From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: A Model Attempt at a Solution
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:01:39 GMT

A Quick History:  I've been involved in a divorce that has been going on
for 16 months - a very ugly, nasty divorce.  I have two sons, ages 4 and
3.  This was to be an amicable divorce and for several months, it looked
like it would be.  There was one major problem, though.  Custody.  She
wanted sole physical and legal custody.  I wanted shared parenting with
a 50/50 split.

About 10 months ago, I spanked my sons with a plastic spatula.  It was
a mistake.  One son had visible red marks on his bottom the next day.
My ex-to-be took my sons to the hospital 24 hours after the spanking
and after meeting with her attorney for several hours.  The hospital
got Children's Services involved.  Children's Services induced the
police to file charges of child endangerment against me - a first-class
misdemeanor.  Thus began my fight for justice and to preserve my
relationship with my children.

For 3 months my ex-to-be did not allow me to see my children - at all.
She also threatened my family that neither they nor I would ever see my
children again.  We finally got back into court and I was granted
supervised visitation - depending on the outcome of the child
endangerment charge.  I pleaded not guilty, had the case moved to a
different court, etc.  The battle for the child endangerment charge
lasted 10 months.  The Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
worked on my defense and the ACLU and VOCAL were also involved.  In the
end, the charge was dismissed based on the fact that I was charged under
an unconstitutional law.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself.  During the first 7 months after the
charges were filed against me, my ex-to-be only allowed me to see my
sons for 14 hours.  Eventually the court, rather than find her in
contempt for refusing scheduled visitation, recognized the problem, and
granted me unsupervised visitation.  That was in March.  A Guardian Ad
Litem, an attorney to represent my children, was assigned to the case,
got involved, found that the child endangerment case was very marginal,
recognized that this was a typical case of one party utilizing the
system against the other party to obtain sole custody for NO good
reason, saw that I was a good person, etc. and decided that I should
have shared parenting - and maybe even the 50/50 split - all before the
child endangerment case had been completed.

Well, my ex-to-be got really weird.  She had been painting a picture of
me to anyone who would listen that I was some terrible monster. But
then it looked like I was going to get shared parenting, and she would
look like a liar (which she was).  So, 9 days after she made a vague
threat to me when I informed her that the child endangerment case would
be dismissed and 5 days before the Guardian was to put into place a
plan that would grant me extended visits with my children, and two
weeks before the child endangerment case WAS dismissed, she alleged
that I sexually molested my two sons.

I informed everyone in several newsgroups of these events as they
transpired.  Many of you are aware of what I've been through.

As a result of her latest allegations, a full-blown investigation of
everyone and everything was started.  This investigation was only
partially conducted by the state.  Children's Services, Children's
Hospital, and a police detective conducted limited investigations.
Children's Services indicated sexual abuse, but did not substantiate.
They also determined that coaching of my sons was indicated and the
investigators personally believed the allegations were false and
malicious.  They based this on several interviews where they even
witnessed my ex-to-be coaching the children.  My ex-to-be could only
get my oldest son to say what she wanted him to say when she was
holding him on her lap and prompting him.  They indicated that it was
all very "fishy."  They never talked to me or my attorney.  Children's
Hospital substantiated sexual abuse based on an interview with my
sons.  I was not present.  Children's Hospital refused a court order to
videotape the proceedings.  The interviewer, a Dr.  Charles Johnson,
asked many leading questions and stuck completely to a line of
questioning that would get the children to say they were abused.  No
history was obtained from any third parties that had been involved in
this case.  No critical questions such as "Did someone tell you to say
this?" were ever asked.  The police detective, based on information
from Children's Services and from watching the interview at Children's
Hospital, refused to file charges and made a determination that he
believed my children had been coached and that the allegations were
false and probably malicious.  All three - the Children's Services
workers, Children's Hospital and the police felt that it was possible
that I abused my children, but not likely.  All three - without
obtaining any history from me - also concluded that it was possible
that my children were coached.  The likelihood was something they did
not state on the record, but off the record all three groups have
affirmed that they believe my children were coached.  Well, if you know
your law, you know that there is no such thing as "off the record" -
especially when you are talking to a private investigator who is
recording the conversation or when there are 6 witnesses present.

That was what the state came up with.  The Guardian Ad Litem had a more
thorough investigation conducted by a private investigator.  This
investigation found out much more information and was much more
conclusive.  Basically, this investigation determined that many, many
people believed that these allegations were false and malicious, that
my ex-to-be had been planning this for months before she went forward
with it, that her neighbors, whom she thought would be witnesses in her
favor, turned out to be very much against her, that all the
professionals involved in this case - including the professionals
working for the state, believed the allegations were perjorative.  The
daycare workers were very strong against my ex.  They stated that she
had started making these allegations to them in March (and because they
have to report these things), Children's Services was called out then
(without telling my ex) and they found NO SUBSTANTIATION.  It had
become almost a joke at the daycare center - because every time they
would talk to my ex, she would make more allegations against me.  And
every time, they would talk to the kids and would determine that it
wasn't true.  This went on for months.  And my ex gave these people as
witnesses in her favor to the Guardian.  When, in fact, they couldn't
have slammed her any worse than they did.  In total, there were over 30
witnesses ready to testify against my ex-to-be and even the doctor at
Children's Hospital was so waffly that he stated that, given all the
other facts, and the numerous lies that had been documented by the
private investigator, that these allegations were probably false,
malicious and that the father (me) should have sole custody of the
children if others felt that way.  My ex-to-be only had a couple of
witnesses in her favor, and parents don't make strong witnesses.

So, yesterday a trial was scheduled to take place for custody.
However, the Guardian Ad Litem working with my attorney had prepared a
model attempt at a solution that would endeavor to avoid a costly trial
that might not solve anything.  My ex-to-be's attorney had been
presented a preliminary report of what the private investigator had
discovered the day before the trial and realized that this would be
along, nasty trial and that his client would lose custody if I so
desired.  So, he was willing to entertain the model approach to a
solution when my attorney and the Guardian presented it to him.

No one involved in this case believed that my ex would settle, but when
I arrived at court, my attorney explained that my ex's attorney was
going to try and sell her on it.  It took several hours, but by the end
of the day, she agreed, albeit reluctantly, to avoid the trial and
entertain the model plan.

This plan is a novel approach to solving the problem of false and
malicious allegations of sexual abuse that arise during divorce
custody/visitation disputes.  It is the first time and only time that
I've heard of anything like it.  None of the attorneys had seen anything
like it before either.  It's an interesting approach and I want to know
what you think of it.

This is the plan:

1. Guilt is not presumed on either part.  Basically, to avoid a $30,000
trial and to try and "fix" the current problems, everyone gets a clean
slate (kind of).  In effect, we are letting my ex off the hook - for
the time being.  Everything is still there if we do end up back in
court.

2. My ex retains temporary residential parent status.

3. We go into a 6-month to one year period of further assessment,
evaluation, therapy, forensic testing, etc.

4. My visits with the children will be supervised for my protection - so
that she cannot make any further allegations.  This may be phased out
when some level of trust is restored.

5. My ex will no longer receive any child support.  In fact, she will
be billed over $200 per month.  All my child support ($1038.22 per
month) and her $200 per month will go into a trust fund to be maintained
by the Guardian.

6. The trust fund will pay for daycare, therapy for everyone in the
family, further investigations by the private investigator and any
other professional involvement (including a "supervisor" or witness for
my parenting time with my children).  Whatever remains will also be applied
to the GAL/private investigator bill.

7.  I will get standard rules visitation - every other weekend, one
night a week, holidays.  If we can get a supervisor for overnights, and
when the professionals feel it's OK, I will get overnights.  It might make
a while though.

8.  Therapy for everyone and parenting time for me will start as soon
as the plan can be drafted, the specifics worked out and it can be
filed with the court.

So, what does this all mean - and why are we doing it this way?

Well, it means that they have taken $1200 net per month away from my ex
(and they've eliminated a $460 per month expense).  She does not control
that money during this "trial" period.  It means that everyone goes into
therapy - primarily, in the name of being objective, to determine just
what the problem is and who is causing it.  The professional involved at
this level will be doing several things: 1) Determine what really did
happen (was my ex lying (as the evidence strongly illustrates) or did I
sexually molest my sons) and who was the culprit.  This is not a
punitive decision.  The bottom line is to determine what the problem was
or is and fix it, if it can be fixed.  2)  To try and get this
divorcing family back on track towards a more normal post-divorce
life.

Why are we doing this?  Well, we could have gone through the nasty
trial.  I probably would have won sole custody.  It would have cost
over $30,000.  It would have been very, very ugly.  My ex would have
been virtually destroyed by the testimony.  Her neighbors and people
she used to consider friends would have been raking her over the
coals.  Now, does she deserve this for what she has put me through?
Well, yes, she does.  But there is one major problem with that whole
approach.  What about my children?  This kind of resolution would do
nothing to help her, to wake her up and snap her back to reality.  It
could drive her over the brink.  As a result of such a trial and losing
custody, she could end up trying to kill me or my sons, kidnapping them
or end up in a rubber-room.  Do my children deserve or want to see that
happen to either of their parents?  No, they don't.

Why would I agree to such a plan?  Well, for this reason:  we have my ex
nailed.  She painted herself into a corner and couldn't get out.  My
attorney, the GAL and I had two choices: 1) move in for the kill and finish
her off in court at great financial and personal expense, or 2) stand
back and let her get out of the corner.  If we had chosen option 1
(finishing her off and getting sole custody for me), I would still have
to deal with her - and her children would have to deal with a parent
that had been destroyed in court during a divorce.  How easy would she
be to deal with after such a trial?  How good would she be for the kids?
How good would she be for herself?  By choosing option 2 and standing
back and giving her an out, it might be possible to stop the lies, stop
the hate, stop the lack of trust, put this in the past and sweep it
under a rug and enable my children to have a somewhat normal, maybe
even a good relationship with BOTH parents.  By choosing option 2, she
gets help without being destroyed first.

Now, how do I feel about this plan?  Well, the supervised visitation
part, I HATE.  Even though it is for my protection, to keep her from
making any more bogus, false and malicious allegations, it looks to
others as though I have not been exonerated.  It minimizes the time I
get to be with my children, even if it is only for another six months.
I've missed enough parenting time.  I hate missing more.  But it
protects me while a psychologist puts together a complete, comprehensive
analysis of who is who and what is what and how we get from where we are
to where we want to be.

If, at the end of this evaluation/therapy period, my ex is not making
progress, the psychologist has not made any headway, then we can go back
into a trial for sole custody - and this time with a comprehensive
picture from a professional of exactly what the problem is.  In effect,
we could end up going through the custody trial anyway.  Or maybe my ex
would simply concede, but I seriously doubt it.

So, with this plan no one is a winner or a loser at this point.  But
where we want to be in the end is in a situation where my sons have two
good parents who are moreover concerned with their welfare and not
really interested in or concerned with the affairs of the other person.

Because of the battles of the last year, we are in a deep pit.  You
can't get out of such a mess overnight.  By taking $1200 away from my ex
every month and making her face the prospect that if the trial would
have taken place, she would have lost custody (the private
investigator's report pretty much floored her, her parents and her
attorney), we hope to finally get her under control - snap her back into
reality.

The attorneys in this case are quite pleased with this approach at
solving this family's problems.  It is an unusual resolution to a
divorce custody dispute case in which false and malicious allegations
arise.  It gives my ex a second chance - for the children's sake.  It
protects me (and, if you believe that I could possibly ever abuse my
children then you are aware that it protects my children from the
possibility of further abuse - I'm only stating that because I'm an
objective realist - I did NOT abuse my sons) and it lets a professional
psychologist get into our heads and find out what is wrong and attempt
to fix it.

From their perspective, it covers all the bases.  The attorneys have
discussed publishing this model attempt at a solution in legal journals
and the psychologist might consider publishing this approach to a
solution in psychology journals.  Objectively, I think it is probably
the best way out of this mess.

So, what do you think?  I know many of you think that a person who
makes false and malicious allegations of sexual abuse during a divorce
custody/visitation dispute should be punished.  It is a criminal act
and should be treated as one.  It could be the anti-thesis case to
Morgan vs. Foretich.  We could make an example of her and literally
destroy her for making such false and malicious allegations solely to
thwart my attempts to maintain a relationship with my children.  We
could send out a message to mothers going through divorces that if you
create and or manufacture such malicious and false allegations during a
divorce custody/visitation dispute, you will be found out and you will
lose custody of your children.  You might even do jail time.  But this
criminal act is also the act of a sick mind.  Does the penal system
have in place a method for fixing a sick mind?  What about my
children?  Do they deserve an ex-con for a mother or do they deserve
the best mother that they could possibly have?  How would I deal with
my ex after she had been through some of what she tried to put me
through?  She's not as resilient as I am.  I don't know if she could
have ever bounced back from such a devastating blow.

Amazingly, as Nietzsche said, "That which does not kill us, makes us
stronger" is true for me.  I'm stronger, more aware and more concerned
with life since all this happened.  I'm active.  I've gained a
perspective of life that few people ever get to experience.  Despite the
pain, agony, frustration, humiliation, degradation, embarrassment,
expense, I've dealt with all that, I did all the things necessary at
the time to keep me sane and to keep me going.  I had to get beyond
the emotions after I dealt with them and heal myself.  I had to keep
looking for solutions.

You folks in USENET land just don't know how much you've helped me.
For that, I'm grateful.  

You're not the only ones.  I'm especially grateful to my co-workers, my
family, the myriad of professionals involved in this thing and my
friends.  It was hard and it will continue to be hard.   But, I think
the worst is over.  Maybe not, but I have to hope for the best, but
expect the worst.

I was instructed by my attorney to hold off on involving the press in
this case.  That might have been wise.  But, if this attempt at a
solution works, I want people to know about it.

Well, I've got work to do....

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM