Guardian ad Litem Evaluation

The Childrens Hospital Medical Center 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 Telephone: (617) 734-6000

May 31, 1977

Honorable Ernest Rotenberg Probate Court Bristol County Taunton, Massachusetts

Dear Judge Rotenberg:

On March 8, 1977, I was appointed guardian at litem for Christopher L., Ryan S., and Heather L. H in the matter of visitation rights fo the Lee H vs. Jean L. E.

I have had a the opportunity to meet with Ms. E. On April 19, 1977, Mr. H. On April 20, 1977. Amd with their 3 children on May 3, 1977. This report represents my efforts at determining how the best interests of these children will be served.

This is a difficult case to reconcile because of the divergent views and needs of each of the parties, and because of the unusual custody history of the children. It is apparent from my conversation with both adults that a substantial amount of unresolved hostility remains between the two parties, that they have divergent views as to the nature of their marriage and the cause of their marital break-up. Their children are, for better or worse, a major source of unresolved contention and power between the two adults. A reconciliation of the divergent parental views on visitation will be difficult to achieve. With these issues as a background, I will attempt to present my observations and conclusions.

I believe Mr. Lee H is entitled to visitation and should be granted them forthwith.

Mr. H's motivation to see his children does not appear to be based principally on a desire to continue fighting with his ex-wife, but appears to be based on a genuine desire to see his own children. He had a traditional relationship with these three children during the entire period of the marriage; namely as a financial provider for his family, but not as daily caretaker. In this role he had a normal amount of fatherly interaction with his children. Mr. H was involuntarily prevented from seeing his children as a consequence of his marital separation. He clearly articulates his feeling of loss and sadness over being unable to see his children. He moved a year ago to Massachusetts in order to obtain visitation rights, and is, even, willing to pick up child support. Based on my interview, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness and legitimacy of Mr. H's desire to his children.

The fears of Ms. E concerning the effects of paternal visitation on her children did not appear, to me, to be substantial enough to prevent his visitation rights. She argued that Mr. H will be a bad influence on her children (this is simply a matter of opinion, that each parent shares about the other); that Mr. H is violent (but no one reports him to be violent towards his children. I thought Mr. H was within the normal range of dealing with his agressive feelings and certainly didn't appear to be abusive of his children); and that Mr. H was using his children to have a reconciliation with Ms. H (this seems unlikely, but is irrevelent to visitation rights under any circumstance).

The key issue that haunts this case is the issue of kidnapping. Kidnapping, or the forcible removal of children from joint custody in one location to single adult custody in another location, has already occurred once for these children. Moreover, the parental custodian of these children differs in Massachusetts and California, making their physical location an important legal issue. And finally, all parties including the children, are aware of the possibilities of kidnapping.

There is no human way possible to determine if someone in the future, will or will not kidnap their chilren. Fear of a hypothetical kidnapping might be a legitimate issue, but this fear unless much more clearly established as a reality, shold not be used as ground for prevention of a legitimate claim for visitation rights. There are, undoubtedly, legal means of making the kidnapping an unlikely alternative.

The unsettling note in the case concerns that divergent views of the three children. The three children Christopher (13); Ryan (10) and Heather (7), all appeared in good psychological health appropriate for their ages. All three children had neither trouble remembering, nor even hesitation in talking about their father. They all had liked him. Christopher was the most positive and thought he might like to see his father again, but the other two children seemed uninterested to see him no matter how hard I pressed them.(1)* All three children seemed fearful of being kidnapped. In the conflicts between their mother and father, the children are siding with the mother. She is clearly the parent they like best.(2)*

Normally, I would give more weight to the wishes of the younger children, but I am concerned with their continuing psychological development. Already they are distancing themselves from a person with whom they have had a generally good relationship. Already all three seem to feel he won't recognize them anymore. Possibly more important, however, all three, but especially the younger two children, fear that their father will kidnap them. Each child had an imaginary plan of what to do, if that concerned. This concerns me. The children are gradually coming to see their previously loved father as a man to be afraid of; he is becoming personified as an ever present evil. This developing view of their father and their danger filled world is not psychologically healthy for any children. I believe visitations from Mr. H with the children would help them psychologically to deal realistically with the divorce, their separated father, and environment they live in.

Unfortunately the parents differ tremendously on what is the proper amount of visitations. However, because of the children's present fears, I would recommend that visitation start very slowly (perhaps once every two weeks, then to once a week after 2 months), that they initially be in a secured supervised place, and that the mother be either directly present or immediately adjacent for the first few visits.

I personally would not make the final visitation recommendation until after the children had seen their father again for 9 months to a year or so. At that point the children's opinion might be solicited again. Presently, they are too fearful of their being kidnapped to be of help in this matter.

I hope this report services the needs of the court. I will be glad to appear to answer any further questions that might arise.

Sincerely,

Milton K., Ph.D. Children's Hospital Medical Center Boston, Massachusetts

All * above represent my personal notes about the foregoing letter:

(1) My mother prepped us for hours before this evaluation, telling us that if we said we wanted to see our father that the court would take us away from her and we would never see her again.

(2) After almost two years of brainwashing, it is not particularly surprising that the fears that were impressed on us came out during this evaluation. I still recal recurring nightmares of being kidnapped, harmed or killed that were induced by my mother's repetitive brainwashing.

BACK