evaluators a psychologist and there was no evidence offered a trial on it to the court that evaluate her was qualified to make a psychiatric diagnos t only to the extent that we presented our own expert to it to try to refute those findings ok so not as to whether or not the expert was qualifying as you're indicating today that was the gist of the the experts testimony that she well i know there were noting differences in the approach that your experts  ally a false promise that she could not have had the sort of background given the way she presented herself during the evaluation there was also no independent corroboration child sex abuse counsellor testified that stephanie was always appropriate during the sixteen or so months so he had worked with the child and and with this mother and another objective testing of the child but those findings were never incorporated into the evaluators report or findings so there was no independent evidence to corroborate  evaluators findings yet the trial court adopted the the recommendations in their entirety and found that stephanie should have limited supervised contact with the minor child despite the fact that stephanie was the child's primary caregiver for the from the time of his birth until he turned fifteen so suddenly stephanie was went from having what we supposed sole custody to supervised visits despite the fact that all the teachers the child's counsellor the people from the torah study group and the boy scout leader had only positive things to say about the minor child and nothing negative to say about something like that and talked about the child having an older yes yes that it well seventy then later testified that the child at that time and the older that this was never the evidence shows that this was never brought to the attention of the authorities this never rose to anything more than a concern and i believe that the witness parental decision making and ordered supervision of her parenting time based on that based on the evaluators theoretical punch and not on any you know much less proven empirical facts now how is it a theoretical construct for the evaluator to be bothered by the uncorroborated assertions numerous extramarital affairs and falling out of wedlock children and right what happened in what happened when but accusing your husband and letting your child know that you believe that he fathered out of wedlock children and he did that you know  disregard of the family that's not very healthy not very helpful no it is not but it is i don't know if that really constitutes a delusion oh i i guess your honor i don't know she should have been found allusion or not but frankly the record doesn't require doesn't necessarily require the evaluating the other evidence how about the testimony regarding the  telephony shooters or the people in the other room or laughing about or following the evaluator around when she comes to their home and hollering over the child for what purpose i don't very or both in boy scouts in the torah study it sounds as if the mother is right there and the only activities this child engages in are ones where he's going to be on brawl of the mother well she doesn't go on the trips with them there was no evidence that she ever goes i mean trips ok and you know that at that leader testify that one of his goals is to get the kids away from from their homes and from their electronic equipment and to to form attachments with each other and i think he testified in fact back to earth i am not here to  to argue that seventy is in any way perfect any more than any of the rest of us are as a parent but that the finding of delusional disorder was with did not have a sufficient factual basis it should be recalled that all of the teachers testified that the minor child is very well mannered very sweet and had findings i think that the the issues that were raised about stephanie are somewhat minor in comparison  with with what he would what what would with what was presented and in terms of the child terms of the terms of the project of these fifteen years of upbringing that he that nobody had anything but positive things to say about the child that was because of his upbringing and his rearing he he has done well with his mother and  then absent the now absent the diagnosis of delusional disorder are there enough is there enough in this record assuming that the trial court placed more credence on dr canoed soon which the trial court appeared to do yes but separate apart from this more definitive evaluation and perhaps was think people are out to get or who seems over protective who tells her child that her father broke her arm and has extramarital affairs and has multiple unwed children or most multiple children  with relationships if you're a trial judge i think you would sit and take notice of that yes and then the explanation of the broken arm is that the navy covered it up i'm not saying the best not possible way but when that is said within the context of some of these other things where regardless of being diagnosed as delusional you're looking at a person who's seeing the world through a different pris than perhaps right most most people they would treat and then you get on with you this person suggests that there are a princes of german and jewish origin and lived on a yacht and you scratching your head because you doesn't appear to be anything that supports that there are a lot of people that have grandiose ideas about themselves and and say things maybe that aren't true but if you couple that with there's things being was and there was nothing presented in rebuttal of that it was the trial court's not required to believe her no but if there are no objective factors other than her testimony that supported i mean he might need to know she comes from good circumstances yes but does this in the us in this notice which give me concern certainly give me traits these were direct these were findings of the psychological testing these these were not findings that were these were not traits that were testified to in terms of people who have noted average behavior or i mean typically if you have a person who is that serious serious psychological issues there are witnesses coming out of the woodwork who can testify various various events or occurrences and that simply was not the case here you mentioned the court mentioned the telephone when i was simply something that one of the petitioners relatives mentioned and it didn't really amount i didn't think to anything or anything consequential we don't have an individual here who's exhibiting psychotic behavior in public we don't have a person who's attracting the attention of the school school officials or the administration by acting out it's really there are a lot people who do that and run into issues in that regard that wasn't the case here every how do you let me ask you what role do you think the trial court's consideration of whether or not your client was really been able to facilitate and support a relationship between the minor and his father practically in the decision i don't really know i assume that it might have played genuinely believed that that something had happened to this child that he was touched by his father that he was exposed to the pornography by his father father and so i think that under those circumstances  it's it's it's understandable that a that a mother would be protective of the child i'm not saying that it excuses any wrong communication or whatever but i it's understandable if in fact we we look at it from the other perspective and say well this appears this could very well have been the case and the sex abuse counselor said that he he tended to think that it was a case it's just that the child was so shy and so unwilling at that point to disclose openly about these matters i have nothing further you really see i guess i would like to start out with i think the court here was the ultimate fact finder i think he took this recommendation all the facts from the case and made his own opinion rather than relying on the expert i would point out to the court that the expert was his own witness it was a court appointed evaluator it was not a someone that we had requested and i would point out the mr delphian was hired expert whose sole purpose was to basically to butte miss anderson's testimony but i think i think based on the facts and i can go through the facts if the court w lie i think there was a lot of facts that kind of led the court to come to this conclusion i would point out that the child missed school at least twenty times a year was consistently failing a couple of classes was not turning a homework in on time this was an unemployed mother who is not who doesn't work she has is financially supported by her by a maternal grandmother she doesn't need money and i think we would stipulate that miss fowler she was the primary caretaker for the child for a majority of his life most of his life mr fowler was in the navy and he did go on deployments and afterwards when they separated the child stayed with miss fowler there was a contempt based on her inability to let him contact the child and i think a lot of the reason why the court did the decision making the way they did is because these parties cannot cope parents and i think that's a possibility but other i guess other facts that were in front of the judge and i would point out this was a seven sions she said the one with the father was carefree it was nice the mother was was hovering and she also testified the child had a bleak room there was nothing on the walls no toys where the dad's there was a workbench with lego's and  es which the father and the son do together so i think all that took into account i don't think the court decision was wrong in this case and i would point out the lot of the  that there was sexual misconduct allegations or salvations infidelity domestic violence all that's going to say of substantiated the princess from germany i guess it's hard for us to prove that she's a princess from germany i think it's harder for us to prove that she isn't almost in the proof that she is there was testimony that she had presented to the san diego recorder every a receipt asking for any m information none was ever shown to the court all we had was a receipt from her years she was appointed i would say she was of course witness i i'm not sure of the court if i have to prove that she's qualified to give the recommendation she does i don't think i even have to prove that because she's the witness is something is somewhat misleading in that the petitioner had originally requested a psychiatric evaluation of this fund and the court denied that request and  and appointed a custody evaluator which is what we agreed to and there was never any there was there was no nothing percent to either side that this person was was qualified to make that psychiatric diagnosis the diagnosis was never even defined or it it was simply princess born or that she's not a princess and basically it was it was the petitioners burden to prove that that that that stephanie