No longer Lived in Virginia”

Furthermore, even though the Wife/Mother and child quickly returned to Maryland in October 2007, and the Father was still living in Washington DC, Judge Wiggins refused to recognize that under Virginia law it automati-cally lost “continuing jurisdiction” when all parties had left the state in October 2007. In February 2008, the Wife/ Mother’s attorney, Mr. Miller, brought this legal fact to Judge Wiggin’s attention, and the Court refused to address its lack of continuing jurisdiction:.

MR. MILLER: Before we get into that, though, Your Honor, we kind of eased into this visitation matter. This Court, under 20-146.13 has lost exclusive continuing jurisdiction. THE COURT: I’m not hearing a jurisdiction motion here. I ordered the mother to return the child to the fa-ther. MR. MILLER: And the previous motion was regard to subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not -- THE COURT: I’m not hearing a motion to dismiss. That’s not before the Court. I’m not going to hear it. MR. MILLER: But the Court has modified its visitation and custody order, which it can’t do because under 146.13 when the parties left the Commonwealth of Virginia lost continuing exclusive jurisdiction. … MR. MILLER: But the statute doesn’t -- THE COURT: I’m not arguing with you about this. I’ve already ruled. The case is still pending here. The Court ruled that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The case is still pending; we have not come to a conclusion in this case. This Court is going to maintain jurisdiction in the case. - Transcript, February 8, 2008 at 46-48 [Wiggins-COJ-108]. Judge Wiggins ruling was not only substantively wrong, it was procedurally incorrect because, by law, ques-

tions of jurisdiction are required to take precedence over all other matters. 8 [Note For Correction to Judge Wiggins Representation at the December 10, 2010 Judicial Interviews:

The Court’s initial custody order specifically permitted the free movement of the Mother and child anywhere in the Washington DC metropolitan area. No permission of the Court was required for her to move back across the river to Maryland. Thus, the Mother and child were free to move back to their “home state” of Maryland without violating any order or rule.]

Judge Wiggins Ignored the Father’s Sleeping in the then Five Year Old Child’s Bed in her Windowless “Bed-room” in His Cramped Walkup “ Small Student Apartment” in Washington, DC Soon after overnight visitation with the Father began, the child started to show severe behavioral changes (peeing in pants, biting herself, seeing “bumble bees”, stating she was scared at her father’s house). The then four-year-old child disclosed to the Court’s appointed social worker Michele Woods that the father was sleeping in the child’s queen sized bed (an oversized bed that the father had specially bought for the small five year old child to sleep in [see, photo at Wiggins-COJ-33]) over the protests of the child.9 Michele Woods documented in a reported signed on October 24, 2007 the child’s disclosure in her report to the Court:

“This counselor feels it is also important to relay to the Court that [the child] has also made several com-ments to this counselor that her father [Dr. Pfeiffer] comes into her bed at night….this counselor would

6 [T]he record is never conclusive as to the recital of a jurisdictional fact, and the defendant is always at liber-

ty to show a want of jurisdiction, although the record avers the contrary. If the court had no jurisdiction, it had no power to make a record, and the supposed record is not in truth a record." Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 787, 793, 284 S.E.2d 824, 827 (1981) (citation omitted). "[A]ny subsequent proceeding based on . . . a [jurisdiction-ally] defective judgment is void or a nullity." - Morrison v. Bestler, 387 S.E.2d 753, 755-56 (1990)

7 The UCCJEA requires that any petition for custody have in its certain sworn statements establishing custody jurisdiction. The Father’s custody petition specifically stated facts that prima facie established Maryland as the child’s home state.

8 Virginia Code § 20-146.6. Priority. If a question of existence or exercise of jurisdiction under this act is raised in a child custody proceeding, the question, upon request of a party, must be given priority on the calendar and handled expeditiously.

9 According to Michele Woods reports, “This counselor feels it is also important to relay to the Court that [the child] has also made several comments to this counselor that her father [Dr. Pfeiffer] comes into her bed at night….this counselor would hope the Dr. Pfeiffer would stop this behavior and understand that it is not appropriate considering his daughter's age.” See, Report of Michele Woods, November 8, 2007 (Wiggins-COJ-01)


5

hope the Dr. Pfeiffer would stop this behavior and understand that it is not appropriate considering his daughter's age.”

- Michele Woods, Probation Counselor, Custody Investigation Arlington Juvenile And Domestic Relations District Court, October 24, 2007 at 16 [See, Wiggins-COJ-1, -16]

The child gave information to a pediatrician that corroborated the independent disclosure of the child to the Michele Woods. The Mother asked the Court to address this problem immediately through reconsideration of the initial “overnight visitation” schedule in an Emergency Motion, filed on October 3, 2007. (See Emergency Motion Petition, (See, Wiggins-COJ-40)). Subsequent forensic interviews confirmed the father continued his practice as a result of Judge Wiggins failing to take action. [See, Maryland Forensic Interview, Wiggins-COJ-329A] Judge Wiggins refused to schedule a hearing on the Mother’s Emergency Motion despite the compelling evidence that the Father was sleeping in the child’s bed, and was suffering severely from the arrangements set forth in Judge Wiggins Initial Custody Order. As a result, the child has unnecessarily suffered years of great psychological stress , and is now diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, from the father regularly entering her bed, suffered from nightmares, wetting her pants, biting herself and seeing “bumble bees.” Judge Wiggins Spent All of the Hearing Sessions Focusing on the Mother, Ignoring the Father, and Never Meeting the Child, as Illustrated by the February 8, 2008 Hearing, Where The Mother Is Found In Contempt of the Mother Without Taking Evidence, and Refusing to Allow Evidence: On February 8, 2008, Judge Wiggins refused to take evidence before finding the mother in contempt based on the ambiguous accusation of being “uncooperative” with the GAL, based solely on proffers of the GAL. The Mother’s attorney protested that the law required an evidentiary hearing.

THE COURT: All right, let me advise the mother of the rules. All right, Ma’am, would you please stand? It’s alleged that you are in contempt of Court by failing to comply with a specific visitation schedule. It’s also alleged that you are in contempt of Court for not cooperating with the Guardian ad Litem and that you are in contempt of Court for not cooperating with the custody evaluation. Why shouldn’t you go to jail today? MR. MILLER: Your Honor, she shouldn’t go to jail until we’ve had evidence on the matter and up until now we haven’t had any evidence. THE COURT: The Court can do a summary contempt. MR. MILLER: No, they can’t, Your Honor. THE COURT: Why not? MR. MILLER: Because summary contempt is only on several specific instances. THE COURT: Yes. MR. MILLER: Summary contempt is authorized and we do not have that today. THE COURT: Violating a Court order. MR. MILLER: Looking at Virginia Code 18.2-456. THE COURT: Right. MR. MILLER: It says cases in which Courts and judges may summarily, or may punish summarily for con-tempt is Courts and judges may issue attachments for contempt and punish them summarily only in the fol-lowing cases: misbehavior in the presence of the Court, violence or threats of violence to a judge or office of the Court, vile, contemptuous or insulting language addressed to a judge, misbehavior of an of-ficer of the Court, or disobedience or resistance of an officer of the Court. Violation of a Court order is not within those statutory factors under 18.2-456. THE COURT: Well, what about disobedience and resistance of an officer of the Court, jury, witness or other persons of any lawful process, judgment, decree or order of the Court? You left that part out. MR. MILLER: It’s a disobedience to the person. THE COURT: It’s a disobedience of the order of the Court. MR. OLIN: I would just say that I am an officer of the Court and -- THE COURT: Right, so I don’t think that I couldn’t, under the statute, find her summarily in contempt of Court. MR. MILLER: Well, with -- THE COURT: I mean, that’s what the statute says. MR. MILLER: Well, no, it’s a disobedience or resistance of an officer of the Court, a juror or a witness or other person to lawful process. She hasn’t -- THE COURT: To lawful process or order, judgment, decree or order of the Court. MR. MILLER: Right. THE COURT: You leave out that part. MR. MILLER: Right, but it has to be the person or other lawful person. THE COURT: I guess I’m not understanding your point. MR. MILLER: Well, how can you find that there’s been disobedience or resistance to an officer of


6

the Court without evidence showing that? THE COURT: Well, based on the proffer by the Guardian ad Litem. MR. MILLER: Okay, and I disagree with that proffer, and if she wants to testify or she has evidence, then she can come forward and put that evidence before the Court…. [The GAL then refuses to testify to support her claims and the Court does not require her to do so]…. MR. MILLER: Your Honor, that’s incorrect. Contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding. Quasi-criminal, the presumption of innocence attaches to the defendant -- THE COURT: Civil. MR. MILLER: We’ve got to go criminal. We have two kinds of contempt. There’s the criminal contempt and then there’s civil contempt. And within -- THE COURT: I see no reason why the Court couldn’t hold her in contempt right at this particular moment. MR. MILLER: Well, contempt, I’m reading from Michie’s Jurisprudence, Section 3, nature of contempt. Proceedings for contempt of Court are of two classes. These contempts are prosecuted to preserve the pow-er and vindicate the dignity of the Court. That’s the first kind. The second kind is contempts instituted to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties. And what we have here is a difference between these var-ious rules to show cause. Some of the allegations concern the rights of private parties, which would be civil contempt. Other of these may go to whether or not it’s for the type one, which is to prosecute to preserve the power and to vindicate the dignity of the Court. …. THE COURT: And I definitely gave the mother a copy of the Guardian ad Litem order -- MS. OLIN: And I think at the last hearing -- THE COURT: -- with the standards under it, and those were the minimum standards that the Guardian ad Litem has to do. She knows what she had to do. That would be cooperate. MR. MILLER: But that’s an order to the Guardian; this order is not binding to the -- THE COURT: No, no, my point is she knows what the Guardian ad Litem is supposed to be doing and so to - - MR. MILLER: No, this order tells the Guardian ad Litem what to do. THE COURT: It informs the parties what the duties of the Guardian ad Litem are. MR. MILLER: That’s correct. THE COURT: So my whole point, she knows what the duties are. …. MR. MILLER: Because the Guardian ad Litem is appointed to represent the child and shall have access to the following persons: parties to the proceedings, that’s it. The GAL has had access to Dr. King. Now, she may not like that she didn’t have all the access that she wanted. THE COURT: Mr. Miller, I don’t agree with you, not at all, not even close to agreeing with you. MR. MILLER: Because the September order -- THE COURT: This is just really unbelievable. …. THE COURT: Well, we could be going back and forth all day. I already told you I don’t agree with you. The Court can find her summarily in contempt, and the Court will find her in contempt for failing to co-operate with the Guardian ad Litem. I think she has. Transcript, February 8, 2008 at 24-36 (See, Wiggins-COJ-86 through -98)

Despite being presented with the statutory language and citation otherwise that the Court cannot hold the Wife/Mother in contempt based solely on ambiguous proffers of the GAL, Judge Wiggins stood by her unlawful and illogical conclusion that she could find summary contempt for actions that took place outside the courtroom without taking any evidence. Such actions by Judge Wiggins illustrate her disregard for the rights of the parties and the law of Virginia. In an adulterated order with a typed in ordering clause, Judge Wiggins transferred primary physical custody to the Father, away from the Mother. [Wiggins-COJ-123] Judge Wiggins made this change to punish the Mother (an only child) for going to the ICU hospital bedside for two weeks of her own gravely ill mother (who had a poten-tially fatal brain hemorrhage) in Atlanta, Georgia. Judge Wiggins condemned the Mother for taking this loving, responsible and humanitarian action. Judge Wiggins falsely claimed that it violated the Initial Custody order even though that order specifically provided that the Mother was allowed to take the child to Atlanta, Georgia, even in non-emergency situations. [See, Initial Custody Order, Wiggins-COJ-37] Judge Wiggins stated in the hearing that the child would be returned to the previous arrangement of primary physical custody with the Mother when the Mother a) returned from caring for her own sick mother in Atlanta, Georgia and b) began a psychological exam (which both parents were required to undergo). However, the adulter-ated order issued by Judge Wiggins failed to state that fact, making it sound more permanent. Compare the “typed-over” ordering clause of the February 8, 2008 Order [Wiggins-COJ-123] which is clearly inconsistent with Judge’s oral directives in the February 8, 2008 Transcript at 53 (Wiggins-COJ-115) [“Like I said, if the Mother comes back to the area and can provide verification as to where she is going to be living and she started a psychological, I will


7

return physical custody to the mother.”] Arbitrarily Transferring Custody Again to the Father (Who Continued to Sleep In the Child’s Bed) Based on Bogus Claims of Failure to Properly Inform the Court Several Days Earlier that Conditions Were Met. After the Mother met all the conditions and brought her own mother back to Maryland to provide her with 24-hour care, and rehabilitation, the Wife/Mother, with advice of her counsel, picked up their daughter. On Febru-ary 21, 2008, Judge Wiggins would not even allow the mother to testify on her own behalf about how she satisfied the conditions imposed on February 8, 2008. Judge Wiggins even entered an order that date that falsely stated she had taken evidence at the hearing, when in fact she clearly had not. [Transcript, February 21, 2008 at 48-49 [Wig-gins-COJ-173-174]] When this discrepancy was brought to Judge Wiggin’s attention, she laughed but did not cor-rect it. Judge Wiggins again – without allowing witnesses or taking any evidence, including the recording of the 911 call and the missing of several days of the German School, once again transferred “Temporary Full Custody” back to the Father. Judge Wiggins gave custody back to the Father even though Judge Wiggins still had not taken up the October 2007 Emergency Motion, which raised questions about the Father sleeping in the child’s bed, and taking her to men’s bathrooms, Ms. Wood’s November 8, 2007 report reported that such sleeping in the child’s bed by the father was taking place. (See, Transcript, February 21, 2008 Hearing, Wiggins-COJ-126)

Judge Wiggins Was Not a Neutral, but Took Sides, Including Coaching the Father’s Attorney On How to Question the Wife/Mother on the Witness Stand During Rules to Show Cause Hearing and Allowing the Same Attorney to Dismiss the Father from the Hearing to Prevent Him From Taking the Witness Stand: On April 8, 2008, the Judge Wiggins aided and guided the Father’s counsel on how to question the Mother on the wit-ness stand. [See, April 8, 2008 Transcript, Wiggins-COJ-189] The trial judge refused to listen to or allow the Mother to present a police 911 emergency call tape of the incident (where the child is screaming, crying and banging to escape from the fathers one bedroom apartment). Without hearing the tape, Judge Wiggins concluded the 911 tape did not come within the business records exception to the “hearsay rule,” and nor did it contain an “excited ut-terance” of the child as she desperately tried to get away from her Father who unexplainably kept the child at home on a day that was both a work day for him and school day for the child:

THE COURT: But why is it admissible? MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I mean, both parties knew they were being recorded. 9-1-1 calls are always record-ed. THE COURT: But still, you’ve still got to go with the problem with hearsay. MR. CALLAHAN: It’s an emergency technician making a call in the ordinary course of business. THE COURT: No. MR. CALLAHAN: She can lay the foundation, testify she made the call on that date and requested -- THE COURT: No, but you still need an exception to the hearsay rule to get it in. MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the exception to the hearsay rule, it’s the ordinary course of their business, but excited utterance -- THE COURT: Well, who’s excited, there’s not an excited utterance. She called -- MR. CALLAHAN: She’s here. THE COURT: She called the police and had a conversation, how is that an excited utterance? MR. CALLAHAN: The child, you can hear the child in the background and there has been representations in this Court by people who weren’t there -- THE COURT: I don’t understand what this has to do with the three reasons why we’re here today. MR. CALLAHAN: Well, it has to do with her meeting the conditions, and we think we’ve established that and we think that her actions were not in violation of the Court’s order. If the Court thinks otherwise, then the Court needs to know all the circumstances regarding what happened. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

- Transcript of April 8, 2008 at 87-88 (Wiggins-COJ-276 through – 277) Judge Wiggins also ignored that the Father had inappropriately kept the child captive at home for three school days, when she was supposed to be at school. In addition, Judge Wiggins after swearing her in on the wit-ness stand, refused to allow the child’s Grandmother (Dr. Margo King) testify about the seriousness of her own ill-ness and hospitalization in Atlanta, Georgia; which was the focus of the rules to show cause that were at issue against the Wife/Mother. (See, Transcript, April 8, 2008 Hearing, e.g. at 84-93, and 97-105, Wiggins-COJ-272 through - 293) Once again, as she did throughout the case, Judge Wiggins did not require the Father to take the stand to testify as to why it would be in the best interests of the 4-year-old girl that he have custody of the child.


8

Four Days After A Temporary Protection Order Was Issued By a Maryland Circuit Court Against the Father for Evidence that gave Suspicion of Sexual Abuse, Physical Abuse and Medical Neglect of the Child and for Stalking of the Mother/Wife, Judge Wiggins Issued Two Conflicting Orders, Based Solely On Prof-fers of the Father’s Attorney), Unlawfully Giving Full Legal and Physical Custody to the Husband/Father (Who Had Never Testified) and Prohibited the Wife/Mother’s Contact with Her Child:

On June 6, 2008 (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing, Exhibit VII):

i) Judge Wiggins held an ex parte hearing despite two motions for continuance filed by the Mother (Pro Se), and the Court failing to issue subpoenas for the Mother’s witnesses, [See, Motions to Continue, Wiggins-COJ-340 ant Wiggins-COJ-346]

ii) Judge Wiggins showed her bias when she stated her unequivocal prejudicial belief – based on nothing in the record that she believed that Mother was a member of a “bashing Judge Wiggins group.”10 Judge Wiggin’s in-terjection of this bizarre fact was not supported by any evidence presented in the case, nor did she suggest she came to that conclusion based on any evidence in the record in the case. (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing at 28-33, Wiggins-COJ-365 through -368)

iii) without legal authority, Judge Wiggins vindictively gave legal and physical custody of the five-year-old child to the Husband/Father (who still had not testified in Judge Wiggin’s court, and for whom the sleeping in the daughter’s bed had not been addressed by the Court) and barred all communications with the Wife/Mother. Judge Wiggins came to this draconian outcome based solely on proffers of the Father’s attorney and hearsay testimony from the only one person in the JDR court (Michele Wood), whose testimony was limited to hearsay statements about what she heard at another hearing in a Maryland court the prior day. At the time of the hearing, Judge Wig-gins clearly did not know what provisions of the statute applied to the determination of custody, nor had she taken evidence to support any of the “factors” that the statute sets forth. (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing at 52-59, especially 59, Wiggins-COJ-395)

iv) Judge Wiggins entered two conflicting custody orders, (with one noted as being “final”) despite the fact that no notice was given that a “final” custody hearing was to take place on June 6, 2008. [Wiggins-COJ-397 through -398] The only prior notices for a hearing on June 6, 2007 received by Wife/Mother (who was pro se) were for two motions filed by the Wife/Mother (a motion for mediation, and a motion for reconsideration of the February 18, 2008 temporary custody order) to be heard on June 6, 2008. The notices did not indicate that any “final” custo-dy order was to be entered on that date.

v) Judge Wiggins entered the two conflicting orders, even though Judge Wiggins had never spoken to or met the 5 year old child, or had never heard the Husband/Father on the witness stand at any time during the nine months of hearing (none of which focused on either the 5 year old child, or the qualifications of the Husband/Father). In addition, the Father had never completed the co-parenting classes, or produced a full psychological exam that she ordered (while the Wife/Mother had completed both). In addition, only days before, a Maryland Circuit Judge, who is the only Judge who had seen and spoken to the child, concluded that there was strong evidence to believe the father was sexually and physically abusing and medically neglecting the 5-year-old girl. Judge Wiggins ignored that the Maryland Court had ordered a full Child Protection Investigation, which was blocked by the Father through his attorney before the CPS of Montgomery County Maryland had an opportunity to interview the father. 5) Judge Wiggins never scheduled a hearing for the Motion for Sanctions filed against the Father’s attorney and the GAL for their direct violation of Dr. Margo Kings (child’s grandmother) Medical Information and the Illegal Manipulation of the Family Tragedy. (See, Motion For Sanctions And To Strike Pleadings By Petitioner, Motion For Sanctions Against The Guardian Ad Litem, Motion To Dismiss The Guardian Ad Litem, Motion To Reopen Motion To Show Causes Regarding Dr. Christopher Lane, The Guardian Ad Litem And February 8 2008 Order, filed with the clerk of the JDR Court on June 9, 2008, Wiggins-COJ-399.) 6) Judge Wiggins was requested to recuse herself from the case, but ignored that motion and never ruled on it. [Wiggins-COJ-418] 7) Judge Wiggins vindictively allowed the spur of the moment calling of Nancy Hey (who was simply in the

10 MS. OLIN: Tell me, was this sort of a custody support group, or what kind of support group was it? THE COURT: It was a bashing Judge Wiggins group is what it was. MS. OLIN: Oh, really? THE COURT: Yes. It's a fan club to me. Isn't that what it was? - Transcript June 6, 2008, See, Wiggins-COJ-365 through -368


9

audience to observe the hearing) to the witness stand at the June 6, 2008 hearing in violation of her constitutional rights to an attorney, Judge Wiggins spitefully ignoring her objections to have her counsel present, and allowed her to be maliciously questioned on private and potentially incriminating matters unrelated to the case. [See, June 6, 2008 Transcript at 18-44]

MR. O'CONNELL: Can we put her on the stand and you ask her some questions? MS. OLIN: Absolutely. Ma'am, please take -- with the Court's permission. THE COURT: Is this a witness? MS. OLIN: Yes. MS. HEY: Okay. Well, I wasn't scheduled to be on the stand. I was just here as a friend of the mother. MS. OLIN: You're here, and we're requesting you to take the stand. MS. HEY: Well, I don't have a lawyer here. MS. OLIN: You don't need a lawyer to be a witness. THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, will you raise your right hand. Whereupon -- NANCY HEY, a witness, called for examination, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: [Judge Wiggins then allowed Nancy Hey to be questioned for approximately 15 more pages] -- Transcript June 6, 2008 at 18, Wiggins-COJ-354

In the December 10, 2010 Judicial Interviews, Judge Wiggins attempted to justify her disregard for the right to an attorney for Nancy Hey because “she was a witness.” However, Judge Wiggins’ erroneous legal conclusion is not supported in law and is in violation of the US Constitution. Ms. Hey clearly asked to be represented by an at-torney and that Ms. Hey already had an adversarial relationship with Judge Wiggins. Furthermore, Judge Wiggins had already questioned the mental competence Nancy Hey when she took Ms. Hay’s child away from her in another proceeding. Thus, Judge Wiggins should have been particularly scrupulous in assuring that Ms. Hey was represent-ed by counsel when questioned. * * * In sum, there was ample evidence in the record supporting a conclusion that Judge Wiggins, consciously or subconsciously, harbored bias and prejudice against the child’s Mother and disregarded the evidence and record. There was no evidence to support a finding that the Father was fit to have custody. The father had not provided a full psychological exam to the court, nor completed a parenting class, and never provided any testimony at any time in the proceeding. Yet, Judge Wiggins, without having taken any evidence to establish subject matter jurisdiction, gave full legal and physical custody to the Husband/Father while ignoring the legal rights of the child, the Moth-er/Wife, and Nancy Hey (an innocent court observer). In this case, the effects of Judge Wiggin’s malice and negligence have been particularly devastating to this now 7-year-old child. The child is now confined to the same a small one bedroom apartment living with her father, who still sleeps in her bed. She is now suffering from the diagnosed but untreated posttraumatic stress disorder and an untreated very rare life-threatening severe chronic neutropenia. According to written opinions of world experts, who reviewed all the medical evidence, her life threatening severe chronic neutropenia condition is most likely tox-in/drug-induced. [Wiggins-COJ- 430] The Husband /Father refuses to give her the only medical treatment for the condition (GCSF) to avoid unnecessary risk of untreated severe chronic neutropenia of “toxic shock, loss of limbs or loss of life.” Id. He also refused to have a toxicology test done. The Husband/Father, who is a German citizen, is so mentally ill and narcissistic that he has defied his German Embassy’s request that their daughter receive an independent psychological and medical examination (she is also a German Citizen with only a Germany passport) – requiring an appeal to the President of the United States to Intervene in this, now, international matter. [Wiggins-COJ-427 through -432] As evidenced by recent articles in the Washington DC area, Judge Wiggin’s irregularities in this case follow a pattern of her seeking to break the natural and loving bonds of children with their natural moth-ers. (See, Wiggins-COJ-19 through -24) I would be happy to come to Richmond to go over these materials and answer any more of your questions. Again, I urge that you deny Judge Wiggin’s reappointment to the JDR Court. She does not have the qualities neces-sary for being an effective and fair JDR Court judge. Sincerely,

Roy Morris


10

Attachment I

Judge Wiggins: Deriving Pleasure from the Pain of Children and their Mothers Comments of Roy Morris, Arlington Virginia

December 10, 2010 The list of cases of children and mother’s wrongly denied their rights in Judge Wiggins court keeps mounting, in-cluding: Naomi Parish, Nancy Hey, Benita Washington, Dr. Ariel King, and (now) threatening Tiffany Johnson. They all follow the same pattern: the court treats the mothers as subhuman, everything they do is wrong, and nothing they do is right. This sets the stage for bogus justification for permanently cutting off the child from their mother and her families’ normal ties and time with the child. It is, in effect, genocide of relationships of children to their natu-ral mothers from their lives. The facts of the case of the still 10-year married couple, Dr. Michael Pfeiffer v. Dr. Ariel King, shows the injustice and lack of judicial rigor of Judge Wiggins courtroom. First is the obvious, the parents are married and were ineli-gible to file for divorce in Virginia, but Judge Wiggins allowed a custody-only proceeding to be held in her Virginia JDR court. Second, the case should not have been heard at all in Virginia, since it did not have “subject matter ju-risdiction” as none of the parties had lived in Virginia for the six months required by the UCCJEA. In addition, when all parties had left Virginia after only 3 months, Virginia lost continuing jurisdiction. Yet Judge Wiggins in-sisted on keeping the case of a married couple where one parent was living in DC and the other in Maryland respec-tively. In the only official custody evaluation report issued in the case, the Court assigned social worker, Michele Woods, warned: “This counselor feels it is also important to relay to the Court that [the child] has also made sever-al comments to this counselor that her father [Dr. Pfeiffer] comes into her bed at night….this counselor would hope the Dr. Pfeiffer would stop this behavior and understand that it is not appropriate considering his daughter's age.” Ms. Woods strongly recommended physical custody remain with her mother, Dr. King and shared joint legal custo-dy with the father. However, Judge Wiggins chose to: a) ignore the recommendations of the Court’s own social worker’s reports, and b) did not insist on the completion and submission of the full psychological exam she ordered from the father, and c) never asked questions to or placed the father on the witness stand in the ten months of pro-ceedings.. On June 6, 2008, in an ex parte hearing without proper notice, Judge Wiggins entered two separate “custody” orders with distinctly different wording addressing custody of the 5-year-old girl, but marking only one a “final order.” In the version marked “final order,” the Court without “subject matter jurisdiction” and “continuing jurisdiction” gave Michael Pfeiffer (who lived in DC) full legal and physical custody without any evidence or demonstration that the requirements for awarding custody had been met. Judge Wiggin’s orders also cut off all contact with the Wife/ mother (who lived in Maryland). However, the second order (which was never served on the parties), did not give Michael Pfeiffer a “final order” for legal and physical custody and, by materially different sentence structure and working, imposed a conflicting meaning and significance. Thus, each order invalidated the other order. To date the Virginia order has not been registered in either Washington, DC or Germany. Also, at that hearing, Judge Wiggins denied the request of a person sitting in the audience, Nancy Hey, to be represented by an attorney while she was vindictively called as an impromptu witness at that June 6, 2008 hearing. Judge Wiggins allowed the father’s attorney and the GAL to question Ms. Hey despite her protests. Judge Wiggins, who for years had overseen Ms. Hey’s child case, that led to the permanent separation of Ms. Hey from her daugh-ter, participated in a “feeding frenzy” of interrogation of Ms. Hey on her various personal and potentially legal mat-ters that were mostly irrelevant to Pfeiffer v King case, in violation of Ms. Hey’s constitutional rights to an attorney. Adding to this legal impropriety and ambiguity, Judge Wiggins made this ruling despite the fact that a Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court Judge , after a one hour hearing on June 2, 2008 with the 5- year old child and her mother, had found evidence to suspect sexual and physical abuse and medical neglect and harm by the father. Un-like Judge Wiggins, that Judge was the only judge who had ever seen or spoken to little girl, about the father sleep-ing in her bed, seeing “Mr. Piggy’s Penis,” that the “popo that gets harder and harder,” being “kissed on the mouth”, and the father’s administration of “green medicine to make me sick.” After showing clear bias, Judge Wiggins refused to rule on the Motion to Recuse herself. She also failed to rule on the motions to sanction the GAL and opposing counsel for clearly collaborating against the Mother, and making knowingly false representations to the Court.


11

The consequences of Judge Wiggin’s unauthorized and uninformed rulings and biases were that there is evidence that the child has been sexually and physically abused and medically neglected and harmed for over two years. Since the father has had physical custody of the little girl, she has unexplainably suffered from a very rare severely compromised immune system referred to as “severe chronic neutropenia.” Tests indicate the condition is likely being caused by toxins/drugs that the husband/father has free access to at his work. Thanks to Judge Wiggins ille-gally mandated, ambiguous and conflicting orders, the father has used her orders to manipulate others without even registering the orders outside of Virginia. In addition, he as used the orders to prevent the child from getting life-saving GCSF medicine, appropriate medical care or have any contact with her mother, all other family members, her Jewish religion and her African and German heritage. He has used those illegal and conflicting orders to isolate, abuse, and harm their daughter. Even though the father is a German citizen, he has defied his own Embassy’s re-quest to get medicine for the child and an independent medical and psychological examination for her in order to save her life [the child is also a German citizen]. Wiggins-COJ-430 Thus Judge Wiggins has created a safe haven for abuse and neglect of a child, while she has made no effort to address or correct the damage that she has caused to this seven-year-old child – who she never met.

* * * The closest a court can come to physically torturing a mother and her child is to cut off their ability to communicate with each other, while allowing safety for the other parent to abuse and harm the child to the point of possible death. Judge Wiggins clearly hates biological mothers, and she appears to derive pleasure from making them and their children miserable (as evidenced by Judge Wiggins common bouts of histrionic episodes of laughter in the court-room when doling out insults to the mother and her attorney). Judge Wiggins need to be immediately retired from the very important role of a family court judge. She has neither the psychological profile (e.g., empathy for parents and their children), respect for following the law of the Com-monwealth of Virginia, nor expertise required. Judge Wiggins is harmful to children and families. She must be not be reappointed to prevent any further harm to those children and families. .


12

Attachment II List of Exhibits to Opposition to Judge Wiggins Reappointment

2007-11-08 Custody Evaluation of Court Official Woods Recommending Custody to King 1 2010-12-10 DC Examiner Article: Three strikes for Arlington judge Wiggins 19 2010-12-15 DC Examiner (Print) Article: Arlington Judge Donʼtʼ Have Unchecked Authority to Separate Kids from Parents 21 2010-12-15 DC Examiner (Web) Article: Arlington Officials Ignore Jurisdiction 22 2008-04-10 “Gather” Article (Web): Another Case of Judicial Abuse (Observerʼs Personal Account of Judge Wiggins Courtroom) 24 2007-08-09 Fathers Original Virginia Petition Setting Hearing Date of September 6, 2007 (Filed After He Had Filed in Washington DC)

27

Photo of Queen Sized Bed in Windowless Bedroom of Child 33 2007-08-01 DC Court Order Dismissing for Lack of Jurisdiction 34 2007-09-05 Wiggins Initial Custody Order – Adopted One Day Before Noticed Hearing of 9/05/07 37 2007-10-03 King Emergency Motion Re Visitation With Exhibits (Never Ruled On) 40 Exhibit I: Email King to Pfeiffer, dated June 25, 2007 Exhibit II: Washington DC TPO Issued Against Pfeiffer, July 9, 2007 51 Exhibit III: Email of Hopkins to Pfeiffer, dated September 19, 2007 Exhibit IV: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 20, 2007 Exhibit V: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 25, 2007 Exhibit VI: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 27, 2007 2007-11-30 King Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction from Virginia 59 2008-01-17 Wiggins Order Denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (without any reasons) 62 2008-01-25 King Motion for Continuance of February 8, 2008 Hearing Due to Sudden Severe Illness of Childʼs Grandmother (Kingʼs Mother) Who Was In ICU with a Stroke (Never Ruled On)

62a

2008-02-08 Transcript of February 2, 2008 Hearing 63 2008-02-08 Wiggins Order Changing Custody to Father to Penalize the Mother Because She Went to Aid Her Mother In ICU in Atlanta, With Return to Mother Upon Completion of Conditions (With Suspicious Substitution Text Typed Over Original Ordering Clause)

123

2008-02-21 Transcript of February 21, 2008 Hearing 126 2008-02-21 Wiggins Order Falsely Stating Evidence Was Taken, and Again Changing Custody to Father to Penalize Mother

187

2008-04-08 Transcript April 8, 2008 Hearing 189 2008-06-02 Temporary Protective Order Issued by Maryland Circuit Court Judge Finding Suspicion of Abuse and Neglect by Father

330

2008-06-03 King (Pro Se) Second Motion for Continuance of June 6, 2008 Hearing Based On Finding of Abuse and Neglect by Maryland Circuit Court Judge and Pending Full Investigation by Montgomery County Child Protective Services, with Full Protective Hearing Scheduled for June 9 2008 (Never Ruled On)

340

2008-06-02 King (Pro Se) Motion for Continuance of June 6, 2008 Hearing Based On Pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Never Ruled On)

346

2008-06-06 Transcript of June 6, 2008 Hearing 352 2008-06-06 One of Two Conflicting Custody Orders Issued on June 6, 2008 397 2008-06-06 Second of Two Conflicting Custody Orders Issued on June 6, 2008 (Never Served on King) 398 2008-06-09 King (Pro Se) Motion for Sanctions Against Fatherʼs Counsel and GAL (Never Ruled on) 399 2008-08-21 King (Pro Se) Filing of Praecipe Noting Completion of Psychological and Meeting Conditions 409 2008-08-21 King (Pro Se) Filing Child Psychologistʼs Report that The Child Is Likely Being Sexually Abused

410

2008-09-02 King (Pro Se) Motion to Recuse Judge Wiggins from Further Activity in Case (Never Ruled On)

418

2010-09-29 Morris Letter to President Obama Asking for His Help In Getting the Father To Comply with the German Embassyʼs Request for An Independent Medical Examination of the Child 427 - German Embassy Request to Father for Independent Examination 430 - Letters from Leading Doctors Concerning the Potentially Fatal Condition of Child (Sprint 2008) 432 - Blood Results Showing Conditionʼs Onset At the Time Wiggins Gave Father Physical Custody 436

CUSTODY INVESTIGATION ARLINGTON JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI MARGARITA ALEXANDRA KING-PFEIFFER

D.O.B.: 5/7/03 (4 YEARS OLD)

RACEISEX: AFRICAN AMERCANI GERMAN FEMALE

MOTHER: DR. ARIEL ROSITA KING

FATHER: DR. MICHAEL HERBERT PFEIFFER

DATES OF CUSTODY HEARING: 11/8/07

ADDRESS: 4001 9" ST. NORTH #824 ARLINGTON, VA 22203

P.O.B.: Houston, Texas

ADDRESS: 4001 9TH ST. NORTH #824 ARLINGTON, VA 22203

ADDRESS: 4836 RESERVOIR ROAD #3 WASHINGTON, DC 20007

DOCKET NO.: J-31848-01 -WL

CURRENT COURT SITUATION: The child's father, Dr. Michael Pfeiffer, filed a petition with this Court on August 9,2007, requesting that he be granted legal and physical custody of his daughter, Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer, pursuant to Section 16.1-241 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.

JUDGE: Honorable Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles

GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Deborah Olin, Esq.

ATTORNEY: Mother's Attorney, Dan Dannenbaum, Esq. Father's Attorney, Sean O'Connell, Esq.

COURT ACTION: On September 5,2007, Dr. King and Dr. Pfeiffer appeared before the Honorable Judge Wiggins Lyles for an Advisory Hearing, in which the petitioner, Dr. Pfeiffer filed a petition requesting full custody of his daughter, Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer. At that time, both parties were advised and mutual discovery was ordered. The Court also ordered the Court Service Unit to conduct a Custody Evaluation. In addition, the Court ordered that both parents take a parenting class and participate in a Custody Evaluation by a qualified expert.

Wiggins - COJ - 000001

NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL

The Court also entered an Initial Order addressing custody and visitation pending the next Court hearing that included the following conditions:

Both parents and child to participate in a custody evaluation; Father ordered to pay temporary support in the amount of $500 a month; Child is allowed to travel within the metropolitan area. Mother also allowed to travel with child to visit with family and friends in New Jersey, Atlanta, and Pennsylvania; Temporary visitation with father to include every Wednesday from 6:OOpm to Thursday at 8:00am, and every other Saturday from 10:OOam to Sunday at 10:OOam and every other Sunday from 10:OOam to Monday at 8:OOam. Overnight visitation will not commence until child's German passport is submitted to the Court; Both parents ordered to take a parenting class; Court orders Court Services Unit to conduct home visits of both parents and write a custody evaluation.

THE PETTIONER: Dr. Michael Herbert Pfeiffer

Relationship to Child: Father

D.O.B.: 2/18/63

Place of Birth: Nuremberg, Germany

Education: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he earned his M.D. and PhD. in Germany. He also completed a Post Doctorate Program at Baylor University.

Health: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he is in good health.

Substance/Alcohol Abuse: None reported


. < NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL

EMPLOYMENT: Dr. Pfeiffer is completing a fellowship at Georgetown University Hospital in Clinical Neurophysiology and Epilepsy. Dr. Pfeiffer works Monday through Friday from 9:OOam to 6:OOpm. He also has to be available by phone on weekends.

It is important to note that Dr. Pfeiffer had signed a contract on 4/15/07, with Englewood Community Hospital, Inc. that on or before September 1, 2007, he would "engage in full-time private medicine as a Neurologist in the community". His said salary would be approximately $340,000 annually plus additional signing bonus he would receive. In total, Dr. Pfeiffer was looking at a monthly salary of approximately $28,000 a month. Al plans had been made by Dr. King in order for her husband to secure this job. Dr. King reported that she was going to manage his private practice and provided documentation in which Dr. Pfeiffer signed a notarized letter on 3/25/07, appointing his wife to represent him in the administrative processes of establishing a solo Neurology Practice in Englewood, Florida". By all indications, the family was scheduled to move to their home in Florida around June 15, 2007. Dr. King reported that a week prior to their move Dr. Pfeiffer was scheduled to attend a ten day conference in which he informed his wife just prior to his departure that he would not be taking the job in Florida. According to Dr. Pfeiffer, he reported to this counselor that he felt his wife has forced the job upon them because of their financial situation stating that he felt this was his only way out. He stated that he did not want to accept the job but felt it was the only way to keep his family together. He further stated that accepting this job would have been a "huge sacrifice" for him.

Lenath of Employment: Dr. Pfeiffer has been employed at Georgetown University Hospital since June of 2007, and is scheduled to complete his fellowship by 6/30/08. Dr. Pfeiffer stated that upon completion of his fellowship, he would like to transition into teaching Academic Medicine.

S a w : $52,000 annually

RECORD CHECKS:

Criminal Record Check: Dr. Pfeiffer has only legal contact in the District of Columbia for a Protective Order filed by Dr. King against Dr. Pfeiffer. Records indicate that on July 6,2007, Dr. Pfeiffer appeared at Dr. King's place of work at the Zambian Embassy in Washington, D.C. He reportedly tried to put his daughter in his car, in which Ariana-Leilani then ran inside the Embassy to her mother crying. Dr. King was reportedly



holding her daughter when Sr. Pfeiffer approached her and grabbed at their daughter. Dr, King reportedly ran with her daughter and locked herself in a room. The Embassy staff reportedly asked Dr. Pfeiffer to leave, at which time he refused to leave. Reportedly, Dr. Pfeiffer was yelling and being disruptive, which was observed by many people. As soon as the room was opened again, Dr. Pfeiffer reportedly pushed his way back into the room. The Secret Service was called and had advised Dr. Pfeiffer to leave the premises. Police advised Dr. King to file for a potection order. In addition, one of Dr. King's colleagues who witnessed the incident, also advised Dr. King to obtain a protective order. Records indicate that a temporary Protective Order was granted on 7/9/07, for 14 days in which Dr. Pfeiffer was order to stay away from Dr. King, her home and also her place of work. He was also ordered to stay away from their child's school. Temporary custody of their daughter was also given to Dr. King pending the next court hearing on July 20th. At this hearing, Dr. King requested that the protection order be extended for up to twelve months but was reportedly denied by the Judge on the technical grounds that the event occurred on international grounds of the Embassy and therefore was not within the jurisdication of the District of Columbia Courts.

Child Protective Services Record Check: Dr. Pfeiffer does not have a record with Child Protective Services.

HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD:

Physical Description of Home and Neiahborhood: Dr. Pfeiffer resides in a rented one bedroom apartment in the area known as Georgetown in Washington, D.C. Dr. Pfeiffer resides in one of four apartments contained in this building. His apartment is of an older style, but is clean and orderly. Ariania-Leilani's has the only bedroom in the apartment that is furnished appropriately. There are few toys and activities, such as books and videos in her bedroom. Hopefully, Dr. Pfeiffer will be purchasing more items for his daughter since she is very active. He is also in need of more clothing for his daughter. Since Ariani-Leilani occupies the only bedroom in this apartment, Dr. Pfeiffer has his bed in the corner of the only other living space in his apartment. Overall, Dr. Pfeiffer's does not have the most "homey" presence, but it is adequate. The neighborhood is well kept and there are many extra-curricular activities available within walking distance of his home.



Lenath of Residence: Dr. Pfeiffer has resided in this home since July of 2007.

FAMILY FINANCES:

Income: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he earns approximately $52,000 annually.

RentIMortgaae: $1,500 monthly rent

Household Bills: Dr. Pfeiffer pays approximately $100 a month in utilities.

Outstandina Debts: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he owes $20,000 on his credit cards which he claims the majority of this was because of his wife's purchases. He also stated that he may be held liable for the last eight months of rent from the family's previous home in Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Pfeiffer claims that his wife did not pay the last eight months in rent totaling approximately $27,000. However, Dr. King claims that she had paid the monthly rent, but that the homeowner did not make payments to the mortgage company and therefore the house went into foreclosure. Dr. Pfeiffer also reported that he owes his parents money that he had to borrow from them in recent years.

Health Insurance: Dr. Pfeiffer currently pays for health insurance for the family (Blue Cross and Blue Shield). He pays approximately 10.63, bi-weekly. It is unclear as to whether his insurance has vision benefits and apparently his dental benefits do not provide coverage for children.

THE RESPONDENT: Dr. Ariel Rosita King

relations hi^ to Child: Mother

D.O.B.: 6/25/62

Place of Birth: Queens, New York

Education: Dr. King earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Hawaii in 1988, and obtained a Master's of Public Health in International Health Management, from the Texas School



of Public Health in 1994. She also obtained a Master's of Business Administration in International Health Management from Thunderbird, the American Graduate School of International Management in 1996. Dr. King then obtained her PhD. in Public Health and Policy from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in 2002.

Health: Dr. King reported that she is in good health. However, she did state that she has lost a lot of weight due to the stress of her separation and current custody case. She further stated that she is in need of dental work, but does not have the money to pay for the expensive dental work that needs to be done.

Substance/Alcohol Abuse: None reported.

EMPLOYMENT: Dr. King reported that she has not been employed for the past several years as she has primarily been a house-wife taking care of her and her husband's now four year old daughter. During the past few years, Dr. King has been involved in many projects and is the founder and CEO of Ariel Consulting Internation, Inc (ACI). ACI is worldwide and works with private and public sectors in implementing public policy and public health programs that primarily focuses on developing countries such as Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands.

Dr. King is also involved in many projects through her non-profit organization. In 2004, Dr. King was appointed by the National Council of Women (NCW) as the representative in Washington, D.C., and also for the United Nations in Geneva. Dr. King also founded The Ariel Foundation International in 2002, which is a non- profit organization focusing on improving the lives of youth and their families in developing countries.

Lenqth of Employment: As previously reported, Dr. King has not had steady employment for the past several years as her time has been devoted to raising the couples daughter. Dr. King does own her own international consulting buisness, but has not had the oppurtunity in recent years to devote her time to this career as she has been raising the couple's daughter. Due to the nature of her work, Dr. King's career requires her to travel frequently throughout the country.


. . NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL

Salarv: Dr. King's reported income for 2007 has been less than $4,000. Dr. King will be able to earn a reasonable salary once she is able to devote her time to her consulting business.

RECORD CHECKS:

Criminal Record Check: A criminal record check for Dr. King was negative.

Child Protective Services Record Check: Dr. King does not have a record with Child Protective Services.

MARITAL HISTORY: Dr. Pfeiffer and Dr. King met in Europe approximately ten years ago where they were both living and working. The relationship progressed in which they became engaged for two years before marrying in the United States on September 16,2000. Both parties reported that they decided to come to the United States so that Dr. Pfeiffer could complete his medical residency in neurology in the United States. Dr. King stated that she had made all of the arrangements for Dr. Pfeiffer to come to the United States including, sponsoring of his Visa, purchasing a place for them to live, and also buying them a car. Dr. King reported that she placed her career on hold in order to support her husband's education and to raise their child. It was understood that the move to the United States was only temporary in order for Dr. Pfeiffer to complete his residency. Dr. King reported that her husband had promised her that once he received his medical training in the United States, he would work as a medical doctor wherever Dr. King's international career would take her.

After their marriage, Dr. Pfeiffer and Dr. King moved to Houston, Texas so that Dr. Pfeiffer could complete his internship at Baylor University. It was during this time that Dr. King became pregnant eventually gave birth to their daughter, Ariana- Leilani King-Pfeiffer. After completing his first internship, the family then relocated to Levittown, Pennsylvania so that Dr. Pfeiffer could complete his one year residency. Upon completion, the family then moved to the Washington, D.C. area in order for Dr. Pfeiffer to complete his three year residency at Georgetown University Hospital. On June 9, 2007, Dr. Pfeiffer graduated from the Georgetown University Residency program and shortly thereafter, received licensure.

Dr. King reported that during her husband's last year of residency at Georgetown, her husband decided that the family would remain in the United States upon completion of his education. Dr. King reported that her husband



promised to obtain a job as a practicing neurologist and earn a full salary, and that he would work "locus tenens" (hospital rounds) in the interim to supplement the family's income and cover their expenses. She also stated that he her husband agreed to attend family counseling in order to improve their relationship. Dr. King stated that her husband had been earning an income of about $50,000 per year. She stated that their income was also supplemented by Dr. Pfeiffer's parents and her limited work income. Dr. King reported that in January of 2007, her husband began to pursue high paying physician jobs in Florida. As previously reported, Dr. Pfeiffer signed a contract in April of 2007, accepting a position to run a private neurology practice in the community of Englewood, Florida. The couple also purchased a home in Florida. These plans were then shattered when Dr. Pfeiffer reported to his wife days prior to relocating that he no longer wanted the job in Florida. This appears to be the last major incident that ultimately led to the couple's separation.

Dr. King reported a difficult marriage that showed signs of distress in October of 2006 when the family moved to their rental home in Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. King reported that the family moved from the Georgetown area to be closer to their daughter's German School. Dr. King had been transporting Ariani-Leilani to school daily but it was taking a lot of time due to traffic. Instead, the family decided to move closer to the German School. Dr. King reported that upon moving to their home in Bethesda, Dr. Pfeiffer separated himself from the family by residing in the downstairs bedroom with its own door to the outside. Dr. King stated that her husband would leave early in the morning and return home late at night. She reported that he had little to no contact with her and their daughter. Dr. Pfeiffer also confirmed to this counselor that he had distanced himself from the family during this time.

One of the major disputes that continues to be an issue is the situation regarding the couples seven months rent that was paid during the time the family resided in their rented Bethesda home. Dr. Pfeiffer reported that his wife was in charge of handling and ensuring that all of their bills were paid. Dr. Pfeiffer alleged that he later learned that his wife did not pay the couples rent each month and relayed concerns to this counselor about whether he will be held liable for the $27,000 in unpaid rent. Dr. King reported and provided documentation to this writer that indicated that while she paid the rent each month, the landlord in turn did not make monthly mortgage payments to the lender. According to court documents it appears that the landlord filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy and the house went into foreclosure. Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he was unaware of their housing situation, despite Dr. King's claims that her husband was well aware of the situation. Dr. King reported that a considerable amount of her



time was spent securing storage pods for the family's personal property as an eviction notice had been filed.

The stories regarding the couple's official separation is significantly different from one another. Dr. Pfeiffer reported that upon returning home from his ten day conference he found his wife and child gone. He reported that he did not know where they were and had to hire a private investigator to locate them. Dr. Pfeiffer claims that he did not know where his wife and child were for about five to six weeks. He further reported that out of eleven weeks he saw his daughter only six times that were two hour visits on each occasion. Dr. Pfeiffer reported that this separation was very traumatizing for him and his daughter. Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he feels his wife is financially irresponsible and unstable and feels that this is what ultimately drove them apart. He stated that his wife ran him into debt and that this was very draining. He stated that he was also tired of his wife's false promises to obtain employment. Dr. Pfeiffer feels that he has been the primary caretaker of their daughter, although there does not appear to be much evidence to support this. This also contradicts Dr. Pfeiffer's statement in which he admittedly reported that he separated himself from the family when the family resided in their Bethesda home where he lived in a separate bedroom in the home.

Dr. King reported that the couple came to the conclusion that they would separate and ultimately divorce. She stated that Dr. Pfeiffer agreed to contribute 50% of his income to support her and their daughter in order to help them to obtain housing. She reported that her husband left her and her child homeless and that they were forced to temporarily stay with different family friends until she was able to secure housing for her and her daughter in July of 2007. She reported that Dr. Pfeiffer secured a one bedroom apartment in Washington D.C. in which he had to put down at least $6,000 for three months rent as a deposit. Dr. King believes that Dr. Pfeiffer used the last of the family's cash assets in order to obtain housing for himself. Dr. King reported that she asked her husband if she and her daughter could temporarily reside in his home until she was able to obtain housing for them. She reported that Dr. Pfeiffer refused to allow them to temporarily stay in his home. Dr. King further reported that without her knowledge, Dr. Pfeiffer had removed her name from their German Bank Account on or about June 1 1,2007. Dr. King further advised that during the time of their marriage she was directed by Dr. Pfeiffer to deposit substantial funds into a German back account which was used to pay and collect expenses associated with their homes in Germany that were held in his name. Dr. King further reported that the money in her daughter's back account was also withdrawn at some point without her knowledge or consent.


. , NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER

HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD:

Physical Description of Home and Neighborhood: Dr. King resides in a rented two-bedroom, one bathroom condominium located in North Arlington known as the Ballston area. It is convenient to public transportation, shopping areas, and extra-curricular activities. Adriana-Leilani has greatly benefited from the location of their home and community. She attends the local YMCA that is in walking distance from the home where she attends weekly gymnastics, roller skating, cooking classes, home school games, and science classes. Ariana-Leilani also is in walking distance of the Ballston Mall Ice Rink where she participates in weekly ice skating classes. She also participates in weekly dance class at the Arlington Dance Center. Ariana-Leilani also attends weekly story time at the Arlington Library on Mondays and Thursdays that is directly across the street from their home.

Dr. King's home is clean, well kept and adequately furnished, Ariana-Leilani has her own bedroom that is more than adequately furnished and is child friendly. Her room is decorated in bright colors and is filled with many toys, games and educational activities to keep her busy throughout the day. Her walls are filled with her art work and pictures are displayed throughout her bedroom of her and her family. Ariana-Leilani loves her bedroom where she reports feeling safe and at home.

Length of Residence: Dr. King and Ariana-Leilani moved to their home in July of 2007.

FAMILY FINANCES:

Income: Dr. King has no source of income at this time. She has not had steady employment since the birth of the couple's child in which she has been the primary caretaker. Dr. King reported that prior to their separation Dr. Pfeiffer removed her name from all of their financial accounts without her knowledge. According to her reports, she and their daughter were left homeless by Dr. Pfeiffer with only a few hundred dollars left in the couple's joint account. Dr. King reported that her husband obtained housing for himself


, . NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL

and refused to provide her with financial support in order to obtain a home for her and her daughter.

RentIMortaaae: Dr. King's rent is $2,160 per month.

Household Bills: Dr. King reported that her household bills are approximately $800 per month.

Outstandina Debts: Dr. King reported that she is in substantial debt as a result of her separation. She has had to take several loans from friends in order to temporarily support her and her daughter. She is also in debt for legal fees incurred as a result of this custody matter.

Health Insurance: Currently, Dr. Pfeiffer carries the health insurance for Dr. King and Ariana-Leilani. Dr. King reported that their health insurance does not cover dental costs for children. Dr. Pfeiffer has stated in emails to Dr. King that he expects her to pay any medical bills she incurs for herself in full and for the dental work their daughter needs, Dr. Pfeiffer has instructed Dr. King to pay the bill in full and then he would reimburse her for half of the amount mid.

SUBJECT: Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer is an attractive four year old with an outgoing and friendly personality. Ariana-Leilani was born on May 7, 2003 in Houston, Texas and holds citizenship in both the United States and Germany. Ariana-Leilani's has been raised Jewish, as her mother is Jewish. Ariana-Leilani's father was born and raised in Germany where all of his family resides. Ariana- Leilani's is very close to her paternal grandparents who reside in Germany, and since she was five months old, she had visited her paternal grandparents in Germany approximately three times a year along with her mother. However, Ariana-Leilani has not seen her paternal grandparents since December of 2007. Dr. King has insured that Ariana-Leilani continues to maintain contact with her paternal grandparents as frequent phone calls are made to them on a regular basis.

Ariana-Leilani is very familiar with her German roots and is a fluent in English and German. She has books, music and videos that are written and spoken in German. In addition, both Dr. King and Dr. Pfeiffer speak to Ariana-Leilani in German, as well as English.



Ariana-Leilani's maternal grandmother lives in Atlanta, Georgia, and she also has a great-grandmother, who resides in New Jersey. Ariana-Leilani also has extended family living in the Philadelphia area and throughout the Untied S

Ariana-Leilani is very culturally diverse. She has been given the nickname "Little Miss Ambassador" by family and friends as she has traveled along with her mother to over ten different countries. As previously stated, Dr. King performs international work focusing on public health policy in third-world countries and has traveled extensively to countries like Lesotho, Zambia and the Zambian safari. These areas have been the primary focus of Dr. King's work in the past few years. Ariana-Leilani has rarely spent a night without her mother, as she has traveled everywhere with her mother. It is quite amazing when you look at the places Ariana-Leilani has traveled to and the many different cultural communities that she has experienced during her short lifetime. Ariana-Leilani is quite comfortable traveling to these countries along with her mother and is very "hands-on" during these trips as she interacts with the deprived children and people in these countries.

CHILD CARE OR SCHOOL INFORMATION: Last year, Ariana-Leilani began attending The German School in Bethesda, Maryland. She attended school five days a week from 8:OOam until 3:OOpm. This school year, Ariana-Leilani has only been able to attend German School on Saturdays. There is outstanding tuition due in the amount of $7,047.00 that needs to be paid before Ariana-Leilani can return to day school. Dr. King has provided written documentation of a letter dated 6/15/07, from the German School sent to the parents stating that this tuition needs to be paid. Dr. King has also provided several emails that she has written to Dr. Pfeiffer asking him to pay the outstanding tuition in order for Ariana-Leilani to return to school. Dr. King is unable to pay the tuition due to her financial situation.

Dr. King has done an exceptional job putting into place a Home School schedule for Ariana-Leilani. The following is an example of her daily activities:

Mondays: Story Time at Arlington Library Ice Skating -Tott-11 (Now Tott Ill at Ballston Common Mall) Nightly swimming (at Indoor pool in mother's apartment complex)

Tuesdays: Gymnastic Rollers (YMCA) Sunrise Nursing (Compassion & Ethics Education) Volunteer w/mom Nightly swimming



Wednesdays: Home School Art (Arlington Art Center) Yummy in My Tummy cooking class at YMCA Creative Movement (Arlington Dance Center) Nightly swimming

Thursdays:

Fridays:

Saturdays:

Sundays:

Home School Games at YMCA Home School Science at YMCA Nightly swimming

Story Time at Arlington Library Piano Lessons with 4 year olds Gymnastics at YMCA Nightly swimming

German School in the morning Soccer Nightly swimming

Once a month Hebrew School (Congregation Etz Hayim) Nightly swimming

Since their separation, Dr. King has continued to be the primary caregiver of Ariana-Leilani. Dr. King has spent every day with her daughter as she has been unable to work because she is basically providing 24 hours supervision and care of her daughter, with the exception of the two timesper week her daughter has visitation with her father.

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION:

This court was brought to the Court's attention as a result of Dr. Michael Pfeiffer filing a petition requesting sole custody of his daughter, Ariana-Leilani,

Ariana-Leilani is a remarkable four year old with an outgoing and friendly personality. Since being assigned to this case, this counselor has had the opportunity to have several visits with Ariana-Leilani and her parents and was able to gain insight into this family's current situation. Throughout the investigation this family has been cooperative in allowing this counselor to visit in their respective homes and provide this counselor with the necessary information in order to complete this investigation.



Through this counselor's interactions and observations of the child and each parent, it is apparent to this writer that Ariana-Leilani has a strong attachment with her mother in which her mother's presence provides her with a sense of security and comfort. It is of this writer's opinion that Dr. King has been the primary caregiver of Ariana-Leilani. Since the time of her birth, Ariana-Leilani has been in the care of her mother and has virtually spent every night by her mother's side. This is evident through the many photos and videos documenting Ariana-Leilani's extensive travels throughout the world with her mother. While Dr. Pfeiffer claims that he was the primary caregiver of his daughter, it does not seem realistic when he reported working 80 hours per week in order to complete his residencies. It does seem plausible that Dr. King placed her career on hold in order to support her husband's aspirations to complete his residency for neurology in the United States. While Dr. King is a citizen in the United States the majority of her life and career has been spent outside of the United States as her degrees and studies are in International Health and Policy. Both parents are in agreement that the couple's original plan was to come to the United States in order for Dr. Pfeiffer to complete his studies. At some point in time, Dr. Pfeiffer changed his mind and relayed his desire to stay in the United States in order to advance his studies. It is appears that Dr. Pfeiffer was misleading, whether intentionally or not, about his reluctance to have a private practice of his own. Instead, his reluctance was relayed to the family just days prior to the family's relocation to Florida. This could not have come at a more inopportune time in which the family was being evicted from their current home leaving them without stable housing in the meantime. The family appears to have devoted the last few years supporting Dr. Pfeiffer's medical studies. That eventually led to his signing of a contract in April of 2005, agreeing to have his own private practice in Englewood, Florida. As a result, the family invested a lot of time in order to do things like finding and purchasing a home in Florida. In addition, Dr. King had the understanding that she would be handling the administrative duties that goes along with running a private practice. Dr. King expressed excitement about her husband's achievement in obtaining his own private practice and also expressed her relief that the family would finally have a sense of financial stability after years of financial struggles in order to support her husband's career.

Despite the differing stories regarding the circumstances leading to the separation of Dr. King and Dr. Pfeiffer it does appear that Dr. King was left without adequate financial means and bared the brunt of the responsibility in caring for their daughter. It appears that she tried to maintain as much stability as possible so that Ariana-Leilani would not be so emotionally affected by her parents' separation and living situation. While Dr. Pfeiffer has expressed his concern about his daughter's well-being, he has not exactly provided the


" . NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL

necessary financial support to ensure his daughter's well-being. While this counselor was unable to confirm Dr. Pfeiffer's compliance with his child support obligation of $500 per month there is a discrepancy in the amount that Dr. Pfeiffer has paid thus far. Dr. Pfeiffer is adamant that he has paid $500 each month. Dr. King reported that she has only received one payment in the amount of $500. This is concerning because Dr. King need consistent support in order to maintain her housing. While this counselor cannot accurately determine whether Dr. Pfeiffer had knowledge of his wife and child's whereabouts, Dr. King did provide written documentation in the form of emails she sent and responses received from Dr. Pfeiffer dating from June 25,2007. In these emails, Dr. King relayed to her husband her desire for him to have contact and maintain a relationship that would promote the health and welfare of their daughter. Dr. King has consistently expressed her desire for Dr. Pfeiffer's continued contact and involvement in their daughter's life. This feeling appears mutual in that Dr. Pfeiffer also agrees that Ariana-Leilani needs to have continued parental involvement from both parents throughout their daughter's life.

While Dr. Pfeiffer is asking for full custody of his daughter, there does not appear to be concrete plans in place for her if he obtains full custody. When Dr. Pfeiffer was questioned about what he would do with his daughter on a daily basis while he is working, he simply stated that she could go to the YMCA all day or one of the local schools. Since the primary goal of each parent is to maintain as much stability as possible for their daughter, it does not seem appropriate to remove her from her present environment where she is very happy and comfortable with all of her classes and activities each day. Although Dr. Pfeiffer's home is in close proximity to Dr. King's home, this counselor is leery about Dr. Pfeiffer's ability to maintain his daughter's schedule considering his current work schedule. It seems more appropriate for Ariani-Leilani to continue with her current status instead of forcing her to adapt to a new environment.

This counselor would like to comment on the concerns Dr. King has reported to this counselor regarding Ariana-Leilani's overnight visitations with her father. Dr. King has reported to this counselor the behavioral problems Ariana-Leilani has been experiencing since the overnight visitations were started. Dr. King has reported that her daughter has been displaying behaviors such as throwing temper tantrums, scratching and biting herself and having accidents surrounding the times prior to and after overnight visitations with her father. These behaviors are evidently recent behaviors that have never occurred in the past. This counselor is aware of Dr. King's attempt to relay her concerns to her husband and asking for some type of alternative visitations until Ariana-Leilani becomes more comfortable with her parents' new living arrangements. It


, . NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL

appears that Dr. Pfeiffer is unwilling to temporarily suspend his overnight visitation which is clearly understandable since he wants to spend time with his daughter. Whether this is right or wrong this counselor can only report that there has been a decline in Ariana-Leilani's behavior during the time of this counselor's first and last visitation with Ariana-Leilani. It is difficult to determine whether her behavior is a result of the emotional distress she is experiencing regarding her parents' separation; nor does this counselor have the expertise to make any accurate conclusions. Due to her age, she probably does not have the capacity to fully understand her parents' situation as she has made comments to this counselor that she wants to sleep with both her parents in her home. She is also confused about what is her home. This counselor can only report that Ariana-Leilani has made comments to this writer that while she enjoys visits with her father she has stated that she is scared in her father's home and wants to spend the night with her mother. Perhaps Ariana-Leilani needs more time to become familiar with her father's home so that she feels more comfortable with overnight visitations with her father. After all, Arian-Leilani has virtually spent every night with her mother throughout her lifetime thus far. This counselor feels it is also important to relay to the Court that she has also made several comments to this counselor that her father comes into her bed a night. In addition, Dr. King has tried to address this issue with her husband requesting that it stop. This counselor cannot confirm whether this is occurring, but if it is, this counselor would hope the Dr. Pfeiffer would stop this behavior and understand that it is not appropriate considering his daughter's age.

Lastly, this counselor would like to relay to the court Dr. King's worries that she expressed about her concerns that Dr. Pfeiffer will flee the country with their daughter. This counselor would defer to the court in that this counselor does not know the possible legal actions, if any that are available to ensure the safety of her daughter.

Overall, all is not lost in this case in which this counselor strongly feels that both parents are capable of maintaining a positive relationship in a positive manner for the purposes of their daughter. It is felt that there will be less conflict between both parents once resolutions have been made in terms of living arrangements, child support, financial responsibilities, etc. It appears that these issues are causing conflict between both parents in which a final resolution needs to be established.


. . NAME: ARIANA-LEILAN1 KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL

RECOMMENDATION:

It is respectfully recommended that the parents, Dr. Ariel King and Dr. Michael Pfeiffer, share joint custody of their daughter, Ariana Leilani, with physical custody being given to Dr. Ariel King.

- ~ i c h e l e Wood Probation Counselor Date: /pip 0-1,

Christopher Edmonds Probation Supervisor

Date: 1 0 / z / / o 7


12/20/2010 9:04 AMThree strikes for Arlington judge?

Page 1 of 2http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/three-strikes-arlington-judge-0

Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)

Home > Three strikes for Arlington judge?

By Barbara HollingsworthCreated Dec 9 2010 - 5:04pm

Three strikes for Arlington judge?Comments (9)

Tomorrow in Richmond, members of the General Assemblyʼs Courts of Justice Committees willhear public testimony to help them decide whether a group of Virginia judges should berecommended for reappointment to the bench. One of those judges, whose term expires Jan.31, 2011, is Arlington Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles, thesame judge who terminated the parental rights of Nancy Hey and Benita Washington despite thefact that neither of these mothers were ever charged - let alone convicted - of child abuse orneglect. After their children were snatched by Arlington social workers, Judge Wiggins Lylesrubber-stamped their legal kidnapping.

Sheʼs still at it.

Next Tuesday at 10:20 am, Judge Wiggins Lyles has scheduled a hearing to terminate theparental rights of Tiffany Johnson, whose one-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Talayah, has beenin the countyʼs custody since she was three months old.

Court documents filed by the county on Nov. 30 and obtained by The Examiner admit that “atthe time of the removal…Talayah appeared physically healthy,” and do not list any evidence ofabuse or neglect on Johnsonʼs part beyond vague “concerns surrounding Ms. Johnsonʼs basicparenting skills.” Yet the 26-year-old mom, herself a former foster child who has a job and isliving in subsidized housing, is within days of losing her daughter forever.

On July 20, guardian ad litem Ellen Dague submitted another document to the court noting thatTalayeh was returned to her mother for a brief period in September, 2009 but “was removed asecond time because mother was too overwhelmed with her commitments.”

Is being frazzled the new standard for having your child taken away by Arlingtonʼs ChildProtective Services, whose own website says that children are only removed from their homes ifthey are “at risk of serious harm”? If being “overwhelmed with commitments” is the new definitionof neglect, nobodyʼs kids are safe.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/


http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/three-strikes-arlington-judge-0#comments-header-anchor

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/baby-snatching-arlington-county

http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/158226

12/20/2010 9:04 AMThree strikes for Arlington judge?

Page 2 of 2http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/three-strikes-arlington-judge-0

Last year, before the same legislative panel, veteran attorney Roy Morris blasted then ChiefJudge Wiggins Lylesʼ handling of a custody case in which she completely terminated a motherʼscontact with her five-year-old daughter. “Iʼve never seen a worst run court in all my years of[litigation] experience,” Morris told legislators on Dec. 21, 2009. “My client was dragged into theVirginia court even though Virginia didnʼt have jurisdiction… Why would a judge have taken acase that they didnʼt even have jurisdiction to hear?”

And in a Dec. 8 letter to Arlington Chief Circuit Court Judge William Newman, Dr. Sheila Mannix,co-founder of Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates, noted that Johnsonʼs case “evincesthe patterns of practice of alleged offenses against the criminal laws of the United States” that isthe subject of a Sept. 14 federal court order in Chicago, warning that “Freedom of InformationAct requests will be forthcoming to investigate if the misappropriation of federal funds has fueledthe removal of this child from her mother without just cause.”

This is more than enough reasonable doubt for legislators to decide that this judge needs tostep down.

Beltway Confidential Arlington Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court Chid ProtectionServices Courts of Justice Ellen Dague Esther Wiggins Lyles Freedom of InformationAct Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates Judge William Newman Roy Morris

Sheila Mannix Tiffany Johnson Virginia General Assembly

Source URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/three-strikes-arlington-judge-0


http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/arlington-domestic-and-juvenile-relations-court

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/chid-protection-services

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/courts-justice

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/ellen-dague

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/esther-wiggins-lyles

http://washingtonexaminer.com/taxonomy/term/2704

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/illinois-family-court-accountability-advocates

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/judge-william-newman

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/roy-morris

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/sheila-mannix

http://washingtonexaminer.com/topics/tiffany-johnson

http://washingtonexaminer.com/taxonomy/term/9299

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/three-strikes-arlington-judge-0


Bukrt F,II,lli_sn.,t. ArlingtonjOOges doo't have unchecked autholi1y to separate kids from parents

• __ "' ....... .. _._._~'.IOOI~I·lW .. _ __ ... ··t··,_<""' ......... -------_.-..... ,. . ...... ,,... ............ ,... ................. .-. .... -,...

_., .. -- - ., .. ,~_._ ...... -_.""" ... , _ ."",,,,- ,--~

.... ~intf -~"-'·-"~o==,···-_._- ~

~ .. ~-----~--_ .... _._--'""'".------'----------

12/15/2010 6:29 AMArlington officials ignore jurisdiction

Page 1 of 2http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/opinion/columnists/2010/12/arlington-officials-ignore-jurisdiction

Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)

Home > Ar ngton off c a s gnore jur sd ct on

By Barbara HollingsworthCreated Dec 14 2010 - 8:05pm

Arlington officials ignore jurisdictionComments (0)Judgeswield enormous power, but that power is not absolute. They are duty-bound to obey legalrules that protect defendants' constitutional rights. One of those rules is jurisdiction, looselydefined as the court's authority to hear the cases before it. On July 22, Arlington County socialworkers took a 10-year-old girl away from her 64-year-old grandmother and placed her in fostercare based on a Feb. 19, 2009, emergency court order that cited "allegations of neglect" as wellas the grandmother's "history of instability in housing, employment and poor judgment ... [and] ahistory of legal problems including check fraud that is currently under investigation byMontgomery County."

But the girl and her granddaughter were living in Stafford County at the time, not Arlington. Andtheir "home state" as defined by the Virginia statute was Maryland, not Virginia.

Arlington social workers obliquely acknowledged their lack of jurisdiction when they took thechild to Chevy Chase on Aug. 31 and used her state of Maryland "Healthy Smiles" Medicaid cardand her former Bethesda address to get the girl's teeth cleaned, X-rays taken and two smallcavities filled. But jurisdiction wasn't the only legal requirement Arlington decided to ignore.

In a five-page rebuttal filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Delores Heffernan-O'Brien testified that she had never been served with the 2009 removal order, and only saw it forthe first time on July 26, 2010 -- four days after her granddaughter was taken into foster care.

As a result, she could not defend herself against any of the charges against her in an apparentviolation of her constitutional due process rights.

Then it happened again. "I never received written notice of the most important hearing of mylife," O'Brien, a Mormon, former model and widow of a prosecutor, said of the Aug. 19 hearingshe missed as a result.

Arlington JDR Chief Judge George Varoutsos found her guilty of neglect and abuse in absentia,and suspended her one-hour-per-week visitation with the child she had raised from infancy. Theonly contact she was allowed was a once-a-week phone call monitored by the foster parents so




http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/arlington-officials-ignore-jurisdiction#comments-header-anchor

12/15/2010 6:29 AMArlington officials ignore jurisdiction

Page 2 of 2http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/opinion/columnists/2010/12/arlington-officials-ignore-jurisdiction

O'Brien would not upset her granddaughter with her "adult" problems.

Yet just two days later, she says, her granddaughter's court-appointed guardian ad litem allowedthe same Montgomery County detective investigating check-kiting charges against her (whichhave since been dropped) to interrogate her granddaughter until she became hysterical.

Calls to the guardian ad litem, the Arlington commonwealth's attorney's office, and the socialworker involved were not returned.

This was not the first time that violations of defendants' due process rights in Arlington's JDRCourt have been reported. In September, attorney Roy Morris petitioned President Obama,Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to intervene on behalf of ArielKing, who not only lost custody of her then 5-year-old daughter but was barred from any futurecontact with her seriously ill child even though King, like O'Brien, was not an Arlington resident.

Another anomaly: Morris received two slightly different final court orders, both dated June 6,2008, and both signed by Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles.

That same day, court transcripts show, Judge Wiggins Lyles forced a woman who had not beensubpoenaed as a witness to testify on the stand without benefit of the legal representation sheclearly requested. A federal investigation into such violations of due process rights should benext.

Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.

Columnists Barbara F. Hollingworth NEP

Source URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/arlington-officials-ignore-jurisdiction


http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tags/barbara-f-hollingworth

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nep

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/arlington-officials-ignore-jurisdiction

Close Window

Print This Page

Another Case of Judicial AbuseApril 10, 2008 08:01 AM EDT

© 2008 by Mother Toad (Gail, Love the Spring, season and step

Average Rating: 10/10 (12 votes)

Tags: children, people, most read, abuse, most comments, judicial system, child abuse, child protective services, information,

justice system, custody, invite comments, npr, court system, chat, food for thought, family, comments please, gather, spouse

abuse, divorce, virginia, real life story

Tuesday, April 8, 2008, I accompanied Dr. Ariel King, Founder and President of the Ariel Foundation, to the family courtof Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles in Arlington, VA.

The following are my observations and interperatations of the events. I have heard about this Judge, but had never had, what I now consider to be, the displeasure of sitting in on one of herhearings. It was an eye opener for me that such a judge continues to dispense her self interpreted brand of justicefrom the bench. And, I am left wondering who is in charge of that courtroom and why she continues to be paid foroccupying the position of judge. I had spoken to Dr. Ariel King for only a few minutes the night before court and we mostly spoke of my own situation,not hers. I arrived at her home in Maryland after 9AM on April 8th, while she was out on an errand. When she arrivedhome close to 9:30 or so, it was time for her to get ready for court, showering dressing and doing her hair. As soon asshe was ready, we left in separate cars. I mention all this so that you understand that we had no time together todiscuss her case. I had little if any background available to me until the end of the court day. As happened, this waspositive for being an observer. I had little or no information on which to base my observations. We were accompanied to court by Dr. King's mother, who had suffered a massive stroke in February, 2008. Along theway, we stopped to pick a friend of Dr. King's who is a lawyer, but does not practice in the family court system, nor inthe Commonwealth. He was simply along for the "legal ride" and has taken an interest in her case. Prior to court, we met her lawyer, the latest in a string of attorneys to represent Dr. King. The others had beendismissed by her for inaction and mishandling of her case. This lawyer had failed to bring with him a set of documentsDr. King felt was important to the case. He had completely jumbled other papers that were to be presented to thecourt. As Dr. King and her friend made attempts to set the paperwork right, the lawyer representing her acted as ifthese were natural mistakes. After about a half hour or so, we headed toward the courthouse.

As we exited the elevator on the fourth floor, Dr. King mentioned something that is vital to her case. I had heard hermention at least twice during the just prior meeting and the lawyer had reassured her that everything was in order. Asif it were completely normal, the new lawyer tossed out "We're not filing that today." No explanation, no reasoning, nota further word was said by him.

I was the only observer in the courtroom. Judge Wiggins Lyles attempted to delay the case even further, saying thatnone of the four contempt charges stemming from Show Cause Orders were due to be heard that day. I can onlysurmise that this tactic was a lame attempt to possibly delay the case until I exited the courtroom. After all, no oneknew who I was, and later, I would not be sworn in as a witness, which was visually noted by the judge with an intensestare toward me while everyone else raised their right hand. The only person to leave the courtroom was Dr. King'smother, frail and frightened. The Guardian ad Litem was the first to speak. She offered, though Dr. King was cooperating with the courts at thistime, she had a history of being very uncooperative. After court, I asked Dr. King what this was in reference to. Dr.King replied that she did not know why this was being said. This, I am again surmising from hearing a good part of the story, stemmed from the original phone call she received from the GAL in Virginia. She was living in Maryland, afteronly living in Virginia for twenty-nine days. At the time of the abandonment, her husband moved to DC for two monthsand then returned to Maryland, but filled for full custody in Virginia. Her husband was living in DC, when he filed forfull custody in Virginia. This was directly following the abandonment by her husband of her and her than 4 year oldchild without money or a place to live one week after completing a Neurology Residency. Upon receiving the call, Dr.

Another Case of Judicial Abuse by Mother Toad (Gail, Love th... http://www.gather.com/viewArticlePF.action?articleId=281474...

1 of 4 7/2/09 10:32 PMWiggins - COJ - 000024

King sought advice from counsel. She was told not to talk to anyone, and so she followed the advice her then lawyergave her. At the point in time the call was received, the child was living with Dr. King in Maryland. The fact that she and her child had only spent twenty-nine days in Virginia before the husband filed for full custody inVirginia and returned to Maryland following that period, and with the husband living in Washington, DC, again, notVirginia, begs one to ask why a custody case is being heard in a courtroom in Arlington, VA. The law is very specificon this point and leaves no room for interpretation. In order for custody to be heard in a Virginia courtroom, at leastone of the litigants has to have lived within the borders of this state for no less than six months. Neither of the litigantsinvolved, nor the child, meets that stipulation. With the child living in Maryland with her mother at the time the casewas filed, and the father living in DC, a civil case should have been filed in one of those jurisdictions. From myunderstanding, Dr. King has pointed this out to the judge in the past. When there was an attempt to bring it up againon Tuesday, Wiggins Lyles abruptly cut her off and informed her that she did not want to hear it. The judge had basedthe jurisdictional issue on the fact that Dr. King had, at one point, signed a one year lease on an apartment, which sheadmits to having done at the time of the abandonment, but only used the apartment for a total of three months duringthe lease period. Their daughter's private school, place of worship, extra-curricular activities, pediatrician, playmates allremained in Maryland the entire time. As court proceeded, Dr. King was put on the stand. As is now my understanding, though she was ready and willing,Judge Wiggins Lyles had not allowed her to speak in court since the case had started. In that vein, the judge refusedto see offers of evidence presented on Tuesday. One by one, she ruled that they were of no relevance or notadmissible as hearsay, without examining most of the documents herself and basing it solely on the word of Mr.O'Connell. Time after time, the lawyer for the other side, Mike O'Connell, pounded on the podium in an attempt to upset Dr. King. During first of the two recesses in the five and one half hours we spent in the courthouse, I informed her lawyer that theact of the pounding was a deliberate badgering of Dr. King and an attempt to upset her. He spoke to the husband'slawyer during that recess, and following that, although not present for the conversation, I have to believe that heinformed Mr. O'Connell that I was there to observe the proceedings as a possible future witness to the happenings inthe courtroom, as he discontinued the practice. At one point, however, Mr. O'Connell, raised his voice and in an angrytone asked Dr. King if she knew what the penalty was of perjury. This is lawyer speak for "You are lying", somethingthey are forbidden from saying to anyone on the witness stand without being able to back it up. Again, this is used asan intimidation technique. During the entire time that her husband was present in the courtroom, and having full view of him, I noted anuncontrollable and constant facial twitching. He held his hands tightly together and below the table level where thejudge could not see them. Now knowing that he is a Neurologist, I have to question the cause of the twitching. Thesetypes of bodily behaviors would give me concern in a medical environment. On the other hand, when people lie,whether themselves or through a third party, they will often display such behaviors, as do people with certain organicbrain disorders ranging from Tourette's syndrome to Generalized Anxiety disorder with any number of serious braindisorders in between, including untreated or with the off label use of Lexapro for Bipolar disorder as reported bypatients who are using the drug for it's unintended use. When the subject of Dr. King's mother came up, Judge Wiggins Lyles choose to offer, in what can best be described aseditorializing, that Dr. King had made a bad choice in bringing her to Maryland from Atlanta. With no support system inAtlanta for her mother, no insurance to cover further hospital bills (her mother was stablized and released due to lack ofinsurance at 3 AM) and her mother having the physical capacity of a six month old, the judge said that she would nothave moved her mother to the DC area via car (the mother was not allowed to fly due to a bleed condition in the brain)and that Dr. King should have remained in Atlanta, away from her child, her employment and two other people to helpcare for her mother. In essence, the judge was telling her that she should have made the choice between her child andher near death mother and that the act of bringing her mother here, where she could receive proper care, was anunthinking act on Dr. King's part. From the beginning, I question the abilities or willingness of Dr. King's new lawyer. One of the first things he told herwas that a key witness, living a few miles away in Maryland, could not be subpoenaed to testify. It is my understandingthat if a person is within a 1200 mile radius, they can be called. Further than that, they can be deposed. When asked about notifying the courts upon her return from Atlanta (the husband had been given temporary custodywhile she was away), Dr. King said that she notified her lawyer, the GAL and her CPS probation officer, a Ms. Woods,by email just after 1 PM Tuesday, after returning on Monday and amassing the proof that the CPS worker required. Ms. Woods stated from the observers seating, "Oh, yeah, a week later." Dr. King was able to produce a copy of thatemail. Judge Wiggins Lyles responded that it was after the attempt by Dr. King to retrieve her child and ruled acontempt charge be upheld.


2 of 4 7/2/09 10:32 PMWiggins - COJ - 000025

Dr. King is in possession of a tape of a 911 call placed on the Tuesday morning and stemming from the attempt to pickup her child upon her return from Atlanta and upon amassing the required documents for the court. The father refusedto hand the child over. On that tape, the child can clearly be heard screaming, banging on a door and crying for hermother. The judge refused to hear that tape. The husband was allowed to leave the courtroom early. Mr. O'Connell outwardly stated that he could leave to pick upthe child from school, although he was fully aware that Dr. King had arranged for the child to be picked up by thenanny. It should be noted that it was not the judge who excused the husband, but his own lawyer. I believe this is anindication of the judge's propensity to just go along with one lawyer over the concerns of the entire courtroom and therules of said courtroom. When his lawyer was on track to make a statement or ask a question that would be objectedto, Judge Wiggins Lyles told him how to phrase them so that they would not be overruled. She did this time and again,yet did not extend the same courtesy to Dr. King's lawyer. At one point, Mr. O'Connell ordered that a disallowedquestion be stricken from the record while no such utterance came from the judge. When it came to the matter of Dr. Lane, it was noted by the courts that Dr. King had discontinued seeing him. In what Ibelieve to be a deliberate set-up for failure, Dr. Lane would initiate the appointments with a call or email her with timesand dates he could see her. She kept all but one appointment with him. Eventually, for reasons I have yet to learn, Dr.King was forced to contact the medical board about Dr. Lane. When the attorney for the husband asserted that Dr.King had missed several appointments, she again informed him that she had only missed one. Mr. O'Connell thanstated that no one would ever know that for sure because Dr. King exercised her right to make what she thought andcontinues to feel, was a valid complaint. Dr. Lane has had complaints filed against him in the past. Dr. McFarlane, anassociate of Dr. Lane's, has now been appointed by the judgeto do the evaluations. When Dr. King's mother came into the courtroom to testify, Judge Wiggins Lyles refused to allow the testimony to takeplace. In a previous hearing, the father's lawyer had asserted that Dr King exaggerated the mother's illness in ordernot to attend a previously schedule full custody hearing. They asserted that Dr. King had gone to Atlanta to venueshop, a fact that could have been disputed by the mother. The cruelest part of the day came about a half hour before bringing the gavel down for the day. Dr. King was foundguilty on two counts of contempt of court. Mr. O'Connell, citing the Dr. King's alleged noncooperation, angrily insistedthat Dr. King be jailed. Judge Wiggins Lyles, in what appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to destabilize Dr. King,informed those present that she "needed to think" about the punishment until the next hearing date, once again leavingDr. King in a state of limbo. Court was dismissed for the day when Dr. King's mother began to feel ill with what is believed to be, based on herblood pressure and medical history, a mini stroke and had to be removed from the courtroom. Ms. Woods, the CPSprobation officer, assisted us in getting her down stairs. When doing so, she stated to Dr. King that she thought thehusband could use help with parenting by taking "a few parenting classes." Submitted byGail Lakritz April 10, 2008


3 of 4 7/2/09 10:32 PMWiggins - COJ - 000026

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 27

RXMorris

Sticky Note

Unmarked set by RXMorris

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 28

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 29

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 30

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 31

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 32

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 33

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 34

VIRGINIA:

IN THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ARLINGTON

Case ~o.(s): J- 31 W I

T IS E - I. You should read and understand the entire order. If you do not understand the order you should seek legal counsel. Failure to follow the terms of this order may result in you being found in contempt of court.

I Because matters of support andlor custody o f children are pending in this court, all parties are ORDERED as follows:

AN ATTORNEY I f you wish to be represented by an attorney, your attorney tnust notify the Court of his or her representation within 14 days of your advisory hearing. If you are unable to retain an attorney within this time, you must notify the Court before the above date of when you expect to get counsel A lengthy extension will not be granted. You must give the attorney a copy of this order.

m U A N C E PQLXY (See also written poticjd

1) Continuances are not favored. 2) Continuances may he granted upon a written request stating a good reason for the

continuance. 3) Continuances will not be granted if the request is not in writing or does not show a good

reason for the continuance. 4) The following are good reasons for a continuance:

a. The failure to hire an attorney within 14 days of service. b. Lack of preparation. c. ~g reemen t of the parties without further reason. - d. The failure to timely request discovery, home study, witness subpoenas, or

professional reports.

1) If prior court orders exist which determine custody and support of the minor chil.d(ren), the parents are required to abide by such prior court orders

2) Unless specifically contradicted by prior court orders both parents are the joint custodians of the child(ren) are ordered to conduct themselves as follows until further order o f this court:


a. Each parent shall keep the other parent notified of his or her address and telephone number and permit the other party to have reasonable contact with the child(ren) unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent the chitd(renj or a party from harm. If either parent denies the other access to the child(ren) and the Court finds such denial to be unreasonable, this will be a strong factor against that parent retaining custody of the child(ren).

b. The child(renj shall continue to attend their usual school and childcare provide1 unless there exists a compelling reason to do otherwise.

c. The parties shall continue in effect all insurance policies, including, but not limited to, health, life, automobile, and homeowner's insurance for the duration of the proceedings or further order of Court.

d. Each parent shall consult the other, if possible, of important health care or educational issues involving the child(ren). Both parents may have access to the child(ren)'s school and medical records.

e. Neither parent shall submit the child(renj to psychiatric or physiological

the court enters a child support order, both parents shall to the child(ren's) su port to the best of thei a il~ty. 'F'a -tr- Or &^f *~f t^r^^i A)& 5i^-,,pi^-f IXUiu, a.'<^^x^^^^- $4 -$I

Neither party shall harass the other party, call or appear at the other parties' place of employment except as necessary for the well being of the child(ren). All parties are required by law to refrain from any abuse against each other or the child(ren).

The parties or their attorneys are hereby directed to promptly notify the Court in writing of a reconciliation.

YOUR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER IS MANDATORY.

Order Entered: % 9 - C?? ^Xi~{Ã§oÃ§o^ Judge:


Arlington Juvenfim & Domestic RÃˆ1alion Di'itrIcn'.nun i, the dcrs ignct c - w Â ¥ a neprty ,;le;i. of the ahow c. .-:,(.,I 4 e , ~ , .,N. ~yrsiin-Tu:.';. Â¥J.H.E ( 3 n'.",$l ( en this date that tha doc&m tu which thte fluthanIration is affixed is a ifue corn of


1

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:

THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

Michael H. Pfeiffer

Petitioner

v Case No. J-31848-01

Ariel R. King

Respondent

IN RE: ARIANA-LEILANI MARGARITA ALEXANDRA KING-PFEIFFER

DOB: 05/07/2003

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY PENDENTE

LITE CUSTODY

COMES NOW Respondent, ARIEL R. KING, by counsel, and moves this Court for an

emergency hearing to modify pendente lite custody. The Initial Order entered in this case

directed the parties to allow Petitioner to have visitation that included overnight stays with the

parties’ four year old child, twice a week. As demonstrated below, overnight stays have created

untold amount of stress on the child, taking its toll and manifesting itself psychologically and

physiologically.

Respondent respectfully requests that the Initial Order be modified to not require

overnight stays with Petitioner until it can be shown that overnight visits will not negatively

impact the child. As grounds therefore, Respondent states as follows:

1. At the hearing on Respondent’s Motion for Continuance on the morning of September

5, 2007, the Court issued an Initial Order on Petitioner's pendente lite request for custody.

In its Initial Order, the Court required Petitioner, a German citizen, to surrender the

child's German passport to the Court prior to allowing any extended visitation with


2

Petitioner. Once the child's German passport was surrendered, extended visitations of

two overnight visits per week were allowed with Petitioner -- one on each Wednesday

night and one associated with alternating Saturday and Sunday visits. Petitioner had a

history of attempted snatching of the child while she and Respondent had attended an

event at the Zambian Embassy on July 6, 2007. The incident was serious enough to

prompt the US Secret Service (which guards the embassies) to be called to the Embassy.

The US Secret Service agent -- after interviewing the Petitioner -- recommended that the

Respondent seek a restraining order against Petitioner, which she successfully did. (See,

Exhibit II, Temporary Protective Order Issued by the District of Columbia, July 9, 2007).

In addition, the DC police escorted the Respondent out of the District to the Virginia

border to afford her protection. The child stated on the escorted ride home that: "Papa

tried to take me." "I'm gonna be broken." "I don't want to be broken." "Papa's not my

friend."

2. This Court has scheduled for November 8, 2007 the hearing on the Petitioner's Petition

for Custody.

3. Since entry of the September 5 Initial Order, the child has gone on two weekday visits

to the Petitioner's home and three weekend days to the Petitioner's home. The Petitioner's

"home" is a one bedroom apartment, where the father has from time to time slept with the

child in the child's "queen size" bed. The bedroom that houses the child provides no

privacy, as one wall contains a series of large window-like openings into the kitchen of

the apartment. Those window-like openings to the adjacent room were misrepresented

by Petitioner's attorney in the September 5th hearing as being solid glass windows to the

outside.


3

4. After each overnight visit to the Petitioner's home, the four year old child has shown

severe signs of stress, both emotionally and physically, including:

a. complaining about seeing and being attacked by "bumblebees,"

b. biting and scratching herself,

c. peeing in her pants (even though she has been potty trained for almost two

years),

d. throwing unusually long and severe temper tantrums immediately after

returning from the overnight visits, coming back hungry (suggesting she is not

eating adequately at the Petitioner's home), complaining about being scared

and it being dark at Petitioner’s home,

e. returning from visitation severely tired (suggesting that she is not sleeping well

at Petitioner's home), unkempt, and at times in her pajamas, and

f. strongly clinging to the Respondent after an overnight visit to the Petitioner's

home.

5. The child has also stated directly to Petitioner that she is scared and that she does not

want to stay overnight. In addition, the child has asked Petitioner to bring her home from

the visits, but Petitioner has refused -- insisting that she stay the entire time.

6. The frequency and nature of the overnight visits have been disruptive the child's life,

causing her to either miss out on, or be sleepy or irritated on the day following one of the

overnight visits to Petitioner's home during the many home-school program activities that

have been regularly scheduled on the day of her return to Respondent's Arlington home,

including gymnastics, piano, art, dance, ice skating, sciences, and volunteer activities at a

local assisted living center.

7. Respondent has attempted to work with Petitioner to work out arrangements that

would be less stressful, however, Petitioner refuses to acknowledge that there are any

problems, and continues to demand that he take the four year child to visit his home

under any circumstances -- even when the four year old is sick and running a

temperature, and even when the four year old is in a deep sleep (which has the negative


4

effect of the four year old fearing that when she falls asleep in her home, she will likely

wake up in Petitioner's home).

8. Petitioner’s behavior has become more erratic, showing little empathy for the child.

For example, in a recent overnight visitation on the evening of Thursday, September 27,

Petitioner showed up at Respondent's building and demanded to take the child even

though the child was sound asleep. Petitioner became irate in the lobby of Respondent's

apartment building and harassed the employees at the front desk, taking their pictures

when they objected, and threatened to call the police. His behavior was extreme enough

to prompt the building’s management to bar him from the building. Similarly, when

Respondent invited Petitioner to attend the Saturday morning (September 8) first day of

the child's class at the German School, Petitioner disrupted the child's classroom and

refusing to leave the room after all the other parents had left, causing the head of the

school to make a complaint to Respondent that other children were disturbed by

Petitioner's behavior, in turn causing several parents to call the head of the school to

complain about Petitioner's behavior. The next week, the director of the school (of 600

students) asked the Respondent take measures to prevent such an incident from

happening again. (See, Exhibit III, Email of Kerstin Hopkins to Ariel King, dated

September 19, 2007)

9. Respondent has tried to cooperate with Petitioner, including making a plea with him to

work together, in a non-adversarial way to resolve the custody and visitation, to reduce

the stress on the child, and other issues, and that the money spent on litigation would be

better spent on the child's future. Petitioner has wasted judicial resources by seeking full

custody, only to admit to Respondent and third parties that he did not really want full


5

custody as he had requested. (See, Exhibits I, IV, and V, and VI, Emails of Ariel King to

Michael Pfeiffer, dated June 25, 2007, September 20, 2007, September 25, 2007, and

September 28, 2007).

10. Historically, Petitioner has been mostly uninvolved in the daily and long-term care and

raising of the child during the child’s entire life.

11. Petitioner is not a fit and proper person to have custody of the child. Petitioner is not

capable of -- and has demonstrated he is incapable of -- regularly providing the proper

care for the child on an extended basis overnight. Petitioner has little, if any, extended

experience in taking care of the child for periods longer than a few hours. Even when in

his custody for a short period of time, Petitioner has failed to properly feed the child

(instead feeding the child candy and other sweets which sweets have resulted in a

mouthful of cavity), protect the child, and protect the health and safety of the child, failed

to keep to bedtime schedules required for a growing four year old, and routinely and

bizarrely taken the female child into the men's bathroom (even when other women are

available who can take her into the women's bathroom, and even though the four year old

is capable of taking care of herself in a public women's bathroom if let in the door).

12. Petitioner has displayed an inability to maintain the child's safety when the child is

under Petitioner's control and properly set boundaries in terms of how he handles the

child and what he allows the child to do.

13. The child is very attached to Respondent, her mother.

14. The child is only four years old and has special needs, including having a need to have

special physical contact with the mother as a way of coping with stress and an inability to

fall asleep.


6

15. Respondent fears that the child will be emotionally scared and/or physically hurt by

the continuation of the existing overnight schedule. Petitioner's increasing erratic,

bizarre, and unempathetic behavior suggest a deepening manifestation of the Petitioner's

antisocial behavior, creating an unhealthy environment for any extended stay by the child

until the Court can be convinced that Petitioner has addressed the underlying cause of

these behaviors.

16. The Arlington County Child Services Unit has visited Respondent's home and

interviewed the child, has confirmed the stress the child is undergoing from the visits

with Petitioner, and, according to court records, has requested the appointment of a

Guardian Ad Litum.

17. The Court needs to prescribe a visitation schedule that minimizes stress on the child,

provides a free weekend when the child can take a trip to visit relatives in the allowed

areas set forth in the Initial Order, accommodates the German School's request that

Petitioner's behavior not be repeated, and accommodates the child's normal evening 7 pm

bedtime.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein and for such other and further reasons as will be

presented before this Court, Respondent respectfully requests the following relief:

A. The Court order that Respondent be awarded sole custody pending the final outcome

of these proceedings;

B. Petitioner be allowed visitation each Wednesday night from 5 pm to 7 pm (without

any overnight);

C. Petitioner be allowed visitation only on alternating weekends, from 1 pm on the

Saturday (after the German School classes on Saturday morning) of the visitation


7

weekend to 7 pm on Saturday, and from 8 am on Sunday of the visitation weekend to

7 pm on Sunday. No visitation should be provided on the weekends in between

those alternating weekends;

D. The Court award Respondent her attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection

with this Motion; and

E. The Court award Respondent such other and further relief as this Court deems just

and appropriate.

Ariel Rosita King

By counsel

DANNENBAUM LAW FIRM, PLLC

_______________________________

Daniel G. Dannenbaum, VSB # 34621

1331 H Street, NW

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 703-405-4899

Fax: 202-347-8607

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by facsimile to Sean W. O’Connell,

4113 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA. 22207, fax number: 703-522-07865, counsel for

Petitioner, on this ____day of October, 2007.

_____________________

Daniel G. Dannenbaum


Exhibits for King Emergency Motion Listing of Bookmarks Exhibit I: Email King to Pfeiffer, dated June 25, 2007Exhibit II: TPO Issued Against Pfeiffer, July 9, 2007Exhibit III: Email of Hopkins to Pfeiffer, dated September 19, 2007Exhibit IV: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 20, 2007Exhibit V: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 25, 2007Exhibit VI: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 27, 2007


1

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:06:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Dr King <[email protected]> Subject: Matters To: [email protected] June 25, 2007 Dear Michael: First and foremost, you and I need try to maintain a relationship that will promote the health and welfare of our four year old child, Ariana-Leiani. Towards this end, open communications and a collaborative attitude towards addressing her needs and assuring that she has access to all resources, both now and later, are critical to meeting those needs, including all rights due her under both US and German law, as she is a citizen of both. Towards this end, I want to reiterate what I understood you to say, and hope you will rethink, change and/or refine some of those ideas, to avoid any misunderstandings. When you moved out of the house last week, we were left with little financial resources (a few hundred dollars in the bank) and no place to live -- even though you apparently had access to thousands of dollars for yourself, income from both your regular job and also for other work you have been doing. I hope this was simply an oversight on your part, and a misunderstanding on mine as to what you intend. I know you care about Ariana-Leilani and she loves her "Papa." The following is what I heard you say or understood that you have done, and I have relied upon your representations: Prior to your moving out, you promised that you would give us

50% of your income, which would include your salary and extra on-call work. When I asked you to write a letter to a prospective landlord to tell them of this promise, you did not dispute that this was your representation to me and Ariana-Leilani. However, you did not follow through with writing the letter, instead saying that I should relocate to New Jersey and try to move in the one bedroom apartment of my elderly grandmother or friends in Pennsylvania. During one of our phone conversations you told me that you

were renting a one bedroom apartment in Georgetown at a cost $1,500 per month and, because of your credit, the landlord asked for 3 months rent and 1 month deposit. I now understand that you were able to pay $6,000.00 with a check that came from another account Wiggins - COJ - 000048

2

which apparently contains money that has not gone into our joint account. As a general matter by law, all of our assets acquired during our marriage (which would include this $6,000 since we remain married) are joint property and need to be shared -- particularly applied towards the welfare and housing for our four year old child. Please share those assets immediately. I also asked if we could come live with you at your new address,

but you refused. To date you have not given us verification of your new home

address. Until you do so, I will be forwarding all correspondence to Georgetown University Hospital, care of your name. You have previously taken out most of the money from our

child's German bank account (which was several thousand Euros), and have failed to replace it. Please replace the money of our child immediately. I now understand that you have attempted to remove my name

from our joint account in Germany, in an attempt to deny my access to that account. Please refrain from engaging in this unlawful activity and be sure that my name remains on any accounts unless I specifically indicate otherwise. It also appears that you have created an account in the USA

where you are placing funds. Those funds should be jointly shared between us. Please provide to me an immediate accounting for those funds and divide them equally between us. We have been left virtually penniless, as I asked you about

money for Ariana-Leilani and I to live on and you said that I could use the money in our joint account. However, there are little if any funds there, and you have been using what is there for paying your own expenses (in addition to using other sources that you have been denying us access to). For example, the work check deposited on 15 June was for about $1400, yet you wrote a check for your DC Medical License for over $625 and took out $100 in cash. That left only $700 for the month for all three of us to live on. When I asked you about this you said that I could go borrow money (which you know would be impossible since, as a married couple, you and I share the same credit issues) or wait for the next check to go into the account on Friday, 29 June. You have made no attempt since moving out to talk to or contact

our daughter. She misses you and I hope you will try to maintain quality contact with her -- including spending time with her -- as we


3

go forward. I strongly encourage that you do so. Michael, I hope you will reconsider how you are approaching this. All indications are that you have abandoned us and left us to fend for ourselves, without adequate resources to even maintain a roof over our heads. I hope this was not your intention, and that you will immediately take action to correct the situation. I think you would agree that a highly skilled medical physician (MD/PhD) who is a Fellow of Neurology at one the leading hospitals in the United States should not be or would want to be known to the legal system of the United States or to Germany as a "dead beat dad" who will not take the steps necessary to provide the financial and emotional support of his daughter and wife. I hope that is not what you want or intend, as it is not what I wish either. Please let me know of any changes to your thinking, and approach, including, but not limited to, providing equal sharing of all income and assets immediately, provide an accounting for all assets, provide access (and do not deny any access) to our accounts, replenish our child's funds which you took out previously, secure the needed resources for Ariana-Leilani and I to live in a secure and safe environment, try to reserve time to spend with Ariana-Leilani, call her whenever you can, and please keep in touch on a regular basis so that we can move forward in a collaborative and positive manner and avoid any miscommunication. Sincerely, Ariel Cell: 202-730-5111

Get the free Yahoo! toolbar <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48226/*http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php> and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.


Subject: GLC incident Dr.King/Dr. PfeifferDate: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:21 PMFrom: Kerstin Hopkins <[email protected]>To: ‘Dr King’ [email protected], [email protected]: ‘Dorte Hardage’ [email protected]: GLC incident Dr.King/Dr. Pfeiffer

Dear Dr. King:

In order to avoid a repeat of the events that occurred on Sept. 8, 2007 (outlined below), it is

important that the school receive the appropriate court order outlining any custody and

visitation arrangement between you and Dr. Pfeiffer as soon as possible. I’m sure that you

understand that the school must remain neutral in any custody situation and it is important

that we are informed by the court about how to proceed.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Kerstin Hopkins

Director

German Language Courses

German School Washington, D.C.

8617 Chateau Drive

Potomac, MD 20854

301.767.3824

[email protected]

Dear Dr. King:

On September 8, 2007 the following incident occurred at our school - see statement from our

teacher, Doerte Hardage.

Please provide proper court documentation by September 22, 2007 about the custody

situation for Ariana Leilani. We need to know if you and/or your husband Dr. Pfeiffer is/are

picking up Ariana Leilani.

Kind regards,

Dear Ms. Hopkins:

I would like to report a somewhat unpleasant incident I had during the first day of school.

Ariana Leilani King-Pfeiffer, joined our class on 09/08/2007 and was accompanied by both of


her parents. They introduced themselves to me and while I talked with Dr. King, her husband

started to play with his child in the classroom. When it was finally time to start our lesson, all

parents, except for Dr. Pfeiffer, left the room. On her way out, Dr. King informed me that she

and her husband had separated and she had sole custody of the child.

Ariana Leilani was not happy about the prospect of her father leaving, but he was assured

that if a child is not comfortable being in school, we do indeed let the parents know.

Dr. Pfeiffer continued to play with his daughter during the lesson. I told him again that it

would be fine to leave Ariana Leilani with me, and he suggested sitting right outside the

window on the playground bench. He still did not leave the classroom and after about 15

minutes, Dr. King returned to the room and was upset to find her husband still there. They

started to argue, but Dr.King finally managed to make her husband leave the classroom. She

then stayed briefly to ensure that Ariana Leilani was alright, and then also left. The girl was

fine, settled down quickly and easily and had a great time.

D. Hardage


Subject: Ariana-Leilani’s Visit on TuesdayDate: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:22 AMFrom: Dr King <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Ariana-Leilani’s Visit on Tuesday

Dear Michael

Could tell me what happened during Ariana’s overnight stay on Tuesday night?. When was she able to sleep,? What were the sleeping arrangements?

How, where and if she awoke in the middle of the night. What other activities did she engage in? Were there any incidents that she experienced? Did you observe any disturbance on her part at any time during the visit? Was she bothered by anything?

When she came home she behaved very disturbed, sleepy, and grouchy, much of which that continued for most of the day. This was out of character for her. Any light that you can shed on her behavior would be appreciated.

Your prompt response would be appreciated, so we can figure out how to prevent this from happening again.

Thank you. Ariel Cell 202-730-5111

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48224/*http://sims.yahoo.com/>


Subject: Let ‘s do it... Let’s work togetherDate: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:06 PMFrom: Dr King <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Let ‘s do it... Let’s work together

25 September 2007 Dear Michael,

We are at a cross roads, where we both need to choose between whether we spend the next several years litigating issues of full custody, child support, spousal support etc. in the court system, or we can resolve these issues on terms that are mutually acceptable to all involved. If we do the arithmetic, anyone who is familiar with the costs of contentious custody and family proceedings will tell you that costs easily run between $50,000 to $200,000 — that we will both be asking from our own family and friends to fight each other. Costly depositions of each of us and those around us (work, friends, colleagues, relatives, acquaintances, who would be forced to set aside time and go to a court reporter and answer all questions under oath in the US and Abroad), document discovery (request without limitation any document that is within your possession or control), interrogatories (detailed questions in writing with sworn answers),...and a request to admit (asking for sworn admissions of the accuracy of facts) they all add up quickly in cost. After the family court finally issues an order, one or both of us will likely go to the circuit court, which will hear the entire case as a “do over” from beginning to end in an even longer proceeding lasting about a year. If the circuit court outcome is unacceptable to either of us, one or both of us will appeal to the Court of Appeals, and if those appeals succeed, the case will be sent back to the lower court. Only to start again. The only winners in these battles are the lawyers, experts, and those others who collect fees for something. You and I will have successfully depleted our current and future resources, and more importantly the resources for our child’s future. More costly than even the money is what such a long drawn out battle will cost in emotional, mental and spiritual depletion of all of us, with Ariana-Leilani being the biggest loser.


As your attorney may have told you, the next hearing will be only the beginning. Once in the family court system, they have control over the future of all of us, and that future will be determined for many years by people who do not know us, have no compassion for our hopes and dreams, for ourselves or our daughter. Based on actual cases I have become aware of in this court system, it is within the realm of possibility that through this litigation and subsequent evaluations, we could both be publicly damaged enough that neither of us will get custody and she will be placed in the foster care system, and could remain there until she is eighteen. No lawyer can give either of us any assurances that that this will not occur.

We leave our futures in their hands, if we do not find a way, to come together as two intelligent adults, without the lawyers, and make decisions for our future. We both may have made some missteps here in both miscommunications and poor judgments, which caused us both to end up in a situation neither of us want to be in.

We can either correct this now, or regret it later. Talk to anyone who has gone through these litigation wars, and you will find no-one would ever wish to be in one again. So, why should we go to that place where we can avoid going?

If it takes mediation, let’s do it. If it also takes family counseling, then let’s go to it. If it requires a written agreement, then let’s do it.

If it requires thinking outside the box, and considering all options --- including living at the under the same roof - whatever it takes to address the concerns you have, I have, and Ariana-Leilani has, then let’s consider them. All options are possible at this point to address our concerns creatively.

Let’s put the same effort into this that we did as a team to get us through the years of hard work that brought your intelligent mind here, helped get


it the first class education it deserved, provided us with wonderful experiences, and most importantly, a smart, intelligent, and loving child who loves us both.

But we have to do this now, not later. Before the money gets wasted, and, more importantly, before we say things before this or any other tribunal that we will want to take back, but won’t be able to. The witness and the victim of this tragedy will be our daughter. She does not deserve it, she did not ask for it, and we owe her to protect her from it.

Let me know you are interested in this, by emailing back by tomorrow with a list of what concerns you want addressed in any agreement, or, at least, by indicating your willingness to engage in and complete a mediation in the next seven days. In either case, a written agreement must be agreed to by both of us that ends this litigation within seven days.

I am copying all of the grandparents, because we all have a stake in this...and we all need to realize that avoiding litigation is a real option if we want to seriously consider it. Thank you. Ariel

Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48248/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz>


Subject: Ariana-Leilani’s Overnight VisitDate: Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:02 PMFrom: Dr King <[email protected]>To: [email protected]: Ariana-Leilani’s Overnight Visit

Dear Michael: Sorry I missed your call. I was in the other room with our daughter. As we discussed yesturday at about 3pm, to accommodate your work schedule you can pick up Ariana-Leilani today at 6pm sharp and drop her off at 8am tomorrow. I would like to remind you that Ariana-Leilani is quite anxious and upset about the overnight visits. She sais that she is sceared and wants to sleep in her own room. Please do all that you can to accommodate her and if she does not want to stay overnight please her home instead of letting her fall asleep in axiety. We always need to do what is best for her. Thank you. Ariel

Tonight’s top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/tv/maitagline/tonightspicks/evt=48220/*http://tv.yahoo.com/ > on Yahoo! TV.


ORDER Commonwealth of Virginia

Case No

ARLINGTON J&DR COURT Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court

COMMONWEALTH OF VA ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER . V. I In re: THE FOLLOWING PARTIES WERE PRESENT:

Juvenile [Ã‘ Attorney: Probation Officer ------.--------------------------------.---.------..---- DEBORAH OLIN [S Guardian ad Litem

a Father [Ã‘ Mother LJ Guardian:

S. O'CONNELL RespondenuDefendant Attorney: --.----------.a--...-.----------.------.---------------------------.--.-.--.-------------------.------------------.-.----

CUSTODY T e of Case: ------.-----------------------------------------------------------.-------------------------------------.-------- 8 Felony a Misdemeanor 0 CHINS Custody Visitation Support a Foster Care Other Type of Hearing:

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED THAT: MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. CONTINUED FOR FULL HEARING.

This case is continued to: .--------..-----.--------*m.a-------..-

01 11 712008 ---------.---..--------------....--------a -*-. -*-----------

DATE

FORM DC-570 (PAGE ONE OF ONE) 12/98 PDF


RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 62a

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 62b

TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

9007 Windflower Lane Annandale, VA 22003

(703) 25-8147

1

V I R G I N I A

IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT

OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MICHAEL. H. PFEIFFER,

Petitioner,

versus CASE NO. J-31848-01

ARIEL R. KING,

Respondent.

IN RE: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

DOB: 05/07/2003

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Arlington, Virginia

Friday, February 8, 2008

The above-entitled action came on to be heard

before the Honorable Esther Wiggins Lyles, a Judge for

the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court of Arlington

County, in Courtroom 4A, 1425 N. Courthouse Road,

Arlington, Virginia 22201, beginning at 11:00 o'clock

a.m.

- - - - - - - - - - -


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

2

APPEARANCES: For the Petitioner: SEAN W. O’CONNELL, ESQUIRE For the Respondent: MICHAEL MOORE, ESQUIRE Guardian Ad Litem: DEBORAH OLIN, ESQUIRE For Dr. Lane: WILLIAM REICHHARDT, ESQUIRE

P R O C E E D I N

G S :

MR. MILLER: Good morning, Your Honor. I’m

Michael Miller; I’m the counsel for the mother replacing

Raymond Benzinger.

THE COURT: Is there a motion to, of

substitution of counsel?

MR. MILLER: I have a signed order.

MR. REICHHARDT: William Reichhardt, Your

Honor, and I represent Dr. Christopher Lane here this

morning. I don’t know if the Court has had an

opportunity to see my motion that we had to file this

week.

THE COURT: No.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

3

MR. REICHHARDT: I’m here, if you do not have a

copy of that, I had a motion on behalf of Dr. Lane to

withdraw as the custody evaluator in this case. With the

Court’s and counsels’ permission, I’d like to address the

Court on that matter as a preliminary matter this

morning.

This is occasioned, and if I may just pass the

motion up to you --

THE COURT: I haven’t, I don’t see any motions

filed; everything was just stuck into the file. We’ll

see if the Court can locate it.

MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, I have another

copy.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. REICHHARDT: And that’s the cover letter to

counsel. Counsel has received this.

THE COURT: This right here?

MR. REICHHARDT: No, it’s a motion to withdraw.

MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, may I approach the

Court on this matter, please?

THE COURT: Motion to withdraw as custody

evaluator?

MR. REICHHARDT: That’s correct.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

4

Your Honor, very briefly, as the Court well

knows, Dr. Lane has been involved in this case; he’s

designated by your order as the custody evaluator for the

child and the parents. I was contacted and had occasion

to file his motion to withdraw because he was served last

Friday with notice from the state licensing board that

the mother in this case has filed a grievance against him

with the board and he received that notice last Friday.

Without going into any more detail about that,

suffice it to say that Dr. Lane is in a position now

where he is an adverse party to one of the parties in

this case, the mother. He, of course, will respond to

the state board. The request of the mother in her

complaint is to have the board challenge Dr. Lane’s

licensing in this state.

The bottom line is this, Judge. Dr. Lane by

virtue of this is absolutely prohibited under ethical

standards and we contend also by the Virginia

Administrative Code from any further participation as a

neutral custody evaluator as required by guidelines under

the APA that prescribe the ethical guidelines for custody

evaluations in children.

And also as I’ve mentioned under Virginia State

Code, he may not --


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

5

THE COURT: He could not give a report based on

what he observed, opinion before the violation was filed?

MR. REICHHARDT: No, Ma’am. And let me explain

that.

THE COURT: But that doesn’t make sense. That

means that anybody could eliminate any type of custody

evaluator by just filing a complaint to prevent them

from, then they could never proceed.

MR. REICHHARDT: Well.

THE COURT: Unless that might be what they

would intend.

MR. REICHHARDT: That’s exactly correct.

Here’s the dilemma, okay, and --

THE COURT: Because it doesn’t make sense to

me.

MR. REICHHARDT: Except, it sounds Draconian, I

know.

THE COURT: Because it doesn’t make sense. We

could almost, anyone who has not liked what a custody

evaluator says in their opinion, all they would have to

do is file a complaint and that would be the end of it.

And then, you know, you would never get, how could you

ever get anything done if that was the case?


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

6

MR. REICHHARDT: Well, let me address it

specifically with you, Your Honor, because the Court

needs to understand exactly the situation that Dr. Lane

is in. First of all, the evaluation has not been

completed. The database is not complete.

And there is correspondence that has been

shared with counsel as to concerns to Dr. Lane and others

about why that is true. Okay. The Guardian Ad Litem is

fully informed in this case as to that. Okay.

So there’s an element, first of all, and I’ll

characterize it as non-cooperation, but the bottom line

is that his database is not complete, for starters.

He then is in a position where he is adverse by

virtue of one of the parties in this case, not just

anybody, it’s a parent, it’s a party that challenges him

ethically and seeks a revocation of his license before

the start board. That puts him in what’s called an

adversarial or not objective posture.

So on two points, we’ve got two points, Dr.

Lane ethically is in a situation where he cannot give an

opinion. He is not objective. He is adverse.

THE COURT: I think he could be objective. I

have not seen that he’s not objective.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

7

MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, that’s not for the

Court to determine because he is bound by ethical

constraints that tell him, and this is absolutely true,

and let me give you the hypothetical. If a lawyer calls

Dr. Lane to the stand --

THE COURT: Uh huh.

MR. REICHHARDT: -- and asks him a question, I

have to tell the Court as I’ve told counsel, he’s advised

by counsel who represents him now in this situation that

he may not answer these questions.

Now, on the question as to whether he can be

objective, he’s going to tell the Court, I’m telling the

Court on his behalf, he is not objective. He is not by

definition. He’s not by definition. He is an adverse

party.

THE COURT: I don’t understand how he cannot

be, he’s not objective.

MR. REICHHARDT: Because he’s being --

THE COURT: He’s a professional; he’s

objective. I can’t believe you say he’s not objective.

MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, he’s a fine

person. I’ve known him for a long time. The Court has

seen before, I’m sure.

THE COURT: He’s --


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

8

MR. REICHHARDT: All of those things.

THE COURT: He always seemed objective to me.

MR. REICHHARDT: To require Dr. Lane to

participate any further in this, and I can’t make this

more clear, to require him to participate in this case

any further over these circumstances, subjects him to

liability on ethical issues before the state board. I

don’t think the Court wants that. I don’t think any

lawyer in this courtroom wants that and I don’t want that

for my client. And that’s exactly his situation.

Let me say it another way. We are on the

record here today doing what responsibly is dictated to a

psychologist under the guidelines in Virginia. When this

occurs, he is required to seek withdrawal. That is the

remedy. That’s what he’s told to do. That’s what he’s

told to do by the people that grant him a license to

practice in this state. We can put him on the stand and

subject him to breaching that. I’m not going to say

ultimately, obviously the Court retains final

jurisdiction here, but I’m pleading the situation to you

today to put him on that witness stand --

THE COURT: I don’t understand because it would

totally, I mean, in my opinion, I can’t believe they

would have that result. That would mean that anyone, and


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

9

I keep saying this, who didn’t like what an evaluator

would say would just file a complaint and then that’s the

end of it.

MR. REICHHARDT: Well, he hasn’t said anything

yet and he hasn’t completed it, which I wanted to

emphasize to the Court.

THE COURT: Well, that’s a different issue.

MR. REICHHARDT: Well, that’s a different

issue, but it exists in this case. By the non-

cooperation --

THE COURT: Well, that’s a little different.

MR. REICHHARDT: Well, that’s different, but it

also goes to his ability to say anything. In other

words, even if there was not a complaint.

THE COURT: They can say he doesn’t have an

opinion because he hasn’t completed his evaluation.

MR. REICHHARDT: Well, that’s one part of it

that exists here. So there’s a two-fold problem.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, may I be heard for

a moment because I think there’s a way around it.

THE COURT: Sure, one person at a time.

MR. REICHHARDT: It’s a two-fold problem,

Judge, as I’ve said, so we have both here today, this

morning.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

10

On the question of what, the Court’s concern

that you stated a couple of times, which is, does this

scenario, in other words, does this problem mean that

anybody that doesn’t like the custody evaluator, can they

poison the well essentially and require the custody

evaluator ethically to withdraw.

You know, maybe that’s true, but does that

preclude a Court, does that preclude forever or in every

situation, an examination of what’s in the best interest

of the child. I think not. It’s a balance.

But there’s another custody evaluation ordered

in this case, and I understand from looking at the order,

I have had conversations with counsel who have approached

me to say, well, if Lane withdraws, what about access to

data information, and so forth, and I’ve told them that I

will coordinate with them in that regard.

The Guardian Ad Litem in this case is fully

informed of what is going on here. We’ve had

discussions. As soon as I got into this case, I

contacted each of the attorneys. I only talked to Mr.

Miller this morning because I thought Mr. Benzinger was

in the case.

But we are in a position of trying to do what

is necessary to help the Court because you appointed my


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

11

client and we don’t take that lightly and we want to help

this Court.

But I ask you, Judge, not to put this

professional in a situation, you can order it, but I’m

asking you not to. It is, it puts him in an untenable

situation. Long after this hearing is over, he has to go

down and deal, as he will, with the state board of

licensing. And that doesn’t have to do with anybody in

this courtroom except for the complainant.

And what he says or does over our objection may

have ramifications on that and it’s my obligation as his

attorney to protect that situation and to ask the Court

to understand it. It is regrettable; we apologize to the

extent that we think we have to. We didn’t ask for this.

But that’s where we are today, Judge.


MR. REICHHARDT: I understand I mean subject to

whatever they tell you this morning. I understand that

all but one of these attorneys does not object to Dr.

Lane withdrawing and I think Mr. O’Connell that I’ve had

a conversation with can explain his situation or his

position, although I did understand him to say he didn’t

have any objection to Lane not testifying today.

THE COURT: Okay.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

12

MR. MILLER: Yes, Your Honor. I think we’re in

a position that no matter what Dr. Lane does, one of the

parents is going to say that there’s bias. If Dr. Lane,

yes, he may objectively do his report and he comes in and

testifies favorably to the mother, the father is going to

say, well, Dr. Lane is doing that because he has this

outstanding complaint and hopefully the mother will

withdraw the complaint or it will be resolved in some

other fashion.

Contrary wise, Dr. Lane comes in, testifies

favorably to the father, the mother says, see, I told you

he was biased. Anyway, he’s violated these other things

and now he’s violated this and an appeal is going to

result no matter what. Neither parent can be satisfied

with the outcome.

And that’s not to say that Dr. Lane wouldn’t be

objective. I think there’s a practical objectivity and

then there’s an ethical professional objectivity. Any

lawyer who has met with one spouse in a divorce case

could sit there and say practically speaking, I can be

objective and not use that information and I can

represent the other spouse, so I can represent an

opposing party.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

13

But the profession is not governed by these

practical objectivity. It’s governed by the professional

objectivity. What does the outside person outside the

profession looking at this say or see. And that’s why

attorneys have these conflicts of interest and I think we

essentially created something analogous here for a mental

health professional. And so for that reason, I’m not

sure how we’ve responded to our position, but our

position is in support of Mr. Reichhardt’s motion for Dr.

Lane to withdraw.

THE COURT: That’s no surprise, Mr. Miller.

MR. MILLER: I thought that would be stating

the obvious, but I wasn’t quite sure how to conclude that

remark.

THE COURT: Mr. O’Connell?

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I agree with

exactly what you’ve said in terms of your analysis of the

motion to withdraw and how it doesn’t make sense because

it would simply reward someone in any case that didn’t

like what a psychologist had to say.

In this case, I think the question is not yet

right for the following reasons: We have before us a

custody trial which, while I moved in opposition

technically to the continuance because I didn’t want to


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

14

be seeming to agree with it, have a number of other

issues, which all have to do with a lack of cooperation

of the mother --

THE COURT: I don’t understand anything you

just said.

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, that’s because it was

very confusing to say, Your Honor.

What I’m saying is, that I don’t want to be

seen to be rewarding the mother for her lack of

cooperation by agreeing to a continuance; it would be

essentially rewarding her dilatory tactics.

However, I think that before we get to those

issues, we need to address the denial of visitation, the

lack of cooperation --

THE COURT: Right now we’re dealing on the

issue of --

MR. O’CONNELL: But I am dealing with that

issue, Your Honor. What I’m saying is --

THE COURT: It doesn’t sound like it. You’re

all over the place. Can we just focus on Dr. Lane?

MR. O’CONNELL: I’m saying the issue is not

right.

THE COURT: Okay.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

15

MR. O’CONNELL: I’m saying the issue of whether

Dr. Lane can permanently withdraw is not right for two

reasons.

THE COURT: What are the two reasons?

MR. O’CONNELL: Reason number one, because the

issues of the lack of cooperation and the mother’s

psychological situation have not been dealt with. In

other words, the general contempt that we’re dealing with

has to be dealt with first.

And until those get dealt with, we don’t know

whether or not there can be a completion. Because one of

the issues of the contempt is, I think, that filing a

complaint against Dr. Lane at this time, in this way, is

part of the contempt. It is, in fact, the ultimate part

of the contempt.

What is the best way not to cooperate? First,

you don’t return the phone calls. Then you lie about

what he says to the Court. And then, ultimately you file

a complaint, calculated to get him knocked out of the

case. It’s the ultimate contempt, and if properly

sanctioned, that matter gets dismissed and maybe Dr. Lane

can testify. We don’t know yet at that point.

In addition to that, I haven’t received, I’ve

heard a lot about authority preventing him from


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

16

testifying and maybe that authority exists. And I’m very

sympathetic to Dr. Lane in the situation he’s been placed

in, but I haven’t seen the authority that says he can’t,

and I’m not an expert in that field that says, you know,

specifically the field, the guidelines of someone doing

custody evaluations, et cetera. So I haven’t seen that,

so I’d want to see that before I took a formal position

on it.

But ultimately until we deal with the contempt

issue and until we give him an opportunity to see how the

contempt issue gets dealt with, I don’t think the issue

of him withdrawing is right.

Also, whether he can testify to give an

ultimate opinion in the case is a separate issue from

whether or not, for instance, a Court psychologist could

glean some of the information that he has from him or

from the Guardian Ad Litem. I understand that there’s

some independent testing that’s been done. So there may

be ways to work around on this and we, since, it’s a

brand new issue. We haven’t been able to explore them

yet.

But I think the first thing to do is deal with

the contempt and then see where that leads us with


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

17

respect to where that leaves Dr. Lane. Thank you, Your

Honor.

I just, by the way, I’m not going to address

the Court on why the motion should be denied directly

because Your Honor said exactly what I would have said,

so I’m not going to repeat it.

MS. OLIN: I’ve not come across a situation

like this and I find it really disheartening. The timing

of it is awkward to say the least.

And I’ve got to look at two things, the best

interest of the child and the law. The best interest of

the child is that we have the information, and it does

not serve XXXXX or this Court’s interest to have this

information stifled. So I am very distressed at the

filing.

That said, I also have the unfortunate

experience of having to listen through many hours of

Guardian ad Litem training on professional standards on

custody evaluations and psychological evaluations.

One of those things is that these, there are

standards, specific standards and they must be fully met

before the reports can be distributed or there is, there

are sanctions for the psychologist or psychiatrist doing


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

18

the report. And this is a custody evaluation that’s been

ordered.

So if Dr. Lane was not allowed to finish his

report, I don’t see how he can give portions of that

report to the Court. So I see two things. Number one,

I do feel, and, of course, the mother’s counsel is

perfectly capable of showing evidence to the contrary,

that this seems to be a concerted effort on mother’s side

to prevent the Court from gaining that information.

A lot of money has been spent and a lot of time

has been spent. There’s just a small bit of time left

remaining to complete that evaluation and now, in fact,

Dr. Lane has been silenced.

And I do believe he has been silenced because I

do think that if he goes forward, presenting bits and

pieces of this evaluation, I do believe he’s in

violation.

Well, let me rephrase that, not that he’s in

violation, but he could be in violation of canons. And

we need Dr. Lane. We have him on a lot of cases. There

are a lot of kids that we need evaluations for. And this

is a double-edged sword.

THE COURT: It’s not that I’m not sympathetic

to him.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

19

MS. OLIN: What?

THE COURT: I said it’s not that I’m not

sympathetic with his position.

MS. OLIN: I understand that completely. And

I’m really frustrated, but I don’t know that he can go

forward. So from the legal end of things, I do agree

with Mr. Reichhardt’s motion. The best interest of the

child, completely against the best interest of the child.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, may I just address

the Court finally on this motion?

THE COURT: One second.

(Off the record.)

MR. REICHHARDT: Judge, as I listened to the

argument of counsel, let me just address a few quick

points briefly and go back to the Court’s concern about

does this mean that somebody can just come in and get

away with it.

THE COURT: That’s what it sounds like.

MR. REICHHARDT: Well, the question is get away

with. And what is the incentive not to do that or what

is the, the concern is that this sets some kind of

precedent to allow disgruntled people or people that

don’t like something to come in and -- this Court has


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

20

remedies. And if this Court, and I don’t know, I mean, I

don’t know this case, perhaps fortunately, but this Court

has remedies. And it wouldn’t be the first or the last

time, if a Court believed that a party or person involved

in a case did something that caused delay or extra cost

or inconvenience or whatever, there are clear sanctions -

-

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. REICHHARDT: -- for that. But that’s a

different matter.

THE COURT: This Court does impose some of

those sanctions.

MR. REICHHARDT: I know, Your Honor, but I

guess that’s a different matter. Counsel raised the

question, but that’s the deterrent, in other words, the

direct question of why shouldn’t people do this, or if

people did this, what prevents them from doing it? Well,

there is a deterrent, which people will learn about if it

occurs.

But counsel raised the issue of not being

familiar with authority. Well, I spoke with counsel a

couple of days ago about this. There are two issues.

There are memorialized in the canons of the APA as it


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

21

governs the ethical standards of psychologists. If

anybody wants a cite, Section 3.06, conflict of interest.

There are other related sections that have to

do with forensic psychologists, which is what Dr. Lane

is. They may, they must, they must, it is mandatory,

avoid any further situation where they have a conflict of

interest.

I want to state this clearly. He is

conflicted. He has a current conflict of interest. We

are disclosing that to the Court. He is not objective.

THE COURT: But I don’t see, where is the

conflict here?

MR. REICHHARDT: He is a defendant in regard to

one of the parties in this case and he is defending

himself on his license before the state board.

Not even talking about the merits of that

because we are very confident in that, but that’s

irrelevant. He is a defendant.

THE COURT: I just don’t see --

MR. REICHHARDT: Let me make another example.

THE COURT: I’m not feeling it actually, Sir.

I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but I just can’t

imagine this is what they would intend the result to be.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

22

MR. REICHHARDT: They do. And I just, I hate

to say to the Court take my word for it, but, you know,

Your Honor, we’ve been involved with the state board and,

please, take my word for it, they do.

THE COURT: I think I’ve heard enough actually

to make a ruling.

MR. REICHHARDT: The Court will grant your

motion to change Dr. Lane from the evaluator, not because

I see it as a conflict at all. I mean, he’s a

professional and I’m sure he is objective and can make

recommendations that are fair. The reason I’m allowing

him to withdraw is because the evaluation has not been

completed. If it had been completed and he had already

come to an opinion about this before the complaint was

filed, I don’t see that being a problem, him testifying.

But in this particular case, I say it’s a

problem in light of the fact that he has not completed

the report and he has not made recommendations or

conclusions at this particular point.

This is where I see the problem is. But I

think if the report was completed, I would force him to

testify. If it was completed before the complaint was

filed, he had already come to a conclusion. I think

that’s different. I think if they’re filing a complaint,


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

23

that would stifle custody evaluators, totally. They

wouldn’t be able to do anything because as soon as the

parent felt that it wasn’t going their way, they’d file a

complaint and we’d never get anything done. That’s my

rationale.

MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, I’ve prepared an

order. I think all counsel but Mr. O’Connell has signed

it. If I may just ask him to do it and submit it to you,

please.


MR. REICHHARDT: With the Court’s permission,

may I be excused?

THE COURT: Yes.

Are there any other preliminary matters?

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I actually had to

make a list. I have requested and the Court has issued a

rule to show cause with respect to the failure to

cooperate with Dr. Lane and that was served on Mr.

Benzinger over a week ago and it was served last Saturday

at approximately 11:00 o’clock. I filed in Georgia on

the defendant. And I would like to add that since I

filed my rule rather than hastening to cooperate, the

filing of the complaint has exacerbated the nature of the

contempt, that in other words, rather than actually


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

24

attempting to quench the contempt, she actually inflamed

it. And so that actually is before the Court now. I

would like to, rather than list all the things that might

be available next, I’d like to focus on that particular

rule to show cause.

THE COURT: All right, let me advise the mother

of the rules. All right, Ma’am, would you please stand?

It’s alleged that you are in contempt of Court by failing

to comply with a specific visitation schedule. It’s also

alleged that you are in contempt of Court for not

cooperating with the Guardian ad Litem and that you are

in contempt of Court for not cooperating with the custody

evaluation. Why shouldn’t you go to jail today?

MR. MILLER: Your Honor, she shouldn’t go to

jail until we’ve had evidence on the matter and up until

now we haven’t had any evidence.

THE COURT: The Court can do a summary

contempt.

MR. MILLER: No, they can’t, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Why not?

MR. MILLER: Because summary contempt is only

on several specific instances.

THE COURT: Yes.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

25

MR. MILLER: Summary contempt is authorized and

we do not have that today.

THE COURT: Violating a Court order.

MR. MILLER: Looking at Virginia Code 18.2-456.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. MILLER: It says cases in which Courts and

judges may summarily, or may punish summarily for

contempt is Courts and judges may issue attachments for

contempt and punish them summarily only in the following

cases: misbehavior in the presence of the Court,

violence or threats of violence to a judge or office of

the Court, vile, contemptuous or insulting language

addressed to a judge, misbehavior of an officer of the

Court, or disobedience or resistance of an officer of the

Court. Violation of a Court order is not within those

statutory factors under 18.2-456.

THE COURT: Well, what about disobedience and

resistence of an officer of the Court, jury, witness or

other persons of any lawful process, judgment, decree or

order of the Court? You left that part out.

MR. MILLER: It’s a disobedience to the person.

THE COURT: It’s a disobedience of the order of

the Court.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

26

MR. OLIN: I would just say that I am an

officer of the Court and --

THE COURT: Right, so I don’t think that I

couldn’t, under the statute, find her summarily in

contempt of Court.

MR. MILLER: Well, with --

THE COURT: I mean, that’s what the statute

says.

MR. MILLER: Well, no, it’s a disobedience or

resistence of an officer of the Court, a juror or a

witness or other person to lawful process. She hasn’t --

THE COURT: To lawful process or order,

judgment, decree or order of the Court.

MR. MILLER: Right.

THE COURT: You leave out that part.

MR. MILLER: Right, but it has to be the person

or other lawful person.

THE COURT: I guess I’m not understanding your

point.

MR. MILLER: Well, how can you find that

there’s been disobedience or resistence to an officer of

the Court without evidence showing that?

THE COURT: Well, based on the proffer by the

Guardian ad Litem.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

27

MR. MILLER: Okay, and I disagree with that

proffer, and if she wants to testify or she has evidence,

then she can come forward and put that evidence before

the Court.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, Guardian ad Litem, the

appointment of Guardian ad Litems in Virginia State

Supreme Court, Guardian ad Litems shall not testify.

However, the lack of cooperation is enumerated in my

evaluation and for that to be questioned, to me, I mean,

of course, it can be questioned, it’s just laughable.

I do have letters from prior counsel saying

mother would not be cooperating with me or any of the

other professionals in this case pending his motion to

dismiss, despite the fact that the order stays in place

until the Judge makes a ruling on that issue. And we’re

talking about the January 17th motion to dismiss on

subject matter jurisdiction which Your Honor --

THE COURT: Denied.

MS. OLIN: So that’s a December 10th

communication from Mr. Benzinger to me. Several phone

calls to mother, which mother, asking mother to set up a

home visit. That’s all. Now, alas, in Maryland, mother

did not respond saying, okay, come out tonight, come out


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

28

tomorrow, when can you come out. I do understand that

mother had a family emergency, and I’m very sorry about

that, with her mother, but concluded the last couple of

weeks.

We’ve had, our last hearing, the motion was

November 8, this is February 8. So I’m not a wizard in

math, but that’s December, January, February, it’s been

three months. So even subtracting the last two weeks of

the mother’s unfortunate family emergency, that gives

ample time for a home visit. Furthermore, the burden is

on the mother to show whether or not she complied, not on

me.

MR. MILLER: Your Honor, that’s incorrect.

Contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding. Quasi-criminal,

the presumption of innocence attaches to the defendant --

THE COURT: Civil.

MR. MILLER: We’ve got to go criminal. We have

two kinds of contempt. There’s the criminal contempt and

then there’s civil contempt. And within --

THE COURT: I see no reason why the Court

couldn’t hold her in contempt right at this particular

moment.

MR. MILLER: Well, contempt, I’m reading from

Michie’s Jurisprudence, Section 3, nature of contempt.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

29

Proceedings for contempt of Court are of two classes.

These contempts are prosecuted to preserve the power and

vindicate the dignity of the Court. That’s the first

kind. The second kind is contempts instituted to

preserve and enforce the rights of private parties.

And what we have here is a difference between

these various rules to show cause. Some of the

allegations concern the rights of private parties, which

would be civil contempt. Other of these may go to

whether or not it’s for the type one, which is to

prosecute to preserve the power and to vindicate the

dignity of the Court.

MR. O’CONNELL: If I might be heard on that

issue, Your Honor.

MR. MILLER: The additional issue before the

Court or that the Court has to address is the vagueness

of the orders. The orders --

THE COURT: What’s vague about the orders?

MR. MILLER: Well, if we go back to Michie’s

Jurisprudence --

THE COURT: No, what’s vague about these

orders?

MR. MILLER: Okay, the order says participate.

What does participate mean?


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

30

THE COURT: Cooperate.

MR. MILLER: What does cooperate mean?

THE COURT: I know what it means.

MR. MILLER: But does --

THE COURT: Of course she knows.

MR. MILLER: But does Dr. King know?

THE COURT: Of course she does.

MR. MILLER: How many times did she talk to the

Guardian? At what point does she say, okay, I’ve

cooperated?

MS. OLIN: I’m going to answer that, Judge,

because when the poor Guardian ad Litem goes, please, can

I have a home visit and the response is, number one, no,

from counsel, we’re not going to cooperate with you at

this time and then mother doesn’t return phone calls,

plus, really, there’s nothing that says the Guardian ad

Litem has to contact the parent yet again. The parent,

knowing there’s a Guardian ad Litem in the case, has full

responsibility to initiate contact. It says on the back,

some of the requirements of a Guardian ad Litem. Mother

is a very, very bright woman. She’s managed to do all

kinds of petitions and filings of her own and I’ll bet

you she’s been on the website of Guardian ad Litems

looking at those standards. So cooperate, at the very


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

31

least gets a home visit, especially when she’s left the

jurisdiction to move to Maryland in a new house.

When you look at a custody issue, the home is a

major factor. Homes must be visited. I think in prior,

I think nothing, in prior situations --

THE COURT: And I definitely gave the mother a

copy of the Guardian ad Litem order --

MS. OLIN: And I think at the last hearing --

THE COURT: -- with the standards under it, and

those were the minimum standards that the Guardian ad

Litem has to do. She knows what she had to do. That

would be cooperate.

MR. MILLER: But that’s an order to the

Guardian; this order is not binding to the --

THE COURT: No, no, my point is she knows what

the Guardian ad Litem is supposed to be doing and so to -

-

MR. MILLER: No, this order tells the Guardian

ad Litem what to do.

THE COURT: It informs the parties what the

duties of the Guardian ad Litem are.

MR. MILLER: That’s correct.

THE COURT: So my whole point, she knows what

the duties are.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

32

MR. MILLER: No, because the duties --

THE COURT: The minimum duties of the Guardian

ad Litem, she understand the minimum things that the

Guardian ad Litem should be doing and if you’re

preventing that from happening, how can that be

cooperating?

MR. MILLER: Because the Guardian ad Litem is

appointed to represent the child and shall have access to

the following persons: parties to the proceedings,

that’s it. The GAL has had access to Dr. King. Now, she

may not like that she didn’t have all the access that she

wanted.

THE COURT: Mr. Miller, I don’t agree with you,

not at all, not even close to agreeing with you.

MR. MILLER: Because the September order --

THE COURT: This is just really unbelievable.

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, if I could just

interject briefly. Mother, I do believe that mother’s

mother is ill. There’s some discrepancy as to how ill,

but I think there’s no question that she’s ill. And as

blatant as I think these, this conduct is, contempt,

disobedience to the Court, I would hate to see mother

incarcerated at this time solely because she has her own

mother to take care of.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

33

What I would like to see, my main point today

is to see XXXXX. Mother did not bring her back with

her; mother informed me the child is still in Georgia. I

would like to see XXXX brought back to this area

forthwith. That would be my very, very narrow focus

today.

So if Your Honor is inclined to issue

sanctions, which I would ask that Your Honor do, I would

also ask that any jail time be put off until such time as

to the emergency status of Dr. King’s is not in such

question.

MR. MILLER: Your Honor, before we get to that,

there’s three rules to show cause. Which one are we

addressing? We started out --

THE COURT: I was addressing the Guardian ad

Litem one.

MR. MILLER: Okay, so if we’re going to stick

with the Guardian ad Litem, let’s stick to that. The

Guardian ad Litem is saying --

THE COURT: I think that’s what she was

speaking to.

MR. MILLER: Right.

THE COURT: I don’t think she was talking about

anything else.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

34

MR. MILLER: Okay. But again, all we have is

the summary representations. We don’t have any specific

evidence. She simply says she’s not cooperating. And

what factors --

THE COURT: She just said that she has not

participated in a home visit. She has not returned the

phone calls. She’s already said all of that.

MS. OLIN: That’s enough.

MR. MILLER: The other problem with this is,

correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t have a complete file

here, but there’s a motion for show cause summons of

capias that the GAL submitted.

THE COURT: Yes, I issued that.

MR. MILLER: Okay, but there’s no rule to show

cause. So is --

THE COURT: Yes, it was.

MR. MILLER: Then there’s the summons.

MR. O’CONNELL: There was, I had it served on

her.

MR. MILLER: No, look at your affidavit.

THE COURT: There’s a copy in the file.

MR. MILLER: Your affidavit said there was

three show cause summons, two rules to show cause, three

petitions, or two petitions, one motion. This is one of


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

35

the summons. This is the motion; there is no rule to

show cause on the GAL’s related rule to show cause.

THE COURT: That’s not true; I have one.

MR. MILLER: Well, it’s not reflected on the

affidavit of service.

THE COURT: Oh, you’re saying on the service

there is nothing?

MR. MILLER: Yeah, I’m assuming, the two rules

to show causes on the affidavit of service were the two

rules attached to the --

THE COURT: Oh, I see, you’re saying --

MR. MILLER: -- the petition that Mr. O’Connell

filed.

THE COURT: Or that Ms. King did not get the

third one, failure to cooperate with the Guardian ad

Litem’s investigation?

MR. MILLER: Correct. My understanding is,

that there’s --

THE COURT: I don’t even have to -- the

summons.

MR. MILLER: There’s only a summons and there’s

only a motion; there’s no rule.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

36

THE COURT: Okay. A rule was issued, but the

Court doesn’t even have to have a rule. We can just do

it without it.

MR. MILLER: Only if it’s summary.

THE COURT: Summary, right.

MR. MILLER: So we’re back to the thing that

it’s not summary because we don’t have any evidence.

THE COURT: Yes, it is. I disagree with that.

MR. MILLER: Because the nature of the statute

is the contempt occurred --

THE COURT: I disagree. We don’t even need the

rule; we could just proceed summarily. That’s why I was

addressing that one, not the other two.

MR. MILLER: And again, we’re back to, you

know, the Guardian ad Litem. I mean, we start with --

THE COURT: Well, we could be going back and

forth all day. I already told you I don’t agree with

you. The Court can find her summarily in contempt, and

the Court will find her in contempt for failing to

cooperate with the Guardian ad Litem. I think she has.

The other two, we could set those down for a

hearing, the failure to follow the specific visitation

schedule and failure to cooperate with the child study,

the custody evaluation. We could set that down for a


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

37

separate hearing. This Court has no problem finding her

in contempt for failing to cooperate with the Guardian ad

Litem. Now, are we prepared to go forward today?

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I wanted to, I’m not

sure where we are now, but before we walked in here, it

looked like we had an agreement, and I guess counsel can

correct me on that. It looked like we had an agreement

that the child would be brought back here forthwith, that

there would be joint legal and physical custody with the

child residing with the father, liberal visitation to the

mother, without prejudice.

MR. O’CONNELL: That was an offer. I didn’t

hear that --

MR. MILLER: There is absolutely no agreement

of any kind.

MS. OLIN: Okay.

MR. MILLER: I mean, I was purely in receive

mode and trying to understand the parties positions.

MR. O’CONNELL: I was trying to be as

accommodating as I could, but my main concern is to get

that child back in this area where we know she is safe.

But we do have a bunch of other matters.

MR. MILLER: Well, let me say that we don’t

know that she’s not safe in Atlanta.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

38

THE COURT: Well --

MR. MILLER: I mean, this is the problem,

everybody wants to come in and make these representations

without evidence and then --

THE COURT: Is the child in Virginia or not?

Is she in the metropolitan area or not? Where is the

child?

MR. MILLER: She’s in Atlanta right now. Dr.

King flew up this morning.

THE COURT: Did the father agree that the child

could go to Atlanta?

MR. MILLER: No, but the Court’s order of

September 5th provided her travel there.

MR. O’CONNELL: I think I would be the

appropriate person to answer that. Your Honor, he didn’t

know that the child had left --

THE COURT: Well, without at least telling the

father where the child is.

MR. O’CONNELL: So he couldn’t have given,

well, number one, he didn’t agree. Number two, when he

found out about it, he asked that the child be brought

back. Number three, when it was represented the child

wouldn’t be brought back, he offered and asked that he be


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

39

allowed to go down and collect the child. All these were

refused. Your Honor, the problem with proceeding --

THE COURT: That is the order of November 8th; I

ordered that the child remains in this country and not

allowed to travel outside of the United States. If

mother leaves the country for work, child should be left

with her father and father ordered to maintain child in

her German school.

MR. O’CONNELL: That is correct, Your Honor.

And we represented that we would actually keep the child

in the Georgia school, excuse me, in the German school

while--

THE COURT: The case was pending.

MR. O’CONNELL: The case was pending. But

there are a number of other issues which have come up

since we’ve been in Court that have effectively

frustrated the proper presentation of this case for

today.

And while I didn’t file a motion to continue, I

think that we do need a number of other kinds of relief

for --

THE COURT: But Mr. Benzinger asked for a

continuance and I asked the Clerk to contact the parties

and see if you all had agreed to it or not.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

40

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I did file --

THE COURT: No one responded, so I guess that

meant everybody objected.

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I wasn’t contacted, I’m

sorry.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I did actually file

a motion in opposition to his motion to continue and I

can go back and pull the copy of it. I believe it’s file

stamped. But I understand with all the paperwork it’s

probably hard to keep track of. Should I hand it to the

Court, Your Honor? It was filed on February 5th.

THE COURT: The order, had the Court allowed

her to go to Georgia to visit family, it does not mean to

leave the child there when the mother is here. I don’t

think she can rationalize that when the father is here.

MS. OLIN: Well, I also believe that there’s a

visitation schedule in place.

THE COURT: Uh huh.

MS. OLIN: Every other weekend day.

THE COURT: Every Wednesday from 6:00 to

Thursday 8:00 and Saturday from 10:00 to Sunday at 10:00.

MS. OLIN: So taking the child to Georgia in

and of itself is not an issue, but denying visitation,

and especially since we have an ongoing investigation,


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

41

trying to, as the Courts are intending, that’s just not

really --

THE COURT: I don’t understand why the child

wasn’t brought back today. The Court had allowed the

child to visit with the parents in Atlanta, but not to

leave the child in Atlanta.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I would like the, I

believe the --

THE COURT: Well, obviously we can’t go forward

today.

MR. O’CONNELL: I believe we need a

psychological evaluation of the mother. We need

something to replace -- by the way, my client so far has

paid $10,200 of Dr. Lane’s fee and that’s not all of his

fee. And --

THE COURT: Look, that’s a separate issue all

together.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I understand that,

but the point is he has borrowed the money to do that and

he’s ever cooperating and on the other side --

THE COURT: As I was saying -- look, clearly

the case cannot go forward today. We don’t have the

custody evaluation. We don’t have, the child is not

here.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

42

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I don’t know if you had

the time to read my report.

THE COURT: I did not read your report in light

of, the Clerk had told me there was so many motions filed

back and forth I decided not to read the report in case

one of them was for me not to read your report.

MS. OLIN: And, Your Honor, I don’t even know,

I read my report, I read so many other pieces of paper.

But I actually did. And there’s a couple of things that

I thought I’d like to offer that I think that is useful

and certainly in the best interest of XXXXX and that,

number one, she be brought back forthwith as soon as

either father can get her or mother can bring her back,

whichever comes sooner.

The second thing I would ask is that, and I

don’t know about the timing of this, but before the next

hearing, I think looking at mom’s conduct and I want this

to be mutual, just for fairness, that a full

psychological evaluation be done according to

psychological standards, not just a little mental health

evaluation, but a full testing. And I think our safest

route is to use the Court psychologist because she is a

neutral. She’s a representative of the Court. I think


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

43

bias is less of an accusation and I will stop there

because it looks as if you want to --

THE COURT: What the Court is going to do is

continue the case because I don’t believe it’s ready for

hearing today, continue it for a full hearing. The Court

is going to order a full psychological on both parties.

The Court is going to order the mother to bring the child

back and hand the child over to the father, physical

custody with the father until the next Court hearing.

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, what kind of time frame

are we talking about for the child to be returned?

THE COURT: Within 48 hours.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, there may be some

concern about the structure of the psychological

evaluation. I’m not objecting to it, even though I

didn’t ask for it. I don’t think my client needs it,

but, nevertheless, I’m not objecting. The issue might

be, and I’m not an expert in this field, but perhaps the

Court psychologist could inform the Court about this, the

time between doing various sets of testings --

THE COURT: I’m not saying that my Court

psychologist is going to do it.

MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

44

THE COURT: Because I don’t know if she can do

it.

MR. O’CONNELL: No, I’m not talking about the

Court psychologist, whoever does it. I think that there

might be some issue between, and I don’t know this, but I

think it’s an issue that might exist, that if you do a

certain kind of testing that has already been done, how

much time has to be between --

THE COURT: Sir, I don’t know what you’re

talking about.

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, the reason I’m addressing

it is you could ask whoever does the evaluation to

consult with Dr. Lane so that --

THE COURT: Dr. Lane is out. There is no

consulting with Dr. Lane.

MR. O’CONNELL: All right, well then not Dr.

Lane, but so that they might actually take advantage of

third party testing. In other words, Dr. Lane didn’t do

some of this testing. This was done by third-party

testers. They might be able to access that is what I’m

saying.

THE COURT: Dr. Lane is out.

MR. O’CONNELL: And any testing that third

parties did that weren’t him is also out?


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

45

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. O’CONNELL: Very well.

THE COURT: What date can we set it?

THE CLERK: The 26th.

THE COURT: All day? Is that a good day for

you, Mr. Miller, Mr. O’Connell, Ms. Olin?

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, may I check that

day?

MS. OLIN: No, that’s not a good day. April

9th?

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I really need to

have this heard in March and I can explain why.

THE COURT: I don’t have an all day in March.

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, there is an issue here.

It’s in the best interest of the child that this matter

be heard finally in one place wherever that is. We’ve

had the jurisdictional issue raised and there is an issue

if the child has been in Maryland for six months. Of

course, the child wouldn’t be in Maryland for six months

because the child is now living with the father.

THE COURT: This case is pending here. April

9th. We don’t have any dates in March.

MR. MILLER: I’m not available that day; I have

a hearing that day.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

46

THE COURT: What?

MR. MILLER: I have hearing on April 9th.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, this is someone who

has had, with all due respect by my account, four

attorneys as lead counsel and seven attorneys involved

total. I think she can find someone to represent her on

April 9th. Time is of the essence; this case has

dragged on too long.

MR. MILLER: Before we get into that, though,

Your Honor, we kind of eased into this visitation matter.

This Court, under 20-146.13 has lost exclusive continuing

jurisdiction.

THE COURT: I’m not hearing a jurisdiction

motion here. I ordered the mother to return the child to

the father.

MR. MILLER: And the previous motion was regard

to subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not --

THE COURT: I’m not hearing a motion to

dismiss. That’s not before the Court. I’m not going to

hear it.

MR. MILLER: But the Court has modified its

visitation and custody order, which it can’t do because

under 146.13 when the parties left the Commonwealth of


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

47

Virginia the Court lost continuing exclusive

jurisdiction.

THE COURT: The case is still pending here; no

final order has been entered here.

MR. MILLER: But it doesn’t say a final order.

It says that, except as otherwise provided, a Court of

this Commonwealth that has made a child custody

determination --

THE COURT: I haven’t done that. I haven’t

made it yet.

MR. MILLER: In the September 5th order --

THE COURT: That was a temporary order pending

the determination. I have not made the determination. I

had not done that yet.

MR. MILLER: But there is a, well, the

September 5th order --

THE COURT: That was not a determination.

MR. MILLER: Visitation and custody were

established.

THE COURT: It was a temporary order.

MR. MILLER: And now, apparently with this

they’ve modified it, or it’s modified.

THE COURT: It’s a temporary order until we

have a full hearing on this.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

48

MR. MILLER: But the statute doesn’t --

THE COURT: I’m not arguing with you about

this. I’ve already ruled. The case is still pending

here. The Court ruled that the Court had jurisdiction to

hear the case. The case is still pending; we have not

come to a conclusion in this case. This Court is going

to maintain jurisdiction in the case.

MR. MILLER: And the second part of this is by

ordering the child’s return, the Court has not addressed

how the child is going to be cared for.

THE COURT: It’s up to the father. The father

is going to care for her while she’s here.

MR. MILLER: And the father has never done that

and if the father --

THE COURT: Well, he’s going to have to learn.

MR. MILLER: And he’s not presented his plan to

the Court.

THE COURT: He’s going to do it; he’s going to

have to figure it out.

MR. MILLER: How can the Court say what he

figures out is better for the child than what the mother

is presently doing?

MS. OLIN: I’ll do a lot of visits.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

49

THE COURT: She has to bring the child back and

return physical custody to the father until we have a

hearing on this.

She has 48 hours to do it. This is a direct

order of the Court.

MS. OLIN: I have a review in Fairfax I won’t

be available until 11:00.

MR. O’CONNELL: April 7th is good for me.

THE COURT: Mr. Miller, April 7th? At what

time?

THE CLERK: 10:00.

MS. OLIN: Just one more thing to annoy Your

Honor, I’ve been handling this case for about four months

and have yet to submit an invoice. Would you allow me to

submit a partial invoice?

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, we still need to

address the timing and the dates for other issues, the

contempts and motions.

THE COURT: All, we’ll put everything, the

disposition for the contempt that the Court found as far

as failing to cooperate with the Guardian ad Litem. I

order the mother to cooperate again with the Guardian ad

Litem. That includes home visits, telephone calls,


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

50

visitation, everything. The Court is going to order both

parties to cooperate and complete the psychological.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, could you also

order the mother to provide discovery?

THE COURT: I ordered that a long time ago.

MR. O’CONNELL: I filed a motion to compel.

You ordered discovery.

THE COURT: I’m not, look --

MR. O’CONNELL: I filed a motion to compel.

THE COURT: I have already ordered discovery.

MR. O’CONNELL: I was asking for a motion to

compel the mother so I could then file a rule to show

cause when she didn’t comply.

THE COURT: Well, if she doesn’t comply, that’s

what you do.

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, what I believe when I

filed a --

THE COURT: There’s going to be a hearing on

the other two rules for the contempt on that date too.

The child has to be back with the father by February 10th,

which is Sunday by 3:00 p.m.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, with respect to

discovery, I just want to say one thing and I promise

I’ll sit down and be quiet about it. The issue of that


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

51

mother hasn’t provided any documents. I have no copies

of leases of any of her apartments. I have no

information on income from her. At some point Your Honor

is going to be addressing child support, whether it be,

because my client, as we expect, will receive custody or

whether the mother will receive custody.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know who’s going to

receive custody. That’s what we’re going to have a

hearing for.

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, the point is, whoever

receives custody, they are going to be entitled to

support. We have an order in place on support right now

and we would ask that the mother be directed to actually

provide the information, the financial information that

was requested because she has not. And that has been

requested. So we’d simply ask for an order requiring her

to comply.

THE COURT: The Court is going to order both

parties to comply with discovery.

MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. MILLER: Your Honor, with regard to the

financial matters, the father’s petition was solely on

the issue of custody. He’s not filed a petition, there

is no petition for child support.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

52

The case before the Court is JJ-31848; that’s

custody only.

THE COURT: You’re right.

MR. MILLER: If there were a support case, it

would be a JA something.

THE COURT: I don’t see, you’re right. I don’t

see support.

MR. MILLER: And I don’t think under UIFSO,

Virginia is going to be the proper forum for a support

action.

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, Your Honor, actually, I’m

looking at my pleading and it says, petitioner be awarded

such other relief as the best interest of the child may

require. The best interest of the child clearly

requires child support, Your Honor. I apologize for not

stating it.

THE COURT: Well, you have to file a child

support petition. The Court is going to order the

parties to comply with discovery. Obviously, it has to

be relevant to the custody or visitation.

MR. MILLER: What’s the mother’s rights of

access to visitation going to be until April 7th, Your

Honor?


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

53

THE COURT: When she comes back, when is she

coming back to the area? When does she plan to come

back?

MR. MILLER: At this point it’s uncertain. Her

mother is still in the ICU. Her treating medical

personnel are looking at whether or not she’ll be

stabilized enough or be capable to be transported up here

to Maryland or --

THE COURT: Well, when she returns to, the

issue would come up for the visitation. She can have the

child on the weekends, every other weekend if she comes

up for visitation. Or if she comes up during the week to

visit the child I think the father should make the child

available. The Court is going to order the father to

make the child available, that the mother could come up

for visitation during the week.

When she returns to the area and could provide

verification that she has started her psychological

evaluation, the Court will consider return of physical

custody to her prior to the Court hearing.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, could we have a

surrender of a passport because we had asked for that. I

mean, she’s been leaving the jurisdiction and she’s a

history of traveling.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

54

THE COURT: The passport?

MR. O’CONNELL: Excuse me?

MS. OLIN: There was a motion for it in one of

these things.

MR. O’CONNELL: I filed a motion for it, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: I thought that I had ordered the

passport surrendered.

MR. O’CONNELL: That was his passport, Your

Honor, and we did surrender it. And we had, actually

XXXXX’s passport, but she had two passports and one of

the passports is with the mother and we’d like that

passport surrendered, Your Honor, because otherwise she

could leave the country, and she has a tendency to move

rapidly without notice.

MR. MILLER: I’d like to be heard on that.

This is just pure harassment. She’s a U.S. citizen.

They have traveled individually, as family; I think the

child has been to 10 foreign countries. They travel

frequently. The nature of Dr. King’s business --

THE COURT: I think I’ve already ordered the

child not to leave the country.

MR. MILLER: If the child is ordered not to

leave, the child’s passport has been surrendered, like I


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

55

said, this is just piling on on top the mother at this

point.

MR. O’CONNELL: I’m sorry, the child’s

passport, the child has two passports, one of the

passports has already --

THE COURT: Well, I have already ordered her

not to leave the country.

MR. O’CONNELL: But if she doesn’t have a

passport, she can’t leave the country.

THE COURT: Yes, she can, she’d just go get a

new one.

MR. O’CONNELL: So Your Honor would not order

the child’s passport --

THE COURT: I have ordered her not to leave the

country.

MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.

THE COURT: And so you could let the State

Department know. They won’t let her out of the country.

(The Court has a brief discussion with the

Clerk.)

THE COURT: Someone else could probably come in

and hear the case for me.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

56

MS. OLIN: Judge, you’ve heard so much we

really would like you to continue on. And if I have to

do it, Your Honor --

THE COURT: I don’t have a problem with another

judge hearing it.

MS. OLIN: I do.

MR. MILLER: That’s fine with us, Your Honor.

We’re going to start from scratch anyways.

THE COURT: The 14th.

MS. OLIN: I’ve got an all-day trial.

THE COURT: 18th.

MS. OLIN: If that is good for other counsel, I

will come back from New York especially for that.

MR. MILLER: I couldn’t hear the date.

THE COURT: April 18th.

MR. MILLER: The 18th is fine.

THE COURT: Like I said, if the mother comes

back to the area and can provide verification as to where

she is going to be living and she started the

psychological evaluation, I will return physical custody

to the mother.

All right, did everyone hear me?

MR. O’CONNELL: I apologize, Your Honor.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

57

THE COURT: I just made a ruling that may

impact your client. That if the mother comes back to the

area after her mother gets better and starts the

psychological evaluation, the Court will return physical

custody to the mother.

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I thought you had

previously ruled that you would entertain a motion for

custody.

THE COURT: I’ll return physical custody to the

mother if she can provide verification that she’s back in

the area, where’s she’s living, and that she started the

psychological evaluation.

MR. O’CONNELL: And with respect to visitation,

Your Honor?

THE COURT: I said, obviously the mother is in

a difficult position, if she’s in Georgia to care for her

elderly mother. So my order was that when she’s

available to come up to visit the child, the father

should allow it.

MR. O’CONNELL: That’s unquestioned, Your

Honor; I understood that. But I mean, the visitation

then with the mother then having custody again.

THE COURT: Would go back to what it was

before.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

58

MR. O’CONNELL: Very well.

MR. MILLER: Just to summarize, I know we’re

beating this horse to death --

THE COURT: You all are really beating this to

death.

MR. MILLER: So now we’re on for April 18th. It

will be the final custody hearing.

THE COURT: Uh huh.

MR. MILLER: The other two rules.

THE COURT: Everything.

MR. MILLER: The outcome on the rule regarding

the GAL.

THE COURT: And disposition, right.

MR. MILLER: And what else is there besides

that?

THE COURT: The two rules, the disposition on

the one I found her in contempt for today, full hearing

on the custody.

MR. MILLER: Okay.

THE COURT: I do see a motion to compel.

MR. O’CONNELL: Yeah, I filed a motion to

compel.

THE COURT: I didn’t see that. There is a

motion to compel also.


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

59

MR. MILLER: Mr. O’Connell and I --

MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, Your Honor, I

appreciate and respect counsel, but I filed this motion

to compel early in the case, excuse me, some time ago and

I’ve been asking Mr. Benzinger for cooperation and it was

promised to be forthcoming. I think we need an order so

that she can actually --

THE COURT: I just ordered both parties to

cooperate and Mr. Miller has just said that he’s going to

cooperate with you. I have no reason to doubt him.

MR. O’CONNELL: I don’t doubt him, Your Honor.

MS. OLIN: Are we finished, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I think so. I hope your mother is

better.

DR. KING: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Whereupon, 12:13 o’clock p.m., the hearing in

the above-captioned matter was concluded.)


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES


(703) 25-8147

60

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

I, CAROLYN J. TIMKO, a Verbatim Reporter, do

hereby certify that I took the notes of the foregoing

hearing by Stenomask and thereafter reduced to

typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing is a

true record of said hearing to the best of my knowledge

and ability; that I am neither related to nor employed by

any attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto;

nor financially or otherwise interested in the action.

CAROLYN J. TIMKO Court Reporter



. JJ03 1848-01 -00 Case No

COMMONWEALTH OF VA ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER --...-T--ee--.--T-.---.---.m------.-.---.

V. I la re: -.~---.---.-.-.--.---~~.m---.----~--.-.~.---~--..-~......--.-.------..-...-...----.~---~- THE FOLLOWING PARTIES WERE PKESENT:

DEBRA OLIN Guardian ad L h t ~

CUSTODY T e of Case: 8 Felony Misdemeanor a CHINS Custody Visitation a Support Foster Care Other Type of Hearing:

DeteminatiodAppointment of Counsel Detention Hearing Transfer Hearing Adjudicatory Hearing Disposition Hearing Continuance Review Preliminary Hearing Show Cause 0 Trial 0 Motion .-.------.----..---.-.--.--.-----.-----*--.-.-.


IT IS ORDERED THAT:

CASE CONTINUED BECAUSE CHILD IS OUT OF THE STATE AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION WAS NOT COMPLETED AND MOTHER DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE GAL.

MOTHER ORDERED T O RETURN T H E C H I L D BACK T O T H E FATHER W I T H I N 48 HOURS

BY 2 / 1 0 / 0 8 A T 3 : O O p.m. P A R T I E S A R E ORDERED T O C O O P E R A T E W I T H A F U L L P S Y C H O L O G I C A L E V A L U A T I O N . MOTHER ORDERED T O C O O P E R A T E W I T H T H E GAL

AND P S Y C H O L O G I C A L E V A L U A T I O N .

0411 812008 This case is continued to: 1O:OO AM -

02/08/2008 -*.....---" --...*.-.---..-.*.---.--.-....--e-.----.--..-.--..-.p.-*-..---.-.-. DATE

FORM DC-570 (PAGE ONE OF ONE) 12/% PDF -


TIMKO & ASSOCIATES9007 Windflower Lane

Annandale, Virginia 22003(703) 425-8147

C O P Y

V I R G I N I A

IN THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, :

Petitioner, :

versus, : CASE NO. J-31848-01

ARIEL R. KING, :

Respondent. :

IN RE: ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER

DOB: 05/07/2003

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Arlington, Virginia

Thursday, February 21, 2008

The above-entitled action came on to be heard

before the Honorable Esther Wiggins Lyles, a Judge for

the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Arlington

County, in Courtroom 4A, 1425 N. Courthouse Road,

Arlington, Virginia 22201, beginning at 3:56 o'clock p.m.

- - - - - - - - - - -


2



APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:

SEAN O’CONNELL, ESQUIRE

For the Defendant:

JOHN E. DRURY, ESQUIREROY MORRIS

Guardian Ad Litem:

DEBORAH OLIN, ESQUIRE

P R O C E E D I N G S :1

THE COURT: Why is this case back so soon. We2

were just here. What is the problem?3

MR. O’CONNELL: May I address the Court, Your4

Honor?5

THE COURT: Yes.6

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, my motions are two,7

one the Sunday that the, may I have a rule on witnesses,8

Your Honor?9

THE COURT: I’m not going to hear it. I mean,10

what’s this all about?11

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, would you like a12

Guardian ad Litem’s opening briefly?13

THE COURT: I just want to know what this is14


3



all about. We were just here not even what, two weeks1

ago?2

MS. OLIN: I think we were here 12 days ago.3

THE COURT: I’m not going to be here all night4

hearing something.5

MS. OLIN: What we’ve got is, when we were here6

last --7

THE COURT: What is the problem?8

MS. OLIN: The problem, from my point of view,9

is the mother’s continuing unilateral decisions and10

actions as pertains to Ariana-Leilani, the little girl. 11

She moved her down to Atlanta without conferring with the12

father who is joint legal custodian, without conferring13

with the Guardian ad Litem. And I understand there is a14

family emergency, but this is a child we’re talking15

about.16

When we were last here, Your Honor, stated that17

father would have temporary custody until Dr. Margo King,18

who is present here 12 days later out in this weather,19

improved and that mother could verify her address to the20

Court and that she had initiated her psychological21

evaluation.22


4



THE COURT: Right.1

MS. OLIN: Now, this is going to be a matter of2

the Court’s interpretation. Mother came to father’s3

house several days -- she did bring the child back as4

ordered within 48 hours, but several days later, I think5

both counsel can speak to the exact date --6

MR. O’CONNELL: On Tuesday morning.7

MS. OLIN: Mother came to father’s door and8

demanded the child.9

MR. O’CONNELL: With the police, using the10

order --11

THE COURT: Only one of you can talk --12

MR. O’CONNELL: Sorry.13

MS. OLIN: And father had no choice, other than14

to end up with a Solomon’s baby kind of tug of war, but15

to, and I think what, you know, I was in here not a week16

ago hearing a pretty well articulated argument of what17

joint legal custody means. And that means at least an18

obligation to confer with the other parent. And this19

consistent unilateral action of the mother is not in the20

best interest of the child.21

I do believe that father’s counsel’s petitions22


5



are well founded and I think this has just got to stop. 1

Mom has already been found in contempt; you put off2

sentencing. It is not 12 days later and we’re back in3

this Court, I think justifiably, but only due to mother’s4

actions. And frankly, Your Honor, I’m sick of it.5

THE COURT: What’s so hard? I mean, I ordered6

that the father maintain physical custody of the child7

until the mother comes back to the area, provides a8

verified address to the Court and she starts the9

psychological. What is so complicated about that?10

MR. O’CONNELL: Nothing.11

MS. OLIN: Well, she thinks she started her12

psychological. She did not provide verification to the13

Court until after the fact, and I know this because I14

spoke to previous counsel. You may notice that we have15

another counsel here again, which, you know, I’m glad we16

have counsel, but this is an abuse of the system. 17

Frankly, I think it’s abuse of this little girl.18

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I comment since19

obviously Ms. Olin, my name is John Drury. I represent20

the respondent in this matter. I filed an order of21

substitution yesterday and I filed a four-and-a-half-page22


6



defense to the rule.1

I really believe that the GAL, her2

representations are argumentative. I believe that Mr.3

O’Connell is perfectly capable of representing the4

petitioner’s position and the GAL’s opinions are, well, a5

little bit over the top as far as I’m concerned.6

I know the Court, it’s late in the day. It’s7

4:00 o’clock. I have testimony that I would like to8

present to the Court in defense of this rule.9

THE COURT: This is not to hear the rule10

itself. I mean, on the issue, the rule should be issued.11

We can just take that by a shown affidavit. The Court12

can decide just on the affidavit itself and set it down13

for a hearing.14

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, we could do that. I am15

merely saying, you asked counsel, you asked Mr. O’Connell16

and myself, we’re the litigants counsel, to make17

representations. I know that Ms. --18

THE COURT: I’m talking about why we’re here. 19

That was my question. Why are we here. That was my20

question.21

MR. DRURY: Yes, and 250 words later, let Mr.22


7



O’Connell make his presentation and then let me comment1

if I might, Your Honor.2

THE COURT: All right.3

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, had the order, the4

Guardian ad Litem, Debbie Olin correctly described it,5

and in fact, what occurred was, last Tuesday, the mother6

showed up at the house unannounced having just half an7

hour before in a telephone conversation told my client8

that she was in Georgia. Apparently she wasn’t in9

Georgia; she shows up at his door. She says give me the10

child right away. She starts screaming; she’s banging on11

the door. He calls me asking me what to do. I try to12

call other counsel, who I had already talked to to try to13

work out some of the issues that we were dealing with at14

the time. She had not talked to her attorney.15

I asked her attorney to call her. He said that16

she was not answering her phone. We were trying to work17

this out. 18

Meanwhile, she takes, she calls the police. 19

She has the police come. She takes a copy of the20

September order, when she does have custody of her, which21

has been subsequently changed. She shows it to the22


8



police and my client says what do I do. I don’t want to1

create a scene. I say, you’re right, let’s not create2

any more trauma than this woman has already and we let3

the child go and we subsequently have had our visitation,4

although there have been some attempts to change it. 5

Nevertheless, we don’t have visitation legally. We have6

custody until the Court gives custody back to the mom,7

which the Court said it would do, but she wasn’t doing it8

by the numbers. She was doing it by self-help,9

fraudulently with the police, and it’s very damaging to10

the child.11

So the bottom line is, Your Honor, we’re here,12

Your Honor, because the main focus needs to be on the13

emergency transfer back to the father of the custody of14

the child because this woman is again showing complete15

disregard for the emotional health of the child. 16

That’s the essence of why we’re here. I do have other17

things I’m asking for, including a psychological18

evaluation directed by Michelle Wood as opposed, selected19

by Michelle Wood as opposed to the parties, a neutral20

person that the Court Services would appoint and Michelle21

Wood has someone in mind. 22


9



I believe that the Guardian ad Litem has, could1

select someone to do a custody evaluation. One was2

needed in September. One is still needed. And just3

because the defendant continues to pay no attention and4

try to undermine the orders of the Court and the5

psychological evaluation doesn’t mean that one isn’t6

needed. It’s still needed, so we would like an expedited7

one appointed. That’s why I’m here, immediate custody of8

the child because of the mother’s in effect kidnaping of9

the child through fraud by use of the September order and10

without contacting her own attorney before she did it.11

And I handed Your Honor a copy of the12

transcript; Your Honor already has copies of the order.13

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, my client would like to14

testify.15

THE COURT: When did she go pick up the child?16

MR. DRURY: On Tuesday.17

THE COURT: What date?18

MR. DRURY: On the 12th.19

THE COURT: But she didn’t tell the Court until20

February 15th.21

MR. DRURY: She didn’t believe she had to tell22


10



the Court.1

THE COURT: No, no, no.2

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, if I --3

THE COURT: No, no, no.4

MR. DRURY: Please?5

THE COURT: No, no, no, no. We’re not going to6

play this game. We went over this when she was here7

before and I made it clear what I was ordering, you know,8

everyone, you know, I tried to be fair to the mom and9

when the child came back, when the mother came back from10

caring for her elderly mother and provided an address to11

the Court and proof that she had started counseling, then12

the Court would allow her return physical custody.13

It didn’t mean that she could just run in there14

and take the child without first giving the Court notice15

that she had done this. But she did it and she filed the16

notice after the fact. This was filed on February 15th.17

MR. DRURY: She had met all of the conditions18

of your order --19

THE COURT: She had not filed it with this20

Court.21

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, let me explain what had22


11



happened.1

THE COURT: Okay.2

MR. DRURY: This rule was intended to deflect3

my client’s discovery that Dr. Pfeiffer was not taking4

the child to school.5

THE COURT: But that’s a separate issue all6

together.7

MR. DRURY: I know it is, Your Honor.8

THE COURT: And if you want to file a rule on9

that, by all means, file the rule on that. This is, I’m10

not going to get sidetracked about he didn’t follow the11

rule; he didn’t have her in the German school. If you12

want to file a rule about that, then I’ll be happy to13

hear it and hold him accountable if he’s found guilty. 14

But today is purely for whether she complied15

and she didn’t comply.16

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, if the Court takes a17

look at the wording of the Court’s order.18

THE COURT: I know what I said.19

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I invite the20

Court’s attention to the original transcript? Here is21

the original transcript. Page 61, I offer that to the22


12



Court.1

MR. O’CONNELL: Only after you give me a copy.2

MR. DRURY: You don’t have a copy?3

MR. O’CONNELL: No, I have a copy of just the4

last part of the transcript.5

MR. DRURY: Here, we’ll give you, I’ll take6

mine, I’ll give the Court. And I think my co-counsel has7

one.8

THE COURT: Does the Guardian have a copy?9

MR. DRURY: Ms. Olin, would you be so kind as10

to look over Mr. O’Connell’s shoulder. I invite the11

Court’s attention to the Rule to Show Cause.12

THE COURT: Do you want me to look at the13

transcript or --14

MR. DRURY: Not the whole thing, no, Your15

Honor.16

THE COURT: On page 61.17

MR. DRURY: Page 61. Let me invite the Court’s18

attention to the requisite -- Court’s indulgence for one19

moment.20

MR. O’CONNELL: There is no 61, Your Honor,21

according to my document.22


13



MR. DRURY: The page numbering is different on1

the written copy than it is on the copy that Mr.2

O’Connell used in his pleading. This often happens.3

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I’m talking about4

what he just gave me, just now, there is no 61 in what he5

just gave me. I’m just trying to follow along with what6

he’s saying because I have, what I did, Your Honor, is I,7

before I filed the motion, I asked for an emergency8

production from Ms. Timko of just the ruling. And that’s9

what I used and that’s what I handed to the Court.10

MR. DRURY: Court’s indulgence. I think that11

this copy, the Court would just bear with me, I will --12

THE COURT: I can read the transcript. I don’t13

understand the problem with it. It says, start on page14

60. Like I said, if the mother comes back to the area15

and provides verification of where she’s going to be16

living and she starts the psychological, I will transfer17

custody to the mother. Did everyone hear me? 18

Then I go over to the next page and it says, I19

will return custody to the mother if she provides20

verification she’s back in the area, where she is living21

and that she’s started psychological evaluation.22


14



MR. O’CONNELL: Right.1

MR. DRURY: Mr. O’Connell says, I apologize,2

Your Honor. If you move to page 61 --3

THE COURT: I’m looking at page 61.4

MR. DRURY: Okay. Line 17 through 22, Your5

Honor, the Court says, obviously the mother is in a6

difficult position if she’s in Georgia to care for her7

elderly mother. So my order was that when she’s8

available to come to visit the child, the father should9

allow it. Mr O’Connell, who had already said this should10

act as a motion for custody, he said up on line 3 and 2,11

here you go, Mr. O’Connell, Your Honor, I thought you12

previously ruled that you would entertain a motion for13

custody. The Court, I’ll return physical custody to the14

mother if she can provide verification that she’s back in15

the area, where she’s living, and that she’s started the16

psychological evaluation. 17

Then on line 9, page 61, Mr. O’Connell, and18

with respect to visitation? The Court responds. I said,19

obviously the mother is in a difficult position if she’s20

in Georgia to care for her elderly mother, so my order21

was that when she’s available to come to visit the child,22


15



the father should allow it.1

Mr. O’Connell then says --2

THE COURT: What’s the whole point of all of3

this?4

MR. DRURY: Here’s my point, Your Honor. I’ll5

get to my point as soon as I read it. Mr. O’Connell does6

not include the last colloquy that he has with you. 7

That’s unquestioned.8

THE COURT: My question is, what is the point?9

MR. DRURY: But I mean, the visitation --10

THE COURT: The point is, the only issue is,11

did she comply with the Court’s order to do these things12

before physical custody returned to the mother.13

MR. DRURY: This Court, here’s what she said. 14

She says I listened to the Court’s ruling. As soon as I15

met those three conditions, I could go see the child and16

take the child then.17

THE COURT: But what about the verification? 18

It says upon providing verification?19

MR. DRURY: She had verified it.20

THE COURT: Who has she verified it with?21

MR. DRURY: With Michael Pfeiffer.22


16



THE COURT: No.1

MR. DRURY: Everybody knew that she was back in2

the area.3

THE COURT: No, no. 4

MR. DRURY: She called him on the phone.5

THE COURT: No, no, she shows up and takes the6

child. That’s not verification. I’m in the area; I’m7

going to take the child. That’s not, there’s8

verification to the Court.9

MR. DRURY: You didn’t say that, Your Honor.10

THE COURT: Well, what did she think we were11

talking about?12

MR. DRURY: She felt --13

THE COURT: That she could just show up at his14

house and take the child without the Court even knowing15

anything about it?16

MR. DRURY: She comes back --17

THE COURT: No, no.18

MR. DRURY: The testimony will be --19

THE COURT: No, no, no, no.20

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, the testimony will be -21

-22


17



THE COURT: There’s no way that she could have1

thought that I meant that she just let him know and that2

will be it. It’s verification to the Court.3

MR. DRURY: The testimony will show that before4

she ever entered that premises, she called her lawyer,5

Mr. Miller, and said here’s what I’m going to do, I’m out6

front. He says, okay, fine. Now, let’s talk about the7

Maryland case. 8

MR. O’CONNELL: A, it’s hearsay and B, it’s not9

what I understand from Mr. Miller.10

MR. DRURY: This is what my client will11

testify. I ask that she be allowed to --12

THE COURT: I’m going to grant the motion for13

the Rule to Show Cause and order that she return the14

child to the father.15

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, would you allow my16

client to testify?17

THE COURT: No. We could have, we have these18

rules here. We can set the rules with the rest of the19

case.20

MS. OLIN: The trial date.21

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I would prefer a22


18



hearing before the trial date.1

THE COURT: I don’t think we can do that. 2

There’s nothing in this case.3

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, we’ve had how many4

hearings now and how many attorneys?5

THE COURT: I’ve been extremely reasonable with6

her. I didn’t put her in jail last time. I continued7

the disposition. I think I’ve been extremely reasonable8

with her.9

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, we’re not questioning10

the reasonableness of this Court.11

THE COURT: And this really goes too far I12

think. I mean, this is playing games, and I don’t13

appreciate it because --14

MR. DRURY: Your Honor --15

THE COURT: I was, I bent over backwards giving16

her the benefit of the doubt with all these things coming17

in, back-and-forth allegations. I’ve always given her18

the benefit of the doubt.19

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I make a statement20

to the Court?21

THE COURT: Yes, Sir.22


19



MR. DRURY: I’m not challenging the1

reasonableness of this Court. I’m not challenging it at2

all. What I would like to do is have the opportunity for3

this Court to hear the reasonableness of my client’s4

testimony, not through the representations of Mr.5

O’Connell or not through the representations of Ms. Olin. 6

I would like this Court to evaluate my client based on7

her testimony alone. That’s all I’m asking for.8

THE COURT: Well, I said that she could do that9

at the hearing.10


THE COURT: But I’m basing this on what the12

Court’s recollection is as to what I told her, the whole13

discussion, the whole tenor. I mean, I was going to14

leave the child with the father. But then I reconsidered15

and even when she was coming up here and I thought about16

it and I was like, well, you know, the mother has been17

the primary, this is not the, because Mr. O’Connell was18

correct, initially I said stay with the father until the19

next hearing, but I thought about it and I was like well,20

the mother has been the primary care giver. If she comes21

back and resolves her family emergencies, it would be22


20



appropriate for the child to return to the mother’s1

physical custody.2

That’s what my rationale behind it was. And3

but --4

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I --5

THE COURT: But then I completely changed from6

what I originally said.7

MR. DRURY: Well, you can read that, Your8

Honor. I can read --9

MS. OLIN: Your Honor --10

MR. DRURY: Excuse me, Ms. Olin.11

THE COURT: You know what, I’ve already12

decided. I’m going to issue the rule, set it down for13

the same date as this and order the mother to return14

physical custody to the father.15

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, let me make a16

representation with respect --17

THE COURT: The Court is going to order the18

psychological evaluation, the child custody evaluation at19

the mother’s expense because --20

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I interject for a21

moment. Not to dissuade this Court. I understand the22


21



Court has ruled. Here is my concern.1

It is a fact that Dr. Pfeiffer one, did not2

take the child to school on Monday or Tuesday. 3

THE COURT: I’m not talking about that.4

MR. DRURY: Period.5

THE COURT: I’m not talking about that.6

MR. DRURY: Period. Period.7

THE COURT: That is not my issue today. And --8

MR. DRURY: And second --9

THE COURT: If she wants to file a rule, we’re10

not going to go into a whole lot of these digressions11

because we’ll be here all day. If she wants to file a12

motion for a rule alleging that and swearing that on an13

affidavit, I’ll consider it.14

MR. DRURY: Okay.15

THE COURT: You going to have to file a motion16

for the Court to consider the issue and I’ll be willing17

to listen to an issue if I think that it qualifies for a18

violation.19

MR. DRURY: Judge, I’d be the last counsel to20

try and convince you otherwise, that you are going to21

find for a rule today. But let me, let me ask that the22


22



determination of who cares for the child is much more1

important. And here’s the evidence that I’d like to2

present to you. I have documentary evidence, Your Honor3

--4

THE COURT: We, first of all --5

MR. DRURY: That he has enrolled the child in6

the YMCA in Bethesda in contravention of this Court’s7

September and November order. May I offer that proof to8

the Court?9

THE COURT: That’s not before the Court today.10

MR. DRURY: Here’s the problem, Your Honor. 11

You have an order outstanding that the child should go to12

the German school. He has already enrolled the child in13

the YMCA and it is his intent to take her out. 14

Now, if this Court is going to change custody,15

then obviously we’re going to be back in here when he16

doesn’t take the child to the German school, or when he17

does something else.18

THE COURT: Well, you have to do what you think19

is right under this circumstances. And if that’s what20

you, you have to do what you think is right. And I would21

hope that the parents would do what’s in the child’s best22


23



interest.1

MR. DRURY: That’s exactly what they’re trying2

to do. My client has enrolled the child --3

THE COURT: No, you went and showed the police4

and demanded the child. No, that is not in the child’s5

best interest to be caught, I don’t know how you could6

say that was possibly in the child’s best interest to be7

having this type of conflict.8

MR. DRURY: My client didn’t do this --9

THE COURT: I feel sorry for the child.10

MR. DRURY: My client didn’t do this alone.11

THE COURT: Okay.12

MR. DRURY: Michael Pfeiffer did it.13

THE COURT: I said the parents. I said the14

parents are not thinking about what’s in the child’s best15

interest.16

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I think at this point17

we’re just lucky that, you know, that I’m not going to18

make an argument for mother to be summarily sentenced19

under the Rule to Show Cause. Dr. Margo King is here20

today, 12 days later, after mom represented to the Court,21

and it’s so good to see her here, and it’s a blessing,22


24



but I know that --1

THE COURT: But that’s not what she, she gave2

the Court the opinion that the mother was very, very ill.3

MS. OLIN: Well, mother was here --4

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, Your Honor, I would5

prefer this Court --6

THE COURT: You know what, we’re going to set,7

I’ve already ruled, you know --8

MR. DRURY: I would --9

THE COURT: I’ve already ruled. We’ll issue10

the rule and set it down for the same day everything else11

is set.12

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I make --13

MS. OLIN: One more suggestion.14

MR. DRURY: No, Ms. Olin --15

THE COURT: No, no, I said no.16

MR. DRURY: Ms. Olin, excuse me.17

THE COURT: No one else is going to make a18

statement. I have ruled.19

MR. DRURY: Would you inquire of Margo King as20

to her health?21

THE COURT: No.22


25



MR. DRURY: So that obviously, Deborah Olin’s1

opinion as to her health is less convincing than Dr.2

Margo King’s representation as to her health. If that is3

a factor here today --4

THE COURT: I said I don’t want to hear5

anything else and you’re still talking. I said I ruled6

and that’s the end of this discussion.7

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I have a concern8

about the location of the child, not about the ruling9

because --10

THE COURT: I’ve ordered the mother to return11

the child to the father tonight.12

DR. KING: Your Honor --13

THE COURT: No. Do you have anything before14

April 18th for that rule? It will take some time I think.15

MR. DRURY: Yes, Your Honor, it will.16

THE COURT: Four hours you think?17

MR. DRURY: On this rule?18

THE COURT: Yes, the one that I’m issuing right19

now.20

MR. DRURY: And I’ll be filing one as well.21

THE COURT: How long will this one take, the22


26



one that we have before the Court now? How long do you1

think that will take?2

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, my, part of the3

rule will be part and parcel of the case that we’re going4

to be trying. I don’t see it as a separate thing; it’s5

just --6

THE COURT: There’s no way we’re going to do7

all of that on April 18th. Nothing in this case has8

taken, we’ll see if we have a date that will --9

MR. DRURY: Excuse me, Your Honor --10

MS. OLIN: The custody evaluation --11

THE COURT: I already ordered the custody12

evaluation and it will be at the selection of the Court13

Services Unit.14

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, with respect to the15

selection --16

THE COURT: Do you have somebody you have in17

mind?18

MR. DRURY: Well, I’d like to have an19

opportunity, maybe three or four days to make a20

determination.21

THE COURT: No.22


27



MR. DRURY: I believe that because of --1

THE COURT: Who are you suggesting is --2

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, how I presented it as3

the issue was coming up as to who would be an appropriate4

evaluator. My, in talking with Mr. O’Connell --5

MR. O’CONNELL: We talked about a custody6

evaluator.7

THE COURT: She’s talking now, Mr. O’Connell.8

MR. O’CONNELL: Very well.9

THE COURT: You all need to --10

MS. OLIN: What I had said is that we could11

possibly consult with Dr. Robert Nablack (phonetic)12

because we contract out a lot of our evaluations.13

THE COURT: Uh huh.14

MS. OLIN: And in that sense we have an idea of15

the work that these people do.16

THE COURT: I tell you what, this is what we’ll17

do. You can submit three names. You can submit three18

names and you can submit three names, and the Court will19

decide which person, but it has to be made by next20

Wednesday. And you can consult with Ms. Nablack on which21

you would recommend.22


28



MS. OLIN: And this is for the custody1

evaluation or the psychological?2

THE COURT: Custody evaluation.3

MR. O’CONNELL: And what about the4

psychological evaluation, Your Honor? I had asked that -5

-6

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I have no problem with7

counsel, Mr. O’Connell offering his suggestions. I would8

oppose any offering by the GAL. She’s obviously, her9

opinions have been very contrary to my client and the10

question of objectivity is very important in this case.11

THE COURT: Why I think her --12

MR. DRURY: Well, Your Honor, the comments.13

THE COURT: I have to say it, you don’t, you14

haven’t been here.15

MR. DRURY: I know.16

THE COURT: But I will have to tell you,17

initially I think Ms. Olin was very supportive of the18

mother.19

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I had the distinct20

pleasure --21

THE COURT: And quite, you know, way on the22


29



mother’s side of it.1

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I had the distinct2

pleasure within 10 seconds of meeting Ms. Olin to find3

out that she did not like my client at all.4

THE COURT: Well --5

MR. DRURY: Well, the point of it --6

THE COURT: She doesn’t have to like your7

client. She has to advocate in what she thinks is the8

child’s best interest --9

MR. DRURY: Well, I mean --10

THE COURT: -- as you know.11

MR. DRURY: Well, despite a little humor, it12

just didn’t float. It was like, you know, it was like a13

bag of wet cement, no opportunity whatsoever, Your Honor.14

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor --15

THE COURT: I can tell you, Sir, that Ms. Olin16

is a fine GAL. She does a good job for the children. 17

And when the case initially came in, the initial report,18

Ms. Olin was very favorable to your client. The report19

was very favorable to your client.20

MR. DRURY: I have heard that, Your Honor.21

THE COURT: It’s true. It’s really not22


30



hearsay.1

MR. DRURY: But that’s --2

THE COURT: It’s actually true.3

MR. DRURY: But that’s history in the mist of4

time. So when, you want these opinions by next5

Wednesday, Your Honor?6

THE COURT: Yes.7

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor ruled moments ago8

that --9

THE COURT: Wait a minute.10

MR. O’CONNELL: -- that there would be a11

psychological evaluation selected by the Court Services12

Unit?13

THE COURT: No, I was talking custody14

evaluation. If I said psychological, I didn’t mean that. 15

I meant custody evaluation.16

MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.17

MR. DRURY: You actually said --18

MR. O’CONNELL: She’s already started the19

psychological.20

THE COURT: The psychological evaluation has21

already been ordered.22


31



MR. O’CONNELL: It has been ordered, but what1

has happened is she’s gone out and selected her own2

psychological evaluator.3

THE COURT: I don’t care; she can pick her own4

psychologist. I don’t care about that. I mean, she can5

pick her, I don’t have a problem with her picking her own6

psychologist. The custody evaluator, however, is a7

different story.8

MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.9

THE COURT: Because I’ve already ordered10

psychological evaluations.11

MR. O’CONNELL: I understand that, Your Honor. 12

I just was confused about your ruling. 13

THE COURT: I misspoke. If I said14

psychological, that’s not what I meant. I meant custody15

evaluation.16

MR. DRURY: Judge, I understand that if the17

child is going to be turned over to Mr. Pfeiffer this18

evening, then obviously all the terms and conditions of19

prior orders, including school, at the times will be20

recognized, appreciated and followed, is that right?21

THE COURT: I’m not giving you the --22


32



MR. DRURY: Well, Your Honor, I’m merely1

trying, clarity is important because you understand what2

my defense is.3

THE COURT: Yeah, I understand exactly why4

you’re doing it because you’re right, clarity is very5

important.6

MR. DRURY: And I’m not trying to parse. I’m7

trying to get it as clear as Mr. Sean O’Connell tried to8

get it from you back on February 8th. So am I right to9

assume, because I don’t want to come back here on another10

rule, Your Honor? We’ve already got one.11

THE COURT: Well, you already said that she’s12

not in the German school.13

MR. DRURY: No, she is. He tried to pull her14

on Monday by going to the --15

THE COURT: Well, look, everyone knows what the16

Court order is.17

MR. DRURY: Okay.18

THE COURT: Right? Well, I hope they do. The19

order hasn’t changed, other than obviously the father20

having physical custody of the child, which means21

visitation has to be determined.22


33



MR. DRURY: Visitation?1

THE COURT: The mother.2

MR. DRURY: Three times a week and on weekends.3

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I would just4

reverse the visitation. It would be Wednesday and on the5

weekends, just as it was with the father. There may be6

some additional visitation worked out between the parties7

as well.8

THE COURT: Are they going to be able to do9

that?10

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, as far as the visitation11

on Wednesday nights and the weekends, yes. And my client12

will provide additional time at some time, at one other13

time during the week as the parties -- otherwise, I would14

just say if it was good enough for the father, then it’s15

good enough for the mother. 16

And I’m just saying that it may be that the17

father would --18

THE COURT: I don’t think it works that way19

with children. I mean, isn’t it to consider what’s in20

the children’s best interest?21

MR. O’CONNELL: Well, absolutely, Your Honor,22


34



but I’m saying that --1

THE COURT: Wasn’t the mother the primary2

caregiver? It’s why she was given --3

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor has got Your Honor’s4

findings in mind and I’m not going to dispute Your5

Honor’s reasons. It certainly wouldn’t be, we wouldn’t6

agree that that would be --7

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, every other day and on8

weekends.9

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, that’s just10

splitting custody. Your Honor has changed custody.11

THE COURT: I --12

MR. DRURY: This is a man --13

THE COURT: Wait a minute, I’ll make my ruling14

on this. The Court will order visitation every Wednesday15

at whatever time they can agree on.16

MR. DRURY: And each weekend.17

THE COURT: The Court is going to order the18

mother can have three weekends out of the month. The19

father can have two if there’s two weekends or one20

weekend.21

MR. DRURY: Now, is that Saturday and Sunday?22


35



THE COURT: Yes.1

And the mother can choose another day during2

the week to visit the child.3

MR. DRURY: And these are unsupervised. She4

can take them back to the house the day runs from 8:005

until 6:00?6

THE COURT: Yes.7

MR. DRURY: Any holidays intervening?8

THE COURT: I don’t think there’s a holiday;9

Easter is the only holiday.10

DR. KING: Passover. We’re Jewish.11

MR. DRURY: She’s Jewish.12

THE COURT: Oh, when is Passover?13

DR. KING: The same time as Easter.14

THE COURT: You don’t know when Passover is?15

MR. DRURY: For the first time I’m going to16

shut my mouth because I don’t know when Passover is.17

THE COURT: I think it falls on Easter this18

year.19

MR. DRURY: Okay. Your Honor --20

DR. KING: It’s the 19th, Your Honor. It’s the21

day after our hearing on the 18th of April.22


36



THE COURT: Passover starts that late? Easter1

is --2

DR. KING: It doesn’t always follow --3

THE COURT: It’s not --4

DR. KING: I think it begins the night of the5

18th, Friday night, Shabbat.6

THE COURT: Okay. It follows the full moon,7

right?8

DR. KING: No.9

THE COURT: I mean, it’s determined by the10

moon.11


THE COURT: When is, do you know when is13

Passover?14

MR. DRURY: In terms of timing of things, Your15

Honor, let’s address --16

THE COURT: I keep telling you and you won’t17

let me resolve one thing at a time. That’s why we get18

all --19

DR. KING: My calendar and my mother say20

Passover starts the evening of the 18th.21

THE COURT: Of what month?22


37



DR. KING: April. So that would be April 18th,1

sundown.2

THE COURT: On a Friday?3

DR. KING: Well, it changes every year, but4

it’s going to be Shabbat, which means it’s a very long5

service.6

MR. O’CONNELL: We’re going to have a full7

hearing on the 18th.8

THE COURT: We’ll decide that day.9

MR. O’CONNELL: When is Easter?10

MR. DRURY: The 23rd of March, Easter?11

THE COURT: You just told me she’s Jewish.12

MR. DRURY: I understand.13

THE COURT: So that would not be a holiday that14

--15

MR. DRURY: It is a holiday for school.16

THE COURT: No, it is not. Easter is not a17

holiday for school. You mean like spring break?18

MR. DRURY: Yes, Your Honor. There is spring19

break. I’m sure the German school --20

MS. OLIN: Hold on, the child is four and a21

half years old. 22


38



DR. KING: She goes to Hebrew school every1

Sunday, Ms. Olin. She’s Jewish. She’s been Jewish from2

the day she was born.3

MR. O’CONNELL: Has she been the last three4

weeks?5

DR. KING: Yes, she’s gone to Hebrew school6

actually and I can prove that to the Court. She has7

every Sunday.8

MR. DRURY: Well, then it’s his --9

THE COURT: I hope you folks are taking notes.10

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, may I address the11

Court?12

THE COURT: Did you print the rule? Yes, Sir.13

MR. O’CONNELL: Okay, I just didn’t hear a yes14

and I wasn’t going to do it without getting permission. 15

On the morning that the child was kidnaped, Your Honor,16

by the mother --17

MR. DRURY: Objection to the phrase kidnaped.18

MR. O’CONNELL: Using the fraudulent document19

that she used, I was actually talking, I had previously20

talked to the GAL. I had previously talked to --21

THE COURT: We’re doing a temporary custody22


39



order.1

MR. O’CONNELL: I had previously talked to the2

Court Services personnel, Michelle Woods, and I had also3

made several attempts and finally had been able to get4

what, Ms. Elizabeth Rossingy (phonetic) on the phone5

because Michael Miller was not available at that time to6

discuss the issue of schools because what we had7

discovered on Monday was that while when you issued your8

order on November 8th, I had indicated that 3:00 o’clock9

may be a problem because we thought that’s when the10

German school got out.11

We had discovered in conversations with the12

registrar of the German school, what’s her name, Reese,13

Ms. Reese, that she had been registered on November 2nd14

and that actually is confirmed by the transcript where15

she said in the transcript on page 20 she had registered16

the Tuesday before we were in Court and that she at that17

time was registered through 3:00 o’clock.18

THE COURT: What does that have to do with why19

we are here today?20

MR. O’CONNELL: I’m about to tell Your Honor. 21

And what I was trying to do, Your Honor --22


40




MR. O’CONNELL: May I finish what I’m saying?2

MR. DRURY: Yeah.3

MR. O’CONNELL: At the podium, please?4

MR. DRURY: Oh, you want the podium?5

MR. O’CONNELL: Yeah.6

What I was trying to do at that time was7

discuss, number one, when the mother and how the mother8

would get custody handed over in a, if she had returned9

to the area and if she had begun her psychological10

evaluation. That was one thing. 11

And the other thing was in the interim, we had12

a problem because as I told the Guardian ad Litem and13

Michelle Woods, we had just discovered that approximately14

two to three weeks before, according to Ms. Reese, mother15

had actually unregistered the child, which will, of16

course, be the subject of another Rule to Show Cause, but17

wasn’t at this time because it wasn’t the pressing issue,18

this time, had unregistered the child from the 3:3019

program and put the child in the 12:30 program. And as a20

result --21

THE COURT: What does that have to do with why22


41



we are here today?1

MR. O’CONNELL: And as a result, my client was2

exploring alternate alternatives because he didn’t want3

her in two different day cares during the day, Your4

Honor. And that was what I was discussing with counsel5

when mother snatched the child. 6

THE COURT: I don’t --7

MR. O’CONNELL: We weren’t going to do anything8

unilaterally. We were simply exploring alternatives and9

we had not withdrawn the child from the German school and10

we had not told the German school we weren’t going to go.11

The reason I bring it up now --12

THE COURT: She has to give the father a 24-13

hour advance notice that she’s going to exercise another14

day’s visitation.15

MR. DRURY: Okay.16

MR. O’CONNELL: The reason I’m bringing this up17

now, Your Honor, is because what we’re faced with is the18

mother having taken, what the Court previously ordered,19

which was the German school until 3:00 o’clock, even20

though the Court didn’t actually say the German school21

until 3:00 o’clock. That was the understanding on that22


42



day. And it wasn’t contradicted on the record, to the1

German school until 12:30, which would have meant that2

the child would have been in two day cares during the3

day. And that wouldn’t have been good for the child and4

I was trying to discuss with then counsel, opposing5

counsel, with Michelle Wood, and with the Guardian ad6

Litem what the best thing to do for the child was at that7

point.8

And so when I’m asking the Court, now that the9

Court has granted us custody, we will do whatever is10

necessary to comply with the Court’s order.11

THE COURT: I’ve ordered temporary physical12

custody is what I did.13

MR. O’CONNELL: That’s correct. And we will do14

whatever the Court orders. And what I’m saying --15

THE COURT: I’m not going to get into a dispute16

with the parents to decide on what school the child17

should go to. They need to decide that for themselves.18

MR. DRURY: Well, Your Honor, I just want to19

respond.20

THE COURT: No, please don’t.21

MR. DRURY: Please, I just want to respond. I22


43



don’t want Mr. O’Connell to leave --1

THE COURT: No.2

MR. DRURY: This courtroom and then me3

challenging him in the hall because I want to show Mr.4

O’Connell, I’d like him to rescind his comments --5

THE COURT: I don’t want you challenging him in6

the hall now.7

MR. DRURY: I certainly would not; he’s bigger8

than me and younger than me.9

THE COURT: That’s not a good thing.10

MR. DRURY: May I offer this up as evidence of11

the fact --12

THE COURT: Why don’t you let me show you the13

temporary order I’m doing.14

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, he has actually15

enrolled the child in the YMCA and here is an email --16

THE COURT: You’ve been telling me that all17

afternoon.18

MR. DRURY: And you know something, I’m --19

THE COURT: I know he has enrolled the child in20

the YMCA. You told me this all afternoon.21

MR. DRURY: But here’ s Mr. O’Connell, which22


44



I’d like him to rescind his comments because they’re1

false. Here, here’s the email.2

MR. O’CONNELL: They’re not false, Your Honor. 3

I’m not --4

MR. DRURY: Here’s an email.5

MR. O’CONNELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I’m not6

going to address that because I haven’t made any false7

comments.8

MR. DRURY: Well, his client has obviously told9

him some erroneous stuff. And the problem is, is that we10

have emails that are placed on the YMCA website that say11

that I want to let you know we will be welcoming a new12

child to Room 12 on Thursday, February 14th, and her name13

is Ariana Leilani King-Pfeiffer. This is from one of the14

teachers and home --15

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, all we were doing16

was providing alternatives --17

MR. DRURY: On Monday.18

MR. O’CONNELL: You know what --19

MR. DRURY: Look at the date; it’s February20

11th.21

THE COURT: I don’t know why you all are going22


45



on about this because I told you I’m not addressing this1

issue.2

MR. O’CONNELL: I apologize and I’m sitting3

down.4

MR. DRURY: My problem is with counsel’s5

representations. They’re erroneous.6

THE COURT: Don’t fight when he goes outside.7

MR. DRURY: I will not, Your Honor. We have8

strong sheriffs around and Mr. O’Connell and I will9

obviously be friendly throughout this whole thing and10

treat each other as gentlemen.11

THE COURT: Well, we’re going to have to, at12

the trial, at the full hearing of this, I think I’m going13

to have to take control over you two.14

MR. DRURY: Yep.15

THE COURT: Show this to Mr. O’Connell and to16

Mr. Drury.17

MR. DRURY: Drury, yes, Your Honor, it’s a18

pleasure.19

THE COURT: Could you show it to Mr. Drury?20

MS. OLIN: Your Honor, did you schedule a date21

for the other rule or are we having it on the trial date?22


46



THE COURT: She hasn’t given me a date yet.1

THE CLERK: April the 8th.2

THE COURT: How much time do we have on the 8th?3

THE CLERK: You only have --4

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I have to call my5

office to determine what the dates are. I did not expect6

to set another date.7

THE COURT: How come you never bring a calendar8

with you?9

MR. O’CONNELL: I could tell you the details of10

that, Your Honor, but I won’t bore Your Honor with that11

unless you really want me to.12

THE COURT: You need to bring a calendar with13

you every time we come to Court and we have to set a date14

and you have to go outside to call your office or to find15

out the date. Every, this has happened every time we’ve16

been in Court. 17

(Brief discussion off the record.)18

THE COURT: All right, we can do it on April 8th19

then.20

MR. O’CONNELL: Can I just check, Your Honor?21

THE COURT: Did you review that order?22


47



MR. O’CONNELL: April 8th, what time, Your1

Honor.2

THE COURT: How much time?3

MR. DRURY: I’m going to be filing a rule; four4

hours do you think, Mr. O’Connell?5

THE COURT: Okay.6

MS. OLIN: I have a 10:00 o’clock hearing in7

Fairfax, but I’ll be free by noon.8

MR. DRURY: We’ll gladly go forward without9

you.10

THE COURT: 12:00 o’clock then.11

MS. OLIN: 12:00 o’clock.12

MR. O’CONNELL: 12:00 o’clock. And we just13

won’t hear anything that’s on the docket unless --14

MR. DRURY: Ms. Olin will be missed, Your15

Honor.16

THE COURT: She’ll be here.17

MS. OLIN: What’s that?18

MR. DRURY: We were going to miss you.19

MS. OLIN: I’ll be here.20

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I make one21

amendment?22


48



THE COURT: Yes, Sir.1

MR. DRURY: It says that there was evidence,2

there wasn’t any evidence presented. My client, you3

declined to hear my client on the issue. So I challenge4

that respectfully. With deep respect I take exception to5

the Court’s --6

THE COURT: Okay, can I see it?7

MR. DRURY: Yes, Your Honor.8

MR. O’CONNELL: Here you go, counsel. 9

THE COURT: I’ve taken other evidence that the10

child has been -- 11

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, maybe to satisfy my12

concerns, limited evidence.13

THE COURT: No, I’m saying that this goes to14

the Court -- we’ve got a huge hearing. This is just that15

the Court finds that the child is within the jurisdiction16

of this Court. That was the previous finding of the17

Court.18

MR. DRURY: Uh huh. Well, obviously I’ve put19

my objections on the record and Ms. Tingen is listening20

to them, Your Honor. So I’ll just get a copy of that21

order and thank the Court for its patience.22


49



THE COURT: I’m sorry?1

MR. DRURY: I thank the Court for its patience.2

Your Honor, the Court should know that there is3

a hearing in Maryland on this on Monday. There is dual4

jurisdiction in this case. 5

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I just want Ms. Tingen6

to --7

THE COURT: I just want you to know, tell the8

Judge to please call me.9

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I just want Ms. Tingen10

to be able to say that Mr. Drury noted to the Court that11

there was dual jurisdiction.12

THE COURT: No, well, you tell the Judge I’ll13

be happy to hear from the Judge. We’re supposed to talk14

to each other.15

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I have a feeling it’s16

going to be like a basketball, here, you take it.17

THE COURT: And I’m available by phone.18

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I filed a motion to19

dismiss. No response has been filed. It is now late in20

the Maryland case. It’s not relevant; I’m just --21

MR. DRURY: I think the opposition by Mr. Fox22


50



is due on Friday, Mr. O’Connell, but thank you very much.1

I’ll certainly call him.2

MR. O’CONNELL: That’s fine. Mr. Fox is a new3

attorney in the Maryland case and hasn’t even entered his4

appearance.5

MR. DRURY: I have no idea.6

THE COURT: Did you give me the copy of the7

order back?8

MR. DRURY: No, Your Honor, I haven’t.9

THE COURT: Thank you.10


MR. DRURY: Your Honor, are you making a copy12

of the transcript part of the record?13

THE COURT: Would you make a copy for me?14

MR. DRURY: Yes, the original.15

THE COURT: Okay. Did I give you the other16

orders?17

THE CLERK: Yes.18

THE COURT: If I don’t get any recommendations19

for the custody evaluations by Wednesday, I’m just going20

to pick Thursday morning.21

MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you, Judge.22


51



THE COURT: I’ll give you a call back with the1

name.2


MR. DRURY: Judge, I understand the General4

Services Section, the Court has already done a custody5

evaluation, is that right?6

THE COURT: No.7

MR. DRURY: No, okay.8

THE COURT: Dr. Lane started one, but --9

MR. DRURY: Okay. I have to go back through10

the orders, Your Honor. 11

Your Honor, may I invite the Court’s attention12

to an order on 9-5-2007. It says a custody evaluation13

was ordered.14

THE COURT: It was, but that was with Dr. Lane.15

MR. DRURY: To be done by the Court Service16

Unit.17

THE COURT: She did. That’s a different, it18

wasn’t -- it’s a different, yes, Ms. Wood did that19

report, but then we came back to Court and they asked for20

a custody evaluator. It was like a home study by Ms.21

Wood.22


52



MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, Your Honor ordered1

both at the same time. 2

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, if the Court would read3

this order it might clarify it.4

THE COURT: No, we did, it was two orders.5

MR. O’CONNELL: And we agreed, and we all knew6

what was going on.7

THE COURT: Everybody agreed on Dr. Lane.8

MR. O’CONNELL: And we all, in fact, it was Mr.9

Dennenbaum’s (phonetic) selection of Dr. Lane and then I10

checked it out and agreed with it. So she picked Dr.11

Lane, her attorney picked Dr. Lane.12

MR. DRURY: I listened to what Mr. O’Connell13

says and all I do is have an order before me, Your Honor.14

MR. O’CONNELL: For two evaluations.15

MR. DRURY: The Court orders both parents to16

take a parenting class and participate in custody17

evaluation by qualified expert. The paragraph above,18

here --19

MR. O’CONNELL: Please don’t do that; I told20

you --21

MR. DRURY: Oh, you don’t need it, okay.22


53



THE COURT: The qualified expert is not the1

Court Service Unit.2

MR. DRURY: Okay. There are two aspects to3

this order, Your Honor.4

THE COURT: Do you want me to take a look at5

it? I don’t know what you want.6

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I didn’t get the high7

sign from you, I’m sorry.8

THE COURT: I’m pretty good at remembering what9

I ordered. Yes, the first one was by the Court Services10

Unit, custody evaluation. It’s like a home-visit type11

evaluation. And then I ordered with a qualified expert,12

I’m talking about psychologist, PhD.13

MR. DRURY: Okay.14

THE COURT: It’s not the same as the Court15

Services Unit.16

MR. DRURY: Okay.17

THE COURT: I don’t understand what you’re18

saying.19


MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I think I have three21

copies of the order and I think they’re all the same. 22


54



The best I can determine they’re all the same. So I1

don’t want to be in a position where I fail to object. I2

think this is the same. Yeah, they are the same. 3

There’s no difference.4


THE COURT: Just so we’re clear, the weekends6

are Saturday and Sunday because I don’t know if I put7

that in that order.8

MR. DRURY: No, you did not.9

DR. KING: Excuse me.10

THE COURT: Yes.11

DR. KING: I’m Jewish and we celebrate Shabbat12

every Friday night. So I would be very appreciative if I13

could have Shabbat with our daughter. She says the14

prayers. She’s done it from the time that she was born. 15

Shabbat is extremely important in our family. It’s at16

sunset. We light the candles; that’s what women do. We17

say the prayers --18

THE COURT: I understand what it is.19

DR. KING: Yes, Ma’am.20

MR. DRURY: Could we have it from Friday21

evening from 6:00 to --22


55



THE COURT: Does the father have an objection?1

MR. O’CONNELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. Are you2

asking whether I object to that or not?3

THE COURT: Yes.4

MR. O’CONNELL: The Court’s indulgence, Your5

Honor.6

Well, we would object to it the weekends we7

don’t have it, but if we could get the child back a8

little earlier on Sunday, we don’t think that that would9

be --10

MR. DRURY: 4:00 on Sunday.11

THE COURT: Okay. Is that agreeable?12

MR. O’CONNELL: That’s agreeable. Friday, 6:0013

until Sunday at 4:00.14

THE COURT: Do I need to write that in the15

order?16


THE COURT: I’ll write on my green sheet from18

Friday at 6:00 --19

DR. KING: Actually, Shabbat starts at 6:00.20

MR. O’CONNELL: But that’s not on the weekends21

that we don’t, I mean that she doesn’t have her.22


56



MR. DRURY: I understand that.1

MR. O’CONNELL: That’s just on the weekends2

that she does.3

THE COURT: On her weekends.4

MR. O’CONNELL: Yes.5

MR. DRURY: Sunday at 4:00.6

MR. O’CONNELL: All right, she says the service7

starts at 6:00, so we’ll say at 4:00.8

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, there has been a9

statement made on the record by someone, and I have to10

say that I’m familiar with an issue. So for the record,11

for Your Honor’s recollection, the agreement of the12

parties that my client has communicated to me in the past13

was that the child would be raised in both faiths, not14

Jewish. But we’re not objecting to --15

THE COURT: I don’t understand what the problem16

is.17

MR. O’CONNELL: No, there is a problem. We’re18

not objecting to it, but there’s been a representation19

made that the child is Jewish and that is actually not20

the agreement of the parties prior to this litigation. 21

And I need that representation be there. But we don’t22


57



have a problem with the schedule, Your Honor.1

MR. DRURY: Wait a minute. Mr. O’Connell is2

now raising a completely different issue. We had an3

agreement and somehow the train fell off the tracks.4

MR. O’CONNELL: No --5

MR. DRURY: 4:00 o’clock Friday to Sunday at6

4:00. There’s no order that she has to be raised in the7

Jewish or the Christian faith.8

MR. O’CONNELL: Counsel, excuse me. I’m not9

disagreeing with that and we still have an agreement. 10

I’m simply saying that I didn’t want the representation11

to go as acquiescence because that is not my client’s12

understanding of the history of the child.13

MR. DRURY: Mr. O’Connell may not be aware of14

this --15

THE COURT: Please, don’t.16

MR. DRURY: In the Jewish faith --17

THE COURT: No, please don’t.18

MR. DRURY: Will I be held in contempt, Your19

Honor?20

THE COURT: I’ll --21

MR. DRURY: I’m approaching it.22


58



THE COURT: There are three bailiffs up here.1

MR. DRURY: Good.2

THE COURT: I already sent for an extra.3

MR. DRURY: Thank you, Judge.4

THE COURT: I’m writing on my green sheet that5

the time is from Friday at 4:00 until Sunday at 4:00 on6

the mother’s weekends.7

MR. DRURY: I got it.8

THE COURT: The mother is allowed additional9

visitation with a 24-hour advance notice.10

MR. DRURY: Correct.11

THE COURT: Just can’t show up with police and12

demand the child.13

MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you.14

THE COURT: And I already ordered the custody15

evaluation again by a qualified expert.16

MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor ordered it at17

mother’s expense?18

THE COURT: Yes, I did.19

MR. DRURY: No, both expense.20

THE COURT: No, no, I ordered it at the21

mother’s expense, considering that expense that went22


59



towards Dr. Lane. I ordered it at the mother’s expense. 1

You can go back, Mr. Drury, and read the transcript, but2

I said that early on.3

MR. DRURY: Your Honor, my only point about the4

issue about Dr. Lane, it’s a valid complaint and it’s5

been accepted.6

THE COURT: But before we even got to that,7

when you weren’t involved in the case --8

MR. DRURY: I know I wasn’t. So it’s unfair.9

THE COURT: You need to talk to your client10

about how difficult it was and -- I mean --11

MR. DRURY: It’s confusing, Your Honor, for me12

to defend my client on this matter.13

THE COURT: It’s hard because you weren’t here.14

MR. DRURY: That’s exactly right. So I --15

THE COURT: She’s had three different lawyers.16

MR. DRURY: So I would ask you to just hold17

that ruling in advance. We’ve gotten across this bridge18

now with respect to Shabbat and all these other matters.19

THE COURT: I’m going to order the mother to20

pay it at her expense.21

MR. DRURY: Would you reconsider it?22


60



THE COURT: No, Sir, because the father is1

already paying Dr. Lane.2

MR. DRURY: Okay, thank you, Your Honor. 3

That’s what I wanted to hear. I understand there’s a new4

rule to have my client reimburse the petitioner for Dr.5

Lane. So I didn’t, I’m not going to do an O’Connell on6

you, Your Honor. I’m not going to raise a third issue. 7

I’m going to stay away from that.8

MR. O’CONNELL: An O’Connell?9

THE COURT: All right, now like I said, let me10

hear from you by the end of the day on February 27th,11

then I will just decide on the therapist.12

MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you, Judge.13

THE COURT: All right, that’s it.14

Are you waiving advisement of the rule?15

MR. DRURY: I beg your pardon? Am I waiving16

what, Your Honor?17

THE COURT: Advisement of the rule.18

MR. O’CONNELL: That I’ll be filing.19

MR. DRURY: Yes, Your Honor.20

THE COURT: So then if the Court issues it,21

we’ll set it on the same date.22


61



MR. O’CONNELL: On the 8th?1

THE COURT: Yes.2

MR. DRURY: I’m still going to be requesting3

the rule that I was asking for in my rule, but we’ve been4

advised of this rule.5

(Whereupon, the hearing in the above-captioned6

matter was concluded.)7

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

I, CAROLYN J. TIMKO, a Verbatim Reporter, do

hereby certify that I took the notes of the foregoing

hearing by Stenomask and thereafter reduced to

typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing is a

true record of said hearing to the best of my knowledge

and ability; that I am neither related to nor employed by

any attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto;

nor financially or otherwise interested in the action.

CAROLYN J. TIMKOCourt Reporter


A r r i d e d / ORDER FOR CUSTODY/VISITATION JJ031848-01-07

Case No. ........................................................................................................... GRANTED TO INDIVIDUAL(S) CommonwealthofVirginia VA. CODE 6Â 16.1-278.15. 20-174.2 ............................................................................................................................ 02/21/2008

DATF. OF I-IEARIMG

ARLINGTON J&DR COURT .............................................................................................................................................................................. Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Cuiirt

ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER I n re: ................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................ 05/07/2003 NAME OF CHILD DATt "Or DIRTH

................... Present: Father . ~ ~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ 8 ~ 6 ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ E ~ Father's attorney ..?i.,..0,~!X&!)M!%L .......................................... .............................................. ............................................. other ARI.ELRQS.ITA.KING U Mu1hcr.s anomey JQI-tN..DRU.KY.

Guardian ad litem ......... a Attorney

a Attorney

The above-named child has been brought hefnrm this Court upon the filing of a written petition or motion conccming custody or visitation or for which transfer of custody is a dispositional alternative. Legal notice has been given to all proper and necessary parties. All provisions of the Juvmile and Domestic Relations District Court Law have been duly complied with in assuming jurisdiction over the child, and all deterrninationa have been made in accordance with the standards set forth in Virginia Code 5 16.1- 278.4.5 16.1-278.5. 5 16.1-278.6 or 5 16.1-278.8 or 16.1-278.15 and # Â 20-124.1 through 20-124.6.

MAVJNG CONSIDERF,D ALL RRI WANT AND MATEItIAL EVlDEMCV PRE5JiN 1 ED AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CHILD IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT AND FURTHER FINDS AND ORDERS THAI:

1. The parties are in agreement on the arrangement for the child's custody and visitation:

a as set forth in the attached docurnmt, which is incorporated. a as set forth below.

2. Custody/Visitation TEMPORARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY IS GRANTED TO THE FATHER. MICHAEL HERBERT PFEIFER. MOTHER ALLOWED VISITATION WITH THE CHILD EVERY WEDNESDAY AND THREE WEEKENDS OUT OF THE MONTH AND WITH GIVING FATHER TWENTY-WUR HOUR ADVANCE NOTICE, MOTHER CAN HAVE ANOTHER DAY DURING THE WEEK.

The basis for the decision determining custody or visitation has been communicated to the panics orally or in writing.

3. A supplemental sheet with additional findings andlor orders is attached and incorporated,

4. Relocation. Each party intending a change of address shall give 30 days advance written notice ufsuch change of address to the murt and ottier party, pursuant to Virginia Code 5 20-124.5. Unless otherwise provided in this order, this notice shall contain, the child's fall name, the case number of this case, the party's new telephone number and new street address and, if different, the party's new mailing address. Unless otherwise provided in thia order, the uvlicc shall be mailed by first-class or delivered to this court and to the other party.

5. Access to Records. In accordance with Virginia Code 3.0 124.6, neither paicnt, regardless of whether such parent has custody, shall he denied access to the academic or health records of that parent's minor child, unless otherwise provided in this order or, in the case ofhealth records, if the minor's treating physician or clinical psychologist has made a part of the child's health record a written statement that furni-hing to or review by the parait ufsuch health records would he reasonably likely to cause substantial harm to the minor or another person,

6. This Order is FINAL TEMPORARY md a final hcaiing on this matter will be held on

FORM DC-573 (MASTERS REVISED 11W Wiggins - COJ - 000187

TIMKO & ASSOCIATES9007 Windflower LaneAnnandale, Virginia 22003(703) 425-8147

C O P YV I R G I N I AIN THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY* * * * * * * * * * * * * * MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, :Petitioner, :versus, : CASE NO. J-31848-01ARIEL R. KING, :Respondent. :IN RE: XXXXXXXXXXXX DOB: 05/07/2003* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Arlington, Virginia Tuesday, April 8, 2008The above-entitled action came on to be heardbefore the Honorable Esther Wiggins Lyles, a Judge forthe Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of ArlingtonCounty, in Courtroom 4A, 1425 N. Courthouse Road,Arlington, Virginia 22201, beginning at 1:30 o'clock p.m.

- - - - - - - - - - -


2


APPEARANCES:For the Petitioner:SEAN O’CONNELL, ESQUIREFor the Respondent:MICHAEL CALLAHAN, ESQUIREGuardian Ad Litem:DEBORAH OLIN, ESQUIREC O N T E N T S :WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSSDr. Ariel KingDr. Marvel King E X H I B I T S :IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCERespondent’s Exhibit No. 1 112 112--Email


3


P R O C E E D I N G S :1 MR. O’CONNELL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.2 THE COURT: Good afternoon.3 MR. O’CONNELL: I do have my calendar today,4 Your Honor.5 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, while counsel is getting6 settled, if I could just bring up a couple of things -- I7 think counsel has already agreed to it.8 As the Court and counsel knows, my health has9 been really compromised so if no one objects, I’d like to10 explain to the Court a couple of positions and then leave11 if there are no objections.12 The first one is --13 MR. O’CONNELL: No objections.14 MR. CALLAHAN: No objection to the first thing15 I think she’s going to say. I may have some comments on16 the other that I have already told her.17 MS. OLIN: Let me clarify, I don’t mean, I mean18 if Counsel has no objection to me leaving once I have my19 say?20 MR. CALLAHAN: None whatsoever.21 MS. OLIN: As to the rule --22 THE COURT: That’s the only thing we’re here23Wiggins - COJ - 000191

4


for.1 MS. OLIN: Yes, that would be the frame work. 2 The only thing we’re here today is the rules to show3 cause.4 THE COURT: It’s just one.5 MS. OLIN: I’m sorry?6 THE COURT: It’s just one rule today. One was7 for contempt.8 MS. OLIN: Yes.9 THE COURT: And set it out for disposition and10 then the second one was, let’s see --11 MR. O’CONNELL: That one you wrote yourself,12 Your Honor, having to do with the removal of the child13 from the father’s custody and you didn’t like the way I14 drafted it and you wrote one out yourself.15 THE COURT: No, I found her in contempt, the16 one that she was found in contempt for but was set for17 disposition if she failed to cooperate with the guardian18 ad litem. That’s the one that the Court found her in19 contempt and set that for disposition.20 MS. OLIN: Okay. And I’m not going to have any21 comment on that.22 THE COURT: The second one --23Wiggins - COJ - 000192

5


MS. OLIN: The second one --1 THE COURT: That’s set for April 18th too; why2 is this here now? I don’t know why we’re here today3 because this is April 18th. Today is April 8th. This is4 the only thing that’s on for today. This is the only5 thing that she is in violation of. 6 The hearing of February 24th, -- it’s set for7 April 18th, so I don’t think that’s it. This came in8 after that. I think all these cases are on the 18th. I9 don’t think there’s anything set for today.10 MS. OLIN: My recollection, which could11 certainly be flawed, is that we were concerned with all12 the rules filed that we wouldn’t have enough time on the13 18th but I thought that the Court said that we were going14 to try to hear the rules on, or as many as we could15 today. So I’m not sure, you know, if I misheard or --16 THE COURT: When is the custody hearing set17 for?18 MR. O’CONNELL: The 18th.19 MS. OLIN: That’s for the 18th and it’s going to20 take some time. The other thing, Judge, is that the21 custody evaluations are going --22 THE COURT: Okay, so that makes sense to do23Wiggins - COJ - 000193

6


these now. I would probably want to do them both the1 same day.2 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, we need guidance on3 a custody evaluator.4 THE COURT: What is the problem? I told5 everyone who was here, and I had my clerk contact you to6 tell you.7 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, we both contacted8 Michelle Eban and she said she can’t do it so that was9 where we were going to bring it up to you. We both10 contacted her.11 THE COURT: Well, when did you contact her,12 because that was a while back. It’s April.13 MR. O’CONNELL: The first I heard of it was14 from Michelle Wood last week and I contacted her today.15 THE COURT: No, I had my clerk call you last16 week and say who the Court had selected.17 MR. O’CONNELL: Did you receive such a call18 because I had not?19 THE COURT: There were so many different20 lawyers on the mother’s part, but it was a different21 lawyer at that point in time. So I don’t know why you22 just found out last week who the Court had selected. Of23Wiggins - COJ - 000194

7


course she couldn’t do it.1 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, Your Honor, initially2 we received notice that it was to be one of two3 psychologists and we were to provide input. We both4 actually --5 THE COURT: That’s not what I said. I never6 said that. I never ever said that. I said in Court,7 open Court, when everybody was here, that you select8 three or two or three people, that mother select two or9 three people and the Court probation officer, Ms. Wood,10 to submit three names and then the Court would pick the11 one person to do it and I picked the first person and if12 that person wasn’t available, then I picked the second13 person.14 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, we have no objection15 once she’s available.16 MR. O’CONNELL: And that’s true of us too, I17 mean, while I did initially put an objection in, I didn’t18 follow it up with anything other than to try to contact,19 actually I didn’t even know, initially there was a20 contact that there were two individuals.21 THE COURT: I don’t understand because I asked22 the clerk to call you and she told me she called you and23Wiggins - COJ - 000195

8


left a message. And if you didn’t get the message in a1 short period of time, it seemed like you would have2 checked with the Court to see what the hold up was with3 the person.4 MR. O’CONNELL: I called several times and I5 finally did get hold of Michelle Wood and she told me Dr.6 Pfeiffer last week, excuse me, not Dr. Pfeiffer, Dr. Eban7 last week. I then came to the Court. It just so happens8 at the same time --9 THE COURT: No, but you filed something before10 last week. I wasn’t here last week, but I saw something11 you filed.12 MR. O’CONNELL: That is so true, Your Honor --13 THE COURT: Before last week, so that’s not14 correct.15 MR. O’CONNELL: No, Your Honor. That isn’t16 what I did.17 THE COURT: Well --18 MR. O’CONNELL: What I did was there were two19 names that were submitted and --20 THE COURT: All right, let’s deal with Ms.21 Olin’s situation. I think she said she’s not feeling22 well and she needs to leave. So let’s deal with that and23Wiggins - COJ - 000196

9


I guess we’ll deal with the dates.1 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, talking about the2 disposition, if there’s any question about the3 disposition about the rule being heard today, I would ask4 that it just be put off to the trial date.5 THE COURT: Okay.6 MS. OLIN: Mother has been very cooperative7 with me since that hearing and I would really like to8 keep that relationship just the way it is.9 THE COURT: That will be continued until the10 hearing date.11 MS. OLIN: For the sake of the child.12 THE COURT: So that brings us to the rule for13 failure to comply with the Court’s order of visitation14 that was filed on January 10, 2008.15 I entered the order on January 17th but the16 father said that the respondent refused to allow the17 Wednesday overnight visit.18 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s correct, Your Honor.19 MS. OLIN: I think that the evidence is going20 to speak for itself. My knowledge of it is that the21 visits were not, didn’t go with the Court order. Again,22 I’m going to leave that to the rules of the Court, the23Wiggins - COJ - 000197

10


gentlemen, just kind of not play on that one.1 THE COURT: All right.2 MS. OLIN: Then, it does look --3 THE COURT: I think there’s another one too.4 MS. OLIN: Yes.5 THE COURT: That was a result of the one that I6 found her in contempt for. And then there was another7 failure to comply rule of not cooperating with Dr. Lane.8 MS. OLIN: I do have a position there. I think9 that’s just really been terrible for Ariana and this10 would be long resolved by then and way back in those11 days, in the very beginning of this case, my own contacts12 with Dr. Lane were a lot about his frustration about not13 being able to meet with mother and that visits were14 canceled. 15 Now, I know mom has a different perspective and16 probably will say something different to the Court, but17 that’s what I have to offer on my end.18 And then finally, to address, it looks like19 we’re going to need a continuance to the 18th because20 we’re not going to get a custody evaluation, and in a21 case like this, I think that’s crucial. I think the22 psychological evaluations of both parents are important23Wiggins - COJ - 000198

11


in a case like this, looking at the behavior and the1 route that this case has taken, that the custody2 evaluator needs to look at the psychological evaluations3 as part of the standards of doing the custody eval. And4 I think we’re going to need it in this case to go5 forward. We need an expert.6 So I think both parties are in agreement to a7 continuance for that purpose unless they’ve changed their8 mind in the last 10 minutes or so. I’m certainly in9 agreement with it. So I would ask the Court to continue10 the trial for the 18th to a date, I’d like to think it’s11 not going to take much more than six weeks, I would like12 to think if there’s a custody evaluator.13 Has a custody evaluator actually been14 identified at this point since Dr. Lane has been knocked15 out and Dr. Irby can’t do it?16 MR. CALLAHAN: Dr. Eban.17 MS. OLIN: Dr. Irby. 18 MR. O’CONNELL: She said she couldn’t do it to19 me today and I didn’t actually get the chance to tell her20 when the trial date was. She said she was too busy. But21 I will say this, Your Honor. I did file something and I,22 there were two people that I was addressing.23Wiggins - COJ - 000199

12


THE COURT: Well, let’s get through one issue1 at a time. Let’s get a Court date here.2 MS. OLIN: So I think the answer is, so no one3 has been identified.4 THE COURT: I did identify them.5 MS. OLIN: They’re not, no one is in the midst6 of doing, as of this date no one is in the midst of doing7 evaluations, so we have to start from scratch. I think8 we’re going to need probably eight weeks.9 MR. CALLAHAN: My understanding is Michelle10 Eban is not available until June. That’s just on brief -11 -12 THE COURT: I had a second person, Dr.13 McFarland.14 MR. O’CONNELL: I have no objection to that15 person and that’s what I said in my filing.16 MR. CALLAHAN: We did object to the --17 MR. O’CONNELL: May I ask on what basis?18 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I treated that as a19 preemptive strike, a conflict.20 MR. O’CONNELL: May I inquire if there was a21 basis, what the basis is?22 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes.23Wiggins - COJ - 000200

13


THE COURT: Do you want to take a moment to1 talk to them because it’s very distracting.2 (Off the record.)3 MR. CALLAHAN: Dr. Lane who has withdrawn and4 McFarland were colleagues and went to the same school and5 graduated from the same program. I can’t help but think6 --7 THE COURT: But that’s not a conflict, the same8 school. 9 MS. OLIN: They may hate each other for all we10 know.11 THE COURT: Yeah, I don’t agree with that12 conflict because see we went to the same school. What13 date can you set it, eight weeks out.14 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, we request that we15 be allowed to submit additional names if the Court will16 allow and you can decide it on the 18th.17 THE COURT: No, no, no, no. This is getting18 ridiculous. With all due respect, this is really getting19 to be difficult, you know. I don’t understand how these20 two people are going to raise a child if this is what21 it’s going to take to even get a custody determination. 22 I’m concerned about this poor child.23Wiggins - COJ - 000201

14


MR. CALLAHAN: My client is concerned as well.1 THE COURT: It just doesn’t make any sense. I2 don’t understand.3 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m open for June 9th.4 MS. OLIN: June 9? The hearing on the 18th is5 continued.6 MR. O’CONNELL: What time does that begin, Your7 Honor?8 THE COURT: I’m not here that day. I’m pretty9 sure I’m off that day, that week I think I’m off.10 MS. OLIN: Is that why you set it on that date,11 Judge?12 THE COURT: Absolutely.13 June 9th is a Monday. I think the actual week14 I’m supposed to be off starts on the 9th. But someone can15 hear it. They probably won’t like it very much, but if16 you want me to hear it, then find another date. June 9th17 is not a good date.18 MR. O’CONNELL: How about June 16th?19 MS. OLIN: No. It might be useful for this20 Court to hear it just because there’s been so much, so21 many other hearings. It might save some time.22 MR. O’CONNELL: I hate to burden Your Honor,23Wiggins - COJ - 000202

15


but I agree. It’s the continuity that we need that we’re1 lacking from already the --2 THE COURT: That’s not on my list of days. I’m3 pretty sure I’m off that week.4 MR. O’CONNELL: Then we should pick another5 day.6 THE CLERK: June 18th.7 MS. OLIN: I have an appeal that day.8 THE COURT: How long do you expect this hearing9 to take?10 MS. OLIN: All day.11 MR. O’CONNELL: All day.12 MS. OLIN: I can do it the 23rd.13 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m okay for the 23rd.14 MR. CALLAHAN: Is that the 23rd?15 THE COURT: Yes, Sir.16 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m gone that week.17 MS. OLIN: What about the 4th through the 6th?18 THE COURT: The 4th will be a holiday, July19 4th?20 MS. OLIN: No, June.21 MR. CALLAHAN: That’s good for me.22 MR. O’CONNELL: You have Colbert on that day. 23Wiggins - COJ - 000203

16


I would be happy to move that one.1 THE COURT: The 6th is fine?2 MR. O’CONNELL: The 6th is fine with me.3 THE CLERK: Mr. Callahan, does the 6th work for4 you, the 6th of June?5 MR. CALLAHAN: The 6th is good.6 THE COURT: Are we clear about who will be the7 custody evaluator?8 MR. O’CONNELL: I am, Your Honor.9 THE COURT: If one is not available, I gave you10 the second one.11 MR. CALLAHAN: I think we’re not clear then.12 THE COURT: The first one was Michelle Eban.13 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.14 THE COURT: And if she wasn’t available, then I15 had Dr. Alan McFarland.16 MS. OLIN: Oh, Alan McFarland, he’s great.17 THE COURT: Uh huh.18 MR. CALLAHAN: So we contact Ms. Eban with the19 new date?20 THE COURT: Yes, and if she can’t do it --21 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I had actually22 represented Ms. Eban in a case some years ago; that was23Wiggins - COJ - 000204

17


the basis of my representation of a conflict.1 THE COURT: I think Dr. Alan McFarland then.2 MS. OLIN: Then, Your Honor, I’m going to have3 one more thing to say, believe it or not, which is that4 it’s my understanding that counsel, Mr. Callahan, may5 have some motions that he wants to file. Since this has6 been taken off the docket for the 18th, I’m going to7 endeavor to go out of town to see my surviving relatives. 8 So if anything else is going to be set, then I ask it not9 to be set on the 3rd.10 THE COURT: I have a motion for -- there’s a11 whole stack of paperwork that was filed --12 MS. OLIN: Yes.13 THE COURT: -- since our last hearing. I don’t14 know what else could be filed.15 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I’m not filing anything16 else, Your Honor. What we would like the Court to hear17 is the motion to rehear the transfer of custody back on18 the, back in February. The parties are here; the19 attorneys are here. It was noticed for today.20 THE COURT: I’m not, I didn’t set that. 21 MR. CALLAHAN: And --22 THE COURT: That hearing was held on February23Wiggins - COJ - 000205

18


8th. Is that the hearing that you’re talking about,1 February 8th?2 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor.3 THE COURT: And this is April 8th. It’s a4 little too late for that.5 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Your Honor, it’s the6 matter, it’s PL, it’s a matter that’s still before the7 Court.8 THE COURT: What?9 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s PL, it’s a matter that’s10 still before the Court. You certainly have authority to11 revisit that decision.12 THE COURT: I think a motion to rehear is13 supposed to be done within 45 days; it’s been 60. And14 you want to rehear it because I granted temporary custody15 to the father?16 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor.17 THE COURT: I’m not going to rehear that.18 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, respectfully you19 changed custody without any testimony. The trial date is20 moved out now. It’s a de facto custody decision based on21 conduct that she’s not had a chance to explain.22 THE COURT: Your client was represented. She23Wiggins - COJ - 000206

19


was here and present. She knows why it was transferred. 1 It was all, I made it very clear in Court and I think2 there were transcripts and everything.3 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor.4 THE COURT: So everyone knows that.5 MR. CALLAHAN: You did decide that, we grant6 that, but respectfully she would like to testify7 regarding the circumstances herself regarding --8 THE COURT: But she had counsel here at the9 time and she was very well represented.10 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, she had able counsel11 who asked what I’m asking now. She just wants the Court12 to hear from her.13 THE COURT: But they didn’t ask the Court to14 hear from her.15 MR. CALLAHAN: I believe --16 THE COURT: As a witness, she was going to17 testify?18 MR. CALLAHAN: I believe he did, Your Honor. 19 Yes.20 THE COURT: I don’t remember that.21 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s in the transcript.22 THE COURT: But if you said that he did and I23Wiggins - COJ - 000207

20


said, I’m not going to rehear that today. There’s no way1 I can hear that today because nothing in this case has2 taken less than, we were talking about a date for how3 long?4 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor.5 THE COURT: There’s no way I can hear that.6 MR. CALLAHAN: Things would move along quicker7 if we had one witness on the stand and one lawyer at a8 time questioning her.9 THE COURT: It’s impossible for you all to do10 that. That has not happened in this Court. I keep11 redirecting people and they keep doing the same thing12 over and over again.13 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m done with my opening on a14 motion to rehear. If you let me call her, I’ll just put15 her right up there.16 THE COURT: To testify about what?17 MR. CALLAHAN: She would like to explain the18 circumstances.19 THE COURT: What we’re here today for is the20 rule to show cause and she didn’t cooperate with Dr. Lane21 and that she did not cooperate with the visitation22 schedule as far as providing the Wednesday visitations. 23Wiggins - COJ - 000208

21


Those two things. Is she admitting or denying those? 1 That’s all we’re here for. That’s what we ought to hear2 first.3 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, well, she’s the witness on4 those; she’s the witness on our motion. All the facts5 are tied together.6 THE COURT: Right here, we’ve got, that is why7 we’re here today.8 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s 20 or 30 minutes of9 testimony, Your Honor, and it will give you valuable10 information.11 THE COURT: Okay, but I still would like to do12 the two rules.13 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor.14 THE COURT: Because that’s what we’re here for. 15 So I’ve got to deal with that first. And my question is,16 does she admit or deny those two rules, that she didn’t17 cooperate --18 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes.19 THE COURT: -- with Dr. Lane and that she20 didn’t comply with the Wednesday visitation?21 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor, we’re prepared22 to respond to those. We’ve filed a written opposition. 23Wiggins - COJ - 000209

22


She’s prepared to testify regarding that.1 THE COURT: All right, let’s go forward with2 that then. Will all the witnesses please stand and raise3 your right hand?4 (Witnesses were sworn by the Court.)5 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, a rule on witnesses,6 please.7 THE COURT: I’ll ask the witnesses to wait8 outside.9 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, may I be excused at this10 point?11 THE COURT: Yes, you may.12 MS. OLIN: Thank you so much. I appreciate13 that.14 MR. CALLAHAN: I call Dr. King.15 THE COURT: Okay.16 Whereupon,17 DR. ARIEL KING,18 the defendant, called for examination by counsel on her19 own behalf, and, having been first duly sworn by the20 Court, was examined and testified as follows:21 DIRECT EXAMINATION22 BY MR. CALLAHAN:23Wiggins - COJ - 000210

23


Q State your name and address.1 A My name is Dr. Ariel Rosita King. I live at2 11735 Green Lane Drive, Potomac, Maryland 20854.3 Q And your daughter’s name and address?4 A Ariana Leilani Margarita Alexandra King-5 Pfeiffer and she lives both in Maryland at the address I6 just stated and also 4613 Reservoir Road.7 THE COURT: I’m sorry, you’re speaking too low8 because I can barely hear what you’re saying.9 THE WITNESS: My apologies, Your Honor.10 THE COURT: Speak in the microphone.11 THE COURT: Yes, my apologies.12 BY MR. CALLAHAN:13 Q To repeat, your daughter lives both with you --14 A She lives with both me in Maryland and also15 with my husband Dr. Michael Pfeiffer in Washington, D.C.16 Q All right.17 And how long have you and your husband been18 separated?19 A We’ve been separated since June 18, 2007.20 Q All right.21 And briefly describe the circumstances of the22 separation.23Wiggins - COJ - 000211

24


A On June 9th my husband graduated from the1 neurology program at Georgetown University Hospital and2 by June 18th we got notice that our house was going to be3 foreclosed on --4 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, this is not5 relevant.6 THE COURT: Sustained.7 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, she’s setting the8 scene here, bringing us up to today.9 THE COURT: I don’t need to know that. At the10 full custody hearing obviously the Court can hear that,11 but this is very limited --12 MR. CALLAHAN: There is visitation that the13 Court ordered. I just want to talk a little bit about14 the circumstances before and the parenting relationship15 before and visitation access she tried to provide.16 THE COURT: -- because obviously if we had a17 full hearing, you’d get into all of this as far as the18 abilities of the parties to provide for the child.19 MR. CALLAHAN: All right.20 BY MR. CALLAHAN:21 Q And did there come a time that this Court22 entered an order regarding custody, the first order?23Wiggins - COJ - 000212

25


A Yes, that’s correct. I was homeless for three1 weeks, found a home but lived with friends --2 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevance, Your3 Honor.4 BY MR. CALLAHAN: 5 Q We’re moving along in time here, Dr. King. Did6 there come a time when this Court entered --7 THE COURT: Unless you think this is relevant8 to, I mean, I don’t see how this is relevant, being9 homeless for three weeks --10 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m asking her something else.11 THE COURT: Okay, but if it is, I’d like to12 hear it.13 MR. CALLAHAN: I think she misunderstood my14 question.15 BY MR. CALLAHAN:16 Q Did there come a time that the Court here17 entered an order regarding custody of your child and18 visitation and access?19 A Yes, that was on September 5, 2007.20 Q So briefly, what were the terms regarding your21 husband’s visitation and access?22 A I think the Court gave him every Wednesday to23Wiggins - COJ - 000213

26


Thursday and Saturday to Sunday or Sunday to Monday, and1 actually, after we both met in the courtroom on September2 5th, he and I met for about four to five hours talking3 about the fact that even though the Court gave that4 access, that it would be open access to visit Ariana5 Leilani at our home at any time he wanted to.6 And he actually did take us up on going to some7 things together and so on and so forth. So he, the Court8 ordered visitation, but we made a longer visitation9 schedule, which is pretty much an open one.10 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, none responsive. I11 move to strike that.12 THE COURT: I overrule the objection.13 MR. CALLAHAN: The question was about14 visitation. Thank you, Your Honor.15 BY MR. CALLAHAN:16 Q All right. So there was some variance from the17 Court ordered visitation?18 A Yes, I mean, we as parents decided that there19 are times, for example, when the German School opened up20 for the first day. It’s traditional that both parents21 go, so we went together, which was very nice. The22 Organization of American States that I work for had23Wiggins - COJ - 000214

27


something for children, an art program. We went to that1 today.2 Q All right. So --3 THE COURT: The question, I think he asked, did4 you all have, you all varied from the order?5 THE WITNESS: Yes, we did.6 BY MR. CALLAHAN:7 Q So was there some visitation, some time with8 your child that Dr. Pfeiffer had that was not ordered?9 A Of course.10 Q Okay.11 And then was there any time where visitation12 was ordered that he did not have that exact time?13 A Yes, there were overnights when she was sick,14 the German School had a bout, one of the worst years the15 teachers said --16 THE COURT: Ma’am, just answer the question.17 THE WITNESS: Yes.18 BY MR. CALLAHAN:19 Q Explain briefly, if you would, some of those20 times and the reasons for them.21 A Between, I think it was about November and some22 parts of December, January, there were lots of viruses23Wiggins - COJ - 000215

28


going around the school and actually some of the children1 actually had seizures from the viruses. And Ariana2 Leilani, like other children, picked up the viruses. 3 Several of those times I actually took her to4 the doctor to try to figure out what was wrong.5 Q Did you and her father have any discussions6 about her sickness and the impact on visitation?7 A Yes, it was actually, he came over on8 Wednesday. This was not unusual to come over to our home9 and stay there and, you know, do things in the house. 10 But he came over, and he actually came sometimes with his11 stethoscope and checked her out because she had some12 wheezing. 13 Q Uh huh.14 A And so he would come over and we discussed that15 maybe it wouldn’t be good for her to go out in the snow. 16 It was very cold. So he would stay until 9:00 or 10:0017 o’clock at night, put her to bed, read her a story, and18 we both agreed on that happening.19 Q All right.20 Were there ever times that you didn’t agree on21 whether she was well enough to go overnight?22 A I do remember once that my husband actually23Wiggins - COJ - 000216

29


said to me, you know, I’m not really sure about this, I1 don’t agree with you. And on that day I went to the2 pediatrician. She had diarrhea. She had been throwing3 up. And it wasn’t just those days. She was actually out4 of school from Tuesday, sometimes until Thursday because5 the school has a policy that when the child is sick, you6 can’t bring them back until they stop showing symptoms.7 Q All right.8 Now, you understand that the Courts have9 entered orders regarding visitation and access?10 A Yes.11 Q You understand that now the Court has ordered12 that your husband has primary custody and you have the13 visitation and access?14 A Yes.15 Q What’s your understanding about how binding16 those orders are on you?17 A They are law.18 Q Okay.19 And what’s your understanding about the future,20 in the future, unless and until they are modified, what21 are you going to do with respect to those orders?22 A Well, I understand that they are law and I23Wiggins - COJ - 000217

30


believe that only if both parents agreed, then you1 modify, for example, you give more or less like I did2 with my husband when I had primary custody. I gave more.3 Q The two of you can change the times of this?4 A Yes, or make by mutual agreement. I think I5 understand that.6 Q Okay. Did there come a time that Dr. Lane was7 appointed the custody evaluator in this matter?8 A I know that both my counsel and his counsel9 talked about someone and his counsel contacted Dr. Lane. 10 I think that the original order said that we needed to11 have a custody evaluator.12 Q Right.13 A But no name.14 Q He was not named in the order?15 A No, but we needed a custody evaluator.16 Q All right.17 And eventually you got, the position was filled18 by Dr. Lane?19 A That’s correct.20 Q Okay.21 Did you ever meet with Dr. Lane?22 A Yes, on many occasions.23Wiggins - COJ - 000218

31


Q Okay.1 Did you, did he do any testing?2 A Yes, he gave me many, many tests.3 Q Okay.4 Did you ever meet with him with your daughter?5 A Yes, I met with him with my daughter three6 times and actually one day I had to meet him with my7 daughter and my husband had to meet with him with my8 daughter. And my daughter, for almost eight hours that9 day, was shuffled back and forth.10 THE COURT: That’s not responsive.11 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. You told me a little more12 than we needed to know.13 BY MR. CALLAHAN:14 Q Did you ever miss an appointment with him?15 A Yes, I did.16 Q How many?17 A I missed one appointment.18 Q Did he ever change appointments, cancel19 appointments?20 A Yes, there were times that he had to change the21 scheduled appointment for whatever reason. Also, he’s22 canceled some appointments, but mostly at the end.23Wiggins - COJ - 000219

32


Q Did he ever ask for any records?1 A No, he’s never asked me for any records.2 Q Okay, no medical records, no records of any3 kind were ever delivered to him?4 A I think that he asked once for Ariana Leilani’s5 pediatric records and I believe my counsel at the time, I6 was sitting in his office, faxed it to him.7 Q Okay. So now you understand that although he8 was not named in the order, you had to cooperate?9 A Yes, it was actually my pleasure to cooperate10 with him.11 Q Did you try to cooperate with him?12 A Yes, I believe I did cooperate with him. I13 went when I was asked to go.14 Q Okay.15 A And I participated in what I was asked to16 participate in.17 Q All right.18 He has now withdrawn. You understand there’s19 going to be another custody evaluation?20 A Yes, I do.21 Q And you understand that you will be ordered to22 cooperate in that?23Wiggins - COJ - 000220

33


A Yes, I do.1 Q Okay.2 Do you understand that we don’t know who it’s3 going to be today?4 A Yes, I did.5 THE COURT: Dr. McFarland.6 THE WITNESS: Dr. Eban?7 BY MR. CALLAHAN:8 Q No, it’s Dr. McFarland. Do you understand9 you’ll be ordered to cooperate with him?10 A Yes, of course.11 THE COURT: Well, I already ordered her to12 cooperate. It’s already in the order.13 THE WITNESS: Yes.14 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.15 BY MR. CALLAHAN:16 Q And you’re going to do that?17 A Yes, of course.18 Q Okay.19 Now, the visitation that’s been ordered in20 February, what’s the current status of visitation? When21 do you see your daughter?22 A I see my daughter on Wednesday from 8:00 to23Wiggins - COJ - 000221

34


6:00, but she goes to school but my last counsel and his1 counsel worked out until 7:00 or 7:30 depending. They2 say if I’ve done something right or if I’m good, on3 Thursdays, the other day that we’ve chosen, once again4 from 8:00 a.m. until about 7:00 or 7:30. And then three5 out of four weekends starting at Shabbat, because we’re6 Jewish, on Friday ending at 4:00 on Sunday. And if there7 are five weekends, then --8 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevance.9 MR. CALLAHAN: That’s all about visitation,10 Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: But that’s not a dispute of her12 violating the last order, is it?13 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, it’s a long case. 14 I’m just trying to give it some context. Life goes on15 every day. The parents are bringing the child back and16 forth and, I think, certainly in deciding whether to hold17 her in contempt, et cetera, the Court needs to look at18 what these parties have done regarding visitation19 throughout the case.20 MR. O’CONNELL: Can I be heard on that, Your21 Honor?22 THE COURT: No, I think we need to focus on the23Wiggins - COJ - 000222

35


prior order and compliance with the prior order. There’s1 no allegation, well, I don’t know if other things have2 been filed, if there’s an allegation that someone has not3 been following that order. But right now we’re talking4 about this order.5 MR. CALLAHAN: That’s true; there’s been6 filings regarding --7 THE COURT: I haven’t looked at it all, so I8 don’t know what you all have filed.9 MR. CALLAHAN: All right.10 BY MR. CALLAHAN:11 Q And so when visitation was not precisely as12 ordered, why was that, back when you had custody of your13 daughter?14 A I would call and email my husband. Usually it15 was because Ariana Leilani was very ill, and actually16 there are pediatric records I think that you put in, I17 thought, as evidence to show that she had wheezing. She18 had bronchitis. She had a diarrhea and throw up virus. 19 And it’s actually been documented by the pediatrician20 that she was quite ill at the time.21 Q Medical records?22 A Yes, of course.23Wiggins - COJ - 000223

36


MR. CALLAHAN: Nothing further.1 CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. O’CONNELL:3 Q Dr. King, would you tell me when you decided4 that Dr. Lane was not to be cooperated with any more?5 A I never made such a decision.6 MR. CALLAHAN: It assumes facts not in7 evidence, Your Honor.8 BY MR. O’CONNELL:9 Q Well, isn’t it true that Dr. Lane made several10 requests for appointments with you after the November 8th11 hearing that you refused to attend?12 A No, actually after the November 8th hearing, Dr.13 Lane never called me, never.14 Q Didn’t, so it’s your sworn testimony that Dr.15 Lane never called you. Did the Guardian ad Litem ever16 request that you cooperate with Dr. Lane by attending a17 particular or by setting up a -- strike that. I’m going18 to take all that back.19 Did you call Dr. Lane to set up a hearing after20 November 8th?21 A I did not call Dr. Lane. I didn’t know that I22 was supposed to or needed to. Before that he called me,23Wiggins - COJ - 000224

37


emailed. He was in contact with me all the time. It was1 very normal for him to tell me which dates he had2 available. He was a very busy gentleman.3 Q So it’s your position that the reason there4 were no meetings after November 8th was because Dr. Lane5 didn’t call you?6 A Previously to November 8th when we were going to7 have a custody trial, Dr. Lane would call me with the8 open dates and times that he had. He did this also9 because he had specific tests or specific items that he10 wanted to cover and he knew how much time that would11 take. 12 So sometimes he’d ask me for one hour, two13 hours, three hours, or four hours. So he would call me14 with what time and date he wanted to see me.15 Q Is it your position that you didn’t have any16 obligation to contact Dr. Lane after November 8th?17 A I’m not sure about obligation. I cooperated18 with him. When he asked me to go to a particular meeting19 on a particular day --20 THE COURT: That’s not the question he asked21 you.22 THE WITNESS: Would you please repeat the23Wiggins - COJ - 000225

38


question?1 BY MR. O’CONNELL:2 Q Is it your position that after November 8th you3 didn’t have an obligation to call Dr. Lane to coordinate4 when the next meeting would be?5 A I understood that I had an obligation --6 THE COURT: Yes or no?7 THE WITNESS: Yes or no?8 THE COURT: It’s a yes or no question.9 THE WITNESS: No, I did not understand that I10 should have called Dr. Lane after November 8th.11 BY MR. O’CONNELL:12 Q Isn’t it true that Dr. Lane contacted your13 lawyer, Raymond Benzinger, and requested that you14 cooperate in setting up an appointment?15 A I don’t know anything about that. My lawyer or16 counsel never told me anything about that. Before that17 Dr. Lane contacted me by phone and by email directly.18 THE COURT: Answer the question, please.19 THE WITNESS: Okay.20 THE COURT: The answer is, no. I’m not aware21 of any contact with Mr. Benzinger.22 BY MR. O’CONNELL:23Wiggins - COJ - 000226

39


Q Did you file a complaint with the State Medical1 Board?2 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, Your Honor. That’s3 not part of the rule that’s before the Court.4 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, actually, Your Honor, it5 couldn’t be more relevant and it couldn’t be more part of6 the rule. It’s exactly that act that removed him from7 his status as, and it’s the ultimate act of lack of8 cooperation, to torpedo his position and to absolutely9 defeat the purpose of the Court’s order.10 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, first, it’s not, it’s not11 in the rule. It’s not in the allegations for which we12 were called here to show cause, number one. And the13 Court shouldn’t hear it. If we can’t go outside the14 pleading, outside the rule, they shouldn’t be permitted15 to either. What’s good for the goose is good for the16 gander, that sort of thing.17 THE COURT: Well, this goes to her lack of18 cooperation. You, when you wanted to go outside of what19 we were talking about, if it was relevant, we would hear20 it, and I think you agreed it wasn’t relevant to why we21 were here.22 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I mean, this is relevance,23Wiggins - COJ - 000227

40


but it goes to notice and all of that. We’re talking1 about contempt here.2 THE COURT: Only -- it goes to whether there3 was cooperation or not.4 MR. O’CONNELL: Can you read back the question? 5 Quite frankly, the way I phrased it, I don’t remember6 exactly how I phrased it and I don’t want another --7 THE COURT: I think you need to get a little8 more specific as to what dates you’re talking about, if9 it’s a date before or after you filed the rule.10 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I was going to ask her11 when, I thought that I asked her when.12 THE COURT: I don’t think you asked her when.13 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, then I’ll strike that.14 THE COURT: You just asked her about filing it15 or something.16 MR. O’CONNELL: At first I said, did you.17 THE COURT: Did you, and direct it to when.18 MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.19 THE COURT: Because that may be, in fact,20 irrelevant.21 MR. O’CONNELL: Okay. 22 BY MR. O’CONNELL:23Wiggins - COJ - 000228

41


Q When did you -- well --1 THE COURT: First, ask, did you.2 BY MR. O’CONNELL:3 Q Did you file a complaint against Dr. Lane with4 the State Medical Board?5 A Yes.6 Q When?7 A I would have to look at my notes to remember8 exactly the exact date.9 Q Was it in January of 2008?10 A As I said, I would have to look at the dates to11 remember the exact date.12 Q Was it before or after January 31, 2008?13 A I have to look at the exact date, but I do know14 that it was before the end of the year.15 Q It was -- very well.16 A As I said, I would have to, I would like to17 give the Court the proper information and give them the18 exact date.19 Q Why did you do that?20 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I object because it21 is by both accounts after he filed the rule that we’re22 here on.23Wiggins - COJ - 000229

42


MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, the rule was1 entered on February 8th.2 THE COURT: I’m sorry?3 MR. O’CONNELL: The rule was entered on4 February 8th.5 MR. CALLAHAN: And the case was filed December6 14th.7 MR. O’CONNELL: In any case, the rule8 specifically states, as signed, that it’s for her lack of9 cooperation with the custody evaluator and I think that10 her actions clearly demonstrated that lack of cooperation11 and I think that it’s an ultimate lack of cooperation in12 taking an action that would simply discharge the13 evaluator of any ability to conduct an evaluation at all.14 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, counsel filed an15 application for a rule with respect to this matter, a16 complaint that the Court has not issued. So it’s all17 part and parcel of the same thing. He wouldn’t have18 found it necessary to do so. So I think that proper --19 THE COURT: But she said she filed the20 complaint before the end of the year. She’s not specific21 on the date that she filed the complaint.22 THE WITNESS: I don’t --23Wiggins - COJ - 000230

43


BY MR. O’CONNELL:1 Q Well, why did you do that?2 THE COURT: Let’s go back, I was looking at the3 dates.4 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, from the rule, Your5 Honor, it looks like you signed it on December 16th. 6 February 8th is the rule on that, the date that the rule7 was originally set for. It looks like I filed the --8 THE COURT: Okay. This is just all so much9 mixed up. Well, another rule that was here today, you10 said the mother did not -- I granted physical custody of11 the child to the father until the mother could provide12 verification she was back in the area where she was13 living and that she started the psychological evaluation. 14 That was part of the rule that led to the physical15 custody change.16 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor. We thought17 that was on today too.18 THE COURT: It is.19 MR. CALLAHAN: Once Mr. O’Connell finishes his20 cross, may I be permitted to expand the scope of my21 direct to cover those?22 THE COURT: Yes.23Wiggins - COJ - 000231

44


MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you.1 MR. O’CONNELL: May I proceed, Your Honor?2 THE COURT: Yes, I’m trying to find your rule. 3 I can’t find that.4 MR. O’CONNELL: I have a copy of it.5 THE COURT: Where I signed -- all right.6 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I guess what I’m --7 THE COURT: You can go forward and I’ll try to8 find it. If I decide to strike it, I’ll ignore the9 testimony.10 MR. O’CONNELL: I have a copy of the rule right11 here, Your Honor, if I could pass it forward. It’s12 essentially, the argument, Your Honor, is I know when it13 was entered. There was an order entered which says she’s14 to cooperate, and if you said she failed to cooperate,15 that’s broad language, and if the broad language in the16 middle of page 8 of the rule, and she didn’t cooperate17 and after I filed the rule, she actually accelerated her18 lack of cooperation.19 So I think all of her behavior with Dr. Lane is20 relevant to her motivations. And so I’d like to get into21 it if I might.22 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, should I object23Wiggins - COJ - 000232

45


question by question or can I have a continuing objection1 to this line?2 THE COURT: I’m just looking back at the rule. 3 I’m going to sustain counsel’s objection because the4 motion clearly says that failure to cooperate with Dr.5 Lane’s evaluation includes appointments, certain6 information, to make further appointments and provide7 further documentation.8 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, that’s certainly the last9 time I’m sharing my order with Your Honor. No, I’m just10 kidding. Well, if I might --11 THE COURT: If you can connect it to her not12 cooperating, if you think that corroborates her not13 cooperating with these things.14 MR. O’CONNELL: Yes, Your Honor. That’s what I15 think.16 THE COURT: If you can tie it in, you can17 continue. But if you can’t tie it in, then I’m going to18 disregard all the testimony. 19 BY MR. O’CONNELL:20 Q Were you aware that I filed a rule to show21 cause in this matter in December with respect to the22 doctor?23Wiggins - COJ - 000233

46


A Yes.1 Q And upon being aware of that, did you then try2 to contact the doctor to cooperate?3 THE COURT: I’m sorry, repeat that question,4 please?5 BY MR. O’CONNELL:6 Q And upon becoming made aware of the fact that I7 filed a rule to show cause because of your failure to8 cooperate with the doctor, did you make any attempt to9 then contact the doctor and begin cooperation?10 A I think I knew of the rule to show cause11 through my counsel even in the new year actually. I12 personally did not see --13 THE COURT: But did you, after you gained14 knowledge of the rule, did you call Dr. Lane to try to15 cooperate?16 THE WITNESS: No, I did not.17 BY MR. O’CONNELL:18 Q Why not?19 A This whole process is very confusing for20 someone who doesn’t do it every day.21 Q Is that your reason, because you were confused?22 A I’m saying -- I had gone by, in the past Dr.23Wiggins - COJ - 000234

47


Lane has called me, emailed me and told me what dates and1 what times he had available for me because --2 THE COURT: That’s not responsive to the3 question. The question is after you learned of the rule,4 did you call Dr. Lane to try to cooperate, is that yes or5 no?6 THE WITNESS: I tried to cooperate, but, no, I7 did not call Dr. Lane.8 BY MR. O’CONNELL:9 Q And what did your attempts to cooperate, how10 did they manifest themselves?11 A To be willing, ready and available when Dr.12 Lane would call me or email me, as he did many times13 before, actually before November 8th. That’s the way14 that we communicated, by email and by calling.15 Q And it’s your position here, under oath, that16 your lawyer never informed you that you were supposed to17 call Dr. Lane?18 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection to what her lawyer19 told her.20 THE COURT: Sustained.21 BY MR. O’CONNELL:22 Q Tell me something, were you aware that you were23Wiggins - COJ - 000235

48


supposed to be cooperating with Dr. Lane throughout1 t this period?2 A Yes, of course.3 Q And there came a time when you made a decision4 not to cooperate with him any more, correct?5 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection.6 THE WITNESS: That’s not correct.7 MR. O’CONNELL: So you never decided --8 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, if the Court would9 rule.10 THE COURT: She’s already answered the11 question. But I think that when your counsel objects,12 don’t answer.13 THE WITNESS: I didn’t mean to. I apologize. 14 THE COURT: When someone objects, stop talking. 15 That’s the easiest way to not make it more difficult for16 your counsel, if you just keep talking.17 BY MR. O’CONNELL:18 Q When did you decide to file a complaint?19 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection.20 THE COURT: Let’s see if you can tell us. I21 overrule the objection.22 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, does that mean23Wiggins - COJ - 000236

49


you’re allowing it subject to tying it in?1 THE COURT: Uh huh.2 MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you.3 BY MR. O’CONNELL:4 Q When did you decide to file a complaint against5 Dr. Lane?6 A When I found out from the people that he7 contacted that he misrepresented himself to about four or8 five people and they were willing to actually say that9 had happened in affidavits.10 Q That’s fine, but when is the question, not how,11 not what caused it.12 A You’re asking when, as in a period of time, as13 I said, when I had found out --14 THE COURT: What date, what date did you decide15 to do it?16 THE WITNESS: It wasn’t on a date because there17 are specific people at specific times. It wasn’t one18 date.19 THE COURT: Well, at some point, you’re making20 it more difficult than necessary. At some point, you21 must have said to yourself, I’m going to file a complaint22 and you filed it. What date, if you recall?23Wiggins - COJ - 000237

50


THE WITNESS: I don’t recall the exact date.1 THE COURT: She doesn’t recall the exact date.2 BY MR. O’CONNELL: 3 Q Where were you living at the time?4 A October 12, 2007, I moved to Potomac, Maryland.5 THE COURT: Let’s take a recess of this case. 6 It’s 2:00. I have a couple of 2:00 o’clock cases and7 then I’ll, I think I need to take a break.8 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, we have a problem. 9 The problem is that this child needs to be picked up at10 5:00. So he needs to go at quarter of 4:00 --11 THE WITNESS: 4:45 actually.12 MR. O’CONNELL: Anyway, he needs to go at13 quarter of 4:00 to pick up the child.14 THE COURT: Okay.15 MR. O’CONNELL: And what I’d like to do is16 therefore --17 THE COURT: We’ll be back with this case at18 3:00.19 MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.20 (Recess.)21 THE COURT: All right, Ms. King.22 BY MR. O’CONNELL:23Wiggins - COJ - 000238

51


Q So you testified in your last statement that1 you moved to Maryland on October 12th, is that correct?2 A It was a mistake, October 13th.3 Q Okay, but you didn’t tell Michelle Wood that4 you had moved at all ever?5 A (No audible response.)6 Q Did you ever tell Michelle Wood that you moved?7 A I believe I did send her a copy of my lease. 8 That’s correct. Yes, I did tell her that I moved.9 Q When did you send a copy of your lease to her?10 A When the Court said that I would gain custody11 back of my child when I moved back and I showed where I12 was living and I started a psychological exam.13 Q So that would be after February 8th?14 A After February 8th?15 MR. O’CONNELL: Strike that, Your Honor. I16 withdraw that question.17 BY MR. O’CONNELL:18 Q So are you saying that that was, you didn’t19 tell Michelle Wood that you had moved in October until20 after the, I mean, after 2008 had begun?21 A I informed my attorney at the time. He knew I22 had moved and --23Wiggins - COJ - 000239

52


THE COURT: Did you tell Ms. Wood?1 THE WITNESS: I did not directly tell Ms. Wood.2 BY MR. O’CONNELL:3 Q Did you tell Dr. Lane that you had moved?4 A Dr. Lane has never asked me about where I5 lived.6 Q Really?7 So you didn’t think it was necessary to8 cooperate with Dr. Lane to tell him where you were living9 when he was doing the home study?10 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, he’s arguing with11 her, Your Honor.12 THE COURT: Sustained. You’re arguing with13 her.14 BY MR. O’CONNELL:15 Q Did Dr. Lane tell you that he needed to see you16 and your daughter in your home?17 A Yes.18 Q And was that, did you represent that your home19 on November 5th, by having the home visit there on20 November 5th with Dr. Lane, was in Arlington?21 A I lived in several places. I lived in --22 THE COURT: Answer the question.23Wiggins - COJ - 000240

53


THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question.1 BY MR. O’CONNELL:2 Q Did you represent to Dr. Lane that that was3 your home at that time?4 A No, I didn’t.5 Q And, in fact, it wasn’t until late November6 that you notified the Court through a praecipe that you7 had moved, isn’t that correct?8 A My counsel wrote the praecipe. I had no9 control over the praecipe.10 Q Are you telling me that you told your counsel11 to notify everybody earlier than that?12 A I don’t tell my counsel what to do; my counsel13 advises me.14 Q Well, that’s strange because your counsel told15 Dr. Lane on December 11th that, to quote, Dr. King has16 instructed me to refrain from any actions until the Court17 makes a determination on my motion to dismiss the case18 for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, she declines for19 that reason to sign the proper releases. Did you not20 instruct him like that?21 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, Your Honor. He’s22 reading from something. In fairness, can he show it to23Wiggins - COJ - 000241

54


me.1 THE COURT: I overrule the objection. Did you2 instruct your lawyer --3 THE WITNESS: My lawyer instructs me; I don’t4 instruct my lawyer.5 THE COURT: Did you tell your lawyer to --6 THE WITNESS: No, I did not instruct my lawyer. 7 He instructs me.8 MR. O’CONNELL: Would you hand that to the9 witness so that this may refresh her recollection? 10 BY MR. O’CONNELL:11 Q Would you please look at the document that I’m12 handing you, the December 11th fax on December 12th?13 A I see the document; I did not write that14 document.15 Q Is it your testimony --16 THE COURT: He didn’t say you wrote the17 document. He said, did, was your lawyer being accurate18 when he stated that you told him not to proceed, not to,19 you know, go through anything until this motion is heard? 20 It’s a very simple question, yes or no.21 THE WITNESS: No.22 THE COURT: All right. That’s her answer. 23Wiggins - COJ - 000242

55


No.1 BY MR. O’CONNELL:2 Q Did you ever tell Dr. Lane before November 8th -3 - excuse me, strike that.4 Before, no, did you ever tell Dr. Lane that you5 had rented a residence in Maryland?6 A I never told Dr. Lane about any place I lived7 in Arlington or Maryland and he never asked the question.8 Q Let me move to a different topic. Isn’t it9 true that on several days that are set out in the rule to10 show cause, Dr. Pfeiffer showed up and tried to take your11 daughter but you said you may not take our daughter on12 the Wednesday visitations?13 A When Dr. Pfeiffer, my husband came, as a14 physician I told him what was wrong with our daughter and15 I stated to him that she went to the pediatrician. There16 are records to show that --17 THE COURT: The question was, did you allow him18 to take the child, did you or not, did you refuse him19 visitation on the days in the rule?20 THE WITNESS: No, I did not refuse him21 visitation.22 THE COURT: On those days when he came over,23Wiggins - COJ - 000243

56


did you refuse to let him have the child?1 THE WITNESS: No, when he came over, I did not2 refuse to let him have the child. He visited with our3 child at the house until she fell asleep.4 THE COURT: No, you’re not listening to the5 question. Did you allow him to take the child out of the6 house?7 THE WITNESS: He did not take the child out of8 the house. I did not physically do anything to not allow9 him to take the child out of the house. We agreed10 together as parents that when the child was sick, very11 sick, that she would stay in the house.12 BY MR. O’CONNELL:13 Q But she wasn’t very sick, was she?14 A Yes, actually she was.15 Q All right.16 Well, let me ask you, did he take her17 temperature?18 A Illness is not just by temperature. She was --19 THE COURT: Ma’am, just answer the question.20 THE WITNESS: I don’t know. When my husband21 came over, I --22 THE COURT: Okay, your answer is good. You23Wiggins - COJ - 000244

57


don’t know. What’s the next questions.1 THE WITNESS: I allowed him privacy, I didn’t2 see what he did with her.3 BY MR. O’CONNELL:4 Q Did he tell you she didn’t have a temperature?5 A On several occasions he did say she didn’t have6 a temperature, but I also told him she didn’t have a7 temperature.8 Q And did he, listen to her breathing to9 determine whether her respiration was compromised?10 A I don’t know. I did not see that. He did tell11 me that he did do that at times.12 Q And did he tell you that it wasn’t compromised?13 A He did. He even did it on the day when the14 pediatric records show that she has bronchitis and is15 wheezing. Within the records themselves, it did show16 that she had bronchitis and she was wheezing. It was the17 same day he told me she wasn’t.18 MR. O’CONNELL: All right.19 I’m going to move into evidence the letter of20 December 11th as Pfeiffer Exhibit 1, Complainant’s Exhibit21 1.22 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, hearsay.23Wiggins - COJ - 000245

58


THE COURT: Sustained.1 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, business records2 exception.3 THE COURT: Sustained. Whose business records? 4 Who’s going to get that in?5 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, okay.6 THE COURT: Dr. Lane isn’t here to get it in as7 a business record.8 MR. O’CONNELL: No, Dr. Lane isn’t here to get9 it in.10 THE COURT: And it would be his business11 record. And I guess he sent you a copy of it. So do you12 have somebody here to get it in as business record13 exception?14 BY MR. O’CONNELL:15 Q Do you have any awareness or did you have any16 awareness that Dr. Lane was in November and December17 seeking an appointment with you?18 A No.19 Q Did you have any awareness that Dr. Lane was20 seeking to have you sign certain releases?21 A No.22 Q You are familiar with the laws against perjury?23Wiggins - COJ - 000246

59


A Yes, very much so.1 Q And Mr. Benzinger didn’t tell you about either2 of those things?3 A The time that I heard about the medical records4 were literally months later when he sent that. Anyway, I5 heard about it months later. I never knew about it when6 he was asked about it, no.7 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, that’s all I have for now8 and I’m going to, since we’re coming at just about9 quarter of and I’ve finished this and we’re about to get10 into another area, I’m going to tell my client that he11 can go because he’s not under any compulsion to go. And12 if that means that he can’t testify right now, that’s13 what it means. It means, but it’s more important that14 the child get picked up. There has been an offer to have15 the au pair pick the child up. That’s not acceptable to16 us.17 And there’s also been a representation that she18 drives, and there’s also been a representation that she19 doesn’t drive. My client thinks that she may have a20 driver’s license, but it’s a judgment and he’d rather go21 pick her up, even if it means that it compromises his22 position in this case, I mean, not in this case, in this23Wiggins - COJ - 000247

60


particular rule. If that’s okay with Your Honor, is that1 okay with Your Honor?2 THE COURT: Were you going to call him as a3 witness?4 MR. CALLAHAN: I was not going to call him.5 THE COURT: Okay.6 MR. O’CONNELL: Very well.7 THE COURT: Any redirect? You wanted to go --8 MR. CALLAHAN: No redirect, Your Honor. I do9 want to expand my direct to cover the other rule. I10 would like to call Dr. King’s mother first.11 THE COURT: Okay, you can have a seat, Ma’am.12 MR. CALLAHAN: I call Margo King.13 MR. O’CONNELL: Could we have a proffer of14 relevance, Your Honor?15 THE COURT: Counsel?16 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, I think that just, there17 was a motion to continue filed and I think that just the18 pleadings, the representations was that Dr. King’s mother19 was not really all that ill. We’d like to put on20 evidence that she did what was necessary.21 THE COURT: That’s not, I don’t understand the22 relevance of that testimony.23Wiggins - COJ - 000248

61


MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I --1 THE COURT: That’s not part of the rule.2 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the rule is --3 THE COURT: I don’t think I have ever4 questioned that her mother was sick. I mean, I said that5 she could go take care of her mom and leave the child6 here is what I said.7 MR. CALLAHAN: Well --8 THE COURT: I never, I don’t think there was, I9 don’t know if anyone ever, I read the, I guess one of the10 motions filed by someone said that she wasn’t as sick as11 the mother said she was, but it really is not why we’re12 here today, is it?13 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, that certainly played into14 the denial of the motion to continue and you ordered to15 bring the child back.16 THE COURT: Yes, but that’s not why we’re here17 today, right?18 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, we’re here about the19 transfer of custody and the three conditions that the20 Court --21 THE COURT: Well, that’s not why we’re here. 22 We’re here for allegations that she didn’t cooperate with23Wiggins - COJ - 000249

62


Dr. Lane, that she failed to comply with the custody1 order allowing visitation on Wednesday night and that she2 took the child from the father before providing3 verification of the things that she was supposed to4 verify with the Court, the psychological, the new5 address, those things. That’s why we’re here.6 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor. But it7 certainly seems relevant. One of the three conditions8 was to establish that you’re back in the area.9 THE COURT: Right.10 MR. CALLAHAN: Custody was transferred as a11 result of her being in Atlanta with the child.12 THE COURT: No, it was transferred, that’s not13 why it was transferred because she was in Atlanta. It14 was transferred because she didn’t comply with the15 orders.16 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.17 THE COURT: And so I said the child stays here.18 The mother can go to Atlanta and the child stays here. 19 She didn’t comply. It wasn’t because she went to Atlanta20 with the child. That’s not why it was transferred. She21 didn’t, you know, how she did it.22 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, there was certainly23Wiggins - COJ - 000250

63


a suggestion, I think, from reading the transcripts that1 this was part of my client’s non-cooperation in this case2 and --3 THE COURT: Exactly. It’s part of her non-4 cooperation, yes.5 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, we would like to dispel6 that notion. Her mother is here; I would like six,7 seven, eight questions --8 THE COURT: If you proffer to me that she was9 sick, I’ll take your word. I’ll take it as being the10 truth as counsel agrees.11 MR. O’CONNELL: No, I agree actually that she12 had neurological events, Your Honor. To the extent, but13 I don’t think, that’s sort of relevant in another, in the14 custody hearing, but I don’t see how it’s relevant in the15 rule to show cause hearing.16 MR. CALLAHAN: Her life was in danger. She was17 working as a practicing psychologist two months ago and18 now she’s under a physician’s care.19 THE COURT: I know, but my question is, those20 three rules, but how does this relate to the three rules?21 MR. CALLAHAN: I just want to give a little22 background. All of that had nothing to do with any23Wiggins - COJ - 000251

64


animus towards her husband, any intent not to observe1 those --2 THE COURT: No, I’m not saying that the mother3 wasn’t sick. I don’t think, my point is, she could have4 left the child with the father while she went to take5 care of her ailing mother. Her mother was, if her mother6 was in that type of serious medical need and conditions7 and needed her help, then why not leave the child here8 for the father to take care of the child while she takes9 care of her mother. There was not, that’s what parents10 do.11 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. Well, we’ll just have her12 explain that.13 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I14 missed the proffer.15 MR. CALLAHAN: The proffer on which she would16 testify to is that she was practicing as a psychologist17 and she had a stroke. She had a debilitating stroke. 18 She was in critical condition. She got a call, rushed to19 her mother’s side. Months are gone from the mother’s20 memory and in the mother’s mind, her daughter saved her21 life.22 THE COURT: Okay.23Wiggins - COJ - 000252

65


MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I’m tempted to not1 stipulate to that because it would be free discovery, but2 actually, in the interest of expediency, I really don’t3 see how any of that is relevant to the rule.4 THE COURT: I don’t either. But all right. 5 Ma’am, you can have a seat.6 MR. CALLAHAN: So --7 THE COURT: I accept your proffer.8 MR. CALLAHAN: Oh, okay.9 THE COURT: But I still don’t see how, maybe10 you’re going to tie it in to why it’s relevant to not11 complying with the Court orders.12 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, could she --13 THE COURT: As I said, I accept your proffer.14 MR. CALLAHAN: Oh, okay.15 THE COURT: I think Counsel said he would, too,16 even though he would be giving up free discovery, as he17 stated.18 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. All right.19 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I would still20 invoke the rule because she’s going to be a witness in21 the case later, I expect, unless he says she’s not going22 to be a witness.23Wiggins - COJ - 000253

66


THE COURT: Are you calling her back today?1 MR. O’CONNELL: I don’t mean in this case; I2 mean in the custody case.3 THE COURT: No.4 MR. CALLAHAN: We may call her.5 THE COURT: She can stay in.6 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay, thank you, Your Honor. 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION (resumed)8 BY MR. CALLAHAN:9 Q There was a hearing in this Court on February10 8th, do you recall, that had been scheduled sometime in11 advance, correct?12 A Yes.13 Q And did you, where were you right up to the14 date of Court?15 A Actually, on the morning of the 8th I flew from16 Atlanta, Georgia, to Washington, D.C., to attend that17 hearing.18 Q To attend that hearing, okay. And at that19 hearing, at that hearing the Court entered an order,20 correct?21 A Correct.22 Q How did you learn of what the order was?23Wiggins - COJ - 000254

67


A While, at the hearing, Your Honor said what1 needed to be done, including the transfer of the child to2 my husband.3 Q So what did you actually do?4 A I had to get my child by, it was a Friday --5 Q Uh huh.6 A So my child was in Atlanta. I had to get7 Ariana Leilani from Atlanta to Washington, D.C., by8 Sunday at 3:00 and actually bring her to her father’s9 house so that he could care for her while I returned back10 to Atlanta to care for my mother.11 Q Okay.12 Now, so what did you do as a result when you13 heard that Friday? What was the next thing you did?14 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevancy, Your15 Honor. We can stipulate that she came all the way back16 and dropped the child off at 3:00 with the father. We17 can go and the father had the child at that point. We18 can skip forward to that point, would that be okay?19 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, there’s a suggestion20 that she willfully disobeyed the order --21 THE COURT: Okay, go ahead and ask your22 question.23Wiggins - COJ - 000255

68


BY MR. CALLAHAN:1 Q What did you do as a result of that? What was2 the next thing you did when you left the Court that’s3 relevant to all of this.4 A Right, okay.5 I went back to Atlanta, packed up some things6 for my daughter and the au pair that’s been staying with7 us since July --8 Q Okay.9 A Came back, called my husband and arranged a10 time that I would be dropping her off and dropped her off11 on Sunday before the Court ordered.12 Q Okay, so when did you fly back, what day, to13 Atlanta?14 A I flew here on Friday and I flew back on15 Friday.16 Q Friday, okay.17 And then when did you fly back here?18 A Because I was supposed to take care of my19 mother.20 Q Right, when did you fly back here?21 A I flew back on Sunday morning.22 Q Okay.23Wiggins - COJ - 000256

69


A With my daughter.1 Q With your daughter.2 A And the au pair.3 Q And then you returned her, you --4 A Yes, I took her to her father’s house.5 Q Okay.6 What time?7 A It was about 2:00 something or other.8 Q Okay.9 What did you do next?10 A I then arranged to fly back to Atlanta.11 Q Uh huh.12 A And one of my family members stayed at the13 hospital with my mother because at the time she was in an14 altered mental state, which meant she couldn’t sign15 anything for herself, so --16 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevancy.17 THE COURT: Sustained.18 BY MR. CALLAHAN:19 Q Flew back to --20 A Flew back to Atlanta.21 Q Okay.22 A After, on the way flying back to Atlanta, I got23Wiggins - COJ - 000257

70


a call from one of her attending physicians and the1 attending physician --2 Q You can’t say what the physician said. 3 So as a result of that, was your mother going4 to be discharged from the hospital?5 A They had told me that they could not put her in6 rehabilitation, that I should try to put her in a nursing7 home.8 Q And okay.9 And what was her, just from your observation as10 her daughter --11 A Her state at that time, they actually said that12 even though she was stable, she wasn’t able to sit up,13 let alone walk or stand up. She literally was like a14 baby at six months who doesn’t sit up.15 Q Right.16 A You know how babies first learn to sit up.17 Q Right.18 A And that’s, when she was discharged, that’s how19 she was discharged. They said that was not an illness,20 that was just part of the rehabilitation.21 Q Okay.22 And she has a home in Atlanta?23Wiggins - COJ - 000258

71


A That’s correct.1 Q Okay.2 A And a private practice that involved going to3 clinics.4 Q Okay.5 Who does she live with there?6 A She lives by herself.7 Q Okay.8 So what did you think was necessary to do then?9 A It was necessary --10 Q What did you --11 A I did not want to put her in the nursing home,12 so it was necessary for me to bring her back to my home13 in Maryland to take care of her.14 Q Okay.15 A Because it’s honor thy father and thy mother.16 Q How did you get her back here?17 A I drove with her. I put an aerobed in the car18 --19 Q Uh huh.20 A Because once again she wasn’t moving well and, 21 I guess, it was 11 or 12 hours.22 Q Okay.23Wiggins - COJ - 000259

72


And when was that?1 A I believe that was Monday.2 Q Now, the Court ordered you to bring Ariana3 Leilani back here and give her to her father primary4 custody until what?5 A Until I returned to the area, until I gave6 proof of where I was living --7 Q Uh huh.8 A -- and I started the psychological exam.9 Q Okay.10 So and was there any, at the time of the11 hearing, was there any suggestion that this Court was12 going to decide this sometime later?13 A Uh --14 Q Did you have to file a request with the Court?15 A No.16 Q No? Okay. So what did you do about17 fulfilling those conditions when you arrived back?18 A Well, first of all, I arrived back and I sent19 an email to Ms. Wood and Ms. Olin telling them that I am20 back and also attached a copy of the lease for our home21 in Potomac, Maryland.22 Q Okay.23Wiggins - COJ - 000260

73


A That’s the first thing I did.1 Q And did you contact anybody regarding starting2 psychological testing?3 A Yes, the second thing that I did is I actually4 contacted Virginia Social Service Agency and said that I5 needed to take a psychological exam and they referred me6 to an appropriate person.7 Q Okay.8 And did you give this information, how was this9 information going to get to the Court, to Her Honor10 beyond --11 A I worked with my counsel and he actually knew12 when I came back and knew that I had sent the information13 of where I was living and also about starting the14 psychological.15 Q Okay.16 And was it your understanding he was going to17 do something to notify the Court?18 A Yes, he had informed me that he would.19 Q Don’t tell me what your lawyer said. Now, so20 you’re back in the area on Monday. Did you see your21 daughter on Monday?22 A No.23Wiggins - COJ - 000261

74


Q Did you contact her father, your husband?1 A I don’t know. I don’t know whether we spoke or2 not because usually he and I both speak to her every3 night.4 Q Okay.5 Did you, well, where did you, did you say she6 was at school?7 A Yes, I think he told me that. I misspoke. At8 10:00 actually I called him to say how was her first day9 at school. How did she adjust --10 Q A.m. or p.m?11 A A.m, because she had been out of school for a12 while.13 Q Right.14 A He said, I’m late, but I’m going to be bringing15 her to school and I said, okay. That was at 10:00 a.m.16 Q Okay.17 And then did you talk to him again that day?18 A Yes, that evening actually I called just to say19 goodnight, like he does. We both do that and asked how20 was her day and she said she didn’t go to school. She21 went to Chuck E. Cheese.22 Q Okay.23Wiggins - COJ - 000262

75


So what, if anything, did he say about Tuesday?1 A He said that he was going to take her to the2 German School on Tuesday morning.3 Q Okay.4 And so what did you do on Tuesday?5 A On Tuesday, I think about 10:30, 11:00, I6 packed up one of her lunch boxes and brought it to the7 school.8 Q Okay.9 And did you see her then?10 A She wasn’t there.11 Q Okay.12 And did you, what was your reaction to that, if13 anything?14 A Well, I saw the headmaster. First of all, I15 didn’t even know right away that she wasn’t there. The16 director of the school called me into her office --17 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection. I’m objecting to18 any testimony about what anyone at the school might say.19 THE COURT: Sustained.20 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, actually I have a21 letter that --22 MR. O’CONNELL: Hearsay.23Wiggins - COJ - 000263

76


MR. CALLAHAN: -- that she’s the recipient of1 and I’d like to offer it for the effect on the --2 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor. 3 MR. CALLAHAN: Exception.4 THE COURT: What exception would that be?5 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s not offered for the truth6 of the matter therein asserted. It’s offered for its7 effect on the state of mind of the recipient, Ms. King.8 MR. O’CONNELL: Except, Your Honor, excuse me,9 except, Your Honor, this has nothing to do with the order10 and so it couldn’t possibly be relevant.11 THE COURT: How is it relevant to why we’re12 here today?13 MR. CALLAHAN: What?14 THE COURT: I said why is it relevant to why we15 are here today?16 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, it’s the school saying17 they don’t know where her child is. So --18 THE COURT: But the issue is where has she19 been?20 MR. CALLAHAN: Excuse me, Your Honor?21 THE COURT: I guess I don’t understand why that22 would be relevant.23Wiggins - COJ - 000264

77


MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the proffer is she’s1 testified that the father said I’m taking her to school,2 I’m taking her to school. She gets to school, and the3 child is not at school, hasn’t seen the child.4 THE COURT: So you call the father and find out5 where the child is.6 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay, well --7 THE COURT: Right?8 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I mean, she spoke to him9 twice and then she went there. It’s offered to show why10 she went there.11 THE COURT: Why she went where, to school?12 MR. CALLAHAN: No, she went to the school13 because she thought her daughter was there.14 THE COURT: Right.15 MR. CALLAHAN: This is offered to show, she was16 concerned about the whereabouts of her daughter. She17 hadn’t seen her. She wanted to make -- and she went to18 the father’s house, for one thing, to confirm that, in19 fact, her daughter was here.20 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, that doesn’t show21 that.22 THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the objection.23Wiggins - COJ - 000265

78


BY MR. CALLAHAN:1 Q So when you left the school, after what had2 transpired there, did you have any concerns?3 A Yes, I did.4 Q And what were they?5 A My concerns after hearing from the people at6 the school, was that I didn’t know where my daughter was7 and I was advised to call the German Embassy to try to8 find her.9 Q Okay.10 All right.11 MR. O’CONNELL: Hearsay, move to strike.12 THE COURT: Okay. I really don’t understand13 what she is really saying here.14 MR. CALLAHAN: I think she’s saying that on15 that date she didn’t know where her daughter was.16 THE COURT: Because she went to the school and17 she wasn’t at school?18 MR. CALLAHAN: Two days in a row she didn’t19 know where she was.20 THE COURT: I still don’t get it, so she goes21 to the school two days in a row and her daughter isn’t22 there. Why doesn’t she just call the father and find out23Wiggins - COJ - 000266

79


why the child isn’t in school.1 MR. CALLAHAN: She did call the father twice2 and twice he said I’m bringing her to school and twice he3 didn’t.4 THE COURT: Okay.5 MR. CALLAHAN: And then she went to the cops.6 THE COURT: Okay, ask your next question.7 BY MR. CALLAHAN:8 Q Okay, now, there was, the order, what, if9 anything, did you think you had to do about the three10 conditions, what, if anything, further did you think you11 had to do regarding the three conditions for custody12 being transferred back to you?13 A I needed to inform my counsel and my counsel I14 believe needed to also do something to inform the Court.15 Q Okay.16 And so I’m talking about after you informed17 your counsel. Well, first, when did you inform your18 counsel?19 A I spoke with him on Monday and then again on20 Tuesday.21 Q And, okay, so what, if anything, after that did22 you think you had to do?23Wiggins - COJ - 000267

80


A After leaving the German School, I called my1 counsel and spoke with him about getting my daughter.2 Q Okay.3 Without telling me what your counsel said,4 after you gave him this information, after that, what, if5 anything, did you think you had to do?6 A Just call my husband and go get my daughter.7 MR. CALLAHAN: All right. May I approach to8 have this marked?9 THE COURT: Yes. Can you show counsel?10 BY MR. CALLAHAN:11 Q Okay, I’m showing you two documents that will12 be marked as 1 and 2. Now, what is document number one?13 A Document No. 1 is a bill from my attorney.14 Q Okay.15 A At the time --16 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevancy, hearsay.17 MR. CALLAHAN: I think it is, Your Honor.18 THE COURT: Why is it relevant?19 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, it shows that on the day20 we’re talking about, her attorney made time entries for a21 call with her and a praecipe. And I think she’s22 testified that the praecipe is about her meeting the23Wiggins - COJ - 000268

81


three conditions and transmitting that information to her1 counsel and the praecipe is going to come to the Court.2 THE COURT: I sustain the objection.3 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.4 THE COURT: Hearsay. Because she could get in5 all sorts of trouble with attorney/client privilege. 6 She’s basically waiving it and her counsel may be called7 as a witness against her. So, you know, I mean, you8 know, she’s got to be careful here.9 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.10 THE COURT: You know, with attorney/client11 privilege here, don’t you think?12 MR. CALLAHAN: I understand --13 THE COURT: But then I don’t know --14 MR. CALLAHAN: I don’t think that she can15 testify about what they talked to.16 THE COURT: Understand that you’re going to17 open the door.18 MR. O’CONNELL: I think she’s opening the door.19 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay, well I will pull it back,20 Your Honor, since we’re not admitting it anyway.21 THE COURT: I mean, if you want to, if you want22 to go there, I mean, you know, I don’t know if you want23Wiggins - COJ - 000269

82


to go there.1 MR. CALLAHAN: Not any more. Not any more.2 THE COURT: I mean, I don’t know if you thought3 about that, but --4 MR. CALLAHAN: Not deeply apparently, but I5 appreciate the admonition so it’s withdrawn.6 THE COURT: Okay.7 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.8 BY MR. CALLAHAN:9 Q Now, I’ve shown you what’s been marked as No.10 2, Exhibit No.2. Would you identify that?11 A Yes, it’s a cell phone bill from my telephone.12 Q And for what day? Some of it is redacted. 13 What are the dates, the day --14 A February 12th.15 Q Who did you call on that day?16 THE COURT: What number did you dial for each17 call?18 THE WITNESS: After I went to the German School19 --20 THE COURT: I just need to know what number did21 you reach the father at?22 THE WITNESS: His cell phone number.23Wiggins - COJ - 000270

83


BY MR. CALLAHAN:1 Q Okay. 2 A I also called my husband, which is unavailable.3 Q Okay.4 A I also called my counsel and was on the phone5 with him for 27 minutes.6 Q Okay.7 All right.8 What did you do next?9 A After calling my counsel, I went to, I called10 my husband and said that I have talked to my counsel and11 --12 Q Don’t tell me what you said --13 A I called my husband and I said, I’ve met all14 the conditions, the three conditions, and I’ve come to15 pick up Ariana Leilani and that the next day he would16 have the visitation, which was Wednesday. This was a17 Tuesday.18 Q And where were you when you called?19 A I was in Washington, D.C.20 Q And then did you go there, to his apartment?21 A Yes, I did.22 Q And did he agree to let you take your daughter?23Wiggins - COJ - 000271

84


A No, he said, no, I don’t think so.1 Q Did he agree to let you see your daughter?2 A No, he opened the door and saw me downstairs,3 actually outside and he slammed the door.4 Q Okay.5 And what did you do next?6 A After he slammed the door, there was screaming7 and crying, so I then called 9-1-1.8 Q Who was screaming and crying?9 A Our daughter, Ariana Leilani was screaming and10 crying and banging on the door.11 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. Your Honor, we’d like to12 offer the tape of that call. She was a participant in13 it.14 THE COURT: The call to 9-1-1?15 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes.16 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, that’s not even a --17 Your Honor, I do not have it in my hand, the statutory18 citation, but I have litigated it, and essentially what19 it says is, in a case where custody is at play or in20 question, that a tape of such call or a tape of any such21 conversation may not be admitted unless the other side22 has, is advised at the beginning of the call that it is23Wiggins - COJ - 000272

85


being recorded and I’m frankly not sure about the1 consent, but I don’t think there was any, and in addition2 to that, there is an exception where if it’s actually3 evidence of a crime, somebody saying I’m going to kill4 you on a tape, maybe that comes in. But this is5 inadmissible, clearly under the statute.6 THE COURT: What basis do you think the 9-1-17 tape comes in?8 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, first, we’re here on a9 show cause.10 THE COURT: I’m sorry?11 MR. CALLAHAN: First, this is a show cause,12 although this is a custody case, I’ll grant that. But13 the part about the parties have to be advised and so on--14 THE COURT: Not at a show cause hearing. It’s15 not custody; it’s a show cause.16 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.17 THE COURT: But why is it admissible?18 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I mean, both parties knew19 they were being recorded. 9-1-1 calls are always20 recorded.21 THE COURT: But still, you’ve still got to go22 with the problem with hearsay.23Wiggins - COJ - 000273

86


MR. CALLAHAN: It’s an emergency technician1 making a call in the ordinary course of business.2 THE COURT: No.3 MR. CALLAHAN: She can lay the foundation,4 testify she made the call on that date and requested --5 THE COURT: No, but you still need an exception6 to the hearsay rule to get it in.7 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the exception to the8 hearsay rule, it’s the ordinary course of their business,9 but excited utterance --10 THE COURT: Well, who’s excited, there’s not an11 excited utterance. She called --12 MR. CALLAHAN: She’s here.13 THE COURT: She called the police and had a14 conversation, how is that an excited utterance?15 MR. CALLAHAN: The child, you can hear the16 child in the background and there has been17 representations in this Court by people who weren’t there18 --19 THE COURT: I don’t understand what this has to20 do with the three reasons why we’re here today.21 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, it has to do with her22 meeting the conditions, and we think we’ve established23Wiggins - COJ - 000274

87


that and we think that her actions were not in violation1 of the Court’s order.2 If the Court thinks otherwise, then the Court3 needs to know all the circumstances regarding what4 happened.5 THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.6 MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you, Your Honor.7 BY MR. CALLAHAN:8 Q So you testified that --9 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I’d like to note an10 exception to that ruling.11 THE COURT: Okay.12 MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you.13 THE COURT: The basis was hearsay and I don’t14 see how it -- and talked to the 9-1-1 operator. If you15 want to make excited utterance as an exception, I’m not16 forbidding from doing that, but I don’t see it as an17 exception.18 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay, there’s three voices on19 there, the 9-1-1 operator, there’s Dr. King who’s here20 and then there’s the child.21 THE COURT: And what is the excited utterance22 of the child say?23Wiggins - COJ - 000275

88


MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the words, she’s crying,1 screaming saying, I want my mommy.2 THE COURT: Well, that’s --3 MR. CALLAHAN: Or let me see mommy or words to4 that effect.5 THE COURT: I don’t see how that’s relevant. I6 just don’t see why this is relevant.7 MR. CALLAHAN: The effect on the listener. 8 Your Honor, it’s only relevant --9 THE COURT: She can testify her daughter is10 crying and screaming for her.11 MR. CALLAHAN: There’s nothing like hearing it12 for yourself, Your Honor. And I will say this, it’s only13 relevant if you are going to find she didn’t meet the14 conditions. If you’re not going to find that --15 THE COURT: Well, I don’t know; I just need to16 know --17 MR. CALLAHAN: I think it’s certainly relevant18 to her wilfullness if, in fact, what she did violated the19 Court’s order. You’ve got a mother; you’ve got the child20 on the other side of the door.21 THE COURT: But it’s obviously just what a22 child is going to do that hasn’t seen her mother in a23Wiggins - COJ - 000276

89


couple of days.1 MR. CALLAHAN: Yeah.2 THE COURT: That’s exactly what a child is3 going to do, cry and scream I want my mommy.4 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.5 THE COURT: That’s not unusual or anything. I6 don’t know --7 MR. CALLAHAN: The unusual part is the door8 wasn’t open.9 THE COURT: I’m not going to --10 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.11 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.12 BY MR. CALLAHAN:13 Q So you knocked on the door and what did you14 hear?15 A My daughter was banging, well, actually I heard16 my husband Michael tell her to get away from the door.17 Q Uh huh.18 A And she was banging and screaming. She’s never19 done that in our home.20 Q Okay. 21 A And when she banged and screamed, along with my22 other thought, I thought there was an emergency. He23Wiggins - COJ - 000277

90


didn’t open the door for me. I always open the door for1 him.2 Q Okay.3 Were you alarmed?4 A Very, very alarmed.5 Q Okay.6 So what did you do?7 A The operator told me, I talked to the operator8 and I said my daughter is screaming. She said, yes, I9 hear it. She said walk down the stairs and wait outside.10 Q You can’t tell me what the operator said.11 A What -- I walked outside.12 Q Okay.13 A I was told, I walked outside.14 Q All right.15 And then did the police arrive?16 A Yes, about 20 minutes later they arrived.17 Q Okay.18 And what happened next?19 A They went inside to talk to my husband. They20 went into his apartment to talk to him.21 Q Okay.22 A I show them the one order that I had, which was23Wiggins - COJ - 000278

91


the order.1 Q You showed them the order, the first order2 entered by the Court?3 A Yes, that’s correct, that’s the one that I had.4 Q All right.5 Why didn’t you show the order that the Court6 had entered on February 8th?7 A I didn’t have that. I didn’t see that actually8 until I think two weeks later.9 Q Okay.10 THE COURT: Well, did you tell them that there11 was a subsequent order entered by the Court?12 THE WITNESS: What I didn’t know --13 THE COURT: No, did you tell the police that14 there was a subsequent order entered by the Court?15 THE WITNESS: No, I showed them the order that16 I had. They asked for the paper.17 THE COURT: Okay.18 THE WITNESS: They didn’t go by hearsay.19 THE COURT: They asked you for the order but20 you failed to tell them the whole story? You gave them21 the impression that was the final order in the case,22 which was not the case. There was a subsequent order23Wiggins - COJ - 000279

92


entered and you misled them.1 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I please speak to2 that?3 THE COURT: Yes.4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. As far as I5 understood, your directions were quite clear to me, come6 back, show where you’re living and start your7 psychological exam. I think that there was a time that8 the counsel asked to come back to Court and you said, no.9 You said, when she comes back show us where she’s living10 and starts the psychological exam, that physical custody11 would shift back to the mother. So when I went there,12 that’s exactly what I thought I was doing.13 THE COURT: That’s not the question. The14 question was, did you tell the police the whole story and15 the answer is no. You didn’t tell them the whole story,16 that I had ruled that the child stay with the father17 until you provide these things to the Court, which the18 Court at that point had not received any of that. So19 that’s the problem we have here.20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.21 MR. CALLAHAN: Did you know --22 THE COURT: And as you recall at that hearing,23Wiggins - COJ - 000280

93


I reversed myself because initially I was like, no, stay1 with the father up until, you know, stay with you, no,2 stay with the father until we have the hearing and then I3 reversed myself and said, no, you know, provide the4 conditions, physical custody can be returned to you.5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.6 THE COURT: So I don’t know exactly --7 THE WITNESS: I wouldn’t have done anything to8 jeopardize that. I was trying to follow what you told me9 to do.10 THE COURT: No, that’s not what happened that11 night. You just assumed, even by your own testimony12 that’s not what happened.13 BY MR. CALLAHAN:14 Q Did you know that the Court had been informed15 by this time?16 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, Your Honor --17 THE COURT: I’m sorry, excuse me -- just let me18 take a moment. 19 (Brief interruption.)20 THE COURT: All right.21 BY MR. CALLAHAN:22 Q Now, we were talking about previously about the23Wiggins - COJ - 000281

94


order the Court entered on February 8th and about the1 conditions, there was also visitation in that order,2 correct?3 A Yes, that’s correct.4 Q The regular schedule?5 A Right.6 Q And was there anything else? Did the Court7 order anything else --8 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m going to object, Your9 Honor. I’ve been sort of listening to this. The order10 speaks for itself. If they want to talk about how she11 felt about the order, maybe that’s relevant, but the12 order itself speaks for itself.13 MR. CALLAHAN: May I proceed?14 THE COURT: Yes, Sir.15 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.16 BY MR. CALLAHAN:17 Q So was it your understanding then that you18 would get visitation in addition to the scheduled once19 you got back in town?20 A Yes, I understood the judge to say that it21 should be liberal and that when I came back that he22 should make her, I want to say available, but that I23Wiggins - COJ - 000282

95


would be open to see her any time.1 Q Right.2 So then --3 THE COURT: Which order are you referring to?4 MR. CALLAHAN: The order of February 8th, Your5 Honor, modifying, my question was regarding the order of6 February 8th where you were ordered to bring the child7 back to the Washington area to live with the father and8 these three conditions.9 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I think also it was said10 that I could have the weekends. I think Your Honor knows11 what she ordered that I could have weekends and that I12 should have some sort of liberal visitation when I came13 back and that my husband should provide that to me.14 MR. CALLAHAN: All right. Now, there was also15 -- nothing further, Your Honor.16 CROSS EXAMINATION (resumed)17 BY MR. O’CONNELL:18 Q You didn’t notify Ms. Wood that you were back,19 did you?20 A I notified her by email, along with Ms. Wood21 and Ms. Olin.22 Q Well, Ms. Wood is who we’re talking about right23Wiggins - COJ - 000283

96


now. Did you telephone Ms. Wood?1 A I sent her an email along with the lease, which2 I thought was very important because it’s not just a3 matter of telling her I was back, but I did provide --4 Q Just answer the question, please.5 A I emailed Ms. Wood.6 Q When?7 A On the 12th.8 Q What time?9 A I think in the afternoon.10 Q After you picked up the child?11 A Along with a lease, which was most important, I12 had to --13 Q After you, excuse me, after you picked up the14 child, yes or no?15 A Yes.16 Q And who else did you notify, well, who did you17 notify before you picked up the child that you were back?18 A My counsel.19 Q Other than your counsel, anybody else?20 A I notified my husband.21 Q When did you notify your husband you were back22 in town?23Wiggins - COJ - 000284

97


A The day that I came back, which was Tuesday,1 and I found out she wasn’t in school. I thought he was2 at work actually, so I don’t usually call him. He’s a3 physician at the hospital and usually doesn’t take calls.4 Q What time did you tell him you were back?5 A Please let me look at the phone records.6 Q Do you recall independently of the phone7 records, please?8 A They’re right here in front of me, so I’d like9 to look at it.10 Q I’m not asking you about your phone records.11 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection.12 THE COURT: Let her look at the record and see13 if that refreshes her recollection.14 THE WITNESS: The first time I called my15 husband was at 10:52.16 BY MR. O’CONNELL: 17 Q I’m not asking when you called him, I’m asking18 him when you called him and told him you were back19 because, isn’t it true, that the first time you called20 him that day you told him you were in Georgia?21 A That is true.22 Q Why did you do that?23Wiggins - COJ - 000285

98


A I did that because I was scared that he was1 going to, I was very afraid that he was going to take her2 and I wouldn’t know what was going on. 3 Q He had surrendered his passport, didn’t he?4 A No, he did not surrender his passport.5 Q Did he surrender her passport? I misspoke, did6 he surrender her passport?7 A Yes, he did.8 Q Did he do anything to lead you to believe that9 he had taken the child out of the country?10 A Yes, he did.11 Q What was it?12 A He lied to me on both occasions of taking her13 to the German School and the headmaster of the German14 School said to me, she was afraid --15 THE COURT: No, that’s hearsay.16 THE WITNESS: Okay. Ms. Woods was also told17 this by the German School director. She was afraid that18 my daughter was going to be taken to Germany and Ms. Wood19 was told this too.20 BY MR. O’CONNELL:21 Q Why didn’t you have your attorney call me and22 negotiate a return since you had essentially completed23Wiggins - COJ - 000286

99


the things that you thought that the Court wanted you to1 complete?2 A I called my attorney --3 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, objection. Why4 didn’t you have your attorney, that’s not a fair5 question. Looking back after the fact, why her6 attorney/client relationship wasn’t different and why she7 didn’t tell her attorney. I mean, she’s the client. 8 She’s the lay person and I don’t know what her answer9 could be, but I object.10 THE COURT: All right. I was taught in law11 school never to ask why questions unless you know the12 answer.13 MR. O’CONNELL: Well --14 THE COURT: You have to be careful when you ask15 why questions. What’s your next question?16 BY MR. O’CONNELL:17 Q What time did you call your attorney?18 A I called my attorney at 11:05, 11:06 and 11:42.19 Q And it is your testimony here today that you20 told your attorney that you were going to go pick up the21 child yourself?22 A I actually had spoken to my attorney —23Wiggins - COJ - 000287

100


MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, objection, objection,1 attorney/client privilege.2 THE COURT: Sustained, sustained, sustained.3 BY MR. O’CONNELL:4 Q Which attorney did you speak with at any time5 prior to picking up the child?6 A Mr. Michael Miller.7 Q Did you speak to him for 25 minutes?8 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I object to all9 questions regarding her communications with her attorney.10 THE COURT: Well, I’ll allow how long she11 talked to him.12 THE WITNESS: The first time was one minute. 13 The second time was 26 minutes, including being put on14 hold and the third time was four minutes.15 BY MR. O’CONNELL:16 Q How long did you actually talk to him in the 2617 minutes?18 A I did not document, I only have what I have in19 front of me.20 Q Okay.21 A I didn’t have a timer at the time.22 Q More or less than five minutes?23Wiggins - COJ - 000288

101


A I don’t have a timer, I don’t remember that. I1 just know that I spoke to my counsel.2 Q Now you testified that your mother was released3 from the hospital, when?4 A My mother was released from the hospital on the5 morning of the 11th, well, I would say discharged.6 Q That was Monday?7 A That was Monday, about 2:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m in8 the morning.9 Q And you were under the impression that your10 mother was very sick then?11 A Actually she was very sick and believe it or12 not she’s still pretty sick, but I thank god that she’s13 alive.14 Q Then why in the world did you take her, instead15 of taking her home to Atlanta where she should have been,16 and drive her all the way here on a 12-hour trip in the17 back of your car? Isn’t that tough on someone that’s18 very sick that just had a stroke?19 A I believe in family and families stick20 together.21 THE COURT: Answer the question.22 THE WITNESS: The question, I --23Wiggins - COJ - 000289

102


THE COURT: Someone who just had a stroke --1 THE WITNESS: What you have to look at are the2 circumstances.3 THE COURT: No, just yes or no. Don’t you4 think that’s tough on someone who just had a stroke and5 just getting out of the hospital to drive that far?6 THE WITNESS: I conferred with her doctor and7 her doctor said that is what we should do.8 THE COURT: I don’t want to know what the9 doctor said. It’s a simple question, do you think, what10 do you think?11 THE WITNESS: I think you can ask my mother for12 yourself how it was.13 THE COURT: No, the question is what do you14 think. I don’t know what’s so difficult about that?15 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I think16 that she did do okay during that drive.17 THE COURT: That’s not the question. The18 question is do you think it was difficult, would be19 difficult on a person who just had a stroke, who just got20 out of the hospital to get in a car and drive 12 hours21 away.22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. I think it was23Wiggins - COJ - 000290

103


difficult for her.1 THE COURT: Okay, so that’s your answer. 2 What’s your next question?3 See, you’re making this more difficult than it4 has to be. You really are. There’s no trick questions.5 THE WITNESS: I understand that, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. O’CONNELL:7 Q Did you attempt through third parties, before8 picking up the child, to arrange for a negotiated pick up9 of the child?10 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, Your Honor. That’s11 the same question as before.12 THE COURT: How’s that question different?13 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, third parties, it doesn’t14 have to be --15 THE COURT: Well, she’s already said that she16 just went and picked the child up. I mean, I don’t know17 what else do you want her to say? Didn’t she say, she18 didn’t say she called anybody to negotiate, she said she19 just went and picked her up.20 BY MR. O’CONNELL:21 Q Why didn’t you attempt?22 A I spoke to my counsel.23Wiggins - COJ - 000291

104


Q No, see now, I’m asking you --1 THE COURT: That’s not the question.2 BY MR. O’CONNELL:3 Q Why didn’t you attempt to try to work things4 out to have the transfer done without incident so it5 would be better on your child?6 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, Your Honor.7 THE COURT: That’s a good question. 8 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.9 THE COURT: That’s the best of all the10 questions he asked.11 THE WITNESS: I spoke with my counsel and I12 followed the advice of my counsel.13 THE COURT: That’s not what the question is,14 about you following the advice of your counsel. The15 question is, why wouldn’t you arrange something that16 would be less traumatic for the child.17 THE WITNESS: I spoke with my counsel and I18 thought my counsel would do whatever is needed to do what19 I was supposed to do to show that I had met the20 requirements and that I was going to pick up my child. I21 don’t know how much I’m allowed to say --22 MR. O’CONNELL: I have no further questions. I23Wiggins - COJ - 000292

105


do proffer that Michelle Wood will indicate that she1 didn’t receive any notice of Ms. King being back in town2 until much later.3 THE COURT: Okay.4 MR. CALLAHAN: All right.5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION6 BY MR. CALLAHAN:7 Q I’m going to show you something and ask if you8 can identify it.9 MR. CALLAHAN: May I approach, Your Honor?10 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, Your Honor. This is11 outside of the scope.12 THE COURT: I don’t know what --13 MR. O’CONNELL: And it also is irrelevant14 because it occurred at 13:53, which I think is 1:53 on15 February 12th, after she had already absconded with the16 child.17 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection to the18 characterization, Your Honor.19 MR. O’CONNELL: Kidnaped then.20 MR. CALLAHAN: Objected to the attempt at --21 BY MR. CALLAHAN:22 Q Would you identify that? Let me know who’s it23Wiggins - COJ - 000293

106


from and who’s it to?1 A It’s an email dated Tuesday the 12th of2 February, 2008, at 13:53 to Ms. Deborah Olin, to Ms.3 Michelle Wood, cc my counsel at the time, Mr. Mike4 Miller.5 Q It’s from you?6 A Yes, it’s from me.7 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevance, Your8 Honor. Either it’s a self-serving statement about what9 she said to other people afterwards, or as is more to the10 point, it’s an email which not only not having been11 provided in discovery, but also is after the fact and12 therefore irrelevant. What she did she did before then. 13 I wasn’t allowed to get into all sorts of things that14 happened before I filed the rule. This is something that15 happened after she violated the order.16 THE COURT: That’s a good point.17 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I haven’t offered it yet,18 Your Honor.19 THE COURT: Okay.20 BY MR. CALLAHAN:21 Q Did you actually send this email?22 A Yes, I sent it, along with a copy of my lease23Wiggins - COJ - 000294

107


for my Maryland home, so they could see where I was1 living.2 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevance.3 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I offer it to be4 admitted.5 THE COURT: If it was an email she sent after6 the fact, after she had already taken the child, then the7 Court is going to sustain the objection.8 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, he just proffered9 that Michelle Wood was not notified until long after. He10 didn’t testify, but --11 THE COURT: He said after.12 MR. CALLAHAN: No, he said much later, meaning,13 I’m assuming that means not that day.14 THE COURT: It was after the fact is the issue.15 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. Your Honor, could you16 rule?17 THE COURT: Yes.18 MR. CALLAHAN: And?19 THE COURT: It doesn’t really help your client. 20 I’ll take it, I’ll admit it.21 (The document described above was marked22 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 1 for23Wiggins - COJ - 000295

108


identification and was received into1 evidence.)2 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.3 BY MR. CALLAHAN:4 Q Now, your, okay, your question regarding, I5 think the wisdom of driving your mother back here, okay?6 A Yes.7 Q Why did you do that?8 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, asked and answered.9 THE WITNESS: I’m an only child and she needed10 me to care for her on a long term basis.11 BY MR. CALLAHAN:12 Q Why couldn’t she just go home?13 A She couldn’t sit up. She still has memory14 problems. She still has problems with her heart and her15 blood pressure. I was advised by those people that were16 caring for her that she needed long-term care.17 Q Why couldn’t she fly?18 A Because she had a neurological reason, and she19 was still pretty unstable, stable enough to leave the20 hospital but not stable enough to fly.21 Q Okay.22 Now, when you, what problems, did you23Wiggins - COJ - 000296

109


anticipate an incident on February 12th when you went to1 your husband’s house?2 A I did --3 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, excuse me,4 objection. We’re -- I mean, he had his bite at it. I5 then had my cross examination. He’s going over the same6 material again.7 THE COURT: Sustained.8 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I did not get into,9 counsel suggested that she created an incident, bad10 parenting, she shouldn’t have done it, she should have11 had her counsel negotiate with him. I think whether or12 not she thought there would be this confrontation13 certainly was relevant and I wanted to ask her about14 that.15 THE COURT: Okay.16 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, then I guess I get to17 cross exam her about what she says about it. I’ll be18 quiet, Your Honor.19 BY MR. CALLAHAN:20 Q What, if anything, did you anticipate would21 happen when you when to pick her up or to see her?22 A Well, I actually went to find her. I was going23Wiggins - COJ - 000297

110


to go find her. Nobody knew where she was.1 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, hearsay.2 BY MR. CALLAHAN:3 Q Did you anticipate problems?4 A No.5 MR. CALLAHAN: Nothing further on that. 6 Nothing further, Your Honor.7 THE COURT: You can have a seat, Ma’am.8 MR. CALLAHAN: We have no further witnesses,9 Your Honor.10 THE COURT: Do you have any?11 MR. O’CONNELL: Not after the document admitted12 says when she was notified. No, I have no further13 witnesses, Your Honor.14 THE COURT: Okay. Argument?15 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I think it’s not my turn. 16 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, my client, the17 evidence shows she went to Atlanta. Her mother became18 very ill. She went to Atlanta to be at her side. She19 took the child. I think the evidence today and prior20 hearings show that there was an impression that, not just21 that she had violated the terms of the visitation, but22 that there was some animus, that she did it on purpose,23Wiggins - COJ - 000298

111


that her mother wasn’t really sick.1 And then through what came out of the last2 hearing, I think the evidence will show there was a3 family emergency.4 THE COURT: But I keep saying, counsel, that5 was not the issue.6 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m getting to the issue.7 THE COURT: I mean, that it was a family8 emergency.9 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.10 THE COURT: I don’t doubt it was a family11 emergency.12 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.13 She returned on February 8 from Atlanta. She14 returned to attend the hearing. The Court ordered her to15 do several things. The Court ordered her to go back to16 Atlanta and get the child and bring her back here. She’s17 going to stay in the area with dad while you’re in18 Atlanta.19 The Court then said, meet three conditions and20 custody will be returned. Mr. O’Connell asked you to21 rule, there should be a motion before it’s returned and22 you said, no, meet those three conditions.23Wiggins - COJ - 000299

112


I’d like to just think about what she did to1 comply with the Court’s order and think about her2 failure. She was here that day. She flew back, she flew3 back, she flew down, I’ll say down and up. She flew down4 to Atlanta, she flew back here, all a great disruption,5 all at great expense while she’s worried about her6 mother.7 She delivers Ariana to dad. She goes back down8 there to deal with her situation with her mother. She9 drives back up here, okay. Now, she’s done all that;10 she’s followed all your orders. Now what does she have11 to do? She’s got to verify her address, start counseling12 and show that she’s back in the area. Okay. And then13 custody will be restored.14 So arguably, she didn’t do it all completely. 15 She didn’t file the praecipe, she didn’t wait. But, Your16 Honor, can you find that’s willful? I mean, that was the17 easy part. That was the easy part. She did the hard18 part.19 THE COURT: But, counsel, let me just be frank20 with you. The problems I have with all of this. It21 seemed kind of sneaky to me the way it was done, that she22 comes back into town, she doesn’t tell the father she’s23Wiggins - COJ - 000300

113


back in town and she’s just going to show up at school1 without telling him. 2 And what was she going to do at school, take3 the child? I suspect she was going to school to take the4 child because it makes no sense of this going to the5 house, calling the police and having the police come out,6 showing them the order that the Court had entered without7 telling them, this is what makes it look bad --8 MR. CALLAHAN: Well --9 THE COURT: And there’s nothing you can do10 about that, I mean, it makes her look bad that she11 handled the situation like that as opposed to nothing. 12 She could have just waited. If there was going to be a13 problem with the exchange of the child, I think I’ve been14 extremely reasonable with this whole affair to both15 parties here. And she knows I’m going to be fair. 16 It seems to me that she would just come to17 Court the next day. If there was going to be a problem,18 to call the police, to get the police involved and19 traumatizing the child, that to me is not in the child’s20 best interest.21 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.22 THE COURT: And, you know, the whole Atlanta23Wiggins - COJ - 000301

114


thing that her mother had just got out of the hospital, I1 don’t understand why she would drag her mother, who just2 had a stroke from Atlanta to Arlington, or to Virginia as3 opposed to taking her back to her home in Georgia and4 being with her mother in Georgia and help her get better5 there. Her daughter was perfectly taken care of here6 with the father. And that was, with her with the father7 gave her the opportunity to care for her mother. To me,8 it’s a win/win situation for the mother.9 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Your Honor --10 THE COURT: She had someone there to take care11 of her.12 MR. CALLAHAN: I mean, I suppose there were13 other options, but she testified that she had a --14 THE COURT: It seems to me that --15 MR. CALLAHAN: She has a life; she has to work. 16 She had to come back and she had to bring her mother.17 THE COURT: If her mother hadn’t been released18 from the hospital, where was she going to be, still in19 Atlanta? 20 MR. CALLAHAN: She would bring her up.21 THE COURT: Was she going to stay in Atlanta if22 her mother was not released from the hospital that day? 23Wiggins - COJ - 000302

115


To me, I mean, it’s no question she violated the order. 1 There’s no question. She violated that order in that she2 didn’t comply with the Court order. She didn’t provide3 the information; she just went and was just going to take4 the child.5 And it was not the intent of the Court for her6 to just show up and take the child. And I would never,7 you know, would want that to happen without everybody8 being on the same page, knowing that, hey, I’m back in9 town, I provided you with this information and I’m coming10 to get the child. I want to pick up the child on this11 date. That’s how mature parents treat the situation.12 The Court never got notice that she had13 complied with it. And she had to also let the Court know14 that she did, that she was going to do this. She didn’t15 do it. And to say that, you know, to give the16 information after the fact doesn’t cure the contempt. 17 She’s already violated the order at that particular point18 in time.19 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Your Honor, I think she20 testified, she gave the information to counsel and she21 didn’t know what would happen.22 THE COURT: Well, you know, ultimately she’s23Wiggins - COJ - 000303

116


responsible. And, you know, I mean, there’s no question1 she’s in contempt. She didn’t do it. She violated the2 Court order.3 As far as the visitation, I don’t think that’s4 been proven because the father left and there’s been no5 testimony from him that he tried to exercise the6 Wednesday visitation. And the testimony from her was7 that on the Wednesdays that the visitation did occur,8 except for a few Wednesdays in which the child was sick,9 and the father agreed not to take the child out. So the10 Court is not going to find her in contempt for not, you11 know, allowing the Wednesday visitation.12 As far as Dr. Lane, it’s a closer call here,13 but by her own testimony, that even after coming to14 Court, she didn’t make any attempt to try to contact Dr.15 Lane to, you know, arrange a visit, and also by her own16 testimony that she moved and did not even inform Dr. Lane17 she had a new address. So it’s kind of hard for him to18 write her a letter to let her know that he wants to see19 her. But I think, through his custody evaluation, you20 would know that the psychologist is going to want to talk21 to you and come to the home and visit you with the child. 22 So I think she didn’t cooperate with Dr. Lane. So the23Wiggins - COJ - 000304

117


Court will find her in contempt for those two things.1 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Your Honor, I think that2 there was testimony they communicated by email.3 THE COURT: Yes, but --4 MR. CALLAHAN: And also that --5 THE COURT: But she testified herself that she6 moved and did not contact Dr. Lane and that, that she7 didn’t contact, her testimony is pretty clear, I never8 contacted him. He contacted me and he never contacted9 me, so I didn’t contact him. So the burden was on her to10 make the moves, to make the appointment. She was the one11 ordered to cooperate, to complete the psychological. And12 she did nothing to make it happen.13 MR. CALLAHAN: Well --14 THE COURT: She said that, that’s what she15 testified to; she didn’t do anything. She said she16 didn’t call; she didn’t write. She thought Dr. Lane was17 going to call her so she didn’t do anything. Even after18 coming to Court, she didn’t make any contact. It seems19 to me that once she came to Court, she should have20 definitely --21 MR. O’CONNELL: If I may chime in just briefly,22 Your Honor. Your Honor instructed her, because remember23Wiggins - COJ - 000305

118


on November 8th the evaluation was supposed to be1 completed. There was some issue as to why it hadn’t been2 completed.3 THE COURT: I remember.4 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor directed her to5 cooperate. It was an affirmative direction and she6 ignored that direction at her own peril.7 THE COURT: And I agree with that because we8 had a discussion about it and she got to Court and she9 defied the Court order and didn’t do it.10 MR. O’CONNELL: And, Your Honor, also this11 serial replacement of attorneys and then using the12 attorneys who are conveniently not here because they13 can’t be accused of procreating a fraud in front of the14 Court, so she says, well, I was just following advice of15 counsel blankly. And I don’t think that’s adequate when16 you’re disobeying a Court order to simply say you were17 following advice of counsel.18 MR. CALLAHAN: The gist of her testimony --19 THE COURT: Well, I have already found her in20 contempt of Court.21 MR. CALLAHAN: Could I just say respectfully22 just one thing?23Wiggins - COJ - 000306

119


THE COURT: Yes, Sir, absolutely.1 MR. CALLAHAN: Her testimony was we had, this2 was the way we had done it. He made the appointments; I3 showed up. He made the appointments and I showed up. 4 And --5 THE COURT: But I remember her testimony. I6 also remember what I told her.7 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.8 THE COURT: And there’s no way when she came in9 here and I ordered her to cooperate and to participate in10 that psychological, she could have taken that to mean11 that she was going to wait for Dr. Lane to contact her. 12 I don’t accept that.13 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.14 THE COURT: I don’t accept that. I think I was15 pretty strong in what I told her, to cooperate, and it16 did not mean for her to not do anything. It was an17 affirmative duty for her to do something. Just like,18 even with that, I still let her, you know, when I make my19 ruling about the child going with the father, I was still20 giving her the benefit of the doubt. I’ve always given21 her the benefit of the doubt. But she’s in contempt of22 Court, you know.23Wiggins - COJ - 000307

120


MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor --1 THE COURT: Because I think that, you know,2 because I have always given her the benefit of the doubt,3 she doesn’t feel like she has to follow the Court orders4 or what, I mean --5 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I just want to say,6 I haven’t made of this because you hadn’t found her in7 contempt yet, and now you have.8 THE COURT: Okay.9 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, my client gets the10 message. She knows she’s here; she knows you’re going to11 decide custody. The Court has denied the motion to12 dismiss. She wants to cooperate in the process, provide13 the Court with all the information you need to make a14 custody decision and observe the Court order.15 THE COURT: Well, like I said, she’s making it,16 she’s making this much more difficult than it has to be17 and she’s making her case much more difficult by behaving18 in this way as opposed to cooperating and, you know, and19 the whole spirit of, you know, parenting, you know.20 You know what she was saying about the father21 and her, you know, compromising, and sometimes having to22 modify the visitation to accommodate the child or their23Wiggins - COJ - 000308

121


schedule. I mean, that’s what you want to hear parents1 say, you know. Not one parent dictating to the other2 parent when you’re going to see her and when you’re not.3 MR. CALLAHAN: Uh huh.4 THE COURT: That’s not what you’re expecting.5 You expect parents to work together to come up with these6 solutions to problems because the problems are going to7 pop up. And this child is young. They are probably8 going to pop up a lot.9 It’s just that, you know, I’m really, you know,10 I mean, she violated the Court order. And I kind of feel11 like it’s my fault because maybe I was just too nice12 initially. So what are you asking the Court to do, Mr.13 O’Connell?14 MR. O’CONNELL: Oh, jeez, do I have to be a15 judge now, Your Honor?16 THE COURT: No, I’m just wondering, what do you17 want the Court to do?18 MR. O’CONNELL: I think Your Honor has19 accurately identified the problem in that she doesn’t20 take the Court seriously and its orders. But I think21 that there’s something else. I think the other thing is22 it’s demonstrative of a reckless disregard for the23Wiggins - COJ - 000309

122


father’s relationship with the child, in fact, with1 people around her that don’t fit her plan.2 I think taking her mom back the way she did3 showed callous disregard for her mom. I think collecting4 the child showed callous disregard for the child. I5 think it was very clear it could have worked out without6 any of those things happening. 7 And so my feeling is that there should be some8 punishment for this. I’m going to leave it up to the9 Court as to what that punishment should be, because quite10 frankly you’ve got a lot better, a lot more experience11 than I do in what punishment should be meted out in order12 to how to modulate that to get somebody’s attention.13 But this woman’s attention needs to be gotten14 somehow, and I think that unless you do something with15 her that she’s not going to get the message. I’m not16 asking for long term incarceration, but I think she needs17 to get the message.18 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I don’t think that,19 well, first, I just can’t understand how anybody can20 accuse her of reckless disregard of her mother. I mean,21 after -- 22 THE COURT: Well, I think --23Wiggins - COJ - 000310

123


MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I just don’t follow that.1 THE COURT: Well, maybe reckless was a little2 too strong, but I --3 MR. O’CONNELL: I meant to say callous, Your4 Honor.5 THE COURT: I do think that it was a little,6 not a good thing to drive her mother this far away in a7 car just getting out of the hospital. I don’t think that8 was a good thing to do especially, it would be one thing9 if her daughter was not being taken care of, but this10 particular case her daughter was being taken care of.11 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.12 THE COURT: And, I mean, I really don’t13 understand it because, you know, it really wouldn’t have14 had, I think I made it clear that the fact that the child15 was with the father as far as physical custody, the16 mother’s family emergency, there was no an indication17 that the Court was going to grant the father primary18 physical custody of the child. It’s just that in this19 emergency state it made more sense for the child to be20 with her father while her mother dealt with her21 grandmother. It just made more sense all the way around.22 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor --23Wiggins - COJ - 000311

124


THE COURT: So I don’t really understand her1 reaction to it and to take it to the level that she took2 it.3 MR. CALLAHAN: Her reaction, her mother is not4 here because of any Court order. Her mother has to be5 here. That’s what she testified to. She’s got 24-hour6 care for her here, for her mother here. She lives, three7 people, 24-hour care. My client lives here. She had to8 be here. There’s just no --9 THE COURT: But my point is --10 MR. CALLAHAN: But there’s no other option.11 THE COURT: But when she came, when the request12 for the continuance came up, it was for a long-term13 continuance, a continuance so far out so that she could14 be in Georgia to take care of her mother. So she wasn’t15 going to be working in Georgia at that particular time.16 She wasn’t going to be working at that point in time. 17 So it’s kind of hard pressed to come and say18 that she had to bring her back that day because she had19 to work because that wasn’t the plan when the motion for20 a continuance was filed, that was not the indication that21 it was going to be for a week so that she could drive her22 mother back. Quite the contrary, she was planning on23Wiggins - COJ - 000312

125


being in Georgia for a while.1 MR. CALLAHAN: All right. Your Honor --2 THE COURT: To take care of her mother. And3 there is nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong4 with that. Actually there is nothing wrong with her5 going to Georgia to take care of mother; there’s nothing6 wrong with that. That’s a very good thing to do.7 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes.8 THE COURT: I mean, I don’t see anything wrong9 with that.10 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.11 THE COURT: But my point is, why bring the12 child with you is the point. Let the child stay here in13 her environment while she goes and deals with her sick14 mother. If her mother is that bad off, and really her15 daughter is not going to have the attention that she16 needs, leave her with her father and let her father take17 care of her for a little while. There’s nothing wrong18 with that.19 MR. CALLAHAN: That’s true, Your Honor. She20 respectfully disagreed. She took her daughter with her. 21 This Court ordered her to bring her daughter back and she22 brought her back.23Wiggins - COJ - 000313

126


THE COURT: Yes.1 MR. CALLAHAN: She did all the tough stuff. 2 She did the stuff that costs time, money and stress.3 THE COURT: She did it because if she would4 have left the child here in the first place, that5 wouldn’t have been an issue.6 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m just getting to the point,7 Judge.8 THE COURT: Now, she made this more complicated9 than it has to be.10 MR. CALLAHAN: Things are complicated, Your11 Honor. I will grant you that.12 THE COURT: Yes, I mean it’s really not,13 especially in light of the fact that I really don’t know14 what she thought that would mean to leave the child. 15 That’s what parents do; they cooperate. You go, I’m16 having an emergency. Can you watch the child while I17 deal with my family emergency? That’s what parents do. 18 And you don’t hold it against the other parent because19 they have an emergency.20 The Court wouldn’t hold it against her because21 she had a family emergency. That’s not what the Court is22 going to base this decision on.23Wiggins - COJ - 000314

127


So the Court will find her in contempt of1 Court. 2 Ms. King, will you please stand. What would3 you like to say as far as what you think the Court should4 do as far as disposition?5 DR. KING: Your Honor, I want to say that I do6 understand that I must follow the laws of this Court. I7 do recognize by what you’ve said that I’ve been held in8 contempt. I want Your Honor and this Court to know that9 that was not my reckless intention. I also want Your10 Honor to know that my family means everything to me,11 including my mother, and I would never put her in harms12 way.13 THE COURT: I don’t think you did it14 intentionally; I just don’t think you thought it out15 completely. What was important to you was getting back16 here to get your daughter back. And I understand that17 too.18 DR. KING: I understand that you’ll have to19 rule; most of us find ourselves between a rock and a hard20 place many times in our lives and I’m just saying that --21 THE COURT: Well, let me just say this, you22 weren’t in between a rock and hard place, you know why,23Wiggins - COJ - 000315

128


because you were there to take care of your mother. Your1 husband was there to take care of your daughter. And2 that’s a good situation. And it was only set up for a3 temporary period of time so -- but, you know, it’s just,4 Dr. King, Ms. King, I just don’t know what to make of it.5 This is like the third time finding you in contempt of6 Court, you know, and Ms. Olin says that now you’re7 cooperating with her. 8 But, you know, why does it have to get to9 that point, finding you in contempt to get you to do what10 the Court, even though, there are orders of the Court and11 you have to follow the Court’s orders. 12 What the Court is going to do is continue the13 disposition because I want to think about it, you know,14 as to what the disposition should be. I’m going to think15 about it and I want to also see the psychological before16 I decide what the sentence should be.17 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, what left on the18 18th?19 THE COURT: Nothing.20 MR. CALLAHAN: Nothing?21 THE COURT: I moved everything from the 18th to,22 what’s the date, June 6th. Obviously, I’m going to take a23Wiggins - COJ - 000316

129


look at the psychological before then for the Court to1 decide on what the disposition should be.2 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.3 Your Honor, it’s not something for today, but4 it’s something the parties have not been able to resolve5 and I thought maybe we could resolve it and I thought6 maybe we can resolve it if we go out and talk. Could you7 pass us for five minutes? The problem is visitation. I8 think due to a misstatement there is from 8:00 a.m to9 6:00 p.m.10 MR. O’CONNELL: We’re not hearing that today,11 Your Honor.12 MR. CALLAHAN: I know that.13 THE COURT: Well, let’s see what the problem14 is.15 MR. CALLAHAN: 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m, there’s no16 overnights. So the weekend she doesn’t have her, the17 child goes like 12 days seeing her mother only on18 weekdays only after she gets out of class and activities.19 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor.20 MR. CALLAHAN: And there has been no extra21 visitation.22 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, Your Honor, she does have23Wiggins - COJ - 000317

130


weekend visitation. She has the child during the week. 1 She’s been given a little bit of extra time so that she2 could have dinner with her. She’s actually taken too3 much of that time because she feeds her too late. But in4 any case, this is not the time to bring that up. Your5 Honor already ruled that you’re not going to reconsider6 the visitation issue and that order, and my client isn’t7 even here. I let him go for good reasons because --8 THE COURT: Okay, I’m just trying to9 understand. You said the weekend --10 MR. CALLAHAN: No, she --11 THE COURT: Does not have overnight visits? 12 She sees the child during the week, though?13 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, yes, for a brief afternoon14 visit. The child is in school from 12:30 --15 THE COURT: Mr. O’Connell?16 MR. CALLAHAN: She gets out at 12:30, but on17 Wednesday and Thursday she has activities.18 DR. KING: I know, Your Honor, the Court said19 she should carry on with what she has and she has20 gymnastics and ballet. So usually I get to see her for21 about two to two and a half hours before I have to bring22 her back to her other home, her father’s home.23Wiggins - COJ - 000318

131


MR. CALLAHAN: And she’s been at the YMCA the1 last two weeks until --2 DR. KING: She had vacation and she’s at the Y3 from 8:00 a.m to 6:30 and I offered my husband if I could4 take care of her but he wouldn’t allow me to. I was only5 allowed to have her during my visitation days.6 MR. O’CONNELL: My understanding is that that7 is completely inaccurate. She was at the YMCA for8 several days, but on Mondays and Tuesdays and Fridays,9 actually the first week and then Mondays and Fridays the10 second week. So that means she actually spent Tuesdays11 and part of Wednesday at the YMCA.12 In any case, my client isn’t here for13 testimony, Your Honor, and --14 THE COURT: Well, what is your objection to her15 having overnights during the week that she doesn’t have16 an overnight on the weekend?17 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, number one, my client is18 not here, and it is true that Your Honor, just to be very19 clear, it’s inappropriate to be talking about this20 without my client here. I know that --21 THE COURT: Well, you’re here.22 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I’m not my client, Your23Wiggins - COJ - 000319

132


Honor.1 THE COURT: You represent him.2 MR. O’CONNELL: Okay. My objection to her3 having overnights generally at this point other than the4 weekends --5 THE COURT: But she has overnights --6 MR. O’CONNELL: Other than the weekends, I7 mean, if she wanted to have one overnight during the week8 that she didn’t have the child previously --9 THE COURT: Right.10 MR. O’CONNELL: But actually there have been11 several things said here that just aren’t true. For12 instance, he gave her, the first weekend, she said there13 was no additional visitation. He gave her the first14 weekend --15 THE COURT: That’s not the point. 16 MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.17 THE COURT: My question is, what is the problem18 with her having an overnight visit on the weeks that she19 doesn’t get a weekend overnight?20 MR. O’CONNELL: I don’t have a problem with a21 Wednesday night visit, Your Honor. I don’t have22 authority to say that, but I’m sure my client would be23Wiggins - COJ - 000320

133


okay with it. 1 But that’s not my point. My point is that what2 just happened is that a bunch of representations were3 made about what was happening with the child, including4 that he didn’t get any extra visitation -- that he didn’t5 give any extra visitation when, in fact he gave a whole6 weekend of extra visitation.7 And several other negotiated additional8 visitations, which I negotiated with Mr. Drury and Mr.9 Gross. So it’s just not factual. So you’re getting this10 idea that somehow we’re not being the giving people that11 we, in fact, have been.12 THE COURT: I do not have that idea.13 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, okay. Well, in any case,14 I wouldn’t have a problem with Wednesday. Well, I mean,15 I had to clear it up.16 THE COURT: I don’t have that impression. I17 actually have not formed an opinion about that one way or18 the other.19 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I could have my client20 here, but I can’t right now. 21 THE COURT: Well, I think at the custody22 hearing obviously the Court can consider whether one23Wiggins - COJ - 000321

134


parent has unreasonably withheld visitation.1 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m very aware of that.2 THE COURT: All of those are facts the Court3 can consider.4 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s right. But in terms of5 Wednesday night, Your Honor, that seems to me to be not a6 problem.7 THE COURT: I agree. The Court’s going to8 allow the weekends that the mother does not have an9 overnight visit on the weekend, which is two weekends,10 there will be two weeks out of the month until we come11 back, the mother can have visitation on Wednesday night12 until Thursday. What time does she finish her Thursday13 activity, around 7:00 I guess?14 DR. KING: Yes.15 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, Your Honor, I would have16 something to say about that because I am familiar --17 THE COURT: Wait a minute, both of you can’t18 talk at the same time.19 MR. O’CONNELL: I am familiar with the problems20 that we’ve had. Mr. Drury first contacted me, asked for21 a little extra time. I gave him a little extra time. I22 gave him until 6:30, it ended up being 7:45. We need to23Wiggins - COJ - 000322

135


have it closer to 6:30, not because of what I think or1 because we’re trying to be stingy, but because when the2 child gets home beyond 6:30 she starts to get --3 THE COURT: Cranky?4 MR. O’CONNELL: A little tired and cranky. So5 that’s not a good time to hand over the child.6 Also I would bring to the Court’s attention7 that on several occasions, the au pair has recorded,8 using video tape, the transfers and it’s caused the child9 additional agitation and I would like the parties10 instructed that that should not occur.11 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let me just make12 this clear. Okay. You should make this easy for your13 child and not difficult. And the transition should be as14 smooth as possible, without a lot of drama associated15 with it for the child’s sake.16 And there’s no need to add a lot of emotion to17 it, crying and carrying on, I miss you, I can’t wait to18 see you, you know. Just make it easier for the child to19 move to the next parent. 20 And I think that you have to stick with the21 Court’s order at the specific times. The child is young. 22 She shouldn’t be out late at night, even though summer is23Wiggins - COJ - 000323

136


coming, but we’ll be back here June 6th before the summer1 officially starts. I think a child her age, 6:30 is2 pretty good to get her back.3 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, my client is telling4 me that she’s been giving her dinner.5 DR. KING: I’ve been asked by my husband to6 feed her and to bathe her so that when she’s ready to7 come back --8 THE COURT: Okay, in that case, 7:00.9 MR. O’CONNELL: But, Your Honor, that’s, she10 picks her up, I mean, 7:00 is too late for this child. 11 We think 6:30 is better for the child. And I’ve been --12 THE COURT: 7:00 if she’s already been fed and13 bathed; that’s pretty good.14 DR. KING: I also put her in pajamas --15 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, we don’t want her16 put in pajamas because that creates a problem. He has17 pajamas for her and she shouldn’t be transported in18 pajamas and it also has to do with what clothes, there’s19 a cycle of clothes. We’d like her returned in her20 regular clothes. If they want to bathe her, that’s fine. 21 And, well, Your Honor, doesn’t need to micro manage the22 pajama issue. I withdraw that comment.23Wiggins - COJ - 000324

137


THE COURT: You see the way I’m looking at you.1 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, I wasn’t seeing that. 2 I was thinking about my own kid and whether he has3 pajamas on or not.4 THE COURT: All right, Wednesday. What time is5 the visitation currently set for Wednesday?6 MR. CALLAHAN: 8:00 to 6:00, Your Honor.7 THE COURT: So she can pick the child up at8 8:00 on Wednesday and return the child on Thursday, if9 he’s requiring her to feed his child --10 MR. O’CONNELL: He’s not; that’s simply a lie,11 Your Honor. I mean, we don’t have my client here to12 respond to it.13 THE COURT: All right, then she returns the14 child at 6:30, you have to bring the child, you have to15 have her back home at 6:30.16 MR. CALLAHAN: He’s been dropping off in the17 morning.18 THE COURT: I’m sorry?19 MR. CALLAHAN: The father’s been dropping off.20 THE COURT: Okay, as long as she’s home by 6:3021 on Thursday.22 MR. CALLAHAN: So that’s Wednesday he drops off23Wiggins - COJ - 000325

138


at 8:00; Thursday she brings the child back at 6:30?1 THE COURT: Yes.2 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s not a problem.3 DR. KING: We’ll just eat earlier.4 THE COURT: I’m sorry?5 DR. KING: We’ll just eat earlier, Your Honor.6 THE COURT: I just want her home at 6:30.7 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.8 DR. KING: Yes, Your Honor.9 THE COURT: Not 6:45, 6:50, 6:30.10 MR. O’CONNELL: But that’s only every other11 week, Your Honor.12 THE COURT: It’s the weeks that she doesn’t13 have visitation.14 MR. O’CONNELL: But I want her to know that15 because sometimes she has some trouble being clear.16 THE COURT: Well, I don’t know how clearer I17 can make it that it’s the weeks that she does not have18 the overnight visits. It’s one weekend unless there’s a19 fifth weekend, like I think last month was.20 DR. KING: Right.21 THE COURT: But short of that.22 MR. CALLAHAN: The week, if she doesn’t have23Wiggins - COJ - 000326

139


them --1 THE COURT: The weekend visitation.2 MR. CALLAHAN: This coming Saturday.3 THE COURT: Right.4 MR. CALLAHAN: She doesn’t have --5 MR. O’CONNELL: I believe last month was and he6 gave up that extra weekend in accommodation.7 THE COURT: Yeah, because last month was a8 fifth week.9 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, there was an10 accommodation there; so I want the Court to realize it.11 THE COURT: Okay.12 MR. O’CONNELL: Are we done then?13 THE COURT: There’s something else. I saw, an14 arraignment for something? I don’t know, let me take a15 look, an advisory on, it’s a motion of custody, is that16 your emergency motion?17 MR. CALLAHAN: A motion for a rehearing on the18 change of custody.19 THE COURT: Okay, I think I denied that, didn’t20 I?21 MR. CALLAHAN: You did, Your Honor. You22 already said you wouldn’t hear it today.23Wiggins - COJ - 000327

140


THE COURT: Yeah, I won’t hear it today.1 (Whereupon, the hearing in the above-captioned2 matter was concluded.)3


141


CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTERI, CAROLYN J. TIMKO, a Verbatim Reporter, dohereby certify that I took the notes of the foregoinghearing by Stenomask and thereafter reduced totypewriting under my direction; that the foregoing is atrue record of said hearing to the best of my knowledgeand ability; that I am neither related to nor employed byany attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto;nor financially or otherwise interested in the action. CAROLYN J. TIMKOCourt Reporter


I'siah Lcggett Counn Executive

DEPARTMENT OF POLir'F

J. Thomas Manger Chiefof Police

FORENSIC INTERVIEW

Adana-Leilani King-Pfeiffar DOB: O5//07/2003

Interview Date: 02/28/08 Interview Time: 1428 - 1547 hours

Interviewer: Daryl B, Leach, LCSW-C Allegation: Sexual ahuse

CONTENT: Ariana talks about Mr. Piggy at her father's house. She identifies Mr. Piggy as a "toy" that "wears a purple hat, shirt, and a tie". Mr. Piggy eats and has a voice. He says "oink, oink, oink". She characterizes Mr. Piggy's voice as having a very high pitch. She tells the interviewer that Mr. Piggy "has seen my underpants" with an action explanation showing that she covered herself as Mr. Piggy looked over his shoulder at her. Mr. Piggy i s in the "big bed" at Papa's house. Mr. Piggy says, "I'm so tired". There is no further information on Mr. Piggy in the big bed.

Ariana identifies herself as a girl. She gives the interviewer her names of body parts for both male and fcariiale figures during the body inventory inquiry.

Ariana identifies kisses that are okay come from mommy, grandma, sister, and daddy. Hugs that are okay with Ariana come from mommy and daddy, Ariana denies that her body has been touched when it was not okay with her.

Ariana identifies the back, pop0 (derriere) gina (vagina) and feet as places on females that are not to be touched. Ariana denies that anyone has touched these areas on her body. Ariana does talk about the pop0 in terms that did not make sense and Ariana did not explain further. Ariana says, "Popo just hurt and harder and hmdcr----it just gets harder".

R"h,en Ariana goes to Papa's house, she reports "he smiles.. .he kissed me on my head, eyes nose, my mouth". This is okay with Ariana, She also talks about their activities together, "we play.. .we eat.. .we sleep.. .we brush our teeth.. .we read stories". When Ariana cannot fall asleep, Papa holds her like a baby and smiles at her.

Ariana reports she sleeps "in a big bed". Mr. Piggy is in the bed with no further information. "Papa in the bed ant that's all.. .we read a story.. .Papa sleeps and then he went to his bed.. .that's all I have."

Fttmily Crimes Division

7300 Callioun Place, Suite 300 Rockville, Maryland 20855 . 240-773-5400 TTY 240-773-5465 w\vw,nion~go~~~i:ryco~ui~~~~d.gov

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins-COJ-329A

Mother taught Mana the name penis for the male genital. She further explained that she uses only the girl's bathroom, not the boy's bathroom.

Ariana reports that she has seen her father's penis. She peeked into the bathroom when Papa had closed the door and saw him urinating

Ariana says, "I don't touch penis.. .no touch gina.. .you don't touch them (pope). ..never touched a popo.. .no, Mr. Piggy doesn't touch (my) body.. .anybody doesn't touch.. .1 don't touch anybody's things".

CONSISTENCY: Ariaha is consistent in her denial that she has been touched and that she has not touched anyone's body. Areas of the female body that arc not to be tuuuhcd were identified by Ariana as the vagina, derriere, feet and back.

Ariana was consistent about Mr. Piggy being a toy that she gives human characteristics. According to Ariana, Mr. Piggy has not touched her body.

CONTEXT: Ariana describes her visits to her father's house with smiles and laughter. The activities Ariana talks about at her father's house appear to be ordinary; eating, sleeping, reading stories at bedtime.

ABILITY: Ariana appeared to be developmentally appropriate in the interview. She is able to make the representational shift from the female body inventory drawing to her own body when discussing touch. She ably identified herself as female and was able to say that her body was like the female picture.

Ariana was not able to tell about events in her l ife in an organized manner, with a beginning, middle and end. This is another example of being developmentally appropriate. Ariana knew and verbalized many details. Being able to organize facts will naturally come later in her cogitative development. The result is that Adriana can appear to be confused or lack knowledge about her life activities, which she is not.

AFFECT: -

Ariana engaged with the interviewer immediately. She was cooperative as she was working hard to convey be; hiowl~dgc abuul the various subjects that were discussed. Adriana corrected the interviewer on several occasions as well as giving details that were not asked about. An example was in the beginning of the interview, when Adriana took the marker to properly draw her

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins-COJ-329B

father's large face and her details about his appearance. h e n Adriana was certain about her information, her voice would become stronger and stem.

-

On an emotional level, Adriana did not show fear or feeling scared with the significant adults in her life. She displayed just the opposite, feelings of love and happiness when talking about either of her parents.

Many statements made by Adriana were spontaneous. She had little trouble understanding the focused open-ended questions. If there was a problem, it was the interviewer not asking clear and concise questions. It appeared to the interviewer that Adriana had more thoughts in her head than she had language to use in explanations.

Adriana appeared to have difficulty staying focused on any subject matter for more than a few minutes. She was physically active during the entire interview, not sitting for longer than a few minutes. Staying active parallels focusing time frames for Adriana, It appeared to the interviewer that Adriana thinks and speaks more clearly when physically active.

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins-COJ-329C

CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

Located at 50 Maryland Avo, Rockville, MD 20350

Telephone No. 240-777-9402 case N o . r Y o m o ~ ~ 1

TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER PETITIONERIPLAINTIFF

ARIEL KING ...

First Middle Last Data of Birth and any minoris) or minor child(ren) on whose behalf the OTHERS TO BE PROTECTED: petition was filed. (List names and date(s) nf birth.) ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER 05/07/2003 Name DOE Name DOEX

Name DOB Name DO0

Name DOB vs. Name DO0

Relationship to Petitioner Spouse Former Spouse Vulnerable Adult Cohabitant Children In Common n Parent Other relationship

4836 RESERVOIR RD .. 3 Address DRIVER'S LICENSE if

,-,. .' Questions regarding this notice should be directed to your allomey, law

State Police Firearms Enforcement Section at 410-290-0050.

WASHINGTON, DC 20007 202-427-4009 - Cily, Slailw, Zip ~elephone

CAUTION: 0 Weapon Involved

Type- 'Access To Firearm

-- Page I of a JUN 0 2 2008

Clerk of the,Circuit Court nh,.*---- -

THE COURT FINDS that under the laws of Maryland the issuing Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. THE COURT ORDERS:

that the above named Respondent SHALL NOT abuse, threaten to abuse, and/or harass the PetitionerIPlaintiff. 13 that the above named Respondent SHALL NOT contact Petitioner/Plaintiff by any means.

The terms of this Order shall be effective until 106/090{08/ Only the Court can change this Order. Monlh/Day/Year

Violation of this Order may result in criminal prosecution, imprisonment and/or fine, and contempt of court. Law enforcement shall arrest a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe is in violation of this Order, as required by Maryland Code. Family Law Article, 5 4-5n8. This'Protective Order shall be recognized and enforced by the courts of any state, the District of Columbia, any U.S.Territory, tribal lands (18 U.S.C. $2265) or Department of Defense installations. (10 U.S.C. 5 1561a) Crossing state, territorial or tribal boundaries to violate this Order may result in federal imprisonment. (18 U.S.C. g 2262)

Federal law provides penalties of up to $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison for possessing, transporting, shipping or receiving any firearm or ammunition while subject to a protective order or after being convicted of a misdamaanor crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 5 922(g)(8)) or knowingly transferring a firearm after a conviction of a misdemeanor Crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 6 922faY91).

I I

-- - - VEHICLE DESCRIPTION

DODGE GREEN 2007

TAG NO.

- O R 300 RESERVOIR RD


Case No. 70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 5:34 p m

After the appearance of the PETITIONER, and in consideration of the Petition and evidence, the Court makes the following findings: A. That ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER , who is a Person(s) Eligible for Relief, is:

The current spouse of the Respondent. An individual who has a chlld(ren) in common with the Respondent: ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER .

B. That the Petitioner is: The Person Eligible for Relief

C. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that Respondent committed the following abuse@): Statutory abuse of a child (Physical, Sexual) (Forward to DSS for investigation)

Based on the foregoing findings, the Court hereby ORDERS: 1. That the Respondent SHALL NOT abuse, threaten to abuse, and/or harass ARIEL KING, ARIANA LEILANI

KING-PFEIFFER . 2. That the Respondent SHALL NOT contact (in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means) or

attempt to contact ARIEL KING. ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER

3. That the Respondent SHALL NOT enter the residence of ARIEL KING at 11725 GREENLANE OR, POTOMAC, MD, 20854. (Residence includes yard, grounds, outbuildings, and common areas surrounding the dwelling.)

The following school(s): GERMAN SCHOOL, 8515 CHATEAU DR., POTOMAG, MD

The following place($) of employment: ARIEL INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING, 1875 I STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, DC

5. That custody of ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER is awarded to ARIEL KING until the hearing provided for in Paragraph 6 below.

6. THAT A FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER HEARING SHALL BE HELD ON June 9,2008 AT 09:30AM A1 CIRCUIT COURT AT 50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850.

7. This Order supersedes and overrides any previously entered Interim Protective Order issued by a Commissioner.

Date: 06/02/2008

JUN 0 2 2008

Page 2 of 5 Wiggins - COJ - 000331

Case No. 70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 5:34 p.m.

New Hearing Date Date , . , . . . . . .- .. --

ENTERED JUN 0 2 2008

Clerk of the Circuit Court Montgomery County, ~ r f

Page 3 of 5 Wiggins - COJ - 000332

Case NO. 70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 534 p.m.

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

A Petition for Protection alleges that you have committed abuse. On the basis of the Petition this Temporary Protective Order has been issued. Violation of this Order may be a state and/or federal crime or contempt of court, or both, and result in imprisonment or fine or both. This Order may be enforced by another state or jurisdiction, which may Impose additional or different penalties for the violation.

In order to respond to the allegation that abuse occurred, you must appear in court at the Final Protective Order hearing provided for In thie Order. If at the heerlng the court finda by clear and convincing evidence that abuse occurred, the court will issue a Final Protective Order against you, whether you appear or fail to appear, and may order all or part of the relief requested by the Petitioner or granted in this Order. This relief may include temporary use and possession of your home, use and possession of jointly owned vehicles, Emergency Family Maintenance, child visitation, surrender of firearm($) to a law enforcement agency, and counseling or participation in a domestic violence program. A Final Protective Order may be effective for as long as twelve (12) months, and the court for good cause may extend the term of the Final Protective Order for an additional six (6) months after a further hearing.

If you fail to appear in court and a Final Protective Order is issued against you, you will be served by first- class mall at your last known address with the Final Protective Order and all other notices concerning the Protective Order. The Final Protective Order will be valid and enforceable upon mailing. It is your responsibility to notify the court in writing of any change of address.

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES Each party may be represented by an attorney. At the Final Protective Order hearing, the petitioner will be

required to prove the alleged facts by "clear and convincing evidence." This is difficult to do if you do not have law training. Each party should ace a lawyer. If you arc the petitioner and cannot get a private lawyer, them are support agencies that may be able to help you.

Although each party is not required to have a lawyer at the hearing, all of the Rules of Evidence will apply to the case. If you choose not to have a lawyer with you on the hearing date the Petitioner will still have to prove me case by "clear and convincing evidence" and eacn party will have to comply with me Rules of Evidence. Due to the emergency nature of the hearing, the hearing may be held even If a party requests more time to obtain an attorney.

At the Final Protective Order hearing the court may order the Respondent to pay Emergency family Maintenance and may pass an immediate and continuing withholding order for that purpose. If this Emergency Family Maintenance is requested, both parties should complete a Financial Statement (CC-DClDV4) before the Protective Order hearing and bring it to court. You should also bring documents (such as pay stubs, copy of your lease, bills, etc.) to support the figures you supply.

Page 4 of 5


Clerk of the Circuit Court Montg'ornery County, Md,


Case No. 70620FL Date: 05/02/2008 534 p.m. TRUE COPY CERTIFICATION OF TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER

Attestation of Clerk I, Loretta E. Knight, Clerk of this Court in MONTGOMERY COUNTY, State of Maryland, do hereby certify that I have compared this Order with the original Order which is on file in my office, and that this Order is a true and correct copy of the original, and the whole thereof.

In testimony whereof, I nave hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court at 50 Maryland Ave. Rockville, MD 20850 this Second day of June. 2008.

- .# Loretta E. Knight, Clerk of Court

Attestation of Judge I, David A. Boynton, Judge of this Court in MONTGOMFRY COUNTY, State of Maryland, do hereby certify that Loretta E. Knight whose name is subscribed to the foregoing certificate of attestation, now is, andlor was at the time of signing and sealing the same, a Clerk of this Court in MONTGOMERY COUNTY and that histher attestation is in due form of law.

Date: 06/02/2008 Court: Circuit Court for MOntgOm0ry County, Maryland Address: 50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850 Phone: 240-777-9402

To request a foreign language interpreter or a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Immediately.


Page 5 of 5

Clerk of the Circuit Court Montgomery County, Md.


CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND 50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850 Case No. 70620FL

ARIEL KING olio Date: 06/02/2000 5-34 p.m. ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFHFFER us MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER DR

4838 RESERVOIR RD 3 WASHINGTON, DC, 20007

RETURN OF SERVICE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

I CERTIFY that:

I served a copy of the 0 Petition and Interim Protective Order Petition and Temporary Protective Order

Final Protective Order Petition for Contempt and Show Cause Order, filed in the above entitled case, on:

at Name Address

on- at Date Time

0 I could not serve a copy of the 0 Petition and Interim Protective Orderfl Petition and Temporary Protective Order

Final Protective Order 0 Petition for Contempt and Show Cause Order, filed in the above entitled case. on:

Date and Time of Attempt Place Remarks

-. -

Date Officer's Signature

Law Enforcement Agency Officer's Printed Name & I.D. Number

RETURN OF SERVICE MUST BE RETURNED TO THE COURT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SERVICE

PCIDVQ (Rev. 1212004) Wiggins - COJ - 000335

H-mMtC~cIR~~rr COURT aisrRiCT COURT 0lf MAKYLANI* VUK .-t-

^ c > ~ ? f & c > / < - f 1/ JUMCIABV C l Q / C ~ ~ f Y

so hflk'yfÃ§w thi. tdickii';//& ~ , s , ~ o . ' 7 ~ b Located at .- .. cowitAddG 8...-. 20 Tk (NOTE: Fill in the following, checking the appropriate boxes. Petitioners need not give an address ifdoing so risks further abuse or reveals the confidential address of ashelter. If this is the case, check heren Ifwu need additional pa ,ask the clerk.) f i c , f l x i s / w d i 9 $ 0 ' . / 1 W ~ - ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ f e i ' f e e i i , & l m / I f A Ã §

Cutidiicr

// ?Â£ 64eefl3ht~e J>& n'& w

Steel ddr Apt No. <4S 3 6 /(@&At/@ /$ d. 3

Horn 202 -'\ 30. r/(/ &A& hb ?<w wak

"City, State, Zip Code TEI-r "City, State, Zip Code Telephone Nunikr(8)

,,"" "" .. m ..;":I,< ,A

r,n31:\ ' PETITION FOR PROTECTION FROM

.-,,. ..,!., - - - z? i- c> DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/^ CHILD ABUSE I-'- ;?:;'Â¥Â¥""'. .ip$ I want relief f or07 myselfJS" minnr child vulnerable

FJ . , I . 'm IÃ

1 ;. 'i'^LsBe Respondent committed (he following acts of abuse against -iÃ‘a

'2'"' ,.l-,~;," :-TJ .-.,+on or about, '"-Â¥ &~ ; r Date

(chock all that apply.) kicking punching Q choking 13=3 ,.'r*i IÃ‘'

, @ slapping shooting rape 01 other sexual offense (or attempt) hitting with object a stabbing 04 shoving tbreaw of violence "0. mental injury of a child detaining against will ]S stalking

other

<'. u

At this time the victim can be found at

l am Stntcb Attorney I""] DSS &relative an adult living in the home. 3. The pa'flon(s) I want protected are (include yourselfifyou are a victim):

A/u/X A)6 mcs(s) Bi ^WbL. Relationshi to Respondent I

Â¥S / 9 f0.3 mÃ‡ 1>~u6hf-&4

CC-DCIDV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 1 of 3 Wiggins - COJ - 000336

Petition" Rc~pondcnt

4 The pcrson(s) I want protected now

(he past year:

There ore are not additional persons living in the home. a r I . 1 h o w nf thn followine; ftorirt casw involving ma, or thei person 7 want protmted, nnd the Rmpondftiit. /7?r/nnqdm

include: paternity, childsupport, divorce, custody, domestic violence, juvenile cases, criminal cases)

6. Describe all past in] es the Respondent has c used the victim, and give date, ifJinown ?-W^ - @aftUa~d he. d sf-ofped nc. 4ovtv.6 2 ~ 1 0 + \\5Â£ li Ccfced h - & AA he b?loa< fifsdot^ctO C& \($ pl@ A9 &--& G bled=&&

7. The Respondent owns or has access to the following firearms: (L(a *q

8. I want the court to order the Respondent: (NOTE: Petitioner need not give an addressif doing so risks further abuse.)

to t e n to be /tgAd h 'la 6 +LU d 4 u i* ~ M - ~ U V ~ V . ""Nainafs)

NOT to contact, attempt to contact, harass ft/?/ddA)6 ftnd ftfttfib4 Knod-ff&/ffev, Nmc(Ã§

NOT to go to the child care provider@) N i c of child care provider and addmi

@ NOT to go t the workplace($) at i f 9 J sf. h* - &00 @i4s&,mha &G moot& M- Nblku: x WOQ-E

To lcavc the home at Address

and give possession of the home to

The name(s) on the deed or lcasc arc:

8 To turn over firearm@) to a iaw mforcment ageny.

/BP TO go to counscluig 0' domestic violence dniffalcohoi 13 To pay money as Emergency Family Maintenance (may be

CC-DCIDV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 2 of 3 Wiggins - COJ - 000337

Case; No.

Â¥/! el mi &tittom ~ $ 0 : titn'm. P ~ e i ~ f e n , FCW Respondent t~

9. I also want the Court to order:

d custody of ~ ~ R ~ Ã ˆ A ? ^tm6 - ftfir/ftfe^ ,4iitl&i ^MG Cbildrerffl "me,

be granted to w.m..

0 Use and possession of the following jointly-owned vehicle be granted to Nnmm

Dflitcrlptlon dvdiiclc

10. (Fill in only ifyou are seeking Emergency Family Maintenance.) The Respondent has the following financial

resources:

Income from employment in the amount of $ every week 2 wecks0 month

O t t o - Source of employment income

~ a m e said tddrtss of sow" mdaff lounwii lmc&Rc3" Income from other source ~~oinS'atlBrcaB'ofaourcc and amounl(s) received

The Respondent also owns (he following property of value: Automobilc(s) $ aitiinatoil value

Home $ " " E s f l n i a t c d value

Bank Accountfs) S P Other:

Estimated Value

I solemnly afflrm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing Petition are true to the best of my

knowledge, iirfbnnation and belief.

Fentirn"

q I have filled in the Addendum (Description of Respondent), CC-DCmV 1A /

NOTE

If you believe that you have been a victim of abuse and that there is a danger of serious and immediate injury to you, you may request the assistance of a police officer or local law enforcement agency.

The law enforcement offiicar must protect you from hami when responding to your request for assistance and may, if you ask, accompany you to the family borne so that you may remove clothing and medicine, medical devices, and other personal effects required for you and your children, regardless of who paid for them.

You are entitled to request that address and telephone number of a victim, a complainant, or a witness be considered for shielding at the filing of this application.

NOTICE: Remote access td the name, address, telephone number, date of birth, e-mail address, and place of employment of a victim or non-party witness is blocked, (Md Rule 16-1008(3)(3)(B))

CC-DCmV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 3 of 3


(Alleged Abuser)

cars Tattoos wh

Driver's License it:

1 Other locations or infomntion about Respondent: I PETITIONER

(Person Requesting Assistance)

INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER PERSONS PETITIONER WANTS PROTECTED

. . Petitioner's Signature Date


1

V I R G I N I A :

IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT FOR ARLINGTON COURT

MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER Petitioner, v. CASE NO. J-31848-01 ARIEL R. KING Respondent. IN RE: ARIANA LEILANI M. A. KING-PFEIFFER DOB: 05/07/2003

SECOND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY AND CONTINUANCE PENDING EMERGENCY TPO HEARING AND INVESTIGATION BY MD DSS

Respondent Ariel King, PhD, filing pro se, hereby respectfully requests this

Court grant, sua sponte, this second request for stay of the above captioned proceedings

and related proceedings, and continue the upcoming hearing scheduled for June 6, 2008,

for the following additional reasons to those presented in its Emergency Motion for Stay,

etc, dated June 2, 2008:

1) after an extended preliminary hearing the Circuit Court of Montgomery

County Maryland has found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Dr. Pfeiffer

committed the following abuses: Statutory Abuse of a child (Physical and Sexual); See,

Temporary Protective Order, dated June 2, 2008, attached hereto.

2) per the Temporary Protective Order, Dr. Pfeiffer is prohibited from being in

contact with: 1) Dr. King, 2) Ariana-Leilani, and specifically named places they frequent.

3) as protection for the child, the Circuit Court’s Temporary Protective Order,

awarded temporary custody to Dr. King until the hearing to make the TPO permanent,


2

4) a final PROTECTIVE ORDER HEARING shall be held on June 9, 2008 at

9:30 am. 1 and,

5) today (June 3, 2008), it was confirmed by a Hemotologist that Ariana-

Leilani is suffering from, what appears to be, severe Neutropenia (low blood count),

which the doctors believe may be symtomatic of a serious underlying life-threatening

condition. Over the last several weeks that blood count has dropped significantly –

while Dr. Pfeiffer has refused to acknowledge any problems with the child’s health.

Dr. Pfeiffer has (once again),, in violation of professional medical ethics,

misrepresented Ariana-Leilani’s health, and insisted on sending the child to school

despite knowing that the child is severely ill.2 Ariana-Leilani’s attending

Hemotologist has instructed Dr. King to keep Ariana-Leilani out of school until the

underlying problem is fully diagnosed, and treated. Exposure to other children is now

considered a severe risk to Ariana-Leilani. Given the urgent nature of the medical

situation, the Hemotologist required that Ariana-Leilani return for an urgent

appointment on Friday, June 6, 2008 for further tests.

Ariana-Leilani has regularly attended school in Montgomery County Maryland,

lives with her mother in Montgomery County Maryland for part of the week, and lives

with her father in Washington DC for the remainder of the week. Ariana-Leilani King

Pfeiffer has been experiencing symptoms of abuse for some time, which symptoms have

become acute since this Court has changed the custody schedule to requre Ariana-Leilnai

1 As previously argued before this Court and not waived by this or any other filing or appearance, this Court does not have subject matter or continuing exclusive jurisdiction to conduct this proceeding. See, Petition, Dr. Ariel R. King, Case No. 080963, Supreme Court of Commonwealth of Virginia. It is also noted that no party to this proceeding has lived in Virginia since October 2007, and before that for only a temporary period of approximately three months. This Virginia case was brought by Dr. Pfeiffer (a Washington DC resident who has never lived in Virginia) after Dr. King had tempoarily lived in Virginia less than 29 days. It is a waste of judicial resources of Virginia – by a non-resident of Virginia against a Maryland child -- that are better spent on other matters. 2 It is my understanding that on Monday June 2, 2008, Dr. Pfeifer brought Ariana-Leilani back to school with a “physician’s letter” – presented it to the teacher --- claiming that Ariana-Leilani is well, when he knew that she, in fact, was very ill.


3

to spend most weeknights at Dr. Pfeiffer’s small one bedroom apartment. The

Montgomery County agencies have been following Ariana-Leilani’s continuingly

deteriorating situation. As a result they now have severely elevated concerns, which

prompted the emergency hearing on June 2, 2008 and the TPO.

The Montgomery County Circuit Court is aware of the status of the Virginia and

Maryland child custody proceedings. Maryland remains the “home state” of the child

and has the most significant connections to Ariana-Leilani, as well as convenient access

to her medical, school, and other records. It remains undisputed that no party lives in

Virginia.

In light of the TPO and the proceedings in Maryland, as well as the need to

attend to Ariana-Leilani’s medical needs first, Respondent will be unable to attend the

June 6, 2008 proceedings.

No party would be harmed by the grant of the temporary continuance and stay.

The June 6, 2008 hearing has been scheduled for some time (since February 21, 2008),

and any additional temporary postponement will not harm any party. Conversely, a

failure to grant a stay and continuance would be detrimental to the course of these

proceedings and harmful to Ariana-Leilani King Pfeiffer, subjecting her to even more

abuse by the Father, and further setback in her health. Holding a hearing on June 6,

2008 will also be unfair to Respondent and Ariana-Leilani, as Respondent will be unable

to attend that hearing. It would be ill advised, irresponsible and improper for this Court

to engage in any further proceedings until completion of a thorough investigation of the


4

child abuse by Marylands’ DSS and a final determination by the Circuit Court of

Montgomery County on how it feels it is appropriate to proceed.3

* * *

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the JDR court cooperate

with the Montgomery County Circuit Court and stay the above captioned proceeding, and

- at a minimum -- continue any upcoming hearings until the child abuse is thoroughly

investigated and the Montgomery County Circuit Court determines how to proceed in

light of those findings.

Ariel King (Pro Se) 11725 Greenlane Drive Potomac, MD 20854 202 730 5111

3 In the best interests of the child, the Court may wish to confer with the Montgomery County circuit Court, per the UCCJEA.


5

IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT FOR ARLINGTON COURT

MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER Petitioner, V. CASE NO. J-31848-01 ARIEL R. KING Respondent. IN RE: ARIANA LEILANI M. A. KING-PFEIFFER DOB: 05/07/2003

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY, AND

CONTINUANCE OF JUNE 6, 2008 HEARING, PENDING EMERGENCY TPO HEARING AND INVESTIGATION BY MD DSS

Upon review of Respondent’s Emergency Motion For Stay And Continuance Of

June 6, 2008 Hearing Pending Emergency TPO Hearing And Investigation By MD DSS,

the Court finds that a temporary stay of these proceedings, and continuance of the

upcoming June 6, 2008 hearing is hereby granted, sua sponte.

________________________________ Honorable Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles _____________ Date


6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3rd day of June, 2008, a copy of the forgoing Motion was sent by priority mail to the counsel, listed below: Sean O'Connell 4113 Lee Highway Arlington, VA 22207 Deborah S. Olin, Esquire 3977 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 1 Fairfax City, Virginia 22030 _________________________


1 1 VIRGINIA: 2 IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT 3 OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 4 5 MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, ) 6 Petitioner, ) 7 vs. ) Case No. J031848-01 8 ARIEL R. KING, ) 9 Respondent. ) 10 11 * * * * * 12 13 The above-entitled matter came on for 14 hearing on Friday, June 6, 2008, commencing at 15 10:35 a.m., at 1425 North Courthouse Road, 16 Arlington, Virginia, before Sean P. Goza, Notary 17 Public. 18 19 BEFORE: 20 THE HONORABLE ESTHER WIGGINS LYLES 21 22 * * * * *


2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4 SEAN W. O'CONNELL, ESQUIRE 5 4113 Lee Highway 6 Arlington, Virginia 22207 7 (703) 558-0000 8 9 GUARDIAN AD LITEM: 10 DEBORAH S. OLIN, ESQUIRE 11 Law Office of Deborah S. Olin 12 8001 Braddock Road 13 Suite 100 14 Springfield, Virginia 22151 15 (703) 293-2901 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


18 1 Dr. King would be there. Then, at 1:30, after the 2 hearing -- and by then maybe it was two o'clock -- 3 and Ms. -- 4 MS. OLIN: Excuse me, Your Honor. 5 Permission to interrupt the proceedings. This 6 woman who's just entered has said she is here as a 7 friend of Dr. King. 8 MR. O'CONNELL: Can we put her on the 9 stand and you ask her some questions? 10 MS. OLIN: Absolutely. Ma'am, please 11 take -- with the Court's permission. 12 THE COURT: Is this a witness? 13 MS. OLIN: Yes. 14 MS. HEY: Okay. Well, I wasn't scheduled 15 to be on the stand. I was just here as a friend of 16 the mother. 17 MS. OLIN: You're here, and we're 18 requesting you to take the stand. 19 MS. HEY: Well, I don't have a lawyer 20 here. 21 MS. OLIN: You don't need a lawyer to be 22 a witness.


19 1 THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, will you 2 raise your right hand. 3 Whereupon -- 4 NANCY HEY, 5 a witness, called for examination, having been 6 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 7 follows: 8 DIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MS. OLIN: 10 Q. Ma'am, my name is Deborah Olin. I'm 11 guardian ad litem for the child, Ariana 12 King-Pfeiffer. 13 Please state your full name for the 14 Court. 15 A. My name is Nancy Alison Hey. 16 Q. How do you spell your last name? 17 A. H-e-y. 18 Q. What is your address? 19 A. 4632 Second Street North, Arlington, 20 Virginia. 21 Q. And how long have you resided at said 22 address?


20 1 A. For five years. 2 Q. Ma'am, what is your phone number? 3 A. It's (571) 721-0021. 4 Q. What's your place of employment? 5 A. Federal Communications Commission. 6 Q. Ma'am, do you know Roy Morris? 7 A. Roy Morris? I don't believe I do. 8 Q. Have you ever heard that name? 9 A. No. 10 Q. How do you know Ms. King? 11 A. I met her -- oh, let me refresh my 12 memory. I met her at a potluck dinner she had. I 13 and a few mother other mothers were communicating 14 with each other over the Internet, and she invited 15 me to a potluck dinner at her house during a 16 weekend that she had custody of her daughter. 17 Q. When was that? 18 A. It was approximately a month ago. 19 Q. What address did you go to? 20 A. I forgot the exact address. It was in 21 Silver Spring, I believe, in Maryland. 22 Q. Could it have been Potomac, Maryland?


21 1 A. Oh, yes, I believe it was Potomac, 2 Maryland. 3 Q. Can you describe the home for us, 4 roughly. 5 A. Yes. A split-level house. 6 Q. Where is Ms. King right now? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. How did you know to be here? 9 A. Ms. King requested that friends of hers 10 be present to testify to her good parenting 11 behavior. 12 Q. Are you saying that Ms. King specifically 13 asked you to be here to testify for her good 14 behavior? 15 A. No. She asked me to be here as a friend 16 for moral support. She did not ask me to testify. 17 Q. When did she ask you to be here? What 18 day did she tell you she wanted you to be here? 19 A. I believe when she first found out that a 20 hearing was scheduled for today, she asked myself 21 and Ms. Naomi Parrish, who is also a friend of 22 hers, to be present.


22 1 Q. Ms. Hey, when was that, though? Was that 2 a few days ago, a few weeks ago? 3 A. A few weeks ago. 4 THE COURT: Was Ms. Parrish present at 5 the meeting in Potomac? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, she was. 7 BY MS. OLIN: 8 Q. Was that when she asked you all to be 9 present, during that meeting, during that potluck? 10 A. I believe it did come up during the 11 potluck that she had a custody hearing coming up. 12 I'm not sure if she knew of the exact date of it at 13 that time. 14 Q. When was the last time you heard from 15 Ms. King in any form? 16 A. She has sent me e-mails over the last few 17 weeks. I communicate with her frequently by 18 e-mail. 19 Q. When was the last time? 20 A. About -- I believe about -- I believe 21 yesterday I got an e-mail from her. 22 Q. What time, ma'am?


23 1 A. It was in the afternoon. 2 Q. What did the e-mail say? 3 A. She expressed concern about her 4 daughter's health. 5 Q. Specifically, what did the e-mail say? 6 A. She said that I believe her daughter was 7 diagnosed as having a low white blood cell count. 8 And she was concerned that her daughter's father 9 wasn't, I guess, taking the necessary medical 10 action in regard to that problem. 11 Q. What else did she say in that e-mail? 12 A. She said that she was concerned that if 13 the father was awarded sole custody of the 14 daughter, that the daughter's life would be in 15 danger. 16 Q. What else did she say? 17 A. That's all that I recall. 18 Q. Do you have any idea where she is right 19 now? Any idea. 20 A. I was expecting her to be here for the 21 hearing. 22 Q. Do you have any idea where she is right


24 1 now? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Have you communicated with her by 4 telephone ever? 5 A. Yes, I have. 6 Q. What telephone number do you have for 7 her? 8 A. I don't have it on me. I didn't bring it 9 with me today, because I wasn't expecting to be 10 asked for it. But I have it written down in an 11 address book at home. It's her number in Potomac, 12 so it has a Maryland area code. 13 Q. Sounds like that would be her land line. 14 Do you have the number in your cell 15 phone? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. Where is your cell phone? 18 A. I left it at home, because I knew that if 19 I brought it here I would have to pay to put it in 20 the locker of the jailhouse. 21 MS. OLIN: Please answer any questions 22 that Mr. O'Connell or the judge may have for you.


25 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 3 Q. Hi. 4 A. Hello. 5 Q. When was the last time you spoke with 6 Ms. King? 7 A. Well, I guess the last time I spoke with 8 her was at the potluck. 9 Q. A month ago. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I don't mean to appear hostile, but I 12 find it a little hard to believe that you haven't 13 spoken with someone for a month, and you only met 14 them for the first time at the potluck, and you're 15 here today. So are you sure it was the last time 16 you spoke with her? 17 A. We -- I live in Arlington, Virginia, and 18 she lives in Potomac, Maryland, so we don't have a 19 chance to get together face to face that often. 20 But we do communicate by e-mail. 21 Q. So it's your testimony under oath -- and 22 we all know that perjury is a crime, a felony.


26 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And you've got a good job at the FCC. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. It's your testimony that you haven't ever 5 spoken with her on the telephone since the potluck 6 dinner. 7 A. That's true. We didn't speak on the 8 telephone, because we found using e-mail to be more 9 convenient. 10 Q. Okay. Let me explain something, okay. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. A child is missing. It's not a minor 13 matter, okay. I want you to remember whether or 14 not -- not why, but whether or not you spoke with 15 her since you were at that potluck dinner. 16 A. Well, spoke, no, because -- 17 Q. On the telephone. 18 A. No. 19 Q. You're sure. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What is her e-mail address? 22 A. It's -- I think it's drarielking at --


27 1 well, I don't remember if it's at yahoo.com or 2 something. I don't memorize these e-mail 3 addresses, because I have them -- 4 Q. What is your e-mail address? 5 A. -- in my address book. 6 My e-mail address is 7 [email protected]. 8 Q. Do you have any other e-mail addresses? 9 A. I have an e-mail address at the FCC, but 10 I am not allowed to use that for personal 11 communications. 12 Q. Fine. But what is -- well, let me 13 rephrase that. Did she ever send you an e-mail -- 14 again, under oath, did she ever send you an e-mail 15 at your FCC address that you know of? 16 A. No, she did not. 17 Q. What is your FCC e-mail address? 18 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that 19 objection. You don't need to know that. 20 MR. O'CONNELL: Very well. 21 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 22 Q. So you've only met her one time.


28 1 A. Yes. Face to face, yes. 2 Q. Did you talk to her on the phone more 3 than -- excuse me. Have you ever talked to her on 4 the phone? 5 A. Yes. I spoke to her on the phone when I 6 was requesting directions to her house. 7 Q. And that was the first time you ever 8 heard her voice? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And you haven't heard her voice since you 11 left the house that day. 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Did she ever discuss with you, boy, I 14 would really -- you know, if I don't win this, I'm 15 so concerned I'll take the child to, you know, 16 Georgia or someplace? 17 A. She didn't say that to me. She just -- 18 she obviously was hoping that she would win the 19 case. But she didn't tell me anything about 20 moving, no. 21 Q. Did she tell you she had already tried to 22 move to Georgia?


29 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did she tell you that she had to move out 3 of Virginia for any reason? 4 A. She actually -- she never told me that 5 she had lived in Virginia. She said she wondered 6 why a court here in Virginia was hearing her 7 custody case when she has residence in Maryland. 8 Q. Tell me, was this sort of a custody 9 support group, or what kind of support group was 10 it? 11 THE COURT: It was a bashing Judge 12 Wiggins group is what it was. 13 MS. OLIN: Oh, really? 14 THE COURT: Yes. It's a fan club to me. 15 Isn't that what it was? 16 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 17 Q. Were you -- 18 THE COURT: Isn't it a bashing Judge 19 Wiggins fan club? Isn't that what it is? 20 THE WITNESS: It was a . . . 21 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 22 Q. What do you guys have in common?


30 1 A. We have in common that -- 2 THE COURT: Judge Wiggins. 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, many of us there had 4 cases before Judge Wiggins. I believe there were 5 other mothers who had cases before other judges. 6 But we did have in common that we all had custody 7 cases that were in progress. 8 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 9 Q. Did anybody else in that group indicate 10 that they were interested in fleeing the 11 jurisdiction? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Okay. I would like the names of 14 everybody there, please. 15 A. Okay. One woman's name was Gail Lakritz. 16 Q. How do you spell the last name? 17 A. L-a-k-r-i-t-z. 18 Q. Okay. That was one person. Who else? 19 A. And Dr. King's daughter, Ariana Leilani, 20 was there. 21 Q. What other adults were there? 22 A. And I believe Dr. King had a male friend


31 1 there. Possibly a boyfriend, possibly just a 2 friend, I'm not sure. 3 Q. A little bit shorter than me, dark hair? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Weren't you introduced to him? 6 A. Yes, I was. 7 Q. Wasn't his name Roy Morris? 8 A. It could be. I don't remember names well 9 sometimes. 10 Q. What other adults? 11 A. And my husband was there. 12 THE COURT: Didn't you say also Naomi 13 Parrish was there? 14 MS. OLIN: That's right. 15 THE COURT: Didn't you say Naomi Parrish? 16 MS. OLIN: She did say -- 17 THE WITNESS: No. 18 THE COURT: Yes, you did. 19 MS. OLIN: Yes, she did. 20 THE COURT: You said Naomi Parrish was 21 there. 22 MS. OLIN: She said Naomi Parrish was


32 1 present at a meeting in Potomac a few weeks ago. 2 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 3 Q. Well, was this -- well, maybe there was 4 another meeting that she was present in. Was she 5 present at the other meeting? 6 A. I have only communicated with Naomi 7 Parrish by e-mail. I don't believe she was present 8 at the potluck, no. 9 Q. So you've never met Naomi Parrish. 10 A. Not face to face, no. 11 Q. What other kinds of meetings are there? 12 A. Well, I've communicated with Ms. Parrish 13 through e-mail. I have watched her videos on 14 YouTube. 15 Q. What are those videos? 16 THE COURT: Judge Wiggins bashing -- 17 THE WITNESS: They're videos -- 18 THE COURT: -- basically. 19 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 20 Q. Go ahead. 21 A. They're videos about how she lost custody 22 of her daughter and basically she felt that she


33 1 should not have lost custody of her daughter. 2 Q. So you've never actually been face to 3 face with Naomi Wiggins [sic], and you would know 4 that because you've seen her video, right? 5 A. Right. However, we have talked about 6 meeting face to face. We're interested in doing 7 that. 8 Q. Right. So who else was at that meeting? 9 THE COURT: Because I heard you say that 10 Naomi Parrish was there. 11 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I have that in my 12 notes, and I'm sure -- 13 MR. O'CONNELL: Well, we have a court 14 reporter, so -- 15 THE COURT: Well, I'm absolutely sure she 16 said Naomi Parrish was there. Did you misspeak? 17 THE WITNESS: I believe I did, because 18 I -- no, I did not see Naomi Parrish at the 19 potluck. 20 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 21 Q. But you have talked to Naomi Parrish 22 about this horrible case with Dr. King, correct?


34 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. When? In the last 24 hours? 3 THE COURT: She said she talked to her -- 4 she got an e-mail from her yesterday. 5 MR. O'CONNELL: I think she's going to 6 say in the last 24 hours. 7 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 8 Q. You spoke to her recently, didn't you? 9 That's why her name was on your mind, isn't it? 10 Again, you're under oath. 11 A. Again, I communicated with her by e-mail. 12 I did not have a telephone conversation with her. 13 Q. When? When was the most recent time you 14 spoke with her or communicated with her in any way 15 about this case? 16 A. It was when Ms. King first found that the 17 date for this case had been set, and she sent an 18 e-mail to myself and to Ms. Parrish. 19 Q. But you talked to Ms. Parrish in the last 20 couple days, didn't you? Or e-mailed. 21 A. I e-mailed her. 22 Q. Okay. Did she e-mail you?


35 1 A. She -- no. I believe she had e-mail 2 exchanges with Dr. King. 3 Q. Why? Were those e-mails forwarded to 4 you? 5 A. Yes, I received a cc of them. 6 Q. And that was within the last 24 hours? 7 A. Or within the last 48 hours. 8 Q. If I ask the Court to direct you to print 9 out all the e-mails that you had with anybody 10 concerning Dr. King, including any e-mails with 11 Dr. King, would you do so within the next hour? 12 A. I would have to consult with a lawyer 13 before doing that. But I don't -- 14 Q. What do you have to hide in those 15 e-mails? 16 A. I don't believe I have anything to hide. 17 Q. Um-hum. 18 Yet you would want to consult with a 19 lawyer before you turned over your e-mails about an 20 absconded child. I mean, a child that -- 21 THE COURT: Well, she didn't know the 22 child was absconded.


36 1 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 2 Q. Well, did you know that the child was 3 going to be -- I mean, oh, mom was so stressed she 4 might do anything, like take the child away rather 5 than have -- 6 A. No. 7 Q. No? And there's nothing in those e-mails 8 that mentions of that, under oath. 9 A. No. She just mentioned that she had 10 concerns about the child's health if the father was 11 granted custody of her. 12 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, I'm going 13 to -- I know that Your Honor may have questions. I 14 would ask the Court at this time -- I did not know 15 this witness existed. I would have prepared a 16 request for a subpoena. 17 But I would ask the Court, given the 18 exigencies of the circumstances, that we have this 19 witness be ordered to produce all of her e-mails 20 with Dr. King or anybody else at that potluck. I 21 have one or two more questions, but if we could 22 have that.


37 1 THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to do 2 that. 3 But back to Ms. Parrish's e-mails, you 4 said you got an e-mail from Ms. Parrish in two 5 days -- about two days. What was the content of 6 her e-mail? We're obviously very concerned about 7 the child. 8 THE WITNESS: Well, Ms. Parrish was 9 concerned about the fact that her ex-husband had 10 been granted custody of her daughter and that -- 11 THE COURT: That was her e-mail to you? 12 Two days ago she was still talking about that she 13 lost custody of her daughter to her husband? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 THE COURT: Did she have any suggestions 16 as to how to solve the problem? 17 THE WITNESS: Her feeling, from that and 18 from past e-mails I've received from her, was that 19 her husband should not have custody of her 20 daughter, because she said that her husband took 21 her daughter to France and then left her daughter 22 with the husband's mother in France.


38 1 THE COURT: Well, that happened way after 2 he got custody of her. 3 THE WITNESS: That's true. Her child is 4 quite old now, I believe. 5 THE COURT: But the question was, did she 6 talk about Ms. King's daughter, how to help 7 Ms. King maintain custody of her daughter. Her 8 child has been with her father for a long time. 9 THE WITNESS: No, she did not. But she 10 just felt -- Ms. Parrish felt that Dr. King's 11 daughter should not be sent to live with that 12 father. 13 THE COURT: Does she know the father? 14 Does she know Dr. Pfeiffer? 15 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 16 THE COURT: Okay. Where is Ms. Parrish? 17 Did she tell you where she's at? 18 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 19 THE COURT: She didn't give you any 20 indiction in her e-mails where she is currently 21 living? 22 THE WITNESS: Well, she's currently


39 1 taking -- doing some studies at George Mason 2 University in Arlington. 3 MR. O'CONNELL: Is George Mason 4 University in Arlington other than the law school? 5 What's she studying? 6 THE WITNESS: I believe she's doing some 7 study of law or issues regarding child custody. 8 THE COURT: Do you have any idea where 9 Dr. King could have taken the child? 10 THE WITNESS: No. I know that Dr. King's 11 mother was living with Dr. King, and I also know 12 that Dr. King's mother had some health problems and 13 that Dr. King often has to take her mother to the 14 hospital for -- 15 THE COURT: But do you have any idea 16 where she could have taken the child? 17 THE WITNESS: No. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, I know that I 20 had asked for an order, and I understand Your 21 Honor's ruling. However, I will -- 22 THE COURT: Well, I believe what she's


40 1 saying that the contents of the e-mails being what 2 they are. I believe that to be true. 3 MR. O'CONNELL: You're so much more 4 trusting than I am, Your Honor. I just want to let 5 the witness know that if there's another hearing in 6 this case, that I will be subpoenaing her records, 7 for which I do not need an order, and I will be 8 subpoenaing those cell phone records and I will be 9 seeking enforcement of those. Excuse me, your cell 10 phone records and your e-mail records. 11 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 12 Q. What is your home phone? 13 A. My home phone is (571) 721-0021. 14 Q. And do you have a land line? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What is your land line number? 17 A. Oh, that is the land line number. 18 Q. What is your cell phone number? 19 A. I . . . 20 Q. You don't know your own cell phone 21 number? 22 A. I just recently -- no. I'm still new to


41 1 using the cell phone. 2 Q. Do you have a cell phone? 3 A. Yes, I do. 4 Q. Okay. What is your cell phone provider? 5 A. Verizon. 6 Q. When did you first get Verizon? 7 A. Actually, just about a month ago. 8 Q. And what name is the contract under? 9 A. It's under my husband's. 10 Q. What is his name? 11 A. Christopher Slitor. 12 Q. And how many -- can we have the spelling 13 of that, please. 14 A. C-h-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r S-l-i-t-o-r. 15 Q. And does he have a separate line as well? 16 A. No. 17 Q. So it's just one cell phone between the 18 two of you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And who keeps that cell phone? 21 A. Well, the account is under my husband's 22 name.


42 1 Q. But you keep the cell phone in your 2 possession. 3 A. Oh, usually -- well, usually I have my 4 cell phone in my possession. 5 Q. What do you do for the FCC? 6 A. I do data entry for applicants applying 7 for experimental licenses. 8 Q. Who is your phone provider for your home 9 phone, the 571 number you've already told us? 10 A. Okay. That's Sprint. 11 Q. How long have you had that home phone 12 provider? 13 A. Ever since we have -- 14 Q. More than a year? 15 A. Yes, much more than a year. 16 Q. Okay. 17 THE COURT: All right. Mr. O'Connell, is 18 that enough? 19 BY MR. O'CONNELL: 20 Q. Are there any other phones? 21 A. No. 22 Q. And you told us Hotmail was your e-mail.


43 1 Is there anybody else that you use for e-mail? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Is there any -- are you hooked up by a 4 cable system to the computer? 5 A. We're on the FIOS. 6 Q. How long have you been on it? 7 THE COURT: Mr. O'Connell. 8 MR. O'CONNELL: I just want to know how 9 long she's been on it so that I -- okay. Very 10 well. We're done. 11 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I just have two 12 follow-up questions, because I think -- 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MS. OLIN: -- they were -- I was hoping 15 maybe if they were phrased a little differently. 16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 17 BY MS. OLIN: 18 Q. One is, why are you involved with this 19 potluck group? What's your interest? 20 A. Because we are all mothers who have gone 21 through some degree of stress because the custody 22 of our children has been in dispute.


44 1 Q. Have you been in this court before? 2 A. Yes, I have. 3 Q. Okay. And then the other question is -- 4 I know it's been asked in different ways, but 5 because we're so concerned, I just want to make 6 this very, very clear. Do you have any idea 7 whatsoever, any idea, where Dr. King or her 8 daughter might be? 9 A. No. 10 Q. I'm not asking you for certain knowledge, 11 just any idea. 12 A. No, I don't. 13 MS. OLIN: Thank you. 14 THE COURT: All right, ma'am. You can 15 have a seat. Dr. Barrett may want to speak to you, 16 I don't know. 17 All right. Other than that, you're free 18 to go. You can stay or go. 19 MR. O'CONNELL: Actually, she may be a 20 witness, and I'm not interested in her sharing 21 information with people that would also be 22 witnesses. I would ask for a rule on witnesses.


45 1 THE COURT: All right. You cannot 2 discuss your testimony with anyone. 3 MS. HEY: Okay. 4 MR. O'CONNELL: So Mr. Morris -- may I 5 proceed? So Mr. Morris was -- 6 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, can we just have 7 one moment off the record, a recess? I just need 8 to regain my composure. 9 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. 10 (A recess was taken.) 11 MR. O'CONNELL: Okay. So Mr. Morris 12 having represented that he had spoken with her and 13 communicated with her and that she was on her way 14 to the court, Judge Craven said, okay, we'll break 15 till 1:30. And I said, well, that's good, because 16 Ms. Hoffman is on her way. 17 After the hearing and she hadn't shown up 18 and -- I handed Your Honor the opposition that was 19 handed forward that Roy Morris had handed to me. 20 And the judge said, well -- 21 THE COURT: Excuse me. Dr. Barrett, I 22 would like to speak to you before I leave today.


46 1 MR. O'CONNELL: Mr. Morris then 2 represented to the judge that he didn't know where 3 she was or what she was going to do and that he 4 hadn't told her anything. 5 And the judge said, wait a second, you 6 just told me earlier that she was -- and he was 7 annoyed and there was an exchange where basically 8 the judge said, you're lying, don't lie to me. Not 9 in those words. 10 And Mr. Morris then had to admit that 11 yes, he actually did know, that she had told him 12 that -- I mean, that he had told her and that she 13 had told him something. Exactly, I'm not sure 14 what. 15 And it's important that I tell Your Honor 16 that Mr. Morris remained seated during this 17 confrontation, with his legs up like -- you know, 18 I've never seen a lawyer behave that way in front 19 of a judge. So what, but I mean -- 20 MS. OLIN: What's the relevance? 21 THE COURT: What's the relevance of that, 22 Mr. O'Connell? Can we get to --


47 1 MR. O'CONNELL: The whole time, during 2 the several hours while we're waiting around, he's 3 clearly texting back and forth with her. The 4 relevance is his behavior was one of communicating 5 exactly what was going on inside the courtroom. 6 During the hearing he disappeared and was texting 7 her from a back room. The relevance is I think he 8 is an abettor to this abduction. That's the 9 relevance. 10 And it's not just one thing. He had this 11 hostility and this sort of active -- I think he's 12 the answer. If we want to know where she is, we 13 need to find him and squeeze him, and we will be 14 able to find out where she is. That was the 15 relevance. I should have gone with the text 16 messaging first in the middle of the case. 17 The bottom line is the judge found on the 18 record, but not in -- I've handed Your Honor the 19 orders. Found on the record that the mother was 20 lying when she made the allegations -- I mean, and 21 that is as near a quote as I can come to -- and 22 that therefore the case would be dismissed and that


48 1 the motion would be quashed. That's what occurred. 2 Now, I have other things to say about 3 other things about the -- 4 THE COURT: What are you asking the Court 5 to do today? 6 MR. O'CONNELL: I would like a capias on 7 the mother. I would like an exclusive order for 8 custody for the father. I would like no visitation 9 for the mother until she gets a full psychological 10 evaluation by a psychologist or a psychiatrist 11 appointed by the Court. Exclusive custody to the 12 father. A capias. 13 I would like her sentenced for a 14 substantial period of time for each of the rules. 15 I think that not only has she shown that she 16 doesn't -- I mean, she hasn't cooperated with -- by 17 the way, when I say each of the rules, I mean each 18 of the rules that she's already been found on. 19 I've filed other rules, and procedurally 20 I don't want to muck things up. I would like the 21 Court to issue those rules and have that on another 22 date to return so that we get it procedurally


49 1 correct, because I did file other rules. 2 She clearly has not -- in April my client 3 contacted Dr. McFarland as ordered, and 4 Dr. McFarland said, I can't begin this until mom 5 contacts me, mom hasn't contacted me except mom's 6 lawyer contacted me a couple months ago before any 7 of this occurred, but that was before Your Honor 8 ordered that he participate. I think Dr. McFarland 9 said something like, oh, he was sniffing around, 10 but mom hasn't contacted me. Mom has clearly not 11 done anything, clearly doesn't intend to do 12 anything about that. 13 But be that as it may, I would like those 14 rules issued. But I would like a sentence on the 15 outstanding rules. And I think since she's clearly 16 indicated that soft treatment doesn't work, I think 17 a period of incarceration for each of the rules for 18 at least 60 days is appropriate. 19 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, may I also make a 20 recommendation? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 MS. OLIN: Do you mind?


50 1 MR. O'CONNELL: By the way, Your Honor, 2 the reason I'm asking for immediate sole custody 3 without visitation is we need that, according to 4 the D.C. police, so that I can get her on the NCIC 5 so I can stop her from leaving the country. We 6 think she may be going to Lesotho. 7 THE COURT: Going where? 8 MR. O'CONNELL: Going to Lesotho. She 9 has a relationship with the embassy, and she's been 10 there before. That would be one place. 11 MS. OLIN: I would concur with sole 12 physical legal custody to the father as being in 13 the best interests of the child, considering the 14 factors under 20-124.3, with what we have in front 15 of us today. 16 No contact with mother, primarily because 17 of a concern for the safety of the child. The 18 mother has indeed shown total disrespect for the 19 orders of this Court, and she's absconded with the 20 child. We don't know where the child is. But also 21 indeed because that will enable the police to be 22 able to do their job in terms entering into the


51 1 NCIC as Mr. O'Connell has stated. 2 I know -- well, I believe there are two 3 rules to show cause set for disposition today. I 4 think there are two. One is for failure to comply 5 with the guardian ad litem, and one is for 6 failure -- Your Honor, I'm not sure if one is for 7 failure to comply with Dr. Lane or if one is 8 failure to comply with custody and visitation. 9 But on mine, I would ask for ten days in 10 jail, and on the other for ten days in jail. And I 11 think the other four or five that have been filed 12 are just set for arraignment. 13 I would also suggest that Dr. King be 14 assessed full guardian ad litem's fees. 15 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, just very 16 briefly, there is the failure to report. If you 17 recall, she had failed to report back to the Court 18 when she absconded with the child last time, and 19 Your Honor does have a rule upon that that she was 20 found guilty of, as well as the failure to comply 21 with the GAL and failure to cooperate with 22 Dr. Pfeiffer. So there are three there.


52 1 And also, in terms of grounds -- not that 2 Your Honor needs them, but -- I mean, needs 3 additional ones -- but the CPS workers yesterday -- 4 and the reason this is relevant, Your Honor, is 5 because this occurred yesterday. This isn't sort 6 of a punishment. 7 This is a concern for the child found by 8 two witnesses in front of the court yesterday, and 9 she was -- that were with the child yesterday, that 10 said that she was so delusional that she was a 11 danger to herself and the child and that, 12 quote/unquote, I'm worried that she might feel that 13 this child is better off dead than with the father. 14 Michelle Wood was here to hear that, was 15 in Montgomery County, because I had subpoenaed her 16 as a witness. I did not have time to subpoena 17 those individuals through the interstate methods 18 for this hearing. 19 But I am proffering -- and I'm sure 20 Michelle Wood would confirm -- what I just told 21 you -- in fact, everything that I just told you 22 about that hearing -- because she was there during


53 1 the entire hearing, including the texting. 2 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, could we ask 3 Ms. Woods, since she's present, to say that under 4 oath? That would be a statement against interest, 5 but I think it's important to get out, rather than 6 just a proffer from counsel. 7 THE COURT: Raise your right hand. 8 Whereupon -- 9 MICHELLE WOOD, 10 a witness, called for examination, having been 11 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 12 follows: 13 DIRECT EXAMINATION 14 BY MS. OLIN: 15 Q. Ms. Wood, did mother make -- were there 16 any statements in court yesterday that suggested 17 that mother made threats against the safety of the 18 child? 19 Were there any comments in court made 20 yesterday that would suggest that mother was a 21 danger to the child? 22 A. Yes.


54 1 Q. What were the comments? 2 A. Specifically, I know that the supervising 3 social worker was very concerned. She had said, I 4 believe, in her 19 years of experience -- 5 THE COURT: You're going to have to speak 6 up. 7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 8 THE COURT: I don't think the court 9 reporter can hear you, because I can't barely hear 10 you. 11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. 12 She basically had said that in her I 13 believe it was 19 years' experience of doing CPS 14 investigations, that this was one of the most 15 alarming cases that she's come across. She was 16 greatly concerned for the child's safety. 17 And she did have a feeling and did state 18 on the record that she had concern that the mother 19 could resort to killing the child as a result of -- 20 as opposed to having to give custody back to the 21 father. 22 BY MS. OLIN:


55 1 Q. Ms. Wood, did she say that mother said 2 she would harm her? 3 A. No. 4 Q. She said that was her analysis. 5 A. Her analysis from the erratic behavior, 6 what she was witnessing, the things that she was 7 doing. She had great concern that because of the 8 way that she was presenting, that it could make a 9 case for that. 10 Q. And do you remember the name of this 11 woman? 12 A. Lisa Hoffman. 13 Q. And what was her position? 14 A. She is the supervising social worker at 15 Montgomery County CPS. 16 Q. In Maryland? 17 A. Yes. 18 MS. OLIN: Thank you. 19 THE COURT: All right. The Court will 20 grant sole legal and physical custody of Ariana 21 Leilani King-Pfeiffer to her father. 22 The mother is not to have any contact


56 1 with the child until she avails herself to the 2 court and submits to a full psychological 3 evaluation. 4 The mother's motion for custody -- I 5 don't know what that is all about. She filed all 6 these motions for mediation, modification of child 7 custody. All those are denied. She's not here to 8 proceed with them. The Court will deny those 9 motions. 10 I guess it's the father's motion to 11 terminate the child support? 12 MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, Your Honor, there is 13 that motion. 14 THE COURT: The Court is going to grant 15 that motion. 16 MR. O'CONNELL: I hadn't even remembered 17 that motion at this point, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Dr. Lane's fees, the Court is 19 going to assess all of Dr. Lane's fees to the 20 mother. Well, I guess if we're going to do all of 21 it, but the Court is going to assess -- 22 MR. O'CONNELL: The reason we think


57 1 that's appropriate -- 2 THE COURT: Because of how the whole 3 situation was terminated, and I believe the 4 complaint -- what happened to the complaint with 5 Dr. Lane? 6 MS. OLIN: Dismissed out of hand. 7 THE COURT: So the Court is going to 8 assess the whole fee, Dr. Lane's fee, to the 9 mother. 10 MR. O'CONNELL: That would be in a 11 reimbursement form, since it has been paid except 12 for $2,000, correct? 13 THE COURT: Yes. Whatever it is. 14 On the failure to complies that were on 15 for disposition, I'm not going to sentence jail 16 time in her absence. What the Court will do is 17 issue a capias for failure to appear. 18 There's three rules that were set for 19 disposition. The Court will issue a capias on 20 those for failure to appear. 21 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, may I also 22 ask to orally renew the motion which we filed


58 1 earlier for surrender of the passport? The child 2 has a United States passport. We've already 3 surrendered the German passport, but she hasn't 4 surrendered the U.S. passport of the child. 5 THE COURT: The Court is also going to 6 issue a capias on the other two motions that were 7 for today, failure to comply with the custody order 8 and failure to cooperate with the guardian ad 9 litem, a capias for failure to comply. 10 I would issue a warrant for her arrest 11 for kidnapping, but it didn't occur in Virginia. 12 MS. OLIN: Right. We only have civil 13 jurisdiction. 14 THE COURT: Right. 15 I did a court order so that it can become 16 a final order today. Review it and see if it's 17 what the Court ordered. 18 MS. OLIN: Did you want to assess GAL 19 fees, Your Honor? 20 THE COURT: Um-hum. What is the -- well, 21 we don't have to have it today. We can just assess 22 the guardian ad litem fees.


59 1 MS. OLIN: I'll have it today. I'll 2 round it up to the nearest hour. 3 THE COURT: To the mother. 4 The Court does find, considering all the 5 factors listed in 16.1, that it's in the child's 6 best interests for the Court to grant sole legal 7 custody to the father, especially in light of the 8 testimony of Ms. Wood. 9 MS. OLIN: And Your Honor, and also in 10 20-124.3. 11 THE COURT: I'm sorry, 20 dash -- I said 12 16.1, but I meant 20 dash -- 13 MS. OLIN: I know what you meant, Your 14 Honor. 124.3. 15 THE COURT: 124.3 is what I meant. I 16 said 16.1. I meant 20-124.3. And also everything 17 that's gone on before. 18 All right. I think that's it. 19 (Whereupon, the proceedings at 11:43 a.m. 20 were concluded.) 21 22


60 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 3 I, Sean P. Goza, do hereby certify that 4 the foregoing proceedings were taken by me in 5 stenotype and thereafter reduced to typewriting 6 under my supervision; that I am neither counsel 7 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties 8 to the action in which these proceedings were 9 taken; and further, that I am not a relative or 10 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 11 parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise 12 interested in the outcome of the action. 13 14 Sean P. Goza 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


ORDER FOR CUSTODY/VISITATION ........................................................................................................... JJ031848-01-00

Case No. GRANTED TO INDIVIDUAL(S) Commonwealth ofVirginia VA. CODE $ 8 16.1-278.15, 20-124.2 06/06/2008 ............................................................................................................................

HATEOF HEARING

uvenile and Domestic Relations District Court

....................... present: S Father MC.~AELHER.BE.RT.PFEIF.FE.R .................. Father's attorney ,.SEAN.W .... Q'CQNNELL

Guardian ad litem

The above-named child has been brought before this Court upon the filing of a written petition or motion concerning custody or visitation or for which transfer of custody is a dispositional alternative. Legal notice has been given to all proper and necessary parties. All provisions of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Law have been duly complied with in assuming jurisdiction over the child, and all determinations have been made in accordance with the standards set forth in Virginia Code 8 16.1- 278.4, 8 16.1-278.5, 5 16.1-278.6 or 5 16.1-278.8 or 5 16.1-278.15 and $8 20-124.1 through20-124.6.

HAVING CONSIDERED ALL RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND THE BEST INTEREST O F THE CHILD, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CHILD IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION O F THIS COURT AND FURTHER FINDS AND ORDERS THAT:

1. 0 The parties are in agreement on the arrangement for the child's custody and visitation:

0 as set forth in the attached document, which is incorporated 0 as set forth below.

2. CustodyNisitation SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY O F ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER IS GRANTED TO HER FATHER, MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER. THE MOTHER, ARIEL R. KING, SHALL NOT HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH THE CHILD UNTIL SHE AVAILS HERSELF TO THE COURT AND COMPLETES A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.

The basis for the decision determining custody or visitation has been communicated to the parties orally or in writing.

3. 0 A supplemental sheet with additional findings andlor orders is attached and incorporated.

4. Relocation. Each party intending a change of address shall give 30 days advance written notice of such change of address to the court and other party, pursuant to Virginia Code $ 20-124.5. Unless otherwise provided in this order, this notice shall contain the child's full name, the case number of this case, the party's new telephone number and new sheet address and, if different, the party's new mailing address. Unless otherwise provided in this order, the notice shall be mailed by first-class or delivered to this court and to the otherparty.

5. Access to Records. In accordance with Virginia Code 5 20-124.6, neither parent, regardless of whether such parent has custody, shall be denied access to the academic or health records of that parent's minor child, unless otherwise provided in this order or, in the case of health records, if the minor's treating physician or clinical psychologist has made a part of the child's health record a written statement that furnishing to or review by the parent of such health records would be reasonably likely to cause substantial harm to the minor or another person;

. , . ,

6 This Order is 6B FINAL TEMPORARY and a final hearing on this matter will be held on

FORM DC-573 (MASTER) REVISED 7/05 Wiggins - COJ - 000397


AR_~~TON J&Q!3~OU.RT ________________________________ Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court

COMMO~WEALTH OF VA _________________ V.! In re: ARIAN_A LEILANI KING-P~EIFFER THE FOLLOWING PARTIES WERE PRESENT:

o Juvenile 0 Attorney:

00 Guardian ad Litem .QEBORAH O~ ______________ _

o Father 0 Mother 0 Guardian:

00 Petitioner/Complainant 00 Attorney: SEAN 9~_~~!i~ ___________ _

o RespondentlDefendant 0 Attorney: _____________________________________________________ _

o Commonwealth's Attorney: ____________________ 0

Type of Case: CUSTODY

o Felony D Misdemeanor 0 CHINS 00 Custody 0 Visitation 0 Support 0 Foster Care 0 Other

Type of Hearing:

[J Determination! Appointment of Counsel 0 Detention Hearing 0 Transfer Hearing 00 Adjudicatory Hearing 0 Disposition Hearing 0 Continuance 0 Review 0 Preliminary Hearing [] Show Cause [] Trial 0 Motion _____________ D PLEA:. ___________ _


IT IS ORDERED THAT:

MOTHER HAS ABDUCTED CHILD AND MOTHER EXHIBITED BEHAVIOR TO MONTGOMERY CPS WHICH MADE THE AGENCY CONCERN FOR THE CHILD'S SAFETY_

SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IS GRANTED TO THE FATHER MICHAEL PFEIFFER AND NO CONTACT OF CHILD BY THE MOTHER UNTIL THE MOTHER AVAILS HERSELF OF THIS COURT AND UNDERGOES A COMPLETE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION_

Arlington Juv.nll. , Domutlc Relatlolll District Court i, the undenllgned clerk or deputy cierI( 0' the above named court, authenticate pursuant to Va. Code §8.01.J9tfC) on !hIs date that the document \0 which this, !1it;-H:mlca~I01! Is affix.ed is a true copy of ~- .() ,--ecool1O !he abow named eourt, mad,

~:'~;;rn-E1 of my offlcJaJ dyt!:~

am. ~JCI.~ ~0mt/~'

RXMorris

Typewritten Text

Wiggins - COJ - 398

2

On March 19, 2008, Petition was served with a discovery request “Respondents Second

Request For Production Of Documents to Petitioner” in which documents production was

demanded regarding, among other things, correspondence and communications between

Petitioner, other counsel, and Dr. Lane. No timely response was forthcoming.

On May 8, 2008, through letter, Respondent reminded Petitioner of the outstanding

discovery request and that it was long overdue. Again, no response was forthcoming.

Finally, on the evening of June 2, 2008, a package was left at Respondents’ home

containing several hundred pages of emails and correspondence.

In this short period of time, only a preliminary review has been completed. However, the

following facts emerge that clearly indicate fraud on the Court and other improper conduct, and

bias on the part of the GAL causing her to act in the best interests of the Petitioner and not the

child.

MISCONDUCT REGARDING MICHELE WOOD’S REPORT

As the correspondence will clearly demonstrate:

1) Ms. Olin directed Dr. Pfeiffer, through counsel, to make unauthorized copies of

the child custody evaluation of Michelle Wood in late October to November

2007,

2) Ms. Olin directed Dr. Pfeiffer to have that unauthorized copy forwarded to Dr.

Lane, in an apparent attempt to influence Dr. Lane’s report to the Court.

3) As a direct result of Ms. Olin’s actions, Dr. Lane delayed the production of his

November 8, 2007 report to the Court – falsely blaming Respondent -- and then

Ms. Olin used that that claim to argue for a continuance, apparently in an attempt

to get Ms. Wood to change her recommendations to conform with the

recommendations that Ms. Olin sought out of Dr. Lane,

4) To reassure Petitioner that her “independent” recommendations were in

conformance with the expectations of Petitioner, Ms. Olin provided to Petitioner -

-- and only Petitioner – copies of her draft recommendations days before making

those recommendations known to the Court, Respondent or her counsel.

The correspondence speaks for itself regarding this matter:


3

1) On October 31, 2007, the GAL reminded Dr. Pfeiffer that he needs to provide

answers to her questions. The GAL informed Dr. Pfeiffer that:

Important – a copy of Michelle Wood’s custody evaluation is waiting for your

attorney to pick up. It is on the 5th floor in the juvenile probation office, at the

front desk. They will only give it to your counsel in person, unless he can sweet

talk them into faxing it. It’s important that he see it, and Dr. Lane as well, as

soon as possible. I picked it upon the way out of court yesterday afternoon, and

will not have access to a fax until I return, so these guys need to get copies ASAP.

Please let them know.

See, Exhibit I.

2) On November 3, 2007, the GAL again emailed Dr. Pfeiffer asking:

Michael: Did you tell your lawyer about the report from Wood?

See, Exhibit II at 2.

3) On November 4, 2007, Dr. Pfeiffer wrote back to Ms. Olin:

Dear Ms. Olin: Yes, he was able to get the report, but we have not discussed the

report yet.


4) On November 4, 2007, Ms. Olin wrote back to Dr. Pfeiffer:

What about Dr. Lane? I can't get it to him from here - no fax machine. It is

important that he see it before writing his report.

My position is, without detail as yet, as follows:

Mother and Father accuse one another of many of the same things - mental health

issues, parenting issues, financial issues. Both parents focus on the weaknesses of

the other, without being able to find a common ground where they can raise their

child. Each sees the weaknesses of the other without being able to see their own

weaknesses. Both are traumatized by the difficulties of separation and divorce,

and this colors their abilities to parent effectively. The child appears to be torn

between the parents, and she is not being protected from the negativity of the

failure of the marriage.

We also have two parents with advanced degrees and training, and neither is

making a living commensurate with their skills. Each conveys blame for the other


4

for not making more money, which has little significance relative to the best

interest of the child in terms of custody.

I will wait to see Dr. Lane's report, and especially the results of his mental health

evaluations before finalizing my own and making a recommendation as to

custody.

Finally, we have a very young child, and her needs will likely change over the

next couple of years which may well impact custody and visitation later on.

See, Exhibit II at 1. (emphasis added)

5) On November 5, 2007, Dr. Pfeiffer wrote back and confirmed:

Dear Ms Olin:

Dr Lane also has the report.

Michael


6) Immediately after receiving Ms. Wood’s Report, on November 7, 2008, Dr. Lane

wrote correspondence to both counsel (presenting that he had no previous correspondence with

either of them) seeking a delay in the deadline for his report. He alleged that because the child

was asleep at the commencement of his home visit (which he had rescheduled a number of times

to result in that late date), he claimed he could not complete his report (when, in fact, the child

had gotten up during his visit and he could have easily completed his home visit – a fact he failed

to point out in his letter). See, Exhibit III.

Ms Olin did not make an independent investigation of the circumstances. Ms. Olin did

not tell the Court that she knew – and encouraged – the copying of Ms. Wood’s report and that it

be forwarded to Dr. Lane in order to influence what Dr. Lane’s actions. The child custody

evaluation standards require no counsel may attempt to substantively influence the custody

evaluator. See, Excerpts of Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation,

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Exhibit X. However, Ms. Olin did this openly,


5

acting as an activist for Dr. Pfeiffer, urging Dr. Pfeiffer to -- either act directly or through his

counsel -- violate the rules, procedures, and standards for the treatment of Ms. Wood’s report,

and use that report to influence Dr. Lane’s child custody study. Dr. Lane then created this

“issue” of Dr. King now being cooperative, to delay the November 8, 2008 hearing, and, in turn,

to buy time and hopefully get Ms. Wood to change her position to conform to what Ms. Olin

wanted the two custody evaluation reports to say.

This clearly shows misconduct by the GAL Ms. Olin, and bias on her part. Thus, for this

reason alone the GAL should be sanctioned, and removed from this case.

Similarly, Mr. O’Connell’s (with Petitioner’s participation) providing of Ms. Wood’s

report to Dr. Lane – hopefully with help by “sweet talking” the clerks – is a violation of the

treatment of the report and misconduct on this Court. For this reason, Mr. O’Connell should be

sanctioned for his misconduct regarding this matter.

Finally, all filings, testimony, and evidence by Petitioner and the GAL referring to Dr.

Lane, his report, or any alleged misconduct by Respondent with regard to Dr. Lane should be

stricken from the record for fraud on the court. The contrivance created by Petitioner, in

collusion with Ms. Olin, Mr. O’Connell, and Dr. Lane, was simply a setup to falsely pin on

Respondent the blame for a delay that was intentionally created by these bad actors to give time

to pressure Ms. Wood to change her recommendations (which were originally favorable to

Respondent) to the Court.

MISCONDUCT REGARDING XXXXXXKING’S STROKE

It will now be shown how Petitioner, using his medical credentials in violation of the

HIPAA privacy regulations, colluded with the GAL and Mr. O’Connell to commit fraud on the

court.


6

The events unfolded as follows, as documented in mostly newly available

correspondence.

On January 20, 2008. Dr. XXX King, the xxxx of Respondent was stricken with a

stroke, that left her in a coma and an intensive care unit in an Atlanta hospital. See, January 31,

2008 Letter of DeKalb Memorial.

In an attempt to intimidate and mislead Respondent’s counsel and the court, on January

30, 3007, Ms. Olin, copying the court and other counsel represented that:

Ray:

I know you would never knowingly mislead the court about facts, so I want to

share with you the latest information (todays’) from Dekalb Hospital. Dr. XXXXX

King is doing well, is out of intensive care, and in the general wards. According

to the hospital, there is minimal damage, and she may be prescribed some

minimal rehab, but on the whole is on the mend. The stroke was a small one with

minimal blood loss. I know that we are all relieved that she is doing better. You

may want to consult with the physicians yourself to be sure.

Mother should be able to fly back with the child for the hearing. If not, then she

should return the child ASAP, as I have suggested before, so that I may complete

more of my investigation.

Deborah Olin

See, Exhibit IV.

On January 31, 2007, Ms. Olin wrote to Dr. King, reassuring her that what she wrote was

accurate in what she was told by her source, Petitioner Dr. Pfeiffer:

provided by your xxxxxx’s neurosurgeon, or other treating physician, at your

request, to your husband.

See, Exhibit VII

On January 31, 2007, a letter from DeKalb Medical indicated otherwise. See, January

31, 2008 Letter of Dekalb Medical. See, Exhibit VIII. That letter was forwarded to Ms. Olin.


7

On February 2, 2007, Ms. Olin claimed – choosing to believe Dr. Pfeiffer over Dr. Ariel

King as corroborated by the hospital, itself:

As for the doctor issue, let's be straight. XXXXXXX's doctor gave one story (I

was on the phone with father's counsel while father spoke with doctor on a

different phone in the same room as counsel. I heard the questions, heard the

repeated answers, and asked a few questions myself). Now, I suppose this could be

staged, but what would clear it up would be my conversation with the same doctor.

You can make it a conference call and be on the other line, I don't care. Why

wouldn't one of ya'll think of that yourselves?

See, Exhibit X.

This arrangement was a clear scheme to disclose private medical information in violation

of the HIPAA privacy regulations.

In his “Motion in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Continue [the February 8, 2007

hearing]” Counsel for Dr. Pfeifer trivalized for the court that Dr. XXXXX’s condition:

While it is regrettable that the Respondents xxxx recently fell, the Respondent has done the following acts which should alone cause the Court to deny the request and change custody of the child. a. Respondent has misrepresented to the Court the xxxx's condition. On the date that the motion to continue was filed the xxxx had been released from the ICU having recovered from a small cerebellar hemorrhage and undergone a procedure which drained the small amount of internal cerebral spinal fluid. b. There never was a large bleed in the brain but the fluid drain avoided the possible complication of increased intracranial pressure. We know this because Dr. Pfeiffer, upon the written request of Dr. King, called the neurosurgeon in the case and was briefed. We also know that the Respondents (sic) has no loss of speech and no major weakness. See, Exhibit XI

When GAL Olin and Petitioner’s counsel Mr. O’Connell wrote these statements, they

knew they were false. This is evidenced by Dr. Pfeiffer’s email to Ms. Olin and Dr. Lane

(another third party disclosure in violation of HIPAA Privacy requirements), dated January 31,

2008 where Dr. Pfeiffer stated that:


8

I was informed that Ariel's xxxxxxXXXXX King, has had a small cerebellar hemorrhage in the midline with some blood entering the forth ventricle. To avoid the possible complication of a hydrocephalus and increased intracranial pressure, a ventriculostomy tube was placed, I think on Monday 01/21/2008. The patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Patient's clinical status improved over the next week. Repeat head CTs did not reveal hydrocephalus and the ventriculostomy tube was removed after one week, I think on Monday 01/28/2008. Because there was no hydrocephalus, there was no need for the placement of an External Ventricular Drain (EVD). Patient was transferred out of the ICU to a regular floor on Tuesday 01/29/2008. When I called the Neurosurgeon, Dr. Kaveh Khajavi, on Wednesday, 01/30/2008, 1 was told that Ariel's xxxxxxx, Dr. XXXXXX, was on a regular floor, doing ok and able to talk. He stated that she was somewhat more lethargic than before and he felt that XXXXXXXXX could have a meningitis, a not uncommon complication after ventriculostomy. Infectious disease consultation was called and the antibiotics she receives were adjusted. See, Exhibit XII.

Note first that there was no support for Mr. O’Connell’s claims that XXXXXXXX

simply “fell.” Second, note that no mention is made in any of the communications by GAL Olin

or Mr. O’Connell that “XXXXXXXX could have a meningitis” and that an “infection disease

consultation was called and the antibiotics she receives were adjusted.” Third, note that, in

contrast to Pfeiffer telling them that XXXXXXXX was “somewhat more lethargic,” Mr.

O’Connell and Ms Olin told the opposite claiming that “We also know that the Respondents

(sic) has no loss of speech and no major weakness” and “XXXXX King is doing well, is out

of intensive care, and in the general wards. According to the hospital, there is minimal damage,

and she may be prescribed some minimal rehab, but on the whole is on the mend.”

The truth was that when these representations were made by Ms. Olin and Mr.

O’Connell, XXXXXXXXX was back in the ICU, could hardly sit up, her speech (in the rare

times she was awake) as slurred, and her survival was still in doubt due to the infectious disease,


9

cardiological, and other complications. So, rather than giving a complete story, or even one that

gave a reasonably accurate general impression of XXXXXXX's condition, GAL Olin and

Mr. O’Connell made fraudulent statements to the Court – providing no candor whatsoever. As a

result, Respondent was forced to leave her xxxx in Atlanta, get on a plane early on the morning

of February 8, 2008, in order to attend a hearing that should have been continued if either Ms.

Olin and Mr. O’Connell were truthful to the Court. Worse yet, and probably by plan, the

February 8, 2008 hearing set in motion a sequence of “setups” that resulted in Respondent losing

temporary primary physical custody of her five year old daughter – based on superficial

“violations” of ambiguous court rulings. See, February 21, 2008 Order at Exhibit XII.

The real tragedy is that GAL Olin has not been acting in the best interests of the child,

but instead, has acted in a singular purpose of getting custody transferred to the Petitioner. The

GAL has discounted all concerns by Respondent, including those raised about problems with

Petitioner’s care and custody of the child, as set forth in an Emergency Motion filed in October

2007, choosing instead to assume that everything was “OK’ with Petitioner, as she would be

required to do in order to achieve her goal of shifting custody from the mother to the Father.

Using fraudulent and misleading representations to the Court, the GAL, Petitioner,and his

counsel, Mr. O’Connell, have sought to steer this court towards their common goal of shifting

custody from the Mother to the Father, even if it is not in the best interests of the child.

1) The Court should sanction the GAL Olin and remove her from the case.

2) The Court should further sanction Mr. O’Connell for his fraudulent representations to

the Court.


10

3) Finally, the Court should strike all pleadings, testimony and evidence of Petitioner and

the GAL relating to the emergency visit of Respondent to care for her xxxxxx in Georgia, and the

events which followed from that visit.

4) With the striking of all pleadings, testimony, and evidence of Petitioner and the GAL

relating to Dr. Lane and the emergency visit of Respondent to care for her xxxxx in Georgia, the

Court needs to reopen all the “Rules to Show Cause” that relied on said evidence (i.e., the Rules

to Show Cause regarding Dr. Lane, the GAL, and the alleged Violation of the February 8, 2008

Order involving the return of custody after returning from Atlanta), and the vacating of any

findings based on that evidence.

The misconduct in this case -- clearly shown by the correspondence recently belatedly

produced by Dr. Pfeiffer -- has been destructive and counterproductive, and undermined the

credibility of the process and this Court. It is particularly disconcerting that the very persons --

the GAL, Petitioner and his counsel -- using fraud and misconduct in this case are the very

parties who sought jail for Respondent based on alleged violations of rulings of this court via that

fraud and misconduct.

Ariel King (Pro Se)

11725 Greenlane Drive

Potomac, MD 20854

202 730 5111


VI RGINIA:

IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT FOR ARLINGTON COUNTY

DR. MICHAEL H. PFELFFER Petitioner,

v.

DR. ARIEL R. KING Respondent,

IN RE: ARlANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER DOB: 05/07/2003

CASE NO. 1-31848-01

PRAECIPE

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Please note the following:

Pursuant to the February 8, 2008 Order where the Court ordered both the Father and the

Mother to have a psychological examination, Dr. IGng, the Mother, completed said psychological

examination with Susan Van Ost, Ph.D., Director,Assessments and Solutions a part of 1ewish

Social Services Agency (1SSA), Bethesda, Maryland,

Dr. Ariel King

FILED

Arlingto~ Juvenile & Domestic Relauons Districr Coun

Arlington. Virgmi" By ___ ",-., Dep!.l[.\. Clerk


VI RGI NI A:

IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT FOR ARLINGTON COUNTY

MICHAEL H. PFELFFER Petitioner,

ARIEL R. KING Respondent.

CASE NO. J-31848-01

IN RE: ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER DOB: 05/07/2003

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Please note the following:

Attached please find a copy of a psychological analysis of suspected child abuse by

Dr. Michael H. Pfeiffer,done by Dr. Schneyer, PhD.

Arlington Juvenile <& Domestic Relations District Court

Arlington. Virginia gy ____---- - 1; kp~ii 'y Clerk


Lee Schneyer, Ed.D., M.BA. Licensed Psychologist #I585 10401 Old Georgetown Road

Suite 208 Bcthcsda, Maryland 20814

301-493-9801

August 14,2008

Re: Ariana Leilani King-Pfei ffer

To Whom It May Concern,

Dr. Ariel King contacted me as she was concerned that her daughter, A r i a Leilani King-PfeiiTer, age 5, was being abused. I initially met with Dr. King and her attorney, Mr. Ray Moms, on July 22,2008, Subsequently I reviewed documents that Dr. King provided to me, including a record of symptoms that Dr. King compiled during the period June 2-9,2008, notes from pediatric visits from June 12,2007 until January 8,2008 , a transcript of Ariana Leilaoi 's discussion with her mother on June 4,2008, and brief videos of Anana Leilani. I had Dr. King complete a detailed developmental history of her daughter. Dr. King also completed the Child Dissociative Checklist, Version 3.1 then had a telephone interview with Dr, King on August 13, 2008 focusing on specific changes in Ariana's behavior. Based upon my review of these materials and my interview with Dr. King, it is my professional opinion that there is strong clinical evidence to suspect that Ariana Leilani King-Pfeiffer is being sexually molested.

The developmental history suggests that Ariana's development was proceeding normally until age four. She was a healthy newborn (APGAR scores 9/10) who was successfully breast-fed for three years. There were no early feeding difficulties and she enjoyed being held and cuddled by her mother. Developmental milestones for walking and talking were met within normal limits. Toilet training was accomplished by age three years and she was sleepingthrough the night by age two years (although this i s somewhat on the late side, chil n who are breast-fed often do not sleep through the night until this age as they need to feed o a regular basis due to i- the tower calorie content of breast milk). Socially she was extroverted and gregarious, making friends easily. The "terrible two's" were relatively easy for Ariana as she only manifested a few temper tantrums a week during this period; these were appropriately managed by allowing Ariana to vent her frustration and then discussing the issue with her after she calmed down.

At age four, Arianays behavior began to change dramatically. She went from being an outgoing child to a shy and withdrawn child. The occasional "accident" became full blown eneuresis, culminating in her urinating in her clothing several times per day and even having multiple encopretic episodes. The well mannered child began to exhibit outbursts of rage, during which she would scream, strike her mother, bite herself, and destroy her own toys and treasured belongings. When her mother would ask her what was wrong, Ariana would reply that she could not tell her mother why she is angry as it is a secret. hi February, 2008 Ariana spoke of seeing "Mr, Piggy's shangl e." Dr. King's German au pair informed her that "shangle" is a German


A. King-Pfeiffer Page 2

slang word for penis. Later &at month Ariana was assessed at the Tree House Center, where she was taught the difference between "good touch" and "bad touch". In June, 2008, k a n a told her mother that her father was doing bad touching with her, whereas she and her mother enjoy good touching between them.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. King completed the Child Dissociative Checklist, Version 3. This is a twenty (20) item checklist designed by Frank Putnam, MAD,, an expert in the field of dissociative identity disorder (DID), to assess for the possibility of dissociation The median score for normal population is 2.0, for anxiety disorder it is 4..0, and for DID it is 25; Anma's scored 27, strongly suggesting the possibility that she is experiencing symptoms of dissociation. Discussion of tile items with Dr. King indicated that Ariana has experienced periods where she "zones ouf'and does not respond to hear mother or react for a period up to one minute- She has also exhibited striking changes in personality. On one occasion Ariana was crying as she did not want to go on a visit with her father. She then suddenly stopped crying and said in a different voice "ok, I'm going to get my pocketbook", picked up her belongings and left, exhibiting totally different mannerisms from her normal behaviors. She has also had rapidly changing physical complaints, one moment complaining of a stomach ache or headache and then the next moment it was completely gone. Dr. King has also noted cuts and bruises on Ariana that her daughter could not recall sustaining. Finally, in recent months Ariana began to kiss her mother with an open rnoutb, a behavior that was totally foreign to their prior interactions-

The deterioration in Arim's behavior, combined with her dissociative symptoms and her verbalization of experiencing bad touch, strongly suggest that Ariana has been subject to sexual abuse for a sustained period and clearly warrant that she immediately receive a thorough sexual abuse evaluation by a trained expert in this field, such as Katie Killen, PhD., of Towson, MD. To not require such an assessment to rule out this possibility would be to potentially subject this young child to a sustained period of abuse which could well result in her becoming a dissociative identity disorder (DID), which would have profoundly negative implications for her future.

Sincerely yours,

Lee Schneyer, Ed-D., M.B.A


1

VIRGINIA :

IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS

COURT FOR ARLINGTON COURT

MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. J-31848-01

ARIEL R. KING

Respondent.

IN RE: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

DOB: 05/07/2003

IN RE: ARIEL KING CASE NOS.

JA020404-01-01

JA020404-02-01

JA020404-04-01

JA020404-05-01

JA020404-06-01

MOTION TO RECUSE

Respondent, Dr. Ariel King, on behalf of herself and her daughter, XXXXXXXXXXXX

King-Pfeiffer, respectfully asks that the Honorable Esther Wiggins Lyles (hereinafter referred to

as “the trial judge” or “this Court”) recuse herself from any further proceedings in the above

captioned matters, including those brought by Petitioner, who is an illegal German immigrant

alien,1 on the following grounds:

1. Under 28 USCS Sec. 455, and Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100

S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980), "[t]he neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life,

liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the

facts or the law." The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI and the

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483

1 See, Motion to Set Aside Orders, filed by Respondent on August 21, 2008.


2

n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976). ["State courts, like federal courts, have a

constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law."]

2. Furthermore, procedural fairness is of critical import in a child custody case and the

Fourteenth Amendment protections must be applied with the ultimate vigilance. As Justice

Ginsberg wrote in M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):

"Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among

associational rights this Court has ranked as 'of basic importance in our society,' rights

sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation,

disregard, or disrespect. M.L.B's case, involving the State's authority to sever

permanently a parent-child bond demands the close consideration the Court has long

required when a family association so undeniably important is at stake.

. . .

"Although both Lassiter and Santosky yielded divided opinions, the Court was

unanimously of the view that 'the interest of parents in their relationship with their

children is sufficiently fundamental to come within the finite class of liberty interests

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.' It was also the Court's unanimous view that

'few consequences of judicial action are so grave as the severance of natural family ties.'"

[Alteration original.] [Citations omitted.] [Footnote omitted.]

3. Canon 3(E)(1)(b) of the Canons of Judicial Conduct of Virginia require the trial judge

to recuse herself in proceedings in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned:

Canon 3(E)(1) states in pertinent part:

Disqualification.

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (b) The judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material


3

witness concerning it; . . . . 2 While “[a] purported violation of the Canons alone is not enough to mandate recusal,”3 in the

presence of proof of actual bias, recusal is not discretionary.4

3. The requirements of this Canon are clear; a judge must not only diligently avoid

actual impropriety, but a reasonable appearance of impropriety as well. Thus, Canon 3(C)(a) of

the Canons of Judicial Conduct also provides that "[a] judge shall disqualify himself in any

proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned. "!!See, Commonwealth v.

Jackson, 267 Va. 226, 229, 590 S.E. 2d 518, 520 (2004) (holding that "in the absence of proof of

actual bias, recusal is properly within the discretion of the trial judge"); Davis v. Commonwealth, 21

Va. App. 587, 590-91, 466 S.E. 2d 741, 742-43 (1996) (trial judge's discretion to determine

whether "impartiality might reasonably be questioned") (citing Canon 3(C) of the Canons of

Judicial Conduct).

Recusal Is Required to Avoid Actual and Perceived Bias

4. No matter how well intended, the record in this case demonstrates that this honorable

court acted in a biased or prejudicial manner toward Respondent, Dr. Ariel King. Such bias was

evident from the beginning of the proceeding, through the most recent hearing on June 6, 2008;

numerous examples permeate the record:

2 Commentary: Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be

questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. A judge should disclose information

that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if

the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification. By decisional law, the rule of necessity may override the

rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary

statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on

probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In the latter case, the judge must disclose the basis for possible

disqualification and use reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable. 3 Commonwealth v. Jackson, 267 Va. 226, 229, 590 S.E. 2d 518, 520 (2004) (citing Davis v. Commonwealth, 21

Va. App. 587, 591, 466 S.E.2d 741, 743 (1996)); see Welsh v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 300, 317, 416 S.E.2d

451, 461 (1992), aff’d, 246 Va. 337, 437 S.E.2d 914 (1993). 4 Jackson, 267 Va. at 229, 590 S.E.2d at 520 (citing Justus v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667, 673, 674, 283 S.E.2d

905, 908 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 983 (1982))


4

a) On September 5, 2007, the trial judge entered an initial order one day before the

hearing for such order was scheduled to occur, i.e., the next day, September 6, 2007, denying

due process to Respondent, (See, Original Summons, attached hereto as Exhibit I). Due to

defective service of the Custody Petition by Petitioner, Respondent did not learn of the

originally set September 6, 2008 hearing date for Petitioner’s custody petition until August

31, 2007. On September 4, 2007 (the next business day after receiving service), Respondent

filed a “Motion to Continue” the hearing date the originally set September 6, 2007 hearing

date for a week or two. A hearing was then set on September 5, 2007 solely for the Court to

hear and rule on the Motion for Continuance of the September 6, 2007 hearing date.

However, instead of limiting her ruling to the Motion for Continuance, the Court entered an

“Initial Order,” a day ahead of the earliest scheduled hearing date possible for such an order

(September 6, 2007). This denied Respondent the opportunity to prepare a response in

advance of the hearing on the merits of Petitioner’s custody petition. In addition, the

Respondent was given no opportunity to respond to the Petitioner’s Petition or given

opportunity to testify or give evidence before the initial order was entered on September 5,

2007. This was a clear violation of Respondent’s due process rights by this Honorable

Court. See, e.g., Burdick v. Brooks, III, 160 Md. App. 519; 864 A.2d 300 (2004).

b) On October 3, 2007, Respondent filed an Emergency Motion seeking amendment to

of overnight visit schedule established in the September 5, 2007 Initial Order, and full custody

of the child. This Honorable Court never scheduled a hearing on that Motion, even though it

set forth that there were concerns about XXXXXXXXX showing great psychological stress

from the overnight visits with nightmares, wetting her pants, biting herself and seeing

“bumble bees.” That Emergency Petition also raised the issue of the father sleeping in the

child’s bed, among other issues. Again, that Emergency Motion was never scheduled for

hearing by this Court, nor was that Emergency Motion ever denied. (See Emergency

Petition, attached hereto as Exhibit II).


5

c) On November 8, 2007, the Initial Custody Hearing was scheduled, and the

Respondent’s witnesses were all in attendance. Before allowing the hearing to go forward,

the trial judge allowed the Guardian Ad Litem to “testify” for Dr. Christopher Lane (a

private custody evaluator engaged by Petitioner, but a choice never approved by this Court),

claiming that he was unable to complete his custody evaluation in time. No opportunity was

given to place Dr. Lane on the stand to be examined him regarding the truthfulness of what

the GAL said of Dr. Lane – even though Dr. Lane was in the courtroom, and the sole reason

for delaying the hearing was Dr. Lane’s alleged inability to complete his study – allegedly

because of Respondent’s “failure to cooperate” with Dr. Lane. In fact, had Dr. Lane been

required to testify, the GAL statement of the claims would have been shown to be unfounded.

The truth was that Dr. Lane was unable to complete his work because of procrastination and

cancellations by Dr. Lane, himself – which is evidenced by Dr. Lane’s time entries on his

billing showing much work being done after November 5, 2007 which had nothing to do with

Respondent’s action (Dr. Lane had not disclosed to Respondent that billing prior to the

hearing but was disclosed to Petitioner by Dr. Lane in the hallway on the day of the hearing).

(See, Time Records of Dr. Lane, Exhibit III, herein) No opportunity was given for the

Respondent to testify that she was not the cause of Dr. Lane’s alleged failure to complete his

work. What sworn statements were allowed to be made by the Respondent clearly conflicted

with the unsworn hearsay of Dr. Lane contained in statements of Ms. Olin. As it turns out

and evidenced by discovery produced by Petitioner on June 2, 2008 (months after it was

requested), Dr. Lane’s “excuse” was simply part of an orchestration by Ms. Olin to assure

that Ms. Wood’s favorable recommendations were not considered by this Court on

November 8, 2007. Ms. Olin’s behind the scenes gamesmanship is documented in

Respondent’s Motion for Sanctions, etc., filed June 9, 2008, which remains pending. Ms.

Olin’s attempts – along with Petitioner’s counsel -- to manipulate this Court were successful,

and the November 8, 2007 hearing was postponed over Respondent’s objections.


6

d) On November 20, 2007, Respondent filed a “Suggestion for Lack of Jurisdiction,”

and on November 30, 2007, a “Motion to Dismiss” based on lack of subject matter

jurisdiction was also filed. Despite numerous attempts to get these threshold matters heard,

this Honorable Court failed to schedule a hearing on these matters until a month and a half

later (January 17, 2008). The Court ignored the case law, and accepted Petitioner’s

counsel’s novel interpretation of the UCCJEA – which was not based on any precedent and

was inapposite with the universal views other courts on the statutory language interpretation.

See, Petition for Mandamus, etc, In Re Ariel King, Case 080963, Supreme Court of Virginia,

filed May 16, 2008.

d) On February 8, 2008, after failing to rule on a pending Motion for Continuance

filed by Respondent due to the need to attend to her mother who was stricken with a severe

stroke, this Honorable Court transferred primary custody from the Respondent to the

Petitioner without any taking any evidence or making any evidence-based findings of why

such a change in custody was in the best interests of the child. Also, without taking evidence,

the trial judge found Respondent in contempt for “not cooperating with the Guardian Ad

Litem,” and relied solely upon the unsworn (and unspecific) statements of the GAL. The

GAL has never documented which alleged nonspecific requirements this Court imposed and

what specific actions Respondent took (or failed to take) that would support any such finding.

This Honorable Court refused to allow the Respondent to testify on her own behalf to defend

herself against the misstatements of the GAL. See, Transcript, February 8, 2008 Hearing,

Exhibit IV)

e) On February 21, 2008, the trial judge again – without allowing witnesses or taking

any evidence -- transferred “Temporary Full Custody” to the Petitioner. The trial judge

refused to allow Respondent to take the witness stand and testify on her own behalf, and did


7

not require Petitioner to take the stand to testify as to why it would be in the best interests of

the child that he have custody of the child. As of that date, this Honorable Court had not

heard the Petitioner testify on the stand, nor had it received any psychological examination

report on Petitioner, that would suggest that Petitioner was in any way fit to have custody of

the child. Moreover, the Emergency Motion, which raised questions about the Petitioner,

which were reinforced by Ms. Wood’s November 8, 2007 report about Petitioner sleeping

in the child’s bed, had not been taken up by the Court (and remains to this day unheard by

this Court). See, Transcript, February 21, 2008 Hearing, Exhibit V)

f) On April 8, 2008, the Court aided and guided Petitioner’s counsel on how to

question the Respondent on the witness stand. The trial judge refused to allow Respondent

to present a 911 tape of the incident at issue – prejudging its contents without hearing it –

and refusing to allow Respondent’s mother to testify about her illness and recovery – which

were the focus of the rules to show cause that were at issue. See, Transcript, April 8, 2008

Hearing, e.g. at 84-93, and 97-105, Exhibit VI).

g) After the April 8, 2008 hearing, this Honorable Court thwarted Respondents

attempts to notice appeals of the April 8 rulings by directing the clerk of the Juvenile and

Domestic Relations Court to refuse to allow notices of appeal by Respondent of her April 8,

2008 “rules to show cause” orders.

h) On June 6, 2008 (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing, Exhibit VII), this

Honorable Court held:

i) an ex parte hearing despite two motions for continuance being filed by

Respondent, and no orders being entered denying said motions for continuance,


8

ii) this Honorable Court volunteered her unequivocal prejudicial belief that she

believed that Respondent was a member of a “bashing Judge Wiggins group.”5

The trial judge’s interjection of this fact was not supported by any evidence

presented in this case, nor did she suggest she came to that conclusion based on

any evidence in the record in the case. (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing at

28-33.)

iii) this Honorable Court transferred custody to the Petitioner and barred all

communications with the mother be prohibited. The trial judge admitted coming

to this draconian outcome based solely on hearsay evidence from the only witness

(Michele Wood) whose testimony was limited to her hearsay statements about

what another witness said at another hearing the prior day which was held in

another state, (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing at 52-59.)

iv) this Honorable Court entered custody order, (which was noted as being

“final”) despite the fact that no notice was given that a “final” custody order

was to be entered on June 6, 2008. In fact, the only notices received by

Respondent (who is pro se) were that two motions filed by Respondent (a

motion for mediation, and a motion for reconsideration of the February 18, 2008

temporary custody order) were to be heard on June 6, 2008. The notices did not

indicate that any “final” custody order was to be entered on that date.

8 MS . O LI N : Te l l m e , w as th i s so r t o f a c u s to d y

9 su p p o r t g r o u p , o r w h a t k in d o f su p p o r t g r o u p w as

1 0 i t ?

1 1 T H E CO U R T: I t w a s a b ash in g Ju d g e

1 2 W ig g in s g r o u p i s w h a t i t w a s .

1 3 M S . O LI N : O h , r e a l ly ?

1 4 TH E CO U RT : Y es . I t ' s a f an c lu b to me .

1 5 I sn ' t th a t w h a t i t w as ?


9

v) despite never having heard Petitioner on the witness stand for the entire

proceedings and the Petitioner having never completed a full psychological exam,

the Court awarded in that “final order,” the custody of a five year old child to

said Petitioner.

5) Even though Respondent has filed a Motion for Sanctions and to Vacate (all orders in the

case) with the clerk on June 9, 2008, the trial court has not scheduled a hearing for that Motion as

of this date. (See, Motion For Sanctions And To Strike Pleadings By Petitioner, Motion For

Sanctions Against The Guardian Ad Litem, Motion To Dismiss The Guardian Ad Litem, And

Motion To Reopen Motion To Show Causes Regarding Dr. Christopher Lane, The Guardian Ad

Litem And February 8 2008 Order, filed with the clerk of the JDR Court on June 9, 2008.)

6) In addition, a conflict has arisen out of the necessity of Respondent to reluctantly file a

Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition against this Honorable Court in the Supreme Court of

Virginia – for this Court’s failure to dismiss this proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

in a hearing on January 17, 2008 (In Re Ariel King, Case 080963, Supreme Court of Virginia, filed

May 16, 2008). Most of the evidence of bias has occurred since that date. It would appear

unlikely, if not impossible, at this point for this Court to view any further proceedings before it in a

neutral and fair manner.

There is ample evidence in the record supporting a conclusion that this Honorable Court,

consciously or subconsciously, has harbored bias and prejudice against Respondent. To avoid

any further appearance of bias or impropriety, Respondent respectfully requests that the trial judge

recuse herself from any further proceedings in this case.


ROY L. MORRIS, ESQ. PO Box 100212 Arlington, VA 22210 202 657 5793 509 356 2789 (Fax) [email protected] Member of the Bars of the: District of Columbia and United States Supreme Court

September 29, 2010 President Barack H. Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 United States of America Re: Please Save 7-year old “Little Ambassador” Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer From The Ravages of The “Silent War” of Child (Mis)Use, Abuse, and Neglect Dear President Obama: Right here and right now in the United States there is a silent war. In this "silent war," the vic-tims of abuse and neglect include children who suffer, because no one will listen or believe their cries for help. The perpetrators of this domestic silent war on children are child abusers, who are most often trusted adults, including parents. They victimize their own children through sexual and physical abuse, child pornography and even trafficking of their own children. Disturbingly, the enablers of this silent war on children, including little Ariana-Leilani, are often the very institutions who are mandated to pro-tect and help them, that includes the local family courts which often act in secrecy, and the "Child Protec-tion Services" who treat everything they do as "confidential" void of any transparency thus making them unaccountable and prone to corruption. In addition, in Ariana-Leilani’s case, even the US State Depart-ment's Office of Children’s Services claims to be powerless to take effective action, even though Ariana-Leilani is a citizen of Germany who is living in the United States. October is Domestic Violence Aware-ness Month. This is not the time for excuses, but a time for action. Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer is a very ill child who is being denied life-saving medicine, G-CSF to boost her immunity to normal levels. It is well documented by medical records that Ariana-Leilani has suffered from Severe Chronic Neutropenia of undiagnosed cause since Fall 2008. Severe Chronic Neu-tropenia is severely low immunity, similar to that suffered by those with HIV/AIDS, which renders them very vulnerable to fatal infection. This very rare condition began when Ariana-Leilani was placed in the custody of her father, Dr. Michael H. Pfeiffer, a German national living in Washington DC, who, as a neurologist, would have easy access to psychotropic drugs (e..g, benzodiazepine "date rape" type drugs) that can cause neutropenia. She is now only one of 1300 people worldwide on the Severe Chronic Neu-tropenia International Registry (SCNIR). The Co-Directors of the SCNIR, Prof. Dr. Dale (US) and Prof. Dr. Karl Welte (Germany) have written letters supporting the need for immediate intervention to save Ariana-Leilani’s life with G-CSF. Without it, she is at high risk to suffer “toxic shock, loss of limbs or loss of life” (Dr. Dale, July 2010). They have also stated that taking all the test results into account, the Severe Chronic Neutropenia is likely “induced by toxins”/drugs (Dr. Welte, August 2009). Since Fall 2007 various child protection institutions have documented that Ariana-Leilani has been complaining about her father sleeping in her queen sized bed in a one bedroom student apartment, and doing "bad touch," and “naughty touch.” Ariana-Leilani complained to a court officer, but, although the officer noted it, she did nothing about it. Ariana-Leilani complained to a Montgomery County (Mary-land) forensic investigator, but, although she noted it, she also did nothing. Ariana-Leilani has also com-plained that her father gives her "green medicine" that "makes me sick." Ariana-Leilani has been diag-nosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) since 2008 with no treatment to date. No one in all of these "protection" systems has effectively protected her since 2007. It seems that the more people who don't act on her cries for help, the longer the list gets of those "group thinkers" who completely ignore her obvious health problems and the abuse that has caused it.


Letter to President Barack O'Bama September 29, 2010, Page 2 When her mother tried to get Ariana-Leilani protection with a domestic violence temporary protection order and sought to get her a full medical and sexual abuse evaluation at New York's Montefiore Chil-dren’s Hospital, the abusive father had her arrested and had the evaluation stopped. Since then the US family courts have allowed him to fully isolate Ariana-Leilani from all of her family in the USA and Germany, her friends, her religion and her school in order to gain full control. Ariana-Leilani has been cut off from all contact with mother -- who was the only person who she could trust to help her. The international community is horrified and outraged. The United Nations Human Rights Commission, Convention on the Rights of the Child Special Rapporteur for Sale of Children, Child Pros-titution and Child Pornography has sent an urgent formal letter to the United States Government in Janu-ary 2010 requesting the US Government take action. Also, Innocence in Danger International (France), the German Government through the German Embassy, and the Co Directors of the Severe Chronic Neu-tropenia International Registry, have all expressed serious concern that this child is not getting the medi-cine and/or full independent medical and psychological evaluation and protection she desperately needs. The US's apathy to the child's medical and abuse condition is unexplainable. Why are these institutions more interested in protecting the abusive father rather than addressing the child's obvious life-threatening medical and debilitating psychological needs. Could it be that because Ariana-Leilani’s father does hu-man medical research in Neurology for the United States Government at the Veterans Administration Hospital in the District of Columbia, he is being protected at the expense of his severely ill daughter? As you have said many times, “No one is above the law.” Such US misbehavior would not be anywhere in the vicinity of the "moral high ground." As a human being, Ariana-Leilani was born with “human rights.” As a German child, Ariana-Leilani is entitled to protection under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including her rights to life, health and health services, and freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. As an American child she is entitled to protection under the CRC Optional Protocol on Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography as requested by the Special Rapporteur to the US Government. To date these basic human rights have been denied by the US institutions. We appeal to you, as the President, our moral leader, and as a father, to lead your administration to get this child the necessary medicine and the full medical (as well as criminal) investigation into the root cause of her very rare illness and the associated psychological issues. Alternatively, we request that your administration allow the German Government to take the lead in protecting this German child. Her possible death, as a result of this “domestic silent war” in Washington DC, the backyard of our White House, would be an international tragedy that would bring into question the United States’ commitment to the human rights of all children within its borders. We are confident that immediate action, including a thorough investigation of Ariana-Leilani's situation, will pull back the curtain to expose and help cure a growing silent cancer of our society, child (mis)use, abuse and neglect in America. Please listen to the drumbeat of international voices that continue to plead to get her the help to save her life. Attached are the letters from the Germany Embassy to the State Department and from The Severe Chronic Neutropenia Registry Professor Dale and Professor Welte, and my letter to the Department of State, Office of Children’s Services explaining the failures of the US local institutions to protect this child. I would be happy to provide additional information at your request and meet with members of your administration to get this problem investigated and addressed before it is too late. Sincerely,

Roy Morris, Esq. Public Interest Attorney and Pro Bono Counsel for Dr. Ariel King (who lives in Germany) cc: Honorable Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, US Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20520 Eric Holder, Attorney General , US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001


Exhibits to September 29, 2010 Letter to President Barack Obama

1Wiggins - COJ - 000429

& I Embassy .. of the Federal Republic of Germany I Washington ,*

Mr. Michael B. Regan Director Office ofChildren' s Issues U.S. Department of State 220] C Street N.W., SA-29, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20520

Ariana-Leilani Margarita Alexandra KING-PI<EIFFEH

Ref. No, {please .::itt: in respons.:): RK 520, SE King-Pfeiffer

Washington, D.C., August 17,20 I 0

Dear Mr. Regan,

ADDRESS 4645 Reselvoil RO<ld . N.W. Washington, D,C, 20007

iNTERNET www.germany.info

TEL + 202 298 8140 (Switchboard) rAX' 202 411 5558

Klaus Botzel Consul Genera! and Legal Adviser

TH,OIRECT 2022984361

Tk,;@wash,dipiode

Please allow me to bring to your attention and seek your assistance in the case of seven year old KING-PFEIFFER, a child with dual German and American citizenship. She is living with her father, the German national Dr. Michael Pfeiffer, ill \Vash-ington , D,C. Her mother, Dr. Ariel King, a U.S. citizen, lives in Germany.

Earlier this year, the NOO Innocence in Danger International has brought serious concerns about possible medical mistreatment and possible sexual abuse of the child by the father to the attention of the Embassy. The concerns related to based. on the child's extensive medical and school records, and were supported by physicians of the Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry and the German NGO Avalon.

The German Embassy so far has had no direct access to the child nor to information fi'o m an independent source. As of today, the F,mbassy has received documentation on the child's case consisting of medi ca l test records from George Washington University Hospital (GWUH), opinions and school health records. UnfOitunately, without the consent of the fa-ther who has sole custody, the Em bassy has no way of veri tying the status of the chi Id , orthe information it has been given,

In any event the allegat ions are of such a serious nature. that we feel that a fully independent medical examination of rhe child should be ordered by the competent U.S. authorities. A divorce and custody case is currently pending in Bayreuth, Germany. The mother claims that the father refuses to agree to allow her, or anyone acting on her behalf; to have direct contact with her child, the child's sole treati ng physician at G\VlJH, and GWUH itself. The mother is represen ted by Mr. Roy L. Morris, Esq., Arlington, VA. The father is represented by Mr. Sean W. O'Connell, Arlington, VA.


' .. ?.:;.,

GWUH health recOrds, which were forwarded to the Embassy, state that the child suffers from Severe Chronic Neutropenia, a medical condition which consists of severely low immu-nity levels over an extended period of time that leave the child vulnerable to potentially fatal infections. The Embassy was also provided with opinions from international experts in the field of pediatric hematology who expressed serious concerns for the child's safety. In the opinion of these experts there is a lack of a thorough evaluation of the cause of the medical condition of the child and a lack of an appropriate treatment with a rnedical drug called GCSF which boosts immunity to more normal levels. However, these medica! experts have not yet had the possibility to examine the child in person.

The mother believes that the medical condition of the child could have been induced by the administration of a particular psychotropic drug. According to her, the sole treating physi-cian's reports are biased because he is an associate of Dr. Pfeiffer at GWUH, and his reports show inconsistencies with regard to the medical tests and school reports. The Embassy was informed that Dr. Pfeiffer has been working at GWUH as a physician until 2008. Reportedly he is currently working for the Veteran's Admini stration Hospital in Washington, D.C.

The report from a guardian ad litem in 11 past child clIstody case notes that the child purport-edly lives ina one-bedroom apartment with her nlther. The representative of the mother, rvlr. J\1orris, forwarded documents which include a statement of a clinical psychologist from Maryland who, based on medical records, interviews of the mother, and other documentation, utters her professional opinion in writing that the child Ariana-Leilani " ... continues to be at risk in her current environment of both physical and medical neglect, and likely sexual abuse. "

The German Embassy has a legal obligation under Art. 5 of the German Consular Act to sup-port German citizens in need of assistance. A written proposal fI'om the Embassy dated March 30, 2010, to let the child undergo a full independent medical examination on a volun-tary basis -- and which costs the mother's health insurance in Germany would cover - has been declined by the father's lawyer, Mr. O'Connell. So far, the father has refused to com-municate I.",ilh the Embassy directly.

The possibilities of the Embassy are limited to voluntary cooperation and have been ex-hausted. The German Embassy would therefore be grateful if the Department of State could lake up this matter in order to obtain an independent medical examination of Ariana-Leilani King-Pfe iffer. Once her true health status is clarified, optimal medical care for her seemingly serious medical condition can be ensured .

If you have questions in this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. [am including a list of points of contact and a copy of a letter from the University of Washington , Department of Medicine, in this matter for your information.

With many thanks for your support.

./CL Botzet


Pediatric Hematological-Oncological Outpatient Dept. Day Unit Roof Terrace Ward 64a Ward 62 Tel. +49-511-532-3214 88 Tel. +49-511-532-3288 Tel. +49-511-9411

T R A N S L A T I O N

Dr. Kerstin Niethammer-Jürgens Am Neuen Garten 4 14469 Potsdam Germany

Medical School Hanover, Germany

Lower Saxony Professorship – 65 plus Research Prof. Karl H. Welte, Dr. med., Director, Department of Molecular Hemopoiesis Center for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine OE 6790 Phone +49-(0)511-532-6710 Fax +49-(0)511-532-6998 [email protected] Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1 30625 Hanover, Germany www.mh-hannover.de

31 August 2009

Medical Opinion

born 7 May Dear Dr Niethammer-Jürgens, This report deals with the abovementioned patient whose mother accompanied by Ms Hebart-Herrmann with medical records consulted us on 31 August 2009. Unfortunately the child is at present in the USA so that we were unable to examine her in person. On the basis of the medical documents produced we have arrived at the following evaluation: Diagnoses:

• Severe chronic neutropenia of unknown origin, no exclusion of a mutation in the genes ELA2/HAX1/SBDS

• To date no indication of an antibody-induced immune neutropenia • To date no therapy with hematapoietic growth factors

Case history (Anamnesis): For the detailed anamnesis you are referred to the numerous records. According to information provided by the mother, the child developed normally relative to its age until May 2008. There was no unusual increase of infections. In a hemogram during a routine check-up, the primary care physician discovered the neutropenia which was subsequently confirmed. At the time the child was without infection, and there was no indication of an underlying primary disease. The absolute neutrophil count in the majority of findings was under 500/µl. Further diagnostic investigations to clarify the cause of the severe neutropenia with continuous absolute neutrophil counts under 500/µl were only undertaken in July 2009 at the Georgetown

ALM ALM ALM


Pediatric Hematological-Oncological Outpatient Dept. Day Unit Roof Terrace Ward 64a Ward 62 Tel. +49-511-532-3214 88 Tel. +49-511-532-3288 Tel. +49-511-9411

University Hospital, Washington, by Dr Myers. There was no sign of maturation arrest of granulopoesis as an indication of a congenital neutropenia. At the same time there was no evidence of a malignant systemic disease. Taking the bone marrow findings and the persisting severe neutropenia together, the most likely assumption is a bone marrow disease caused by an infection or induced by toxic agents. Recommendations:

is suffering from a severe chronic neutropenia of hitherto unknown origin. In view of the fact that a chronic neutropenia with absolute neutrophil counts of under 500/µl involves the risk of a life-threatening infection, treatment with the hematapoietic growth factor G-CSF, e.g. Filgrastim, should be initiated urgently. In view of the unknown origin of the neutropenia we recommend that the diagnostic investigation be continued in order to exclude an autoimmune disease, an infectious disease and a malignant systemic disease. Independent of this we recommend that a bone marrow screening with histology and cytogenetics be repeated in approx. one year. A conclusive assessment is only possible after personal consultation with the child. Yours etc. [signature] Prof. Karl Welte, Dr. med. Co-Director SCNIR (Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry)

ALM


July 9, 2010

The Honorable Klaus Botzet Consul General and Legal Advisor Embassy ofthe Federal Republic of Germany 4645 Reservoir Road NW Washington, DC 20007 -1998

RE: Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer German Passport No: 875289379 (per mom, Dr. Ariel King)

Dear Mr. Botzet:

i

David C. Daile, MD Professor of Medicine

Anna Bolyard, RN, BS Research Nurse

I an1 wTiting on behalf of Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer who has been recently enrolled as a participant of the Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry (SCNIf) in Germany. The SCNIR was established in 1994 to study the rare condition of Chronic Neutfopenia and is funded by the NIH. I

Neutropenia is the condition of having lower than normal neutrophils. A nqrmal absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is maintained at approximately 2000-5000 lemm, allowing a person to fight off infections. Mildly neutropenic patients have an ANC between 1000 to 150q Icmm, moderately neutropenic patients have an ANC between 500-1000 Icmm, and severe chrrnic neutropenia is the rare condition where the bone marrow doesn't produce sufficient neutrophils to keep the levels in the blood above the 500/cmm level, resulting in not enough neutrophils to fightlinfection. ArianaLeilani has severe chronic neutropenia; her neutrophils were consistently be~ow 500 without G .. CSF treatment. .

Neutrophils are very important because they fight infection. When bacteria!invade the body a chemical signal is sent out and the neutrophils, like fire fighters responding 0 a blaze, rush to the site of infection. The bone marrow also responds by speeding up its production bf neutrophils to replace those involved in fighting the infection. If, however, production of new neWrophils is suppressed or slowed down, a shortage may develop, and any infection can overwhelm th~ few neutrophils available. Therefore, a person with only a few neutrophils is at particular risk for developing a serious bacterial infection. j

Department of Medicine • University of Washington .. Box 356422 1959 NE Pacific St .. Seattle, WA 98195-6422 .

Dr. Dale: Phone 206-543-7215 • Fax 206-685-4458 • Email: ds:dalc(ZiJu. tvashington.edu Audrey Anna Bolyard: Phone 206-543-9749 .. Fax: 206-543-3668. E-mail: bol\1ardra;tl.washington.edu 7Wiggins - COJ - 000434

Many SCN patients are treated with G-CSF, a hormone that increases the neutrophil level. This medication will help fight infection by raising the neutrophil count. Even With the administration of G-CSF, the neutrophils may still drop to critical levels. G-CSF allows the patient to fight infection better than the untreated patient, but infection is still a constant concern. T~e treated patient "rill continue to experience infections, hopefully not life-threatening infections' i The neutropenic person's life may be greatly affected by her/his inability to fight infectionS,\

The SCNIR follows over 1300 SCN patients. We have tracked each ofthe$e patients, gathering medical information over the last 16 years for the Registry and 7 years beDl'rc that in clinical blaiS.

Our mission is to follow closely the health of neutropenic patients and to e . ntinue to research::he mechanisms causing this condition. The SCNIR is actively distributing infprmation regarding SCN to doctors and patients. The goal is to help the local physician become mo~e knowledgeable about this rare and difficult condition, and to prevent the severe consequences odmtreated SCN: Toxic shock, loss oflimbs, and loss oflife.

If you have any questions, the SCNIR web site is very helpful: 1=1t"",t~="'-'t=s.,+., !ashington.edulrcgistm

Please feel free to contact me directly at 1-800-726-4463.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

David C. Dale, MD Professor of Medicine

AUdrc~d' RN, BS Clinical Manager SCNIR

DCD/las

i Department of Medicine. University of Washington. Box 356422 ..

1959 NE Pacific St. Seattle, WA 98195-6422 Dr. Dale: Phone 206-543-7215. Fax 206-685-4458 • Email: lli:da!e:(vu.\ ·ashington.edu

Audrey Anna Bolyard: Phone 206-543-9749 • Fax: 206-543-3668 • E-mail: =L'.4"~~~"';~'-"'=~~~ 8Wiggins - COJ - 000435

!"#!!"

$!!!"$#!!"

%!!!"%#!!"

&!!!"&#!!"

'!!!"

()*+"

,-%!-!#"

#-%.-!."

,-%-!."

,-&-!/"

,-$$-!."

0-$&-!."

0-/-!."

.-$&-!."

$!-$!-!."

$!-%%-!."

$-/-!/"

&-%0-!/"

'-0-!/"

,-%/-!/"

0-%$-!/"

$!-$,-!/"

$$-$!-!/"

$$-$$-!/"

$%-$.-!/"

&-$%-$!"

,-$$-$!"

,-$0-$!"

,-%'-$!"

1234"(56"785*"

(56"7)9*+5:"

(56";<<=+5">3-?@"

1234"(56ABC8<"

D<E*+F<5+"

1234"7;;"

1234;GHI(;4"(56"DJ+5:"

1234"(56"KCBI1L<:L"

123"(56"

DJ+5:"

1234;)EM+99+

N"1234"(56"DJ+5:"

1;HO"1234"(56"DJ+5:"

!"#$%&$!

'()*)+,-(.)*($/(*0+1&-(2-'$

HB:=+M*+N"3+5=+:"(

8:M<P+5+N")EN";B9*B5+"Q)R+E"

AN

C B

elow 500 (S

evere Chronic

Neutropenia) R

equires H

ospitalization


Low and High Values!

BLOOD NORMAL 8/13/2008 10/10/2008 10/22/2008 1/9/2009 3/27/2009 6/26/2009 7/21/2009 10/16/2009 11/10/2009 11/11/2009 12/18/2009 12/21/2009 3/12/2010

Before GCSF After GCSF WBC 4.8-10.8 L 3.5 L 4.1 4.1 3.3 3.2 L 3.1 L 2.9 L 4.1 L 3.5 L 7.0 N 2.6 L 3.2 L 3.7 LRBC 4.2-5.4 3.93 L 4.13 L N 4.13 L 4.01 L 4.07 L 4.13 LHGB 12.0-16.0 10.8 L 11.4 L 11.3 L 11.5 L 11.2 L 11.6 L 11.8 LHCT 37.0-47.0 32.3 L 34 L 33.8 L 33.8 L 32.4 L 33.7 L 34.1 LMCV 81-99 80.4 L 80.3 L 80.7 LRED CELL Distrubition width 11.5-14.5 14.6 HMCH 27-31 26.9 L 26.8 LMCHC 31.8-34.6 35.1HRDW 12.2-14.4 12.0 LMPV 7.4-10.4 6.7 L 6.8 L 7.0 L 7.0 L 7.3 L 6.7 L 7.1 L 7.2 L 6.8 L 7.9 LGRAN % NEUT 53-79 28.0 L 25.0 l 16.5 L 14.9 L 32.8 LLYMP 13-46 62.4 H 58.5 H 63.1 H 48.6 H 63.8 HMONO % 3 TO 9 12.3 H 15.1 H 15.2 H 17.2 H 12.1 H 14.1 H 12.2 H 13.8 H 16.7H 13.4 HEOS 0 TO 4 13.5 H 15.2 H 6.8 H 6.6 H 8.8 H 12.4 H 12.4 HNEUT ABSOL # 1.8-7.8 1.20 L 1.00 L 0.50 L 0.50 L 0.5 L 0.9 L 0.4 L 0.4 L 0.5 LNEUTRO% 29.8-71.4 9.4 L 12.7L 49.8 N 16.4 L 12.6 L

Differential ManualNEUT 53-79 25 L 20 L 20 L 10 L 12 L 15 L 33LNEUT ABSOL # 1.3 - 8.1 .88 L 0.82 L 0.33LL 0.38 LL 0.47 LL 0.96L 0.4 L 0.5 L 3.5 N 0.5 LLYMP 13-46 55 H 48 H 48 H 72H 68 H 69 H 49HLYMP MAN % 16.7-57.8 63 H 59.7 H 30.6 N 62 HMONO 3 TO 9 14 H 12.3 H 12 H 14 H 12.2 H 5 LSEG MAN 30-71MONO MAN 4 to10 14 H 12 H 12 H 18 HEOS % 0 - 4 13.5 H 15.2 H 6 H 7 H 18 H 8.5 HEosinophil Abs 0.0 - 0.5 0.7 H 0.6 HEOS MAN 0 TO 4 8 H 10 H 17 H 14 H 8 H 6 HBASO 0-2BASOPHIL % 0.0-0.6 1.1 H 0.9 H 1.9 HBASOPHIL MAN 0-1 3 H 2 H 14 HATYP LYHP 0 -0 2 H 2 H 2 H 3 HLdh 91-180 213 H 209 HAlko Phosphatatse 39-117 169 H 135 H 216 HPhosphorous 2.4-4.5 4 L 4.6 HSodium Lvl 137-145 136 LSodium 137-145 136 LChloride 101-111 100 l Sed Rate 0-20 36 HSodium 135-145 134 L


father's large face and her details about his appearance. h e n Adriana was certain about her information, her voice would become stronger and stem.

-

On an emotional level, Adriana did not show fear or feeling scared with the significant adults in her life. She displayed just the opposite, feelings of love and happiness when talking about either of her parents.

Many statements made by Adriana were spontaneous. She had little trouble understanding the focused open-ended questions. If there was a problem, it was the interviewer not asking clear and concise questions. It appeared to the interviewer that Adriana had more thoughts in her head than she had language to use in explanations.

Adriana appeared to have difficulty staying focused on any subject matter for more than a few minutes. She was physically active during the entire interview, not sitting for longer than a few minutes. Staying active parallels focusing time frames for Adriana, It appeared to the interviewer that Adriana thinks and speaks more clearly when physically active.

Dr Michael H Pfeiffer & Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles Child Corruption in Arlington, Vriginia - 2011...

Documents

Transcript of Dr Michael H Pfeiffer & Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles Child Corruption in Arlington, Vriginia - 2011...