NO: NNH FAO9 40376588 : SUPERIOR COURT DOE, JANE : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN v. : AT NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT ROE, JOHN : SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JANE B. EMONS, JUDGE APPEARANCES: Representing the Plaintiff: ATTY. ALISHA MATHERS Represent ng the Defendant: ATTY. NOAH EISENHANDLER Recorded By: Genevieve Bertolini Court Recording Monitor 235 Church Street New Haven, Connecticut 0651010 cy 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 af THE COURT: Doe and Roe. MR. EISENHANDLER: It’s ready, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. MATHERS: Alisha Mathers for Ms. Jane Doe. MR, EISENHANDLER: Noah Bisenhandler representing Mr. Roe who is present to my right. THE COURT: Yes, thank you. MS. MATHERS: Your Honor, may I make a suggestion. ‘These maybe rather extensive arguments. Perhaps it would be better if we were able to commence at two if the Court would permit to allow you guys to get any agreements in versus starting at this late hour. I’m not sure how far we'd get. MR. EISENHANDLER: I think these are -- I don’t quite understand what these motions are. I think they could be disposed of very easily by the Court. THE COURT: All right, let's see what these motions are. MS. MATHERS: Sure, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, counsel, I don’t want to have people waiting for -- this obviously has been going on for some time given the size of the file. I have a motion for visitation modification. MS. MATHERS: Yes. THE COURT: I have a motion for order. I’m not sure what this is either, frankly. I have another motion for order. I don’t know what that motion is12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 either and I have a third motion for order entitled refund. MS. MATHERS: Um-hum. THE COURT: And I don’t know what that is. MR. EISENHANDLER: Your Honor, if I may, this case went to judgment in February of 2012. At that time Judge Munro was sitting at the regional family docket and filed a seventy-one page decision along with -- THE COURT: -- I see that. MR. EISENHANDLER: -~- with an additional memorandum, another page. THE COURT: Right. MR. EISENHANDLER: These arguments that counsel is making, quite frankly, don’t make any sense. If you take them one at a time, I’1l make the argument. The first one I’1l discuss is this motion for order about a refund. THE COURT: Let me just see what that is. May I ask who typed these motions? MS. MATHERS: Your Honor, Ms. Doe was self- represented at the time these motions were filed and I filed my appearance afterwards. THE COURT: ‘That one was filed on August 6‘ it appears. Well, it was filed on August 8‘ and dated August 8°", Hold on for one sec. There’s also a motion to vacate the pseudonyms.10 11 12 is 14 15 16 a7 23 24 28 26 27 MS. MATHERS: Yes, your Honor. MR. EISENKANDLER: which -~ THE COURT: -- well, let’s take the -- MS. MATHERS: That one might be the easiest. THE COURT: I’m sorry. MS. MATHERS: That one might be the easiest to deal with. THE COURT: Let's take a look first at the motion for refund. MS. MATHERS: Sure. MR. EISENHANDLER: I don’t know what authority the Court has to enter this order. THE COURT: TI don’t. MS. MATHERS: Your Honor, the case of Perry vs. Perry, it was the Court had appointed an attorney for the ANC which was later found to be something the Court could not do. The Court ordered that the defendant and plaintiff not be responsible for paying the attorney for the AMC’s attorney’s fees. It is my understanding that Attorney Steve Dembo had been appointed to represent the then GAL and the Court instructed my client to pay Attorney Dembo five thousand dollars for that representation. And based on the Supreme Court decision, the Court didn’t have that authority to enter that. THE COURT: Right, I do not read Perry vs. Perry the same way you do. Attorney Eisenhandler, do you10 aL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 want to weigh in on that? MR. EISENHANDLER: I don’t read it as a retroactive order. I don’t read it that way. I think the Court's empowered to do it. This is four years ago. 1 think Attorney -- if they want an order from Attorney Dembo, I think he has to be cited in and -- THE COURT: -- right, it hasn’t been appealed MR. EISENHANDLER: Yes. THE COURT: This is, I think, an improper motion, frankly. I do not read Perry vs. Perry the same way that you do, Counsel. There were other factual aspects of the Perry case that I don’t believe are pertinent in this particular case end given the fact that it was ordered some time ago, and let me just see if I can put my finger on the order. Does anyone have any idea where that original -- MR. EISENHANDLER: -- Judge, no, it will take hours to wave through -- THE COURT: -- to find that? MR. EISENHANDLER: At minimum, it was three or four years ago. THE COURT: Okay, for an order that was -- MS. MATHERS: My client indicates she believes it was January or February of 2011 if that’s in what you have in front of you. THE COURT: Okay, to the extent that it was that10 ql 12 13 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 time ago, the appellate period has run, the time to reargue, the time to do all that has long gone. That motion is denied. MR. EISENHANDLER: Thank you. Your Honor, the next motion -- THE COURT: -- do you want to do this pseudonym next? MR. EISENHANDLER: Yes, that’s the one I was going to suggest. THE COURT: Oh, okay. MR. EISENHANDLER: I -- MS. MATHERS: -- actually, it’s my motion so can I make my argument. MR. EISENHANDLER: Please, I’m sorry. MS. MATHERS: Your Honor, about thirty-two months after this case had commenced -- THE COURT: -- how many, how many? MS. MATHERS: About thirty-two months, the Court felt that it was in the interest of the, I believe, it was the child more so than the parties that they be given the name of Jane Doe and John Roe. THE COURT: Okay. That seems to sort of fly in the MS. MATHERS face of why you usually have a pseudo name applied and when it’s supposed to be put in, when the Court is supposed to enter an order for such. These pseudo names have also created difficulties for filing10 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 26 27 motions as it appears that sometimes the clerks don’t understand who is supposed to be filing. How do you sign the financial affidavit; do you sign it as Jane Doe, do you sign it as John Roe? This is a highly- publicized case. Not to sound insensitive and certainly it’s not my intent, the child THE COURT: -- How old is the child now? MS. MATHERS: He is not ten, your Honor THE COURT: Okay. MS. MATHERS: His -- THE COURT: -- you're asking me to second guess another judge’s order, essentially. Am I right about that? MS. MATHERS: Second guess, no, I’m just asking you to modify the order, please. THE COURT: Well, why don’t you tell me or point me in the file to the order itself so that I can gather an understanding of why the order was done in the first place. MS. MATHERS: Sure. MR. EISENHANDLER: There was a specific order that Judge Munro entered after making a finding that it’s in the best interest of the child to use pseudonyms because of the allegation, -- allegations in the case. THE COURT: Okay. MR. EISENHANDLER: I could represent to the10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Court there is a written single-page order to that affect. THE COURT: Okay, Counsel, let me just ask you what has changed since then? MS. MATHERS: With the pseudo names? THE COURT: What has changed such that the Court would even consider modifying? MS. MATHERS: Well, the difficulty in filing motions under the name has been rampant. My client has indicated that she’s had made multiple attempts to file. It’s not done properly. They’ve been denied. They’ve been sent back. THE COURT: Is there anything else other than that? MS. MATHERS: Well, I also -- my understanding is that the purpose of having pseudo names, at thirty-two months and this being publicized as it was, there really isn’t a need for it at this time. I mean it’s been out there. THE COURT: Okay, your motion is denied. Let's go to the -- there appear to be three others if I am correct. MR. EISENHANDLER: Yes. MS. MATHERS: Could we do the motion for order for the medical records? THE COURT: Yes. MS. MATHERS: Your Honor, it should be noted10 qt 12 13 14 15 16 uy 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 that my client hasn’t had contact with her son in two-and-a-half years. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MATHERS: ‘That effectively the Judge's orders unfortunately were a de facto termination of parental rights. She has been denied access. She’s been denied information. There really is no reason to preclude from having information about the child’s wellbeing and his education. She certainly, as the father being sole custodial parent, she doesn’t necessary have her input or weighed in need to be considered, but I think it’s information that as a parent she has the right to know. I don’t think there's any harm in her having the medical records and school records to see how her son is doing. If she’s unable to communicate with her son, the father’s not conveying this information or there's concerns that perhaps the information isn’t accurate. THE COURT: Let me ask you, because I’m new to this file. MS. MATHERS: As am I. THE COURT: Is there a guardian ad litem that is in process now? MR. EISENHANDLER: Not anymore MS. MATHERS: Presently, no, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, is there a therapist? Is there any, anything, any person who might be able to10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 convey any information at all to your client? MS. MATHERS: I don’t know. My client has been, again, non-informed for years. So we don’t even know where the child stands as far as therapy. THE COURT: Let me hear from Attorney Eisenhandler. MR. EISENHANDLER: Yes, what counsel fails to understand or apparently has not read Judge Munro's decision. Judge Munro put into effect a communications method in which the parties were to communicate these kind of issues. And Kelly -- | excuse me, Ms. Doe has failed to comply with that order. Specifically, Our Family Wizard, has never done it and there is a real harm for this woman knowing about any information about this child. This woman is dangerous. MS. MATHERS: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. MATHERS: If you read Judge Munro’s order THE COURT: Why don’t I read Judge Munro's order and I'll pass this case a little bit and we can reconvene, because we’re getting into some of the substantive information. MS. MATHERS: Sure. MR. EISENHANDLER: That's fine. THE COURT: Counsel, let me just ask you, have you read in its entirety Judge Munro's decision?10 a1 12 13 14 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 10 MS. MATHERS: I have, your Honor. THE COURT: I’m sorry. MS. MATHERS: Yes, your Honor, T have. THE COURT: Okay, fine. MS. MATHERS: Can we come back at two so I can have an opportunity to refresh as the Court feels that I need to? THE COURT: Any objection? MR. EISENHANDLER: That‘s fine, your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, you may. MS. MATHERS: ‘Thank you, your Honor, very much. Enjoy your lunch. THE COURT: Thank you, you too. (PASS UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK) THE COURT: Let’s do Doe and Roe. MR. EISENHANDLER: Good afternoon, your Honor, Attorney Noah Eisenhandler representing Mr. Roe who is present to my right. THE COURT: Yes, thank you. I’ve had an opportunity to read the decision. I have not had an opportunity to read it in exquisite detail only because time doesn’t permit. But I get the picture loud and clear. MS. MATHER: Your Honor, if we could just briefly return to the my brother counsel's reference to my client being dangerous. He has been in the case far longer than I have. I was wondering if10 a. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 there was actual finding in the court record that -- THE COURT: -- well, without going to that, let me just ask you counsel. I’m sure that you're well aware of the standard for modification MS. MATHERS: Yes, your Honor THE COURT: And my first question to you for visitation, I don’t know what visitation contract specification means at all. I have no idea what that means. Given the fact that the Court specifically addressed the medical educational records in the file, I suppose that my first and most important question is what substantial change in circumstance has there been since Judge Munro issued her opinion that would even bring you to a threshold to request modification? MS. MATHERS: Well, I’m not asking your Honor for a modification of her order regarding the medical educational records because I believe that her order was sort of limited. As I read the order -- THE COURT: -- as I read the order, it couldn't be clearer. MS. MATHERS: Well, it actually -- I understand she said she shall not have access, but it doesn’t give good cause and the statute requires that good cause be given. THE COURT: Counsel, you’re going to lese on that one. I am not going -- without an appeal,10 aL 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 12 without a motion to reargue after the decision came in, I am not going to revisit any of the testimony that Judge Munro heard for probably days on end. She wrote a very thorough, very thoughtful decision based on a lot of testimony. I am not going to visit that at any level for any reason unless you can indicate to me what the substantial change in circumstances might be to request a modification of any type MS. MATHERS: Sure. THE COURT: Of any kind, and let me just list or say to you that with regard to the educational records and things of that -- MS. MATHERS: -- um-hum -- THE COURT: -- I can easily treat that as 4 motion for modification. So I’m not looking to dismiss it out of hand, but what I am requesting from you is what set of facts, if you make an offer of proof, can you give me that would satisfy or even approach the change, substantial change in circumstance threshold? MS. MATHERS: Absolutely, your Honor, and this would apply to the modification of the supervised visitation as well as the medical records. THE COURT: Yes. MS. MATHERS: Ms. Doe’s financial circumstances have been horrendous and she was funded primarily by her mother and stepfather. They have spent -- gone | |10 11 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 13 bankrupt, belly-up. There is no -~ MR. EISENKANDLER: Objection, your Honor, she’s testifying. THE COURT: I agree, sustained, Counsel. MS. MATHERS: All right, then may I please call my client to the stand? THE COURT: What is -- MS. MATHERS: -- my client. THE COURT: I’m asking you for an offer of proof as to what the substantial change in circumstance is from Judge Munro’s decision that would entitle you to even make a threshold argument that we should have a hearing on modification? MS. MATHERS: She doesn’t have the financial ability to meet the court orders. THE COURT: I see nothing like that in any of the motions that are before me. MS. MATHERS: Well, if the Court pleases I can certainly amend my motions to reflect the financial compliance. THE COURT: You can do that, but not today. MS. MATHERS: You mean I can’t file it today? THE COURT: Oh, you can file whatever you want. MS. MATHERS: Oh, okay. THE COURT: At any time. MS. MATHERS: Thank you. THE COURT: But we are here to respond and rule10 11 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 14 on the motions that are before me. I understand if you want to make a financial motion for modification and who knows it may not be opposed. What I’m concerned with is that in the motion before me -- MS. MATHERS: -- which ones are you referring THE COURT: Let’s go first to 246 -- I'm sorry 245, your client's motion for modification for visitation. MS. MATHERS: Yes, and that -- well, it was also the best interest standard that the Court can rule in addition to it’s a financial change of circumstance, is there a best interest argument here. THE COURT: Counsel, modification -- MS. MATHERS: Substantial change in circumstances. THE COURT: Substantial change in circumstances. what is the substantial change in circumstances since Judge Munro's decision that gets you to bring a motion like that here today? MS. MATHERS: And I will add that in addition to her financial situation, my understanding that the therapeutic supervisor is also not willing to take on this case. MR. EISENHANDLER: Objection, how does she know this? THE COURT: Counsel, this is really not proper.10 1 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 is 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 15 MS. MATHERS: I guess you're asking me to tell you what substantial change in circumstances that we don’t have a therapeutic provider. MR. EISENHANDLER: There’s nothing in this motion. THE COURT: There’s nothing in this motion that says that. Do you want to start again and refile these motions? MS. MATHERS: No, what I would like to do if the Court would please indulge me, I know you didn’t understand the motion for order that was filed. THE COURT: Excuse me, I didn’t understand. I understand quite well. MS. MATHERS: I’m jumping from the motion to modify, your Honor. THE COURT: No, let’s deal with motion for modification. We are taking these one at a time and we are going to rule on them today. I’m asking you again, what is the substantial change in circumstances that between Judge Munro's decision and this motion for modification regarding visitation that even gets you in the door? Please tell me. MS. MATHERS: Your Honor has indicated that there would -- it would probably prefer that refile this motion to modify just with the financial THE COURT: Counsel, I am not preferring anything. Please let’s not do a dance and do10 a 12 13 14 15 16 ay 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 circles. MS. MATHERS: I’m certainly not trying to do a dance, your Honor. I’m just trying to -- THE COURT: -- I know you're not. MS. MATHERS: -- understand your question and in the same breath -- THE COURT: -- no, counsel, you're trying to make an argument, but you're not answering my questions. I tend to be very direct and I’m going to ask you one last time -- MS. MATHERS: -- thank you -- THE COURT: -- before I rule -- MS. MATHERS: -- thank you -- THE COURT: -- what the substantial change in circumstances is between Judge Munro’s decision and a motion to modify no. 245 that I see here in front of me. MS. MATHERS: I will repeat the substantial change in circumstances. My client’s financial ability to maintain -- THE COURT: -- okay, your motion is denied to the -- your motion is denied, period, for the reason that the motion does not set forth nor can counsel set forth and articulate a substantial change in circumstances for the Court as between Judge Munro’s ruling and the motion. And let me also indicate that there is not a drop of an allegation in motion10 GH 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ig 20 22 Ba 24 25 26 27 17 no. 245 that deals with the financial change in circumstance such that visitation would be impacted MS. MATHERS: And this is without prejudice your Honor? THE COURT: No, this is denied. MS. MATHERS: But I can refile the motion to modify. This specific motion you’re denying, but you're permitting me to refile my modification. THE COURT: Counsel, you could always file a motion to modify. MS. MATHERS: Thank you. THE COURT: This motion is denied. MS. MATHERS: Wonderful. THE COURT: Now, let’s go on for supervised visitation contract specifica’ ne MS. MATHERS: Your Honor, when the Court, the Court selected a supervising facility and a supervisor, the Court left a multitude of things up to the discretion of the therapeutic supervisor and the supervisor himself. The concern is we have a supervisor who no one really knows what the obligations are. What is the requirement? What is supposed to happen? What they can or can do? There's no clear defining contract put in place. We don’t even know if they're insured. It’s a private entity that’s - THE COURT: -- Counsel, there is no contract.12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 This was a court order -- MS. MATHERS: -- um-hum -~ THE COURT: -- that was delivered. The date -- MR. EISENHANDLER: -- February 2™ of 2012. MS. MATHERS: Yes. THE COURT: February 2™ of 2012, it is now two- and-one-half years later. There’s been no request to articulate. There’s been no request to argue. There's been no appeal. Please what are you asking the Court other than to change Judge Munro’s decision which I will not do. MS. MATHERS: Well, I was asking the Court to vacate the orders regarding this provision THE COURT: For those of you talking in the back of the room, you're going to have to leave the courtroom unless you can remain quiet. It’s extraordinarily distracting to see people talking to each other while we’re trying to conduct court business. Thank you. Go ahead MS. MATHERS: As I was saying I was asking the Court to vacate the order for a supervised contract facility, because there is no authority to monitor or control or to determine whether -- THE COURT: -- what evidence do you have other than your client today to tell me that there is no facility in place? MS. MATHERS: Other than my client telling you10 al 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 that the supervising facility that she owes -- THE COURT: -- yes, do you have evidence ready to put on today other than from your client? MS. MATHERS: I have voicemails I can play, probably over objection of counsel, regarding an outstanding invoice where Mr. Roe had contacted the potential new supervisor and indicated that -- THE COURT: -- okay, let me ask you, Counsel That would not suffice. Let me ask you have you contacted any of the doctors, any of the facilities. any of the number of people that Judge Munro ordered with regard to supervised visitation? Have you personally -- MS. MATKERS: -- have I personally contacted them, no, your Honor, I haven't personally contacted them. THE COUR’ Okay. MS. MATHERS: My understanding, and this perhaps in my confusion because I’m not in New Haven very often, if at all, was that this was originally set down for short calendar and then I saw I was here and then I was told that it was short calendar. So I wasn’t even anticipating going forward with a full- blown hearing today. THE COURT: Counsel -- MS. MATHERS: -- there’s a little confusion on my fault.10 11 12 13 15 16 a7 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 THE COURT: Counsel, never assume MS. MATHERS: I know it does make an ass of me doesn’t it. THE COURT: When something is marked ready, it goes forward, okay. But as you know that if you want to redo a motion to modify, you always can. This motion, frankly, makes no sense to me. Judge Munro’s order, memorandum of decision outlines with exquisite detail what the supervised visitation process shall be. MS. MATHERS: Right, but it fails to say what happens upon the completion of that and whether or not she’s going to get her rights back. And it also fails to say how they vetted these supervisors to determine whether they are appropriate. Are they criminals? Are they pedophiles? What are they? There's no vetting. There’s no standards or nothing. THE COURT: Counsel, that argument is preposterous, I have to say, okay. Counsel, do you want to be heard? MR. EISENHANDLER: Your Honor, the only -- I think the final motion is a motion regarding medical and educational records and I don’t know if we addressed that. THE COURT: Let’s stay with the one that we're on, the contract -- MR. EISENHANDLER: -- no, your Honor, it’s10 1 12 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 preposterous. THE COURT: The supervised visitation’s contract specification. MR. EISENHANDLER: It’s preposterous, your Honor. Judge Munro laid out what the requirements were and she’s made no effort to make the contact, to do anything that she’s supposed to do and the order, Judge Munro’s decision is replete with findings of contempt and violation of court orders, so no. MS. MATHERS: What does the contempt have to do with the supervised visitation contract? MR. EISENHANDLER: I don’t talk to you. THE COURT: Counsel, your motion is denied. we don’t spar. This is not Judge Judy’s courtroom. Okay, the motion is denied. No. 247, the motion for medical and educational records. Please tell me what if anything has changed between the time that Judge Munro rendered her decision between February of 2012 and now with regard to medical and educational records. MS. MATHERS: Mother’s received no information from the father. MR. EISENHANDLER: The order is that she gets no information, no. 17 of Judge Munro’s order said. THE COURT: I read it. MS. MATHERS: And actually, the orders and it doesn’t necessarily address specifically all the10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 22 educational, such as report card contents. It doesn’t indicate the rest of the school stuff that goes on. There’s nothing about the -- THE COURT: -- Counsel, did you read the decision? MS. MATHERS: Your Honor, I did read the decision. I’m actually looking at it right now. THE COURT: Shall I read you from it and shall I read you from -- MS. MATHERS: Number 17? I have it before me, your Honor. THE COURT: -- Judge Munro’s order. MS. MATHERS: Sure, I have no. 17 in front of me if that’s what you're going to refer to. It discusses Our Family Wizard. THE COURT: The mother shall not have access to the minor child’s educational or medical records. She shall not attend medical appointments of the child nor may she attend events or appointments at the child’s school. MS. MATHERS: Um-hum. THE COURT: If the child is ever hospitalized, the father shall determine if the mother may visit the child and on what terms. MS. MATHERS: Um-hum. THE COURT: The parties shall utilize - MS. MATHERS: -- um-hum.10 aL 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 THE COURT: -- Our Family Wizard for the following communications: If the child is sick and therefore cannot go on a visit, for the defendant to transmit to the plaintiff all of the report contents for the child, for the father to inform the mother of medical conditions and treatment of the child. MS. MATHERS: Yes, yes, I did read that, your Honor, and I believe early before we broke for lunch there was indication -- THE COURT: What do you not understand about those words? MS. MATHERS: I understand the orders completely, but I think the concern is that we're relying on the father to give accurate information to mother regarding the medical care and condition and when there’s an issue, your Honor, whether or not -- THE COURT: -- Counsel, let me just stop you please. Did your client appeal Judge Munro’s decision? MS. MATHERS: I believe she made attempts to appeal it. THE COURT: Did she appeal it? MS. MATHERS: Unsuccessfully. THE COURT: Okay, thank you. MR, EISENHANDLER: That’s not accurate, your Honor. THE COURT: No? Okay, what is accurate?10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 24 MS. MATHERS: She made an attempt and it was unsuccessful. MR. EISENHANDLER: She filed the papers, but never -- there was no appeal. THE COURT: Fine. MS. MATHERS: Unsuccessfully. THE COURT: Did she make a motion to reargue in front of Judge Munro? MS. MATHERS: No, your Honor, she did not. THE COURT: Did she make a motion to reargue or reconsider in front of -- MS. MATHERS: -- no, your Honor, she did not. THE COURT: Did she request that Judge Munro articulate her decision two-and-a-half years ago? MS. MATHERS: No, she did not at that time. THE COURT: Your motion is denied. MR. EISENHANDLER: Thank you, your Honor. There is one thing that we agree upon, your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. EISENHANDLER: I had filed a motion for child support and we agree that could be put down for 10/2. Counsel will not be available -- THE COURT: It won’t be down for 10/2. It will be down for the week following. MR. EISENHANDLER: The week following? MS. MATHERS: Let me just check my calendar, because I don’t have my file.10 11 12 13 14 15 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 MR. EISENHANDLER: 10/9, thank you. We won't bother the Court. We’ll figure it out. MS. MATHERS: We'll figure it out. THE COURT: And could I just ask you one thing, because you know -- MS. MATHERS: Sure, anything. THE COURT: -- this is an extraordinary long- standing, contentious case. I want you to know, Counsel, and I also want your client to know that there is nobody who is more in favor of parents and their children seeing each other than this Court. You can ask around. Ms. Martone, you're excused from the courtroom, please. MS. MARTONE: That’s okay. Im leaving anyways. THE COURT: You've been extraordinarily rude -~ MS. MARTONE: -~ No, the sheriff -~ THE COURT: -- laughing and carrying on in the courtroom in the middle of a proceeding. MS. MARTONE: She hasn’t seen her kid in two- and-a-half years. THE COURT: Please tell your client that they will not be permitted to be in my courtroom during any of her proceedings in the future in my court. MS. MATHERS: I’m sorry, who is they? THE COURT: Ms. Martone and the woman who is with her who is also here on behalf of your client.10 qn 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 And what might her name be? MS. MATHERS: I -- THE COUR’ Well, you'll go figure that out. MS. MATHERS: 1/11 figure it out. THE COUR’ You go out in the hall. Find out who it is and please come back and give me her name because the two of them will no longer be allowed in the courtroom for these purposes. Having said that, there is no one more than me than wants reunification for children and parents okay. But when another judge has made a ruling, the rulings must be followed. There is not a better decision that I can think of that outlines that path If and when your client is interested in pursuing that path, there are any number of ways to begin the reunification process. MS. MATHERS: Well, I could tell the Court that my client is most interested in seeing her son as it has been two-and-a-half years. And it would be wonderful if the Court sua sponte would assist with an order that would permit her to have some access with her, whether it be skype or something to facilitate at least some communication. THE COURT: Counsel, we probably would need a hearing to outline what your client has or has not done. But to that extent, let me allow Attorney Bisenhandler to inform everyone the steps that yourqt 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 client has taken in accordance with Judge Munro's decision to have visitation with her son. MS. MATHERS: I don’t need him to tell me what steps she has taken. THE COURT: I am asking him to outline for the court. MR, EISENKANDLER: What steps she needs to take or what steps has she taken? THE COURT: What steps has she taken? MR. EISENHANDLER: Zero, she has made no attempt pursuant to the order of contact with her son. The order is very specific what she has to do. She has not done that. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MATHERS: Can my client please respond? THE COURT: You can respond on behalf of your client, Counsel. MS. MATHERS: Well, it’s easier -- THE COURT: Counsel, do you have to ask your client what she’s done in response? MS. MATHERS: No, I actually just wanted -- your Honor, there were certain orders in which she was complying but then was told that a program didn’t exist and she didn’t need to do it. Is that one of the orders where they’re talking about the healthy touch, the healthy touch thing. She attempted to find an alternative therapeutic provider and was cut |13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 off by Mr. He impacted her ability to receive or to get the -- THE COURT: -- and that is her side -- MS. MATHERS: -- and the publicity. THE COURT: -- and perhaps that may be right for a hearing in the future. My concern is this. I am new to this case. I’ve never seen these folks before that I’m aware of. I have a two-and-a-half-year-old, seventy-one page order from Judge Munro. I am not about to change one word of that order unless or until I know that the order has been complied with and unless or until your client can demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary Now let me share with you one thing MS, MATHERS: Um-hum. i COURT: If, in fact, there is not a -- if Judge Munro made a suggestion for a particular therapist or a particular location that is no longer in existence, we will try to find another one. On the other hand, if she ordered, made an order, and the reason that the person or the facility does not extend itself to your client because of reasons that might be brought to the Court’s attention, that is another story. I don’t know that to be the case. I am more than happy to keep an open mind with regard to that. But the most important thing is that Judge10 11 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 Munro's order is the order of the day and that is the order that I will be following. MS. MATHERS: Your Honor, there is a huge problem in trying to find people who want to put themselves in this case given the level of attention that this case has generated on social media and incentia. Nobody wants to take -- MR. EISENHANDLER: All done by her client. MS. MATHERS: I would disagree. MR. EISENHANDLER: All done by her client. MS. MATHERS: I would disagree that it was all done by my client. MR. EISENHANDLER: Of course it is; everything on the internet is from your client. That’s enough. Orders are orders. THE COURT: What you've got to do is prove a substantial change in circumstances. Make an offer such that I can even give you hearing time. MS. MATHERS: Sure. THE COURT: These motions -- these motions were willfully insufficient on every level, and frankly, I didn’t hear anything from you that would take it out of that category, okay. That is not a personal attack. That is just a fact. MS. MATHERS: I took it as not. THE COURT: Okay. Having said that, she knows what she has to do to be in compliance with Judge10 at 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 Munro’s orders. If you, on her behalf, or she is able to demonstrate that she has acted in accordance with these orders, if there’s a stumbling block that can be controlled, I will make you a promise that I will intercede on her behalf. MS. MATHERS: I’m going to hold you to that. THE COURT: And I will be held to that. MS. MATHERS: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay, if she is in compliance with the orders of Judge Munro. End of story. R. EISENHANDLER: Thank you, your Honor. MS. MATHERS: Thank you, your Honor. Those motions will be filed forthwith. Thank you so much. THE COURT: Just for the record in that matter, it was Cheryl Martone and Monica Peters who will not be allowed to sit in court because of their disruptive, outrageous and outspoken behavior during the proceedings in the Doe vs. Roe case. MR. EISENHANDLER: Thank you, your Honor. MS. MATHERS: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. (END OF HEARING)NO: NNH FAQS 40376588 : SUPERIOR COURT |DOE, JANE : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN ve : AT NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT ROE, JOHN SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct transcription of the audio recording of the above- referenced case, heard in Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut, before the Honorable Jane E. Emons, Judge, on the 18" day of September, 2014. Dated this 24°” day of September, 2014 in Connecticut. nevieve Bertolini Court Recording Monitor