The following closing argument was submitted by minors' counsel John Myers in a California child custody case that involved allegations of parental alienation efforts by the mother as the cause of children's reluctance for contact with their father. Craig Childress was called as an expert witness by the father's counsel, and I was an expert witness called by the minors' counsel.
There is further evidence to be brought in this matter and no decision is available as of this writing.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF YOLO
|
Lisa Sahar,
Petitioner,
vs.
David Sahar,
Respondent.
|
Case No. FL15-1669
S___ and R___’s Closing
Argument
|
Come
now S___ and R___ Sahar, through their attorney, and respectfully file this Closing
Argument.
I
The Bottom Line
The
loadstar for the Court is the children’s best interest. The evidence at trial
makes six things clear. First, S___ and R___ are extraordinarily bright
teenagers, capable of great academic and personal achievement. Second, in their
mother’s care, S___ and R___ are thriving. Third, S___ and R___ want to
continue living with their mother. Fourth, S___ and
R___ are estranged from their
father, Dr. Sahar. Fifth, if a way can be found to repair the rift between the
children and their dad, it is in S___ and R___’s best interest—not to mention
in Dr. Sahar’s interest—to do so. Sixth, removing the children from their
mother—as Dr. Childress and Dr. Sahar recommend—is a path to destruction, not
repair. Wrenching the children away from their mother could very well crush S___,
and do equal harm to R___.
R___
and S___ respectfully ask this Court for the following orders: (1) Joint legal
and physical custody. (2) R___ and S___ continue to live with mother. (3) A
“cooling off” period of six months, during which they are not ordered into
therapy or ordered to spend time with Dr. Sahar.
S___
testified eloquently that she wants the court process to end. She wants to be a
normal teenager. It will be useful for the Court to encourage the children to
communicate with their dad during the cooling off period, but to refrain from
ordering them to do so. (4) A review hearing in six months to see how things
are going.
II
S___ and R___’s Kelly/Frye Motion
On
April 4, 2018, S___ and R___ filed an RFO requesting a Kelly/Frye hearing regarding proposed expert testimony from Dr.
Craig Childress, father’s expert. By Minute Order dated June 4, 2018, the
Honorable Kathleen White, “granted” the RFO “in part,” writing that the “Court
will hold a 402(b) hearing as to Dr. Childress as part of the trial.” During
the trial, the Court held the requested hearing.
A. Summary of Kelly/Frye Argument
Dr.
Childress has a theory of parental alienation—he calls it a model.
He
applied his theory/model to assess and diagnose S___ and R___’s mother with
“pathogenic parenting.” Based on his theory-driven assessment and diagnosis,
Dr. Childress rendered a custody recommendation.
Dr. Childress’s theory/model is not generally accepted as reliable in the
psychological community. Because his theory/model is not reliable, his
diagnosis and custody recommendation are unreliable, and should not be followed
by the Court.
B. Dr. Childress’s Theory
of Attachment-Based Parental Alienation
In 2015, Dr.
Childress self-published
a
non-peer reviewed book titled
An
Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: Foundations.
In
his book, Childress wrote that attachment-based parental alienation “is a valid
clinical phenomenon that is manifested in an identifiable
pattern of symptoms.”
Childress theorizes that attachment-based parental alienation is caused by
“distortions to the child’s attachment system” that, according to Childress,
can “only” be caused
by “pathogenic parenting.”
Childress
claims that if “three diagnostic indicators for attachment-based parental
alienation” are present in children, he—Childress—can definitively diagnose
attachment-based parental alienation.
According
to Childress, attachment-based parental alienation is either present or absent.
Childress sees no shades of gray, no degrees of alienation. In Childress’s model,
attachment-based parental alienation is all or nothing.
Dr.
Childress’s book,
Foundations,
provides a comprehensive description of, and explanation for, parental
alienation. The good doctor calls his approach a “model.” He could equally have
called it a theory. It is both. Dr. Jean Mercer, a retired professor of
psychology, testified for S___ and R___. Dr. Mercer defined a “theory” as a
“framework that someone has created to try to pull together things that they
can observe in the world . . . .”
The dictionary definition is similar: A supposition or system of ideas intended
to explain something. Thus, Einstein posited the theory of relativity. Darwin’s
is the theory of evolution. Childress contributes the theory of
Attachment-Based Parental Alienation.
Dr.
Childress’s theory/model of parental alienation is new to psychological
science. In his book, Dr. Childress seemed comfortable, even proud, that his
model is “new.”
Of
course, if Childress’s book is right—his model is new—then his model is a good
candidate for analysis
under
Kelly/Frye. At trial, Dr. Childress seems to have understood this
because, when he was asked on cross-examination whether his model is new, Dr.
Childress testified, “No.”
Indeed,
to avoid subjecting his model to the microscope of
Kelly/Fry, Dr. Childress went so far as to testify there is no such
thing as attachment-based parental alienation.
This is a remarkable statement from the man who titled
his book—“Attachment-Based Parental Alienation,” and the man who wrote
that attachment-based parental alienation is a valid clinical phenomenon. In a
further effort to distance his model from
Kelly/Frye,
Dr. Childress testified on direct examination, “I have no theory. There is no
theory of Dr. Childress.”
Dr.
Childress applied his model/theory to S___ and R___. In his “Treatment-Focused
Assessment” dated March 12, 2018, Dr. Childress wrote, “S___ and R___ both
display the three symptom indicators of pathogenic parenting associated with an
attachment-based model of ‘parental alienation.’”
To
support his opinion, Childress cited his book,
Foundations.
It
is respectfully submitted that Dr. Childress can’t have his cake and eat it
too. He can’t have his theory of alienation, publish a book on it; apply it to S___ and R___, and then run
away from his own invention to escape Kelly/Frye.
At
the heart of Childress’s theory/model is the “narcissistic/(borderline) parent”
who alienates the children. A fundamental precept of Childress’s theory is that
developmental trauma during early childhood—specifically disorganized
attachment—leads to narcissism/borderline symptoms in the alienating parent.
Throughout
his book, Childress asserts that disorganized attachment in early childhood
causes narcissistic/borderline symptoms
in adulthood. Directing the Court’s attention to Minors’ Exhibit 201, the
Exhibit reproduces nine quotes from Childress’s book, each of which, in varying
words, postulates a causal relationship between disorganized attachment and
narcissism/borderline personality disorder in adulthood. Thus, Childress
writes:
[N]arcissistic/(borderline)
personality structure that has its
origins
in early attachment trauma from the childhood of the parent which is
influencing . . . .”
The childhood attachment trauma
(i.e., a disorganized attachment)
creates
the narcissistic and borderline personality structures . . . .”
Both the narcissistic and
borderline personalities represent the coalesced
product of disorganized attachment patterns from childhood.
Narcissistic and borderline
personality dynamics represent the coalesced
product of underlying patterns of attachment expectations. The
particular type of attachment pattern that
results
in the formation of a narcissistic/(borderline) personality organization is
called a disorganized attachment.
[D]isorganized attachment in early childhood
(which in turn,
leads to the
formation of narcissistic and borderline personality traits during later
adolescence and early adulthood) . . . .
If Dr. Childress
is wrong about a causal relationship between disorganized attachment in early
childhood, and narcissistic/borderline characteristics in adulthood, then one
of the main pillars of his theory/model collapses. As the testimony of Dr.
Mercer shows, Dr. Childress
is wrong,
although Childress does not think so. The Court asked, “Dr. Childress, you
mentioned there’s literature liking disorganized attachment to borderline
personality. How tight is the linkage?”
Childress answered, “Very tight.”
C. Dr. Mercer’s
Testimony
The Court
qualified Dr. Jean Mercer as an expert on attachment. Dr. Mercer has written on
and studied attachment for decades. Her testimony indicated deep familiarity
with the theory of attachment and with the attachment literature.
As
discussed in subsection B, supra, a
fundamental tenant of Childress’s Attachment-Based Parental Alienation is his
assertion that disorganized attachment causes narcissism and borderline
personality disorder in adults. Dr. Mercer’s testimony refutes Childress’s
assertion.
Dr. Mercer testified that it is not
possible to “predict mental illness in adulthood” simply because a toddler
demonstrates disorganized attachment in the Strange Situation.
Dr.
Mercer explained:
A: The assumption that is too often
made is that if you see disorganized attachment behavior in a toddler that we
can predict with, you know, considerable accuracy that there will be mental
illness developing in later life.
Q: Can we not make that prediction?
Referring
to articles from the peer reviewed professional literature—articles on which
Dr. Mercer relied for the opinions she offered in court—Dr. Mercer explained
that disorganized attachment is a risk factor for difficulties later in life,
including mental illness, but that science cannot draw a direct causal
connection between disorganized attachment and narcissism, borderline, or any
other mental illness.
Dr. Childress is simply wrong to assert the contrary.
Dr.
Mercer offered five opinions, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.
First, Dr. Mercer opined that mental health professionals cannot accurately
determine what type of attachment an adult had as a toddler, by interviewing
the adult.
Father
presented no evidence to contradict Dr. Mercer’s opinion. Dr. Childress, in his
reports and his testimony, asserted time and again that Lisa Sahar demonstrated
disorganized attachment. On cross-examination, Dr.
Childress was asked, “Isn’t it
true, Doctor, that you have no way whatsoever of knowing what type of
attachment Lisa Sahar had during her infancy.” Childress responded, “That’s not
exactly correct. There’s another instrument called the adult attachment
interview where you can do an interview with an adult . . . .” But the doctor
admitted that he did not employ the adult attachment interview with Mrs. Sahar.
Further, Dr. Childress admitted he had no idea whether Mrs. Sahar experienced
the Strange Situation when she was little, and it is the Strange Situation that
is the gold standard for characterizing attachment.
In the final analysis, Dr. Mercer’s opinion
that it is not possible to determine attachment style by interviewing an adult
is uncontradicted.
Second,
Dr. Mercer opined that it is not scientifically possible to draw a direct,
causal link between disorganized attachment in a toddler and narcissistic
personality disorder or borderline personality disorder in an adult.
Dr.
Mercer opined that Dr. Childress, in his book
Foundations, asserts that it is possible to draw a direct causal
connection between disorganized attachment in early childhood and the
development of narcissistic and borderline personality traits. It is
interesting to note that although Dr. Childress’s book repeatedly asserts a
causal connection between disorganized attachment and narcissistic/borderline
(see Minors’ Exhibit
201), once his theory was attacked
by Dr. Mercer, Dr. Childress ran the other direction, testifying that his book
does not presuppose a causal connection.
The
Court will determine
which version of Dr. Childress’s
words to believe, and whether Dr. Mercer or Dr. Childress has the science on
their side.
Third,
Dr. Mercer opined that the community of mental health professionals does not
generally accept Dr. Childress’s attachment-based parental alienation as a
reliable and valid theory.
Dr. Mercer explained:
A: Well, first of all, I don’t
think that most psychologists have ever heard of this [
i.e., Dr. Childress’s work], and second, if they have heard of it
and they’ve read it and they know anything about how attachment functions it
couldn’t possibly accept this as legitimate, you know, we’ve got decades of
theory and research about this and none of [Childress’s work] fits into it or
is congruent with it.
Dr. Sahar presented no evidence,
apart from the testimony of the creator of attachment-based parental
alienation, to refute Dr. Mercer’s opinion. Indeed, Dr. Sahar’s strategy to
deal with Dr. Mercer’s opinion that the professional community does not
generally accept attachment-based parental alienation appears to have been for
Dr. Childress to testify he has no theory, and that there is no such thing as
attachment-based parental alienation!
During
cross-examination,
Dr. Childress
was asked, “So your book has nothing to do with your testimony? He answered,
“That’s correct.”
Apart
from Dr. Childress’s rather transparent effort to avoid dealing with the
fact that the
scientific community does not accept his theory/model, Dr. Sahar presented no
evidence to refute Dr. Mercer’s opinion. Her opinion is, therefore,
uncontradicted.
Fourth, Dr. Mercer opined that the
community of mental health professionals does not generally accept Dr.
Childress’s attached-based parental alienation model as a reliable diagnostic
tool.
Dr.
Sahar presented no contradictory evidence, apart from the contradictory
testimony of Dr. Childress.
Fifth, Dr. Mercer offered the
opinion that the community of mental health professionals does not generally
accept Dr. Childress’s recommended treatments, including Childress’s so-called
protective separation from the allegedly abusive parent, or the High Roads
program operated by Childress’s collaborator, Dorcy Pruter.
Dr.
Childress himself admitted there is no empirical evidence, published in the
peer reviewed literature, that Pruter’s program works.
Neither Dr. Sahar nor Dr. Childress provided evidence for the efficacy of so-called
protective separation. Thus, Dr. Mercer’s testimony on this point is
uncontraicted.
D.
Conclusion Regarding Kelly/Frye
It is respectfully submitted the Court should
credit Dr. Mercer’s testimony. With her testimony credited, the Court should
grant S___ and R___’s Kelly/Frye motion,
and exclude from consideration the testimony offered by Dr. Childress. It is
junk science, and worse than
that, it is junk science that poses
a clear danger to the mental stability and happiness of these two highly
intelligent, high functioning teenagers.
III
Even if the Court Denies the Kelly/Frye
Motion,
the Court Should Disregard the Childress Recommendation
S___
and R___ argue that Dr. Childress’s model of parental alienation is dangerous
junk science that has no place in deciding the children’s fate. However, if the
Court determines that Kelly/Frye does
not exclude Childress’s work, S___ and R___ respectfully urge the Court to give
Childress’s “assessment” and testimony no credit.
A. “Assessment” in Name Only
Dr.
Childress did not perform an assessment to determine whether the children were experiencing attachment-related parental
alienation. Before he began his “assessment,” Dr. Childress already had an
answer to that question: Yes. His only assignment was to discover the culprit.
It
is clear beyond cavil that Dr. Childress’s mind was made up
before the assessment began. During his
direct examination, Childress testified, “So the first thing I had to organize
was what’s the referral question the assessment is designed to answer? So the
referral question I’m answering is which parent is causing the child’s
attached-related pathology . . . .”
On
cross-examination, Dr. Childress
was asked: “Q: So, when you came into this case, before you started your
assessment, you had already concluded that there was pathological – pathogenic
parenting, hadn’t you?”
“A: That’s the
only thing that causes attachment pathology.”
“Q: So the answer would be yes, you had concluded there was pathogenic
parenting?”
“A: Yes.”
When asked, “You were hired by father to
determine who is the source of pathogenic parenting; right?” Childress
answered, “Correct.”
Before Childress’s “assessment”
began, the man who hired him, Dr. Sahar, pointed the accusatory finger at Mrs.
Sahar. Dr. Childress obliged Dr. Sahar by confirming father’s opinion.
B. Dr. Childress’s Assessment is
Bush League Compared to Dr. Nelson’s
In
May, 2016, Dr. Nelson conducted a thorough child custody evaluation.
In June, 2017, he updated his evaluation.
Dr. Nelson’s trial testimony was clear and persuasive. In sum,
the doctor found fault with both
parents.
Three
things stand out. First, after administering psychological tests, contacting
multiple collateral sources of information, and spending considerable time
interviewing her, Dr. Nelson found mother suffers no significant mental illness
or dysfunction.
Dr. Nelson detected no signs of narcissistic personality disorder or borderline
personality disorder. Second, Dr. Sahar became uncooperative with Dr. Nelson
when it looked as though Dr. Nelson was not falling in line with Dr. Sahar’s
view of the case.
Third, Dr. Nelson performed a thorough assessment of the children. In his first
report, the children were suffering.
By the time of the update, S___ and R___ were doing much better.
Is it a coincidence that the children’s improved functioning occurred while in
mother’s care?
Dr.
Childress’s “assessment” cannot hold a candle to Dr. Nelson’s thorough 2016 and
2017 evaluations of the entire family. Childress conducted no psychological
testing.
He
contacted no collateral sources.
He
spent much less time with the family, and, importantly, he did not bother to
evaluate the children with their mother.
On
cross-examination, the question
was asked: “You reached your
recommendations without ever seeing the children interact with their mother;
isn’t that right?” Childress answered, “That’s correct.”
Of
course, Dr. Childress does not think much of Dr. Nelson, or of custody
evaluators in general. On cross-examination, Childress testified as follows:
Q: Of course, you are not a big
fan of child custody evaluators like Dr. Nelson, are you?
A: I don’t think the process is
reliable or valid.
* * *
Q: You assert – you asserted in
your PowerPoints that child custody evaluators like Dr. Nelson, quote, simply
make it up, end quote?
A: That’s what I said.
Q: In your report dated August 16th
of 2018, you wrote, “Dr. Nelson reached his conclusions and made his
recommendations on faulty constructs that are poorly defined in professional
psychology.” Is that your statement?
According
to Dr. Childress, child custody evaluators like Dr. Nelson have nothing to
offer. But that’s not all: Dr. Childress testified there is no such thing as
reunification therapy.
According to Dr. Childress only
clinical psychologists, like him, have anything useful to contribute. The man’s
egotism is astonishing. S___ and R___ respectfully ask the Court to give weight
to Dr. Nelson’s evaluations, and to give Dr. Childress’s assessment the respect
it deserves: None.
C. Dr. Childress’s
Tactics with the Children During the Assessment were Unprofessional
During his
“assessment” meeting with the children, Dr. Childress called the children
cruel. Dr. Childress admitted, “I said what they were doing potentially is
cruel.”
During his meeting with the children, he accused them of lacking empathy for
their father.
During
her testimony, S___ recalled Dr. Childress accused the children of bullying
their father.
S___
testified:
A: . . . [A]nd he was going on and
on and he was rolling around in his chair and making crazy expressions also
like a show almost and he was saying you guys are bullying the poor autistic
kid [their father], he kept doing stuff like that and then he said you can’t
possibly not like your father, it’s not possible, you know, you guys are like
animals, when a hamster is being attacked, a baby hamster is being attacked by
a snake, you have to go back, they go to their parent or something like that
for them to be protected, and I let him know the difference is animals go by
instincts, humans, we have experiences that kind of transform what we do . . .
.”
* * *
A: . . . Honestly, it was so
traumatic I just kind of blocked it out and, you know, I don’t really mind
that, and yeah. He would say like about my mom was manipulating us and stuff
like that.
Q: Dr. Childress told you this?
D. Dr. Childress Violated Ethical Guidelines
Applicable to His Assessment
Dr.
Childress is a member of the American Psychological Association (APA).
The APA
Specialty Guidelines for Forensic
Psychology are in evidence (Minors’ 211). The
Guidelines apply to Dr. Childress because, in performing his
assessment and testifying, the doctor was practicing forensic psychology. The
forensic
Guidelines state:
For
the purposes of these Guidelines, forensic psychology refers to professional
practice by any psychologist working within any subdiscipline of psychology
(e.g., clinical, developmental, social cognitive) when applying the scientific,
technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law to assist in
addressing legal, contractual, and administrative matters. . . . These
Guidelines apply in all matters in which psychologists provide expertise to
judicial . . . systems . . . .
Dr.
Childress admitted during cross-examination that this is a custody case.
In the context of custody litigation, Dr. Childress conducted an assessment for
use in court. He testified. It is clear beyond peradventure that Dr. Childress’s
involvement constitutes the practice
of forensic psychology. Indeed,
although he was more than a little reluctant to do so, Dr. Childress admitted
he was engaged in forensic psychology. On cross-examination, the following
exchange occurred:
Q: Do you agree that you are
practicing as a forensic psychologist in this matter?
A: I agree that that’s what the
guidelines define me as doing.
Q: And these are the guidelines
promulgated by the American Psychological Association; is that right?
A: As guidelines, not as
mandatory.
Q: I understand that. So it’s
your testimony, then, that these guidelines do not apply to your performance in
this case?
A: I am just saying that the
guidelines apply, but I am a clinical psychologist.
Q: Did I understand you
correctly, you are saying the guidelines apply?
During
his assessment, Dr. Childress violated APA forensic psychology Guidelines 4.02
and 4.02.01, dealing with “Multiple Relationships.” The Guidelines provide, in
relevant part:
Guideline 4.02: Multiple Relationships
A multiple relationship occurs when
a forensic practitioner is in a professional role with a person and, at the
same time or at a subsequent time, is in a different role with the same person
. . . .
Guideline 4.02.01: Therapeutic-Forensic Role Conflicts
Providing forensic and therapeutic
psychological services to the same individual or closely related individuals
involves multiple relationships and may impair objectivity and/or cause
exploitation or other harm.
During
Dr. Childress’s direct testimony, he enthusiastically admitted he mixed
forensic and clinical roles with the children. Dr. Childress testified:
I begin to actually treat the
concerns that were raised by the children in the third session.
So I’m actually starting to do
treatment now . . . .
On
cross-examination, Dr. Childress was confronted with the APA guidelines on
multiple relations, and he tried mightily, but without success, to backtrack on
his admissions he mixed clinical and forensic roles.
Dr. Childress
violated the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association, to
which he belongs. Is his violation relevant to this case? Yes. As the
Guidelines state, mixing forensic with clinical roles can “impair objectivity
and/or cause exploitation or other harm.” It is respectfully submitted that Dr.
Childress’s mixing of roles, combined with his dubious
psychological theories, and his
abusive tactics with the children, caused the children unnecessary stress.
E. According to Drs. Childress and
Sahar, Mrs. Sahar is 100% to Blame for Everything
More
often than not in family law, there is enough blame to go around. In this case,
Mrs. Sahar’s testimony indicates she understands she played a role. Dr. Nelson
assigned blame to both parents. Dr.
Childress, however, was unequivocal. According to Childress, father is a
“normal range” parent who is the completely innocent victim of mother’s
pathogenic parenting. Father did nothing wrong. Mother, by contrast, did
everything wrong. Mother is 100% to blame. Childress testified, inter alia:
[T]he children’s attachment bonding
problems towards their father are being created by the mother’s distorted
parenting practices . . . .
[I]t’s the mother who is
influencing the children and their perceptions, as well as the false belief
system . . . .
It is the mother, in my clinical
opinion, who has these beliefs and attitudes toward the ex-spouse, the father,
and that S___ is acquiring these attitudes
toward her father form her mother
who is the source origin for these attitudes . . . .
[T]his is the mother’s creation . .
. .
So [R___ is] triangulated into
spousal conflict by his mother to be used as a weapon against his father . . .
.
Dr. Childress’s
belief that everything is mother’s fault is reflected in his “Treatment-Focused
Assessment,” dated March 12, 2018, and his follow up report dated August 16,
2018.
In his March report, Childress wrote, “[I]t is the mother who is the actual
source for these feelings toward the father.”
Elsewhere in the March report, Childress remarked, “[T]here are no issues of
clinical concern regarding the father’s parenting.”
Mother, on the other hand, “is creating an emotional cutoff in the children’s
symptom display . . . .”
Childress wrote, Mother “appears to say
whatever she deems to be the most helpful in achieving her desires of the
moment, regardless of the actual truth or accuracy of these statements.”
In his August, 2018 update, Childress continued his drumbeat of criticism of
mother, writing, “The children’s symptoms are not consistent with the father
being the causal source, and instead, the children’s symptom pattern is
entirely consistent with the mother’s parenting being the causal origin of the
children’s attachment rejection toward their father.”
Childress’s
criticism is so one-sided, so relentless that it lacks credibility. Rather than
seeming like the insights of a neutral professional, Childress’s diatribe has
the flavor of a hired gun who says what he’s paid to say: Dad is great, Mom is
terrible, the kids are delusional.
Dr.
Sahar is a surgeon and a professor of medicine. He is a very intelligent man.
It was surprising and disheartening to hear him testify that he accepts no
responsibility for the situation
before the Court. It was even more
surprising, depressing, and, frankly shocking, to hear Dr. Sahar agree that the
children should be removed altogether from their mother’s care. Dr. Sahar has
swallowed the Childress view hook, line, and sinker. He drank the Kool Aid, and
in doing so, he lost sight of his children’s best interests.
F. Everybody’s Wrong But Me
Dr.
Childress seems quite sure he’s right. He seems equally sure the other
professionals involved in the case—with the exception of Dorcey Pruter, who,
with her high school diploma (no disrespect intended) is difficult to
characterize as professional—are wrong.
Dr.
Childress’s contempt for Professor Mercer is palpable. Childress testified that
Dr. Mercer, “[D]oes not understand the established knowledge of professional
psychology.”
He
opined, “[S]he’s not an expert.”
In a Facebook post on the day Dr. Mercer testified, Dr.
Childress called Dr. Mercer a
“pathogen.”
Dr.
Childress Facebooked, “We’re going to just swat your little monkey behind right
out of the air.”
Not very
professional Dr. Childress.
Dr.
Childress’s low opinion of Dr. Nelson is discussed elsewhere. In Childress’s
“Comprehensive Report” dated August 8, 2018, Childress wrote, “Dr. Nelson
reached his conclusions and made his recommendations on faulty constructs that
are poorly defined in professional psychology. In the professional opinion of
Dr. Childress upon review of the clinical information contained in the report
of Dr. Nelson, he identified the broad aspects of the pathology but
misinterpreted the meaning of the symptom pattern. This led to conclusions that
were faulty and recommendations that were flawed.”
Dr.
Childress’s disdain for everyone but himself extends to therapists Stephanie
Stilley and Mimi Fade, of whom Childress wrote, “While the treatment focus of
Ms. Stilley and Ms. Fade is understandable and laudable, it is not the proper
focus of therapy.”
After
demolishing all the other professionals, the only one left standing is
Childress. He is the only one whose viewpoint is worth listening to. He alone
sees the truth. With all the respect due Dr. Childress, poppycock.
G. Conclusion Regarding Dr. Childress’s
Assessment and Recommendation
S___
and R___ respectfully argue that the Court should disregard entirely Dr.
Childress’s assessment and his recommendations. They are not worth the paper they
are written on.
IV
S___ and R___’s Wishes
S___ and R___
testified, and made their wishes clear. S___ was asked, “Do you like living at
your mom’s house with your mom?” She answered, “Yeah, I do.”
S___ was asked to express her feelings to the
Court. She said: “I would not want to see him [father] at this point. The fact
that we’re in trial right now and this situation I’m really upset and angry
with him. . . . I just feel like everything in our family involves court and
just evidence and just lies.”
R___
was asked, “R___, I want you to tell the judge right now today about spending
time with your dad?” He answered, “I don’t like spending time with him at all
for reasons that, sorry, I just have to think this is kind of nervous. . . . He
mentally hurt me and now I always feel weak and he’s called me names, swore at
me, threatened to throw me out on the street just because I didn’t want to eat
something. Isolated me from my mom . . . .”
R___
described what life is like
with his mother: “It’s nice. It’s a
nice setting. I have a room. I am close to my family, we talk a lot, its
peaceful, it’s not chaotic. I mean, I would say it’s a nice home.”
Both
of these highly intelligent, high functioning, college-bound teenagers had much
more to say, but the Court heard their testimony, and will judge for itself.
The long and short of it is, the children want to live with their mother, in
whose care they are thriving. They don’t want
to see their father, which is very
sad. Hopefully, with time, and, perhaps, further counseling, a rapprochement
will be achieved. Forcing it down their throats, as recommended by Dr.
Childress, and endorsed by Dr. Sahar, is not the answer.
V
Conclusion
S___
and R___ Sahar respectfully ask the Court to order the relief outlined at the
beginning of this argument. The kids are doing well. It is in their best
interest to keep the current custody arrangement in place.
Respectfully
submitted,
Date: Nov.16, 2018 _____________________________
John
E.B. Myers, Minors’ Counsel
Proof of Service
I hereby certify, under oath,
subject to penalty of perjury, under the law of the State of California, that I
am over the age of 18, and not a party to this action. On November 16, 2018, I
served S___ and R___’s Closing Argument on the parties, by first class mail,
and email, as follows:
Respondent,
by service upon his attorney, Wazhma Mojaddidi, 3400 Cottage Way, Suite E,
Sacramento, CA 95825, email:
wazhma@mojaddidilaw.com
Petitioner,
by service upon her attorney, Jeffrey Posner, 3425 American River Drive,
Sacramento, CA 95864, email:
jeff@woplaw.com
Date: 11/16/18 ___________________________
John
E.B. Myers
